Civil war delayed by 10 years

Worse for the South. The Union was not heavily industrialized in 1861, a lot of small workshops and such. By 1871, there will be tons of factories and immigrants to throw into the meat grinder.
 
how about a 9 year delay, so it coincides with the franco-prussian war?

that could ad some interesting political twists
 
Worse for the South. The Union was not heavily industrialized in 1861, a lot of small workshops and such. By 1871, there will be tons of factories and immigrants to throw into the meat grinder.

The counterpoint to that, though, is how this alternate US would develop during those 10 years compared to the OTL.
 
Worse for the South. The Union was not heavily industrialized in 1861, a lot of small workshops and such. By 1871, there will be tons of factories and immigrants to throw into the meat grinder.


Also more railroads, so more troops can be moved faster. The South may also have more, but the side with greater manpower will benefit more, as it can mobilise its greater strength that much more quickly..

Also it may not be the same South. If there are more north-south rail links, Kentucky may be Union from the get-go, and secession in, say, Tennessee may be aborted as it was OTL in Missouri. Conceivably in Virginia as well. That could mean a much shorter war.
 
Breech loaders probably are in regular supply, along with better artillery. Harder to manufacture, which hurts the South, but probably better suited to the tactical defense. Napoleonic tactics won't work as well for either side; wonder how everybody adapts.

The fact that artillery can decide a battle more easily -- assuming you have a one-sided advantage like the Prussians had in 1871 -- will make this war really suck for the South if they can't develop their artillery arm better than OTL.

Ironclad warships now the standard. Northern naval superiority might be even more marked.

No Lee, for what it's worth.

Egyptian cotton and other substitutes are in wider supply now, so the South probably doesn't have the international market leverage it did.

The North probably suffers from greater social instability now thanks to industrialization; the South might also, though, because the slave system isn't going to adapt itself to the modern world, and liberation ideology has a way of filtering into societies.
 
Would there even be a Virginia?

The vote to secede was 88-55. So if the secessionist impetus is just a shade weaker than a decade earlier, VA may not secede. That changes things big time.

A Virginia-less CSA is a CSA that lasts even shorter, especially given the even-more overwhelming advantages the North will have in terms of industry.
 
If we're assuming antebellum OTL, an ACW beginning in 1871 would be over with by 1873 at the latest. The Confederacy would be utterly gutted even more so than 1865. We would see a full upheaval.
 
There are a lot of factors that contributed to the South's secession which might not apply ten years later.

1)James Buchanan was clearly inept and unable and unwilling to protect Federal installations from the secessionists. A President more willing to use force and authority would deter a lot of fence sitters.

2) The secessionists were very well organized in 1860-61, but the unionists were not. This was a result of the earlier secession crises. The secessionists retained their organization and actively planned for their next attempt; while the Southern unionists failed to organize beforehand. Would this dynamic still exist ten years later?

3) If for various reasons (and many have already been documented) there were large parts of the South which would be unlikely to secede, would the other states risk going it alone? There was a belief in 1860 that the slave states would all eventually secede. If by 1870-1872, it appeared that not just the Border States, but even some of the Upper South, would absolutely refuse to secede, then it would give the Deep South a great incentive to not rebel.

South Carolina was always the fire eaters's capital, and it's possible that state will still secede. However, there is no guarantee even the other Deep South states will follow them.

A secession crisis in the 1870s could very well be contained and limited to only South Carolina, or just the Deep South. Most likely, the crisis - even if it comes to war - is over in two years.
 
If we're assuming antebellum OTL, an ACW beginning in 1871 would be over with by 1873 at the latest. The Confederacy would be utterly gutted even more so than 1865. We would see a full upheaval.

If by "gutted" you mean speedily defeated, then yes.

But a shorter war probably means fewer casualties and less damage done. And it may end before the North makes up its mind to decree emancipation.
 
And it may end before the North makes up its mind to decree emancipation.

Emancipation is likely to happen in any rebelling states, but if Virginia doesn't go it lends more power to the border states to find some sort of emancipation compromise.
 
Lee died in 1870 (though he may have lived longer if there hadn't been a war in the 1860s). So even if Virginia still secedes it's possible the south won't have Lee. And if it doesn't secede the CSA will also have to do without Jackson.

Also Canadian Confederation probably gets delayed by a few years.
 
A secession crisis in the 1870s could very well be contained and limited to only South Carolina, or just the Deep South. Most likely, the crisis - even if it comes to war - is over in two years.


Indeed, even OTL several states (GA AL and LA) saw sizeable votes for opponents of immediate secession. Had those states not seceded in the first wave, there could have been no CSA, as the seceding states would have had no common borders.

If secessionist fervour has cooled down a decade later, any attempt at it could well have been abortive.
 
one has to wonder about the slavery debate... in OTL, it was a very bitter dispute by the time of secession... now, 10 more years of it?
 
one has to wonder about the slavery debate... in OTL, it was a very bitter dispute by the time of secession... now, 10 more years of it?


True, but with Kansas out of the way is there any other immediate flashpoint in sight?

There'll still be the odd spot of bother enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law, but iirc the high profile rescues were relatively few, with the fugitive most times getting taken back without much trouble. So things might quieten down at least for a time. And any more incidents of the John Brown type are likely to turn off moderate opinion in the North.
 
Last edited:
Top