More obscure history....Nothern most Confederate attack

jebe · #**121** (**permalink**) 06-16-2008, 11:25 AM

what iron clads the north had, were not sea worthy. they were only floating batteries. now, add maximillians troops and logistics. game over.

TakuanSoho · #**122** (**permalink**) 06-16-2008, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jebe

what iron clads the north had, were not sea worthy. they were only floating batteries. now, add maximillians troops and logistics. game over.

The ironclads could be towed up the coast to Canada. That is how we got them to North Carolina and Alabama. That is the great advantage the US had. B and F would have to go thousands of miles across the open sea. the US didn't.

As for Maximillian, he was having trouble holding Mexico. Besides, people forget how much technical innovation the US had during the war, and we were already on war footing. It would have taken France and Britain a while to match our production, and by that time, it would have been too late.

jebe · #**123** (**permalink**) 06-16-2008, 11:34 AM

yeah yer right. just copy the gatling guns we took at glendale. add six, and take all 12 to big roundtop with law and turn their left flank. game over.

Lasher · #**124** (**permalink**) 06-16-2008, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

Anyway,,,,psycho stalking transexual dipshits seen below aside....anyone have any ideas on nthis. I would especially like to hear from you Confederate nationalist types (You know who you are)

What a stupid old ho, bragging about being unable to hold her own with Lasher! BWAHHHaahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhhha!!!!

Lasher · #**125** (**permalink**) 06-16-2008, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

True,,I should have quatified it with "land based"

But yeah...Canadian, and for that matter, British neutrality was far more fragile them some believe. There were elements within Canada and Brittan ripe to jump in neck deep and as I said earlier, St Albans could not have been pulled off without the cooperation of some Canadian authorities

‘If they could have taken the slavery issue off the table, there would have been no such neutrality

When the fuck are you going to learn how to spell "Britain," you raving moron?

Dom1 · #**126** (**permalink**) 06-16-2008, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jebe

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.

The South did practically all they could and had way too many disadvantages. As said, they did a great job holding on as long as they could, but in 1864 they were in desperation mode because even the most stalwart of the CSA generals had to know it was over.

So yes, during the fall it was practically over, you admitted that it would have taken a miracle in the summer of 1864 - and miracle might have been understating their situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

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.

Unless the British wanted to join the side of the 'nation' that would be on the inevitable lsoing side there is no way they would have joined. Perhaps earlier they would have given some sort of support, but by 64' it was hopeless.

Even if (and it is a big IF) they would have had to fight a two front war, it wouldn't have been for very long. As weak as the CSA was by then, they looked like world beaters compared to what Britsih Canada could have mustered, and the CSA forces were on their last leg.

The United States was a very big trading partner with the British, it would have been foolish to join in a war which was all but over and alienate that market, especially when joining would not effect the outcome one bit.

Dom1 · #**127** (**permalink**) 06-16-2008, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

As for Maximillian, he was having trouble holding Mexico. Besides, people forget how much technical innovation the US had during the war, and we were already on war footing. It would have taken France and Britain a while to match our production, and by that time, it would have been too late.

Don't know how true it is, and it very well could be, but some military historians have said that the Union Army was the best equipped army in the world at this time.

This wouldn't have been the same army that fought fifty or eighty years earlier for sure.

jebe · #**128** (**permalink**) 06-16-2008, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

Don't know how true it is, and it very well could be, but some military historians have said that the Union Army was the best equipped army in the world at this time.

This wouldn't have been the same army that fought fifty or eighty years earlier for sure.

so IF they were the BEST equipped, then how could 21 thousand southerners butcher 86 thousand yankees at sharpsburg? they had no fight in them. it was simply throw bodies at yer enemy.

Dom1 · #**129** (**permalink**) 06-16-2008, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jebe

so IF they were the BEST equipped, then how could 21 thousand southerners butcher 86 thousand yankees at sharpsburg? they had no fight in them. it was simply throw bodies at yer enemy.

Grant fought a war of attrition and annihilation, quite the opposite that Lee did. As far as the CSA beating them in some major battles and inflicting major casualties on them, put Lee in charge of the Union armies and the war might be over in a year.

Not to mention, the CSA was equipped fairly well also.

When the Union war machine got going they were churing out men and material at an amazing pace, which is one factor which I beleive led to the Union victory.

jebe · #**130** (**permalink**) 06-16-2008, 04:12 PM

still didnt make it right. sell the slaves at rock bottom prices to the south, and then 20 years later, rally around the idea it is immoral. what a farce.