Earlier end to Civil War but after 1/1/1863

How much difference would an earleir end to the war have made.

I have a couple of scenarios (but am not an expert)

Lee's retreat after Gettysberg is cut off and he is trapped against the Potomac, (a surrender at Harper's Ferry would have been interestingly symbolic)

Richmond falls by late September 1863. (does this collapse the confederacy)


Better planning for the battle of the Crater. Petersberg falls and then Richmond by August 1864.

If the war is clearly already won does Lincoln need or want Andrew Johnson.


How much difference woudl less devastation of the South have made to attitudes
 
the way I've figured it, an early end means much less resentment later. The longer the war, the more likely a harsher Reconstruction. However, there are also some interesting side issues.

For instance, the father of the man who wrote the book on which "Birth of a Nation" was written died int he siege of Washington in early '64. If that battle doesn't happena nd he survives, this may really change the man's attitudes, or at least prevent him from glorifying the Klan.

I think the survival of Lee, Longstreet, etc. helps anyway, especially if Gettysburg doesn't happen and Longstreet doesn't hve the chance to be lambasted by some for disputing with Lee.There will still be those who want to keep fighting. There are in any rebellion.But, less harsh Northern attitudes still help soothe nerves a lot.
 
This is the POD for Up With the Star, namely that the Army of the James and Army of the Potomac crush the Army of Northern Virginia in a Hammer and Anvil battle along the North Anna. The result is a TL overall more geographically and geopolitically conservative than IOTL, with a very different and very complex overall global pattern.
 
What is meant by Harsh reconstruction, it often seems to be code for giving Civila nd Political rights to former slaves

I've never looked at it that way, but I'm usually pretty literal to begin with, not using many codes ands tuff. But, if you want to go that route, I think you can still get individual states granting them, with the Federal government insisting on just no Black Codes and the like. However, it would be much more patchwork, in my view.

My idea of a harsh Reconstruction is more along the lines of federal troops, preventing the South from electing whoever they wanted, etc.; Louisiana, tennessee, and 1-2 others likely would ahve been able to do thigns pretty well. However, the Federal government would have to insist on other states taking action to curtail their Black Codes and the like.

As for troops, a very harsh crackdown right away on the Klan would go a long way toward preventing Federal troops from having to be used to occupy anyplace. And, with a shorter Civil War, you might stand more of a chance of the U.S. government being willing to do this.

At least that's the way i have it in "Brotherhood and Baseball: -the vigilantes don't last long, and the Klan never makes a return. Ex-slaves are given the vote based on educational requirements, and much more is poured into said education.

But, as I said, some states are way behind, not bothering to educate anyone becasue there was never an era of Federal occupation. Lack of Federal troops occupying places is going to have vast differences ont he culture in and of itself.
 
Top