How much longer could the American Civil War have lasted?

Shadowlord

With a POD no earlier than April 12, 1861 (Fort Sumter) how long could the Civil War potentially have been dragged out? By 1865, the Confederacy was completely exhausted and on the verge of collapse. While minimizing Union successes till that point might've kept the South in better condition to keep fighting, this might've led to Lincoln's defeat in the 1864 election, which would've seen an early end to the war through McClellan seeking an armistice.

Is there a balance that could be struck between less Union success, but still keeping McClellan or any peace candidate from winning the 1864 election to produce a more prolonged Civil War?
 
Huehuecoyotl

Huehuecoyotl

Monthly Donor
An actual state of war? Or could ongoing guerrilla conflicts against obstinate Confederates in the wilderness count as a continuation of the conflict?
 

Rex

It would be important for the Union to somehow fail to meaningfully obstruct the Mississippi, which would help keep the South in better shape. Perhaps if ironclads don't catch on early in the war, or the South is able to commission and receive a large number from GB.
 

Tripwire

Shadowlord said:
With a POD no earlier than April 12, 1861 (Fort Sumter) how long could the Civil War potentially have been dragged out? By 1865, the Confederacy was completely exhausted and on the verge of collapse. While minimizing Union successes till that point might've kept the South in better condition to keep fighting, this might've led to Lincoln's defeat in the 1864 election, which would've seen an early end to the war through McClellan seeking an armistice.

Is there a balance that could be struck between less Union success, but still keeping McClellan or any peace candidate from winning the 1864 election to produce a more prolonged Civil War?
Click to expand...

It could probably realistically go at the very longest til the next presidential election in 1868. If the war was still going at that point and Union victory wasn't absolutely imminent, there would be no question that a candidate campaigning on ending the war would be elected in the North.
 

Johnrankins

Sucrose said:
It could probably realistically go at the very longest til the next presidential election in 1868. If the war was still going at that point and Union victory wasn't absolutely imminent, there would be no question that a candidate campaigning on ending the war would be elected in the North.
Click to expand...

How in God's name could the South last another four years? Its economy was a complete wreck by late 1864 at the latest. If it is doing better enough that it can last another four in 1864 Lincoln isn't going to be elected. Even another four months would be stretching it. The South in 1865 was like Germany and Japan in 1945, a country that should have surrender months sooner than it actually did.
 

LongVin

Johnrankins said:
How in God's name could the South last another four years? Its economy was a complete wreck by late 1864 at the latest. If it is doing better enough that it can last another four in 1864 Lincoln isn't going to be elected. Even another four months would be stretching it. The South in 1865 was like Germany and Japan in 1945, a country that should have surrender months sooner than it actually did.
Click to expand...

Maybe a phony war equivalent. Have the Union suffer a few rather substantial loses but not enough to drive popular opinion to force them out of the war. And, at the same time have the rebels realize they can't go on the offensive because it will drain their resources.

Both sides will be able to sit it out for awhile before they have to start up offensives again just to keep the war active.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
It really couldn't have lasted much longer than it did IOTL. If the South does better, the war ends in 1864 with Lincoln being replaced by a peace party. If Lincoln is reelected, the South has to be on the verge of defeat by the spring of 1865 in any event. If some crazy military miracles take place after Lincoln's reelection (i.e. Hood's invasion of Tennessee is successful), then perhaps the war could be dragged into the summer and early fall of 1865, but that's pretty unlikely.
 

unprincipled peter

Donor
WI the south adopted a defensive strategy from the start? Rather than attacking, it simply defends and hoards it's resources, and wait for the North to get tired of beating it's head against the wall? I'm sure there's lots of reasons against such strategy, but is it inevitable from the beginning that the south will be exhausted by 65?
 

Johnrankins

unprincipled peter said:
WI the south adopted a defensive strategy from the start? Rather than attacking, it simply defends and hoards it's resources, and wait for the North to get tired of beating it's head against the wall? I'm sure there's lots of reasons against such strategy, but is it inevitable from the beginning that the south will be exhausted by 65?
Click to expand...

In which case Lincoln loses the election and so the war likely ends in a Southern victory.
 

unprincipled peter

Donor
I think people blithely accept as fact that without victory in sight by '64, that Lincoln loses (a very good possibility), and that peace automatically ensues. The latter is anything but certain. Does McClellan follow through with his platform of peace? depending on a politician to follow through with campaign promises is a fool's errand. Does the North accept peace at any price? What if the south's demands are too high? Does the north simply capitulate? A negotiated peace requires both sides to cooperate.
 

Gnaeus Albinus

It's just not going to happen in any case. Now if you want to talk about ending the war sooner, then you're going to want to look at the battle of Gettysburg. Lee was at his closest to DC during the battle, had he listened to his advisers and taken DC when he had the chance, then he'd have cut off the head of the Union so to speak, and ended the war in the favour of the Confederacy.
 

unprincipled peter

Donor
Mike,
no ifs ands or butts about it, a negotiated peace requires the north to accept continued slavery. The south is not going to cave on that issue. What's up for question is whether the north will accept it.
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
unprincipled peter said:
I think people blithely accept as fact that without victory in sight by '64, that Lincoln loses (a very good possibility), and that peace automatically ensues. The latter is anything but certain. Does McClellan follow through with his platform of peace? depending on a politician to follow through with campaign promises is a fool's errand. Does the North accept peace at any price? What if the south's demands are too high? Does the north simply capitulate? A negotiated peace requires both sides to cooperate.
Click to expand...


Who knows what McClellan would do. I do think, it's as likely as not that he'd find some excuse to continue the war, though. He strikes me as more of a "Lincoln is not the right man to fight the war," than a "The war shouldn't be fought" personality.
 
BELFAST

BELFAST

if the union did not try to blockade the south and the export of cotton etc continued and weapons could be imported the war could have lasted longer.
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
BELFAST said:
if the union did not try to blockade the south and the export of cotton etc continued and weapons could be imported the war could have lasted longer.
Click to expand...

True, but how likely is that. I'd think that the best bet (unlikely but more possible) is the South Adopting a defensive war strategy. And for this to happen, I think you'd probably need paradoxically the Union to win the first several battles. Indeed, the South might have fared better / held out longer had 1st Bull Run been a resounding Union Victory, and Richomand fall under siege a few months later.

Assuming the South can break the siege, their obsession with the fortunes of any individual battle, and their desire for offensives, might have been broken,
 

Johnrankins

Gnaeus Albinus said:
It's just not going to happen in any case. Now if you want to talk about ending the war sooner, then you're going to want to look at the battle of Gettysburg. Lee was at his closest to DC during the battle, had he listened to his advisers and taken DC when he had the chance, then he'd have cut off the head of the Union so to speak, and ended the war in the favour of the Confederacy.
Click to expand...

If he tried to take DC the war would have indeed ended sooner, in CONFEDERATE defeat. Lee would have been hung up on DCs fortifications when Meade comes down on him like a hammer! The CSA had no chance, NONE of taking DC in 1863. It was the most heavily fortified city on the planet with a large garrison. That wasn't even Longstreet's plan. His plan was to get between Meade and Washington and hope that the politicians in DC panic and order an attack by Meade on ground of Longstreet's choosing and badly damaging the AOTP. After that threaten Washington and hope that the politicians panic and try to make peace.
 

Derek Jackson

In terms of the 1864 election McLennan appeared to believe that the South would rejoin the Union if he simply cancelled the emancipation proclamation.

He was almost certainly mistaken
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top