[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / hikki / monarchy / qpol / scifi / sw / thestorm / tijuana ]

/k/ - Weapons

Salt raifus and raifu accessories
Winner of the 19th Attention-Hungry Games
/scifi/ - We won because we paid Yawn fifty bucks.

Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


There's no discharge in the war!

File: 09ec7d4a65c2721⋯.jpg (36.27 KB, 500x318, 250:159, logo-e1490361211314.jpg)

4706bd No.533732

What mistakes did the south make that caused their defeat?

c303e7 No.533735

File: 0b3f24576199c2d⋯.jpg (41.77 KB, 600x582, 100:97, 9-we-broke-up.jpg)

>have less industrial capacity

>have smaller navy

>thinks they can beat the Union

The south, HAHAHAHAH!!!


47f56e No.533736

Well they lost, for starters.


4706bd No.533737

>>533735

>have less industrial capacity

Was this due to slavery or another reason?


c303e7 No.533739

>>533737 (checked)

They typically sent their cotton north for production. It was essentially an agriculture based vs industrialized war of "nations"


172aff No.533740

>>533737

I believe the north had better developed ports dating back to colonial times due to west-east trade winds on the north atlantic. america being mainly an exporter at the time would have built factories mainly in the north for economic reasons. That said, i wouldn't be surprised to learn the us government helped encourage said factory building more than it otherwise may have been in order to better secure their powerbase.


4706bd No.533742

>>533739

Did the people in charge in the south take note of this? Were they even expecting a war when they seceded?


21acdf No.533743

Not get us involved enough


7d57b3 No.533744

>>533743

I can only imagine what an English blockade of Northern ports would have done.


39942b No.533745

>>533737

The north industrialized for their economy while the south still relied on agricultural as their main source of revenue.


172aff No.533750

>>533742

The modern nature of the american civil war was a surprise both to northerners, southerners, and foreign observers. very few people in planning positions were informed or competent enough to understand that armies would be deployed rapidly by rail, or that automatic arms and ready packaged ammunition would be produced rapidly in factories.

>>533743

i doubt there is any situation we would have gotten involved. People state it was because of slavery but i think that's just a meme. due to the history of fighting wars against americans, it would have been assumed that even in an easy war against the north, rival european powers would have simply sided with the opposite power in order to snatch colonial clay. i doubt any european nation wanted to be the first to stick their neck out and intervene.


18b186 No.533753

>>533732

>letting jews convince them to support slavery

>importing niggers


8a6284 No.533756

>>533743

>what is prussia

>what is russia

you would have got the rest of your dick chopped off, mr. rothschild.


172aff No.533759

>>533753

>implying the importation of slaves and negroids was their fault

the institution of melonoid slavery predates the union. johnny reb didnu nuffin.


21acdf No.533762

>>533750

>but i think that's just a meme

>think

It is, look up the Corwin amendment


6567ae No.533766

>>533737

Economic exhaustion from the war with Mexico in 1840 forestalled introduction of new technologies and set the south back in terms of development, leaving them open to an attack from the north in 1860.

Also even before that the South was lagging slightly due to poor geographic position which meant that the North monopolized trade with Europe. At the time Europe was a more valuable source of cheap labor^, new technologies, machines, and so on.

I guarantee no scientist from Italy landed in New York in 1820…. and decided to travel thousands of miles inland to Texas.

^The slave owners on plantations had to buy slaves at obscene prices from Arabs, or spend decades breeding their own all the while providing food, education, shelter, medical dare…. Whereas the slave owners in the north had an unending supply of the European poor coming in, paying zero money to get them into a factory, and not caring if they got paid enough to survive and return to the job tomorrow.

The Norths method of importing far cheaper immigrant labor instead of expensive slave labor was so wildly successful it's practiced in the entire west to this day.


36abb7 No.533784

File: 7cd88567a26acfc⋯.jpg (16.46 KB, 268x421, 268:421, bruh cool cat.jpg)

>separating from the union in the first place

>attacking a union fort on the mississippi, which officially started the war

>investing most of their agriculture into cotton

And while not their fault

>the assassination of lincoln, who was going to try to restore their economy post war

Sherman did nothing wrong


4706bd No.533790

File: 01a0b48f26865d3⋯.png (24.73 KB, 1778x212, 889:106, Civil war.png)

>>533766

That's very helpful, capping your post for future reference.


969a45 No.533796

File: 7139b3a15db252b⋯.jpg (38.97 KB, 480x346, 240:173, 19437564_1968211459870905_….jpg)

>>533732

Going on the offensive was a big one, in my opinion. They were outnumbered and largely outgunned. A war of attrition would have resulted in the already upset Northern population rioting when Southern hospitality gibs money continued not flowing in. Both sides were at their limit, but the North had more civilian suffering at the hands of government that could have been used to start riots. The South should have focused on tried and true guerilla tactics of the revolutionary war. Really as much as I like Lee, they should have let him leave when he asked to after his first major loss. Gettysburg was a mistake and Stuart's cavalry presence would have made a decisive victory for the Southern forces. Really what killed them though was an insistence on going after the white house instead of continuing to secure their supply lines like the railways and Mississippi river.

Pretty much they were fucktards focused on glory and obtaining an easy victory instead of understanding they were outmanned and outsupplied but held the long-term war advantages. I think England would have stepped in if the war went another six months because of lack of cotton, which would have assured Southern victory followed by massive tariffs from England until they got rid of slavery on their own terms.


5926c7 No.533822

>>533735

They should have waged more guerrilla warfare.


cd73a3 No.533940

The reason the South failed, besides being inferior industrially, was twofold: first, we were directionless in military policy, in that we Rebs were supposed to be defending the homefront, but we spent most of our time on costly offensives against the Federals. Secondly we lost a lot of good men, like Albert Sidney Johnston and Stonewall Jackson, who had martial skill and the respect of their peers, and we lost quite a few important ironclads like the Virginia, Tennessee and Mississippi, which could've held off the US Navy and kept the Mississippi Confederate.


698e8d No.533942

>>533732

They started a war against an industrial power with a larger population.


4d73af No.533943

>>533942

>Started it

It's called the war of NORTHERN aggression.


6567ae No.533945

>>533940

>start a war with another country and take levies almost exclusively from the south

>build ports exclusively in north to steal all trade from the south

>take all of souths tax money and use it to develop industry in the north

>declare that the south can't have farm equipment anymore, and must all starve

Come on now, the pressure north was putting on the south was retarded.


cd73a3 No.533946

>>533945

What are you trying to say? Are you saying that the ANV was morally justified in invading the North, and thus because of this moral justification invading the North was the correct course of action? I personally agree that the goddamnyankees deserve all the shit they get, but as history shows us, Gettysburg was a mistake.


698e8d No.533948

>>533943

No, it's not. Please get over it. That shit ended a long time ago.


cd73a3 No.533953

>>533948

>No, it's not

Yes, it is. The US refused to vacate Fort Sumter, with a supply ship heading its way. M. Beauregard was in the right to fire at Sumter.

>Please get over it. That shit ended a long time ago.

That shit never ended, paco. Much of Southern culture has been greatly influenced and changed because of the Civil War. You can't just get over something that culturally important.


698e8d No.533957

>>533953

>Yes, it is. The US refused to vacate Fort Sumter

Yeah, I mean it was their fort and all. Why should they vacate?

>with a supply ship heading its way. M. Beauregard was in the right to fire at Sumter.

So he started the war. Good to know.

>That shit never ended, paco. Much of Southern culture has been greatly influenced and changed because of the Civil War. You can't just get over something that culturally important.

Everyone that matters got over it.


cd73a3 No.533961

>>533957

>Yeah, I mean it was their fort and all. Why should they vacate?

Because it was within Confederate territory, which had just declared its independence.

>So he started the war. Good to know.

He only fired because after asking them to leave a few days earlier. The commander of Fort Sumter did not leave because of Lincoln's direct orders. The supply ship heading to Fort Sumter meant that the US was going to stay where they were, in foreign soil.

>Everyone that matters got over it.

Except when we still fly the Confederate flags, causing eternal asshurt to the nigs and liberals, of course.


296586 No.533962

>>533732

Everything.


7b2a9e No.533967

The Confederates didn't lose. They instead focused on making catchy tunes that would be used to subvert the minds of young American men a century and a half later. Clever little bastards.

I WISH I WAS IN DIXIE! HOORAY! HOORAY!


7b2a9e No.533969

>>533796

Top notch post tbh.


698e8d No.533986

>>533961

>Because it was within Confederate territory, which had just declared its independence.

Well, the US didn't acknowledge that, nor did anyone else, so what? Usually you get blamed for starting the war if you're the first to fire.

>He only fired because after asking them to leave a few days earlier. The commander of Fort Sumter did not leave because of Lincoln's direct orders. The supply ship heading to Fort Sumter meant that the US was going to stay where they were, in foreign soil.

Pretty sure it doesn't stop being US soil just because a bunch of faggots say it is.

>Except when we still fly the Confederate flags, causing eternal asshurt to the nigs and liberals, of course.

Go ahead, really. None of it really matters. Last I checked, we all still lived in the US of A.


a78f46 No.533991

>>533732

>What mistakes did the south make that caused their defeat?

They went full retard and embargo their own cotton they sold to the North they ultimately sold to Europeans thinking it would force European powers to side with them (and get cotton cheaper).

While it only really bleed them because the North had other revenues than cotton and europeans powers (france and uk) didn't really lack clay and niggers to grows some…


4d73af No.534016

>>533986

Do you even understand the concept of state sovereignty? If good old Ben Franklin wasn't literally on his deathbed post-revolutionary war, the US wouldn't exist.

That Southern territory was rightfully property of the state, not the federal government.


d8ccbc No.534024

File: ab091eb2f2d82ec⋯.png (115.12 KB, 544x338, 272:169, 1410926682600.png)

>>533732

the south was out produced by the northern states and stubbornly clung to its cash crop agricultural society which relied heavily on slave labor. The southern agricultural economy was becoming increasingly unsustainable with the mounting pressure on the slavery system. The southerners also lacked as strong of a banking and lending system which would have allowed them to industrialize better. low population density and lack of a robust rail system also wound up being pretty bad too.

also most of this post >>533796

TL;DR the south didn't have enough money or stuff and didn't plan things out long term in advance.

>>533743

England was unlikely to get involved in a war that in all likelihood would be long and unpopular. and the south did not offer enough short term gain to the empire since its main export of cotton could just be gotten from India, even if at reduced volume.


36abb7 No.534029

File: 7db6ab3ac69b909⋯.jpg (92.31 KB, 446x718, 223:359, smugShoes.jpg)

>>533943

>>533953

>confederacy attacks a union base on the mississippi thus breaking the NAP

>confederacy then proceeds to get fucked in war

<muh northern aggression


6567ae No.534036

>>533946

The South didn't invade the north, they just cleared northern threats and declared independence. It took almost 100 years of the North pillaging and abusing the South to get them to do that, so yeah I'd say they're justified.

The "invasions" of the North were really calculated moves designed to stretch Northern resources, because Southern commanders knew if they let the North concentrate their forces they would get steamrolled.

The tactic worked until as you said Lee brought 50% less soldiers to the battlefield and didn't have an avenue of retreat. That was just bad luck, it happens in war.


6567ae No.534039

>>534029

If I make a base in your living room and declare your basement my property, does that not violate NAP?


698e8d No.534052

>>534016

>Do you even understand the concept of state sovereignty? If good old Ben Franklin wasn't literally on his deathbed post-revolutionary war, the US wouldn't exist.

Hey, I'm just going to declare independence and take over the road in front of my house. If da gubmint comes and tells me to fuck off from their shit, then they must have started it. :^)

>That Southern territory was rightfully property of the state, not the federal government.

Fort Sumter was property of the US Army, not the state. Nice try, though.


698e8d No.534056

>>534039

Except for the fact that the base already belonged to them and this had never been contested before. So yeah, if you try to kick me out of my fort, in my country, of which you are a part of, you are initiating aggression and therefore starting a war.

I'm sorry that your revisionist history doesn't real. The south started the war, and got fucked because of it, then fucked up by killing Lincoln, who wasn't interested in punishing them. Nice job.


172aff No.534063

>>534056

American muskets and powder were property of the crown and secessionist forces were violating the NAP by refusing to return them. i really don't think the NAP is a sensible hill to die on in regards to arguing the justification of a war. now, you're a different anon so maybe you don't give a shit about the NAP (i know i dont) but anons point that fort building could be seen as violating the NAP cant be dismissed just by saying "well the union was the de jure authority", NAP isn't that simple.


698e8d No.534064

>>534063

The difference is that I don't get butthurt if you claim the Americans started the war for independence.


172aff No.534072

>>534064

I dunno what to tell you man, we fought two wars and don't even occupy any of the american territory we still had after them anymore. Yet we still hear autistic screeching about king George and the boston tea fest every fourth and beyond. You're probably in it for the long haul now just like we are man, atleast you didn't conquer pakistan.


6567ae No.534081

This topic brings up the liberal shills lurking on /k/

EVERY. FUCKING. TIME.

>>534056

>belonged to them

There was no "them", remember? Unless you're implying the South was a region with zero rights prior to the civil war, ruled exclusively by the North.

> revisionist history

Is there a single thing I said that wasn't factual? Did I say Sumner attack didn't happen?

>>534052

If you built the road and have sovereignty over the land that predated the roads existence, then sure. Oh, also, you have to be a state.

>>534064

Again, you're being a dick, you aren't using subtext. What do you mean by "started"? Fired the first shot? Or decided to take levies from an entire region and act like a despot?

If I rape your wife and you shoot at me, did you "start the fight" because you opened fire first?


698e8d No.534083

>>534072

Hey, you probably hear that shit from the same retards that spout shit like "da ware of northern agreshun".


9b62e1 No.534086

>>533732

They never had a chance. North had more manpower, railroads, industry, foreign relations, basically everything except for heaps of cotton and the fact that the average southerner was a much better fighter that was more committed to the cause. So the south got the K/D ratio but they still get their asses whooped in the end. Their entire coastline was blockaded by the monster Murican navy and they couldn't sell their cotton which was their only leverage for negotiating an alliance with a European power, which would have been their only chance for independence other than simply being allowed to secede as the constitution implied any state should be able to do because it's the "United STATES of America" not the "United State of America".

>>533737

It was a completely different economy. The north was more densely populated and urbanized with factories producing things while the south was largely farmland, with cotton and tobacco as the major cash crops.

>>533750

>People state it was because of slavery but i think that's just a meme.

It is. It was about state's rights and sovereignty- the USA was intended to be a consensual union of sovereign states, not a massive empire with an all-powerful federal government that nobody could ever leave. Slavery was an important issue because it was the backbone of the southern economy and there was abolitionist sentiment in the more populous and dominant north- it was seen as inevitable that eventually the north would encroach on their sacred institution. But it wasn't "the reason", morelike a significant contributing factor as to why they wanted to secede.

>>533967

tfw I was taking a shower home alone and unbeknownst to me my father came home and heard me singing Dixie in there t. New England

>>533991

Brush up on your English, frogfriend.

>>534072

>boston tea fest

TOP KEK! Is that what you bongs call it? It's the "Boston Tea Party". FUCK YOUR TEA AND FUCK THE GASPEE TOO


698e8d No.534088

>>534081

>There was no "them", remember? Unless you're implying the South was a region with zero rights prior to the civil war, ruled exclusively by the North.

Lol, retard. Are you saying the US government didn't exist?

>Is there a single thing I said that wasn't factual? Did I say Sumner attack didn't happen?

First of all it's Sumter, retard. And second, >>533945

That entire post is factually incorrect.

>>533766

> and not caring if they got paid enough to survive and return to the job tomorrow

This is also factually incorrect and shows your ignorance of basic economics. The going rate for labor is the going rate for minimum survivability, else the entire system collapses. It's great knowing you'll make shit up that blatantly contradicts even the most basic economic understanding. Even Marx wouldn't claim what you just did.

>>534036

The first half of your sentence is a blatant lie. The South did invade the North. You can claim that it was merely defensive in nature, even though you'd be wrong, but it's an invasion nonetheless.

> It took almost 100 years of the North pillaging and abusing the South to get them to do that, so yeah I'd say they're justified.

No, it took the election of Abraham Lincoln and the fear of an end to slavery for the south elite to chimp out and start a war that killed thousands of southerners. Of course, slave owners were exempt from service. No point in starting a war over the fear of Lincoln's abolitionist tendencies if you aren't going to get to enjoy your slaves afterward.

>If you built the road and have sovereignty over the land that predated the roads existence, then sure. Oh, also, you have to be a state.

The US falls under the definition of a nation state, and the constitution gave it power over all of the states. I'm sorry that you can't understand the basic concept of federalism, but that fort was US property, no matter how much you cry about it.

>Again, you're being a dick, you aren't using subtext. What do you mean by "started"? Fired the first shot?

Yeah, that is generally what is assumed when people say you started a war. You don't start a war if you don't shoot.

> Or decided to take levies from an entire region and act like a despot?

What the fuck are you on about? The previous president was James Buchanan and secession started before Lincoln ever got in. There is no despotism there.

>If I rape your wife and you shoot at me, did you "start the fight" because you opened fire first?

Rape is a violent act, dipshit. If you walk up to me and I punch you, then I started the fight. A fight doesn't happen unless one person punches first.


172aff No.534090

>>534086

In regards to the issue of slavery in my post, i stated that i thought that slavery being a reason for european powers to avoid intervention was a meme, i wasn't writing in regards to the claimed casus beli of either belligerent. although i do agree.

>it's the Boston Tea Party

no, it's the massachusetts caffeine jamboree.

also that tea wasn't ours you had already payed for it


698e8d No.534092

>>534086

>It was about state's rights and sovereignty

Not according to every state's declaration of secession, the president, and the vice president of the confederacy. I know people like to ignore this, but it's too fucking easy to look this up. You just look stupid.


6567ae No.534151

>>534088

Are you saying the government didn't include Southerners, who had the right to ask the military to leave??!?

>That entire post is factually incorrect.

All 10 of your posts in this thread are completely factually incorrect.

BE SPECIFIC TARD


698e8d No.534153

>>534151

>Are you saying the government didn't include Southerners, who had the right to ask the military to leave??!?

You do have that right, through the right channels. You do not have the right to open fire on a federal facility. I'm sorry, but we don't live in your fantasy land where people can unilaterally do as they wish.

>All 10 of your posts in this thread are completely factually incorrect.

You made specific claims in that post. They are all incorrect. You made four claims, and they are all wrong. What's so hard about this?


969a45 No.534154

File: 633ba7e88d82418⋯.jpg (31.88 KB, 553x600, 553:600, 633.jpg)

>>534088

>Are you saying the US government didn't exist?

Are you saying nearly half the representatives of that US government had zero rights prior to the civil war and were ruled exclusively by the 10 relevant states in the union?


969a45 No.534155

>>534154

Actually scratch that, it's more like were ruled by 6 relevant states of the union in the grand scheme of things.


698e8d No.534157

>>534154

>Are you saying nearly half the representatives of that US government had zero rights prior to the civil war and were ruled exclusively by the 10 relevant states in the union?

They had the power afforded to them by their offices. Last I checked, congressmen don't have the ability to move troops around as they see fit, especially not a minority of senators.


6567ae No.534168

File: 57ae8fd8c2a7625⋯.jpg (131.63 KB, 2970x98, 1485:49, Amendment_10.jpg)

>>534153

>They are all incorrect.

Not a single one is wrong.

>You do not have the right to open fire on a federal facility.

Aaaaand now he's claiming the southerners just walked up and started shooting. Just can't stop lying you leftist piece of shit.

They gave the army base weeks to move out, and only fired when the base commander started to move IN heavy weapons in clear bad-faith breach.

> I'm sorry, but we don't live in your fantasy land where people can unilaterally do as they wish.

>hurr im going to abuse peoples rights and expect nothing to happen

You just can't stop being dumb subhuman filth can you?


698e8d No.534173

>>534168

>Not a single one is wrong.

That's funny, provide citations then, because they're not, and you know it.

>Aaaaand now he's claiming the southerners just walked up and started shooting. Just can't stop lying you leftist piece of shit.

Surrounding a federal facility and then firing on it, isn't doing just that? Or does waiting in between shooting somehow not make it a unilateral act of war?

>They gave the army base weeks to move out, and only fired when the base commander started to move IN heavy weapons in clear bad-faith breach.

You keep assuming that they had a right to order anyone out of a federal facility. They don't, just as they didn't have the right to unilateral secession.

>You just can't stop being dumb subhuman filth can you?

What rights were being abused, exactly? Because losing an election is not a violation of their rights.


78e399 No.534187

>what mistakes did the south make

1) Not enough industry

2) Weak banking system

3) Didn't go full gorilla warfare on day one


bdb24a No.534199

>>533796

Well, everyone is forgetting the explosion in the number of acres of cotton grown in Egypt during the course of the Civil War. There was no pressing need for Great Britain and France to find a new source of cotton as they had warehouses filled to the brim with bales of cotton. This occurred from the back to back to back years of bumper crop years of cotton growth during the Panic of 1857. Only in late 1862 did the supplies of processed cotton run low and by this point Egypt and the British Raj began to grow cotton for the export market. In fact the Egyptians used their cotton exports as the collateral to secure the loans they needed to build and pay for their half of the Suez Canal. These two countries were the reasons why the value of cotton crashed and further screwed the South after the war, since now the South has competition in cotton exports.


bdb24a No.534202

File: df5de5157f2f96b⋯.jpg (136.27 KB, 640x800, 4:5, Gorilla Warfare.jpg)

>>534187

*Guerrilla Warfare


dd3768 No.534204

We fought defensively against an enemy that could out-produce, out-gun, and outman us. The only way we could have won is by going on the offensive as soon as it started.

But this is all ancient history, and irrelevant today.


58232e No.534261

>>534202

*Lurk More


ed5f80 No.534263

>>533732

>Overestimated support abroad

>Failed to realise slavery was propping up a backwards economy and that that backwards economy wouldn't be able to win an industrial war

Warfare, assuming both sides are of roughly equal competence on the actual battlefield, is mostly logistics. The South was terrible at logistics and even if it had been better organised would never have produced as much as at high a quality as the North who never even moved to a full war economy could.


69753f No.534264

File: 5eb679e9beb91be⋯.gif (719.31 KB, 200x200, 1:1, 5eb679e9beb91bea848cb16588….gif)

>>534263

10 points. The only hope the south had from the get go was foreign intervention. The instant it was apparent that wouldn't happen, they were done and should have realized they were done.

The north had more people, better industry, more money and better relations abroad. The north were slow to adopt modern bullet casings because the dumb fuck Quartermaster at the time thought lever action rifles would encourage soldiers to shoot recklessly and cost more in ammunition. He got rightfully sacked and the North started adopting proper rounds. The south was slow to adopt a modern casing because they literally lacked the industry required to spin a metal case for a good lever action in any reasonable number. That's how fucked they were from the start.


ed5f80 No.534266

>>534264

>10 points. The only hope the south had from the get go was foreign intervention. The instant it was apparent that wouldn't happen, they were done and should have realized they were done.

Really they should have struck a peace deal with some concessions early-on when the public in the North (if not the actual political establishment) was demoralised.

Even if, by some bullshit luck, the Confederacy had won (or at least retained independence in a peace treaty) though they'd have lost more crushingly in the all but inevitable follow-up war: slavery was just propping up an inherently inefficient and stagnant agricultural society. There is, perhaps, an interesting alt-history where the South realises it only won by the skin of its teeth and swaps to urban/industrialised slavery i.e. modern East Asian sweatshops but even cheaper but that seems unlikely since power would be concentrated in the hands of the rural slaveowners.


ed5f80 No.534268

>>534090

>i stated that i thought that slavery being a reason for european powers to avoid intervention was a meme

Yes and no, in the UK it was actually a pretty major political issue to even consider supporting a state that still openly supported and made use of slaves. This was both something likely to piss off the actual British public (who had been largely in favour of banning slavery in the first place) and other countries: the RN was actually patrolling around africa stopping ships carrying slaves (both British and those of other nationalities) and obviously this would be even less popular if they were backing the Confederacy also.


e80d11 No.534274

>>534263

then again, completly remolding your whole economy is the worst idea possible. its italy tier


e80d11 No.534275

>>534274

>remolding your whole economy

*during a war


ed5f80 No.534277

>>534274

Sure but the if the South had sat back and let abolition happen slowly the slave owners would probably have been compensated by the federal government (this is what happened in the UK), given their (at the time strong but inevitably declining) political power they could probably have arranged for that to be paid from the North. That way slavery is gone and the relevant owners are left with enough money to invest elsewhere giving you a gradual economic change.

Also instead of being dramatically emancipated during warfare and thus having to be allowed to remain in the USA the freed slaves could be exported off to Liberia or wherever.


ed5f80 No.534279

>>534275

Oh, during war. Yes that would be silly but the Confederacy was fucked either way, it's not a matter of even being able to remodel their economy they just physically did not have the infrastructure, factories, money or knowledge to compete in an industrial war.


c23a05 No.534280

>>534277

>Also instead of being dramatically emancipated during warfare and thus having to be allowed to remain in the USA the freed slaves could be exported off to Liberia or wherever.

It's important to note that this is true, it was black soldiers fighting and dying in the Civil War that cemented their staying. Mass repatriation was entirely possible and somewhat popular before then.


64f80f No.534281

>plantation owners buy the southern gubmint because they have lods of emone

>north already hates the south because unrelated reasons but then decides slavery is kind of a bad thing

>southern gubmint, paid solely by slave owners, panics and decides to tell the north to go fuck itself

>the south has absolute shit for manufacturing because "muh farms" and being afraid of technology

>French and British arms don't replace dumb hicks who can't into war

One or two guys who can lead troops doesn't make up for the rest either, shut up

>injuns who hate the white man decide that the North is worse because they're the fuckers expanding west to bring "civilization" and are the very last to surrender

>Sherman has a bit much to drink one morning and sets the south on fire

>slaves, instead of being gradually freed, are set loose all at once and either wander into the north with nothing or go back to doing exactly what they were doing before with the same pay minus the threat of being whipped for refusing

Do I have it at least somewhat right?


c23a05 No.534282


64f80f No.534284

>>534282

Don't you have some self-flagellation to do and reparations to pay?


ed5f80 No.534286

>>534280

>Mass repatriation was entirely possible and somewhat popular before then.

Popular with slaves themselves too, at least more popular than remaining as slaves.


cac22d No.534287

Gettysburg was a blunder.

Robert E Lee should have lured the union to attack him instead of defending.


01d952 No.534289

File: 85e53fa11e45bdb⋯.png (210.89 KB, 919x737, 919:737, 1435721851046-2.png)

They didn't go on a march of scorched earth to DC like Sherman did to the South, and they had way less people to throw in the grinder.

Sure they had the greatest military minds on their side, but when the numbers and tech isn't there, it's not enough.


83a2a1 No.534438

File: 8a580a0dc73bfe3⋯.jpg (14.58 KB, 240x240, 1:1, 52a1e4ba0b34a.jpg)

>>533732

“Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South.”


769a1e No.534451

File: 20eb6e120ef92d8⋯.jpg (26.75 KB, 262x320, 131:160, 2390dsf.jpg)

>>534438

>fight to preserve my empi- your Union goy!

>>534289

sad normalfags have this television creation of the civil war where cartoon hillbillies fought The Progress - when in reality the North was all general staff alcoholism, incompetence and war crimes and won by mass industry and throwing bodies.


b4f76a No.534458

>>533732

>What mistakes did the south make that caused their defeat?

>Be outnumbered 10 to 1

>Be outgunned 30 to 1

>Have no mechanized industry.

>Have few ships and no plan to control the Atlantic

>Have practically no international support or recognition

>The list just keeps going and going and going…

It's amazing they held on as long as they did. There was no chance without a successful sneak attack on Washington.


f7ae0b No.534466

They were outperformed by the North in basically every relevant metric, they never stood a chance. Manpower, resources, industrial capacity, naval power, etc. The only advantage they had was a more motivated/dedicated fighting spirit and good war leaders.


6567ae No.534491

>>534287

North had 1/3 more forces and heavy cannon, while Lee didn't. If lee was defending, Meade could encircle Lee and cook his forces slowly through lack of resupply while Meade got continual gunpowder supplies. Or Meade could simply arrange his 104k troops and cannon and strike directly at a concentrated Lee.

Lees decision to move the fight out of the city meant he had more room to maneuver, and his troops wouldn't be caught unawares. Lee had to keep his forces dispersed, because any clump could be focused on by Meade and crushed with cannon. Even so his positioning against Meade meant Lee was only facing 85-90% of Meades army, instead of 100%. This made the fight closer to even, about 75k troops vs 90k troops instead of 75k vs 104k.

All Lee needed was a stroke of luck, and one of his commanders to have the independent spirit to take advantage of that luck, penetrate Meades lines and fold them up. Sadly Lees commanders were either fresh or retarded, and (at least from accounts) Lee had no lucky breaks. In fact he had the horrid luck of pushing against Meades cannons, which finally convinced Lee to abandon Gettysburg.

Even so Lee managed to break off when casualties were about even, and just leave with most of his army intact. If he allowed himself to be encircled, they would all be dead.


83a2a1 No.534510

>>534451

>being so butthurt about the Civil War you accuse Sam Houston of being a kike


9c2967 No.534530

File: 579410a8ff2015a⋯.jpg (65.36 KB, 728x748, 182:187, 1510329414968.jpg)

>>534086

>It is. It was about state's rights and sovereignty


cb63e1 No.534552

File: 86dceefe01ff361⋯.png (118.8 KB, 349x320, 349:320, 053cc4838658e28630bcc19b55….png)

>>534530

Another quality Canadian (tm) post!


522864 No.534554

why are there yankeecucks on MY board?


0b8665 No.534574

>>534530

>muh redneck stereotypes

Doesn't actual southern states' illiteracy rate refer to niggers?


08a2c0 No.534575

>>534574

yes. its a 1-1 correlation.


698e8d No.534576

>>534574

Southerners acquired this reputation because of the massive infestation of hookworm and other parasites that led to anemia. Southerners liked to walk barefoot and shit in holes, you see. The outhouse and a push by the Rockefeller Foundation helped remedy this, but the stereotype hasn't really gone away. Also, it's hot as balls in the region we know as the South, so not doing shit but drinking some tea is pretty pleasant. Southerners like to sit down and talk, among other things. That being said, if you still content that the south didn't chimp out over slavery, then you're perpetuating that stereotype, as it's obvious you can't fucking google or read.

I mean, I give no fucks. I'm from Texas.


698e8d No.534577

>>534576

*contend


f6fa0e No.534578

File: 3fc0fb3c23c95b6⋯.png (336.52 KB, 3000x2250, 4:3, black percentage.png)

>>534575

Figures.


f6fa0e No.534581

>>534576

>t'was all about muh slaves

If yanks were so offended over the concept of slavery they wouldn't have cucked your entire constitution to kebabs with the Treaty of Tripoli just to avoid being enslaved by turks.


698e8d No.534607

>>534581

Nobody said the US was abolitionist at the time to the point of war. Lincoln just wanted to preserve the union. The south started the war and they started it over slavery. Again, nigger, you need to google and read. This isn't that hard. I thought Greece was supposed to be the cradle of western civilization. What the fuck happened?


bae233 No.534612

>>534576

Not to sound arrogant, but I fully believe this. I've known quite a few southerners (not all) tend to have a terrible work ethic, and your post actually makes sense of that.


f6fa0e No.534614

>>534607

>What the fuck happened?

We abolished slavery and consequently democracy became dysfunctional.


11c731 No.534626

File: 7a541280cab90d3⋯.png (530.78 KB, 3000x2250, 4:3, mergedstats.png)

>>534575

>>534574

>>534578

Map doesn't show non-white population, so you get some outliers like NM, CA and HI which have such high illiteracy rates from spics not nigs, but I think the point is still being made.


698e8d No.534630

>>534614

Plato, pls.


9c2967 No.534668

File: 8ffdedad69dff99⋯.jpg (63.74 KB, 374x480, 187:240, banana.jpg)

>>534626

Doesn't change the fact rednecks are ignorant as shit

In the South, not often is the question asked "Is our children learning"


780fde No.534701

>>534630

>he thinks democracy is any good for anyone, save for the (((media))) and (((merchants)))

Tbh fam


698e8d No.534799

>>534701

Yeah, I'd feel much better living in eternal servitude to my """betters""" for no reason whatsoever. Having a say in government sucks.


da2e2a No.534871

>>534799

You're going to live in servitude no matter which government you have. If you're a democrat, you're living in servitude to the idiots in the parliamentary bodies, bankers and the great brown masses of retards. If you're a communist, it's to the General Secretary, the Soviet, and the Jewish commissars. If you're a Fascist, it's servitude to the nation or race and its leader.

No matter what any of us do, we are all enslaved to something.


5cf277 No.535053

File: 920b0b21ccb0a02⋯.png (25.57 KB, 300x250, 6:5, LzONcak.png)

>>534799

>believing you don't live in servitude to zog and the fast incoming mob rule of nonwhites

>believing you actually have a say in modern democracy

I almost wish I could be so naive.


a1a4d8 No.535058

>>533732

>What mistakes did the south make

They relied to much on exporting their good to be refined before being shipped back rather than just refining it themselves.

They trusted europe to not butt in.

they got cocky after a winning streak.

They relied too much on slave labor, therefore making the trickle down effect less potent and impoverishing many of their fellow whites.

They were democrats.


a1a4d8 No.535059

>>535058

>impoverishing many of their fellow whites.

and the reason that is important is because people had to purchase their own equipment, so you had a few rich dudes that could afford new guns, ammo, and other necessities. And a shit ton of poor people who were stuck with their grandpa's hunting rifle, some hardtack, and an old coat.


0a4f2b No.535175

>>534187

>Didn't go full gorilla warfare on day one

What, do you expect the entire army to be staffed by slaves?


38153f No.535196

File: 41970d3572c89c6⋯.gif (1.56 MB, 320x184, 40:23, 1429147769910.gif)

I actually reread some stuff on the early battles of the war, and jesus christ, I forgot just how terrible Union commanders were. McClellan was the worst. I can respect being a conservative commander, waiting patiently for your moment, especially if you have a more robust logistical base then your opponent. However, even the most conservative commander needs to occasionally seize the initiative when it's presented to him, even if it involved being a touch reckless. McClellan never did a god damn thing. Even when the smaller Confederate force moved into Union territory, straining it's logistics, motivating Union soldiers to protect their territory and making it possible to surround and entrap the enemy on unfriendly ground, his attack was half-hearted at best, when he should have stormed towards Lee like a hurricane.

Grant taking over was a godsend, but even then, Grant was no great tactician. He was a stable commander who understood the basics. He knew when to be patient and when to be reckless. That's all that was needed for the vastly superior Union army to start grinding down the Confederates. He was nowhere near the brilliant tactician that Lee was.

Fortunately, Grant was also a package deal with Sherman, who was a brilliant tactician and capable of being insanely aggressive. He understood by instinct what Von Clauswitz spent an entire book teaching commanding officers and took full advantage of it, waging 'Total War' against the South with a speed and fury that was unmatched. I think even Lee himself would've wilted a bit at the sheer ferocity of his advance, though he may have been able to harry and slow Sherman to the point he would lose the initiative.

The Union commanders for the first years of the war were just god awful. That's why the South did as well as it did, the South has brilliant commanders and even the commanders they had that weren't as brilliant made up for it with sheer aggression. Commanders like McClellan, who was leading his army like a bulldozer trying to run over a hummingbird, didn't stand a chance in hell.


8be104 No.535218

I think all y'all unionfags keep forgetting two important points:

1) The Union army had virtually zero motivation to fight other than being forced to by their commanders after the first year.

2) The Union HAD to win the war (and quickly) because they would have their own civil war among the populace if they didn't.

Much like Commiefornia's fake wealth today, the Union's wealth was almost completely subsidized by gibs taken from Southerners. Lincoln was pretty much hated by the Northern populace and only won the reelection because of shenanigans, the emancipation proclamation (which didn't do shit), and Gettysburg since they thought he'd finish the war and have the confederates executed (never mind there was never a trial against Jefferson Davis because even the US SUPREME COURT recognized fort Sumter as an act of aggression on the part of the North and the entire war as illegal). Point being, economics would have been the end of the North if not for Gettysburg and the South insisting on an offensive war as/when they did.


698e8d No.535314

>>535218

>US SUPREME COURT recognized fort Sumter as an act of aggression on the part of the North

>things that didn't happen: the post


7c010d No.535868

Lincoln wanted to send the niggers back to Africa. The South wanted to keep their slaves. Because of the war they stayed in America. Slaves were often brought over on ships owned by Jews, and who was the Confederate Secretary of State? Judah P. Benjamin. AKA “the first Jew to be elected to the United States senate who did not renounce his religion.”

Coincidence?


000000 No.535956

Trusting (((foreign powers))) to accept their gold and build them ironclads. Those ships never made it and were either 'lost' or simply never build.


6b6f1f No.535957

File: f4531e2d3cbfc2e⋯.mp4 (5.4 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, A FUCKING LEAF.mp4)


ffc70e No.536145

>>533732

Rebelling


8a391f No.536151

File: 9f24389654ee77b⋯.png (273 KB, 600x511, 600:511, 2009-unauthorized-08-600x5….png)

File: 4892b61c3ce56ed⋯.gif (54.33 KB, 576x405, 64:45, english-literacy-map.gif)

>>534626

Just overlay it.

1st pic hispanics

2nd pic illiteracy.

It only hits states with high hispanic or black amounts.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / hikki / monarchy / qpol / scifi / sw / thestorm / tijuana ]