America isn't a continent. There are two continents that have names similar to "America", North America and South America, but there isn't any continent called "America".

I would remove US troops from the South, but keep a naval blockade while faking negotians for about five to ten years. This would force Britain and France to use Egyptian and Indian cotton, and put a strangle on the souths economy. Eventually, the south would be so destitute that it would collapse in on itself, and I would pick up the pieces.

1. Where would the Union be getting its raw material for 5 to 10 years? There was plenty of reason why Lincoln was hellbent on unity.

2. The blockade would resort to war with the Confederacy before 5 to 10 years came around.

3. There were no negotiations that would calm the Seceders down for 5 to 10 years.

If I were Lincoln, I would pretty much take the same course of action.

If I were Davis, I wouldn't want to be Davis.

1. Where would the Union be getting its raw material for 5 to 10 years? There was plenty of reason why Lincoln was hellbent on unity.

Cotton? Egypt. Besides, Lincoln wanted to get reelected probably.

2. The blockade would resort to war with the Confederacy before 5 to 10 years came around.

Negotiations

3. There were no negotiations that would calm the Seceders down for 5 to 10 years.

Tease them with slave states, the land all the way to the Rio Grande, recognition, that kinda thing. Of course never give it to them, but between 5 and ten years in, end the blockade. Of course their tariff is going to be quite high though; and Egypt's quite low.

Faisal - 1416 is a liar. Slavery is impermissible. The imprisonment and forced labour and mistreatment of a people based on the colour of their skin is not allowed.

America isn't a continent.

Gosh, the bullheadedness seems to go two ways here.

"The Americas, also collectively called America" :) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas)

Fine it was the War of Dixon Independence. Happy Bata Baita?

No, you need to stop being U.S.-American centrist.

-_-

what do you call a person who comes from the USA if you cant use the word "american"?

Fredonian. This land is Fredonia, the country is the United States of Fredonia, and we are Fredes. Things that have the quality of Fredonia are Fredish, like Fredish drone strikes, and Fredish companies.

Indeed, slavery isn't based on racism. However, the slavery carried out by the Confederates was.

Indeed, slavery isn't based on racism. However, the slavery carried out by the Confederates was.

Why did my earlier post get deleted? And why did that one appear twice?

^ This.

Gosh, the bullheadedness seems to go two ways here.

"The Americas, also collectively called America" :) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas)

Alright fair enough :P But still, all other wars in "america" have specific names, so unless you're being really annoying, there's no reason to confuse people by referring to them as simply the "American Civil War". Besides being way too general of a term for these specific wars, it is doubly confusing since there is actually a single war called the "American Civil war":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

Honestly If you're talking about the Shining path in Peru, say the "Internal Conflict in Peru", if you're talking about the Colombian Cocainian Wars, just say the "Colombian Conflict". And for that mater if you're talking about the Secession crisis that happened in the US over slavery, just say the "American civil War". There's no reason to use any name except for the actual name of the conflict.

Edited 8/12/2016 15:09:38

Irrelevant, the USA will balkanize because of multiculturalism.

the US will conquer the world because it is multicultural

Both statements have about as much evidence and reasoning.

which?

Spain

defeating people who are behind you technologically hundreds of years isn't impressive

Occupying places thousands of miles away is

not on its own

The US played a much larger role in destroying Germany's industry than Britain did, and Japan's navy and much of it's army and Air Force was defeated primarily by the US.

which it threw away

NATO still exists bud

and a lack of social cohesion and morale to cripple said military.

And the CSA would have had more cohesion? Pfft, give it a decade or two and it'd collapse.

this is a shitpost

You're a shitposting tumor, please leave warlight

incorrect

No, not incorrect. The Confederacy cannot win unless it defeats the Union army in a large battle, which forces a peace.

why?

Union tariffs, Egypt being a competitor against them, India being a competitor against them, the South having been wrecked thoroughly in some areas, union troops maintaining a presence in some areas after the war.

give an example

About half of it's population was enslaved, prone to rebelling, running away, and now had a supporter to the north which could supply an insurgency for it.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word aristocracy.

the highest class in certain societies, especially those holding hereditary titles or offices.

so?

The Union would have been preparing for war since the secession, while the confederacy was trying to put down rebellions.

don't care about your reasoning. There has never been a multicultural civilization in history

I don't care about your made up history and definitions. Your ideas require lying to stand.

America has failed all occupations

America achieved almost all of it's goals in the Banana Wars

Americas impact on the 2nd world war was negligible

Stop making assertions, the defeat of Japan was not negligible.

irrelevant trade organization

NATO is a military allaince, stop acting you know anything about the real world.

Dubious

You are the least intelligent person on this site

They could have won by a number of means.

What means?

That presumes that the Union would be the Confederacies main trade partner and that their economy would remain cotton based indefinitely.

The Confederacy had no alternatives to cotton, and was bested by the Union in industry and agriculture.

dependent upon external factors

The US occupying the Mississippi is not dependent on external factors.

In what way is that supposed to affect the economy

Cutting off roads and rivers bogs down trade

incorrect

A historian was able to find 250 instances of slave revolts in the south.

dependent upon external factors

The US isn't going to give up the oppurtunity

Wrong definition

Not the wrong definition, it's a definition and it applies to the southern aristocracy. Stop ignoring and making up the meaning of words.

Not if they had won the first war

How is a victory that only puts off a northern invasion going to stop rebellions?

Then give an example of a multicultural civilization

Austro-Hungary, Second Polish Republic, Russian Empire, China, USA, etc

They don't have those countries occupied, they have failed their occupation.

The goal was not to keep them occupied, it was to defend US interests.

Yes it was, Japan didn't want to wage war against America.

Japan attacked America first. That is wanting to wage war.

alliance*, character attack,

I don't care, you were wrong and you still act like you have any brain cells.

if they're a military alliance they would make preparations for war against an external threat, they haven't done so.

They've been preparing for an invasion of Russia for a while. And that's not even the damn definition of military allaince, stop making things up.

You've resorted to namecalling, you're clearly in the wrong.

Then why weren't you in the wrong when you were calling me a Jew?