Conflicts in history......

[mustanger98]

One big reason for the War of Northern Aggression was that the Lincoln administration raised tariffs to an all-time high of nearly 50% which made British/Euro manufactured goods unaffordable. Also, the North bought Southern crops and natural resources for cheap and sold their manufactured good for high prices. An economy cannot survive by selling for low $$$ and buying for high $$$. I don't beleive the South was fighting the change in manufacturing technology near as much as the high cost of doing business. The North was treating the South just like England treated the American colonies prior to the Revolution of 1775-81.

I do agree that slavery would've ended because of being economically unsound, but slavery wasn't THE major cause of the war until Lincoln made it a major issue in 1863 for propaganda purposes. And Lincoln didn't abolish slavery. He only verbally, or by executive order, emancipated the slaves "in the states currently in rebellion" by his own wording.

Only about 5% of the Southern population owned slaves. I'm not convinced 95% of the Southern population would fight for one right exercised by 5% when many couldn't afford shoes, much less slaves.

Another thing or two... Consider that Major Gen. Patrick Cleburne, a native-born Irishman who served in the Confederate Army, composed a proposal in 1863 to arm and train slaves to fight for the South in exchange for their freedom. The idea wasn't politically correct among the top brass, many of whom were from the ecomonic top 5% of the Southern landowners, so it was canned until too late in the war to do any good. That aside, Fredrick Douglas reported to Lincoln in 1861 that there were 100-150K free blacks in the Confederate Army in combat roles. Those free blacks would've had the same economic and political concerns as their free white contemporaries. Same goes for Southern Indians.

 

[CheyennePilot]

Hey OLDGOLD, I've had the same dream about going back to the Alamo with a couple of miniguns on tripods, 20 FNH A4s with Leopold long range scopes, and 200 M1As all with plenty of ammo. It might have ended early though with one clean shot to the head of General Santa Anna! San Antonio would not be famous for " Remember The Alamo ". I would have loved to see them running when we opened up with those miniguns.

 

[JohnMcD348]

I read and really enjoyed "Guns of the South" years ago. It amazed me how they were able to run through the whole time of the war and how it eventually ended up in the same manner as it did in our reality. I have for many years wondered along the same lines about "What If?". Not about firearms and combat so much but just technology and education in general. What if: we ent back in time and taught a simple technique that we do every day with little to no real training and see how it advances the education or level of technology 100-200 years later.

Me being in the medical profession wonders how if we could teach people simple medical first aid and sepsis practices during the Revolutionary war would have improved the level of combat effectivness for the soldiers who died fromwhat are now simple treatable issues that don't require modern medicine. And then, how would gaining that knowledge then be built upon and improved upon to this day?

 

[FourNineFoxtrot]

mustanger98-

1K rds wouldn't be near enough to suit me. A dozen or so friends is squad strength. What size U-Haul truck?

That 1k rds wasn't enough was exactly my point. That could easily be expended in a single engagement by even semi-auto weapons. Honestly, I can't even figure how much ammo you would need; probably hundreds of thousands, ultimately. The reason I suggested u-haul trucks (probably the '26 box models) is just that they're the most convenient way of moving lots of stuff, and keeping it fairly mobile (for a while). A ship would be better, but I don't have a ship.

I think that squad strength would really be pretty decent (if I limited my territorial ambitions), though, with the right armaments. Platoon strength is better; Company strength is better still. A company of men with modern arms could face any pre-gunpowder army ever fielded, if they're smart about terrain. I just don't know that many people. In fact, I doubt I personally know more than 2 or 3 guys who would do this even if it were possible, and there's only one guy I completely trust to watch my back, so no situation is going to be ideal. The more people you bring back, the more people there are to turn on you. I'd hate to travel back in time to conquer the world or something, only to have the whole exercise turn into a highlander-esque "there can be only one" deathmatch.


Actually, a series of books that pertains exactly to just such a scenario is Jerry Pournelle's Janissaries, an excellent, if somewhat forgotten, series.

For raking the deck, I think I'd rather have two or four Gatling guns than to have the naval guns of the day. I never was much for the idea of reciprocating broadsides. Also, I'd want to bring along plenty of components to reload all the .45-70 brass instead of shovelling it all overboard.

Not a bad idea. The problem is range; to use Gatlings effectively, you would need to be within their cannon range (not a problem if you go back far enough in time, but that limits the sea trade you deal in/prey upon. Best bets for pre-gunpowder piracy are probably the Med or the IO). I think the Gatlings are great for finishing work, or to put the fear in 'em once they've hoisted the white flag. For piracy, though, I want a naval gun that I can use to hull or dismast a ship at range; plus, a five-inch (or whatever) gun mount is a bit more intimidating than a Gatling battery. Piracy relies heavily on intimidation.