150 Years Ago today at the McLean family farm in Appomattox

[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

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.

I don't think Washington had the strategic importance that Boston, New York or Philadelphia had

If DC fell, I think the capitol would have moved to Philadelphia. I don't think the union would have collapsed

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

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.

I don't think Washington had the strategic importance that Boston, New York or Philadelphia had

If DC fell, I think the capitol would have moved to Philadelphia. I don't think the union would have collapsed

I agree with RightWinger. I don't think that if Lee took DC, Lincoln would have given up and let them go. We have the British taking DC earlier in the century and burning it. The capital would simply be moved to Philadelphia, where it started and where it went when the British took DC.

The most likely scenario for a Confederate victory (dissolution of the union into two separate countries), was a victory at Gettysburg followed by the destruction of the Army of the Potomac. I don't think Lee would have taken and tried to hold any territory north of the Mason-Dixon. Yet if somehow Missouri and Kentucky saw a possible win for the Confederacy on the horizon (due to a victory at Gettysburg), they might have officially seceded, strengthening Davis and Lee's hand. Maryland itself was no great big cheer leader for the union at the time either. Imagine the results if all three joined the confederacy.

Doomed from the start? I'm not too sure about that. I think that if everything had come together for the confederacy, things would have definitely come out different. But there were a lot of different cards that had to go just right, or the outcome would be a long, slow death. Those things did not happen and the outcome was obvious, especially when Lee told Pickett to commit the biggest blunder in the war.

 

[whitehall]

The South never had a chance. The best they could hope for was to bluff the North into allowing states to leave the Union. The industrial revolution was starting to make a difference and slavery was doomed. If Lincoln had only compromised in some way or made promises or kissed somebody's ass or done anything to avoid the carnage it would have been better than all out war. Pop-culture historians rave over Lincoln's political stunt, the Emancipation Proclamation, but it had little no real impact and the former slaves weren't much better off wandering the countryside and being discriminated against and lynched and murdered in the North as well as the South for decades while Yankees ignored the plight of the freed slaves and slapped each other on the back for "preserving the Union".

 

[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

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.

I don't think Washington had the strategic importance that Boston, New York or Philadelphia had

If DC fell, I think the capitol would have moved to Philadelphia. I don't think the union would have collapsed

I agree with RightWinger. I don't think that if Lee took DC, Lincoln would have given up and let them go. We have the British taking DC earlier in the century and burning it. The capital would simply be moved to Philadelphia, where it started and where it went when the British took DC.

The most likely scenario for a Confederate victory (dissolution of the union into two separate countries), was a victory at Gettysburg followed by the destruction of the Army of the Potomac. I don't think Lee would have taken and tried to hold any territory north of the Mason-Dixon. Yet if somehow Missouri and Kentucky saw a possible win for the Confederacy on the horizon (due to a victory at Gettysburg), they might have officially seceded, strengthening Davis and Lee's hand. Maryland itself was no great big cheer leader for the union at the time either. Imagine the results if all three joined the confederacy.

Doomed from the start? I'm not too sure about that. I think that if everything had come together for the confederacy, things would have definitely come out different. But there were a lot of different cards that had to go just right, or the outcome would be a long, slow death. Those things did not happen and the outcome was obvious, especially when Lee told Pickett to commit the biggest blunder in the war.

Lee could have won at Gettysburg on the second day if he had taken Culps Hill or Little Roundtop. He came close to taking both. But the North would not have surrendered. They would have been flanked and would have withdrawn.
Pickett never had a chance on the third day

 

[Manonthestreet]

Conderates only hope was an early knockout. Technology did not exist to make that possible. Even if Lee had carried Gettysburg it would have been Pyrrhic victory.

 

[bodecea]

The Southern leaders should celebrate that they weren't all hanged.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

I don't think Washington had the strategic importance that Boston, New York or Philadelphia had

If DC fell, I think the capitol would have moved to Philadelphia. I don't think the union would have collapsed

I agree with RightWinger. I don't think that if Lee took DC, Lincoln would have given up and let them go. We have the British taking DC earlier in the century and burning it. The capital would simply be moved to Philadelphia, where it started and where it went when the British took DC.

The most likely scenario for a Confederate victory (dissolution of the union into two separate countries), was a victory at Gettysburg followed by the destruction of the Army of the Potomac. I don't think Lee would have taken and tried to hold any territory north of the Mason-Dixon. Yet if somehow Missouri and Kentucky saw a possible win for the Confederacy on the horizon (due to a victory at Gettysburg), they might have officially seceded, strengthening Davis and Lee's hand. Maryland itself was no great big cheer leader for the union at the time either. Imagine the results if all three joined the confederacy.

Doomed from the start? I'm not too sure about that. I think that if everything had come together for the confederacy, things would have definitely come out different. But there were a lot of different cards that had to go just right, or the outcome would be a long, slow death. Those things did not happen and the outcome was obvious, especially when Lee told Pickett to commit the biggest blunder in the war.

Lee could have won at Gettysburg on the second day if he had taken Culps Hill or Little Roundtop. He came close to taking both. But the North would not have surrendered. They would have been flanked and would have withdrawn.
Pickett never had a chance on the third day

Lee winning at Gettysburg would have just about ended it for the north.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address. March 4, 1865.

"At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgements of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

I can read the exhaustion in these words. He wants it done and he wants to move on to 'heal.' I hear no 'hate' for the south or its leaders, even though he had clear reason to. A clear reason that he is one of the best.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

I don't think Washington had the strategic importance that Boston, New York or Philadelphia had

If DC fell, I think the capitol would have moved to Philadelphia. I don't think the union would have collapsed

I agree with RightWinger. I don't think that if Lee took DC, Lincoln would have given up and let them go. We have the British taking DC earlier in the century and burning it. The capital would simply be moved to Philadelphia, where it started and where it went when the British took DC.

The most likely scenario for a Confederate victory (dissolution of the union into two separate countries), was a victory at Gettysburg followed by the destruction of the Army of the Potomac. I don't think Lee would have taken and tried to hold any territory north of the Mason-Dixon. Yet if somehow Missouri and Kentucky saw a possible win for the Confederacy on the horizon (due to a victory at Gettysburg), they might have officially seceded, strengthening Davis and Lee's hand. Maryland itself was no great big cheer leader for the union at the time either. Imagine the results if all three joined the confederacy.

Doomed from the start? I'm not too sure about that. I think that if everything had come together for the confederacy, things would have definitely come out different. But there were a lot of different cards that had to go just right, or the outcome would be a long, slow death. Those things did not happen and the outcome was obvious, especially when Lee told Pickett to commit the biggest blunder in the war.

Lee could have won at Gettysburg on the second day if he had taken Culps Hill or Little Roundtop. He came close to taking both. But the North would not have surrendered. They would have been flanked and would have withdrawn.
Pickett never had a chance on the third day

Lee winning at Gettysburg would have just about ended it for the north.

I don't think so

They would not have surrendered, just withdrawn and probably tried to block off Philadelphia. Both armies were battered, I doubt if either could have pressed an advantage

 

[Conservative65]

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.

I don't think Washington had the strategic importance that Boston, New York or Philadelphia had

If DC fell, I think the capitol would have moved to Philadelphia. I don't think the union would have collapsed

I agree with RightWinger. I don't think that if Lee took DC, Lincoln would have given up and let them go. We have the British taking DC earlier in the century and burning it. The capital would simply be moved to Philadelphia, where it started and where it went when the British took DC.

The most likely scenario for a Confederate victory (dissolution of the union into two separate countries), was a victory at Gettysburg followed by the destruction of the Army of the Potomac. I don't think Lee would have taken and tried to hold any territory north of the Mason-Dixon. Yet if somehow Missouri and Kentucky saw a possible win for the Confederacy on the horizon (due to a victory at Gettysburg), they might have officially seceded, strengthening Davis and Lee's hand. Maryland itself was no great big cheer leader for the union at the time either. Imagine the results if all three joined the confederacy.

Doomed from the start? I'm not too sure about that. I think that if everything had come together for the confederacy, things would have definitely come out different. But there were a lot of different cards that had to go just right, or the outcome would be a long, slow death. Those things did not happen and the outcome was obvious, especially when Lee told Pickett to commit the biggest blunder in the war.

Lee could have won at Gettysburg on the second day if he had taken Culps Hill or Little Roundtop. He came close to taking both. But the North would not have surrendered. They would have been flanked and would have withdrawn.
Pickett never had a chance on the third day

Lee winning at Gettysburg would have just about ended it for the north.

I don't think so

They would not have surrendered, just withdrawn and probably tried to block off Philadelphia. Both armies were battered, I doubt if either could have pressed an advantage

Then you don't know history but you damn sure pretend you know what the north would have done militarily.

You don't know what they would have done.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Lee's and the South's big mistake was not fighting a guerrilla war from the beginning. ?

The South's big mistakes were:
a) seceding and
b) firing on Fort Sumter

A guerrilla war doesn't work well if no one invades you.

 

[martybegan]

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

The battle only happened there because the Union had the orders.

 

[gipper]

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.

Lee's and the South's big mistake was not fighting a guerrilla war from the beginning. ?

The South's big mistakes were:
a) seceding and
b) firing on Fort Sumter

A guerrilla war doesn't work well if no one invades you.

Apparently you are unaware that the North invaded the South....which is why the proper name for the war is Lincoln's War of Aggression.

 

[Anathema]

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.

........and the end of the United States as a decent, moral and meaningful nation.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't think Washington had the strategic importance that Boston, New York or Philadelphia had

If DC fell, I think the capitol would have moved to Philadelphia. I don't think the union would have collapsed

I agree with RightWinger. I don't think that if Lee took DC, Lincoln would have given up and let them go. We have the British taking DC earlier in the century and burning it. The capital would simply be moved to Philadelphia, where it started and where it went when the British took DC.

The most likely scenario for a Confederate victory (dissolution of the union into two separate countries), was a victory at Gettysburg followed by the destruction of the Army of the Potomac. I don't think Lee would have taken and tried to hold any territory north of the Mason-Dixon. Yet if somehow Missouri and Kentucky saw a possible win for the Confederacy on the horizon (due to a victory at Gettysburg), they might have officially seceded, strengthening Davis and Lee's hand. Maryland itself was no great big cheer leader for the union at the time either. Imagine the results if all three joined the confederacy.

Doomed from the start? I'm not too sure about that. I think that if everything had come together for the confederacy, things would have definitely come out different. But there were a lot of different cards that had to go just right, or the outcome would be a long, slow death. Those things did not happen and the outcome was obvious, especially when Lee told Pickett to commit the biggest blunder in the war.

Lee could have won at Gettysburg on the second day if he had taken Culps Hill or Little Roundtop. He came close to taking both. But the North would not have surrendered. They would have been flanked and would have withdrawn.
Pickett never had a chance on the third day

Lee winning at Gettysburg would have just about ended it for the north.

I don't think so

They would not have surrendered, just withdrawn and probably tried to block off Philadelphia. Both armies were battered, I doubt if either could have pressed an advantage

Then you don't know history but you damn sure pretend you know what the north would have done militarily.

You don't know what they would have done.

Since we are in the realm of the hypothetical, does anyone?

 

[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.

Lee's and the South's big mistake was not fighting a guerrilla war from the beginning. ?

The South's big mistakes were:
a) seceding and
b) firing on Fort Sumter

A guerrilla war doesn't work well if no one invades you.

Apparently you are unaware that the North invaded the South....which is why the proper name for the war is Lincoln's War of Aggression.

Here we go again

 

[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

The battle only happened there because the Union had the orders.

Very true and McClellan still blew it

All the what ifs I have read about Antietam revolve around what if McClelland had crushed them like he should have. I have really not seen anything that would have resulted in a Confederate Victory

An interesting "what if" is what if Stonewall Jackson had not been killed and Jackson was in charge instead of Jubal Early at Gettysburg

I think Jackson would have taken the Gettysburg high ground on day 1 and he would have taken Culps Hill on day 2. Both would have resulted in a Confederate victory. Early failed at both

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Lee's and the South's big mistake was not fighting a guerrilla war from the beginning. ?

The South's big mistakes were:
a) seceding and
b) firing on Fort Sumter

A guerrilla war doesn't work well if no one invades you.

Apparently you are unaware that the North invaded the South....which is why the proper name for the war is Lincoln's War of Aggression.

LOL.....

Apparently you are unaware that prior to the 'invasion'

a) The South seceded and
b) The South fired on Federal Troops

Which is why the proper name for the War is the Tragedy of Southern Passive Aggression.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

........and the end of the United States as a decent, moral and meaningful nation.

LOL....yeah......I can see why some like yourself would see that the end of the Confederacy was the end of legal slavery- and therefore the end of a 'decent, moral and meaningful nation'

And I can see why some like yourself would prefer the United States of slavery, women not being able to vote, child labor, and American worldwide insignificance over America today.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

RightWinger, imagine if AP Hill had taken the high ground early on the first day and smashed Chamberlain and his men from Maine, turning or over-running that end of the union lines? Pickett's charge would not have been necessary to attempt. Would Lee's troops have massacred the union forces? Some say yes.

There are many things to like about the confederacy. The timber of their soldiers and their military leaders are just two of them. The fact that they wanted the continuation of slavery is not. It was an abhorrent institution that objectified human beings. And those that demanded its continuation were blind or worse, just callous to the suffering of its victims. That is the confederacy's greatest failure. Mr. Lincoln knew that this injustice could not continue. He was a great man with great vision.