Longest Possible ACW

What is the longest the American Civil War could have possibly lasted? Confederate industrial capacity and logistics would probably be the biggest limiting factor, along with possibly Northern morale. I imagine 1866 would probably be the limit, but is there a way the war could be dragged out longer? If so, how long? 1867, 68, 69, 70?
 
The French - but crucially, not the British - decide to openly support the Confederacy after (insert POD provocation here); maybe an alt-Trent Affair happens on a French ship. Napoleon III was much more willing to recognize and support the Confederacy than the British, but he wasn't willing to join in unless the British gave their approval; with a direct casus belli, he doesn't care and sticks his nose into the hornet's nest.

The French aren't strong enough to secure a Confederate victory - their Mexican meddling stands as convincing proof - but they can crack the Union blockade and allow the Confederacy access to world trade, and that's a huge boost to the Confederate war effort. Foreign interference stiffens the Union war resolve and ensures that Lincoln doesn't lose reelection to a Peace Democrat.

The war could continue another year or two quite easily, maybe even more if France commits its army as well - but with existing Mexican commitments and a need to protect the homeland, I doubt Napoleon III will spare many divisions.
 
The French - but crucially, not the British - decide to openly support the Confederacy after (insert POD provocation here); maybe an alt-Trent Affair happens on a French ship. Napoleon III was much more willing to recognize and support the Confederacy than the British, but he wasn't willing to join in unless the British gave their approval; with a direct casus belli, he doesn't care and sticks his nose into the hornet's nest.

The French aren't strong enough to secure a Confederate victory - their Mexican meddling stands as convincing proof - but they can crack the Union blockade and allow the Confederacy access to world trade, and that's a huge boost to the Confederate war effort. Foreign interference stiffens the Union war resolve and ensures that Lincoln doesn't lose reelection to a Peace Democrat.

The war could continue another year or two quite easily, maybe even more if France commits its army as well - but with existing Mexican commitments and a need to protect the homeland, I doubt Napoleon III will spare many divisions.
The loss wouldn't be good for Napoleon's image at home. It was already shaky as it was. Might he abdicate earlier?
 

JWQ

Banned
It has been academically proven that confederates could have won the civil war if France intervened in 1863 then Spain would follow suit source Spain and the American Civil War Wayne H. Bowen Even if Great Britain had perhaps stayed neutral. Keep in mind that 1862 had these Union victories gone differently the North would suffer with a peace democratic victory in congress. Also the uk will recognize the csa and Lincoln threatened this would be considered a very hostile action such as a declaration for war. Lincoln will be foreced to declare war if he has enough public support or it will make the Union seem weak if they don’t retaliate.

if the north stops all grain and other trade benefits to the United Kingdom then Britain just might realize intervention to stop the growing United States from becoming a global or industrial might before they become even greater. If the emancipation proclamation is issued it probably does prevent Britain from supporting the South. However military historian author Lieutenant colonel Peter Touras and pentagon intelligence and use to be a regular contributor of the history channel before it turned trash . Has not only produced dixie victorious ,but in his alternative history Brittania’s fist The Americans go to war with the British after the Navy intersects commerce raiders made in the British yard of Jonathan lard .

Russia and the United States would have been allies against Britain and France in 1863. While his work does have a copperhead rebellion which isn’t very successful another historian and novelist Thomas Fleming states had a successful Copperhead rebellion. This would’ve badly for forestalled Sherman’s march to Georgia possibly preventing it from happening as union soldiers would have to be sent to the north to fight.
if someone doesn’t think the hypotheticals have a whole lot of authority whatever ,but The Northwest Conspiracy" by Thomas Fleming which true it is a part of the What Ifs? of American History before it contains the hypothetical it contains plenty Of historical knowledge that has been forgotten

With incompetence from President Jeffers Davis I don’t see at it as likely how the south could’ve won the Civil War unless they had different Presidential ttial leadership. However more to the question the actual American civil won’t be as long if the American conflict escalated into a global war as the allies are forced to answer the Mexican question, the Poland question, and the Prussian question into one question all together through a world war

 
Last edited:
It has been academically proven that confederates could have won the civil war if France intervened in 1863 then France would follow suit source Spain and the American Civil War Wayne H. Bowen Even if Great Britain had perhaps stayed neutral.
I think there's a type-O in there. Is one of those France's supposed to be a Spain?
Lincoln will be foreced to declare war if he has enough public support or it will make the Union seem weak if they don’t retaliate.
I think Lincoln will have the power to stop himself and Congress from doing something stupid and self-destructive.
 
Possible ways the war could have lasted longer.
if the union attempt to take New Orleans to fail and the CSA retained control of the ports and rivers they could have lasted longer.
if the union blockade of the CSA port is delayed or does not happen the war would have lasted longer.
No forging of CSA currency?
 
Last edited:
Plans I have for one of my TLs if I ever redo it, for the American Civil War to last longer:

1. Due to better British success in the alt-war of 1812, they take New Orleans. The US gets it back in the peace (which had already been made), but the perceived threat against New Orleans means more fortifications are constructed there and a small naval station placed there, with associated small industries to repair and maintain steam engines for the navy.

2. This naval station (after a brief inter-fight) sides with the Confederates meaning the south has a (very) small navy and the infrastructure to maintain it. It also has a decently competent commander.

3. The evacuation of Norfolk is even more panicked and botched, and the CSA captures a couple of ships almost intact and a lot more naval supplies.

4. Farragut comes to take New Orleans 1862 and run into actual mines when yelling "Damn the torpedoes!", he is killed and most of his squadron sunk. In the ensuing panic, the union abandons Fort Jefferson in the Florida Keys to the CSA navy and abandons several forts and sieges south of North Carolina. It takes until 1863 before the Union gets its act together and starts to move south again and they retake Fort Jefferson in 1863.

5. Someone competent, perhaps Judah P Benjamin is in charge of the CSA treasury. The south actively avoids King Cotton and sells as much cotton and other produce they can get through the blockade (which is non-existant in the Gulf of Mexico until late 1863 due to the earlier changes) and avoids most of the ruinous inflation of their currency. Benjamin will be attacked as a "niggardly Jew actively hindering the war effort" by the southern press and will be forced out by 1864, and inflation will take off as the blockade tightens.

6. Since the supply situation is much better, especially in the west, and the US can't use the Mississippi as they did OTL, the going is much slower, and the ability of the south to use the lower Mississippi as a transport hub allows them to use the troops of the Trans-Misssissippi Department much more, which further slows the US advance down the Mississippi.

7. With strong CSA forces along the Mississippi and in northern Georgia, both better equipped and supplied than the OTL forces, Sherman can't break away from his supply lines and march through Georgia in the same way.

8. With the CSA beign better supplied, having better internal communication and a better economy compared to OTL, the distances and the fact that the US has to conquer all of it from the north, combined with the distances and supply issues means that the last CSA army, probably the Department of the Trans-Mississippi fighting around New Orleans does not surrender until early 1867.
 
By late 1864 the South was running on fumes in terms of manpower that led to Davis laying down the request to the Richmond Congress for 300K freedmen as troops which he resisted pushing for a year or two earlier.

Davis left it up to Lee to sell it as he has no cred with the CSA Congress at that point. They also had to sell it to the state legislatures. Still it failed for months until they flipped enough votes.

Then the Richmond Congress voted down the freedom and seizure mechanism and Davis had to issue an executive order to free slaves for service and the terms of the EO were fairly weak making it legally difficult for the armies to utilize state or federal confiscation and impressment acts against landowners who said no.

Solving the manpower crisis is key to meeting the terms of the TL, but it would require a smarter and earlier push on the subject.
 
Last edited:
Farragut comes to take New Orleans 1862 and run into actual mines when yelling "Damn the torpedoes!", he is killed and most of his squadron sunk.
Just a nitpick, but he yelled that at Mobile Bay.
By late 1864 the South was running on fumes in terms of manpower that led to Davis laying down the request to the Richmond Congress for 300K freedmen as troops which he resisted pushing for a year or two earlier.

Davis left it up to Lee to sell it as he has no cred with the CSA Congress at that point. They also had to sell it to the state legislatures. Still it failed for months until they flipped enough votes.

Then the Richmond Congress voted down the freedom and seizure mechanism and Davis had to issue an executive order to free slaves for service and the terms of the EO were fairly weak making it legally difficult for the armies to utilize state or federal confiscation and impressment acts against landowners who said no.

Solving the manpower crisis is key to meeting the terms of the TL, but it would require a smarter and earlier push on the subject.
It'd be extremely difficult to get the Confederates to arm their slaves before it was too late to help. The politicians who considered the proposal rejected it because they felt it went against the entire reason for seceding in the first place.
 
A Confederate victory that is decisive after Chickamauga (say there is determined pursuit and the Army of the Cumberland is destroyed in detail or capitulates because the Confederates take Chattanooga immediately) could significantly lengthen the war. The Union would scramble to put together another field army in Tennessee, and may not be able to save Nashville in time.

If you have more fighting in 1864 over the same ground fought over in 1863, and Atlanta doesn't fall, it's possible Lincoln doesn't get reelected. Also, with no March to the Sea, the Confederacy's capacity to wage war is significantly greater and can last well into late 1865 if not beyond.

You may also not get Grant to come East, in which case the Overland Campaign may stop after the first or second battle, once again giving Lee the ability to extend the war. Meade did not show in the Mine Run or Gettysburg campaigns a willingness to commit to sustained offensive action with high casualty potential.
 
It'd be extremely difficult to get the Confederates to arm their slaves before it was too late to help. The politicians who considered the proposal rejected it because they felt it went against the entire reason for seceding in the first place.

The most effective political argument in the Richmond Congress against the bill at the time was that it was a stealth racial and political equality bill.

Their argument was 300K freedmen soldiers would gain fame and military skill and then demand freedom for their families which they would get and suddenly a third of the slaves in the South would be free with the rest not far behind and they would demand social and political equality which they would get.

About a third of the Richmond Congress was completely unwilling the threaten slavery or the social order to win. Another third was somewhat willing and the rest were fairly willing.

Lee’s argument to the Richmond Congress was that they should get ahead of the ending slavery concept and issue their own emancipation proclamation plan with the bill, but that it didn’t mean anything near term for equality in other areas.

The northern press spent nearly a year laying the groundwork for the idea of freedmen as troops before really instituting it. For the South it was maybe three or four months.
 
Last edited:

JWQ

Banned
I think there's a type-O in there. Is one of those France's supposed to be a Spain?

I think Lincoln will have the power to stop himself and Congress from doing something stupid and self-destructive.
typo corrected. Well, 1862 intervention was also a humanitarian question if the south appeared to be on the verge of success then Britain and France would intervene as we all know the emancipation proclamation was issued after Antietam which according to Seward was a tactical stalemate, but strategic victory. This is most possible if the emancipation proclamation was issued in a less meaningful victory or if the document was issued regardless of the situation or the most likely a situation in 1863 after France and Spain joined the war in a csaa victory at Gettysburg or in Vicksburg etc

However, because there will be 0 repercussions for aiding the confederacy Britain Brazil, Portugal, and possibly Belgium will aid the south through financial support and other means. This document alone along with direct intervention allows the increasing possibility of a successful coperhead rebellion coordinated through the confederate secret service. Historian William C Davis contends that the CSA spy agency was more effective as it was more organized.

exert from Thomas f lemmings works

if the rebellion succeeded wood and the paper where ready to rush into print with statements demanding the recognition of the northwest confederacy and immediate end to the war

The war had generated a stronger sense of separate identity through the midwest there was widespread opinion that the two original sections of the country were jointly responsible for the ruinous conflict , which most of the blame cast in new England. It was frequently said in Sherman's army that soldiers in Shermans army would sooner shoot a abolitionist than a rebel


It is to be known such an insurrection might Forstall the 1864 election so it is possible that union military leaders would refuse to allow free election to save the union. This might sound ridiculous,but rigged elections did occur in the union such as the border states. The constitution was bent and treated very lousy during the civil war by lincoln and other union men.

(I do recognise Davis did similar actions, but congress also gave him these powers and davis wished he had the powers lincoln had during the north.
 
Last edited:
typo corrected. Well, 1862 intervention was also a humanitarian question if the south appeared to be on the verge of success then Britain and France would intervene as we all know the emancipation proclamation was issued after Antietam which according to Seward was a tactical stalemate, but strategic victory. This is most possible if the emancipation proclamation was issued in a less meaningful victory or if the document was issued regardless of the situation.

However, because there will be 0 repercussions for aiding the confederacy Britain Brazil, Portugal, and possibly Belgium will aid the south through financial support and other means. This document alone along with direct intervention allows the increasing possibility of a successful coperhead rebellion coordinated through the confederate secret service. Historian William C Davis contends that the CSA spy agency was more effective as it was more organized.

exert from Thomas f lemmings works

if the rebellion succeeded wood and the paper where ready to rush into print with statements demanding the recognition of the northwest confederacy and immediate end to the war

The war had generated a stronger sense of separate identity through the midwest there was widespread opinion that the two original sections of the country were jointly responsible for the ruinous conflict , which most of the blame cast in new England. It was frequently said in Sherman's army that soldiers in Shermans army would sooner shoot a abolitionist than a rebel


It is to be known such an insurrection might Forstall the 1864 election so it is possible that union military leaders would refuse to allow free election to save the union. This might sound ridiculous,but rigged elections did occur in the union such as the border states. The constitution was bent and treated very lousy during the civil war by lincoln and other union men.

(I do recognise Davis did similar actions, but congress also gave him these powers and davis wished he had the powers lincoln had during the north.
The idea of the Midwest breaking away from the Union during the ACW is ridicules. They may have had little interest in the Slavery issue but seemed to have no trouble fighting for the Union and electing pro Union officials. A succession would leave those State isolated in the middle of the continent, dependent on the USA for rail connections, or the CSA for river transport to their markets. The West Coast States would be left equally isolated, and dependent on the Union. The whole idea is completely unrealistic.
 
The idea of the Midwest breaking away from the Union during the ACW is ridicules. They may have had little interest in the Slavery issue but seemed to have no trouble fighting for the Union and electing pro Union officials. A succession would leave those State isolated in the middle of the continent, dependent on the USA for rail connections, or the CSA for river transport to their markets. The West Coast States would be left equally isolated, and dependent on the Union. The whole idea is completely unrealistic.
Completely unrealistic and obviously made for no other reason than to make the Confederacy successful.

There was no significant secessionist movement in the Midwest and while the West Coast did have some leanings, they were never going to outperform the unionist majority.
 
Last edited:
It is to be known such an insurrection might Forstall the 1864 election so it is possible that union military leaders would refuse to allow free election to save the union. This might sound ridiculous,but rigged elections did occur in the union such as the border states.

While I disagree about the prospects for a serious 'Northwest' or 'Copperhead' armed rebellion with any serious support, your comment does remind me of something.

There is a bit of a catch-22 in having the south do better militarily translate into the election of Peace Democrats. The Union can, and did, and would, exclude states in active rebellion from the election. The more states are excluded from the election by armed rebellion or Confederate occupation, the more the electoral college playing field is tilted toward states that have a Republican Party bias.
 
Top