American Civil War in the 1880s or 1890s: What Happens?

Rhand

Banned
So, I was making a map/timeline in which the Franco-American War in 1798 becomes a bigger deal. One of the side effects ("butterflies," I guess) of this is that the slavery matter is sorted out by a Missouri Compromise-esque law and procedures for admitting states that defuses the slavery situation for years longer than in OTL. Furthermore, a different party system means that in 1860, there's no specific party with a "Free Soil" agenda to scare the South. Thus, the South stays with the Union longer than in OTL.

Still, the issue of slavery comes to a head towards the end of the 19th century, as there's no real compromise on the issue of fugitive slaves, the abolitionist movement is still around, and there's growing "antislavery" (more anti-planter and class resentment, I guess) sentiment in parts of the Upper South as well.

So the South secedes. For convenience, we'll say that the same states secede as in OTL, and as in OTL, strong Unionist feelings remain in large parts of Virginia and Tennessee. We'll also assume that the states followed the same development paths as they did in OTL.

How will the new civil war look like with all the new military technologies that have been invented since the 1860s? Do you think the South can win?
 
The later the Civil War, the more the South gets curb stomped. The population base of the north was growing faster than the south, and the economic productivity per worker of the north grows faster than the south the more the industrial revolution progresses.
 
Honestly, I don't think secession happens under those circumstances. Either slavery is starting to look like an economic albatross to many, many influential southerners by that point, or else its transitioned effectively into basic industry, a la Decades of Darkness, in which case its scaring the bejeebus out of many southern white voters.
 
The CSA gets kicked to the curb. The balance of power is even more lopsided in the favor of the Union. It lasts maybe two years.
 
So, I was making a map/timeline in which the Franco-American War in 1798 becomes a bigger deal. One of the side effects ("butterflies," I guess) of this is that the slavery matter is sorted out by a Missouri Compromise-esque law and procedures for admitting states that defuses the slavery situation for years longer than in OTL. Furthermore, a different party system means that in 1860, there's no specific party with a "Free Soil" agenda to scare the South. Thus, the South stays with the Union longer than in OTL.
The problem is that the demands of the North and the South were fundamentally incompatible, and that the opening of the West to settlement exacerbated the whole thing. Sure, you could try a few more Missouri Compromise deals, but they were bandaids on a festering sore. I don't see how you can postpone the Civil War much without doing away with it completely.
 
I'm just going to note that this it what I'm working on in my TL and I would say that on balance, the north has even more of a preponderance in industry and population, but if the south figures out how to use the new power of the defensive (in other words, a war-long Overland Campaign :eek:) then it could be a very unpleasant war.
 
I'm just going to note that this it what I'm working on in my TL and I would say that on balance, the north has even more of a preponderance in industry and population, but if the south figures out how to use the new power of the defensive (in other words, a war-long Overland Campaign :eek:) then it could be a very unpleasant war.

The problem for the South in such a war is logistics. The North has the industrial capacity to make and deliver large quantities of both weapons and ammo the South however.... Machine guns go through a lot of ammo fast and I doubt the South has the capacity to make enough ammo to keep a lot of machineguns loaded but the North would.
 
The more time goes on the more slavery starts to disappear Southwards. By the time the Civil War started slavery was pretty much moribund in Delaware and Maryland and was fast vanishing from Kentucky. Missouri was a giant mess. By the 1880’s I’m betting that more modern farming techniques have appeared and slavery is vanishing from Tennessee and Virginia, perhaps even from parts of North Carolina and upper Arkansas. As a result if the Civil War gets delayed to the 1880’s – 90’s then the Confederacy starts off a lot smaller and a lot more doomed to rapid defeat.
 
I don't see the slavers giving up slavery without some kind of fight or major, major consolation, at least as long as there's any kind of abolition movement (which of course there would be). A lot of it, IMHO, was sheer bloody mindedness.

It's possible to have a slow transformation into a sharecropping/peonage system, aka slavery in all but name, but I think American politics generally is too bombabstic for such a practical solution to come about. That's why there was a civil war in OTL.
 

Honestly, if your goal is the CSA winning, the earlier the better. The longer you prolong the inevitable, the more of an advantage the North has (manpower, tech, production). If you can prevent all the can-kicking with the slavery debate in Congress (reduce the Southern stranglehold on the discussion, repeal the Gag Rule, something), you can force the issue sooner and maybe the South secedes sooner than OTL. Ideally, you want the South to secede -before- Great Britain outlaws slavery (1833), to get the British conservatives on their side and maybe France, but that's probably too early. Also, the whole 'King Cotton' thing needs to be a surprise----by broadcasting and openly threatening to cut off cotton trade with Europe, Europe had time to prepare (British cotton production in India, French in Egypt).
 
Honestly, if your goal is the CSA winning, the earlier the better. The longer you prolong the inevitable, the more of an advantage the North has (manpower, tech, production). If you can prevent all the can-kicking with the slavery debate in Congress (reduce the Southern stranglehold on the discussion, repeal the Gag Rule, something), you can force the issue sooner and maybe the South secedes sooner than OTL. Ideally, you want the South to secede -before- Great Britain outlaws slavery (1833), to get the British conservatives on their side and maybe France, but that's probably too early. Also, the whole 'King Cotton' thing needs to be a surprise----by broadcasting and openly threatening to cut off cotton trade with Europe, Europe had time to prepare (British cotton production in India, French in Egypt).

Pretty much agreed here. The later they seceede, the sooner they'll get mudstomped. If they seceede in the 1850's, on the other hand, it'll be more likely for them to win.
 
Northern victory is probably a given barring foreign intervention, which is both unlikely and possibly irrelevant given the inherent difficulties in invading the continental United States, the north is more industrialized and has an even larger population advantage in the 1880s-1890s than 1861.

With the Third Republic in power in Paris for 20 years by 1890? And the Great Reform Act of 1867 being the Law of the Land in Britain for a generation? North America isn't seen by the British and French as Zululand or French Guyana.

While one could expect the "Arizona Territory" to probably go with the South (along with Oklahoma/the Indian Territory), pretty much every other territory and new state will wind up with the Union. And by the late 1880s to early 1890s, that's virtually the entire Lower 48 outside the Confederacy and the American SW.

That said, this time period is where technology begins favoring the defender, so the South has an advantage here, but probably not a decisive one.

It might be more brutal than OTL's ACW given more machine guns and possibly trench warfare, could lead to an earlier understanding of how 19th century tactics and 20th century weapons don't mix.

If the South couldn't make reliable Henry, Spencer, or even Sharps rifles in the ACW, I don't think a separation of 20 years will give them the industrial revolution needed for machine guns, which were the absolute state-of-the-art weaponry at that time. Gatling guns, maybe. Poor Gatling guns.

The problem is that the demands of the North and the South were fundamentally incompatible, and that the opening of the West to settlement exacerbated the whole thing. Sure, you could try a few more Missouri Compromise deals, but they were bandaids on a festering sore. I don't see how you can postpone the Civil War much without doing away with it completely.

Good point. In fact, since the end of the John Adams Administration, the South managed to get either a Southern President, a Southern Vice-President, or Southern-sympathetic Northerner President clean through to the end of the James Buchanan Administration. That's 13 for 13. Quite a run.

Unfortunately it also led to the idea that somehow the Executive Branch "belonged" to the South. Like the Supreme Court and the US Senate.:rolleyes:

Sound familiar?:p

I'm just going to note that this it what I'm working on in my TL and I would say that on balance, the north has even more of a preponderance in industry and population, but if the south figures out how to use the new power of the defensive (in other words, a war-long Overland Campaign :eek:) then it could be a very unpleasant war.

Perhaps. There is the imponderables of American defense spending, especially naval, with the country not suffering a crushing ACW debt from the 1860s, and how much will America continue with its preoccupation with its own development? With all these resources freed up, you could see a quicker settlement of the Old West, such that the Plains Indian Wars end much more bloodily for our Native Americans.:(

The problem for the South in such a war is logistics. The North has the industrial capacity to make and deliver large quantities of both weapons and ammo the South however.... Machine guns go through a lot of ammo fast and I doubt the South has the capacity to make enough ammo to keep a lot of machineguns loaded but the North would.

Agreed. Guns are one thing, but oh those bullets. IIRC, Shiloh for the South was crippling in that they lacked enough powder and bullets for finishing the battle on the second day.

The more time goes on the more slavery starts to disappear Southwards. By the time the Civil War started slavery was pretty much moribund in Delaware and Maryland and was fast vanishing from Kentucky. Missouri was a giant mess.

Delaware would have abolished it long ago were it not for the Missouri Compromise.

Central Maryland was still fire-eating pro-slavery. Otherwise you wouldn't have Mosby's Confederacy.

Kentucky didn't pass the 13th Amendment until 1976! That 19- not 18!:mad: Kentucky was a more Unionist state, but it was also a "One Drop Rule" state. Not exactly Abolitionist.

In 1850 Missouri was a solid Slave State. Then after a decade of flooding German refugees settling in, 2/3rds of the state was solid Abolitionist and 1/3rd Pro-Slavery. Unlike most other states, Missouri was more of a solid dividing line (like Virginia), with the southern 1/3rd being the Pro-Slavery portion.

By the 1880’s I’m betting that more modern farming techniques have appeared and slavery is vanishing from Tennessee and Virginia

In Knoxville TN, the future WV, and SW VA, yes. The rest of these states were too tied up in the peculiar institution. It wasn't all about field hands. There's House Slaves, Tradesmen, and...women.:mad: THAT last issue will keep slavery going forever, no matter HOW many tractors get bought.

perhaps even from parts of North Carolina

In their defense, during Secession the NC governor openly admitted it was not by choice but by recognition of the facts of geography. Which alone amoung the Southern states he tried to surrender his state to Sherman when Uncle Billy reached the state line. Sherman refused, but his boys DID manage to behave themselves:) in NC compared to what they did to SC and GA.:eek:

and upper Arkansas.

I doubt that very much. Northern Arkansas in the 1880s-1890s could probably convince itself to join secession just on antipathy alone.

As a result if the Civil War gets delayed to the 1880’s – 90’s then the Confederacy starts off a lot smaller and a lot more doomed to rapid defeat.

I think it also matters just how much of a CF the Confederacy makes of Secession. Like, do they kill any number of Union troops "trapped behind enemy lines", or something even crazier than that? IDK.

Pretty much agreed here. The later they seceede, the sooner they'll get mudstomped. If they seceede in the 1850's, on the other hand, it'll be more likely for them to win.

Particularly as the opposition parties are in such a mess. HOW many parties were created and destroyed from 1840-1856?
 
The more time goes on the more slavery starts to disappear Southwards. By the time the Civil War started slavery was pretty much moribund in Delaware and Maryland and was fast vanishing from Kentucky. Missouri was a giant mess. By the 1880’s I’m betting that more modern farming techniques have appeared and slavery is vanishing from Tennessee and Virginia, perhaps even from parts of North Carolina and upper Arkansas. As a result if the Civil War gets delayed to the 1880’s – 90’s then the Confederacy starts off a lot smaller and a lot more doomed to rapid defeat.


Delaware was a slave state only on paper. Slavery was alive and well in Maryland, Kentucky wasn't dependent on cotton plantations and was selling slaves south, not freeing them, and Missouri was a complicated situation driven by demographics, not economics.

There's no chance whatsoever of slavery ending anywhere in the South in the 19th century. Keep in mind that slavery's main successor system, sharecropping, survived just fine into the 1930s. It wasn't until the late 1930s with the invention of the cotton picker that mechanization became relevant to cotton production.

If secession came in the 1880s, 1890s, or 1900s, the same states would join.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
The best time for a Southern Victory would be plausibly in the 1830s or maybe the 1840. This was the period of time when the army was at its most Southern in composition, the population advantages of the North were not as clear, and above all, the industrial advantages of the North were not as clear yet. Railroads likely shortened the Civil War by 2 years, and there would be few railroads to take advantage of in this situation.

This truly could be a war decided with one big battle. And it would be a battle that the South could win.

The later time goes on, the more the South is likely to get curbstomped. By the 1880s, this is especially true.

However, it is worth wondering if increased immigration to the South from Europe might have happened if not for the devastation of the Civil War and Reconstruction. Jobs would have been available to immigrants if slavery was slowly dying, after all.
 

iddt3

Donor
You could end up with a much more "Radical" Civil War. Instead of Republicans triggering the fight, it could be a proto socialist "Working Man's" party that has more cohesive ideological opposition to slavery, but also very much wants to break the planters, uplight the poor southern whites, and is none too fond of the Northern Industrialists. It could make things more interesting anyway.
 
Top