DBWI :: Could the Union have won the War of Northern Secession?

One thing that always bugs me about the WNS (War of Northern Secession) in AH is that it seams to be a truism that the Union cause was doomed for the beginning, the excuse being that because the Northern Sates contained the bulk of the old Unions industry, military and population, it was always going to be a one sided contest.

Now, this has always annoyed me immensely. From what i've seen, the Unions lack of industry has always been overstated and in the early years of the war, the will certainly was there amongst most southerners to preserve the Union. Adding to that, the Union had some brilliant generals as we well know and aside from Britain and France, most of the international community at the time supported the Union

So, simply put, what would it have taken for the Union to win and reabsorb the FSA (Federated States of America) and what would have been the consequences? Discuss.

OOC: In case you haven't noticed, the premise is basically a reverse US Civil War (I.E Abolitionist North seceding from Slavocratic South and winning). I'll leave the rest to you ;)
 
Hope this is good

In a word, unlikly. The Union had the best generals, international support, and cash crops. What does the north have, grain and perhaps a higher moral ground. In our pragmatic world that doesn't count for much. They had only one opportunity and they lost it when they alienated immigrants(iirc).
 
In a word, unlikly. The Union had the best generals, international support, and cash crops. What does the north have, grain and perhaps a higher moral ground. In our pragmatic world that doesn't count for much. They had only one opportunity and they lost it when they alienated immigrants(iirc).

But the north did have most of the old Unions Industry and... they did win IOTL...
 
Avoid the famines in Britain that made Britain so dependent on FSA grains, and make cotton more valuable. This gives the British the freedom to support the Union openly and forcefully as opposed to the private moral support they gave OTL.

You could have more industrial development of the South and West pre-war so they don't have to spend most of their capital buying weapons and material from abroad. That would make them a whole lot less vulnerable to the FSA commerce raiders and blockade that crippled their war effort as the war went on OTL.

Having a few less good generals defecting to the FSA would always be a good thing. Perhaps you could have General Thomas stay in Virginia instead of moving North before the war; that would deprive the FSA of its best general. The FSA keeping McClellan around for longer would have been a good thing for the Union as well.
 
I like your argument, but wasn't most British Public Opinion agaisnt the Union?

British public opinion was mostly against the Union, yes. However, guess who had more influence over the British government; the anti-Union man in the street, or the aristocrat who needs Union cotton to keep his mills running? The only reason they didn't intervene OTL was the fact that the famines had made Britain effectively dependent on FSA wheat and corn. If Britain had cut off those supplies, there would have been riots. If they weren't dependent on FSA grain, there would have been grumbling, but nothing serious.
 
No. President Breckinridge was an idiot. The Union had utterly relied on a mythical 60% of the "working man" that was supposedly pro-union and an expectation that Britain would at the least refuse to trade with the rebels. Once both those things fell through, the whole war was a fool's errand. Even if Lee had managed to achieve some sort of stunning victory at Jefferson Hills, the north's superior numbers and better railroads would have turned the tide eventually. The only reason the war lasted longer than 6 months was sheer pride.
 
Perhaps if the FSA hadn't been able to develop such a strong coalition across all of their states, there would have been more dissent during the first year of the war when it was going worse for them (FSA victory at Jefferson Hills notwithstanding).

Some possibilities:

1) The FSA doesn't promised statehood to the Utah Territory if they join the secession movement. The war is then more focused east of the Great Plains, and the southern armies can concentrated on more strategic targets in territory they are more familiar with, avoiding all of those long marches through the desert. Of course, there probably would still have been some skirmishes out in California, but I suspect the Union army already stationed there would still quell them quite easily.

2) Nativists are more successful in passing their Anti-Immigrant and Anti-Catholic amendments to the FSA constitutions. The FSA loses quite a bit of support in the western Great Lakes states (and hence, no Sherman's Iron Brigade marching up and down the Ohio river, repelling Union troops) and eastern cities (possibly leading to destabilizing riots in Manhattan, Bronx and Boston).

3) Bloody Kansas goes the other way, and Kansas is admitted to the Union as a Free State. It seems unlikely that they'd have supported the secession movement with so many Missourians, and might have set an example to other Free states who otherwise only seceded because they felt they had to. At the very least, the Union keeps a lot more of the northern Great Plains territories after the war.
 
British public opinion was mostly against the Union, yes. However, guess who had more influence over the British government; the anti-Union man in the street, or the aristocrat who needs Union cotton to keep his mills running? The only reason they didn't intervene OTL was the fact that the famines had made Britain effectively dependent on FSA wheat and corn. If Britain had cut off those supplies, there would have been riots. If they weren't dependent on FSA grain, there would have been grumbling, but nothing serious.

Yes, but wouldn't Britain have still been able to get their cotton from Egypt or Australia?

Also, wasn't there the whole idea about nurturing the FSA as an ally to protect Canada?
 
Yes, but wouldn't Britain have still been able to get their cotton from Egypt or Australia?

True, although i doubt British importers would rather have imported their cotton from the Union than undeveloped and far off Australia.

Anyway, to add my two bits to the debate...

IMO, i think the Jefferson Hills is overrated as a POD for a Union Victory. The sheer amount of Northern forces would most likely have stalled the invasion of Pennsylvania anyway. A POD that might work is to have Johnston beat McClellan at Hagerstown, therefore allowing him to lift the Siege of Baltimore and relive Jory. Not only would this in the short term prevent the March to Washington but it would also free who was probably the best Union general second to Lee from being stuck in Baltimore for what was probably the most crucial year and a half of the war.

Also, killing off Leonard Jerome would provide a boost to the Union cause as well. Not only was he simply a brilliant war time president, but he also contributed much to the idea that secession and Northern independence was truly a Second American Revolution and that by seceding from a corrupt, slavocratic, backward, tax imposing and overbearing union the FSA was fulfilling the destiny of the original American Republic and the Founding Fathers. Along with that and some of the ideas presented beforehand, that might be enough to allow for the Union to reabsorb the FSA.
 
True, although i doubt British importers would rather have imported their cotton from the Union than undeveloped and far off Australia.

Anyway, to add my two bits to the debate...

IMO, i think the Jefferson Hills is overrated as a POD for a Union Victory. The sheer amount of Northern forces would most likely have stalled the invasion of Pennsylvania anyway. A POD that might work is to have Johnston beat McClellan at Hagerstown, therefore allowing him to lift the Siege of Baltimore and relive Jory. Not only would this in the short term prevent the March to Washington but it would also free who was probably the best Union general second to Lee from being stuck in Baltimore for what was probably the most crucial year and a half of the war.

Also, killing off Leonard Jerome would provide a boost to the Union cause as well. Not only was he simply a brilliant war time president, but he also contributed much to the idea that secession and Northern independence was truly a Second American Revolution and that by seceding from a corrupt, slavocratic, backward, tax imposing and overbearing union the FSA was fulfilling the destiny of the original American Republic and the Founding Fathers. Along with that and some of the ideas presented beforehand, that might be enough to allow for the Union to reabsorb the FSA.

Of course Johnston actually facing McClellan at Hagerstown would have been useful for the Union, but his horsing accident left him practically comatose for nearly three months. This of course opened the way for the ascension of Generals Reynolds (Commander, Army of the Susquehanna) and Hancock (Commander, Army of the Monongahela).

If one really wants the Union to "win" it might be good to have Douglas survive until his term is up. This will prevent his United Democrat VP Breckenridge from becoming President and thus prevent the Republican Lockout of 1863 that prompted the North's secession. Or perhaps if the Republicans had put someone less controversial than Seward forward in 1860 elections a compromise could have been worked out. I read once that the moderate ex-congressman from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln, was put forth as a possible candidate but a bad stomach virus made him a temporary laughing stock after he threw up while giving a speech at the Cooper Union in New York. Heck if Lincoln had died in early 1860 he couldn't have been Jerome's Sec. of War and that would have severely hurt the Federation.

Finally, if the Union had been at all diplomatic towards the so called border states they may have remained in the Union. Just having Indiana remain loyal would have split the Federation. If Breckenridge had been able to reign in the Fire-eaters and stop his newly appointed VP Davis and the Richmond Convention from opening all territories to slavery he could have the Midwest. Having the Taney Court declare all anti-slavery laws null and void was a bad move as well.

Benjamin
 
Top