150 Years Ago today at the McLean family farm in Appomattox

[martybegan]

150 years ago, April 9, 1865, General Ulysses S. Grant and General Robert E. Lee met at the McLean family farm house in Appomattox, Virginia. It was at this location where General Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to the Union forces, commanded by General Grant. This signaled the end of the Confederacy.

A sad day in history? A great victory for the union? An affirmation of President Lincoln's views that the union was and is inviolate? And if Pickett's charge at Gettysburg had succeeded, what would have been different?

Being a student of the American Civil War, I cannot help but feel the great sadness felt by many on the side of the south at this defeat. Yet at the same time, I understand and feel the great jubilation felt by the north. A sense of relief felt by all that this massacre and long nightmare was finally over. Or was it?

Please try and refrain from making this an ignorant commentary on some political point that you want to make like in the previous thread by Ravi. Ignorance of the time, the reasons for and the situations of the combatants and participants show only your sad state of intelligence.

One wonders if Lee had taken a different course, and instead of surrendering and urging his men to accept the loss, urged his men to continue the fight in any way possible.

Marty, unfortunately the confederates were at the end of their rope. Many had not eaten for days and were completely out of ammunition and supplies. General Grant ordered some 26,000 rations given to the Army of Northern Virginia as a condition of surrender. Even if they had resisted, I am afraid it would have been a slaughter of the type not seen since Antietam. One of Lee's generals had asked if they should fight a 'guerrilla war.' Lee replied matter-of-factly 'NO'. In his mind I felt that Lee did not approve of such activities. He was a gentleman and I believe thought that once surrendered, his men should return to their civilian lives. I have never read of Lee approving of any of the holdouts continuing the hostilities like they did in Missouri.

I think Grant showed great compassion to Lee and his men. He allowed them to keep their weapons and horses and fed them

Lincoln was assassinated less than a week later. I don't think Lee would have received such favorable terms if he had fought for another week

100% correct.

 

[paperview]

150 years ago, April 9, 1865, General Ulysses S. Grant and General Robert E. Lee met at the McLean family farm house in Appomattox, Virginia. It was at this location where General Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to the Union forces, commanded by General Grant. This signaled the end of the Confederacy.

A sad day in history? A great victory for the union? An affirmation of President Lincoln's views that the union was and is inviolate? And if Pickett's charge at Gettysburg had succeeded, what would have been different?

Being a student of the American Civil War, I cannot help but feel the great sadness felt by many on the side of the south at this defeat. Yet at the same time, I understand and feel the great jubilation felt by the north. A sense of relief felt by all that this massacre and long nightmare was finally over. Or was it?

Please try and refrain from making this an ignorant commentary on some political point that you want to make like in the previous thread by Ravi. Ignorance of the time, the reasons for and the situations of the combatants and participants show only your sad state of intelligence.

One wonders if Lee had taken a different course, and instead of surrendering and urging his men to accept the loss, urged his men to continue the fight in any way possible.

They were a tattered, lost, moribund confederacy by 1865.

The South never stood a chance. They were outmanned, outgunned, out-infrastructured, out-everythinged....out of all possibility of winning.

It wasn't a matter of if, it was a matter of when.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

It was, I think, obvious that Lee was tired. I think that Gettysburg had done him in when he recognized his mistake. A part of him, just wanted it over. On the other side, Lincoln just wanted it over as well and to 'heal' the wounds as soon as possible. Grant had communication from Lincoln to be conciliatory in his dealings with Lee. I agree that to continue would have required the north to be more aggressive in their occupation of the south. Hard to tell what the effects would have been on today, but that is an excellent question Marty.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

150 years ago, April 9, 1865, General Ulysses S. Grant and General Robert E. Lee met at the McLean family farm house in Appomattox, Virginia. It was at this location where General Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to the Union forces, commanded by General Grant. This signaled the end of the Confederacy.

A sad day in history? A great victory for the union? An affirmation of President Lincoln's views that the union was and is inviolate? And if Pickett's charge at Gettysburg had succeeded, what would have been different?

Being a student of the American Civil War, I cannot help but feel the great sadness felt by many on the side of the south at this defeat. Yet at the same time, I understand and feel the great jubilation felt by the north. A sense of relief felt by all that this massacre and long nightmare was finally over. Or was it?

Please try and refrain from making this an ignorant commentary on some political point that you want to make like in the previous thread by Ravi. Ignorance of the time, the reasons for and the situations of the combatants and participants show only your sad state of intelligence.

One wonders if Lee had taken a different course, and instead of surrendering and urging his men to accept the loss, urged his men to continue the fight in any way possible.

They were a tattered, lost, moribund confederacy by 1865.

The South never stood a chance. They were outmanned, outgunned, out-infrastructured, out-everythinged....out of all possibility of winning.

It wasn't a matter of if, it was a matter of when.

They had lost in the west. The blockade was slowly strangling them. The Union navy was running up and down the Mississippi at will. At this time they were done for and Lee knew it. All they could hope for was a surrender with terms more favorable. And until Lincoln was shot, they were going to get as favorable terms as they could get. When Lincoln died, they were going to pay and they did.

If Lee had routed the union at Gettysburg, captured Meade's supply train, and left the Army of the Potomac in tatters, then things could have been different.

 

[martybegan]

150 years ago, April 9, 1865, General Ulysses S. Grant and General Robert E. Lee met at the McLean family farm house in Appomattox, Virginia. It was at this location where General Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to the Union forces, commanded by General Grant. This signaled the end of the Confederacy.

A sad day in history? A great victory for the union? An affirmation of President Lincoln's views that the union was and is inviolate? And if Pickett's charge at Gettysburg had succeeded, what would have been different?

Being a student of the American Civil War, I cannot help but feel the great sadness felt by many on the side of the south at this defeat. Yet at the same time, I understand and feel the great jubilation felt by the north. A sense of relief felt by all that this massacre and long nightmare was finally over. Or was it?

Please try and refrain from making this an ignorant commentary on some political point that you want to make like in the previous thread by Ravi. Ignorance of the time, the reasons for and the situations of the combatants and participants show only your sad state of intelligence.

One wonders if Lee had taken a different course, and instead of surrendering and urging his men to accept the loss, urged his men to continue the fight in any way possible.

They were a tattered, lost, moribund confederacy by 1865.

The South never stood a chance. They were outmanned, outgunned, out-infrastructured, out-everythinged....out of all possibility of winning.

It wasn't a matter of if, it was a matter of when.

If they could have won a few more battles and forced European Recognition of the confederacy, they could have ended with a negotiated withdrawal from the Union.

Harry Turtledove's Timeline 191 has a plausible Confederate win scenario as its basis for the subsequent alternate history.

Southern Victory Series - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Roadrunner]

150 years ago, April 9, 1865, General Ulysses S. Grant and General Robert E. Lee met at the McLean family farm house in Appomattox, Virginia. It was at this location where General Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to the Union forces, commanded by General Grant. This signaled the end of the Confederacy.

A sad day in history? A great victory for the union? An affirmation of President Lincoln's views that the union was and is inviolate? And if Pickett's charge at Gettysburg had succeeded, what would have been different?

Being a student of the American Civil War, I cannot help but feel the great sadness felt by many on the side of the south at this defeat. Yet at the same time, I understand and feel the great jubilation felt by the north. A sense of relief felt by all that this massacre and long nightmare was finally over. Or was it?

Please try and refrain from making this an ignorant commentary on some political point that you want to make like in the previous thread by Ravi. Ignorance of the time, the reasons for and the situations of the combatants and participants show only your sad state of intelligence.

My ancestors walked home, started over, went back to work, and got over it.

 

[Roadrunner]

150 years ago, April 9, 1865, General Ulysses S. Grant and General Robert E. Lee met at the McLean family farm house in Appomattox, Virginia. It was at this location where General Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to the Union forces, commanded by General Grant. This signaled the end of the Confederacy.

A sad day in history? A great victory for the union? An affirmation of President Lincoln's views that the union was and is inviolate? And if Pickett's charge at Gettysburg had succeeded, what would have been different?

Being a student of the American Civil War, I cannot help but feel the great sadness felt by many on the side of the south at this defeat. Yet at the same time, I understand and feel the great jubilation felt by the north. A sense of relief felt by all that this massacre and long nightmare was finally over. Or was it?

Please try and refrain from making this an ignorant commentary on some political point that you want to make like in the previous thread by Ravi. Ignorance of the time, the reasons for and the situations of the combatants and participants show only your sad state of intelligence.

One wonders if Lee had taken a different course, and instead of surrendering and urging his men to accept the loss, urged his men to continue the fight in any way possible.

They were a tattered, lost, moribund confederacy by 1865.

The South never stood a chance. They were outmanned, outgunned, out-infrastructured, out-everythinged....out of all possibility of winning.

It wasn't a matter of if, it was a matter of when.

They had lost in the west. The blockade was slowly strangling them. The Union navy was running up and down the Mississippi at will. At this time they were done for and Lee knew it. All they could hope for was a surrender with terms more favorable. And until Lincoln was shot, they were going to get as favorable terms as they could get. When Lincoln died, they were going to pay and they did.

If Lee had routed the union at Gettysburg, captured Meade's supply train, and left the Army of the Potomac in tatters, then things could have been different.

Grant began implementing the Anaconda Plan at Ft. Donelson.

The South never had a chance, unless the North tired of the war.

They didn't pull a Korea, Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan, stayed the course, and won the inevitable victory.

That said, if if had been a skiff, my ancestors could have boated home.

 

[paperview]

150 years ago, April 9, 1865, General Ulysses S. Grant and General Robert E. Lee met at the McLean family farm house in Appomattox, Virginia. It was at this location where General Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to the Union forces, commanded by General Grant. This signaled the end of the Confederacy.

A sad day in history? A great victory for the union? An affirmation of President Lincoln's views that the union was and is inviolate? And if Pickett's charge at Gettysburg had succeeded, what would have been different?

Being a student of the American Civil War, I cannot help but feel the great sadness felt by many on the side of the south at this defeat. Yet at the same time, I understand and feel the great jubilation felt by the north. A sense of relief felt by all that this massacre and long nightmare was finally over. Or was it?

Please try and refrain from making this an ignorant commentary on some political point that you want to make like in the previous thread by Ravi. Ignorance of the time, the reasons for and the situations of the combatants and participants show only your sad state of intelligence.

One wonders if Lee had taken a different course, and instead of surrendering and urging his men to accept the loss, urged his men to continue the fight in any way possible.

They were a tattered, lost, moribund confederacy by 1865.

The South never stood a chance. They were outmanned, outgunned, out-infrastructured, out-everythinged....out of all possibility of winning.

It wasn't a matter of if, it was a matter of when.

If they could have won a few more battles and forced European Recognition of the confederacy, they could have ended with a negotiated withdrawal from the Union.

Harry Turtledove's Timeline 191 has a plausible Confederate win scenario as its basis for the subsequent alternate history.

Southern Victory Series - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Keep dreaming. They were decimated, utterly by 1865.

They were never going to recognition from GB - not one country in the world recognized the CSA. (ok, I think one little butthole county in Europe with a population of like 112 did lol)

Forced European Recognition? How to you force countries to recognize you? More lol.

They were fighting a lost cause with a very bad moral position: The right to own and expand the practice of maintaining blacks as human property in perpetuity.

When I hear the If only's from confederate sympathizers, I am reminded of this great quote from William Faulkner:

“It's all now you see. Yesterday won't be over until tomorrow and tomorrow began ten thousand years ago.

For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two o'clock on that July afternoon in 1863, the brigades are in position behind the rail fence, the guns are laid and ready in the woods and the furled flags are already loosened to break out and Pickett himself with his long oiled ringlets and his hat in one hand probably and his sword in the other looking up the hill waiting for Longstreet to give the word and it's all in the balance, it hasn't happened yet, it hasn't even begun yet, it not only hasn't begun yet but there is still time for it not to begin against that position and those circumstances which made more men than Garnett and Kemper and Armistead and Wilcox look grave yet it's going to begin,

we all know that, we have come too far with too much at stake and that moment doesn't need even a fourteen-year-old boy to think

This time. Maybe this time with all this much to lose than all this much to gain: Pennsylvania, Maryland, the world, the golden dome of Washington itself to crown with desperate and unbelievable victory the desperate gamble, the cast made two years ago; or to anyone who ever sailed a skiff under a quilt sail, the moment in 1492 when somebody thought This is it: the absolute edge of no return, to turn back now and make home or sail irrevocably on and either find land or plunge over the world's roaring rim.”
― William Faulkner, Intruder in the Dust

 

[rightwinger]

150 years ago, April 9, 1865, General Ulysses S. Grant and General Robert E. Lee met at the McLean family farm house in Appomattox, Virginia. It was at this location where General Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to the Union forces, commanded by General Grant. This signaled the end of the Confederacy.

A sad day in history? A great victory for the union? An affirmation of President Lincoln's views that the union was and is inviolate? And if Pickett's charge at Gettysburg had succeeded, what would have been different?

Being a student of the American Civil War, I cannot help but feel the great sadness felt by many on the side of the south at this defeat. Yet at the same time, I understand and feel the great jubilation felt by the north. A sense of relief felt by all that this massacre and long nightmare was finally over. Or was it?

Please try and refrain from making this an ignorant commentary on some political point that you want to make like in the previous thread by Ravi. Ignorance of the time, the reasons for and the situations of the combatants and participants show only your sad state of intelligence.

One wonders if Lee had taken a different course, and instead of surrendering and urging his men to accept the loss, urged his men to continue the fight in any way possible.

They were a tattered, lost, moribund confederacy by 1865.

The South never stood a chance. They were outmanned, outgunned, out-infrastructured, out-everythinged....out of all possibility of winning.

It wasn't a matter of if, it was a matter of when.

If they could have won a few more battles and forced European Recognition of the confederacy, they could have ended with a negotiated withdrawal from the Union.

Harry Turtledove's Timeline 191 has a plausible Confederate win scenario as its basis for the subsequent alternate history.

Southern Victory Series - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I think Lincolns emancipation card trumped that

European nations did not want to come on to the side defending slavery. They desperately wanted the cotton but I don't think they would have challenged the union blockade to get it

I read Turtledoves Guns of the South where he looked at what if the South got AK-47s
Probably as plausible

 

[martybegan]

150 years ago, April 9, 1865, General Ulysses S. Grant and General Robert E. Lee met at the McLean family farm house in Appomattox, Virginia. It was at this location where General Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to the Union forces, commanded by General Grant. This signaled the end of the Confederacy.

A sad day in history? A great victory for the union? An affirmation of President Lincoln's views that the union was and is inviolate? And if Pickett's charge at Gettysburg had succeeded, what would have been different?

Being a student of the American Civil War, I cannot help but feel the great sadness felt by many on the side of the south at this defeat. Yet at the same time, I understand and feel the great jubilation felt by the north. A sense of relief felt by all that this massacre and long nightmare was finally over. Or was it?

Please try and refrain from making this an ignorant commentary on some political point that you want to make like in the previous thread by Ravi. Ignorance of the time, the reasons for and the situations of the combatants and participants show only your sad state of intelligence.

One wonders if Lee had taken a different course, and instead of surrendering and urging his men to accept the loss, urged his men to continue the fight in any way possible.

They were a tattered, lost, moribund confederacy by 1865.

The South never stood a chance. They were outmanned, outgunned, out-infrastructured, out-everythinged....out of all possibility of winning.

It wasn't a matter of if, it was a matter of when.

If they could have won a few more battles and forced European Recognition of the confederacy, they could have ended with a negotiated withdrawal from the Union.

Harry Turtledove's Timeline 191 has a plausible Confederate win scenario as its basis for the subsequent alternate history.

Southern Victory Series - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I think Lincolns emancipation card trumped that

European nations did not want to come on to the side defending slavery. They desperately wanted the cotton but I don't think they would have challenged the union blockade to get it

I read Turtledoves Guns of the South where he looked at what if the South got AK-47s
Probable as plausible

That's a bit of an exaggeration about the "Guns of the South" reference comparing to a different outcome to Antietam. If Lee was able to park his army in Philadelphia in 1862, things may have been different.

 

[Roadrunner]

150 years ago, April 9, 1865, General Ulysses S. Grant and General Robert E. Lee met at the McLean family farm house in Appomattox, Virginia. It was at this location where General Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to the Union forces, commanded by General Grant. This signaled the end of the Confederacy.

A sad day in history? A great victory for the union? An affirmation of President Lincoln's views that the union was and is inviolate? And if Pickett's charge at Gettysburg had succeeded, what would have been different?

Being a student of the American Civil War, I cannot help but feel the great sadness felt by many on the side of the south at this defeat. Yet at the same time, I understand and feel the great jubilation felt by the north. A sense of relief felt by all that this massacre and long nightmare was finally over. Or was it?

Please try and refrain from making this an ignorant commentary on some political point that you want to make like in the previous thread by Ravi. Ignorance of the time, the reasons for and the situations of the combatants and participants show only your sad state of intelligence.

One wonders if Lee had taken a different course, and instead of surrendering and urging his men to accept the loss, urged his men to continue the fight in any way possible.

They were a tattered, lost, moribund confederacy by 1865.

The South never stood a chance. They were outmanned, outgunned, out-infrastructured, out-everythinged....out of all possibility of winning.

It wasn't a matter of if, it was a matter of when.

If they could have won a few more battles and forced European Recognition of the confederacy, they could have ended with a negotiated withdrawal from the Union.

Harry Turtledove's Timeline 191 has a plausible Confederate win scenario as its basis for the subsequent alternate history.

Southern Victory Series - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I think Lincolns emancipation card trumped that

European nations did not want to come on to the side defending slavery. They desperately wanted the cotton but I don't think they would have challenged the union blockade to get it

I read Turtledoves Guns of the South where he looked at what if the South got AK-47s
Probable as plausible

That's a bit of an exaggeration about the "Guns of the South" reference comparing to a different outcome to Antietam. If Lee was able to park his army in Philadelphia in 1862, things may have been different.

If Forrest's advice had been followed, the South might have had a chance.

VC/NVA knew how to grind down the American public; avoid fixed battles, send the bodies home in small numbers, every day, day after day, and break the American will.

Lee was a legend in his own mind, and I cannot believe a loser is so widely respected as a genius.

Lee should have been hanged for ordering Pickett's Charge.

 

[Roadrunner]

150 years ago, April 9, 1865, General Ulysses S. Grant and General Robert E. Lee met at the McLean family farm house in Appomattox, Virginia. It was at this location where General Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to the Union forces, commanded by General Grant. This signaled the end of the Confederacy.

A sad day in history? A great victory for the union? An affirmation of President Lincoln's views that the union was and is inviolate? And if Pickett's charge at Gettysburg had succeeded, what would have been different?

Being a student of the American Civil War, I cannot help but feel the great sadness felt by many on the side of the south at this defeat. Yet at the same time, I understand and feel the great jubilation felt by the north. A sense of relief felt by all that this massacre and long nightmare was finally over. Or was it?

Please try and refrain from making this an ignorant commentary on some political point that you want to make like in the previous thread by Ravi. Ignorance of the time, the reasons for and the situations of the combatants and participants show only your sad state of intelligence.

One wonders if Lee had taken a different course, and instead of surrendering and urging his men to accept the loss, urged his men to continue the fight in any way possible.

They were a tattered, lost, moribund confederacy by 1865.

The South never stood a chance. They were outmanned, outgunned, out-infrastructured, out-everythinged....out of all possibility of winning.

It wasn't a matter of if, it was a matter of when.

If they could have won a few more battles and forced European Recognition of the confederacy, they could have ended with a negotiated withdrawal from the Union.

Harry Turtledove's Timeline 191 has a plausible Confederate win scenario as its basis for the subsequent alternate history.

Southern Victory Series - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I think Lincolns emancipation card trumped that

European nations did not want to come on to the side defending slavery. They desperately wanted the cotton but I don't think they would have challenged the union blockade to get it

I read Turtledoves Guns of the South where he looked at what if the South got AK-47s
Probably as plausible

India and Egypt had plenty of cotton.

Cotton card was played, and trumped.

The whole fuckin' war was stupidity.

 

[rightwinger]

150 years ago, April 9, 1865, General Ulysses S. Grant and General Robert E. Lee met at the McLean family farm house in Appomattox, Virginia. It was at this location where General Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to the Union forces, commanded by General Grant. This signaled the end of the Confederacy.

A sad day in history? A great victory for the union? An affirmation of President Lincoln's views that the union was and is inviolate? And if Pickett's charge at Gettysburg had succeeded, what would have been different?

Being a student of the American Civil War, I cannot help but feel the great sadness felt by many on the side of the south at this defeat. Yet at the same time, I understand and feel the great jubilation felt by the north. A sense of relief felt by all that this massacre and long nightmare was finally over. Or was it?

Please try and refrain from making this an ignorant commentary on some political point that you want to make like in the previous thread by Ravi. Ignorance of the time, the reasons for and the situations of the combatants and participants show only your sad state of intelligence.

One wonders if Lee had taken a different course, and instead of surrendering and urging his men to accept the loss, urged his men to continue the fight in any way possible.

They were a tattered, lost, moribund confederacy by 1865.

The South never stood a chance. They were outmanned, outgunned, out-infrastructured, out-everythinged....out of all possibility of winning.

It wasn't a matter of if, it was a matter of when.

If they could have won a few more battles and forced European Recognition of the confederacy, they could have ended with a negotiated withdrawal from the Union.

Harry Turtledove's Timeline 191 has a plausible Confederate win scenario as its basis for the subsequent alternate history.

Southern Victory Series - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I think Lincolns emancipation card trumped that

European nations did not want to come on to the side defending slavery. They desperately wanted the cotton but I don't think they would have challenged the union blockade to get it

I read Turtledoves Guns of the South where he looked at what if the South got AK-47s
Probable as plausible

That's a bit of an exaggeration about the "Guns of the South" reference comparing to a different outcome to Antietam. If Lee was able to park his army in Philadelphia in 1862, things may have been different.

Like all wars, it all comes down to logistics

Even if Lee were to take Philadelphia, I doubt if he could keep it. The South would have been unable to support an occupying force in Philadelphia by sea. The land routes available at the time would not have supported his Army

 

[martybegan]

One wonders if Lee had taken a different course, and instead of surrendering and urging his men to accept the loss, urged his men to continue the fight in any way possible.

They were a tattered, lost, moribund confederacy by 1865.

The South never stood a chance. They were outmanned, outgunned, out-infrastructured, out-everythinged....out of all possibility of winning.

It wasn't a matter of if, it was a matter of when.

If they could have won a few more battles and forced European Recognition of the confederacy, they could have ended with a negotiated withdrawal from the Union.

Harry Turtledove's Timeline 191 has a plausible Confederate win scenario as its basis for the subsequent alternate history.

Southern Victory Series - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I think Lincolns emancipation card trumped that

European nations did not want to come on to the side defending slavery. They desperately wanted the cotton but I don't think they would have challenged the union blockade to get it

I read Turtledoves Guns of the South where he looked at what if the South got AK-47s
Probable as plausible

That's a bit of an exaggeration about the "Guns of the South" reference comparing to a different outcome to Antietam. If Lee was able to park his army in Philadelphia in 1862, things may have been different.

Like all wars, it all comes down to logistics

Even if Lee were to take Philadelphia, I doubt if he could keep it. The South would have been unable to support an occupying force in Philadelphia by sea. The land routes available at the time would not have supported his Army

In this scenario the French and English broke the union blockade and threatened further attacks if the US would not agree to negotiate.

 

[Roadrunner]

One wonders if Lee had taken a different course, and instead of surrendering and urging his men to accept the loss, urged his men to continue the fight in any way possible.

They were a tattered, lost, moribund confederacy by 1865.

The South never stood a chance. They were outmanned, outgunned, out-infrastructured, out-everythinged....out of all possibility of winning.

It wasn't a matter of if, it was a matter of when.

If they could have won a few more battles and forced European Recognition of the confederacy, they could have ended with a negotiated withdrawal from the Union.

Harry Turtledove's Timeline 191 has a plausible Confederate win scenario as its basis for the subsequent alternate history.

Southern Victory Series - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I think Lincolns emancipation card trumped that

European nations did not want to come on to the side defending slavery. They desperately wanted the cotton but I don't think they would have challenged the union blockade to get it

I read Turtledoves Guns of the South where he looked at what if the South got AK-47s
Probable as plausible

That's a bit of an exaggeration about the "Guns of the South" reference comparing to a different outcome to Antietam. If Lee was able to park his army in Philadelphia in 1862, things may have been different.

Like all wars, it all comes down to logistics

Even if Lee were to take Philadelphia, I doubt if he could keep it. The South would have been unable to support an occupying force in Philadelphia by sea. The land routes available at the time would not have supported his Army

Southern troops could have(and could have and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks) massed and taken Washington very early, and maybe the US would have let them go.

The proper way to have solved the issue would have been a Constitutional Convention and a mutually agreed upon dissolution of the Union.

Which is what we ought to do now.

Who needs to be a superpower anyway.

France is doing fine since they gave up that idea.

Three republics running their own affairs, behind their own nuclear shield, would be a Hell of a lot better for the rest of the world too.

 

[rightwinger]

They were a tattered, lost, moribund confederacy by 1865.

The South never stood a chance. They were outmanned, outgunned, out-infrastructured, out-everythinged....out of all possibility of winning.

It wasn't a matter of if, it was a matter of when.

If they could have won a few more battles and forced European Recognition of the confederacy, they could have ended with a negotiated withdrawal from the Union.

Harry Turtledove's Timeline 191 has a plausible Confederate win scenario as its basis for the subsequent alternate history.

Southern Victory Series - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I think Lincolns emancipation card trumped that

European nations did not want to come on to the side defending slavery. They desperately wanted the cotton but I don't think they would have challenged the union blockade to get it

I read Turtledoves Guns of the South where he looked at what if the South got AK-47s
Probable as plausible

That's a bit of an exaggeration about the "Guns of the South" reference comparing to a different outcome to Antietam. If Lee was able to park his army in Philadelphia in 1862, things may have been different.

Like all wars, it all comes down to logistics

Even if Lee were to take Philadelphia, I doubt if he could keep it. The South would have been unable to support an occupying force in Philadelphia by sea. The land routes available at the time would not have supported his Army

In this scenario the French and English broke the union blockade and threatened further attacks if the US would not agree to negotiate.

Since emancipation did not happen till after Antietam, the slavery card had not been played

I have walked the Antietam battlefield several times and unlike Gettysburg, there was not a chance for a Confederate breakout let alone a decisive victory. It was just throw more troops into the stinking cornfield and let them get slaughtered

 

[KissMy]

Had the south won we would not have to use this stinking currency

 

[Roadrunner]

If they could have won a few more battles and forced European Recognition of the confederacy, they could have ended with a negotiated withdrawal from the Union.

Harry Turtledove's Timeline 191 has a plausible Confederate win scenario as its basis for the subsequent alternate history.

Southern Victory Series - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I think Lincolns emancipation card trumped that

European nations did not want to come on to the side defending slavery. They desperately wanted the cotton but I don't think they would have challenged the union blockade to get it

I read Turtledoves Guns of the South where he looked at what if the South got AK-47s
Probable as plausible

That's a bit of an exaggeration about the "Guns of the South" reference comparing to a different outcome to Antietam. If Lee was able to park his army in Philadelphia in 1862, things may have been different.

Like all wars, it all comes down to logistics

Even if Lee were to take Philadelphia, I doubt if he could keep it. The South would have been unable to support an occupying force in Philadelphia by sea. The land routes available at the time would not have supported his Army

In this scenario the French and English broke the union blockade and threatened further attacks if the US would not agree to negotiate.

Since emancipation did not happen till after Antietam, the slavery card had not been played

I have walked the Antietam battlefield several times and unlike Gettysburg, there was not a chance for a Confederate breakout let alone a decisive victory. It was just throw more troops into the stinking cornfield and let them get slaughtered

I had three great however many great uncles there.

27th Georgia Infantry, the Rutland Grays, Bibb County.

I will be buried with them.

Six of my great, great, great, great granddaddys sons signed up, and one son-in-law.

The son in law caught pneumonia during the flood at Ft. Donelson and was the only one that died in the war.

All the rest were wounded, and only two were with Lee at Appomattox.

 

[rightwinger]

I think Lincolns emancipation card trumped that

European nations did not want to come on to the side defending slavery. They desperately wanted the cotton but I don't think they would have challenged the union blockade to get it

I read Turtledoves Guns of the South where he looked at what if the South got AK-47s
Probable as plausible

That's a bit of an exaggeration about the "Guns of the South" reference comparing to a different outcome to Antietam. If Lee was able to park his army in Philadelphia in 1862, things may have been different.

Like all wars, it all comes down to logistics

Even if Lee were to take Philadelphia, I doubt if he could keep it. The South would have been unable to support an occupying force in Philadelphia by sea. The land routes available at the time would not have supported his Army

In this scenario the French and English broke the union blockade and threatened further attacks if the US would not agree to negotiate.

Since emancipation did not happen till after Antietam, the slavery card had not been played

I have walked the Antietam battlefield several times and unlike Gettysburg, there was not a chance for a Confederate breakout let alone a decisive victory. It was just throw more troops into the stinking cornfield and let them get slaughtered

I had three great however many great uncles there.

27th Georgia Infantry, the Rutland Grays, Bibb County.

I will be buried with them.

Six of my great, great, great, great granddaddys sons signed up, and one son-in-law.

The son in law caught pneumonia during the flood at Ft. Donelson and was the only one that died in the war.

All the rest were wounded, and only two were with Lee at Appomattox.

I had an ancestor at Fords Theater, He described the outrage of the people in the theater and that they were trying to form a mob to burn down the prison that held the confederate prisoners in DC. He also talked about how southerners were shot for saying they were glad Lincoln was killed

 

[Roadrunner]

That's a bit of an exaggeration about the "Guns of the South" reference comparing to a different outcome to Antietam. If Lee was able to park his army in Philadelphia in 1862, things may have been different.

Like all wars, it all comes down to logistics

Even if Lee were to take Philadelphia, I doubt if he could keep it. The South would have been unable to support an occupying force in Philadelphia by sea. The land routes available at the time would not have supported his Army

In this scenario the French and English broke the union blockade and threatened further attacks if the US would not agree to negotiate.

Since emancipation did not happen till after Antietam, the slavery card had not been played

I have walked the Antietam battlefield several times and unlike Gettysburg, there was not a chance for a Confederate breakout let alone a decisive victory. It was just throw more troops into the stinking cornfield and let them get slaughtered

I had three great however many great uncles there.

27th Georgia Infantry, the Rutland Grays, Bibb County.

I will be buried with them.

Six of my great, great, great, great granddaddys sons signed up, and one son-in-law.

The son in law caught pneumonia during the flood at Ft. Donelson and was the only one that died in the war.

All the rest were wounded, and only two were with Lee at Appomattox.

I had an ancestor at Fords Theater, He described the outrage of the people in the theater and that they were trying to form a mob to burn down the prison that held the confederate prisoners in DC. He also talked about how southerners were shot for saying they were glad Lincoln was killed

Death of Lincoln doomed the South to poverty for the next 150 years.

There has never been a full recovery, because of that.

(Opinion)