The Union wins the First Battle of Bull Run in 1861 at the start of the American Civil War

Circle of Willis

Well-known member
The more realistic but lame answer is 'McDowell's army is too disorganized to effectively pursue the defeated Confederates and capitalize on their big win, so nothing actually changes in the long term'.

Assuming that is not the case and the Union troops chase their foes down, take Richmond and cause an early collapse of the CSA, ironically slavery would probably get to survive a bit longer. Lincoln obviously hasn't issued the Emancipation Proclamation yet and there would be no impetus for an early Thirteenth Amendment: as far as everyone involved, including Northerners, this war had yet to evolve into an anti-slavery crusade and was instead strictly about preserving the Union, which has now been accomplished in a trivially short timeframe. The war ending in a matter of weeks or months also ensures the Northern public isn't nearly bitter enough to vote for Radical Republicans & harshly punish the South en masse.

Probably you'd see a very short and reconciliatory Reconstruction period, the Republicans making good on their campaign promises to shut down slavery's expansion (keeping in mind that Lincoln didn't even run on an abolitionist platform in 1860), and the Peculiar Institution being abolished by Lincoln's successor in the 1870s or so. The slavocratic planter types might grouse about it, but they've just been taught a sharp lesson about why the 'Yankee mudsills' aren't some meek and easily defeated Saxons to their Normans and will have little choice but to accept abolition when it comes, especially as Britain & France will be even less likely to help out a second Confederate uprising in the 1870s than they were the first in 1861.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
The more realistic but lame answer is 'McDowell's army is too disorganized to effectively pursue the defeated Confederates and capitalize on their big win, so nothing actually changes in the long term'.

Assuming that is not the case and the Union troops chase their foes down, take Richmond and cause an early collapse of the CSA, ironically slavery would probably get to survive a bit longer. Lincoln obviously hasn't issued the Emancipation Proclamation yet and there would be no impetus for an early Thirteenth Amendment: as far as everyone involved, including Northerners, this war had yet to evolve into an anti-slavery crusade and was instead strictly about preserving the Union, which has now been accomplished in a trivially short timeframe. The war ending in a matter of weeks or months also ensures the Northern public isn't nearly bitter enough to vote for Radical Republicans & harshly punish the South en masse.

Probably you'd see a very short and reconciliatory Reconstruction period, the Republicans making good on their campaign promises to shut down slavery's expansion (keeping in mind that Lincoln didn't even run on an abolitionist platform in 1860), and the Peculiar Institution being abolished by Lincoln's successor in the 1870s or so. The slavocratic planter types might grouse about it, but they've just been taught a sharp lesson about why the 'Yankee mudsills' aren't some meek and easily defeated Saxons to their Normans and will have little choice but to accept abolition when it comes, especially as Britain & France will be even less likely to help out a second Confederate uprising in the 1870s than they were the first in 1861.

How exactly would slavery be abolished? Through the Guarantee Clause? Because I don't know if any other provision in the US Constitution would actually give the US Congress the power to abolish slavery nationwide. And a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery nationwide won't pass for a very long time if it's not made a precondition for Southern readmittance into the Union.
 

Circle of Willis

Well-known member
How exactly would slavery be abolished? Through the Guarantee Clause? Because I don't know if any other provision in the US Constitution would actually give the US Congress the power to abolish slavery nationwide. And a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery nationwide won't pass for a very long time if it's not made a precondition for Southern readmittance into the Union.
Sure, the Republicans will be happy to just go for whatever works, especially as slavery will only become an even bigger embarrassment as time goes on. There's also Anglo-French diplomatic & economic pressure to consider, not dissimilar to how the British pushed Brazil to restrict and eventually abolish slavery. With the ACW not being a years-long industrialized meatgrinder that ends up producing a 2 million strong US Army with modern weaponry, but rather a conflict that's ended in a single early stroke, they won't really have any reason to fear American military might.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Sure, the Republicans will be happy to just go for whatever works, especially as slavery will only become an even bigger embarrassment as time goes on. There's also Anglo-French diplomatic & economic pressure to consider, not dissimilar to how the British pushed Brazil to restrict and eventually abolish slavery. With the ACW not being a years-long industrialized meatgrinder that ends up producing a 2 million strong US Army with modern weaponry, but rather a conflict that's ended in a single early stroke, they won't really have any reason to fear American military might.

That makes sense. Of course, Republicans would also have to significantly change the composition of the US Supreme Court so that it won't strike down any such statutory emancipation scheme on a national level. Else, we get to see a repeat of Dred Scott and extremely massive Northern outrage.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
What if the Union wins the First Battle of Bull Run in 1861 at the start of the American Civil War? What would the effects of this have been? Just how much shorter would the ACW have been and how exactly would this have affected the post-war settlement and aftermath?

Any thoughts on this, @History Learner @Skallagrim @Circle of Willis?

For reference:

Firstly, despite what Wikipedia insists, the proper name of the battle is the First Battle of Manassas. That's literally what everyone who has real weight on the matter calls it, from the name of the actual historical site under US Government maintenance to the traditional naming convention of battles in the US Civil War, to the local and state governments that are involved with the battlefield.

I know, I grew up in Manassas. Ever single sign, every historical marker, the name on the Federal Park call it "Manassas National Battlefield Park" and refer to the battles as First and Second Manassas.

This fucking insistence by Wikipedia to call it "Bull Run" and their claim that this is the "more common name" (when it actually isn't by their own standards and the one time it appeared so was due to purposeful search manipulation on the clique's part) is one of the most obvious examples of Wikipedia's weaponized rule system and capture by cliques over being a site run honestly under its supposed ideals.

. . .

. . .

. . .

Sorry, that's been a pet peeve of mine with Wikipedia going on 20 years now and one of the major reasons I refuse to ever give them money or even take them seriously.

That said, a Union victory at First Manassas would be hard to follow up. Even assuming the Union's army managed to be organized, marching from Manassas to Richmond in time to capture it and the Confederate government is unlikely. Manassas is merely 30 miles from Washington DC, while it's close to 100 miles from Richmond. Further there's significant rivers between Manassas and Richmond, most importantly the Rappahannock River and the city of Fredericksburg, which historically served as a major hurdle on any advance towards Richmond, and is about at the halfway point between Manassas and Richmond.

So a more likely scenario on a Union victory at First Manassas would be a Confederate retreat and likely rally at Fredericksburg, where they likely would be able to stop the advance with more fresh troops and greater urgency.

This actually ends up not derailing the Civil War as much as you might think, as the northern Virginia counties of Prince William, Fairfax, Arlington, and Alexandria were under Union occupation for most of the Civil War anyway, as the Confederacy actually put their main defensive lines not at the Potomac River, but farther south, leaving much of northern Virginia under occupation while allowing Confederate Partisans, such as Mosby, free reign to disrupt as much as they could in the region. This just turns that timetable up a little bit.

The other possibility is that a Confederate loss at Manassas might actually speed up when Lee takes over the Army of Northern Virginia. As it originally stood, he was not appointed overall commander until 1862 as the early victories by the Confederacy at Manassas led them to believe the Union wasn't as much of a threat and enabled Gen. Joseph Johnston to maintain his position. It wasn't until the Peninsula Campaign and Johnston's continued losses to McClellan where McClellan managed to practically get to Richmond as well as Johnston getting injured that Lee was given command and proceeded to push McClellan off the peninsula in the Seven Days Battles and then turned north and Pope all the way back to DC at Second Manassas.

The logistics to turn a Union victory at First Manassas to an early end of the Civil War I just don't see being in the cards. There's to much distance between Manassas and Richmond, with to many good locations for the Confederates to rally and hold them off.
 

Circle of Willis

Well-known member
BTW, @Circle of Willis, what do you think was the best realistic chance for the Union to win an early victory in the ACW? Was it during this campaign?

Well it depends on how much earlier you want the Union victory to be. I don't think McClellan had the character to capitalize on a resounding victory at Antietam - man was far too cautious and timid in command IMO. Maybe if Hooker's strategy worked to the fullest at Chancellorsville, but my favorite POD for an early Union victory (though not much earlier than IOTL) is the Battle of the Crater proceeding as initially planned, with the properly trained and instructed USCT (instead of completely unprepared white troops led by an uncaring drunkard) being used to attack around & through the breach in the Confederate lines while they're still disordered.

Not only would that end the war early, but having black troops play such a prominent role in the decisive engagement of the war (it could only be made better if they were the ones to capture Lee or another prominent CS general) will hopefully have quite an effect on the post-war racial situation.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Well it depends on how much earlier you want the Union victory to be. I don't think McClellan had the character to capitalize on a resounding victory at Antietam - man was far too cautious and timid in command IMO. Maybe if Hooker's strategy worked to the fullest at Chancellorsville, but my favorite POD for an early Union victory (though not much earlier than IOTL) is the Battle of the Crater proceeding as initially planned, with the properly trained and instructed USCT (instead of completely unprepared white troops led by an uncaring drunkard) being used to attack around & through the breach in the Confederate lines while they're still disordered.

Not only would that end the war early, but having black troops play such a prominent role in the decisive engagement of the war (it could only be made better if they were the ones to capture Lee or another prominent CS general) will hopefully have quite an effect on the post-war racial situation.

Very interesting! Would Union success at the Battle of the Crater have prevented the situation in Virginia from descending into trench warfare? Please forgive me if this is a stupid question.

Also, while this doesn't directly pertain to quickly ending the war, this can still accelerate it--specifically the question of whether it was possible to do something akin to Sherman's March to the Sea much earlier?


Basically, do this march much earlier and then try attacking the Confederate forces in Virginia in the rear from/through the Carolinas in order to get around the trench warfare in Virginia.
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
Very interesting! Would Union success at the Battle of the Crater have prevented the situation in Virginia from descending into trench warfare? Please forgive me if this is a stupid question.
My knowledge of this topic is shallower than some others here, but as I understand it the Battle of the Crater only happened because things had already descended into trench warfare; this was a gambit to end it favorably by a massive breakthrough attack by utterly destroying a whole section of the defensive line. Basically, "what if you could get the effect of an intense artillery barrage (and then some) instantaneously in a sneak attack?"

It would certainly have been a tremendous breakthrough if not for the incredible fumbling of the plan's execution. I imagine, in my ignorance of the details, that Petersburg would have fallen as a result. How long between then and the fall of Richmond, I cannot say.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
My knowledge of this topic is shallower than some others here, but as I understand it the Battle of the Crater only happened because things had already descended into trench warfare; this was a gambit to end it favorably by a massive breakthrough attack by utterly destroying a whole section of the defensive line. Basically, "what if you could get the effect of an intense artillery barrage (and then some) instantaneously in a sneak attack?"

It would certainly have been a tremendous breakthrough if not for the incredible fumbling of the plan's execution. I imagine, in my ignorance of the details, that Petersburg would have fallen as a result. How long between then and the fall of Richmond, I cannot say.
You are correct in The Battle of the Crater taking place after the fighting around Richmond-Petersburg became a sneak preview of WWI's Western Front.

It was an attempt by the Army of the Potomac to blow a hole in Lee's trenchline by placing a very large underground mine directly under it by way of tunnels, setting off said mine, and exploiting the resulting gap and confusion. The plan worked perfectly ... right up unti the mine went "BOOM!"

Properly exploited: Petersburg probably would have fallen and Richmond would have been evacuated.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
You are correct in The Battle of the Crater taking place after the fighting around Richmond-Petersburg became a sneak preview of WWI's Western Front.

It was an attempt by the Army of the Potomac to blow a hole in Lee's trenchline by placing a very large underground mine directly under it by way of tunnels, setting off said mine, and exploiting the resulting gap and confusion. The plan worked perfectly ... right up unti the mine went "BOOM!"

Properly exploited: Petersburg probably would have fallen and Richmond would have been evacuated.

Placing a mine beneath trenches sort of sounds like a war crime, at least by present-day standards--no?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top