Could they have won if they didn't have inept generals?

Could they have won if they didn't have inept generals?

Other urls found in this thread:

nps.gov/civilwar/facts.htm)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Nah, they were a bunch of retards that thought cotton would solve all their problems. North had better tech.

no.

it's really the same as asking if the Germans could win WW2. Production, manpower, supplies, trade, etc. nothing was in their favor outside of very quick brutal offensives neither power could've won

That was a war lost due to severe economic strain and lack of war fighting infrastructure.

No, bad guys never win.

Bad guys write the history books.

The war was NOT about slavery or state's rights. Greedy white plantation owners wanted to keep their slaves and they used retarted white trash to fight the war for them.

>inept generals
The Confederacy had great generals. The north were the ones with the inept generals. That's the only reason the south actually put up somewhat of a fight. If Ulysses S. Grant was as inept as the other northern generals, maybe the south could have won

They almost did win, thrice. The invasion of maryland was soiled by sheer luck.

Honestly their generals weren't half as bad as the North's. Their main problem was supplies.

Not if they lose, which is all the time.

>implying there are any "good guys"

Good guys don't kill 6+ million Jews

they don't firebomb civilians, either

An Uruguayan talking about military strategy... Go back to drink mate while you watch your life slip away watching some shit football match between two teams of underpaid players on a pitch with no grass.

This, the CSA had a default disadvantage of being not as industrialized as the north

I figured their generals and soldiers were more competent than the north's for the most part; just outgunned and outmanned.

No. They had no factories, railroads, or lines of communication. They were fucked before it even started.

it was rigged from the get go, albert pike was a jew 33rd freemason general for the south. you think he hurt or helped the south? it was rigged by the freemasons from the beginning to murder goyim. wakey goy! George Washington, santa anna, Christopher colombus all JEW FREEMASONS>

L.O.L. I doubt it, O.P. God isn't especially fond of slavery, and eventually the practice is forbidden.

>that id

inept really? all it would have taken was one or two different decisions during battles and the war could have swung in the South's favor, mind you there were actual fucking draft riots in New York, the war was chaotic for both sides

you guys still don't get it, jew freemasons are running shit top down from police chiefs, generals, clergy, mayors, judges.

the union had endless conscripts of european immigrants coming off the boat from europe. while the south had a fixed population. there were more dead yabkees than confederates. 3000000 dead yankees. and quit calling it a civil war. a civil war infers the south was fighting to control the north. the north winning is why we have the mpst corrupt marxist fake government to ever exist.

Our generals weren't inept. Our political organization was. Lincoln was more shrewd than Davis.

The CSA was plagued with a lot of problems but inept generals wasn't their biggest issue. If anything the CSA had the better staff of generals and officers and had the better common soldiers. The actual problems the CSA faced is a huge list.

the CSA had the best generals

ww2 Truman Stalin Churchill all 33rd jew masons

Al climate scam Gore is a confirmed JEW.

The CSA could have won if they had better diplomats and mobilized prior to actually rebelling. Instead they telegraphed their actions and gave the north plenty of time to prepare. In addition they didnt utilize saboteurs in the northern states, fire bombing factories on a regular basis wouldve destroyed the common will to wage said war.

oh shit top kek

They could have won with the generals they had. They were winning the war up until Gettysburg, which they only lost due to a series of impressive fuckups by otherwise competent generals.

>Good guys don't kill 6+ million Jews
True, good guys would kill 6+ million anglos.

Many in the CSA still believed in honorable warfare. While it makes someone like Lee more admirable it was impractical. Lee and Davis both noted Nathan Bedford Forrest was way too underutilized for his talents.

the south lost because the north got their hand on order 191.
it may have been lost or maybe a traitor handed it over but if the north hadn't gotten it, the CSA would have made it to philly and forced the union to surrender.

>tfw the holocaust never happened but you wish it did.

Most historians believe that the reason they got so far as they did was because of the skill of their generals. Lee was considered one of the great tacticians of his era.
Overall, the sub-par industry of the South is what doomed it.

The south had better military leaders for the most part. You can see in many engagements the south utilized more of the principles of war than their Union counterparts.
Union always had the advantage with more troops and a far more developed industrial complex to back them. The North had factories, the south had the plantations. Cotton isn't going to help with cannons.

Also the union treated their soldiers more like cannon fodder than the free south, which has its advantaged.

>Good guys don't kill 6+ million Jews

They do if the Jews are the Bad Guys

Hint : Jewish groups just got it made illegal to hold office in France if you're caught being anti-Semitic or racist aka. anyone they don't agree with can be tarnished with claims and default unable to hold office.
No representation for you goy if you wrong think.

Also, there is seriously a bill in motion trying to make it illegal to boycott the Jewish athno-state of Israel.
Very America!
Jews-ehtno-state good for me ,but for they you be racist GOY!

This. And Checked.

The north had all of the industries. The South was an agrarian society.

why would anyone want to keep slaves

> the north winning is why we have the mpst corrupt marxist fake government to ever exist.

To play the devil's advocate, a Southern Democrat raised by staunch CSA supporters introduced the Federal Reserve.

...

The CSA would have won if the north was honorable enough to not use scorched earth tactics.

The south had far better generals than the north. They were outnumbered like 4-1 but still held out for a long time.

this. My town was occupied by Germans and bombed by brits. The Germans did fuck all aside from confiscating all firearms and locking up our soldiers in the local police station; the brits carpetbombed residential areas with firebombs, inculding my grandmother's house

Warfare isnt honotable, thats the mistake they made. Morality and war just dont go together. The south lost largely because of southern culture. Pride, honor, traits like that aren't conducive to fighting an uphill war with zero allied neighbors and 3 month shipping times for your closest potential ally.

Has a revolution ever been successful without foreign aid?

>Lee was considered one of the great tacticians of his era. Overall, the sub-par industry of the South is what doomed it.

It was unironically these two in conjunction that led to the Army of Virginia's back being broken at Gettysburg.

>South has been pulling off a damn good inaurgency, to the point where Lincoln has a very real chance to lose the 1864 election, which will lead to peace

>Lee knows this, but also knows that the CSA is at the end of its ropes both logistically and in manpower, and so decides to invade Union soil for a propaganda victory by occupying key cities in North

The south had better generals for almost the entirety of the war

The North had money, industry, and the Irish

South never had a chance

>The war was NOT about slavery
>plantation owners wanted to keep their slaves

contradicting yourself in your own post, bold move user

>inept generals
You've got it backwards; the war would've been over much sooner if it weren't for the Union's inept generals like McClellan.

>if they didn't have inept generals?

They had far better generals and that's the only reason it was close at all. The north had the inept generals with little combat experience and that goes for most of their troops too.

In the end population and money won the war.

See
Honor in warfare is a mistake.

>contradicting yourself

No I think he's trying to make the point that it was a war of the elites.

White people who signed up weren't fighting for slavery, they weren't beneficiaries of slavery. If anything they were exploited too, since they had to compete with slavery.

How Union soldiers were treated varied from general to general and what talents they had. I had a southern unionist ancestor who join the Union Army but he never saw major battles due to Grant realizing he and his regiment were worth more as scouts who knew Tennessee and Mississippi like the back of their hands than they were cannon fodder. But you are right.

That's such an impractical law anyway. You can just avoid buying Israeli goods and not openly call it a boycott.

Slavery was becoming increasingly unpopular in the south anyway. I imagine if Lee ever ran for President he would've abolished slavery.

Oh I agree and that was the union's biggest advantage. Sherman and Forrest were the smartest generals because they realized being a nice guy like Lee wasn't the solution to ending the war. You had to be a mean son of a bitch willing to do anything to terrorize and demoralize the enemy.

things will alot different next time. it will be an insuregency this time. like captain quantrell . bloody bill anderson jesse james and frank james. they would have won the war of they fought like those guys instead of trying to be honorable like lees northern va army. seroisuly the buahwackers were winning tKing union trains and murdering every last yankee.

> Confederates
> Shitty generals

Man the south had the better generals hands down. They had every other disadvantage, numbers, supplies, training. They had a loose militia go toe to toe and regularly beat the trained army. The only good Union general was Grant, and that's because he knew he wasn't gonna beat Lee unless he used his side's major advantage, numbers and logistics. Sherman was pretty smart too, albeit an absolute sonofabitch. His march to the sea had 0 ethics whatsoever but in a pure strategic sense it was a crippling blow.

If you'd have given the confederates some major economic aid from a european power then we'd all be flying the battle flag today.

It was about plantation owners getting pissed they spent so much money on slaves, and the north was still steamrolling them in production because they were advanced enough to industrialize. Then people were telling them to get rid of their investment because it was inhumane, so they found a way to rally a ton of people far too poor to ever actually buy slaves, to fight for their right to buy slaves.

Maybe, but inept is such a weasel's word to describe the confederate generals, as a whole.
Overall they were demonstrably better than Union leadership, they showed up the Union time and again in fights the Union should of won or came out at a full draw, and the Union suffered far more than it had to to attain victory, specifically because of the ineptitude and wrong decisions of it's leadership, than the Confederacy. The Union had consistent failures. The Confederacy, had disasters. Because it couldn't afford those levels of failures.
Arguing Confederate generals were inept, is more accurate by saying they were "not flawless" than "bad generals."
If they were "bad generals" then their wouldn't even BEEN noticeably bad tard-moves like Pickett's Charge, because these hypothetical mistakes the "bad generals" would of made up until then, would of have the Confederacy of been defeated already.

The larger implication of the north telling southern states they had no right to seceed is a portion that affected many CSA supporters substsntially.
>fuck you we are leaving
>no you cant we will invade
> Im just a tavern owner but I dont want my tavern burned down so im gonna sign up to fight against the north.
??? Is this really that difficult of a concept?
People signed up of all castes because it was in their self interest.

>war of the elites
>weren't fighting for slavery

they were by definition fighting for slavery, that was the whole point of the confederacy

>they weren't beneficiaries of slavery

yes they were, slavery gave even the poorest whites status a rights, also slaves were often rented out, just because someone didn't own the slave many more people used the slaves on a temporary basis

>they were exploited too

this I can agree with, most soldiers in most wars are fighting for something that they themselves won't really benefit from

>That's such an impractical law anyway. You can just avoid buying Israeli goods and not openly call it a boycott.

Individual yes, but is you advocate not buying Israel products in any form in writing or video you could be charged with said law.

South had plenty of Irish as well. But the North just had more people in general. Like, way more. Over twice as many as the South, and the machinery to keep them supplied at wartime.

CSA had the best generals though.

Te problem was industrial output and lack of railroads.

They weren't inept, they simply didn't have industry in the same way the north did. They couldn't supply their troops with the same quality and quantity of weapons that the North could, plus the North held more large population centers, meaning they could field more soldiers.

Wot m8? The South had fucking Lee. They had WAY more kickass generals than the North could hope for, that's why they even lasted for so long. The North just had all of the industry, the wherewithal to blockade the South, and loose enough morals to allow them to rape, pillage, and burn everything in their path. Also, the South was suffering mightily under inflation. So no, I don't think this has anything to do with anything.

Wew I guess Hitler and the south were all good guys.

Property rights>slaves
CSA told the feds to fuck off over property rights. Technically they were in the right.

>Property rights
you mean the property of slaves right?

logic bro, do you know it

> If you'd have given the confederates some major economic aid from a european power then we'd all be flying the battle flag today.

France and Britain were eyeing lending aid, but ended up going with Egyptian cotton. In either case, the Russian navy lent its support to the Union, keeping foreign entities from intervening.

Absolutely this. Something like 3/4 of West Point graduates fought for the Confederacy.

if you are fighting for an organization you are by definition defending the things that organization stands for

weather or not every solider believed in slavery is irrelevant, they fought for a government that's number one goal was to protect the institution of slavery

The south had the better generals. The south lost because NY state had more production than the entire south. The north could have fielded 5 times as many troops as they did. The south should have just destroyed their property and let everyone go home. We needed Hitler instead of Jeff Davis!!! Lee made only one mistake during the war the third day at Gettysburg.

Slaves = Property which is how it's involved. No one was fighting to free or keep slaves and no one saw it as such as one might view it currently. During that time it was purely about property rights. Slaves/niggers were property just like a lawn mower or your car. By law and constitution the southern states were in the complete right as the federal government overstepped it's bounds. The southern states also used the federal government as well to do the overstepping when it suited them.

The north also started to implement tariffs after they seceded. Like most wars, so many factors led to the actual war itself kicking off.

... so it was about slavery

Wtf are you retarded man cuz you literally contradict yourself here man

Pretty sure the South had better generals AND officers, because the academies were in the south and mostly were filled with Southerners. They literally got cucked because Slavery is retarded and because no industry, because of slavery.

>defeating Sherman
Nigga please

Niggers/Slaves aren't people they're tools or items you purchase like a robot for automation (Roomba). Many view it as they've been taught in schools or other propaganda pieces as a fight for virtue, morality, and all that's good. Simply put soldiers on both sides could care less about the niggers and were fighting because they were told to. North it was to preserve the union of states and federal power. South it was reform federal power under new leadership since the old one seemingly wanted to expand it's power.

If Hitler had made his crusade against the Jews a crusade against the Muslims, and went south in lieu of east and west, the Reich would have had atomic weapons and rocket tech before 1944, and control of the Palestine, Iraq, Kuwait and the Arabia. Germany would have been the most powerful and wealthy country on Earth for generations.

Coincidentally post ACW national guard/militias are hamstringed or curtailed by the federal government up to present because of that fear of a secession and a challenge to federal power again.

The confederates were so into states rights that instead of allocating resources to defend key strategic points on the Mississpir river, they had most pf their army defending Richmond, Virginia, because "muh, Robert E. Lee, I'm from Virginia, so I'll only defend my state". If they had managed to keep New Orleans and Vicksburg, they could have just sat there in front of Richmond and repulsed every single attack from their fortified positions and wait it out until the civilians in the North got sick of sending their sons to war as cannon fodder.

>purely about property rights
the only property the south was concerned with keeping was slavery, what other property were they at risk of losing before the war?

The Confederacy was established to keep slavery going, that is what they were concerned about it is in every independence document created by each state

this kind of argument is bullshit trying to twist words and call slavery something else

>it was about culture
culture of slavery

>it was about states rights
state's right to keep slavery

>it was about property
property of slaves

>it was about economic systems
the economic system of slavery

the core of all these other "rights" was the right to have and keep slaves, that was it

They had good commanders on the western front and a decent chunk of men too. All of the greatest battles are fought in the "west" or around ole miss and the tribs.

>1861 CSA Population 9,103,000

"If the Declaration of Independence justifies the secession from the British Empire of three million colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of five million of southerns from the Federal Union in 1861." - Joseph Wheeler

I don't know where you're getting that number from, and it's certainly debatable. I'm not sure where Wheeler got his number in the quote, either. Voting restrictions were much different then, than today. Women couldn't vote, neither could slaves, etc. It most certainly adjusts the nine million number.

One thing is for certain sure, politics & money have not changed in the last 150 years, or the 3,000 years before that. You've got a handful of people with money & power in charge, that tells millions of people what to do. They did it then. They do it now.

And by the way, it's a widely agreed fact that Southern Generals were the best. There's a very long list of Union Generals that couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

>the only property the south was concerned with keeping was slavery,
They were concerned about keeping their sovereignty
>state's right to keep slavery
Slavery was still legal in the Union durring the war

You seem unable to look at the war and climate or period in context.

>Slavery was still legal in the Union durring the war

They always fail to mention that.

Pareto Principle applies

This x 1000. The South was dominating bigly for a long time due to the fact we had superior generals and a more motivated army of volunteers.

the best Generals and troops were concentrated around Richmond, the states rights thing was so big that they couldn't concentrate forces at key points to defend strategic points like New Orleans and Vicksburg. By the way, why didn't the Confederates concentrate all their cavalry in the mid-west so as to conduct raids deep into the grain producing and industrial heartland of Illinois, Ohio etc???

If the South had held off hostilities at Fort Sumter and played the diplomatic game for two to three years, they would have had enough time to fill the war-chest with cotton money, establish a defensive plan, build or buy a navy. When the timing was appropriate, attack at Bull Run, press the advance into Washington DC. Mounted cavalry would have advanced from the east and taken positions north of DC to cut off evacuation of the US government. One battle, war's over.

Yankees always reduce things down to bullet points, and Ha-Ha! Argument won!

WRONG.

The Civil War is *THE* Most Complicated event in our nation's history. The most studied & debated event, and always will be. You Can Not reduce Secession to one specific cause, because that is simply not true.

The Nimber One thing that caused fully one half of the US Congress to leave, and millions of people to agree, was strict interpretation of the Constitution.

My Gr.Gr.Grandfather, and a million of his fellow countrymen did not kiss their family goodbye, tell them to look after the crops, then walk out of sight, many never to be seen again, just to fight for a rich man's slaves.

"The subject of Slavery, in any and every view of it, was, to the Seceding States, but a drop in the ocean compared with those other considerations involved in the issue of secession". - Alexander Stephens

He got his numbers from the 1860 Census, and he's referring to population, not voter rolls. It doesn't matter what a woman or a slave thinks. Voting men make their decisions for them.

The universally accepted figure for CSA pop. is 9 million: 5.5M free, 3.5M slave. It actually really isn't debatable at all.
(nps.gov/civilwar/facts.htm)

A Two Front War will do that to you.

I like what you at putin down.

M8 Gettysburg was already lost on the first day when they got too cautious and didn't take the high ground from battered, low supplies and morale union troops.

Then he would have to have invaded British and French protectorates with the same result as invading Poland... Muslims weren't seen by anybody as a problem in his era and his crusade was against communism anyway. Christ you're ill informed.

They were on the defensive and the opposition had a significant advantage in manpower. Small skirmishes between skirmishers or raids the Union almost always had numerical superiority. Fredericksburg is a good example where wave after wave of men piled over those pontoon bridges. Nothing short of amassing everything they had would've stopped that.

CSA General States Rights Gist was given his name at birth in 1831. The issue of States Rights was brewing long before that.

"The Declaration of Independence was not that they were to be one State, but "thirteen free, Sovereign and Independent States." This was in strict accordance with the instructions of their constituents. The people of the several Colonies would not consent for a Declaration to be made in any other way. The Declaration of Independence was forming a Confederation of Independent States". - Alexander Stephens, 1868