Until Every Drop of Blood Is Paid: A More Radical American Civil War

That could happen, but Virginia will be part of the Confederacy ITTL, because I need a long war to completely radicalize Lincoln and the North, and since Virginia it's the strongest Confederate State I need it to join the rebs.
Could readers suggest a TL with a US Civil War with Virginia not joining the CSA analog?
 
Could readers suggest a TL with a US Civil War with Virginia not joining the CSA analog?

You can make suggestions, yeah, but I believe Virginia has to join because the goal of the TL is a radical Civil War and Reconstruction. A short rebellion will only result in minor changes, not the complete destruction and reconstruction of the South I seek. If anyone can make a particularly strong case for why Virginia should not join the CSA, I may follow that.

If Virginia did not join it would have been game over for the CSa

Exactly. Especially because the North is going to fight without an arm behind its back.
 

fdas

Banned
I feel like a more radical lincoln would cause some border states to secede, making the war harder.
 
Bit of side question, im brit so can someone explain to me why were rifled muskets used by most soldiers when the union could give use Winchester and recover pistols? Aren't those two weapons better than a musket as they were more developed and new?

Also if a more brutal civil war could the union use the gatling gun to a greater use and effect?
 
Bit of side question, im brit so can someone explain to me why were rifled muskets used by most soldiers when the union could give use Winchester and recover pistols? Aren't those two weapons better than a musket as they were more developed and new?

Also if a more brutal civil war could the union use the gatling gun to a greater use and effect?

I think it is mostly a matter of military procurement and doctrine.

One, both of these have always had inherent conservative tendencies.
Two, rifled muskets habe the necessary length to be used for fighting in formations as the muzzles of the second rank protude out far enough that they clear the heads of the soldiers in the first rank without endangering them while firing.
Tree, rifled muskets are easier to manufactue and do not need rare materials like the brass in henry and winchester rifles.
 
Bit of side question, im brit so can someone explain to me why were rifled muskets used by most soldiers when the union could give use Winchester and recover pistols? Aren't those two weapons better than a musket as they were more developed and new?
In 1861, there were simply not enough weapons for the 75,000 Union volunteers. The United States regular army was only 16,000 men; hence, the USA’s arms manufacturing facilities were limited. With hundreds of thousands of men rushing into the recruiting stations, the Union improvised by grabbing everything in the armory and importing weapons until the standard Springfield Rifled Musket. Even in 1863, there were still regiments armed with smoothbore muskets. Having the Union build repeaters at the start of the war is like asking Denmark to build M1 Garands at the opening of the Invasion of Denmark in WW2. Better to have half a million men armed with a decent weapon than a few tens of thousands of men with awesome weapons.
 
I feel like a more radical lincoln would cause some border states to secede, making the war harder.
Yes many border states only stay in because of the fact that they believed the unon belived more in the union and not the end of slavery with this well this changes everything this also may make more pro uniosn area of the Confederacy secede and create more internal problems
 
You can extend the war with a more southern capital, leading to more time for radicalization.
I’ve seen the argument been made that moving the capital to Richmond was a bad idea for the Confederates by many military historians. Frankly, I don’t understand the logic.

Virginia was, from the start, the most important state of the Confederacy. If Richmond and Virginia fall, the game is up for the Confederates. Richmond’s fall would matter; namely, that a major supply, industrial (Treadgear Iron Works is particularly important) and rail hub would be gone and all of Virginia, the state that provides the most (possibly; North Carolina is virtually tied) will likely fall in short order. The Confederates could not afford to lose Virginia; it was, in WW2 terms, both the Ukraine and the Ruhr River Basin for the Confederacy.
 
You can extend the war with a more southern capital, leading to more time for radicalization.

I could do that, yeah, and although Richmond as a capital was not the brightest military choice, it made sense in economical and political terms as Arnold explains. Also, the fact that Richmond is so close fueled a lot of the anger and frustration people felt towards the government and Lincoln towards his generals.
 
Jeff Davis actually proposed using 14 year olds to fill out the depleted ranks of the Confederate Army in 1865.
Robert E Lee basically told him "if you do I quit".
Replace Lee with a hardcore fire-eater with less military skill and you could see 14 year olds getting slaughtered for the Confederacy by 1863.
That combined with a scorched Earth policy would get the Southern population to look upon the Confederacy as a mistake and openly support reforms post-war.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Davis actually composed using 14 year olds to fill out the depleted ranks of the Confederate Army in 1865.
Robert E Lee basically told him "if you do I quit".
Replace Lee with a hardcore fire-eater with less military skill and you could see 14 year olds getting slaughtered for the Confederacy by 1863.
That combined with a scorched Earth policy would get the Southern population to look upon the Confederacy as a mistake and openly support reforms post-war.
or lee refused Jeff David a much more crazy one get rid of him and replaced him with someone like fitter making the south say no to this
 
Jeff Davis actually composed using 14 year olds to fill out the depleted ranks of the Confederate Army in 1865.
Robert E Lee basically told him "if you do I quit".
Replace Lee with a hardcore fire-eater with less military skill and you could see 14 year olds getting slaughtered for the Confederacy by 1863.
That combined with a scorched Earth policy would get the Southern population to look upon the Confederacy as a mistake and openly support reforms post-war.
You can't really replace Lee unless you want a short war. People always talk about Union general competence but of the Confederate ones who besides Lee actually had a good track record. I know people have said Joe Johnston before but if he was in charge the he just would've retreated until nothing was left.
 
You can't really replace Lee unless you want a short war. People always talk about Union general competence but of the Confederate ones who besides Lee actually had a good track record. I know people have said Joe Johnston before but if he was in charge the he just would've retreated until nothing was left.
Lee could get into trouble at Antietam if facing a larger Union Army.
 
Top