1865

>I know
>why don't inflict even more suffering on the civilian population for little to no chance of a positive outcome

This was Lee's logic.

>An occupation with no enemy is a very easy occupation indeed.
Because nobody in the south wanted to fight any longer you doofus.

Only because their leaders had surrendered. Men still gladly died for Lee in '65 and they would have continued to do so if he so wished it.

The original KKK was your guerilla campaign

it didn't work out

>Men still gladly died for Lee in '65
As an organized army fighting a conventional war nursing the dream of a successful engagement. Not as guerilla bands living in the wilderness away from their families for who knows how many years after the actual war was already lost and their governments disbanded

Again, the guerillas in Missouri would disagree. Guerilla warfare was already occurring and rather than expand it, Lee killed it and with it any chance of the confederacy had.

>Missouri
>relevant

butthurt southerner really wants to see every city in the south burned down

Intermittent conflict with the aboriginal tribes out west meant that the US army was actually pretty well equipped at this time to perform counter-insurgency.
I mean, one would expect some difficulty in the insurgents being white, but they'd been fighting the south for years, switching to counter-insurgency would have just been a different stage of conflict for the soldiers. No need to convince them who to shoot any more.

I'd argue the US Army wasn't true Indian Killing Experts until the late 70's, but I guess we can argue that some small Indian Wars count as "experience"

Missouri was a sideshow that had absolutely 0 bearing whatsoever on the outcome of the conflict. The confederacy was in simply no conditional whatsoever to engage in a guerilla campaign that would have convinced the Union to withdraw from the South entirely. The south's armies were defeated and its land occupied. Confederate soldiers were already deserting by the thousands to get back to their farms to provide for their families. The only thing a guerilla campaign would have done is brought more suffering to more people.

No, you are raising a very fair point.
The value is that they'd have some folks who had some expertise who could teach that expertise. During the period of insurgency in the philippine-american war, the majority of soldiers were not veterans of the indian wars. However, those who were veterans were in greater positions of authority.
Y'know, it's something. In a lot of ways, the conventional conflict of the civil war was something no one had any experience in, previous conflicts (in particular the mexican-american war) were too different.

Fun fact their leaders were the only ones who had something to fight for.
Everyone's else were dirt farmers who only fought because poor white southernern mericans love the idea of war, until someone burns down their house.

Why couldn't we get this timeline?

>the conventional conflict of the civil war was something no one had any experience in, previous conflicts (in particular the mexican-american war) were too different.

This. That's why when America entered WW1, they went for aggressive charges and high mobility. They had already had a taste of trench warfare 50 years before, and weren't in the mood to do so again.

It also helps that they chose the moment in which the static warfare of the western front had nearly broken down, a moment well suited for their goals in the conflict.

Lee probably figured out that the war was a plan by the biritish to break up the union so it would be easier to control. The cotton coming from the south was integral to the BEI company's textile trade.

Lee was smart enough to realize Picket's charge was suicide, and could've ordered Pickket to recuse himself.

Do you think he should've gone full Paraguy instead, mobilized the whole civilian population into guerilla warfare and get 90% of Southern men slaughtered? I mean if that's your pick.

Also Lee never was on board with secession, he opposed that shit but led the troops out of his feel of duty for Virginia.

Yeah, it was very good timing in that respect. That's not to say the tactics didn't often cause horrendous casualties, like in Belleau wood. It's more that the civil war just kinda caused a "nope, not dealing with this bullshit again" attitude from the AEF.

>We coulda lived in the mountains playing banjos for the rest of forever!
Lmao.

Calling it a betrayal is fucking stupid
Guerrilla may or may not have worked but it's 100% certain it would have been an absolutely shit show.
Lee just didnt want anymore deaths.

Though it's noteworthy to mention that they weren't entirely averse to this sort of fighting. Rather, they just knew when it was good and when it wasn't. The philippine-american war featured americans doing frontal bayonet charges on fortified filipino positions, because they knew they could easily get away with it. Filipino soldiers, once within a few feet of the Americans, would just fall back.
There's a humourous episode in which a commander said something like "alright boys, let's get them yankees" before a charge and had to be reminded that he was fighting filipinos.
Of course, there was enough news on the western front for folks to know that they wouldn't be able to have that sort of fun until 1918.

>There's a humourous episode in which a commander said something like "alright boys, let's get them yankees" before a charge and had to be reminded that he was fighting filipinos.

Pretty sure that was the Spanish-American War in Cuba.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Las_Guasimas

>During the excitement of the battle, Wheeler, a former Confederate officer, supposedly called out "Let's go, boys! We've got the damn Yankees on the run again!", with the old general confusing his wars.

Huh, that may be the case. I'm merely transmitting a story as it had been told to me.

Lee didn't want any more deaths, he was still honored after the war.

They didn't truly believe in their cause.

They fought because they were fighting men. They quit because the fight as they wanted it was over.

>let the war continue
>guerilla fighters blend in with the civilians and wilderness and attack soldiers and Northern-friendly civilians
>the Union executes the 436,658 Confederate POWs they had captured by the end of the war in retaliation to the perfidy
>add on the 350,000 already dead and the south has now lost literally 70%+ of its military age male population

If only.

You forgot

>publicly hang Jefferson Davis and all other captured Confederate officials

>with a good chance of success

Lee's army of 30,000 had been completely outmaneuvered and surrounded by Grant's army of 100,000. They tried only one attack to break out and it ended with 3:1 casualties in the Union's favor.

The options at that point were quite literally surrender or die. What did you want him to do? Surrender himself but tell everyone else not to? Get all 30,000 of his men killed pointlessly?

>KKK
>a guerilla movement

Not a gentleman's country club (KKK Mk1), a corporation with a fancy office in New York (KKK Mk2) or a the worse aspects of Mk1 and 2 combined (current KKK)

>tfw we never got this timeline

Jesus, we could have been the sole superpower by 1914.

it could have been beautiful

>tfw We don't live in the timeline where the Union went full tyrant and decimated the South to the point of it being unhabituated by Southerns

Sherman, I'd like you to meet Mr. .58 Caliber

>Use nuclear weapons against major US City
>Any Southerner who was previously loyal kills their CO and defects to Confederate lines within a week
>International Condemnation
>Confederacy gets international recognition and UN status within days
>Virtually of America's remaining allies sever ties
>Russia and China have ample reason to declare war on the United States or at least arm the CSA
>CSA has free reign to murder every last Northerner they get their hands on with the weapon of their choosing

OR

>Officer in charge of the nuclear launch, so horrified at the prospect of destroying millions of their own countrymen launch their missiles against Washington DC and decapitate the Federal government

Okay grandpa, that's nice

Are Southfags the most ass blasted babbies in the world?

They're on par with Jews when it comes to kvetching and crying

>any theatre west of the Tennessee
>relevant
lol

>>the Union executes the 436,658 Confederate POWs they had captured by the end of the war in retaliation to the perfidy

Never, they'd become an international pariah

>America has lost many wars against guerillas
>Still think America could win against Southern guerillas

Guys

>responses to this post

What gives, do yankees actually hate the south or are they just being edgy?

t. not a burger

They could win so far as the guerillas would never accomolish their objectives of a independent Confederacy.

Sure they could continue to fight on out of pure salt and ass hurt, but the Confederacy wouldn't come back. They'd lose steam eventually.

What a wonderful timeline.
The South is the place where the worst aspects of American culture thrive. The "Southern Pride culture from backwoods cretins, the "Gangsta" culture from continually impoverished blacks, and this new reactionary culture from the transition of the US from an industrial power to an information and service power. Not to mention the general population of the South is woefully under-educated and lacking anything outside of American history, and even the American history they know is patriotic trash that is half-truths at the best of times plus the standard romantification of the South, Confederacy, and slave culture. The South has and will always hold us all back.

It depends on where you're from but yea the south is generally looked down on as being a dirt poor back water full of ignorants and gibsmedats of every color.

Most foreign perception of the "dumbass incestuous hillybilly american" comes from the south.

We hate hearing this shit from the south all the time, and their constant lying about the conflict. You live with this shit for a few decades and you eventually think Sherman evidently wasn't harsh enough.

Tl;dr southerners are shitposters irl not only on Veeky Forums

Yes, just like how those gooks lost steam, right

Why are Northerners so edgy?

>Implying an unpopular war in South East Asia in which the US failed to cripple the North Vietnamese is comparable to an unpopular war on American soil that was actually won by the North by ceasing the capital and leadership of the Confederacy

Cause the two situations are comparable, right bruv?

>>Union was already war-weary and would never allow for another year of war and would allow for a peace deal that ensured the confederacy's survival
That's where you couldn't have possibly been more wrong.

theyre butthurt that they got hundreds of thousands of their ancestors killed for niggers now that they can see the result 150 years later

Why did you reply to yourself?

How would you have fixed reconstruction?

America has started losing guerrilla wars because it's started caring about its self-image more than getting the job done.

The truth is - for all you faggots who think Vietnam and Afghanistan prove that guerrillas always win - that when a regular military force has the will and the political backing it will almost always win against a guerrilla force.

Native Americans fought with guerrilla tactics and it didn't do jack shit for them. The US fought guerrillas in the Philippines and won with very little trouble, despite being not used to foreign military interventions at that point. Outside the US the British fought Boer guerrillas and crushed them, and the Germans were extremely effective at suppressing guerrillas and resistance movements during WW2 (Resistance movements tend to be more myth than fact. The French resistance was basically a handful of guys passing on intelligence to the allies; without D-day they would never have posed a serious threat to the German occupation). Sri Lanka has recently put an end to the Tamil guerrillas through military means.

When you're willing to execute suspected partisans en masse, or intern tens of thousands of civilians, and if you actually care enough about the objective to not baulk at a few casualties, then guerrilla movements really don't usually get very far. The truth is there aren't any real kind of consequences for being brutal - Western liberals may whine about the continuing chinese occupation of Tibet for example, but no one actually does anything to punish them for it. Russia has all but invaded Ukraine, and after just two years everyone has gotten bored with the sanctions - America under Trump will likely end sanctions against Russia, and when that happens European nations like Spain and Greece will be happy to follow suit. We just like to think that there are negative consequences to that sort of brutality because the alternative is that we live in a world where the bad guys usually win.

Why are Southerners so retarded?

>and the Germans were extremely effective at suppressing guerrillas and resistance movements during WW2 (Resistance movements tend to be more myth than fact. The French resistance was basically a handful of guys passing on intelligence to the allies; without D-day they would never have posed a serious threat to the German occupation).

But in none of the other examples you cited did the guerillas defeat and drive out conventional forces. If you're applying the same standard of success, that the Guerillas maanged to not lose and continually apply pressure, the Nazis did very badly against them; I can't think of any of the resistance movements that got weaker as opposed to stronger over time.

>Sri Lanka has recently put an end to the Tamil guerrillas through military means.

They also offered enormous concessions to the Tamil population, the cornerstone of support for the LTTE.

>When you're willing to execute suspected partisans en masse, or intern tens of thousands of civilians, and if you actually care enough about the objective to not baulk at a few casualties, then guerrilla movements really don't usually get very far.

Yeah, that's why the Russians did so well in Afghanistan.

Read some actual academia on counterinsurgency. I'd start with this.

amazon.com/Learning-Eat-Soup-Knife-Counterinsurgency/dp/0226567702

Brutality vs niceness isn't the issue about defeating a counterinsurgency. You beat a counterinsurgency by setting up a viable local government which is actually much better at sniffing out things like people skulking about with rifles than foreing government troops can ever be.

You forget that before Lee decided enough was enough that the Confederacy was already trying to negotiate peace talks. Even before the 13th Amendment was ratified the South wanted peace.

While it may seem like betrayal you have to understand that this was not a separate nation no matter what they claimed. This was a Civil War and a nation fighting itself. Everyone was tired of war, they all wanted it to end. People were starving, men were killed and maimed in matters so horrific that soldiers who went through battle unscathed suffered heart problems (What we now call Shell Shock or Battle Fatigue) and POWs languished in camps. Everyone wanted the war to just end, their leaders be damned, and Lee recognized that to continue fighting would mean even more death and destruction on the land he loved. He refused to command the Union Army because he could not "raise his sword" against his beloved home state.

ITT: Amateurs try to fight wars without supplying their troops with FOOD.

Lee was trying to break through the Union lines at Appomattox in order to get to some fucking food for his starving troops.

>hurr durr y he no keep fighting?

>The Capital has fallen
>We are surrounded
>We have no food
>We are outnumbered

>hundreds of thousands of ancestors killed for niggers
We can say the same thing about you

Wrong

Bush War 0: Origins

If you Dixiefags didn't import niggers for slavery, the world wouldn't have happened. Could have imported more Irish and Scotts.

Why is Lee hailed as a great general when he proved to be extremely tactically inept & lost a lot of battles due to his decision making alone?

It's just shitposting.

I was born, raised and live in North Carolina and I'm sick of people speaking about Sherman like he was this fucking boogyman that every chucklefuck says burned their house and raped their ancestors or some other shit. Was he harsh? No doubt in areas but he wasn't the reincarnation of Timurlane.

It would have been economically impossible for the South to win. Not only did the North have more industry, railroads etc. but the crops of the North were geared for food production as well as most of the nations meat. The South's agriculture was geared for cash crops which means very little when you're being blockaded.

Because Americans just don't really have any truly good generals, so any of them who's slightly above average has to be overhyped.

I know this is somewhat off-topic, but i want to ask a question

Was slavery even about race?
seeing that europeans were more wealthy in resources, it make sense that they would be able to buy a lot of slaves from west africans.
I know race is brought up a lot, but can we truly say that whites would not have white slaves if they could buy them for the same price as they could in africa?

Do you know how much a white slave cost? Do you know how much a black slave cost? Not knowing anything, not having any info, why do you jump to conclusions?
Stop posting.

>The South is the place where the worst aspects of American culture thrive.

The south is the place where the only culture america has comes from.

The original KKK was a veterans group and they got drunk one night and decided to go beat up northern carpet baggers and negroes.

>The south is the place where the only culture america has comes from.
So my point stands.

>the south has now lost literally 70%+ of its military age male population
>the only men white women have left to procreate with are mandingos

Cuckiest timeline

Can all of Appalachia just die so we can move on from using coal?

>lol guerilla groups would have lost and lost hard!

>pic related

>B-BUT THAT THEATER WASNT IMPORTANT *moves the goal post

Do elaborate.

He did "lose and lose hard", under any set of standards. Sure, he did some successful raids, but he himself died, his unit collapsed before the Confederacy officially surrendered, and he didn't loosen the Union Grip on Missouri.

Guerillas are like other military forces; their goals are ultimately political. If you don't get some kind of concession, you've lost.

>lol southern guerrillas? they wouldnt be able to do any real dama-

I don't know specifically, no
But i do know that generally speaking, people that had the resources to travel to west africa were wealthy, and i do know that generally speaking, the west african nations were less developed. Being less developed means things might have more value to them than to the more wealthy nations
The africans were willing to sell their own people, why should europeans not be willing to enslave their own?
They were even so generous that they were willing to capture the slaves for white men, instead of letting them capture them themselves.

Besides, i asked this question to see if i was being completely delusional, and that there was some obvious detail i was overseeing
I am willing to conceit that i might be wrong, but you have not provided anything to convince me of that

I ask again.
Is there any firm indication that slavery was actually about race?

The argument put forth is that Guerilla forces wouldnt stand a chance, he is an example that they could be successful.

How is he an example they could be successful? You need to do more than launch a few raids to be a successful guerilla. You need to be able to last long enough and inflict enough damage to coerce a political concession from the group that you're fighting against.

There's absolutely no indication that Anderson, or any of those guys out there like Quantrill were anywhere close to that threshold. His band killed what? 200ish people? That doesn't even rise to pinprick status.

Literally no damage was done thanks to the robustness of the Federal government. Which makes me wonder if there was any government prior to the US's that had such thorough rudendancies in place. Monarchies were very hit or miss with succession even under the best circumstances.

Because southerners won't shut up about the Confederacy

The Polish Elective Monarchy was pretty sturdy.
Muscovite Princes did okay.

Brutality works with enough resources on the ground.

Read about USSR extermination and relocation campaigns in Ukraine in the 30s and Cechnya post-WWII.

In Afghanistan the Soviets were causality averse and didn't fully mobilize. Aerial bombing is no substitute for massive numbers.

That's weird, all my cargo containers of National Cultural Products are stamped out of California and New York.

one dude with a shitty little pistol can kill the president. The argument that guerrillas cant do shit is fucking idiotic and fueled by some southern butthurt for whatever reason.

>new york and LA

>culture

oh yes, shitty reboot remake disney marvel capeshit movies, pretentious psuedo art, and gaudy shit like the lion king musical.

Yeah and?

I measure my Standard Cultural Units by weight and clarity according to the National Cultural Accounting Agency, which certifies that my SCU's are Grade Triple A. Sorry I don't deal in knockoff Cultural Units.