Civil war delayed by 10 years

A lot depends on why secession doesn't happen in 61 and why it does happen in 71. Looking at OTL specific vote totals and then adjusting them in the Union's direction --because Progress-- is stupid.
 
another question, since this is just post franco-prussian war, will this conflict influence the tactics? influx of volunteers with military experience?
 
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?

Maybe.

A lot depends on why secession doesn't happen in 61 and why it does happen in 71. Looking at OTL specific vote totals and then adjusting them in the Union's direction --because Progress-- is stupid.

You got that right.:rolleyes:

another question, since this is just post franco-prussian war, will this conflict influence the tactics? influx of volunteers with military experience?

Nope.
 

DougM

Donor
first modern war

There is some valid arguments that the Civil war was the fist modern war.
If it happens ten years later with the resulting advance in weapons. I think it really could be the true first modern war.
I think we may see more trench warfare. And an even uglier war. On the plus side, it is possible that with the experience of this war lessons could be learned that may actually be remembered in later wars.
I doubt it, but it is possible...
DM
 
There is some valid arguments that the Civil war was the fist modern war.
If it happens ten years later with the resulting advance in weapons. I think it really could be the true first modern war.
I think we may see more trench warfare. And an even uglier war. On the plus side, it is possible that with the experience of this war lessons could be learned that may actually be remembered in later wars.
I doubt it, but it is possible...
DM

Experts on the Crimean War will argue that THAT was the first modern war, and you could seriously make the point. But it would be Euro-pride to deny that the ACW was the first Total War. There is a difference.
 
I think we may see more trench warfare. And an even uglier war. On the plus side, it is possible that with the experience of this war lessons could be learned that may actually be remembered in later wars.
I doubt it, but it is possible...
DM

The memory of WW1 was entrenched in 1939... the memory of WW2 was fresh in 1950, and the memory of Vietnam was alive in 2003... Pacifism always loses against peoples personal wants. Although I do agree: trench warfare is very interesting, if not the most, and the experiences of my American great-grandfathers and French 8-times-removed great uncles intrigue all of us for sure. Petersburg, an example so early, is equally interesting.
 
I also think it would be nothing more than a failed insurrection. The North's greater industrial power and population would just quell attempts at secession much quicker.

Since it's viewed less as a civil war, and more of a rebellion, postwar treatment of the South might also be much more lenient.

Although the lack of knowledge obtained from the ACW OTL might have interesting effects on European conflicts, as they are now the ones to learn how the innovations in technology altered combat permanently.
 
One point. If the war is drastically shortened, that probably means no Draft, at least on the Union side.

So in WW1 (if that isn't butterflied) there is no precedent for it. Could Champ Clark win his point and get it rejected?
 
you have to wonder at the state of American arms 10 years later... the Feds were notoriously stingy in spending money on the army back then, and it took a lot of time for them to adopt the latest and greatest stuff. It's forgotten that in OTL, both sides started the war with a big pile of old fashioned muskets, and had to scramble to both buy rifles from overseas and ramp up production at home. OTOH, the civilian firearms market generally was the more innovative one. So, if the war started 10 years later, the army probably wouldn't have old style smoothbore muskets anymore, but might still have a lot of rifled muzzle loaders when the rest of the world has moved on to breech loaders... and volunteers might be bringing their own weapons, things like lever action rifles...
 
you have to wonder at the state of American arms 10 years later... the Feds were notoriously stingy in spending money on the army back then, and it took a lot of time for them to adopt the latest and greatest stuff. It's forgotten that in OTL, both sides started the war with a big pile of old fashioned muskets, and had to scramble to both buy rifles from overseas and ramp up production at home. OTOH, the civilian firearms market generally was the more innovative one. So, if the war started 10 years later, the army probably wouldn't have old style smoothbore muskets anymore, but might still have a lot of rifled muzzle loaders when the rest of the world has moved on to breech loaders... and volunteers might be bringing their own weapons, things like lever action rifles...

That could get interesting.
 
you have to wonder at the state of American arms 10 years later... the Feds were notoriously stingy in spending money on the army back then, and it took a lot of time for them to adopt the latest and greatest stuff. It's forgotten that in OTL, both sides started the war with a big pile of old fashioned muskets, and had to scramble to both buy rifles from overseas and ramp up production at home. OTOH, the civilian firearms market generally was the more innovative one. So, if the war started 10 years later, the army probably wouldn't have old style smoothbore muskets anymore, but might still have a lot of rifled muzzle loaders when the rest of the world has moved on to breech loaders... and volunteers might be bringing their own weapons, things like lever action rifles...

and hence why i mentioned the franco-prussian war, there might be a whole load a of surplus weapons on the market after that ends.
 
save that the French prussian war is going to be REALLY different: no expedition in Mexico, stronger French army, more money and so on.
 
you have to wonder at the state of American arms 10 years later... the Feds were notoriously stingy in spending money on the army back then, and it took a lot of time for them to adopt the latest and greatest stuff. It's forgotten that in OTL, both sides started the war with a big pile of old fashioned muskets, and had to scramble to both buy rifles from overseas and ramp up production at home.

Not quite. Virtually all Union troops sent into battle used rifled muskets, only the South still had smoothbore muzzle-loaders to any degree, and as late as the Battle of Chancellorsville. Stonewall Jackson was killed by one of them. That's how they knew it was "friendly fire".

OTOH, the civilian firearms market generally was the more innovative one. So, if the war started 10 years later, the army probably wouldn't have old style smoothbore muskets anymore, but might still have a lot of rifled muzzle loaders when the rest of the world has moved on to breech loaders... and volunteers might be bringing their own weapons, things like lever action rifles...

Hmm. IDK. Didn't the Austrians use muzzle-loaders against Prussia's breechloaders in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866? As a "modern European nation", why did they not better weapons themselves, when the Union OTL had already had Sharps rifles for years and were adding on Henry and Spencer repeaters? AIUI, Congress penny-pinched the US Army AFTER the ACW due to the massive war debt, but equipping the Army pre-war, while a haphazard affaire, did not AFAIK include sticking with obsolete weapons.:confused:

Certainly Winchester Arms would have developed their own famous repeating rifle all on their own, as in the days of the Old West there was a huge demand for it. Plus it was beyond the ability of the South to both copy the design AND manufacture the ammunition for it.
 
Of course, in this situation Austria and Prussia may not fight at all.

If Napoleon III has not been humiliated by the Mexican fiasco, he may have that little bit more self confidence, perhaps enough to send ultimata to Vienna and Berlin demanding that they demobilise.
 
Well its 10 years of the US turning itself into Bleeding Kansas following thee Scott and especially Lemon decision.

No it isn't.

Kansas was pretty much "all over bar the shouting" after 1858. The proslavery side had lost. The best they could now hope for was to possibly get New Mexico as a slave state to balance a free Kansas - something which even Lincoln was wiling to swallow. But that was about it. There was no other Territory even remotely likely to be a Slave State. So Dred Scott was pretty much a dead letter.

Lemmon could indeed ruffle some feathers, but like DS it could only be a symbolic victory for the South, not a real one. After all, what slaveowner in his right mind would be likely to take his slaves into a northern state if they were apt to abscond or be liberated by a local mob? He might have the legal right, but it would be a frightfully dangerous one to exercise - unless possibly if the slaves were elderly and he wanted to get them off his hands.

The biggest danger is of more John Brown type raids, but the Federal government would be likely to crack down on them. After all, if it is ok for abolitionists to use such methods against oppressive slaveowners, presumably it is also ok for "Molly Maguires" and the like to use them against oppressive bosses - and I can't see even the Republicans being happy witht that idea.
 
Yes it is.

The Kansas constitution is still in the air and with Scott and especially Lemmon a free soil constitution becomes moot.

The problem is it is not going to be rioting mobs taking slaves off individual slaveowners, its southern courts swearing warrants to get northern states and eventually federal officials and troops to enforce them and then people being fired on by US troops.

The Slave issue does not go away it festers and mutates and people compromise.
 
Not quite. Virtually all Union troops sent into battle used rifled muskets, only the South still had smoothbore muzzle-loaders to any degree, and as late as the Battle of Chancellorsville. Stonewall Jackson was killed by one of them. That's how they knew it was "friendly fire".

As I understood it, when the war started, both sides were stuck with smoothbore muzzle loaders for a lot of the troops, although rifle muskets were available... just not enough of them. The north, of course, with it's industry and not being blockaded, was able to both ramp up manufacturing and import from overseas (Britain and France supplied quite a few) as well as experiment with Spencers. The south had a harder time of it, having little industry at home and having to sneak firearms through the blockade. A lot of the men in the southern armies brought their own personal weapons, which only increased the logistical problems of trying to keep everyone loaded up with ammo. I remember seeing a photo of three southern brothers in one regiment who used Henry rifles... getting ammo for them must have been quite a hassle...
 
Experts on the Crimean War will argue that THAT was the first modern war, and you could seriously make the point. But it would be Euro-pride to deny that the ACW was the first Total War. There is a difference.

The ACW was hardly the first total war, there had already been plenty of wars in which the civilian population was a legitimate target and saw the mobilisation of all resources for the war effort.
 
Yes it is.

The Kansas constitution is still in the air and with Scott and especially Lemmon a free soil constitution becomes moot.

The problem is it is not going to be rioting mobs taking slaves off individual slaveowners, its southern courts swearing warrants to get northern states and eventually federal officials and troops to enforce them and then people being fired on by US troops.

The Slave issue does not go away it festers and mutates and people compromise.

Not sure I follow. Afaics, slaves in transit will be recoverable if they do a runner, as they would be had they fled from a Slave to a Free State, but I don't really see why Lemmon would take that much more enforcing than the FSL did.

It's hardly going to bring slaves into the North in any numbers, so Northern farmers aren't going to have to compete with slave labour on any scale. I agree it will cause a lot of unnecessary irritation, but compared with Kansas-Nebraska it's just an annoyance.

If the Kansas Constitution is moot, it's passing strange that the South pushed so hard to get Lecompton passed. They obviously thought it mattered. But I don't see how either DS or Lemmon will help much if all a State's Sheriffs etc are antislavery. Whatever the law may say, very few slaveholders are going to take expensive property there in such circs.
 
Top