How could we have the Union secure occupation of the Confederacy 1, 2 or 3 years earlier than OTL's June 1865?
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.
When is this scenario (or is it two separate scenarios) resulting in ultimate Confederate defeat?
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.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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
Would that be acceptable to Abolitionists, or the North in general? IDK. I have a suspicion it wouldn't be.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...![]()
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.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?