There are many threads about the effect of a quick CSA victory (as the CSA would need to land a quick victory within 1-2 years in order to win), but i have yet to see the effect of the CSA getting defeated in such a quick fashion. With it all the advantages the USA had in manpower, industry, and overall a better equipped and trained military, it does not seem too unlikely, though of course the few advantages the CSA had must be taken to account, mainly the larger pool of generals and officers to pick from
Consequences of a quick victory for the USA in the US Civil War?
- Thread starter Bountifulauto82
- Start date
Overall better trained military is a bit of a stretch, but the resource and industry advantage was overwhelming (even if it took time to take hold) but gearing those up is one of the reasons the war took as long as it did. For my money, the earliest the war can end is the summer/fall of 1864, which requires overwhelming victories on land and sea across much of 1863, not the series of 'false battles' across the late summer and fall of 1863 we saw after Gettysburg in the East.
From the historiography perspective, the war ending when it did was probably the best outcome. It went on long enough to grind any further thought of rebellion out of the South, enshrine the end of slavery in the constitution, and put the power of the Federal government firmly supreme over the states.
Say though that the war ends in early 1862/63. If 1862, there is likely no Emancipation Proclamation, which means slavery endures and the South might have cause for further rebellion a few years down the line. If 63, there is no constitutional amendment outlawing slavery, and so the "peculiar institution" effectively continues, but for how much longer? The Emancipation Proclamation can be challenged, especially in places like Missouri, Tennessee and Louisiana, where in many cases slaves will have been prevented from escaping directly by the very Union troops sent to end the rebellion because as historically the EP did not apply to those places under Union control, and if more territory has been taken faster, well...
Like OTL the plantation owners would use their influence, and anger, to not accept it. They will have time and influence to whip up anger, and potentially another rebellion as more people oppose outright Emancipation and Abolition without a war to make it seem necessary. Slavery may well take longer to die out.
From the historiography perspective, the war ending when it did was probably the best outcome. It went on long enough to grind any further thought of rebellion out of the South, enshrine the end of slavery in the constitution, and put the power of the Federal government firmly supreme over the states.
Say though that the war ends in early 1862/63. If 1862, there is likely no Emancipation Proclamation, which means slavery endures and the South might have cause for further rebellion a few years down the line. If 63, there is no constitutional amendment outlawing slavery, and so the "peculiar institution" effectively continues, but for how much longer? The Emancipation Proclamation can be challenged, especially in places like Missouri, Tennessee and Louisiana, where in many cases slaves will have been prevented from escaping directly by the very Union troops sent to end the rebellion because as historically the EP did not apply to those places under Union control, and if more territory has been taken faster, well...
Like OTL the plantation owners would use their influence, and anger, to not accept it. They will have time and influence to whip up anger, and potentially another rebellion as more people oppose outright Emancipation and Abolition without a war to make it seem necessary. Slavery may well take longer to die out.
OTOH a victory in 1862 means that Lee and Jackson don't become the "legends in grey" that we remember, and the whole secession business is remembered as an ignominious flop, so that there is probably far less Lost Cause romanticism
Again not certain. Just as in 1865, Congress will need to be persuaded to readmit the Southern States, and may still be reluctant to do so unless they at least adopt a programme of gradual emancipation, and (less certainly but conceivably) leaving a window open for slaveholders to receive compensation.
The big change is likely to be the absence of the 14th and 15th Amendments, so that something like the 1865 Black Codes could still emerge. Really depressing thought. Might such codes not only be tolerated in the South, but perhaps adopted by some Northern States as well.
So the obvious POD is the Peninsular Campaign in the spring of 1862. For example, imagine that Little Mac is killed at the beginning of the campaign and someone more competent and less cautious is appointed in his place (perhaps William B. Franklin). Franklin does not stall outside Yorktown for a month but instead races up the peninsula and captures Richmond in early April. I would suggest that this likely causes the CSA to implode. Remember that the CSA had just suffered massive defeats in the West at Forts Henry and Donelson and now the capital has fallen. R.E. Lee was till "Granny Lee." I would suggest the rebellion would be seen as an ignominious flop. So imagine that on July 4, 1862 the CSA is dissolved and the rebellious states return to the union.
I would suggest that there are massive changes. In particular there is no emancipation proclamation. Slavery would be banned from the territories (perhaps by constitutional amendment as a condition of the formerly rebellious states re-entering the union) and the Fugitive Slave law is likely weakened (or repealed). However, I think it is a near certainty that slavery would continue in the existing states for decades. Moreover, there would be no 14th or 15th amendment making the legal basis of the civil rights movement far more difficult. Moreover, because the south is not destroyed economically, resurgent southern political power is able to hamper the political and economic reforms that occurred after the civil war that led to massive industrialization in the north. As a consequence the United States remains a middling power (perhaps on par with Argentina) causing massive changes in the 20th century.
I would suggest that there are massive changes. In particular there is no emancipation proclamation. Slavery would be banned from the territories (perhaps by constitutional amendment as a condition of the formerly rebellious states re-entering the union) and the Fugitive Slave law is likely weakened (or repealed). However, I think it is a near certainty that slavery would continue in the existing states for decades. Moreover, there would be no 14th or 15th amendment making the legal basis of the civil rights movement far more difficult. Moreover, because the south is not destroyed economically, resurgent southern political power is able to hamper the political and economic reforms that occurred after the civil war that led to massive industrialization in the north. As a consequence the United States remains a middling power (perhaps on par with Argentina) causing massive changes in the 20th century.
SwampTiger
Banned
No, the obvious POD is First Manassas. If Joe Johnson's force is pinned in the Valley, Beauregard is toast. It was Johnson's troops which stopped the turning movement.
The CSA still would have Johnson's army, the force blocking the rail line to Richmond and newly recruited troops gathering further south. "Granny" Lee was too concerned with the feelings of a couple of political generals in western Virginia. Once he was given command of the ANV, the "Granny" sobriquet quickly disappeared.
The Radical Republicans will not step back from abolition. Their votes had placed Lincoln in the White House and taken control of Congress. Blood has been shed. Southern politicians will not be allowed back into Congress without major concessions. Some form of emancipation will be in the list of conditions.
The CSA still would have Johnson's army, the force blocking the rail line to Richmond and newly recruited troops gathering further south. "Granny" Lee was too concerned with the feelings of a couple of political generals in western Virginia. Once he was given command of the ANV, the "Granny" sobriquet quickly disappeared.
The Radical Republicans will not step back from abolition. Their votes had placed Lincoln in the White House and taken control of Congress. Blood has been shed. Southern politicians will not be allowed back into Congress without major concessions. Some form of emancipation will be in the list of conditions.
Probability that slavery isn't abolished early might be the consequence.
But not necessarily immediate. Istr reading that shortly before the EP was issued, somebody moved a motion in Congress to provide for slavery to be phased out, and to finally terminate in *1900*. OTL, of course such notions were soon overtaken by events, but TTL they might not be.
Last edited:
While true, it also might not stigmatize the whole rebellion either, and it's probably a compromise feat. So it's equally likely that a few years down the line the secessionists might try and better organize for Round 2 if they feel the compromise the original rebellion ended under has been reneged on.
True, but my own thinking is that since the Radicals had not gained the prominence they would later in the war, then Democrats and Conservative Republicans would probably rule any negotiated peace so even gradual emancipation might be taken off the table to keep Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky and Delaware (and probably Tennessee and North Carolina, since they would probably flip sides quick in a short war) on side. Instead set a firm protection for slavery into the Constitution - with the provision states may abolition slavery but not the government - as re-admittance would be preferable to a long expensive occupation by a rapidly shrinking Federal Army. That way it never leaves the core slave states and they and their peculiar institution are mollified.
However, that may just be my particularly dim view of the early war effort shining through. But I have difficulty seeing a EP of any type being considered in a short rebellion scenario.
However, something like the Black Codes being a national thing is almost equally depressing.
How much was it stigmatised anyway?
As early as 1879 Albion W Tourgee was grumbling that at this rate men would soon be ashamed to admit having fought for the Union, and more recently an author, observing that the hero of ERB's Barsoom novels was a Confederate veteran, noted that in a romantic novel of that era, no one with any class would ever have been caught fighting for the *North*.
Wasn't the secession of VA AR, NC and TN pretty much inevitable once Lincoln had issued the call to arms? And if he (or his TTL replacement *doesn't* issue it than we've got no ACW. not just a short one.
Last edited:
Does suggest that rebellion Round 2 might not be as unthinkable then, even in an ignominious flop. But I'm not saying that's a given.
Very true, but I say NC and TN because they had the largest Unionist minorities still active both before and after secession, which suggests that they might 'flip' faster in a short war and encourage Congress into getting more compromise.
I can't see a short war encouraging any sort of occupation of the South outside maybe Virginia, Mississippi, South Carolina and Louisiana. The first only because it would have been the Confederate capital state and the remainder for strategic control of the Mississippi River and because no matter what I bet people would be pissed at SC.
"No West Virginia/delayed Nevada statehood."
This illustrates how many butterflies something like this can have.
West Virginia obviously does not become a state in a short war scenario. However, Nevada was admitted to the Union specifically to get Lincoln three more electoral votes (by the way the lengths the GOP was willing to go to secure Lincoln's re-election calls into question all those "Lincoln loses re-election and McClellan surrenders to the CSA scenarios, along with a lot of other things, they are sort of the ACW version of Sealion), and didn't have the constitutional minimum population for statehood. Clark County was transferred to Nevada after the fact. The territory itself was not created until March 1861.
Short American Civil War means Nevada does not become a state. Period. Clark County, where most of the state's population lives IOTL anyway, remains part of Arizona. The Cow Counties and the Reno-Lake Tahoe area most likely wind up in Utah. They could also stay a federal territory until the present day, since without Reno as a gambling resort the population of the region is very low and likely mostly military personnel and their dependents. Maybe California is expanded to take in the rest of Lake Tahoe, though this is less likely than Nevada outside Clark County going to Utah or just remaining a federal territory.
Needless to say, the entire concept of Las Vegas is butterflied out of existence in this timeline. With state sovereignty being somewhat stronger against the federal government, maybe some other state, most likely Louisiana, is the one to legalize gambling. Or there could be no gambling resort or it goes completely offshore, to the Bahamas.
This illustrates how many butterflies something like this can have.
West Virginia obviously does not become a state in a short war scenario. However, Nevada was admitted to the Union specifically to get Lincoln three more electoral votes (by the way the lengths the GOP was willing to go to secure Lincoln's re-election calls into question all those "Lincoln loses re-election and McClellan surrenders to the CSA scenarios, along with a lot of other things, they are sort of the ACW version of Sealion), and didn't have the constitutional minimum population for statehood. Clark County was transferred to Nevada after the fact. The territory itself was not created until March 1861.
Short American Civil War means Nevada does not become a state. Period. Clark County, where most of the state's population lives IOTL anyway, remains part of Arizona. The Cow Counties and the Reno-Lake Tahoe area most likely wind up in Utah. They could also stay a federal territory until the present day, since without Reno as a gambling resort the population of the region is very low and likely mostly military personnel and their dependents. Maybe California is expanded to take in the rest of Lake Tahoe, though this is less likely than Nevada outside Clark County going to Utah or just remaining a federal territory.
Needless to say, the entire concept of Las Vegas is butterflied out of existence in this timeline. With state sovereignty being somewhat stronger against the federal government, maybe some other state, most likely Louisiana, is the one to legalize gambling. Or there could be no gambling resort or it goes completely offshore, to the Bahamas.
Countries other than the United States almost always wound up abolishing slavery through the normal political and legal process, usually with compensation. I think the way slavery was abolished in the United States had a big impact on American culture, especially attitudes about race. So not getting the Emancipation Proclamation is a big deal.
The question is whether slavery in the United States could be abolished without the OTL American Civil War. My guess is that the USA is not such an outlier to never abolish slavery. After all, it had been abolished peacefully in most of the states prior to 1861. And ITTL you there would still be a war, just not any abolitionist measures done as a wartime measure, and the fire-eaters would be discredited if the Southern military effort was widely seen as a fiasco. Probably the closest OTL guide as to how things would have worked out is Brazil.
The question is whether slavery in the United States could be abolished without the OTL American Civil War. My guess is that the USA is not such an outlier to never abolish slavery. After all, it had been abolished peacefully in most of the states prior to 1861. And ITTL you there would still be a war, just not any abolitionist measures done as a wartime measure, and the fire-eaters would be discredited if the Southern military effort was widely seen as a fiasco. Probably the closest OTL guide as to how things would have worked out is Brazil.