Ways for CSA to Win Civil War?

[Ariosto]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Given that the only way the Federals are doing such things is either a) something like firing on the batteries around Sumter, or b) with troops that have volunteers - the Regular Army is in no position to do anything on its own except something like the Sumter scenario - I'd say "Almost not at all".

The "conditional Union" states left simply at the idea of volunteers called up to fight when the US had been attacked, so they're hardly going to be more hostile than OTL. The Border states aren't particularly sympathetic to the Confederacy, and foreign powers . . . aren't going to care.

The reason I ask is that Fort Sumter was, forgive the comparison, akin to a Pearl Harbor, with the American people rallying to the war effort, in this case patriotic fervor seizing many in the North, and to some extent in the Border States.

Without this fervor as we saw it, the response to Lincoln's call for volunteers (which will come at some point) will be far from enthusiastic.

The most significant change I can see is the secession of Maryland, oddly the closest of the four border states; there would be less Federal sympathy in the area, and Governor Thomas Hicks, remaining ever more mixed on the opinion of the Federal Government, would have proceeded to call a Convention in Annapolis, resulting in the passage of Secession (so a POD creating a line of PODs).

Kentucky, I imagine, could also maintain some manner of neutrality given loses in the elections held in '61, which had produced in OTL veto-proof Unionist chambers, would be more mixed (given more people would be willing to vote for Southern sympathizers, and those Southern sympathizers that did exist would actually turn out to vote), though likely still leaning in the favor of the Unionists. Therefore the Governor, Beriah Magoffin, could continue his course of indirectly supporting the South, while maintaining for pragmatic reasons the neutrality of his state.

Missouri I imagine would be the same until the Price-Harney Truce, where things begin to diverge. This could be argued, but I could see Lincoln deciding to ignore the anger directed to him by the Unionists from Missouri, principally Francis Blair, and keeping Harney in command; being on the fence, he would decide against it so as not to already aggravate a delicate situation (Kentucky already standing on the line, Maryland having officially seceded), while still being in position to move into the remainder of the state from St. Louis (the one place Federal troops were allowed) should Missouri not abide. However, given it requires respecting Missouri's neutrality (in return for its promise to remain in the Union), this cuts off the Western Theater as we know it.

Just some stuff to think about.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

The reason I ask is that Fort Sumter was, forgive the comparison, akin to a Pearl Harbor, with the American people rallying to the war effort, in this case patriotic fervor seizing many in the North, and to some extent in the Border States.

Without this fervor as we saw it, the response to Lincoln's call for volunteers (which will come at some point) will be far from enthusiastic.

The problem is that the only way any attack significant enough to mean anything happens is pretty much going to have to require volunteers, because the US Regular Army is in no position to attack on its own. Not when it's scattered in companies across half a continent for the most part.

The most significant change I can see is the secession of Maryland, oddly the closest of the four border states; there would be less Federal sympathy in the area, and Governor Thomas Hicks, remaining ever more mixed on the opinion of the Federal Government, would have proceeded to call a Convention in Annapolis, resulting in the passage of Secession (so a POD creating a line of PODs).

I am not convinced. Maryland's Confederate sympathies don't seem to have produced much except wishful thinking on the part of the Confederates when they entered the state after the war started - why is this changing TTL?

Kentucky, I imagine, could also maintain some manner of neutrality given loses in the elections held in '61, which had produced in OTL veto-proof Unionist chambers, would be more mixed (given more people would be willing to vote for Southern sympathizers, and those Southern sympathizers that did exist would actually turn out to vote), though likely still leaning in the favor of the Unionists. Therefore the Governor, Beriah Magoffin, could continue his course of indirectly supporting the South, while maintaining for pragmatic reasons the neutrality of his state.

Why would more people be willing to vote for Confederate sympathizers?

Missouri I imagine would be the same until the Price-Harney Truce, where things begin to diverge. This could be argued, but I could see Lincoln deciding to ignore the anger directed to him by the Unionists from Missouri, principally Francis Blair, and keeping Harney in command; being on the fence, he would decide against it so as not to already aggravate a delicate situation (Kentucky already standing on the line, Maryland having officially seceded), while still being in position to move into the remainder of the state from St. Louis (the one place Federal troops were allowed) should Missouri not abide. However, given it requires respecting Missouri's neutrality (in return for its promise to remain in the Union), this cuts off the Western Theater as we know it.

Just some stuff to think about.

And wonder at the basis of. There's a large gap between a possibly less passionate response to the start of the war, and people actually being inclined away from the Union and towards the Confederacy.

[jotabe1789]

Forgive my ignorance about the ACW, but i have to ask: if the Union wasn't about to attack first, why did the Confederates attack first? What were they expecting to gain, by going from defending their territory to attacking the Union? Were they trying to expand?

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by jotabe1789

Forgive my ignorance about the ACW, but i have to ask: if the Union wasn't about to attack first, why did the Confederates attack first? What were they expecting to gain, by going from defending their territory to attacking the Union? Were they trying to expand?

They felt that Fort Sumter in Federal hands was a thorn in their side, and they felt they could get away with it.

Just as they'd gotten away with seizing other Federal forts and arsenals earlier.

[Ariosto]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

The problem is that the only way any attack significant enough to mean anything happens is pretty much going to have to require volunteers, because the US Regular Army is in no position to attack on its own. Not when it's scattered in companies across half a continent for the most part.

Exactly, so you have Lincoln calling for men to take up arms against an enemy that has yet to even strike you, to act bellicose. So far there methods have been peaceful. This is what I am trying to get at, where Lincoln doesn't have the kind of Casus Belli which is easily visible to the American public at large.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

I am not convinced. Maryland's Confederate sympathies don't seem to have produced much except wishful thinking on the part of the Confederates when they entered the state after the war started - why is this changing TTL?

Maryland was the border state that had the best chance of seceding. There were many in the state lobbying for secession, but the incumbent Governor, Thomas Hicks, was against it despite Southern sympathies. However, looking further into it, what I have provided is not enough to make the push. What would be required is a pitched battle in Baltimore, a Boston Massacre style event capable of swinging public opinion. So here we need a separate POD.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Why would more people be willing to vote for Confederate sympathizers?

Only half as many people voted in this election as the last one, almost all of them supporters of Southern Rights as they named it, though they themselves were divided on secession. I think a turn towards Neutrality, rather than towards other side, is more a better way to state it. Confederate candidates don't make much ground, but Neutral Unionists are able to hold the more Militant Unionists in check.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

And wonder at the basis of. There's a large gap between a possibly less passionate response to the start of the war, and people actually being inclined away from the Union and towards the Confederacy.

Yes, now I realize such a response will require something along the lines of worse Baltimore Riots, as I mentioned above regarding Maryland.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

Exactly, so you have Lincoln calling for men to take up arms against an enemy that has yet to even strike you, to act bellicose. So far there methods have been peaceful. This is what I am trying to get at, where Lincoln doesn't have the kind of Casus Belli which is easily visible to the American public at large.

An enemy that very much has, however. If for some reason the Union "fires the first shot", the incidents before April 12th are going to be brought up - including firing on ships attempting to resupply Fort Sumter.

It's not as exciting and dramatic as April 12th, but the idea that everything was peaceful up to April 12th is at best misleading and at worst a myth.

Maryland was the border state that had the best chance of seceding. There were many in the state lobbying for secession, but the incumbent Governor, Thomas Hicks, was against it despite Southern sympathies. However, looking further into it, what I have provided is not enough to make the push. What would be required is a pitched battle in Baltimore, a Boston Massacre style event capable of swinging public opinion. So here we need a separate POD.

The affair with the 6th Massachusetts failed hard at providing that, and that's the most you're going to see without a level of mishandling bordering on "What if the Union commanders were trying to pick a fight?"

Only half as many people voted in this election as the last one, almost all of them supporters of Southern Rights as they named it, though they themselves were divided on secession. I think a turn towards Neutrality, rather than towards other side, is more a better way to state it. Confederate candidates don't make much ground, but Neutral Unionists are able to hold the more Militant Unionists in check.

Except that Unionist includes "actually willing to support the Union". Even if the more militant Unionists are kept "in check", that . . . pretty much is why OTL Kentucky sees Confederate troops entering first. And given we've done nothing to make Confederate policy more realistic, I don't see that changing.

Yes, now I realize such a response will require something along the lines of worse Baltimore Riots, as I mentioned above regarding Maryland.

Which would take far, far, far more than the Union firing the first shot into "what if Nathaniel Lyon was president?" level mishandling.

[Emperor Julian]

Well, the Johnston thing was my best shot, so otherwise I think the USA is doomed unless they do something monumentally stupid.

[Reggie Bartlett]

Well, the joint Maryland-Kentucky offensives could have gone better.

If Johnston didn't die at Shiloh, he may have come into his own over time. He was certainly more popular than Bragg, so at least the Army of Tennessee would have less bickering than it did in OTL. I wonder what the Kentucky Heartland Offensive would have looked like with AS Johnston in charge...

If Lee had done better in his Maryland Campaign, then I guess TL191 logic takes over.

Pushing after Chickamauga and retaking Chattannooga, and possibly retaking Eastern and Middle Tennessee, and if Longstreet is in charge a second attempt to take Kentucky in 1864 may occur.

But, Mexico at the time would have sided with the CSA, good ole Maxamillian was in charge. Nap III, would jump in too if that is the case. Possibly prompting Britain to do so as well. And the states of Sonora, Chihuahua and Nuevo Leon, very rural 'autonomous' states in of themselves were flirting with the idea of joining the CSA.

[SPJ]

Originally Posted by Reggie Bartlett

Well, the joint Maryland-Kentucky offensives could have gone better.

If Johnston didn't die at Shiloh, he may have come into his own over time. He was certainly more popular than Bragg, so at least the Army of Tennessee would have less bickering than it did in OTL. I wonder what the Kentucky Heartland Offensive would have looked like with AS Johnston in charge...

If Lee had done better in his Maryland Campaign, then I guess TL191 logic takes over.

Pushing after Chickamauga and retaking Chattannooga, and possibly retaking Eastern and Middle Tennessee, and if Longstreet is in charge a second attempt to take Kentucky in 1864 may occur.

But, Mexico at the time would have sided with the CSA, good ole Maxamillian was in charge. Nap III, would jump in too if that is the case. Possibly prompting Britain to do so as well. And the states of Sonora, Chihuahua and Nuevo Leon, very rural 'autonomous' states in of themselves were flirting with the idea of joining the CSA.

Were flirting? You mean the leading officials of those states wanted to join the CSA? Could you provide some more details and sources?

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Reggie Bartlett

Well, the joint Maryland-Kentucky offensives could have gone better.

If Johnston didn't die at Shiloh, he may have come into his own over time. He was certainly more popular than Bragg, so at least the Army of Tennessee would have less bickering than it did in OTL. I wonder what the Kentucky Heartland Offensive would have looked like with AS Johnston in charge...

Terrible. Johnston may not have been as resented as Bragg, but his ability to make his subordinates do what he wanted - or even to express what he wanted effectively - sucked.

It's old and I'm willing to accept "out of date" if someone has something more recent and as through, but Army of the Heartland does not fill me with an iota of faith in Sidney Johnston.

This is someone who got so caught up playing district commander he practically forgot about his department and so caught up playing division commander he got himself killed.

I'm not sure how he would "come into his own" with that. That would require, at a minimum, a sense of being an army commander.

[Paul V McNutt]

It might be a cliche but I think if Lee had destroyed the Army of the Potomac at Gettysburg and then took Washington, that would have a psychological effect that could lead to an armistice.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Paul V McNutt

It might be a cliche but I think if Lee had destroyed the Army of the Potomac at Gettysburg and then took Washington, that would have a psychological effect that could lead to an armistice.

But how in the name of Mars is he going to do that?

[Baconheimer]

Update: This CSA will include:

[RamscoopRaider]

Just break out the handwaving

You can get an independent CSA, but not one that size realistically, unless you have a really early POD

CS logistics are just too bad in Maryland, Kentucky and the Southwest

[jotabe1789]

So, what i gather from this thread is that the realistic way for the CSA to have "won" the ACW would have been... not starting it. Understanding winning as becoming an independent nation. I understand that many of the border states would have gone back into the fold of the union, is that correct?.

[Reggie Bartlett]

Originally Posted by SPJ

Were flirting? You mean the leading officials of those states wanted to join the CSA? Could you provide some more details and sources?

Let me dig it up, I know Robert left something...

Found it, with notes: http://azrebel.tripod.com/page11.html

Originally Posted by Baconheimer

Update: This CSA will include:

Take Maryland out of the CSA and put Oklahoma in it, the Indian Nations largely sided with the CSA and were under Confederate control throughout most of the war.

[Fiver]

Originally Posted by Reggie Bartlett

But, Mexico at the time would have sided with the CSA, good ole Maxamillian was in charge. Nap III, would jump in too if that is the case. Possibly prompting Britain to do so as well. And the states of Sonora, Chihuahua and Nuevo Leon, very rural 'autonomous' states in of themselves were flirting with the idea of joining the CSA.

Max was too busy fighting Mexicans to even consider aiding the Confederacy. Chihuahua was not flirting with the idea of joining the CSA, the merely agreed to trade with the CSA, so long as they were not paid in CSA currency. The governor of Sonora might have considered the idea of joining the CSA, but on reconsideration promised the Union that he would exterminate any rebels setting foot on Mexican soil. The governor of Nuevo Leon wrote Jefferson Davis offering to join the Confederacy and was ignored.

[Flubber]

Originally Posted by Reggie Bartlett

Let me dig it up, I know Robert left something...

Still trolling us from his grave...

[Reggie Bartlett]

Originally Posted by Fiver

Max was too busy fighting Mexicans to even consider aiding the Confederacy. Chihuahua was not flirting with the idea of joining the CSA, the merely agreed to trade with the CSA, so long as they were not paid in CSA currency. The governor of Sonora might have considered the idea of joining the CSA, but on reconsideration promised the Union that he would exterminate any rebels setting foot on Mexican soil. The governor of Nuevo Leon wrote Jefferson Davis offering to join the Confederacy and was ignored.

Yeah, but a CS victory pretty much changes that landscape, probably putting Mexico firmly in Maxamillian's hands if Juarez is cut off from the US.

[Ariosto]

What if we make Hamlin President through assassination (Baltimore Plot)? I actually don't know a lot about the man, so I don't have any real input to give on that.