ACW held off . . . until 1901

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.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I believe the Battle of Vicksburg was famous for its use of trenches, though it may be that I am wrong.
 
I'm not really sure the Civil War could have been avoided until 1901, but the results of avoiding the Civil War till then would have been devastating.
 
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?
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
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?

Because at the time there was no difference between de facto and de jure slavery, and the idea that the abolitionists couldn't see through something like that is insulting. Nor did you mention that the South agreed to a plan of abolition. You basically said that everyone just pretends that slavery doesn't exist anymore.

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.
 
Last edited:
I think it would be very hard to put of secession until 1901. If there had been a compromise reached in 1860 I think its likely that the North would have strongly considered leaving the Union. What is not recognized is that there were many in the North that welcomed and approved of the departure of the South.

I think it would be very hard to convince the various Northern states that time is on there side. There are a whole lot of issues tide up with the ACW, many which completely down played. Undoubtedly one of the goals of the Radical Republicans was destroying the Democratic Party in the South so that it would no longer block spending bills. Any continuation of the status quo ante bellum will see the North being frustrated by the South's veto of various 'national' projects.*

However, in the mean time such feats of the transcontinental railroad may be built by private industry rather than government expense.

*-unless the South doesn't industrialize itself.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
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.

Most of their line had no stone wall, but no earthworks were put up.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
No your right, and it also foreshadowed WW1 constant artillery techniques.

They dug a conventional sap and battery system of the same type that had been in uses since the 16th century. There is nothing unusual about the siege; if anything it was pretty antiquated by the standards of the 1860's.
 
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.
 
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.

Depends - if the South got Germany as an ally ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
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.
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.

As for what the compromise might be, something along the lines of the post-Civil War Pre-Reconstruction South seems like a fairly good base to build off of; abolition has happened, yet the former slaves are still largely in the same socio-economic position they were pre-abolition. There will be differences, but certainly nothing along the lines of the changes wrought by Reconstruction in OTL (and even those changes weren't as much as they could have been).
 
Top