Also WV and TN are mine because my army is sitting on it is a pretty good argument, particularly with the weapons at the time. What does the CSA if Little Mac calls for a cease fire in place with the US fortifying the TN and WV borders? After a number of senseless, bloody one-sided battles the Georgians, Floridians and Texans will figure they aren't worth dying for.
Best Possible Confederate Victory?
- Thread starter Bexar
- Start date
Also WV and TN are mine because my army is sitting on it is a pretty good argument, particularly with the weapons at the time. What does the CSA if Little Mac calls for a cease fire in place with the US fortifying the TN and WV borders? After a number of senseless, bloody one-sided battles the Georgians, Floridians and Texans will figure they aren't worth dying for.
BlondieBC
Banned
In 1908 in British controlled Zanzibar, slavery was outlawed for any person born in 1908 or later. This act would not have ended slavery in Zanzibar until the 1970's, so it is a bit of a myth that the CSA would have to give up slaves now. For your TL, you might want to look at some better diplomatic performance by the CSA. For example, the CSA agrees in its constitution to end slavery with compensation for all person born 10 years AFTER the conclusions of a peace treaty with the USA. Have this done with in the frame of an diplomatic effort to get the UK to at least recognize the CSA. Not intervene necessary, but at least be more pro-CSA.
Next deal with the blockade. The CSA had many sailors and captains of ships but not many ships. This is because the officers sailed their ships to union harbors, resigned their commissions, and traveled to the South. A few ways to get around this problem, such as
1) The ships captained by CSA members sail their ships to CSA ports, then send the yankee sailors home.
2) Move many of the ships to the state control leading up to the war, where each state maintains it own coastal Navy
3) Or maybe some president before the war decides to base most of the American Navy in a port such as New Orleans, so the ships simply fall into CSA hands.
2) Move many of the ships to the state control leading up to the war, where each state maintains it own coastal Navy
3) Or maybe some president before the war decides to base most of the American Navy in a port such as New Orleans, so the ships simply fall into CSA hands.
Any of these POD allow a few benefits.
1) The CSA is not blockade, so it logistics is much better.
2) It can export cotton, so it finances are better.
3) Maybe the CSA can even bring in European mercenaries.
4) The CSA can do amphibious operations against the north. Major operations like taking New York are not likely, but taking things such as Martha Vineyard are possible with control of the seas. A few troops raiding and burning the coastline of the Union could tie up a lot of troops and divert a lot of troops from the attacks in Tennessee.
5) Also, Union has partial blockade, so much worse logistics and finances.
On ASB type TL, many things are ASB if the POD is a few days before the event you want to change, but easily doable if the POD is moved a decade or two back. I wanted to do a TL where the German had twice as many U-boats started the war, and I simply could have posted in the ASB section. But instead, I went back 14 years to get a POD that did the same thing, and settled for a much better trained U-boat fleet with better bases. Look below for the evolution of thought.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=225249
The TL is in my signature.
So I would suggest you think about what you want to happen early in the war for the CSA to win, the back into the POD. For example, maybe you want the CSA to do well in Tennessee, then think about what would have to happen for that to be true. So lets say it would be 100,000 more soldiers for the CSA, so then you ask, what would it take for the CSA to have that many more soldiers. Or maybe you want Britain to intervene in 1861, so you then need to decide what it would take to make the UK want to intervene. You might need a plan to eliminate slavery in the CSA constitution, then you have to work out what the POD is.
There are few things that are truly ASB, if you want to put the work into the TL. Now with the ACW, it is going to be hard to have a POD in early 1861 that causes the CSA to win by late 1862. But if you go back 5 or 10 years, you can probably find what you want. Also, you don't have to strengthen the CSA, you can weaken the USA.
And finally, sometimes a few small POD are easier to handle than one large POD. I had trouble coming to a situation where Germany could have 90 submarines in 1914, so I had a single POD and butterflies. Different leaders early on, means U-boat designs are 1-2 years ahead of OTL. I built lightly fortified ports in Dar Es Salaam and Douala. Then the most important change was better leaders and men, in my ATL, many of the commanders have 5-8 years U-boat experience, not 1-2 years. You might want to look at some option like this for your TL.
NothingNow
Banned
Yeah, any sort of shooting war would end with the CSA in a bad place.
Very negotiable. I doubt the CSA would be willing to try and fight a war to take Key West/Fort Zachary Taylor and the Dry Tortugas/Fort Jefferson, even if Fort Barrancas, Fort McRee Fort Pickens and the Pensacola Navy Yard are worth fighting over.
Agreed.
A "velvet divorce" in the 1860-61 period would be the best. A peaceful, negotiated separation agreed to by both the USA and CSA would:
(1) eliminate the possibility of war and set the stage for a positive relationship between the two nations immediately.
(2) Negotiated separation would also set the precedent for a peaceful solution to other tricky border issues, such as Southern regions like West Virginia that did not want to secede and slaveholding "Union" states like Missouri and Maryland that might have wanted to align with the Confederacy but who didn't want to participate in a violent rebellion.
(3) Negotiated settlement might also allow the USA and CSA to meet as diplomatic equals to discuss and resolve the status and future affiliation of western territories that had been a suorce of conflict over slavery and South/North affiliation.
(4) Finally, a peaceful secession leaves the door open for eventual reunification in the event that the CSA (or some of its constituent states) find after several decades that independence was not all they thought it would be - especially if the CSA eventually has to bow to worldwide diplomatic pressure and eliminate slavery.
(1) eliminate the possibility of war and set the stage for a positive relationship between the two nations immediately.
(2) Negotiated separation would also set the precedent for a peaceful solution to other tricky border issues, such as Southern regions like West Virginia that did not want to secede and slaveholding "Union" states like Missouri and Maryland that might have wanted to align with the Confederacy but who didn't want to participate in a violent rebellion.
(3) Negotiated settlement might also allow the USA and CSA to meet as diplomatic equals to discuss and resolve the status and future affiliation of western territories that had been a suorce of conflict over slavery and South/North affiliation.
(4) Finally, a peaceful secession leaves the door open for eventual reunification in the event that the CSA (or some of its constituent states) find after several decades that independence was not all they thought it would be - especially if the CSA eventually has to bow to worldwide diplomatic pressure and eliminate slavery.
The chances of which were nil. Neither side wanted it. The South fired on Star of the West BEFORE Lincoln was president.
Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Arkansas all seceded after Lincoln called for an army to invade the seven original Confederate states. As far as I know the majority of voters in all four of these states voted for secession, with significant minorities existing in north west Virginia and East Tennessee. Of course, there were reluctant Confederates (who only changed their loyalties after Lincoln announced his intention to invade their home states) and outright Unionists in every Confederate state, and especially in the Appalachian mountains, but they were minorities, and because of that I doubt that the victors would negotiate their sister states back to the US. Of course, it all would probably depend on exactly how the victory had come about, and the political sentiments in the north.
Perhaps some counties in western Virginia would be allowed vote on whether or not they wished to remain in the Confederacy, but East Tennessee is far too strategic an area for the Confederates to trade away, and it is too far away from most northerners for them to be willing to keep spilling blood if they've already lost the war overall.
As far as the original question goes, I'd say that the best chance for an eleven state Confederacy to survive is for the 1st battle at Manassas to be such a disaster for the Union that the Confederates are able and willing to reorganize shortly after the battle and march on an unfortified Washington D.C. In OTL the battle was a very near thing until Confederate reinforcements arrived, and even after the Union army routed the green Confederate formations were in no shape to mount an effective pursuit.
Maybe an quick capture of Washington would have been possible if the actual fighting is delayed, giving the Confederate forces in Virginia more time to train and organize, but that same time would be used in a similar fashion by the Union army across the Potomac...
Snake Featherston
Banned
Nope, actually a majority in all these states voted *against* secession prior to Sumter, and they never so much embraced secession as a goal in itself, but instead decided if it came to a shooting war their interests were served with the so-called CSA. The Union will give up West Virginia, which it conquered in 1861 when Hell freezes over. The CSA might get back West Tennessee if it's really lucky, the odds of it taking Kentucky by conquest are slim to none.
Bull Run was not in actual fact as close a battle as it's made out to be, it was a razor-thin victory for the CSA of their 18,000 troops against the Union's 18,000 troops. By the same token a Union victory requires much less changes to secure at the tactical level than did the OTL CSA victory. Even then with even number of troops actually fighting there was not army enough *to* pursue, which is precisely why the idea of pursuit only appeared in the postwar war of memoirs.
I'm afraid both losing slavery quickly and getting Arizona both seem hard to do. The South's going to be triumphant in a win. And Arizona was hardly cotton turf, which all the slave turf had in common - that's how WV came to be detached.
There's robertp6165's GO SOUTH, YOUNG MAN, in which Lincoln runs the South instead of the North; The lesser Seward becomes President. But the scenario ends there (wimp ;-)).
Seward wanted war with with Britain, to try to bring the South back by patriotism. But, I'm guessing it would've failed, and we would've had a two-front war to fight instead.
I'm in such a scenario, the South might have its starting turf via Northern exhaustion, minus West VA and the Mississippi. After all, the Navy was both able to be effective offensively, and would've been useless at sea once the RN.
It'd probably also be status quo on the Northern border, too, like 1812. Though, also, by the end of the war, the USN'd be an equal to the RN, if for not much time before we got tired.
There's robertp6165's GO SOUTH, YOUNG MAN, in which Lincoln runs the South instead of the North; The lesser Seward becomes President. But the scenario ends there (wimp ;-)).
Seward wanted war with with Britain, to try to bring the South back by patriotism. But, I'm guessing it would've failed, and we would've had a two-front war to fight instead.
I'm in such a scenario, the South might have its starting turf via Northern exhaustion, minus West VA and the Mississippi. After all, the Navy was both able to be effective offensively, and would've been useless at sea once the RN.
It'd probably also be status quo on the Northern border, too, like 1812. Though, also, by the end of the war, the USN'd be an equal to the RN, if for not much time before we got tired.
AtriumCarceris
Banned
I want to do a "best" Confederate Victory Timeline eventually. I wouldn't say "best" because you can do a lot for it, more than I plan.
My current idea is to do this by giving the Confederacy as many people as possible, so multiple PoD's starting with basically stealing Robert's Go South Young Man PoD, said timeline already been mentioned previously, and ending with about five other people who sided with the North, side with the South.
But there are other ways you could give a good end for the South. War is a tricky thing, and there are all sorts of accidents of random happen-stance that could hamper the North or boost the South, or both. Kill off key people, prevent key people from dying, cause a bit of random luck and make a key battle swing the other way. It's not hard. A commander could trip on a rock at a key moment and delay an advance just enough so the entire battle goes differently, which changes future battles just enough so a major Southern Victory happens down the line. You never know with these things. Just get creative. Find any opportunity you can. There are loads of them.
My current idea is to do this by giving the Confederacy as many people as possible, so multiple PoD's starting with basically stealing Robert's Go South Young Man PoD, said timeline already been mentioned previously, and ending with about five other people who sided with the North, side with the South.
But there are other ways you could give a good end for the South. War is a tricky thing, and there are all sorts of accidents of random happen-stance that could hamper the North or boost the South, or both. Kill off key people, prevent key people from dying, cause a bit of random luck and make a key battle swing the other way. It's not hard. A commander could trip on a rock at a key moment and delay an advance just enough so the entire battle goes differently, which changes future battles just enough so a major Southern Victory happens down the line. You never know with these things. Just get creative. Find any opportunity you can. There are loads of them.
And yet...not. The odds are stacked against the CSA in so many areas that simply causing a rout of some brigade at Stone's River doesn't turn into Tennessee Stays in Confederate Hands Through Out the War.
Hell, even a rout of the Army of the Cumberland doesn't do that.
It's something, but it's only the start, it needs to be built on - and building on success with such slim resources and such a stubborn opposition is going to be hard.
Hell, even a rout of the Army of the Cumberland doesn't do that.
It's something, but it's only the start, it needs to be built on - and building on success with such slim resources and such a stubborn opposition is going to be hard.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
If you want a clean PoD, and would like it to be after the guns start shooting in 1861, then your best bet is going with a classic -- the Lost Orders of 1862 stay lost, leading Lee to a victorious Maryland Campaign.
Since this is something of a contentious point, my case in brief: PM Palmerson and his government was more than ready to "step in as intermediaries" at this point, and one more CSA victory was all that would be needed to push him; Napoleon, meanwhile, was more than ready to intervene on the condition of British assistance; the Proclamation that would change the war (and henceforth make said European intervention impossible), and ultimately save the Union, had not yet been issued, and would not be in the wake of such a defeat. How soon this turn of events might lead to a Confederate victory, even among those who agree to its plausibility, is itself also open to some debate -- though I think one likely outcome is some major victories by the Peace Democrats in the midterms, sizeable enough that (at least upon the Congress' inauguration) the Lincoln administration would be unable to sustain the War effort.
Frankly, that's always bugged me a little -- if the CSA wins w UK and French help (likely IMO), then they're going to rely as much on the "protection" of Napoleon as much as on Britain in the years to come. Meaning Nappy can't lose a war w Prussia, which means no final German Unification.
So a CSA victory would probably be as much a German-screw as a US-screw...
Since this is something of a contentious point, my case in brief: PM Palmerson and his government was more than ready to "step in as intermediaries" at this point, and one more CSA victory was all that would be needed to push him; Napoleon, meanwhile, was more than ready to intervene on the condition of British assistance; the Proclamation that would change the war (and henceforth make said European intervention impossible), and ultimately save the Union, had not yet been issued, and would not be in the wake of such a defeat. How soon this turn of events might lead to a Confederate victory, even among those who agree to its plausibility, is itself also open to some debate -- though I think one likely outcome is some major victories by the Peace Democrats in the midterms, sizeable enough that (at least upon the Congress' inauguration) the Lincoln administration would be unable to sustain the War effort.
Frankly, that's always bugged me a little -- if the CSA wins w UK and French help (likely IMO), then they're going to rely as much on the "protection" of Napoleon as much as on Britain in the years to come. Meaning Nappy can't lose a war w Prussia, which means no final German Unification.
So a CSA victory would probably be as much a German-screw as a US-screw...
AtriumCarceris
Banned
And you know what? I say if you can't weave your way to it, you're just not thinking hard enough.
Well, if one does unto the CSA what Eurofed does unto the Roman Empire, yes.
If one is more concerned with what's feasible, not so much.
I would hate to say anything is inevitable, but some things would take such a convoluted train of events that it could never get going.
"I can imagine a scenario" doesn't mean "this scenario could be done without a POD so far back as to render the OTL situation at the time its trying to change things unrecognizable" - for instance, you could have the Byzantines controlling Anatolia in the 15th century, but not with a POD in Manuel II's reign and probably not even John V's (aka almost a century earlier).
Similarly, the CSA simply has so much against it that undoing that to the point of say, merely outnumbered in total white population by 2 to 1 would make the 1860 situation nothing anyone would recognize.
Last edited:
AtriumCarceris
Banned
And I still don't agree. If one situation follows from the other, it doesn't matter how different it ends up being from what actually happened. If you have a PoD in 1861, and then keep "forcing" things to end up going the way of the CSA, that's not a "convoluted train of events" in any meaningful way so long as it could have happened from the events preceding. Unlikely things have happened in History at many points. And the probability of a future unlikely thing doesn't change if past ones happen, no more than the probability of future coin flips change even if previous coin flips all ended up heads.
The problem is, there isn't a chain that would be sufficient to undermine the entire Union war effort from any POD.
For instance, one of my "favorite" alternate history scenarios - doubly so because it uses a POD I think is a perfectly credible one as the starting point.
http://www.changingthetimes.net/samples/USCW/unlost_cause.htm This doesn't violate any scientific laws, but it's impossible in all but the loosest sense.
And while the Confederacy does what does differently, the Union behaves identically, like a rigidly scripted AI, up until July 2 when the Army of the Potomac routs.
Nevermind things like Hampton not having much choice other than to ride pretty similarly to Stuart's OTL ride, because that would bog us down in a side argument - sufficient to say, even he arrives early, this does not work.
This is what happens when you "force' things to go the way of the CSA without regard for whether or not such a thing would happen if you had people deciding differently back in May.
And any POD that would cause such stupidity and cowardice as the Union shows here would cause the entire 1863 situation to look different than OTL to begin with. Hell, changing the Confederate leadership enough for this snippet would butterfly the entire ACW:
Now is where Davis gets his chance to shine. (NOTE – this is by no means the historical Davis – it is the one needed to seize this moment). The Southern fire-eaters want a Carthaginian peace. Davis understands that the North’s failure is one of will, not means. Let them off easy and the war stays won. Push it and Dixie could provide the missing Northern will to reignite the conflict.
Does this mean all Confederate victory scenarios are this bad? No. But that one can conjure this up doesn't make it a scenario that would actually work with the people involved or changes small enough not to cause a hurricane of butterflies that would eliminate what you're trying to alter.
If the Confederacy wins at Gettysburg, there are a number of possible scenarios, some good, some bad, some about equal to OTL. And from whatever one pursues from there, there are others. But all of those have to take into consideration the opposition to the "desired" outcome by the forces in play, both those of the opposition (in this case, the Union, those not in favor of the plans being proposed by Lee, etc.) and things like friction (in the Clausewitz sense) which will be desperately important to overcome and desperately difficult.
This is less about coin flipping as arm wrestling, and there's only so long you can take on superior opponents (or in this case, difficult situations) before getting worn out.
Last edited:
A recent though of mine
Hello again
I was wondering, if, say in an 1867 or so win where the south wins by exhaustion, similar to the scenario posted by Snake Featherson, could it be possible that the powers that write up the war ending treaty could put a clause into it that places, say, a fifty year limit on slavery? That is, that the European and federal meditators put in a clause that states the south must figure out a way to abolish the slave in a de jure (not necessarily de facto) manner? If noyhing else, as a inal screw you from the U.S. to the C.S.?
Hello again
I was wondering, if, say in an 1867 or so win where the south wins by exhaustion, similar to the scenario posted by Snake Featherson, could it be possible that the powers that write up the war ending treaty could put a clause into it that places, say, a fifty year limit on slavery? That is, that the European and federal meditators put in a clause that states the south must figure out a way to abolish the slave in a de jure (not necessarily de facto) manner? If noyhing else, as a inal screw you from the U.S. to the C.S.?