Did the confederacy have any real chance of winning against the union? serious answers only please

did the confederacy have any real chance of winning against the union? serious answers only please.

Other urls found in this thread:

census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027/tab09.txt
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

No.
/thread.

They did win over time because it was a Rothschild scheme to enslave people into debt. They got the Federal Reserve.

Slavery had nothing to do with it really, Lincoln was just attacking the Jewish slave trade and using it as a form of military chaos against the South.

Yes, union generals and leadership were so poor that Lee could have taken DC if the csa gov't had let him
Sherman was second rate

They came close several times. In general though, they would have needed to win in the first year or two, and they should've bit the bullet and ditched the defensive strategy since they were heavily out resourced. If Jackson had been given command over the AoNV instead of Lee, he would have gone full black flag on PA and NY like Sherman did later in the war in Georgia and the Carolinas, and if Jackson had done this to the North, it would have killed the wind in Lincoln's sails fast and gotten McClelland or some other Democrat elected, and the South's independence by extension.

Yes, until Gettysburg and the Emancipation Proclamation. European countries were looking to back the South and jump in the war themselves. However, after Lee lost at Gettysburg and Lincoln spewed the EP claiming the fight was about freeing slaves and not states rights, Europe went "Whoa! We ain't supporting no slave masters! Peace, niggahs!"

No the confederacy didn't stand much of a chance. This was also the goal. They were controlled opposition in a war which ended in the normalization of wage labor (slavery for all). That was the goal. Killing on both sides was population reduction as it is with all planned wars.

What do you guys think would have happened if Lee had routed Meade at Gettysburg? If they had pushed and taken Cemetery Ridge on the first day, the army of the Potomac would have been scattered, and within a day or two's march from DC, Baltimore, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia.

>Lee could have taken DC if the csa gov't had let him
so why didn't they let him?

The South adopted a defensive strategy because they thought appearing as the victim defender instead of an aggressor would pull England into the war to help them. Backfired on them after Antietam and Lincoln put out the Emancipation Proclamation. Whatever inkling England might have had about entering the war was snuffed right there, because siding with a pro slavery country in a war over slavery was a yuge no-no in mid 1800s European politics.

no. Their funding wasn't the best

But their generals were many times wiser than those of the north. Strategically, several times better

>But their generals were many times wiser than those of the north. Strategically, several times better
Examples of said superiority?

...

Nearly every battle leading up to Gettysburg.

In the east. In the West, Grant, Sherman, and McPherson consistently fucked the Johnstons, Bragg, and Pemberton up from Fort Donnelson to Vicksburg. The war was over once Corinthe, Vicksburg, and Jackson fell.

I doubt it, they weren't industrialized enough. I read something to the effect that for every rifle the south produced the north produced 25.

Yes but they fought with the completely wrong strategy. With a cuck like Lee in charge, they fought "by the rules" and in conventional stand up face to face warfare, the smaller, lower powered side, lower industrial power size will lose.

If they had fought unconventionally, like Washington did in the revolution they would have had a chance, they would have had to use more extreme measures to win as well, but they went (the south) went full on cuck, and 'played by the rules' and got wasted.

It was West Point and "the rules" that fucked over the South. As i recall West Point is not in the South.

PLUUUs the President of the South was a weekling, up against a mass-genocide monster like Lincoln, the South had no chance.

if the south successfully defended atlanta against sherman then mclellan would have won the presidency and ended the war

They could have, and had the power to burn wash Dc to th ground at the start of the war, and string up every Union officer and bureaucrat from some standing wreckage in the ruins, but they had no imagination, no aggression factor. I don't know what kind of strategy sessions (another cuck) went on but it must have been arguments about what would be more gentlemanly, while Lincoln was discussing with his generals how to massacre more southern men women and children in the shortest amount of time.

The side with no aggression, and no original ideas, also lost--- no surprise. marching into superior fire at Gettysburg was completely retarded, and points more towards Lee being a northern sabatuer.

That's what they get for trying to kiss up to britcucks. Washington would have been ashamed of them.

No. Look at 20 biggest US cities in 1860. ONE was in the CSA. There was no chance for us in a war of attrition, which the war became in 1864.

>>Much smaller population
>>Rural economy versus industrial power house
>>Blockaded almost immediately

census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027/tab09.txt

some inbred retard shot him

So George Washington, a man who schemed plotted, begged and asked for European help to help him win a war, would have been ashamed of his own fellow-Southerners did the exact same thing he did?

>I George Washington am ashamed of you, for doing the exact same thing I did!!!

He would be ashamed of them for losing, and for being no-aggression cucks who couldn't even win a war on their own home-soil, or muster a single new or original tactic.

>A honorless, pillaging brigand is the Norths greatest war hero
It really does make you think

Why does no one remember the middle child/only state that played by the Constitution?

The south had a vastly superior military especially at the start of the war. The strength of the North was their manufacturing, their railroads and telegraphs, and that fighting generally didn’t happen up there to disrupt that.

They had a great chance if they had used the militia (minutemen) system like The revolutionary war Americans used. Every man comes out when the enemy is near, and the professional soldiers just form the core/training, and the front-line of fighters.

The North could not afford to send every man down, but the South could have had every man come out to each battle near his home. They didn't even use the tactic, instead relying on West point retardation and Napoleanic rules where you line up your troops in formation to be massacred by a superior force of professionals on the other side.

No, The North basically fought the South with one hand tied behind their back(figuratively), they outnumbered the southern population at least 2-1, had good infrastructure from railroads to shuttle supplies and men for a protracted war and far more diverse resources and income to sustain themselves. Had the north had even slightly competent generals they would've given Lee a Pyrrhic victory in any one of the early battles. Lee was a good general he just didn't have the resources necessary to do any invasions of the north without tens of thousands of union volunteers coming to actually fight for their homeland.

>muh south should have used asymmetric tactics to win
>WTF don't break my railroads!!!
Good thing the north was vastly more powerful so you can blame them for not acting with perfect honor and chivalry.

Davis also didn't really like Lee. There was a lot of political fuckery on both sides of the war, and Davis was an arrogant fuck who was enemies with half the men leading his armies. The only reason Lee gained control over the army of northern virginia was because Johnston was wounded and Lee was a last ditch choice to lead because the Yankees were right outside of Richmond. He just got real lucky because he had Stuart and Jackson under his command, and those two fucked shit up during the peninsular and valley campaigns.

>The south had a vastly superior military especially at the start of the war.

If so, they did not use this to any advantage whatsoever, they could have used this to level DC and massacre any living thing in Pennsylvania, then New York and New England troops would have to march through miles and miles of corpses to get to Virginia. I bet most of them would have gone home first.

The south played by the West Point rules, (be a rule-obeying cuck and be a 'gentleman'). The South did not use any of their natural advantages, the south had no aggression or original tactics or ideas, and they got wasted in the end.

Yes. They were like 10 miles from Washington D.C. at one point. They could have won easily.

Because they had a code of honor they weren’t brainless parasitic yankee locusts it was about defending their way of life and resisting the ever spreading souless heeb plague eminating from the Union. But all the honor in the world can’t save you from toxic cancer, fesces injected into the brain. la luz extinguido.

They called it a 'code of honor' too. But the true definition is a "lack of aggression and a profound inability to win a war or defend their way of life" and now they are gone. Too bad bye cucks!!

I read a few books on this. They said that the south was mainly agrarian. The north had the big factories and ports, and outproduced the south in this regard, leading to the north's victory. The numbers were really skewed, too. The south would never have won in the long run, no matter what

fpbp

Yeah just like North Vietnam got their ass kicked because they had no chance against us in the long run.

...

this
and the war really was about slavery
confederacy could have won if it was really about independence and the second american revolution
patrick cleburne had a good idea of emancipation through participation in war but no one gave a shit about him