>>1513763>Were the Confederates really that much more competent than those (victorious) Northern Aggressors?Substantially more competent on the tactical level. The Army of Northern Virginia was able to manage a 2:1 kill ratio despite inferior logistics, equipment, training and numbers (hint: the side that usually inflicts disproportionate casualties is the one that has an overwhelming technological/manpower/training advantage such as the US in Vietnam and Iraq). The Union was able to mobilize its resources better but Confederate mobilization was fairly impressive in its own right (the largest powder works built in the 19th Century are in Augusta, Georgia and were erected in just seven months).
>Looking back it seems they were doomed from the start It was definitely destined to be an uphill battle from the start, but I wouldn't go as far as to say it was doomed. Union morale came dangerously close to collapse in 1862 and even into 1863, was rocked by things like the New York Draft Riots.
>If they had won, and the country was permanently divided, poor Ann might have had a tougher time persuading either smaller country to care about overseas entanglements in the first placeWell if you think about it, WWII probably wouldn't have happened (at least in the way did) had the South because you've completely altered American involvement in WWI, which might've potentially saved everyone the trouble by preventing the rise of Nazism in the first place. But I prefer to be creative and imagine the Confederacy joining the Allied Powers and stomping their way across Europe, liberating cute Jewish girls as they go :)
>but I don't see anything there to make a liberals head explode.Liberals hate just about everything about the South so a drawing implying that their beloved Union Army was too incompetent to save their involuntarily-appointed martyr against "muh ebil racism", Anne Frank, and that only Confederates are capable of doing so, makes them tear their own hair out.
