I need some help for a nation game I am currently in, so I am asking you, how could the CSA win the Civil War without any ASB, and dont take foreign intervention as a given.
It could work...but you would need some other than Lincoln as president, maybe Seward, Lincoln was too savvy to do thatWhat if we have a scenario where it is the Federals that fire the first shots of the war, rather than the Confederates? Would that shift the balance of public opinion, if not political power, significantly?
Kill Lincoln and Grant before the war really gets going then threaten Usili with nuclear weapons...I need some help for a nation game I am currently in, so I am asking you, how could the CSA win the Civil War without any ASB, and dont take foreign intervention as a given.
hold the shenandoa valley, fortify the Mississippi River, try to get Britain (Canada) to join your side in any way possible, as well as see if Mexico can be persuaded to become a bullet sponge in return for a part of California and the lower west.
Also try and get the support of the citizens in the wavering border states.
4) Why on earth would Mexico want to take part in the CSA's war? Even if we ignore any Confederate interest in northern Mexico.
Wasn't Mexico fighting the French at the time?
Perhaps a Shiloh Victory for the Confederates? That could drive the Union out of Tennessee and simultaneously potentially ruing Grant's career.Simple answer:
The Confederacy needs to hold Tennessee as well as it held Virginia - at least Middle and Eastern Tennessee. If it does so, it's going to be hard to present something (obvious) enough to justify the costs of blood and treasure in 1864 compared to OTL.
...
Getting rid of Grant and Thomas and Smith* (OTL a loss, but he needs to be one TTL) might be a big enough void in the Union high command to go somewhere.
Perhaps a Shiloh Victory for the Confederates? That could drive the Union out of Tennessee and simultaneously potentially ruing Grant's career.
Perhaps a Shiloh Victory for the Confederates? That could drive the Union out of Tennessee and simultaneously potentially ruing Grant's career.
I don't think you can change one battle that late and keep the CS alive. Maybe, MAYBE get 1st Manassas to be the first battle in a '61 Maryland campaign. OTL Maryland's legislature contemplated secession, so a early campaign might bring Maryland in on the Confederate side and effectively trap DC behind enemy lines. Thing is, it's all about timing and logistics. 1, can the CS Army that fought Manassas invade Maryland? 2, is that early enough to get a MD secession? and 3, how fortified was DC at the time of 1st Manassas? If the answer is yes to the first 2, you can work with that. If not, might have some problems.
But what if we get the Confederate victory by letting General Albert Sydney Johnston live? That gives the CSA a different general in that front, who could potentially perform better than his OTL successors did. If Thomas got appointed commander, he could always get shot by a stray bullet in one of the battles like Johnston did in OTL, killing him (and potentially causing a leadership gap that could give the CSA another victory).Even if the Confederates inflict equivalent losses on Grant to what Grant inflicted on the Confederacy at Fort Donelson (83% killed/captured), we're looking at 80,000 Union troops that can be quickly assembled from Buell, escaping Federal troops from Grant's force, and Pope.
And that's with an unrealistically best case scenario outcome*.
They're not driving anyone out of Tennessee from winning at Shiloh alone.
Plus even if you get Grant as written off as a failure, that still leaves Thomas (although Smith is probably out - he might recover from what happened to 'im, but the odds aren't good). And anyone else who I can't think of because I'm not a Western theater expert.
Even if everything goes absolutely right, what about the next campaigns? That's the problem, there's no "Confederates win at X" that would cause the odds to favor them. At most you can build on it to reach something that gets there by election time (as the best chance to have the Republican policy cast out and replaced by something else, which may even be a peace something else).
Getting the Union to fire the first shot - on what?
But what if we get the Confederate victory by letting General Albert Sydney Johnston live? That gives the CSA a different general in that front, who could potentially perform better than his OTL successors did. If Thomas got appointed commander, he could always get shot by a stray bullet in one of the battles like Johnston did in OTL, killing him (and potentially causing a leadership gap that could give the CSA another victory).
I meant more along the lines of Federal troops being the ones to officially initiate hostilities, rather than the Confederates. Whether it be Federal troops firing upon some random Confederate position, an invasion of Virginia, whatever, the point is the Federals are seen as the ones to have started the fighting.
How would this effect things?