How would the Civil War have played out if the scenario General Longstreet lays out in this video had taken place?https://youtu.be/xycJuqOF0cc?is=sfdA3twrtwzjDBxi
>>65293930Fuck, forgot to timestamp it https://youtu.be/xycJuqOF0cc?t=345&is=xbK0KzsGrYHjpUz6
>>65293930They'd still have lost. Vicksburg was going to fall, the Yankees occupied half of coastal North Carolina, were in Jacksonville, held all the Mississippi river valley, held half of Tennessee and were marching on Chattanooga, held West Virginia, were moving into Mississippi and northern Alabama, and held Norfolk. Even if Lee won, his army had lost 1/3 of its strength and depleted almost all its ammunition. If the Army of the Potomac wasn't COMPLETELY destroyed, it could still shadow his army and prevent attacks on major cities.Plus Lee had stripped Richmond of much of its garrison to bolster the Army of Northern Virginia, so if he stayed up north too long then Richmond was vulnerable if the Yankees brought in another army.
>>65295585>>65295585Lee was a dumbass you know he lost the whole war at Gettysburg he refused to let the other general take The high ground when he wanted to with his cavalry the dumbass just looked into the bushes and at the stars before the battle he knew the fence was going to wipe out most of his man it made no sense to attack uphill everybody knew that he knew that. Always wondered if he intentionally lost the war on purpose because of his feelings, I know it sounds weird but when you read the history and every statement says don't attack high ground that is fortified when he even had a opportunity to take it and refuse the night before because again reasons he made his own statement about how terrible the attack was going to be and it was going to fail but he still sent in young boys off to die. And they still want to keep the statues up
>>65293930The CSA would just wind up being “Canada, but warmer” in the long run
There is no reasonable path by which the CSA wins the ACW. Victory would require a complete shift in Northern sentiment for the war, and achieving that would require either spectacular military changes or unreasonable political offers.
>>65293930Would it be possible for the South to build the atomic bomb with the technology of the 1860s and the knowledge of the 2020s?
>>65297441no
>>65295585Don't forget that a Confederate win at Gettysburg would have also left Lee choosing between moving further north (ie, stretching already tenuous lines of supply and reinforcement) with a much reduced army that likely wouldn't be able to take anything of note, and retreating like he ended up doing anyways.
>>65295740esl>>65293930Are you referring to the "head southeast and take some high ground" line?That plan would be retarded because the army would be marching off blind with the enemy at their backs. Blindly wandering through Maryland and Pennsylvania is what got them into the mess at Gettysburg.There's only 60 miles to go south east until the rebels would run face first into the Washington defenses. Cutting and running would be a risky bet hoping to find high ground before the US troops caught them and that the ground would be found before reaching Washington. Running southeast would also take them away from the mountains that Lee was relying on to guard his flank and into flat ground. Even if the rebels found defensible high ground and they managed to assemble the army on it before the Army of the Potomac caught them, they'd be in the middle of excellent maneuver country. The Meade could just walk around him and cut off his lines of retreat to the west and south. Lee's army was already in need of supplies before Gettysburg and a running retreat south would stress those remaining supplies more. Meade wouldn't even have to try at that point. He could do his favorite thing of sitting still and building up forces. Meanwhile, Lee's army starves on their high ground. Lee's plan for Pickett's Charge wasn't fundamentally unsound. He just failed to (typically) give clear orders which crippled the preparations and left the attack unsupported.
>>65304549Lee lost the war on purpose at Gettysburg. He was paid off to do so
>>65293930Maybe
>>65304549i dont get what was in it for the average joe in the south in this war. why would a southerner risk his health and life for some plantation owners right to bring even more africans into the country to take away his job? imagine the south had won, they would have imported more and more and ever more slaves from africa. i think the usa would be majority black right now if the south had won.
>>65297441Yes
>>65306155And now he's a legend on Instagram, check mate atheist
>>65312085A lot of them were conscripts, so they didn't really "choose" to fight for fat-cat slave owners.
>>65312085Your typical reb was a yeoman farmer. Yes, the landed farming middle class was actually the largest section of Southern whites. They were mainly fighting to defend that idealized Jeffersonian lifestyle of personal freedom and independence stemming from owning their own farmsteads. That's where much of the Southern rhetoric of liberty comes from.>inb4 slaverySlavery had existed in the South since the mid 1670s. A fair few believed that it was necessary to maintain said idealized Jeffersonian lifestyle, because they hadn't seen any other way.
>>65293930Even if they win everywhere the dumbass to Lee's right is talking about attacking it doesn't solve any of the problems the South lost the war over. The Western theater is still completely overrun, Every single one of their ports is blockaded, none of their manufacturing equals much less exceeds the north or even meet their own demands, they don't have enough men and they can't raise more fast enough, what men they do have they can't move around nearly as quickly as the North can, that goes doubly for the supplies those men need.So they overextend, get surrounded by armies and militias being raised to their rear, and the war is over a year early. They were stupid for invading the North the first time and then they did it again.
>>65312085The south didn't import slaves, the slave trade was banned in the early 1800s. And the entire economy of the south was propped up by slavery, it enabled an entirely unique way of life to exist there. Imagine you are a Saudi Arabian who has just been told that your country will no longer be allowed to pump oil; you may not own an oil well yourself, but you would still certainly lose your livelihood and many privileges which you have become used to if the practice was done away with. That's how it was for the South.
>>65313696Not to mention not a single southern state was on the same page. Different currencies, roads and rail rarely integrated, etc
Man, someone is closely watching this thread, they must be a huge (((civil war))) fan. The best way to look at the past is that it can't be changed and the ultimate outcome is what would always occure.occur. To further safeguard this post, I'll say that pickett's charge would have been successful if he hadn't stopped.
>>65313825Not only this, but the North was full of insane abolitionist terrorists and terrorist sympathizers who wanted to incite a slave revolt in the South like what had happened in Haiti about 60 years prior. These people were propped up by the New England elites who were seething that the Louisiana Purchase had shifted the USA's balance of economic power and influence toward the port of New Orleans and the Mississippi Delta region away from Boston.
>>65312085Many, many people owned slaves in the antebellum South. Those stats you see of "only 5% of people owned slaves!!" are bullshit. They one third of households in the South owned at least one slave and in the deep South it was higher. Mississippi, for example, 49% of households owned slaves.>would have imported more slaves from AfricaAlmost certainly not. The CSA banned the international slave trade in their constitution in order to bring Virginia into rebellion with them. When the Confederate Constitution was ratified, Virginia hadn't had their secession convention yet. Virgina was the center of the domestic slave trade and the wealthy banks and traders represented a very powerful faction in that state. Banning the international trade was a sweetner to the Virginian traders. It offered them a domestic monopoly without the prospect of foreign slace imports.It also would have annihilated their relations with the British and French. A CSA would have desperately needed European loans and political support to succeed. Slavery in general and the African slave trade in particular was utterly repulsive to the British and French. The British in particular had just gotten done spending and enormous amount of money and decades of work stamping out the West African slave trade. The CSA restarting it would have put themselves directly in conflict with the single international power they couldn't afford to alienate.
>>65312085>they would hafve imported more and more and ever more slaves from africaAnd depress the value of the slave market? That's preposterous!
>>65312085>>65313655Most white southern farmers were poor, and fought to keep blacks at the bottom because otherwise they’d be sharing that space.It’s worth noting most were conscripts, and they deserted or surrendered a lot>>65315412Yeah don’t mention bushwhackers or the fact New Orleans ranked below northern cities in terms of GDP and income
>>65313655>idealized Jeffersonian lifestyleLiterally the first thing listed in most of their declarations of secession is slavery and they made it illegal in their constitution for a state to ban slavery on its own.
>>65323429>Literally the first thing listed in most of their declarations of secession is slavery and they made it illegal in their constitution for a state to ban slavery on its own.Proof, not that I can't find it myself, just holding you to your claims. My bet is you won't because you can't
I got a better question, how did Sherman's Urban Renewal of Georgia go so perfectly?No communication, no supplies lines. Just marching through the heart of the confederacy, crippling their industrial output and only suffering 1,300 casualties in an over month long campaign.
>>65323792It continued the assault on Atlanta. The rebels didn't have the strength to challenge him and their options were to ignore him like Johnston or waste everything like Hood.
>>65323792He only did it after the Army of Tennessee had already bled itself white and had no effective means of resisting.
>>65323792The only organized Confederate forces left in the West were going in the opposite direction.Also a decent chunk of rural Georgia and the Carolinas was Unionist (or perhaps more accurately, anti-Confederate)
>>65323792Generals in the civil war apparently had forgotten in ages past that armies could feed themselves off the land. Sherman was reminded of this fact in previous campaigns where he had to operate without supply lines. The March through Georgia was merely putting this into action.It turns out agrarian based economies have a lot of food!
>>65293930>Martin Sheen staying in-character even when swearing
>>65295585>Plus Lee had stripped Richmond of much of its garrison to bolster the Army of Northern Virginia, so if he stayed up north too long then Richmond was vulnerable if the Yankees brought in another army.Didn’t they try that in the Peninsula and Overland campaigns and fail both times?
>>65293930The south still loses.
