How possibly long can the civil war last

How long can the civil war last

  • 1866

    Votes: 26 50.0%
  • 1867

    Votes: 9 17.3%
  • 1868

    Votes: 6 11.5%
  • 1869

    Votes: 4 7.7%
  • 1870+

    Votes: 7 13.5%

  • Total voters
    52

TFSmith121

Banned
Everything as it was historically between 1861 and 1865? And define "war" ... conventional warfare? Guerilla warfare? What type of politics by other means is necessary, exactly?

Kind of open-ended, otherwise...
 
Grant believed that, had the war gone on another year, the Union would have tired of the War and conceaded Confederate Independence (I'll admit this outcome is highly unlikely but will not call it ASB) so I'll go with that. So, November 1866 an peace congress is elected. Jan or Feb 1867 peace is accepted with the original 11 Confederate States and nothing else is conceded to the South.

Most likely POD. Jan 1864, Jefferson Davis accepts Patrick Cleburne's suggestion of accepting black troops, who (mostly) serve well and successfully blunt the offensives of 1864.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
I don't think the war could have lasted much beyond the spring of 1865, because everything centered on the election of 1864. If, in late 1864, the South was in a position to continue offering strong resistance indefinitely, Lincoln would have been voted out and a candidate willing to enter a ceasefire would be voted in. On the other hand, if the North is doing well enough in late 1864 that Lincoln is reelected, the South's will to go on with the war would collapse (as, indeed, happened IOTL) and resistance cease after a few more months.

Assuming an extremely unlikely chain of events after Lincoln's reelection (Hood somehow gaining victory in Tennessee, PLUS Fort Fisher not falling, PLUS Sherman somehow being stymied), I could see the war going to 1866. But that strikes me as very, very unlikely.
 
Politics means it can't go too much further than it already did - either you get the Confederacy doing well enough for a Peace Democrat to win in 1864, in which case you get some kind of ceasefire, or the Confederacy is clearly losing and the Union Army ends the war.
 
Assuming an extremely unlikely chain of events after Lincoln's reelection (Hood somehow gaining victory in Tennessee, PLUS Fort Fisher not falling, PLUS Sherman somehow being stymied), I could see the war going to 1866. But that strikes me as very, very unlikely.

Yeah, it is one hell of a longshot like you said. 1866 is the very latest the South could string it out and it would have to be very, very lucky to do so.
 
Theoretically it could last forever. Practically, I'd put my money on 1867, but that'd take an extremely lucky South coupled with an extremely stubborn North. Maybe the Confederates hold till 65 and then start collapsing? Who knows.
In any case, furthest while remaining plausible, 1867. Most likely, 1865-1866.
 
1869 if the South goes for a Boer style guerilla war, 1865 if it surrenders a la OTL. A guerilla war is a feasible option. After all the James Younger gang had plenty of support for their predations.
 
1869 if the South goes for a Boer style guerilla war, 1865 if it surrenders a la OTL. A guerilla war is a feasible option. After all the James Younger gang had plenty of support for their predations.

In the long run no it isn't. Guerilla wars are successful only with outside backing. Who, exactly, is going to back CSA guerillas? Who, exactly, is going to be these guerillas? In the words of Joseph E. Johnston "My view, sir our people are tired of war, feel themselves whipped and will not fight.!" There aren't a whole lot of people willing to still fight, particularly after the numerous thefts of civilians will drop the support.
 
Last edited:
Who said anything about success? As long as the guerillas are supplied they can essentially run a war indefinitely. Look at FARC in Columbia. Because it could pay for arms and food from drug money and the Columbian army could not destroy all its safe havens within Columbia it ran its war for decades.

As long as they can draw food from foods and get supplies of guns and ammunition, CSA guerillas can keep the war running.That is unless the Union is prepared to take similar steps as the British did in the Second Boer War. The 1869 date assumes that the Union decides to do whether it takes to end the war in any form. Were he in command of the occupation army General Sherman certainly would.
 
Who said anything about success? As long as the guerillas are supplied they can essentially run a war indefinitely. Look at FARC in Columbia. Because it could pay for arms and food from drug money and the Columbian army could not destroy all its safe havens within Columbia it ran its war for decades.

As long as they can draw food from foods and get supplies of guns and ammunition, CSA guerillas can keep the war running.That is unless the Union is prepared to take similar steps as the British did in the Second Boer War. The 1869 date assumes that the Union decides to do whether it takes to end the war in any form. Were he in command of the occupation army General Sherman certainly would.

The US would simply start rounding up people en masse and ship them to the Western Deserts. The West could use the population and once word went back the war would die.
 
The guerilla war in Missouri existed BEFORE the American Civil War. But it did so because the Southern Democratic Presidents sitting in the White House at the time were too sympathetic to do anything about them. With Abraham Lincoln at the helm, and the rest of the South crushed, the Union Army is free to do with them as they wish.

The Appalachian region were it was thought a guerilla war might also be fought were too Unionist to support Confederate resistance fighters.

And assuming Lincoln is still assassinated, any guerillas attempting to resist will see a grand scale urban renewal response by the Union Army. The SW third of Missouri, where the Confederate resistance movement was concentrated, was relatively sparse on the ground compared to the rest of the state. You could see that region being completely depopulated by this.

The idea of a "Peace Democrat" being elected, much less Lincoln's losing forcing an end to the Union war effort, is a myth. Usually put out by people who don't understand the meaning of American political party platforms going into an election plus ignoring the nature of George B. McClellan himself. The Democratic Party in 1864 coming out of its Convention could have had a platform calling for the Union's Unconditional Surrender to the Confederacy:mad:, but that wouldn't mean that President George B. McClellan would in any way be bound by it.

The Congress DECLARES war, but it doesn't END them. The President is the one who NEGOTIATES a treaty of peace, surrender, alliance, or cease-fire. Congress merely approves or rejects it.

McClellan was a WAR Democrat, not a PEACE Democrat. And he ran as such. Something that those who treat the idea of McClellan winning = South winning have no end of trouble understanding. McClellan fully intended on snatching the vittles of victory from Lincoln's plate and taking credit himself. After all, no matter how much the Peace Democrats in Congress may fume, there will still be enough War Democrats and Republicans left to form a working coalition to run the Congress, even as Sherman and Grant break through in Georgia and Virginia in 1865, once the terrain dries.

The Copperheads could never hope in these circumstances to defy McClellan, short of impeaching him, which would require the 1866 election to be a Copperhead landslide. Incredibly unlikely, as the CSA will have been overrun by this time. Otherwise, the Copperheads simply won't have the votes.

Biggest change will be that the Union will not pass the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.
 
McClellan would be inclined to deescalate the conflict, though; he very much disagreed with the hard war angle the war took on, believing it would prolong the war and undermine republic government. This approach, while it wouldn't harden the south's resistance as per OTL, might still be of material benefit to them. Furthermore, while congress can't end a war, it can deny support for it; they can repeal the conscription, confiscation, and militia acts, and the election of copperhead governors in major states could deny human resources for the war effort.

McClellan's relationship with his principle generals would be interesting; he and Grant agree on using the James as the base of operations against Richmond, but they have opposing overall philosophies on the prosecution of the war, though Grant didn't seem to be a terribly political person by inclination. Stanton would be gone right away.

There are also PoD's that might prevent McClellan candidacy in the first place, too; if you take Lee's 1862 offensives as your PoD, and McClellan is forced to abandon the field, you might get an actual peace democrat on the ticket. Don't know what effect it would have on the morale of the common soldier.
 

jahenders

Banned
I think that, in many ways, it went about as long as it was likely to. If the situation wasn't so Union-favorable in late 1864 as it was, it's possible Lincoln would be re-elected. Then, if things go poorly in 1865, the Union might agree to some form of peace by 1866. I guess you COULD, theoretically, have something like Korea, where you have an armistice that goes on for years (so you're technically still at war). However, 1866 seems about the latest that actual hostilities could continue.

Even if there were an armistice, the North would continue to get stronger relative to the South and the South would be dealing (moreso) with costs and chaos from the war. So, that armistice would likely fall apart within a decade, possibly with some states leaving the CSA.
 
I think that, in many ways, it went about as long as it was likely to. If the situation wasn't so Union-favorable in late 1864 as it was, it's possible Lincoln would be re-elected.

Indeed. It's easy to forget that while prior to the 1864 Republican Convention things may have been looking bleak for Lincoln, by Election Day it was a landslide. Consider making the war news only somewhat worse than OTL? Lee was bamboozled by Grant into thinking (Post-Cold Harbor) that the AotP was about to make a direct assault against Richmond north of the James (instead of Grant's OTL disengagement and slipping across the James to go for Petersburg). Had such a bloody assault been made, or had Lee listened to Beauregard's pleadings for help (to pivot to Petersburg), then the Siege of Petersburg could have been a much bloodier and possibly more long-lasting affair. Lincoln still re-elected, but not with the heavy Republican majorities he enjoyed OTL. Delayed 13th Amendment?

Then, if things go poorly in 1865, the Union might agree to some form of peace by 1866. I guess you COULD, theoretically, have something like Korea, where you have an armistice that goes on for years (so you're technically still at war). However, 1866 seems about the latest that actual hostilities could continue.

IDK. It almost seems like with so much invested, that the North simply CAN"T give up at this point. Not with so much of the South fallen under the North's control. The Border States long since secured. Arkansas, Tennessee, most of Appalachia occupied. The CSA bisected at Vicksburg and then trisected at Savannah. Most of the Deep South either occupied or "no man lands" between enemy armies. Florida's port cities occupied. ALL of the CSA's ports now occupied. The Anaconda Plan completed. Sherman swinging north into the Carolinas. Grant just waiting for the ground to dry.

Why. Make. Peace? Even George B. McClellan is good enough of a general to know when he's holding all the cards.

Even if there were an armistice, the North would continue to get stronger relative to the South and the South would be dealing (more so) with costs and chaos from the war. So, that armistice would likely fall apart within a decade, possibly with some states leaving the CSA.

TBH, even with a Copperhead Congress, with the battle lines drawn as they are with even the most optimistic interpretations you could make, I don't see the votes for an armistice. If for no other reason that that the very nature of a Slavocracy will be to make more demands than all but the most extreme Copperheads will be willing to accept. Remember the circumstances of, and the costs of, having Jefferson Davis as your President. The man wouldn't surrender, and called for continued resistance by the South, AFTER they had lost their remaining cities.

McClellan's relationship with his principle generals would be interesting; he and Grant agree on using the James as the base of operations against Richmond, but they have opposing overall philosophies on the prosecution of the war, though Grant didn't seem to be a terribly political person by inclination. Stanton would be gone right away.

Even "President McClellan" would have to have damn good reason to cross swords with Grant, who after all was just the kind of subordinate (lots of humility, obedient, no glory hound) McClellan would want. Sherman would just need to be left alone. As to Stanton, with a party change ALL the Cabinet Officers will have to resign. In a civil war where the party has changed in the White House, turnover should be 100%.

There are also PoD's that might prevent McClellan candidacy in the first place, too; if you take Lee's 1862 offensives as your PoD, and McClellan is forced to abandon the field, you might get an actual peace democrat on the ticket. Don't know what effect it would have on the morale of the common soldier.

The only other possible candidate I can think of is New York Governor Horatio Seymour, the OTL 1868 Democratic nominee. But his rather nasty record during the 1863 Draft Riots, while perhaps forgivable to the Copperhead Democratic Base, would prove too odious to see him elected President in 1864. No other Anti-Republican Democrat comes to mind. Not civilian or ex-military.

You've got powerful political generals who are Democrats, but they are War Democrats. The very term "Copperhead General" is an oxymoron. If you are "Copperhead" enough, and are a military man, then you are already in the CSA and wearing butternut.
 

jahenders

Banned
IDK. It almost seems like with so much invested, that the North simply CAN"T give up at this point. Not with so much of the South fallen under the North's control. The Border States long since secured. Arkansas, Tennessee, most of Appalachia occupied. The CSA bisected at Vicksburg and then trisected at Savannah. Most of the Deep South either occupied or "no man lands" between enemy armies. Florida's port cities occupied. ALL of the CSA's ports now occupied. The Anaconda Plan completed. Sherman swinging north into the Carolinas. Grant just waiting for the ground to dry.

Why. Make. Peace? Even George B. McClellan is good enough of a general to know when he's holding all the cards.

That's why I say "some kind of peace." If the situation is somewhat worse in 1864 and in 1865 (and, thus, not ALL the gains you note), then some in the Union MIGHT be willing to agree to a peace that leaves a shell of a CSA remaining so they don't have to pound their way to Richmond and a few other key points. I wouldn't consider it likely, but it is possible if things don't look quite so good and the work (and bleeding) ahead looks heavy. They might (reasonably) assume that the rump CSA that's left will soon collapse anyway.
 
That's why I say "some kind of peace." They might (reasonably) assume that the rump CSA that's left will soon collapse anyway.
Brilliant. I usually instinctively take the opposing tack to your point but the way you've laid them out make perfect sense. Especially if the new president is a War Democrat who sees a peace as more of a "long ceasefire" that simply waits for chaos and economic collapse in the Confederacy. Probably resulting in outbreaks of violence within the CSA that stretch over into Union occupied territory, leading to a new casus belli for Round Two and a brief "US-Mexican War" style campaign that ends within the year with total victory for the North.

PM me to tell me what you think of "Kingdom of Jones".
 
Top