MrP
Banned
Several sieges. Petersburg is the most obvious example.
The Petersburg thing is the only one I could think of. The other sieges just made me think of the sieges of previous wars, tbh.
Several sieges. Petersburg is the most obvious example.
I believe the Battle of Vicksburg was famous for its use of trenches, though it may be that I am wrong.
I find the idea that is absolutely no way any sort of deal/compromise could have been worked out to be much more implausible.Highly, highly implausible. The state of mind in the country in the 1850s, even, was enough to spark secession. The North (or New England, at least) would probably have seceeded if something like that were to go through, if it even could make it through Congress.
I find the idea that is absolutely no way any sort of deal/compromise could have been worked out to be much more implausible.
As for my proposal for one such possible deal, why would New England want to secede because the South agreed to a plan for abolition?
Well, think less hole-in-the-ground-trenches and more hide-behind-stone-walls-and-the-like-trenches. Fredericksburg, for example. Had that stone wall not been there on those heights, the Rebs would certainly have dug some earthworks.
No your right, and it also foreshadowed WW1 constant artillery techniques.
If the civil war was held off until 1901, then the south would've been creamed. The North would continue industrializing and the South would continue remaining in agricultural stagnancy.
But Missouri would continue to be a battleground with guerrillas for a lot longer.
Well obviously 1860 is in all likelihood too late for any sort of compromise to be made; IMO at the very latest you'd needa PoD to avoid the Kansas-Nebraska Act. I would have thought it obvious that any sort of compromise needs to be done before feelings get so inflamed that neither side is willing to compromise.One of the reasons for the Civil War is that there was no more room for compromise. Stephen Douglas stood for compromise and what did it get him? Neither side would have tolerated it; the South for cultural and socio-economic reasons, the abolitionists beacause many of them were zealots who thought slavery was an abomination that needed to be annihilated by any means necessary.
Secession on one side or the other was far more likely to occur. If any such compromise miraculously made it through Congress (which, given the time is borderline ASB) civil war would have broken out. Not because of secession this time, but purely over slavery.