Early ACW Ending

Okay, let's say just for the sake of discussion it was Stuart.

How would you present Stuart as a candidate one wants to vote for?

"I'll never let something like this happen again!" isn't any more believable from his lips than say, Garfield's.

Fair enough.

Stuart, from what I can tell, was fairly charismatic. I'm sure he would talk about how, since the war in the east mostly took place there, that he was just defending his home state of Virginia from invaders as any of the potential voters would defend their home states. Other then that I have no idea.
 
Back to another question. Would Lincoln be assassinated in this scenario? By whom? Booth? Missouri Bushwhackers?
 
Back to another question. Would Lincoln be assassinated in this scenario? By whom? Booth? Missouri Bushwhackers?

I don't think Lincoln was fated to be murdered.True, he had many thousands of bitter men who wanted him dead, but so did Sherman Grant and Sheridan to some extent. If Booth's conspiracy was directed by orders from Richmond, it's possible that that decision is not made in this TL. Booth met, I think with Confederate agents in Canada, so Davis at least knew of Booth's intentions. OTL, as the war went on, the Rebs became more desperate, and more willing to take extreme measures, including arson, germ warfare, coal bombs, etc. That might not happen here. OTOH, a shorter war might have left a lot of people with a "stabbed in the back" udeology that might to further violence later. OTL, most Rebs knew there was little point i carrying on the fight
 
Last edited:
I don't think Lincoln was fated to be murdered.True, he had many thousands of bitter men who wanted him dead, but so did Sherman Grant and Sheridan to some extent. If Booth's conspiracy was directed by orders from Richmond, it's possible that that decision is not made in this TL. Booth met, I think with Confederate agents in Canada, so Davis at least knew of Booth's intentions. OTL, as the war went on, the Rebs became more desperate, and more willing to take extreme measures, including arson, germ warfare, coal bombs, etc. That might not happen here. OTOH, a shorter war might have left a lot of people with a "stabbed in the back" udeology that might to further violence later. OTL, most Rebs knew there was little point i carrying on the fight

Would Booth himself have made some of these threats? If he were to discover a conspiracy like the one he orchestrated OTL would he report it? Like you said in 1865 the Confederacy was desperate. If the war ended 2-3 years earlier would Booth have been more inclined to let a conspiracy happen, get involved or report it?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
A shorter Civil War could lead to more lasting Fusion politics...

The "Fusion" movement of the (historical) 1880s-1890s amounted to an alliance between the Republicans and the Populists, including crossing racial lines in places like North Carolina and Virginia (Mahone's Readjusters, for example).

The interesting element in this is that along with the cross-racial element, there was also a significant economic/class-based element - small farmers and townsmen, along with some aspiring industrialists - who were trying the break the hold the planter classes still had on southern politics at the state and federal levels.

If the Civil War is "milder/shorter" (as yet to be defined) than historically, there is a possibility that a segment of the white electorate in the South could respond strongly to an argument that "the old guard got us into this mess" and something like Fusion could work out, in combination with emancipation and suffrage for African Americans who presumably would remain loyal Republicans.

Add to the Populist, Progressive, and Labor strains in American politics in other regions, and the possibility of a political spectrum divided into more than two major parties is a possibility.

One could see:

1) an urban working class party centered on Catholic immigrants and machine politics ("Democratic Party");
2) an urban, middle-income to wealthy party centered on Protestant "natives" and "reform" politics, heavily backed by the financial classes, and with a gold-backed currency as a central point in their platform ("Republican Party");
3) a rural/small town party centered on white supremacy (in the south) and anti-Catholic factions (elsewhere), but with a free silver/greenback economic element ("Populist Party");
4) a rural/small town party focused on (grudging) racial equality (although probably separate but equal in the South), also with a silver/greenback element ("Progressive Party")

Factions with different focuses on civil rights for AA males, woman's suffrage, and host of "Progressive" issues (direct elections, referendra and initiatives, civil service reform, etc.) would certainly be likely.

Basically, 1) are the historical urban Democrats of the period; 2) are the Gilded Age Republicans (more or less); 3) is a Southern Democrat/Populist mix; and 4) is a Populist/Progressive/Radical Republican mix.

There are probably some Socialists wandering around on the "left", as well as some "revanchist" type nationalists/militarists on the "right" (north and south) because of the "different" Civil War.

Best,
 
Last edited:
The "Fusion" movement of the (historical) 1880s-1890s amounted to an alliance between the Republicans and the Populists, including crossing racial lines in places like North Carolina and Virginia (Mahone's Readjusters, for example).

The interesting element in this is that along with the cross-racial element, there was also a significant economic/class-based element - small farmers and townsmen, along with some aspiring industrialists - who were trying the break the hold the planter classes still had on southern politics at the state and federal levels.

If the Civil War is "milder/shorter" (as yet to be defined) than historically, there is a possibility that a segment of the white electorate in the South could respond strongly to an argument that "the old guard got us into this mess" and something like Fusion could work out, in combination with emancipation and suffrage for African Americans who presumably would remain loyal Republicans.

Add to the Populists, Progressive, and Labor strains in American politics in other regions, and the possibility of a political spectrum divided into more than two major parties is a possibility.

One could see:

1) an urban working class party centered on Catholic immigrants and machine politics ("Democratic Party");
2) an urban, middle-income to wealthy party centered on Protestant "natives" and "reform" politics, heavily backed by the financial classes, and with a gold-backed currency as a central point in their platform ("Republican Party");
3) a rural/small town party centered on white supremacy (in the south) and anti-Catholic factions (elsewhere), but with a free silver/greenback economic element ("Populist Party");
4) a rural/small town party focused on (grudging) racial equality (although probably separate but equal in the South), also with a silver/greenback element ("Progressive Party")

Factions with different focuses on civil rights for AA males, woman's suffrage, and host of "Progressive" issues (direct elections, referendra and initiatives, civil service reform, etc.) would certainly be likely.

Basically, 1) are the historical urban Democrats of the period; 2) are the Gilded Age Republlicans (more or less); 3) is a Southern Democrat/Populist mix; and 4) is a Populist/Progressive/Radical Republican mix.

There are probably some Socialists wandering around on the "left", as well as some "revanchist" type nationalists/militarists on the "right" (north and south) because of the "different" Civil War.

Best,

Interesting. I was thinking mid to late 1862 for the end of the ACW. How this would work out I haven't worked out yet but I will keep this in mind. Thanks.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Sure - the later half of the Nineteenth Century was pretty dynamic

Interesting. I was thinking mid to late 1862 for the end of the ACW. How this would work out I haven't worked out yet but I will keep this in mind. Thanks.


YAQW. 1862 is probably as "early" as an "early victory" scenario could come into play, given a better result of the US offensive in Virginia.

Have GBM die of typhoid, Sumner take over and wage an offensive from one river line to the next against J.E. Johnston, (Overland Campign in 1862, basically) and I could see the US forces driving the rebels into Richmond by the autumn of '62.

Combine that with the historical US victories on the Mississippi, the Tennessee/Cumberland, the South Atlantic coast, and at New Orleans in 1862, and leave RE "Granny" Lee rusticating in the Carolinas, and I could see the CSA collapsing in the winter of 1862. There would be plenty of internal recriminations between the fire-eaters of the deep south and the late secessionists in the border states, which would contribute to the "dis-union" (ironically enough) and the eventual possibility of Fusion politics.

One other contributor for an 1862 VC Day: if Grant is left in command after Donelson, rather than being supplanted and then restored to command, it is possible the move south into Tennessee after Nashville will be better concieved and the US forces will be concentrated (under Grant, rather than split between Grant and Buell), so whatever equivalent of Shiloh (Duck River? Pittsburg Landing?) is fought in the spring would be less of a draw and more of an outright CS defeat, along the lines of Vicksburg or Spring Hill/Franklin.

Given that sort of victory, varous "southron" myths will evaporate, and emancipation will come into being in some form.

Given the above, the possibility of a less consensual politics is possible.

The later half of the Nineteenth Century was pretty dynamic politically in the US, probably the one time - because of the varying influences of industrialization, unlimited emigration, and the aftermath of the Civil War - that a relatively "wide" political spectrum could have germinated.

Best,
 
Last edited:
Top