WI: Britain goes to war with America during the ACW

[Erodoeht Tlevesoor]

What if Great Britain went to war with the USA over the Trent incident.

What i see that could happen is a draw, or slight America victory on land primarily due to American manpower. On sea it is more unclear if the US could produce enough ships to maintain the blockade in the face of the British navy.

[MarshalBraginsky]

A minor British victory over the US might be the end result. Despite the US having the bigger manpower, they are surrounded by the Confederacy, British Canada and maybe a hostile Second Mexican Empire.

[Anaxagoras]

The British win and the Confederacy becomes independent.

[Faeelin]

The Germans win and Britain becomes communist.

[Timmy811]

Good God man, the search function is crying!

[Shogun]

Originally Posted by Timmy811

Good God man, the search function is crying!

Because it sucks balls. I hate using it myself.

[usertron2020]

67th Tigers did a horribly contrived nationalist scenario on the Trent War. A work for CJ squads of Anti-Americans, NeoConfederates, and above all, Rule Britannia Forever Britons. It is as far as I know the largest TL on AH.com covering this subject. But be warned. It is NOT for the faint of heart. It does not fit the strictest definition possible for an ASB TL, but it is a 19th century version of the Unspeakable Seamammal. Not as much in terms of what was militarily possible, but in terms of politics, economics, and logistics. Imagine a TL where the greatest general America ever produced was George B. McClellan. Imagine one where it's worst politician ever was Abraham Lincoln. You get the idea.

OTL, Palmerston and Gladstone may have privately welcomed the idea of war with the Union. But their people (outside of the more foolish elements of the aristocracy) did not. As long as Lincoln was ready to quickly compromise, nothing was going to happen. Palmerston was not an absolute monarch, and despite a flash of jingoism, the country didn't want another war just five years after the Crimean War had ended.

EDIT: "An Unfortunate Event: The Trent War" is the title. Considering how the war turned out, I have to say the author must have meant the use of the word "Unfortunate" to be supremely ironic (if not baiting in nature). His nonstop flaming of Lincoln, his cabinet, his best (and LOYAL) generals, and the whole of the Union (not to mention the USA in general in other threads) showed quite clearly that he saw absolutely nothing "unfortunate" about the destruction of the United States of America.

[Tyr]

As Timmy says if you search there's a lot of examples out there.

In short- the US loses badly. We're talking something equivalent to a US-UK war today but in reverse.
IOTL the mere threat of war sent the American economy into a nose dive. Few actual shots need to be fired, Britain can take America down economically alone.

[Erodoeht Tlevesoor]

Originally Posted by usertron2020

67th Tigers did a horribly contrived nationalist scenario on the Trent War. A work for CJ squads of Anti-Americans, NeoConfederates, and above all, Rule Britannia Forever Britons. It is as far as I know the largest TL on AH.com covering this subject. But be warned. It is NOT for the faint of heart. It does not fit the strictest definition possible for an ASB TL, but it is a 19th century version of the Unspeakable Seamammal. Not as much in terms of what was militarily possible, but in terms of politics, economics, and logistics. Imagine a TL where the greatest general America ever produced was George B. McClellan. Imagine one where it's worst politician ever was Abraham Lincoln. You get the idea.

OTL, Palmerston and Gladstone may have privately welcomed the idea of war with the Union. But their people (outside of the more foolish elements of the aristocracy) did not. As long as Lincoln was ready to compromise, nothing was going to happen anyway. Palmerston was not an absolute monarch, and despite a flash of jingoism, the country didn't want another war just five years after the Crimean War ended.

I've seen some of 67th tigers posts here before i signed up. So im curious what exactly happens in that timeline.

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by Shogun

Because it sucks balls. I hate using it myself.

Yeah, I knew the gist of the title, and the author, and it still took me ten minutes to find it.

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by Erodoeht Tlevesoor

I've seen some of 67th tigers posts here before I signed up. So I'm curious what exactly happens in that timeline.

It's a HUGE thread. If you go to 67th Tigers' most recent posts on AH.com just before his banning, you'll get a good taste of the man's prejudices. How he avoided the banhammer for six years has been a constant mystery to me. Unless it was because his language always left him with a little wriggle room with the mods. Until the day he said... No. I'm not repeating that poison even as a negative example. Ian would get furious, and I couldn't honestly blame him for it.

Just go the the thread, and run down the final ten or twenty updates by the author. The Twilight Zone nature of the thread shows the difficulty with managing a website like this. How, as the administrator, can Ian transfer a thread to CHAT or ASB when the author is in his closing chapters, or at least has already put months and months of work into it?

I know of one particular thread which I shall not name in which the story was doing fine for the first two months of writing IRL. After that, in the next seven months it's gone completely off the rails into a work of supreme personal bias that defies all common sense. The only consolation is that the writer, who had one of the most popular TLs on AH.com, lost 40% of his readership in the process. However, when a writer is exercising his prejudices, he really doesn't care about the popularity of his works. After all, it's a free site.

[Darth_Kiryan]

Originally Posted by usertron2020

It's a HUGE thread. If you go to 67th Tigers' most recent posts on AH.com just before his banning,

He was Banned?

Where. WHEN?

And how did i miss this?

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by Tyr

As Timmy says if you search there's a lot of examples out there.

In short- the US loses badly. We're talking something equivalent to a US-UK war today but in reverse.(1)
IOTL the mere threat of war sent the American economy into a nose dive. Few actual shots need to be fired, Britain can take America down economically alone.(2)

1) Agreed. Though such a conflict in the 20th century is ASB of course, 67th Tigers was so far off the deep end into Rule Britannia Forever that he didn't acknowledge the British Empire and the USA as being military equals until 1956! And by then, both sides had nukes, so military conflict is both moot and pointless to discuss anyway.

2) Agreed. And having the CSA there just makes things worse for the USA.

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by Adûnakhôr

He was Banned?

Where. WHEN?

And how did i miss this?

Uh, is this good news or bad news for you?

"Confederate Industrialization and Imperialism". A Discussion Thread.

See page 7 for the offending posts

See page 9 for Burton K. Wheeler's response (kicking)
See also page 9 for Ian's immediately following response (banning)

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

The Germans win and Britain becomes communist.

I don't know about turning Communist. But when discussing the defeat of the Union in the American Civil War by British Intervention you'd be surprised at the level of handwaving, even narcotic self-deception, regarding the inevitable consequences to the British Empire (and Western Europe in general) in the next European general war. No US war loans, strictly cash-and-carry trade, a hostile relationship with the Anglo-French, better relations with the Central Powers, and finally, no US entry in 1917.

In short, the Allies lose WWI.

[Anaxagoras]

To describe the gist of what I think would have happened in the event of an Anglo-American War during the American Civil War:

1. Fighting would have broken out between Union and British forces (perhaps a quarter being regular British troops and the rest being Canadian militia) along the Canadian border. Although the Union would gain ground, the fighting would be much more difficult for the Union than expected.

2. Pressure would be taken off the Confederacy due to the Union's new military commitments in Canada.

3. The Royal Navy would sweep the seas clear of Northern merchant vessels and blockade the Northern coast, devastating the American economy. Union commerce raiders would inflict comparatively minor damage on British merchant ships.

4. The British would recognize the independence of the Confederacy and break the blockade. British recognition means that French recognition would follow, and the rest of Europe would gradually do the same.

5. Depending on how long the conflict lasts, the British may take California, which they threatened to do IOTL in the event of war. There really was nothing the Union could do to stop them.

6. Eventually, economic reality means that the Union sues for peace and gives up whatever gains they have made in Canada in exchange for peace, and ending of blockades, and the return of California. If the war has been particularly harsh, the British may decide to keep California.

[Simreeve]

Originally Posted by Anaxagoras

If the war has been particularly harsh, the British may decide to keep California

and maybe even "Oregon" (in its wider sense) too, thus cutting the USA off from the Pacific?

But wouldn't British military help for the CSA have to be contingent on the CSA renouncing slavery?

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by Simreeve

and maybe even "Oregon" (in its wider sense) too, thus cutting the USA off from the Pacific?

But wouldn't British military help for the CSA have to be contingent on the CSA renouncing slavery?(1)

Anaxagoras

Agree with your post. But all that you described was tame compared to 67th Tigers' TL's outcome.

Simreeve

1) You are right of course. Which is where all the handwaving and narcotic self-deception comes in for the forum's NeoConfederates and Rule Britannia Forever Britons. For the latter, their "analysis" basically is done as if the 20th century did not and would not ever exist.

[The Red]

Originally Posted by Simreeve

But wouldn't British military help for the CSA have to be contingent on the CSA renouncing slavery?

'Enemy Mine' might be all that's needed in the short term, but it would have to be renounced for continued support in all likelihood.

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by The Red

'Enemy Mine' might be all that's needed in the short term, but it would have to be renounced for continued support in all likelihood.

Which is where the handwaving comes in. If anyone knows anything about internal Confederate politics and the institution of slavery...Anaxagoras spells out the reasons why the Confederates can simply sit back and wait for the Union to collapse, all the while telling the British anything from airey-fairey promises of "reform" (that they have no intention of fulfilling) to telling London to go the hell.