Abridged American Civil War

In contrast to the plethora of 'The South Wins the Civil War' threads, how about considering alternate scenarios which include an abridge or much shorter civil war ending in a Northern Victory?

For instance, how could we have a civil war in which Virginia and North Carolina fail to leave the union, and offer at least tepid support for its preservation.....

Fallen Angel said:

In contrast to the plethora of 'The South Wins the Civil War' threads, how about considering alternate scenarios which include an abridge or much shorter civil war ending in a Northern Victory?

For instance, how could we have a civil war in which Virginia and North Carolina fail to leave the union, and offer at least tepid support for its preservation.....

Click to expand...

OTL.com has "Lee of the Union"--Robert E. Lee accepts command of the Union armies in 1861, routes the South at Bull Run, and the "Slavery Rebellion" ends quickly.

That's one way the Civil War could end quickly.

One way to go about it could be to have Tennessee reject secession (as it narrowly did IOTL) but then have the pro-South governor removed before he can take his state out of the Union, and, as a butterfly effect, keep Virginia and N.C. from leaving.

Just a thought.

McClellan doesn't scare on the Peninsular, in 1862, successfully defends against Lee's Seven Days campaign, then marches on Richmond not long afterwards. Sure the Civil War would continue, with Richmond occupied, but it would probably ensure that it wouldn't last as long as it did.

And afterwards, all young Americans would admire McClellan's magnificent generalship, cautious but decisive where it mattered, and would wonder why such a superb general and savior of the Union made such a crappy President, signing treaties not in the US's best interest (refusing an offer to buy Alaska for fear of angering Britian is the most famous example), and hardly deciding anything other than publically deciding to not enforce the much crippled Civil Rights Acts Congress passed immediately post-war. Only the fact that President's don't have a say in Constitutional Amendments kept him from vetoing the post war ammendments, and only the large number of infamous indian raids forced him to put energy into westward expansion.

Seriously, I hate McClellan. Unless I learned that down the road the US became greater for longer than it is now, I'd say futter an early Union victory and let the war continue, so long as the South doesn't win and McClellan doesn't get anything resembling power.

And I'm from the South!

The South lose the Battle of Bull Run, the first battle of the war,and get routed.

Hooker doesn't have a sudden crisis of confidence and crushes Lee at Chancellorsville.

McClellan moves more decisively just about anywhere in the Antietam campaign, from the discover of the plans to the end, where Lee's army was retreating and could've been stopped from crossing the Potomac.

A vigorously conducted counteroffensive campaign after the Battle of Sharpsburg almost certainly would have destroyed the army of northern virginia,but McClellan,being the ever useless general that he was,retreated.
Other possibilitys include an alternate battle of mannasas,in which the rebel yell doesnt work,Stonewall dies,whatever,and the South is routed.

I agree with Anaxagoras. Hooker missed a great chance in May 1863 to win the War,or at least to push to Lee back towards Richmond. Chancellosville is always seen as a great Lee victory, but it should have been a Hooker victory. By April 29th 1863, Lee for the first time had been surpised by a Union General . Hooker had placed three corps in his rear, whilst Sedgewick still faced him at Fredericksberg, he was about to be crushed in between two forces. There are two what is at this Point. First on the 29th, General "Stonewall" Jackson was about to go over onto the offesive at Fredericksberg as Sedgwick paraded his divisions, Jackson wanted to attack and occuply the plain south of the Town. Lee disagreed with the plan and after looking at the ground and plan he called off the assault. Imagine Jackson attacks hastly, with heavy union cannon on the far bank of the River they could have poured fire on Jackson's force. On hearing of Jackson's bloody attack, Lee would now been fighting a battle as the large union force advanced on his rear. On hearing that Lee was now attacking Sedgwick, Hooker doesnt apply the brakes on April 30th and go onto the defensive, indeed the Army of the Potomac does as Corps commanders Meade and Slocum planned as they Corps joined hands on April 29th at Chancellorsville. " This is splendid, Slocum; hurrah for old Joe! We are on Lee's flank and he doesn't know it yet. You take the Plank towards Fredericksberg and I will take the Plank Road, and we will get out of the Wilderness".
For some reason, Hooker lost his bottle, with Lee held in place, he ordered Meade and Slocum to halt.It would be another two years for Lee to be in such a position and the chance to Win the war in 1863 was lost.

I go along with DMAs scenario about Mclellan and the Peninsular, for a real quick end to the War. Also I don't necessarily hold with Dean's downside. As Gore Vidal commented, people change when they become President.

Generally, when they get power, they also become more cautious so they don't lose said power.

Can you immagine McClellan even more cautious for fear of antagonizing Britain or Europe, who actually was bigger?

Like I said, my disgust with McClellan has no bounds. However, I don't have any real problem with a President Hooker p giggle ).

Hooker's plan in April 1863 was sound and if carried according to plan would have forced Lee out of Fredricksberg at least and back on retreat to cover Richmond.
Hooker could have have started what Grant went on to do a year later and force Lee to be trapped into defending Richmond.
Although from the position Hooker had placed his army in he could and should have destroyed Lee in Late April/Early May 1863.

There were several instances in the Siege of Petersburg were Union forces almost turned the line in spite of their awful operational planning and intelligence. Give them those and Richmond is open for the Army of the James and the Army of the Potomac can hammer Lee to nothing.

Meade pins Lee against the swollen Potomac in the aftermath of the failed Gettysburg campaign and defeats him at the battle of Williamsport, Maryland, on July 11th, 1863.

Suit_N_Tie said:

Meade pins Lee against the swollen Potomac in the aftermath of the failed Gettysburg campaign and defeats him at the battle of Williamsport, Maryland, on July 11th, 1863.

Click to expand...

I've always like to imagine what could have happened if Meade was injured during Pickett's charge rather then Hancock. Who was the senior Union Corps commander at that time?

Was it Hancock?
Hancock is in my opinion one of the great over looked US Generals of the Civil War.
Hancock was an agressive Corps commander and may have hunted Lee's re-treating army down faster than Meade did.

Now that I'm thinking about it Howard was probably the senior Corps commander in the field, but Meade had enough confidence in Hancock that he had command of the units in the field after Reynolds death on the first day of Gettysburg.

Howard's set back at Chancellorsville aside, both were good generals. But Hancock's aggressive streak would certainly be a plus in this spot. Hell if he wasn't wounded he would be in better shape to participate in the Overland Campaign the next spring with Grant.

Hancock is very overlooked, but fortunately he has a major role in TL in progress.

Matt, Hancock did take part during the Overland Campaign, commanding the 2nd Corp.
Also don't forget Hancock came within 7,000 votes of winning the 1880 Presidential Election. President Hancock another "What If".

Marky Bunny said:

Matt, Hancock did take part during the Overland Campaign, commanding the 2nd Corp.
Also don't forget Hancock came within 7,000 votes of winning the 1880 Presidential Election. President Hancock another "What If".

Click to expand...

Well he was there, but by most accounts his wound and subsequent illness took its toll on him prior to the campaign, and he was never quite the same again. And midway through the Petersburg campaign he resigned his II Corps command because he felt he was no longer able to effectively command.

The 1880 election is very interesting, since it was the closet presidential election in terms of popular vote ever. Ignoring an earlier Union victory would allowed Lincoln to survive and that subsequent effect on Reconstruction, Hancock could very will be the winner (or hell be the Republican since he supported Lincoln's vision of reconstruction, not the Radical Republicans).

Off topic, but it always makes me angry the way 2000, 1960, and to some extent 1876 are always held up as the closest Presidential elections, but people forget 1880 and 1916 where very close.