Getting desperate for a plausible CSA victory scenario

So I've had an idea in the back of my head for several years now to do onto Confederate wank what The Anglo/American-Nazi War does onto Nazi wank, but I have a problem: there doesn't appear to be any plausible way for the CSA to win the Civil War, and I'm not willing to simply present it as a fait accompli. I bring it up from time to time on this board, generally about once or twice a year, and try to be as open-ended as possible, but, well, nothing really comes of it.

So let's get even more open-ended. The only rules are: (1) that a state recognizable as the CSA (that is, covering roughly the same territory, possessing the same political, economic, demographic, etc. realities that the CSA would have possessed, and preferably calling itself the CSA) must succeed from a state recognizable as the Union (same definition); (2) divine intervention can't be the only possible explanation for the Confederacy's blinding luck (and actively courting luck should probably also be kept to a minimum); and (3) at no point does anyone drink enough lead paint for Sealion to start sounding like a good idea to them.

Use as many PODs as you want, spread apart by however much time and space as you need: Replace Lincoln with a jibbering idiot? Fine. Get Grant ran over by a carriage as a child? Fine. Fuck with European politics to the point where it's actually plausible that one of the great powers would want to get involved on the side of the Confederacy? Fine. Do all of the above because not a single one of them is enough on its own to secure a Confederate victory/keep the war from happening (with the possible exception of that last one)? Fine.

I mean, keeping this bullshit to a minimum would be preferable, but if it takes twenty seven PODs over the previous three hundred years in order to make a Confederate victory plausible, so be it.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The best thing to do, in my opinion:

1) No Mexican intervention by France, or a much lesser one.
2) Tired Old Chestnut of a worse Trent affair. This gets the ball rolling.
3) Lincoln's son dies during the crucial period, instead of the OTL time, and he is unable to rein in Seward being a bit jingoistic.
4) Trent follow up - the French also have problems with a ship and the US blockade.

The French check with the British for approval, get it, and now undistracted Britain and France are weighing in on the side of the CSA.

That should nicely get the CSA independent, frankly, they've now got call on an industrial base (very roughly) seven times that of the Union along with generous investors in France and an enemy who is now actually blockaded (to the point of having trouble with their gunpowder supply).

It doesn't guarantee military conquest or even great success... but it does make the situation seem so bad for the Union they'd be likely to at least accept (with bad grace?) some kind of peace down the line. Possibly a peace ticket wins the 1864 election.
 
Actually for Lincoln both his son dying would likely take the wind out of his sails, play on that as a disinterested Lincoln might not even run for a second term, a more directionless with or without being considered incapacitated and replaced Presidency might be all the CSA need to most undeservedly escape the noose.

A peace President in 1865 might also get them off the hook especially if Lincoln or a government without him has prosecuted the war less systematically.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Yeah, you just need to pile on the factors. It gets improbable, of course, because multi-PoD things are, but foreign intervention and trouble in the Union and so on all raise the chances of success for the CSA.
 
The easiest way, by far, to get an independent CSA is for the North to let them go. That requires someone other than Lincoln in the White House. But I could see a Free Soiler (like Frémont?) getting elected and being willing to let the South go. Some of the Free Soilers didn't want any blacks around, slave or not, and that sub-faction would be pleased to see so many blacks leaving the USA.
 
So I've had an idea in the back of my head for several years now to do onto Confederate wank what The Anglo/American-Nazi War does onto Nazi wank, but I have a problem: there doesn't appear to be any plausible way for the CSA to win the Civil War, and I'm not willing to simply present it as a fait accompli. I bring it up from time to time on this board, generally about once or twice a year, and try to be as open-ended as possible, but, well, nothing really comes of it.

So let's get even more open-ended. The only rules are: (1) that a state recognizable as the CSA (that is, covering roughly the same territory, possessing the same political, economic, demographic, etc. realities that the CSA would have possessed, and preferably calling itself the CSA) must succeed from a state recognizable as the Union (same definition); (2) divine intervention can't be the only possible explanation for the Confederacy's blinding luck (and actively courting luck should probably also be kept to a minimum); and (3) at no point does anyone drink enough lead paint for Sealion to start sounding like a good idea to them.

Use as many PODs as you want, spread apart by however much time and space as you need: Replace Lincoln with a jibbering idiot? Fine. Get Grant ran over by a carriage as a child? Fine. Fuck with European politics to the point where it's actually plausible that one of the great powers would want to get involved on the side of the Confederacy? Fine. Do all of the above because not a single one of them is enough on its own to secure a Confederate victory/keep the war from happening (with the possible exception of that last one)? Fine.

I mean, keeping this bullshit to a minimum would be preferable, but if it takes twenty seven PODs over the previous three hundred years in order to make a Confederate victory plausible, so be it.

Other than waiting, and knowing that TFSmith will come in here and smack any attempt of this down because - in his own words - Confederate independence is ASB....personally i want to know, in all seriousness, would an earlier Civil War, say in the 1850s be more plausible in the long run to get independence?

Maybe secession is a reaction to Fremont being elected and its more successful this time around.
 
The easiest way, by far, to get an independent CSA is for the North to let them go. That requires someone other than Lincoln in the White House. But I could see a Free Soiler (like Frémont?) getting elected and being willing to let the South go. Some of the Free Soilers didn't want any blacks around, slave or not, and that sub-faction would be pleased to see so many blacks leaving the USA.

Not Fremont, he was a Unionist. It is actually tough to pull off as most Free Soilers were also Unionists. particularly those with any pull.
 
I think the only way to really do this is to get a peace President. You're going to need some genuinely catastrophic defeats for northern armies, and probably get rid of the March to the Sea somehow, because IIRC part of the point of Sherman doing that was to secure electoral victory in '64. Anyway, I think that's your best bet from a plausibility standpoint besides foreign intervention, which, to be honest, I always considered a little bit contrived anyway no matter how well it's done.

It's worth considering, however, that the Confederacy had some political problems of its own. Especially if you go the peace president route you're going to be dealing with a Confederacy that, even in "victory," is falling apart from the inside. States refusing troop requisitions, taxes, etc. as well as considerable opposition to Davis' leadership. Depending on what happens after the war, you may not even be dealing with an organized resistance the second time around and more of states resisting piecemeal.

In any case, I agree that a Southern "victory" in the sense of them dictating terms is ASB. However, I do think a Union defeat is plausible, if not probable.
 
To get the British/French intervention on the scale needed to give the Confederacy a fighting chance you need them to see the Union as a real threat to their interests (Particularly British interests as they are the ones with the ships necessary to project the force needed to North America and they control the sea lanes, and the French under Napolean III were already willing to declare war on the Union if they were guaranteed British support). Even if the Trent affair did turn into a war (which it really could have) it would not have been a large ground conflict, characterized by large European forces marching on North American soil, which is what the Confederacy really needs in order to stop itself from being overwhelmed by sheer numbers and industry (which is essentially what happened in OTL). A war over something like offended national honor and the violation of international transit rights on the high seas, which is what the British saw Trent as would be a limited war, fought on a budget and mainly consist of the British breaking the Union blockade and in turn blockading the Union and probably bombarding some US ports and launching amphibious raids (Think more along the lines of the War of 1812 then say, the Invasion of Normandy). Eventually a negotiated peace would be reached and the Union would go back to pummeling the CSA (Licoln showed he was quite willing to make some accommodations to British pride to ensure they did not intervene in the OTL Trent affair, and the British government for their part were totally willing to give Lincoln an easy way to avoid war diplomatically). To be honest you have to come up with a reason for why the UK would fight, what would end up being an extremely expensive and bloody ground war (as intervening in the Civil War with the objective of ensuring Southern Independence inevitably would be). To be honest the British (and to a lesser extent the French, who would at least ensure that the Americans would not intervene with their schemes in Mexico) gain very little from fighting the no-holds-barred total war with the Union that would be necessary to free the Confederacy. All it would accomplish would be to cripple relations with a lucrative trading partner (which unique among the major World Powers is NOT a threat to British strategic interests, since its own interests are by public policy exclusive to the Americas, and thus fighting a war to weaken it for "balance of power" reasons makes little sense) and gain the friendship of a new, smaller, weaker, less industrialized slave owning state (while at the same time slavery is banned in the British Empire and the slave trade is actively fought by the Royal Navy).

In short for the South to survive, you need European intervention, and for any European intervention you need to get British approval (as France wont act alone and Britain controls the Atlantic anyway meaning any invasion force big enough to make a difference needs to get past the RN without being sunk), and for the British to wage the kind of war necessary to give the South a chance, you need to somehow make the Union, somehow a big enough threat to British interests that it makes the risk of not acting against the US while it is vulnerable great enough that the British judge that it is worth the considerable cost (and risk) of interveneing to secure the Confederacy's independence. How you are able to achieve these conditions is up in the air.
 

takerma

Banned
What about trying to make actual start of the war very different and thus make it much less popular in the North? Start with not attacking Sumter.
 
If you're looking for an A/A-N like situation where the war is dragged out and produces waaaaaay more misery, perhaps have an earlier civil was that has the border states fully commit to the CSA. The Union probably still wins, but damn that is a bleak timeline. One positive is that the whole "lost cause" thing will be smashed with a brick in its crib
 
POD - Lincoln dies of pneumonia or typhoid fever in SPringfield during late January 1861 leaving Hannibal Hamlin to be inagurated on March 4 and presented by Old Buck with the post-secession standoff against the original 7 state CSA. Hamlin might well screw up in some way that either makes the North seem like the agresor, drives more border states into the CSA, or loses the support of the Douglas Democrats for a war to restore the Union. I am not saying he would screw up, but I don't see Hamlin handling the crisis and the outbreak of war as adroitly as Lincoln did. That is the CSA's only shot. I like Davis vs Hamlin a lot better than Davis vs Lincoln! Against Lincoln and a united North the Rebs are toast, period.
 
Early in the ACW, Lincoln falls severely ill, an urgent presidential decision is needed, Hannibal Hamlin steps in, decides something. Under his leadership, she war goes a bit worse for the Union, then Lincoln either gets better and tries to re-assume leadership. Or a desperate cabal pretends that Lincoln has gotten better and tries to assume leadership. Imagine the worst possible appointments.Local draft riots since all know that the recruits are wasted. Perhaps even whole states trying to exempt themselves from the draft. In 1864 whoever promises to end the war immediately is elected.

Edit: I did not see Comte de Geneve's post before mine was published!
 

Perkeo

Banned
The war isn't decided before the 1864 presidential election, so Lincoln looses against someone who accepts CSA independence.

The delay of the decision is easily accomplished. Just let the war start later or let the South consistently adopt the strategy of winning by not loosing.
 
I disagree with everyone saying you need to change up foreign affairs or just let the CSA go. If that was the case the CSA wouldn't have a national identity much like the USA barely had one before the civil war. People are formed by these kinds of events and the CSA would have killed slavery slowly through peaceful trade and good relations with the USA if they were just let go.

As for militarily victories, the CSA was backwards but many backwards countries have won against not-backwards countries.

How? Better leadership and thinking.

CSA could mobilize more people because slaves can work fields, as long as they repress them enough. Say Davis devolved power to governors, giving them what they wanted, but introduced a "militaries slave coed' giving pay and the chance for slaves to buy freedom for overtime work, appeasing them and increasing food production. Meanwhile, the Trent affair goes worse so the CSA is more able to negotiate food imports from Britain.

Militayily, alrge armies mobilizeo n bigger scheduls due to creation of a unified general staff after the first victories. They realize that for every fort the union takes, it needs to occupy it with troops, doing defense in depth instead of dumb advances into Union territory like at Antietam and Gettysburg, which never worked for obvious reasons of surrendering CSA advantage.

CSA cavalry and some militiamen and marksmen were quite skilled, and they abandon honor after the burning of the western part of the south and resort to sniping largely unprotected officers, which would have been a disaster for the enemy in this time period.

In the (much earlier) battles of vicksburg, Richmond, and Chatanooga, disasters strike the undermanned, stretched out union force and McClellan wins the presidency. Counterattack by brave southern generals retake a lot of forts. A peace is signed, status quo, with the border states keeping as part of the union, and the West being union land. Why? The main Northern fear of the South before the war was that slave power would take land reserved for white settlers, not that slavery was intrinsically immoral. They didn't care about the slave power as long as it wasn't advancing on them.

Peace, slavery until economic pressure is too great and it's removed, probably some conquests of southern american countries like Dominicana and North Mexico and Cuba, planned by Southern "filibusters" before 1860 to expand slave land, and apartheid well into the 80s despite economic major problems. Some industry in cities but more incentive to try to be a slaveowner. Backward country, the Russia of the West.
 
Delurking for a moment.

December 1861:
* a certain Ulysses something Grant gains the dubious distinction of becoming the first general to die in the war when he his crushed by his horse at Belmont.
* another Guiness factoid: General Sherman becomes the only high raking officer of the war to commit suicide [1].

Winter 1861-Spring 1862:
* the workers builing the CSS Mississippi and CSS Louisiana are excused from military drills, the two units are ready earlier.

April 1862:
* when Farragut tries to assault New Orleans, his wooden ships are mauled by the CSS Mississippi and CSS Louisiana in one of the worst sea defeats of history. New Orleans remains under confederate control [2] and Farragut ends up POW or killed.

Spring-Summer 1862:
* McClernand repeatedly makes a mess in the west until he his cashierd in autumn.

Autumn 1862:
* since the war is going better than IOTL Davis orders Lee to wait (and, for once, Lee obeys).

November 1862:
* mid term elections: after many defeats and half victories, the repubblicans/federalists barely manage to remain in control of the House. The Union gives the impression of mismanagement and division.
* without any clear victory, the declaration of Emancipation is sitting inside Lincoln's desk. Abolitionists are getting more and more disillusioned with the war.

Spring 1863:
* Great Britain and France recognize the Confederacy offering mediation for settling this conflict. No direct intervention but greater access to supplies and ships for the Confederacy.
* McClellan and McClernand, both terribly pissed off by Lincoln, start their political cooperation.

Summer 1863:
* Meade manages to repulse Lee. Union/Confederate losses are more bilanced w.r.t. to OTL since Jeb Stuart does not go sightseeing in the country. Lincoln plays the card of announcing the Declaration of Emancipation, card which does not impress many, since it stinks of attempt to raise servile insurrection in the South as a war measure.

Summer 1863 - Spring 1864
* Confederate raiders wipe out Union commercial fleet, inflicting a de-facto counter-blockade. Tons of ship-related workers end up jobless, raising discontent against the Lincoln administration. Another effect is the collapse of immigration in the North, which, together with men dying/wounded/recruited creates a job market crysis which raises wages (to extreme chagrin of northern industrialists).

Spring 1863-Spring 1864
* General Thomas and Sheridan manage to hammer their way along the Mississippi. The advance is not without side-effects since the confederates, highly outnumbered, switch to hit-and-run/guerilla/piracy on the river attacks which force the Union to employ a staggering amount of troops to physically control the river and its banks. The resources required are soo large that the Tennessee front stabilizes.

Autumn 1863-Summer 1864:
* Meade attacks several times Lee but he never bests him enough to begin a serious drive towards Richmond.

Summer 1864:
* New Orleans eventually falls to the Union. The Father of the Waters runs again unvexed (thru gobs of forts and garrisons).

Spring 1864:
* McClellan begins his bid for the presidency. His platform is that the war is totally mismanaged, the economy is falling to pieces and that Lincoln is risking every day the overt military intervenction of Britain and France. People are tired with the war, the Middle West is no more land locked, industrialists are up in arms for the lingering economic crysis.

Summer 1864-Early Autumn 1864:
* Meade does a supreme effort against the Lee; he manages to advance towards Richmond but the losses are staggering (on both sides but this is not so clear to the northern public opinion)

November 1864:
* McClellan is elected on a peace platform, Pendleton is VP, McClernand Secretary of State.

Early Sprig 1865:
* Peace brokered by Britain and France. The Confederacy accepts the situation on the ground (i.e. Texas being split away) and renounces to any further claim on CONUS territories; in exchange the Union accepts the Confederacy existence and agrees for toll-free transfers overland thru the Mississippi strip.
* Many people, north and south of the border, make no mystery that this is not a peace but just an armistice to prepare Round 2.


And now, TFSmith121 Tunguska-like attack on me :D.


[1] in that period he did suffer from melancholia, todays known as depression. Make his affection worse and one morning he will kiss is gun.
[2] large port, second most important industrial hub of the Confederacy. Much improved commercial and production situation.
 
knowing that TFSmith will come in here and smack any attempt of this down because - in his own words - Confederate independence is ASB

And now, TFSmith121 Tunguska-like attack on me :D.
You've got five days left, so go nuts. I do have some suggestions on the latter scenario, though:

Great Britain and France recognize the Confederacy offering mediation for settling this conflict.
The sequence would be:
1) Mediation offered
2) Mediation accepted by South and rejected by North despite a sizeable proportion urging it to be taken up as an exploratory and non-binding move
3) European powers recognise the Confederacy in response.

I also suspect that the mediation would need to be offered by Britain, France and Russia as a joint measure. That was the logic behind the original move, and the fact that America's only international ally is suggesting she should knock it off is probably going to have a significant impact. When the Russian fleet arrives in New York in September 1863, they get a hostile reception which further emphasises the Union's isolation.

Speaking of New York, bigger Draft Riots and systematic avoidance of conscription would also help to demonstrate that the will to win the war wasn't there.

No direct intervention but greater access to supplies and ships for the Confederacy.
This is awkward, because recognition doesn't legally change the fact that Britain can't sell ships to a neutral. A way to stop the United States buying vast quantities of rifles from the UK would help, though. Perhaps an international agreement following the Crimea not to sell weapons to either combatant in a war, resulting in an act of Parliament in the late 1850s.
 
Just to note slavery may while disgusting wont go away on its own in the south because unlike other areas it turns out according to modern economic research that southern slavery experienced economies of scale and was profitable. Thus because it was profitable I dont see how unless the csa is pressured externally it will get rid of slavery when the benefits of slavery outweighthe costs at least in the south.

I can point you to some academic papers though they are quite statistical.
 

jahenders

Banned
I agree. A true CSA victory at arms over US is quite unlikely. However, CSA doing well enough that the US agrees to peace is possible (CSA doing considerably better in 1863).

Likewise, I consider any direct French/British involvement highly unlikely. However, it is possible that CSA doing better in 1863 might prompt the Brits to recognize CSA as an independent country, perhaps enhancing the reasons for the US to agree to peace as above.

In any case, even if CSA is able to go its own way, it's still likely to remain generally weaker than the US and will have lots of issues to deal with. I maintain that, even if the CSA got independence, they might well fall apart and/or have some parts decide to rejoin the US.

I think the only way to really do this is to get a peace President. You're going to need some genuinely catastrophic defeats for northern armies, and probably get rid of the March to the Sea somehow, because IIRC part of the point of Sherman doing that was to secure electoral victory in '64. Anyway, I think that's your best bet from a plausibility standpoint besides foreign intervention, which, to be honest, I always considered a little bit contrived anyway no matter how well it's done.

It's worth considering, however, that the Confederacy had some political problems of its own. Especially if you go the peace president route you're going to be dealing with a Confederacy that, even in "victory," is falling apart from the inside. States refusing troop requisitions, taxes, etc. as well as considerable opposition to Davis' leadership. Depending on what happens after the war, you may not even be dealing with an organized resistance the second time around and more of states resisting piecemeal.

In any case, I agree that a Southern "victory" in the sense of them dictating terms is ASB. However, I do think a Union defeat is plausible, if not probable.
 
Top