Until Every Drop of Blood Is Paid: A More Radical American Civil War

[Red_Galiray]

Please, like the update to let me know you're still reading and you're still interested! Seeing your support is what motivates me the most!

See, of everything, I am not too surprised that the ego's of these three will never change. Both Davis and Johnston are products of their class and Beauregard is at best a "creole upstart". Having actually read some of that correspondence its amazing at the vitriol that is written.

And there has been the incessant rumor that Johnston and Davis hated each other because of some incident at West Point.

OH! If Beauregard is still in the east, can we have both "Napoleons" fight each other. I mean, McClellan vs Beauregard could be an interesting fight.

It would indeed be interesting. Beauregard will feature prominently in this TL!

You know some people have class tomorrow right?

Sorry But I had finally finished the update and I couldn't wait to post it.

That concept of neighbors not wanting to give orders made me think of that MASH episode where Hawkeye and BJ got Radar a promotion to Lieutenant and he would only give suggestions.

It also made me think of this girl in youth group who is, shall we say, a natural leader and working on being less bossy. I'm sure there would be some who would naturally rally to leadership, the question is are they respected enough to be followed.

Yes. I think it was Foote who said the soldiers saw no reason why they should obey their neighbors, because even if they put on a hatt and gain a fancy title, they're still their neighbors.

Confederate control of the Chesapeake counties could not be established – most of those counties, with a high slave population, were secessionist, but had no land connection to the rest of the Confederacy and were devoid of rebel troops.

To be fair, there is a land connection to the rest of the confederacy, the Maryland Eastern Shore borders the two counties of Virginia Eastern Shore.

I think those fell pretty quickly OTL, and even if Virginia somehow managed to get soldiers there, they probably left after the Army of the Susquehanna was formed.

I hope the name "Army of the Susquehanna" is retained for TTL and becomes its equivalent of the "Army of the Potomac" since the name "Susquehanna" is just damn cool

As an aside, excellent job with the last chapter @Red_Galiray and this is fast becoming one of my favorite TL's for a different American Civil War! I liked that it had a pre-war POD too. I'm a fan of different Reconstructions, especially ones coming after a harsher civil war which would force reconstruction in a way the OTL war did not. The Confederacy doing better, and the war maybe forcing the Union to fight harder/longer would bring a different understanding out.

I think you capture the early problems with the Volunteer troops well. Much of my own research on this, though primarily for Canadians for my own TL, shows that the very small minded character of many early Volunteer officers tended to be detrimental until they were smoothed over in battle (either by men being killed or people seeing the light, ect). Perhaps the most infamous story I've read concerns the 13th Volunteer Battalion where the appointed Colonel was at odds with his subordinates, and was badgered into retirement by his inferiors, then got one over on them by appointing the local brigade commander as head of the regiment instead of them! It badly damaged the units cohesion and meant that when it first saw battle in 1866 the commanders were at odds with one another in the extreme, leading to terrible debacle.

Having Cameron, rather than Stanton (so far) is going to be an interesting divergence. He may be powerful in Pennsylvania, but he was a lousy high official. Replacing him later on may become a necessity if 1861-62 goes bad enough for the Union.

Thank you very much! OTL, Stanton replaced Cameron in January 1862. The greater political power of Lincoln (he's THE midwestern Republican ITTL) and the more critical situation probably means he will replace Cameron earlier.

It should be noted that the CS governments, state and local, took much more aggressive action against pro-Union locals than the US ever did against copperheads. The example of the mass hanging in Texas of pro-Union German settlers is but one example.

I'll write a mini-update about this in the future.

I disagree on a number of levels. Not only did "states' rights" die OTL--10th amendment was killed at Appomattox for the USA, and the Confederacy was explicitly against states' rights from the moment it made its first alteration to the US constitution. The Confederacy was literally about nothing more than slavery, and "states' rights" was nothing more than a flimsy canard put up by a rebellion whose VERY FIRST MOVE was to ban any of the rebel states from ever banning or restricting slavery in the future--something that went against even the principles of many Southern Democrats! Further, I strongly doubt that with emotions running high the Confederacy won't ban Union trade from the Mississippi, which will result inevitably in a retaliatory embargo from the Union and a reliance upon the Erie Canal and other northern trade routes.

It's really ironic than in their pursuit of states rights, agrarianism and all that stuff, the Confederacy became far more centralized and tyrannical than the Union ever was. As McPherson says, Davis had to "don the mantle of Hamilton" even though they followed the ideals of Jefferson.

War is not won by fancy tactics, but by out building and out making the enemy. Liked to see the logistics info - Breckenridge needs to get better people; foreign aid will probably be a must.

Maryland makes sense, considering the more PA-like rural northern counties will be pro-union while the rest is more VA-like. The CSA needs to eliminate Fort McHenry, so they should find some massive siege guns or make some based on European designs and shell it to oblivion. However, that could be a propaganda bonanza for Lincoln because of the Star Spangled Banner

It's unlikely a prolonged siege could be maintained, and Union naval supremacy basically means Fort McHenry can be supplied for a long, long time.

I am suprised that the south has more troops then the north at this point? there would be some many men coming that some were prob going to be est estbalsihed on there own and just show up. Then the clerks are like sure go ahead
Also I suspect forgien donations or weapons will be coming in a large amount
@Red_Galiray could we have a mini update on volunters some times or squeezed into the main updates because with this war being more like the spanish civil war I except there will be many more volunteer groups coming silently crossing figure for karl marx to decide to come rather than otl when he stay behind

The Southern advantage in manpower was temporary and short-lived. By August, 1861, the Army of the Susquehanna is already bigger than Beauregard's Army of Maryland (or the Chesapeake, I haven't decided a name yet). Volunteers deserve their own mini-update, but I think it's too early for that. To be frank, I can't come up with a topic for the next mini-update, so if anyone has a suggestion, please tell me.

Unsurprisingly, the Confederates faced their first manpower crisis in the spring of 1862 after the initial wave of enthusiasm had crested and volunteering had fallen drastically. To solve this, the Confederates relied on the conscription (and the threat of it) of white Southern male between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five to keep their ranks filled. The Confederacy pursued a more determined mobilization of human resources and was thus able to put a considerably larger percentage of its population into the field as soldiers at the expense of its industry.

Indeed. Also to consider, though the Union had in theory a manpower advantage of 4-to-1 (counting only white men), they weren't able to recruit non-naturalized immigrants, people who were too far away, or disloyal men, so that advantage was reduced to 3.5-to-1, and in practice they often had double or triple the Southern numbers.

I think that's an improvement form OTL, given more parts of the border states? Still pretty weaksauce, especially the former.

Those are the numbers McPherson gives in his analysis of the Northern industrial advantage. They become starker if we go into specifics, particularly regarding military material: the Union produced "97 percent of the country's firearms in i860, 94 percent of its cloth, 93 percent of its pig iron, and more than 90 percent of its boots and shoes."

SOme do, some don't.

Nathan Bedford Forest came in as a amateur, loathsome traitor that he was.

Problem is, for every good amateur you get about 5 who you can trust to not shoot themselves in the foot, and 7 who shouldn't be anywhere near the field of battle.

Despite the hatred for political officers and people who raised regiments and then appointed themselves, some good generals had their origins there. Grant may be the greatest example.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

SOme do, some don't.

Nathan Bedford Forest came in as a amateur, loathsome traitor that he was.

Problem is, for every good amateur you get about 5 who you can trust to not shoot themselves in the foot, and 7 who shouldn't be anywhere near the field of battle.


In meridie est destrui!

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Major General Benjamin Butler...

I disagree on a number of levels. Not only did "states' rights" die OTL--10th amendment was killed at Appomattox for the USA, and the Confederacy was explicitly against states' rights from the moment it made its first alteration to the US constitution. The Confederacy was literally about nothing more than slavery, and "states' rights" was nothing more than a flimsy canard put up by a rebellion whose VERY FIRST MOVE was to ban any of the rebel states from ever banning or restricting slavery in the future--something that went against even the principles of many Southern Democrats! Further, I strongly doubt that with emotions running high the Confederacy won't ban Union trade from the Mississippi, which will result inevitably in a retaliatory embargo from the Union and a reliance upon the Erie Canal and other northern trade routes.

I don't disagree that the Confederacy would have ended up erring on the side of authoritarianism over time (at least, so far as the poor and blacks were concerned) and that it was one explicitly built on the destruction of any sense of equality between black and white (and rich and poor while I think of it) but I do think it needs to be remembered the slavocracy was primarily concerned with protecting slavery as the cornerstone of its wealth. Yeah they had no problem working their property to death, so long as they still made money at the end of the day. They're just a feudal republic with the gilting of Jeffersonian democracy smeared over the facade. However, I think that you're going to far to say they would ban trade. That was their life blood and they were very much aware of that. They were stupid in a lot of ways, but that isn't one of them.

I think William Howard Russell did the best sketch of the Confederacy:

“In my next letter I shall give a brief account of a visit to some of the planters, as far as it can be made consistent with the obligations which the rites and rights of hospitality impose on the guest as well as upon the host. These gentlemen are well-bred, courteous and hospitable. A genuine aristocracy, they have time to cultivate their minds, to apply themselves to politics and the guidance of public affairs. They travel and read, love field shorts, racing, shooting, hunting, and fishing, are bold horsemen and good shots. But, after all, their State is a modern Sparta, -- an aristocracy resting on helotry, and with nothing else to rest upon. Although they profess (and I believe, indeed, sincerely) to hold opinions in opposition to the opening of the Slave-trade, it is nevertheless true that the clause in the Constitution of the Confederate States which prohibited the importation of negroes was especially and energetically resisted by them, because, as they say, it seemed to be an admission that Slavery was in itself an evil and a wrong. Their whole system rests on Slavery, and as such they defend it. “ - William Howard Russell – The Times, April 30th 1862

Emphasis mine. But it does paint a pretty accurate picture of the planter class. It is such in that while they would bow to some modern realities (not participating in the international slave trade for instance) they would not consider doing something to put their 'peculiar institution' at risk at home. Banning Union trade on the Mississippi would be one of those things.

The Confederacy otoh would be right there, thumbing its nose at America, visibly destroying democracy in favor of an openly slavocratic plutocracy/oligarchy, which would drive politically-aware Northerners around the bend with rage and paranoia.

This I'll push back on since the US has never had a problem with visibly destroying democracy so long as it suited their interests. Unless the South became a very grave strategic threat to them, I believe they'd leave it alone to make money off them. Most politically aware Northerners of Democratic persuasion wouldn't care, moderate Republicans would be back and forth, while Radicals would swear life feuds. But you'd have trouble keeping that feud going without something to stir the blood over time.

We would come back in 1885 or so and crush the Confederacy like a grape while our buddies in Prussia and Russia dominated the Continent and kept the Brits occupied (as mentioned above, independent Confederacy is most likely a result of Franco-British intervention and therefore we'd hate the French and British and be pals with Russia and Prussia); if the Brits attacked us, by that point this alt-America would be just about able to run the two-front war and could take Canada so long as Prussia and Russia were on the same page and both allied to the USA.

This is something I also don't get. Prussia aligning with the US might make sense from the Union perspective, but Prussia doesn't get anything out of it. Prussia's neighbors are all right next door, the US is an ocean away. Bismarck's Prussia/Germany was concerned with the balance of power in Europe, not Asia, America, or even Africa. The Union doesn't offer anything in that direction. Besides, if he entered a military alliance with America, it would tie Prussia to events that might take place 3,000 miles away, and Bismarck wanted a strong Germany and a peaceful Europe. He wouldn't start a war on behalf of the Union.

Russia might, but even then they limited their support in the Civil War to diplomatic aid. But I doubt they'd pursue a full alliance for that very reason. They might regard the Union as a great power, but would they be willing to send men and ships across the seas or into Europe and upset the delicate balance of power just to help the North reconquer the South? I don't think so, no more than the Union would send ships and men to help hypothetically reconquer Poland or Silesia.

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

The Southern advantage in manpower was temporary and short-lived. By August, 1861, the Army of the Susquehanna is already bigger than Beauregard's Army of Maryland (or the Chesapeake, I haven't decided a name yet). Volunteers deserve their own mini-update, but I think it's too early for that. To be frank, I can't come up with a topic for the next mini-update, so if anyone has a suggestion, please tell me.

You covered it some in your update, and it was quite interesting, but perhaps if you need a topic, the everyday life of those in Philadelphia who watched the Federal government set up shop. It would be about the right time since Congress reconvenes July 4th. What are the4 city's inhabitants thinking? How about those who (admittedly as youth) recall when the Constitutional Convention was there, or at least recll stories from their parents? You could also introduce Octavius Catto, whom I mentioned earlier as a black leader who was still quite young but who might try to angle for some audiences with people, which can then let you lead into an update down the line about the African-American experience in general.

 

[Worffan101]

I don't disagree that the Confederacy would have ended up erring on the side of authoritarianism over time (at least, so far as the poor and blacks were concerned) and that it was one explicitly built on the destruction of any sense of equality between black and white (and rich and poor while I think of it) but I do think it needs to be remembered the slavocracy was primarily concerned with protecting slavery as the cornerstone of its wealth. Yeah they had no problem working their property to death, so long as they still made money at the end of the day. They're just a feudal republic with the gilting of Jeffersonian democracy smeared over the facade. However, I think that you're going to far to say they would ban trade. That was their life blood and they were very much aware of that. They were stupid in a lot of ways, but that isn't one of them.

I think William Howard Russell did the best sketch of the Confederacy:

“In my next letter I shall give a brief account of a visit to some of the planters, as far as it can be made consistent with the obligations which the rites and rights of hospitality impose on the guest as well as upon the host. These gentlemen are well-bred, courteous and hospitable. A genuine aristocracy, they have time to cultivate their minds, to apply themselves to politics and the guidance of public affairs. They travel and read, love field shorts, racing, shooting, hunting, and fishing, are bold horsemen and good shots. But, after all, their State is a modern Sparta, -- an aristocracy resting on helotry, and with nothing else to rest upon. Although they profess (and I believe, indeed, sincerely) to hold opinions in opposition to the opening of the Slave-trade, it is nevertheless true that the clause in the Constitution of the Confederate States which prohibited the importation of negroes was especially and energetically resisted by them, because, as they say, it seemed to be an admission that Slavery was in itself an evil and a wrong. Their whole system rests on Slavery, and as such they defend it. “ - William Howard Russell – The Times, April 30th 1862

Emphasis mine. But it does paint a pretty accurate picture of the planter class. It is such in that while they would bow to some modern realities (not participating in the international slave trade for instance) they would not consider doing something to put their 'peculiar institution' at risk at home. Banning Union trade on the Mississippi would be one of those things.

You Canucks probably don't really get this on a visceral, subconscious level, but the sectional crisis here was bad. Bad on a level that it's really hard to explain. The sheer hatred, insanity, and self-delusion of the Southern elite, and the reciprocal vitriol of the Northern populace, were a thousand times more vicious than the hatred between Tumblr and 4chan.

Some perspective: The Confederacy was run by men who seceded simply because someone who didn't want to expand slavery was elected. Lincoln stopped short of calling for abolition, he simply said "no more expansion of slavery, and hurrah for states' rights (as in, repeal the fugitive slave act)", and that was enough for the traitors to rebel. Their ideology was 100% based entirely upon the expansion and alleged inherently positive nature of slavery, and they were willing to do blatantly stupid and counterproductive things to support their "peculiar institution" and their belief in the superiority of their so-called nation. Cutting off the North's #1 trade artery would be the natural decision--after all, those peasant dogs want to take away the inheritances of all these handsome young planter heirs! What does the North buy from the South? Probably nothing! Northern climates are typically colder so they'll fall back on wool for clothing, they can get tobacco from abroad, they can make their own food on the plains and in the Midwest, etc. The North will probably refuse to buy from the South so the traitors will shut down the river in retaliation and the North will invade to teach Johnny Reb a lesson about who has 4x the population, 20x the factories, a superior economy and more stable society AND who's mad as hell and won't take no for an answer this time.

This I'll push back on since the US has never had a problem with visibly destroying democracy so long as it suited their interests. Unless the South became a very grave strategic threat to them, I believe they'd leave it alone to make money off them. Most politically aware Northerners of Democratic persuasion wouldn't care, moderate Republicans would be back and forth, while Radicals would swear life feuds. But you'd have trouble keeping that feud going without something to stir the blood over time.

No, see, we're hypocrites. We'll destroy democracy at home and cheer for it like any other nation, but the South is Johnny Reb, that evil sumbitch who spat in the eye of our glorious union and probably insulted the mothers of every man in the regiment to boot, so literally any action they take will be taken in the worst possible light (not that the South will need much help).

This is something I also don't get. Prussia aligning with the US might make sense from the Union perspective, but Prussia doesn't get anything out of it. Prussia's neighbors are all right next door, the US is an ocean away. Bismarck's Prussia/Germany was concerned with the balance of power in Europe, not Asia, America, or even Africa. The Union doesn't offer anything in that direction. Besides, if he entered a military alliance with America, it would tie Prussia to events that might take place 3,000 miles away, and Bismarck wanted a strong Germany and a peaceful Europe. He wouldn't start a war on behalf of the Union.

The Union has a massive merchant fleet and basically all the best food-producing land on the continent. Prussia needs food, and Russia's food-producing regions are mostly in Ukraine and right on the edge of the Austrian Empire, so any major Central/Eastern European War would hit those regions hard and fast. USA is a reliable supply of cheap food in exchange for guns. Boom, friends for life.

Russia might, but even then they limited their support in the Civil War to diplomatic aid. But I doubt they'd pursue a full alliance for that very reason. They might regard the Union as a great power, but would they be willing to send men and ships across the seas or into Europe and upset the delicate balance of power just to help the North reconquer the South? I don't think so, no more than the Union would send ships and men to help hypothetically reconquer Poland or Silesia.

This also implies that Great Britain and France are actively guaranteeing the Confederacy, which...isn't terribly likely. Either way, yes, such a war wouldn't happen for a couple of decades, but by the 1880s to 1900s? Entirely possible IMO.

 

[piratedude]

which can then let you lead into an update down the line about the African-American experience in general.

I'd also like to add that Havre de Grace had a rather large freedman community at the time, and was a 'station' for the underground railroad. I wouldn't be surprised if there were attempts by said freemen trying to enlist (probably unsuccessfully unless they were only used as laborors)

 

[Crust3038]

Another important point is this: This time the War will be even more about Slavery and its Abolition than OTL. We could expect the Prime Minister getting voted out of office if the UK government tried to support the Southern States in any way this time which could easily become a Political Suicide SLASH Party Ending Debacle that no politically savvy British politician worth their salt would even try.

 

[Red_Galiray]

You covered it some in your update, and it was quite interesting, but perhaps if you need a topic, the everyday life of those in Philadelphia who watched the Federal government set up shop. It would be about the right time since Congress reconvenes July 4th. What are the4 city's inhabitants thinking? How about those who (admittedly as youth) recall when the Constitutional Convention was there, or at least recll stories from their parents? You could also introduce Octavius Catto, whom I mentioned earlier as a black leader who was still quite young but who might try to angle for some audiences with people, which can then let you lead into an update down the line about the African-American experience in general.

I think life in Philadelphia and efforts by Black civilian leaders is a great topic for the next side-update!

I'd also like to add that Havre de Grace had a rather large freedman community at the time, and was a 'station' for the underground railroad. I wouldn't be surprised if there were attempts by said freemen trying to enlist (probably unsuccessfully unless they were only used as laborors)

The issues regarding freedmen and Black military service will be covered as part of the Regular updates, but I think using Havre de Grace opens a series of interesting possibilities.

Another important point is this: This time the War will be even more about Slavery and its Abolition than OTL. We could expect the Prime Minister getting voted out of office if the UK government tried to support the Southern States in any way this time which could easily become a Political Suicide SLASH Party Ending Debacle that no politically savvy British politician worth their salt would even try.

I continue to maintain that the British didn't care for slavery that ardently. Sure, they did care, and the fact that the Confederacy was created to maintain slavery was an important part of why it failed to gain British recognition. Yet I think the single most important factor was realpolitik, and whether aiding the Confederacy would help along Britain's interests. A measure to recognize the Confederacy, for example, almost passed in June 1863. It died, not because people raised concerns regarding slavery, but because it was discovered that Napoleon III had supported it. Anti-French backlash killed the bill, not moral concerns. Many Britons had no problem cheering the Confederacy or selling weapons and ships, and people among the highest of British political, economic and social elites were openly pro-South. Most of the common people, on the other hand, supported the Union. But I still don't think supporting the South would destroy a British government unless that support went against British interests. Don't get me wrong, slavery was an important part of why the British refused to intervene, but it wasn't the only.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Cutting off the North's #1 trade artery would be the natural decision--after all, those peasant dogs want to take away the inheritances of all these handsome young planter heirs! What does the North buy from the South? Probably nothing! Northern climates are typically colder so they'll fall back on wool for clothing, they can get tobacco from abroad, they can make their own food on the plains and in the Midwest, etc. The North will probably refuse to buy from the South so the traitors will shut down the river in retaliation and the North will invade to teach Johnny Reb a lesson about who has 4x the population, 20x the factories, a superior economy and more stable society AND who's mad as hell and won't take no for an answer this time.

France and Germany, for all their enmity, still did a very brisk and profitable trade. Hell, for all the hard feelings from the American Revolution they were back to being good trade partners before the ink was dry on the treaty. Sure there would be individual Northerners who would disdain trade with the South, but the pre-war economics would still be there, and would still be just as (if not more in some cases) profitable. No nation is going to willingly commit economic suicide like that, and the lack of cotton during the war is what got the foolhardy Red River Expedition organized, too many New England textile mills had shut down for want of product.

The Northwest balked during the war because they saw their trade controlled by Eastern interests rather than being able to trade down the Mississippi, they won't willingly put their fate in the hands of New England when the Mississippi is right there waiting for them. Nor would the people of Kansas or Nebraska just ignore all that beef which could be driven up from Texas, and Kentucky wouldn't ignore the textile and tobacco from Tennessee and parts South. Even New England won't look askance at Southern cotton so long as the mills hum. Trade will just continue, there's no plausible way you could even stop it if you wanted to. The war failed to stop it in many places, embargoes would fail worse.

No, see, we're hypocrites. We'll destroy democracy at home and cheer for it like any other nation, but the South is Johnny Reb, that evil sumbitch who spat in the eye of our glorious union and probably insulted the mothers of every man in the regiment to boot, so literally any action they take will be taken in the worst possible light (not that the South will need much help).

And there were more than enough people who weren't overly bothered by it either, or who would learn not to be bothered by it either. 1.8 million voted for McClellan after all. 50 years down the line, even fewer people might be bothered with it.

The Union has a massive merchant fleet and basically all the best food-producing land on the continent. Prussia needs food, and Russia's food-producing regions are mostly in Ukraine and right on the edge of the Austrian Empire, so any major Central/Eastern European War would hit those regions hard and fast. USA is a reliable supply of cheap food in exchange for guns. Boom, friends for life.

Prussia and Russia were net exporters of food in Europe, to the extent they were the other half-three quarts of grain exports depending on the year. And they remained continental powers, Bismarck too would have no reason to want to entwine his fate with North America, he opposed German gains in Africa for that reason as well. They might be economic partners, but they have no reason to put their military on the line to benefit American expansion. Economically and politically friendly, sure, military alliance? Nope.

 

[Worffan101]

I don't think that a vote in the middle of a war that had only recently turned around in public perception (the Western front was going great, the Eastern front was just more reported upon) really pains a clear picture of the importance of a political issue that dominated politics for three decades after the war.

Anyway, why are we talking about a hypothetical independent Confederacy in a thread that's shaping up to be about a more radical War of Southern Aggression and a more radical Reconstruction?

 

[EnglishCanuck]

The issues regarding freedmen and Black military service will be covered as part of the Regular updates, but I think using Havre de Grace opens a series of interesting possibilities.

If Martin Delany managed to work his way in there too that would be great I think

I continue to maintain that the British didn't care for slavery that ardently. Sure, they did care, and the fact that the Confederacy was created to maintain slavery was an important part of why it failed to gain British recognition. Yet I think the single most important factor was realpolitik, and whether aiding the Confederacy would help along Britain's interests. A measure to recognize the Confederacy, for example, almost passed in June 1863. It died, not because people raised concerns regarding slavery, but because it was discovered that Napoleon III had supported it. Anti-French backlash killed the bill, not moral concerns. Many Britons had no problem cheering the Confederacy or selling weapons and ships, and people among the highest of British political, economic and social elites were openly pro-South. Most of the common people, on the other hand, supported the Union. But I still don't think supporting the South would destroy a British government unless that support went against British interests. Don't get me wrong, slavery was an important part of why the British refused to intervene, but it wasn't the only.

It probably helped Lord Palmerston's dislike of the United States was balanced by his dislike for slavery. That and since Gladstone was pro-Confederacy, Palmerston was bound to be much less enthusiastic about it! Some political rivalries work out quite well for everyone!

I don't think that a vote in the middle of a war that had only recently turned around in public perception (the Western front was going great, the Eastern front was just more reported upon) really pains a clear picture of the importance of a political issue that dominated politics for three decades after the war.

Anyway, why are we talking about a hypothetical independent Confederacy in a thread that's shaping up to be about a more radical War of Southern Aggression and a more radical Reconstruction?

True. Here's hoping Charleston is smacked around more. And Beauregard gets what's coming to him!

 

[Worffan101]

Hey, maybe Jeff Davis will actually get hanged from a sour apple tree!

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Hey, maybe Jeff Davis will actually get hanged from a sour apple tree!

I always thought Twiggs deserved a good hanging more. He did essentially surrender most of Texas and the West to the Confederacy. It's a shame that he and John B. Floyd don't get more hate. They deserve it. Now if Davis signs any of the orders for executions he did historically I'm down with him swinging.

 

[Worffan101]

I always thought Twiggs deserved a good hanging more. He did essentially surrender most of Texas and the West to the Confederacy. It's a shame that he and John B. Floyd don't get more hate. They deserve it. Now if Davis signs any of the orders for executions he did historically I'm down with him swinging.

Twiggs was scum, but Davis and shitheads like Henry Wirz also deserve to swing.

 

[naraht]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Major General Benjamin Butler...

Butler is certainly an example, but I'm not sure of an example of *what*. As a military general, his few results were mixed, and running New Orleans was a *completely* different kettle of fish.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Butler is certainly an example, but I'm not sure of an example of *what*. As a military general, his few results were mixed, and running New Orleans was a *completely* different kettle of fish.

In the political arena he was indispensable as an organizer and party boss, on the field of battle he was a walking disaster. The Bermuda Hundreds and Fort Fischer were utter fiascoes!

 

[Daztur]

Enjoying this a lot.

Talk about CSA wanks in this forum reminds me that there's so little AH about the winning side of a war winning more easily. I think a TL about the CSA falling apart quickly would be great as that'd make it hard to get rid of slavery leading to some interesting and ubpleasant political conflicts. The same goes with the Nazis getting curbstomped which could've easily happened. Nazis loom so large in popular imagination that having them not be taken seriously leads to so many changes, especially with a very different (and possibly nuclear Cold War) and the Holocaust being butterflied.

 

[Knightmare]

running New Orleans was a *completely* different kettle of fish.

Hey, even in the words of the most ardent Rebel, he did one helluva job keeping the place clean and running smoothly.

 

[Wolttaire]

The Southern advantage in manpower was temporary and short-lived. By August, 1861, the Army of the Susquehanna is already bigger than Beauregard's Army of Maryland (or the Chesapeake, I haven't decided a name yet). Volunteers deserve their own mini-update, but I think it's too early for that. To be frank, I can't come up with a topic for the next mini-update, so if anyone has a suggestion, please tell me.

will they have a bigger impact on the war cause I imagine the south will receive more volunteers than otl but once the aconda plan comes into full swing I except that will drop very quickly becasue they won't be able to get in. The union though will prob recvie a lot more due to the anti slavery swing now and maybe even a karl marx...
Maybe have a min update be a narrative be anything really

 

[Prince Daemon Targaryen]

will they have a bigger impact on the war cause I imagine the south will receive more volunteers than otl but once the aconda plan comes into full swing I except that will drop very quickly becasue they won't be able to get in. The union though will prob recvie a lot more due to the anti slavery swing now and maybe even a karl marx...
Maybe have a min update be a narrative be anything really

A narrow front in Maryland will probably work to the advantage of the CSA, especially with Washington in their hands - allows them to protect their supply lines through the hub of the District of Columbia. Perhaps they could also use the east Chesapeake as a secure area to build a decent naval strength (better protect the bay), causing Lincoln to authorize a canal being build through Delaware and eastern MD.

I would think that this could cause the Shenandoah valley campaign to be an actual main front rather than a side front

 

[sloreck]

The CSA can't "build naval strength". The CSA cannot build steam engines, marine or land. At the beginning of the war their ability to cast cannon was minimal, it was built up during the war but the sorts of guns needed to counter Union ironclads (riverine or ocean) almost all were imported or prewar (or captured). Approximately 8% of locomotives on southern railroads in 1860 had been built in southern shops, the rest were imported for the north (English locomotives were unsuitable and had not been imported for twenty years. The CSA produced relatively few naval vessels of any sort, and those were inferior to Union vessels of similar class.

Basically the CSA used shore batteries almost always to keep Union riverine/gunboats at bay, likewise fortifications to keep blockading ships at a distance. Other than the CSS Virginia literally built on a Union salvaged wreck, which had a one day success (literally) the CSN successes from a naval standpoint were commerce raiders primarily built and armed by overseas constructors. They had some successes in small ways with some innovative/desperation ideas (like the CSS Hunley the submersible which sank one Union ship and killed three crews including its inventor) and the "David" torpedo boats.