WI A competent aggressive Union commander at Anthietham / Sharpsburg

Could Lee have been decisively defeated.

If so does the CSA fight on.

On paper if they re-joined the Union by Jan 1 1863 their establishment figures get to keep holding people as property.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Hm.

The tricky thing about Antietam is that the accounts of troop counts involved differ wildly. One of the causes of this is the eternal confusion over numbers (present for duty, aggregate present, muster strength) and another is that the Lost Cause side of things has a vested interest in portraying the Union as relying on sheer numbers to flatten superior individual Rebels.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Anyway, to address the point - as of Antietam the Army of Northern Virginia has a fairly secure route of retreat, and even if the Union attackers break the Confederate lines they still have that problem to deal with (decisive victories are rare in the ACW because the armies could generally retreat successfully).

The other problem is that:
1) Assuming Lee's force was much smaller than that of McClellan, then even a total loss of the force is a relatively small one. In the event of a loss of 20,000 (half the army by the lower-bound estimates of Lee's strength), it's only 20,000 and the Confederacy can relatively quickly recover.
2) Assuming Lee's force was closer to parity (say 50,000 or so) then it's much harder to score the desired decisive victory.
 
Could Lee have been decisively defeated.
Yes. Although it was very rare in the ACW for a field battle to be truly decisive. At Winchester in 1862, Stonewall Jackson attacked with over twice as many troops, and completely routed the army of politician-general Nathaniel Banks. The Yankee survivors rallied on the other side of the Potomac, 50 km away. But Banks lost less than 1/3 of his troops.

At Antietam, the Union clearly had the power to break the Confederate lines and drive the rebels off the field. But they didn't have the rebels surrounded, and they didn't have an effective cavalry force to ride down all the fugitives. Most of the rebels would have escaped - either via the one ford over the Potomac to the west, or west and then south along the Potomac. Hill's division, which marched up from Harpers Ferry just in time to save the Confederate right, would have showed up, done some damage to the Union left, and then withdrawn; most of the rebel stragglers would have rallied on that force.

If so does the CSA fight on.
Yes. Davis would not give up. The Union would have a great advantage in the Eastern Theater, and might be be able to capture Richmond by the end of 1862, but the rest of the Confederacy would be largely intact, i.e. nearly all of NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, and MS, half of TN, most of AR and LA, all of TX.

There would be a considerable morale effect, but OTL the CSA fought on into 1865 under hopeless conditions; even a crushing defeat at Sharpsburg would not make them all give up immediately.

On paper if they re-joined the Union by Jan 1 1863 their establishment figures get to keep holding people as property.
As would all other slaveowners, not just the elite. But I doubt that any of them believed such a move would get them any real protection for slavery.
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
On paper if they re-joined the Union by Jan 1 1863 their establishment figures get to keep holding people as property.
Just to address this one - the Emancipation Proclamation is specific. Those slaves held by those in rebellion are the only ones freed - if the Confederacy did consent to rejoin the Union then they'd be able to keep their slaves even after the Emancipation Proclamation. OTL it took a Constitutional Amendment to free slaves held by loyalists, and that's not going to happen if the South rejoins because you'd need about thirty free states and for them all to support the amendment.
 
Just to address this one - the Emancipation Proclamation is specific. Those slaves held by those in rebellion are the only ones freed - if the Confederacy did consent to rejoin the Union then they'd be able to keep their slaves even after the Emancipation Proclamation. OTL it took a Constitutional Amendment to free slaves held by loyalists, and that's not going to happen if the South rejoins because you'd need about thirty free states and for them all to support the amendment.

Missouri voted to end slavery in 1863 (compensated emancipation over the next seven years, but still, commitment to emancipation). Maryland abolished slavery in 1864. West Virginia ended hereditary slavery in 1863.

So it seems likely that all three states would ratify an emancipation amendment, as would the 18 pre-ACW free states, Kansas, and Nebraska. Delaware would probably go along too. That's 24 ratifications out of 36 states. Slavery in Kentucky was pretty well trashed by the war; IMO the state would eventually go along with a national movement: 25 of 36. When Colorado and the northwestern states were admitted, the game would be over.

Bear in mind that the amendment need not be immediate and complete emancipation - it might just abolish hereditary slavery after a future date. And the moral pressure on the South to go along would be immense.
 
Missouri voted to end slavery in 1863 (compensated emancipation over the next seven years, but still, commitment to emancipation). Maryland abolished slavery in 1864. West Virginia ended hereditary slavery in 1863.

So it seems likely that all three states would ratify an emancipation amendment, as would the 18 pre-ACW free states, Kansas, and Nebraska. Delaware would probably go along too. That's 24 ratifications out of 36 states. Slavery in Kentucky was pretty well trashed by the war; IMO the state would eventually go along with a national movement: 25 of 36. When Colorado and the northwestern states were admitted, the game would be over.
I really doubt that either of those states would ratify the thirteenth amendment. Both Delaware and Kentucky rejected the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 when it was clear that slavery was doomed. Why would they go along with it in a scenario when slavery is surviving?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
On paper if they re-joined the Union by Jan 1 1863 their establishment figures get to keep holding people as property.

I don't think there is a non-ASB way to get the entire Confederacy to surrender by January 1863.

Maybe more CSA territory would be in the Union and ineligible by the end of 62, but large swathes of the south would be unconquered. Slavery would be effectively done by around the end of the war.

If a Union-wank at Antietam lead to fabulous territorial advances and reclaiming of several CSA states by November or December, Lincoln might revise the deadline to make it a little earlier.
 
I really doubt that either of those states would ratify the thirteenth amendment. Both Delaware and Kentucky rejected the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 when it was clear that slavery was doomed. Why would they go along with it in a scenario when slavery is surviving?

The question is not whether the OTL Thirteenth Amendment could be ratified in 1865 ITTL, but whether some amendment ending slavery on any basis could ever be ratified.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The question is not whether the OTL Thirteenth Amendment could be ratified in 1865 ITTL, but whether some amendment ending slavery on any basis could ever be ratified.
Well, it's more "how long will it take for there to be a slavery-ending amendment ratified". I you can't rely on Delaware and Kentucky, then you'll need to wait a lot longer.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Hmmm... I wonder about the Special Order 191 thing. Not the bit about McClellan getting hold of them, but - what were McClellan's intentions before getting hold of them, and what was Lee planning to do before he knew they were lost.

(Because it stands to reason that Lee would have changed his dispositions if he knew that there was a copy of his orders floating around lost...)
 
Missouri voted to end slavery in 1863 (compensated emancipation over the next seven years, but still, commitment to emancipation). Maryland abolished slavery in 1864. West Virginia ended hereditary slavery in 1863.

So it seems likely that all three states would ratify an emancipation amendment, as would the 18 pre-ACW free states, Kansas, and Nebraska. Delaware would probably go along too. That's 24 ratifications out of 36 states. Slavery in Kentucky was pretty well trashed by the war; IMO the state would eventually go along with a national movement: 25 of 36. When Colorado and the northwestern states were admitted, the game would be over.

Bear in mind that the amendment need not be immediate and complete emancipation - it might just abolish hereditary slavery after a future date. And the moral pressure on the South to go along would be immense.

As would the economic pressure. If slavery is perceived to have no future than the investment value of slaves would certainly plummet. At this point, pre Civil War, slavery in Virginia depended on its investment value (and selling them south to labor hungry plantations that had not worn out their land through cotton and tobacco farming).
 
The question is not whether the OTL Thirteenth Amendment could be ratified in 1865 ITTL, but whether some amendment ending slavery on any basis could ever be ratified.
The point was that if in OTL Kentucky and Delaware were so anti-abolitionist that they would refuse to vote for the Thirteenth Amendment even when it was clear that it would pass, then I wouldn't be relying on them to vote for any hypothetical anti-slavery amendment in conditions where slavery has been preserved in so many states in the Union.

Delaware's objection to the 13th Amendment (and, indeed, the 14th and 15th) was based on it being a gross overextension of federal power over the states, which they deemed illegal, rather than being particularly concerned about preserving the few hundred slaves left by that time. So even if Delaware has not a single slave left, that doesn't mean that they would support any hypothetical ATL amendment to end slavery nationwide.

Kentucky's opposition to the 13th Amendment was strong; the ratification was rejected 56-18 in the state House and 23-10 in the state Senate. The objections raised were similar in terms of being an overreach of federal powers and compulsory removal of property (i.e. slaves).

I doubt that these objections will vanish anytime soon in an ATL where slavery remains viable in other states, and indeed would probably be objections held even by former slave states that have recently abolished slavery, so even if a state has individually abolished slavery, that doesn't mean it will vote for a federal amendment abolishing slavery nationwide. As an aside, I also have my doubts that states like Maryland would abolish slavery in this hypothetical of slave states rejoining before the Emancipation Proclamation takes effect, either.

As would the economic pressure. If slavery is perceived to have no future than the investment value of slaves would certainly plummet. At this point, pre Civil War, slavery in Virginia depended on its investment value (and selling them south to labor hungry plantations that had not worn out their land through cotton and tobacco farming).
Virginia had stopped relying on selling slaves south by the early 1850s at the latest; the slave population in Virginia had started growing again between 1850-1860. Virginia (and other eastern seaboard states) had also begun employing fertilisers to replenish exhausted soils, so their agriculture was recovering.

In this hypothetical where the slave states rejoin the Union before 1 January 1863, slavery also looks like it has a strong future, since slave states abound everywhere. So I would expect them to still have reasonable investment value anyway.
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
Actually, here's something to think about - the Pico Act. OTL that nearly split California into two states - and the southern one was full of pro-CS people. If that goes through, it might well make any amendment that so harms States' Rights even harder to pass.

(Make electoral politics fun in future, too.)


...actually, that's a point. If the Confederacy rejoins the US as slave states, I wonder what 1864 looks like election-wise. One thing's for sure, it'll be less of a landslide than OTL...


And something else I was reminded of - one of the proposals for the South to rejoin was that Lincoln would promise an Amendment which guaranteed slavery, IIRC. I don't think this proposal came from the South, either.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I don't think there is a non-ASB way to get the entire Confederacy to surrender by January 1863.

Maybe more CSA territory would be in the Union and ineligible by the end of 62, but large swathes of the south would be unconquered. Slavery would be effectively done by around the end of the war.

If a Union-wank at Antietam lead to fabulous territorial advances and reclaiming of several CSA states by November or December, Lincoln might revise the deadline to make it a little earlier.

I think my point here was important and ignored in the discussion
 
Top