WI: Civil War delayed 8 years

Let's say that for whatever reason, the south doesn't secede in 1860-61. Maybe someone else gets elected or something. Anyway, in 1868, someone that the south finds completely intolerable does get elected (let's say it's Lincoln).

Does the 8 year delay give either side an advantage here?

The Union would have an even bigger advantage than OTL. The North was growing more powerful than the south in terms of population, commerce, and industry every day.

I'm of the mind that the probability of secession succeeding grew increasingly small the further time went in. Had the southern states, for whatever reason, decided to leave in 1785, I don't think there'd have been much stopping them.

UncleDynamite said:

The Union would have an even bigger advantage than OTL. The North was growing more powerful than the south in terms of population, commerce, and industry every day.

Click to expand...

So, like OTL, but maybe a little faster?

UncleDynamite said:

I'm of the mind that the probability of secession succeeding grew increasingly small the further time went in. Had the southern states, for whatever reason, decided to leave in 1785, I don't think there'd have been much stopping them.

Click to expand...

Agreed. The South probably could have broken away as late as the 1830s, IMO.

CthulhuFhtagn said:

So, like OTL, but maybe a little faster?

Click to expand...

Essentially, in my opinion. Though by 1868 the difference may have been stark enough that slave states decided that it was a hopeless and less seceded. On the other hand, more may have decided that it was "all-or-nothing". Either way, it'd have been crushed.

Agreed. The South probably could have broken away as late as the 1830s, IMO.

Click to expand...

That's about my latest date as well. Once the North started slowly but surely industrializing and the Midwest grew more settled, hopes of secession were done for.

UncleDynamite said:

The Union would have an even bigger advantage than OTL. The North was growing more powerful than the south in terms of population, commerce, and industry every day.

Click to expand...

Pretty much this. There were no major technological changes in the 1860s that would have made a decisive difference and the factors in the military equation would have remained more or less the same. The odds would be in even more in the Union's favor.

Now if the war were somehow delayed until the 1880s, you have something like the Maxim gun, barbed wire, and other innovations that would increase the power of the operational and tactical defensive. That would perhaps change things in favor of the South, especially as it would likely persuade them to adopt a more defensive strategy than IOTL.

We have had this before. The South gets crushed much faster.

Actually, one of them sort of tried - didn't end well

CthulhuFhtagn said:

So, like OTL, but maybe a little faster?



Agreed. The South probably could have broken away as late as the 1830s, IMO.

Click to expand...

Actually, one of them sort of tried - didn't end well.

Also speaks to what having a stronger individual as cinc in 1860 might have led to...

Best,

Anaxagoras said:

Now if the war were somehow delayed until the 1880s, you have something like the Maxim gun, barbed wire, and other innovations that would increase the power of the operational and tactical defensive. That would perhaps change things in favor of the South, especially as it would likely persuade them to adopt a more defensive strategy than IOTL.

Click to expand...

Problem 1: With that is that the South's industrial base was incapable of producing safe-to-fire cartridges for weapons like the Henry, the Spencer, and the Sharps rifles. The mind boggles at the thought of them trying to supply bullets for Maxims, assuming every single gun comes from Europe.

Problem 2: By 1868 the UK has passed the 1867 Great Reform Act, making support for the CSA far less palatable for British politicians.

Problem 3: If the ACW is pushed forward to 1868, does Nappy III still go forward with his invasion of Mexico, risking a war with the USA over a violation of the Monroe Doctrine that the British had supported since it was issued? Methinks after the disastrous first year of the French invasion, once everyone realizes what is going on and that the Mexicans are making a serious fight of it, ITTL Nappy III's little adventure will end in early 1862 with two telegrams. One from Washington; and much more importantly, the other from London.

Problem 4: How soon do affairs in Germany and the FPW cause a total distraction for the Imperial French?

Problem 5: With the fall of Napoleon III, the CSA has lost any remaining friendly and/or "interested" powers in Europe that would be even remotely willing to come to their aid.

Problem 6: The Trent Affair is butterflied

Problem 7: Russia's sale of Alaska is completed by 1867, losing the USA $67,000,000 but gaining them $$$.

But on the other hand, let us say that they secretly decide to secede in 1860, and then spend the next eight years preparing for this, which could make things a little different, instead of having the haphazard development of OTL just eight years later.

The southern states did have considerable influence in the US before secession, did they not? Perhaps they could have used this influence on the Union to further development in the South during these eight years.

Sometimes it is claimed that Southern cotton money paid for the industrialisation of the north. If that was still to some extent the case during this period, they should be getting all cotton money to develop the South instead.

The extent of the confederacy was not a given. Perhaps these eight years could also be used to cement a southern alignment on the border states, so we get a bigger confederacy, and a more united confederacy speaking with one voice and having the strategy worked out years in advance.

Such issues that were forced by the war, such as using all available manpower, and therefore deciding to get a large partially black army, could have been done at the start instead.

So if the south has eight years more of industrial development, and especially in militarily advantageous fields, partly also paid for by the north, things might not be as totally bleak as above.

Another factor will be The Union having much better leadership. Robert E. Lee is approaching is 61. While much smarter men will be leading in The Union as opposed to the old men of 1861.

I'm thinking a political conspiracy involving

Jurgen Wullenwever said:

But on the other hand, let us say that they secretly decide to secede in 1860, and then spend the next eight years preparing for this, which could make things a little different, instead of having the haphazard development of OTL just eight years later.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking a political conspiracy involving elected officials in 11 or more states, the federal government, and various and sundry other institutions, lasting for eight years, is probably not going to end well...

Best,

TFSmith121 said:

I'm thinking a political conspiracy involving elected officials in 11 or more states, the federal government, and various and sundry other institutions, lasting for eight years, is probably not going to end well...

Best,

Click to expand...

Yeah, it is no doubt easy for scores if not hundreds of politicians to agree on everything and to keep their mouths shut for eight long years!

Captain 'Merica said:

Another factor will be The Union having much better leadership. Robert E. Lee is approaching his 70's. While much smarter men will be leading in The Union as opposed to the old men of 1861.

Click to expand...

Don't forget the butterflies, my friend. What would have happened to the key Union leaders of OTL in this scenario? By 1868, Sherman would have spent years as the head of a Southern military college, while Grant would have spent the time either working in his daddy's store or perhaps unemployed altogether. The possibility that they would rise to prominence ITTL just as they did IOTL is extremely unlikely.

And Robert E. Lee would have been 61.

CthulhuFhtagn said:

Let's say that for whatever reason, the south doesn't secede in 1860-61. Maybe someone else gets elected or something. Anyway, in 1868, someone that the south finds completely intolerable does get elected (let's say it's Lincoln).

Does the 8 year delay give either side an advantage here?

Click to expand...

I agree with the majority consensus; it would probably be the North that gets the advantage. And there's a possibility that at least Virginia and East Tennessee might get to stay in the Union(and maybe even South + West Texas) with the extra progression of time. You might very well get to see Robert E. Lee as a Union general, for one.

Anaxagoras said:

Don't forget the butterflies, my friend. What would have happened to the key Union leaders of OTL in this scenario? By 1868, Sherman would have spent years as the head of a Southern military college, while Grant would have spent the time either working in his daddy's store or perhaps unemployed altogether. The possibility that they would rise to prominence ITTL just as they did IOTL is extremely unlikely.

Click to expand...

There are other butterflies in the Union's favor, like a lot of deadweight being pensioned off by this time. The Union's biggest problem with its army was that Southern officers were running it and it had become quite clear to one and all that if you wanted rapid advancement and a secure career in the army you had to practice your drawl. How long this would have continued IDK, but I see no drivers to change it. Even in 1941, 75% of all commissioned officers in the US Army were Southerners, and the US Marines were as close to 100% Southern (and ALL White) as made no difference.

And Robert E. Lee would have been 61.

Click to expand...

And Robert E. Lee's heart would have been 109.

CaliBoy1990 said:

I agree with the majority consensus; it would probably be the North that gets the advantage. And there's a possibility that at least Virginia and East Tennessee might get to stay in the Union(and maybe even South + West Texas) with the extra progression of time. You might very well get to see Robert E. Lee as a Union general, for one.

Click to expand...

Virginia was still VERY Pro-Confederate, and the Pro-Unionist German-American populations settling into Texas were too dispersed to effect policy. Unlike in Missouri, which not only will by 1868 not secede but it will be a "Bleeding (Southwest) Missouri", rather than Kansas who catches it, as I don't see the Missouri guerillas even ITTL being wise enough to realize how outnumbered they are. East Tennessee is too isolated. North Carolina would stay in the Union were it not for Virginia's secession, but then that was true OTL too.

Interesting question as to who would be US GinC by 1868, absent

usertron2020 said:

There are other butterflies in the Union's favor, like a lot of deadweight being pensioned off by this time.....

Click to expand...

Interesting question as to who would be US GinC by 1868, absent the Civil War volunteers; most likely a senior regular, and my guess is that if Scott and the other older generation of likely candidates (Wool, Harney, Twiggs, Sumner, Mansfield, AS Johnston, etc. - basically every one over 60) have moved on, then it might be this individual, born in 1810 and a career regular with service in the Artillery and Topographical Engineers;



In which case, the war would have ended in a lot less than four years...

Best,

TFSmith121 said:

Interesting question as to who would be US GinC by 1868, absent the Civil War volunteers; most likely a senior regular, and my guess is that if Scott and the other older generation of likely candidates (Wool, Harney, Twiggs, Sumner, Mansfield, AS Johnston, etc. - basically every one over 60) have moved on, then it might be this individual, born in 1810 and a career regular with service in the Artillery and Topographical Engineers;

In which case, the war would have ended in a lot less than four years...

Best,

Click to expand...

Who is that?

Anaxagoras said:

And Robert E. Lee would have been 61.

Click to expand...

Whoops. I misread his death date, fixed now. The union still has good men like Sheridan, Meade, and Hancock. Of course Stonewall Jackson, Longstreet, and J.E.B Stuart are still quite active.

Johnrankins said:

Who is that?

Click to expand...

Engineer James Buchanan Eads.

Even OTL the US (CS) cottton was replaced by Egyptian cotton (cheaper) - this would probably hurt the south during the 60s so much that they would not have thought to secede.Slavery would probably be dying anyway...