After the fall of Vicksburg and the the defeat of Lee at Gettysburg Jefferson Davis and the rest of the leadership of the CSA comes to their senses and decides to ask for surrender terms, what can they reasonably expect from the North? Please do not say that Jefferson Davis would not have surrendered, I know that, this is just a "What If"
WI: July 5th 1863 CSA surrenders
- Thread starter ejpsan
- Start date
Abhakhazia
Banned
I highly doubt the north could recognize independence. Reasonably, because they surrended they probably could be simply rejoined to the Union fairly quickly, as well as keeping their same state government.
In the long term? The Democratic Party Splitting, with a Southern Democratic/Dixiecrat/State's Rights Democratic Party and a Northern Democratic/War Democratic/National Union Party conflicting each other, until the Northern Branch joining the Republican Party. A more liberal Republican Party, a more racist south without reconstruction and the political parties keeping their orginal views. All the north and most of the west being liberal/Republican, a greater migration of African-Americans to the North and California, with California being even more developed at the expense of Florida. There will be a greater North/South divide with the South being much less Nationalist.
Anaxagoras
Banned
Jefferson Davis would not have surrendered.
Sorry. PODs need some plausibility to be taken seriously.
the only way to make this plausible is to have the ANV be completely destroyed...say Meade gets a wild hair up his grouchy ass and counter attacks Lee after Pickett's charge. he could use the VI and parts of the XII Corps and maybe bits of the II to basically break the confederate center and roll up the flanks...
of course thats very out of character for Meade and with three of seven corps commanders down, another basically on the verge of a being tried for delectation of duty and countless division and brigade commanders down, it would be a logistical nightmare.
with the ANV out of the way the north could easily march on Richmond within what? two, three weeks...so surrender in 1863 might not happen on the 5th but if these unlikely events happen, IMVHO the south could be begging for peace by the end of July
of course thats very out of character for Meade and with three of seven corps commanders down, another basically on the verge of a being tried for delectation of duty and countless division and brigade commanders down, it would be a logistical nightmare.
with the ANV out of the way the north could easily march on Richmond within what? two, three weeks...so surrender in 1863 might not happen on the 5th but if these unlikely events happen, IMVHO the south could be begging for peace by the end of July
Sure, its possible for the Confederates to surrender in 1863 but not if you just use OTL and the ambious statement of "coming to their senses".
The South was a place full of pride, the North had to crush that pride to get them to surrender. Losing Vicksburg and being defeated at Gettysburg isn't enough to do that.
Maybe, maybe if Lee's army is destroyed you could have a crisis in which some Confederate leaders would send out peace feelers.
But certainly not OTL, where Lee being defeated would take a while to even be learned about.
Certainly, Davis wouldn't look for peace. When Lee surrendered in OTL and Johnston was on the brink of surrendering he wanted to flee for the Trans-Mississippi and continue the war from there.
More sensible men like Reagan might understand that the war was turning against them and they would have to look into surrendering sooner rather than later but the Confederate Government was not, exactly, well known for being full of sensible men.
Yeah. And there's no reason for them to suddenly wake up and get it given, and brain transplants are ASB, I'm not sure how we answer the question of how this would change things.
I mean, logically the Confederates are not going to accept the late-war (OTL) Amendments - but if Davis has a brain transplant where he's willing to surrender this early, does that include being willing to accept compromise there? Accepting northern terms?
OTL surrender terms were pretty lenient, looking elsewhere, can't see them being made much more lenient.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Davis wanted to continue the war from the Trans-Mississippi Department IOTL even after Richmond and much of the CS seaboard was captured. The odds of such a man surrendering earlier without dire, pressing necessity to do so are not very great.
WI: July 5th 1863 CSA srrenders
Thank you for everybody's reply, it really angers me that Jefferson Davis basically kept the ACW going even through the war was lost. I personally think that any peace terms the north and south agreed upon, the south would just turn around and make more demands on the north and even then it won't keep to the agreement.
Thank you for everybody's reply, it really angers me that Jefferson Davis basically kept the ACW going even through the war was lost. I personally think that any peace terms the north and south agreed upon, the south would just turn around and make more demands on the north and even then it won't keep to the agreement.
Even if the South plans make more demands it won't surrender that quickly. No offer will even be taken seriously without the South giving up any idea of independence and recognizing the EP (Which would have effected very few people this early) which it wouldn't do even if the ANV were totally destroyed by Meade. The very earliest I could see that happening is late July and even that would be lightning speed if Jeff Davis were the most militarily realistic politician in history.
Regardless of whether or not Jefferson Davis might have offered a surrender, I suspect that the only terms Lincoln would have accepted is immediate dissolution of the CSA and readmission of each state individually to the USA on terms established by the federal government. Also Lincoln would have been under considerable pressure from the radical wing of his party to disenfranchise anyone in the south who had initiated or voted for secession, been elected to office in the CSA congress, or served in a high rank in the CS military. Then there would be the continuing issue of slavery to addess. I suspect it is a non starter.
I disgree. Thought experiments are perfectly OK. As long as people understand what PODs are plausible or implausible, it can still be beneficial to discuss.
PODs come in various forms.
First are actions that are both plausible and possible. These includes changes by chance or fortune, or decisions considered by people but ultimately rejected, but could have gone the other way.
Next are PODs that are not plausible given personalities involved, yet were still available to the people and represent a real option that could have been taken. Counterfactual thought experiments along these lines are very useful in understanding how history could have been different. They are perhaps not "realistic", but they actually represent real options available to people.
Finally are PODs that are neither plausible nor possible, which is when we start getting into ASB territory. These have no historical value, but might make entertaining fiction.
Speaking for myself, #2 are pointless. It'd be like discussing how you could have made that catch/hit that ball/whatever after your favorite sports team blows it.
And #3 is just fantasy, and should be treated as such.
I agree with you. Lincoln's terms would be like they were IOTL - the states would be readmitted into the Union. The slaves - legally freed by the Emancipation Procalamation - would need to be recognized as emancipated. There is also the possibility that certain laws respecting the rights of black citizens, or perhaps even land reform to provide liberated slaves with their 40 acres and a mule, be enacted before the southern state would no longer be considered in rebellion.
However, the Confederates could ask for a variety of things.
1 - Compensation paid for loss of property (slaves and possibly land).
2 - Amnesty for everyone who rebelled.
3 - No reconstruction and quickly allowing states to resend representatives to Congress
4 - Agreement that various laws passed by Congress during the South's absence would be repealed or replaced by new laws upon the return of Southern lawmakers. I am thinking of things like the tariff increases enacted after the South left.
That combined with less destruction of property resulting from Sherman's Marches, and far less dead would be a great benefit to the southern states.
Unfortunately, we all know that the leaders of the Confederacy were not enlightened enough to do so. If they were, they would never have seceded to begin.
I disagree entirely and your analogy is completely wrong.
Your favorite sports time catching a ball it dropped IRL is pure chance. It offers nothing of value. There's no decision to be made. It's not like that player choose not to catch the ball. It's pure fantasy dreaming.
On the other hand, examining the options available to Kerensky in March 1917, Pompey the Great during the Roman Civil War, Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, or Japan in 1941 and determining which would be best offers a lot to value.
Examining counterfactual choices looking for an ideal solution provides a lot of value to statesmen or other decision makers. Understanding why they made their right or wrong choices is important. Determining what would have been the ideal choice to make - regardless of why they didn't pick that option in reality - offers a lot value whether it concerns war, politics, economics, business, or other venues.
This kind of insight is precisely why people study history. To discount it is ridiculous.
There's a difference between studying history and seeing what the best choice would have been, for purposes of learning from the past; and "What if this implausible outcome occurred?" for purposes of constructing something like oh, Isaac's Empire or Up with the Star.
And I'm fairly sure most of the discussion here is less about how to deal with future nuclear crisis situations and more about exploring what could have been - when it isn't just wishful fantasiies that ignore plausibility.
Thus my comment on it being just as valueless when one explores implausible choices for the people involved - it's not like Lee choose to lose the battle of Gettysburg, for instance, or Davis was for fighting on despite knowing it was doomed - maybe he should have known, but that he didn't accept that needs to be included in any what if involving his decisions or how things fare will reflect entirely different people to begin with - and change the circumstances the decision in question was made in.
Last edited:
I could see Lincoln accepting these terms, together with the requirement for emancipation (probably compensated). However, I am not so sure there would be an automatic requirement for citizenship and "40 acres and a mule" for freed slaves in this scenario. Since there would be no "reconstruction" attempted or undertaken, this early in the Civil War I think it is possible that a greater emphasis might be on supporting colonization societies for freedmen (either in Africa or on Indian lands in the west).
Personally, I think #2 is fine if not too extreme. If it has, say 1/50 or 1/100 chance of happening it is OK. Much longer than that and you start slowly going into ASB category. This TL is ASB, if for no other reason, July 5th is simply WAY TOO FAST. Even if the report of the ANV complete destruction would be believed right away, and I have doubts it ever would be, it would take days if not weeks to decide what to do about it outside the obvious of sending for reinforcements from the west.
Well, I guess it depends on what you mean here.
Unlikely, but still believable, is one thing.
Unlikely because it is unbelievable is another.
For instance: Davis reinforcing Lee to the hilt prior to Gettysburg is believable, just unlikely.
On the other hand, Davis appointing Johnston to the position Bragg got OTL after leaving the AoT is neither plausible or likely. It isn't outright impossible per se, but . . .