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?
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?
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
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
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...
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...
Well its 10 years of the US turning itself into Bleeding Kansas following thee Scott and especially Lemon decision.
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".
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.
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.