From what I’ve read most historians believe that the South lacked the industrial centers to win the war despite having better leadership and overall the more committed and talented men. If winning the war was a war of attrition that the South couldn’t win outright. Why didn’t the South fight more of a defensive guerrilla warfare strategy similar to Afghanistan?

It seems if the South had fought more of a resistance war using men such as General Forrest as hardline resistance to run spec ops against the North while also running raids setting fire to towns and fields in the North from Virginia that they could have made life miserable enough on the North to drag it out and break there will at some point. It worked in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and over most of the the British Empire. I think it would have worked for the South. The one thing working against the South would have been the rebel leadership being easy targets due to being obvious fixed target plantation owners but the masses it seems could have blended in as average every day folks just trying to survive while running upsurp wars.

Why? Same reason a protracted insurgency probably wouldn't work today. Soccer moms... or whatever their equivalent was back then.

Soccer moms wouldn't like navigating roadside bombs on the way to yoga and Starbucks.

DESPITE what white American women would have us all believe, they've long since held plenty of power in this country.

Ever see a bunch of gorillas try to organize a banana eating contest, yet alone an effective defense?

Minorities have plenty of power. Playing the victim card is one of there most effective weapons. Around 1861 I doubt that the South was full of soccer mom/Karen’s but maybe I’m wrong.

Glad to see you kicked Covids azz but not following

Just ragging onya for spelling guerrilla differently. Please carry on.

I’m not a Civil War historian by any means but as someone with a layman’s interest it seems the South made a mistake in choosing to fight the North even up when a protracted guerrilla warfare strategy would have been more effective.

My mistake edit to guerrilla

American women wouldn't tolerate 20 years of war today and I doubt they would have back then.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/the-confederacys-disastrous-guerrilla-war-40690

1861-1865.

but ok

I read somewhere that early in the war, Jefferson Davis was issuing general's rank and command of troops to people in return for favors, rather than giving such rank and command to experienced tacticians. The South should have won the war in a few months. They could easily have taken DC and captured Lincoln at Bull Run, had they had proper folks in command on the ground.

!861-1865 isn't the protracted guerilla tactics being discussed. Those tactics could have easily drug out the fighting much longer.

Didn't the Yankees have a lot to do with it?

OP explicitly asked why the south didn't fight an Afghan insurgency like war. Afghan insurgency: 2001 - 2021.

Try to keep up.

I get what you’re saying but wouldn’t that go equally for the Northern woman and they would have less to gain other than not being able to mind their own business (see other thread)

lmao

Nah,....The North were just better shots than the South.

Still are.

😂

🦫

Hallelujah

North with an army of 2.1 million, south with 800k? Nearly twice as many north lost their life than the south. Is that wrong?

Yankees couldn’t shoot for schitt.

I’m not the historian that some are but I’ve read and seems accurate that Lee was a great defensive mind more so than offensive mind. Maybe he didn’t get big picture guerrilla tactics? If that were the case it would make sense. I read somewhere that he later regretted not turning lose Generals such as Forrester earlier in the war.

From my understanding of Grant he was a mediocre General in the field but realized that the North had the numbers and industrialization so was good with loosing more men in order to grind the South down over time.

Guerilla wars require the support of the local populace so they can only work within the home territory of the guerilla force. There would have been no point to burning towns and fields of Southerners.

Raiding north of the Mason Dixon would just have amounted to small incursions through a hostile populace by quickly moving forces with little to no logistical support. Local townsfolk would have easily spotted the raiding parties and reported them to the Federal army who could have tracked their movement by telegraph and chased them down with equally mobile cavalry in superior numbers. It would have been a nuisance but with a tactical range only extending into Maryland, lower Pennsylvania and lower Ohio most Northerners wouldn't have been bothered in the least.

Guerilla wars are what you do when you don't have the strength to defeat the enemy in open battle. The Confederate States of America believed, rightly, that they did have the strength to defeat Northern forces in set battles. They just didn't have the production to maintain a protracted war, the latter is of course a real Capt. Obvious observation.

By the time Southern leadership would have concluded that a guerilla style war was the only means of resistance left to them the South was weary of warfare and depleted of treasury. Where would they get their powder and ball without a friendly Russia, China or Pakistan to supply them and provide safe havens? And as has already been stated, the womenfolk would not have been the only folks who wouldn't tolerate a guerilla force in their midst when threatened with the sort of harsh reprisals every invading army has used (sooner or later in one way or another) against a populace where the enemy looks like everyone else.

with news on horse back?

hell,

nowdays i can tell everbody i had mac 'n cheese with bacon bits

I get a lot of what your saying but the South and the outlaws after the war such as the James gang and others along with decades of deep seated hate for the North after to me it seems would have supported 3G warfare aka guerrilla warfare. That both sides of the war looked the same other than accent seems like it would have further lent itself to guerrilla warfare. Would have a KKK type war against the North from the very start while the South was at full strength rather than after the South had been defeated been more effective?

jesse james was from MO?

If they only had a 6.5 Creedmoor

LOL

🦫

Yankees got better and better as time went on. That's why Napoleon advised not to fight the same enemy to often, he will learn you. Notice the plains Indians were getting better at fighting the U.S. Army until Grant and Sheridan decided to wipe them out before eastern politicians became ''woke''. That was beginning to happen. After the costly victory at Little Bighorn and the successful Indian escape the U.S. knew they had to wind up the Indian issue pretty damn quick. Bleeding hearts back east were making noise about ''the poor Indian".

Supposedly

🦫

How many women did you know who complained about our presence in Iraq or Afghanistan? It's different when it's happening in your backyard.

James was on the border. Families and communities were divided. The James’s fought for the South Jesse was to young to go to war but fought with the raiders against the North and ultimately lead to him raiding northern banks. After the war a whole lot of southerns wound up in the West and more than a few gunslingers and outlaws.

Lincloln took over the railroads and could use telegraph to get supplies to his troops in a week or so. The south thought taking over railroads was a violation of property. The south had to run for supplies like food ammunition and clothes . It took a lot of time just to send a message on horseback and then bring it back . I heard this one time and found it reasonable why the north won.

Because they had to import most of their arms,ammo,food.The North was an industrial giant.The North ran an effective blockade.Hard to win against those circumstances.

I get it. The other side to that would have been making hell on the North when they tried to occupy the South similar to the Afghanistan strategy while also raiding the North.

I'm half being a smart azz... and half not. I don't think a protracted insurgency could work in this country then or now. Our women are not, and have never been, totally subjected like they are in Afghanistan and Iraq. They'd eventually get tired of living the life of an insurgent's wife and start ratting us out, denying sanctuary needed for an insurgency to succeed.

As to the south and the strategy they chose... I’m sure they thought they could lick the north in conventional warfare. They wouldn't have tried if they didn't.

Makes sense. The other thing working against the South would have been in place homesteads and farms to be targeted Vs. a Vietnam or Afghanistan which was mostly modern day nomads or pheasants that were harder to target.

That’s what Pickett thought, but of course you knew that.

I think the South did fight gorilla warfare along the Mississippi. It nearly drove Sherman mad. There was plenty of mistakes to go around. Had Lee listened to Longstreet at Gettysburg it might have turned out different. If Pickett had disobeyed Lee's orders and marched into Gettysburg things might've turned out different. There's no use playing the guessing game because it happened the way it did. Chamberlain broke Longstreet's charge by ordering his men to fix bayonets because his men were out of ammo. Pretty gutsy. There was talent on both sides but the North won. Sherman's march to the sea was the last straw. His troupes committed atrocities beyond imagination along the way. The North did have better equipment and the industrial complex the South did not possess.

Truth is generations of good men from both sides died. It was a tragedy of epic proportions.

I don’t think anyone supports slavery but within the context of the times it was a thing over most of the globe. It was wrong but acknowledging slavery is wrong and that the Civil War also started the US down the path of Federal Government overreach are not mutually exclusive. As stated above lots of good people on both sides wound up dead and families torn apart.

The will to fight may have been there but no war works unless you have the logistics to fight it, whether a guerilla war or not, and when the enemy occupies your homeland and whatever means of production you may have had those logistics have to come from somewhere else. The Northern blockade of the South was very effective and after a general surrender by the officially recognized Confederate government* no European country was going to support a hopeless force. Supplies could have come through Mexico by some foreign power interested in annoying the USA but with the limited mobility of the time operations could only extend a relatively short distance from the Mexican border.

It's possible that an organized albeit limited guerilla force could have been sustained but to what end? Who would they kill except for hit and run raids against the occupying forces who were already becoming used to dealing with Comanches, Sioux and other extremely talented light cavalry forces? That, plus invariably the "if you ain't 100% with me you're 100% agin' me" attitude would have prevailed among the guerillas and their tactics would have devolved into terror attacks against the local populace, ala the Viet Cong's and the Khmer Rouge's atrocities against the native populace.

After Lincoln's death the overwhelming mood of the North was to punish the South in every way possible. They weren't about to quit and go home because some border outposts were sporadically raided, instead they would have stomped their boot on the South in an even harsher manner. So now you have a small group of people continuing a war folks were sick of, that causes the Yankee invader to enact harsher and harsher reprisals, plus the guerillas are killing your friends and neighbors.


Guerilla wars work as a nucleus or spark of a general revolution, they can be carried on indefinitely when they have a reliable source of weapons and supplies and most of the country supports them or at least doesn't act against them, but they only prevail when the people of the foreign power get sick of the war and eventually decide to go home. Though the South viewed the North as a foreign power the North considered the South as part of one country, there was no foreign home to go home to, they were just reintegrating a part of their previously unified country. In 1865 conditions just weren't there to support that type of warfare.





* my memory is sketchy here, but I don't believe any foreign power ever officially recognized the Confederate States as a legitimate government. England was thinking about it but that whole slavery thing kind of made them shy away.

Insurgencies come with their own set of challenges for the insurgent. Increased crime, and increased violent crime in particular, being one of them. Just because a war might be raging doesn’t mean criminals aren’t doing their thing. In fact… they take full advantage of the chaos. I interviewed a prisoner in Iraq, who turned himself over to us, and who we learned was a serial killer. A true psychopath... deranged to the core. His crimes in any place not consumed by war, wouldn’t have gone unnoticed. But they largely did in Iraq with the exception of the local civilian populace who he terrorized.

That’s just one element. Consider that along with everything that comes with protracted war… like air strikes, gun fights, IEDs, IDF, summary execution, beheadings, no power, no water, no trash services, etc… ain’t no way women on either side of the political isle in this country will tolerate that. And the minute they start running their gums… the insurgency is toast.

Wouldn’t have been all that different back in the 1860s.

You caught me. I stole that line.

Makes sense copperking

A prescient quote from William Tecumseh Sherman

In the first part of the war the South had better generals, namely Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson, and they won a number of victories. But as time went by, the greater resources of the North began to tell and Lincoln got much better leadership in the form of Grant and Sherman. After that, the defeat of the South was probably a foregone conclusion.

At the end, Robert E Lee refused to countenance a guerilla resistance. He was an honorable man and thought such a thing not only dishonorable, but bad for everyone. I'd say he was right.

I wonder if the south had adopted mostly asymmetrical warfare to start with, would maybe the North have been unable to muster the political will and popular support necessary to sustain a war that could have been carried on for 20 years. George Washington apparently knew to not go head to head against a stronger Army and Lee's ancestors were in on that little 7 year skirmish.

My original point exactly. We’ll never know but seeing how the US government fell to Afghanistan or the how the British Empire fell. It was something to think about.

Can you walk 50 miles bare-footed??

Southerners can shoot better for sure. Especially when it is windy. We make better lovers to keep the women happy. We have our black folk better trained. Most have shoes now. We have Bourbon instead of blended whiskey. Much better cornbread.

Hell, lets try it again. Pick a date to start this $h!t .

Because they didn't have these!
https://www.hakito.co/retro-belt

Guerrila tactics will only take you so far.

If you want to really judge why the South lost the war, you need only look at what happened in the summer of 1863. On the one hand, you had Grant's move on Vicksburg. At the same time, you had Lee's move into Pennsylvania that culminated at Gettysburg.

Grant built a multi-pronged strategy, coming at Vicksburg from every direction, using both land and naval assets. He had a clear target with a strategic goal that would cripple the South if it succeeded. He threw every conceivable asset at his disposal into taking the target, and when it was over, he had wrested control of the Mississippi River from the South and cut off all supplies coming from the West.

Lee? Look, I know Lee was a strategic genius and all, but what sort of war-winning goal was there for him in rural Pennsylvania? What was there that caused him to bet the farm and go for broke? What if Lee had succeeded? What then? Let's say he'd gotten all the way to Harrisburg and even taken Harrisburg? What then? Was the North going to throw in the towel? Was Pennsylvania going to join the South? Was Lincoln going to say: "That's it guys! He's made it Harrisburg."

I remember being told in school that Lee wanted to go into Pennsylvania to gain a boot factory and get his men reshod. However, that was indicative of a huge difference between the sides. While Grant was taking strategic war-winning objectives with well-supplied forces, Lee was dealing with the basic needs of his army, trying to keep them in the field.

Not true which is "WHY" the NRA was formed in 1871...to teach young men how to shoot. The Confederates shot the sh*t out of the yankees.

Grant a mediocre field commander? Dunno where you would have read that.

Washed out of the Army for drinking and a failure at everything he tried, given a commission almost as a fluke. Once back in the service he proves to be a natural leader of armies.

This poorly dressed borderline alcoholic prone to fits of despair wins a steady string of victories in the West that earn him promotions despite his many detractors. Fortunately for him, Abe Lincoln was his President and not Jeff Davis, else Grant might have remained in obscurity.

But for the fortunate arrival of Buell, Grant’s career might have ended with the Confederate surprise attack at Shiloh but even there he displays a coolness under fire, retrieving a situation that woulda had many generals conceding a defeat.

Grant’s Vicksburg campaign was brilliant, the best in that war. Defying military convention he severs his army from its supplies, lands below Vicksburg and marches East to defeat a Confederate force to his East, and then leaving that shattered force to his rear, turns around to besiege Vicksburg.

Comes East against Lee and a couple of bloody missteps but wars of attrition are by definition bloody, meanwhile unleashing Sherman to run riot in the South.

forrest wasn't under lee's command.

Seeing the future I bet if the Yanks could do it over again they'd throw their hands up and surrender....

Um, they just did tolerate 20 years of wasteful war, bud.

True....

forrest wasn't under lee's command. as for lee's ability in the field... he did more with less constantly. if you haven't read the war, note that few of the leaders had even seen a division all in one place, never mind led one. they were mostly amateurs. for those who have been in the army, imaging going through basic and finding that all the others in your unit had no experience. then you fight a battle, in which confusion reigns. no radios. communication by courier. it's amazing they did as well as they did.

And now its the north who has been diligently trying ernestly for decades to destroy the nation and its freedom and its 1 and 2A of its constitution. They have been pretty successful at it by using the great grandkids of the souths ages ago field hands.
Biteme, Cuomo, De Blazio, Schumer, Sanders, Whitmore, Nadless......what a bunch of worthless grifters. Khazarian Mafia false jews for the most part.

The dimocraps sure made short work of Detroit and other once great northern citys.
Humm, yellow dog dimocraps of the south move north or something and turn the offspring of their old slaves against the north or something? Maybe the war wasnt quite won by the north and was just postponed.

Now the north is importing the muzzies as fast as they can. You'd think, once burnt twice learnt.
Maybe they did learn and are just hell bent on destroying the nation.

They appear to be doing a bang up job of it.

The simple answer is not enough men or material.

Two innovations which mitigate those limitations had not yet been invented.

Barbed wire and the machine gun.

Our New Mandate from the new US Resident:

private image hosting

Cause Truman was too much of a pussy wimp to let MacArthur go in there and blow out those Commie bastards!

If it happens again, I would expect a lot more states to secede.

North v South is no longer the dividing line.

My humble thoughts?

They underestimated the other side's will to fight.

The south didnt want to fight. They had no choice. It was fight and maybe win and not be destroyed or dont fight and surely be destroyed.

Its quite analogous to the miserable situation us freedom loving patriots and constitutionalists now find ourselves in.

We are at the Precipice. We change direction and maybe die or dont change direction and surely die.

Life would be more simple had they have won. We'd still have tubes in our radios, but I could live with that.

Nothing wrong with tubes in a nice preamp and amplifier. Vinyl is relaxing.

Speeches from prominent Southern politicians would indicate otherwise.

Compare their words to Lincoln's 1st inaugural address.

They lost because of their arrogance and lack of commitment.

Same reason why we've lost every war since WW2.

And have cheerfully participated in 50 years of war against their own American countrymen and women.

And now, like ticks, they're even more embedded in gubmint positions, always ready to sew communist seed.

In reality we lost WW1 and WW2. What did we gain? Did we free Asia and Europe or did murderous Russian and Chinese communism take over? We goaded Japan into attacking us and were arming the countries fighting Germany. And never have paid for either war or the interest on the money. The wars have broken us and put us at the mercy of the central bankers. Should have taken George Washington's advice and stayed out of the affairs of countries across the sea.

Let's beer clear off the objective....

Did we lose?

JFC... I'm talking about here, in the USA, in their backyard.... guy,

One of the biggest mistakes made by Southerners was not to free slaves before firing at Ft. Sumter. No country would provide aid to slave states.

The south was to busy " fixn and aiming to whoop ass". To get it done! That and zero industrial base to supply the needs of their army! Pretty simple.

The South had most of the experienced officers, and most capable soldiers, but lacking a strong industrial base, they absolutely needed to win the war quickly. Since they fiddled around too much at the start, it quickly became a hopeless cause. It should have gone only one way after Bull Run, leading to a quick forced peace with Lincoln. Having issued too many general ranks based on favors, they didn't have the battlefield leadership to accomplish that early on. Eventually, of course, they put Lee in charge, but by then it was too late. The North had already gotten their industrial base into action, as well as an unlimited flow if immigrants for immediate induction into the Union Army in exchange for citizenship.

Because Old John Brown was not just one guy.

the "black" problem that we have today is a direct problem that you ....the south ....have brought upon this country......bob

true...bob

if for no other reason than they wouldn't have to hear the continual war cry......I meant crying....that you do day after day.....bob

Most people who know the least little about the issue know that the slave trade was huge in southern states like Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island......

https://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/slave-trade-took-root-new-england/

A lot of good and true men of both sides removed from the gene pool. To what end? I occasionally wonder what this nation(s), or the world for that matter, would look like today if on April 12th the Secesh hadn't fired and the Union had so eagerly responded. I wonder if Lt Farley had any qualms as he ordered that first signal mortar? Would there have been 2 nations? Would they have patched up their differences eventually? Would they have pulled together when the Germans torpedoed American ships causing our late entry into WW l? Would German be our language now? WWll? Would we be speaking Russian?

The yanks occupied the high ground at Gettysburg. Lee should have listened to Longstreet and passed on Gettysburg and gone to D.C.

unfortunately, slavery was so much a part of the southern economy, that it wouldn't go away without the south being utterly defeated. slavery set this country back 50 years in the north and 100 years in the south.

Yes, Lee was a great General but his forte was the attack. He liked big battles and thought he could sweep Gettysburg. Had he not waited until the North could solidify their position he might've won but it was against great odds. Longstreet was a genius defensive General and wanted to set a trap on defensible ground and force the North to challenge and it might've worked but Lee opposed that strategy. Sherman's march was stalled by Johnston's hit and run tactics but Lee wanted decisive battles so he replaced him with Hood. How'd that work out?

Most Northern Generals were not exactly thrilled with the slaves. They did not want to be burdened with noncombatants. Meade denied slaves any help. Sherman was at first sympathetic to the South but over time soured. He was friends with Beauregard and had worked with him in Louisiana. He hated the slaves and was a pretty shallow man all in all. He evolved into a ruthless General and was effective at bringing the South to it's knees.

This was essentially a war fought for the preservation of a dying lifestyle aggravated by territorial dispute. It is sad and like all wars too many lives were lost due to idiot decisions made by command officers. We lost many ships to German U-boats because our command could not and would not take advise from Britton about escorting them. We left our costal cities lighted and committed many sins that cost innocent lives. They relieved Rear Admiral Kimmel of duties after Pear Harbor for not being clairvoyant. It's a destructive learning process.

Something I've not seen here but should be noted regarding our "not winning" in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan, is the fact that our troops in those wars were severely handicapped having to "fight" under the "Rules of Engagement." Those highly restrictive "Rules of Engagement" came from various Presidents/Commanders In Chief, State Departments, and sanctimonious politicians. They told our generals and admirals, "Go over there and fight ... but you can't, you can't , you can't, you can't, you can't ..........................."

Lincoln's "Rules of Engagement" to Grant, Sherman, etc., were, "Go kill the enemy, win this war, and get it over with, whatever it takes."

Were there to have been a bunch of Southern ragtag guerilla bands operating in the northern border States, Lincoln's "Rules of Engagement" would have been the same. "Go kill the enemy, win this war, and get it over with, whatever it takes."

Onerous, restrictive "Rules of Engagement" don't win wars.

L.W.

🇫🇷France did. Oui?

Union Navy blockades kept them out though.

Too bad Lincoln didn't leave McClellan in command for the whole war.

then America would have NEVER let the eyetalians in!

Those are some good points. Maybe the opposite of guerrilla war and a large army running roughshod through DC and the North would have been most effective.

Fighting a conventional war while mostly just trying to hold the South against an aggressor seems to me to have been the worst strategy as it turned into a war of attrition that the South couldn’t win.

What’s hard for me to understand is given a sizable confederate army and there commitment to there way of life. It seems to me that in some way shape or form they should have been able to make life miserable enough on the North that the North would have dropped the slavery issue and lose interest in the war as they had nothing to gain.

The cotton gin and the steam engine doomed the South, the first by making cotton an economically viable fabric, the second by powering English textile mills, cotton being suited to mechanized looms.

Inexpensive machine-made cotton fabric took the world of previously expensive homespun fabric by storm, and England had the Empire to sell it everywhere, creating their insatiable appetite for American cotton, coincidentally slave-grown. Thanks to British demand, beginning around 1820 in the South the fastest way to riches was your own cotton plantation. Cant grow cotton up North, so that was never an option up there.

Our politicians arise from among our wealthiest men, in the South their leaders were almost without exemption Planter Aristocracy, making decisions for and about cotton. By the time 1860 rolled around, fully 80% of the Southern economy concerned cotton, and one quarter of its population was enslaved, mostly for purposes of its cultivation.

At the start of the war the Confederacy actually tried to strongarm the British Empire into recognizing it as a legitimate government, by actually withholding exports of cotton to virtually its only customer, causing economic turmoil in Britain.

In response the British diversified their sources by introducing cotton cultivation to Egypt and India, depressing cotton prices and dooming the South to a period of post-bellum poverty.

Everything you need to know is in Butler’s speech;

Grant was a binge drinker. He would go for literally months drinking nothing but when he fell off the wagon, it was a long fall. He wasn't the fall down type of drunk. He'd just sit with a bottle or sleep. Part of his bad press was a hip injury caused when his horse fell on him. He had a performant limp that looked like a drunk staggering. The press often accused him of being drunk when he was completely sober.

Longstreet caught the flack from Gettysburg and wanted a reassignment to the west.Hood begged him on day 2 to do the obvious best thing and he refused which led to the debalicle on day 3.Jackson would have taken hoods advice but then again Jackson would have been in Ewells position on day 1 and there wouldn’t be day 2 or 3 it would have been decided

Lee restructured his army from 2 corps to 3 right before the Gettysburg campaign AP hill and Ewell had been division commanders under Jackson and weren’t used to commanding entire corps but taking orders from Jackson a bad combination and a lot of miscommunication unfolded during the battle

One of the more stirling testimonials to Grant’s character was the way his staff, who knew the man well, would cover for him during his binges.

And then there’s Lincoln’s famous quote.....

”Well I wish some of you would tell me the brand of whiskey Grant drinks. I would like to send a barrel of it to my other generals.”

Lee wasn’t used to Grants tactics all of the other commanders before grant left after Lee handed them there ass Grant on the other hand continued to flank south towards Richmond and Petersburg stretching Lee’s ranks and supplies

That goes back to that hip injury. He was often accused of being drunk when he wasn't. Most of his military decisions were made when completely sober.

Maybe. I believe detailed analysis has shown the situation at the end of Day 1 wasn’t so clear cut, in short Ewell not having as many men on hand and the Union positions on Cemetery Ridge already stronger than popularly supposed.

The buck of course stops with Lee and his vague orders toward that issue.

As far as disengaging and slipping around the Union left flank, way easier said than done. On Day 2 the ANV supply train and elements of its army were still strung out over more than thirty miles. To try and disengage would mean snaking the marching column around in close proximity to the main Union Army as well as colliding with large numbers of Union reinforcements rushing up from the south.

Thanks to the absence of Stuart no one in the ANV had any clear idea of where the Union forces were in relation to the area around the battlefield other than those gathering before them on Cemetery Ridge, hence Lee’s that is where those people are and that is where I shall fight them or words to that effect.

Plus Confederate reconnaissance of the field the morning of Day 2 really sucked, even considering the circumstance. Even so, they nearly pulled it off.

North 1
South 0
Halftime!

Yep. They’re not gonna like the results of the 2nd Half. 🤠

The Army of the Potomac invaded Virginia several times, got beat in a major battle every time, turned around and went home.

The Army of Northern Virginia invaded the North twice, got beat in a major battle both times, turned around and went home.

Meanwhile in the west, the Union Army won victory after victory except for a temporary reverse at Chicamagua.

Then the winningest Union general from the west was brung to the east.

Lincoln destroyed our Nation. And killed more Americans than LBJ. Worst President EVER.

Until LBJ and Hiden Biden came along.

Brazil had many more African slaves than America. Some 40 percent of all slaves imported to the New World went to Brazil. Lots of sugar cane to chop in Brazil.
In 1888, Brazil outlawed slavery. It was an unworkable system. Brazil did not have a civil war.

The same thing would have happened in America had we not had a civil war. What a disaster for my country was the Civil War. It took us decades to recover, and in some ways, we never have recovered from this war.

Agreed.

At Gettysburg Confederate gun emplacements we’re firing over the top of the Union targets. A complete waste of energy. Longstreet lost a third of his strength on the first charge yet Lee sent them up again. Picket’s charge wad a complete disaster.
The North had the advantage of high ground and good cover. Stewart was absent. That battle was the beginning of the end for the south.
McCellan was a timid politician and had plenty of chances to prove his worth.

North had more men, and more supplies.

Gettysburg day 2 recon by the south was early morning they didn’t attack until 4 or 5 pm Longstreet sent his division south on a wide march so he wouldn’t be detected Hood sent scouts to big round top before the attack and saw the supply trains behind it with no troops to guard it wide open opportunity wasted Longstreet wasted a lot of time coordinating attacks instead of throwing his entire corps into the fight which I believe would have been successful

I had forgotten about the wagon/artillery park behind Round Top tks.

A reconnaissance that morning by a single individual reported the Union line ended before Little Round Top (true at the time) and completely missed the advance of Sickles into the Peach Orchard.

The circuitous approach by Longstreet behind Seminary Ridge was necessary to preserve the element of surprise but went seriously wrong when the column lost its way and had to backtrack.

Once in position Longstreet insisted on waiting for the arrival of a favored Alabama regiment who had started out before dawn that morning from down by Chambersburg IIRC 25 miles away, they arrived at Gettysburg around one pm and were immediately sent around behind Seminary RidgeI believe these weary men were the ones sent against Little Round Top, having had little opportunity to refill their canteens beforehand.

Hood at the far right of the Confederate line was supposed to strike first, rolling up the Union left flank, to be followed by successive Confederate units to Hood’s left as the Union line folded. As luck would have it Hood was seriously wounded by an artillery round and out of action, nobody thought to inform his next of command.

Almost worked anyway, my own belief is that Sickles’ unauthorized deployment forward saved the day and the battle for the Union by breaking the momentum of the Confederate assault.

What do you think would be the results of a modern day war between the North and the South?

Little different then back then. Bloody tragedy with a lot of losers on both sides.

Correct, even when the the North's best had defected to the South.

It's a different dynamic today. Almost everything of intrinsic value is produced in the South now...but controlled by the same people up North.

Complicated to say the least.

The North overcame a series of incompetent and timid generals with superior numbers, railroads and industrial base. They finally found a semi competent general who understood his advantages and was not afraid to fight. End of story.

It was a little more complicated than that, as wives and children in New York City weren't being raped by the opposition.

Obviously an oversimplification. A lot of my ancestors came from a super complicated theatre of the war. East Tennessee was about as complicated as it got in the 1860s. Lots of atrocities committed by both sides.

Problem would be the readymade peace at any price party made up of all the Social Security recipients and folks that owe money. Then you would have our huge black population, a good many with military training. Half our boys are sissies nowadays. Tell me how it would come out. 60+ year old men don't fight wars very well even if they would give up their check and fight. We are hog tied, because we took the bait of social programs.

Only one side was invaded.

Parts of East Tennessee and north Alabama considered themselves to still be part of the Union and were invaded by Confederate forces. I take your point though.

Well duh! How would a war start waiting for the South to attack the North?

"Confederate gunners fired on Ft. Sumter in Charleston, SC on April 12, 1861. Ft. Sumter fell 34 hours later. It was a bloodless opening to the bloodiest war in American history."

.

My 8th grade history teacher, who was a Mass. Yankee by the way, taught us that the irony of the civil war was that in the very near future technology would have made slavery obsolete. and that the cost of buying and maintaining slaves would be more than hiring people to do the the work.

The Cival war wasn't about slavery....until Lincoln started loosing support for the war.9

Lincoln even said the slaves could not live in our society....and talked about moving them out of the country.
He sure hit the nail on the head

No expert here, but it seems there might be a couple of reasons. One, the South's generals were trained just like the North's, so the massed-force type of warfare was how they all thought and fought. And secondly, they didn't have the hindsight afforded by the Viet Nam and Afghanistan experiences we've now seen. Just my $.02; interesting and thought-provoking thread especially as to how it might apply in the future.

I saw a very interesting lecture- at the Naval War College about the similarities between the War of Northern Aggression and WWII comparing the South and Japan v the USA. Both the South and the japs scored initial and very successful victories but both nations realized they at best, needed a decisive BIG victory to change public opinion and hope for at least a draw, for there was no way they could win a protracted war in the end (and they didn't).

Enter Gettysburg and Midway. Had the South and the japs won, maybe this would have happened but in both instances, both Lee and Nagumo screwed the pooch with wrong decisions, indecision on Nagumo's part to go after our carriers once he found out and Lee of course stalling on the attack and that incredibly poor planned strike at the Union Center with Pickett. Both the South and Japan lost the second the first Volley was fired at Sumter and the first bombs came of the rails over Pearl Harbor,

Even if the south had been victorious, they would have had to enslave themselves to Europe for financial ad, and, Mexico would have probably made a move to regain Texas and California.

Really good point about Mexico. I hadn’t considered that.

The South lacked manpower, logistics and their weak navy was unable to break the blockade which strangled the South.

The South had no manufacturing base. No real industry. All they had was warm water ports the North likely coveted. They had no way of breaking the North's blockade. General Jackson's death was a big blow for the Southern forces. Lee made some critical mistakes that cost him dearly. Military tactics at the time were brutal and both sides suffered terrible losses. All this for protecting the status quo of a dying practice of Slavery the South could ill afford to keep. Their inability to compromise on the issue of Slavery in the new territories brought about the most cataclysmic debacle in the history of the Republic.