Best Possible Confederate Victory?

[M79]

Heavy British intervention might come at the cost of abolition, gradual or otherwise. I believe the UK was ready to support CSA independence in 1862 in exchange for abolition but it fell through when the South said no. In many ways the leadership and inept diplomacy of its own diplomats were a key part of the downfall of the Confederacy.

An "ideal" victory scenario to me would depend on people who faded into shadow after 1862. Sibley needs to win in Arizona/New Mexico and create the illusion that the Confederates might have a chance to invade California. Perhaps he can work with Mormons in the area and the promise of an independent state for them if they aid the Confederacy in cutting off the West and its resources from the East as much as possible. Nashville needs to stay Confederate if at all possibleor barring that Bragg needs to be able to hold onto Kentucky, which in my opinion was looking to see who would win the war before most of her citizens would commit themselves heavily either way. Missouri would probably be a negotiating ground as would West(ern) Virginia, though the areas south of the Missouri River were held by the rebellion in the early part of the war. Western Virginia becomes more problematic as the northernmost counties wanted to secede, I could see Wheeling leaving and joining Pennsylvania for the sake of their people and simplicity of border control. Get some of the nothern Mexican states to join in as well, Nuevo Leon and Coahuila if not Tamapulias, Sonora, and Chihuahua could make Confederate states with seemingly little hope of Mexican recovery after Maximillian comes along. All in all I think you could get the original Confederate states with Kentucky and Western Virginia restored, Missouri is unlikely and would be split at the Missouri River at best. Arizona and the Indian Territories are not unreasonable and perhaps New Mexico if the West turns out very differently. Add anywhere between two and five Mexican states (not sure how Baja California plays out) and that's the best you get in any TL in my opinion. BTW I do not think the Confederacy could survive with anything less than the original 11 states that seceded, if they try they're likely bankrupt in 15-20 years or end up like a desperate banana republic with heavy dependence on a few cash crops and notable class division.

 

[Fiver]

I think we're all ignoring the OP's other requirement: that slavery be on the way out despite CSA victory.

We're ignoring it because it's flatly impossible. A South where slavery is on the way out is a South that never would have seceded in the first place.

 

[Johnrankins]

Heavy British intervention might come at the cost of abolition, gradual or otherwise. I believe the UK was ready to support CSA independence in 1862 in exchange for abolition but it fell through when the South said no. In many ways the leadership and inept diplomacy of its own diplomats were a key part of the downfall of the Confederacy.

An "ideal" victory scenario to me would depend on people who faded into shadow after 1862. Sibley needs to win in Arizona/New Mexico and create the illusion that the Confederates might have a chance to invade California. Perhaps he can work with Mormons in the area and the promise of an independent state for them if they aid the Confederacy in cutting off the West and its resources from the East as much as possible. Nashville needs to stay Confederate if at all possibleor barring that Bragg needs to be able to hold onto Kentucky, which in my opinion was looking to see who would win the war before most of her citizens would commit themselves heavily either way. Missouri would probably be a negotiating ground as would West(ern) Virginia, though the areas south of the Missouri River were held by the rebellion in the early part of the war. Western Virginia becomes more problematic as the northernmost counties wanted to secede, I could see Wheeling leaving and joining Pennsylvania for the sake of their people and simplicity of border control. Get some of the nothern Mexican states to join in as well, Nuevo Leon and Coahuila if not Tamapulias, Sonora, and Chihuahua could make Confederate states with seemingly little hope of Mexican recovery after Maximillian comes along. All in all I think you could get the original Confederate states with Kentucky and Western Virginia restored, Missouri is unlikely and would be split at the Missouri River at best. Arizona and the Indian Territories are not unreasonable and perhaps New Mexico if the West turns out very differently. Add anywhere between two and five Mexican states (not sure how Baja California plays out) and that's the best you get in any TL in my opinion. BTW I do not think the Confederacy could survive with anything less than the original 11 states that seceded, if they try they're likely bankrupt in 15-20 years or end up like a desperate banana republic with heavy dependence on a few cash crops and notable class division.

KY is a maybe, WV is flat out impossible after it secedes from VA as the area is mountainous as hell with the population strongly hostile to the idea of rejoining VA. Invading WV in some ways is about as smart as invading Switzerland. Missouri is also impossible as it was taken over in 3 months. If the population was pro-CSA it would have held out at least a year. AZ/NM is Twilight Zone as the Union could always send more troops to the area than the CSA could in this very sparsely populated area. The CSA had ZERO chance of getting land in Mexico as it doesn't have the army to conquer it or the money to buy it. No matter what they do they wind up a desperate banana republic with heavy dependence on cash crops and a notable class division.

 

[Fiver]

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.

That should go in the ASB section. For that many prominent Union men to go south and rise to prominence about as likely as flipping a coin and having land on its edge a couple dozen times. Far more credible is have pro-Confederate time travelers assassinate the Union’s best and brightest. Just imagine a timeline where the Rivington men weren’t incompetent bunglers.

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.

Changing things so the Confederacy win a battle they lost in OTL is not hard. The problem is most CSA victorious ATLs assume that is enough and then the Confederate-wank domino effect goes into action. Winning battles is useless if you cannot win campaigns. Winning campaigns is useless if you cannot win the war. Logistics and politics are also important.

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.

I could stand ten feet in front of a firing machine gun and be missed by every bullet, but anyone who claimed that happened to them would not be considered credible. The more wildly unlikely things in an ATL, the less credible it is.

“…the personages of a tale shall confine themselves to possibilities and let miracles alone; or, if they venture a miracle, the author must so plausibly set it forth as to make it look possible and reasonable.” – Mark Twain.

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.

If I used a fair coin, the odds of it coming up heads twenty times in a row are less than 1 chance in a million. If I use a two-headed coin that happens 100% of the time. “Forcing” things to go the Confederacy’s way becomes less credible the more you do it.

 

[AtriumCarceris]

That should go in the ASB section. For that many prominent Union men to go south and rise to prominence about as likely as flipping a coin and having land on its edge a couple dozen times.

No it's not.

Changing things so the Confederacy win a battle they lost in OTL is not hard. The problem is most CSA victorious ATLs assume that is enough and then the Confederate-wank domino effect goes into action. Winning battles is useless if you cannot win campaigns. Winning campaigns is useless if you cannot win the war. Logistics and politics are also important.

I'm aware. Just make that Confederate-wank domino effect happen. You may not like it. It doesn't matter. As I've said, things are not "realistic" by their adherence to OTL, they are realistic so long as what follows is possible from what happened before. A Confederate-Wank domino affect can be perfectly possible, just like it's possible to flip ten coins and get 10 heads. Each consecutive head doesn't make it any less likely a future head is going to happen. If you're goal is to make ten of them happen, then just do it.

I could stand ten feet in front of a firing machine gun and be missed by every bullet, but anyone who claimed that happened to them would not be considered credible. The more wildly unlikely things in an ATL, the less credible it is.

“…the personages of a tale shall confine themselves to possibilities and let miracles alone; or, if they venture a miracle, the author must so plausibly set it forth as to make it look possible and reasonable.” – Mark Twain.

I agree. These things aren't "miracles" they are possibilities.

If I used a fair coin, the odds of it coming up heads twenty times in a row are less than 1 chance in a million. If I use a two-headed coin that happens 100% of the time. “Forcing” things to go the Confederacy’s way becomes less credible the more you do it.

It doesn't matter what the probability of the set is. If I toss a coin, it has a 50% chance of coming up heads. Next time, it's still a 50 percent chance. And it will continue to be 50 percent no matter how many times I do it and no matter how many times heads shows up in a row. If the Confederacy wins a battle it had a 50% chance of winning, the next battle doesn't have it's Confederacy-wins probability lowered if the Confederacy won before. That's not how probability works.

 

[NothingNow]

It doesn't matter what the probability of the set is. If I toss a coin, it has a 50% chance of coming up heads. Next time, it's still a 50 percent chance. And it will continue to be 50 percent no matter how many times I do it and no matter how many times heads shows up in a row. If the Confederacy wins a battle it had a 50% chance of winning, the next battle doesn't have it's Confederacy-wins probability lowered if the Confederacy won before. That's not how probability works.

Probability yes, but reality, no. Every victory the CSA buys it time to win via diplomatic means. But those losses suffered will not be as easily replaced by the Confederacy as by the Union. Those casualties suffered in a victorious offensive will be sorely felt weeks or even days later as momentum slows and the Union counters. Thus continued victories across the board are highly improbable.

 

[Johnrankins]

It doesn't matter what the probability of the set is. If I toss a coin, it has a 50% chance of coming up heads. Next time, it's still a 50 percent chance. And it will continue to be 50 percent no matter how many times I do it and no matter how many times heads shows up in a row. If the Confederacy wins a battle it had a 50% chance of winning, the next battle doesn't have it's Confederacy-wins probability lowered if the Confederacy won before. That's not how probability works.

True, but you have to beat better than 500,000 to 1 odds to GET to the 20th flip in the first place. Odds are 524,288:1 against getting to that 20th flip in the first place which means it is overwhelmingly likely you never get to that 20th flip as you flipped tails at least once in the first 19 flips assuming a fair coin.

 

[Kevin R.]

Best-case scenario for a Confederate victory in OTL's Civil War would be to prevent Tennessee and the Mississippi River from getting overrun so quickly. This is the POD for a Confederate victory TL that I'm working on -- the Confederacy doesn't recognize Kentucky's secessionist government, allowing the state to stay neutral for longer and thus keep the Western Theater limited to the low-level fighting in Missouri. Instead, it's the Union that invades Kentucky in mid 1862 in order to strike at the Confederacy's soft underbelly once it becomes clear that the war in Virginia isn't going their way, causing pro-Confederate elements to flare up at Washington's violation of their neutrality.

As a result, Kentucky is pushed into the Confederate camp instead of the Union camp as in OTL, which, combined with a later start to the war in the west (giving the Confederacy another year to prepare for invasion), greatly stalls the Union effort in the Western Theater. By late '64, they're still bogged down in Tennessee and trying to push down the Mississippi River. As a result, a war-weary electorate boots Lincoln out of office in favor of Peace Democrats. At the treaty table, the CSA gets all eleven states that seceded initially, plus the western part of Kentucky, the southern part of Missouri, and the Arizona Territory. The Indian Territory becomes a nominally independent CS protectorate.

 

[Johnrankins]

Best-case scenario for a Confederate victory in OTL's Civil War would be to prevent Tennessee and the Mississippi River from getting overrun so quickly. This is the POD for a Confederate victory TL that I'm working on -- the Confederacy doesn't recognize Kentucky's secessionist government, allowing the state to stay neutral for longer and thus keep the Western Theater limited to the low-level fighting in Missouri. Instead, it's the Union that invades Kentucky in mid 1862 in order to strike at the Confederacy's soft underbelly once it becomes clear that the war in Virginia isn't going their way, causing pro-Confederate elements to flare up at Washington's violation of their neutrality.

As a result, Kentucky is pushed into the Confederate camp instead of the Union camp as in OTL, which, combined with a later start to the war in the west (giving the Confederacy another year to prepare for invasion), greatly stalls the Union effort in the Western Theater. By late '64, they're still bogged down in Tennessee and trying to push down the Mississippi River. As a result, a war-weary electorate boots Lincoln out of office in favor of Peace Democrats. At the treaty table, the CSA gets all eleven states that seceded initially, plus the western part of Kentucky, the southern part of Missouri, and the Arizona Territory. The Indian Territory becomes a nominally independent CS protectorate.

The most they get out of that scenario is all 11 states + KY (And even that is a stretch as it would have to get bogged down in KY for that to happen). Even Peace Democrats won't give up territory that the Union didn't lose, they would be MASSACRED in the next election if they did that.

 

[Elfwine]

And what happens from what came before should not be determined on the basis of "it might, theoretically, be possible that this happens, even if the odds are really high against it, therefore it happens"

Sometimes long shots pay off. Usually they don't, unless you're writing Discoworld alternate history.

 

[BlondieBC]

We're ignoring it because it's flatly impossible. A South where slavery is on the way out is a South that never would have seceded in the first place.

I disagree. I could see it being phased out over an extremely long time horizon. Given the choice between ending Slavery in 4 years or ending it in 50 years for British support, the second is the rational decision. It is more a matter of the Southern leaders believing that outside support was the only way to win than how strongly they preferred to keep slavery.

 

[Fiver]

I disagree. I could see it being phased out over an extremely long time horizon. Given the choice between ending Slavery in 4 years or ending it in 50 years for British support, the second is the rational decision.

If Confederate leadership was good on rational decisions, they wouldn't have started a war with a country that had twice the population and ten times the industry.

And they wouldn't have seen it that way until it was too late, they'd have seen it as ending slavery in 50 years in return for British help, or keeping slavery forever.

 

[M79]

KY is a maybe, WV is flat out impossible after it secedes from VA as the area is mountainous as hell with the population strongly hostile to the idea of rejoining VA. Invading WV in some ways is about as smart as invading Switzerland. Missouri is also impossible as it was taken over in 3 months. If the population was pro-CSA it would have held out at least a year. AZ/NM is Twilight Zone as the Union could always send more troops to the area than the CSA could in this very sparsely populated area. The CSA had ZERO chance of getting land in Mexico as it doesn't have the army to conquer it or the money to buy it. No matter what they do they wind up a desperate banana republic with heavy dependence on cash crops and a notable class division.

Given the choice KY will go confederate, the major Unionist areas in the state are along the Ohio River but dividing the state will be tricky at best. Missouri is going to be the same way though the state could be split at the Missouri River. In both cases the populace is not going to irritate large groups of armed people in their homeland, if nothing else they are as likely to see how the war goes and side with the likely victor, as one nation's ability to continue to exist is questionable. West Virginia as a state was a largely Union creation, and several of the counties in southern West Virginia were actually pro-confederate. Were they as pro Union as you suggest why not lead a strong force and link up with eastern Tennessee to divide the cis-Mississippi in two?

As for Mexican States, there were diplomatic efforts to claim these early in the war, one of which nearly came to fruition for Nuevo Leon and Coahuila but fell through at the last minute. Sonora might also have gone differently if not for one lucky reporter who broke a story before other diplomacy could take its course. Feel free to read up on the subject, it is actually an interesting if unknown piece of the Civil War. Arizona and New Mexico were also sparsely populated by *anyone*. Union reinforcement will also have difficulty reaching the area, especially if a Confederate victory in the area gives Utah any dreams of possible independence and causes Union worry about what territory they would eye if any.

Best chance for Confederate Victory: Late 1861 Trent Affair goes wrong, Confederates hold much stronger position, they grab at least two Mexican border states and force plebiscites in Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, and New Mexico Territory. Utah/Nevada might begin to dream of independence though it will *not* happen except under very unusual circumstances. Arizona and Indian Territory become property of Richmond and everyone is left spoiling for a sequal war, which is played out in proxy in 1866 in Mexico's Civil War.

 

[Johnrankins]

Given the choice KY will go confederate, the major Unionist areas in the state are along the Ohio River but dividing the state will be tricky at best. Missouri is going to be the same way though the state could be split at the Missouri River. In both cases the populace is not going to irritate large groups of armed people in their homeland, if nothing else they are as likely to see how the war goes and side with the likely victor, as one nation's ability to continue to exist is questionable. West Virginia as a state was a largely Union creation, and several of the counties in southern West Virginia were actually pro-confederate. Were they as pro Union as you suggest why not lead a strong force and link up with eastern Tennessee to divide the cis-Mississippi in two?

As for Mexican States, there were diplomatic efforts to claim these early in the war, one of which nearly came to fruition for Nuevo Leon and Coahuila but fell through at the last minute. Sonora might also have gone differently if not for one lucky reporter who broke a story before other diplomacy could take its course. Feel free to read up on the subject, it is actually an interesting if unknown piece of the Civil War. Arizona and New Mexico were also sparsely populated by *anyone*. Union reinforcement will also have difficulty reaching the area, especially if a Confederate victory in the area gives Utah any dreams of possible independence and causes Union worry about what territory they would eye if any.

Best chance for Confederate Victory: Late 1861 Trent Affair goes wrong, Confederates hold much stronger position, they grab at least two Mexican border states and force plebiscites in Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, and New Mexico Territory. Utah/Nevada might begin to dream of independence though it will *not* happen except under very unusual circumstances. Arizona and Indian Territory become property of Richmond and everyone is left spoiling for a sequal war, which is played out in proxy in 1866 in Mexico's Civil War.

They more or less were given the choice before the CSA invaded though both sides didn't really want that. Lincoln didn't interfere in KY at all until the CSA invaded. There were elections in June in which the Unionists won five out of six congressional seats and won 3/4 of the seats in the state legislature in Aug. Union troops didn't enter KY until Sept so there goes the idea that KY was pro-Confederate as the election would have went the other way if it was.When Bragg invaded he took along tens of thousands of rifles to arm Kentuckians that he was sure were going to swarm to the cause. He got maybe a few hundred.

Missouri was taken in 3 months so the Union Army is sitting on it in any realistic scenario. It WON'T leave under any remotely realistic scenario. The CSA gets whatever states it has its army sitting on but no more in a victory.

What became the state of WV seceded from VA 3 MONTHS after war broke out. Soldiers of West Virginia in the Union Army followed orders like all other Union soldiers and wouldn't invade East Tennessee by themselves. Until ordered by the Union Army to do so they would go to where the Union Army told them to go like everyone else.


A bunch of rich people in Sonora talked about selling the land but the locals would never accepted it and the CSA didn't have the troops to spare to put down a revolt. Besides it had no money to spare. It was going bankrupt as is (A big part of the reason it lost the war) and buying Sonora would have only made it worse. If it bought Sonora it would only lose that much quicker.


AZ and NM being hardly populated by anyone WAS the point. That means there won't be any locals to conduct irregular warfare or to point out passes or fords. In the long run it will come down to who can spare the most troops. This is a contest the Union will win EVERY TIME. Every soldiers sent to take AZ is a soldier that can't defend somewhere else and the South doesn't have soldiers to spare. If it tries a truly serious effort to take AZ it loses quicker.

Even if the Trent Affair spins out of control the CSA can't force the USA to hold plebiscites ANYWHERE. The most GB will do is break the blockade, it almost certainly won't send troops. If they send troops for some bizarre reason they are massively outnumbered, with a very long logistical line fighting a very unpopular war. The US would certainly have seized all British property in the US and sold it to the highest bidder. The Brits would have lost their very lucrative trade with the US . The US sold GB very large amounts of food during the war which means that the Brits would have had to buy it at considerably higher cost from someone else. The costs would have been passed on to the British public which would have resulted in food riots or lower profits for British employers who would have to pay their workers more or both. GB had a lot to lose and very little to gain by getting involved which is why they didn't do so.

 

[67th Tigers]

Even if the Trent Affair spins out of control the CSA can't force the USA to hold plebiscites ANYWHERE. The most GB will do is break the blockade, it almost certainly won't send troops. If they send troops for some bizarre reason they are massively outnumbered, with a very long logistical line fighting a very unpopular war. The US would certainly have seized all British property in the US and sold it to the highest bidder. The Brits would have lost their very lucrative trade with the US . The US sold GB very large amounts of food during the war which means that the Brits would have had to buy it at considerably higher cost from someone else. The costs would have been passed on to the British public which would have resulted in food riots or lower profits for British employers who would have to pay their workers more or both. GB had a lot to lose and very little to gain by getting involved which is why they didn't do so.

Except the British will send troops, quite a lot of troops. 200,000 British-Canadian troops on the northern border and a navy burning most of the major US industrial centres will rapidly change peoples minds. If a plebiscite in Maryland is the price to be paid for a return to normality, trade and food in the belly then the people will take it.

 

[Johnrankins]

Except the British will send troops, quite a lot of troops. 200,000 British-Canadian troops on the northern border and a navy burning most of the major US industrial centres will rapidly change peoples minds. If a plebiscite in Maryland is the price to be paid for a return to normality, trade and food in the belly then the people will take it.

NO WAY IN HELL is the RN going to burn down most US cities. For one thing a lot of them are inland and for another the Lord Palmerston wasn't Prime Minister Tojo. For a third it is incapable of doing that. Even with napalm dropped out of B-17s firestorms happened only on occasion. With more firepower than the 19th century navy COULD DREAM OF HAVING the RAF and the USSAF never totally destroyed a large city without the use of nukes or napalm.

 

[67th Tigers]

NO WAY IN HELL is the RN going to burn down most US cities. For one thing a lot of them are inland and for another the Lord Palmerston wasn't Prime Minister Tojo. For a third it is incapable of doing that. Even with napalm dropped out of B-17s firestorms happened only on occasion. With more firepower than the 19th century navy COULD DREAM OF HAVING the RAF and the USSAF never totally destroyed a large city without the use of nukes or napalm.

Yeah, unfortunately they were. The British knew it. The Union knew it. That's why the British were negotiating from the position of strength.

The US senate's report: http://archive.org/stream/cu31924083504187#page/n3/mode/2up

 

[Johnrankins]

Yeah, unfortunately they were. The British knew it. The Union knew it. That's why the British were negotiating from the position of strength.

The US senate's report: http://archive.org/stream/cu31924083504187#page/n3/mode/2up

It talks about possible shelling of cities but nothing about burning them to the ground which British forces were UNABLE TO DO. The US in WWII with firepower that was more formidible than the 19th century in its wildest fantasy could dream of having was unable to totally destroy a single major city without the use of napalm or nukes. German and Japanese cities were producing weapons all through the war even though they were being hit by 1000 B-17 bomber raids. There is NO way the 19th century RN was capable of doing what the USSAF was unable to do even in 1944!

 

[RamscoopRaider]

This is all assuming the British would be willing to burn the cities of a White, Christian, English speaking nation without a very strong causus belli

 

[Johnrankins]

This is all assuming the British would be willing to burn the cities of a White, Christian, English speaking nation without a very strong causus belli

Apparently 67thTiger thinks that Prime Minister Palmerston was little better than Adolph Hitler!