WI- Later American Civil War?

So there was a post in a post-1900 about how to get more tanks involved in WWI. And I proposed that maybe if you had a later American Civil War, you could have the tank developed several decades earlier. Which led me to think about the technology that such a later war could bring into use.

So (handwave, handwave) the Republicans don't get the White House in 1860. The Democrats stay united and gain the White House. Say a healthy Stephen Douglas. He then stays in office 1861-9, winning re-election on fears of regional dissolution. In 1868 Abraham Lincoln finally wins, and the Civil War begins.

This Civil War will have a few more technological advances that will make it a good deal different then OTL. The Gatling Gun has been around for 8 years, and is used in large numbers by both armies. Repeating rifles are also more available, and probably also used in large numbers by both Confederate and Union forces. With this greater firepower, I would guess that the way the war proceeds would greatly change. More stationary war, more trenches, perhaps Western Front style trench war on the Maryland-Virginia border? The question I have is, would the increase in firepower lead to advances towards some kind of *tank? In OTL the South developed submarine(s?) in response to the Union blockade. Perhaps we see similar advances in trying to come up with ways to equalize the Confederates' manpower inequality in the trenches of Northern Virginia?

Anyway, if the American Civil War was later, starting in 1869, how would the technology have changed the way the war was fought? In the 8 years that I have pushed the war back, would there have been enough advances that the American Civil War is basically the prologue for Europe's own Great War?

Matthais Corvinus said:

So there was a post in a post-1900 about how to get more tanks involved in WWI. And I proposed that maybe if you had a later American Civil War, you could have the tank developed several decades earlier. Which led me to think about the technology that such a later war could bring into use.

So (handwave, handwave) the Republicans don't get the White House in 1860. The Democrats stay united and gain the White House. Say a healthy Stephen Douglas. He then stays in office 1861-9, winning re-election on fears of regional dissolution. In 1868 Abraham Lincoln finally wins, and the Civil War begins.

This Civil War will have a few more technological advances that will make it a good deal different then OTL. The Gatling Gun has been around for 8 years, and is used in large numbers by both armies. Repeating rifles are also more available, and probably also used in large numbers by both Confederate and Union forces. With this greater firepower, I would guess that the way the war proceeds would greatly change. More stationary war, more trenches, perhaps Western Front style trench war on the Maryland-Virginia border? The question I have is, would the increase in firepower lead to advances towards some kind of *tank? In OTL the South developed submarine(s?) in response to the Union blockade. Perhaps we see similar advances in trying to come up with ways to equalize the Confederates' manpower inequality in the trenches of Northern Virginia?

Anyway, if the American Civil War was later, starting in 1869, how would the technology have changed the way the war was fought? In the 8 years that I have pushed the war back, would there have been enough advances that the American Civil War is basically the prologue for Europe's own Great War?

Click to expand...

Basically the South REALLY gets its butt kicked.

Slight problem with at least part of this:

Richard J. Gatling's gun was in response to the Civil War. He made it so that the war would be over sooner, and in the process fewer men would die in teh fighting. His theory being: THe greater the force multiplier you have, the fewer men you need. Didn't exactly work that way, but that was the idea.

And I think its possible definately, though I do doubt it to some degree, since Prussia, as was noted in another thread, took liberal notes from the Civil War in its war with Austria, and again with France. As such, the near run thing that was the Franco-Prussian war might not win, and may ini fact be butterflied away via a very different "Six-Weeks War" with Austria.

But provided that those came as victories due to sound planning on Prussia's part in both cases, and not adapting the ACW to Europe, its a possibility. As for the "tanks" though, I'm not so sure. You'd have to basically find someone willing to track vehicles, get a steam-engine into it, enough fuel for the vehicle, and then armor both together, and still keep it relatively compact (ie what to do with the garaunteed fuel car?) for it to work.

Matthais Corvinus said:

So (handwave, handwave) the Republicans don't get the White House in 1860. The Democrats stay united and gain the White House. Say a healthy Stephen Douglas. He then stays in office 1861-9, winning re-election on fears of regional dissolution. In 1868 Abraham Lincoln finally wins, and the Civil War begins.

Click to expand...

That's some pretty strenuous handwaving. If the Democrats aren't divided in 1860, it's because they have worked out their sectional differences, which means there probably won't be a Civil War.

That's unlikely, even if you have Douglas not break with the southern section of his party, as the northern Democrats were getting pretty fed up with the party catering to southern interests and excesses like Bleeding Kansas and the Sumner caning, which were generally praised by southern leadership.

But lets say they pull the near-miraculous and hold the Democratic party together without hemoraging large numbers of voters to the Republicans.

Then the Republicans still win the 1860 election. Of course, you could handwave a series of gross blunders in the part of the Republicans, but this leaves the question of why they would still be a viable party in 1868. And if Lincoln failed to get elected in 1860, he's unlikely to get the party nomination in 1868. (Of course, any Reublican becoming president will trigger attempted secession.)

And if Douglas stays healthy and holds his party and the country together until 1868, what causes the election to go Republican?

But getting past the vigorous handwaving, that's eight years for the rest of the country to continue to outstrip the south in population and industry. That's also eight years for the border south to grow closer to the north, favoring either the northern section of the Democrats or the Republican party.

So Arkansas, Tennessee, and Virginia probably don't try to become part of this Confederacy. Perhaps not North Carolina, Texas, or Louisiana, either.

And even if you get trench warfare in the east, you don't get it in all theaters. Due to the geography, there's room to manuever on other fronts, just like there was in WWI. Which means tanks probably aren't attempted.

And if they are, they may be no more effective than OTL's Confederate submarines. The Hunley killed a lot more Confederates before it went into battle than it killed Union men in battle, and then it sank with all hands.

The previous comment regarding contingent invention of the Gatling gun is a good one. Also complicating the picture is that without the war, there's no guarantee that better rifles are in wider use at the outset of TTL's conflict.

Assuming, however, some more hand-waving to satisfy the WI, I'll continue.

First, well need to make an assumption about the generals involved. If McClellan is still kicking around than an attempted invasion on his part probably occurs in much the same way, since he'd been even more reluctant to commit troops. I also imagine that if the war become bloodier faster and campaigns like the Wilderness occur sooner, when the South's chances won't seem doomed, than the Union will have a serious morale crises on its hands.

Such a situation might provide more plausible grounds to pull a Henry Harrison and have John Ericson invent something like a tank in order to break the stalemate. I have a hard time seeing it put to effective use, though another wild card may be that Custer is more senior in an 1869 Civil War and so may get to apply the kind of tactics Turtledove has him employ in TL-191's WWI.

Geredis said:

And I think its possible definately, though I do doubt it to some degree, since Prussia, as was noted in another thread, took liberal notes from the Civil War in its war with Austria, and again with France. As such, the near run thing that was the Franco-Prussian war might not win, and may ini fact be butterflied away via a very different "Six-Weeks War" with Austria.

But provided that those came as victories due to sound planning on Prussia's part in both cases, and not adapting the ACW to Europe, its a possibility. As for the "tanks" though, I'm not so sure. You'd have to basically find someone willing to track vehicles, get a steam-engine into it, enough fuel for the vehicle, and then armor both together, and still keep it relatively compact (ie what to do with the garaunteed fuel car?) for it to work.

Click to expand...

There is little evidence that Prussia learned anything from the American Civil War. Von Molkte was completely contemptuous of the citizen armies of America, and indeed said directly that the professional armies of Europe had nothing to learn from a war which consisted of "two armed mobs chasing each other around the countryside." And the tactics they used during the Franco Prussian War...close order infantry charges into massed Chassepot fire...clearly demonstrate that they did not study the American Civil War to any significant extent. Indeed, were it not for the excellence of the Krupp breechloading artillery, which forced the French to abandon some good defensive positions, the Prussians might well have lost in 1870-71, or at the very least, lost several of the major battles.

robertp6165 said:

There is little evidence that Prussia learned anything from the American Civil War. Von Molkte was completely contemptuous of the citizen armies of America, and indeed said directly that the professional armies of Europe had nothing to learn from a war which consisted of "two armed mobs chasing each other around the countryside." And the tactics they used during the Franco Prussian War...close order infantry charges into massed Chassepot fire...clearly demonstrate that they did not study the American Civil War to any significant extent. Indeed, were it not for the excellence of the Krupp breechloading artillery, which forced the French to abandon some good defensive positions, the Prussians might well have lost in 1870-71, or at the very least, lost several of the major battles.

Click to expand...

It was the Union's use of trains in logistics that Prussia took.

Time is certainly not on the south's side.

A nine year delay means close to a million new immigrants, virtually all to the north. It means the first railroad tying the West Coast to the rest of the US is completed, improving Northern resources and ability to move troops. It adds Kansas, Nebraska and possibly Nevada to the Union. Missouri may choose to abolish slavery by this time.

Then there is the risk of the US's miniscule standing military being improved. Even an increase to a mere 25,000 soldiers isn't going to help the south, nor will any new ships entering service. What happens if the Union starts with one or two ironclads?

Would the North and South learn more from the Prussian wars in Europe? Denmark, Austria, and France were all useful models for what to do and not do in a war.
Then again, what did we learn from the Crimean war, the Taiping Rebellion, and the Indian Mutiny?

First of all when dealing with tech developed in war time, you can not underestimate the effects of the war in creating the tech. It is very see able that the gatling gun would not be around or not in mass production, and the union would still depend on its old style weapons, just like the US did, when they used the enfield rifle at the start of both WW1 and 2.

Also as it has been put, it would be very difficult for there to be a situation for the political stage to be just right to avoid the war in 60.

So if the situation plays out like you want, the whole war would basically be like the Siege of Petersburg, Cold Harbor and possibly the whole Wilderness campaign, but most like the Siege of Petersburg. The south loses quick because the war would quickly become a matter of numbers.

If you look at the end of the Civil War, it is already a preview in many ways of what was to come with WWI. The reason no one took it seriously or the Siege of Port Arthur, is because the European powers looked down on both the US and Far East and figured they were not very important.

A war in 1864 or 1868 would be significantly different if we studied the European campaigns. The North would have more railroad and more people, too. The North would not have a railroad to the West Coast because people couldn't agree on whether it should go through Texas or Missouri or Montana. We also would have begun building ironclads before the war, following the examples of the British and the French.

wkwillis said:

A war in 1864 or 1868 would be significantly different if we studied the European campaigns. The North would have more railroad and more people, too. The North would not have a railroad to the West Coast because people couldn't agree on whether it should go through Texas or Missouri or Montana. We also would have begun building ironclads before the war, following the examples of the British and the French.

Click to expand...

While the tech between 64 and 68 are different, it does not mean that the thinking of the generals in the army's had changed that much. In fact if you look at the the opening months of WWI, the mind set of the generals who commanded the forces was pretty much the same as they had been in earlier eras. The idea of the grand charge could still break the enemy lines, as well as other ideas which had passed years before. Also if the US would of had Ironclads, then the south would never of posed as much of a threat they did in the Civil War, which was basically none anyway. Also when dealing with Naval Tactics, they the same, the lines used by Nelson where the same as the Lines used by the Battleships of WWI. The large change in naval tactics came mostly with the development of the aircraft carrier.

sonicwind123 said:

First of all when dealing with tech developed in war time, you can not underestimate the effects of the war in creating the tech. It is very see able that the gatling gun would not be around or not in mass production, and the union would still depend on its old style weapons, just like the US did, when they used the enfield rifle at the start of both WW1 and 2.

Click to expand...

I really don't believe that wars drive technological innovation so much as they drive adoption of pre-existing technology. The technology for the WWI era tank was all available at the beginning of WWI, it was simply a matter of someone bringing the various elements together. Except for extraordinary cases like the American's Manhattan Project you don't have brand new technology being rolled out as front-line weapons.

If you allow for another 8 years of Civil War-free America, you will have the Gatling Gun and repeating rifle, along with breach-loading artillery make appearances. So when the Civil War starts these technologies will exist (and be be somewhate proven) and the Union and Confederate Forces would probably have more access to these weapons, plus be more willing to use them.

Also as it has been put, it would be very difficult for there to be a situation for the political stage to be just right to avoid the war in 60.

So if the situation plays out like you want, the whole war would basically be like the Siege of Petersburg, Cold Harbor and possibly the whole Wilderness campaign, but most like the Siege of Petersburg. The south loses quick because the war would quickly become a matter of numbers.

Click to expand...

I know that it has become kind of cliched, but didn't the South have an advantage in Generalship during the war? This could keep the Western Theaters even, while the use of machine guns combined with timid (and stupid) Union generals in the east keeps the fronts there stationary.

Of course the problem that I then run into is that the Union's manpower advantage is simply so large that this kind of stationary would rather quickly tilt toward the Union because they can simply afford to lose large numbers of men in WWI style offensives. Since the South is unable to respond to that kind of manpower advantage (as Grant showed) and the war of manuever in the east is over, they will lose quicker than OTL. Damn.

The other problem is then that any political moves to increase manpower for the Confederates, like a national draft or the use of black soldiers, is undoable because of the nature of the radically pro-states-rights Confederate government.

So basically there is no way to get tanks in use in the American Civil War.

If you look at the end of the Civil War, it is already a preview in many ways of what was to come with WWI. The reason no one took it seriously or the Siege of Port Arthur, is because the European powers looked down on both the US and Far East and figured they were not very important.

Click to expand...

I really want the American Civil War to look like a dress rehersel, rather than a coming-attraction, of the European Great War, but I don't think that political or demographic realities will allow me . . . and I'm unwilling to use ASBs.

Also it is problematic to assume the South has better generals in 68. Lee is older and I am not sure becomes a general in the army. Jackson's aggression would of done him in, unless he was some how in area away from trench warfare. Then we don't know who would lead the North. I don't think it would be Grant though. If it would be, well the South would really be in trouble, likewise Sherman was adapt to modern warfare, as was Sheridan. The only thing that could save the south would be if they some how used Forest's mobile tacts which were far ahead of their time.

I did have one thought.

Consider the effects of a developed Birmingham on the Confederate war effort.

It strikes me that gaining a larger industrial base may help.

a couple of things won't have changed from the OTL ACW.... first, the commanders of the time were rather smitten with the concepts of Napoleonic warfare, and didn't really change that until the war. Second, you'd likely find both sides still short on guns and ammo; high military spending just wasn't there until the war started. So, both sides will be again importing arms from abroad while they ramp up production.

A couple of things that would be different would be the weapons available. Navies everywhere were working on ironclad ships, and the USN would likely have a few, or at least the plans for them. Also, the Henry and Spencer rifles were being developed with or without the war, and would likely be available for mass production (oddly enough, throughout most of the 19th Century, US firearms development was driven almost entirely by the civilian gun market, rather than for military uses). Cartridge weapons are coming in a big way, war or no war.... delay the war long enough, and I'd guess it would be fought with a variety of civilian weapons like the Henry and Spencer, plus whatever 'official' rifle the US army adopts (I'd guess some kind of single shot cartridge rifle, as the US army was pretty conservative about such things), with officers carrying something like the Colt Peacemaker; plus, of course, whatever is imported from overseas. At the start of the war, it's likely there'd be quite a few things like muzzleloading rifles and Colt Dragoon pistols around, but they will be phased out as the war goes on....

Matthais Corvinus said:

I know that it has become kind of cliched, but didn't the South have an advantage in Generalship during the war? This could keep the Western Theaters even, while the use of machine guns combined with timid (and stupid) Union generals in the east keeps the fronts there stationary.

Click to expand...

The Confederacy having a generalship advantage is one of the great myths of the war. For example, in a 2004 article in North & South, 6 Civil War historians were asked to list their picks for the 10 worst generals in the war. A total of 26 men (13 Union, 13 Confederate) made it onto the list, but when the results were tabulated, the Confederates 'won' 4 of the top 5 spots on the list. (The highest Union generals were Banks in 4th place and McClellan in 6th).

A lot of the misconception is due to the heavy focus on the battles out east and not elsewhere, where the Confederates did poorly. Sibley's attempted invasion of Colorado was thwarted by Colorado and New Mexico Territorial Volunteers. Van Dorn was beaten at Pea Ridge, Arkansas even though he outnumbered Union forces. Floyd, Pillow, Bragg, Polk, and Hood did active harm to their cause. Joe Johnston was probably the best commander on that theater - he managed to preserve his army, even if he couldn't stop the Union advance.

And even the Confederate's first string wasn't perfect. Stonewall Jackson could be brilliant, but he was anything but during the Seven Days Battles. Longstreet was an excellent Corp commander and largely responsible for the Confederacy's biggest victory, Chicamauga, but in independant command he was beaten by Burnside. Even Lee's track record before the Seven Days Battles was unimpressive, and he never won an offensive battle.

The Confederacy would probably have developed the salt deposits of Louisiana. They were discovered about then. Transport was pretty easy from there and the use of salt for preserving food made it pretty important in that era's logistics.

Dave Howery said:

A couple of things that would be different would be the weapons available. Navies everywhere were working on ironclad ships, and the USN would likely have a few, or at least the plans for them.

Click to expand...

I would almost agree with 'plans for them', tho in fact it is far more likely that the USN wouldn't have embraced the ironclad at all. Historically, the USN was pretty much a distant after thought in Congress' mind practically up to 1910. Looking at the general makeup of the USN in OTL there would be alot more ships primarily dependent upon sail tho they would be sporting steam engines. It would seem far more likely that coastal fortresses would be the primary means of defense.