Maximum length of US Civil War?

While there are a lot of TL that have the Timeline ending sooner, I have yet to see one where it last significantly longer (>6 months). In OTL, the fighting lasted for *about* four years (Sumter to Surrender of AoNV). How can we stretch it out? Note, I'm talking about organized warfare, not guerrilla warfare. I believe that as long as the Union has the political will and there is no European or Mexican support, that the Blockade can be maintained more or less indefinitely.

While a slower Civil War probably leads to fewer votes for Lincoln in 1864, If Sherman is in Georgia by election day, I'm not sure Lincoln looses that many votes. I'm also not sure that a McClellan Victory will lengthen the war that much...


Randy
 

Sachyriel

Banned
Ten Years, if you can give my idea some leeway in having truces or armistices the opponents have enough time to regroup for the next set of their fight. A truce of an entire year could theoretically extend the war by two years, so you might only need some unnofficial truces, retime some battles and if you have an official pause in the war only for it to start up later the civil war could be fairly long.
 
Ten Years, if you can give my idea some leeway in having truces or armistices the opponents have enough time to regroup for the next set of their fight. A truce of an entire year could theoretically extend the war by two years, so you might only need some unnofficial truces, retime some battles and if you have an official pause in the war only for it to start up later the civil war could be fairly long.

By this logic, couldnt there be multiple "Treaty Periods," interrupted by skirmishes, minor and major battles before eventually the Confederacy loses? That would be cool.

Could we say that the Civil War in T191 lasted from 1861 to 1945? Can we say the war between the states ever truly ended?
 
Have more indecisive battles, and give the Union fewer victories. Maybe have Kentucky or Missouri successfully join the South, which disrupts Union planning, plus it forces the Union to deal with two more states.
 

Sachyriel

Banned
By this logic, couldnt there be multiple "Treaty Periods," interrupted by skirmishes, minor and major battles before eventually the Confederacy loses? That would be cool.

Could we say that the Civil War in T191 lasted from 1861 to 1945? Can we say the war between the states ever truly ended?

Yes, thats why I specified 'unnofficial truces' like the ones in WW1 on Christmas.

Lasting to 1945 is such a stretch I think you might be tearing the fabric of space-time and need ASBs to stitch it up again.
 
Well, Cherie Priest's "Clockwork Century" novels (Boneshaker, Dreadnought) depict the Civil War lasting for 17 years due to assistance from Britain, the prior construction of a southern transcontinental railroad, and an independent Texas providing oil.

(It's gotten to the point most of the Confederacy has freed the slaves because it's better for the war effort and nobody is fighting for ideology anymore, but for revenge for prior battles, pillaging, etc.)

I don't think the AH is that realistic and I think Priest herself acknowledges that in Dreadnought. I think her goal was to show off some of the things that were on the drawing board had the war gone on longer.

When I reviewed Boneshaker on my blog, I suggested a better AH scenario would be that the Confederacy won the first war with British assistance, both sides built steampunk armies, and now it's round two 17 years later.
 
Yes. It was a masterpiece. If you accept the proposition that any Southerner can whip twenty Yankees (1st book). Five Yankees (2nd book). Three Yankees (WWI Era). Two Yankees (WWII Era).:rolleyes: Ultimate Confedwank.

How Few Remain was the only good book in that entire series. Somehow the idea of Longstreet as CS President makes perfect sense to me. Though, being a huge Robert E. Lee fan I was saddened not have him around.

Back on topic, I'm sure you all know that this scenario could have likely happened has Lee not issued his announcement, not that long after he surrendered, calling on all Confederates to surrender and focus their energies on rebuilding. (April 1865: The Month That Saved America)

Had Lee not had the status he had, there could very well have been a breakup of the armies into guerrilla bands and the ensuing bloodshed would have been scary.
 
By this logic, couldnt there be multiple "Treaty Periods," interrupted by skirmishes, minor and major battles before eventually the Confederacy loses? That would be cool.

Could we say that the Civil War in T191 lasted from 1861 to 1945? Can we say the war between the states ever truly ended?

Technically, the ACW in TL191 ended with a Confederate victory so, officially, yes it did end. But the spirit of it lasted much longer. So, in essence, you are correct. The Civil War never really ended, it merely changed form, and the ramifications of that drawn-out conflict ended in a nightmare that will take decades to patch up. And the aftershocks of almost a century of independence for the south will ensure that there will be complications that may never go away. Things that once were are no longer. Families that loved and cared for one another had grown apart, and become distant; lost in the icy hatred of nationalism and isolationism. The war of brother against brother turned into grandson against grandson, and possibly far beyond that. Imperialism thrives and shows no signs of going away, and an agenda of spreading peace and international brotherhood is laughed off as a joke. War is accepted as an inevitability rather than something that can be prevented.

but, back to the question. I'd say that the ACW would have carried on for as long as it did at the latest, and I'm frankly surprised it didn't end sooner. If not for the Union's string of incompetent generals, the conflict would have ended with the south being body slammed much faster, and with minimal loss of life.
 
It is the same Germany and France had to face after their war was over in 1871. The thought of "Revanche" lived till WW1 and was one of the main reasons of this horrible war. If the Confederacy and the US had a truce, lasting a year, maybe two or... at least a decade - they will be at war asap. Both opponents are much too proud and to selfesteemed to leave the other alive.
 
The South was running out of men. If fighting continues at the same rates, the CSA can't last much longer, even if they're winning victories. I suppose if they started enlisting black soldiers, it might make a difference, but that was a tough sell.
 
How long before it breaks out

What if the war is delayed, so the south can organise better and maybe get more states and manpower. For instance would it be possible that Fort Sumnter doesnt get attacked, and at the same time the relief convoy is blocked so that hostilities are delayed by a month or two. Additionally, if the North fires first during the Fort Sumnter situation, how much more support could the south gain?:confused:
 
From one point of view, if the CSA wins independence and there are three wars (there would never be four) you could say the US Civil War stretched on for however long it took to fight the three wars. I can't see any ATL USA in a world where the CSA wins independence that way reacting in any way except North-South Korea on a much vaster scale, and without the possibility or probability of a DMZ (because the CSA would never be able to create one).
 
Well did you read T191? :D

A true Confederate-wank. This can be illustrated in, for instance, the curious case of George Thomas and the USA's completely forgetting Grant, who captured Buckner and a Confederate army, while defeating a major Confederate attack, and promoting Rosecrans, who in the ATL had...Cheat Mountain, Iuka, and Corinth to his credit. :rolleyes:
 
A true Confederate-wank. This can be illustrated in, for instance, the curious case of George Thomas and the USA's completely forgetting Grant, who captured Buckner and a Confederate army, while defeating a major Confederate attack, and promoting Rosecrans, who in the ATL had...Cheat Mountain, Iuka, and Corinth to his credit. :rolleyes:

HT should have had Grant leading the Army instead of Rosecrans. It would have made for a sweeter ending when we saw the kind of smackdown the CS would have gotten had he been in charge.
 
HT should have had Grant leading the Army instead of Rosecrans. It would have made for a sweeter ending when we saw the kind of smackdown the CS would have gotten had he been in charge.

Pretty much. Grant was *the* strategist of the war, and the Confederate army in that case would have been in for a beating even if the CSA survived the war. Which would admittedly make TL-191 more interesting if the CSA loses the 1881 war but somehow survives.....for one thing it'd make the Confederate abolition of slavery plausible.
 
Top