1863: Balkanized America

Ok I recently watched a few documentries on the civil war as well read some stuff about the novel 1862 and of course Southern Victory. Now having not read the novel(1862) im not up to commenting on it specifically but thats just background reading stuff. I'm approaching an idea where the US looks more like Europe with The North losing the Civil War and having to acknowlegde the Confederacy. Unlike in Southern Victory I'm not convinced the nation would stay together so well. With the South succeding this would establish the precedent for succesion and I'm thinking some states might want to go it alone. California and Utah spring to mind, maybe a French/British backed Mexican empire taking Arizona and New Mexico, a state of Dakota with Sioux and Metis settlers pushed out by the British (This one may be totally ASB but i'm interested if it could happen).

The way I see this happening is with either Lincoln being assasinated or with the British going to war over the Trent Affair and sticking oars into the pot and encouraging the succesion of other states.

Thoughts, comments?

(Lots of spelling mistakes I know)
 
California and Utah spring to mind, maybe a French/British backed Mexican empire taking Arizona and New Mexico, a state of Dakota with Sioux and Metis settlers pushed out by the British (This one may be totally ASB but i'm interested if it could happen).

California did not have an economy large enough to be independent at this point, and most of its settlers were loyal to the Union in some way. So California is not going anywhere.

The Mormons of Utah were doing everything they could to be admitted to the Union as a state. Utah was not a hotbed for succession.

The Mexican Empire will be up to its neck in an insurgency and trying to win the hearts of its people. The last thing it will want to do is acquire more land with a population that doesn't want to be Mexican.

And what makes you think the British pushing out natives in favor of Anglo settlers is ASB? Or did I read that wrong?

The way I see this happening is with either Lincoln being assasinated or with the British going to war over the Trent Affair and sticking oars into the pot and encouraging the succesion of other states.

Thoughts, comments?

(Lots of spelling mistakes I know)

You have done nothing to stop the United States rise as a great power, while insuring it will be eternally hostile to the British Empire. The core that made the United States a great power will still be there. You have given the U.S.A. a motive to join into the European alliance system, so Canada will be painted Union blue the instant the UK finds itself in the next General European Conflict(TM).
 
California did not have an economy large enough to be independent at this point, and most of its settlers were loyal to the Union in some way. So California is not going anywhere.

That has been regularly debated on this site. Could go either way depending on the circumstances.

The Mormons of Utah were doing everything they could to be admitted to the Union as a state. Utah was not a hotbed for succession.

It does seem to have been more crap management by an American representative that caused most of the resentment so that could easily be changed to avoid.

The Mexican Empire will be up to its neck in an insurgency and trying to win the hearts of its people. The last thing it will want to do is acquire more land with a population that doesn't want to be Mexican.

I'm not sure that most of the non-Apache etc locals of this region didn't want to be part of Mexico. They almost certainly didn't want to be part of the US. However you're quite correct that bar something dramatic Mexico is in no state to seek to regain the lands.

And what makes you think the British pushing out natives in favor of Anglo settlers is ASB? Or did I read that wrong?

I think you did misread but unless then war is long and messy I think it's unlikely that Britain would be at all interested in this.

You have done nothing to stop the United States rise as a great power, while insuring it will be eternally hostile to the British Empire. The core that made the United States a great power will still be there. You have given the U.S.A. a motive to join into the European alliance system, so Canada will be painted Union blue the instant the UK finds itself in the next General European Conflict(TM).

Depends on the exact circumstances but at the least the loss of the south, further war damage [possibly] and bad relations between Britain and the US will seriously delay US development. [Especially if war hawks gain prominence in the US]. It is possible that bad feeling will continue for a generation or more but even that won't necessarily overcome American opposition to normal diplomacy and the demands an alliance would make. Furthermore if there is a US great power showing hostility to Britain [and the south presumably] it will be factored into all but the most stupid diplomats calculations.

Steve
 
California did not have an economy large enough to be independent at this point, and most of its settlers were loyal to the Union in some way. So California is not going anywhere.

Again debatable. I'm not trying to pull apart the entire Union in 1863, that would be my bad for not explaining that well. I'm seeing the Civil War as the precedent for succession and in the years after that some states consider succeeding.

The Mormons of Utah were doing everything they could to be admitted to the Union as a state. Utah was not a hotbed for succession.

On that point i am wondering if one of two scenarios happen

a) The Utah War is much bloodier and causes a harsher treatment of the Mormons by the United States Government or

b) The Mormons are actually charged with treason and sedition and have reparations put on their state or are put under martial law and treated as second class citizens.

The Mexican Empire will be up to its neck in an insurgency and trying to win the hearts of its people. The last thing it will want to do is acquire more land with a population that doesn't want to be Mexican.

I'm looking at this from the viewpoint of Napolean III who was nothing but ambitious. If he managed to beat the US diplomatically then he may garner more support (especially some British support like he was hoping for) for his campaign. He may not immediately control the land but he may lay claim to it.

And what makes you think the British pushing out natives in favor of Anglo settlers is ASB? Or did I read that wrong?

Well Metis in particular is a prickly question as the British were having great difficulty pushing them out, they rose in full rebellion in 1885. Pushing them out earlier may be what the British want then but i don't know whether they would move further West or South.


You have done nothing to stop the United States rise as a great power, while insuring it will be eternally hostile to the British Empire. The core that made the United States a great power will still be there. You have given the U.S.A. a motive to join into the European alliance system, so Canada will be painted Union blue the instant the UK finds itself in the next General European Conflict(TM).

Even if the United States were to balkanize then there is not much that could stop its rise as a great power save general ineptitude. However, an immensely hostile US would not be overlooked by the then largely more powerful British Empire.

The whole fate of the US by that point will depend on two things. 1) whether Lincoln decides to keep fighting a now hopeless war or whether he wisely backs off and spares the US significant war damage 2) How long the war continued and who the management would be afterwards. If it is a largely revenge based party then there will be more wars in the future but the US will be most definitely on the losing side. If it is a more isolationist and Westward expansionist minded party then the US has not only a chance to redeem itself but a chance to keep the Union together.
 
Again debatable. I'm not trying to pull apart the entire Union in 1863, that would be my bad for not explaining that well. I'm seeing the Civil War as the precedent for succession and in the years after that some states consider succeeding.

Having the Confederates win the Civil War could actually eliminate succession as a viable option instead of legitimizing it. Especially if they won with a British intervention.

On that point i am wondering if one of two scenarios happen

a) The Utah War is much bloodier and causes a harsher treatment of the Mormons by the United States Government or

b) The Mormons are actually charged with treason and sedition and have reparations put on their state or are put under martial law and treated as second class citizens.

The Utah War was caused by President James Buchanan acting like President James Buchanan. He did everything possible to tick of the Mormons, but it still failed to go beyond a few small skirmishes and sabotaging supply lines. Popular opinion was also against Buchanan on this issue, with almost every Newspaper declaring that he had gone to far. The Utah war is frequently referred to as Buchanan's blunder, because Buchanan was the entire motivating force for the conflict.

I'm looking at this from the viewpoint of Napolean III who was nothing but ambitious. If he managed to beat the US diplomatically then he may garner more support (especially some British support like he was hoping for) for his campaign. He may not immediately control the land but he may lay claim to it.

Napoleon III was not the emperor of Mexico, Maximilian was. It is Maximilian who would not want to bite of more than he could chew, as he was having a hard enough time controlling Mexico's core territory, let alone the regions between Mexico's core and the Arizona region.

Well Metis in particular is a prickly question as the British were having great difficulty pushing them out, they rose in full rebellion in 1885. Pushing them out earlier may be what the British want then but i don't know whether they would move further West or South.


Even if the United States were to balkanize then there is not much that could stop its rise as a great power save general ineptitude. However, an immensely hostile US would not be overlooked by the then largely more powerful British Empire.

So you think the British will have a hard time driving out non industrialized natives, and at the same time you think the British will be able to check a growing industrialized continental power? I hope you realize that you have given the British Empire two Germanys to deal with instead of one. And butterflies will probably mean that both of these powers will end up allied with Russia....

The whole fate of the US by that point will depend on two things. 1) whether Lincoln decides to keep fighting a now hopeless war or whether he wisely backs off and spares the US significant war damage 2) How long the war continued and who the management would be afterwards. If it is a largely revenge based party then there will be more wars in the future but the US will be most definitely on the losing side. If it is a more isolationist and Westward expansionist minded party then the US has not only a chance to redeem itself but a chance to keep the Union together.

Wait, wait, wait, wait. The British Empire starts a war with the U.S. and its the U.S. that has to redeem itself?:confused::confused::confused:
 
Having the Confederates win the Civil War could actually eliminate succession as a viable option instead of legitimizing it. Especially if they won with a British intervention.

I'm confused as to how you end up with this conclusion.


The Utah War was caused by President James Buchanan acting like President James Buchanan. He did everything possible to tick of the Mormons, but it still failed to go beyond a few small skirmishes and sabotaging supply lines. Popular opinion was also against Buchanan on this issue, with almost every Newspaper declaring that he had gone to far. The Utah war is frequently referred to as Buchanan's blunder, because Buchanan was the entire motivating force for the conflict.

The Mountain Meadows massacre certainly didn't win the Mormons any friends. Nor would the Mormons have been better off had they opened openly fought with Union troops. The public would most likely have a problem then regardless of the the opinion of Buchanan.

Napoleon III was not the emperor of Mexico, Maximilian was. It is Maximilian who would not want to bite of more than he could chew, as he was having a hard enough time controlling Mexico's core territory, let alone the regions between Mexico's core and the Arizona region.

I'm aware of that. I was however hoping you remembered who Maximilian was backed by. And that would be Napoleon III of France who invested a sizable amount of cash and soldiers into Maximilian's cause. Having a friend in NA would have been of immense value to him.

So you think the British will have a hard time driving out non industrialized natives, and at the same time you think the British will be able to check a growing industrialized continental power? I hope you realize that you have given the British Empire two Germanys to deal with instead of one. And butterflies will probably mean that both of these powers will end up allied with Russia....

No but you clearly don't know who the Metis are I see. I'd recommend reading up on that if I were you.

As for two Germanys... well not really. This is all assuming that the US still gains great power status (nowhere near guaranteed), doesn't have major political issues after the war, isn't fighting a war on two fronts and the British are really stupid.


Wait, wait, wait, wait. The British Empire starts a war with the U.S. and its the U.S. that has to redeem itself?:confused::confused::confused:

Itself as a power. Not to confusing.
 
I'm confused as to how you end up with this conclusion.

The Secessionists started the war. If secession had been peaceful then I could see a remote possibility of secession be legitimized. However, the Confederacy started the war, and in most realistic Confederate victory scenarios they end up bringing a foreign power into it. This will irrevocably lead to Secessionism being irrevocably associated with treason, discrediting it in the eyes of most American citizens.

And there is also the fact that the C.S.A. seceded to preserve slavery, further tainting Secessionism in the eyes of American citizens.

The Mountain Meadows massacre certainly didn't win the Mormons any friends. Nor would the Mormons have been better off had they opened openly fought with Union troops. The public would most likely have a problem then regardless of the the opinion of Buchanan.

You seem to be missing my point. James Buchanan did everything possible to enrage the Mormons, but nothing came from it. You need two to tango, and Brigham Young did not want to tango. The Mormons will move from the United States instead of fighting Union troops.

I'm aware of that. I was however hoping you remembered who Maximilian was backed by. And that would be Napoleon III of France who invested a sizable amount of cash and soldiers into Maximilian's cause. Having a friend in NA would have been of immense value to him.

Napoleon III did not control Frances military budget. Those that did were directing funds elsewhere because they hoped to curtail Napoleon's adventurism. France's OTL involvement in Mexico was already pushing the budget because of this.

No but you clearly don't know who the Metis are I see. I'd recommend reading up on that if I were you.

Yes, they used modern technology. Modern technology does not equal industrialization. Even during the Civil war the Union was an industrial power, and the first one to fight a truly industrialized war, so if the British Empire manages to best it as completely as you seem to think it will, they will have no problem with the Metis.

As for two Germanys... well not really. This is all assuming that the US still gains great power status (nowhere near guaranteed), doesn't have major political issues after the war, isn't fighting a war on two fronts and the British are really stupid.

1. The United States will still receive the majority of Europe's immigrants. Its internal economic growth will still fuel its continued industrialization. It might not rise as fast, but it will rise. It is too late to stop that.

2. The American Civil war was a two front war. The United States will have the manpower and the logistical ability to fight a two front war on the American continent. You also seem to think the United States will be fighting alone and not look for allies against the British Empire, even though they will find natural allies in mainland Europe (Germany, Russia).

3. The British Empire did a lot of stupid things between the American Civil War and World War I in Our Timeline. Having the British Empire support the Confederate States is likely to exuberant these bad decisions.

Itself as a power. Not to confusing.

Redeem is a loaded word associated with morality where I come from. In this scenario the British Empire would have just fought a war in support a slave power, against a power that was popular in the eyes of the masses. From my vantage point, the only thing I could see was the British Empire's need to redeem itself in the eyes of its own people.
 
The Secessionists started the war. If secession had been peaceful then I could see a remote possibility of secession be legitimized. However, the Confederacy started the war, and in most realistic Confederate victory scenarios they end up bringing a foreign power into it. This will irrevocably lead to Secessionism being irrevocably associated with treason, discrediting it in the eyes of most American citizens.

This is something that might be the case. Technically if the union is forced to recognise the independence of the south it legitimises the right of succession. However it will make it an unpopular idea in the rump state and could led to formal legislation to ban future attempts.

Yes, they used modern technology. Modern technology does not equal industrialization. Even during the Civil war the Union was an industrial power, and the first one to fight a truly industrialized war, so if the British Empire manages to best it as completely as you seem to think it will, they will have no problem with the Metis.

At the time the Metis were British citizens and there was no particular conflict between the two.


1. The United States will still receive the majority of Europe's immigrants. Its internal economic growth will still fuel its continued industrialization. It might not rise as fast, but it will rise. It is too late to stop that.

This depends on the circumstances. If there is a quick end to the war then very likely. If a long and bloody conflict in which Britain is heavily involved then the US is very likely to suffer serious damage. It may still become a great power or it may not. Is likely to still get a lot of immigrants unless the government make even bigger mistakes but the total number could be significantly less.

2. The American Civil war was a two front war. The United States will have the manpower and the logistical ability to fight a two front war on the American continent. You also seem to think the United States will be fighting alone and not look for allies against the British Empire, even though they will find natural allies in mainland Europe (Germany, Russia).

Let me see. In 1860 Russia is still reeling from the Crimean defeat and in no condition to consider a new conflict. France is friendly and wants to stay so and also heavily involved in Mexico. Germany doesn't exist. Prussia and Austria are more concerned with each other than anything else. Even if America breaks it's traditional isolationism there's no one in a position to help. Also given the naval, economic, industrial and fiscal power of Britain anyone going against them would have to have a lot of motivation. Especially since any European threat would be target No. 1 for Britain.

3. The British Empire did a lot of stupid things between the American Civil War and World War I in Our Timeline. Having the British Empire support the Confederate States is likely to exuberant these bad decisions.

Britain wouldn't be supporting the south. It did make a lot of mistakes OTL in the 1860-1914 period but a tough fight with the US could change things so at least some of them aren't made.

Redeem is a loaded word associated with morality where I come from. In this scenario the British Empire would have just fought a war in support a slave power, against a power that was popular in the eyes of the masses. From my vantage point, the only thing I could see was the British Empire's need to redeem itself in the eyes of its own people.

Ah but in reality it would be seen as Britain supporting it's vital interests against a state breaking international law. Which then through pig-headed stupidity gets it's arse kicked by continuing to pick a fight with the world's No. 1 power.

The fact that [in the proposed scenario] a side-effect of US stupidity is that the south wins it's independence is a problem politically for both Britain, which opposes slavery, and the north, which sees a major humiliation as a result. It will not stop Britain opposing slavery by various means. What position the US will take could be interesting. While it will now have an overwhelmingly non-slave status will it actually ban slavery as that would alienate the remaining slave states that have so far stayed loyal?

Steve
 
Top