WI: Civil War delayed 8 years

[TFSmith121]

Andrew A. Humphreys, of the Philadelphia Humphreys;

Who is that?

Andrew A. Humphreys, of the Philadelphia Humphreys; USMA, class of 1831; also studied in Europe. Served in the artillery in the Seminole War; missed Mexico because of Topographical, Coast Survey, and general Corps of Engineers assignments, including transcontinental railroad surveys and the Mississippi River Delta flood control problem.

Brilliant engineer and a hell of a combat commander, to boot; equally sucessful in line and staff assignments. Rose from brigade to division to corps command (two general officer brevets; Peninsula, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Gettysburg, Overland, Petersburg) and served as Meade's chief of staff; after the war, served as chief engineer and helped create the National Academy of Sciences.

Any other army, he would have been the name one remembers; in the US forces during the civil war, he is just one of many, which makes clear how much depth the US actually had in their "bench."

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Actually, it's not - its AA Humphreys

Whoops. I misread his death date, fixed now. The union still has good men like Sheridan, Meade, and Hancock. Of course Stonewall Jackson, Longstreet, and J.E.B Stuart are still quite active.



Engineer James Buchanan Eads.

Actually, it's not - its AA Humphreys.

Best,

 

[Widukind]

Who is that?

Engineer James Buchanan Eads.

I'm pretty sure it's actually Andrew Humphreys. The kind of man who knew what modern warfare was about, understood logistics and engineering to a tee, and would have little trouble establishing the correct priorities in a hypothetical 1868 North-South conflict.


ETA: messing around in two threads at once, I missed the correction already posted by TFSmith121 himself. Apologies for the superfluous post.

 

[Fiver]

Even OTL the US (CS) cottton was replaced by Egyptian cotton (cheaper) - this would probably hurt the south during the 60s so much that they would not have thought to secede.Slavery would probably be dying anyway...

If cotton was no longer profitable, that would merely change what work the slaves did, not end slavery. Besides, while Egyptian cotton was cheaper, it was also lower quality.

 

[TFSmith121]

Not at all

I'm pretty sure it's actually Andrew Humphreys. The kind of man who knew what modern warfare was about, understood logistics and engineering to a tee, and would have little trouble establishing the correct priorities in a hypothetical 1868 North-South conflict.


ETA: messing around in two threads at once, I missed the correction already posted by TFSmith121 himself. Apologies for the superfluous post.

Not at all.

Best,

 

[Dave Howery]

sticking with the OP POD of an 8 year delay... how much would be affected? Problem is, the USA still hasn't fought in a major war since Mexico, and there will still be a real lack of experience in modern war (for that matter, you won't have quite a few people who fought in Mexico, so military experience of any kind will be lacking). Will the army be any better off than in 1861? Will any new weapons be online in any large numbers? Will the navy have ironclads? Without a war anywhere in sight, the army back then had a real tendency to not upgrade anything all that much...

 

[Anaxagoras]

The union still has good men like Sheridan, Meade, and Hancock. Of course Stonewall Jackson, Longstreet, and J.E.B Stuart are still quite active.

I don't see why the North would gain an advantage over the South in terms of generals who were younger IOTL playing a more active role had the war been eight years late. Sure, a lot of good Union generals would have had an easier time rising to higher command, but the same was true of Southern commanders. Stephen Ramseur, John Wharton, and John Pelham pop into my head right away and there are dozens of others I could list if I put my mind to it.

 

[Jared]

If cotton was no longer profitable, that would merely change what work the slaves did, not end slavery. Besides, while Egyptian cotton was cheaper, it was also lower quality.

Egyptian cotton is essentially irrelevant until the twentieth century, with or without an ACW. Egypt simply could not produce enough cotton to be sustainable at peacetime cotton prices. Only the high cotton prices of the ACW made it possible at all, and even then it required food imports (since arable land was being taken up with cotton).

The quality of Egyptian cotton was somewhat complex. In the 1840s & 1850s, a new long staple form of cotton had been introduced to Egypt (via the Sudan, but ultimately a hybrid with New World cotton). The long staple form of cotton was superior quality to most Southern cotton- but IIRC the British mills had to be retooled to use it properly. But some Egyptian cotton was of a shorter staple.

Indian cotton, however, was of a shorter staple and thus inferior quality. The South was still regaining market share from Indian cotton during the remaining decades of the nineteenth century.

 

[TheYoungPretender]

Andrew A. Humphreys, of the Philadelphia Humphreys; USMA, class of 1831; also studied in Europe. Served in the artillery in the Seminole War; missed Mexico because of Topographical, Coast Survey, and general Corps of Engineers assignments, including transcontinental railroad surveys and the Mississippi River Delta flood control problem.

Brilliant engineer and a hell of a combat commander, to boot; equally sucessful in line and staff assignments. Rose from brigade to division to corps command (two general officer brevets; Peninsula, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Gettysburg, Overland, Petersburg) and served as Meade's chief of staff; after the war, served as chief engineer and helped create the National Academy of Sciences.

Any other army, he would have been the name one remembers; in the US forces during the civil war, he is just one of many, which makes clear how much depth the US actually had in their "bench."

Best,

Oh God, Humphreys. Strategic insight of a Sherman. Disregard for danger and aggressive tendencies of a Sheridan. Logistical acumen second to none. If he's in charge it'll be fast rebellion. Very fast.

The one big butterfly if you delay the war though would be the South's effort's at slave industrialization. You want to make Emancipation popular? Tell the Northern working man that slavery's coming for his wage.

 

[TFSmith121]

Actually, no - Meigs as QM was oustanding, and weapons procurement was

Much of what was lacking in the US Army in the ACW was due to the pernicious influence of Major General Meigs, who as Quartermaster General was so incredibly conservative when it came to new weaponry that he would probably have had the Union Army using thrown rocks rather than rifles. On the grounds that rocks were cheaper and easier to procure. But at least he was better than the CSA's Northrop. Which is saying absolutely nothing. The CSA was blessed by General St.John, so military ordnance was not much of a problem for them.

By 1868, you could assume someone else would have his job, so that things like Gatling Guns (available in the OTL ACW, save that Meigs squelched their procurement!) and perhaps breechloading cannon could be made available.

Ironclad development is unlikely to be affected over OTL, as the US Navy was much better run in terms of R&D.

Actually, no - Meigs as QM was oustanding, and weapons procurement was the responsibility of Ordnance, not the Quartermaster Department.

Chief of Ordnance was (to begin) James W. Ripley, who although certainly not what anyone would call an innovator, did succeed in equipping an army of ~800,000 men with ordnance that was (generally) tried and sucessful designs, and which could be produced and filled with ammunition by the arsenals and factories that existed. He and HK Craig (his predecessor) also deserve credit for insuring there were ~500,000 long arms and more than enough powder and saltpeter in store to last through the first 18 months or so of the war.

Ripley (born in 1794 and USMA '14) actually deserves a lot of credit for what he accomplished under tremendous pressure in 1861-62; likewise, his sucessors, George D. Ramsay (USMA '20) and Alexander B. Dyer (USMA '37) deserve a lot of the same for their services later in the war. Put it this way - the US forces (regulars and USVs) did not end up carrying shotguns and hunting rifles into battle, unlike a fair number of the rebels, and they did not run shy of ammunition and powder, either.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

More of 'em, presumably...

I don't see why the North would gain an advantage over the South in terms of generals who were younger IOTL playing a more active role had the war been eight years late. Sure, a lot of good Union generals would have had an easier time rising to higher command, but the same was true of Southern commanders. Stephen Ramseur, John Wharton, and John Pelham pop into my head right away and there are dozens of others I could list if I put my mind to it.

Since my guess is eight more years of sectional conflict would lead to more and more southerners disdaining the national institutions, and more of the professionally educated northerners and westerners who left returning to the service, as things got worse.

I mean, I didn't see any compelling explanation of why the South doesn't go nuts in 1860-61 and waits until (presumably) 1868-69, but whatever might happen would not eliminate the understanding that conflict was in the offing.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Ah-yep...

Oh God, Humphreys. Strategic insight of a Sherman. Disregard for danger and aggressive tendencies of a Sheridan. Logistical acumen second to none. If he's in charge it'll be fast rebellion. Very fast.

The one big butterfly if you delay the war though would be the South's effort's at slave industrialization. You want to make Emancipation popular? Tell the Northern working man that slavery's coming for his wage.

There's a reason I had Hitchcock pick him as assistant chief of staff in BROS...

Good point on industrialized slavery, as well.

Best,

 

[usertron2020]

Actually, no - Meigs as QM was oustanding, and weapons procurement was the responsibility of Ordnance, not the Quartermaster Department.

Chief of Ordnance was (to begin) James W. Ripley, who although certainly not what anyone would call an innovator, did succeed in equipping an army of ~800,000 men with ordnance that was (generally) tried and sucessful designs, and which could be produced and filled with ammunition by the arsenals and factories that existed. He and HK Craig (his predecessor) also deserve credit for insuring there were ~500,000 long arms and more than enough powder and saltpeter in store to last through the first 18 months or so of the war.

Ripley (born in 1794 and USMA '14) actually deserves a lot of credit for what he accomplished under tremendous pressure in 1861-62; likewise, his sucessors, George D. Ramsay (USMA '20) and Alexander B. Dyer (USMA '37) deserve a lot of the same for their services later in the war. Put it this way - the US forces (regulars and USVs) did not end up carrying shotguns and hunting rifles into battle, unlike a fair number of the rebels, and they did not run shy of ammunition and powder, either.

Best,

Yikes! I appear to have been seriously misinformed. Thank you for the education. Deleted.

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

If cotton was no longer profitable, that would merely change what work the slaves did, not end slavery. Besides, while Egyptian cotton was cheaper, it was also lower quality.

Quality is not really a concern to capitalists - even its a boon if fabric is of lower quality - you sell more if stuff deteriors faster

 

[usertron2020]

Quality is not really a concern to capitalists - even its a boon if fabric is of lower quality - you sell more if stuff deteriors faster

I think the problem was the textile mills had a tougher time breaking down the grainier Egyptian cotton, and in turn this caused equipment to seize up and go off-line.

 

[Visigoethe]

Actually, it's not - its AA Humphreys.

Best,

Wow my google-fu is offset by this thread .

 

[Johnrankins]

Quality is not really a concern to capitalists - even its a boon if fabric is of lower quality - you sell more if stuff deteriors faster

I am sure people will rush to buy your brand of clothes that wear out faster rather than clothes made by another manufacturer that wears out more slowly.

 

[TFSmith121]

Not at all...it's (supposed to be) what I do best.

Yikes! I appear to have been seriously misinformed. Thank you for the education. Deleted.

Not at all...it's (supposed to be) what I do best.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Not at all - he is (something) of an obscure figure, which

Wow my google-fu is offset by this thread .

Not at all - he is (something) of an obscure figure, which is sort of my point.

The US bench was deep. A lot deeper in many ways than that of the rebels, in fact.

Best,

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

I am sure people will rush to buy your brand of clothes that wear out faster rather than clothes made by another manufacturer that wears out more slowly.

They do - for once its not a single manufacturer - its all manufacturers and if the price is cheap enough.

Look at OTL: modern youth they run to the cheap discount shops and buy low quality goods en masse - wear them a few times and they develop shoddy spots, holes, the fabric becomes (don't know the correct englic word) distorted? colors fade...

OTOH if you buy a piece that costs 2-3 times the price from a quality product you will notice that it holds shape colors and holes/rips are almost unheard of.

Basically you have to invest some money first to save money later...

The problem for the POOR masses is that usually they don't have the money to invest, they must buy low quality product and will pay more in the long run.

Thats why the rich get richer and the poor stay poor.