The C*nfederacy lost to a giant snake

Why do Americans identify with snakes? Are they satan?

the term was used derisively by people (especially the media) that wanted a very quick and decisive end to the war. they accused Scott (who devised the plan) of pussyfooting about the issue. why issue a blockade and send an army down the Mississippi when you can just send a huge army at the enemy "capital", sweep aside any defenses, and end the war in a two weeks?

>that hairline
JUST

>Lincoln's dark sorcerers summoned Jörmungandr to destroy the honest and righteous Confederacy
Typical. One should expect this sort of villainy from the men of the north.

depression and immense amounts of stress will do that to a person

>men of the north
thats the point where you erred in that statement

I don't think you can call males of the north men when they use such cowardly stratagems

that depression and stress probably came from knowing he was on the wrong side of the war

>what are genetics

edgy bait, 5/10 got me to respond but you're still a faggot

MY ANACONDA DON'T
MY ANACONDA DON'T
MY ANACONDA DON'T WANT NONE UNLESS YOU GOT SLAVES HUN

why do yanks assume anyone who disagrees with them is baiting?

this isn't /pol/, faggot, go jerk off to Robert "He didn't like slavery but he owned 100+ slaves and joined the Confederacy to fight the United States" Lee

Lee had a few household slaves, not a plantation. He also provided for their freedom in his will.

>Lee is exonerated from committing treason because he promised to release his slaves when he died
the absolute STATE

*whip*

I like how trying to combat /pol/ this board just goes full /leftypol/ on every single issue now.

Just trying to counter shit post and counter edge and acts like its any better.

this post will go down in history

>treason
>implying states don't have the right to secede

>le edgy sherman genius general who would totally relate to my second generation immigrant peasantspawn family
>in reality just a fairly competent who wore the south down with overwhelming numerical superiority and then tried to get them the best possible surrender terms and put the war behind them

>Lee is exonerated from committing treason
We really don't know it was treason. The founders themselves couldn't even agree that the federal gov't could use force to coerce a state attempting to leave the union.

It's amazing in hindsight how short people thought the war would be. I look at people proposing war today talking about how easy it will be and have to think they're either con artists or idiots.

>The founders themselves couldn't even agree that the federal gov't could use force to coerce a state attempting to leave the union.
Washington settled the matter when he personally crushed the Whiskey rebellion.

>hating D*xie makes you a communist

That wasn't a state leaving the union or even a secessionist rebellion, it was a tax riot. Apples and oranges

A guy who fought in the War of 1812 on Lake Erie designed this strategy and controlled Union forces for the first few months of the war.

Fun fact

Having an emotional response to a 150 year old state makes you a commie, yes.

...

Minstrels will sing songs of this post, user

Depending on where you go to school, nothing but the big famous battles of the Civil War are addressed. You don't learn about the Anaconda Plan, Draft Riots, Sherman's March, Fort Sumter, or anything else that adds context to the war.

It's literally 'south is racist, north is abolitionist, canings in congress, confederacy loses, lincoln frees slaves, lincoln assassinated'

They don't
The Framers admitted that revolution was a necessary transgression, but its still a transgression. How cucked would a country that allows armed revolt and secession be? Shit's fucked.

A tax riot and the theft/destruction of federal military property, no?

This. At 29, I finally got around to reading Foote's "Civil War Narrative". I lament not reading more material on the Civil War at a younger age.

That's an aesthetic book set

Ebin.

>Y*nkees are still triggered by the Confederacy 150 years later

>ywn see a fantasy US civil war manga/comic where both the Union and the Confederate Forces used Magic and Guns to fight each other
>ywn read about how High Inquisitioner Sherman burned down Georgia due to it's large Sorcerer Population allied to the Confederates

>ywn read about how Nathan Bedford Forrest used the spirit of the Headless Horseman to guide them during his cavalry attacks which explains his successes when conducting one

>ywn read about how Grand President Abraham Lincoln and his band of High Sorcerers summoning Jormungandr with the help of Winfield Scott to aid in the blockade of Confederate Shores

>C*nfederacy
You you like to solve the puzzle?

It would have been short if not for fuckups by McClellan and Lincoln. If McClellan just acted more quickly and/or Lincoln let him carry out the peninsula campaign as designed, ordering the requested naval support and allowing McClellan all his forces, it probably ends in 1862 or fizzles into 63.

>tfw when you'll never go back in time and convince to allow former slaves to force confederate veterans into bondage.

>ywn see a fantasy US civil war manga/comic where both the Union and the Confederate Forces used Magic and Guns to fight each other

That sounds kind of like Deadlands.

Hell, if Johnston wasn't wounded at Seven Pines the war would probably have still ended even with the fuck-ups.

Checked
¿Quien es este demonio de semen?

Foote is a hack. Read McPherson

anaconda plan was reincarnation of hamilton's plans to btfo the south.

>i have total will power over my hairline it won't happen to me XDD
it's a genetic hit of miss why insult someone over something they can't control? that's the logic of a brainlet

>Depending on where you go to school
Our class and textbook mentioned all of those things. don't go making generalizations like
>'south is racist, north is abolitionist, canings in congress, confederacy loses, lincoln frees slaves, lincoln assassinated'
as if this is common. I'm betting 100% your using seletive memory or you just had shitty teachers with an ideological agenda.

That's a Big Black [spoiler]Snek[/spoiler]

You [spoiler]dingus[/spoiler]

they literally lost to the BBC

how's it feel white bois?

I think it has tocdo more with genes m8
Anyway he has that I dont give a fuck style. I like it

It was still having trouble writing straight after the injuries from Bloody Kansas

> I look at people proposing war today talking about how easy it will be and have to think they're either con artists or idiots.

Except we COULD win a war in a day today, it's just that doing so would be at the very least a crime against humanity.

>canings in congress
They rarely go into WHY that happened though. I mean, school never taught me that the reason Preston Brooks went apeshit on Charles Sumner is because he said that Brooks wanted to maintain slavery so that he could rape black women whenever he wanted. I mean he didn't outright SAY that but it was the clear intention behind his words.

Was he wrong though

Which one? I mean Sumner's words were a personal attack but we can't say that was really what Brooks thought. It was enough to rile Brooks though.

>implying it's standardised now

The Anaconda plan wasnt what did it though. It was Jeff Davis' failed management of the politics and the army against Lincoln, Grant and Sherman working well as a team coordianting political objectives, strategy, and operational tactics. With Davis in charge, the heroic efforts of Lee, Longstreet and Forrest just werent enough against an overwhelming opponent. Almost though.

>It was Jeff Davis' failed management of the politics and the army
That's not really his fault is it? He was working within a new system that prioritized states' rights, even though there was undoubted centralization under his administration. How are the generals not also responsible when they failed to take a wider strategic view outside that of their state's boundaries?

>being this assblasted you make a comic about it

It definitely reveals something, brudda.

It was Davis' job to maintain clear political objectives and make sure his and his generals' strategy worked toward those goals. But Davis was too narrowly focused and controlling as de facto general in chief. He didnt appoint Lee commanding general until it was too late.

That's not to say that Reb generals didnt make their own mistakes aplenty, John Bell Hood, and PGT Beauregard sucked shit.

Lee wasn't such hot shit. He ordered Pickett's charge, and the resulting casualties crippled his army irreparably.

"The results of Lee's faulty decisions were catastrophic. His army suffered 209,000 casualties- 55,000 more than Grant and more than any other Civil War general. Although Lee's army inflicted 240,000 casualties on its opponents (ratio 1:1.15), 117,000 of those occurred in 1864 and 1865, when Lee was on the defensive and Grant engaged in deliberate war of adhesion (achieving attrition and exhaustion) against the army Lee had fatally depleted in 1862 and 1863. Astoundingly (in light of his reputation), Lee's percentage of killed and wounded suffered by his troops were worse than those of his fellow Confederate commanders." By comparison, "For the entire war, Grant's soldiers incurred about 154,000 casualties (killed, wounded, missing, captured) while imposing about 191,000 casualties on their foes" (ratio of 1:1.26)
"Had Lee not squandered the Confederacy's limited resources on offensives during the three preceding years, the Confederacy's 1864 opportunity for victory might have been realized. It was Lee's strategies and tactics that dissipated irreplaceable manpower- even in his victories. His army lost at Malvern Hill, Antietam, and Gettysburg. His army took unnecessarily large losses in those defeats, as well as throughout the entire Seven Days Battles."
"Throughout the Seven Days Battles, Lee's strategy and tactics were extremely aggressive. His strategy was totally offensive. Incredibly, Lee watched thousands of his best troops be slaughtered while charging usually fortified Union positions but did not seem to realize the foolhardiness of such tactics. Lee's Seven Days battle plans were overly complex; he frequently issued vague and discretionary orders to his generals, and then he failed to to supervise their execution through adequate on-the-field command and control."

>he frequently issued vague and discretionary orders to his generals
He did the same thing repeatedly at Gettysburg.

>Had Lee not squandered the Confederacy's limited resources on offensives during the three preceding years, the Confederacy's 1864 opportunity for victory might have been realized.
>Implying the Confederacy would have even had those opportunities if not for Lee.

The Revolutionary War, Civil War, both World Wars, and the Vietnam War saw considerably higher casualties on the winning side, so it makes no sense to reduce the war to a numbers game. Bonekemper never takes contingency into account, and deliberately positions himself against Lost Causers because he has no answer to more levelheaded historians who disagree with him such as James McPherson. The less aggressive Johnston the Younger nearly lost the industrial heart of the Confederacy that was Richmond, and the only reasons foreign powers were taking the Confederacy seriously was because of Lee's victories. Bonekemper conveniently leaves this out of his analysis and skips to the part where defeat at Antietam results in this opportunity being stymied.

Convenient is probably the best word for Bonekemper's analysis. He goes into great depth about how the Union and Confederate's in the east kept throwing away opportunities, it's almost as if its easier to devise a plan 150 years later when you have all information available to you and years to analyze it. But when it comes to the west we only get vague ideas about how the Confederate command chain worked. He mentions how generals were confused getting conflicting orders from more than one superior. Could this have contributed to the problems in the west? Maybe had something to do with constantly getting outmaneuvered? Nope, it was because Lee wouldn't give troops to the timid Johnston, who as we saw in Richmond would totes have used them to launch a campaign that would have relieved Vicksburg, and Grant, the paragon of military cunning that he is, would have been powerless to stop an army that he only outnumbered by a little.

I wouldn't call Lee a military genius, but I do believe (and as I stated, am not alone in this) that a strategy akin to what he implemented was probably in the best interest of the Confederacy. Fighting defensively meant giving the Union the initiative, and it was ultimately Grant's refusal to give it up that allowed him to push through the war. Lee gave the appearance to the North and to the world that he had the initiative, and the North and the world believed him. He made many outside the South believe the Union could not win because they could not advance and at best hold the line, which could have resulted in recognition from Europe and demoralization in the North sufficient to stymie the war effort. Someone like Johnston could never have done this, and simply moving backwards would have just delayed defeat as unless every battle was Fredericksburg, the North would have won on attrition.

>Lee gave the appearance to the North and to the world that he had the initiative, and the North and the world believed him.
the problem was that this was built on an illusion. who cares about the "appearances" when those appearances when they had no payoff. Yes, we know this partly by hindsight, but it's clear that Lee would have had a better chance with a crushing victory had he held the defensive and then offered a counterattack at the most opportune moment. Ultimately, Lincoln beat Lee at the PR game because Lincoln was an actual experience political operator and had a good grasp of geopolitics. Lee lacked these insights.

>the problem was that this was built on an illusion. who cares about the "appearances" when those appearances when they had no payoff.

Illusion was all the Confederacy ever had. While it may have been preferable for the Army of Northern Virginia to hold firm, there is no guarantee they'd have won the following battle (McClellan may have been timid beyond a fault but he was no amateur in tactics or strategy) and unless they genuinely crushed the Army of the Potomac (which realistically wasn't going to happen) more victories in which they simply held the line would only be so-so impressive (the Second Bull Run was by any definition an incredible victory, so were Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville), whereas being able to move freely through Union land would have driven home that the North had lost control.

It was a gamble that didn't pay off, but taking time would only mean a tightening of the blockade and a combination of Union gunboats and disorganization in the west would cost them more and more land. The "appearance" of victory didn't pay off, but it was all they had. They couldn't fight as long or as hard as the Union, so all they could do was try to put them in a bind and hope they'd tap out.

>Lincoln beat Lee at the PR game

You realize Lee was a general confined to a single theatre and not a statesman or even general of the army (at least when it counted), right? I really don't get why people act like he was responsible for the Confederacy as a whole, another problem with Bonekemper.

people aren't taught about the Confederate government, aside from the infamous moving up the capitol from Dixie to Virginia, probably because it'd hamper the 'gud guise vs bad guise' narrative

no, you fuckers were to lazy to open and read the damn book, My state was 48th in education but I apparently know more about the civil war than you fucks

Nigger I live in A L A B A M A and went to the best public school in the entire state and our civil war history consisted of

what books did you have, because the only history book i had that din't mention the anaconda plan or the southern government were 3-5th every other book from middleschool on had it despite the fact they were 20+ years since the publication date

Look up the provision for giant snakes in the Geneva Convention.

The United States was not party to the convention at the time and has yet to sign on the protocol regarding giant snakes.

Besides, if you read the constitution it is clear that the United States is to remain indivisible and to protect itself with a giant snake if necessary.

>the Confederacy's 1864 opportunity for victory might have been realized.

Would be curious to know what that was. The election?

We had textbooks that weren't more than a few years out of date for the entirety of my primary and secondary education.
I literally didn't hear the words 'Anaconda Plan' until I started researching civil war history myself. Nothing about Fort Sumter either. I remember doing absolutely terrible during history my Junior year of HS because we did only the big battles of the Civil War and at it was completely disjointed and there was no context for anything.

There's a Harry Turtledove series that's literally exactly this. Its called "The War Among the Provinces"

Maybe. I think President McClellan would have continued the war anyway if he sensed that victory was close enough.