Was there any possible way for the South to win (or at least survive as an independent nation) the Civil War?
Was there any possible way for the South to win (or at least survive as an independent nation) the Civil War?
Other urls found in this thread:
voltairenet.org
twitter.com
>Britain joins in after the Trent Affair.
>France looks into the future and decides to help too
Spain also looks into the future and hops in.
>joins
Fucking never
The MOST they'd do is recognize The South as an independent nation, which would kill Lincoln's chances of reelection in the North.
But British or French troops would never fight in the civil war
They'd probably help break the union blockade.
pretend to toy with idea of peaceful reunion post secession in a series of pointless talks until no one cares any more
For what reasons?
There was nothing the South could give the British they couldn't get peacefully (and cheaply) from other sources.
>The cotton embargo caused a cotton famine, a sharp drop in cotton supply from 1861 to 1862, decreasing the consumption and stock of American cotton in the United Kingdom and Europe from 3,039,350 bales to 337,700 bales and from 477,263 bales to 67,540 bales, respectively.
Think I remember reading somewhere that the British elite favoured the Confederacy but the public supported the Union dis true?
You'll notice that while cotton imports from America certainly dropped, the imports from India and Egypt grew in response.
America did not have a monopoly on cotton
Cotton was self-embargoed by the Confederacy. They basically told Britain and France, "We won't sell you cotton if you don't help us" and Britain and France replied "lol, okay gaylord, we'll just import cotton from elsewhere and wait for the North to defeat you, THEN WE'LL STILL GET YOUR COTTON ANYWAYS"
Stiffer resistance in 1863-64, especially in the west, leads to Lincoln losing the election and McClellan pursuing a peace policy.
That's really the only chance they have.
But we're assuming Britain and France had already recognized the CSA. Meaning no need for the embargo.
The larger the scale of the war, the smaller the chance the Confederacy had of winning.
The South initially hoped for a full break peacefully, which happened for the first 5 months between December and April.
After the war started, both the Union and Confederacy placed hopes that just one engagement will be enough to convince the other side to back down. After the first major engagement at Bull Run was a Confederate victory, the only way to win was for the Union to back down right there, but once the Union committed and expanded the war, it spelled doom for the Confederacy, who couldn't keep up with the manpower and industrial capacity of the Union, who could afford to fight a long, protracted war.
Keeping the Empire of Russia from throwing in with the U.S. would have been necessary.
...
>Keeping the Empire of Russia from throwing in with the U.S. would have been necessary.
Don't go into the Union.
Command Economy. Get the plantations and the slaves growing food crops instead of cotton. Get them mining and producing war material.
Get Brazil and other slave nations from the Americas to join the CSA's side.
...
Absolute, rock solid support from France and Britain, so no.
Foreign intervention.
The British public were really, REALLY against slavery.
To further elaborate on this, even though the South was the largest supplier of cotton, by far, Britain and France actually had large cotton stockpiles leftover from previous years, which just made the Confederacy look like a bunch of idiots.
The Tsar was a firm supporter of the Union. He threatened that if Britain and France supported the confederacy, he would go to war.
sauce?
No
For context, the Crimean war happened in the 1850s. Russia wanted revenge and if Brittain or France intervened against the Union, Russia would have joined the fray.
It seems pretty appealing for Britain to support the South.
>Weakens a major competitor and damages their status as a major power
>Creates a New, Loyal ally who will basically do whatever you tell them to as they rely on you, can be crushed easily
>Can push them to ban slavery within a certain number of years or withdraw support
>Prestige from getting revenge on the US
>Divides US Atlantic ports, making Britain have total Atlantic domination
The only real reason they didn't was out of fear of Russian intervention, though they could easily destroy the Russian Pacific Fleet and prevent Russian troops reaching the States
In hindsight, it seems like a fantastic idea.
No
The union was never truely broken. A fight between brothers doesn't dissolve their paternal bond.
The south could never truely secede
What the fuck would Russia do? lmao. Destroy their ships before we could do it for them again? Ask very nicely if they could march through Germany to reach France?
>The Army of Northern Virginia marches into DC and razes it to the ground after First Bull Run
Yes, if Davis hadn't insisted on fighting a defensive war to hold some kind of moral high ground the Confederacy could have won a short war before the massive Union advantages in manpower and production power came into play.
Capture Washington after 1st Manassas
Capturing and burning DC literally means nothing
t. War of 1812
Im a huge Civil War buff. It was all that fucks Lee's fault. His dumb ass wanted to force a terrible fight when we had been giving the Union fucking fits. If he listened to Longstreet and just went around Gettysburg and threatened Washington I think we force a truce. The North at that point in the war was ready to quit but we gave them a reason to continue with that loss. Fuck you Lee GIB ME BACK STONEWALL YOU CARELESS FUCK.
>General Lee, how shall we defeat the enemy forces here at Gettysburg
>LOL, JUST CHARGE THE CENTER
>B-But, sir! That's clear open ground and the strongest point of the enemy's forces! The men will be slaughtered
>LOL, I'M LEE, DO WHAT I SAY
Was he a Union mole in charge of sabotaging the Confederation?
Different situations. In the Civil War a hard, quick, and brutal destruction of Washington after annihilating the Army of the Potomac could have cowed the north into not fighting a devestating war they provoked. In 1812, the British were the ones who provoked the war.
Maybe it wouldn't have worked but it seems obvious there's no way the Confederacy could have won fighting the war they ultimately did.
There was also no army to oppose Lee if they burn Washington and beat that army.
He was just an old fuck who was exausted from war. Up until then he was a brilliant commander who got us to probably the only chance we had to win. He just went full retard there.
this
the south could've won, if the Russian Empire didn't aid the Union.
>I dont know how to google
voltairenet.org
Sure, they just stay in the Union instead of seceding.
Vote against and obstruct to their heart's content as if they were a political party unto themselves while stacking the deck and ignoring the obvious in the name of traditional patriotism. Free states need not apply for admission to the rich white voting block.
We call it the republican party now.
Rot them from within, you'll win in the end.
Prussia may well have joined in on the Russian side. Remember, this is only a few years before the Franco-Prussian war.
Did ron paul hear about the blacks attacking the trump supporter last night?