Confederacy wins EVERY battle - how long before Union would quit?

The congress elected in the fall of 1862 and any subsequent special elections would not meet until December of 1863 as noted as the end of 1863. So no matter how badly the Lincoln Republicans lose the 1862 elections because of Confererate battle success, the existing Republican majority congress is in office until the end of 1863. The only way the Union throws in the towel before then is to either destroy Lincoln's will to fight, demoralize the Republicans in Congress that they withdraw support from the war, or through mass desertion and mutiny in the Union armiesdepriving the administration of the means to prosecute the war.
 
The problem with this scenario is, as other posters have pointed out, for the string of victories to keep going requires magic. Let's take Washington DC for example and say, hypothetically, Lee is at Washington's gates by the time of Antietam OTL. He'd be facing what was, at that point in time, one of THE most heavily fortified cities on the planet and nowhere near enough siege artillery or other means to really hope to scratch the ring of fortresses surrounding the Capitol. It would take the commander of the defenses committing an act of borderline treasonous stupidity to lose in that kind of a situation even before you take into account the likely Union reinforcements en route who will arrive before any Confederates do.

How long would the munitions and food of Washington last at the time of Antietam? Of Manassas?

So July 1861, after Manassas...

Washington is on a peninsula. Yes, Washington is fortified and hosts concentration of Union forces. And Potomac is wide below Washington. So how about crossing Potomac north of Washington?

It is not "treasonous stupidity" for Lincoln and Cabinet to stay in their capital and lead defence in a reasonable hope that the Rebels will be repelled. Reasonable but, in the event, incorrect hope. It is also not "treasonous stupidity" for Lincoln and Cabinet to try and run while they yet can, instead of sitting under siege with no contact with Union main forces and eventual capture after months of hunger. Yet when the hope to repel the Rebels turns incorrect, the hope to get through by train or foot may, although reasonable, prove incorrect.

As for the reliefs - yes, they are coming. Like Pennsylvania Reserves.

But again. It is not a "treasonable stupidity" to attempt to relieve the besieged capital as soon as possible. It is rather action in desperate hope. Which may prove incorrect.

Assume that in August 1861, several Union forces march to try and recover Maryland, and relieve Washington and/or other garrisons that may be under siege, like Baltimore. The Confederates are still waiting for siege guns - but the besieged Union forces are eating through their food and munitions. Several Union forces, precisely because of the desperate urgency individually small and ill led, are defeated in several battles in northern Maryland and southern Pennsylvania.

What will the northern governors do?
 
Assume that in August 1861, several Union forces march to try and recover Maryland, and relieve Washington and/or other garrisons that may be under siege, like Baltimore. The Confederates are still waiting for siege guns - but the besieged Union forces are eating through their food and munitions. Several Union forces, precisely because of the desperate urgency individually small and ill led, are defeated in several battles in northern Maryland and southern Pennsylvania.

What will the northern governors do?

The Confederacy was not out to necessarily conquer the North, it really just wanted to survive. I can't see the Confederacy conquering and holding Union territory. I imagine Northern governors basically throw EVERYTHING at the invader that they can muster. Anything that will fire a projectile will be employed.
 
The Confederacy was not out to necessarily conquer the North, it really just wanted to survive. I can't see the Confederacy conquering and holding Union territory.
Two things:
1) Union had invaded Virginia on 24th of May. Virginia could therefore demand that Union troops withdraw all the way to Potomac - and occupy a part of Union to offer exchange. If Confederates simply stay in Confederacy and let Union keep trying to invade them, it will be difficult to force Union to drop the pieces of Virginia they were choosing to hold.
2) Maryland was under Union occupation. With a lot of Confederate support.

Under a successful Confederate occupation, would Maryland vote to return to Union?
 
Two things:
1) Union had invaded Virginia on 24th of May. Virginia could therefore demand that Union troops withdraw all the way to Potomac - and occupy a part of Union to offer exchange. If Confederates simply stay in Confederacy and let Union keep trying to invade them, it will be difficult to force Union to drop the pieces of Virginia they were choosing to hold.
2) Maryland was under Union occupation. With a lot of Confederate support.

Under a successful Confederate occupation, would Maryland vote to return to Union?

I've always heard that Maryland was never allowed to leave the Union because the Lincoln Administration disbanded them before a vote could be taken. It had little to do with the color of the uniforms the army stationed in it wore.
 

You miss my point. Lincoln and the Cabinet remaining in the city would be an intelligent move as would calling in the reserves. What I'm saying is the Confederate Army, on the end of an already weak logistical tether, outnumbered, and lacking proper siege guns to threaten Washington DC before Union relief forces will be in the area, would be in a very dangerous, vulnerable position that would be all but begging for any halfway intelligent commander to squash Lee's forces once and for all. The only possible way a general could lose in that situation would require them to act in such a spectacularly idiotic, possibly treasonous fashion that it would make McClellan during the Seven Days' look like Ulysses Grant ca 1864. Heck if Lincoln's irate enough even he could have won that one if he decided to take personal command, an unlikely scenario but if someone could make it plausible it would be a VERY interesting TL to say the least.
 
Last edited:
In this scinario, all the Confederacy has to do it is defend it's borders. No invasions of the North. There's no need for it. Plus it looks better on the diplomatic front. "All we are doing is defending our country from this madman Lincoln." It would be a pretty easy sell in Europe. There is no blockade in effect either. Every battle means EVERY battle, yes? Even the ones along the coast and at sea.
I think the soonest it would end is 63. The new national borders have to stabilize. Initial fighting, calls for volunteers, more States seceeding, more fighting there, yadda, yadda, yadda. It's going to take that bit of time for all that to sort itself. After a period of 'wait & see' the British recognise them. The French follow, and it's all over.
But therein lies trouble. Europe would perceive the US to be weak. A rebellion started by seven States ended in a complete and utter disaster with loss of a third of it's territory. Blood would be in the water, and no doubt the sharks would soon appear.
 
In this scinario, all the Confederacy has to do it is defend it's borders. No invasions of the North. There's no need for it. Plus it looks better on the diplomatic front. "All we are doing is defending our country from this madman Lincoln." It would be a pretty easy sell in Europe. There is no blockade in effect either. Every battle means EVERY battle, yes? Even the ones along the coast and at sea.
I think the soonest it would end is 63. The new national borders have to stabilize. Initial fighting, calls for volunteers, more States seceeding, more fighting there, yadda, yadda, yadda. It's going to take that bit of time for all that to sort itself. After a period of 'wait & see' the British recognise them. The French follow, and it's all over.
But therein lies trouble. Europe would perceive the US to be weak. A rebellion started by seven States ended in a complete and utter disaster with loss of a third of it's territory. Blood would be in the water, and no doubt the sharks would soon appear.

What is with this idea that the British will recognise the Confederacy? It's not going to happen...
 
What is with this idea that the British will recognise the Confederacy? It's not going to happen...

I don't believe that it would happen in the 1860s. How long did the British take to officially recognize the United States? It would likely be longer before they'd recognize and establish diplomatic relations with the Confederate States.
 

Japhy

Banned
I don't believe that it would happen in the 1860s. How long did the British take to officially recognize the United States? It would likely be longer before they'd recognize and establish diplomatic relations with the Confederate States.

They established relations with the US at the signing of the Treaty of Paris. John Adams was the first US Ambassador.

The UK is going to not recognize the Confederacy at any speed because the first actual diplomatic contact between the two was the expulsion of all British Consulates in the South for not immediately recognizing the Confederacy, and because the CSA was a slave-holding state that would not go over well with reform act expanded voter rolls.
 
Immediate recognition of the Confederacy would have brought with it a considerable risk of war with Britian. Was Canada prepared? What if Her Majesty's government backed the wrong horse, as it were? No, better to wait and see. The missions credentials were for the government of the United States, no one else. No recognition means that they must leave. All very simple, really.
 

Japhy

Banned
Immediate recognition of the Confederacy would have brought with it a considerable risk of war with Britian. Was Canada prepared? What if Her Majesty's government backed the wrong horse, as it were? No, better to wait and see. The missions credentials were for the government of the United States, no one else. No recognition means that they must leave. All very simple, really.

You're viewing this far more rationally then the regime in Richmond did. And in not viewing it like you did, Davis and his cronies denied themselves any meaningful diplomatic channel with the European powers. And more or less assured that sans the mythical "Intervention to Force the Peace" the British aren't going to rush to quickly to treat with the Confederates the moment, or year, the ink signs on the treaty between Washington and Richmond.
 
You're viewing this far more rationally then the regime in Richmond did. And in not viewing it like you did, Davis and his cronies denied themselves any meaningful diplomatic channel with the European powers.
I shall take that as a complement sir. :D
Sometimes my coloring drifts outside the lines. :p
 
That is inherently by magic. Because statistically its impossible.

Yep, but anyways. If the rebels win every single battle in the beginning then they'll go for DC which I assume they win cough *magic* cough. Then Congress surrenders and we get the a free south for about 10 years before the Union strikes back.
 
This may well be ASB territory...
It is.
Every everything, including Antietam and Shiloh. Albert Johnston beats Grant back over Pittsburgh Landing. Lee's orders are never lost and so he crushes McClellan.
None of those events even happen, because all of them followed Union victories.
How long before Lincoln decides to stop sending soldiers into a Southern meat grinder?

It's a stupid question. The first actual "battle" of the war (not counting Fort Sumter) is on 10 May 1861, at Camp Jackson, just outside St. Louis. The Missouri State Guard, under crypto-secessionist officers, was deployed there for the seizure of St. Louis. (They had artillery secretly supplied by the Confederacy.) St. Louis Unionists formed an unofficial "Home Guard" militia, consisting mainly of German immigrants. On 10 May the Home Guard, led by the small U.S. Army detachment in St. Louis, surrounded the State Guard and captured them without a shot.

Reverse this battle - St. Louis falls and Missouri joins the CSA. Meanwhile, Confederate forces would gain control of all western Virginia, right up to Wheeling in the niortthern panhandle, nearly severing the Union states. Very probably, secessionist militia would form in Maryland, drive Federal forces out of the state, and capture Washington...
 
Even if the CSA won every battle wouldn't they still lose the war due to lack of troops? The Union had too big an advantage in man power.
 
If the Confederates literally win every battle, eventually they would realize that and try to send very small commands (like 20 people or less) against Union armies in what is essentially random suicide attacks.
If these attacks are somehow still won by Confederates... well, the Union army is probably gone pretty early.

After that point, we would probably see one of two things:
either 1) everyone agrees that the Confederates have God on their side - which probably leads to a mad rush by European countries to reestablish slavery;
or 2) British intervention on the Union side, after which the result depends on whether "every battle" includes battles against non-Union forces (if no, the Confederacy is crushed back, and the rump Union agrees to be admitted back in the British Empire... if yes, Confederate Britain is a pretty likely possibility, and probably Confederate world not long after).

...All of this, of course, assuming the OP scenario happens because an ASB does that. But then again, any other possibility is pretty darn unlikely :)
 
Top