Confederate Victory in the US Civil War

[huojin]

OKAY.

So this is a fairly well-known, well-established alternate history idea, and thousands of people have had their ideas and all that jazz. But what I'm looking to speculate on with you guys is ways in which the Confederates could have won realistically. Let's do away with ASB, crazy ideas, things that make no political or military sense, etc. Place the POD wherever you like in/around the period, as long as it's not ludicrous or far-fetched. Convenient deaths via horse-riding accident, etc., are acceptable, but ill-preferred.

Also let's have some back and forth here. Too often in these threads we get people talking about their ideas in isolation, without engaging with other peoples, offering reasons why they work or why they don't, etc. I'd love to see some discussion on this.

Have at it everyone.

[Jasen777]

Well the obvious one is intervention by the U.K. It would take a serious intervention though, there's reasons why they didn't, and I'm not particular knowledgeable on the U.K. politics of the time to say how to change that, but that's probably the cleanest way to get a Confederate victory.

The earlier the POD the better, generally speaking (the logical conclusion of course leads to a civil war well before 1860 of course). But if this is talking about post Lincoln's election... Best is a way to get border states like Kentucky and Missouri (ideally Maryland) on board. If the Maryland succession leaders where better organized or Lincoln slower to crack down, they might have done it. If a Union general does something in Kentucky it could have pushed Kentucky largely to the Confederacy. If the boarder states side with the south it's a different war.

[huojin]

Foreign intervention would needed to be predicated on something though, so as useful a turning point as it might appear, there'd need to be something to encourage it. Britain at the time was very anti-slavery, and most opinions I've read seem to suggest that post-Emancipation Proclamation, the chances of British assistance being lent seriously declined.

I've been looking at the border states myself, and you might be onto something Jasen. It seems to me that Missouri is the strongest contender for almost joining the Confederacy in the early stages - I'm thinking mid-1861, prior to any of the major fighting. Kentucky also seems a possibility if one can assume that a Union violation of the neutrality would've had a similar effect. Though another thing to consider - what if Kentucky had successfully maintained its neutrality for longer? I've been reading into it, and it's position as a strategic buffer to defend Tennessee from the north seems significant for the Western campaign. I'm not well-versed in how things might've gone in the West had Kentucky stood neutral or gone Confederate though, so anyone with more knowledge there, input is more than welcome.

Maryland seems too close and too difficult to defend to join the Confederacy in any lasting shape, but again, maintaining neutrality or providing a significant barrier to the Union in the North East gives it quite a lot of value there.

[MinnesotaNationalist]

Huojin, the main reason that I know of that Britain didn't decide to fully support the south, other than of course anti-slavery policy, is because Britain could get cotton from somewhere else. The confederacy declared independence believing that Britain and France would aid them because they were dependent on Southern Cotton, or 'King Cotton.' If for some reason Egyptian or Indian cotton industry was much more limited at this time, Britain might have intervened (although trying to resolve that might bring on a completely different scenario). I can't say for certain what Napoleon III would have done, considering IRL he used the American Civil War as opportunity to invade Mexico and add that to his sphere of influence, so there might be another scenario where he tries to aid one side or another to try to add that to his sphere of influence, although if he influences the Confederacy I'm not sure just how much help the French armies would be.

[huojin]

Definitely a significant factor, MNN. Also apparently Britain depended far more on grain from the USA than on cotton from the CSA. And the French, while hunting for a way/excuse to intervene, seem reluctant to do so without Britain on board with the idea too. It seems to me that some pre-text or success by the CSA would be necessary to prompt Britain to offer to mediate the conflict - a.k.a. a soft recognition of the CSA without enraging the Union so seriously as to prompt an Anglo-American War.

Oft-cited battles which tipped the balance of foreign intervention the other way seem to be Antietam and New Orleans. So I suppose any Confederate victory predicated on a foreign intervention of some kind would require those to either fail, or never take place, or for subsequent successes by the CSA to wipe out those failures.

Anyone have any thoughts on a more substantial foreign intervention? The French were almost willing to break the blockade at one point, I think - and they suffered much more from King Cotton diplomacy.

[shamiboy]

Somehow prevent the fall of Atlanta could work as well.

[Jasen777]

Aug 10, 2016 23:18:14 GMT shamiboy said:

Somehow prevent the fall of Atlanta could work as well.

That's too late to turn the war.

[eDGT]

Just on the subject of a British intervention, coming at it from my usual Irish angle, I've always wondered how the ever increasing Irish population of New York, Boston, and much of the American North East would react to being stuck in the most likely paths of a British advance. I'm sure many of them would be thinking, "We came here to get away from you, why won't you people leave us alone!"

With so many Irishmen fighting in the south I wonder if it'd be possible to pull say, the New York 69th, back north to resist incursions from Canada. It'd be a hell of a boost in support from a minority which was only growing in influence at the time, not to mention that the 69th, being the Irish battalion would likely have given absolute hell to any British forces they met.

I know it's not relevant to the current discussion of the possibilities, but meh.

[Jasen777]

Aug 11, 2016 23:54:43 GMT eDGT said:

I know it's not relevant to the current discussion of the possibilities, but meh.

Would seem to help shore about support for the war among Irish-Americans.  

[MinnesotaNationalist]

Aug 11, 2016 23:13:01 GMT Jasen777 said:

Aug 10, 2016 23:18:14 GMT shamiboy said:

Somehow prevent the fall of Atlanta could work as well.

That's too late to turn the war.

Not neccasarily. While the Confederates certainly couldn't win a militaristic victory by this point, they still could have won domestically. Many in the north were growing tired of the war and were threatening to elect an anti-war general (McCellan, I believe), but Atlanta was the battle that secured Lincoln's reelection, and thus secred the North's victory once and for all.

[Jasen777]

McCellan was not anti-war though, even if a lot of Democrats were. And even if they hold Atlanta all winter the Confederacy by the swearing in date (March 4, 1865) will be on it's last legs. Grant has found the winning strategy and Union manpower is still growing while Confederate manpower is gone - Lee was pinned to Petersburg and Richmond with little hope. Even if McCellan was a pro-peace politician it would be hard to give up on a war 90% won. It be horrible politics to hand back territory already controlled - which would be alot - Arkansas, most of Louisiana and Mississippi, North and coastal Virginia, much of the North Carolina coast, ports around Florida and the Gulf ... what could the Confederates even get at the negotiating table? As it is McCellan would certainly finish the the war before midterms and try to take all the credit for it (assuming not taking Atlanta was an election loser for Lincoln).  Now if McCellan got himself assassinated that would put a anti-war politician in the presidency, but Pendleton would have a tough time making peace in such a situation, to say the least.

[huojin]

What do we think about something pre-Antietam? I've read that the Second Battle of Bull Run was the closest that the Confederates came to surrounding and totally defeating Pope's Army of Virginia. Perhaps if Lee had achieved that goal but suffered heavier losses that necessitated holding position or a slower advance, Antietam could have been avoided?

I think that MNN and eDGT are right though, the clearest hope would be for a political victory, not a military one. Somehow the fighting would have to inflict serious enough defeats on the Union that domestic morale collapses and forces a peace in that regard. As Jasen points out, seeking a later date when McClellan could have become President is far too late for the Confederacy.

[abwill]

I think that the only chance the CSA had for victory was for Lincoln to say good bye and good riddance to the seven states upon taking office. As that would run counter to everything that Lincoln believed about preserving the Union not a realistic notion.

[Jasen777]

Aug 13, 2016 20:29:09 GMT abwill said:

I think that the only chance the CSA had for victory was for Lincoln to say good bye and good riddance to the seven states upon taking office. As that would run counter to everything that Lincoln believed about preserving the Union not a realistic notion.

I think the grinding defense until the North gives up thing is possible, it's just going to need an earlier POD(s) to be successful - it was also not the mindset the South had (especially early) so that would take some work also.

And of course a large enough intervention from the U.K. would probably get the job done, and if they somehow got the border states on their side at the beginning their chances would be much better.

I wonder if something could have happened before Lincoln's inauguration that could have helped.   

[punkrockbowler805]

I've read if France helped the south they were going to install an American Bonaparte relative as confederate puppet monarch a la Maximillian in Mexico. Karma is a Bonaparte.

[eDGT]

Aug 18, 2016 0:07:07 GMT punkrockbowler805 said:

I've read if France helped the south they were going to install an American Bonaparte relative as confederate puppet monarch a la Maximillian in Mexico. Karma is a Bonaparte.

Now that would be funny.

Damn, I could even see the French using the South as a good source of resupply and manpower for adventures in Mexico.  Recruiting ex-slaves and former Confederate Soldiers into the Foreign Legion and all that.

[punkrockbowler805]

It looks like it was Jerome Patterson Bonaparte of Baltimore. Might have timeline potential as a subversion of the usual Dixie wanks.

[eDGT]

Aug 19, 2016 5:45:31 GMT punkrockbowler805 said:

It looks like it was Jerome Patterson Bonaparte of Baltimore. Might have timeline potential as a subversion of the usual Dixie wanks.

Yeah, it'd be interesting to see France supporting the Confederacy militarily, only to drop a puppet monarch on them and force them to emancipate the slaves after a year or two of rebuilding.

And probably seceding them Louisiana, Baton Rogue as a naval base art the very least.

[mcnutt]

If there is a Confederate victory, I think there is a reunion in the 20th century, after the veterans are dead. There would have been bonds of culture and trade. Both the USA and the CSA would have fought on the same side in WWI and WWII and then been Cold War allies. The Southern states would have abolished slavery but replaced it with apartheid. They would have kept these laws when they rejoined the Untied States. Which would have been legal since there would not have been 14th and 15th amendments. Eventually the desperate Black population rises in revolt. Which means a bloody guerrilla war. So the ACW saved lives.