Matrix Games Forums

In order to impose a blockade of the United States, Britain would have had to defeat the United States navy. How would Britain's out-numbered ocean-going ironclads have defeated the American coastal ironclads?
The United States could also send it's coastal ironclads up to Canada, thus denying any staging area to the British fleet.
And the United States could always make more ocean-going ironclads if needed.

How and why would "all Europe" unite to aid the Confederates against the Union? Do you have any idea of the political realities of Europe in the 1860s?

How and why would "all Europe" unite to aid the Confederates against the Union? Do you have any idea of the political realities of Europe in the 1860s?

As for France, the attempt to make Mexico part of an empire ended in complete and utter defeat in 1867; how badly do you think they would have been beaten by the United States?

Lastly, where did you get the bizarre idea that the Confederacy would ever agree to give up any of it's territory to a European country?

I wonder if the war needed to be fought. What if southern states left and northern states shrugged. Slavery was doomed anyway. I reckon w/in a decade the states would have reunited. It's in everyone's best interest. Commerce and common defense. I don't see a 'demilitarized zone' across the mason-dixon.

Bah who knows.

There was NO CHANCE that Georgia, Florida, North and South Carolina or Virginia would EVER agree to turn themselves over to a foreign power.

The WHOLE point of leaving the US was to be INDEPENDENT. Georgia was so rabid over it it would not allow the Confederacy to use its State troops and resisted allowing them to recruit in the State. They continued this policy all the way to the end.

The claim that somehow these States would have welcomed being absorbed by a European power is foolish on its face.

Further if They had the US would simply have waged war on those European states. As for the claim that Britain could out Ironclad the North, look again Britain had 4 Ironclads in 61 and one more in 63. The US would simply have built more Ironclads of the Ocean going variety if Britain had waged war against the US. And they would have out built the British.

ORIGINAL: AbwehrX

There was NO CHANCE that Georgia, Florida, North and South Carolina or Virginia would EVER agree to turn themselves over to a foreign power.

The people wouldnt necessarily have had to surrender their citizenship to a European power. They merely couldve granted enough sections of their states to convince the Euro's to claim & occupy the properties as their own, forcing the Union to negotiate with both the Europeans AND the South simultaneously. The Union may have asserted that land grants made by the Confederacy was illegal but the Europeans couldve deployed troops there and challenged the Union to risk war. The fact of the matter is that the Union (nor the Confederacy for that matter) wasnt strong enough alone to defeat England, France, Belgium and Spain simultaneously.

The WHOLE point of leaving the US was to be INDEPENDENT. Georgia was so rabid over it it would not allow the Confederacy to use its State troops and resisted allowing them to recruit in the State. They continued this policy all the way to the end.

Perhaps many stubborn fanatics would not have compromised even by the end of 1863 but the course they were on was already doomed and they were going to be occupied or killed anyway. However there was a possible chance that this diplomatic ploy if properly exercised couldve been tried.

The claim that somehow these States would have welcomed being absorbed by a European power is foolish on its face.

Not necessarily. Was occupation by the Union better for Southerners than say France or Spain? Several thousand Southerners fled to Brazil after the war and their descendants are estimated to be 60,000 strong and remain there now for example-
http://www.patsabin.com/lowcountry/confederados.htm

Further if They had the US would simply have waged war on those European states. As for the claim that Britain could out Ironclad the North, look again Britain had 4 Ironclads in 61 and one more in 63. The US would simply have built more Ironclads of the Ocean going variety if Britain had waged war against the US. And they would have out built the British.

The Union may have tried to wage war on the Europeans but was the Union strong enough to tangle with all of them at the same time??!! Of course not! I think you might have fallen for the Myth of Union Invincibility Syndrom.

ORIGINAL: AbwehrX

Hey keep it friendly, mac. What do you believe the South shouldve done?

What they should have done was not leave the Union. Their excuse did not even hold water, the Congress and the Courts all sided with them on the fugitive slave issue. Lincoln did not have the power or connections to change slavery laws or the Constitution. The worst they were looking at was no more slave states. By leaving they created the very thing they were trying to avoid the loss of the slavery.

ORIGINAL: AbwehrX

What they should have done was not leave the Union. Their excuse did not even hold water, the Congress and the Courts all sided with them on the fugitive slave issue. Lincoln did not have the power or connections to change slavery laws or the Constitution. The worst they were looking at was no more slave states. By leaving they created the very thing they were trying to avoid the loss of the slavery.

If their concerns regarding the courts verdicts were resolved in their favor then slavery was not the reason the South seceded. Secession can be logical for a multitude of reasons such as tax issues, property rights, civil rights etc. Im still convinced that the South should have seceded from the North for reasons other than slavery and that their only chance was to use diplomacy as opposed to all out warfare to gain it.

ORIGINAL: AbwehrX

What they should have done was not leave the Union. Their excuse did not even hold water, the Congress and the Courts all sided with them on the fugitive slave issue. Lincoln did not have the power or connections to change slavery laws or the Constitution. The worst they were looking at was no more slave states. By leaving they created the very thing they were trying to avoid the loss of the slavery.

If their concerns regarding the courts verdicts were resolved in their favor then slavery was not the reason the South seceded. Secession can be logical for a multitude of reasons such as tax issues, property rights, civil rights etc. Im still convinced that the South should have seceded from the North for reasons other than slavery and that their only chance was to use diplomacy as opposed to all out warfare to gain it.

Ah yes the old two wrongs make a right argument.