Go Back   Alternate History Discussion Board > Discussion > Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 1st, 2013, 11:10 PM
Baconheimer Baconheimer is offline
Berserker of Chaos
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Former Confederate Republic of Virginia (FCROV)
Posts: 1000 or more
Ways for CSA to Win Civil War?

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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaijin
Wouldn't that make most mobile phone providers a cult?
Vist Here
Or Here
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old January 1st, 2013, 11:32 PM
hairysamarian hairysamarian is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1000 or more
A political solution is their only chance in any scenario that reflects the original history. As long as the Union is determined to keep fighting, the CSA can not win. Lincoln has to not be in office, I think, for starters.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old January 1st, 2013, 11:35 PM
Ariosto Ariosto is offline
Scoop Jackson Republican
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Wakefield, Massachusetts
Posts: 1000 or more
What 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?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zmflavius View Post
I'm given to understand that no problem is unsolvable with napalm. It smells like victory.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old January 1st, 2013, 11:45 PM
pieman97405 pieman97405 is offline
I need a Ford Nucleon.
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: 1956.
Posts: 946
Getting France into the war may help. Throw in a string of defeats for the Union and you may be able to get them to throw in the sponge.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Nixon
The "visable hand" of history not only shows the directions in which we are traveling. It also points to what might have been.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old January 1st, 2013, 11:45 PM
RamscoopRaider RamscoopRaider is online now
Some Sort of Were-Orca
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Newtown, Yes THAT Newtown
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariosto View Post
What 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?
It could work...but you would need some other than Lincoln as president, maybe Seward, Lincoln was too savvy to do that
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old January 1st, 2013, 11:47 PM
Gottheit Gottheit is offline
President of New England
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Boston, Massachusetts, New England
Posts: 701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baconheimer View Post
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.
Kill Lincoln and Grant before the war really gets going then threaten Usili with nuclear weapons...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petike View Post
We'll be flying a bomb-shaped penile space zeppelin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by CthulhuFhtagn View Post
Yeah, Massachusetts is pretty awesome.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old January 2nd, 2013, 12:16 AM
Elfwine Elfwine is offline
Byzantophilic Brony
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: West of Constantinople
Posts: 1000 or more
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.

Doing better in the Eastern theater in 1863 would be good as well - if the Army of the Potomac suffers as heavily proportionally as the ANV did OTL, or more so, that's going to hurt, especially if we get rid of important commanders.

Getting the Union to fire the first shot - on what? Firing on the batteries ringing Sumter? What's the point?

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.

But it's not going to be easy. The Union doesn't have any disadvantages that the Confederacy can exploit, foreign aid more substantial than the CSA being able to purchase arms is unlikely, and the CSA is fighting with a few very nasty disadvantages of its own.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_F._Smith
__________________
Author of The Eagle of the Bosporus - a timeline inspired by Isaac's Empire
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old January 2nd, 2013, 12:22 AM
SargentHawk SargentHawk is offline
Lawbringer
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: 'Merica
Posts: 411
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old January 2nd, 2013, 12:24 AM
Elfwine Elfwine is offline
Byzantophilic Brony
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: West of Constantinople
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by SargentHawk View Post
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.
1) The Confederacy did hold the Shenandoah for most of the war.

2) And did try to fortify the Mississippi.

3) Britain has no interest to speak of in joining.

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.
__________________
Author of The Eagle of the Bosporus - a timeline inspired by Isaac's Empire
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old January 2nd, 2013, 12:29 AM
deathscompanion1 deathscompanion1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwine View Post

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?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old January 2nd, 2013, 12:30 AM
Grimm Reaper Grimm Reaper is offline
Desperate But Not Serious
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The previously unknown tenth ring of Dante's Inferno...
Posts: 1000 or more
Why would Mexico wish to serve as a bullet sponge when the CSA is talking about concessions to the USA at Mexico's expense?
__________________
P.J. O'Rourke: We also elected some amateur politicians. However, politics is like vivisectionódisturbing as a career, alarming as a hobby.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old January 2nd, 2013, 01:14 AM
Elfwine Elfwine is offline
Byzantophilic Brony
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: West of Constantinople
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by deathscompanion1 View Post
Wasn't Mexico fighting the French at the time?
That too.

And if one means Mexico as in Maximillian - he's not really in a position to offer useful aid.
__________________
Author of The Eagle of the Bosporus - a timeline inspired by Isaac's Empire
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old January 2nd, 2013, 01:19 AM
Emperor Julian Emperor Julian is offline
Apostata
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwine View Post
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonstruck View Post
Could we please keep WWII out of our LGBT?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AshleeNova View Post
LGWWIIBT is the new official ah.com abbreviation
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old January 2nd, 2013, 01:28 AM
Elfwine Elfwine is offline
Byzantophilic Brony
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: West of Constantinople
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Julian View Post
Perhaps a Shiloh Victory for the Confederates? That could drive the Union out of Tennessee and simultaneously potentially ruing Grant's career.
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).

* drawn from Larry J. Daniel's book on Shiloh. Numbers are from memory as my copy is probably buried somewhere in a stack of books.
__________________
Author of The Eagle of the Bosporus - a timeline inspired by Isaac's Empire
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old January 2nd, 2013, 01:32 AM
JMT JMT is online now
Man from Charlotte
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: New Kannapolis, Confederation of New Dixie
Posts: 892
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Julian View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old January 2nd, 2013, 01:35 AM
Elfwine Elfwine is offline
Byzantophilic Brony
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: West of Constantinople
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMT View Post
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.
1: No.
2: Probably not.
3: Enough, especially given point #1.
__________________
Author of The Eagle of the Bosporus - a timeline inspired by Isaac's Empire
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old January 2nd, 2013, 01:57 AM
Emperor Julian Emperor Julian is offline
Apostata
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwine View Post
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).
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).
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonstruck View Post
Could we please keep WWII out of our LGBT?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AshleeNova View Post
LGWWIIBT is the new official ah.com abbreviation
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old January 2nd, 2013, 02:06 AM
Ariosto Ariosto is offline
Scoop Jackson Republican
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Wakefield, Massachusetts
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwine View Post
Getting the Union to fire the first shot - on what?
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?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zmflavius View Post
I'm given to understand that no problem is unsolvable with napalm. It smells like victory.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old January 2nd, 2013, 02:11 AM
Elfwine Elfwine is offline
Byzantophilic Brony
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: West of Constantinople
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Julian View Post
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).
(Sidney) Johnston's record up to Shiloh indicates he was a worse general in just about every way than Bragg - even in regards to subordinates, as the lack of effective work on fortifying the Tennessee shows.

And Thomas would be very unlikely to be in a position to be shot by a stray bullet the way "I'm acting like an impulsive division commander" Johnston was.

It's not impossible, but speaking for myself, engaging in "well, it's technically possible' gets us nowhere. It's technically possible that every Union officer above the rank of major would commit suicide on the same day, but the odds are so low as to be inconceivable.

Thomas getting shot mortally isn't that bad - but it's bad enough.
__________________
Author of The Eagle of the Bosporus - a timeline inspired by Isaac's Empire
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old January 2nd, 2013, 02:13 AM
Elfwine Elfwine is offline
Byzantophilic Brony
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: West of Constantinople
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariosto View Post
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?
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.
__________________
Author of The Eagle of the Bosporus - a timeline inspired by Isaac's Empire
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.