Until Every Drop of Blood Is Paid: A More Radical American Civil War

[Red_Galiray]

Part of me respects for @Red_Galiray for not doing foreign support for the confederate, instead making the people more radical, but im also upset that with making the south more radical means we will have less southern loyalist, unionists. Makes me sad as they never get love and are fascinating group of people.

For the record, if anyone is wondering why I'd rather have no foreign support, is because it'd result in a bloated and hard to follow timeline, and it would force me to dedicate chapters to other nations. I prefer a compact, to the point TL focused on the US.

Reminds me of Diary of the Doofus King II if that's the case.

Missouri in OTL was all tangled in a complex net of personalities and politics stirred up a hornet's nest and it be the case more so here. (Good bless those Germans in St. Louis, the bedrock of Republicans and Unionists in the city.) Keep Lyon alive (Don't have Frémont hang him out to dry), you have better chances of smashing secession. Kansas would probably collapse into a hot mess, or be taken over by Unionists.

If East Tennessee can do it in TTL, it would be alike to that of a dagger aim at the heart of the South.

Even if Kentucky leaves, there would be plenty of unionists regardless of what the state legislature says.

If the CS fails to secure east Kentucky, you could see a West Virginia-style secession (Maybe combined with WV to make a state of Appalachia/Vandalia.)

I think that the rival government at Topeka, which still refuses to dissolve, will immediately stage a coup against Lecompton. Basically, a mini civil war.

Yeah, that's true. No law can change people's allegiances. But historian James M. McPherson believes that the ratio of men enlisted in the CS Army and the US Army would be reversed if those states had seceded, i.e., there would be many more people fighting for the confederacy.

I don't have anything constructive to add, but I just wanted to say I've been following this along and really enjoying it. .

Thank you very much!

The author stated already alot of southern unionists will remain loyal this time. Arguably the southern unionists won the war from the beginning by seizing important lands, but to have a stronger confederates they need to fail.

You misunderstood me. Some Southern Unionists will join the rebs this time, but by not means all. The ones who will desert the Union will be those who, in OTL, only offered wavering support or none at all, NOT those who actually fought against the Confederacy. Hotbeds of unionism such as West Virginia or East Tennessee, will remain hotbeds of unionism. And even if the border South secedes, many Unionists will remain there, like how they stayed in the Union OTL yet many went south to join the CSA.

 

[Arnold d.c]

The author stated already alot of southern unionists will remain loyal this time. Arguably the southern unionists won the war from the beginning by seizing important lands, but to have a stronger confederates they need to fail.

How so? Southern Unionists arguably contributed only a small amount to Union victory. The success of Southern Unionists in West Virginia was the exception, not the norm. The Southern Unionists at East Tennessee were pretty much suppressed with force and the ones at North Carolina didn’t do much. Their contributions certainly increased after Union presence was established, serving as front-line regiments or anti-guerilla militias.

 

[Gentleman Johnny]

If Missouri and Kentucky secede, there's a really good chance that the CSA can hold out long enough for the Union populace to grow tired of war.

 

[sarahz]

Imo it would be complete ASB if something like this happened.

OTOH I can see some northern whites thinking hmm lets encourage (send) all the blacks to a state of their own, just so long as its the rebs who lose out to them, in a way its the biggest gerrymander of all time..

 

[haider najib]

How so? Southern Unionists arguably contributed only a small amount to Union victory. The success of Southern Unionists in West Virginia was the exception, not the norm. The Southern Unionists at East Tennessee were pretty much suppressed with force and the ones at North Carolina didn’t do much. Their contributions certainly increased after Union presence was established, serving as front-line regiments or anti-guerilla militias.

Loyalists won missouri, broke Virginia, saved kept maryland from staying in confederate hands, put pressure on illionois and kept dc and Philadelphia protected. Helped sherman in his march, provides early manpower, and kept the confederates from controlling all the ohio river.

 

[Historyman 14]

For the record, if anyone is wondering why I'd rather have no foreign support, is because it'd result in a bloated and hard to follow timeline, and it would force me to dedicate chapters to other nations. I prefer a compact, to the point TL focused on the US.



I think that the rival government at Topeka, which still refuses to dissolve, will immediately stage a coup against Lecompton. Basically, a mini civil war.

Yeah, that's true. No law can change people's allegiances. But historian James M. McPherson believes that the ratio of men enlisted in the CS Army and the US Army would be reversed if those states had seceded, i.e., there would be many more people fighting for the confederacy.

Any foreign support in TTL would be for the Union. The Confederacy would put off any OTL hopes of European aid, and the British would be far more supporting of ending slavery in America. (As they had a very strong abolitionist movement, and Canadians by the thousands, between 33,000 and 55,000 , fought for the Union. Napoleon III was a man of honor so he and Abe would reach a gentleman agreement I mention earlier. )

Like I said, a hot mess as Topeka pours onto Lecompton.

Keep Nathaniel Lyon alive and don't have him outrage moderate Unionists, Missouri may have its own mini-civil war, but it stay within the US. (Mostly.)

Could always keep the South off balance by focusing on a North Carolina Campaign, little Anzios that the Union could take Wilmington. Same with following up on Hilton Head Island.

If Missouri and Kentucky secede, there's a really good chance that the CSA can hold out long enough for the Union populace to grow tired of war.

The issue here is the North is equally radicalized so to speak in ending slavery and freeing African Americans, and brining the 'slave power' to heel. From the get go you have whole Legions of blacks fighting under the Union's banner.

The biggest thing is to get rid of McClellan as soon as you can. The man lacked a backbone and could have ended the war by 1862-1863 if he had one. Great planner and great at building up and training the Army, but horrible at you know...using it.


Have Abe make good on his "If you don't want to use the army, I should like to borrow it for a while."

Besides Grant and Sherman, Meade was a fighter and Lee thinking he was still fighting McClellan cost him Gettysburg. Farragut will tear into the CS' Navy and ports while Abe pour money into ironclads.

Nathan Kimball is a man who won a battle over Stonewall in the Shenandoah Valley, forcing Jackson to make an unpleasant retreat back up the Valley.

Joseph A. Mower was called by Sherman as “boldest young soldier we have.”

August Willich lead a crack unit of Germans fighting from Rowlett’s Station and Shiloh to Tullahoma and Chickamauga. (Which his unit led the assault on Missionary Ridge that broke the Confederate defenses at Chattanooga, with his brigade among the first to reach the top of the ridge. And the man was 'too red' for even Karl Marx, singing La Marseillaise into battle.)

Samuel R. Curtis drove the Confederate army out of Missouri, pushed into Arkansas and won decisively at Pea Ridge, and smash a major Confederate invasion of Missouri in 1864.

The Union does not lack skilled commanders. (As many unsung heroes of the Union will have fun times in this TL I hope.)

 

[Arnold d.c]

Loyalists won missouri,

I’ll concede that one but...

broke Virginia,
saved kept maryland from staying in confederate hands,

The departure of West Virginia from Virginia barely accelerated the Union timetable in the conquest of Virginia. The state provided a relatively small amount of troops and was not a major invasion route the Union could use.
Maryland was kept in Union hands thanks to the flood of Northern militias coming to protect Washington D.C.

put pressure on illionois and kept dc and Philadelphia protected.

What is your point here? I don’t understand what put pressure on Illinois refers to.

Helped sherman in his march, provides early manpower, and kept the confederates from controlling all the ohio river.

Kept the Confederates from controlling the Ohio River? The Battle of Nashville was won by Thomas, a Southern Loyalist, but the men who fought the battle were Northerners for the most part and the campaign was as good as won after Franklin.

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

Speaking of West Virginia, it reminded me of a couple of ancestors. On my mom's dad's side are Germans from West Virginia. His grandfather's Dad's and Mom's fathers each came from Germany in the mid-1850s, lived in Brooke County Virginia, and instead of waiting each went to Ohio because they are listed with Ohio regiments starting in early 1862. They then moved back to West Virginia after the war.

My point is that you could call them Southern unionists and I don't know how many did that after Virginia seceded but there were some. And, you could argue that there could be more in this timeline who run to Ohio right away.

Obligatory story that can't be proven but let's just call it the Rule of Cool for family history. We only learned about them through research 25 years or so after my cousin Matt was born. But one of those ancestors is named Matthias. And because Matt is of this same temperament, we have this running joke now that Matthias saw the notice about the coming conscription of all able-bodied Virginians, which was posted in the county square, and gathered a whole bunch of people around. He then made this grandiose speech about how they hated slavery, which Germans did, and then he made a final Point by saying, "we came and chose this free land..." He then realizes he is pointing down at Confederate soil and proceeds to point across the Ohio River. "Okay," he shouts "actually we chose that free land. But we're going to make this place part of that free Land once more!"

 

[Nyvis]

Yeah, I'm not sure this story would lead to less southern unionists. Because the future separatists are making themselves even more odious and criminal. What it could lead to is a different type of southern unionists.

People who care about slavery, but also care about the union may be turned away by the more radical north when they would have been pro union OTL. But people who start thinking slavery isn't worth the depths the increasingly crazy south is sinking into may be turned away from secessionists whose claims to states rights are increasingly hypocritical.

 

[haider najib]

What is your point here? I don’t understand what put pressure on Illinois refers to.

A South with St Louis, Baltimore, and Louisville is a stronger force which is easier to defend the frontiers.

 

[Gentleman Johnny]

A South with St Louis, Baltimore, and Louisville is a stronger force which is easier to defend the frontiers.

I agree. With a radicalized north, I can see many southern unionists turning to the CSA since it is obvious that the Union seeks to forcibly end slavery. Also, with Missouri, Kentucky, and potentially Kansas, the CSA is much stronger and imo the CSA has a much better chance of coming out of the war an independent nation.

 

[Wolttaire]

I agree. With a radicalized north, I can see many southern unionists turning to the CSA since it is obvious that the Union seeks to forcibly end slavery. Also, with Missouri, Kentucky, and potentially Kansas, the CSA is much stronger and imo the CSA has a much better chance of coming out of the war an independent nation.

Yes and are the union generals still stupid

 

[Gentleman Johnny]

Yes and are the union generals still stupid

I mean, they weren't that stupid. McClellan was an excellent organizer. It's said that he built the army that won the war. Burnside was terrible and had no business leading an army. Hooker wasn't that bad, he just was overconfident and got unlucky. Western Union generals were far from stupid.

 

[Count]

I mean, they weren't that stupid. McClellan was an excellent organizer. It's said that he built the army that won the war. Burnside was terrible and had no business leading an army. Hooker wasn't that bad, he just was overconfident and got unlucky. Western Union generals were far from stupid.

Of course, even with all the new states joining the Confederacy the author may find it necessary to keep them on for longer or perhaps have them lose a major battle to drive the North further into radicalism and prolong the Confederate States’ lifespan

 

[Gentleman Johnny]

Of course, even with all the new states joining the Confederacy the author may find it necessary to keep them on for longer or perhaps have them lose a major battle to drive the North further into radicalism and prolong the Confederate States’ lifespan

I still disagree with the premise that the CSA is doomed to defeat. Imo, they have a good shot with the extra states they'll have. Plus some OTL southern unionists going confederate will help.

 

[Arnold d.c]

Yes and are the union generals still stupid

To say all Union generals are stupid is nothing but an exaggeration spouted out by Lost Causers to uplift the Southern ability to fight. That assessment completely ignores how the Union armies frankly whipped their opponents and seized thousands of square miles in the Western and Trans-Mississippi theater. The only reason why Virginia took so long to fall was the very limited choice of invasion routes. Just three in fact. One leads away from Richmond and is unreliable (the Orange & Alexandria Railroad), another is good but leads to Fredericksburg (Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad) and the last one is prone to getting bottle-necked (the Peninsula route).

 

[Nyvis]

I still disagree with the premise that the CSA is doomed to defeat. Imo, they have a good shot with the extra states they'll have. Plus some OTL southern unionists going confederate will help.

Industry is still a critical issue. And their economy is reliant on exports of cash crops, something the unions should be able to build a navy to disrupt. They're also sitting on a population of slaves the North can push to revolt.

The CSA could win if they have a lot of luck and the North makes repeated bungles. But the longer the war lasts, the worse their situation becomes.

 

[Wolttaire]

Of course, even with all the new states joining the Confederacy the author may find it necessary to keep them on for longer or perhaps have them lose a major battle to drive the North further into radicalism and prolong the Confederate States’ lifespan

recognition from other countries could prolong it to or no effective blockade of the south

 

[Wolttaire]

To say all Union generals are stupid is nothing but an exaggeration spouted out by Lost Causers to uplift the Southern ability to fight. That assessment completely ignores how the Union armies frankly whipped their opponents and seized thousands of square miles in the Western and Trans-Mississippi theater. The only reason why Virginia took so long to fall was the very limited choice of invasion routes. Just three in fact. One leads away from Richmond and is unreliable (the Orange & Alexandria Railroad), another is good but leads to Fredericksburg (Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad) and the last one is prone to getting bottle-necked (the Peninsula route).

Also I meant in comparison to generals like lee

 

[Count]

I still disagree with the premise that the CSA is doomed to defeat. Imo, they have a good shot with the extra states they'll have. Plus some OTL southern unionists going confederate will help.

The North has superior economic power and will grow stronger with time as the deadwood is burnt out and the army modernised while the Confederacy will grow weaker as their only real military advantage is a handful of excellent generals who can and will be cut down one by one until the Confederacy is made to realise one essential truth: Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro
EDIT: That is to say: Liberty is not well sold for all the gold in the world