Effects of a shorter Civil War

[Gryphon]

Let's say, for reasons anonymous, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas decide to stay within the Union, and the Civil War only lasts for a couple of years, say until late '62 or early '63.

What effect will this have- not only on the US, but also the rest of the world? (In fact, if we can, let's focus a little more on the rest of the world.)

 

[Snake Featherston]

Emancipation won't happen at the time it did.

That in itself will have some nasty butterflies down the line.

The rest of the world would have an impact on US foreign policy caused by a longer existence of slavery. When emancipation does come, that poses difficulties all its own, given that colonization was a dream of the North to a great degree then....

 

[Boto von Ageduch]

America then would have much less experience with the dirty side of wars.
Possible consequence: Less timidness to enter other wars directly.
An analogue of WWI, say. (Which is most probably going to happen quite
similarly to OTL: I don't see why there should be much interference of
Europe on the Americas or vice versa other than actually).

 

[Mark E.]

Big differences. If Virginia does not leave, then Robert E. Lee is General of the US Army.

 

[T3h_shammy]

No way it lasts to 63 if those key states stay with the Union. Well Arkansas isn't all that important but Virginia was the key of the war always was.

 

[Boto von Ageduch]

The world learned from the American Civil War that given contemporary military technology,
one should rather dig trenches than line up in phalanges.

If the ACW involves much less combat, then a lot of this gory learning process
is shifted to the next large war in the Western hemisphere. Including the
high number of casualties.

 

[67th Tigers]

The world learned from the American Civil War that given contemporary military technology,
one should rather dig trenches than line up in phalanges.

If the ACW involves much less combat, then a lot of this gory learning process
is shifted to the next large war in the Western hemisphere. Including the
high number of casualties.

Nope, it was a pre-Napoleonic war in that respect.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Without the four Upper South states in the Confederacy, I can't see the war lasting beyond the fall of 1862.

 

[Blizrun]

The world learned from the American Civil War that given contemporary military technology,
one should rather dig trenches than line up in phalanges.

If the ACW involves much less combat, then a lot of this gory learning process
is shifted to the next large war in the Western hemisphere. Including the
high number of casualties.

Um, what? Europe largely ignored the ACW, considering it, "two leaderless mobs chasing each other over the countryside." The only thing taken from it was the North's use of rail to mobilize and move large numbers of troops, which lead to Prussian victory in the Franco-Prussian War.

 

[Sigma7]

Without the afore mentioned States, there's really not much of a CSA to begin with, which means it could actually be a longer, uglier type of conflict; a protracted guerilla war throughout the deep south which could result in permenant millitary occupation of the the CSA states.

You want to shorten it, here's your POD:

Virginia stays in the Union.

No Lee, no Jackson, or countless Virginians both enlisted and commissioned. No Army of Northern Virginia.

It'd be quicker. Still every bit as brutal as OTL, but quicker by a year or so.

The South was prepared to go to war before Virginia left the Union, I have to figure their still going to slug it out as hard as they can without them and that shaves maybe only a year and change off the war.

That war was going to be ugly and bloody no matter what and it wasn't going to end until one sides will to fight was totally broken.

Without the states mentioned, it's worse type of conflicted and even more protracted.

Without Virginia, it's a year shorter, but every bit as brutal.

 

[hzn5pk]

A lesser civil war means more energy to settle the west. Means a lot less soldiers killed which could have some butterflies right there. International affairs are more OTL and are not effected as much.

The plains Indians are screwed out of their land sooner. Settlement and railroad growth happens sooner.

The biggest difference in foreign affairs is that the US makes a couple more purchases like Greenland and the Virgin Islands. Hawaii is made US sooner.

The other foreign affairs are more OTL. The US did not become a world player until it maintained a first rate navy that could back failure in diplomacy up.

 

[Boto von Ageduch]

Um, what? Europe largely ignored the ACW, considering it, "two leaderless mobs chasing each other over the countryside." The only thing taken from it was the North's use of rail to mobilize and move large numbers of troops, which lead to Prussian victory in the Franco-Prussian War.

Sounds plausible, but - the ACW is the only war I'm aware of which had that
disaster with open battle and then the shift towards trenches.
Perhaps they have stealthily paid attention nevertheless?

 

[Solomaxwell6]

Nope, it was a pre-Napoleonic war in that respect.

No, he's right. Towards the end of the war, trenches started playing a role. They weren't enough to be significant in the war itself, but it let some generals start thinking. Blizrun might be right about Europe ignoring it, but there were definitely some precursors of WWI in there. Vicksburg and Petersburg both involved heavy use of trenches.

Virginia stays in the Union.

No Lee, no Jackson, or countless Virginians both enlisted and commissioned. No Army of Northern Virginia.

It'd be quicker. Still every bit as brutal as OTL, but quicker by a year or so.

I think it'd be a lot quicker than that. I'm not sure of the numbers Virginia contributed to the Confederate Army, but I'm willing to bet it was a pretty good percentage. So we have all those soldiers gone, now, adding to the North's manpower advantage. Tredegar Iron Works, which produced most of the south's artillery, increases the North's equipment advantage. Generals like Lee, Jackson, and Stuart are gone, which chokes off the south's leadership advantage. DC isn't going to be in any immediate trouble, so Union generals will be a lot freer and not have to worry as much about scared politicians.

Virginia staying in the union would make a huge shift in the war.

 

[thehistorysage]

Um, what? Europe largely ignored the ACW, considering it, "two leaderless mobs chasing each other over the countryside." The only thing taken from it was the North's use of rail to mobilize and move large numbers of troops, which lead to Prussian victory in the Franco-Prussian War.

That's why thousands of Europeans came to observe and to fight right? Moltke popped off his arrogant and ridiculous quote while Prussian military observers were eagerly studying and Prussians themselves fighting on both sides of the conflict. Maybe if Moltke had paid more attention to innovations like: Ironclads, submarines, rifling (especially in regard to offensive tactics), trench warfare, field fortifications, earth works, arial observation, repeating weaponry, machine guns, land mines, marine mines, hand grenade, sapping, telescopic lenses, rail usage, medicine such as anesthetics and malarial treatment, etc, etc, etc, all of which were either devised or thoroughly advanced during the American Civil War, Germany would have had a better go of things in the first part of the 20th Century.

As for the effects of an early end to the war with the Upper South Unionist or heavily neutral, I would imagine another civil conflict or national seperation would lie ahead over the issue of slavery.

 

[Solomaxwell6]

As for the effects of an early end to the war with the Upper South Unionist or heavily neutral, I would imagine another civil conflict or national seperation would lie ahead over the issue of slavery.

I don't know about that. Over time, they'll be getting less and less support. ITTL, we only have the reactionary core of the confederacy. Since there's less of a chance of an emancipation proclamation ITTL, they'll still have slavery. But as one by one, border states become free states, they'll know for sure that there's no hope of getting that state to join their side in the next war (can you imagine a free Virginia joining a war primarily about slavery, especially when it didn't have the support to join such a war when it did have slavery?). And the north's manpower and industrial advantage is going to get greater and greater. If the deep south starts a second Civil War, they're going to get completely screwed over once again.

 

[Blizrun]

That's why thousands of Europeans came to observe and to fight right?

Not saying that Europeans didn't do any of that, merely that they ignored most of the the ACW had to teach. I know that, in regards to trench warfare, Europeans believed that properly disciplined European forces would have no need of such things. The fact of the matter is, European nations had no respect for the US in regards to military prowess at the time.

Now, to go OT for a moment, consider a situation similar to what the US did in Guns of the South. Ignoring the timetravel aspects, a US, furious over the loss if the war, vents its anger on invading Canada. While the Royal Navy would handily smack the US Navy around like a bitch, American forces on the land, armed with more advanced rifles and battle tactics learned from the Civil War, would've made mincemeat out of the Canadians and British. An event like that is what would have been needed for Europe to take note.

Hell, after the war was over, we largely ignored everything combat related that we had learned.

 

[Grey Wolf]

A detailed study of the history of modern trench warfare would seem to be called for Any takers ?

From Richmond to Spion Kop to Manchuria to the Somme ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[67th Tigers]

That's why thousands of Europeans came to observe and to fight right? Moltke popped off his arrogant and ridiculous quote while Prussian military observers were eagerly studying and Prussians themselves fighting on both sides of the conflict. Maybe if Moltke had paid more attention to innovations like: Ironclads, submarines, rifling (especially in regard to offensive tactics), trench warfare, field fortifications, earth works, arial observation, repeating weaponry, machine guns, land mines, marine mines, hand grenade, sapping, telescopic lenses, rail usage, medicine such as anesthetics and malarial treatment, etc, etc, etc, all of which were either devised or thoroughly advanced during the American Civil War, Germany would have had a better go of things in the first part of the 20th Century.

As for the effects of an early end to the war with the Upper South Unionist or heavily neutral, I would imagine another civil conflict or national seperation would lie ahead over the issue of slavery.

There is no prima facie evidence for the "quote" about armed mobs, and from whence came the "steely eye"? It's simply made up.

Scheibert's observations are freely available.

There were simply no innovations worth noting that hadn't been seen in Europe already. Some of the "innovations" you list are medieval. The "trench warfare" of the ACW all has the character of classical siege warfare, and indeed they were generally siegelike.

You do know the largest rail movement in history before 1870 was the French Army in 1859 sending 130,000 into Italy and 100,000 to the German border, a movement ten times the largest ACW rail move?

 

[Valdemar II]

No, he's right. Towards the end of the war, trenches started playing a role. They weren't enough to be significant in the war itself, but it let some generals start thinking. Blizrun might be right about Europe ignoring it, but there were definitely some precursors of WWI in there. Vicksburg and Petersburg both involved heavy use of trenches.

So what, the Danish-Prussian War also saw the use of railroads and trenches, specifict the Prussian had use decades to lay railroad in military useful positions, while Danish railroad was layed only after economical accounts. The effect of ACW on warfare is overrated, simply because the terrain was different and population density wasn't as high as in Europe.

 

[David S Poepoe]

A lesser civil war means more energy to settle the west. Means a lot less soldiers killed which could have some butterflies right there. International affairs are more OTL and are not effected as much.

The plains Indians are screwed out of their land sooner. Settlement and railroad growth happens sooner.

The biggest difference in foreign affairs is that the US makes a couple more purchases like Greenland and the Virgin Islands. Hawaii is made US sooner.

The other foreign affairs are more OTL. The US did not become a world player until it maintained a first rate navy that could back failure in diplomacy up.

Not at all.

It could be expected that the settlement of the West would take a little slower since there won't be the manpower for the US Army to draw upon. There wouldn't be the same scope of industrialization in the North and there most likely wouldn't be any major federally funded projects. With the likes of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas remaining in the Union they would still at as some sort of brake, as the South historically did, in counteracting the growth of the central government.

Politically, the idea of secession wouldn't be settle since Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas would still be advocates. Its possible that the original concept of the Constitution, in regards to the even balance of power between the government and the states.