Realistically, how could they have maintained independence?

Realistically, how could they have maintained independence?

Other urls found in this thread:

civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
twitter.com/AnonBabble

find a useful ally
used the slaves as cannon fodder
actually prepare for the war
not put their capital so close to the north's capital

What would the world look like if they did?

decisive victory against union followed by european support

If Mexico was a powerful country with a formidable military and they allied with the confederacy, as well as France, Spain, and Portugal; then maybe they could have won. Otherwise it's an impossible situation from a logistics stand point, the confederacy could have never won on it's own.

Because of the industry in the north?

They had more land,more men,a stronger industry,and the moral high ground
It qas an impossible victory

>moral high ground
Stop right there dude. How do you figure?

Not simply the industry of the North, when we talk about the industry of the North we tend to think about their factories and their production, we forget about all the infrastructure they had acquired. The North had substantially better infrastructure of rail and roads for transport, as well as, more men, more money, more equipment. The confederacy was a rather rag-tag group of disparate states under some good leadership, but the union was the US military and had better cohesion and discipline. If the confederacy had Mexico with other countries pumping materials and equipment ready made all the time at a crazy rate, there might have been an equivalence, but again, you'd need the logistic supply lines for that to be distributed properly and the correct legal and political blinding fast adaptation to all that. It's rather impossible. They would need to industrialize extremely quickly with other countries support which as an agrarian society supported by unskilled slave labor it's not likely. Again it's part of the problem of slavery, the north had so many more trained and skilled workers, while the south purposely made them less productive.

Realistically, they couldn't. Their entire game plan was based on a coercive struggle a la the original colonies vis a vis Britain. They ignored that it's massively easier to project force over a shorter distance than across the Atlantic, as well as the fact that the northern commitment to bringing the south to heel was enormously greater than Britain's commitment to bringing the 13 colonies to heel.

The only "realistic" way for the CSA to win is to not have a north committed to the level it was to winning the war. That would require a colossal restructuring of the Union, such that it probably wouldn't be recognizeable as history.

If 'moral high ground' means 'something you can use in speeches for allies' then sure. If you actually mean 'something to fight for', most Confederate Soliders thought of themselves as fighting to defend their homes on some level. There's no cause stronger then that.

If 'Moral High Ground' actually just means 'moral high Ground' then you might as well say 'God was with them' for all that means.

The South banked on their economic advantages to keep them alive in independence. Which would've worked short term but would quickly become a liability as industrialization went on.

The Confederates banked on their Cotton and Tobacco crops to sell to European markets and build their economy off of that. It would've been enough in the early years but the South would eventually have to abandon the plantation economy for a manufacturing one if it planned to stay relevant, and moreover strong enough to fight a second war with the Union which was bound to happen.

The South would have had to abandon slavery as an institution at some point, probably around the same time as Brazil in the 1880's an start investing in manufactured goods, using their cotton to sell clothing and textiles rather than just cotton bails as well as cigars/cigarettes from their tobacco, and diversify from there to steelworking from the iron found in Alabama/Tennessee.

The south had pretty much lost the western theater with the capture of ft.Henry and ft. Donelson.

by not sperging out over fort sumter

Confedetards are such a meme
>What do you mean the guys fighting against the fights who are literally waging a civil war over the right to own other people as property have the moral high ground?

By not going into an autistic rage after they lost the election and instead prepare for a defensive war

Inbred

Defenders of the Confederacy are like defenders of Nazi Germany, in that they fail to recognize that those ideologies destroyed their respective countries and peoples, and set them back decades. The continuation of slavery for cotton, indigo, tobacco was a woefully outdated economic model as another user pointed out above, and they were doomed to failure, and then with hubris they decided that rather than adapt to the future they would lead atavism take hold and defend barbarism and destroy the history and culture of the south. I'm born and raised in New Orleans and named after a confederate general, my family owned a plantation and had slaves and fought in the war. It's tough because many in the family just don't understand that the war ruined the south, and that was our decision.

decades of industrial economic develop ahead of time.

Yes, slavery was an outdated policy, however you can by no means say that the main cause of the civil war was because of slavery. The real reason was the tax on stuff like cotton (which the south was very dependent on) and the economic and infrastructural imbalance between the rich north coast cities and the south. Arguing that people like Lincoln are some sort of "liberators" of slaves is stupid, as he himself saw black people as inferior.

>however you can by no means say that the main cause of the civil war was because of slavery
Read the image I posted again

>defenders of a failed economic model are like defenders of a economic model that actually worked.
Idiot.

The only way the Confederates could've 'won' is if the Union were to literally just let let them have independence. After that, they would've became a third world country unless they persuaded other countries to trade with them.. And even then the USA would've outclassed them in every way

the eternal anglo

I hate how the north goes bitching about the south being the worst and would be better without them when their men literally kill and died to keep them in the union. I hope every pack of ape hopper beats the shit out of every northerner they find in their path and just maybe they can recognize the horrible mistake they did.

By sucking British and French cock.

Moral high ground means that any European power trying to assist the Confederates would have their government fall apart because the citizens would be outraged that their money and blood is being spent to preserve slavery.

There was some debate in the British Parliament about more support for the Confederacy, but the Emancipation Proclamation allowed the pro-US side to shut down the pro-confederate side with east.

if God literally existed and killed both Sherman and Grant with lightning. otherwise it was an impossibility.

Implying Sheridan wouldn't burn the South even harder.

Read up on what Sheridan did to the Shenandoah valley, it make Sherman's march look like a foraging party.

go fuck yourself and live in Nazi Germany you fucking moron, oh right it didn't work and doesn't exist you fucking retard

By electing Zebulon Vance as President and giving him unlimited power to manage the war effort.

Maryland secedes, DC is captured at the start of the war by Maryland/Virginia militia before the Union effectively mobilizes, and maybe the North sues for peace under the circumstances. The CSA can't win a prolonged war, but if the Baltimore riots had actually expelled the Massachusetts/Pennsylvania militia from Maryland they might not have needed to.

(If the north doesn't lose nerve without its capital, the south is still fucked, though.)

Misomformation sent via a distributed communications network manufactured by a foreign power couldve weakened the norths political organization. All youd need is a few people owning the right media providers.

> Realistically, how could they have maintained independence?

Like any other country but by the 1900 at the latest, the South would have gotten fucked hard by advancing technology, which would have left them stuck with bazillions of expensive to maintain Black slaves, while the North and Europe used tractors and other mechanical equipment to pass them by.

The question is 'how does 'moral high ground' help in a war?'. Not 'is slavery bad?'.

soldier morale

civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

I think the Confederates had the better morale argument, which is 'the Yankees are coming'.

The European stuff is solid though.

Build a canon factory.

Worked quite well, I'm afraid. The fact that it was annihilated by overwhelming military force is not an indictment of its efficacy.

One idea I haven't seen mentioned is that I don't think the good ole boys that were put in charge of the confederacy were competent. Not to mention the issues that happen with such extreme political decentralization that occur in a confederacy already and you have a recipe for a weak government.

While I am gloomy about a hypothetical confederacy being anything but a North American Argentina or Paraguay, I have to say the largest untold story after the civil war Was discrimination against southern states with legislation including the federal government paying less for southern RR and infrastructure which even FDR thought was a bit much.