Thoughts on a different approach to the Civil War

Suppose instead of banding together after the war as defeated traitors, officers and politicians sympathizing with the Confederate cause were identified between the secession of South Carolina and attack of Fort Sumter in a fraternity or secret society dedicated to undermining much of the Union from within. Key forts were sometimes commanded by US Army officers that eventually became Rebel generals, including the arsenal at St. Louis, Fort Laramie, Louisville KY, Alcatraz, San Diego, the Alleghany Arsenal in Pittsburgh, and other positions of prominence. How effective could such a society be at deterring the Union or causing paranoia in the Union early in the war, perhaps before shots are even fired? If the Southern Congressmen elected in 1860 decide not to resign their seats but remain in Congress as a block, could they unite with the Copperheads to force a peace treaty very early in the war, perhaps before shots are fired? Would this create an atmosphere of paranoia for *anyone* of Southern heritage or ties and damage the Union war effort?

Some key Union generals or politicians potentially affected:

*Montgomery C. Meigs, Quartermaster General for the Union Army (and arguably one of the most able officers for his position on either side)

*George H. Thomas, victor at Mill Springs, Stones River, Chickamauga, Chattanooga, Franklin, and Nashville.

*Andrew Johnson, 17th President of the United States

*David Farragut, Union Admiral, leader of the captures of New Orleans and Mobile

*Joshua Fry Speed, close/influential friend to Abraham Lincoln, and his brother James, Attorney General for President Lincoln in his second term

This does not include Northern officers with Southern wives or family members, nor does it include Masonic members - Confederate General Albert Pike was prominent in the brotherhood. The greater the paranoia, the worse the Union effort suffers...and the Confederacy could still lose though a longer, bloodier war over more territory might result.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Are you suggesting that Meigs, Thomas, Farragut etc

Suppose instead of banding together after the war as defeated traitors, officers and politicians sympathizing with the Confederate cause were identified between the secession of South Carolina and attack of Fort Sumter in a fraternity or secret society dedicated to undermining much of the Union from within. Key forts were sometimes commanded by US Army officers that eventually became Rebel generals, including the arsenal at St. Louis, Fort Laramie, Louisville KY, Alcatraz, San Diego, the Alleghany Arsenal in Pittsburgh, and other positions of prominence. How effective could such a society be at deterring the Union or causing paranoia in the Union early in the war, perhaps before shots are even fired? If the Southern Congressmen elected in 1860 decide not to resign their seats but remain in Congress as a block, could they unite with the Copperheads to force a peace treaty very early in the war, perhaps before shots are fired? Would this create an atmosphere of paranoia for *anyone* of Southern heritage or ties and damage the Union war effort?

Some key Union generals or politicians potentially affected:

*Montgomery C. Meigs, Quartermaster General for the Union Army (and arguably one of the most able officers for his position on either side)

*George H. Thomas, victor at Mill Springs, Stones River, Chickamauga, Chattanooga, Franklin, and Nashville.

*Andrew Johnson, 17th President of the United States

*David Farragut, Union Admiral, leader of the captures of New Orleans and Mobile

*Joshua Fry Speed, close/influential friend to Abraham Lincoln, and his brother James, Attorney General for President Lincoln in his second term

This does not include Northern officers with Southern wives or family members, nor does it include Masonic members - Confederate General Albert Pike was prominent in the brotherhood. The greater the paranoia, the worse the Union effort suffers...and the Confederacy could still lose though a longer, bloodier war over more territory might result.

Are you suggesting that Meigs, Thomas, Farragut etc are magically transformed into rebel sympathizers, rather than the loyalists they were?

Or they are suspected as such?

Or that serving officers who historically did resign their commissions to go south somehow stay in place?

Best,
 
To make Farragut southern, you are really going to have to curb his upbringing in one of the most ardent pro-union, pro-naval families. Hell, he was born James Glasgoe Farragut and changed his name to David because his foster father and newly adopted family had such an influence on him when it came to Unionism, not just the naval tradition.

He may be a southerner by birth, he may be married to a southerner, but he was so pro-union it is hard to see him otherwise.,
 
To clarify...

I'm suggesting that the Southern sympathizers organize and, instead of seceding, many remain at their posts and undermine the Union from within. This would cause some degree of paranoia as saboteurs could be loose among anyone who is Southern, and even if their loyalty to the Union runs true it might not be as accepted in this TL. The greater damage the Union war effort is thus less from any secret society (though it does manage to achieve notable aims) as from internal paranoia causing key Union personnel to be repudiated or banned from service based solely on fear of where their origins lie. Remember how Oliver Morton reacted to fears of Confederate sympathizers in Indiana? What happens if that becomes a national phenomenon (one Indiana senator *was* expelled by the 1860 Congress for Rebel sympathies)?

Basically a fraternity of traitorous Union officers begin premature or ridiculous surrenders of posts or changing of officers etc. that evolves to cause an early version of McCarthyism among the Union ranks.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The problem with that is it requires two things:

I'm suggesting that the Southern sympathizers organize and, instead of seceding, many remain at their posts and undermine the Union from within. This would cause some degree of paranoia as saboteurs could be loose among anyone who is Southern, and even if their loyalty to the Union runs true it might not be as accepted in this TL. The greater damage the Union war effort is thus less from any secret society (though it does manage to achieve notable aims) as from internal paranoia causing key Union personnel to be repudiated or banned from service based solely on fear of where their origins lie. Remember how Oliver Morton reacted to fears of Confederate sympathizers in Indiana? What happens if that becomes a national phenomenon (one Indiana senator *was* expelled by the 1860 Congress for Rebel sympathies)?

Basically a fraternity of traitorous Union officers begin premature or ridiculous surrenders of posts or changing of officers etc. that evolves to cause an early version of McCarthyism among the Union ranks.

The problem with that is it requires two things:

1) a level of planning and secrecy that the secessionists never demonstrated any ability at; these people were called fire-eaters for a reason;

2) it requires the existing army chain of command (Scott on down), even under Floyd, to be astronomically stupid. It's not like the sectional crisis was a surprise, either; it had been perking along for decades, after all.

There's also the issue that other than Anderson at Sumter, and his peers at Pensacola (Arnold, Slemmer, et al) and Key West, there wasn't anything left in rebel territory to surrender; and in loyal but endangered territory, the US forces and Union loyalists were capable of - for example - safeguarding the St. Louis Arsenal, or wrecking Harpers' Ferry or the Norfolk Navy Yard.

There was a lot of suspicion during the secession winter, between Lincoln's election and the inauguration; CP Stone's memoir of his service under Scott in the District of Columbia in the winter of 1860-61 is well worth reading.

Best,
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
I'm suggesting that the Southern sympathizers organize and, instead of seceding, many remain at their posts and undermine the Union from within.

As quant and hypocritical as it seems to us in the early 21st Century, the Confederate officers by and large adhered very closely to notions of honor and chivalry. They could not have contemplated following the course you suggest without bringing dishonor upon themselves, which they could not have done.
 
As quant and hypocritical as it seems to us in the early 21st Century, the Confederate officers by and large adhered very closely to notions of honor and chivalry. They could not have contemplated following the course you suggest without bringing dishonor upon themselves, which they could not have done.

They claimed to, at least, and by their own codes many were prepared to win by almost any means available. Besides, they might be acting under orders or simply not participate in this little scheme despite their sympathies.
 
Top