Examining The South’s Chances To Win The Civil War

[PoliticalChic]

1.In considering the question posed in the title, one might want to put it in the context of Hitler’s chances of defeating Stalin.
Neither Hitler nor Democrat Jefferson Davis had the odds in his favor- not by a long shot.




2. Let’s take Adolph’s situation, first.

a. He was a long-time ally of Stalin… Hitler didn't have the supplies nor resources he needed, so August 23, 1939, Soviet Russia' Foreign Minister Molotov signs the Nazi-Soviet Non-aggression Pact while German Foreign Minister Von Ribbentrop and Soviet leader Josef Stalin look on, while standing under a portrait of Lenin –materials to be provided in later economic agreements.

The USSR became the supplier of oil, iron ore, construction materials for Hitler's Blitzkrieg. And trainloads of grain, even while Russians were starving.

September 1, 1939, Hitler attacked Poland....on September 17, Stalin attacks from the East. The Soviet radio transmitter in Minsk guided the Nazi bombers attacking Polish cities. Newsreel footage showed the Red Army in Nazi helmets, marching side by side with the SS. One photo shows the hammer and sickle along side the swastika.




3. The Great Miscalculation:
Hitler attacked Russia.. when Operation Barbarossa started on June 22, 1941, the available (German) supplies of fuel, tires, spare parts etc., were only good enough for about two months.....

Stalin, in fact, had been supplying resources to Hitler.

The Wehrmacht continued to advance, albeit very slowly, and by mid-November some units found themselves at only 30 kilometers from the capital. But the troops were now totally exhausted, and running out of supplies. Their commanders knew that it was simply impossible to take Moscow.
Hitler s Failed Blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union. The Battle of Moscow and Stalingrad Turning Point of World War II Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
72 Years Ago, December 1941: Turning Point of World War II
'The Victory of the Red Army in front of Moscow was a Major Break'…
by Jacques Pauwels



By attacking in June, Hitler had planned to avoid Russia's three greatest generals....December, January, and February.
He didn't.




4. "....realistically middle sized Germany could not defeat the much larger USSR in the long term. Germany would have eventually surrendered to the western allies to prevent total occupation by the USSR ..."
So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich Stuff I Done Wrote - The Michael A. Charles Online Presence





So....once one recognizes that Stalin was going to be the winner.....
....why did FDR send him supplies that the Allies could have used?
Because FDR had a clear favorite between the two, and invested heavily in Stalin and the USSR....a tale for another time.


But the South was, in many ways, a mirror image of Germany’s chances to with their great war.



Wait ‘til you find out who the South’s great ally was.

 

[rightwinger]

You overstate the impact of the alliance between Germany and the USSR. It lasted only a year. The Soviets could not ship that much materiel in that short a window

The bigger question is why. If you have an alliance on your Eastern front, why not solidify your hold on the Western front? Why not continue the assault on UK?

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. "....realistically middle sized Germany could not defeat the much larger USSR…”


And.....the South's situation:
“In 1861, the North had 20 million people and the South 9 million, 4 million of whom were slaves.

…the North dominated the manufacturing and munitions industries and had complete naval supremacy.

These facts were known by every intelligent Southerner at the outset of the war.” D’Souza, “Death of a Nation: Plantation Politics and the Making of the Democratic Party,” p. 104




So….what made the South imagine that they could win???

They thought they had two huge allies…..one was real, the other wasn’t.


Wanna guess who these ‘allies’ were?

 

[rightwinger]

The South came close to winning on several occasions

A key factor was that the South did not have to conquer the North to win, they only needed the North to tire of fighting and dying

Antietam was a key battle that if the South had won, Lincoln could not have issued the Emancipation Proclamation which kept the European powers out of the conflict

Stonewall Jackson was also a key. He died from a survivable wound from friendly fire. If he had been at Gettysburg, the Confederates could have won on day 2

The war was not popular in the north. A few key defeats would have gotten them to seek peace

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. Although it wasn’t until the 1930s that the term ‘fifth column’ came into existence, but, it was a fifth column that is and was the South’s eternal ally.


“A fifth column is any group of people who undermine a larger group from within, usually in favour of an enemy group or nation.

During the Siege of Madrid in the Spanish Civil War, Nationalist general Emilio Mola told a journalist in 1936 that as his four columns of troops approached Madrid, a "fifth column" (Spanish: Quinta columna) of supporters inside the city would support him and undermine the Republican government from within.”
Fifth column - Wikipedia


The wording from that definition couldn’t be more perfect: “…undermine the Republican government from within.”


Traitors.



The Southern Democrats “were counting on the Northern Democrats to thwart Lincoln and the Republicans and ultimately to defeat them, so that the Democrats North and South could then make a peace that permanently protected slavery.”
D’Souza, “Death of a Nation: Plantation Politics and the Making of the Democratic Party,” p. 104




The secret that Liberals/Democrats manage to keep out of the schools and the texts is that the Civil War was not South vs North……it was the Democrat slave party vs the Republican anti-slavery party.

 

[rightwinger]

8. Although it wasn’t until the 1930s that the term ‘fifth column’ came into existence, but, it was a fifth column that is and was the South’s eternal ally.


“A fifth column is any group of people who undermine a larger group from within, usually in favour of an enemy group or nation.

During the Siege of Madrid in the Spanish Civil War, Nationalist general Emilio Mola told a journalist in 1936 that as his four columns of troops approached Madrid, a "fifth column" (Spanish: Quinta columna) of supporters inside the city would support him and undermine the Republican government from within.”
Fifth column - Wikipedia


The wording from that definition couldn’t be more perfect: “…undermine the Republican government from within.”


Traitors.



The Southern Democrats “were counting on the Northern Democrats to thwart Lincoln and the Republicans and ultimately to defeat them, so that the Democrats North and South could then make a peace that permanently protected slavery.”
D’Souza, “Death of a Nation: Plantation Politics and the Making of the Democratic Party,” p. 104




The secret that Liberals/Democrats manage to keep out of the schools and the texts is that the Civil War was not South vs North……it was the Democrat slave party vs the Republican anti-slavery party.

One of the most ridiculous claims I have ever heard but consistent with your pro Hitler theories

No wonder D’Sousa is so openly mocked

 

[PoliticalChic]

The current racists known as Democrats would love to hide their heritage as racists.
I won't allow it.




9. The Left’s ‘historians’ “…Barbara Fields, Annette Gordon-Reed, and Eric Foner- go beyond minimizing the Democratic affiliation of Southern apologists for slavery. They also leave out…the role of the Northern Democrats in upholding slavery before and during the Civil War, and then re-establishing a form of neo-slavery in the South after the war….[so as to] allow the progressive narrative that assigns virtually exclusive culpability to the South.” “Death Of A Nation,” Dinesh D’Souza, p. 96



“Northern Democrats attempted to block the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments and worked closely with Democrats to defeat Reconstructions. …the Democrats deployed a new weapon, racial terrorism…” Op. Cit., p.99







10. North vs South? No….Democrats vs Republicans

Over the issue of slavery. Northern Democrat Stephen Douglas made his feelings clear: “Now, I do not believe that the Almighty ever intended the negro to be the equal of the white man. …. He belongs to an inferior race, and must always occupy an inferior position.

I believe this government was made on the white basis. I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity for ever; and I am in favor of confining citizenship to white men, ….”
In the First Debate with Lincoln
In the First Debate with Lincoln by Stephen Arnold Douglas. America: II. (1818-1865). Vol. IX. Bryan, William Jennings, ed. 1906. The World's Famous Orations




That was Stephen Douglas, Northern Democrat, stating his party’s position.
What better spokesman for Democrats.


Clearly, racists were in both North and South.....they were members of the Democrat Party, as were Jefferson Davis, Bull Connor, and Bill Clinton.

 

[whitehall]

The South never thought they could "win the war" against the industrial might of the North. In fact Lincoln was so confident that he disregarded the impact of potential hostilities with the profoundly ignorant assumption that the war would be over by the end of the summer. "Historians" love to claim that Lincoln preserved the Union but the opposite is true. The Union fell apart under his watch and it cost half a million lives to put it back together. Lincoln should have cajoled and promised and made bargains and kissed the asses of the South Carolina fools to avoid bloodshed if that's what it took but he didn't do it. Lincoln in fact was a weak sentimental man with a disfunctional marriage who relied on wisecracks instead of action and couldn't face a crisis until it bit him in the ass. The industrial revolution was beginning and slavery was on it's way out. If the Union could have been preserved for another couple of years it would have prevented the carnage and bigotry we still live with a hundred and fifty years later.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The South never thought they could "win the war" against the industrial might of the North. In fact Lincoln was so confident that he disregarded the impact of potential hostilities with the profoundly ignorant assumption that the war would be over by the end of the summer. "Historians" love to claim that Lincoln preserved the Union but the opposite is true. The Union fell apart under his watch and it cost half a million lives to put it back together. Lincoln should have cajoled and promised and made bargains and kissed the asses of the South Carolina fools to avoid bloodshed if that's what it took but he didn't do it. The industrial revolution was beginning and slavery was on it's way out. If the Union could have been preserved for another couple of years it would have prevented the carnage and bigotry we still live with a hundred and fifty years later.

"The South never thought they could "win the war" against the industrial might of the North."


Actually they did believe they could win the war.

As I said earlier, they counted on two allies.




6. First…..the powerful ally the South thought they’d have? The one with the greatest navy in the world.

a. 75% of the world's cotton, and up to 84% of Britain's, came from the South's cotton fields. The Cotton Economy in the South FREE The Cotton Economy in the South information Encyclopedia.com Find The Cotton Economy in the South research

b. In Britain's industrial heartland, where all but 500 of the country's 2,650 cotton factories, employing 440 000 people, were located, and almost all of the cotton came from the Southern United States. A history of the Lancashire cotton mills

c. "In 1861 the London Times estimated that one fifth of the British population was dependent, directly or indirectly, on the success of the cotton districts." "Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.72


d. "Like all educated Southerners in the summer of 1861, [they] hoped one morning to hear the news that Great Britain had recognized the independence of the Confederate States. ,” Gavin Mortimer, p.70-71





7. One 'ally' let them down:
London Times: "....Southern rights are now more clearly understood, and in any case since war, though greatly to be regretted, was now at hand, it was England's business to keep strictly out of it and to maintain neutrality."
May 9, 1861


On May 14th, Queen Victoria issued Britain's "Proclamation of Neutrality." Theproclamation was avidly reported in the American press, with Harper's Weeklysummarizing it in its edition of June 8.

"THE proclamation of the Queen has been issued by the Privy Council at Whitehall, warning all British subjects from interfering, at their peril, with either party in the American conflict, or giving aid and comfort in any way, by personal service and supplying munitions of war, to either party. The proclamation announces it as the intention of the British Government to preserve the strictest neutrality in the contest between the Government of the United States and the Government of those States calling themselves the Confederate States of America."
Civil War News





But…..the Southern slavers did and do have one firm ally.

The ‘fifth column traitors’ known as the Democrat Party.....whether Southern Democrats, or Northern Democrats.....they all supported slavery.

 

[rightwinger]

The South never thought they could "win the war" against the industrial might of the North. In fact Lincoln was so confident that he disregarded the impact of potential hostilities with the profoundly ignorant assumption that the war would be over by the end of the summer. "Historians" love to claim that Lincoln preserved the Union but the opposite is true. The Union fell apart under his watch and it cost half a million lives to put it back together. Lincoln should have cajoled and promised and made bargains and kissed the asses of the South Carolina fools to avoid bloodshed if that's what it took but he didn't do it. Lincoln in fact was a weak sentimental man with a disfunctional marriage who relied on wisecracks instead of action and couldn't face a crisis until it bit him in the ass. The industrial revolution was beginning and slavery was on it's way out. If the Union could have been preserved for another couple of years it would have prevented the carnage and bigotry we still live with a hundred and fifty years later.

More lost cause revisionism

The south seceded under Buchanan not Lincoln

Like most wars......they thought it would be “over by Christmas”
But it never seems to work that way

Slavery was not on its way out. As a matter of fact, Cotton was picked by hand up through the 1930s

Even at that, the south maintained Jim Crow second rate citizenship up through the mid 1960s

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

1.In considering the question posed in the title, one might want to put it in the context of Hitler’s chances of defeating Stalin.
Neither Hitler nor Democrat Jefferson Davis had the odds in his favor- not by a long shot.




2. Let’s take Adolph’s situation, first.

a. He was a long-time ally of Stalin… Hitler didn't have the supplies nor resources he needed, so August 23, 1939, Soviet Russia' Foreign Minister Molotov signs the Nazi-Soviet Non-aggression Pact while German Foreign Minister Von Ribbentrop and Soviet leader Josef Stalin look on, while standing under a portrait of Lenin –materials to be provided in later economic agreements.

The USSR became the supplier of oil, iron ore, construction materials for Hitler's Blitzkrieg. And trainloads of grain, even while Russians were starving.

September 1, 1939, Hitler attacked Poland....on September 17, Stalin attacks from the East. The Soviet radio transmitter in Minsk guided the Nazi bombers attacking Polish cities. Newsreel footage showed the Red Army in Nazi helmets, marching side by side with the SS. One photo shows the hammer and sickle along side the swastika.




3. The Great Miscalculation:
Hitler attacked Russia.. when Operation Barbarossa started on June 22, 1941, the available (German) supplies of fuel, tires, spare parts etc., were only good enough for about two months.....

Stalin, in fact, had been supplying resources to Hitler.

The Wehrmacht continued to advance, albeit very slowly, and by mid-November some units found themselves at only 30 kilometers from the capital. But the troops were now totally exhausted, and running out of supplies. Their commanders knew that it was simply impossible to take Moscow.
Hitler s Failed Blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union. The Battle of Moscow and Stalingrad Turning Point of World War II Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
72 Years Ago, December 1941: Turning Point of World War II
'The Victory of the Red Army in front of Moscow was a Major Break'…
by Jacques Pauwels



By attacking in June, Hitler had planned to avoid Russia's three greatest generals....December, January, and February.
He didn't.




4. "....realistically middle sized Germany could not defeat the much larger USSR in the long term. Germany would have eventually surrendered to the western allies to prevent total occupation by the USSR ..."
So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich Stuff I Done Wrote - The Michael A. Charles Online Presence





So....once one recognizes that Stalin was going to be the winner.....
....why did FDR send him supplies that the Allies could have used?
Because FDR had a clear favorite between the two, and invested heavily in Stalin and the USSR....a tale for another time.


But the South was, in many ways, a mirror image of Germany’s chances to with their great war.



Wait ‘til you find out who the South’s great ally was.

I love to tell my southern friends:

The North - Defending Civil War Champions

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. Some benighted souls….government school grads…..believe that the Democrats gave up the defining characteristic of their party, racism.


Their presidential candidate, a Northern Democrat, Stephen Douglas made that position crystal clear: “ I do not believe that the Almighty ever intended the negro to be the equal of the white man.”



And, a whole century later….

….lest one think that only Southern Democrats were inclined against civil rights, the following Democrats were far from Southerners and all voted against allowing the 1957 civil rights bill on the calendar: Except it wasn’t just “Southerners” voting against civil rights.

Not every senator who opposed black civil rights was a Southerner, but every one was a Democrat.


In addition to the Southern Democrats who voted against putting the 1957 civil rights bill on the Senate calendar, for example, there were five Democrats from nowhere near the South: Democratic senator Wayne Morse of Oregon, a favorite target of Senator Joe McCarthy, Democratic senator Warren Magnuson of Washington, Democratic senator James Murray of Montana, Democratic senator Mike Mansfield of Montana, and Democratic senator Joseph O’Mahoney of Wyoming






12. Sooo…..any believe the Democrats are at all concerned with the interests in those who still look to slavery to vote Democrat?

Obama's US Civil Rights Commission, 2010 Report:
"The United States Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) is pleased to transmit this report, The Impact of Illegal Immigration on the Wages and Employment Opportunities of Black Workers. A panel of experts briefed members of the Commission on April 4, 2008 regarding the evidence for economic loss and job opportunity costs to black workers attributable to illegal immigration. The panelists also described non-economic factors contributing to the depression of black wages and employment rates.

Illegal immigration to the United States in recent decades has tended to depress both wages and employment rates for low-skilled American citizens, a disproportionate number of whom are black men."
USCCR: Page Not Found

 

[rightwinger]

The South had opportunities to win the war by frustrating a more powerful force to the point they do not think it is worth it. Much the same way Vietnam won the war

Early on they had a chance to convince European powers to intercede. But Europe wisely decided not to support a nation built on slavery

 

[rightwinger]

11. Some benighted souls….government school grads…..believe that the Democrats gave up the defining characteristic of their party, racism.


Their presidential candidate, a Northern Democrat, Stephen Douglas made that position crystal clear: “ I do not believe that the Almighty ever intended the negro to be the equal of the white man.”



And, a whole century later….

….lest one think that only Southern Democrats were inclined against civil rights, the following Democrats were far from Southerners and all voted against allowing the 1957 civil rights bill on the calendar: Except it wasn’t just “Southerners” voting against civil rights.

Not every senator who opposed black civil rights was a Southerner, but every one was a Democrat.


In addition to the Southern Democrats who voted against putting the 1957 civil rights bill on the Senate calendar, for example, there were five Democrats from nowhere near the South: Democratic senator Wayne Morse of Oregon, a favorite target of Senator Joe McCarthy, Democratic senator Warren Magnuson of Washington, Democratic senator James Murray of Montana, Democratic senator Mike Mansfield of Montana, and Democratic senator Joseph O’Mahoney of Wyoming






12. Sooo…..any believe the Democrats are at all concerned with the interests in those who still look to slavery to vote Democrat?

Obama's US Civil Rights Commission, 2010 Report:
"The United States Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) is pleased to transmit this report, The Impact of Illegal Immigration on the Wages and Employment Opportunities of Black Workers. A panel of experts briefed members of the Commission on April 4, 2008 regarding the evidence for economic loss and job opportunity costs to black workers attributable to illegal immigration. The panelists also described non-economic factors contributing to the depression of black wages and employment rates.

Illegal immigration to the United States in recent decades has tended to depress both wages and employment rates for low-skilled American citizens, a disproportionate number of whom are black men."
USCCR: Page Not Found

LOL

Owe-Bama!

 

[whitehall]

The South never thought they could "win the war" against the industrial might of the North. In fact Lincoln was so confident that he disregarded the impact of potential hostilities with the profoundly ignorant assumption that the war would be over by the end of the summer. "Historians" love to claim that Lincoln preserved the Union but the opposite is true. The Union fell apart under his watch and it cost half a million lives to put it back together. Lincoln should have cajoled and promised and made bargains and kissed the asses of the South Carolina fools to avoid bloodshed if that's what it took but he didn't do it. The industrial revolution was beginning and slavery was on it's way out. If the Union could have been preserved for another couple of years it would have prevented the carnage and bigotry we still live with a hundred and fifty years later.

"The South never thought they could "win the war" against the industrial might of the North."


Actually they did believe they could win the war.

As I said earlier, they counted on two allies.




6. First…..the powerful ally the South thought they’d have? The one with the greatest navy in the world.

a. 75% of the world's cotton, and up to 84% of Britain's, came from the South's cotton fields. The Cotton Economy in the South FREE The Cotton Economy in the South information Encyclopedia.com Find The Cotton Economy in the South research

b. In Britain's industrial heartland, where all but 500 of the country's 2,650 cotton factories, employing 440 000 people, were located, and almost all of the cotton came from the Southern United States. A history of the Lancashire cotton mills

c. "In 1861 the London Times estimated that one fifth of the British population was dependent, directly or indirectly, on the success of the cotton districts." "Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.72


d. "Like all educated Southerners in the summer of 1861, [they] hoped one morning to hear the news that Great Britain had recognized the independence of the Confederate States. ,” Gavin Mortimer, p.70-71





7. One 'ally' let them down:
London Times: "....Southern rights are now more clearly understood, and in any case since war, though greatly to be regretted, was now at hand, it was England's business to keep strictly out of it and to maintain neutrality."
May 9, 1861


On May 14th, Queen Victoria issued Britain's "Proclamation of Neutrality." Theproclamation was avidly reported in the American press, with Harper's Weeklysummarizing it in its edition of June 8.

"THE proclamation of the Queen has been issued by the Privy Council at Whitehall, warning all British subjects from interfering, at their peril, with either party in the American conflict, or giving aid and comfort in any way, by personal service and supplying munitions of war, to either party. The proclamation announces it as the intention of the British Government to preserve the strictest neutrality in the contest between the Government of the United States and the Government of those States calling themselves the Confederate States of America."
Civil War News





But…..the Southern slavers did and do have one firm ally.

The ‘fifth column traitors’ known as the Democrat Party.....whether Southern Democrats, or Northern Democrats.....they all supported slavery.

It depends on your definition of "winning". Only a fool would buy into the myth that the South thought it could conquer the North. The South's concept of winning was a truce and an agreement that they could leave the Union. The North had at least one general who thought he was "God's terrible swift sword". Sherman would have been hanged in the 20th century for intentionally setting fire to a city full of wounded men and women and children. Old drunken U.S. Grant would probably have shared a cell.

 

[rightwinger]

The South never thought they could "win the war" against the industrial might of the North. In fact Lincoln was so confident that he disregarded the impact of potential hostilities with the profoundly ignorant assumption that the war would be over by the end of the summer. "Historians" love to claim that Lincoln preserved the Union but the opposite is true. The Union fell apart under his watch and it cost half a million lives to put it back together. Lincoln should have cajoled and promised and made bargains and kissed the asses of the South Carolina fools to avoid bloodshed if that's what it took but he didn't do it. The industrial revolution was beginning and slavery was on it's way out. If the Union could have been preserved for another couple of years it would have prevented the carnage and bigotry we still live with a hundred and fifty years later.

"The South never thought they could "win the war" against the industrial might of the North."


Actually they did believe they could win the war.

As I said earlier, they counted on two allies.




6. First…..the powerful ally the South thought they’d have? The one with the greatest navy in the world.

a. 75% of the world's cotton, and up to 84% of Britain's, came from the South's cotton fields. The Cotton Economy in the South FREE The Cotton Economy in the South information Encyclopedia.com Find The Cotton Economy in the South research

b. In Britain's industrial heartland, where all but 500 of the country's 2,650 cotton factories, employing 440 000 people, were located, and almost all of the cotton came from the Southern United States. A history of the Lancashire cotton mills

c. "In 1861 the London Times estimated that one fifth of the British population was dependent, directly or indirectly, on the success of the cotton districts." "Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.72


d. "Like all educated Southerners in the summer of 1861, [they] hoped one morning to hear the news that Great Britain had recognized the independence of the Confederate States. ,” Gavin Mortimer, p.70-71





7. One 'ally' let them down:
London Times: "....Southern rights are now more clearly understood, and in any case since war, though greatly to be regretted, was now at hand, it was England's business to keep strictly out of it and to maintain neutrality."
May 9, 1861


On May 14th, Queen Victoria issued Britain's "Proclamation of Neutrality." Theproclamation was avidly reported in the American press, with Harper's Weeklysummarizing it in its edition of June 8.

"THE proclamation of the Queen has been issued by the Privy Council at Whitehall, warning all British subjects from interfering, at their peril, with either party in the American conflict, or giving aid and comfort in any way, by personal service and supplying munitions of war, to either party. The proclamation announces it as the intention of the British Government to preserve the strictest neutrality in the contest between the Government of the United States and the Government of those States calling themselves the Confederate States of America."
Civil War News





But…..the Southern slavers did and do have one firm ally.

The ‘fifth column traitors’ known as the Democrat Party.....whether Southern Democrats, or Northern Democrats.....they all supported slavery.

It depends on your definition of "winning". Only a fool would buy into the myth that the South thought it could conquer the North. The South's concept of winning was a truce and an agreement that they could leave the Union. The North had at least one general who thought he was "God's terrible swift sword". Sherman would have been hanged in the 20th century for intentionally setting fire to a city full of wounded men and women and children. Old drunken U.S. Grant would probably have shared a cell.

Like Sherman said...War is hell

 

[JakeStarkey]

The nonsense of PC on WWII is fun to read from time to time: proof positive she can't learn.

The South could have won provided the citizens of Maryland, Tennessee, and Kentucky had turned out overwhelmingly to oppose the North.

Such numbers would have given the South the men, time, and buffer needed to bring the Southern armies to full power in late 1861 on into the summer of 1862. But such did not happen, and the North had time to learn from its mistakes. After July 4, 1863, never again was the North in danger of losing the war.

The South would have to had conquer the North literally in order to hang Sherman or Grant. That would never have happened.

 

[rightwinger]

The OP makes a valiant effort but her twisted views of history are wrong on both parts

Hitler could have very well defeated the Soviets and came very close to victory in Moscow, Stalingrad and Leningrad. Allied support of the Soviets, instead of the Nazis (like the OP advocates) was essential to victory

As to the South in the Civil War, the OP once again gives a twisted history. Yes, the South could have won a truce, but no, any theory that Northern Democrats were a key to that victory is not supported by historical records

 

[whitehall]

When the South fired the first shot it sealed their fate. No longer would they be able to negotiate a peaceful exit from the Union (not unlike California today). Lincoln was a fool who thought the war would be over in a couple of months. McClellan didn't have the fire in his gut to fight against fellow Americans so Lincoln found a recovering drunk who had no problem with murdering civilians and pillaging the South.

 

[DOTR]

So….what made the South imagine that they could win???

Consider the fact that the South didnt feel like it had a choice. It felt beleaguered on all sides already. the South did imagine it could win but, more importantly, it felt like it had no choice.