Brilliantlight
Banned
Would the South be in even worse shape after the war if it was started 4 years later?
Lincoln first elected 1864: Civil War delayed 4 years
- Thread starter Brilliantlight
- Start date
Very much so.
The US has received another 800,000 immigrants, virtually all to the north.
The North's rail advantage is even worse.
The North's industrial advantage is even worse, and note that it would not have taken much for the North's military industry to dramatically improve in 1861. Now it has time to do so.
In an effort to shore up the Northern Dems, the Democratic Party approved 18 new ships for the US Navy in the last four-five years before the war. Effectively half the navy, the better and more modern half, was a gift from the South. If this trend continues the US Navy starts with an increase of 50% from 1861.
NOTE: Not speculating on ironclads tonight.
The British are now acquiring at least 25% of their cotton elsewhere and have some impressive stockpiles of it.
The French involvment in Mexico may alarm some Southern moderates as to the long-term results if the US breaks up.
Anti-slavery movements in Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware are more powerful, and may even have abolished slavery in one of these.
The US Army is much stronger, due to the Mormon War, the Indian Wars, and the French intervention in Mexico. Stronger may only mean 10,000 men with better equipment but since the enlisted men were overwhelmingly loyal to the North, this is not helping the South.
The US has received another 800,000 immigrants, virtually all to the north.
The North's rail advantage is even worse.
The North's industrial advantage is even worse, and note that it would not have taken much for the North's military industry to dramatically improve in 1861. Now it has time to do so.
In an effort to shore up the Northern Dems, the Democratic Party approved 18 new ships for the US Navy in the last four-five years before the war. Effectively half the navy, the better and more modern half, was a gift from the South. If this trend continues the US Navy starts with an increase of 50% from 1861.
NOTE: Not speculating on ironclads tonight.
The British are now acquiring at least 25% of their cotton elsewhere and have some impressive stockpiles of it.
The French involvment in Mexico may alarm some Southern moderates as to the long-term results if the US breaks up.
Anti-slavery movements in Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware are more powerful, and may even have abolished slavery in one of these.
The US Army is much stronger, due to the Mormon War, the Indian Wars, and the French intervention in Mexico. Stronger may only mean 10,000 men with better equipment but since the enlisted men were overwhelmingly loyal to the North, this is not helping the South.
David S Poepoe
Banned
On the whole I don't see the South being in any better shape, overall. I also don't necessarily see Lincoln as the Republican Party's candidate for 1864. Are we to assume that a Democrat had been elected President in 1860. I think it far more likely that Seward would be chosen since by 1864 there would be no need for a 'compromise candidate'.
There were at least two compromises in the works, like the Crittenden Compromise. I think the major POD will be in 1860 since it will be the first election where the South will be completely aware of the balance of power between the North, South and West and the hostility between the other regions and itself. Given the later date of the War of Secession it might be totally likely that it would be the North seceding.
There were at least two compromises in the works, like the Crittenden Compromise. I think the major POD will be in 1860 since it will be the first election where the South will be completely aware of the balance of power between the North, South and West and the hostility between the other regions and itself. Given the later date of the War of Secession it might be totally likely that it would be the North seceding.
Brilliantlight
Banned
David S Poepoe said:
This TL assumes that a Democrat is elected in 1860 because it takes the Republicans a few years more to really gel.
David S Poepoe
Banned
Brilliantlight said:
I don't think it will necessarily be a shorter war. Any improvements to the US Army will also benefit the South when that particular nation goes its seperate ways. One also has to consider what a difference 4 years will make in the line up of Commanders on either side. The South could do a whole lot better without Robert E. Lee, just as where would U.S. Grant be without the war?
Brilliantlight
Banned
David S Poepoe said:
The problem is that with 4 years going by the Union has about 800,000 more people with more railroads and a larger industry. The Confederacy would have about the same number of people, a few more railroads and maybe a few more factories.
The British began focusing on alternative sources for cotton because of the Civil War. Ditto the French invasion of Mexico and the Spanish annexation of the Dominican Republic. That goes double for the Indian Wars. It's very unlikely these would still happen if the US wasn't distracted.
Anti-slavery movements weren't on the verge of emancipation anywhere.
Anti-slavery movements weren't on the verge of emancipation anywhere.
Brilliantlight
Banned
Admiral Matt said:
The immigration to the north, the industrialization of the north and the rail building were going full tilt even before the Civil War though. Besides I doubt the British would ever back the South over cotton considering they would lose Northern corn which the South could never replace. Also the British public was strongly anti-slavery which wouldn't change either.There is even less of a chance that Britian will back the South against a stronger Union then in OTL.
What's your point? Grimm was suggesting that everyone would act the same way whether or not the US was split and at war. I pointed out that this was wrong.
I think if you look closely you will find that the sentence, "The odds of a Southern victory do not change at all," is conspicuously absent from my post.
I think if you look closely you will find that the sentence, "The odds of a Southern victory do not change at all," is conspicuously absent from my post.
It's no big deal. I wouldn't have been as snappy anyway if the weather weren't so nasty on my end of North America.
Brilliantlight
Banned
DominusNovus said:
It gets even worse for the South, quite likely it would be clearly hopeless.
chrispi said:
You know that guy back in school, who'd ask the question you were just about to ask? Yeah. Don't be that guy.
