You are the President on March 4, 1861...

[warpus]

Here's my course of action as president:

- Send a diplomat to Britain to slowly improve relations, resulting in an alliance right at the climax of the civil war
- Give up Fort Sumner, pull back, and amass the biggest army possible somewhere in Ohio
- When the army is giant enough, send in the whole thing and just blitzkrieg Virginia and Fort Sumner
- While all of this is going on special commando units secure Kentucky
- Head south-east with giant army from Confederate city to city, until all confederate armies are wiped out.
- Beef up army with more British & American reinforcements, as well as Native ones, and march to Mexico city.
- Intercept and prevent the French invasion of Mexico.
- Destroy Mexican army and annex Mexico.
- March all the way to Panama, build a canal, and then a big wall so that migrants would have a very tough time migrating north.
- Buy Alaska from Russia, gift it to Canada.

 

[Cutlass]

- Buy Alaska from Russia, gift it to Canada.

 

[Antilogic]

Before you get too angry, imagine the dream team of Rob Ford and Sarah Palin. Canada #1!

 

[Tee Kay]

- March all the way to Panama, build a canal, and then a big wall so that migrants would have a very tough time migrating north.

The Darien Gap is neigh impossible to cross anyway... or do you mean a wall at the Rio Grande?

 

[ummmm........]

In retrospect, I'm not totally convinced that losing Alabama and Mississippi would be THAT big of a loss? I'd obviously fight to retake the rest though.

Don't hate, just learn to play football

 

[Paul in Saudi]

Why is that significant?

I am a fan of time-travel alternative history stuff. I have fully worked-out plans in the event I am spat like a watermelon seed into 1935 for example. "Be prepared," that's my motto.

Congressional are of roughly equal populations and so make a better system of raising regiments than using states of unequal size. Signing them up for the duration of the war plus six weeks is critical. The Union Army was cursed by soldiers who enlisted for short, varying terms. We need to accept from the get-go that this will be a long war.

The idea of using some trick (or the laser-based weapons I always carrying when time-travelling) to defeat the Confederates quickly could be a nightmare scenario. The slave holders need to be beaten fair and square and they need to know they have been beaten fair and square. Even in our timeline, the legend of the Lost Cause has been a pain in the butt. Imagine if this was amplified.

 

[Daird]

Me, I'd declare the slaves of all men engaging in armed rebellion emancipated immediately to secure British noninterference at the least. What navy I have access to will be stationed off the Atlantic coast of Delaware (NOT the Chesapeke)in order to prepare a heavy naval drive up Virginia's rivers. Meanwhile, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York will have to bear the brunt of Army recruiting in order to get forces to the front quickly, with reinforcements coming from the other states to replace lost troops. St. Louis will be heavily fortified with the goal of turning it into a Confederate Vietnam, bleeding troops off from critical points elsewhere. The Army of Ohio, probably under Sherman, will blow straight through Kentucky in order to secure Tennessee and then take dead aim at Atlanta. The Army of the Atlantic under McDowell will beeline for Richmond, with the Navy coming up the James. The ultimate goal is to capture the major cities and then annihilate Beauregard and Johnston somewhere in the Carolinas, winning the war with massive industrial haymakers.

 

[Paul in Saudi]

The early capture of New Orleans went very well, and was quite important.

Richmond + Charlotte + Midgeville + Atlanta + all the other Southern cities < New Orleans

 

[Antilogic]

I am a fan of time-travel alternative history stuff. I have fully worked-out plans in the event I am spat like a watermelon seed into 1935 for example. "Be prepared," that's my motto.

Congressional are of roughly equal populations and so make a better system of raising regiments than using states of unequal size. Signing them up for the duration of the war plus six weeks is critical. The Union Army was cursed by soldiers who enlisted for short, varying terms. We need to accept from the get-go that this will be a long war.

The idea of using some trick (or the laser-based weapons I always carrying when time-travelling) to defeat the Confederates quickly could be a nightmare scenario. The slave holders need to be beaten fair and square and they need to know they have been beaten fair and square. Even in our timeline, the legend of the Lost Cause has been a pain in the butt. Imagine if this was amplified.

I get the restriction to technologies available at the time, but I'm still not sold on the Congressional district thing. Different districts will have different industries that have varying importance to the war effort and labor requirements. Taking an even cut everywhere doesn't seem to make much sense.

I do agree starting off with enlistments for the duration of the conflict would have been a good idea.

Me, I'd declare the slaves of all men engaging in armed rebellion emancipated immediately to secure British noninterference at the least. What navy I have access to will be stationed off the Atlantic coast of Delaware (NOT the Chesapeke)in order to prepare a heavy naval drive up Virginia's rivers. Meanwhile, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York will have to bear the brunt of Army recruiting in order to get forces to the front quickly, with reinforcements coming from the other states to replace lost troops. St. Louis will be heavily fortified with the goal of turning it into a Confederate Vietnam, bleeding troops off from critical points elsewhere. The Army of Ohio, probably under Sherman, will blow straight through Kentucky in order to secure Tennessee and then take dead aim at Atlanta. The Army of the Atlantic under McDowell will beeline for Richmond, with the Navy coming up the James. The ultimate goal is to capture the major cities and then annihilate Beauregard and Johnston somewhere in the Carolinas, winning the war with massive industrial haymakers.

Why would the Confederates be throwing so many troops at St. Louis?

What kind of army organization are you using? Would you be filling New York and Pennsylvania regiments with outside recruits?

Would you give an untested brigadier general control over an entire army?

The early capture of New Orleans went very well, and was quite important.

Richmond + Charlotte + Midgeville + Atlanta + all the other Southern cities < New Orleans

This is definitely true. Taking New Orleans in Spring 1862 was the best move the Union made.

 

[Core Imposter]

In retrospect, I'm not totally convinced that losing Alabama and Mississippi would be THAT big of a loss? I'd obviously fight to retake the rest though.

Somehow its a terrible thing to be dismissive of groups of people if you base it on race, gender or sexual orientation but its okay if its based on geography. Thankfully for you in 1961 both Alabama and Mississippi were populated entirely by white heterosexual males.

 

[Tee Kay]

Somehow its a terrible thing to be dismissive of groups of people if you base it on race, gender or sexual orientation but its okay if its based on geography. Thankfully for you in 1961 both Alabama and Mississippi were populated entirely by white heterosexual males.

Who says anything about race or gender? Mississippi is a toilet.

 

[Commodore]

Somehow its a terrible thing to be dismissive of groups of people if you base it on race, gender or sexual orientation but its okay if its based on geography. Thankfully for you in 1961 both Alabama and Mississippi were populated entirely by white heterosexual males.

downtown's comment had nothing to with the demographic makeup of those two states and everything to do with the fact that Alabama contributes very little to the US economy and Mississippi contributes almost nothing at all. Thus allowing them to remain independent would have not been that big of a loss to the US as a whole. In fact, the US might even be a little better off by letting them go.

But hey, don't let a little thing like reading comprehension get in the way of your agenda...

 

[bugwar]

Why would the Confederates be throwing so many troops at St. Louis?

Think of St. Louis as the Yankee version of New Orleans, definitely a major political, economic and logistical prize if the boys in Gray could capture it.
Hanging on to it though would be problematical for the South.

Would you give an untested brigadier general control over an entire army?

Of course he would. Hindsight is 20/20.

This is definitely true. Taking New Orleans in spring 1862 was the best move the Union made.

For what it is worth, I believe that capturing Forts Henry and Donelson was a prize of equal value to New Orleans. It drove the South from Kentucky, as well as a goodly portion of Tennessee.
The loss of Kentucky alone secured Illinois, Indiana and Ohio from becoming subject to Confederate invasions.

 

[downtown]

downtown's comment had nothing to with the demographic makeup of those two states and everything to do with the fact that Alabama contributes very little to the US economy and Mississippi contributes almost nothing at all. Thus allowing them to remain independent would have not been that big of a loss to the US as a whole. In fact, the US might even be a little better off by letting them go.

But hey, don't let a little thing like reading comprehension get in the way of your agenda...

Mostly, this. My 19th century US history isn't very good, so I'm more than open to being talked out of the importance of the area. Maybe those states were responsible for important military leaders or victories in the 20th century? I dunno! Losing those two states would have robbed the US of important cultural history (music and writers), but economically? Not really. Politically? Would civil rights have advanced quicker in the rest of the south without them?

I'd be somewhat interested in poking at that hypothetical a little more. I certainly wouldn't advocate kicking them out NOW.

 

[Antilogic]

Think of St. Louis as the Yankee version of New Orleans, definitely a major political, economic and logistical prize if the boys in Gray could capture it.
Hanging on to it though would be problematical for the South.

For several reasons (some listed below), I don't think St. Louis compares well to New Orleans; New York would be closer in terms of economic impact. However, I don't think there is a good reason for the Confederates to throw so much manpower at St. Louis. It's a political prize, sure, but they were chronically short of manpower and only needed to hold on to the territory they already had and achieve recognition to end the war.

Of course he would. Hindsight is 20/20.

Fair enough. I'd imagine the rest of the passed-over generals would be in a riot, though.

For what it is worth, I believe that capturing Forts Henry and Donelson was a prize of equal value to New Orleans. It drove the South from Kentucky, as well as a goodly portion of Tennessee.
The loss of Kentucky alone secured Illinois, Indiana and Ohio from becoming subject to Confederate invasions.

The Union river fleet was strong enough to prevent crossings, and there were enough unionists in Kentucky that the Confederates wouldn't be able to wrap up control of the state easily (at least, not quickly enough to prevent the Union from reacting). Compare that to what happened to the Confederate economic situation following the fall of New Orleans. Something like half of the South's cotton passed through that port in the years leading up to the Civil War. Its capture almost single-handedly collapsed the cotton futures market the Confederates were using to bolster their currency and was a terrible blow to the Confederate cotton-armaments trade they were conducting with British and French ports in the Caribbean.

I'm not saying Forts Henry and Donelson were not important, but I'd argue New Orleans was the most important siege in the war.

 

[Core Imposter]

I think Buchanan pretty much nailed it. I don't see what he could have done to prevent the War of Northern Aggression.

With Lincoln's victory, talk of secession and disunion reached a boiling point. Buchanan was forced to address it in his final message to Congress. Both factions awaited news of how Buchanan would deal with the question. In his message Buchanan denied the legal right of states to secede but held that the federal government legally could not prevent them. He placed the blame for the crisis solely on "intemperate interference of the Northern people with the question of slavery in the Southern States", and suggested that if they did not "repeal their unconstitutional and obnoxious enactments ... the injured States, after having first used all peaceful and constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government of the Union."

 

[Phrossack]

I think Buchanan pretty much nailed it. I don't see what he could have done to prevent the War of Northern Aggression.

Maybe he could have prevented the North from starting the war with an unprovoked attack on Fort Sumter.

...it was the North, wasn't it?

 

[Commodore]

I think Buchanan pretty much nailed it. I don't see what he could have done to prevent the War of Northern Aggression.

I always find it amusing when people call the American Civil War the "War of Northern Aggression" when the US government practically bent over backwards to first keep states from seceding and secondly to bring them back into the fold without bloodshed.

If anything, the war was started by Confederate aggression with their antagonistic rhetoric, physical assaults on members of Congress who disagreed with them, and ultimately firing upon federal soldiers who had shown absolutely no intent to initiate hostile action against the Confederates who illegally besieged Fort Sumter.

 

[Cutlass]

I always find it amusing when people call the American Civil War the "War of Northern Aggression"

Sore losers....

 

[Antilogic]

I think Buchanan pretty much nailed it.

He really nailed the presidential inaction angle. It's hard to imagine doing less.

I don't see what he could have done to prevent the War of Northern Aggression.

Besides being competent? Or securing federal arsenals?