I know you understand my sarcasm because I've done it to you a few times in your threads, but dude. I would really,really, really, really, really, really, really want to be careful how much further you may want to push this point.
I know you understand my sarcasm because I've done it to you a few times in your threads, but dude. I would really,really, really, really, really, really, really want to be careful how much further you may want to push this point.
Agreed, unfortunately our culture today isn't very friendly to people with a difference of opinion. Respectable discourse is slowly dying out in favor of screaming at those who have an opposite opinion. But, in the interest of keeping this thread from devolving into endless screaming, I'll just fade into the background on this one, as I'm so often forced to. Great TL Greenhorn and I look forward to seeing how your story pans out. As for you Kiryan, sorry for turning your sarcastic comment into this. I just didn't want you to get in trouble for something I was sure was sarcasm. Anyways, cheers!
I mean, I don’t believe that a long-debunked historical school of thought that was used to justify atrocities against America’s black population and halt any progress towards their equality for a full century, a school that glorified slaveholding rebels for throwing a tantrum after a president they didn’t like won an election and they saw a threat to their power over the rest of the country, should be allowed back into “polite discourse” after it was rightfully thrown out by historians for being hideously racist and knowingly disingenuous.
Tell me, if you’re a Lost Causer who doesn’t support slavery or racism, then what parts of the Lost Cause do you believe in? I’m not aware of any part of that myth that isn’t connected to at least one of those things.
I'm well aware that substantial numbers of troops were in the DC garrison, particularly III and XI corps were there recovering, but the union army had severe problems time after time putting together operations in the east that depended on separate armies operating in concert. If McClellan lets Lee's army slip away without a proper pursuit(likely) and the DC garrison marches boldly off to into Virginia without Lee's army properly distracted it's more likely to end in tears than not. It's not as if the DC garrison can be seamlessly converted into a field army overnight even if talented leadership had been an option.
The only thing I support is the idea of the right of a state to secede. Be it a state from the south, north, east, west, wherever. Perhaps calling myself a Lost Causer was incorrect. Anyway, if you'd like to chat about this more, please message me directly. I don't want to fill this thread with this conversation as this is not the point of the thread. Thanks.
There's also the matter that the Confederacy was basically losing in the west nonstop and that meant that the one strategy that actually could've worked long-term (control the Mississippi and then take a major Union city) wasn't viable for the Confederacy. The Union just had too many men and even though all the Eastern military leadership was laughably inept at field command in one way or another, Grant was tearing apart Johnny Reb out west and that was going to destroy the Confederacy sooner or later, as it'd let Sherman get into Georgia and gut what was left of the rebel economy.
Something that seems so far underexplored: what is going on with MD internally? the state is not uniformly pro-South, although a lot of the richest parts are, and there's a pretty substantial free African-American community at least in Baltimore. I can't imagine Fredrick or Washington County are too happy about Annapolis seceding...
EDIT: Heck, I can picture some very cranky Quakers in Sandy Spring having to deal with secesh from Poolesville...
EDIT: Heck, I can picture some very cranky Quakers in Sandy Spring having to deal with secesh from Poolesville...
Frederick and Washington Counties are under the control of Hicks' Unionist government, and the western counties have been raising regiments for Union service. As for the deeper divisions, that's going to come up in the update about Maryland partisan ranger outfits.
I am watching this ATL! ACW with most interest - I don't know the OTL well enough to understand half of what's going on, but it is fascinating nonetheless. I look forward to more!
I'm glad you find it interesting. I have some big things planned revolving around the 1864 election.
It's starting to look like the Union is going to spend an inordinate amount of effort pushing for Baltimore and Washington and spend a lot of effort beating their heads against the wall.
Even if they take back Maryland eventually, they'll have spent so much time, effort, and blood that the Confederacy may be able to successfully negotiate separation.
Finally! Here comes the Marble Man. It was cool to see Johnston last so long though. Also, I'm a bit surprised at how easily the Union secured Kentucky. Especially since they officially seceded and joined the CSA. I'd have thought that most of the war out west would be in Kentucky rather than Tennessee. Anyways, looking forward to seeing how this all pans out. Oh, and I assume New Orleans has already fallen?
Great TL so far!
While my knowledge of ACW is limited, from my perspective it looks very plausible. PoD (as I understand it, MD Governor Election that was very controversial and close IOTL goes the other way and Groome is elected instead of Hicks) is minor enough and believable and its consequences are explored methodically and fairly. Unlike most CSA TLs I have seen on this site this TL is not ASBish in any way: yes CSA does considerably better than IOTL but this is entirely justified by PoD (if anything Confederacy could have done a bit better and it would still be plausible). Please keep up your outstanding work on this TL, I will eagerly wait for updates.
While we all hold our breaths for what Robert E. Lee would be able to do on the eastern front, I have a couple of questions and speculations:
1. Since according to post #58 in October 1862 Unionists already act against civilians in Buckeystown and fight Gilmor’s partisans in southern Frederick in the Autumn of 1862, one can assume that Union was able to recapture most of Frederick County almost immediately after Jackson’s Hagerstown campaign (second half of August 1862). Is this a correct assumption?
While it is certainly possible, Jackson was able to secure passes over Blue Ridge and majority of McClellan’s army was probably diverted to trying to break CSA defense along Gunpowder (which happened in September 1862). Obviously, majority of Confederate forces was likewise occupied near Towson defending mountain passes requires a lot less troops than seizing them.
Moreover wouldn’t taking Frederick back in such a swift manner secure McClellan’s position a bit despite the failure at Towson?
Originally I thought that there is a typo in post #58 and the dates concerning partisans in southern Frederick are a year earlier than described (i. e. Gilmor’s actions in Autumn-Winter 1861, Buckeystown in October 1861 and Adamstown in January 1862).
However post #64 seems to contradict such an interpretation and reinforces the assumption about swift Union recapture of Frederick Valley in September-October 1862: Baltimore had food shortages in winter 1862-1863 (and Federal control of Frederick county is listed as one of major reasons for that) and Unionville, MD was captured by McClellan in November 1862 (while it can be captured from Thurmont or Uniontown in North Frederick which may well be under Federal control, capturing it from Frederick itself looks more natural).
So did the Federals indeed managed to recapture Frederick in September-October 1862?
2. It seems that US operation against CSA Coast are delayed by approximately 3 month comparing to OTL (New Orleans captured in July instead of April, Norfolk in August instead of May).
I am curious though was the Peninsula Campaign similarly delayed (thus starting in June and finishing in October) or was it completely butterflied away. While the fact that Union was able to capture Norfolk probably indicates that the Peninsula Campaign did happen (IOTL Norfolk was captured as part of the campaign), ITTL seizure of Norfolk might well be a separate action (after all the troops for Peninsular Campaign of OTL sailed from Alexandra and ITTL Alexandra and DC is controlled by Confederacy since June 1861).
Please excuse my question if it is a spoiler.
3. While changes in the Eastern Front compared to OTL are of course extremely important, changes in the Western Front seem to be dramatic as well. The facts that Missouri seceded, that Jackson’s militia was able to capture St Louis Arsenal and that Kentucky remained neutral for the whole winter and its neutrality was broken by Union, not Confederacy are all major.
It seems that the successes by Union in the West while happening along the similar lines to OTL are delayed by at least 8 month: while Confederate forces were pushed from Missouri into Arkansas, ITTL it happened by late 1862, unlike IOTL where it happened in late 1861 (at least in the Winter of 1861-1862 CSA still holds both Jefferson City and Kansas City; in March a bloody battle of Hermann Farm happens, which is probably located in Hermann, MO, on the right bank of Missouri River). Nashville is taken ITTL in October 1862 comparing to February 1862 of OTL.
If the delay in Union actions compared to OTL remains unchanged, Vicksburg would fall in first half of 1864 in time for Elections but just barely. Of course changes on the Western Front can be much bigger than simple delay compared to OTL.
One of the first major divergences can be immediately after the last update we have on the West (i. e. Nashville). IOTL Confederates conducted a major offensive in August-October 1862, capturing Frankfort, KY and coming pretty close to capturing Louisville. While extended Kentucky neutrality might mean that CSA forces in Tennessee ITTL began to concentrate later than IOTL, we can probably expect that CSA counteroffensive on the West happens in the end of 1862 or the beginning of 1863. If the counteroffensive happens along the same lines as IOTL Confederates may well enjoy greater success in Kentucky given changes ITTL. Or maybe it can be further west ITTL with recapture or encirclement of Nashville or even further West coordinating efforts with Missouri bushwhackers.
Sorry for being nitpicky and if my conjectures are premature or naïve. I do not have an extensive ACW knowledge, but your writing urged me to dive into the topic. Thanks again for this amazing TL!
While my knowledge of ACW is limited, from my perspective it looks very plausible. PoD (as I understand it, MD Governor Election that was very controversial and close IOTL goes the other way and Groome is elected instead of Hicks) is minor enough and believable and its consequences are explored methodically and fairly. Unlike most CSA TLs I have seen on this site this TL is not ASBish in any way: yes CSA does considerably better than IOTL but this is entirely justified by PoD (if anything Confederacy could have done a bit better and it would still be plausible). Please keep up your outstanding work on this TL, I will eagerly wait for updates.
While we all hold our breaths for what Robert E. Lee would be able to do on the eastern front, I have a couple of questions and speculations:
1. Since according to post #58 in October 1862 Unionists already act against civilians in Buckeystown and fight Gilmor’s partisans in southern Frederick in the Autumn of 1862, one can assume that Union was able to recapture most of Frederick County almost immediately after Jackson’s Hagerstown campaign (second half of August 1862). Is this a correct assumption?
While it is certainly possible, Jackson was able to secure passes over Blue Ridge and majority of McClellan’s army was probably diverted to trying to break CSA defense along Gunpowder (which happened in September 1862). Obviously, majority of Confederate forces was likewise occupied near Towson defending mountain passes requires a lot less troops than seizing them.
Moreover wouldn’t taking Frederick back in such a swift manner secure McClellan’s position a bit despite the failure at Towson?
Originally I thought that there is a typo in post #58 and the dates concerning partisans in southern Frederick are a year earlier than described (i. e. Gilmor’s actions in Autumn-Winter 1861, Buckeystown in October 1861 and Adamstown in January 1862).
However post #64 seems to contradict such an interpretation and reinforces the assumption about swift Union recapture of Frederick Valley in September-October 1862: Baltimore had food shortages in winter 1862-1863 (and Federal control of Frederick county is listed as one of major reasons for that) and Unionville, MD was captured by McClellan in November 1862 (while it can be captured from Thurmont or Uniontown in North Frederick which may well be under Federal control, capturing it from Frederick itself looks more natural).
So did the Federals indeed managed to recapture Frederick in September-October 1862?
2. It seems that US operation against CSA Coast are delayed by approximately 3 month comparing to OTL (New Orleans captured in July instead of April, Norfolk in August instead of May).
I am curious though was the Peninsula Campaign similarly delayed (thus starting in June and finishing in October) or was it completely butterflied away. While the fact that Union was able to capture Norfolk probably indicates that the Peninsula Campaign did happen (IOTL Norfolk was captured as part of the campaign), ITTL seizure of Norfolk might well be a separate action (after all the troops for Peninsular Campaign of OTL sailed from Alexandra and ITTL Alexandra and DC is controlled by Confederacy since June 1861).
Please excuse my question if it is a spoiler.
3. While changes in the Eastern Front compared to OTL are of course extremely important, changes in the Western Front seem to be dramatic as well. The facts that Missouri seceded, that Jackson’s militia was able to capture St Louis Arsenal and that Kentucky remained neutral for the whole winter and its neutrality was broken by Union, not Confederacy are all major.
It seems that the successes by Union in the West while happening along the similar lines to OTL are delayed by at least 8 month: while Confederate forces were pushed from Missouri into Arkansas, ITTL it happened by late 1862, unlike IOTL where it happened in late 1861 (at least in the Winter of 1861-1862 CSA still holds both Jefferson City and Kansas City; in March a bloody battle of Hermann Farm happens, which is probably located in Hermann, MO, on the right bank of Missouri River). Nashville is taken ITTL in October 1862 comparing to February 1862 of OTL.
If the delay in Union actions compared to OTL remains unchanged, Vicksburg would fall in first half of 1864 in time for Elections but just barely. Of course changes on the Western Front can be much bigger than simple delay compared to OTL.
One of the first major divergences can be immediately after the last update we have on the West (i. e. Nashville). IOTL Confederates conducted a major offensive in August-October 1862, capturing Frankfort, KY and coming pretty close to capturing Louisville. While extended Kentucky neutrality might mean that CSA forces in Tennessee ITTL began to concentrate later than IOTL, we can probably expect that CSA counteroffensive on the West happens in the end of 1862 or the beginning of 1863. If the counteroffensive happens along the same lines as IOTL Confederates may well enjoy greater success in Kentucky given changes ITTL. Or maybe it can be further west ITTL with recapture or encirclement of Nashville or even further West coordinating efforts with Missouri bushwhackers.
Sorry for being nitpicky and if my conjectures are premature or naïve. I do not have an extensive ACW knowledge, but your writing urged me to dive into the topic. Thanks again for this amazing TL!
Even though this is about Maryland, do we get to find out what exactly went down at Murfreesboro?
I could have an update about the war in the west, but in brief Beauregard took up a defensive position around the town but, ITTL because of more troops from Missouri, Kentucky, and Tennessee the Confederates didn't have to split off their forces to defend any other city, allowing Beauregard to out maneuver the Union forces and defeat them.
I got to say I'm really enjoying this timeline so far, its quite detailed and it certainly has a unique twist for an American Civil War Timeline in my humble opinion, although I may be a bit biased since I am a Marylander!