Civil War outcome question

JJohnson

Banned
Hi folks,

My question here, is what would the fewest changes to existing battles could've resulted in the south winning the war? I'm in a write up right now and the battles and 'orders of battle' are starting to get overwhelming here at the outset.

I'm going to set a few provisos beforehand as to the state of the United States in 1860 in this timeline:
-Cuba was purchased in 1819 from Spain like Florida and became a state in 1845, and is roughly as populated as FL
-'Columbia' became a state, encompassing 49° to 52° N directly above Washington territory, and includes Vancouver Island
-The Mexican-American War resulted in the US acquiring both Texas and Rio Grande as new slave states, along with Alta and Baja California, New Mexico, Sonora, and Chihuahua
-California was divided along 37° N into North (free) and South (slave) to appease those who settled those parts of the state.
-John Gorrie's air conditioning got funding in 1855 and he didn't die early, so air conditioning became a known thing by 1860 in Florida, Cuba, Louisiana, and Texas/Rio Grande.

That territory aside, let's assume secession proceeds as in OTL.

I would like to include:
-Kentucky and Missouri seceding successfully with the other states
-West Virginia seceding back into the Union successfully
-British and French recognition of the Confederacy, and 'breaking' the blockade; possibly either as simple 'clothes, boots, blankets, etc.' for cotton in 1861/2 before becoming war supplies by 1863
-Confederate arming and freeing of slaves by 1862 into integrated units with people from their same state/town; essentially an earlier General Order 14, and states like NC, AL, MS taking their own initiative and sending armed and freed slaves to fight; Louisiana Creoles armed and serving
-the Special Order 191 is not left behind
-Sherman is either captured or killed before reaching Atlanta
-Gettysburg has Johnson and Ewell take Culp's and Cemetery Hill as per discretionary orders.
-possibly New Orleans being defended, or retaken from Butler, but Vicksburg being a CS victory.
-Lincoln gets reelected in 1864 and must order negotiations for peace

Such that by 1865, Lee's ANV is able to force Union surrender, and there is a negotiated peace by July 4. At the end of it, the CS includes: Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Missouri, Indian Territory, Arizona/New Mexico Territory; then in this altered timeline, Rio Grande, Sonora and Chihuahua territories, Southern California, Cuba. (this tier of territory is not strictly essential to this timeline but would help show it to be an alternate history already and help suspend disbelief)

All that said, it's for an alternate history novel, naturally, wherein only a few things change to lead to the radically different outcome. It's a big topic, and if some folks might be able to help guide me a bit to focus on things that could change to lead to an independent CS that would be great.
 
Last edited:
Given Vicksburg wasn't really a battle per se and more of a siege, I don't know how you get victory from that in the end. The Union basically has to commit to throwing more and more resources at it until they take it regardless.

A confederate victory at Gettysburg is almost certainly not going to result in a surrender of the Army of the Potomac. Although with a POD that early, one wonders if you're going to get a Gettysburg anyway. The road networks steered things there in OTL but we're assuming a second invasion of the north happens.
 
Yeah, with a POD that early you can change all sorts of things. Generally, the opinion on this forum is that the South could not win with almost any POD after secession because they simply had too many material disadvantages- assuming that the North is willing to continue the fight that is- though there may be one or two dramatic exceptions. One is that Lincoln dies or otherwise isn't president and is replaced with someone who is for making peace at any cost to the Union. Another is direct intercession on the continent by a European power on the side of the Confederacy, which is damned unlikely.

But with your distant POD you could have either, I guess. Frankly, though, one wonders why there is a *Civil War at about the same time in this timeline at all. The slave states seem to have a solid majority in Congress (assuming that those new Mexican possessions and Cuba are slave states) so nobody is going to ram legislation past them, and thus they have nothing to fear from the election of Lincoln and are less likely to get as pissy about it as they did OTL.
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
Hi folks,

-Cuba was purchased in 1819 from Spain like Florida and became a state in 1845, and is roughly as populated as FL

The population of Cuba was around a million in 1845, the population of Florida was 88,000 in 1850. The only Southern state with a higher population than Cuba in 1850 was Virginia. If you are factoring in active participation of Cuba in the confederate side, even at half the rate of the mainland states, that is a lot of soldiers, supposing you could get them to the mainland.

Also, if you want to do your maximum confederate thing, you should include Puerto Rico in the purchase as well, at the time it had double the population of Texas, roughly 550,000.
 

JJohnson

Banned
The population of Cuba was around a million in 1845, the population of Florida was 88,000 in 1850. The only Southern state with a higher population than Cuba in 1850 was Virginia. If you are factoring in active participation of Cuba in the confederate side, even at half the rate of the mainland states, that is a lot of soldiers, supposing you could get them to the mainland.

Also, if you want to do your maximum confederate thing, you should include Puerto Rico in the purchase as well, at the time it had double the population of Texas, roughly 550,000.

Back in 1819, Cuba had around 572,000 people; we can assume some wouldn't want to join the US, so they would emigrate to other Spanish colonies. Assuming maybe a third leave, that gives us about 381,000 staying. Give that another 25 years to 1845, and if it were to increase the same rate as the rest of the nation, it'd be around 669,000. Some of those would be English-speaking immigrants from the mainland. Like originally stated, the additional land is not something to get caught up in and is not critical to the scenario and original question: which battles/events would it take at a minimum to affect a Confederate victory in the war?

Would just the special order not being forgotten do it, or would they need more than that, like British/French diplomatic recognition, or perhaps retaking New Orleans, or winning at Five Forks?
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
Back in 1819, Cuba had around 572,000 people; we can assume some wouldn't want to join the US, so they would emigrate to other Spanish colonies. Assuming maybe a third leave, that gives us about 381,000 staying. Give that another 25 years to 1845, and if it were to increase the same rate as the rest of the nation, it'd be around 669,000. Some of those would be English-speaking immigrants from the mainland. Like originally stated, the additional land is not something to get caught up in and is not critical to the scenario and original question: which battles/events would it take at a minimum to affect a Confederate victory in the war?

I'm more of a Spanish American specialist than a US civil war buff, but a colony losing a third of its population upon transfer is unheard of at this time, except in cases of tiny colonies, deportation or genocide. The population in 1821 would have already grown to 600,000 anyway, and it is difficult to see a situation where more than 5000-10,000 chose to leave, unless the US was actually going psycho on them. These losses would quickly be replaced by US immigration. American Cuba would be a massive factor, it would create the necessity for a Caribbean squadron of the American navy, would that squadron remain loyal? It would increase the population of Florida. Confederate Cuba means the US probably can't take New Orleans early in the war, as their supply routes are not feasible.

Culturally, confederate Cuba means there are two prestigious European languages spoken by regions of the confederacy, with powerful local landed elites of non-WASP origin using them. This would have an interesting effect on the way confederates saw themselves.
 
Would just the special order not being forgotten do it, or would they need more than that, like British/French diplomatic recognition, or perhaps retaking New Orleans, or winning at Five Forks?

Even if the special order wasn't captured, there's still just the physics of Lee's army facing a much larger army under McClellan. I know it's easy to criticize him for an abundance of caution, but that abundance of caution is also likely to prevent a truly substantial defeat in the Maryland Campaign. You might get a better outcome from the battle that occurs but it's going to be at best one in which a substantial number of casualties are inflicted, maybe some AotP formations are crushed, but it's going to leave it largely intact and headed back to the Washington defenses while Lee is going to be headed back over the Potomac to resupply.

Retaking New Orleans probably just delays the union war effort for 3-4 months while they divert resources to take it back. Winning at Five Forks gives a Confederacy on its very last legs maybe another month, and by winning we're just talking about being able to hold the junction, there's no serious possibility by this phase of the war that Lee could commit enough resources to beat Sheridan back.

I think if you want a TL in which the confederates outperform OTL, you need a PoD that does a few things. Confederate states in Northern Mexico and Cuba helps in the sense of giving more ports for the union to have to blockade, which in turn gives the confederacy that much more access to foreign war materiel. It would also really help if the kinds of insights about the changing nature of war that Lee has by 1864 become more apparent sooner - the confederacy is in a lot more of a position to take advantage of increased ranges of small arms and defensive tactics that this rewards. In the west, a more kinetic strategy of building strong defensive positions that the union must confront but that have clear lines of retreat would really benefit their cause - Building large fortifications along the rivers that Grant could easily surround and then force large surrenders of men and materiel a la Fort Donelson or Vicksburg means the Confederates no longer have them as maneuvering forces in a more kinetic strategy.

Easier said than done, but the confederates need more battles to look like Fredericksburg and Cold Harbor than Chancellorsville and Chickamauga.
 
-British and French recognition of the Confederacy, and 'breaking' the blockade; possibly either as simple 'clothes, boots, blankets, etc.' for cotton in 1861/2 before becoming war supplies by 1863
The British and French aren't going to break the blockade for the Confederacy. Historically, when recognition was proposed and dismissed, there was no suggestion that the European nations would do anything other than acknowledge the Confederacy as a separate state. If the Confederacy can maintain its independence through its own strength, all well and good- but where's the benefit for European nations of having to bail them out every time the Union threatens war?

-Confederate arming and freeing of slaves by 1862 into integrated units with people from their same state/town; essentially an earlier General Order 14, and states like NC, AL, MS taking their own initiative and sending armed and freed slaves to fight; Louisiana Creoles armed and serving
Creoles serving might be feasible: however, considering the opposition even in the North to allowing black people to fight, and the fact that the US military wasn't integrated until after the Korean War, freeing and arming the slaves is pretty much impossible without substantial changes to the fundamental state of race relations in the South that would probably butterfly away any sort of conflict. There's a reason that General Order 14 was an absolute last resort akin to calling up children and the elderly to fight. However, you probably don't need it to get a Confederate victory with the right circumstances.

Confederate states in Northern Mexico and Cuba helps in the sense of giving more ports for the union to have to blockade, which in turn gives the confederacy that much more access to foreign war materiel.
It stretches the Union navy thinner, perhaps. However, it's difficult to transport supplies from Mexico to the front line, and impossible to do so from Cuba without a second sea voyage into an already-blockaded port.

American Cuba would be a massive factor, it would create the necessity for a Caribbean squadron of the American navy, would that squadron remain loyal?
Yes, probably- all the rest did. Having the Confederacy start life with a reasonable navy might help, though the Union would still be able to deploy overwhelming force against it. That said, I'm not sure what changes you could make to the manning and structuring of the US navy that would result in whole ships going over to the Confederacy. A policy of permanently basing ships in particular ports (like the British system based on Chatham, Portsmouth and Plymouth) and of drawing personnel largely from the local area might help, though it would fly in the face of the idea of the navy as a Federal institution.
 
Last edited:
The British and French aren't going to break the blockade for the Confederacy. Historically, It stretches the Union navy thinner, perhaps. However, it's difficult to transport supplies from Mexico to the front line, and impossible to do so from Cuba without a second sea voyage into an already-blockaded port.
Not suggesting it's a war winner, but more is better in a sense here. The paltry amounts they were able to obtain before were used to great effect and in this TL you could see that having minor knock on effects.
 
Hi folks,

My question here, is what would the fewest changes to existing battles could've resulted in the south winning the war? I'm in a write up right now and the battles and 'orders of battle' are starting to get overwhelming here at the outset.

Going off OTL, which may contradict some of your requirements due to the end results of the butterfly effect before hand, but avoid the Confederate cavalry taking the long detour prior to the start of Second Manassas. Such will allow Lee to destroy Pope's army in its entirety by cutting off its retreat route and trapping it between two rivers before it can withdraw, as per his plan IOTL; this will allow him to enter Maryland outnumbering McClellan or he could strike north into Pennsylvania for an early rendition of the 1863 Campaigns on a more favorable basis. A victory on Northern soil will prove sufficient to the get the Anglo-French to intervene.
 

JJohnson

Banned
Going off OTL, which may contradict some of your requirements due to the end results of the butterfly effect before hand, but avoid the Confederate cavalry taking the long detour prior to the start of Second Manassas. Such will allow Lee to destroy Pope's army in its entirety by cutting off its retreat route and trapping it between two rivers before it can withdraw, as per his plan IOTL; this will allow him to enter Maryland outnumbering McClellan or he could strike north into Pennsylvania for an early rendition of the 1863 Campaigns on a more favorable basis. A victory on Northern soil will prove sufficient to the get the Anglo-French to intervene.
Thank you for that suggestion. I'll definitely research that.

Does anyone here have any opinion on how to get the British to defy the Union blockade as a result of the Trent Affair? Perhaps sending only non-military things (uniforms, boots, saddles, bags, blankets, medicine, food, liquor, etc) in exchange for cotton? Is that reasonable and what effect would it have on the Confederacy specifically, and the war in general?
 
Top