Is Another War Between USA and CSA Inevitable?

[Space Oddity]

May I point out that any such peace is going to see at least dozens, and quite possibly HUNDREDS of issues left remaining between the USA and CSA that could serve a bones of contention? And not just fugitive slaves and slave catchers, but things like fishing rights, border positions and so forth.

And let's not forget the political situation of the CSA itself, which will probably resemble that of any monocrop economy dominated by a landed aristocracy...

 

[Dom Pedro III]

I think another war is very improbable. I understand that a Confederate victory will lead to overconfidence, but I don't see them jumping at the chance for another war. Let's remember that even if the Southerners score an early victory in 1862, they will have already been economically hurt by the war. Those same people who are so cock sure they could lick the Yankees again would also be acutely aware that it will hurt their pocketbooks.

They risked war with the North because they saw abolition as an existential threat. Short of that, there won't be much motivation to go to war. Limited imperial struggles are unlikely as well because given their proximity and very long shared border, there'd be no way of isolating a war to the area of contention. War will necessarily mean exposing your heartland and committing yourself to a potentially costly conflict.

Let's look at the facts:

1. Common language
2. Both are democratic (limited to white men, but at least someone can vote and speak out)
3. Common religious background
4. Strong economic ties
5. Strong family ties - This will weaken over time, but the Civil War saw many families fighting against each other

The War of 1812 has been mentioned, but I don't think that it's completely comparable. For one thing, Britain was engaged in a life-or-death struggle with France. This lead them to commit particularly egregious violations of the United States's neutrality that it almost certainly wouldn't have under other circumstances. The second is communication. After a Confederate victory, officials in the CSA and USA will be able to communicate with each other within minutes via telegraph lines. That would have been enormously helpful in averting war in 1812, and it probably would have done so.

The Midwest and Northwestern states dependent on use of the Mississippi would be most resistant to another war with the CSA. Businessmen in the CSA dependent on the USA for as markets for cotton and as a supplier of industrial goods will be reluctant to go to war as well.

Both countries will steer clear of European entanglements basically removing the chance of a Turtledove-esque involvement in WW1 or a similar conflict.

I'm not saying there wouldn't be war scares or dust ups, and I'm not saying a real war is impossible. I do think that it's very unlikely.

 

[Space Oddity]

What is it with dragging out "they share the same language/culture" as if that will cause problems to dissolve into a dew? The history of Latin America alone demonstrates that sharing a language is not some magical talisman to preventing conflict.

As for the CSA's "democracy"--well, I expect it will be the best government the planters' money can buy... Assuming troubles don't occur and cause some general to try to "save the nation".

 

[Elfwine]

I think another war is very improbable. I understand that a Confederate victory will lead to overconfidence, but I don't see them jumping at the chance for another war. Let's remember that even if the Southerners score an early victory in 1862, they will have already been economically hurt by the war. Those same people who are so cock sure they could lick the Yankees again would also be acutely aware that it will hurt their pocketbooks.

They risked war with the North because they saw abolition as an existential threat. Short of that, there won't be much motivation to go to war. Limited imperial struggles are unlikely as well because given their proximity and very long shared border, there'd be no way of isolating a war to the area of contention. War will necessarily mean exposing your heartland and committing yourself to a potentially costly conflict.

Which is where the cockiness comes in. They're not going to be thinking of this in terms of "costly conflict", they're going to be thinking they'll whip the Yankees quickly and easily.

Let's look at the facts:

1. Common language
2. Both are democratic (limited to white men, but at least someone can vote and speak out)
3. Common religious background
4. Strong economic ties
5. Strong family ties - This will weaken over time, but the Civil War saw many families fighting against each other

#1 and #2 have been addressed by Space Oddity, so I'd like to comment on the other three.

#3: So what? Countries with common religious backgrounds have fought before and will fight again.

#4: Not so much - cotton is a thing, but its not a crucially important thing to the US economy, and it can be sold other than to the US as far as the CSA is concerned. As far as the Old Northwest goes, see later in this post.

#5: Precisely the problem - there is a great deal of bitter division within families as brothers fight each other. That's not going to lead to stronger ties, that's going to lead to division.

The War of 1812 has been mentioned, but I don't think that it's completely comparable. For one thing, Britain was engaged in a life-or-death struggle with France. This lead them to commit particularly egregious violations of the United States's neutrality that it almost certainly wouldn't have under other circumstances. The second is communication. After a Confederate victory, officials in the CSA and USA will be able to communicate with each other within minutes via telegraph lines. That would have been enormously helpful in averting war in 1812, and it probably would have done so.

Speaking for myself, its an example of how even two countries that have generally worked things out diplomatically have still fought more than one war with each other - not as an example of the kind of conflict the USA and CSA will have.

As for telegraph lines helping communications: This is not necessarily going to help in regards to the particular problems between the CSA and USA just because it would have helped in 1812 between the USA and UK.

The Midwest and Northwestern states dependent on use of the Mississippi would be most resistant to another war with the CSA. Businessmen in the CSA dependent on the USA for as markets for cotton and as a supplier of industrial goods will be reluctant to go to war as well.

The Midwest and Northwest don't depend on the Mississippi nearly as much as they used to as railroads come in. Businessmen in the CSA are a weak class at best - their influence is dwarfed by that of the planter-politician-lawyer quasi-aristocracy.

Both countries will steer clear of European entanglements basically removing the chance of a Turtledove-esque involvement in WW1 or a similar conflict.

The USA steered free of European entanglements and still wound up in WWI. If the CSA is on the other side of whatever alliance blocs form . . .

 

[Dave Howery]

Like I said, I was talking about the potential peace conference itself. For instance, the Confederacy may well have proposed that its slave-catchers be empowered to search for, detain and return escaped slaves from the border states of America. The Union would have opposed this, naturally, but the odds are also that Britain would have come in on their side given Palmerston's comment which I quoted earlier. Similarly, the British are likely to have proposed that the mutual right of search (or at the very least, visitation) be included in the treaty to ensure that the slave trade doesn't flare up again. After all, the Confederate ban on the trade may be little more effective than the previous American ban. The Union will likely back the measure, given that they are more or less anti-slavery, have a larger navy, have already conceded the right of search to the British, and now have an opportunity to harass Confederate ships. On the other side of the fence, I can't see the Confederacy being anything other than reluctant to sign up to it.

It's events like these that might have persuaded both the UK and the US that there was a foundation of mutual interest worth building on. Alliances and friendships can shift in odd ways at conferences, with Versailles perhaps being the best instance of this.

Possible, but it depends a lot on just how much Britain aided the CSA. If it was along the lines of 'we're not entering the war, but we're recognizing the CSA anyway', then future relations between the USA and UK will be strained a lot at first, but will likely improve in a generation or two. If the UK actively takes sides in the war and trades shots with the USA to get the CSA independent, then relations will be very cold for a longer time. It won't be 'We will never forgive or forget!", economic realities will see to that, but any chance of an alliance probably went out the window for a long long time...

 

[Dom Pedro III]

What is it with dragging out "they share the same language/culture" as if that will cause problems to dissolve into a dew? The history of Latin America alone demonstrates that sharing a language is not some magical talisman to preventing conflict.

Very true. Had I said "language and culture are the only things they need to prevent war", I would be presenting it as some kind of a magic talisman and your argument would be valid. I didn't, so it isn't.

As for the CSA's "democracy"--well, I expect it will be the best government the planters' money can buy... Assuming troubles don't occur and cause some general to try to "save the nation".

I don't see any reason for it to be all that different from OTL early 19th century USA.

Which is where the cockiness comes in. They're not going to be thinking of this in terms of "costly conflict", they're going to be thinking they'll whip the Yankees quickly and easily.

Except that their historical context won't be a war that was won quickly and easily. It will be a war that had costs. Maybe not the disaster that was OTL Civil War, but nobody is going to think it was free or that a future war would be free either.

#3: So what? Countries with common religious backgrounds have fought before and will fight again.

Just one of many common connections.

#5: Precisely the problem - there is a great deal of bitter division within families as brothers fight each other. That's not going to lead to stronger ties, that's going to lead to division.

You are treating the CSA and USA as two monolithic groups of people as if everyone falls neatly into one category or another. Secession was deeply unpopular with large segments of the South (including a sizeable number of the top military commanders). Similarly, fighting the South was unpopular with large sections of the Northern population. Sure, there will be some families that will be irreconcilably divided by the war. Those families might actually want a new war just to fight out those grievances. But there will be many more that would not want to fight their kin again, and those relationships will be more beneficial to maintaining peace than if there were few if any familial ties.

Speaking for myself, its an example of how even two countries that have generally worked things out diplomatically have still fought more than one war with each other - not as an example of the kind of conflict the USA and CSA will have.

It's an example of how two countries that generally work things out diplomatically fight a war because of extraordinary circumstances that are unlikely to arise for either the CSA or USA in this timeline.

As for telegraph lines helping communications: This is not necessarily going to help in regards to the particular problems between the CSA and USA just because it would have helped in 1812 between the USA and UK.

I pointed this out in response to comparing the relations between the USA and UK that lead to the War of 1812. I bring up telecommunications to indicate that the comparison is not really valid. I think that still stands.

#4: Not so much - cotton is a thing, but its not a crucially important thing to the US economy, and it can be sold other than to the US as far as the CSA is concerned. As far as the Old Northwest goes, see later in this post.

The Midwest and Northwest don't depend on the Mississippi nearly as much as they used to as railroads come in. Businessmen in the CSA are a weak class at best - their influence is dwarfed by that of the planter-politician-lawyer quasi-aristocracy.

Ok, I didn't say a war would be economic suicide. I didn't say there were no possible alternatives. I said there would've been strong economic ties working against war. Yes, if war broke out, businesses would adapt. That's not the point. This is about the business pressures discouraging war.

The USA steered free of European entanglements and still wound up in WWI. If the CSA is on the other side of whatever alliance blocs form . . .

This goes back to my earlier statement about wars abroad. The USA getting into a European war is fundamentally different from forming alliances that could potentially bring it into a war where it risks a direct attack on its heartland. The US didn't share more than 2,000 miles of border with Germany.

The CSA would be even less inclined to join a European war than OTL USA.

 

[David S Poepoe]

What is it with dragging out "they share the same language/culture" as if that will cause problems to dissolve into a dew? The history of Latin America alone demonstrates that sharing a language is not some magical talisman to preventing conflict.

South America was settled in a very different fashion than that of North America. The caudillo event manifested itself partly because of the original Spanish settlements were isolated geographically from each other, influence and territory was later expanded and acquired by military action.

 

[David S Poepoe]

May I point out that any such peace is going to see at least dozens, and quite possibly HUNDREDS of issues left remaining between the USA and CSA that could serve a bones of contention? And not just fugitive slaves and slave catchers, but things like fishing rights, border positions and so forth.

One usually starts with an armistice and moves to a peace treaty that ends the fighting. Then one meets to resolves differences and various issues, usually ending in a treaty of sorts.

Basic Foreign Affairs 101.

 

[Elfwine]

Except that their historical context won't be a war that was won quickly and easily. It will be a war that had costs. Maybe not the disaster that was OTL Civil War, but nobody is going to think it was free or that a future war would be free either.

Okay, let's go with the most optimistic possible Confederate victory scenario - Britain and France recognize the Confederacy in 1862 and the Union folds under diplomatic pressure.

That is not going to be seen by the kind of people whose overconfidence kept them refusing to surrender into 1864 as "costly". That's going to be seen as glorious and quick.

Areas like western Tennessee might disagree, but Alabama? South Carolina? Georgia? Even Virginia? Not so much.

Just one of many common connections.

Which don't prevent conflict.

You are treating the CSA and USA as two monolithic groups of people as if everyone falls neatly into one category or another. Secession was deeply unpopular with large segments of the South (including a sizeable number of the top military commanders). Similarly, fighting the South was unpopular with large sections of the Northern population.

Completely irrelevant to the issue of "family ties" not doing much good.

Sure, there will be some families that will be irreconcilably divided by the war. Those families might actually want a new war just to fight out those grievances. But there will be many more that would not want to fight their kin again, and those relationships will be more beneficial to maintaining peace than if there were few if any familial ties.

I am not treating them as monolithic groups - I am pointing out that family ties were shattered by the divisions of the civil war, and love turned to hate or at least animosity.

Doesn't mean that they'll be seeking conflict for the sake of seeking conflict, but William and James Terrill for example (assuming both brothers survive - OTL neither did) are going to be drawn apart by the war, not drawn together. At best, this is probably going to cool feelings between the two.

It's an example of how two countries that generally work things out diplomatically fight a war because of extraordinary circumstances that are unlikely to arise for either the CSA or USA in this timeline.

Hardly particularly extraordinary for Britain to be in a big war with France for most of the history of ~1200-1900. Hardly extraordinary for neutrals to be pinched in the process. And hardly important that the circumstances of the War of 1812 are not going to be the same circumstances that can see the CSA and USA go to war despite what might be a generally peaceful relationship - there are many potential flash points and the odds that all of them will be peacefully solved don't look very good when one side believes one of theirs can beat ten enemies.

I pointed this out in response to comparing the relations between the USA and UK that lead to the War of 1812. I bring up telecommunications to indicate that the comparison is not really valid. I think that still stands.

Except that the comparison is, again, not about comparing the War of 1812 to a future Confederate-Union war, but to point out that just because things are largely peaceful does not prevent circumstances from arising that would lead to war.

Ok, I didn't say a war would be economic suicide. I didn't say there were no possible alternatives. I said there would've been strong economic ties working against war. Yes, if war broke out, businesses would adapt. That's not the point. This is about the business pressures discouraging war.

And my point is that there wouldn't be such pressures. The Southern business political weight is minimal, the Midwest is shipping by rail.

Where is this mighty business pressure coming from then?

This goes back to my earlier statement about wars abroad. The USA getting into a European war is fundamentally different from forming alliances that could potentially bring it into a war where it risks a direct attack on its heartland. The US didn't share more than 2,000 miles of border with Germany.

Nations fearing attacks on their heartland are more likely to form alliances that may lead places they would not have intended to go than nations that feel nice and secure.

The CSA would be even less inclined to join a European war than OTL USA.

The CSA might well not have much of a choice (or at least no more than anyone else in the tangled alliances that turned an Austro-Serbian conflict into a world war) if it has an alliance with someone who gets into a European war.

Theoretical scenario (I am not stating this is the most likely of things, just using it to illustrate that principle):
Say the Confederacy allies with France as part of its interests in Caribean colonies/states.

At some point after the alliance is signed, France clashes with Prussia over something (not necessarily OTL's Franco-Prussian war, simply a matter of the two powers having competing interests).

The CSA can either break the alliance - which is going to have bad diplomatic consequences as well as losing whatever aid it was going to get from France - or join a European war.

 

[Space Oddity]

One usually starts with an armistice and moves to a peace treaty that ends the fighting. Then one meets to resolves differences and various issues, usually ending in a treaty of sorts.

Basic Foreign Affairs 101.

Except this isn't "Basic Foreign Affairs", something the "CSA will manage just fine" crowd tend to pointedly avoid. The CSA is a newborn nation whose sovereignty will be established by tearing bits off the USA's sovereignty. Peace treaties tend to be messy in the best of cases--this one will be an absolute monster. It's a given that neither side will be satisified with it, and even if the USA grudgingly accepts the CSA's existence that doesn't mean they'll let them fish in Chesapeake Bay.

South America was settled in a very different fashion than that of North America. The caudillo event manifested itself partly because of the original Spanish settlements were isolated geographically from each other, influence and territory was later expanded and acquired by military action.

And yet military strongmen have come to power in a wide variety of situations. And being a poor nation ruled by a small moneyed class seems to help.

Very true. Had I said "language and culture are the only things they need to prevent war", I would be presenting it as some kind of a magic talisman and your argument would be valid. I didn't, so it isn't.

But the point is DP, it probably shouldn't even be on your list. The fact that the USA and CSA both speak English isn't going to make them like each other. (I will also add I've seen this point or some variation of it hauled out on numerous occasions, despite the fact that there isn't any real reason to believe it, save a vague sentiment. Hence my previous exasperation.)

I don't see any reason for it to be all that different from OTL early 19th century USA.

Of course not. The fact that is a completely different polity than the early 19th century USA, and a polity with a weaker economy to boot, means nothing.

 

[zoomar]

It seems there are two fundamental and irreconcilable basic presumptions going on in this debate. No common ground is possible...sort of like a civil war

One side seems to believe that future conflicts between the USA and CSA are likely or inevitable because there are fundamental differences between them in ideology, geostrategic aims, and/or culture and that these would get stronger. This side also tends to be the side that believes the CSA might be expansionist in a way that threatens US aims in north America, resaonablly sucessful, possibly aligned to some extent with a non-American power, and not afraid to "whup those Yankees" again if necessary.

The other side (of which I am one) believes that while the ideological and cultural differences between the former north and south of the pre-1861 USA were fundamental enough to lead to secession of southern states and a civil war, they are not necessarily fundamental enough to set these sucessor states against one another as independent nations. What is a fighting matter (tariffs, economic differences, slavery and its abolition, "states rights" etc) when you are trying to live in the same house becomes far less important when one of the parties moves out and you've said good riddance to each other.

Both the USA and CSA suffered costly human losses in the recently completed Civil War, and the CSA itself suffered lots of outright devastation from invasion. The South will be an economic basket case for years, just attempting to rebuild and in the forseeable future it will just be glad to have secured its independence. Despite what wartime rabblerousers and agitators might have said the CSA would not immediately push any remaining issues such a the status of border states, escaped slaves, etc. that may remain between between the USA and CSA. It is also necessary to consider that the "USA" after a sucessful southern rebellion is nearly as much a new nation as the CSA. Demographically it is radically different and it will also be different politically - my belief more conservative and racist than before. Laws and probably constitutional amendments will be needed to address the issue of secession and how to handle it in the future, the status of black slaves, and so forth.

I agree with those who have said or implied the USA and CSA might end up with fewer fundamental differences after southern independence than before. When looking at the two nations from a global perspective, they are both democratic (for white men) federal republics with a shared origin myth, shared history for almost 100 years, and a shared sense of "American Exceptionalism" that would keep them from forming close bonds with European nations and rivalries. Also, I do not believe the CSA would ever be a serious rival of the USA for land or influence in North America and, conversely, the USA would never consider war to reincorporate the CSA.

While one can never say never, it would take far more than just a random spark to ignite a war between the CSA and USA, because neither side would see this remotely in their interests.

 

[Dom Pedro III]

Okay, let's go with the most optimistic possible Confederate victory scenario - Britain and France recognize the Confederacy in 1862 and the Union folds under diplomatic pressure.

That is not going to be seen by the kind of people whose overconfidence kept them refusing to surrender into 1864 as "costly". That's going to be seen as glorious and quick.

Areas like western Tennessee might disagree, but Alabama? South Carolina? Georgia? Even Virginia? Not so much.

And thousands dead and many more left permanently disfigured. And if we are just going to look at economics, even by late 1862, prices on basic commodities had gone up considerably. By spring 1863, you had a bread riot in Richmond. And even if the war ends before that, the South is going to be struggling quite a bit economically.

Sure, some morons will see Southerners as invincible, but many will recognize that war shouldn't be something taken up lightly.

Your argument for a new war being likely is almost exclusively dependent on the stereotype that Southerners are a bunch of trigger-happy yahoos.

Which don't prevent conflict.

This is essentially the problem with arguing this way. I provide a list of reasons that, collectively, would work towards maintaining peace, and you address them individually failing to be a silver bullet. Also, I don't know if by "prevent" you mean "guarantee against" or "discourage". If it's the former, I totally agree. If it's the latter, I completely disagree.

Completely irrelevant to the issue of "family ties" not doing much good.

It's not irrelevant at all. People who opposed the war (or secession in the case of the Confederates) would have very different attitudes towards their family members on the other side of the border than people who whole-heartedly supported it.

I am not treating them as monolithic groups - I am pointing out that family ties were shattered by the divisions of the civil war, and love turned to hate or at least animosity.

Except that very statement is treating them as monolithic groups. Some families were shattered. Some love turned to hate and animosity. You're painting with a very broad brush.

Doesn't mean that they'll be seeking conflict for the sake of seeking conflict, but William and James Terrill for example (assuming both brothers survive - OTL neither did) are going to be drawn apart by the war, not drawn together. At best, this is probably going to cool feelings between the two.

Who ever said that separating the US was going to bring families together? That's absurd. I said that family connections would do more to maintain peace than the lack of family connections.

Hardly particularly extraordinary for Britain to be in a big war with France for most of the history of ~1200-1900. Hardly extraordinary for neutrals to be pinched in the process.

Where do I even begin with this?...

Ok, let me just clarify something before I pounce: Are you saying that the Napoleonic Wars were just another European war in which Britain did not see the stakes as being especially high?

And hardly important that the circumstances of the War of 1812 are not going to be the same circumstances that can see the CSA and USA go to war despite what might be a generally peaceful relationship - there are many potential flash points and the odds that all of them will be peacefully solved don't look very good when one side believes one of theirs can beat ten enemies.

Actually, it's extremely important. There's been lots of "flash points" for Britain and the United States to go to war since 1815. It hasn't happened.

So why did 1812 happen? Because Britain was in an extraordinary situation where it saw its repeated violations as being vitally necessary. It had to be in a situation where all of the disincentives for angering the USA to the point of war were superseded.

So the point is that war between the two has been extremely rare in spite of all the times it could have started. Could war have broken out? Sure. But it was improbable because of the connections between Britain and the USA. So could war have broken out between the USA and CSA? Sure. I never denied that. But it is also improbable given the bonds between them.

Except that the comparison is, again, not about comparing the War of 1812 to a future Confederate-Union war, but to point out that just because things are largely peaceful does not prevent circumstances from arising that would lead to war.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "prevent". As I said in my first post, I'm not saying a war was impossible merely improbable.

And my point is that there wouldn't be such pressures. The Southern business political weight is minimal, the Midwest is shipping by rail.

Where is this mighty business pressure coming from then?

The Midwest is shipping a lot by rail. Not exclusively by rail. Disrupting existing commercial transport is a disincentive... like all of the other things that I've mentioned. Senators and Congressmen from the Midwestern states will be taking that into account. The relationship with the railroads will make a difference as well because the increased rail traffic will mean a rise in rates. That will likely be viewed with suspicion given the existing mistrust of the rail companies.

Never mind the fact that you've almost exclusively been portraying the Confederates as the aggressors in a future war. The US has enough reason to be hesitant having lost the last war.

Nations fearing attacks on their heartland are more likely to form alliances that may lead places they would not have intended to go than nations that feel nice and secure.

About as likely as the US and Britain forming standing alliances with each other's enemies because a war could break out across the Canadian border.

The CSA might well not have much of a choice (or at least no more than anyone else in the tangled alliances that turned an Austro-Serbian conflict into a world war) if it has an alliance with someone who gets into a European war.

Theoretical scenario (I am not stating this is the most likely of things, just using it to illustrate that principle):
Say the Confederacy allies with France as part of its interests in Caribean colonies/states.

At some point after the alliance is signed, France clashes with Prussia over something (not necessarily OTL's Franco-Prussian war, simply a matter of the two powers having competing interests).

The CSA can either break the alliance - which is going to have bad diplomatic consequences as well as losing whatever aid it was going to get from France - or join a European war.

This is an ASB example. Alliances almost always come with conditions. It is ludicrous to think that the CSA would sign an alliance to declare war every single time France (of all people!) gets into a scrape with somebody.

 

[Space Oddity]

While one can never say never, it would take far more than just a random spark to ignite a war between the CSA and USA, because neither side would see this remotely in their interests.

But you see, zoomar, this is exactly the problem your opponents have with what you are saying--you are positing people who act as invariably rational actors when they often are not. Your argument is not in fact drawn on history, but drawn on ignoring history.

There will be bad feelings. There will be points of dispute. These don't necessarily mean war, but they make it fairly likely.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

It seems there are two fundamental and irreconcilable basic presumptions going on in this debate. No common ground is possible...sort of like a civil war

One side seems to believe that future conflicts between the USA and CSA are likely or inevitable because there are fundamental differences between them in ideology, geostrategic aims, and/or culture and that these would get stronger. This side also tends to be the side that believes the CSA might be expansionist in a way that threatens US aims in north America, resaonablly sucessful, possibly aligned to some extent with a non-American power, and not afraid to "whup those Yankees" again if necessary.

The other side (of which I am one) believes that while the ideological and cultural differences between the former north and south of the pre-1861 USA were fundamental enough to lead to secession of southern states and a civil war, they are not necessarily fundamental enough to set these sucessor states against one another as independent nations. What is a fighting matter (tariffs, economic differences, slavery and its abolition, "states rights" etc) when you are trying to live in the same house becomes far less important when one of the parties moves out and you've said good riddance to each other.

Both the USA and CSA suffered costly human losses in the recently completed Civil War, and the CSA itself suffered lots of outright devastation from invasion. The South will be an economic basket case for years, just attempting to rebuild and in the forseeable future it will just be glad to have secured its independence. Despite what wartime rabblerousers and agitators might have said the CSA would not immediately push any remaining issues such a the status of border states, escaped slaves, etc. that may remain between between the USA and CSA. It is also necessary to consider that the "USA" after a sucessful southern rebellion is nearly as much a new nation as the CSA. Demographically it is radically different and it will also be different politically - my belief more conservative and racist than before. Laws and probably constitutional amendments will be needed to address the issue of secession and how to handle it in the future, the status of black slaves, and so forth.

I agree with those who have said or implied the USA and CSA might end up with fewer fundamental differences after southern independence than before. When looking at the two nations from a global perspective, they are both democratic (for white men) federal republics with a shared origin myth, shared history for almost 100 years, and a shared sense of "American Exceptionalism" that would keep them from forming close bonds with European nations and rivalries. Also, I do not believe the CSA would ever be a serious rival of the USA for land or influence in North America and, conversely, the USA would never consider war to reincorporate the CSA.

While one can never say never, it would take far more than just a random spark to ignite a war between the CSA and USA, because neither side would see this remotely in their interests.

Mmm, well said, AND

Very interesting point about a shared sense of "American Exceptionalism".

It would be very interesting if both nations became success stories that both supported the idea of "American Exceptionalism".

 

[robcraufurd]

Possible, but it depends a lot on just how much Britain aided the CSA.

A topic which has come up on here a few times, and on which the consensus has generally been that the British aren't interested in fighting for Confederate independence (though they might have offered mediation or recognised the South under the right circumstances). In any case, one would imagine that the balance of casualties would lead to a stronger focus on revenge against the South than the UK. A formal alliance wouldn't be signed between the two in any case, given both countries' inclinations against them, but if US politicians believe that friendship with the UK will further attempts to reincorporate the Confederacy then I don't see any reason why they wouldn't take it even if it sticks in their throat to do so.

As for the suggestion that the US would simply write the South off, I really struggle to buy it. For those who do, what historical examples are you thinking of when you argue it? Britain after the American War of Independence, Germany after the Second World War, perhaps Austria(-Hungary) in Italy?

EDIT:

When looking at the two nations from a global perspective, they are both democratic (for white men) federal republics with a shared origin myth, shared history for almost 100 years, and a shared sense of "American Exceptionalism"

In 1770, Britain and America had shared history for over 100 years and a shared sense of British exceptionalism. American troops fought under the Grand Union flag; when they called themselves Patriots, they meant that they were British patriots, defending the liberties of Magna Carta against the encroachments of a Hanoverian monarch. Parts of the American Bill of Rights are copied word-for-word from the British Bill of Rights.

The colonists emigrated from you when this part of your character [love of freedom] was most predominant; and they took this bias and direction the moment they parted from your hands. They are therefore not only devoted to liberty, but to liberty according to English ideas, and on English principles. (Edmund Burke)
I say we are as handsome as old English folks, and so should be as free. (John Adams)

In the Civil War, the Union and Confederacy were contesting how the American Revolution should look in exactly the way that Britain and America were contesting how the Glorious Revolution should look: James McPherson's Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution has an examination of the theme in chapter 2. The fact that it was so difficult for you to see the parallel between the two should be an indication of how quickly and how drastically the Union and Confederacy's views would drift apart, and a suggestion of how bitter relations between two countries who each believe they're the true heir to an intellectual tradition could be.

 

[Elfwine]

And thousands dead and many more left permanently disfigured. And if we are just going to look at economics, even by late 1862, prices on basic commodities had gone up considerably. By spring 1863, you had a bread riot in Richmond. And even if the war ends before that, the South is going to be struggling quite a bit economically.

Sure, some morons will see Southerners as invincible, but many will recognize that war shouldn't be something taken up lightly.

Prices on basic commodities going up is because of war problems, not something that will necessarily last beyond the war.

Your argument for a new war being likely is almost exclusively dependent on the stereotype that Southerners are a bunch of trigger-happy yahoos.

No. Its dependent on the reality that Southern leadership up to and through the ACW was a bunch of irresponsible twits. Whether One Armed Johnny swears to eternal pacifism or not is going to influence them not at all.

The average Southerner's personal cool headedness doesn't matter if President Insert Name Here is in the mold of a generation of southern politicians before him.

This is essentially the problem with arguing this way. I provide a list of reasons that, collectively, would work towards maintaining peace, and you address them individually failing to be a silver bullet. Also, I don't know if by "prevent" you mean "guarantee against" or "discourage". If it's the former, I totally agree. If it's the latter, I completely disagree.

I'm addressing them individually for two reasons:

1) Its easier to post why a given thing has or has not influence piece by piece - purely organizational.

2) Because they have to have some weight and validity in order for the cumulative effect to be a hill of beans.

It's not about - for example - commerce not being a silver bullet. It's about it not even being a silver painted bullet.

It's not irrelevant at all. People who opposed the war (or secession in the case of the Confederates) would have very different attitudes towards their family members on the other side of the border than people who whole-heartedly supported it.

Looking at the Terrills (If you have another family we can study the individuals in without exhaustive geneology work and mind this example, please share) - its not that William is living outside Virginia that's the problem.

Except that very statement is treating them as monolithic groups. Some families were shattered. Some love turned to hate and animosity. You're painting with a very broad brush.

I'm painting with no wider a brush than you are in speaking of "family ties" as a positive force for peace.

Who ever said that separating the US was going to bring families together? That's absurd. I said that family connections would do more to maintain peace than the lack of family connections.

And given examples like the Terrills, where family members are going to have seen each other as on the side of the enemy, family "connections" are not going to be what they were in 1860.

Where do I even begin with this?...

Ok, let me just clarify something before I pounce: Are you saying that the Napoleonic Wars were just another European war in which Britain did not see the stakes as being especially high?

I never used the phrase "just another European war". But its not some extraordinary event that represented unique circumstances - Louis XIV a century and change earlier was probably more of a threat to Britain than Napoleon was. Britain had been in a pretty intense conflict only half a century earlier (Seven Years War), and that's not even counting the part of the American Revolution that was a world war as far as Britain is concerned.

"Britain is fighting France in a major war with far reaching effects as Britain tries to stop France with every means available" has happened too many times to treat Napoleon as more than the last and bloodiest.

Actually, it's extremely important. There's been lots of "flash points" for Britain and the United States to go to war since 1815. It hasn't happened.

Britain and the United States have generally had an interest in peaceful relations, and the latter (as the weaker country) generally has had leadership that isn't convinced that war would be easy. That is going to be considerably harder to find in the gung-ho leadership of the Confederacy.

So why did 1812 happen? Because Britain was in an extraordinary situation where it saw its repeated violations as being vitally necessary. It had to be in a situation where all of the disincentives for angering the USA to the point of war were superseded.

Which is not some freakish occurrence, as neutrals from earlier conflicts (above) would testify.

So the point is that war between the two has been extremely rare in spite of all the times it could have started. Could war have broken out? Sure. But it was improbable because of the connections between Britain and the USA. So could war have broken out between the USA and CSA? Sure. I never denied that. But it is also improbable given the bonds between them.

The bonds between the mid-19th century UK and the mid 19th century US are considerably stronger than anything that exists between the CSA and the USA.

Is the CSA one of the most important trade partners to the USA?
Are ambitions in regards to expansion things that can slide smoothly past each other?

Not even about the CSA attacking or the USA attacking, #2 is how much the same territories are desired by both sides. Since that list of territories includes, for example, Kentucky - that's definitely out.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "prevent". As I said in my first post, I'm not saying a war was impossible merely improbable.

Answering here to avoid answering twice:
Prevent as in, when war tensions arise, these factors will be larger than the factors aggravating the problem. Not necessarily render outright impossible, but be bigger forces than things making relations less likely to go well (the idea of one side as "traitors", for example).

The Midwest is shipping a lot by rail. Not exclusively by rail. Disrupting existing commercial transport is a disincentive... like all of the other things that I've mentioned. Senators and Congressmen from the Midwestern states will be taking that into account. The relationship with the railroads will make a difference as well because the increased rail traffic will mean a rise in rates. That will likely be viewed with suspicion given the existing mistrust of the rail companies.

An increasing lot by rail. Business down the Mississippi being important enough to be a big influence on Midwestern attitudes on fighting the CSA raises the question of how much the Midwest states would, to the extent this commerce is a thing, be more interested in war so as to not pay tariffs on shipping down the Mississippi.

Never mind the fact that you've almost exclusively been portraying the Confederates as the aggressors in a future war. The US has enough reason to be hesitant having lost the last war.

As stated above, because the Confederacy is lead by irresponsible twits. A lot of the "caused by friction" scenarios require someone who would - to use something that didn't turn into a war between the US and UK - actually follow up on "54-40 or fight", which is a lot more like the secessionist leadership than 19th century US national leadership was OTL.

The issue of there being another war because the US wants to retake what it considers to have lost is another issue in regards to the likelihood of war than the issue of something, at some point, leading to war.

About as likely as the US and Britain forming standing alliances with each other's enemies because a war could break out across the Canadian border.

I'm fairly sure that if the US of the first decade or two of the 19th century felt it had a good ally in X it being an enemy of Britain would be a bonus. As for the US, it up until around the ACW isn't significant enough to have enemies outside North American enemies (besides potentially Britain).

This is an ASB example. Alliances almost always come with conditions. It is ludicrous to think that the CSA would sign an alliance to declare war every single time France (of all people!) gets into a scrape with somebody.

"Hi, we want to be your ally, but we don't actually want to take part in any conflicts of yours. Is that okay?"

If the CSA allies with France, that's going beyond an agreement to be benevolently neutral into an agreement to actually be a partner.

There's no reason for France to accept an alliance with the CSA where the CSA can avoid any involvement in any wars outside North America - what good is that for France?

As for "France of all people", I'm going to clarify here I'm picking France because of the UK's policy against long term alliances in this period. A CSA-Prussia alliance would be interesting if some conditions happened to make either side want it.

Or CSA-Japan.

Trying to think of other Great Powers who are interesting enough that their polices matter (sorry Italy, you're not a Great Power).

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

Or CSA-Japan.

CSA-Spain

 

[Elfwine]

CSA-Spain

Now that would be interesting.

 

[zoomar]

But you see, zoomar, this is exactly the problem your opponents have with what you are saying--you are positing people who act as invariably rational actors when they often are not. Your argument is not in fact drawn on history, but drawn on ignoring history. .

I beg to differ. Most wars are indeed fought because at least one of the combatants rationally believe their national interests are sufficiently at stake that war is the only or best recourse. In most instances, decisions to go to war have been made rationally by rational men, and these decisions are made in consideration of national interest. An exception may be made of some revolutions or some wars fought solely for conquest, expansion and aggression, but I do not believe would apply between an independent CSA and USA in the second half of the 19th century (anything beyond that is too speculative to predict). I would answer that my argument is the one drawn from history, not yours. The burden of proof is on those that the CSA and USA would act irrationally and go to war without a logical reason.

 

[Space Oddity]

I beg to differ. Most wars are indeed fought because at least one of the combatants rationally believe their national interests are sufficiently at stake that war is the only or best recourse. In most instances, decisions to go to war have been made rationally by rational men, and these decisions are made in consideration of national interest. An exception may be made of some revolutions or some wars fought solely for conquest, expansion and aggression, but I do not believe would apply between an independent CSA and USA in the second half of the 19th century (anything beyond that is too speculative to predict). I would answer that my argument is the one drawn from history, not yours. The burden of proof is on those that the CSA and USA would act irrationally and go to war without a logical reason.

You may 'beg to differ' all you like--it does not make it true. I've no doubt all people who ever declared war thought they were rational men acting in their nation's best interests--that does not mean they actually were. In fact, in quite a few cases it can be definitively shown they were not. The problem, zoomar, is that people are not machines, and 'best interest' is a remarkably flexible term. One CSA President may feel that the 'best interest' of his nation is served by avoiding a disastrous war with the power that nearly destroyed them last time--another may feel that the 'best interest' of his nation is restoring national pride by not bowing and scraping to the "damn Yankees" on a border dispute.