Is OTL Civil War a worst case scenario victory for the North?

I've recently begun to think that the way the American Civil War unfolded in real life might have been the worst case scenario in which the North could have had while still actually winning the war. The Confederacy kept the fight going for four years with less manpower and resources than the Union, and all without European intervention in the war. Ultimately, the North won, but mostly due to sheer attrition and by pressing its advantages of a larger industrial base and population.

Is there an even worse war that the North could have fought and still won? I personally don't think so. I'd love to hear some thoughts and potential PODs for a quicker or slower Northern victory
 
Civil War might be even worse as in OTL and still be victorious North.

And in TL The Union Forever Civil War is much shorter and less devastating for North.
 

Dialga

Banned
It wasn't the best-case scenario, but it could've turned out far worse (e. g. if the South had continued on guerrilla fighting).
 
Not the best case, but not necessarily the worst. The worst case scenario where the Union still wins would be one with continued guerrilla warfare even after the formal surrender of the CSA.
 
In some ways the worst case would be a quick victory, Lee leads Union army in decisive victory at fist bull run

Richomond falls

The confederacty collapses but Southern slave based society carries on
 

Dialga

Banned
In some ways the worst case would be a quick victory, Lee leads Union army in decisive victory at fist bull run

Richomond falls

The confederacty collapses but Southern slave based society carries on

You could have had a similar scenario had McClellan been more proactive during the Peninsular Campaign. The Union would have won, but slavery would have been preserved.

Come to think of it, this could have swung both ways - it may have led to another war down the road, but it could easily have led to a more gradual emancipation. My money, however, would have been on the former.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
It's not the best case scenario, but far from the worst. Even the South winning the war due to a political collapse in the North isn't the worst. The worst would be British intervention on the side of the South, in which not only does the South win, but the Union itself is blockaded and its merchant marine swept from the seas.
 
Except that a British intervention doesn't rule out a later war between the North and South, in which the original goals are met. The worst case victory scenario is one whereby the war ends by negotiation post-1864, in which Southern slavery is guaranteed by something like the Crittenden compromise. It's technically a victory if the goal was to maintain the Union, but it renders both the election of Lincoln and the sacrifice of those killed and maimed pointless.
 
It wasn't the best-case scenario, but it could've turned out far worse (e. g. if the South had continued on guerrilla fighting).

On the other hand, if there was an intense guerrilla campaign, might it have made Reconstruction easier by letting the army get rid of elements like the Red Shirts or the Klan?
 
In some ways the worst case would be a quick victory, Lee leads Union army in decisive victory at fist bull run

Richomond falls

The confederacty collapses but Southern slave based society carries on

Slave based society carries on, but for how long? Abolitionist pressure in the North will continue to grow, and the South will have wasted all of its threats of disunion with its failed secession. What effect will a short, failed rebellion have on the political clout of the South?

And how long until pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces get pushed to the brink again?
 
You could have had a similar scenario had McClellan been more proactive during the Peninsular Campaign. The Union would have won, but slavery would have been preserved.

Come to think of it, this could have swung both ways - it may have led to another war down the road, but it could easily have led to a more gradual emancipation. My money, however, would have been on the former.

Except a gradual abolition is bad. Slavery going away slowly sets back the date for civil rights further and further and means that the problem dividing the nation carries on for decades more.
 

katchen

Banned
The absolute worst case scenario?
In which a re-nominated and narrowly re-elected Franklin Pierce, through a series of actions (recognizing the Lecompton Constitution that legalizes slavery in Kansas, attempting to enforce both the Fugitive Slave Act and the Dred Scott Decision nationwide, nullifying anti-slavery legislation in northern states, forces Northern States to secede from the Union. The North has to win basically from scratch as rebels fighting US regulars on Northern soil, sandwiched between the South and Canada. Can they do it?
 
The North has to win basically from scratch as rebels fighting US regulars on Northern soil, sandwiched between the South and Canada. Can they do it?
The US regular army was 15,000 strong; the North has most of the country's industry, merchant shipping, and manpower; 75% of the c.400,000 small arms the government owns are in arsenals in the North, and the only armoury capable of turning out modern rifles is in Springfield, Illinois. So yes, probably.
 
Top