The CSA (Opinions)

[Masada]

Stop humouring the slavery apologist with asinine Turtledove delusions. Thanks.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Stop humouring the slavery apologist with asinine Turtledove delusions. Thanks.

But... The postcount...

 

[Masada]

This is PC+1 - note the brevity. That is not.

 

[sophie]

Furthermore, we've been going down the same road, saying the EXACT same things over and over again for the last 10 pages.

Dommy, stop making history threads/assertions unless you're willing to look at the facts, or listen to the people who have actually studied in the field.

That being said, this thread is done.

Looking forward to your next postcount factory, Dommy!

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The South, as I said before, were outnumbered, but Lee was still brilliant and if he had broken through Gettysburg the war would have ended very soon after.

Not really. Grant was making permanent gains in the West and the Confederate economy was crumbling rapidly. Grant was soon after transferred East for the Overland Campaign, during which his sole mission was to beat the living crap out of Lee, and was given as many troops as he wanted in order to do so. If the Union had the troops to throw into the grinder at Wilderness and Spotsylvania, then it had the troops to keep the war up even after a potential catastrophic loss at Gettysburg.

Yes I do, but he wanted to take Maryland and isolate DC, which was much smarter than "Just attacking" like you suggest. And its a good thing Lee was their general and not one of us who are not half as smart as Lee.

Then why didn't he make a move on any remotely important Maryland city? He passed through Hagerstown and Frederick and no one cared. Taking Gettysburg would have meant little more. But then that whole expedition into Pennsylvania wasn't aimed at taking anything except supplies and depleting a little morale, and Lee had zero means to hold any of it even if he smashed Meade at Gettysburg. It was the Doolittle Raid of the Civil War, except that it failed spectacularly.

Lee's goal, in fact, was to get the North to repeat disasters like the Peninsular Campaign and Chancellorsville, battles on his own terms in his own territory that would sap Union morale and make them tire of war. Dreams of taking Washington, the most fortified city in the world, faded by early 1862.

 

[History_Buff]

I thought Lee's plan was just to move his forces out of Northern Virginia, as the whole area had been stripped of anything resembling supplies?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I thought Lee's plan was just to move his forces out of Northern Virginia, as the whole area had been stripped of anything resembling supplies?

You are of course right. Its 2 AM here and I am very tired. It was the lack of supplies in N. VA that sent him North into Pennsylvania in the first place.

 

[Cutlass]

Furthermore, we've been going down the same road, saying the EXACT same things over and over again for the last 10 pages.

Dommy, stop making history threads/assertions unless you're willing to look at the facts, or listen to the people who have actually studied in the field.

That being said, this thread is done.

Looking forward to your next postcount factory, Dommy!

Which is essentially what replying to him always comes down to. Some people simply refuse to learn anything.

 

[useless]

Maybe if we scream "States Rights" loud and often enough the racism will go away!

 

[GhostWriter16]

Furthermore, we've been going down the same road, saying the EXACT same things over and over again for the last 10 pages.

Dommy, stop making history threads/assertions unless you're willing to look at the facts, or listen to the people who have actually studied in the field.

That being said, this thread is done.

Looking forward to your next postcount factory, Dommy!

Oh I'm fully aware I'm not sure how the USA CSA thing would have happened if the South had won. I just don't buy we would have been invaded again in 10 years, hey, England didn't do that to us.

Which is essentially what replying to him always comes down to. Some people simply refuse to learn anything.

That's not true. I just don't always agree with you.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Oh I'm fully aware I'm not sure how the USA CSA thing would have happened if the South had won. I just don't buy we would have been invaded again in 10 years, hey, England didn't do that to us.



That's not true. I just don't always agree with you.

You just completely ignored everything I said, didn't you?

Go look up the War of 1812. Thread over, as far as I'm concerned, unless someone brings up a valid point the next time I see this in OT.

 

[History_Buff]

Oh I'm fully aware I'm not sure how the USA CSA thing would have happened if the South had won. I just don't buy we would have been invaded again in 10 years, hey, England didn't do that to us.

Because Britain - not England - had no reason to do so. The Americans were still militarily well-matched as long as the colonist were on home turf, while Britain had little to gain aside from prestige; American markets were still dependent on British manufactured goods, and far more lucrative India was starting to come under British control.

On the other hand, if you look at the USA/CSA 10 years after a 1863 peace treaty, you've now got an ever stronger North, and a stagnating Southern economy which would still be dependent on slave-based agriculture. Can you honestly think that the USA, now obviously more powerful, wouldn't go on a bit of a crusade to free the slaves and wipe out the traitorous rebels?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Because Britain - not England - had no reason to do so. The Americans were still militarily well-matched as long as the colonist were on home turf, while Britain had little to gain aside from prestige; American markets were still dependent on British manufactured goods, and far more lucrative India was starting to come under British control.

On the other hand, if you look at the USA/CSA 10 years after a 1863 peace treaty, you've now got an ever stronger North, and a stagnating Southern economy which would still be dependent on slave-based agriculture. Can you honestly think that the USA, now obviously more powerful, wouldn't go on a bit of a crusade to free the slaves and wipe out the traitorous rebels?

No for a couple of reasons.

1. We haven't went to war with the DPRK and no matter what you say they are worse than the South was back then, so a "Stupid regime" has not been enough of a reason in the past.

2. It would be HUGELY UNPOPULAR in the North to invade after recognition, the border states would see the Union as treacherous and secede, especially Maryland after Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus illegally and started arresting people in Maryland.

3. "A crusade to free the slaves" would have been unpopular especially in the border states who liked slavery just as much as the rest of the south, with the possible exception of Deleware.

4. The "Traitor" card would only have worked once. England didn't go to war with 1812 "Because they were traitors" they gave that up when they signed the treaty. Same with the USA. They would have needed more reason to attack the second time or they would be seen as warmongering fools by both the rest of the world, the border states, and many of the non-border states.

 

[useless]

BRITAIN not ENGLAND

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No for a couple of reasons.

1. We haven't went to war with the DPRK and no matter what you say they are worse than the South was back then, so a "Stupid regime" has not been enough of a reason in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_war

2. It would be HUGELY UNPOPULAR in the North to invade after recognition, the border states would see the Union as treacherous and secede, especially Maryland after Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus illegally and started arresting people in Maryland.

Base assumption, no evidence.

And no one in Maryland was arrested. Many Delegates were placed under house-arrest, which is not the same thing.

3. "A crusade to free the slaves" would have been unpopular especially in the border states who liked slavery just as much as the rest of the south, with the possible exception of Deleware.

Delaware wasn't a border state.

The rest of the border states weren't really southern-sympathetic. Parts of them were, but not all. Not that the southern states were homogeneously opinionated anyway.

4. The "Traitor" card would only have worked once. England didn't go to war with 1812 "Because they were traitors" they gave that up when they signed the treaty. Same with the USA. They would have needed more reason to attack the second time or they would be seen as warmongering fools by both the rest of the world, the border states, and many of the non-border states.

It would probably be seen just as the Gathering of Russia was: reuniting a divided people.

 

[GhostWriter16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_war

True but it was also because they were a danger too and the USA and CSA were similar. Also, the USA didn't like slavery but they sure weren't against it. See the border states.

Base assumption, no evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_states_(American_Civil_War)

Lincoln felt without Kentucky the war would be over.

And no one in Maryland was arrested. Many Delegates were placed under house-arrest, which is not the same thing.

I consider it still illegal.

Delaware wasn't a border state.

Yes it was

The rest of the border states weren't really southern-sympathetic. Parts of them were, but not all. Not that the southern states were homogeneously opinionated anyway.

Most of them were, see my link above.

 

[sophie]

Dommy, there's also the difference between, you know, The US only being separated by a river from the CSA, and the US being separated by AN ENTIRE OCEAN from Britain. The logistics in launching an invasion of the CSA is wildly easier than the logistics in launching an invasion of the US from Britain.

Moreover, as has been repeated on several occasions, the North's industry took off in the 70s and 80s, even further widening the gap, exacerbated by the fact that after the war the South would be dealing with heavy competition in the much closer (and presumably cheaper) cotton markets of Egypt and India, which would have completely devastated the South's economy.

Frankly I see no reason the the Union to NOT have reinvaded.

*EDIT* AND IT'S BRITAIN! BRITAIN! Say it with me, BRITAIN!

Jesus, this is like referring to Germany as Prussia, or only referring to Spain as Castile. They are completely different entities, Dommy.

 

[Lord of Elves]

No for a couple of reasons.

1. We haven't went to war with the DPRK and no matter what you say they are worse than the South was back then, so a "Stupid regime" has not been enough of a reason in the past.

2. It would be HUGELY UNPOPULAR in the North to invade after recognition, the border states would see the Union as treacherous and secede, especially Maryland after Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus illegally and started arresting people in Maryland.

3. "A crusade to free the slaves" would have been unpopular especially in the border states who liked slavery just as much as the rest of the south, with the possible exception of Deleware.

4. The "Traitor" card would only have worked once. England didn't go to war with 1812 "Because they were traitors" they gave that up when they signed the treaty. Same with the USA. They would have needed more reason to attack the second time or they would be seen as warmongering fools by both the rest of the world, the border states, and many of the non-border states.

Dommy, the Union could have gone to war with the Confederacy easily assuming that the Confederacy somehow managed to achieve the impossible non-aided peace which would only have been temporary.

You don't seem to get this. If the Confederacy had managed to break off and stay broken off from the Union, the USA and CSA would not be friends by any means. Think Serbia or Croatia.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

True but it was also because they were a danger too

North Korea was a danger to the United States?

and the USA and CSA were similar.

Except, you know, for one defending human bondage and the other not.

Also, the USA didn't like slavery but they sure weren't against it.

All Northern States abolished slavery before the Civil War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_states_(American_Civil_War)

Lincoln felt without Kentucky the war would be over.

I didn't say they weren't important, I said they wouldn't simply leave the Union because the Union went to war with a slave-owning country and they had slaves too, which is what you seem to think.

I consider it still illegal.

It doesn't matter, your statement was wrong.

Most of them were, see my link above.

No, actually, even the Deep South had huge divides in its populace on the issue of secession.

You know, not all Southerners were landed estatesmen with hundreds of slaves. Most people didn't have slaves, and most people who did own them only had one or two. The popular image of the Southern Gentleman was an incredibly rich, incredibly rare person. They were a severe minority.

 

[GhostWriter16]

North Korea was a danger to the United States?

Not a danger as in they can kill us but a danger as in they can launch a WMD at us.

Except, you know, for one defending human bondage and the other not.

North had slaves and didn't want to end it until 1863. At that point I would have supported the North on that logic alone.

All Northern States abolished slavery before the Civil War.

All the border states had it, plus there were a few in New Jersey.

I didn't say they weren't important, I said they wouldn't simply leave the Union because the Union went to war with a slave-owning country and they had slaves too, which is what you seem to think.

Well, obviously the South did indeed have a chance then

It doesn't matter, your statement was wrong.

There was no danger to the North, all the South could do was take some border territory but it would have been returned for peace.

No, actually, even the Deep South had huge divides in its populace on the issue of secession.

Noted.

You know, not all Southerners were landed estatesmen with hundreds of slaves. Most people didn't have slaves, and most people who did own them only had one or two. The popular image of the Southern Gentleman was an incredibly rich, incredibly rare person. They were a severe minority.

I obviously know it, but the majority of white males unfortunately supported it.