ORIGINAL: redcoat
The first civil war ended as a stalemate - after Lee's victory at Gettysburg. The USA and CSA co-exist uneasily until the 1930s when an incoming US President - called Bush incidentally - decides to resurrect the long-dead ideal of the 'Union'. His ulterior motive is to bring the oil reserves of Texas until US control.
Is it really necessary to insert this smug nonsense about Bush into the scenario?
Anyway, there are already a couple of scenarios covering this concept (one set in 1940, the other in 1914);
http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenar ... .php?Id=70
http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenar ... php?Id=670
I haven't looked at the first one lately, but the latter's not bad. By all means design another such scenario if that's what you had in mind. But if you were just looking to play one, here they are.
Both the US and CSA have small standing armies - backed up by extensive militia reserves.
Given that these two countries clearly have some outstanding issues, in addition to an enormous frontier, surely the two would have large armies? Note that since militia forces weren't really able to stand up to regular troops in the 1860s, it's unlikely that they will be of any significance in the 1930s.
The US will receive many more reinforcements in the medium to long term - because of its larger industrial base.
I'll note here that the passage of time means that this advantage- already substantial in the 1860s- will be overwhelming by the time of this scenario. You'd have to suppose that, perhaps due to the increased militarisation of the Union, there has been much less immigration.
The resolve of the CSA to win the war is much greater than that of the US.
Yeah. The scenario lasts until the next Presidential election.
