Victorious CSA - have at it:

TFSmith121

Banned
Republicans throw in Tennessee and Louisiana's votes

There has been a lot of talk about the plausibility of Little Mac winning in 1864 if Atlanta hadn't fallen or if a union victory did not look inevitable in some way. I thought I would show just how close it really was.

In OTL Lincoln won by 10% of the vote and over 400,000 votes, but due the the Electoral College system, this large victory is not as strong as it appears.

Little Mac won Kentucky, Delaware and New Jersey. But he only needed two win seven more states to win the election: New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Indiana, Oregon and Illinois. To win these only 41,721 votes would have to change from Lincoln to McCellan. That's only 1.04% of all votes cast.

Some of the big states were very close. With 3,376 votes need to switch to give New York's 33 EV to McCellan and 9426 for Pennsylvania's 26 EVs.

I think it is entirely reasonable to assume that failure to capture Atlanta or a general lack of success in the 1864 campaign could have swung 1.04% of voters to McCellan. As for what he would have done with power, I leave that to the time period experts.

and Lincoln still wins.

Best,
 
In the very earliest stages of the war, have the CSA win a few more engagements in Missouri, continuing to hold the southern half of the state.

Have North Carolina's governor die and be replaced by someone willing to provide soldiers to the war effort.

Have the CSA hold fts. Donelson and Henry, securing a solid position for the defense of the Tennessee Valley and the Mississippi and making it so fewer CS troops have to hold an unsustainable front.

CSA holds on to New Orleans. Use the men and materiel freed up by no. 1 to throw Farragut back into the sea. This is extremely important as New Orleans is the south's one big industrial center.

Have Bragg successfully take and hold Kentucky. Not particularly difficult.

Britain and France recognize the CSA (not aid, just recognition)

The Union, demoralized, eventually loses the will to fight and negotiates peace.

The war is shorter and the CSA hasn't lost nearly as much infrastructure. Debts are there, but far more managable than OTL.

The CSA comes out of the war in the best possible position, and with luck, able to diversify its agriculture in response to the boll weevil and the waning of European cotton markets. Slowly build up industry and urbanization as slavery wanes, and then maybe you have a CSA that is actually sustainable.

Holding southern Missouri at the start of the war is possible. Keeping it is another matter. They’ll be up against Curtis, one of the best generals of the war.

As others have noted, North Carolina sent the highest percent of men to battle of any Confederate state. They also took the highest percentage of casualties. Better choices would be governors who were always whining about States Rights and doing little or nothing, like Brown of Georgia.

Keeping Ft. Henry and Ft Donelson isn’t really possible. One was so poorly sited that it was half-submerged by the time the Union got there. A solid position for the defense of the Tennessee Valley and the Mississippi is going to require controlling the rivers, but the Union completely out produced the Confederacy in riverine warfare ships.

The loss of New Orleans hurt Confederate chances more than the loss of any other city, save perhaps Richmond. You can’t take more troops from southern Missouri unless you cede it to the Union. Better sources are the troops wasted in the invasion of Arizona and trying to garrison Ft. Henry and Ft Donelson. That’s still awfully thin to hold off the Union, you probably need the Confederate forces that fought at Shiloh to go to New Orleans instead.

That might let the Confederacy keep New Orleans, though probably at the cost of losing Tennessee. And the fact the Union has sent Butler may be enough to overcome the Confederate handicap of having Canby, Floyd, Pillow, AS Johnston, and possible Van Dorn and Polk in one army.

Bragg has little chance of taking and holding Kentucky. Period technology favored the defense and Confederate logistics were poor, which is part of why no Confederate general ever successfully took and held Union territory. Bragg also has to deal with the majority of Kentucky being pro-Union, some incompetent subordinates like Polk, and Bragg’s natural ability to alienate the rest.

Britain or France will only recognize the Confederacy if they have something to gain from it or the Confederacy has already gained its independence.
 
Having a friendly Confederacy right next door to your new puppet state in Mexico is certainly an attractive prospect. For one thing, it makes it much less likely that the United States will get involved.

There are other things to consider, too. In terms of trade and commerce, France was trying desperately to catch up to Britain. A friendly Confederacy that grants most favored trading status with France means that France might be able to purchase the best quality cotton in the world at a cheaper rate than the British, which means that French products might sell better in various foreign markets than British products despite Britain's otherwise insurmountable advantages.

The Confederacy will never tolerate being a puppet state of France. They will be friendly at first, but may not last. The first US war after independence was the Quasi-War with France. The first Confederate war after independence may well be with French Mexico. The French have claims to Texas and Louisiana and were opportunistic and expansionistic. The Confederacy tried to get the northern tier of Mexican states to join them during the ACW. A lot of southern leaders had advocated conquest of more of Mexico.

Confederate economic doctrine requires a uniform low tariff. Negotiating a favored nation trade agreement with France is probably in the Confederacy’s best interests, but they are unlikely to see that.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
If anything, an "independent" is going to be

in a strategic situation akin to Buenos Aires and the rest of the (former) vice-royalty of La Plata after independence; plenty of dissension leading to internal conflict.

Odds are reasonable the "CSA" would have had its own internal war within a few years...the Transmississippi vs the Old Southwest vs the Tidewater/Piedmont/Atlantic states.

Best,
 
Top