AHC: Quickly end the American Civil War in 1862 with a Union victory

Hulkster'01

Hulkster'01

I think the name explains itself but I do have some rules..

First, everything upto the attack on Fort Sumter is the same, (so Abe is still prez) and second, no outside interference! (North v. South only, no “1862” ok?)

Besides that, everything is fair play.

americancivilwarhomepage.jpg
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Not that hard actually. Have the Federal amateurs at 1st Bull Run manage to hold until the Confederate amateurs break (maybe Jackson catches a stray Minie ball) That alone costs The CSA half of Virginia, including the Shenandoah Valley. The CSA without Virginia would be vastly weaker. Add in the battles in the West, which were likely to be similar to IOTL in result if not in detail, with the South likely having slightly less personnel and equipment, and the CSA is in a really bad place by mid-1862.
 

Roger II

Minor other note: If the front is further out from Washington and closer to Richmond, that gives both sides a lot more room to work with without having to defend their capitals. So you'll have fewer concerns about trying to protect Washington and maybe less need to keep forces available to defend DC.
 
NHBL

NHBL

Sadly, a short Civil War would very likely extend slavery, since the Emancipation Proclamation was later in the war, so Union advances didn't free anyone.
 

FillyofDelphi

Banned
NHBL said:
Sadly, a short Civil War would very likely extend slavery, since the Emancipation Proclamation was later in the war, so Union advances didn't free anyone.
Click to expand...

Well, the concept of "Contrabands" was already a legal fact by 1861 with the Confiscation Act, so already-escaped slaves WERE already getting paid and were essentially free. I doubt the Federal government would re-enslave them post-war, so there'd at least be a decline in numbers. However, would an extended slavery with a more gradual, organized, and widely sympathized (rather than being tainted by the brush of being a revenge/war measure) emancipation really be so sad though? In the short term, certainly, but since a Union victory would still establish the idea of Federal supremacy (and make it very clear the southern aristocrats coulden't retain their system via force of arms), it'd probably be better for race relations and the lives of all involved in the long run (A less wrecked Southern economy means less resentment from poor whites competing with newly-freed blacks, especially those with Freeman's Bureau assistance, for limited resources at the bottom of the economic rung) if emancipation were enacted via legislation and systematically implimented on agreed upon terms.
 

ProfJets

By all rights Lee's army should have been destroyed at Antietam; if McClellan is much more aggressive in that battle than he can waltz into Richmond and effectively end the war before the end of 1862.
 
History Learner

History Learner

Banned
Everyone keeps saying Bull Run, but I don't know why; the same reasons the Confederates failed to capitalized on their victory IOTL will be affecting the Federals here, in that they have an extremely Green force that cannot be expected to rapidly move to occupy strategic terrain before the defenders can rally. Manassas is over 100 miles from Richmond, after all.

Best way to have this happen is to have the Virginia fail to dislodge her ram from the side of the Cumberland, resulting in said ironclad going down with the Federals. Once the Monitor arrives, they (local U.S. fleet) can begin clearing out the remaining Confederates, thus denying the Confederates the military stores in the area they had time to evacuate IOTL as well as securing the James River for use by McClellan's forces for the entirety of the campaign. Should the Army of the Potomac cut Petersburg, as Grant attempted to do in 1864, then the Confederates will have no choice but to abandon most of Virginia and her industries. Further to the West, IOTL the Confederates almost didn't reinforce Vicksburg after the fall of New Orleans; presume in 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, probably about the same time as the Confederates are forced to abandon Eastern Virginia. Thus, by the high summer of 1862, the Confederacy would be in the position of having lost its capital, most of its industry and would be bisected. In such a scenario I have no doubt they would begin peace talks thereafter, in order to end the war with the extremely lenient terms Lincoln still offered at this point.
 

Md139115

Banned
History Learner said:
Everyone keeps saying Bull Run, but I don't know why; the same reasons the Confederates failed to capitalized on their victory IOTL will be affecting the Federals here, in that they have an extremely Green force that cannot be expected to rapidly move to occupy strategic terrain before the defenders can rally. Manassas is over 100 miles from Richmond, after all.

Best way to have this happen is to have the Virginia fail to dislodge her ram from the side of the Cumberland, resulting in said ironclad going down with the Federals. Once the Monitor arrives, they (local U.S. fleet) can begin clearing out the remaining Confederates, thus denying the Confederates the military stores in the area they had time to evacuate IOTL as well as securing the James River for use by McClellan's forces for the entirety of the campaign. Should the Army of the Potomac cut Petersburg, as Grant attempted to do in 1864, then the Confederates will have no choice but to abandon most of Virginia and her industries. Further to the West, IOTL the Confederates almost didn't reinforce Vicksburg after the fall of New Orleans; presume in 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, probably about the same time as the Confederates are forced to abandon Eastern Virginia. Thus, by the high summer of 1862, the Confederacy would be in the position of having lost its capital, most of its industry and would be bisected. In such a scenario I have no doubt they would begin peace talks thereafter, in order to end the war with the extremely lenient terms Lincoln still offered at this point.
Click to expand...

I actually thought about doing this TL. An even better POD would be to have someone on Cumberland realize that they can drop their port anchor directly through Virginia's false forepeak and chain her it the sinking ship.
 

eltf177

A Union victory at Shiloh would help, if they did better at both First Manassas and Shiloh that could easily shorten the war...
 
Hulkster'01

Hulkster'01

How would a shorter Civil War affect Abraham Lincoln? I’d guess he would be less depressed during his time in office and would run again in 1864. (Speaking of, if McClellan doesn’t run as a Democrat then who does?) And would John Wilkes Booth still assassinate Lincoln? Will Hannibal Hamlin become the 17th President instead of Andrew Johnson? How would the civil rights movement be effected?
 

FillyofDelphi

Banned
Hulkster'01 said:
How would a shorter Civil War affect Abraham Lincoln? I’d guess he would be less depressed during his time in office and would run again in 1864. (Speaking of, if McClellan doesn’t run as a Democrat then who does?) And would John Wilkes Booth still assassinate Lincoln? Will Hannibal Hamlin become the 17th President instead of Andrew Johnson? How would the civil rights movement be effected?
Click to expand...

I imagine he's far less likely to be assisinated; if for no other reason that a quick victory gives the radicals less time and less to... stew in (Is that the right turn of phrase?). The Republicans would definatively tap him for a 2nd term which he'd likely win in a landslide, especially if he manages to earn some Southern support by moderating the Radical wing of his party during reconstruction.

Civil Rights immediately moves more slowly, as a surviving Lincoln, less political/national bitterness in general, Northern Democrats with a more intact reputation, no need to invoke mass and immediate (not to mention disruptive and ill-organized) Emancipation as a war measure, ect. Its probably better for all sides in the long run to avoid the rise of radicalism post-war and huge swings in the "Lost Cause" narrative's strength. The biggest difference, I imagine, is going to be in the political culture post-war: The Civil War is going to be remembered far more as a war for the Union and solidifying the structure of American Federalism rather than having that discussion covered by the slavery issue, the seperate focuses between the morale and broader structural issues making both's final decisions more clear.
 

Derek Jackson

Here is a thought. A more aggessive Union comander at Antietham/ Sharpsburg traps the Confederates against the Potomac. Lincoln still issues the Emancipation proclamation. The slaveholder panic and rejoin the Union knowing that under the terms of Lincoln's declaration they do not lose their human property
 

TRH

Derek Jackson said:
Here is a thought. A more aggessive Union comander at Antietham/ Sharpsburg traps the Confederates against the Potomac. Lincoln still issues the Emancipation proclamation. The slaveholder panic and rejoin the Union knowing that under the terms of Lincoln's declaration they do not lose their human property
Click to expand...

Honestly, from what I know, the Confederate government was so ramshackle and authoritarian that, as insane as it sounds, even slaveholders would probably fail at swaying them to surrender. The CSA certainly implemented plenty of war measures that were inimical even to planter interests because they seemed necessary for the war effort.

Of course, if the advancing Union army captured the CSA Congress before they could escape Virginia, then that solves that problem.
 
StephenColbert27

StephenColbert27

Banned
eltf177 said:
A Union victory at Shiloh would help, if they did better at both First Manassas and Shiloh that could easily shorten the war...
Click to expand...
Eh? Pretty sure the Union won at Shiloh. Do you mean a more complete victory, instead of just a defensive victory that drives off the Rebels?
Overall best Pod...Hm. I would probably say a successful Peninsula Campaign or slightly better luck/more aggressive Little Mac at Antietam. Either of those things would have tipped the balance. If the Peninsula Campaign takes Richmond, that pretty much does away with the South's most important industrial center. It will become increasingly more difficult for them to fight as long as they don't have it. A better Antietam might just destroy the Army of Northern Virginia. Either would be decisive, the former in the long term, the latter in the short term.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top