Running blockades and the ports being open are two entirely different things. The point is that the Union Army had control of much of the CSA and most of the key, strategic points. Britain knew that, they would just be intervening on the inevitable losing side of a war.

Not to mention, Wilmington was captured just a couple of months later and the campaign for Wilmington was already under way.

Ain't over until the fat lady sings? Well, that is the approach that Lee and the CSA took, but it was all but over. Was Hitler holding out while the Allies were in Germany proper, on all sides, an example of it ain't over until the fat lady sings?

Seriously, look at a map of the Civil War from the fall of 1864 and tell me that Britain could have possibly conceived that the CSA could have held out, with or without assistance. It is unrealistic and certainly no troops would have been committed under any circumstances at that point. If so, then Britain would then have to deal with a nation who won the war, because the "nation" that lost the war woudl no longer be a nation.

Look, I agree that the North was the agressor and I agree that the CSA generals did a great job, for the most part, during the war. Far better than their Unin counterparts did. But the idea that in the fall of 1864 they had a snowball's chance in hell of winning the war is simply unrealistic and what I would call wishful thinking or just playing devil's advocate.

yes. the south could have been reinvigorated to win campains. hoods raid might have been the death knell, but taylor was still kicking ass in louisiana and texas too. and price in missouri. i did say 1864 was a little late. but you are saying it was impossable. i must refute that. it was not impossable. and hitler in dec of 44 had a chance, but wouldnt let his generals fight their own campains. a sweep north to inialate the bloody bucket, and letting raus take care of the baltic balconey would have allowed enough time to reinforce the central part with the ones from courland and norway. hell. even as it was, in the south of germany, the prisoners outnumbered the americans 10 to one. and they had plenty of fuel too. then you add the little boy to the do635 and the war is over. not even adding the type 21's to sink all the allied shipping.

You and I are no doubt in total disagreement on the causes and dynamics of the war, but as far as the South’s position up to and including the final months of the war, you are absolutely correct.

Knowing and understanding these types of things are the difference between actually understanding history, and getting your information from last minute Google searches like ole Dum1 there.

Beleive me, 10 minuites before I put up the original post, he had never heard of the St Albans raid...trust me on that

__________________
Argue with some..IGNORE the stupid

Yeah it hurts, you have been fucked by an Elephant !

"Happamia, sanoi kettu pihlajanmarjoista kun ei niihin yltänyt" ("Sour, said the fox about rowan berries, being unable to reach them"

there were alot more criticle actions or in actions that would have been done proper the war would have been drawn to a successfull conclusion. ewells night time attack on culps hill on the 1st, instead of the 2nd. reloading the rifles at spotsylvania at 3am instead of finding them wet at 5am. shooting lincoln in 62 instead of 65. my cousins getting the 8 senators and congressmen in 64, instead of being 5 minutes late. taking out sheriden instead of giving it up when his camp was found empty. hitting washington in 62 after fainting at the ferry. killing rosencrans and destroying his army in the open at the killing creek instead of frontal assaulting granger. pemberton uniting with johnson and crushing grant. way too many lost oppurtunities. any one of those would have been desisive enough for england to bend and give the go ahead on her part and then for frances maxmillian to send his armies north instead of invading mexico. wallace being smashed at monocacy was a real nail biter too. with kershaw added instead of later, fort stevens would have never happened because the monocacy would have been a total capture. and the clash at jackson road would not have been either so ewell would have had a clean sweep into washington. too many variables in armed conflict. but the lost chances are frightening in the severe.

Total bullshit, I had forgotten the name St. Albans but I knew of the bank robberies, which St. Albans amounted to.

As far as google searches, you were caught red handed with those when you cited a four sources which had nothing to do with the topic (your climate theory) and when googled those sources all came up on a wikipedia article for, as you put it, suggested reading. Again, they had nothing to do with the topic.

If you think the South was in any position to possibly win the war in the final months you are mistaken, without a doubt.

A lot of what if's, but after the fall of 1864 there are no realistic what if's which would have allowed the CSA to win the war.

The idea of Britain or anyone else supporting the CSA when most of their key areas were under Union occupation is totally unrealistic. They were split and even the Union was in control of much of the deep south.

But you are correct on the causes of the war, that is something else that fatty fails to see, because she must have read it in a high school text book that it was about slavery so she still thinks it is.

after the fall of 64? yes. too fucking late. during the sumer of 64..................not so, still hoping for a miracle.

Agreed, and that is all I was trying to say.

Somehow the original poster thinks that the fall of 1864 (when this glorified bank robbery took place) that Britain could have been convinced that the CSA still could have won, they couldn't have. It was far too late and a second front is a ridiculous notion, because it would have been the only front within a couple of months.

And like you said, even in the summer of 64', it would have still been hoping for a miracle. Does anyone really think that Britain, or anyone else, joins the side which is hoping for a miracle?

during the fall Dom? had the south planned her raids better and more reinforced, then......................maybe. after the fall of 64? when the south was shown to be poor planners..............................? no.

It's doubtful that the British would have come in, though there was a long of support for the South, and though some high level British wanted to get involved on the British side, in the end slavery made the South unpalatable to too many people in power in the UK.

Furthermore, after the War of 1812, the British knew that if there was another war with the US, Canada would be lost. Too few people too close to an industrial power. And if people think that the US couldn't fight a two front war, don't forget that the Union population increased during the war due to immigration. And the British fleet would have to face our ironclads (British iron ships were few and many were not capable of trans oceanic trips).

Also, surprisingly, the Czar of Russia had indicated to Britain and France that if they got involved, Russia would side with the US. In 1863, he sent a couple of warships to New York I believe in a gesture of good will to drive that point home. This is one of the reasons we purchased Alaska from them in 67/8.

So, wasn't going to happen.