|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Sept 16, 2022 13:13:58 GMT
WI select Union and Confederate states and forces ISOT from Jan 1863 to Jan 1823?
The limitation is that only those states (and people and forces on the land of those states) that were admitted parts of the Union in 1823 are ISOT back in time, whereas any state that was still in a territorial phase (like Florida or Minnesota or Arkansas), or still foreign territory (like Texas and California and Oregon) is not ISOT back and its downtime 1823 version remains in place. Likewise, any forces in position in non-ISOT-ed states or territory 'miss the ride' back in time.
That leaves the line up CSA states as follows: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana (Florida, Arkansas, Texas, and any controlled parts of Indian territory and Arizona/New Mexico territory are missing).
That leaves the Union as follows: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, occupied Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky (Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, California, Oregon, Nevada, all territories are missing).
How does the war proceed from there, with various missing states/territories and military units, and the surrounding world being switched to that of 1823?
How does the aftermath of the war go, including the re-settlement of downtime territories. Does the USA (or CSA, if it somehow survives) re-expand to the west coast by claiming its share of Oregon, re-annexing Texas, and going to war with Mexico again for California?
-------a 2nd variant on this scenario -
WI select Union and Confederate states and forces ISOT from Jan 1863 to Jan 1785?
The limitation is that only those states (and people and forces on the land of those states) that were admitted parts of the Union in 1785 are ISOT back in time, whereas any state that was still in a territorial phase (like Florida or Minnesota or Arkansas), or still foreign territory (like Texas and California and Oregon) is not ISOT back and its downtime 1885 version remains in place. Likewise, any forces in position in non-ISOT-ed states or territory 'miss the ride' back in time.
That leaves the line up CSA states as follows: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia
That leaves the Union as follows: New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, occupied Virginia.
How does the war proceed from there, with various missing states/territories and military units, and the surrounding world being switched to that of 1823?
How does the aftermath of the war go, including the re-settlement of downtime territories. Does the USA (or CSA, if it somehow survives) re-expand to the west coast by claiming Louisiana, and later its share of Oregon, re-annexing Texas, and going to war with Mexico again for California?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,031 
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 16, 2022 13:16:38 GMT
WI select Union and Confederate states and forces ISOT from Jan 1863 to Jan 1823? The limitation is that only those states (and people and forces on the land of those states) that were admitted parts of the Union in 1823 are ISOT back in time, whereas any state that was still in a territorial phase (like Florida or Minnesota or Arkansas), or still foreign territory (like Texas and California and Oregon) is not ISOT back and its downtime 1823 version remains in place. Likewise, any forces in position in non-ISOT-ed states or territory 'miss the ride' back in time. That leaves the line up CSA states as follows: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana (Florida, Arkansas, Texas, and any controlled parts of Indian territory and Arizona/New Mexico territory are missing). That leaves the Union as follows: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, occupied Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky (Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, California, Oregon, Nevada, all territories are missing). How does the war proceed from there, with various missing states/territories and military units, and the surrounding world being switched to that of 1823? How does the aftermath of the war go, including the re-settlement of downtime territories. Does the USA (or CSA, if it somehow survives) re-expand to the west coast by claiming its share of Oregon, re-annexing Texas, and going to war with Mexico again for California? -------a 2nd variant on this scenario - WI select Union and Confederate states and forces ISOT from Jan 1863 to Jan 1785? The limitation is that only those states (and people and forces on the land of those states) that were admitted parts of the Union in 1785 are ISOT back in time, whereas any state that was still in a territorial phase (like Florida or Minnesota or Arkansas), or still foreign territory (like Texas and California and Oregon) is not ISOT back and its downtime 1885 version remains in place. Likewise, any forces in position in non-ISOT-ed states or territory 'miss the ride' back in time. That leaves the line up CSA states as follows: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia That leaves the Union as follows: New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, occupied Virginia. How does the war proceed from there, with various missing states/territories and military units, and the surrounding world being switched to that of 1823? How does the aftermath of the war go, including the re-settlement of downtime territories. Does the USA (or CSA, if it somehow survives) re-expand to the west coast by claiming Louisiana, and later its share of Oregon, re-annexing Texas, and going to war with Mexico again for California? Well the 1823 US president is a Virginian, that is going to be interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Sept 16, 2022 14:22:39 GMT
WI select Union and Confederate states and forces ISOT from Jan 1863 to Jan 1823? The limitation is that only those states (and people and forces on the land of those states) that were admitted parts of the Union in 1823 are ISOT back in time, whereas any state that was still in a territorial phase (like Florida or Minnesota or Arkansas), or still foreign territory (like Texas and California and Oregon) is not ISOT back and its downtime 1823 version remains in place. Likewise, any forces in position in non-ISOT-ed states or territory 'miss the ride' back in time. That leaves the line up CSA states as follows: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana (Florida, Arkansas, Texas, and any controlled parts of Indian territory and Arizona/New Mexico territory are missing). That leaves the Union as follows: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, occupied Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky (Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, California, Oregon, Nevada, all territories are missing). How does the war proceed from there, with various missing states/territories and military units, and the surrounding world being switched to that of 1823? How does the aftermath of the war go, including the re-settlement of downtime territories. Does the USA (or CSA, if it somehow survives) re-expand to the west coast by claiming its share of Oregon, re-annexing Texas, and going to war with Mexico again for California? -------a 2nd variant on this scenario - WI select Union and Confederate states and forces ISOT from Jan 1863 to Jan 1785? The limitation is that only those states (and people and forces on the land of those states) that were admitted parts of the Union in 1785 are ISOT back in time, whereas any state that was still in a territorial phase (like Florida or Minnesota or Arkansas), or still foreign territory (like Texas and California and Oregon) is not ISOT back and its downtime 1885 version remains in place. Likewise, any forces in position in non-ISOT-ed states or territory 'miss the ride' back in time. That leaves the line up CSA states as follows: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia That leaves the Union as follows: New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, occupied Virginia. How does the war proceed from there, with various missing states/territories and military units, and the surrounding world being switched to that of 1823? How does the aftermath of the war go, including the re-settlement of downtime territories. Does the USA (or CSA, if it somehow survives) re-expand to the west coast by claiming Louisiana, and later its share of Oregon, re-annexing Texas, and going to war with Mexico again for California? Well the 1823 US president is a Virginian, that is going to be interesting. But he and the 1823 versions of DC and Virginia get overwritten by the 1863s. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,031
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 16, 2022 15:37:46 GMT
Well the 1823 US president is a Virginian, that is going to be interesting. But he and the 1823 versions of DC and Virginia get overwritten by the 1863s. So no 1823 leadership available, only Union generals/politicians of 1863 who might be in CSA territory. |
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Sept 16, 2022 17:13:40 GMT
But he and the 1823 versions of DC and Virginia get overwritten by the 1863s. So no 1823 leadership available, only Union generals/politicians of 1863 who might be in CSA territory. No 1823 leadership available, unless they were visiting a frontier . I think there would be obsolete US Army troops and posts (and independent tribes, settlers, tribes, trappers, mountain men) in places that were not states yet like Florida, Arkansas, Michigan, Wisconsin. Texas is the 1823 Mexican version of Texas, starting to see an influx of Anglo settlers. But, anything that was a state already in 1823, has its 1863 version ISOTed back, complete with all 1863 infrastructure, population, USA and/or CSA forces and leadership that happened to be there in 1863, and ships within 50 miles of the coast. So, Lincoln, Jeff Davis, Lee, Grant, Sherman, they are all there, unless somebody happens to have been on the Arkansas side [possibly Grant and/or Sherman] of the line on 1 Jan 1863 and disappears because of that. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Sept 17, 2022 13:50:31 GMT
So no 1823 leadership available, only Union generals/politicians of 1863 who might be in CSA territory. No 1823 leadership available, unless they were visiting a frontier . I think there would be obsolete US Army troops and posts (and independent tribes, settlers, tribes, trappers, mountain men) in places that were not states yet like Florida, Arkansas, Michigan, Wisconsin. Texas is the 1823 Mexican version of Texas, starting to see an influx of Anglo settlers. But, anything that was a state already in 1823, has its 1863 version ISOTed back, complete with all 1863 infrastructure, population, USA and/or CSA forces and leadership that happened to be there in 1863, and ships within 50 miles of the coast. So, Lincoln, Jeff Davis, Lee, Grant, Sherman, they are all there, unless somebody happens to have been on the Arkansas side [possibly Grant and/or Sherman] of the line on 1 Jan 1863 and disappears because of that.
Either way I would expect the north to win as it still has a considerable numerical edge over the south while both will be confused by the more backward world they find themselves in. Possibility that the south could seek to get allies by offering technology to other powers but even Britain in the 1823 scenario would be some way behind 1863 union so that would be a dangerous choice for them. especially since its 1863 rather than the start of the war so by this time the union is greatly tooled up and a lot more able to sustain the war by its own efforts without need for imports of weapons. [saltpetre might still be an issue however but shouldn't be a crucial one after a year or so.].
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Sept 19, 2022 2:19:18 GMT
For the 1823 - Loss of lands and the wealth and productivity of those lands is relatively worse for the USA than the CSA, but not by large margin.
The USA *still* remains by far the overpowering manufacturing power and food-producing power over the CSA. Certain imports are lost from the outside world, but the effects of lost arms imports should be even worse on the CSA, and no other country in the 1823 is capable of designing a capable blockade runner to fight the 1863 Union blockade, so the CSA just has the ones on hand within 50 miles to work with.
On the relative advantages and disadvantages of the USA and CSA in the 1863 to 1823 scenario, the Union war effort and Republican rule, now committed to the emancipation project as well, is on more perilous "political" ground because of the loss of several of the most Republican leaning and/or pro-Abolitionist states, like Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kansas, California, Oregon, and Nevada.
This means that the off-year Gubernatorial and state legislative elections of 1863, and the Presidential and Congressional elections (and state elections) of 1864, will all take place, with states much more potentially unfavorable to the Republicans - Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, having a greater relative weight in the Electoral College. That gives Democrats, whether 'Peace Democrats'/'Copperheads' or 'War Democrats' a better chance at winning power in the White House and Congress.
The Union will also not have the same ready stream of immigrant flows in place and ongoing that was part of augmenting its wartime labor force and armies.
The Union may still find ways to work around these problems. It could actively advertise and promote itself, its homesteading and job opportunities aggressively in Europe to drum up emigration from 1820s Europe to gain soldiers, workers, and farmers.
To alter the Electoral College for partisan and sectional advantage, the Republicans could also put on some crash settlement programs in the 'lost states' on US sovereign land around the Great Lakes and Midwest, and possibly even Oregon setting up some select towns, farms, and mines with thousands of settlers. Then they could shamelessly do rushed admissions of new/old states in the Union to keep orphaned Senators (and some Representatives) in Washington employed. After all, in OTL, Congress admitted Kansas, West Virginia, and Nevada during OTL's Civil War. New, 'faux' states admitted by such a shameless process would probably only have one Representative and 3 electoral votes, but the 2 Senators still pads the Electoral College vote, likely in favor of the Republicans.
I anticipate the Union still winning, and by 1865, 1866 latest.
Postwar, you have some interesting situations with reconstructing the United States. For one, with Texas not being part of the United States, tens or hundreds of thousands of hardcore Confederates, unwilling to live under Union government may decide to settle in nascent Anglo settlements of Texas with defeat of the CSA or in the final stages of the war.
Additionally, although not entirely lacking white settlement, Florida and Arkansas (including most of Oklahoma at this time) remained in its 1820s territorial stage. The 1820s version of Arkansas territory had predominantly local Amerindians in the east and plains Amerindians in the west, the Five Civilized tribes not having been exiled there by that time. Reconstruction era Union government could reserve the Florida and/or Arkansas territories as set-asides for Freedmen/Coloured settlement as opposed to predominantly white settlement in the rest of the western territories.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Sept 19, 2022 11:38:06 GMT
For the 1823 - Loss of lands and the wealth and productivity of those lands is relatively worse for the USA than the CSA, but not by large margin. The USA *still* remains by far the overpowering manufacturing power and food-producing power over the CSA. Certain imports are lost from the outside world, but the effects of lost arms imports should be even worse on the CSA, and no other country in the 1823 is capable of designing a capable blockade runner to fight the 1863 Union blockade, so the CSA just has the ones on hand within 50 miles to work with. On the relative advantages and disadvantages of the USA and CSA in the 1863 to 1823 scenario, the Union war effort and Republican rule, now committed to the emancipation project as well, is on more perilous "political" ground because of the loss of several of the most Republican leaning and/or pro-Abolitionist states, like Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kansas, California, Oregon, and Nevada. This means that the off-year Gubernatorial and state legislative elections of 1863, and the Presidential and Congressional elections (and state elections) of 1864, will all take place, with states much more potentially unfavorable to the Republicans - Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, having a greater relative weight in the Electoral College. That gives Democrats, whether 'Peace Democrats'/'Copperheads' or 'War Democrats' a better chance at winning power in the White House and Congress. The Union will also not have the same ready stream of immigrant flows in place and ongoing that was part of augmenting its wartime labor force and armies. The Union may still find ways to work around these problems. It could actively advertise and promote itself, its homesteading and job opportunities aggressively in Europe to drum up emigration from 1820s Europe to gain soldiers, workers, and farmers. To alter the Electoral College for partisan and sectional advantage, the Republicans could also put on some crash settlement programs in the 'lost states' on US sovereign land around the Great Lakes and Midwest, and possibly even Oregon setting up some select towns, farms, and mines with thousands of settlers. Then they could shamelessly do rushed admissions of new/old states in the Union to keep orphaned Senators (and some Representatives) in Washington employed. After all, in OTL, Congress admitted Kansas, West Virginia, and Nevada during OTL's Civil War. New, 'faux' states admitted by such a shameless process would probably only have one Representative and 3 electoral votes, but the 2 Senators still pads the Electoral College vote, likely in favor of the Republicans. I anticipate the Union still winning, and by 1865, 1866 latest. Postwar, you have some interesting situations with reconstructing the United States. For one, with Texas not being part of the United States, tens or hundreds of thousands of hardcore Confederates, unwilling to live under Union government may decide to settle in nascent Anglo settlements of Texas with defeat of the CSA or in the final stages of the war. Additionally, although not entirely lacking white settlement, Florida and Arkansas (including most of Oklahoma at this time) remained in its 1820s territorial stage. The 1820s version of Arkansas territory had predominantly local Amerindians in the east and plains Amerindians in the west, the Five Civilized tribes not having been exiled there by that time. Reconstruction era Union government could reserve the Florida and/or Arkansas territories as set-asides for Freedmen/Coloured settlement as opposed to predominantly white settlement in the rest of the western territories.
Some very interesting points there.
One other issue with the move to 1823, although it will be less important because other nations are a lot weaker is that slavery is a lot more accepted in 1823 than in 1863 internationally. Its still legal in the British empire for another decade. There is therefore more likely to be sympathy for the south but none really have the power to do much about this, not even Britain. Especially since its 1863 union rather than 1861 on which is a lot more dependent on foreign imports to get its war industry off the ground.
Texas is currently part of the new Mexican state and when Mexico 1st allowed Anglo settlers from the US it was under the condition that they both converted to Catholicism and also ended slavery which was against Mexican law. Of course OTL the settlers from the US did neither. Here its more difficult to get there and since migrants from the south would be weaker, fleeing a defeated revolution and also probably more clearly supporting slavery there might be more chance that Mexican doesn't welcome such. Doubly so when they heard what happened OTL. Possibly a move to Brazil is more likely although more difficult.
California is likely to be more threatened for Mexico in the short term as the up-timers will know about the gold there and the Mexican grip is even weaker now so expect a flow of would be miners fairly quickly as news spreads and the US, once its secured the south could seek to secure it along with other territory.
The idea of possibly Florida and much of Arkansas/Oklahoma becoming refuges for freed blacks might ease racial tensions in the south although there will still be whites deeply hostile to blacks having any power and security and also the blacks would have to content with the local inhabitants and IIRC in Florida the Seminoles could prove a substantial obstacle. While OTL they often provided a refuge to escaping slaves that different from being swamped and largely displaced by massive black settlers.
|
|
