AHC: Earlier Union victory in ACW - a) June '64, b) June '63, c) June '62, d) Nov '61

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
How could we have the Union secure occupation of the Confederacy 1, 2 or 3 years earlier than OTL's June 1865?
 
Have Andrew Jackson get into a huge personal fight with Calhoun, Jackson literally kicks South Carolina out of the union and reinvades it, and then abolishes slavery there to make a point. It sounds crazy but so was Andrew Jackson.
 
How could we have the Union secure occupation of the Confederacy 1, 2 or 3 years earlier than OTL's June 1865?

The CSS Virginia sinks due to being unable to dislodge itself from USS Cumberland; Monitor and other Union naval forces are able to clear out the remaining Confederate forces in the aftermath and ultimately this allows for the usage of the James River by McClellan during the Peninsula Campaign. This also has the added effect of denying the Confederates the ability to evacuate military stores in the area they had the chance to do historically. Between a more effective McClellan and Pope's Army of Virginia coming South, the Confederates will be forced into a siege as they were in 1864. Further to the West, IOTL the Confederates almost didn't reinforce Vicksburg after the fall of New Orleans; presume in this ATL they do not, as an overreaction to the loss of Norfolk and the perceived need to better defend Mobile. In such a case the city would fall, and thus the Confederacy would be bisected a year early.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The CSS Virginia sinks due to being unable to dislodge itself from USS Cumberland; Monitor and other Union naval forces are able to clear out the remaining Confederate forces in the aftermath and ultimately this allows for the usage of the James River by McClellan during the Peninsula Campaign. This also has the added effect of denying the Confederates the ability to evacuate military stores in the area they had the chance to do historically. Between a more effective McClellan and Pope's Army of Virginia coming South, the Confederates will be forced into a siege as they were in 1864. Further to the West, IOTL the Confederates almost didn't reinforce Vicksburg after the fall of New Orleans; presume in this ATL they do not, as an overreaction to the loss of Norfolk and the perceived need to better defend Mobile. In such a case the city would fall, and thus the Confederacy would be bisected a year early.

When is this scenario (or is it two separate scenarios) resulting in ultimate Confederate defeat?
 
When is this scenario (or is it two separate scenarios) resulting in ultimate Confederate defeat?

Combined; with Richmond under a solid state of siege by high summer and the Confederacy bisected, there is a serious chance of peace talks concluding the conflict within 1862. Confederate Nationalism hadn't fully emerged yet and Lincoln had yet to take the final plunge on Emancipation.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
So this starts diverging things from March 1862, the battle of Hampton Roads. Well before Lincoln began soundings about an Emancipation Proclamation in July.

If the war is concluded before 1862 is out, I wonder how postwar relations with France and its clients in Mexico will go. In OTL, after victory in the Civil War, the US gradually increased aid to Juarez, reinforced the Rio Grande border and told the French they had to leave. The French, who may have been tiring of the expedition for other reasons, left by the end of '66.

In the ATL, the U.S. will likely be applying all those pressures, but the French have felt they have not played all their cards out yet.

I'm thinking this makes ultimate U.S.-French conflict more likely.

The Spanish probably withdraw from the Dominican Republic earlier than OTL also.
 
For d): Stonewall Jackson is killed at First Manassas by the bullet that OTL shot off a finger. This demoralizes his Virginia Brigade, which breaks. Yankee forces sweep over Henry House Hill, and the entire Confederate left dissolves in rout. The Confederate right retreats off the field, leaving about 2,000 prisoners in Union hands, who are subsequently marched through jeering crowds in Washington.

The knock-on from this: the first major battle of the war has ended in humiliation for the Confederates. All the bragging and gasconading of the "Fire-Eaters" about the martail superiority of "gallant Southern gentlemen" to "pasty-faced Yankees" has been exploded. Throughout the South, moderates argue for rescinding secession before there are more disasters and Union troops march through the entire region.

Kentucky declares for the Union, repudiating Governor Magoffin's neutrality. Tennessee withdraws from the CSA, followed by Arkansas. North Carolina and Georgia summon new state conventions to reconsider secession. In both state, a clear majority of Union delegates is elected. Lincoln promises a general amnesty for former Confederates, providing they swear renewed allegiance to the US.

And so on...
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What's the postwar Lincoln Administration like in both of your scenarios?

Anybody have a scenario where the early Union victory occurs in 63 or 64?
 
What's the postwar Lincoln Administration like in both of your scenarios?

Anybody have a scenario where the early Union victory occurs in 63 or 64?
In regards to an early Union victory in '64, a dual POD could be used here. Firstly, during the Vicksburg Campaign in May'63, Grant wins a decisive victory at Champion Hill through having better coordination with McClernand. IOTL, McClernand's 4 Union Divisions were unused until the last few hours of the battle as communication between Grant and McClernand broke down. Both Grant's and McClernand's couriers took the 2-hour long path instead of cutting through the countryside. ITTL, Grant's order to attack at 12:30 p.m. reaches McClernand, and Pemberton's army is heavily mauled and forced away from Vicksburg. Vicksburg just becomes a matter of marching.

With an early fall of Vicksburg, the IX Corps remains under Burnside's command and allows Rosecrans' original plan to go ahead without disruption from Halleck. The Confederate chain of command in the Army of Tennessee was self destructive. Wheeler seemed to be on his own program, Hardee was negligent in keeping Bragg aware of ongoing events, Polk was argumentative, uncooperative, and disruptive, causing near fatal delays for the Confederate army. With the Tullahoma Campaign kicking off in early June rather than late June, better weather allows Rosecrans to significantly damage, if not outright destroy the Confederate army in its retreat from Middle Tennessee at Duck or Elk River.

The second POD takes place at Gettysburg (assuming it happens). Instead of keeping Pleasonton as commander of the Cavalry Corps and Chief of Staff, Meade uses this as an excuse to relieve Pleasonton from his role as Cavalry Corps commander and replace him with John Buford. IOTL, Pleasonton failed to see the opportunity to barricade Jack's Mountain passes, both of which were narrow and have steep sides. Federal cavalry, supported by artillery, could have bottled up Lee's army there. Lee would have had two options.

a) Fight through the Federal blocking force
b) Taking a longer retreat route, probably the Cashtown pass

Either way, Lee would be delayed and provide Meade more time to get closer to the banks of the Potomac before Lee. Secondly, Pleasonton moved an entire Union cavalry division (Gregg's) to a location where it would be of no discernible use to the immediate pursuit. Finally, Pleasonton totally failed to coordinate the Federal cavalry at all. Buford's and Kilpatrick's efforts to interdict Lee were uncoordinated and disjointed. With Buford in charge, I suspect that Buford would have concentrated his cavalry to delay Lee and launch better efforts to interdict his retreat, we may see Meade on Williamsport first.

In the aftermath of ITTL summer '63, the Confederacy has two of its main armies heavily crippled with Richmond and Chattanooga in danger. In September 1863 Chattanooga will fall with any Chickamauga-styled counterattacks failing while Richmond is besieged by the Army of the Potomac. I doubt the Confederacy would make it past the summer of '64.
 
If you time it right you could get in before the National Bank Acts were passed. A living Lincoln might keep the USA off a specie standard.
 
In any event, you've almost certainly butterflied Lincoln's assassination. Which probably means he gets two terms, & Reconstruction is less a nightmare. Also likely the Klan doesn't originate.:cool:

This may be getting farther from the OP than intended...;)
 
Two ways that victory can be won earlier:
  • After Farragut captures New Orleans, approve his request to attack Mobile, AL, sealing off that Confederate port.
  • Instead of focusing on Charleston, prioritize the capture of Wilmington,NC first.
The earlier capture of these two ports (especially Wilmington) will make the blockade much more effective and starve the Confederacy of needed supplies.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Combined; with Richmond under a solid state of siege by high summer and the Confederacy bisected, there is a serious chance of peace talks concluding the conflict within 1862. Confederate Nationalism hadn't fully emerged yet and Lincoln had yet to take the final plunge on Emancipation.

So in this scenario the war is over before the signature of the EP, and the divergence is early enough that the provisional EP may not have been announced. And, the end of the war may appear close enough in sight that Emancipation seems more like it complicates the war effort than aids it?

Perhaps so, although Lincoln was already thinking about it, and various schemes had been floated by this time for compensated emancipation in the border states. And as confidence in success grows, there will at least be a louder and more assertive abolitionist wing of the Republican Party, even if it ultimately does not sway the White House or Congressional majority.

This creates some interesting and unexplored political territory for the postwar U.S.

For d): Stonewall Jackson is killed at First Manassas by the bullet that OTL shot off a finger. This demoralizes his Virginia Brigade, which breaks. Yankee forces sweep over Henry House Hill, and the entire Confederate left dissolves in rout. The Confederate right retreats off the field, leaving about 2,000 prisoners in Union hands, who are subsequently marched through jeering crowds in Washington.

The knock-on from this: the first major battle of the war has ended in humiliation for the Confederates. All the bragging and gasconading of the "Fire-Eaters" about the martail superiority of "gallant Southern gentlemen" to "pasty-faced Yankees" has been exploded. Throughout the South, moderates argue for rescinding secession before there are more disasters and Union troops march through the entire region.

Kentucky declares for the Union, repudiating Governor Magoffin's neutrality. Tennessee withdraws from the CSA, followed by Arkansas. North Carolina and Georgia summon new state conventions to reconsider secession. In both state, a clear majority of Union delegates is elected. Lincoln promises a general amnesty for former Confederates, providing they swear renewed allegiance to the US.

And so on...

Now this one, the gettin' it done in '61 does really seem to end the war and restore the old Union before abolition/emancipation is really on the table for sure.

Still, with the threat of secession tried and failed, the south has lost a major lever in intersectional negotiations.

In the aftermath of ITTL summer '63, the Confederacy has two of its main armies heavily crippled with Richmond and Chattanooga in danger. In September 1863 Chattanooga will fall with any Chickamauga-styled counterattacks failing while Richmond is besieged by the Army of the Potomac. I doubt the Confederacy would make it past the summer of '64.

Nice one for the '63 or '64.

I really do wonder about how the French in Mexico and the Spanish in Santo Domingo deal with an earlier victorious Union in these scenarios.

If you time it right you could get in before the National Bank Acts were passed.

I'm not sure when that was.

A living Lincoln might keep the USA off a specie standard.

Any particular reason you think Lincoln would be against a specie standard, especially under peacetime conditions?
 
Since I'm not really well-versed enough to comment on the likelihood of the outcomes,;) let me ask another about the postwar implications. If the war ends in '61 (or '62), does that leave the South in a position to say, "This really doesn't prove anything"?:eek: Does it effectively just set the stage for another war? (OTL, the duration pretty much put paid to the CSA.)

More than that, does it encourage the South to resist Emancipation? Indeed, does Lincoln postwar have the juice to enforce that? Again, the war is so abbreviated, it's more Shay's Rebellion or John Brown's uprising, & that, I'd say, makes imposing Abolitionist will problematic.
 
So in this scenario the war is over before the signature of the EP, and the divergence is early enough that the provisional EP may not have been announced. And, the end of the war may appear close enough in sight that Emancipation seems more like it complicates the war effort than aids it?

Oh, absolutely. OTL, at the end of August, Frémont, the Union commander in Missouri, issued a proclamation of martial law which also emancipated the slaves of all rebels. This generated outright panic among Border State unionists. One group in Louisville telegraphed President Abraham Lincoln

“There is not a day to lose in disavowing emancipation or Kentucky is gone over the mill dam."

Lincoln asked Frémont to revise his proclamation, and when Frémont refused, revoked the emancipation clause himself in early September.

Perhaps so, although Lincoln was already thinking about it, and various schemes had been floated by this time for compensated emancipation in the border states. And as confidence in success grows, there will at least be a louder and more assertive abolitionist wing of the Republican Party, even if it ultimately does not sway the White House or Congressional majority.

Perhaps, and perhaps not. A lot of people blamed the abolitionists for scaring the South into secessionism. The process of re-establishing the Union would be delicate, and any threat of emancipation would derange it. Abolitionists might have to "pull in their horns" for a while.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
For a pre Emancipation proclamation Victory, so, for example, the November 1861 option from the menu offered in the OP, does this factor come into play?

So one of the most common clichés of the last decade on this board has been that any independent CSA is doomed to become a third-world'ish failed state and has no reason to abolish by the 20th century or even within the 20th century. With that in mind, if the U.S. ends the war and reincorporates the south on the basis of the old Union, peculiar institution and all, does this somehow massively drag down the US compared to OTL? Do effed up institutions impose a cost in national functioning that seriously outweighs all the averted human and physical property losses of the war?
 
if the U.S. ends the war and reincorporates the south on the basis of the old Union, peculiar institution and all
Would that be acceptable to Abolitionists, or the North in general? IDK. I have a suspicion it wouldn't be.

If it is, tho, I also suspect slavery would die off fairly soon, as industrialization & mechanization catch up with the South. (I may be wrong...)

Is the result a persistent, deep slump ("financial panic"), akin to the one OTL around 1873 (IIRC)? Maybe. Is it a continuing problem into the 20th Century? I doubt it.

Is it conceivable slavery lasts past the 1880s? It may be, given the 20th Century's prison labor/prison leasing programs...:eek::eek::mad:
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Would that be acceptable to Abolitionists, or the North in general? IDK. I have a suspicion it wouldn't be.

If it is, tho, I also suspect slavery would die off fairly soon, as industrialization & mechanization catch up with the South. (I may be wrong...)

Is the result a persistent, deep slump ("financial panic"), akin to the one OTL around 1873 (IIRC)? Maybe. Is it a continuing problem into the 20th Century? I doubt it.

Is it conceivable slavery lasts past the 1880s? It may be, given the 20th Century's prison labor/prison leasing programs...:eek::eek::mad:

How strong would abolitionist power be in a reunited States in a pre EP victory? Especially considering that brings southern states and their congressional districts back into the fold in time to participate in the 1862 November congressional elections?
 
How strong would abolitionist power be in a reunited States in a pre EP victory? Especially considering that brings southern states and their congressional districts back into the fold in time to participate in the 1862 November congressional elections?
Strong enough to produce something like open warfare in pre-ACW Kansas, & provoke the slave states to believe they had to secede to keep slavery. I have to think ending slavery would be an Abolitionist condition to re-admission.

My question is, would Lincoln make it one? Or would he follow his prewar position, believing slavery will die naturally, & bring them back in? His stated goal was "preserve the Union", not "abolish slavery". That being so, I think he'd be willing, as PotUS, to accept slave states (if not happy about it privately, & he wouldn't be).
 
Top