Were the 1860's the latest where the South could have waged a semi-successful war?

Just due to the technological developments that followed the 1860's like cartridge metallic ammunition, breach loaders (rifles and artillery) etc. due to the agrarian nature of the South vs the industrialized North was the 1860's really the last they could have even attempted a rebellion war that would not almost immediately be put down?
 
Just due to the technological developments that followed the 1860's like cartridge metallic ammunition, breach loaders (rifles and artillery) etc. due to the agrarian nature of the South vs the industrialized North was the 1860's really the last they could have even attempted a rebellion war that would not almost immediately be put down?

Not nessicerily; organizationally the US really CAN'T immediately put down a large scale rebellion, simply due to the fact that pre-WW II its domestic arms industry is basically non-existent and its proffesional standing army similarly not a thing. The general US mobalization system was to "gear up" once a war was on the horizon and depend largely on 'federalizing' militas and volunteer units and counting on the states to raise regiments from their Guards, who's experience was spotty at best. Simply put, the technological-industrial state of weapons woulden't be relevent right at the start of the war due to the fact that there woulden't be supplies of said weapons laying around or folks trained to use them.

Of course, staging a successful conventional defensive campaign that could, in the end, win is a different barrel of beans entirely.
 

samcster94

Banned
Not nessicerily; organizationally the US really CAN'T immediately put down a large scale rebellion, simply due to the fact that pre-WW II its domestic arms industry is basically non-existent and its proffesional standing army similarly not a thing. The general US mobalization system was to "gear up" once a war was on the horizon and depend largely on 'federalizing' militas and volunteer units and counting on the states to raise regiments from their Guards, who's experience was spotty at best. Simply put, the technological-industrial state of weapons woulden't be relevent right at the start of the war due to the fact that there woulden't be supplies of said weapons laying around or folks trained to use them.

Of course, staging a successful conventional defensive campaign that could, in the end, win is a different barrel of beans entirely.
If that was the case, the Second Boer War would have taken a few weeks and not lead to Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders(not to mention Indians) dying in large numbers.
 
If that was the case, the Second Boer War would have taken a few weeks and not lead to Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders(not to mention Indians) dying in large numbers.

You're ignoring the logistical problems of power projection to the other side of the world, the fact Britain was operating on nothing approaching Total War footing, the fact that the land they had to cross was virtually completely undeveloped, and the fact the primary Boer defense wasen't exactly conventional in the European broad front sense.
 

samcster94

Banned
You're ignoring the logistical problems of power projection to the other side of the world, the fact Britain was operating on nothing approaching Total War footing, the fact that the land they had to cross was virtually completely undeveloped, and the fact the primary Boer defense wasen't exactly conventional in the European broad front sense.
Indeed. The Confederacy fought conventionally, wasn't overseas, and actually had several major cities to work with. My point was more to show that technology advances probably wouldn't have crushed an alt- Confederacy that quickly either.
 
Indeed. The Confederacy fought conventionally, wasn't overseas, and actually had several major cities to work with. My point was more to show that technology advances probably wouldn't have crushed an alt- Confederacy that quickly either.

Ah... my apologies. The way you quoted me and responded made it sound like you were disagreeing with rather than emphasizing my point.
 
I would argue that, short of foriegn intervention on thier behalf, OTL is about as good as the Confederates could hope for.

The North had the railroads, the metal, the guns, the manpower, the supplies, the food, the leadership and strategy all on thier side.

The South had bodies to throw into the meatgrinder, occasional flashes of tactical brilliance from Longstreet or Jackson, and seemed to pin thier hopes that the Yanks didn't have the stomach for a fight.

Frankly, with better leadership in the East, the Union would have had them crushed far earlier.
 
I do wonder if there is a narrow sliver of time, where you have machine guns and barbed wire to buff defensive war but don't have total war institutions in place, that the CSA could sneak through.
 
I do wonder if there is a narrow sliver of time, where you have machine guns and barbed wire to buff defensive war but don't have total war institutions in place, that the CSA could sneak through.

The front is too big for the Rebels to pull off trench warfare on that scale. It sacrifices their biggest advantage for one; strategic mobility, and the Federal forces will just go around them on a different front or, failing that, turn to artillery (in which they are dramatically superior, especially if the south is pumping all their metal works into what they'd need to pull these tactics) to hammer the lines. The North isent exactly enamored with the cult of the offensive that Europe was: if anything, that was a Southern notion
 
Top