Americans needed to fight a horrendous war and kill over half a million people to accomplish something most cunts in...

>Americans needed to fight a horrendous war and kill over half a million people to accomplish something most cunts in the world (including mine) did with a simple decree

>implying Civil war was about slavery

Wtf this hardcore autism BelgrANO?

simple decree does not fund multi billion dollar arms industry that gets representatives elected for jerbs

Lemme put it to you this way. Slave agriculture was a _considerably_ bigger business here than it was in Argentina. When there's money involved, people don't give things up easily.

The ACW, horrendous as it was, still actually didn't match European wars for sheer scale and no engagement came close to the size of Napoleon's battles or some mid-century conflicts. For example, the Battle of Sadowa, a year after the ACW ended, involved half a million Prussians and Austrians on one battlefield and 53,000 casualties. The biggest ACW battle in terms of casualties, Gettysburg, still had over 10,000 fewer men lost, and the biggest amount of men present on a single field of battle was Fredericksburg, with about 190,000 men total.

>America fights a violent civil war
Planet's largest economy, planet's most powerful military, entire planet is now forced to speak American English, home of the smartest universities on the planet, personally responsible for 95% of the world's modern culture, most technologically advanced society in the history of civilization
>Argentina is too cowardly to fight a civil war
Failing economy, has never been culturally or intellectually relevant in its entire history, inferior to Chile, loses every war it has ever fought in (hence why they chose not to fight in civil war, you knew you would lose), has never created a worthwhile invention ever, vassal state of America and speaks American English on American image forums while discussing studies of American history and American politics over the American internet with Americans

It sounds like most cunts (including yours) made a colossal mistake and are now paying the price

>Argentina
>never fought a civil war
Uh...

Besides, ours wasn't a real civil war in the true sense of the word where different factions try to change the government.

They say after Gettysburg, local people walked around with bottles of pennyroyal or scented oil for weeks afterward because the smell of dead soldiers and horses was so bad. The smell didn't completely dissipate until the fall months.

spainbro gets it

>being this much of a Sup Forums fag

Couldn't imagine the field after Austerlitz.

Despite all that, it's hard to imagine the American public today tolerating something like Antietam with 23,000 casualties in one day. I mean, we lost 50,000 men in Vietnam and that took eight years to accomplish. The Overland Campaign in May-June 1864 resulted in close to 100,000 casualties in just two months.

>needed to
it was completely unneeded
the main motivator for the CS's secession was preservation of slavery, although there were others, but the real lie is that the US was fighting to end it. The US's wargoal was not abolition but "preservation of the union" (meaning denying another people self-determination). Both sides had fairly despicable motivations. So technically the "civil war" was not about slavery, but secession was.

and yes I'm a Dixiefag.

>The US's wargoal was not abolition but "preservation of the union" (meaning denying another people self-determination). Both sides had fairly despicable motivations. So technically the "civil war" was not about slavery, but secession was.

There was also the fact that the Republican Party had the goal of ensuring their own total political domination. Liberating slaves was part of that, and it worked since blacks voted almost 99% for the party of Lincoln until the New Deal era, when they began voting Democrat.

Too obvious of a bait, you have to tone it down a little, leave some space for doubt

>inb4 le "Lincoln was going to deport them back to Africa" maymay

The Minie Ball was a rather horrendous form of ammunition, worse than modern rounds because it exploded when it hit bone or flesh rather than simply cut through it. Quite short lived however since rifled muskets were only used for about 15 years, just the Crimean War, the Franco-Austrian War in 1859, and the ACW had them as a primary infantry weapon.

>Implying plantations and mining weren't the core point of having the colonies
Dude you seriously think the Spaniards held to the colonies so hard just because we looked nice on a map?
Abolishing slavery was an ideal of the rights of man in which all of the Latin American nations were founded

The Austrian army at Sadowa would have still had rifled muskets, probably also the Danish army in the Second Schleswig War.

>Medieval timeline
>N.B.: Many of the listed reforms were reversed over succeeding centuries.
GUESS WHICH ONE WASN'T
WE WUZ THE FREEDOMEST

>50k casualties at Gettysburg
>25k casualties at Austerlitz

Austerlitz casualties were about 45,000 men, Gettysburg was about 40,000.

And Borodino had 70,000 (!) casualties.

Not him but I imagine the whole states rights thing played a part, while in Europe a king could just write a decree abolishing slavery.

There were no plantations or mining in Argentina. In fact the local viceroyalty didn't even exist until the late 1700s, and even then it was mostly because Spaniards decided it was safer to move shit extracted on the Andes through the continent and into the Buenos Aires dock for shipping. There was not much else around here.
Most of the crop producing land we have today was in hand of the indians too.

>and the biggest amount of men present on a single field of battle was Fredericksburg, with about 190,000 men total
A large portion of both armies at Fredericksburg didn't fight either.

Correct. Argentina was in a temperate climate with no plantation agriculture, it was similar to the northern US where slavery died out early on since there was no need for it.

The Mexican War was the very last conflict fought in the Napoleonic style with smoothbore muskets and infantry forming tight lines and shooting close range volleys at each other. Unfortunately, Civil War generals had been raised on that kind of warfare, they weren't prepared for the much greater range and power of rifled muskets.

The standard infantry arm in Austria at that time was the M1854 Lorenz rifle, loads of these were also purchased by both the US government and the Confederacy in the ACW. The Austrian army used them in 1859 and 1866, where in the latter conflict they got their butts beat by the Prussians and their Dreyse needle guns.

The French had rifled muskets in Crimea and in the 1859 war, after seeing the Austrians lose at Sadowa, they quickly upgraded to breechloading rifles.

The British had M1853 Enfield rifles in Crimea, also tons of them were imported during the ACW as Britain was then planning to upgrade to breechloaders and were eager to dump their outdated muzzle-loading rifles.

The Russian army in Crimea still had smoothbore muskets, I do not happen to know when they got rifles.

The Prussian army had the M1842 Dreyse needle gun as their standard arm from the 1850s up to the Franco-Prussian War, when the Dreyse proved to be outmatched by the newer French Chassepot rifle, they were retired immediately after the war and replaced by the M1871 Mauser rifle.

Probably.

We had a lot of inept generals in the ACW because we'd never fought a war on this scale, up to 1860 there had only been small-scale conflicts that didn't affect most of the country. Nobody was prepared for this sort of thing.

>The US's wargoal was not abolition but "preservation of the union"
After the Emancipation Proclamation, ending slavery _was_ made a primary goal of the war.

Does it count when Argentina never really had slaves to begin with?

yeah, because it was then convenient for the union to do.
>_was_
what is this?

>_was_
>what is this?

Emphasis on the word. Derp?

>mfw his country didn't get both independence and end of slavery without dropping one drop of blood

>last cunt in the civilized world to abolish slavery

and? do you see people in Brazil complaining about it?

okay, I'm starting to get an idea of who I'm dealing with here

So who was the worst ACW general? Sigel? Pope? John Pemberton?

>Brazil
>civilized world
Something does not compute here.

I find it funny that even after killing yourselves over slavery, you guys have more racial problems than we, the uncivilized kind, have nowadays

>Sigel
Easily one of the worst. Yes, he was politically valuable in getting German-Americans to enlist en masse but as a field commander...no, just no.
>Pope
Hard to say, there were mitigating circumstances at 2nd Bull Run.

The civil war was about the north wanting a iron grip on the south and wanting to claw soveregnity from them.Slavery was a conveniant excuse to make the north feel better about themselves.

>selling the Confederates thousands of muskets and cannons so you could keep the supply of cheap cotton flowing

Picture this right now.
>I DECLARE ALL PETROLEUM PRODUCTS ILLEGAL AND ALL FOSSIL FUEL PRODUCTION TO CEASE IMMEDIATELY

Hmm, I wonder what would happen
Maybe this decree would bankrupt half of the country overnight
Maybe half of the country would rise up in their fossil fuel powered military vehicles to fight the other half of the country fighting in machinegun equipped Priuses and Chevy Volts.

People who think that slavery is something that you can just fucking abolish are retarded and don't understand anything about how the world works.

John Pope was the first guy to suggest the policy of total war on the South instead of McClellan's limited war where Southern property would be left unmolested. This was a novel idea and led to Robert E. Lee remarking that he was a miscreant who needed to be suppressed. However, he was thickheaded and refused to listen to the multiple warnings that the Confederates were going to strike his flank at 2nd Bull Run. His "address" to the troops in the east saying how they were ineffective fighters compared to the western armies also rubbed them the wrong away.

After the disaster at Bull Run, he was sent to the Dakota Territory to fight Sioux Indians. Why he was never given another command in the war is unknown, certainly more inept generals like Ambrose Burnside got multiple chances.

Of course. When there's a huge amount of money at stake, people don't give ground easily.

Slavery was never legal here.

At least not in Britain itself. Slavery was banned in British colonies/territories in the 1820s or 1830s (too lazy to look up the exact date).

I think the trade was banned shortly after 1800 but the year of total abolition, freeing those already in bondage, was 1833 if im not mistaken.

Pope was also a Republican and most of the Union generals in the east were Democrats. But putting that aside, it's notable that most of Pope's corps/division commanders at 2nd Bull Run disappeared from important commands after that campaign was over. Perhaps his supporting cast was also less than outstanding.

Importation of new slaves from Africa was banned in the US by the 1820s but smugglers often tried to bring them in anyway (during the Civil War, US Navy ships captured one such vessel headed for the South with several thousand Africans in it). The Royal Navy also set itself to the task of enforcing the ban on the transoceanic slave trade.

Enfield rifles mostly, also US government agents tried to buy up as many as they could just to keep them out of Confederate hands.

It was more about States rights. Slavery just happened to be on of those "rights".

Of course dumb fucking libs can't understand this and think the south was some evil "haha I want niggers to be my slaves forever!!!" villains when it was more "Don't you fucking tell me what to do you Yankee fucking shits."

>muh states rights to own slaves
Haha now your country is filled with dumb niggers lmaooo

The 1st Battle of Bull Run had a Union army with 35,000 men. This was the biggest army ever fielded in North America up to that point, George Washington and Winfield Scott had never commanded this many men on the field of battle.

The civil war was about tariff income. We almost fought a war 40 years prior to that during Andrew Jackson's presidency over the exact same shit

Confederate raiders built in England and manned by British crews ravaged the US merchant marine, this led to damage claims by the US government against Britain that were not completely resolved until the 1870s.

Poor Irvin McDowell. The guy couldn't catch a break. After 2nd Bull Run, he was shelved for two years and then sent to command the faraway Department of the Pacific.

Old ideas die hard. For example, New York governor Horatio Seymour protested the institution of conscription in 1863, arguing that it was a gross violation of states rights. In the South, Georgia governor Joseph Brown engaged in angry polemics with Jefferson Davis about states rights and that Georgia's state government should have full control over its regiments. Brown argued that muskets and cannons in the state armories could not leave Georgia and were only to be used for the defense of the state from invasion, and that Georgia regiments must only be commanded by officers from Georgia.

John Hood was not fit to command an army, that's for sure.

>freedom of wombs

There is a story that when Lincoln came to talk with McClellan following Antietam, that he came across some soldiers in camp digging a latrine for the commanding general. Lincoln asked them "Is that a one holer or a two holer?" The soldiers replied "A one holer, Mr. President." to which Lincoln remarked "Very good then. By the time McClellan gets deciding which hole to use, he'll have shit himself."

The sad thing is that McClellan had many gifts as an organizer, strategist, and and administrator, but actually leading an army in battle was beyond him. He also couldn't stop constantly meddling in politics and offering unsolicited advice about how to handle the war/slavery issue. His letters to his wife reveal how petty and childish he was.

Don't ask me what that means.

I'm not exactly sure Brazil is considered part of the civilized world.

This continued to be an issue in fact for many decades after the war.

Petroleum wouldn't get banned because it doesn't base itself off of slavery. As corrupt as the business might be there's technically no basic human rights being violated.

If half of the country gets fucked over for relying too much on slavery then it's kind of their fault to begin with. All those people who are still pissy about it to this day must be retarded if they think an industry based around negating other people rights was never going to get dismantled.

Franz Sigel did actually have professional military training in Germany...but his only combat experience had been unsuccessfully besieging a town during the 1848 revolutions, after which he fled to Switzerland and then the United States.

In the ACW, his record on the battlefield was one embarrassing fail after another, from Wilson's Creek to the Shenandoah Valley. Pea Ridge was the one time he had any success.

Lincoln tried general after general in the hope of finding a competent man to lead the war effort in the east. On the other hand, Jefferson Davis, being a West Pointer, was personal friends with many of his generals and was loathe to fire them even when they demonstrated gross incompetence (like for example Braxton Bragg). Lincoln was not a military man, so his generals weren't old buddies he'd fought alongside in Mexico or whatever and he had less personal attachment to them.

It is a funny paradox how the shitty Union generals were mostly in the eastern theater while the shitty Confederate generals were in the west.

>Petroleum wouldn't get banned because it doesn't base itself off of slavery

It may go the way where renewable energy is our only sustainable option in the future.

Robert E. Lee was certainly a capable strategist but too often he suffered from the Napoleonic idea of trying to annihilate the enemy army when he didn't have enough manpower for it; after Gettysburg, his army was never again capable of an offensive operation.

The only positive George McClellan had was as an organizer, as a field commander he was an embarrassment. At no point during the Peninsula Campaign did he ever get closer than a few miles from the field of battle, during Antietam he did absolutely nothing and essentially let his army operate on autopilot.

Didn't Meade fail to catch and destroy Lee's army after Gettysburg? Even Lincoln was exasperated at his failure to do this.

You just don't understand at all.

It doesn't matter if it's possible. Banning petroleum or fossil fuels is currently absolutely impossible, because information travels faster, meaning people understand economic impact.

It doesn't matter if it's morally equivalent. The Dust Bowl is functionally equivalent to the 2008 housing market crisis and the 2001 dot com bubble pop.

Bottom line is that somebody wants to ban something that makes up half of the country's economy, and hasn't even thought about that fact beyond "But muh morals and reason!"

Such apparent lack of morals and reason would normally steer someone into understanding that crippling half of the country's economy is just as immoral and despicable as whatever they're trying to ban.

Meade couldn't possibly have destroyed the ANV after Gettysburg for a wide range of reasons.

>the AOP's cavalry commander, Alfred Pleasonton, was not exactly the best general around
>the Confederate cavalry performed excellently in screening the retreat
>the AOP suffered an incredible pounding at Gettysburg--around 20,000 men had been killed or wounded and at least another 20,000 had temporarily deserted or been shaken from the lines--only about 45,000 men were present for duty on July 4 against the 75,000 they had had on June 30, two entire army corps were virtually destroyed and three corps commanders taken out of action--the 6th Corps was the only part of the army which was in good fighting shape and it spearheaded the pursuit of Lee
>Meade's orders to screen Washington constrained him to a less direct route to the Potomac than the one Lee took.

>Robert E. Lee was certainly a capable strategist but too often he suffered from the Napoleonic idea of trying to annihilate the enemy army when he didn't have enough manpower for it

During the Seven Days, they had to pull troops from the Carolina and Georgia coastlines to reinforce Lee with every available man. The population difference between the North and South was quite huge; the white population of the South in 1860 was about 4 million people, of which maybe 1.5 million were military-age men. The North had 20 million people, which translated into close to 10 million military-age men and there was a continuous flow of European immigrants for yet more bodies.

In short, the Confederacy tapped out their manpower supplies very early on. By the Petersburg siege, they were conscripting teenage boys and old men kind of like Germany in the closing days of WWII.

Meh we has worse than slavery really


Employees had to live in their farms, not earning currency but internal credit only exchangable in the landlords shops, and if they made noise during siesta hours they would get killes


But that was just freedom of choice in the free market :') not slavery

But not before Brazil.

Weird, uh?

Stonewall Jackson...eh, it's very hard to say. His record was quite mixed, really.

>1st Bull Run
Great, but he only commanded a brigade there.
>Valley Campaign
Great
>Seven Days
Lousy. If he hadn't been so dilatory, they could have inflicted a Cannae-style defeat on the AOP.
>2nd Manassas campaign
Jackson didn't do terribly great at Cedar Mountain and his job at 2nd Manassas was mainly waging a defensive battle until Lee/Longstreet arrived.
>Antietam campaign
He did good capturing Harper's Ferry but at Antietam itself he didn't do a whole lot; the battle was basically fought on autopilot.
>Fredericksburg
Not very good at all; Longstreet was the real hero of that battle.
>Chancellorsville
His flank attack, while spectacular, was just as dependent on enemy ineptitude to pull off.

Most historians would say that. Sup Forums hates historians though, because it doesn't fit their retarded narrative.

SHERMAN

The initial volunteers who signed up in 1861-62 were more-or-less equal for both sides, but by 1864 things had changed a lot. The Confederate government had decreed since early 1862 that the enlistment terms of all its soldiers would last for the duration of the conflict, while volunteers in the Union army signed up for 2-1/2 years of service. By 1864, a lot of veterans' enlistment terms were expiring. Soldiers could re-enlist for another 2-1/2 years, but the government couldn't prevent them from returning to civilian life if they chose not to re-enlist.

When Grant came east in spring 1864, only about 60% of the AOP were veterans and a large part of the army consisted of conscripts, substitute soldiers, bounty men, and men whose enlistment terms were about to expire. Thus, the overall quality of the ANV was higher at that point.

The Western armies I don't think had quite the same issues, although they also had some problems with things like soldiers who signed up early in the war not wanting to re-enlist in 1864. Also new recruits were typically formed into new regiments rather than refilling depleted veteran ones, which left them with a giant collection of green newbie soldiers that had no veterans to learn from.

FWIW the first Confederate regiments formed in 1861 enlisted for a year of service. When they learned in early 1862 that conscription was being implemented and men would now serve for the duration of the conflict, a lot of Southerners became infuriated, accusing Jefferson Davis of being a dictator who trampled on states' rights.

>When Grant came east in spring 1864, only about 60% of the AOP were veterans and a large part of the army consisted of conscripts, substitute soldiers, bounty men, and men whose enlistment terms were about to expire

One source states that 249,259 men between the ages of 18 and 35 were drafted into the Union army, and just 6% of them actually served, the rest paying an exemption fee or hiring a substitute. No citation given as to where they got that number. Seems high. Could they be confusing the number drawn with the draftees who actually served or hired substitutes? Many or most of the men whose names were drawn were rejected for a variety of reasons, mainly health. I vaguely recall reading somewhere that the draft only produced about 60,000 men.

Because we didn't want another Haiti, and we'd just gotten our own independence so we barely had time to do anything. We actually got rid of slavery unusually quickly, but only at a great cost to ourselves, and only because Yankeeland thought it would be funny to light the fire.

mexico is a slave country
usa should ban anything that comes form m*xico

Supposedly during the Confederate retreat from Antietam, one of the newly-recruited nine month regiments in the Army of the Potomac contested some Confederates at a river crossing only to find that they'd been armed with defective muskets that wouldn't fire.

I can't imagine the British armories producing Enfields that were "defective" but I do know that a lot of Belgian muskets were completely unusable. How much of a problem was this? Did the US government ever officially note this? Complain about it or did the troops in the USA or CSA ever mention defective Enfields. I know they did about some of the other arms but had not heard this about the Enfield.

Most of the Enfields produced during the war were handmade and did not have interchangeable parts, and Perfidious Albion was cranking out Enfield rifles at a huge rate to profit off of the Civil War.

Enjoying that big burguer cock I see

Wrong on both counts. The Enfields purchased by the US and CSA were actually mostly made by private contractors in London, who used hand labor. The government Enfield arsenal had state-of-the-art machine tools for manufacturing small arms, however it supplied only the British army. In fact a royal decree by Queen Victoria expressly forbade the sale of currently-manufactured Enfields from being sold to foreign parties, this was for diplomatic reasons since if Enfields from the state arsenal would be sold to the CSA, it would be construed as an act of war by Britain against the United States. Thus, private contractors could make their own Enfields and sell them to anyone they wanted, but the state arsenal was forbidden to supply foreign customers.

And I should also add, the Union war effort was extremely dependent on British industry, especially most of the steel used to manufacture Springfield rifles was imported from the UK (the United States in 1860 didn't yet have a steel industry of any significance). Machine-made gun barrels also relied on British iron as iron ore available in the US was not considered suitable for them (machined gun barrels had recently replaced hand-forged ones).

Is this just another case of "sorry I'm a white male" cuck?

Most likely.

lyl

>civil war was simply about slavery

An interesting thing to note is how the Lost Cause mythology almost totally focuses on Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Jeb Stuart, and pretty much the Virginia theater while ignoring the West where the Confederates mostly got their butts beat. I mean, the whole time when the Northern press fretted over the multiple defeats suffered by the Army of the Potomac, they weren't paying attention to the thousands of square miles of territory the South was losing out west or how Grant captured two whole Confederate armies.

Yeah in all the recent butthurt about Robert E. Lee statues...note the distinct lack of any statues of Braxton Bragg out in Tennessee. You really don't see the same romanticization of the Confederacy out there, it's almost entirely a Virginia thing.