He should have listened to Longstreet at Gettysburg and circled around to defensive positions between the army of the...

He should have listened to Longstreet at Gettysburg and circled around to defensive positions between the army of the Potomic and D.C. This would have forced the union to engage in a battle on the confederacy's chosen ground and won a victory that would have won diplomatic recognition and peace.

Other urls found in this thread:

amazon.com/Modernizing-Slave-Economy-Economic-Confederate/dp/0807832510
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

would have been fun to see an agrarian, outdated semi feudal confedaracy unable to expand and eventually lose all of its territory to its neighbours, if not for those damn yanks

It was already over at that point. The Union could replace that army with two more if they had to.

even if the union suffered another decisive defeat they still would have levied another army

at that time Lincoln suspended the habeas corpus and was effectively a dictatorship, there would be no peace

Unless Washington itself was taken it would never end, but at that time Washington was heavily fortified

A decisive defeat at Gettysburg followed up by European recognition and public support for peace democrats might have brought the government to the negotiation table. They were shook after Chancellorsville and Davis has a guy on the way to Washington during the battle to open talks.

the abolitionist movements in Europe were entrenched by the larger powers at that time, which would have kept them at a distance.

I'm sure some powers would have been happy to carve up the USA for hegemonic power but they were all staring at France during this time period.

Napoleon the III was in Mexico

The CSA would have collapsed had it won the war anyways. Europe would quit trading with them because of slavery, the CSA would attempt to free the slaves, and then the entire CS economy would crash. Slavery wasn't sustainable after the 1860s because of the general attitude towards it on Europe.
And before you come at me with, "hurr durr Yankee gtfo" know that I was a neo-Confederate for a very long time.

Vicksburg had already fallen. It was just a matter of time.

>implying the CSA couldn't industrialize

If anything, a Confederate victory in the Civil War would have resulted in the South industrializing even faster because of increased urbanization and war production (well, prior to the cities being sacked by Union forces that is). The South would've finished the war with more factories, more railroads, and bigger cities than before, all while the main form of competition, King Cotton, was effectively gutted by the widespread devastation of plantations, lawlessness, and loss of monopoly over markets.

Here's a book on a subject, it shows how the Civil War would have killed the agrarian Old South, regardless of the victor.

amazon.com/Modernizing-Slave-Economy-Economic-Confederate/dp/0807832510

Like they stopped trading with Brazil until it abolished slavery in 1888, right?

How would it have forced the Union army to engage? Washington was hardly undefended even with the Army of the Potomac away. In all likelihood, Meade could have continued shadowing Lee forever, and the Army of Northern Virginia is going to starve before the army with actual supply lines does.

It really wouldn't have been funny because by the 1950s the CSA, if it still even existed, would have had a civil war of it's own between blacks and whites which the blacks would probably win enough battles to control the Miss. River. Since there'd be no railroads in the South (at least not ones capable of moving things long distance and not to the local river port), their already pitiful economy would stop working.

The best thing that ever happened to the South was FDR. Without the WPA projects, it'd still be a massive shithole.

No it wouldn't. The slaveowners would have become so immensely powerful (as even questioning them would raise suspicions of being a traitor) that they'd run the country as their own personal bank. Yeomanry would be fucked over in the exact same way their Roman counterparts were 2000 years ago, causing mass migration of any non-slaveowing white to the north. The demographics would eventually become Haiti-tier imbalanced in some areas (especially those along the most fertile cotton growing areas near the Mississippi) which would have eventually led to an armed revolution (perhaps with American assistance). No nuclear power, no MSFC, no GSFC, no KSC and no Sunset route. The CSA would have been reliant on Mexico of all countries for Pacific access.

Any industrialization occurring would be within the capital city (Richmond or Montgomery) and not anywhere else, which would have become more severe after the US opens the Transcontinental Railroad and Telegraph in the later 1860s. The South would have remained incredibly poor, almost like North and South Korea IRL.

>Shoulda coulda wouldas
Sounds like Atlanta needs to be burned down again

"DO IT AGAIN SHERMAN!"

that's some massive reaching. The slave population as percent of total pop. never increased in the south after the revolutionary war, all this alt-history about a haitian revolution is stupid.

In reality the southern economy probably would've fared better with free trade and less competition with northern industries allowing for southern industry to grow. I don't see how they would be any worse than reality where they were completely destroyed and then controlled by republican puppet governments that just wanted to fill their own pockets.

>no MSFC, no GSFC, no KSC and no Sunset route

what the hell are these

burn charleston
atlanta a cool

Alright OP, looks like we caught a few niggers on the loose.

GET THE ROPE READY BOYS, WE'RE GONNA RECREATE CHANCELLORSVILLE

>The slaveowners would have become so immensely powerful (as even questioning them would raise suspicions of being a traitor) that they'd run the country as their own personal bank.

I literally just got done explaining how King Cotton (and by extension Slave Power) basically shot themselves in the foot by having a war in the first place.

Slaveholders would have had to contend with plantations devastated by foraging armies and general neglect, huge numbers of slaves who fled North (or worse taken up arms against them), their personal bank accounts drained, and worst of all, their monopoly on cotton non-existent thanks to the Union blockade. The war would've put a permanent dent in the planter class' power. In likelihood, their influence would continue to decline as new political players emerged. The industrialists who had provided the South the military might to win, the railroads who had built an extensive line of track to supply the armies, the veterans, many of whom would have demanded radical change as a reward for the years they had spent bleeding and dying for the Confederacy. All parties with agendas different from that of the slaveholding class, that would eventually muscle their way into elected office on a state/national level and start running things as they saw fit.

TL;DR the Old South didn't die at Appomattox, it died at Manassas.

>what the hell are these

MSFC is Marshall Space Flight Center (where rocketry is developed) in Huntsville, Alabama

GSFC is Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland (although, Maryland probably would have remained in the Union, even in the event of a Confederate victory)

KSC and Sunset route are both railways. Kansas City Southern and Union Pacific.

Thanks for the names.

>European recognition and public support
Almost completely impossible. Not only were the European powers staunchly opposed to slavery, they were also in the midst of a grain shortage, which made them temporarily dependent on Northern imports
The South already was industrializing, just not as fast as the North or Britain. It was agrarian, not backwards

Too bad that musket ball at Shiloh hit his hand instead of his head.

Sherman was actually saved by one of his staff officers who turned at the last possible second and wound up taking a bullet that would have almost certainly killed him