Civil War outcome...

sculptingman

Ad Honorem
Oct 2009
3,656
San Diego
If French support makes it so that the war is still being fought by 1866, I wonder if the Chassepot rifle could be supplied to the CSA in any substantial numbers? The next question would be is if that would be any kind of significant help?
No.

Rifles did not win the war. Money, productivity, and men won the war.
The crappy American tanks of WWII bested the amazing tanks of the nazi's Because no matter how many of our crappy tanks the panzers took out- we still have even MORE tanks on the front the very next day.
Modern war is not decided by weapons.

Its Potlatch. Its always a contest of economies and populations. Whoever has the greater ability, and WILL, to throw away materiel and men and still keep fighting ALWAYS wins.
Napoleon was doomed- because the alliances against him- combined- had the material wealth to just keep coming at him until attrition left him unable to contest further.

The North had four times the population- with ten times the industrial wealth- Shelby Foote famously wrote that the North fought the war with one hand behind its back. That at no time did the costs of the War significantly impact the economy or population of the North. As long as they had the WILL to hold the union together- they had the power to hold the union together.

No fancy rifle could have changed that equation.

War is not heroism. Its not even tactics. You can lose every battle and still win a war.

War is profligacy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Menshevik and Zip

Zip

Jan 2018
577
Comancheria
If French support makes it so that the war is still being fought by 1866, I wonder if the Chassepot rifle could be supplied to the CSA in any substantial numbers? The next question would be is if that would be any kind of significant help?
In 1866 the United States had a center fire metal cartridge .50 breech loading rifle developed that was converted from existing Springfield muzzle loading rifles. Though the Chassepot was a superior rifle to the Dreyse needle gun it was inferior to the center fire Allin Springfield.

Not to mention the United States ramping up production of the Henry and Spencer repeating rifles already in use. In 1866 an improved Henry with a better magazine and loading gate was introduced as the Winchester Model 1866.

A party of the 7th Illinois infantry, note the Henry repeating rifles (and the 15th Corps badges worn).

37FD023F-F198-4AF6-8841-37E702E26DA9.jpeg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Fiver and Menshevik

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,568
Las Vegas, NV USA
Early on (1861-2) Palmerston considered breaking the Union Blockade and even blockading the upper east coast. Until the Battle of Antietam (1862) it looked like the South would win. The British economy was hurt by the loss of Southern cotton due to the US blockade of Southern ports. I believe this was quite feasible within those time points.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Menshevik

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
9,355
here
Early on (1861-2) Palmerston considered breaking the Union Blockade and even blockading the upper east coast. Until the Battle of Antietam (1862) it looked like the South would win. The British economy was hurt by the loss of Southern cotton due to the US blockade of Southern ports. I believe this was quite feasible within those time points.
What are your thoughts on the Trent Affair? Could it have led to actual war/hostilities between the US and Britain?
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,568
Las Vegas, NV USA
What are your thoughts on the Trent Affair? Could it have led to actual war/hostilities between the US and Britain?
The British Navy was the largest in the world. The only thing holding Palmerston back was British public opinion. The Trent Affiar's effect played into his hands. If the diplomacy went wrong there was the possibility Britain would act. The initial British draft was couched in harsh language. Victoria, who had to sign it, didn't like it. Despite his illness, she showed it to Prince Albert who was shocked by its tone. He struggled to get the right diplomatic tone without appearing to back down. The Confederate agents had to be returned to British ships. It worked. The US agreed to return the agents and said the seizure was made by the US officer on the scene and not necessarily US policy, but there was no formal apology as requested.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Fiver
May 2019
202
Salt Lake City, Utah
The Union would have defeated a South+France alliance. Throw in the UK on the side of the South, and it is a whole new war.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,568
Las Vegas, NV USA
The Union would have defeated a South+France alliance. Throw in the UK on the side of the South, and it is a whole new war.
.

The CSA might have survived but would be beholden to Britain and France and a French Empire in Mexico might not have lasted. The US was too big to conquer . Palmerston had as many as 30,000 British troops in Canada at one point but they were defensive. The US had at least 600,000 battle tested men at the end the war which is why the French abandoned Mexico.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Fiver

Fiver

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,776
South likely gains independence because the French have a route to support them through Mexico. Remember for the French to have gotten involved in the first place it would meant things were going very badly for us in the first place.
The Confederacy was already getting supplies through northern Mexico thanks to Santiago Vidaurri, governor of Nuevo Leon and Coahuila, being sympathetic to the Confederacy. However, the Union gained full control of the Mississippi by July of 1863, so any supplies coming though Mexico would only be able to support the TransMississippi of the Confederacy. If the French were willing to commit troops, then Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana might consider joining French Mexico.
 

Fiver

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,776
Do you think that Virginia would have fallen much sooner had Lee remained in the Union Army?
I'd expect Union command to send Lee out west so he would not have to fight fellow Virginians. The Virginia theater of the war would continue much like OTL, but without Lee taking command of the Army of Northern Virginia in June of 1862, McCellan would be able to put Richmond under siege. Since McClellan was notably less aggressive than any other commander of the Army of the Potomac, I'd expect the Confederate capitol to fall in summer or fall of 1863.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist