WI: A Copperhead Presidency

PODs:

1) Lee wins Gettysburg, which demoralizes the Army of the Potomac. Confederate forces above the Mason-Dixon line tilt the views of the North strongly against Lincoln. The Confederacy holds off long enough in the other theaters to result in the war of attrition headed into election season.

2) So strongly that the ongoing war doesn't just lead to Lincoln's ousting, but to President Clement Vallandingham (or another Copperhead). The House also falls under Democrat and control, with the Copperheads the leading voices.

3) In between the election and the inauguration, England recognizes the Confederacy.

This is obviously a "Best Case" scenario for the Confederacy. Thoughts as to how the Union and Confederacy would look like in this scenario?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Can you explain 1)?

PODs: 1) Lee wins Gettysburg, which demoralizes the Army of the Potomac. Confederate forces above the Mason-Dixon line tilt the views of the North strongly against Lincoln. The Confederacy holds off long enough in the other theaters to result in the war of attrition headed into election season.

Can you explain 1)?

Thanks.

Best,
 
Can you explain 1)?

Thanks.

Best,

I am not someone with any technical knowledge about battlefield strategies and the like. But it's just the more general "The South holds off until the election with a demoralized Union military force headed home" concept floated in a lot of alternate histories.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The problem is that's not possible

I am not someone with any technical knowledge about battlefield strategies and the like. But it's just the more general "The South holds off until the election with a demoralized Union military force headed home" concept floated in a lot of alternate histories.

The problem is that's not possible; certainly not with the US and rebels forces as they were by the summer of 1863. The US victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, for example, were not flukes; they were to be expected, given the correlation of forces, which spun directly out of the demographic and economic advantages the US had over the rebellion.

This tends to sum things up pretty clearly:

http://www.nps.gov/civilwar/facts.htm

Manpower + money (both of which the US had in abundance compared to the rebellion) are what generates military forces, and a force that combines quality and quantity (as the US was able to do) is always going to prevail over one that can not.

Especially in a total war, which is what the US civil war was - an existential conflict tends to lead to such.

Along the same lines, simply reviewing where the front lines were in 1861, 1862, 1863, etc. makes it pretty clear which combatant was - and in fact did - prevailing:

Map34.jpg


Best,
 
PODs: President Clement Vallandingham (or another Copperhead).

It would have to be another Copperhead. Since I'm pretty sure that Vallandingham was sent into the south (and later into Canada) after being arrested on Burnside's orders back in Ohio.
 

frlmerrin

Banned
<Irrelevant material removed>


Map34.jpg


<Irrelevant material removed>


This map is correct, for a given value of correct but is only a model of what the military and civil control situations were at any given time during the American Civil War. We all know that it was not a war like WWI where there were well defined front lines all the way from the Swiss border to the North Sea. The well defined front lines shown on the map simply did not exist in the American Civil War. Interestingly you have made this point yourself many times in many threads; you have repeatedly pointed out that the armies in this war were very spread out and that there was no continuous front line. Yet you go on printing this essentially inaccurate and pointless map ad nauseam over several threads. Can you please instead provide some more useful and relevant information which might actually support the assertions you are making. Specifically indicate on the map where the various Union Armies were located and how far they spread their control. The which towns were actually under Union administration.

PS - the book this map comes from appears to be still under copyright even if it is being distributed free and you have certainly exceeded 'fair usage'. You may want to find another.
 
Instead of getting into the details of battles and military history, I will suggest that my first POD is "take any of the excellent alternate histories about the military aspects of the Civil War written by people like Winston Churchill and Henry Turtledove where the South meets its aims and instead of McClellan being the Democratic candidate it's a Copperhead firebrand."

That's the best way to explain it, I think.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
What excellent alternate histories would those be?

Instead of getting into the details of battles and military history, I will suggest that my first POD is "take any of the excellent alternate histories about the military aspects of the Civil War written by people like Winston Churchill and Henry Turtledove where the South meets its aims and instead of McClellan being the Democratic candidate it's a Copperhead firebrand." That's the best way to explain it, I think.

What excellent alternate histories would those be?

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Consider the trend illustrated

This map is correct - snip - PS - the book this map comes from appears to be still under copyright even if it is being distributed free and you have certainly exceeded 'fair usage'. You may want to find another.

Consider the trend being illustrated from 1861 through to 1865.

Liekwise, it is from an official USG publication. No issue with duplication for educational purposes; in fact, here's the link from the MIlitary History Center:

http://www.history.army.mil/html/bookshelves/resmat/civil_war/Maps/1CW-1861-1865.pdf

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The question asked was to explain point 1;

That's not what the OP asked. The OP assumes that the POD and asks what the repercussions of it would have been. As you well know, we have an official thread for discussion on whether or not the South had a chance to win the war; it would be the proper place for the post you made. How about you be polite and let the poster not have his thread derailed?

The question asked was to explain point 1 (rebel victory at Gettysburg); the poster responded and essentially said there wasn't an explanation. My response was there's a reason why, which is readily apparent in a reality-based universe. Hadn't gotten any farther that that, but it is called a conversation.

The point of posting here is feedback, correct? Especially, given the existence of multiple other boards - including the ASB ones - is for what gest posted here to be read with an eye toward non-ASBish speculation?

A Copperhad victory at the polls in 1864 (in the US) is about as likely as a Nazi victory at the polls in 1944 (in the US), and for the same reasons.

Best,
 
Last edited:
That's not what the OP asked. The OP assumes that the POD and asks what the repercussions of it would have been. As you well know, we have an official thread for discussion on whether or not the South had a chance to win the war; it would be the proper place for the post you made.

How about you be polite and let the poster not have his thread derailed?

We could even use your excellent CSA victory tale but substitute McClellan's election with that of a Copperhead. :)
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Thoughts as to how the Union and Confederacy would look like in this scenario?

It depends on a lot of factors. The Northern people might initially feel that the Republicans caused the war and then botched it, leading to the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of men. This, in turn, could have led to the dissolution of the Republican Party altogether. On the other hand, there would remain a core constituency of anti-slavery voters, especially in New England, who would remain unwilling to support the Democrats. So we would be in for some wild political times in the United States.

The Confederacy, though independent, would face enormous problems. It would be deeply in debt and there would be a great deal of social and economic turmoil, especially in areas that had been under Union occupation. Moreover, with the war over, the disparate political factions of the South would have begun to turn their attention from secession/war to securing electoral power for themselves in the new nation. This would have grown more intense as the election of 1867 approached.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
The point of posting here is feedback, correct?

Yes, and the question the poster asked was, "Thoughts as to how the Union and Confederacy would look like in this scenario?" That is what he wants feedback on.

A Copperhad victory at the polls in 1864 (in the US) is about as likely as a Nazi victory at the polls in 1944 (in the US), and for the same reasons.

Take that to the official thread, a link to which I already posted. Harping on it here is a disservice to the board and, frankly, very rude to the poster.

EDIT: For your convenience, TFSmith, I have posted your assertion in the official thread.
 
Last edited:
It depends on a lot of factors. The Northern people might initially feel that the Republicans caused the war and then botched it, leading to the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of men. This, in turn, could have led to the dissolution of the Republican Party altogether. On the other hand, there would remain a core constituency of anti-slavery voters, especially in New England, who would remain unwilling to support the Democrats. So we would be in for some wild political times in the United States.

The Confederacy, though independent, would face enormous problems. It would be deeply in debt and there would be a great deal of social and economic turmoil, especially in areas that had been under Union occupation. Moreover, with the war over, the disparate political factions of the South would have begun to turn their attention from secession/war to securing electoral power for themselves in the new nation. This would have grown more intense as the election of 1867 approached.

I would think the following might happen:

1) The amount of bodies sent back North just added to the furor witnessed in a lot of cities with response to draft riots. I could certainly see a lot of prolonged trouble in terms of Northern urban unrest leading to a major power struggle among local and state political factions. I would see this happening in cities in the Mid-Atlantic like Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark and New York.

2) Except in New England. That would always lean abolitionist.

3) So much Copperhead/Peace Democrat strength leaned to the west. I think the Union's divide would tilt from North-South to East-West. I don't know how deep the cultural ties the two regions shared in the mid-19th Century. Would the Peace Democrats from Ohio and points west start petitioning to form their own country, leaving a separate country in the northeast and Mid-Atlantic? (And would Lincoln live to see his own state leave the Union?)

4) I see the CSA struggling but slowly recovering. There's no war, obviously, and that helps right there. British recognition brings more currency into the economy. I'd imagine the blockade ends as part of the terms of peace. And does a sympathetic Peace Democrat party agree to pay for some of the South's rebuild in order to prevent a future outbreak of hostilities?

5) I don't see the slavery issue changing. The CSA has it. The Union doesn't. But race relations definitely remain an issue of political contention in the north for decades to come. That's certainly true in the South, too, obviously. But I could actually see a Southern political faction slowly realizing slavery must come to an end (in particular to appease their English and French trading partners) and it does so slowly. But the Northern cities have a labor population afraid of losing their jobs to migrating blacks.

So while the South is definitely backwards behind the Union economically, I do see a "victorious" South slowly headed towards becoming a normalized state whereas the North faces a more difficult political climate.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
The amount of bodies sent back North just added to the furor witnessed in a lot of cities with response to draft riots. I could certainly see a lot of prolonged trouble in terms of Northern urban unrest leading to a major power struggle among local and state political factions. I would see this happening in cities in the Mid-Atlantic like Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark and New York.

This would be made worse by the influx of slaves freed during the war and what would likely be a steady stream of slaves escaping from the Confederacy into the Union. Being competitors for low-wage jobs, there would be a great deal of unrest between the blacks and newly arrived immigrants from Europe. This was obvious IOTL and it would be even worse in this scenario.

Except in New England. That would always lean abolitionist.

Yes, but not as much as one might think. The "Cotton Whigs" remained a powerful political force in Massachusetts well into the war. Connecticut also had significant Democratic strength; McClellan very nearly won the state in 1864 IOTL.

So much Copperhead/Peace Democrat strength leaned to the west. I think the Union's divide would tilt from North-South to East-West. I don't know how deep the cultural ties the two regions shared in the mid-19th Century. Would the Peace Democrats from Ohio and points west start petitioning to form their own country, leaving a separate country in the northeast and Mid-Atlantic? (And would Lincoln live to see his own state leave the Union?)

The North is certainly going to be in for some tumultuous political times, but I am not sure I see a national split coming. As big as they were, the differences between the Northeast and the Northwest were nowhere near as pronounced as the differences between the antebellum North and South, which were essentially different cultures altogether.

I see the CSA struggling but slowly recovering. There's no war, obviously, and that helps right there. British recognition brings more currency into the economy. I'd imagine the blockade ends as part of the terms of peace. And does a sympathetic Peace Democrat party agree to pay for some of the South's rebuild in order to prevent a future outbreak of hostilities?

I don't see the Union government, even under a Copperhead administration, being willing to pay any reparations. The South didn't win the war, after all; it just avoided losing it.

I don't see the slavery issue changing. The CSA has it. The Union doesn't. But race relations definitely remain an issue of political contention in the north for decades to come. That's certainly true in the South, too, obviously. But I could actually see a Southern political faction slowly realizing slavery must come to an end (in particular to appease their English and French trading partners) and it does so slowly. But the Northern cities have a labor population afraid of losing their jobs to migrating blacks.

The problem is that the Confederate Constitution made it almost impossible for the Confederacy to abolish slavery, even if the bulk of the population wanted it to, which it didn't.
 
This would be made worse by the influx of slaves freed during the war and what would likely be a steady stream of slaves escaping from the Confederacy into the Union. Being competitors for low-wage jobs, there would be a great deal of unrest between the blacks and newly arrived immigrants from Europe. This was obvious IOTL and it would be even worse in this scenario.



Yes, but not as much as one might think. The "Cotton Whigs" remained a powerful political force in Massachusetts well into the war. Connecticut also had significant Democratic strength; McClellan very nearly won the state in 1864 IOTL.



The North is certainly going to be in for some tumultuous political times, but I am not sure I see a national split coming. As big as they were, the differences between the Northeast and the Northwest were nowhere near as pronounced as the differences between the antebellum North and South, which were essentially different cultures altogether.



I don't see the Union government, even under a Copperhead administration, being willing to pay any reparations. The South didn't win the war, after all; it just avoided losing it.



The problem is that the Confederate Constitution made it almost impossible for the Confederacy to abolish slavery, even if the bulk of the population wanted it to, which it didn't.

Thanks for this.

Another question: Does a "Peace Democrat" administration cave on the issue of any of the disputed states?
 
I'm no fan of CSA victory in any form and so take this with a grain of salt if you like, but I think trying to break the consensus (not an unchallenged one of course, but quite predominant) that held the Union through the Civil War OTL by means of some ATL brilliant Confederate military feat is cart before the horse. If we stipulate that the Union is resolved to restore itself by breaking the rebellion, it clearly has the advantages to win in the long run; it was a question of being determined to pay the price and stick it through. OTL the butcher's bill the Union forces paid was staggering enough; we have to figure that the resolve was very strong. It took several forms; passionate abolitionism in a minority, but also the belief that if the Secession were allowed to stand than further fragmentation might cause the Union to effectively cease to exist, or the consideration that an extensive land border with a fairly populous and moderately advanced nation would put the USA in the position of European states, constantly menaced by war and locked into a cycle of militarism. A huge element of the Republican coalition was Free-Soiler western pioneers who felt they had reason to believe the Southern slave system was a threat to their own ambitions and even way of life.

This coalition would not be easy to break by some daring, bold military stroke; everyone in the North could count the resources the Union had and compare them to what the South had and conclude that even large territorial losses amounted to no more than a setback; all they had to do was carry on and they'd win eventually. At terrible cost of course; the question would be, would allowing the secessionists to have their way be worse in the long run?

So what you need, I think, is to weaken the Unionist coalition from within, and I don't think that could be done effectively if you assume that it had the character it did OTL. Basically you need to go back to the 1850s or even earlier, and lay the groundwork for the Republican coalition to be weaker, with more fault lines. In particular, you have to either get rid of Lincoln completely or make him other than he was OTL.

There are of course plenty of people OTL in modern times who find all sorts of faults with Lincoln. Certainly he had some faults and weaknesses; I think the Lincoln haters are basically living in a fantasy world with very ugly decor, but perhaps one can arrange for Lincoln to first take the lead, gathering the reins of the new party into his hands and making himself the necessary center--and then have him implode somehow or other. I gather he was subject to depression; perhaps one can make him crazier, in a way he can mask at first, just long enough to lead the Union to a precipice where everyone must count on him--then let them down by openly cracking. Perhaps he can be revealed as a true megalomanic.

I'm not sure even this would be enough to cause the Union to ultimately lose; Hannibal Hamlin might be up to leading successfully enough. I think a sick Lincoln would have to be part of a whole witches' brew of dysfunction to cause the coalition to be sufficiently eroded to lose the 1864 elections.

I personally don't care much to contemplate the consequences, nor do I think it makes for highly realistic alternate history. Perhaps it is not necessary to make every falsehood and delusion of the Lost Causers come true; perhaps quite different shortcomings can get the job done instead, but either way it is a matter of arbitrarily nerfing a historical constellation of forces that had good reasons to exist and be fairly strong and strongly woven together OTL. And redundant; it won't do to put too much weight on one figure, be it Lincoln or Grant (say, killing off Grant early)--the Republican coalition had plenty of backup. Nor can I see any realistic prospect of Confederate figures performing a whole lot better than they did OTL; my impression is that their best generals did amazingly well with what limited material they had to hand.

Insofar as glorious victories for the South are going to make a difference, I'd say they had to strike even harder (if that were possible) while the iron of the Secession was hot--earlier rather than later. Who knows just how dire the consequences for the Union would have been if Confederate forces (realistically, they'd basically have to be Virginia forces) could have seized Washington, DC before Lincoln could even be inaugurated? My guess is even that would not assure ultimate Southern victory because the Union would just create a new temporary capital, one far less vulnerable of course, and outrage would outweigh dismay. But the point is, the sooner and grander such early feats are, the more demoralizing and objectively disruptive they might be; Lincoln might come to office still determined to fight but be overruled by a public that would not stand for it. Probably not, but the South's best hope would be to act early, before the Republicans could start mustering Northern power and getting its act together. The South had no advantages good over the long haul; all their assets lay in the direction of getting a swift decision.

So that doesn't really address your scenario either, because if the Secession can secure assent, even grudging, very early on, it ceases to be the immediate issue of 1864. What you need is for the Secession to happen, the Republican-led coalition in the North to step up and attempt to suppress it, and then disintegrate spectacularly sometime after the 1862 mid-terms, so they can take all the blame.

Only that would put a Copperhead in power IMHO, and the reason for it would be because some ASB has made the Republicans rotten, some mix of inept, stupid, corrupt, or too narrow-minded to find a path to victory and disintegrating instead.
 
Top