Effects of a shorter Civil War

Not at all.

It could be expected that the settlement of the West would take a little slower since there won't be the manpower for the US Army to draw upon. There wouldn't be the same scope of industrialization in the North and there most likely wouldn't be any major federally funded projects. With the likes of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas remaining in the Union they would still at as some sort of brake, as the South historically did, in counteracting the growth of the central government.

Politically, the idea of secession wouldn't be settle since Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas would still be advocates. Its possible that the original concept of the Constitution, in regards to the even balance of power between the government and the states.


Actually, I think the west gets settled a lot faster due to three factors:

1. If the war is settled in short order (say 1862) there's far fewer casualties amongst the young men of the period. They don't die, they go home have kids, population expands.

2. Immigration. People were coming over in droves during before the war, they came over in droves during the war, they came over in droves after the war.

3. All those people have to live somewhere and the west has plenty of land, plus the Homestead Act to make it more easy to acquire.

The settlements have to be protected, so the army, after a brief period of demobilization, enlarges accordingly to facilitate settlement. They're going to be out there anyway to protect the trans-continental railroad construction and settlement will probably be heavy along the trans-con route, so figure the army will get as large as it has to to protect westward expansion.
 
There were simply no innovations worth noting that hadn't been seen in Europe already. Some of the "innovations" you list are medieval.

Which is why I added the words "significantly advanced" Even if the only innovation worth noting was the birth of successful submarine warfare, to suggest this was somehow insignificant is beyond reason to me. It is clear that Europe took a great deal of notice, yet it was tempered with the usual aloof arrogance of the time.

Moving people, even soldiers by rail was not a brand new occurance. The "doctrine" of rail warfare was.
 

Imthatguy

Banned
No one learned any military lessons from the ACW anyway, look at the massive infantry rushes of WWI which fail to accomplish anything
 
I don't know about that. Over time, they'll be getting less and less support. ITTL, we only have the reactionary core of the confederacy. Since there's less of a chance of an emancipation proclamation ITTL, they'll still have slavery. But as one by one, border states become free states, they'll know for sure that there's no hope of getting that state to join their side in the next war (can you imagine a free Virginia joining a war primarily about slavery, especially when it didn't have the support to join such a war when it did have slavery?). And the north's manpower and industrial advantage is going to get greater and greater. If the deep south starts a second Civil War, they're going to get completely screwed over once again.

I'm not suggesting a second civil war per se, but civil conflict and unrest without a doubt. In OT we had the KKK and other post-bellum quasi-confederate groups taking virtual posession of the South through terror and guerilla tactics. Also, here a factor to consider is with faster Civil War more plantations and centers of industry would survive in the South leaving much of the wealthy aristocracy intact financially and socially. Having learned their lesson against open rebellion in the first Civil War these leaders and their states in ATL might achieve a kind of independence in all but name, especially if this strife spreads to the upper south eventually. Things could erupt over continued power loss in congress, continued action of militant abolitionist groups and a general feeling of disenfranchisement on the national scene with an undiminished feeling of sectional unity due to the continued existence of slavery. Even in OT Southern anger was fed by the political marginalization of the South, especially in the Border States like Missouri where many Unionists and former Republicans felt betrayed politically and so jumped ship allied with their former enemies in the Democratic Party.
 
To back Sigma 7 and my claim about faster development of the West

I would still assume that the Lincoln administration is in government.

Lincoln was about cheap land and expanding the railroad in the West. Lincoln could be known for as the president who dealt with the Civil War and for settling the West.

This butterflies into the transcontinental railroad being constructed sooner.

If the transontinental railroad keeps its present course through Nebraska territory, with the railroad would come settlement leading to a state out of the Nebraska territory sooner than 1867 OTL. Perhaps by 1864 or 1865.

With Nebraska being a state sooner and more railroads, the chance increases that Colorado will become a state sooner than 1876. Perhaps 1870.

There is also an increased chance that gold would be discovered in the Black Hills sooner than 1876. It would be nice to say that Custer still meets his demise, but sooner.

What would the plight of the Native Americans. The Sioux would still have their uprising in 1862. Would an aftershock be less sympathy from the government with increased settlement? Anyway, the Plains Indians would be screwed over sooner.

With increased settlement and perhaps different patterns, the map of the western states could be different. Who says that the borders would be the same? That is what I like about the Union and Liberty thread.

Also what is interesting would be the county names. Nebraska for example has several counties named after Union generals. Would this be the same for a state with a shorter civil war? Would there be more Lee counties out west?
 
To get the Virginians from leaving the Union, you could have Robert E. Lee, instead of joining the US Army, go into politics. Since REL was born in 1807, two years before Abraham Lincoln, I could see a possible Lee Presidency that could favor the South. Or, if you don't think REL could be elected, you could have him become elected governor of Virginia, and he would not allow Virginia to secede, completing our goal of keeping VA from seceding. Remember, Robert E. Lee was asked by President Lincoln, in the beginning of the war, to be in the Union Army, but REL refused, stating that his state needed him, and that was the only thing that kept him from fighting for/with the Union.
 
I'm not suggesting a second civil war per se, but civil conflict and unrest without a doubt. In OT we had the KKK and other post-bellum quasi-confederate groups taking virtual posession of the South through terror and guerilla tactics. Also, here a factor to consider is with faster Civil War more plantations and centers of industry would survive in the South leaving much of the wealthy aristocracy intact financially and socially. Having learned their lesson against open rebellion in the first Civil War these leaders and their states in ATL might achieve a kind of independence in all but name, especially if this strife spreads to the upper south eventually. Things could erupt over continued power loss in congress, continued action of militant abolitionist groups and a general feeling of disenfranchisement on the national scene with an undiminished feeling of sectional unity due to the continued existence of slavery. Even in OT Southern anger was fed by the political marginalization of the South, especially in the Border States like Missouri where many Unionists and former Republicans felt betrayed politically and so jumped ship allied with their former enemies in the Democratic Party.

Ah, yes. I agree, then.
 
Remember, Robert E. Lee was asked by President Lincoln, in the beginning of the war, to be in the Union Army, but REL refused, stating that his state needed him, and that was the only thing that kept him from fighting for/with the Union.

I believe that Winfield Scott spoke with Lee, not Lincoln.
 
This butterflies into the transcontinental railroad being constructed sooner.

If the transontinental railroad keeps its present course through Nebraska territory, with the railroad would come settlement leading to a state out of the Nebraska territory sooner than 1867 OTL. Perhaps by 1864 or 1865.

I would expect that the transcontinental railroad would be delayed a little since the 'loyal' southern states would usually block any sort of government funded venture. They just may leave it to private enterprise.
 
If the four states which only seceded after Lincoln called for volunteers instead remain in the Union then they've taken a position on secession since they're actively aiding the military defeat of the CSA, all seven of them.

One wonders whether a Confederate surrender might be further hastened by the fact that 8 of the 15 slave states are on the Union's side.


hzn5pk, not to fear! With a stronger Union and weaker CSA Custer never gets the absurd series of events that saw him made a brevet brigadier general and is probably a captain or some such by 1876. Unless he dies sooner with some insane charge against Confederate forces...
 
I would expect that the transcontinental railroad would be delayed a little since the 'loyal' southern states would usually block any sort of government funded venture. They just may leave it to private enterprise.

Actually, the south mainly disagreed on the route, not the funding. Remember the Gadsden Purchase, purchased with public funds to make southern trancontinental railroad possible.

The 1860 platform for the southern Democratic party said:

"WHEREAS, One of the greatest necessities of the age, in a political, commercial, postal and military point of view, is a speedy communication between the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. Therefore be it
Resolved, That the National Democratic party do hereby pledge themselves to use every means in their power to secure the passage of some bill to the extent of the constitutional authority of Congress, for the construction of a Pacific Rail road from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, at the earliest practicable moment."
 
Last edited:

67th Tigers

Banned
Nobody learned that from the Russo-Japanese War nor the Boer War.

Everyone learned a lot from all these wars. There was nothing unexpected in the early mobile phase of WW1. When things settled down into the character of a massive siege things get a bit different. The sieges of Petersburg, Plevna, Mafeking, or Port Arthur were not different to Sevastapol or any previous siege. The trenchlock of WW1 is quite different and new, the ACW experience is in line with Europe and innapplicable to WW1.
 
To get the Virginians from leaving the Union, you could have Robert E. Lee, instead of joining the US Army, go into politics. Since REL was born in 1807, two years before Abraham Lincoln, I could see a possible Lee Presidency that could favor the South. Or, if you don't think REL could be elected, you could have him become elected governor of Virginia, and he would not allow Virginia to secede, completing our goal of keeping VA from seceding. Remember, Robert E. Lee was asked by President Lincoln, in the beginning of the war, to be in the Union Army, but REL refused, stating that his state needed him, and that was the only thing that kept him from fighting for/with the Union.

May or may not work.

Sam Houston didn't want Texas to secede, but they did it anyway.

Maybe Lee could give some sort of stirring speech before the state assembly, imploring them not to hurl Virginia into a bloodbath and to look to a peaceful means to settle the issue, and maybe he could sway the vote against secession, but he couldn't just stop it by an executive act.
 
Top