After a string of victories encourages Lord Palmerston and Napoleon III of France to recognise the Independence of the CSA, the British declare war on the Union in order to break the blockade and free the southern cotton trade essential for England's booming cotton industry, what happens next?
Britain declares war on the Union in 1862....
- Thread starter Thundertaker
- Start date
Thande
Donor
It depends.
If you're Harry Harrison, the valiant and plucky Americans put aside their differences and the reunited USA and CSA whup the asses of the evil imperialist British.
If you're me, the valiant and plucky British together with their useless but well-situated French allies beat the crap out of the USA, ensure Confederate independence, and probably get back at least Oregon and maybe even northern New England.
If you're neutral, somewhere in between.
If you're Harry Harrison, the valiant and plucky Americans put aside their differences and the reunited USA and CSA whup the asses of the evil imperialist British.
If you're me, the valiant and plucky British together with their useless but well-situated French allies beat the crap out of the USA, ensure Confederate independence, and probably get back at least Oregon and maybe even northern New England.
If you're neutral, somewhere in between.
Why on earth would the confederates attack their newfound allies when the British compells the Union to fight a two-front war, and unltimately, forces the US to recognise confederate independence?
I find a problem here with tha fact of Britain allying with CSA because of the major reason of their breakaway: the end of slavery. Bu this time Britain was one of he biggest champions on the struggle against slavery.
If they wanted to end the blocade because of the South's cotton production, I think they would ally woth the North anf fight the CSA in order to get the war ended as fast as possible and, thus, endinf the blocade.
Also, Britain was aware of the North's industrial advantage over the South and they would not join a lost cause.
If they wanted to end the blocade because of the South's cotton production, I think they would ally woth the North anf fight the CSA in order to get the war ended as fast as possible and, thus, endinf the blocade.
Also, Britain was aware of the North's industrial advantage over the South and they would not join a lost cause.
Xen
Banned
Alot more has to change before the UK recognizes the CSA and declares war on the United States. First the south has to abandon slavery, I think toward the end of the war President Davis offered something to Europe they might have bitten off on had the south not already been all but defeated.
Second, a string of great southern victories will not make the UK jump on board in the war, France maybe. The UK had interest in both sides winning the war, but not really entering the war themselves. There is also no way the UK will join the South after Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862, it would make the UK look like they are rushing to support slavery. There is also the fact the public of Britain was very pro-Union, but that had a tendency to swing back and forth, after the Trent Affair it was pro-Confederacy, after the EP it was pro-Union where it remained throughout the war.
Thirdly, Britain was very well aware of the costs it would take to fight a war with the United States. Yes Britain had a huge Empire, but it didnt get one by blindly going to war for the hell of it. There were also parts of the Empire that weren't all that loyal and troops were needed to keep insurrection's down. Training an army just to fight in North America, then shipping them there will take some time, not to mention money. There was also no guarantee that Britain would win. The US had the advantage of playing at home, they could turn the war from an offensive war to a defensive one. America was so large, a blockade wouldnt be nearly as effective as the one on the south. The US industry was in its infancy, but still capable, cutting off the supply to the rest of the world could boost the US industry, and with the midwest the United States had plenty of agriculture.
There was also the potential of a Russo-American alliance, Tsar Alexander of Russia was a vocal supporter of the United States in the war, and was licking his lips at the thought of an alliance with the United States, especially against Britain. His main goal was he wanted Constantinople, but the biggest problem there was the British didnt want him to have it. With an alliance with the United States, Britain would have a hard time against the alliance. The United States could take Canada, and Russia could over run Eastern Europe. Britain was all too aware of this proposed alliance, and was none too happy about it, the mere thought bothered them, that was an extremly potent threat, so why would the UK want to give the United States a reason to be willing to accept the offer?
The only way the UK goes to war with the US during the war, is if the US provokes it.
Second, a string of great southern victories will not make the UK jump on board in the war, France maybe. The UK had interest in both sides winning the war, but not really entering the war themselves. There is also no way the UK will join the South after Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862, it would make the UK look like they are rushing to support slavery. There is also the fact the public of Britain was very pro-Union, but that had a tendency to swing back and forth, after the Trent Affair it was pro-Confederacy, after the EP it was pro-Union where it remained throughout the war.
Thirdly, Britain was very well aware of the costs it would take to fight a war with the United States. Yes Britain had a huge Empire, but it didnt get one by blindly going to war for the hell of it. There were also parts of the Empire that weren't all that loyal and troops were needed to keep insurrection's down. Training an army just to fight in North America, then shipping them there will take some time, not to mention money. There was also no guarantee that Britain would win. The US had the advantage of playing at home, they could turn the war from an offensive war to a defensive one. America was so large, a blockade wouldnt be nearly as effective as the one on the south. The US industry was in its infancy, but still capable, cutting off the supply to the rest of the world could boost the US industry, and with the midwest the United States had plenty of agriculture.
There was also the potential of a Russo-American alliance, Tsar Alexander of Russia was a vocal supporter of the United States in the war, and was licking his lips at the thought of an alliance with the United States, especially against Britain. His main goal was he wanted Constantinople, but the biggest problem there was the British didnt want him to have it. With an alliance with the United States, Britain would have a hard time against the alliance. The United States could take Canada, and Russia could over run Eastern Europe. Britain was all too aware of this proposed alliance, and was none too happy about it, the mere thought bothered them, that was an extremly potent threat, so why would the UK want to give the United States a reason to be willing to accept the offer?
The only way the UK goes to war with the US during the war, is if the US provokes it.
OK, assuming the Union provokes Palmerston into declaring war (and by all accounts he was all for it on several occasions). It would give the south the desperately needed supplies to continue the Confederate war effort, meanwhile, many Union troops have to be diverted to guard against the threat of invasion from Canada. The RN engages and destroys the Union Navy, bombards washington, and is able to launch raids on the Union coastline.
Result: CSA wins the war farily easily and the Union is forced to recognise Southern independence.
OR
The intervention of Britain strengthens the resolve of the Union public, people previously unenthusiastic about fighting a war compelling the South to remain in the Union join up in droves to fight off the hated former colonial rulers.
Result: South is compelled to rejoin the Union and Canada is annexed as part of the United States.......
Result: CSA wins the war farily easily and the Union is forced to recognise Southern independence.
OR
The intervention of Britain strengthens the resolve of the Union public, people previously unenthusiastic about fighting a war compelling the South to remain in the Union join up in droves to fight off the hated former colonial rulers.
Result: South is compelled to rejoin the Union and Canada is annexed as part of the United States.......
Xen
Banned
A more likely scenario, lets use the Trent Affair to have the British declare war, instead of giving an apology to London, Lincoln tells Britain to stick in its ear. An outraged Britain is pushed over the edge with the insult and war is declared. Britain sends a small force to Canada, and dispatches the Royal Navy to clear some southern ports from the blockade.
The south is now free to trade with Europe, importing Spanish and French weapons for really cheap, and begins to make trouble up north. The Union is not idle during this period and makes a desperate plunge toward Canada, possibly sacking Toronto.
How the war goes from here is up in the air, British involvement doesnt guarantee a victory for the south. So it is up to the writer of an alternate history how it goes. The Union loses a bitter war, and is filled with a desire for revenge, or they win the war re-annexing the south and annexing Canada, making the US even more egotistical than it is today.
The south is now free to trade with Europe, importing Spanish and French weapons for really cheap, and begins to make trouble up north. The Union is not idle during this period and makes a desperate plunge toward Canada, possibly sacking Toronto.
How the war goes from here is up in the air, British involvement doesnt guarantee a victory for the south. So it is up to the writer of an alternate history how it goes. The Union loses a bitter war, and is filled with a desire for revenge, or they win the war re-annexing the south and annexing Canada, making the US even more egotistical than it is today.
An off the wall possibility
British supplies combined with Rebel expertise and men would be a difficult nut to crack--just the supplies would be a major help to the south. A "Britian first" strategy might well be folowed in the nort--convince Britian to get out, then deral with the South.
To that end, move troops north, maintaining sufficient forces to defend what you've got down south, and strike north, seizing Canada.
One possibel result is a peace on the basis of actual holdings, leaving Quebec east in American hands, and the CSA independent.
The CSA might even make a seperate peace with the USA, once it becomes apparent to the US that conquering the South isn't possible, and a vengeful US takes all of Canada.
The days of the US staying completely out of European affairs would be over, as the US always has to keep one eye on Britain.
By the time Europe is throughly enmeshed in the Alliance system of the early 1900's, the US position could be almost opposite of what it was in 1914:
America stays neutral, but in favor of whoever is opposed to Britian.
Not, in my mind, the most probable outcome, but a possibility.
British supplies combined with Rebel expertise and men would be a difficult nut to crack--just the supplies would be a major help to the south. A "Britian first" strategy might well be folowed in the nort--convince Britian to get out, then deral with the South.
To that end, move troops north, maintaining sufficient forces to defend what you've got down south, and strike north, seizing Canada.
One possibel result is a peace on the basis of actual holdings, leaving Quebec east in American hands, and the CSA independent.
The CSA might even make a seperate peace with the USA, once it becomes apparent to the US that conquering the South isn't possible, and a vengeful US takes all of Canada.
The days of the US staying completely out of European affairs would be over, as the US always has to keep one eye on Britain.
By the time Europe is throughly enmeshed in the Alliance system of the early 1900's, the US position could be almost opposite of what it was in 1914:
America stays neutral, but in favor of whoever is opposed to Britian.
Not, in my mind, the most probable outcome, but a possibility.
Okay some random thoughts and questions.
With 19th century transport methods war again Britain in Canada and the CSA are in effect two seperate wars being fought a the same time.
1) How will the union population react to the war expanding? Will it be come-on-then-if-you-think-your-hard-enough or oh ****.
2) Can the union go on the offensive on two fronts and win?
3) Can the union go on the offensive on one front, stay defense on the other and win?
4) Is there anyone they can bring on side at an acceptable price.
5) At what point is each country going to be willing to call it a day?
With 19th century transport methods war again Britain in Canada and the CSA are in effect two seperate wars being fought a the same time.
1) How will the union population react to the war expanding? Will it be come-on-then-if-you-think-your-hard-enough or oh ****.
2) Can the union go on the offensive on two fronts and win?
3) Can the union go on the offensive on one front, stay defense on the other and win?
4) Is there anyone they can bring on side at an acceptable price.
5) At what point is each country going to be willing to call it a day?
Thande
Donor
Thundertaker: I was kind of pulling your leg. Harry Harrison wrote the 'Stars and Stripes' books, regularly nominated for the 'stupidest alternate history ever' award, in which exactly the situation I described happens.
I think Aktarian's scenario is most likely. It'd be hard for Britain to enter the war and keep Canada, because of having to ship a huge army there to defend it. However France, with nothing to lose, might start a shooting war.
BTW, while Britain was abolitionist, that doesn't mean it won't support the CSA. Even without the whole was-the-ACW-about-slavery-or-not debate, there's this little thing called realpolitick. Just as in Xen's example of a Russo-USA alliance: an oppressive autocratic empire ruling over downtrodden serfs (or as near as makes no difference) allied with what sees itself as a shining beacon of freedom, democracy, and emancipatory-ness-tion.
I think Aktarian's scenario is most likely. It'd be hard for Britain to enter the war and keep Canada, because of having to ship a huge army there to defend it. However France, with nothing to lose, might start a shooting war.
BTW, while Britain was abolitionist, that doesn't mean it won't support the CSA. Even without the whole was-the-ACW-about-slavery-or-not debate, there's this little thing called realpolitick. Just as in Xen's example of a Russo-USA alliance: an oppressive autocratic empire ruling over downtrodden serfs (or as near as makes no difference) allied with what sees itself as a shining beacon of freedom, democracy, and emancipatory-ness-tion.
Thande said:
Not to mention that the UK recognized another country that allowed slavery at the time: the US.
An even better comparison (while also very obvious and often-made) is the Franco-American alliance during the ARW. France, IIRC, did not yet even have a constitution at this point, but the French king was willing to support a democratic nation against a rival empire, just to weaken its enemy. That is, of course, not to say that the UK necessarily viewed the US as a rival during the 19th century, but if the CSA won, then the Monroe doctrine would be -- more or less -- tossed in the garbage, giving Britain more of a free-reign in the Western Hemisphere. Heck, maybe they'd even formally announce what most people already knew was the case: Argentina as a part of the Empire.
And it was primarily the working class in the UK that was staunchly abolitionist. The wealthier people -- Disraeli, Victoria, etc. -- while they opposed slavery didn't really care about it that much. That's what Newt Gingrich said at a book signing for GETTYSBURG, at least.
ACW Down Under
In this scenario, could the ACW have spread to Australia as well ? Could the US Pacific Fleet have potentially fought the RN and Confederate raiders like the ALABAMA off Sydney ? Could also opposing goups of pro-Union and pro-Confederate American settlers in Australia, tog with their local supporters, have taken up arms against each other ?
In this scenario, could the ACW have spread to Australia as well ? Could the US Pacific Fleet have potentially fought the RN and Confederate raiders like the ALABAMA off Sydney ? Could also opposing goups of pro-Union and pro-Confederate American settlers in Australia, tog with their local supporters, have taken up arms against each other ?
The long-term for Great Britain, had London declared war, would have been nothing short of catastrophic. Just consider the effect on WWI with a hostile USA which determined not to enter the war.
No US entry on the Allied side.
Any CSA support is more than offset by the CSA/Canadian/British need to keep sufficient forces around to avoid offering the US an absolute cakewalk of a war.
No US sales to the allies. No financial aid to the allies.
To put it bluntly, the best possible situation would be a disastrous war of exhaustion ending with a stalemate on the Western Front and Germany ruling Eastern Europe.
No US entry on the Allied side.
Any CSA support is more than offset by the CSA/Canadian/British need to keep sufficient forces around to avoid offering the US an absolute cakewalk of a war.
No US sales to the allies. No financial aid to the allies.
To put it bluntly, the best possible situation would be a disastrous war of exhaustion ending with a stalemate on the Western Front and Germany ruling Eastern Europe.
Thande
Donor
The clash between the USN and the RN would be interesting. The US had one ironclad, the Monitor, but that was restricted to near-coast operations IIRC. The British had two, HMS Warrior and the other one whose name I can't remember. So I think the RN would tear the USN to shreds in the Atlantic, where it matters (destroying the blockade of the CSA), but things would be more even in the Pacific where the British probably wouldn't have one of their ironclads.
I doubt it. After all, while they support slavery and state's rights, they are AMERICANS, and still think of themselves as such, with all that entails. If the Confederacy goes into hock with Britain over the war, then they might try to be more "friendly" to get out of that debt.Thande said:
Thande said:
HMS Prince of Wales?
I have heard of Harry Harrison's books. I haven't read them though. What ludicrously implausible scenarios does he conjure up?
Xen
Banned
Melvin Loh said:
Not likely! Most of the American Pacific Fleet was moved to blockade duty in the east. United States ports were protected by Russian ships, and yes they had orders to fire on any ship that was hostile. Runs on American ports arent likely as that could draw Russia in on the war, as much of a rival as the US was, they were much more favorable than the Ruskies.