If the South had control of these states during the civil war, would they have won?


Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

If the South had control of these states during the civil war, would they have won?

Kentucky and Missouri would’ve been simple enough to take control if they’d just sent a token force to march into the government building befor the union did IMO

West Virginia was a genuine holdout with too defensible a position so I can’t see them controlling it

  1. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    No. The only way the South wins is if the North never appoints a general willing to use its two chief advantages over the South: superior industrial capacity, and superior manpower. To wit, they simply had to crush them with brute force. Clever tactics and maneuvers played into Lee's strengths, he wanted to avoid a brute force war of attrition because his side did not have the numbers or the supply to keep it up for very long, while the North did. And as soon as they appointed somebody willing to simply steamroll him (Grant) it was over.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      That’s just t though. The union took years to decide to take advantage of their own advantages

      If the south was strong or lucky enough to actually threaten northern cities. It’s likely the northern public would have been happy to let them secede

      Lincoln definitely wouldn’t win re-election if ithe war was still waging by it and he was losing

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        The two advantages of the North were even more of an asset on the defensive than the offensive, because the lines of supply are much shorter and the logistics of mobilizing all those men are much easier. So even if the North struggled to push into the South, that doesn't mean it was easy for the South to push north. Even if Lee could manage to do so, he'd still be faced with his logistical problems, and would now have even more territory to spread his smaller force across. All a halfway intelligent commander in the North would have to do is simply concentrate their forces in one spot and punch through his weakened, spread-out lines and bee-line for Richmond.

        Lee was well aware of his weaknesses which is why he planned a dogged defensive war rather than the bold offensive actions his superiors in government were demanding of him.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        well not really, they had McClellan who was doing what Winfield Scott wanted but didnt end the war fast enough, despite trading with the South and BTFOing them in every campaign/battle he fought against them.
        He gets replaced by more aggressive generals who just end up getting men killed.
        >WE GOTTA STOP LEE, LEE'S ABOUT TO WIPE THE FLOOR WITH US GOTTA ATTACK HAVE TO TAKE HIM OUT
        literally just dig in and retreat. The South doesnt like invading the North nor do they have supply to do so, every Northern invasion of the South has to be rebuffed at great cost, wasting Men in assaults is antithetical, just dig in, let Southerners dig you out.
        Simple as.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          McClellan got Winfield Scott shuffled off into retirement because of his own massive ego. He got thoroughly slapped around by Lee during the Peninsular Campaign and the Seven Days, and blew Antietam which should've been a decisive Union victory. He constantly believed that the enemy vastly outnumbered him when he usually outnumbered the enemy, often being tricked by logs disguised as artillery pieces and literal theater by officers who knew that McClellan was a coward.

          Additionally, McClellan didn't understand the fundamental truth of the Civil War, which was that it was a war of peoples, not armies. He did not want to wage the kind of war that was needed for victory. He was in the wrong profession.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >muh ego
            here we go again
            no evidence of le ego.
            And Ego is not an argument against McClellans military ability.
            Maybe the War department shouldnt be full of corrupt obese politicians like Henry Halleck?
            >thoroughly slapped around
            >only General to actually beat Lee
            >only General to be outnumbered by Lee and still beat Lee
            >only General to actually have a positive KDR against Lee
            This is literally Afghanistan tier levels of cope, army hands Washington a free win, and they bat it away because their petulant manbabies trying to scheme pull le strings and make daddy red/blue proud.
            >he constantly believed
            he was constantly correct.
            Lee literally had a horde of men following him, like some grand Norse chieftain ravaging England or Russia.
            >McClellan was a coward
            he rode into Mexico with a shotgun and a knife and distinguished himself in combat, while an engineer.
            He was also based.
            >"I confess to a prejudice in favor of my own race, & can't learn to like the odor of either Billy goats or naggers."
            >Antietam
            go to Antietam
            Lee wanted to fight there.
            Neither side knew how good the terrain was for the defenders till they arrived.
            >he usually outnumbered the enemy
            as per more recent data regarding Confederate musters, McClellan was oddly correct, he just didnt know the CSA had a bunch of deserters and stragglers, he wasnt overestimating their numbers, he was fairly dead on as Lee's army was 'on record' 130,000 strong, the reality was Lee's horde was more like 60-80 thousand depending on how eager the Southerners were to get they asses to work lol
            >war of peoples
            what?
            >he did not want to
            what?
            commit war crimes? he ran a tight ship in Mexico and anytime he was in the South, he wanted a clean war, instead the Union created the absolute shithole that is Brazil 2.0.

            Nobody cares about your tranny fetish

            thanks for you
            now ack

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              >If I save this army now, I tell you plainly that I owe no thanks to you or to any other persons in Washington. You have done your best to sacrifice this army.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >ego not found
                huh
                Grant said Meade lowering himself before Grant was more impressive than Gettysburg.
                That is an ego.
                McClellan giving the finger to Washington (who deliberately undermined him because he was a democrat) is not ego.
                Look I'm sorry but you're just wrong.
                define "Ego" define it and make McClellan fit that definition.
                If McClellan was egotistical he would not have been such a stellar commander.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Lincoln deliberately undermined McClellan because he is a Democrat!
                McClellan consistently had more men and resources than his opponents, but constantly came up short and refused to press his advantage. He constantly believed that he was greatly outnumbered when the opposite was true. And yet he constantly insisted that it was the Lincoln administration who was failing the army and not his own incompetence. In his private letters to his wife and friends he displayed a constant habit of self-congratulation.

                If anything, Lincoln showed considerable patience with McClellan despite constant calls from the Radicals to sack him (or even that he was treasonous). Lincoln would hold McClellan's horse if he would only secure him victories, but McClellan failed to win.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >consistently
                except for the times he didnt, he was outnumbered by Lee a few times, and still traded and even won.
                Grant never lacked a 2:1 advantage.
                >came up short
                ???
                How is winning coming up short?
                >refused to attack Southern entrenchments
                he had an IQ higher than the number of Union victories so yeah fucking obviously.
                The Lincoln administration was failing his army.
                >self congratulation
                you mean when he said he was humble because he did not want to be a dictator?
                Do you have anything of substance to critique him on because you're bringing the same tired discredited allegations they brought in 1862.
                >McClellan failed to win
                as opposed to Grant who never actually won any pitched battles?
                he beat his head against a rock and the rock, which had been thrown from a height by based McClellan, broke before his skull did.
                McClellan delivered the only tactical victories against Lee the Union would EVER win.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >he was outnumbered by Lee a few times
                guns dressed as artillery pieces don't count
                >still traded and even won
                when?

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the only tactical victories against Lee the Union would EVER win
                >what is Gettysburg

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >malvern hill
                he was outnumbered by 1000 men and had twice as many artillery pieces and was fighting on extremely defensible terrain. only a fool could of lost that battle for the union

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                So McClellan set up a perfect battle an idiot could win?
                Doesn’t that just make him a superior commander to every other Union commander?

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              >the “McClellan didn’t have an ego” retard is a Cletus LARP’ing closet-tranny

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >McClellan didnt have an ego
                this is as true today as it was yesterday
                >Cletus
                nope
                >closet tranny
                projection
                can you give us an ETA on how many more frogs you will post before substantiating your claims or should I just hide your posts?

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Ego - a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance
                >but McClellan didn’t have an ego
                So he was just an NPC?

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Despite having a reputation as a butcher (largely from butthurt dixoids), Grant's army had one of the lowest casualty rates in the war, and it was Lee who had the highest.
          >literally just dig in and retreat
          So you wanted to reduce the Civil War to a border garrison. To only fight a defensive war against the South would be to effectively acknowledge their independence. In order to restore the Union the Confederacy had to be destroyed. This was not a war that would've been solved with a peace treaty, because the terms each side had for peace-- unconditional surrender for the Union, unconditional recognition of independence for the Confederacy-- were non-negotiable.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Grant's reputation was from his men
            >lowest casualty rates
            yeah, RATIO-he was given nearly half a million men over his career because that retard ran through men like he did beer and cigars lmao
            >Lee who had the highest
            Lee did the most fighting, and had much fewer men.
            Men are not ratios, men are not numbers.
            Men are men. Lee lost far fewer men, Grant routinely ordered his men into no-wins in the hopes the CSA would just give up or run out of ammo.
            >a border garrison
            which it was for 2 years
            >to only fight a defensive war
            tactically defensive you fucking retard
            look idiot
            >every Northern invasion of the South has to be rebuffed at great cost, wasting Men in assaults is antithetical, just dig in, let Southerners dig you out.
            If you sit in the South, and let them throw themselves against you, its a Northern Victory, Northern Power Projection, and very few Northern losses, and the CSA would likely lose less as theyd see the folly in throwing men against forts.
            The Union never once lost a single city, throughout the entire war, whatever they took, they held indefinitely.
            Moving through the South and occupying cities or just digging in, that's what McClellan did, and that's what wins.
            >unconditional
            except their surrender was actually conditional and the dissolution of the confederacy was more or less ceremonial lel.

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              >that's what McClellan did, and that's what wins.
              So it's just coincidence that when Grant took over and changed strategies, the Union all of a sudden started winning? It was secretly McClellan's genius that let Grant win over a year after McClellan had been shitcanned?

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      It was Lee who had tried to brute-force things at Gettysburg. The idea that the Confederates were vastly superior individual soldiers and that the Union only won through brute force is Enemy At the Gates-tier copium from the South.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Lee did not true to Brute Force Gettysburg, the main critique of Pickett's charge was that it was more a punch when it should have been a tackle.
        Union literally did only win through brute force, they never actually defeated Lee. Like actually defeated, Lee surrendered due to low supply/manpower, not because he lost a battle.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Lee was pretty thoroughly whipped at Gettysburg
          >Picketts Charge wasn't brute force, it was just brute force
          >"The enemy is there, and I am going to attack him there."

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            You say thoroughly whipped, he resupplied his army, his army was intact, he inflicted heavy casualties on the Union.
            Its not really a whipping if you just go back to where you started (but with more food and livestock).
            >it was brute force
            literally wasnt.
            Brute Force would be ordering another charge, or ordering the whole army to charge.
            It would have been more successful if it was brute force because the Union line nearly broke.
            >attacking is brute force
            obviously youre a bad faith retard, why are you here again? you like hate White people or something?
            you have ghost penis syndrome?
            what?

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              >muh k/d
              I bet you think America won Vietnam too, don't you? And anyway Lee suffered more casualties and was forced to run with his tail between his legs. Southern historians trying to say that it was just a raid and that Lee won all along is the height of dixoid cope
              >Brute Force would be ordering another charge
              Or trying to charge a heavily fortified position in disadvantegous circumstances despite your subordinates repeatedly telling you that it was a bad idea. Lee was high on his own farts and it cost the lives of many men that he could no longer afford to replace

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                no I think America won Vietnam tactically with total battlefield dominance then lost it strategically because politicians literally just gave up.
                CIA probably pysop'd anti war so politicians who were in support of the war then dropped support didnt look like complete morons and they had the convenient excuse "my constituents dont want war xdd"
                >Lee suffered more casulaties
                Lee took 115,000 casualties not counting his surrender (which only makes 135k, still less than Grant)

                Grant took 150-160k
                >Lee won all along
                ????????????
                I said Lee wasnt whipped.
                Nice shifting the goalposts kek.
                >heavily fortified
                a knee high wall?
                I think only Longstreet disagreed.
                >no longer afford to replace
                there were more men to call up, but They were sent West.
                The more I read about the Civil War the more I see how deranged and wrong the Grant cultists are.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Grant took 150k-160k
                Again, how many of those are actual combat casualties?

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                all of them were lost while campaigning, none of them were lost due to a surrender, if thats what youre asking.

                >he was outnumbered by Lee a few times
                guns dressed as artillery pieces don't count
                >still traded and even won
                when?

                >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Malvern_Hill
                >outnumbered
                >better KDR
                >tactical victory
                Literally never once has any other Union general pulled this off, without exception, not a single one.
                Half the Union couldnt even pull it off with 3x the fucking men lol.

                >the only tactical victories against Lee the Union would EVER win
                >what is Gettysburg

                not a tactical victory lol
                Indecisive engagement, Confederates exit the field in good order, taking no excessive casualties or losing any ground, same case for the Union, and both armies return to their pre-battle positions.
                Strategic Union victory due to maintaining their army and position.
                Union could not follow the Confederates to actually inflict a real defeat or capitalize on the failed attack.
                The Confederates were not able to dislodge the Union.
                Its only because it was a Northern Defensive battle that saw unimaginable heroics from the Northern side that its treated as the greatest battle ever, I think it is, but it was as definitive as Antietam.
                After both battles, nothing changed, Lee went home both times after trading with an enemy army.
                Neither had any greater or lesser advantage post battle.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                massive amounts of cope for what amounts to Lee getting BTFO and scurrying out of Pennsylvania with his tail between his legs.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >scurrying out of Pennsylvania
                Gettysburg is not even 10 miles from the Mason-Dixon.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      no thats dumb.
      Grant didnt actually do anything, he was very hands off, he just forced men forward.
      The CSA literally ran out of men, had they sent Grant after Lee in Second BVLL run or Chancellorsville, where timidity unironically saved the Union Army, there would have been a Napoleonic or Punic slaughter.
      Second BVLL rvn saw the CSA nearly destroying the entire army.
      60,000 dead/captured would have been game ending for the Union, which even in 1865 was close to capitulating.
      Or imagine a Chancellorsville where Grant is in charge.
      Grant loved to take the initiative strategically and order attacks.
      Imagine the slaughter of 100,000 Yankees forced to attack Lee's entrenchments while Jackson rides up the flank and buck breaks them.
      Worse still imagine a Gettysburg where the Union decides to leave their entrenchments (like Grant ordered them to do at Laurel hill) and attack CSA high ground lined with artillery.
      Or worse still, Grant goes on the offensive early and gets punched in the flanks from four different hillsides.
      Grants
      >we must grind them down!
      only works if the enemy unironically has very few men, Lee's horde in 62 and 63 would have murdered Grant.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        dixoid cope

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          its going to be really funny when you face the south and end up taking a knife from The North.
          I hope my people twist it lol

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nobody cares about your tranny fetish

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            What the fuck are you even talking about?

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              The ultra-nationalism shitlibs mantle for the years 1861-1865 because it allows a safe route to attack White people will ultimately just get them killed.
              This is not a bad thing.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                ESL

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                you going to pretend to be racist now?
                your kind should be in forced labor camps kek

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >dixoid
            >posts an Amish Pennjak
            you are literally retarded

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              I literally have Amish ancestry due to my ancestors being part Lancaster BVLL.
              My ancestors were with the 151st PA.

              >that's what McClellan did, and that's what wins.
              So it's just coincidence that when Grant took over and changed strategies, the Union all of a sudden started winning? It was secretly McClellan's genius that let Grant win over a year after McClellan had been shitcanned?

              >changed strategies
              he didnt, he did what McClellan was doing but bungled it so hard he managed to win the war by mere fact Lee literally ran out of ammo from killing so many.

              >t.
              Seethe harder homosexual

              look at how mad this monkey is
              Why dont your trains run on time, monkey?

              >Yes, Lee was on the winning side of the Mexican American war
              That doesn’t he “won” it, retard. Scott was calling the shots, to say nothing of Taylor
              >What you mean is egotistical or egocentric, which McClellan was not.
              >egotistical - excessively conceited or absorbed in oneself; self-centered.
              This is literally McClellan to a T
              >thats not a critique of his military career
              No one has claimed it is, retard. It’s your “muh McClellan didn’t have an ego” cope that’s the issue here.
              It’s obvious you’re just farming for (you)’s at this point though, so consider this your last complimentary frog post

              >that doesnt he won it
              if the CSA won the civil war it also would not mean "Lee won it" either, and continuing in this line of reasoning Lee did not lose it either.
              Lee was apart of the winning side of a war as much as he was apart of the losing side of a war.
              simple as.
              >literally McClellan to a T
              but you wont give examples right?
              also
              Like I said, this isnt a critique of his military career lmao.
              You can only attack his personal character.
              >no one claimed it is
              so why bring it up when discussing military tactics????
              >muh cope is the issue here
              but you keep bringing up, despite it being untrue and irrelevant.
              >my last phonepost
              make it your last post
              ever

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >apart
                Confirmed ESL retard

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                feel free to post a rebuttal

  2. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Kentucky and Missouri would've been simple enough to take control if they'd just sent a token force to march into the government building before the union did
    That's what they tried to do and it failed. Leonidas Polk invading Kentucky swayed public opinion there towards the Union and gave the Union Army the pretext it needed to move in. Missouri had its own mini-civil war that unionists won.

  3. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    In Delaware only 3% of households of households owned slaves, Maryland was at 12%, Misssouri 13%, and Kentucky 23%.

    Compared to the Seceding states:
    Mississippi 49%
    South Carolina 46%
    Georgia 37%
    Alabama 35%
    Florida 34%
    Louisiana 29%
    North Carolina 28%
    Texas 28%
    Virginia 26%
    Tennessee 25%
    Arkansas 20%

    I'm pretty sure that you can see the pattern here. Outside of Arkansas which is isolated in the deep south, the states that seceded had a higher percentage slaveholding families than the ones that didn't.

    Maryland had outsized support for slavery because Baltimore was a huge cotton trading port, but the other border states would have probably never had enough popular support to leave the Union.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      slavery wasnt a deciding factor, it was identification with the South.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

        https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech

  4. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    The entire reason why Kentucky stayed loyal to the Union was because the Confederate General Polk invaded Kentucky first, giving them the odium of being invaders. Unlike the hardline approach he took in Missouri, Lincoln always handled Kentucky with extreme care, even if that meant turning a blind eye to some blatant Confederate trade going through the state.
    > I think to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game. Kentucky gone, we can not hold Missouri, nor, as I think, Maryland.

  5. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    All they need is Pennsylvania.
    In fact all The Confederacy ever needed was PA, we could solo the rest of the Union, we had a greater industrial output than all other states put together, and we produced more irregular elites than all other states in the Union and Confederacy combined.
    Literally superhumans, also 1488 hate crimes.
    ANE steppe chieftain blood is strong.

  6. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Early success in Missouri and Kentucky, especially taking St. Louis with its big arsenal, would have crippled the eventual Union juggernaut in the west, at least for a while, allowing more focus on the east for the Secesh. Once Ft. Henry and Donelson fell, the upper south was wide open to attack via the rivers and the south never got off the back foot, despite years of counteroffensives in the west up until Price and Hood in 1864.

  7. 8 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      At least Napoleon won wars and Hannibal destroyed armies. Lee is like Hannibal if he never actually wiped out any Roman armies.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Lee also won wars, he won the Mexican American war.
        Napoleon his war in which he had primary command.
        Similar to Lee.
        Hannibal lost both wars he fought and his destroying of armies were actually strategic defeats because he was losing men he couldnt replace 🙂

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >he won the Mexican American war.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, Lee was on the winning side of the Mexican American war and played a significant if not critical role in it, with his performance at Chapultepec and Cerro Gordo.

            >Ego - a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance
            >but McClellan didn’t have an ego
            So he was just an NPC?

            So whats the implication here, being an NPC is good because you are criticizing McClellan for having an ego.

            What you mean is egotistical or egocentric, which McClellan was not.
            also if he was, thats not a critique of his military career which is more or less perfect for the time.

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Yes, Lee was on the winning side of the Mexican American war
              That doesn’t he “won” it, retard. Scott was calling the shots, to say nothing of Taylor
              >What you mean is egotistical or egocentric, which McClellan was not.
              >egotistical - excessively conceited or absorbed in oneself; self-centered.
              This is literally McClellan to a T
              >thats not a critique of his military career
              No one has claimed it is, retard. It’s your “muh McClellan didn’t have an ego” cope that’s the issue here.
              It’s obvious you’re just farming for (you)’s at this point though, so consider this your last complimentary frog post

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                says the spamming phonenagger screeching about "cletus". Is cletus in the room with you now you knuckledragging shitskin?

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >t.
                Seethe harder homosexual

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                ook ook

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >acts likes a nagger, talks like a nagger, defends his nagger loving ancestors
                Many such cases

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                ook

  8. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    All the South has to do to win is NOT ATTACK. For some retarded reason, despite having a population of 9 million to the North's 24 million, and also having about 1/3 of that 9 million being blacks who couldn't fight and had to be watched by overseers, taking even more manpower away, Dixieland thought open battles against an enemy with far more resources and manpower than themselves was a good idea. The ACW was a conflict where whomever was on the defensive and had time to properly entrench was at a massive advantage and incurred significantly less casualties. Lee, despite being the grandmaster of defensive tactics throughout the war, decided to abandon his and the South's greatest advantage for some retarded invasions that did nothing but stack up Confederate bodies that the South would never be able to replace at the same pace as the North. This is why, though Lee was a much more gifted general than Joseph E. Johnston, Johnston was still the best Confederate general of the war, because he played to the South's strength of defense and never went on the offensive unless it was absolutely in his favor to do so. He unironically did better against McClellan than Lee did. Him being wounded and getting replaced by Lee ironically was what sealed the South's fate, because now the Army of Virginia had a commander confident enough to get at the enemy and take the war into the North. And that was exactly what the South DID NOT need.

    This is why I lol whenever someone says that Stonewall Jackson or AS Johnston would have made a massive difference. Both of them were super aggressive Southern generals, and those types of Dixiebois suffered 1 of 2 fates in the ACW: Destroying their reputation by being too aggressive and getting their forces destroyed like Hood or, if they're lucky, dying early into the war and being venerated as big "what-ifs" when it's obvious how their careers would have turned out had they kept on with that style of warfare.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Lincoln was out for total destruction. Even if the Confederate army waited out the war Lincoln wouldn't have stopped until they were all dead anyway

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Lincoln wasn't a dictator despite what Dixies like to believe. Enough lost battles and lost lives with no real gains to show for it would have been more demoralizing for the North than any Confederate invasion and would've cost Ol' Abe his re-election. The Copperheads were Lincoln's greatest adversary in the war, not Johnston or Lee.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          The north was facing massive demoralization from the onset. Lincoln never once referred to the civil war as anything but a rebellion, every loss the north had caused massive desertions. When the south met with him to declare an armistice Lincoln spat in their faces

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            No shit? He wants to put the rebellion down as quickly as possible. Why would he agree to an armistice?

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Why would he agree to an armistice?
              Uh I don't know, after losing for two years. Wasn't your entire argument that if Lincoln list enough the confederates would win? Obviously that's not true

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                They would win if Lincoln lost his re-election. Lincoln himself was never going to accept southern secession but several of his political rivals in the north would.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                kind of hard to lose reelection when you control all the media and force churches to do a "presidential prayer"

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >hey I ran for president on a platform of losing a war that we didn't start, and allowing the country to be permanently partitioned
                >WTF WHY DID I LOSE

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >when you control all the media
                *blocks your path*

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >magazine from the UK

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                You said *all* of the media

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                you're pathetic

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                And you’re a liar, Cletus

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                lol, stop making things up

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                nah, McClellan was a war-democrat, he was thoroughly a Union Man, ideal world is McClellan wins against Lee, does minimal damage mopping up the rest of the CSA, blacks remain slaves, and McClellans election turns reconstruction into an actual reconstruction and not just "lets punish the traitors."

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Lincoln was definitely a dictator, a copperhead victory is only possible if Lee makes the AoNV seem invincible.
          Obviously they werent, but The average Northerner didnt know that.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      To say Jackson and AS Johnston would have ended up like Hood is just stupid. Hood probably had the lowest IQ in the Confederate army and did shit no other general in his shoes would have done, not even equally aggressive ones.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        no, Hood was good, he's underrated, he almost won Nashville and Franklin.
        People see the numbers and think "what an idiot" but they never look at the actual details of the battle.
        Hood came very close to taking back a city (something which hadnt happened ever) and staging a Western invasion of the North.

  9. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    lmao no.

    lee was an overrated clown and should have been put against a wall and shot.

  10. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    probably

  11. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why did people started seeing Civil War as some glorious crusade agains evil and not as a needless brother war where every casualty was a waste of life? It fells like a more carthaginian aproach gets more popular.

  12. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Some people ITT claiming that Missouri or Kentucky wouldn’t want to secede because a small percentage owned slaves don’t really seem to get it,

    How many of the confederate soldiers do you think owned slaves? A tiny fraction

    It was mostly over southern identity and the idea that their economic interests were being overruled in favour of the north’s.

    Of course the rich elites relied on slaves to maintain their massive plantations and they were the major sources of political support, but without the average Dixie man also believing it was right. It wouldn’t have come to a civil war

    You also have to add in the fact many still considered their state more important than the USA. Before the civil war the USA was much looser in terms of a union. Afterwards it became much closer and federally dominated. In that way you can see the civil war as one between centralised federalists and decentralised confederates

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Missouri didn’t have massive numbers of slaves or many big Gone With the Wind style plantations but there were enough to give the state a southern culture. Read Mark Twain’s fiction set in the “Little Dixie” region of the state to get a sense of what it was like in one of the farthest north outposts of southern culture.

      Jesse James’ family was of middling means—his father was a preacher/small farmer and his stepfather was a failed doctor/farmer, but there were always several slaves in the household. It wasn't just a dichotomy between Ole Massa with dozens of fieldhands and po’ white trash with nothing, and even whites who didn’t own slaves were tied into the economic system and the easiest path to wealth was to acquire land and slaves. At the same time there were many in Missouri who opposed slavery, from radical German abolitionists in St. Louis to free soil types, and the roughly even balance made the war in Missouri an ugly partisan warfare affair.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Some people ITT claiming that Missouri or Kentucky wouldn’t want to secede because a small percentage owned slaves don’t really seem to get it,
      >How many of the confederate soldiers do you think owned slaves? A tiny fraction
      30.8% of white southerners came from slave owning households

      >It was mostly over southern identity and the idea that their economic interests were being overruled in favour of the north’s.
      Oh look, the retarded Northern industry vs Southern farmers meme argument.

      >Of course the rich elites relied on slaves to maintain their massive plantations and they were the major sources of political support, but without the average Dixie man also believing it was right. It wouldn’t have come to a civil war
      Lol, you act like the decision to secede was done by popular vote.

      >You also have to add in the fact many still considered their state more important than the USA. Before the civil war the USA was much looser in terms of a union. Afterwards it became much closer and federally dominated. In that way you can see the civil war as one between centralised federalists and decentralised confederates
      Lol, Southerners were very much ok with the power of the Federal government when they dominated national politics

  13. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    It belonged to Sneed, not Chuck.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *