Challenge: Extremely Prolonged US Civil War

Gan

Banned
As the title suggests, how can we make the American Civil War last much longer? By much longer, I mean at least a decade longer than OTL, although I'd like to see if we can push it for several decades. You can have it as an on-and-off conflict.

Bonus if you can go on long enough to end within a few years of 1900, extra if you can do it without any sort of breaks/pauses(ceasefires, temporary peace treaties, etc).

The only condition is that it still results in a final Union victory, otherwise let's see how long this can be stretched.
 
Guerrilla tactics. In OTL it wasn't popular or decent to engage in bombings or things like sabotage which is why you only get a handful of cases throughout the war. I believe Lee even spoke out against tactics like that. If it went the other way though I could easily see the Union army having to spend the next 40 years fighting a conflict more like a gigantic version of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Union troops stationed in every town, curfews, random bombings, reprisal hangings.
 
That's sort of what would have happened if they'd just kept fighting guerilla style like some proposed; cooler heads such as Lee prevailed, however.

I don't think that could have lasted decades, but some have said that if the Union had really enforced the most radical Reconstruction - with land redistribution, etc. - it would have led to a decades-long struggle. However, that means the South is already back in the Union. And, one could argue that the first does, too - I mean, just because there's a small band of outlaws calling themselves the CSA doesn't mean it's really a Civil War anymore, in some ways. At least not like OTL's ACW was.

However, presuming it coudl still be called that...

1864, General Lee is incapacitated by a heart attack. As he recuperates, Jubal Early takes a larger contingent to raid Washington, hoping to achieve a major victory since morale is so low with Lee so sick. (He did suffer a mild heart attack, it appears, late in '63, but the situation wasn't quite as bad then for his army). Also, Confederate plans go through to burn New York City. Lincoln is shot and wounded by a stray bullet during the attack on Washington.

Lincoln, in response to anger over the burning of Washington, chooses Benjamin butler as his running mate, eschewing calls from moderates to pick someone like Andrew Johnson (pointing out that Butler, too, is a Democrat). He has already been wounded, he feels he will survive the 2nd term. He ends up winning.

Southern agents are caught before they can get the fire going in New York city.

1865: Lee dies early in 1865. Longstreet is killed by a stray bullet. More radical elements of the ANV take over and fight to the last man before surrendering in May.

Lincoln is assassinated. Atzerodt (I think i spelled it right) is sent to kill butler because he's seen as the more dangerous man than Seward, with Butler, having been in the war, fights him off and is only moderately wounded.

As the South descends into guerilla warfare, Butler's plans include very radical Reconstruction. because of anger over this, plans are revived to burn NYC.

1866: The burning of New York city revives public anger at the South just as it had begun to wane a bit due to the intense guerilla warfare. Any attempts at the Klan are put down severely by Butler,a nd the attack on New York City - the fire gets out of control and becomes TTL's version of the Chicago Fire of 1871 - becomes so etched in peoples' minds that they voice support at the ballot box for the more raidcal of measures. Since Jefferson Davis has not yet surrendered, technically the Civil War is still on.

I'm just not sure how long this could be taken. Having them revive thsoe plans to burn New York city helps some, as the public can become disinterested and then regain interest, and without the image of Lee handing his sword to Grant there isn't one thing that people can point to saying "this is where the war ended." but, I'm not sure if it could be taken years.

I suppose butler could be President from 1865-1870 or so as a Union Democrat, then he's assassinated. His Democratic running mate (McClellan?) might slow things down, then Grant is elected as a Republican and serves 1873-1881, followed by Garfield for 2 terms as Civil Rights are enforced. But, unless the public continues to be enflamed agaisnt the South, it's hard to imagine them going decades. It couldn't take that long to totally remake Southern society - my guess is most of the bigwigs int he South would move to Brazil or someplace by the end of the 1870s.
 
If we're talking a conventional Civil War, as opposed to guerrilla war, the key would probably need to be in the lead-up to the war, as opposed to the war itself. Once the battle lines hardened, it's difficult to see how the conventional phase war could have gone on much longer and still ended in a Union victory.

Some stuff in the west could have kept the Union from cutting the Confederacy in half a while longer, but with Union control of the seas the Union was eventually going to pick off the Confederate ports, isolate the south from sources of supply in Europe and squeeze the south economically until the southern economy could no longer support a modern army. The union was going to have naval superiority unless the Brits or French came in, and if they came in, the Union probably wouldn't have ultimately won.

So the key would be to start the south out with more resources. A lot of border slave states didn't secede, though there was strong secessionist tendencies in them.

Missouri sort of staying in the Union was a close run thing. A different federal commander there in the lead-up to the decisive clashes could have been less effective and a big arsenal of 100,000 muskets could have ended up in Confederate hands, which would have probably put the state in their hands, at least for a while.

Kentucky might have seceded, given some local incident or a few key local leaders jumping a different way. There was initially considerable sentiment for secession, though I don't think it was a majority historically.

Maryland was very closely divided, but if it had seceded and actually gained military control of its territory, the Union would have probably not been able to hold Washington, though I'm sure they would have been able to come up with a temporary capital somewhere.

Put all three of those states in the Confederate column and the war would probably last considerably longer, though without gaming it out in detail you can't be sure. Lincoln thought that Kentucky was vital to a Union victory, and he may have been right. Strategically, having the three states in Confederate hands would have given the Confederacy more depth and presumably more manpower, though a lot of guys from both Missouri and Kentucky fought for the South anyway--maybe half the number that fought for the North. Kentucky in the Confederate column would have also made it more difficult for the Union in West Virginia, where pro-Union and pro-Confederate sentiment was pretty closely divided too.

Ultimately, the Union would probably still win. None of those three states had enough industry to counterbalance the north. They did have some key railroad junctions, and that might have made an important difference if the confederates had been able to hold onto them. Without gaming it through move by move, battle by battle, I'm guessing that the war might have lasted another year or two if the border states had seceded and made it stick, at least initially, with it taking longer to cut the Confederacy in half at the Mississippi and longer to impose a working blockade because of leakage through French-held Mexico to Texas.
 
extending the war, especially that long would be very unlikely, the war was already well beyond anybody's estimates, and by the end the reason the South was loosing was lack of resource. The only things I think think of that would extend it is industrialize the South before the war began, or active involvement from Britain and France on the side of the South.
 
1866 by latest. By many measures, the Confederacy punched above its weight. I think it is more likely to see the Civil War ending earlier - in 1863 or 1864 - rather than later. Anything longer than that is not realistic in my analysis.
 

Dorozhand

Banned
Slave-based industrialism takes hold in the south during the early XIX Century

-Factories and railroads are built using slave labor and growth manages to equal that of the north.

-The Boll Weevil comes in earlier and ravages the southern cotton industry. Southern planters are forced to diversify their crops, producing hemp, peanuts, rice, dyes, and even wine.

-The Civil War happens a bit later than OTL, around 1865. The CSA manages to take and hold Missouri, Kentucky, New Mexico, and Maryland. Washington is captured.

-A CS attack northwards comes within only a few miles of the new union capital of Philadelphia. The south is pushed back, but northern attacks prove fruitless.

-Trenches form along the fronts in southern Pennsylvania, Delaware, southern Ohio, and Kansas. Western New Mexico is a major mobile front, full of irregular, multisided warfare between the CSA and USA, and Mexican and Indian raiders.

-Both north and south put up a tremendous fight, and the war seems to go on and on without a clear winner.

-The CSA supports a Mormon rebellion in Utah, which wreaks havoc on Union lines in the far west. This is accompanied by a major Confederate attack in Ohio which takes Columbus.

-Confederate agents burn New York City.

-After the Mormon rebellion is brutally put down, the Union is incensed with a new resolve. The CSA is pushed out of Columbus in 1874 and major advances occur in the west.

-After the horrors of the Confederate slave-driven war machine are exposed in the north, the war is framed with a moral purpose.

-The late 1870s are characterized by the slow rollback of Confederate forces from northern territory. In 1879, Washington is retaken, which skyrockets Union morale. Confederate forces set up the "Lee Line" in northern Virginia and concentrate forces in the Ohio river to defend Kentucky.

-In 1881, the CS Navy is completely obliterated, and the Union sets up a blockade. In 1883, New Orleans in taken in a major landing.

-In the mid-1880s, the CSA begins to fall apart. A Union invasion of Texas prompts the state to secede from the Confederacy and negotiate a cease-fire. Missouri surrenders soon after, and when Texas begins a genocidal campaign against the Comanche in its territory, the Indian Territory secedes from the CSA, becoming the US state of Sequoyah.

-By 1886, Vicksburg, Mississippi is taken, and Arkensas surrenders. Louisiana is overwhelmed. At the same time, the line in Kentucky breaks, the CS abandons the state, and Union troops pour through. The front shifts to Tennessee.

-In 1887, Florida surrenders after a Union landing.

-In 1888, a massive slave revolt sweeps across the remaining CS states. By the end of the year the conventional armies have all surrendered.

-For decades afterwards, the remaining southern whites, now ultra-racist and ultra-nationalist wackos who have grown used to the twenty-three year war, continue guerrilla resistance.

-Reconstruction results in a complete transformation of southern society and an obliteration of the former white culture. The process of readmitting the former CS states only begins in the 1930s.
 

katchen

Banned
That's sort of what would have happened if they'd just kept fighting guerilla style like some proposed; cooler heads such as Lee prevailed, however.

I don't think that could have lasted decades, but some have said that if the Union had really enforced the most radical Reconstruction - with land redistribution, etc. - it would have led to a decades-long struggle. However, that means the South is already back in the Union. And, one could argue that the first does, too - I mean, just because there's a small band of outlaws calling themselves the CSA doesn't mean it's really a Civil War anymore, in some ways. At least not like OTL's ACW was.

However, presuming it coudl still be called that...

1864, General Lee is incapacitated by a heart attack. As he recuperates, Jubal Early takes a larger contingent to raid Washington, hoping to achieve a major victory since morale is so low with Lee so sick. (He did suffer a mild heart attack, it appears, late in '63, but the situation wasn't quite as bad then for his army). Also, Confederate plans go through to burn New York City. Lincoln is shot and wounded by a stray bullet during the attack on Washington.

Lincoln, in response to anger over the burning of Washington, chooses Benjamin butler as his running mate, eschewing calls from moderates to pick someone like Andrew Johnson (pointing out that Butler, too, is a Democrat). He has already been wounded, he feels he will survive the 2nd term. He ends up winning.

Southern agents are caught before they can get the fire going in New York city.

1865: Lee dies early in 1865. Longstreet is killed by a stray bullet. More radical elements of the ANV take over and fight to the last man before surrendering in May.

Lincoln is assassinated. Atzerodt (I think i spelled it right) is sent to kill butler because he's seen as the more dangerous man than Seward, with Butler, having been in the war, fights him off and is only moderately wounded.

As the South descends into guerilla warfare, Butler's plans include very radical Reconstruction. because of anger over this, plans are revived to burn NYC.

1866: The burning of New York city revives public anger at the South just as it had begun to wane a bit due to the intense guerilla warfare. Any attempts at the Klan are put down severely by Butler,a nd the attack on New York City - the fire gets out of control and becomes TTL's version of the Chicago Fire of 1871 - becomes so etched in peoples' minds that they voice support at the ballot box for the more raidcal of measures. Since Jefferson Davis has not yet surrendered, technically the Civil War is still on.

I'm just not sure how long this could be taken. Having them revive thsoe plans to burn New York city helps some, as the public can become disinterested and then regain interest, and without the image of Lee handing his sword to Grant there isn't one thing that people can point to saying "this is where the war ended." but, I'm not sure if it could be taken years.

I suppose butler could be President from 1865-1870 or so as a Union Democrat, then he's assassinated. His Democratic running mate (McClellan?) might slow things down, then Grant is elected as a Republican and serves 1873-1881, followed by Garfield for 2 terms as Civil Rights are enforced. But, unless the public continues to be enflamed agaisnt the South, it's hard to imagine them going decades. It couldn't take that long to totally remake Southern society - my guess is most of the bigwigs int he South would move to Brazil or someplace by the end of the 1870s.
Lincoln did initially choose Benjamin Butler as his running mate. Butler refused, calling the Vice Presidency "not worth spit". ITTL he decides otherwise, maybe seeing a real possibility that Lincoln will either be assassinated or more likely impeached. That could truly mean a Radical Reconstruction from the get-go. Perhaps even with southern states consolidated into a few states to reduce their congressional representation. Perhaps even with (shock! horror! a 15th Amendment that apportions congressional seats on the basis of actual votes cast in zero year elections rather than number of people counted in the census in order to punish states that prevent legally qualified people from voting. That sort of thing might really drive southerners to the wall--and to protracted armed struggle.
 
How about a sort of low-level intervention by Britain. Not going so far as to declare war on the union, but expressing a willingness to break the blockade and keep trading with the CSA. This lets the CSA continue to make a lot of money through exports, which it can use to pay for the war materials it so desperately needed. Maybe this increase in naval opposition prevents the US from being able to seize New Orleans, and convinces the Southern leadership that time is on their side, and that they should fight a defensive war rather than the riskier and more aggressive moves seen in OTL. Prevent someone as aggressive as Grant from getting control of the Union army and a sort of phony war could drag on for a while, with neither side making significant incursions into the other's territory.
 
How about a sort of low-level intervention by Britain. Not going so far as to declare war on the union, but expressing a willingness to break the blockade and keep trading with the CSA. This lets the CSA continue to make a lot of money through exports, which it can use to pay for the war materials it so desperately needed. Maybe this increase in naval opposition prevents the US from being able to seize New Orleans, and convinces the Southern leadership that time is on their side, and that they should fight a defensive war rather than the riskier and more aggressive moves seen in OTL. Prevent someone as aggressive as Grant from getting control of the Union army and a sort of phony war could drag on for a while, with neither side making significant incursions into the other's territory.

I like the idea of a phony war, it seems the most plausible so far. It just kind of drags on with out any real resolution or major fighting. That would extend it but I'm concerned with the level of war weariness in the North. There was a lot of people in the North already willing to let the South go their own way. If the war keeps dragging on and on without any real Union success Lincoln isn't going to be reelected and a Southern victory simply through the North's apathy becomes a distinct possibility.
 
The Ostend Manifesto doesnt get published and the US gets Cuba as a slave state, the Yucatan is also annexed when someone other than Nicholas Trist is chosen to make peace terms and say William Walker has better luck in Nicaragua as well. When the ACW comes around the Nappy III finds some reason to recognize the Confederacy (perhaps instead of a Mexican adventure) and keeps the fight going in Cuba/Yucatan/Nicaragua as a government in exile until he falls of his throne later than otl?
 
Union lose big at Gettysburg.

the problem with this is, it would either cause the Union concede defeat in a few months if they didn't grab the large victory they needed soon after, or the South would have run out of supplies in a few months forcing them to surrender. Whichever option is most likely dependent on how close to Washington the Confederates get.
 

Dorozhand

Banned
the problem with this is, it would either cause the Union concede defeat in a few months if they didn't grab the large victory they needed soon after, or the South would have run out of supplies in a few months forcing them to surrender. Whichever option is most likely dependent on how close to Washington the Confederates get.

If Bragg can pull off his invasion of Kentucky and form a defensive line on the Ohio River, the Union will definitely have tougher time of things in the west.
Prevent the capture of Vicksburg and the CSA can last a lot longer.

Alternately, if the Missouri State Guard can pull off a victory at Boonville and secure the state for the CSA, and early CS operations in Kentucky are successful, then the south will be in a much better position when things get ugly in Virginia.
 
Last edited:
If Bragg can pull off his invasion of Kentucky and form a defensive line on the Ohio River, the Union will definitely have tougher time of things in the west.
Prevent the capture of Vicksburg and the CSA can last a lot longer.

Alternately, if the Missouri State Guard can pull off a victory at Boonville and secure the state for the CSA, and early CS operations in Kentucky are successful, then the south will be in a much better position when things get ugly in Virginia.

I still don't see the CSA lasting that long, not without breaking the blockade, the CSA not only didn't have the production capacity for arms, it also had barely enough food production before the war, it couldn't wait.
 
Top