WI: The Confederacy Crumbles in 1861?

Here's the Idea (which I read in the Alt-Hist Anthology What If)

In 1861, Union and Confederate forces clashed at Bull Run; the fighting seemed to go against the Confederates until General Jackson "Stonewall" Jackson's inspired stand rallied the rebels and they held--ending with the federal troops routing and fleeing for the safety of Washington DC.

Suppose that instead of being nicked by bullets, Jackson is struck down. His defiant stand is now a open symbol of disaster, and his troops begin to flee as disorganized rabble.

Thus far, largely a reversal of the Historical Bull Run, but...

The Rebels have to travel 25 miles to find a defensive line (The Rappahannock River)
The Federals have two fresh divisions to continue the pursuit.
Of all people, Confederate President Jefferson Davis is watching the battle!

So then continue the scenario: McDowell's reserve divisions turn the rout into a complete disaster for the Rebels. Jefferson Davis is captured and the Confederates lose the vast majority of their forces--forced to surrender or potentially die in the unorganized rout.

If Jefferson Davis is captured, his Vice President could advance to the Presidency--Alexander Stephens made repeated overtures for peace with the North and might very well sue for terms.

So what happens if the Confederacy breaks down in 1861, as suggested above? When does slavery end? And is the Confederacy at all remembered today, or just a sad farce people try to ignore?
 
It punts the question of slavery down the road. It does nothing to help end slavery. The war has not been long enough to disrupt the flow of cotton the the English mills.
This short war may, set the stage for a stept emancapation.
 
The "confederate states of america" is put at the same level as the Whiskey Rebellion. A rebellion led by a few rabble-rousers who led a lot of people astray, not a serious secession movement. I suspect a number of southern states would immediately break with the rebellion and "csa" and state their desire to work with the Lincoln Administration on reunification if the Administration would disavow any intention to unilaterally end slavery in the current slave states - something Lincoln would certainly accept since his goal was presrving the union not ending slavery. I guess a majority of the southern states would do this. A few, like South Carolina, Mississippi, and Alabama might resist a bit longer, but this would more likely hurt them than the Union.

Also, its unlikely there would be any reprecussions against southern politicians and military men who accepted federal victory and surrendered. The concept of states rights was still very important, and trying anyone who aligned with their state government in the rebellion as traitors would be unlikely.

I do think a side effect of an immediate southern military collapse in 1861 might give some more momentum to the idea of gradual, voluntary, compensated emancipation.
 

birdboy2000

Banned
The fact that eleven sitting state governments engaged in a joint rebellion against the USA's federal government will have serious ramifications both immediately and down the line - although brief, the rebellion will be remembered as far more significant than any prior ones in American history. Perhaps it will be a turning point in American history, seen as the moment when the "Slave Power" was broken, but a shorter war means delayed emancipation and no constitutional guarantees of racial equality.
 
Here's the Idea (which I read in the Alt-Hist Anthology What If)

In 1861, Union and Confederate forces clashed at Bull Run; the fighting seemed to go against the Confederates until General Jackson "Stonewall" Jackson's inspired stand rallied the rebels and they held--ending with the federal troops routing and fleeing for the safety of Washington DC.

Correction.

At 1st Manassas/Bull Run the Federals attempted to strike the Confederate left flank but their movements were spotted by Edward Porter Alexander who sent word via semaphore to Nathan "Shanks" Evans who turned his brigade to meet the Federal attack and delay them long enough for reinforcements to arrive.

The sound of Evan's battle allerted General Joe Johnston to presence of Federals on the left Flank and as soon as Francis Bartow and Bernard Bee arrived with their brigade from the Valley he sent them to that flank and convinced Beauregard to sent Wade Hampton's legion along with them. Beauregard had been focused entirely on getting his own offensive put into action and had done nothing about the battle on the left without Johnston's prompting.

Evan's had succeeded in delaying the Federal advance and Bartow and Bee would likewise slow it but a flank attack on their position by William Sherman sent them reeling back in disorder to Henry House Hill. They recieved some cover in this by John B. Imboden's artillery.

Upon Henry House Hill stood Thomas J. Jackson and his brigade - also ordered to that flank by Johnston - in a static position having prepared a defensive line and duels with the Federals as Wade Hampton came alongside him. Johnston and Beauregard then arrived and rallied the scattered forces of Bee, Bartow and Evan's brigades before Johnston fell back to establish a HQ at Portici.

The Confederates then formed a line around Jackson's position as Johnston set about finding and deploying reinforcements to Henry House Hill and Beauregard arranged them into the line and replaced fallen Generals with his own staff while cheering on the men.

Edmund Kirby Smith's brigade arrived and with Jubal A. Early's brigade was sent to the Federal flank and ordered to attack, which they did and crushed Oliver O. Howard's brigade which began the Federal route. The attack ordered by Beauregard from Henry House Hill broke the last of the Federal's will to fight and they ran.

As you can see, Jackson's contribution was only one part that contributed to the Confederate victory. If Alexander had not sent word of the Federal movement then Evan's would have been taken unaware and defeated with ease leaving the Confederate left flank up exposed, if Evan's hadn't reacted promptly to that news then the Federals could have rolled him up and marched on before any reinforcements could arrive, if Johnston hadn't acted promptly when hearing the battle to sent Bartow, Bee, Hampton and Jackson to the left flank in support then Federals could have overwhelmed that flank, if Bartow and Bee hadn't engaged the Federals and bought time then Jackson would not have been able to establish his defensive line on Henry House Hill, and if Johnston had not redeployed forces to support the line on Henry House Hill Jackson too could not have stood there indefinitely.

Suppose that instead of being nicked by bullets, Jackson is struck down. His defiant stand is now a open symbol of disaster, and his troops begin to flee as disorganized rabble.
By the time Jackson engaged in battle, Generals Johnston and Beauregard were on their way to Henry House Hill - Johnston having become fed up with waiting for Beauregard to take charge and decided to take matters into his own hands - and the actions of Evan's, Bee and Bartow in delaying the Federals, plus the Federals exhausing march to the flank anyway means that Jackson's death upon that hill does not guarentee a Federal victory.

Plus, the battle that would lead to Jackson's death would also have delayed the Federals giving Johnston and Beauregard enough time to arrive and rally their forces upon the Hill in a defensive line - they actually arrived before Bee said his famous "there stands Jackson like a stone wall" quote because it was Johnston who sent Bee to rally the troops he said it to.

So I remain unconvinced of Jackson's death at 1st Manassas/Bull Run alone being enough for the Federals to win the battle.
 
Just spit-balling, but COULD an event like this result in something akin to the 1918 armistice? Meaning that yeah the Southern states were beaten and go back to being good members of the union with their tail between their legs but 20 years later have a REAL war when they are ready and the North isn't?
 
Just spit-balling, but COULD an event like this result in something akin to the 1918 armistice? Meaning that yeah the Southern states were beaten and go back to being good members of the union with their tail between their legs but 20 years later have a REAL war when they are ready and the North isn't?

No, if they start a new war 20 years later they get crushed QUICKLY. You are talking 20 more years of immigration, railroad building and industrialization almost all of it in the North. Also it is unlikely the Federal government will just sit on its hands for 20 years. Most likely it will spend the time trying to federalize everything it can as quickly as possible after such a close call.
 
As I understand it Stonewall Jackson dying may not guarantee a Union victory but such an outcome was highly possible.

Query would a Union Victory a Bull Run Manases have ensured the fall of Richmeond?

Would the fall of Richmoned have ended the rebellion?
 
As I understand it Stonewall Jackson dying may not guarantee a Union victory but such an outcome was highly possible.

Query would a Union Victory a Bull Run Manases have ensured the fall of Richmeond?

Would the fall of Richmoned have ended the rebellion?

The Scenario suggests the capture of Jefferson Davis, which isn't really that unlikely, but Richmond is many miles away. If the Confederacy collapses or Virginia itself that its made a terrible mistake, they might simply allow the Federals in and peacefully disperse: Lincoln would be perfectly content if the Confederates simply disappeared.

The situation is bad blow to cohesion, leadership and army leadership all at once. But if the Confederates opt to continue the fight and rally behind Stephens, Robert E. Lee could take command (and wouldn't the previous generals be humiliated after their failure?) and probably raise a scratch force sufficient to prevent the Federals from simply storming forward.

I'd also think that McDowell is no match for Lee; but Lee will have many fewer forces. It might indeed end quickly if the Rebs opt to fight it out.
 
not immediately, but...

I agree that Jackson's death wouldn't cause a collapse at Bull Run, but will have major implications in 1862. Without Stonewall at the helm, the Confederates loose a major bread basket in the Valley; and now Lee is pressured from yet another direction as victorious Union forces march from the Valley towards Richmond. By late spring or early summer, things could have already settled into a siege of Richmond and Petersburg, so there will be no 2nd Bull Run or Antietam.

Would spring 1863 see Davis agree to place Beauregard in a significant command again to lead a newly formed army out of northeastern North Carolina and attempt to drive troops off the Peninsula to relieve some of the pressure on Richmond?
 
The situation is bad blow to cohesion, leadership and army leadership all at once. But if the Confederates opt to continue the fight and rally behind Stephens, Robert E. Lee could take command (and wouldn't the previous generals be humiliated after their failure?) and probably raise a scratch force sufficient to prevent the Federals from simply storming forward.

All true... but the psychological impact of Union victory at Manassas is enormous.

The Confederacy was newly established. It had little institutional inertia. Relatively few people had given much to it, or gotten much from it. It was buoyed up at the time by feverish rhetoric, including the claim that "Southern gentlemen" could whip any number of "pasty-faced Yankees".

OTL's Manassas confirmed that rhetoric and provided a major morale boost to the rebellion. When the first major defeats came in early 1862, the CSA had a year of existence, and had vastly greater numbers of functionaries. People had given a year of work or service, not just a month or two. So they stuck with it.

If Manassas is a humilliating defeat, with thousands of rebel prisoners marched through jeering crowds... Then there is a big morale hit before the CSA has developed enough inertia to survive it (maybe).

No, the Union Army can't just march to Richmond, but the Confederate army may start to dissolve. Kentucky will declare for the Union. Recruiting will stop. Desertion or other withdrawals will start up. And leading secession skeptics will be talking about a climb-down before the war becomes a disaster. The Fire-Eaters will be cowed. So it could happen.

If it happens...

Kansas has already been admitted as a free state. There would be a shake-out in the "Confederate" states. No pre-war Senators would be allowed to return, except Andrew Johnson, who didn't leave. I think a lot of the CSA leaders would be encouraged to emigrate, or retire from politics. New governors, legislators, and Representatives to be elected, perhaps.

Lincoln would reach out to the ex-Whigs in the South. With the slavery issue temporarily off the table, he could turn to "internal improvements" for a carrot. He'll also issue a lot of pardons. (The Federalist Papers justified the President's unfettered pardoning power as a tool in quickly resolving rebellions.)

The Supreme Court is an issue. There's at least one vacancy (two if Campbell of Alabama is not permitted to return). At the time, each Justice slot had to be filled from a particular Federal judicial district. Campbell was from Alabama; the other vacancy was from Virginia. So it would be tricky for Lincoln to find acceptable nominees. (He could pick a West Virginia Unionist; for the Deep South, some ex-Whig.)

The 1860 reapportionment would be somewhat thorny.

The U.S. would have to deal with the French intervention in Mexico.
 
For those of you thinking of Lee, remember that he was in West Virginia until late 1861, losing the campaign. For all his prewar reputation, he wouldn't have been on anyone's short list for command - and probably not on anyone except Virginia's short list for anything. Whatever survives of the Confederacy is now going to want a successful commander, not one who only reluctantly joined their cause in the first place and I don't think has won a single battle in the war so far.
 
For those of you thinking of Lee, remember that he was in West Virginia until late 1861, losing the campaign.

Close but no cigar.

Lee didn't arrive in western Virginia until late July. The defeats before then were nothing to do with him. His failure at Cheat Mountain was in September.

So as of the end of July, he had no reputation at all, either good or bad. As one of the CSA's full generals, he would be on the short list to succeed Johnston and Beauregard.

The alternatives were Bragg and A.S. Johnston.
 
Close but no cigar.

Lee didn't arrive in western Virginia until late July. The defeats before then were nothing to do with him. His failure at Cheat Mountain was in September.

So as of the end of July, he had no reputation at all, either good or bad. As one of the CSA's full generals, he would be on the short list to succeed Johnston and Beauregard.

The alternatives were Bragg and A.S. Johnston.

Better but still not quite on the money.

Bragg was not promoted to full general until 1862, when he was asked to command the newly-created AoT. Even at Shiloh he was just a corps commander.

So your alternatives are A. S. Johnston and Samuel Cooper, the adjutant and inspector General who was actually technically in the top spot. However, he never had a field command during the war

If you want to get *really* technical, none of these people were confirmed in their rank until August 31, 1861.
 
Top