WI: Extremely brief US Civil War?
- Thread starter Zuvarq
- Start date
Japhy
Banned
Well first, its not that simple, but it can be.
If the Union Army holds in Texas in the face of the coup there, if Virginia joins Kentucky in staying with the Union, if the Constitutional Unionists had been more vital in the election of 1860 and won more states across the south and created a loyalist front with some immediate standing at the start of the war rather then only coming out when the Union Army was secure in occupation of various parts of the south... The Confederacy can fold up quickly.
Not in 90 days or 6 months but maybe in a year and a half before the bickering fireeaters rip the whole thing apart. After that the whole thing can probably be ended around the time of Congressional Midterms.
Now, on one hand alot of lives have been saved in this shortening, on the other, Slavery will still be secure, the slavocracy will not be economically destroyed and Lincoln will most likely pardon quickly the leaders of the Confederacy, meaning men like Jefferson Davis and Howell Cobb can run for Senate seats again, that there will be no real solution to the causes that provoked the war.
And most likely some awful Constitutional Amendments to preserve the peace at the cost of ending any truth to the concept of American Liberty.
If the Union Army holds in Texas in the face of the coup there, if Virginia joins Kentucky in staying with the Union, if the Constitutional Unionists had been more vital in the election of 1860 and won more states across the south and created a loyalist front with some immediate standing at the start of the war rather then only coming out when the Union Army was secure in occupation of various parts of the south... The Confederacy can fold up quickly.
Not in 90 days or 6 months but maybe in a year and a half before the bickering fireeaters rip the whole thing apart. After that the whole thing can probably be ended around the time of Congressional Midterms.
Now, on one hand alot of lives have been saved in this shortening, on the other, Slavery will still be secure, the slavocracy will not be economically destroyed and Lincoln will most likely pardon quickly the leaders of the Confederacy, meaning men like Jefferson Davis and Howell Cobb can run for Senate seats again, that there will be no real solution to the causes that provoked the war.
And most likely some awful Constitutional Amendments to preserve the peace at the cost of ending any truth to the concept of American Liberty.
There's a good chance that a "squib"/brief Civil War would leave the ground cleared for another Civil War, sometime in the next couple of decades. Reconstruction (both the good parts and the bad parts) would never have altered the face of Southern culture, and a lot of people would be feeling the urge to see how the South could do when they "really tried".
When the Civil War was done...it was done. No guerilla stuff, no second tries after the younger boys grew up. Nothing. That was as much (or more) a decision on the part of the populace in the South, as it was imposed by any steps the Federal government took. The CSA was convincingly defeated, and nobody argued the result, or wanted a second go-around.
When the Civil War was done...it was done. No guerilla stuff, no second tries after the younger boys grew up. Nothing. That was as much (or more) a decision on the part of the populace in the South, as it was imposed by any steps the Federal government took. The CSA was convincingly defeated, and nobody argued the result, or wanted a second go-around.
Abhakhazia
Banned
The CSA was completely defeated, but that didn't stop guerrilla war between pro and anti-CSA factions in Northeastern Texas, as well as other parts of the south. Not to mention the Ku Klux Klan and other racist organizations.
So I'm just going to agree with what you said earlier here and say it will lay the ground work for a later civil war- but, the Franco-Prussian War which had previously happened will give a better idea on strategy with modern weapons, reducing bloodshed (hopefully).
Well, that or the advancing technology makes the war a much clearer preview of the First World War. I'd tend to think this is more likely given the tendency of pre war (OTL) West Point to produce engineers first and officers second, and the American officer corp's love affair with defensive works (which we can see as early as the revolution, but was very clear even in the Mexican War).
What If? had a good chapter on a brief civil war called "The Rebellion of '61."
I'll agree that it probably sets up for later civil wars but not necessarily another North-South contest. Without secession being taken off the table we might see secessionist conflicts in the west like a bloodier Mormon war type conflict or even secessionist movements within the north or south depending on the butterflies. If we have a new North-South war a generation or so later I could see the 1861 war being the minor defeat like the '15 Jacobite rebellion while the later war in the 1880s is the crushing defeat akin to the '45.
1880s military tech certainly means a war that looks even more like WWI if Plevna and the War of the Pacific are any indicators of what wars fought with single shot cartridge rifles and breech loading, non-QF artillery look like. Assuming western expansion still happens you could see a neo-Confederacy that includes parts of the west outside Texas so the trans-Mississippi theater will actually be important rather than the sideshow of OTL civil war.
I'll agree that it probably sets up for later civil wars but not necessarily another North-South contest. Without secession being taken off the table we might see secessionist conflicts in the west like a bloodier Mormon war type conflict or even secessionist movements within the north or south depending on the butterflies. If we have a new North-South war a generation or so later I could see the 1861 war being the minor defeat like the '15 Jacobite rebellion while the later war in the 1880s is the crushing defeat akin to the '45.
1880s military tech certainly means a war that looks even more like WWI if Plevna and the War of the Pacific are any indicators of what wars fought with single shot cartridge rifles and breech loading, non-QF artillery look like. Assuming western expansion still happens you could see a neo-Confederacy that includes parts of the west outside Texas so the trans-Mississippi theater will actually be important rather than the sideshow of OTL civil war.
I do not think that there would be any substantial emancipation in the South. I rathere suspect that there would be more willingness to deal harshly with tratirors, people who made war against the United States.
Probably Republicans woudl have prevented slavery in territories and weakened Fugitive slave laws.
Probably Republicans woudl have prevented slavery in territories and weakened Fugitive slave laws.
Well, first, 600,000 men are not killed, and the South is not laid waste.
Second, the Federal government does not spend billions of $.
Third, slavery will not be abolished in the short term.
The political realignment that began in the 1850s is not completed. The Whig remnants in the South which used the Constitutional Union and Opposition labels will remain. They can't join the Republicans, though on many issues (tariffs, internal improvements) they have the same views, because of the slavery question.
It's possible the Southern ex-Whig crowd organizes formally (which OTL they didn't get around to before the war). They could ally with Republicans in Congress, and persist quite a long time as a regional party.
The U.S. probably intervenes in Mexico by 1862, which affects both France and Mexico.
The Republicans probably push through a law excluding slavery from all territories. This will get appealed to the Supreme Court, but the Republicans will have appointed four new Justices, two of them replacing Southerners, and one to a new seat. I think there would be a majority for overturning Dred Scott.
Southerners will resent this but decide not to fight it. That will take a lot of wind from Republican sails. OTL, after the war, there was a long period of near parity between the parties - the five very close elections of 1876-1892, and frequent shifts in control of the House.
This was despite the loyalties gained by the Republican Party during the war. If the war is a squib, Republicans don't benefit.
Lincoln could have great difficulty winning re-election.
Getting back to slavery - abolitionists will not be in the driver's seat, but there will stiill be agitation for abolition. It's possible that one or more of the border states will enact gradual emancipation.
An issue that was resolved during the war will continue to fester: the discontent of western Virginians with rule from Richmond. West Virginia may still separate in a few years; but will not include its OTL three easternmost counties in the lower Shenandoah Valley. They were included in WV because they were Union-occupied; the people there were not anti-secession.
I don't think there will ever be another attempt at secession. OTL, it was a huge gamble, taken only because of panic at the election of Lincoln. That won't happen again.
Blacks will remain non-citizens for many years.
Pretty much what he said.
Also, the massive centralization and shift of power that happened in both north and south to help fight the war won't be nearly as strong. This will likely mean the Federal government doesn't gain as much strength vs the States as OTL.
The one complication in this analysis is that while the Southern Whigs/Oppositionists stay outside the Republican Party that the Republican President will still have a lot of patronage jobs to hand out and thus slowly build up a Republican Party in the South. At some point, some of these Southern Whigs will just join the Republican Party anyway.
I suspect the defections will first happen in areas of low slavery - Western Virginia, Eastern Tennessee, Northern Alabama, Northeastern Arkansas, Texan Hill Country, etc. - since identification with an explicitly anti-slavery party won't hurt their electoral chances there in local, state, and House elections.
Those Southern Whigs in heavier slavery areas like New Orleans will stay away from the Republican Party for a long time since they'll lose elections they would otherwise win.
Assuming Lincoln wins again in 1864, by 1868 we should see a significant southern Republican Party in at least some states. If the Republicans manage to keep winning the Presidency that patronage power will help them a lot. The Upper South could see statewide competitive Republican Parties much quicker than we think.
Perhaps the whigs evolve into the Republican's Southern "sister party"?
i.e.more pro- business, most support in the growing (though still limited) cities and towns.
i.e.more pro- business, most support in the growing (though still limited) cities and towns.