What do you think the Confederacy did wrong?

[Lord Malikai]

I'm going to have to agree with the general consensus that the Confederacy needs to have everything go their way. As an example, in the election of 1864, the tipping point state was Indiana, with Lincoln holding a 7 percentage point margin. This is actually a better tipping point margin than FDR had over Wendell Willkie in 1940. Sure you can argue that the fall of Atlanta helped Lincoln's chances, but not Wendell Willkie helped.

Likewise one can make a whole speculation over intervention, but European military intervention isn't an automatic game-over either. The French are tied down in Mexico, and even in the Second Italian War of Independence in 1859 marshaled only ~130,000 soldiers on their own doorstep. That's not an overwhelming force, especially when reduced for distance and the forces occupying Mexico. Likewise The British can claim 100,000 men in Canada, but a great many are militia, and as shown by the U.S. Army in the Civil War, actual battlefield numbers are a fraction of total forces in theater. So unless the UK and France are going total-war-all-out, their maybe 80,000 men for actual offensive action is not great for the Union, but not a knockout.

Similarly the argument that European intervention is decisive for resources reasons is at least debatable. While the US did import lead and gunpowder, it did so for cost reasons; the nitrate deposits in for instance, Mammoth Cave, were well known, and had been exploited in the exact same situation of a British gunpowder embargo during the War of 1812. The U.S. in general is not known for lacking in mineral resources.

Certainly we can point-and-counterpoint all day about specifics, but my point is that while the CSA can win, it doesn't need one more thing to go right. It needs at least two more things to go right, and two of the same sort of thing: no fall of Atlanta AND another Union setback; European Intervention AND a decisive total war commitment from Britain and France on top of it. It's possible, but very hard to accomplish.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

I'm going to have to agree with the general consensus that the Confederacy needs to have everything go their way. As an example, in the election of 1864, the tipping point state was Indiana, with Lincoln holding a 7 percentage point margin. This is actually a better tipping point margin than FDR had over Wendell Willkie in 1940. Sure you can argue that the fall of Atlanta helped Lincoln's chances, but not Wendell Willkie helped.

Likewise one can make a whole speculation over intervention, but European military intervention isn't an automatic game-over either. The French are tied down in Mexico, and even in the Second Italian War of Independence in 1859 marshaled only ~130,000 soldiers on their own doorstep. That's not an overwhelming force, especially when reduced for distance and the forces occupying Mexico. Likewise The British can claim 100,000 men in Canada, but a great many are militia, and as shown by the U.S. Army in the Civil War, actual battlefield numbers are a fraction of total forces in theater. So unless the UK and France are going total-war-all-out, their maybe 80,000 men for actual offensive action is not great for the Union, but not a knockout.

Similarly the argument that European intervention is decisive for resources reasons is at least debatable. While the US did import lead and gunpowder, it did so for cost reasons; the nitrate deposits in for instance, Mammoth Cave, were well known, and had been exploited in the exact same situation of a British gunpowder embargo during the War of 1812. The U.S. in general is not known for lacking in mineral resources.

Certainly we can point-and-counterpoint all day about specifics, but my point is that while the CSA can win, it doesn't need one more thing to go right. It needs at least two more things to go right, and two of the same sort of thing: no fall of Atlanta AND another Union setback; European Intervention AND a decisive total war commitment from Britain and France on top of it. It's possible, but very hard to accomplish.

Also if there's a total war commitment from Britain and France, it's highly unlikely their rivals would completely ignore the perfect opportunity presented by Britain and France being so stupid rather than take advantage of it.

 

[Gloss]

Also if there's a total war commitment from Britain and France, it's highly unlikely their rivals would completely ignore the perfect opportunity presented by Britain and France being so stupid rather than take advantage of it.

There is no need of total war commitment, would the US even keep fighting if those 2 intervene? Also if France could intervene in Mexico for years without Prussia invading it can do whatever with the USA.

 

[Worffan101]

I'm going to have to agree with the general consensus that the Confederacy needs to have everything go their way. As an example, in the election of 1864, the tipping point state was Indiana, with Lincoln holding a 7 percentage point margin. This is actually a better tipping point margin than FDR had over Wendell Willkie in 1940. Sure you can argue that the fall of Atlanta helped Lincoln's chances, but not Wendell Willkie helped.

Likewise one can make a whole speculation over intervention, but European military intervention isn't an automatic game-over either. The French are tied down in Mexico, and even in the Second Italian War of Independence in 1859 marshaled only ~130,000 soldiers on their own doorstep. That's not an overwhelming force, especially when reduced for distance and the forces occupying Mexico. Likewise The British can claim 100,000 men in Canada, but a great many are militia, and as shown by the U.S. Army in the Civil War, actual battlefield numbers are a fraction of total forces in theater. So unless the UK and France are going total-war-all-out, their maybe 80,000 men for actual offensive action is not great for the Union, but not a knockout.

Similarly the argument that European intervention is decisive for resources reasons is at least debatable. While the US did import lead and gunpowder, it did so for cost reasons; the nitrate deposits in for instance, Mammoth Cave, were well known, and had been exploited in the exact same situation of a British gunpowder embargo during the War of 1812. The U.S. in general is not known for lacking in mineral resources.

Certainly we can point-and-counterpoint all day about specifics, but my point is that while the CSA can win, it doesn't need one more thing to go right. It needs at least two more things to go right, and two of the same sort of thing: no fall of Atlanta AND another Union setback; European Intervention AND a decisive total war commitment from Britain and France on top of it. It's possible, but very hard to accomplish.

I would specifically argue that a decisive total-war commitment from Britain and France is impossible without the USA's leadership drinking more crazy juice than the Kodoha faction of '20s and '30s Japan and becoming just as rabidly nationalistic and expansionist. There are simply too many concerns in Europe and elsewhere for either power to commit to a total war in America.

(Further, total war is not something Palmerston would go for. Call it what you will, but the man had a remarkable ability to ensure that Britain only fought extremely weak and easily-defeated foes whenever possible, and avoided fights with tougher customers)

 

[Worffan101]

There is no need of total war commitment, would the US even keep fighting if those 2 intervene? Also if France could intervene in Mexico for years without Prussia invading it can do whatever with the USA.

It should be noted that Prussia was in the early 1860s at loggerheads with Austria and was about to decisively establish itself as the leader of the German nationalist movement. So Prussia was distracted, but its military was there on the French border. . That said--propping up an unstable puppet regime in Mexico is a very different animal from invading the USA, too, in terms of population and state functionality alone.

 

[Voice of The Empire]

Exist.

 

[Whiteshore]

Secede at a time that the North was so powerful. If they had seceded in 1832 (over nullification) or 1850 (over a failure of negotiations for the Compromise of 1850), they might have had a chance.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

There is no need of total war commitment, would the US even keep fighting if those 2 intervene? Also if France could intervene in Mexico for years without Prussia invading it can do whatever with the USA.

Yes, they would keep on fighting. Secession marked an existential threat to the nation. Also invading the USA would take far more resources than invading Mexico.

 

[Gloss]

Yes, they would keep on fighting. Secession marked an existential threat to the nation. Also invading the USA would take far more resources than invading Mexico.

Didn't you see @History Learner 's argument about the importance of British imports and anti-war sentiment IOTL?

 

[Belisarius II]

But the point is they wouldn't be dead men walking in an atl.

In such an atl at the very least Atlanta holds (you can argue they needed more but you'll agree this is the biggest one they needed to keep that they didn't), probably with Hood not becoming Army Commander. That means those men who deserted because Sherman's marching through Georgia, to the homes of those there and in the Carolinas are still in the ranks. Lives are not thrown away like they were in otl with the hopeless offensives of Hood and there is no march through Georgia even if Atlanta is abandoned in mid November (the AoT stays in front of Sherman). Others who deserted after Nov. 64, not wanting to die for a lost cause stay in the ranks. At the same time the Union, in an effort to win before McClellan takes office might try some reckless tactics which might work, or more likely they get people killed which increases the calls for peace.

Basically, the atl the Confederacy is much stronger regardless than otl. Probably not strong enough to last another year if they had to fight it out, but then again, they wouldn't have to.

How many times can the CSA roll 6's? Atlanta held as long as reason could hope. After delaying the inevitable for so long people keep saying if only they could hold Atlanta for a few more months. Just how do they do that? There's not much left to fight with. As always the main effort was being made to hold Richmond, and the ANV was pinned like a fly on paper. After the Wilderness the only major offensive effort they could make was Jubal Early's Corps sized raid into Maryland, and Pennsylvania. The third part of the Killer Angels trilogy was appropriately titled "The Last Full Measure". The Confederates fought passed all reason, every man who died in the last 6 months of the war died for nothing. Considering Lincoln was offering them easy terms to rejoin the Union just what were they fighting for? Slavery was dead, independence was dead, and no one was going to be punished. Still

April 1865 - Confederate general-in-chief Robert E. Lee, who had regularly recommended clemency for deserters, determines that failure to enact heavy penalties upon those who flee the army "encourages others to hope for like impunity," and therefore calls for stricter punishments.

April 1965, what was the point?

 

[Belisarius II]

If it's ridiculous, then please cite something. Perhaps you missed it, but to quote from Blue and Gray Diplomacy: A History of Union and Confederate Foreign Relations by Howard Jones, the Chapter Antietam and Emancipation -

Second Bull Run encouraged the Palmerston ministry to consider southern separation as the key to stopping a war that the Union must accept as over. In light of their growing desperation, the prime minister and his foreign secretary refused to believe that Washington had any resiliency left. Palmerston and Russell thus linked either approval or rejection of mediation by the Union with an admission to independence that, by definition, pointed to ultimate recognition of a Confederate nation. Yet the Lincoln administration continued to renounce mediation as an unwarranted interference in American affairs that would prolong the war by holding out the prospect of southern recognition. The British again ignored the Union’s warnings against any kind of intervention and insisted that they sought only to bring the two warring parties to the peace table. But the White House correctly suspected that mediation marked the first step in a process that as a matter of course would lead to a foreign acclamation of separation and then, finally, to recognition. What other outcome could there be once the Union refused a public offer of mediation from one or more European powers that claimed only to want the war to end? Recognition, the Union realized, would open the Confederacy to commercial and even military agreements, making the European nations virtual if not actual allies of the new nation. With the welfare of one or more continental powers then tied to the Confederacy, the peacemakers would be under enormous pressure to use force to end the conflict. ​

​

These events might have played out in the autumn of 1862, had not Confederate general Robert E. Lee followed his victory at Second Bull Run with a raid into Maryland. ​

As for the French in Mexico:

​

"By the fall of 1864 the French army reached the northern border with Texas and was able to benefit from the lucrative trade with the embattled Confederate States in the civil war north of the Rio Grande. Also, in the far south, Bazaine defeated and forced the surrender of 8,000 republican troops under Porfirio Diaz in Oaxaca in early 1865. It was the last major republican force still in the field though it had little to no contact with Juarez himself. The fugitive president was, by that time, living constantly on the run in the northern reaches of Chihuahua just south of the Arizona border."​

​

Actually Palmerston did; it was only the intervention of the Prince Consort that prevented war by toning down the British ultimatum. As it existed, it was acknowledged it was likely to start a war otherwise.



I've already cited numerous examples they could, backed up by the historians. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I am likewise able to say it's just not supported by the historical record. Numerous possibilities of more Confederate victories exist and even James McPherson himself crafted such a scenario.

Great they reached the border of the dying Confederacy. The more I read about him the wiser Prince Albert seems to me. He understood a war with the Union would be a costly disaster for all concerned. Britain would gain nothing from it, and only suffer losses. Fighting for slavery would be a betrayal of 50 years of British Abolitionism.

 

[History Learner]

Similarly the argument that European intervention is decisive for resources reasons is at least debatable. While the US did import lead and gunpowder, it did so for cost reasons; the nitrate deposits in for instance, Mammoth Cave, were well known, and had been exploited in the exact same situation of a British gunpowder embargo during the War of 1812. The U.S. in general is not known for lacking in mineral resources.

Certainly we can point-and-counterpoint all day about specifics, but my point is that while the CSA can win, it doesn't need one more thing to go right. It needs at least two more things to go right, and two of the same sort of thing: no fall of Atlanta AND another Union setback; European Intervention AND a decisive total war commitment from Britain and France on top of it. It's possible, but very hard to accomplish.

I'll respond to this as a general counter, since @Gloss asked me to.

On hand in 1861: 1,302,000 lbs
Purchased to 30 June 1862: 23,057,000 lbs
Expended to 30 June 1862: 18,920,000 lbs
Purchased to 30 June 1863: 48,720,000 lbs
Expended to 30 June 1863: 31,139,000 lbs
Purchased to 30 June 1864: 12,740,000 lbs
Expended to 30 June 1864: 7,624,000 lbs

Lead imports from Britain by year

1861: 1,679,000 lbs
1862: 28,926,000 lbs
1863 5,777,000 lbs
1864 25,929,000 lbs

From June 30th of 1862 to June 30th of 1863, the Union Army alone expended 31 million pounds of lead; total production during that same space was only 28 million pounds. Take in note, this is not including civilian needs, or the needs of the Union Navy and Marine Corps. Without even getting into the saltpeter issue, we see further resistance is impossible.

Only God himself could help the Union should they be so reckless as to further damage themselves by getting into an actual shooting match with the Anglo-French.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Didn't you see @History Learner 's argument about the importance of British imports and anti-war sentiment IOTL?

The USA had plenty of known sources of nitrates in the 19th century from Death Valley in California to various caves in the midwest and Kentucky; they also knew how to obtain them from nitrogenous waste (like urine and chicken waste). There wasn't a dearth of lead deposits either. Nitrates and lead were imported because it was cheaper to do so than to rely on local sources, not out of a lack of local sources. In short History Learner looks at where they got nitrates and lead, then assumes they would simply do without if those sources were cut off rather than use the more expensive local sources. As for anti-war sentiment, even if Lincoln had lost every state where his victory margin was less than 5%, he still would have had more than twice as many electoral votes as McClellan. That's before we get into the fact that the antiwar sentiment (which was far less than CSA-wankers think) was most prominent among Irish immigrants and American children of Irish immigrants. Any hint of a British invasion would kill draft riots among the Irish-American population. The most widely used weapon in the Union army was the domestically produced Springfield Model 1861.

 

[History Learner]

Yes, they would keep on fighting. Secession marked an existential threat to the nation. Also invading the USA would take far more resources than invading Mexico.

With what? Bows and Arrows? Ask the people of Africa how well that worked out for them in the 19th Century or the Native Americans for a North American example.

 

[History Learner]

The USA had plenty of known sources of nitrates in the 19th century from Death Valley in California to various caves in the midwest and Kentucky; they also knew how to obtain them from nitrogenous waste (like urine and chicken waste). There wasn't a dearth of lead deposits either. Nitrates and lead were imported because it was cheaper to do so than to rely on local sources, not out of a lack of local sources. In short History Learner looks at where they got nitrates and lead, then assumes they would simply do without if those sources were cut off rather than use the more expensive local sources. As for anti-war sentiment, even if Lincoln had lost every state where his victory margin was less than 5%, he still would have had more than twice as many electoral votes as McClellan. That's before we get into the fact that the antiwar sentiment (which was far less than CSA-wankers think) was most prominent among Irish immigrants and American children of Irish immigrants. Any hint of a British invasion would kill draft riots among the Irish-American population. The most widely used weapon in the Union army was the domestically produced Springfield Model 1861.

As I've already cited, lead consumption far exceeded domestic production by the Union Army alone; if you believe to the contrary, I welcome your citations on this as well as on the nitrates. As for the McClellan issue, if we're assuming a shift of 5%, this is the map:

McClellan wins the election.

 

[Belisarius II]

There is no need of total war commitment, would the US even keep fighting if those 2 intervene? Also if France could intervene in Mexico for years without Prussia invading it can do whatever with the USA.

Without any doubt the Union would fight on. The Union had plans to fight the British in such an event, and had no intention of folding up. The RN could try to attack NYC, but they wouldn't try it twice. I earlier posted in this thread about the British assessment that Canada was highly vulnerable, and all but indefensible West of Montreal. The USN wasn't going to run away, and they had Ironclad superiority. Union Raiders would attack British Commerce. The British would regret getting into an unprovoked war, that was none of their business.

 

[History Learner]

Without any doubt the Union would fight on. The Union had plans to fight the British in such an event, and had no intention of folding up. The RN could try to attack NYC, but they wouldn't try it twice. I earlier posted in this thread about the British assessment that Canada was highly vulnerable, and all but indefensible West of Montreal. The USN wasn't going to run away, and they had Ironclad superiority. Union Raiders would attack British Commerce. The British would regret getting into an unprovoked war, that was none of their business.

The Union had no ironclad superiority nor much of anything really that could even damage their British counterparts. Further, with what, exactly is the Union to shoot at the Royal Navy? They have no lead or nitrates upon which to do so. If the U.S. was so superior, why didn't they attack Canada over the Trent Affair? Why did Lincoln back down decisively?

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

As I've already cited, lead consumption far exceeded domestic production by the Union Army alone

There is a difference production and available sources. Existing lead deposits were not heavily mined. They would have been had lead imports been cut off. In other words, without imported lead, domestic mining of lead would rise. As for your map, it's just wrong (I'm assuming it's with blue for Democrats and red for National Union). You have McClellan winning California, when he lost it by 17.2%. You have him winning Maine, which he lost by 18.2% You have him winning Ohio, which he lost by 12.8% You have him winning Nevada, which he lost by 19.6%. Those are far from the only states you have him winning that he lost in OTL by a margin of more than 5%.

 

[History Learner]

There is a difference production and available sources. Existing lead deposits were not heavily mined. They would have been had lead imports been cut off. In other words, without imported lead, domestic mining of lead would rise.

Except we don't see this at all in the statistics:

In 1861, the price per 100lbs is between $5-6 and by 1864 is $17 per 100lbs. Still, domestic production is completely unable to meet the demand and on top of this is massive imports from Britain.

As for your map, it's just wrong (I'm assuming it's with blue for Democrats and red for National Union). You have McClellan winning California, when he lost it by 17.2%. You have him winning Maine, which he lost by 18.2% You have him winning Ohio, which he lost by 12.8% You have him winning Nevada, which he lost by 19.6%. Those are far from the only states you have him winning that he lost in OTL by a margin of more than 5%.

Blue for the Republicans, Red for the Democrats; this is the standard convention for Dave Leip's Election Atlas and was the Pre-2000 formula in the U.S. at large.

 

[Sarthak]

Without any doubt the Union would fight on. The Union had plans to fight the British in such an event, and had no intention of folding up. The RN could try to attack NYC, but they wouldn't try it twice. I earlier posted in this thread about the British assessment that Canada was highly vulnerable, and all but indefensible West of Montreal. The USN wasn't going to run away, and they had Ironclad superiority. Union Raiders would attack British Commerce. The British would regret getting into an unprovoked war, that was none of their business.

What in the......
The Monitor Class Ironclads were specifically designed for coastal command and were designed for shallow waters. There were around 50 of these by 1865 of which the majority were operating in inland rivers and lakes, mostly in the Mississippi.

Great Britain in 1862 had around 14 Ironclads, that were heavier, bulkier, stronger and most importantly, the Warrior Class, Defense Class, Hector Class, Achilles Class, Minotaur Class, Prince Consort Class, Lord Clyde Class, etc were all stronger than the USN's coastal ironclads by a severe margin. There was a good reason they were shunted off to reserve immediately after the Civil War ended.

There's nothing much armors of 8" of the Monitor Class could do against the 68 pounder guns and 32 pounder guns. There wasn't much the 11 pounder guns of the Monitor class could do against 18" armor of the Royal Navy either.

Private British commerce raiders repeatedly broke the Union Blockade in the south, the USN was in no condition to take on the Royal Navy during this time period. The British would be able to simply lock down American trade to the world completely during this time period.