1866 Franco-American War

Dure

Banned
@xchen08,

So in other words, no you have come-up with nothing to support your position and you can't even mount a decent attack on mine.
 
@xchen08,

So in other words, no you have come-up with nothing to support your position and you can't even mount a decent attack on mine.

Let's put it this way. You have demonstrated (over and over again) that the Mormons were oppressed. Great job, except that nobody was disputing you. You asked for evidence that the Mormons adjusting their faith was a demonstration of loyalty. I pointed out that they did so in order to gain statehood, not because soldiers were threatening to kill them if they don't. In other words, they did it to join the U.S., not to survive, ie a demonstration of loyalty. So this leaves us with the Mormons being oppressed, and seeking to demonstrate their loyalty in order to lift the oppression. Also, secession is both suicidal and unsustainable, leaving the Mormons in the same position as blacks, Catholics, Japanese Americans, and all the other minority groups the U.S. has oppressed in the less glorious parts of its history. I think you would have to offer some pretty serious evidence to show that the Mormons would react to the U.S. being at war any differently than the above groups. I even pointed out that your snide observation on religions changing their doctrine was pointless since it happens all the time.

So nothing in your entire post supports your point, or even a point, unless it's my point. I'd say that's plenty good enough.
 

nbcman

Donor
@ Dure

I now see that your interpretation of 'pacify' is different than what my interpretation of 'pacify'. I think that your explanation helps with the 'language barrier'.

While I do disagree on your statement that the worst excesses of French Colonialism where yet to come (France's actions in Haiti spring to mind), I look forward to further updates on your thread. As you have said, this is your thread and it is primarily your input that will create your AH.

Around your proposed start of the FA war, there were ongoing Indian conflicts with the Hualapai (SW), Apache (SW), Comanche (Plains), Lakota(Plains), Cheyenne (Plains), and Arapaho (Northern Plains). Perhaps the French could provide assistance to the Indians similar to what was done in the French and Indian Wars of the 1750s-60s.
 
Around your proposed start of the FA war, there were ongoing Indian conflicts with the Hualapai (SW), Apache (SW), Comanche (Plains), Lakota(Plains), Cheyenne (Plains), and Arapaho (Northern Plains). Perhaps the French could provide assistance to the Indians similar to what was done in the French and Indian Wars of the 1750s-60s.

The French cannot realistically provide any support to any of the above Indian groups beyond drawing off U.S. troops. The Plains Indians were just too far away from any French assets, and the SW Indians can only be supported through territory controlled by the Republican Mexicans, and (in the event of war) the U.S. Army.
 
Dure,

What do Mormons have to do with an 1866 Franco-American War?

Leaving aside the rather implausible suggestion that they'd somehow rebel against the US and despite the very recent example of Confederacy, do you think France can ship them arms? Do you even think France thinks they can ship them arms?

Why even bring the topic up? It has no bearing on the thread at hand.


Bill
 

nbcman

Donor
@ Dure

My mistake :eek:. It is 67th Tigers.

Then it is up to 67th Tigers to start up his TL-with input from the other participants in the thread.

@ xchen08

There may be a possible drop in the support for the Republicans if the French can stir up the Mexicans in a war of revenge against the Americans. Which would make it more likely to be able to allow for the French supply of the Amerinds. Also the republicans in this TL will be weaker since the US cannot afford to supply them while they are at war with the French and possibly the revitalized Amerinds.
 
Dure,

During WWII, American black leaders supported the war as part of a "Double Victory" campaign--victory over fascism abroad and over racism at home.

(A major contrast with the general black attitude towards the Vietnam War)

You're not French? I thought you were, given your general attitude of France-wanking and the fact you listed in detail all the wines the French soldiers would be drinking while gleefully mowing down American soldiers.

BTW, you seem to have confused the US with Russia. The U.S. is not a "prison of nations" with huge numbers of oppressed ethnic groups ready to rebel at the sight of a foreign "liberator."
 

Dure

Banned
@Bill Cameron,

You asked what Mormons have to do with a Franco-American war in 1866? I refer you to my post #249 3)e). I think it may take up 5,000 troops but a more realistic figure is 2,000. In the west even the smaller of these figures is significant.

Your assertion is 'that it has no bearing on this thread'. I choose to think otherwise.

@nbcman,

Oh good! You meant 67th Tigers, thought I was going senile.

@MerryPrankster,

Oui, non ami, the chosing of the wine for the mowing down of US troops is a very difficult exercise. For Zouaves one might select a nice Gironde, some think rustic for breaking the Iron Brigade a Rousillon perhaps? For the Maine regiments a nice white that goes with shell fish? For the New Yorkers beer I think, perhaps Chimay, Orval maybe?

Well that response was quite amusing but I think you should disist from further investigation of this silly proposition before someone gets offended.
 
@Dave Howery,

I have already discussed the use of the term pacification and it is not inappropriate when applied to large sections of the frontier. However I think if you are going to suggest that the USA's treatment of the Plains Indians was not genocidal you are going to make a better case than you have. I think one could argue with some justification that without the British over the border watching events the Lakota, Souix and Dakota would have ceased to be (a few years after 1866 admitedly).

I don't think the presence of the British mattered one bit to US policy inside it's own territory. And I can make a perfectly good case for the non-genocidal policy towards the plains indians. "Genocide" means only one thing: a deliberate government policy aimed towards the extermination of a particular race or ethnic group. US policy towards the natives never did that... in the western states, they wanted the natives to stay peacefully on their reservations. The plains states never became important to settlement until well after the ACW; before that, they were only a distance to be crossed on the way to OR or CA, or a couple of places that had gold. The US even had plans in place to provide food to the natives so they wouldn't be tempted to leave the reservations (the fact that corrupt Indian Agents diverted much of it was the cause of several conflicts). The conduct of the US government towards the natives was appalling, racist, barbaric... but not genocidal.
 
bringing the Mormons into this story is a bit silly. By 1867, the worst of the Mormon/Federal clash was over. The only time the Mormons were a real problem was in the so-called Utah War (the casualties of which included several horses and 0 humans). After that, there was some friction between the Mormons and the Federal government, but it never came close to the "we're going to seceed!" level. A French/American war will mean exactly zilch to the Mormons; by this time, they had long realized that there were stuck in the middle of the USA and there was zero chance of being independent.
 
You asked what Mormons have to do with a Franco-American war in 1866? I refer you to my post #249 3)e).


Dure,

The "re-suppression" of Mormons? You mean "Buchanan's Blunder"? That two year period of misunderstanding on both sides that resulted in no combat deaths? That re-suppression?

I think you've been reading too much Turtledove and confusing it with actual history.

I think it may take up 5,000 troops but a more realistic figure is 2,000. In the west even the smaller of these figures is significant.

The Mormon's didn't require suppression in the 1850s, didn't suppression in the 1860s when the Civil War being fought, but now will require an expeditionary force to "suppress" them in 1866 as the US stumbles into war with France?

I really think you've been reading too much Turtledove and confusing it with actual history now.

You've been some help in this thread, but you've also gone right off the rails many times too. This is another derailment, Dure, and you can do better.


Bill
 
@AbyssalDaemon,

Before I start I would just like to say: really cool use name! I have been reading Stross' Jennifer Morgue just before logging on so the coincidence was really rather freaky!

Thanks.

You wrote that 'A portion of both [the French] army and navy have to be kept in various areas around the world ... and keep other powers from deciding to move in onto their holdings.'

1) What holdings exactly? The French Empire is not very big in 1866. They have interests in Mexico, French Giuana, St. Pierre & Miquelon plus some islands in the West Indies all of which are part of the battle zone in any war with the USA. As to the rest, they also have some islands in the South Pacific some of which are only protectorates, the Senegal river, Parts of the Ivory Coast, a naval base at Ningpo in China, an anchorage at Djibouti, some islands in the Great Southern Ocean and New Caledonia. They are still pacifying Algeria but it is mostly done with native troops and it is 'next door to home'. The First French-Indochinese war did not start until 1867 in OTL so none of that is part of the Empire.

I think that is most of the French Empire. Realistically other than those holdings the USA may aspire to, which of these is at risk other than Algeria, which may experience set backs at the hands of the truculent natives?
Did some checking and you seem to be pretty much right, I was apparently thanking of holdings of the Third Republic; however the French are still going to be worried over the holding that they do have. Their African and Asian holdings are both ones that they've fought tooth and nail to keep their hands onto, and both happen to be uncomfortably close to fairly hostile governments.

And it wasn't that uncommon for other governments if they thought it possible to decided to move in on another nations colonial holdings. Which is going to be a worry at the back of France's mind.

2) What nation would go to war with France for such small pickings? Only the British and Russians have the real capability to wage such a war, the British have bigger fish to fry (although the may side with the USA for other reasons), the Russians are over extended, in OTL they sell Russian North America in a few years. The Spanish, Dutch, Austrians, Ottomans and just maybe the Danes are the only others with anything close to the naval capability and frankly apart from the Dutch no one has any reason to go to war for such slim pickings. The Duch may and I stress may covert New Caledonia but honestly with Metropolitan France and its huge armies next door to the homeland you would have to be insane to start a war for a few islands.

This I do disagree with. Both the Ottoman empire and Morocco have rather large reason to get involved in Algeria for example, and that's not including the native population who have since the French have conquered the region have been trying to rebel. Also you have Vietnam which the French have been steadily working on since 1859 who aren't go to miss a chance to retake the land that they've already loss.

3) The thing you did not mention is that the USA too has colonial obligations that it also needs to discharge during a war with France. It needs to:

a) Pacify the aborigional Americans in northern California and the North West.
b) It needs to keep the land routes and telegraph open to California.
c) It needs to pacify the aborigional Americans on the northern plains, ethnically clense the plains for exploitation by white setters and ensure that the aborigionals remain in their ghettos after pacification.
d) The aboriginal Americans in the South West have to be eliminated.
e) In addition to the above provision has to be made for the supervision and if need be re-suppression of the Mormons.
The above does not require a lot of troops but they are far flung and at the end of long expensive supply chains.
This I heavily have to disagree with. First becouse the majority of 'pacification' being done against native Americans isn't by the army but by settlers who were also the ones who wanted the Indians off the land as well. Two majority of the time Army wasn't there to keep the Indian's on the land that was granted too them but to keep the settler's OFF. As to the morman thing enough other people have already brought that one up.
 
As for the U.S., it could either be really good or really bad. They would most likely won, and they would by a landslide if Prussia got involved. However, would the war unite the north and the south like the Spanish-American War would do or would France get another revolt to happen in the south? I guess Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant will be fighting alongside each other which would definitely be symbolic of unification.

Mate, I reckon it'd be beneficial for the US to have had such a war to help reunify former foes more quickly- as occurred with the SAW in 1898 OTL- perhaps also with the presence of USCT regts thrown into the fight- there were a few USCT regts OTL actually deployed to the Texas-Mexico border OTL, so they would well have seen action in such a Franco-American War. The notion of the USCTs & ex-Confederates- perhaps even Texas Rangers- fightin side-by-side against a common enemy would've healed alot of the wounds from the CW, perhaps even shaped Reconstruction for the better IMHO...
 
It helps that at this point that portions of the South is still smarting from the ACW and they perceive as Britian and France of going back on their word. Read: the two countries made vague comments about supporting the South but in the end decided not too.

Combine this with an invasion of the US (especially when a good bit of said invasion force seems be going through former Confederate states), and I can easily see a number of ex-Confederate soldier's joining the Union army. Hopefully this will lead to the government discovering certain bureaucratic screw up that happen to have been made in regards to Lee's (and quite possibly other former Confederates) Oath of amnesty.
 
Top