American Civil War General

Please don't shit up this thread. I hate how it's impossible to talk about the Civil War without getting into fights.

this

there is so many cool things about the ACW but the only thing ever discussed is slavery because of butthurt people that like arguing

>having a sensible dicsussion about the causes of the war

>HURR STOP FIGHTING AND TALKING ABOUT THE TOPIC AT HAND!

wut

as far as military strategy, it always amazes me how close Richmond and Washington DC were yet how static the fighting in the Potomac area was. I get that there are lots of waterways and natural obstacles in the area but it still seems crazy that fighting ranged so widely with so few direct gains in that area. Meanwhile you had the campaign in the Shenandoah Valley, the Anaconda Plan reaching up the Mississippi River from the south with battles like Vicksburg, and Sherman's drive down though Georgia out to the coast and north through the Carolinas before the war ended, not to mention Lee's invasion of the North as far as Pennsylvania and the peripheral cavalry campaigns in the Western territories. The war seems to be a crazy combination of large scale strategic maneuvers and a ww1-style bloodbath in the more contested eastern Virginia areas.

The denser the formation concentration is, the less mobile the war gets. Part of the reason it was so static around Virginia is precisely because it was so important and you had so many troops mixing it up over there.

>1. Whats the big deal with the states seceding? Why didnt Lincoln just let em go?

The South had a lot of raw resources, southern ports, etc. The North would have become bankrupt had the South successfully succeeded.

>2. Why is Lincoln said to be such a good president?

Ended Slavery meme. A lot of people, including myself, look at his policy and would disagree with that assessment.

>3.3. Everyone says the Union was always going to win, why did it take them so long?

Because they weren't winning until Gettysburg. People forget that the South got within striking distance of DC.

American Civil War? More like American Civil Bore.

Are we talking of the (potentially) coming civil war? Picture very related, from historian Peter Turchin's newest book.

they wanted to leave, but the union troops didn't leave certain forts

American Civil War? More like American Civil Snore.

I highly recommend this book. It does a great job explaining not only the mind of Jackson, but also the fighting style of the era in great detail.

It's pretty long but extremely fascinating.

>weren't winning until Gettysburg
Why are Dixies so retarded?

You guys think it's possible we're on the brink of the second one? I just feel like the ones protesting right now can't really do much more beyond just that, protesting.

Look at the buildup to the civil war, and then look at people complaining on twitter and some dumb fuckers rioting. They're not even comparable.

Who would lead the secessionists? Who is even the whole group of people who are going to secede?

>Why didn't Lincoln just let them go

Imagine if half of your country decided they don't want to be part of it anymore. If you were the leader of the country, would you just let them go?

I do not know, all I know is that Peter Turchin made a model that points into that direction.
Thus it is a possiblity, not a necessity.

I get what you're saying, the protesters are the generation of twitter warriors and tumblr crybabies. Still, they're backed by the wounded establishment's money and are still being perpetuated by the media. This shit is a straight up attack, even more so than whatever was happening during Trump's campaign. Look, I'm not the biggest fan of Trump, but what's happening right now is just dirty and extremist

How did those 3 East Union States contributed to the war effort?

Now that is just wishful thinking

Thank you very much for clearing this up. A West Point professor is a reliable source.

I think if the citizen's of the US united we would definitely win, but there is almost no reason to destroy the entire Union.

People in this country hate each other, but the two groups aren't geographically seperated. Who is going to secede, California?

If it stopped a war, yeah maybe. Scotland tried to leave last year member

>1. Whats the big deal with the states seceding? Why didnt Lincoln just let em go?

Because the South accounted for over half of the landmass of the United States as well as the majority of its tax revenue.

>2. Why is Lincoln said to be such a good president?

Because Yankee parasites write the history books. Okay, I'll give him credit for this. He was a better war leader than most of generals.

>3. Everyone says the Union was always going to win, why did it take them so long?

Extremely incompetent generals and vastly under-estimating their enemy's capacity and will to fight. And despite their overwhelming advantage in numbers, technology, and logistics, they barely won by resorting to scorched earth tactics/zerg rushing an enemy that made the mistake of fighting a conventional war when their resources and geography favored insurgency.

>Bonus question: Why are all the CSA flags shit? (Except the battle flag)

Shut your fucking mouth.

How much did the western states and territories like California contribute to the Union during the Civil War, if anything?

Multiple civil war battlefields in North Florida too.

>well-being index
>political stress index

Is this a real thing or just a model made to support a preconceived conclusion?

Arizona Territory (southern half of the New Mexico territory, not the state) and Colorado actually contributed a bit. Not significantly, but there was a good bit of Confederate sympathies in those areas from Confederates that moved West. Breckenridge, one of the most famous ski towns in Colorado, was actually named after John C. Breckinridge, who was Buchanan's Vice President and a proud Dixiecrat who eventually became a Civil War general. They renamed it Breckenridge after the Confederate sympathizers left the town. With that being said, most of the battles fought in the Western territories were fought against native tribes that attempted to use the Civil War as an opportunity.

It started with historical societies, see picture related, now he uses it to model the current one.

He, Peter Turchin, does state that it doesn't have to be like that now.

Well, to avoid more opinionated points, I will stick to simple objective ones
The big issue with states seceding was in large part because it was a unilateral decision, that is to say that rather then ask for the federal government to grant independence, they simply declared it. Ignoring opinions on why and if they should, the main issues were if they could, because it was unprecedented, and what about the federal properties in confederate land. Bear in mind, the reason the war started was because of southern militias besieged a fort controlled by the union that was part of a state that seceded.

Lincoln was said to be a good president for three reasons, admittedly I think two are more important then the other reason
1. being a charismatic speaker who was able to give his people moral and save face despite the civil war being a devastating war (important because the Confederates were trying to get foreign aid)
2. The union won the war, and while admitadly it was mostly his generals who actually carried the war effort (he did little more then grand strategy planning), he did appoint generals who employed strategies that greatly aided the war effort
3. He took steps to end slavery. He made the emancipation proclamation, which was mostly intended to act as an ultimatum to convince the south to surrender rather then end slavery proper, but he did push forth legislation that ultimately ended slavery.

As for why people say the union was going to win, hindsight is 20/20, and not only that, the south actually could have held out long enough to get the Union to agree to a peace treaty. Granted, again, hindsight is 20/20, but the South not only had a starting advantage, but many officers defected to the south, and not just run of the mill officers, but skilled generals. What would have had to happen for the south to win was to for them to either employ a Fabian strategy or to get foreign aid, which was not an impossible endeavor.

What was the reasoning behind having Richmond as the Confederate Capital?

>Trying to chart societies circumstances
What a load of bullshit

The south wasn't really in a position to employ a Fabian strategy. Their economy was based in large part around slavery, which is what half the war started about. If you fall back to preserve your forces, the Union slowly advances forward and frees your cotton plantation slaves, and then you're done for. They had to stand and fight.

Virginia was the largest and wealthiest confederate state. Richmond was the capital of Virginia.

Why were the rebels so aesthetic?

>What a load of bullshit
Perhaps.
But you haven't looked at the numbers have you? At least it tries to make history scientific, if that fails, you should be able to falsify it - with a bit more as 'What a load of bullshit'.

See this book:

The South had aesthetic, aristocratic values. The North was a precursor of the modern liberal capitalist state with all its ugly utilitarianism.

Pretty dumb question, but did the South try to advance towards Cali?

>Whats the big deal with the states seceding? Why didnt Lincoln just let em go?
Because the South bitched out like a teenager mad at her parents for taking her stashed alcohol away and grounding her. Like any good parent Lincoln knows that its better to hang on to them until they mature up a bit to make a more informed decision instead of just giving up and tossing them into the pond.
>Why is Lincoln said to be such a good president?
Because he managed to keep the country together in the end, which ironically made it into what most confederate cucks love about the nation in the first place. Also he ended slavery and secured America as an industrial state rather than an agrarian one.
>Everyone says the Union was always going to win, why did it take them so long?
Because the south had all of the military leadership, resulting in them making a dogged defense along with some daring offensives. Since the Union wasn't expecting them to chimp out they didn't direct any of their industry into war effort prior to the war, so they spent a long time playing catch up. Once their war-industry was chugging though it was game-over for the South.

Both sides had very aesthetic uniforms, though I personally like Union uniforms more

There was no serious attempt to do so, because the Confederacy was already significantly outnumbered in Virginia and needed the manpower there. The Confederacy was confident that France and Britain would side with them and force a peace because of their dependency on cotton imports, and they wanted to show to them that the Confederacy would be capable of defending itself, and so it needed to defend itself.

By the time that this proved to be illusory, the Union was increasingly winning, and the South had even fewer men to devote to offensive operations west of Texas.

The South wanted to create a new aristocracy.