hard to say, it would be extremely difficult for the North to beat the south this time around, as what helped the North win was finding a moral ground to stand on halfway through the war that they could reinforce with propaganda

the New CSA would have a major advantage tho

holding a large portion of the breadbasket of America

withholding resources to the North, would cause massive instability there and lead to critical errors done by the Norths military structure

South also has territorial advantage, thick forrests, swamps, mountainous terrain, would be the ingrediants you need for large scale guerrilla warfare

which would be able to offset the mass numbers the North would have

and the thing about the US military, it still has not adapted to Guerrilla warfare beyond mass number advances

guerrilla war won’t win a civil war in any acceptable amount of time

Americans just aren’t used to fighting in their own cities and towns like that

a New CSA would require a proper military

And also probably not be named the CSA

well this is a what if scenario, name of the New South doesnt matter all that much

for sure but a name would also matter in terms of a civil war

You will get practically zero support calling it the CSA

a name like Dixie would probably be better, as its currently still a nickname of the South and doesnt have the same conotations as CSA does

eh it definitely does for someone not from the south

Definitely correlated with the CSA

very little people that iv talked to who dont like in the South know of the connection between Dixie and CSA

Dixie area in Utah is controversial for outsiders

dixie state university and dixie technical college

frankly most people who know the name Dixie would probably find it more relating to the Dixie plastic cups than the nickname of the south

I agree with zilla

I also say not Dixie because it wouldn’t just be the South in the same way today. There’s dozens of states that have similar values and beliefs which are mainly heartland states

that is true, as Dixie is derived from part of the term Mason Dixon Line

tho in this scenario it would be funny. the US west was an enemy of the South in the 1st Civil War, and now they would be an ally for the most part

Somebody has never heard of the Green Berets.

well adapted to in the sense of combating against it, not using it themselves

the way the US has dealth with Guerrilla Warfare for the past 60 years has been throw more bodies at the ambush than the ambush can handle

Are you angry with your regional ruler? Are you angry enough to rebel against him? Would you like free airdrops of weapons and ammo? We're the Green Berets, and we're here to help.

That's because the politicians heading up the wars aren't interested in winning them. You start a civil war 2, they going to be vested in winning it.

Most modern wars are about feeding the Military Industrial Complex. Gotta make sure Bell and Boeing get those juicy military contracts.

its more than just what the politicians want, also has to do with military doctrine as well

as the US military isnt designed to fight against guerrilla warfare either as well

its still designed as if it is expected to go to WW2 levels of mass battles against another large nation

Oh, we can. We just do the exact same thing we did last time. South would look like Tokyo during WW2

Homes? Gone.

Fields? Agent Orange.

Cities? Napalm.

and then by doing so, draw in other nations who wouldnt be so happy about the US committing active warcrimes against its own populace

Not saying I like it, but theres a reason we don't do that stuff to other countries, and those reasons have everything to do with politics.

Like who? China? Russia?

Nukes.