Greatest chance for Confederate Victory

[M79]

1) Confederates perfect/steal copper spinning technology in 1863, allowing them to easily copy bullets for the Henry Rifle. They had already knocked off the gun, the bullets became the serious problem. Gettysburg could still be lost but overwhelming Confederate firepower in late 1863/early 1864 could put a damper on the election and give the Rebs some breathing room.

2) Change secession by 5 years either way. Later means better defensive military technology for the South and a chance to develop railways, earlier means more dependence on Southern cotton for UK industry and less railways for the North.

3) Union invades KY first, KY secedes and Union forced to commit more troops to the area. Maryland continues to try secession and generates bad press for the Union, combined with Trent Affair UK jumps into the fray.

4) France alone decides to support the CSA.

 

[Alcuin]

I voted other but can think of three others that might fit the bill...

1) (If victory is defined as retaining slavery), don't start the war.

2) Do not join the Union in the first place.

3) Continue Southward after Texan independence, absorbing Coahuila, Chihuahua, Sonora, Baja Californis etc. into the Union as slave states

 

[Wendell]

I voted other but can think of three others that might fit the bill...

1) (If victory is defined as retaining slavery), don't start the war.

2) Do not join the Union in the first place.

3) Continue Southward after Texan independence, absorbing Coahuila, Chihuahua, Sonora, Baja Californis etc. into the Union as slave states

With that third option, you will have changed things rather significantly. Then again, whatever states the U.S. added to the Southwest, some would surely not be admitted as states for decades anyway.

 

[orion900]

If the South was supported by a European Power?

If the South was supported by Great Britain or France, it could have become free from the United States, put slavery was on the way out, plantation system just wasn't working, cotton plants wear out soil, and only have about 20 years of production. Also the system of government which the South would try couldn't support itself for very long, without an outside threat. Same type of government, (Weak Central Government, with Strong State Government) the American Colonies had after 1781.

 

[htgriffin]

The Civil War was as much about States Rights as about slavery. States Rights was about how states were more important than the federal govt., and that the govt. shouldn't be able to tell the states what to do (like end slavery). With that in mind, it's alright if states choose to end slavery/use black troops, but it's not alright for the federal govt. to make them do so.

Sorry, but in the wake of Southern Support for the Fugitive Slave Laws (abrogating the Personal Liberty Acts of several states) and the Dred Scott decision (ditto), as well as insistence on establishing several territories as Slave State against th wishes of thier populace... let me just say that cries of "States' Rights" ring rather hollow.

HTG

 

[Smaug]

Although Lee came close at Gettysburg, I for the CSA to have won that battle decisively, a significant officer on the Union side would have had to have been killed. I think a switch in Confederate high command may have changed the war. As much as I admire Lee, I think he wasn't quite capable of leading his men to victory against as well positioned troops as Meade's were at Gettysburg. I think Richmond should have accepted Lee's resignation after Gettysburg and replaced him with someone more capable.

Who they gonna get? Napoleon? Lee was a genious, and actually valued his soldiers lives. He did as well in the ACW as any commander could have hoped.

 

[MrP]

Who they gonna get? Napoleon? Lee was a genious, and actually valued his soldiers lives. He did as well in the ACW as any commander could have hoped.

I think there's some debate ongoing about the validity of his offensive actions. Essentially, it can be summed up thus. Lee felt that the only way to ensure Britain and France would recognise the CSA was if he won a signal smashing victory against the USA, otherwise the USA would gradually wear down the CSA. However, not only are offensive operations more expensive than defensive ones, but also, the further the Army of Northern Virginia gets from Virginia, the harder it is to supply. So it's likely it'll have to withdraw if the enemy merely refuse battle. I can't quite decide myself, whether it was worth the risk of launching such offensive actions, or whether it'd've been worth it just to wait for the Union to attack, and then outflank and smash them deep in Rebel territory . . . I forgot about that PBEM Trent Affair!

*rushes off to email*

 

[67th Tigers]

. . . I forgot about that PBEM Trent Affair!

*rushes off to email*

No dramas. I've still work to do, particularly working out which British Generals would be sent (Williams, Paulet and George Napier are historically there as the three Division commanders sent prior to the climbdown, I've got to sort through the army list for other Lt Gens (realises the 2nd Duke of Wellington is a Maj Gen at this point...))

 

[Dave Howery]

Who they gonna get? Napoleon? Lee was a genious, and actually valued his soldiers lives. He did as well in the ACW as any commander could have hoped.

Lee was a military genius... but not at Gettysburg. It's generally agreed he was off his game there, and suffered some undetermined illness as well. He made bad decisions, the main one being Pickett's Charge...

 

[Quiet_Man]

I voted other as I believe a much earlier POD would be necessary for the South to win. At least 15 years earlier for the civil war to start.

 

[M79]

Lee was a military genius... but not at Gettysburg. It's generally agreed he was off his game there, and suffered some undetermined illness as well. He made bad decisions, the main one being Pickett's Charge...

I think it was a mild-moderate heart attack...

 

[nunya]

Battle of Shiloh for sure

The Union armies werernt getting anywhere in northern Virginia.Keep in mind,the Confederates dont need to take Washington or something to that degree to win.They simply need to defend the majority of there territory and prevent themselves from collapsing.Thing is,if the Northrern troops didnt break through in the western Confederacy,I think that the Union might have to concede the war within two years.Casualties were vastly higher than anything that America had fought before and if there wasnt visible progress in the western theater,sentiment throughout the country,in the Congress and the general staff,would have turned in favor of peace.
Heres what needs to happen.This practically guarantees a Confederate victory.At the battle of Shiloh,have the Confederates be commanded exclusively by Albert Sidney Johnston instead of the confused command including Beareagard with no unified battle plan.Instead,have the Confederetes hit them harder and quicker,looping around the Hornets Nest and trapping the Unionists,keeping them constantly on the run,not letting them reorganize into a new line at Pittsburg Landing.Have Bedford Forrest loop around with his cavalry and take Pittsburg Landing to trap the Union army for good,then get attacked the second day again,its an overwhelming Confederate victory,and Grant surrenders.Not retreats,surrenders.Then the Confederates can retake Tennesee easily and slowly push back or hold the Army of the Ohio under Don Carlos Buell.
While your at it,have AS Johnston not get shot,but have Sherman die.
Then the Confederates win the war.

 

[nunya]

I LOL at the number of people who thought Britain joining the war on the side of the Confederates is the best chance for a Confederate victory.Britain would never do that in any case.Further,I dont think that guarantees a Confederate victory.The RN might have broken the blockade on the South,but either than that,what do you want them to do,invade by Canada?There is a good chance the US could defeat Britain in land battles.Furthermore,the POD has to be LIKELY.Pick something else people.The Battle of Chickamauga is a really good one that noone picked,so is the Maryland Campaign(although that had a real lot of votes).I do not think that Gettysburg would be enough.Even if he wins,by then it is too late,the Missisipi River is lost,the western Confederacy is about to fall to Grant.Here is one that isnt on the list-what if the CS Navy consists of several ironclads instead of just one(maybe it build a good number in secret,then releases them all of a sudden in 1862?)Then the Confederates succeed in blowing up a painful number of US wooden ships(twenty or so I think)forcing the US to adopt a looser blockade,and the CSA retakes a number of coastal towns.

 

[Solomaxwell6]

I think New York and Pennsylvania joining the CSA would win the war for the Rebs.

 

[Ofaloaf]

I LOL at the number of people who thought Britain joining the war on the side of the Confederates is the best chance for a Confederate victory.Britain would never do that in any case.Further,I dont think that guarantees a Confederate victory.The RN might have broken the blockade on the South,but either than that,what do you want them to do,invade by Canada?There is a good chance the US could defeat Britain in land battles.Furthermore,the POD has to be LIKELY.Pick something else people.The Battle of Chickamauga is a really good one that noone picked,so is the Maryland Campaign(although that had a real lot of votes).I do not think that Gettysburg would be enough.Even if he wins,by then it is too late,the Missisipi River is lost,the western Confederacy is about to fall to Grant.Here is one that isnt on the list-what if the CS Navy consists of several ironclads instead of just one(maybe it build a good number in secret,then releases them all of a sudden in 1862?)Then the Confederates succeed in blowing up a painful number of US wooden ships(twenty or so I think)forcing the US to adopt a looser blockade,and the CSA retakes a number of coastal towns.

I think that Britain joining the war alongside the CSA would be like going "Booga booga!" to Lincoln. I mean, say you're the US. You're a continental power, with influence in the Americas, but you're not a world power or even close to one just yet. Suddenly, in the middle of a rather bloody civil war, one the most powerful empires on the face of the earth sides with the rebels who are fighting you. I'd give up right then and there.

I think New York and Pennsylvania joining the CSA would win the war for the Rebs.

How is that at all probable?

 

[EvolvedSaurian]

I think New York and Pennsylvania joining the CSA would win the war for the Rebs.

What the fuck are you talking about? Why would we join the Rebs? Why?!

 

[67th Tigers]

NYC had to be kept garrisoned over fears of secession (not to the Rebs, just from the Federal Government), the rest of the state and PA were pretty secure.

The area there was real fear was Maine, Vermont and NH. There was a very real fear these states could possibly attempt to join Canada, so much so that it complicated British military planning in 1861/2.

The Army advocated seizing Portland, as it would give the British another line of communication to Montreal and would threaten the LoCs of any Federal Army moving north, but there was enough pro-Canadian feeling that it was considered Maine might mount a natural secession.

 

[Solomaxwell6]

I didn't say New York and Pennsylvania joining the war was at all likely, just that it would basically guarantee a Confederate victory (although it would depend on the circumstances of their secession). >_> <_<

 

[Douglas]

I LOL at the number of people who thought Britain joining the war on the side of the Confederates is the best chance for a Confederate victory.Britain would never do that in any case.Further,I dont think that guarantees a Confederate victory.The RN might have broken the blockade on the South,but either than that,what do you want them to do,invade by Canada?There is a good chance the US could defeat Britain in land battles.Furthermore,the POD has to be LIKELY.Pick something else people.The Battle of Chickamauga is a really good one that noone picked,so is the Maryland Campaign(although that had a real lot of votes).I do not think that Gettysburg would be enough.Even if he wins,by then it is too late,the Missisipi River is lost,the western Confederacy is about to fall to Grant.Here is one that isnt on the list-what if the CS Navy consists of several ironclads instead of just one(maybe it build a good number in secret,then releases them all of a sudden in 1862?)Then the Confederates succeed in blowing up a painful number of US wooden ships(twenty or so I think)forcing the US to adopt a looser blockade,and the CSA retakes a number of coastal towns.

From this point on use punctuation, correct spacing, and paragraphs.

And never type "LOL" on this site again. That is all.

 

[Anaxagoras]

I didn't say New York and Pennsylvania joining the war was at all likely

My original question did request for answers to be realistic. But no offense taken.