The Days of Dixie

TFSmith121

Banned
My point is the depth of the US bench, but

I could go on but the truth is outside of the Generals* I've mentioned dying the Union had a lack of talent. Now that's not to say absent them something won't change with any of the men I listed but the odd's aren't in their favor.

My point is the depth of the US bench.

Ord, Humphreys, Kearny, AJ Smith, Curtis, Steele, Slocum, etc etc...

Any of them, given the opportunity, could have been great captains; it's only in comparison to Grant, Sherman, Thomas, and Sheridan that they get overlooked.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Um, no, actually...

The various statistics that compare the money, manpower, and industrial capacities of both sides are interesting and relevant but not determinative.

Far too many people on AH focus on these numbers and battlefield possibilities. A Confederate victory is unlikely, but quite achievable by a Democratic win in the 1864 Presidential election.

If the Confederacy can drag out the war, then it can prevail by causing a peace candidate to be elected President of the US in 1864, which nearly happened OTL.

I'm skeptical that the Confederacy would survive as a single nation, but it's certainly possible. A generation of veterans dominating Southern political leadership for 4 decades would be disinclined to see their work undone domestically. That would be enough time for the Confederacy to develop a national identity. The Solid South could remain solid even after winning the war.

Um, no, actually.

First, total wars where one combatant has three to four times the population and wealth as the other will only end in one way:

lees-surrender.jpg


Second, here's how close the 1864 election was:



Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Nicely done

It nearly happened as in Lincoln won by 10 percent, and even if you give New York, Connecticut and Pennsylvania to McClellan (who, by some miracle, wins 5% more across the board), it still does not give him anywhere close to a majority in the Electoral College (it breaks 147-86). Considering McClellan's stance on the war, which was at odds with the Democratic platform and Vallandingham's, there is no sure way to say he would have thrown in the towel since he was NOT a peace candidate. Especially if that conniving coward could see that victory was in sight. And Lincoln might have pushed extra hard as a lame duck. By March 1865, the Confederacy was finished. McClellan would just have said that it was due to his extraordinary brilliance that Lee and Johnston surrendered.

There was no reliable way to poll people. Remember the 1936 election? Gallup had a better methodology than the Literary Digest which relied on (mostly affluent) people to send back coupons and got it right. The mood before Atlanta was one of unease but it was not one of defeatism. McPherson acknowledges in Battlecry of Freedom that Atlanta had to fall to absolutely secure Lincoln's reelection. But he also pointed out that the morale of the Army of the Potomac had completely shifted when Grant pushed south after the Wilderness instead of doing like Lee wanted and run. Union soldiers wrote home all the time. Their growing confidence would have influenced their families at home. Despite the growing casualties and the stalemate at Petersburg, I very much doubt the US voters were very keen to let the goal escape from their grasp when they had never been so close to Richmond. Except if someone can produce a reliable analysis of a mass of diaries, letters and the like saying that Abe Lincoln did not deserve reelection from the North before Atlanta fell, I consider the possibility that he would have lost as wishful thinking at best.

Edit: I just tested it out. To lose the electoral vote, Lincoln has to lose, in addition to Delaware, Kentucky and New Jersey: New York (relatively easy, less than 1% between the candidates), Connecticut (under 3%, could maybe swing without Atlanta), Pennsylvania (harder, 3.5%), New Hampshire (over 5% between the two), Oregon (7.8%), Indiana (7%) and Illinois (8.8%)! all for a piddly 120 to 113 advantage to McClellan in the Electoral College. That assumes a rise of a bare minimum of 4.5% in Illinois for Little Mac. Even without Atlanta, it's not happening.

Nicely done
 

TFSmith121

Banned
You really think Hannibal Hamlin was an incompetant?

Lincoln suffered from Marfan's syndrome.
His tragic death in mid-'62 due to cardiovascular problems associated with this disease removed the one national political leader with the skill and determination to guide the Union to victory.

There is a plethora of threads in alternate history forums about how to preserve the Union from fracture.
Most of those tales detail how changing one battle or General would be the key to that goal.
Seldom is the role of the political leaders emphasized in their contributions to the war.

You really think Hannibal Hamlin was an incompetent? Or not committed to a total war against the rebellion?

Seriously, what's your reasoning here?

Best,
 
1864 doesn't work as a POD because McClellan was pro-war. In fact one of his problems was that he was pro-war guy in an anti-war party, which confused the voters.
 
I hate slavery in any form, so if I figure out a way to get a Confederacy to survive, slavery wouldn't. From what I've been reading in several sources, it was on its way out. A very very rough form of the timeline would involve a negotiated win or a tactical win by 1863-4, and separation of the two. Within 10-15 years, the South would try to compete with the north, and start industrializing and improving its own rail systems, and with industrialization, they begin the phase-out of slavery with some kind of gradual manumission so that by the 1880s or so, slavery is gone. That's the early form rolling around on my computer.

The Confederacy really was about nothing more than the maintenance and indefinite preservation of the institution of slavery. It's going to be hard to get away from when it's written into the state constitutions.

A south that wins in 1863/64 is going to end up wartorn, bankrupt and will have spent a lot of blood and treasure to defend slavery. The more people bleed for something the more they hold onto it. A south that wins independence in 1863/1864 will not let slavery go.

Also, a south that wins independence in 1863/1864 will be too broke to industrialize, rebuild its rail system, compete with the North.

If you want to go that direction, the south has to succeed between 1860 and 1862.
 
You have partially changed my mind.

It nearly happened as in Lincoln won by 10 percent, and even if you give New York, Connecticut and Pennsylvania to McClellan (who, by some miracle, wins 5% more across the board), it still does not give him anywhere close to a majority in the Electoral College (it breaks 147-86). Considering McClellan's stance on the war, which was at odds with the Democratic platform and Vallandingham's, there is no sure way to say he would have thrown in the towel since he was NOT a peace candidate. Especially if that conniving coward could see that victory was in sight. And Lincoln might have pushed extra hard as a lame duck. By March 1865, the Confederacy was finished. McClellan would just have said that it was due to his extraordinary brilliance that Lee and Johnston surrendered.

There was no reliable way to poll people. Remember the 1936 election? Gallup had a better methodology than the Literary Digest which relied on (mostly affluent) people to send back coupons and got it right. The mood before Atlanta was one of unease but it was not one of defeatism. McPherson acknowledges in Battlecry of Freedom that Atlanta had to fall to absolutely secure Lincoln's reelection. But he also pointed out that the morale of the Army of the Potomac had completely shifted when Grant pushed south after the Wilderness instead of doing like Lee wanted and run. Union soldiers wrote home all the time. Their growing confidence would have influenced their families at home. Despite the growing casualties and the stalemate at Petersburg, I very much doubt the US voters were very keen to let the goal escape from their grasp when they had never been so close to Richmond. Except if someone can produce a reliable analysis of a mass of diaries, letters and the like saying that Abe Lincoln did not deserve reelection from the North before Atlanta fell, I consider the possibility that he would have lost as wishful thinking at best.

Edit: I just tested it out. To lose the electoral vote, Lincoln has to lose, in addition to Delaware, Kentucky and New Jersey: New York (relatively easy, less than 1% between the candidates), Connecticut (under 3%, could maybe swing without Atlanta), Pennsylvania (harder, 3.5%), New Hampshire (over 5% between the two), Oregon (7.8%), Indiana (7%) and Illinois (8.8%)! all for a piddly 120 to 113 advantage to McClellan in the Electoral College. That assumes a rise of a bare minimum of 4.5% in Illinois for Little Mac. Even without Atlanta, it's not happening.

Having done further research on my own, I am now less persuaded of my original position. A Democratic victory the 1864 Presidential election is less likely that I thought that it was.

In The Presidency of Abraham Lincoln, Paludan attributes McClellan's position as a war candidate as a response to the battlefield victories of Sherman and Sheridan and not as his preferred policy. He also says that due to the Democratic peace platform, the South would have been embolden to persist (284-285).

Still, given popular vote numbers necessary to flip the Electoral College, this seems like a less likely outcome than I had previously thought.
 
Top