@Shaggnar@Corsair_Cowboy Legitimately the only times I can think of when they werenโt was WW2 and the Civil War under Ripley (who gets unfairly criticized for not adopting the Spencer early in the war when Spencer didnโt even have a factory).
@CascadianMagick@NordDakotan The Vicksburg campaign and Gettysburg was when the South truly lost honestly, it just clung to life for another two years because again the Union refused to press its advantages in the East. Thatโs why to North at the time in 1864 they thought the Union was losing.
@CascadianMagick@NordDakotan Not really, the Union was incompetent militarily for the first two years of the war, and even still after Gettysburg they never took advantage of anything in their favor till Grant took charge of the Army of the Potomac.
@Zoomer_South@jobe_dobe@KaiserLoengramm Not saying the North had amazing strategists, but it could absorb devastating losses fairly well. The South simply couldnโt.
@Zoomer_South@jobe_dobe@KaiserLoengramm Johnston, Jackson, and Longstreet all knew what kind of war they were fighting and the strategy necessary, but they were all subordinate to Lee and as such could never really influence the war beyond the field of battle.
@romanhelmetguy@onefishtwofis20 Even the later June Days against the second republic was fairly easily crushed.
The only truly successful revolution in 1848 was in Denmark, and that was non-violent.
@romanhelmetguy@onefishtwofis20 No once they become violent enough to try and take parts of the city and put up their own barricades, you can destroy them piecemeal.
The springtime of the peoples was crushed because they became violent. Only in France was it successful because Louis Phillippe didnโt fight.
@dawn__141@EricHovagim@ChanceGlasco So clearly it wouldโve been justified to invade the north that was doing the same to Christians and non-communists.