Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Lincoln probably could’ve done a bit better, he could’ve maybe sacked McClellan earlier, but he is rightfully considered a great wartime leader. There were also political constraints; he couldn’t start off hard war/total war immediately without destabilizing the north and possibly scaring the hoes/border states. There isn’t much more he could’ve done better, and a lot he could’ve done worse.
If John C Fremont was president, you probably would’ve had a souther victory through sheer extremism and heavy handedness and arrogance. I think a replacement level northern republican leader would’ve won. They likely would’ve gotten a worse deal though. Maybe a Brazil style gradual emancipation and/or unchallenged Black Codes in the South.
The Southern case is interesting, though. The North materially can beat them; the only way the South gets independence is if the North decides the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. If they can keep the war reasonably competitive by November of 1864 such that there is years more combat in front of the north, I think they got a shot at a very desfavorable for them peace. It would involve things like the union controlling the Mississippi River and key Southern forts, but they would still get legal independence.
Of course with the cotton crash of the 1870s, there goes their economy. Welp. They are probably reabsorbed by the 1880s, with most Southerners considering it a terrible failure.
More options
Context Copy link