Let's say by some miracle that Blaine's USA is able to outmanoeuvre Longstreet and the Confederates. What would happen? It this even plausible?
WI the US won the Second Mexican War?
- Thread starter CanveyFanNumberOne
- Start date
No How Few Remains ends with the US suffering it's second defeat at the hands of the Anglo-French-Confederate Entente. I fail to see how this would be a DBWI.
I think that OP speaks about TL-191. Wasn't Blaine president during Second American-Mexican War? So perhaps just add TL-191 to make that clearer.
bguy
Donor
It would require the British to stay out of the war. It's not entirely clear in the novel why they did enter the war since Britain's strategic interests in the conflict seemed negligible, but one thing that is made clear is that there is no way the British are coming in unless the Confederates commit to abolishing slavery, so probably the easiest way to keep the British out is to have Longstreet's emancipation push fail. Maybe Longstreet gets assassinated by a fireeater after he calls for ending slavery. That would probably be enough to keep the British out of the war since even if Longstreet's successor (I believe his vice president was Lucius Lamar) also pledges to end slavery, I doubt the British will want to tie themselves so closely to a country where presidents are assassinated for calling for the end of slavery.
If the British stay out then the U.S.'s greater population and industrial strength should eventually be enough for it to defeat the Confederates. It's not clear from the novel what Blaine's war aims were (other than keeping the Confederates from acquiring Sonora and Chihuahua.) I don't think he was interested in reabsorbing the Confederate States, but he probably would seek to annex some Confederate territory. (Most likely Kentucky and maybe also Sequoyah.) Of course the longer the war goes on the more Confederate territory the U.S. is going to want to take to justify the cost of the war.
If Blaine wins the war then he probably gets reelected, and the Republicans become the dominant political party in the U.S. (Lincoln won't try and leave the party after a victory since no one would follow him out. Instead he'll work to reform the Republicans from within.)
In the Confederate States, the Whigs are discredited by their defeat. This may enable a political movement like OTL's Populist Party to become competitive in Confederate elections. The future of slavery probably depends a great deal on how far US armies advanced. If the war lasted long enough for US forces to reach the Deep South then slavery will probably be fatally weakened as I assume US forces will free slaves wherever they advance.
Unless I'm mistaken there was only one American - Mexican War prior to the divergence point of TL-191.
Last edited:
I am not sure if the CSA would be abolished by this point as they had been a recognized foreign state by both France, Britain and by most extent the entire world by this point, so they don't have a real reason to be able to like they did at the end of WW2. Ironically this could be better for the CSA in the long haul because a U.S. victory most likely would lead to Sonora and Chihuahua being returned to Mexico which would make the CSA more defensible in upcoming future wars, slavery also would probably be abolished more under treaty to weaken the CSA as the Confederate 'abolition of slavery' most likely had a bunch of asterisk's attached in every byline.
All in all, I wonder if we may see another American Great War at all or if it would be nipped in the bud.
All in all, I wonder if we may see another American Great War at all or if it would be nipped in the bud.
Answer, possibly.
As the USA has won there is no reason for it to join the Central Powers. It would still be anti British French though so would not supply munitions and finace to Entente powers except at extreme mark ups.
There is no reason for the CSA to formally join the Entente as the last thing it needs is a foreign entanglement and it can no longer rely on European allies. Therefore it needs to husband its strength at home
Thus where the Archduke is assassinated the both will stay out of the Great War. The possibility bit comes from who the US President is. If it is Theodore Rossevelt then he will see it as a perfect opportunity to reunite the Union. The CSA will be literally on its own. No chance of foreign troops coming to its rescue and no chance of importing munitions.
There would thus be two major wars running concurrently yet independently.
Would TTL Roosevelt have much of a political career? If Britain stays out of the war, the "First Montana Volunteer Cavalry" might not see action at all, instead being detained in Montana to free up regular troops for war. Of course, the longer it goes, the more likely he is to see combat (probably in Texas or Arkansas).
The US not joining the CP is a very important point. Though I suspect they'll still have cooler relations with Britain/warmer relations with Germany ITTL, so American neutrality in the Great War is more likely.
Mexico is the other boil on America's behind ITTL, since it's still ruled by a French-aligned monarchy. After defeating the CS, the US might look for an excuse to smack Maximilian around, and definitely at least shelter dissidents in New Mexico. An American-funded and American-supplied resistance is likely.
I think that even if the CSA survives defeat in the 'Second Mexican War' (I go back and forth on whether 'War of the Mexican Purchase' 'Purchase War' or 'War of 1881' would make the most sensible alternative to the canonical name*) it's likely to do so in a much diminished form: at a guess it would forfeit Kentucky and enough territory to keep a Sword of Damocles dangling over it's head for the rest of it's existence.
If it does retain independence, then it likely does so because the 'Plumed Knight' presided over enough of a victory to reclaim Northern pride, but failed to command enough support for a full-scale war of conquest. The problem is that US demands in any peace treaty might well include a demand for the end of Slavery which would almost certainly trigger a full-blown constitutional crisis in the South (to the point of triggering a coup or even full-fledged Civil War), making it that much more difficult to make this emancipation stick without a full-blown Northern occupation (which would almost certainly require another war which ... well, vicious cycle).
*Which definitely has that perfect "We're stuck with it, that doesn't make it ACCURATE" aspect quite common in names relating to our own history (The Hundred Years War didn't last a century exactly, for instance).
If it does retain independence, then it likely does so because the 'Plumed Knight' presided over enough of a victory to reclaim Northern pride, but failed to command enough support for a full-scale war of conquest. The problem is that US demands in any peace treaty might well include a demand for the end of Slavery which would almost certainly trigger a full-blown constitutional crisis in the South (to the point of triggering a coup or even full-fledged Civil War), making it that much more difficult to make this emancipation stick without a full-blown Northern occupation (which would almost certainly require another war which ... well, vicious cycle).
*Which definitely has that perfect "We're stuck with it, that doesn't make it ACCURATE" aspect quite common in names relating to our own history (The Hundred Years War didn't last a century exactly, for instance).
One other thought that occurs to me is that if the Confederate States of America IS appreciably diminished by defeat in the Second Mexican War, then Dixie might go hunting for a 'sugar daddy' (some Power willing and able to prop her up as a counterbalance to the United States of America as the latter really starts to feel her oats): while Great Britain is the most obvious candidate - Canada might well be sweating at the presence of an ascendent USA, even if the former remains safely neutral in the War of 1881 - but is she the only one?
If I remember correctly Germany (more specifically Kaiser Wilhelm II) was interested in acquiring a foothold in the New World at some point near the turn of the nineteenth century to the twentieth - and would doubtless appreciate the chance to pick up a helpful friend with useful bases in the Americas (Especially one with it's own interest in making the Gulf of Mexico a Confederate lake).
It's also interesting to wonder if Russia would revive the notion of an Alaska purchase in the wake of a US victory in the Second Mexican War - and whether Great Britain would support Canada in a bidding war to help ensure that the Great White North isn't outflanked by a USA with some reason to nurse hard feelings after the War of Secession (Though the latter scenario might be less likely than Great Britain leaning on France to lean on Russia in order to prevent the US from becoming even more intimidatingly huge*).
*Incidentally, I've often wondered if the British Empire might have asked for Russian North America as fair repayment for sundry loans and other economic assistance to Russia following an Entente victory in Timeline 191s Great War (Presumably one where the USA played a non-hostile role to Britain, France et al), with the territory being handed to Canada as part-payment for her own contributions to the cause.
Here's another question what does the T-191 Great War look like in a variant of the timeline where either the USA or the CSA sits out that particular conflict?
If I remember correctly Germany (more specifically Kaiser Wilhelm II) was interested in acquiring a foothold in the New World at some point near the turn of the nineteenth century to the twentieth - and would doubtless appreciate the chance to pick up a helpful friend with useful bases in the Americas (Especially one with it's own interest in making the Gulf of Mexico a Confederate lake).
It's also interesting to wonder if Russia would revive the notion of an Alaska purchase in the wake of a US victory in the Second Mexican War - and whether Great Britain would support Canada in a bidding war to help ensure that the Great White North isn't outflanked by a USA with some reason to nurse hard feelings after the War of Secession (Though the latter scenario might be less likely than Great Britain leaning on France to lean on Russia in order to prevent the US from becoming even more intimidatingly huge*).
*Incidentally, I've often wondered if the British Empire might have asked for Russian North America as fair repayment for sundry loans and other economic assistance to Russia following an Entente victory in Timeline 191s Great War (Presumably one where the USA played a non-hostile role to Britain, France et al), with the territory being handed to Canada as part-payment for her own contributions to the cause.
Here's another question what does the T-191 Great War look like in a variant of the timeline where either the USA or the CSA sits out that particular conflict?
bguy
Donor
War of the Mexican Cession?
Interesting thought though I don't know if Germany would really offer enough value to the Confederates to tempt them to such an alliance. The Germans will never commit a large army to North America since doing so would make them very vulnerable in Europe, and a large army is what the Confederates need to help them against the U.S.
Very likely. Russia probably still wants to get rid of Alaska and won't want the British to get it, and I could certainly see Blaine being interested in acquiring Alaska.
I would expect Russia and Britain to quickly fall out in any Entente wins scenario. Britain is going to be awfully nervous about a Russia that is unchecked by Germany and will probably try to bolster the Turks, the Japanese, and whatever is left of Germany to try and contain the Russians.
Confederate neutrality with US in the war.
The Entente lost in the canon timeline even with the CSA helping them, so they'll presumably lose even faster without the CSA. (The US probably grabs more Entente territory in North America than in the canon timeline, so you might see the US take not just Canada, Bermuda, and the Bahamas, but also Alaska and the rest of Britain's Caribbean possessions.) Japan might not even enter the war if the US is not distracted fighting the Confederates, but if they do then the US might make a stronger effort in the Pacific than it did in the canon timeline, so you might see the US push across the Pacific and take the Philippines as well.) Roosevelt should be in a stronger position come 1920 than he was in the canon timeline since he will still have presided over a victorious war and the US took much lower casualties than it did in the canon timeline, thus he probably gets his third term. With the US having a bunch of Caribbeans possessions, you might see him build a Central American Canal in his third term. Without losing a war Confederate politics don't radicalize nearly as much, so it's very possible that if a Great Depression event still happens then you see the Radical Liberals come to power inthe CSA.
US neutrality with the CSA in the war.
This depends on just how neutral the US is. If the US is "neutral" but still snarling at the CSA and Canada then both nations probably have to keep their armies in North America to keep the US from getting too frisky. The war in Europe is probably a toss up in that case. The Entente forces will be weaker than IOTL since they won't have the Canadian troops (or US money), but without a hostile US Navy in the Atlantic, Britain isn't going to be starving, and Germany won't be able to break the British blockade. (Though Britain may have to practice a much looser blockade than it enforced IOTL to keep the US out of the war.) Germany should be able to defeat Russia in the east, but the war in the west could easily go into 1919 and then its just a question of whether Germany or France collapses first. (If Britain isn't blockading foodstuffs then I expect France to collapse before Germany.)
If the US is truly neutral and not a threat to the CSA or Canada then the Entente is in a stronger position than IOTL. (They'll not only have the Canadian troops that they had IOTL but should also have a Confederate Expeditionary Force in Europe from 1914 onward.) The Entente likely wins that war before revolution comes to Russia.
That does have the right ‘textbook’ feel, though one suspects it would be a name used in writing rather than in casual speech.
That or an Act of God - and if God loved the Slave South he wouldn’t have given the North Lincoln or Grant.
You know the novels never do mention what’s going on in Russian North America while history has it’s wicked way with the rest of Timeline 191: this is likely a result of the place being underpopulated and underdeveloped, but at the very least I suspect this corner of North America would become something of a refuge for those Americans and Canadians (and probably Russians as well) looking to lie low during all these convulsions.
Especially after the Russian Rebellions following the Great War: you can bet your bottom dollar that the Tsar would not renounce sovereignty over Alaska, but it would be very, very unlikely that the United States would let Russian forces anywhere near North America.
A clever fellow could make something out of such an opening.
Of course it all depends on HOW the Entente wins the Great War: if the Tsar topples, as per our timeline, then the Great Game gets a new player (whether Kerensky actually holds out or not) and the board changes - if, on the other hand, the Tsar holds on then the sort of repression and political concessions required to keep Russia quiet might leave the Empire in a poor condition to do any more than shadow box (though conversely this very weakness might leave the Imperial government desperate to make a mark somewhere with a diplomatic coup).
Interesting Times.
I wonder how and why the USA joins the Central Powers in this scenario? (Since there’s no Major Grudge lingering from the Second Mexican War and grievances dating from the War of Secession are weakened by time, as well as US victory in the sequel).
As mentioned, it seems plausible that the Royal Navy did it’s work well but a little too throughly (As was the case with the War of 1812): it’s also possible that some idiot - possibly the enormously desperate French - sent off the local equivalent of the Zimmerman telegram (trying to get the CSA in the fight) and made enough of a diplomatic mess for the United States to take SERIOUS offence.
I’d like to think Great Britain would be wise enough to keep the peace with the Northern colossus (especially with Canada to be considered) but God knows there are idiot optimists all over.
I wonder if there’s a conceivable scenario in which the USA sides with the Entente while the CSA remains neutral?
This probably requires some SERIOUS diplomatic finesse on the part of the Entente or a major blunder on the part of the Central Powers, though it might not be outright impossible.
I suspect this depends on how big the CEF is allowed to get: with the Northern Colossus glowering down on the South, one suspects that any Confederate Administration would like to keep the bulk of it’s army reserve close to hand (though having the CS Navy join the Entente war effort would undoubtedly be helpful, even if it might make things a little more … delicate … when it comes to keeping the USA neutral-at-worst).
Of course a great deal also depends on which gentlemen (or scoundrels) happen to be occupying the White House and the White House of the Confederacy: Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson are not likely to be the best of neighbours, Great War or no.
bguy
Donor
Yeah, it never really made sense to me that the US didn't grab Alaska in the FGW. It wouldn't have taken much effort, and I would have thought that the idea of adding that much territory to the US (and getting the Russians out of North America) would have been irresistible to TR.
Yeah, IOTL Nicholas felt that intervening in the July Crisis was necessary to stave off revolution at home. If Russia is victorious in the Great War without suffering a revolution then Nicholas will certainly think that using a foreign crisis to rally the Russian people and defuse any revolutionary tensions is a winning strategy, so he'll probably keep using it.
Probably the most likely casus belli would be the British blockade of Germany.
IOTL while the US grumbled a lot about the British blockade of Germany, it still mostly let the British take a very expansive position on what a blockading power could legally do. Thus the US tolerated the British operating a Distant Blockade, it mostly accepted the British Doctrine of Continuous Voyage (which let the British stop neutral ships bound for neutral harbors when the British believed the ultimate destination of those cargos was Germany), and it accepted the British greatly expanding the list of what constituted contraband and thus could be legally seized.
A US that is still bitter over British mediation in the Civil War though, is probably going to be much less willing to accept such measures. Thus the US in this timeline is likely to reject the legality of Distant Blockades, the Doctrine of Continuous Voyage and Britain's expansive listing of contraband items, and it may even claim that the entire British blockade is only a paper blockade (since the British blockade isn't able to prevent the Scandinavian nations from trading with Germany) and thus isn't a legal blockade at all.
If the US takes such an approach then it gives Britain a Hobson choice. Do they accept the US objections (which will effectively nullify the British blockade or do they stick to their guns and dare the US to try and break the blockade. While strictly speaking the British should probably just give up on the blockade in this scenario (the US being able to freely trade with Germany is bad for the British, but the US actively sinking British ships and invading Canada is far worse), it's certainly not implausible that the British would decide to call the US bluff and keep the blockade up. (And especially if the US ITTL hasn't had a Remembrance Movement, since that means the US military won't be nearly as ready for war as it was in the canon timeline and thus the British might think that they can successfully strangle Germany before the US builds up its military enough to be a true threat.)
With Wilhelm's keen diplomatic skills, it is certainly possible.
Yeah, US-CS relations would have to be pretty good for the Confederates to risk sending a large force overseas. I don't know how big a potential CEF might be, but even a force of 250,000 men (which wouldn't be that big a commitment by World War 1 standards), would be a pretty big boast to the Entente. (Especially during the major battles of 1916.)
Is it possible that the USA and Russia simply ignored each other during the Great Wars?
We never hear of the Russian Empire making any contribution to Entente operations in the Pacific which, in the absence of a Russo-Japanese War, they might well be in a position to do (at least during the First Great War); Russia would have it’s hands full with the Germans and the Turks, the USA would have the British Empire and the CSA to tackle (then Canadians and other internal rebels to sit on), so it’s at least vaguely possible that Tsar Nicholas, President Roosevelt and their successors decided to focus on more immediate enemies whilst leaving this particular rival as business for another day.
To be honest I think the smartest move on the part of the USA would be to make Russian North America a satellite nation after the Great War and the Russian Revolution - this gets the Tsar out, whilst relieving the United States of any need to garrison, administer or settle yet ANOTHER enormous area of ‘winter wonderland’ (as well as potentially scoring points with Latin American allies by making it plain that the USA is not just another parcel of gringo imperialists).
As an autocrat Tsar Nicholas II made an excellent constitutional monarch …
I most definitely agree: honestly, the scenario you sketch out would make an absolutely excellent political thriller, if not for Timeline-191 (A) then certainly for some spin-off.
His Imperial Majesty really was his own worst enemy … well, except the British, the communists and a few other interested parties.
For as long as it lasted, certainly: the Western Front ate manpower the way a whale swallows plankton.
Maybe they were talked into going easy on the Tsarists by the Germans?
IOTL, despite their alliance with the Bolsheviks, many German officers were extremely uneasy about their alliance with radical communism, and immediately started working with White movement forces in Ukraine, Belarus, and elsewhere. Maybe there was a similar set of second thoughts in Philadelphia after the Red Negro Uprising, and they decided propping up a White Alaska as a gateway for future intervention against the Bolsheviks was desirable?
I can understand that USA didn't take Alaska already during FGW. It had firstly conquer Canada and hold trench warfare with CSA. But not taking that during SGW? It shouild had been much easier task.
I think that CSA would be still bit paranoid (probably justified thing) that it decides stay out from the Great War.
Alaska is not really worth the trouble of annoying the Russians when the CSA and the Cannucks is still breathing fire. Yes there is gold (like California) , fish like (like New Englands) and polar bears (only a small market for them), but not much else. And it does not make a very good strategic base against the Japanese (unlike say the {Philippines or Guam).
Buy it if for sale otherwise leave it along. No point invading it then having to tie up a garrison for little gain.
bguy
Donor
Maybe though there is also risk to the Confederates in not sending troops to Europe. If they don't provide value in their alliance to the British and French then it is unlikely that either of those countries will be willing to help the Confederates should they have any future trouble with the US.
Didn't the Japanese in the First Great War get a fleet off the coast of Seattle by way of Alaskan waters? Wouldn't it be worth taking Alaska just to make it harder for Japan (or Russia or Britain) to do that in any future conflict?
Unless a fleet is stationed in Alaska there is nothing to stop the Japanese doing the same again albeit with some warning. Also, the Pacific is a big ocean. If the USA stakes out Alaskan waters the IJN can refuel at sea so it can swing far south and approach say California from that direction.
We are not looking at a maritime choke point. Yes, the Japanese did seize the Aleutian Islands on OTL. Talk about diversion of effort and pouring monry down a rathole.
As for the Russians, they have enough trouble with the Germans in their west and the Japanese in their east. They are not going to add to their enemies