The "South' didn't exist. Neither did the 'North.' These are both shorthands for vague and amorphous coalitions of millions of people and thousands of decisionmakers and influencers of various kinds with shifting and often conflicting internal ideas. The way these coalitions settle on an issue is often quite contingent.
American civil war delayed until 1869, what are the consequences?
- Thread starter Crazymachines
- Start date
I noticed it's common for some us posters to write succeed instead of secede
is this a case of different spelling in american english?
IIRC it was Sacramento petitioning for a partition between the Anglo dominated Northern California and the Californio dominated Southern California
Nah. There's one Connecticut? city, forget which, that produced more muskets in one year than the CSA did during the entire war. The Industrial power is there by 1860, but it's a question of who commands and their strategy. It's entirely possible that OTL the CSA could've been knocked out in half the time, but the commanders were not exactly the best. And Lincoln had no qualms in replacing generals left and right if they weren't doing what he wanted quickly enough - which only exacerbated the delays and whatnot.
I mean TBF they were counter-seceding from Virginia after Virginia voted to secede. That's not exactly a normal scenario.
Frankly, that’s nonsense. The North was a lot looser and maybe didn’t “exist” as you put it, but the South 100% did. The South was a solid block of the slave states, with what became the border states being less solidly in the block, which consistently pushed the interests and cause of slavery. If you think it didn’t exist then you know very little about the time period.
Not the same thing. West Virginia seceded from a state in rebellion.
People bring up the Conneticut statistic, but its a lot less impressive in reality. Conneticut also produced more muskets than the rest of the Union. Because that state was the center of ALL gun production in the Union. And frankly, who cares? Name one major battle where lack of arms caused the south to lose. People drastically overrate how important Northern industry was to victory.
Last edited:
Brings up an interesting point if who is Commanding General the US Army in this later Civil War.
Winfeild Scott was just shy of his 80th birthday when he died in OTL in 1866, but was so fat and overweight he would have been mustered out anyway.
Besides him the General officers were David E Twiggs and Robert Patterson. Plus some other guy. All of them in their mid-to-late 70s.
Next generation down I think is clearly Lee, Joseph E Johnston, Albert Sidney Johnston. Bearing in mind that Lee is a lieutenant colonel but clearly the favoured man by Scott...he could be the Commanding General in 1869.
Does he still resign and go South...
Doesn’t matter. The scenario laid out had southern California trying to secede from a free, and loyal, state. That won’t fly.
My point is precisely that the industry isn't the issue if the original question is pushing back the event; it's already there. I said that to point out it is more about who commands.
This thread is missing something important. Part of the pressure of the 1850s that lead to the Republican victory in 1860 was the fugitive slave law. The Federal government was compelling free states to assist in the capture and return of escaped slaves. If the Dems win in 1860 and 1864, you have a real chance of a Northern secession movement. This is part of what caused the split in the Democratic Party in 1860.
What scenario? I just saw the map.
Edit: I think I see what you're talking about now. Jacobus' post? That seemed like more of a random conjecture than a scenario.
Last edited: