Best POD for southern victory

I know that there are sooooo many threads about this question - but there is the problem: as a non specialist, I can't survey this huge mass of approaches... So: what is the best POD (after the secession) which may result in an independance of the CSA?

Have seccession take place a few decades earlier (I seem to recall seeing 1837 suggested here?), before the economic imbalance between the two sides became so great.

Simreeve said:

Have seccession take place a few decades earlier (I seem to recall seeing 1837 suggested here?), before the economic imbalance between the two sides became so great.

Click to expand...

What would cause that secession. Slave question hardly was that kind of question that it could cause secessionism. And would 1830's CSA be any viable as 1860's CSA?

There's always a separate issue from slavery itself, depending on how far back you set the POD. Widukind's TL has a de-facto North/South split leading to a war over issues of centralization vs. state sovereignty in terms of things like tariffs, Native relations, land prospecting, etc. Then again, the POD for that goes back to the early 18th. Century with a lot of lead up to those events, so YMMV in terms of context.

There are only two realistic PODs for a Confederate victory. The first is foreign intervention, for which the Trent Affair is obviously the most likely option. The other is a better showing by the Confederates in 1864, leading to a collapse of political will in the North and Lincoln's electoral defeat in that year's presidential election and a negotiated peace by the incoming Democratic administration.

Anaxagoras said:

There are only two realistic PODs for a Confederate victory. The first is foreign intervention, for which the Trent Affair is obviously the most likely option. The other is a better showing by the Confederates in 1864, leading to a collapse of political will in the North and Lincoln's electoral defeat in that year's presidential election and a negotiated peace by the incoming Democratic administration.

Click to expand...

That's true if the POD has to be during, or immediately before the start of, the Civil War. If you push the POD back then you get more circumstances in which the Confederacy can win.

A larger annexation of Mexican territory at the end of the Mexican American war could touch off an earlier Civil War if the 1850 compromise falls through of the Southern slavocrats fear the inclusion of free Mexican states which could box the slave states in.

They might find that a compelling reason for secession and the economic disparity between the two isn't so great and more of the border states could probably be compelled into joining.

I can think of few:
1) War of 1812. Suppose the South concludes that the war is being fought largely for Northern concerns and decides to leave in the middle. The US is tied up with Britain and Canada, so maybe it just lets the South go.

2) As noted, somewhere around 1820/1830, before the economic disparity between North and South had peaked, before railroads enhanced interstate mobility, and when anti-slavery views in Britain and elsewhere were just growing (abolished in 1833). Thus, the South would be on a more even footing logistically and European support for the South would have been more likely.

3) Perhaps at most any time when the powers-that-be lacked the view that it was proper to prevent them from seceding or lacked the political will to stop them. With all of the North's problems and setbacks in the ACW, a less decisive president might have let the South go and there was enough war opposition in Congress to support that view.

My personal pet idea is:

1) Pig War. The US and the Brits beat one anothers faces in over the St. Laurence estuary, the Southern states (who sell to the world market) suffering badly from blockade - which the US can't break - and not wanting to fight for "gaining free soil".
2) When the 1860 election rolls around, have a four way split - pro peace Northerner, pro war Northerner, pro peace Southerner, pro war Southerner. The pro peace Northerner gets fewer Electoral Votes than the pro war Northerner and is strongarmed into backing him, Northerner wins election, South secedes.

This means that the South is now separately at war with the US - and the Northerners are the ones who've borne the brunt of the war with Britain. The US must peace-out with one of these enemies - they just lost their best revenue stream and the already-mobilized Brits are now pouring weapons South (so the Southerners are arguably better armed than the North) plus the US armies consist of Militia which is currently in Canada... militia which is watching the coast... and regulars (who will splinter like OTL due to state loyalties).

Might work, anyway.

Best PoD for Southern victory is no war. Have the North let them go.

It may be almost impossible for the south to win a military fight, due to the disparity of industry and population.

G.Washington_Fuckyeah said:

I know that there are sooooo many threads about this question - but there is the problem: as a non specialist, I can't survey this huge mass of approaches... So: what is the best POD (after the secession) which may result in an independance of the CSA?

Click to expand...

Don't fight. Simple as that.

If it comes to war, the Confederacy loses. It doesn't have the money, the resources, the industrialization, or the manpower. The Confederacy only lasted as long as it did through an incredible string of luck and blinding incompetence on the part of the Union. Any realistic POD has them losing harder and faster.

So don't fight. Secede, send it up to a Supreme Court already dominated by southern douchebags. They'll say 'secession is completely legal.' Keep dragging it out. The Congress will waffle, Lincoln doesn't get his war authority, there's less and less will in the United States to go to war.

End of story. Basically, the Confederacy's best chance is to sit on its hands and nag the Union to death with passive aggression.

Southern victory possibilties

There are probably three possible ways the CSA could have won. If Beaureguard had persued the feds after the victory at First Manassas, he could have taken Washington. If Lee's scouts hadn't been seen near Gettysberg, he might have made it to Washington. Finally, if Davis had convinced the CS Comgress to ftee the slaves sooner, he probably would have gotten European recognition and Lincoln would have been forced to end the war. As it was, the CS 2nd Congress freed the slaves in February of 1865. Too late to save the Confederacy.

balddaddy1965 said:

There are probably three possible ways the CSA could have won. If Beaureguard had persued the feds after the victory at First Manassas, he could have taken Washington.

Click to expand...

There were more fresh Union troops in defensive positions at Washington and only some of the retreating Union troops routed. Odds are against Beauregard.

balddaddy1965 said:

If Lee's scouts hadn't been seen near Gettysberg, he might have made it to Washington.

Click to expand...

Lee never attempted to march on Washington and it was very heavily defended by that point. Gettysburg was the collision of Union and Confederate army corps. There was going to be a battle somewhere in Pennsylvania, and it could have been on even better ground for the Union.

balddaddy1965 said:

Finally, if Davis had convinced the CS Comgress to ftee the slaves sooner, he probably would have gotten European recognition and Lincoln would have been forced to end the war. As it was, the CS 2nd Congress freed the slaves in February of 1865. Too late to save the Confederacy.

Click to expand...

The Confederate Congress never freed any slaves. In February of 1865 they did authorize the training of slaves as soldiers, with their masters' permission, but there was no promise that military service would lead to freedom.

POD: Lee becomes Military-Governor of the CSA, an entity under President Davis and close to modern-monarch of the U. K., except with military power as Commander-in-Chief.
Lee manages to rally enough Southerners into joining the army a few months before the Battle of Gettysburg so that the 45,000 conscripts inspired by him to join remain behind with 10,000 troops training them while on border guarding duty. Lee takes an extra 35,000 troops with him, so he easily wins the Battle of Gettysburg, losing only 17,341 troops to the Union's 49,289. With the Union's army in full retreat, Lee captured another 12,000 soldiers and killed the remaining 18,000 who didn't desert. He immediately sends for reinforcements and is promised the 55,000 troops on border patrol... On the southern side of Washington D. C. After he captures D. C., he manages to take 38 Senators and President Lincoln prisoner, along with the Speaker of the House, the Vice President, and the Secretary of State. The remainder of the Cabinet is caught in a "deserting unit". The President and a majority of the Senators, 33 to be precise, recognize the independence of the Confederate States of America and are forced to pay some $105,000,000.00(equivalent to some eighty billion dollars now) to pay the damages. The Treasurer, once released, raised the $15,000,000 necessary to release the prisoners. However, he declared himself de facto president meanwhile and renounced the Treaty of Richmond(where it had been signed). His refusal to recognize the treaty resulted in General Ulysses S. Grant arresting him and declaring himself Military Governor. He proceeded to send the money with a personal apology to Lee and Lincoln for the Treasurer's conduct. The Last War of the Union, though agreed to on July 4, 1863, came to its official end on January 6, 1864, Epiphany.

Lincoln agreed to the Treaty and recognized Grant, but advised him to return to democracy, stating "The Confederates have, despite their horrid belief in slavery, not left [democracy] all together. Please... consider my advice to you, not as commander-in-chief to his head general, but... as advice from a sincere friend to a noble friend... Sincerely, Your Friend Abraham Lincoln"

Grant eventually re-established the Presidency with a maximum of two six-year terms. However, Lee and Davis were in a political struggle in January of 1864 for political control. Davis, eventually, was overthrown by the Vice President, the Army, and Lee. Eventually, the following Constitution(simplified) was written):
I. The Prime Minister[former Vice President] shall be elected by all white males over the age of twenty-one.
A. His terms shall be: the first one preceded by a different person, five years, and a terms following his own three years.
B. He shall be representative of the people and nominate four men from each state to be in the Senate.
C. He, with a majority in the Senate, may overrule a veto.
I. The Military Governor shall be one of eight nominated by the Prime Minister and elected by the Military Cabinet.
A. He may design the laws.
B. He is the representative and head of the Military.
C. He may serve any number of ten-year terms.
C. If formerly head General, he must resign that position and any in the Cabinet.
I. The Senate shall be nominated by the Prime Minister and chosen by the Military Governor.
A. It shall pass laws.
B. It is the representative of the people.
C. It may serve up to four five-year terms.
I. The Military Cabinet is made up of the dozen highest ranking generals.
A. It shall elect the Military Governor and obey his orders.
B. It shall control the military under the Governor.
C. Any may serve for as long as they remain in the dozen highest ranking generals.
Afterwards, the new Prime Minister, Alexander Stephens, decreed that the number of people in the Senate would be reduced to five. The fellow Confederacy Beginning Brothers, Judah P. Benjamin, Stephen Mallory, Christopher Memminger, LeRoy Pope Walker, John H. Reagan, and Robert Tombs were all nominated, but Walker was cast out by Lee for his pro-slavery stance. Eventually, slavery was reduced to East of the Mississippi in the Lee-Tombs Compromise of 1868. Everybody got re-elected except Christopher Memminger in the hotly-contested 1875 races. Memminger lost to the pro-slavery forces, who managed 11 of the 15 candidates. Walker was chosen by Lee, hoping he would be kinder to the anti-slavery Brothers, but soon Walker became the backbone of pro-slavery support in the Confederacy. It was not until 1880 that Walker was pushed out of office by Lee. Ambrose Hill was elected in his place, serving as both a member of the Military Cabinet and Senate. Lee abolished slavery in Richmond in 1882. Soon, Virginia agreed to entirely abolish slavery. Eventually, the Carolinas agreed to abolish it in 1883. By 1885, slavery was only allowed in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Tenessee. Lee resigned in 1887, and Ambrose Hill took control as a member of the Cabinet, Senate, and the Military Governor. He managed to get slavery abolished in Tennessee in 1888, the year Robert E. Lee became a Great Beginning Brother and Prime Minister. Although his term only lasted until 1892, he made many changes and got slavery abolished in Florida while establishing an alliance with the U. K. At the age of 85, he was found dying in the Ministeral Chair. The government was convened around him, and as he passed his dying words were "End slavery, and the Confederacy, under God, forever!" Former President Ulyses S. Grant had been coming to visit Lee, and entered the room, now elderly, with a walking stick. On hearing these words, he is said to have said "God bless this man forever! I bless his soul." Then, Grant himself reached out and embraced his former opponent. Then, he too fell to the ground and died, having a sudden heart attack.

To this day, the Beginning Brothers have only nominated four people to the title of Great Brother, and only three, Grant, Lee, and one President Theodore Johnson, who ended the Great Divide before his death in 1995, were accepted. So is the history of the prologue to the well-known Great Divide.

Edit: Oh wow, just realized this isn't a Challenge. Sorry, you can ignore the rest.

balddaddy1965 said:

There are probably three possible ways the CSA could have won. If Beaureguard had persued the feds after the victory at First Manassas, he could have taken Washington.

Click to expand...

Doubtful. Both armies were completely tired, never mind the fract that the retreating union troops wopuld run into an army force of fresh army troops roughly the same size who were guarding Washington, and which was growing steadily by the week.

If Lee's scouts hadn't been seen near Gettysberg, he might have made it to Washington.

Click to expand...

No. It would be impossible for Lee to take Washington, being that the city by 1863 was one of the most heavily defended places on the planet by that time.

Plus, he actually has to destroy the Army of the Potomac before he could even go near washington.

Finally, if Davis had convinced the CS Comgress to ftee the slaves sooner, he probably would have gotten European recognition and Lincoln would have been forced to end the war. As it was, the CS 2nd Congress freed the slaves in February of 1865. Too late to save the Confederacy.

Click to expand...

""If Davis had convinced the CS congress...." yeah, going to need a source on this about Davis actually wanting to free the slaves and also watning to make a case of it to congress.

Kingpoleon said:

SNIP

Click to expand...

WHAT?

I've just thought of different way for the South to go (relatively) bloodlessly.

Have the current president refer the issue of secession to the Supreme Court - expecting a clear Unionist answer, thus bolstering the decision to raise armies. But the Court, in a surprise move, rules for the South, massively undercutting the president's position.

With OTL presidents, you could even have Buchanan submit the petition, and have Lincoln be bound by the ruling. Which would make things messy.


I'm not sure who was on the Court at that point. You'd have to have a combination that would allow the assumption of a Unionist decision, but still allow a Secessionist result.


I know that, after the fact, a president asked the Court whether the question needed clarifying, and the answer was that secession was clearly unconstitutional, and that no ruling was necessary. So I could see a significant chunk of the Court feeling that way.

I also see NOTHING in the Constitution that states that, at all. So I could see another chunk going THAT way.


I would imagine, in this case, that the ruling would likely be 5-4, so while definitely a majority, more fat for the fire.

It would be even worse if one judge recused himself, and another was too sick to attend, and the decision was like 4-3....

Even if the President does decide to go to war, claiming a 4-3 decision was not valid, say, there'd be enough controversy that passing draft laws, etc., would be very, very difficult, and there'd be more political wrangling happening than military preparation.

Dathi THorfinnsson said:

Have the current president refer the issue of secession to the Supreme Court

Click to expand...

No way. The Court didn't do such things. The precedent had been established way back in Washington's term that the Court would not issue advisory rulings at the request of the president, as it undermined the separation of powers.

Dathi THorfinnsson said:

I know that, after the fact, a president asked the Court whether the question needed clarifying, and the answer was that secession was clearly unconstitutional, and that no ruling was necessary. So I could see a significant chunk of the Court feeling that way.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you're talking about here. The Supreme Court ruled in Texas vs. White (in 1868, IIRC) that Texas had never seceded because secession was not constitutional.

Anaxagoras said:

No way. The Court didn't do such things. The precedent had been established way back in Washington's term that the Court would not issue advisory rulings at the request of the president, as it undermined the separation of powers.

Click to expand...

??? The Attorney General can't take a case claiming State laws are unconstitutional to the SC?

Why would this be 'advisory', and why is that a problem?

States can ask the SC to declare Federal activity unconstitutional, no?

EnglishCanuck said:

A larger annexation of Mexican territory at the end of the Mexican American war could touch off an earlier Civil War if the 1850 compromise falls through of the Southern slavocrats fear the inclusion of free Mexican states which could box the slave states in.

They might find that a compelling reason for secession and the economic disparity between the two isn't so great and more of the border states could probably be compelled into joining.

Click to expand...

I wonder if this POD could turn into a three way war, with Mexico trying to retake some of its losses. I'd imagine the US would focus on the CSA, so I could see some Mexican gains. In particular, would they have a chance to regain Texas in the eventual peace?

Dathi THorfinnsson said:

??? The Attorney General can't take a case claiming State laws are unconstitutional to the SC?

Why would this be 'advisory', and why is that a problem?

States can ask the SC to declare Federal activity unconstitutional, no?

Click to expand...

This is before the 14th amendment, so you can't argue equal protection.