DBWI: Could the Union have won the Secession War?

Yes, I know a Union victory is a bit of a touchy subject for some of our more patriotic Confederate members, but I'm going to ask anyway:

Is there anyway the South could have realistically lost the Secession War?

The obvious POD is preventing Lincoln's fatal stroke in March of 1862. He was fairly popular in the north, and he may have led the Union to victory.
 
The North's heart wasn't in it, the South was willing to fight to the death for slavery (re the Southern civil wars of 1887-91 and 1920-26) while groups like the Irish in the north could only lose if blacks were freed (cheep labor and all)
 
Arguably the US did win after the 2nd CS Civil War; the OP seems to be simply trying to avoid Mexico retaking some of the Texan territory as per OTL.

OOC: :D
 
The North's heart wasn't in it, the South was willing to fight to the death for slavery (re the Southern civil wars of 1887-91 and 1920-26) while groups like the Irish in the north could only lose if blacks were freed (cheep labor and all)


Why would freeing the slaves lead to more cheap labor? Slave labor is the cheapest of all. Slave labor in the South was keeping down the wages of free labor in the North and white workers would have benefited from emancipation.
 
Surely, if the second French Empire remained neutral in the conflict instead to help the Confederation in order to have a stable ally in America, the Union will have more chances to won. Also, a Confederate defeat could bring to a possible dissolution of the Mexican Empire, because the Union promised help to Juarez which with their defeat never arrived...
 
As a Canadian, I can tell you that many people here were NOT happy with the govt's of the Province of Canada and "Rupert's Land" having aided and abetted the Confederacy's secession. In fact, you know something? This was one of the primary events which kicked off the Rebellion of '66(the Brandon area in my home province of Manitoba was practically the birthplace of the modern Confederation.)
The Union DID eventually forgive us, though, since we'd been under control of the Crown(Anti-Slavery demonstrations in Toronto & Montreal had led to martial law in December, 1864, giving them complete control for a little while.)at the time and had no functioning gov't of our own.
In fact, the U.S. and Canada have had a pretty darn close relationship since then(on the other hand, it wasn't until WWII, or the Second Great War, as it was called pretty much everywhere else on the planet, that we even considered a friendship with Britain).

As for the Confederacy? Other than controlling just Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Cuba, and Haiti, it's power exists only on paper.
 
As for the Confederacy? Other than controlling just Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Cuba, and Haiti, it's power exists only on paper.

Yeah, it's a pretty sad state of affairs for our backwards southern cousins.

And are you sure about Haiti? Because the last time I heard, the Tonton Macoute terrorist group controlled pretty much all of Haiti outside of Port-au-Prince.
 
If the Union had won the War, there wouldn't have been the precedent for states leaving it. So it's possible that we could still see a USA stretching from sea to sea. And without the instability its economy would probably prosper more than OTL. Perhaps even the rest of British north America would have joined them eventually after becoming independent. As a side effect, this would give them a common border with the USSR which probably means the Red Scare will be much more pronounced then today.

Such a united North America would be able to challenge the otherwise undisputed leadership of the Western alliance by Britain during the Cold War. I agree, having a USA as powerful as the British Empire sounds like an absurd Union-wank, but I think it could have been possible.
 
Had either Generals Grant or Thomas been given free reign the USA would have won the war outright. As it was, Grant captured 17,000 troops at Fort Donelson, a victory unparalleled until the Second CS Civil War for US Arms. And he did so with maneuver and amphibious warfare, hardly simple tactical or strategic difficulties. Where Thomas routed a force equal to his in size, also not how stuff's supposed to work.
 
Why would freeing the slaves lead to more cheap labor? Slave labor is the cheapest of all. Slave labor in the South was keeping down the wages of free labor in the North and white workers would have benefited from emancipation.

The generally idea that the Irish had was that freed slaves would come north and take jobs in factories, because they where used to working for nothing they would always underbid the Irish for the jobs (in those days you bid for who would be willing to work for the lest to get a job) and in OTL it more or less happened, many run away slaves in the 63 years after the civil war and before the end of southern slavery (well mostly, pockets of South Carolina, Mississippi and Louisiana still have semi-legal slavery) run away slaves moved north and worked out the table often just for food and the right to sleep in the factor at night
 
Yeah, it's a pretty sad state of affairs for our backwards southern cousins.

And are you sure about Haiti? Because the last time I heard, the Tonton Macoute terrorist group controlled pretty much all of Haiti outside of Port-au-Prince.

Yes, but I wouldn't call them 'terrorists', though. Unlike the PFA(Palestine Freedom Army, a radical Islamist group) in Israel, or the HGGB(Holsteiner Grosse-Gemeinde Bund) in Denmark, the Tonton Macoute are legitimate freedom fighters, and only formed when the CSA gov't out of Jefferson(Macon, GA)insisted on martial law after the Port-au-Prince 'Gas Riots'(they were really nothing more than demonstrations) back in '77.....that was just 13 years ago, btw.

@Ferreolus: Actually.........'British North America' stopped existing in 1866. I'm living in Manitoba, the first territory to have broken off from it. ;)
Not to mention Britain hasn't had much of a leadership in anything since the collapse of the Empire in the late '50s.

And since we're talking about the Cold War, anyone remember the Jamaican Missile Crisis in Sept. '64?
 
Last edited:
Why would we want it, anyway. We pretty much rule there anyway (or at least, Dole, Chevron, Standard Oil, Gap, Nike, Old Navy, Asics, Hilton, Hyatt, etc do! :D) The CSA is the destination of pretty much evey college kid during spring break anyway! If we owned it in word of law, we wouldn't have the extraterritorial rights we yankees have today. Isn't it ironic that a country founded on back slavery has little black AND white kids working in sweatshops to make me my running shoes .
 
Last edited:
If the Union had won the War, there wouldn't have been the precedent for states leaving it. So it's possible that we could still see a USA stretching from sea to sea. And without the instability its economy would probably prosper more than OTL. Perhaps even the rest of British north America would have joined them eventually after becoming independent. As a side effect, this would give them a common border with the USSR which probably means the Red Scare will be much more pronounced then today.

Such a united North America would be able to challenge the otherwise undisputed leadership of the Western alliance by Britain during the Cold War. I agree, having a USA as powerful as the British Empire sounds like an absurd Union-wank, but I think it could have been possible.

Oh really? I suppose you also really believe that Jim Strom Thurmond really got the 99% of the vote he claimed to have recieved in that snap election just after his father's death :rolleyes:.
 
Oh really? I suppose you also really believe that Jim Strom Thurmond really got the 99% of the vote he claimed to have recieved in that snap election just after his father's death :rolleyes:.

Well the Thurmond Campaign did get AC comics to have Ultraman and Superwoman indorse Jim "in the defence of white decency" :p jk I'm sure they were stuffing the ballot boxes
 
Top