The only dumb statement was comparing the Viet Cong and Mujahadeen to 19th century Southerners fighting with 19th century weapons. Industrial strength and manpower were indeed necessary to win a war in that era. You need weapons and ammunition to fight a war. The south was low on both. Were they to fight with bows and arrows, spears, maybe atlatls when the powder and ball ran out? You need an economy to fund a war. The South's was collapsing. Without the ability to fund a war and supply an army, an outside benefactor is needed. None could be found, for good reason. Nobody supports a sure loser because then they would have to eventually confront the winner; in this case was an emergent industrial powerhouse with unlimited potential to grow. By the time of the Battle of Gettysburg, the north had already isolated the South, which had already started to feel the sting of that isolation. They were finished. It was only a matter of time. Gettysburg only served to be a spectacular representation of the South's destiny.
Again, you assume that the conditions for "victory" for the South was a subjugation of the north. That simply sin't the case. They were not seekign to acquire territory, conquer a nation, or really anything of the sort. A cessation of hostilities WAS a victory for the South, and that most certainly does not require any of the things you mentioned. It simply requires that the enemy lose the will to fight. And that was closer than you care to think. Particularly had Lee won at Gettysburg. Sure, Mississippi was in Union hands, but do you really think that would have been close to the same to having D.C. surrounded and Confederate cavalry rampaging through Pennsylvania with nothing to stop them? Please. People would have been howling for it to just stop, and let the South have what they want.
vincentpa wrote:Dumb statement number two was comparing the Minutemen to the Southerners. In reality, you were comparing the colonies to England. This is a poor comparison. The English were never able to provide an overwhelming military presence in North America that could've decisively ended the war. The English were also unable to fund a large enough expeditionary force to maintain a long protracted campaign. The English also lacked the will to do so. The North was in the exact opposite circumstance and conviction than England on every point.
You're insane. I know of NO situation where the colonies enjoyed a military advantage over the British. In every campaign, it was the colonials who backed off because they couldn't "afford a long protracted campaign". You better read your history again.
vincentpa wrote:Dumb statement number three was assuming Stonewall would've made a difference. The North held the high ground, period. The North outnumbered the South, period. There is no reason to believe anyone short of God himself would've made a difference in that battle. Gettysburg was a hopeless cause for the South. It was a desperate gamble because Lee knew the entire war was a desperate gamble. That's why he fought and offensive campaign with at time reckless abandon (bold moves that if you win, you are genius, if you lose you are a fool). Lee knew his only hope was to decisively beat the north in enough battles that the North would lose the will to fight and settle for peace. 80 years later Japan thought the same thing. Both Lee and Yamamoto both knew that was a long shot at best.
You don't really have a grasp on the tactics at Gettysburg, I suspect. Stonewall Jackson was the closest confidant that Lee had. He trusted what Jackson said, and listened to him. The same is not true for other generals. Both Longstreet and Hill, two of Lee's three corps commanders, did NOT want to fight at Gettysburg for the exact reasons you said. But he didn't listen to them. In his journals, he repeatedly bemoans the lack of advice from Jackson. Stonewall Jackson had proved that he knew when and where to fight (as was the case at Chancellorsville, where they were drastically outnumbered, but used maneuver to make the Union Army of the Potomac look foolish), and that Lee listened to him. But without him, Lee was hesitant, and almost resigned to fight at Gettysburg just to "get it over with"
You presume that the battle had to be fought that day, at an advantage to the Union. Nothing could be further from the truth. Had Jackson been there, he would have agreed with Longstreet, that a frontal attack was stupid, and that they would be far better served by marching right past them and heading toward Baltimore, forcing the Union to fight them on ground of their choosing. But Lee had no such advice, and didn't trust Longstreet and Hill as he trusted Jackson. So they fought that day, and they lost. But to say "it wouldn't have mattered" is really just to demonstrate a lack of knowledge about what actually happened, and what the goals really were.