A different "Great War" after the CSA succeeds in the ACW.

In TTL the "Trent Affair" really blows up and war breaks out between the US and UK. The US looks for allies and finds them in Russia and Prussia. Russia sees the US as a counterweight to GB and Prussia is among the weakest of the Great Powers at this time (Although strengthening quickly) and looking for allies in case war breaks out. Russia continues its reforms in this TL partly due to American influence. The Prussians hook up with Austria-Hungry as well for the same reasons as OTL while the French and British align with Spain due to the worrying about the Russian-Prussian-AH-US alliance. The Great War breaks out in 1910 over any number of reasons. The sides are UK-France-Spain-CSA vs US-Russia-Prussia-AH. I think the US and CS would cancel most of their participation but the US would be able to send at least some of its fleet on raids. Due to distance I think both the US and UK would be mostly raiding each others fleets rather than doing knock out drag down fights.
 
Us-Russia i understand, but US prussia? Why, what does the prussians get from this? When does this happen? Or to re-ask this, what would Prussia gain from this that is worth the potential facing the British?
 
um.... we're talking about war in 1910, generations after the ACW. Whatever happens in the ACW between the US and UK is likely to be a dim memory. Unless there is continual conflict between the two (which seems unlikely), economic realities are going to force the two into cooperation again. While the US will have a deep and bitter grudge for a while, by 1910, things will have calmed down a lot. It's really unlikely that the US is going to throw its weight against it's main trading partner in the world because of a short conflict 50 years earlier. I don't see them allying with the UK either, more taking a true neutral stance, selling supplies for cash only.
If you really want this scenario to work, you're going to have to come up with several other conflicts between the ACW and WW1, something to keep the flames going...
 
How about the UK invading across the border into Montana circa 1881, lancers and all! And Roosevelt's Unauthorised Regiment?
um.... we're talking about war in 1910, generations after the ACW. Whatever happens in the ACW between the US and UK is likely to be a dim memory. Unless there is continual conflict between the two (which seems unlikely), economic realities are going to force the two into cooperation again. While the US will have a deep and bitter grudge for a while, by 1910, things will have calmed down a lot. It's really unlikely that the US is going to throw its weight against it's main trading partner in the world because of a short conflict 50 years earlier. I don't see them allying with the UK either, more taking a true neutral stance, selling supplies for cash only.
If you really want this scenario to work, you're going to have to come up with several other conflicts between the ACW and WW1, something to keep the flames going...
 
um.... we're talking about war in 1910, generations after the ACW. Whatever happens in the ACW between the US and UK is likely to be a dim memory. .

Because the Israeli-Palestinian fight has ended after 50 years and India and Pakistan are real pals! :rolleyes:I know that North and South Korea or getting along just fine as well. It is also true the CSA won't try to kidnap escaped slaves in the US nor will US Blacks try "steal their family" from their master! :rolleyes: And the CSA will no longer consider ALL slave states as rightfully belonging to the CSA:rolleyes:
 
Us-Russia i understand, but US prussia? Why, what does the prussians get from this? When does this happen? Or to re-ask this, what would Prussia gain from this that is worth the potential facing the British?

As a counter-weight to France. The US of this period is already a great power being the 2nd most industrialized country on the planet which makes for it being a helpful ally, particularly since it will almost certainly be better armed than OTL.
 
Because the Israeli-Palestinian fight has ended after 50 years and India and Pakistan are real pals! :rolleyes:I know that North and South Korea or getting along just fine as well. It is also true the CSA won't try to kidnap escaped slaves in the US nor will US Blacks try "steal their family" from their master! :rolleyes: And the CSA will no longer consider ALL slave states as rightfully belonging to the CSA:rolleyes:

the Israeli/Palestinian fight has been ONGOING for 50 years. The NK/SK rivalry is pretty much kept alive by the insanity of the Kim dynasty. Is there something similar that will keep the US/UK rivalry going all the way from the ACW to 1910?
 
the Israeli/Palestinian fight has been ONGOING for 50 years. The NK/SK rivalry is pretty much kept alive by the insanity of the Kim dynasty. Is there something similar that will keep the US/UK rivalry going all the way from the ACW to 1910?

US/CS not US/UK. Do you seriously think there wouldn't be ongoing strife between the US and CS all that time? At the very least you would have an ongoing low impact "war" going between the slave catchers and Free Blacks after the war. The UK would be the secondary problem. It is the CSA that would be the focus for the US. Its opposition to the UK would be over its alliance with the CSA not in and of itself.
 
US/CS not US/UK. Do you seriously think there wouldn't be ongoing strife between the US and CS all that time? At the very least you would have an ongoing low impact "war" going between the slave catchers and Free Blacks after the war. The UK would be the secondary problem. It is the CSA that would be the focus for the US. Its opposition to the UK would be over its alliance with the CSA not in and of itself.

actually, if the CSA is a completely different country, the slave catcher/free black issue becomes very different... blacks who make it to the USA are pretty much home free... the CSA will have no recourse at all to getting them back, other than resorting to shady espionage type stuff. The USA certainly isn't going to oblige the south in any way on the matter. And I still doubt that the USA will join any alliance that puts them at odds with the UK at this late date... unless there is a continual source of strife and conflict between the two for 50 years...
 
actually, if the CSA is a completely different country, the slave catcher/free black issue becomes very different... blacks who make it to the USA are pretty much home free... the CSA will have no recourse at all to getting them back, other than resorting to shady espionage type stuff. The USA certainly isn't going to oblige the south in any way on the matter. And I still doubt that the USA will join any alliance that puts them at odds with the UK at this late date... unless there is a continual source of strife and conflict between the two for 50 years...

No, they do have a recourse or at least the slaveowners do. They can send kidnappers up North as they did before the war. What is going to stop them from doing that? The Free Blacks also have a recourse and that is to "steal back their family" as they did before the war. Of course the risk will be higher but at least for the slave catchers that means that they can charge a higher price.
 
In TTL the "Trent Affair" really blows up and war breaks out between the US and UK.

I advise that you speak to TFSmith121 about how plausible, or rather not, this is. IOTL the UK and the USA were very far indeed from going to war over the Trent Affair or anything like it.

The US looks for allies and finds them in Russia and Prussia.

Neither Russia nor Prussia could project any meaningful amount of power in North America. It would be like China declaring war on England during the Hundred Years' War in support of France against English aggression; it could only ever be moral support.

Russia sees the US as a counterweight to GB and Prussia is among the weakest of the Great Powers at this time (Although strengthening quickly) and looking for allies in case war breaks out.

Prussia would be entirely happy to see France get bogged down in a North American conflict. But if the UK gets involved in a Trent war and France doesn't (which is very difficult to believe) then that would be very bad for Prussia, and Prussia would stay mousy quiet while France is free to look at Central Europe and France's great colonial rival is distracted and unable to stop France from moving where it will.

Russia continues its reforms in this TL partly due to American influence.

Just as Russia reformed greatly IOTL due to the influence of its incredibly strong alliance (on which huge amounts of its policy were based—it was Russia's base assumption) with democratic republican France.

Oh, wait…

The Prussians hook up with Austria-Hungry as well for the same reasons as OTL

At the time of the American Civil War, Austria-Hungary didn't exist. The Habsburg state was the Austrian Empire, a German-dominated empire and Prussia's great rival for control of the German-speaking lands. The Austrian Empire was a very serious candidate to unite Germany before the Austro-Prussian War in 1866.

Germany won't be unified in the same way as it was IOTL (which is unlikely, as French distraction in North America would prevent the great threat of French invasion from being a useful way for Prussia to co-opt the smaller German states). Prussia will probably still win the Austro-Prussian War, but the Prussian-dominated North German Confederation (established after the Austro-Prussian War) probably won't get the southern German states, and it might well be smaller than OTL's North German Confederation (as states such as Saxony might not join). If the southern German states remain independent, they will remain in the Austrian and later Austro-Hungarian sphere of influence (presuming that the Austrian Empire turns into Austria-Hungary as it did IOTL, which seems likely), so Austria-Hungary and Germany will be rivals, because Germany will seek to annex those states and Austria-Hungary will seek to retain power over them.

The Great War breaks out in 1910 over any number of reasons. The sides are UK-France-Spain-CSA

Why would the UK stay aligned to a slave-holding power just because it supported that power once in history, when it has far more trade with the Union than with the Confederacy and it has an incredibly deep ideological antipathy to slavery? In this era many Britons were far less racist about black people than Northern Americans and regarded views of the inferiority of black people with contempt; they thought Southern Americans were even worse. To imagine such a country aligning with a slave-holding power in this era is very difficult; virtually every church and moralist in the country would cry out against it.

I think the US and CS would cancel most of their participation

I doubt it. The Union had far, far greater industrial strength than the CSA. *WW1 will be an industrial war to an extent that will make the American Civil War look like jousting knights. The CSA will be defeated very quickly and probably annexed.
 
Last edited:
I advise that you speak to TFSmith121 about how plausible, or rather not, this is. IOTL the UK and the USA were very far indeed from going to war over the Trent Affair or anything like it.



Neither Russia nor Prussia could project any meaningful amount of power in North America. It would be like China declaring war on England during the Hundred Years' War in support of France against English aggression; it could only ever be moral support.



Prussia would be entirely happy to see France get bogged down in a North American conflict. But if the UK gets involved in a Trent war and France doesn't (which is very difficult to believe) then that would be very bad for Prussia, and Prussia would stay mousy quiet while France is free to look at Central Europe and France's great colonial rival is distracted and unable to stop France from moving where it will.



Just as Russia reformed greatly IOTL due to the influence of its incredibly strong alliance (on which huge amounts of its policy were based—it was Russia's base assumption) with democratic republican France.

Oh, wait…



At the time of the American Civil War, Austria-Hungary didn't exist. The Habsburg state was the Austrian Empire, a German-dominated empire and Prussia's great rival for control of the German-speaking lands. The Austrian Empire was a very serious candidate to unite Germany before the Austro-Prussian War in 1866.

Germany won't be unified in the same way as it was IOTL (which is unlikely, as French distraction in North America would prevent the great threat of French invasion from being a useful way for Prussia to co-opt the smaller German states). Prussia will probably still win the Austro-Prussian War, but the Prussian-dominated North German Confederation (established after the Austro-Prussian War) probably won't get the southern German states, and it might well be smaller than OTL's North German Confederation (as states such as Saxony might not join). If the southern German states remain independent, they will remain in the Austrian and later Austro-Hungarian sphere of influence (presuming that the Austrian Empire turns into Austria-Hungary as it did IOTL, which seems likely), so Austria-Hungary and Germany will be rivals, because Germany will seek to annex those states and Austria-Hungary will seek to retain power over them.



Why would the UK stay aligned to a slave-holding power just because it supported that power once in history, when it has far more trade with the Union than with the Confederacy and it has an incredibly deep ideological antipathy to slavery? In this era many Britons were far less racist about black people than Northern Americans and regarded views of the inferiority of black people with contempt; they thought Southern Americans were even worse. To imagine such a country aligning with a slave-holding power in this era is very difficult; virtually every church and moralist in the country would cry out against it.



I doubt it. The Union had far, far greater industrial strength than the CSA. *WW1 will be an industrial war to an extent that will make the American Civil War look like jousting knights. The CSA will be defeated very quickly and probably annexed.

Sorry, I really wasn't clear here. These alliances happen AFTER the war. The US is already defeated but looking for allies.

The Trent Affair is a real long shot, I know. You have to hand the idiot ball to Lincoln and Palmerston as neither was in the least bit interested in war. But with enough massive stupidity on both sides following a violent altercation when the diplomats were seized it is possible. It was the only thing I could come up with.

As far as Russia is concerned I am shamelessly using butterflies. Again a longshot BUT possible.

Germany may or may not be unified the same exact way but I think it will be unified sooner or later and largely along the same lines. German unification was nearly inevitable since the Napoleonic Wars and the Germans were divided between Germany and AH mostly among religious lines that won't change in TTL.

The trickiest part, I admit. The US has far more to offer the UK and wouldn't be a complete slaveowner's paradise that the CSA would be. However, if there is enough bad blood stirred up and the US is steamed that it won't make up with the UK even if the UK offers to cut its alliance with the CSA (Damn unlikely but it might happen for US domestic political reason) then it might have little choice.

Annexed? Yes. Quickly? Maybe. It really depends on how militarized both nations are and if the CSA is able to get enough weapons/supplies from the UK. There aren't any tanks yet so the conquest can happen only as fast as a walking pace.
 
Why would the UK even join this (The Great War as I'm conceding your Trent Affair premise) war? There's no benefit for them and the policy of 'Splendid Isolation' still exists with no real incentive to change it unless something has changed. To the Britain of this time status quo is god and anything which upsets it upsets them.

Hell why is Britain even allying with France? I'm assuming any TL which avoids the Franco-Prussian War has a stronger France which it turn posits one which could actually present a reasonable challenge to England on the colonial front (something Britain is anxious to avoid) and a more powerful France is something that neuters Germany.

Russia becoming more progressive somehow is something that shocks me quite honestly. I admit that in my TL they actually come off worse due to certain factors but that's hardly unbelievable.
 
Thank you for the discussion, Johnrankins, which is getting very interesting.

Sorry, I really wasn't clear here. These alliances happen AFTER the war. The US is already defeated but looking for allies.

Thank you for the clarification. There are still some problems, however. The Prussian-dominated nation of North Germany (whether it's still called the North German Confederation or it's renamed itself the German Empire or something like that for nationalist reasons, I don't know) will be deeply hostile to Austria-Hungary (presuming that Austria-Hungary falls IOTL) over the southern German states, just as Russia and Austria-Hungary were hostile over the Balkans IOTL except even more fiercely, because in this scenario North Germany will be fighting for the very unification of the German nation and the Habsburg empire will be fighting to maintain the sphere of influence which it has held for centuries.

With Austro-North German enmity virtually unstoppable in this scenario, as Franco-German hostility was since 1871 IOTL and Austro-Russian hostility was since 1876 IOTL, we must imagine the future alliance system around that. The reasons for the Franco-Russian Alliance don't exist in this scenario, so if it happens it must be for different reasons. Austria-Hungary may or may not clash with Russia, depending on whether it gets a Balkan focus when in this scenario, unlike in OTL, it retains its old focus in southern Germany. Still, with Serbia focusing pan-Serb expansionist claims against Austria-Hungary, Austria-Hungary might well clash with Russia, so let's say, for the sake of argument, that they do clash. In that case, North Germany and Russia will be together against Austria-Hungary and presumably the Ottoman Empire (which will be on the opposite side to Russia in virtually any plausible scenario unless it has a PoD before the 18th century, or maybe even further back). The UK will probably side against Russia, so (if the UK and the French Empire are on the same side) that puts the UK and France on the side of Austria-Hungary, the independent southern German states and the Ottoman Empire.

So, with that incredibly basic and questionable-assumption-filled summary (which can be refined far further if this scenario is carefully worked out in lots of depth), I predict that this scenario's *WW1 (presuming that it has one, by the OP) will be the UK, the French Empire, Austria-Hungary, the independent southern German states, the Ottoman Empire and the CSA against Russia, North Germany and the USA.

Come to think of it, this is beginning to sound extremely like English Canuck's A History of the Great War, though in that one the UK hasn't picked a side yet.

The Trent Affair is a real long shot, I know. You have to hand the idiot ball to Lincoln and Palmerston as neither was in the least bit interested in war. But with enough massive stupidity on both sides following a violent altercation when the diplomats were seized it is possible. It was the only thing I could come up with.

If I were you I'd take a look at TFSmith121's Burnished Rows of Steel, if you haven't already. It's noteworthy, though, that even in that scrupulously researched TL he/she is finding it difficult to actually make it come to war.

Alternatively, you could go for an earlier PoD. The American Civil War in some form is fairly difficult to avoid because of the vast differences between the North and the South, the ideologies developing behind them and the North's rising population advantage, but if Lincoln were too competent to be comfortable with going to war against the UK in the middle of the Civil War (which I think is a justifiable statement) then perhaps it would be best for this scenario to have the US President be someone other than Lincoln.

Germany may or may not be unified the same exact way but I think it will be unified sooner or later and largely along the same lines. German unification was nearly inevitable since the Napoleonic Wars and the Germans were divided between Germany and AH mostly among religious lines that won't change in TTL.

Germany is a particular area of interest of mine, and I'm afraid I have to disagree on this point. The German states were not only divided by religious lines (the Kingdom of Württemberg was mostly Protestant but it held out with the likes of Catholic Bavaria) but by the lines of occurrences in the Austro-Prussian War, not just in the peace treaty that ended it but also in actions after it influenced heavily by it. The Austro-Prussian War is unlikely to be changed by a likely PoD here, but what happens afterwards is. The main cause for the unification of the North German Confederation with the remaining German states (except the Habsburg state) to form the German Empire was that the remaining German states were terrified of German lands being invaded by an aggressive French Empire (they remembered Napoleon I) and their worst fears seemed to be confirmed by a hilariously stupid misstep by Emperor Napoleon III (so stupid that many people on this website would probably call ASB if they didn't know it actually happened) so they signed a treaty that said they would come to Prussia's aid if Napoleon III played into Bismarck's hands, took the bait and attacked Prussia, which of course IOTL he did.

Get Napoleon III fixated on North America and busy there, and he won't have the time or attention to go fooling around in Central Europe. Take away Napoleon III's error and you take away King Wilhelm I's alliance with the remaining German states outside the North German Confederation (the Kingdom of Bavaria, the Kingdom of Württemberg, the Grand Duchy of Baden and the part of the Grand Duchy of Hesse that wasn't part of the NGC, as opposed to the part of the Grand Duchy of Hesse that was part of the NGC and the various different Hesses—Germany is complicated). Take away that alliance and you take away Bismarck's reason to deliberately trigger the Franco-Prussian War at the time he did. Take away that and you take away the fact that Austria-Hungary is still busy rebuilding and unable to fight… and you might well take away the Franco-Prussian War. Either way, give France extra experience fighting in the American Civil War and it'll learn a few bloody lessons and then it won't do so incredibly awfully in any Franco-Prussian War even if such a war somehow occurs.

As far as Russia is concerned I am shamelessly using butterflies. Again a longshot BUT possible.

I suppose this comes down to a difference of opinion on 'strong' and 'weak' butterfly theory; I can accept butterflies changing fairly random events in countries where they have had very major influence (e.g. if a war goes very differently, a future epidemic is unlikely to be the same, due to differences in movement of people). But in regard to deliberate acts of national policy by individuals born and influenced before the PoD, I'm of the opinion that any major difference from OTL should be justified either by a direct chain of logic leading back to the original PoD or by an explanation that the event was dependent on some variable that can reasonably be explained to be random.

Changing the tsarist state isn't easy; Aleksandr II was a reformer but Aleksandr III (born and raised before any likely PoD you might use) was knowingly reactionary and raised his son to be ignorant and unable to change anything for his whole youth (so either Aleksandr III stays in power, in which case there's a reactionary emperor, or Nikolay II takes over, in which case there's a reactionary regime left over and an incompetent emperor), so if you want reforms you probably need Aleksandr II, for the pre-WW1 era. One clear difference from OTL will actually be very bad for Russia; Aleksandr II's useful military reforms were shaped, to a great degree, by Prussian inspiration after the Franco-Prussian War, where Prussia had impressed the world with its swift, unexpected and total victory. If the Franco-Prussian War doesn't happen (and given Bismarck's personal role in bringing it about deliberately, he may well not do so if Prussia isn't in its OTL position where the southern German states have an agreement to come to Prussia's aid if France attacks, which they probably won't be in this scenario because of less fear of France) then that is very bad for the Imperial Russian Army.

The trickiest part, I admit. The US has far more to offer the UK and wouldn't be a complete slaveowner's paradise that the CSA would be. However, if there is enough bad blood stirred up and the US is steamed that it won't make up with the UK even if the UK offers to cut its alliance with the CSA (Damn unlikely but it might happen for US domestic political reason) then it might have little choice.

That's probably your best bet for a maintained Anglo-Confederate alliance: make the Union so objectionable that even the Confederacy somehow seems better. Even then, it will never be a comfortable alliance; think OTL's Anglo-Russian Convention (the British did their best to pretend that they were only fighting beside France and Belgium, and the British and Russians constantly clashed over various issues and it was nearly about to dissolve when the First World War interrupted the process) rather than OTL's Anglo-French entente cordiale (which was genuinely fairly cordial, with very little tension after it began except for one major burst when it looked like the UK might not enter the war).

Annexed? Yes. Quickly? Maybe. It really depends on how militarized both nations are and if the CSA is able to get enough weapons/supplies from the UK. There aren't any tanks yet so the conquest can happen only as fast as a walking pace.

If the Union launches a huge military build-up fairly early, then the UK can't compete by the 1910s—or, to be more precise, it can't compete with the Union in North America and with whichever foe it has in Europe at the same time. The Confederacy will be a naval non-entity; like OTL's Japan in that period, it will have battleships as the UK (or maybe France) chooses to sell them some (or, later on, to officially let the Japanese make them but actually have most of the components pre-made in the UK), though perhaps not quite as nearly-100% dependent as Imperial Japan was on the UK before the First World War IOTL.

Give the UK no enemy in Europe capable of matching its naval strength, however, and it might focus on North America.

The problem with the CSA is that it doesn't have the enormous industry that OTL's France used to throw back the German war effort and maintain a huge industrial war (albeit with lots of British money to make them able to do it). The Union could play that role, but the Confederacy couldn't.
 
No, they do have a recourse or at least the slaveowners do. They can send kidnappers up North as they did before the war. What is going to stop them from doing that? The Free Blacks also have a recourse and that is to "steal back their family" as they did before the war. Of course the risk will be higher but at least for the slave catchers that means that they can charge a higher price.

I'm sorry but the only way I can think of to respond to this scenario is a simple "Lolwut?"
Okay that's not the only way, let's elaborate;

There's a very very big difference between the Southern States sending Kidnappers up north before the civil war and after it; They were legally allowed to do that (although this was sometimes disputed) and it wasn't happening across National Lines. After the Civil War is over that legal justification is permanently gone. Now doing this would be illegally sending people into another country to abduct the residents of that country. Even if the US can't drum up enough outrage over that alone, it only takes one slip up where such a kidnapper abducts a legally free Black Man and Citizen of the Union and everything is over for the CSA.

This not only gives the Union a flawless CB to invade again, but it guarantees that any support the CSA had is gone. No country in Europe will support a country that abducts the citizens of another country. Hell, the Union probably wouldn't Need to do this, but they could even spin this as the CSA violating international Law by resuming The Slave Trade, arguing that the bounties the Kidnappers received were bills of sale on Blacks that were actually Free.

Best Case scenario the CSA is completely humiliated on the international scale, pulls support for all such operations which leads to massive discontent and embarrassment on the part of the Slaveocrats, prompting infighting and blame throwing until the entire thing falls apart.
Most Likely Case the Union invades and everyone else washes their hands of the CSA. The Union, having had more time to arm themselves, has been employing their massive Industrial and Population advantage, and beats and reclaims the CSA.
Worst Case Scenario the CSA finds itself at war with the Union being the head of an International Alliance designed to stop the Slave Trade Once and For All. The Union Blockade is strengthened by the Royal and French Navies.
 
I'm sorry but the only way I can think of to respond to this scenario is a simple "Lolwut?"
Okay that's not the only way, let's elaborate;

There's a very very big difference between the Southern States sending Kidnappers up north before the civil war and after it; They were legally allowed to do that (although this was sometimes disputed) and it wasn't happening across National Lines. After the Civil War is over that legal justification is permanently gone. Now doing this would be illegally sending people into another country to abduct the residents of that country. Even if the US can't drum up enough outrage over that alone, it only takes one slip up where such a kidnapper abducts a legally free Black Man and Citizen of the Union and everything is over for the CSA.

This not only gives the Union a flawless CB to invade again, but it guarantees that any support the CSA had is gone. No country in Europe will support a country that abducts the citizens of another country. Hell, the Union probably wouldn't Need to do this, but they could even spin this as the CSA violating international Law by resuming The Slave Trade, arguing that the bounties the Kidnappers received were bills of sale on Blacks that were actually Free.

Best Case scenario the CSA is completely humiliated on the international scale, pulls support for all such operations which leads to massive discontent and embarrassment on the part of the Slaveocrats, prompting infighting and blame throwing until the entire thing falls apart.
Most Likely Case the Union invades and everyone else washes their hands of the CSA. The Union, having had more time to arm themselves, has been employing their massive Industrial and Population advantage, and beats and reclaims the CSA.
Worst Case Scenario the CSA finds itself at war with the Union being the head of an International Alliance designed to stop the Slave Trade Once and For All. The Union Blockade is strengthened by the Royal and French Navies.

They don't have to be "official agents of the CSA" for this to occur or to annoy the Union. Private parties can do this well on their own. I am not suggesting that the CSA forms something like "The Department of Slave Kidnapping"! What I AM saying is that slaveowners from the CSA could hire various individuals to do so without any CSA government involvement with officials looking the other way. If the individual gets caught HE gets it in the neck all right , maybe even killed, but the government of the CSA wouldn't have any official involvement.


If the profits are high enough criminals will run the risk of getting killed. Look at the illegal drug trade. Plenty of people go in it even though a lot of them get killed by other criminals.
 
They don't have to be "official agents of the CSA" for this to occur or to annoy the Union. Private parties can do this well on their own. I am not suggesting that the CSA forms something like "The Department of Slave Kidnapping"! What I AM saying is that slaveowners from the CSA could hire various individuals to do so without any CSA government involvement with officials looking the other way. If the individual gets caught HE gets it in the neck all right , maybe even killed, but the government of the CSA wouldn't have any official involvement.


The problem I have with this whole idea is that since its just random private individuals hiring men to kidnap freed slaves from Union border states then I can't see there being much of an issue.

I mean look at it this way, these guys are probably crossing the border then nabbing individuals who have illegally entered the country and were probably on the lower end of the scale for income and for all intents and purposes were probably unnoticed by the population at large. Sure maybe sometimes they'll actually kidnap a proper US citizen but its hardly a casus beli for war, maybe sanctions and strong pressure exerted on the CS to put a stop to it, but I doubt the US government at large will be actively able to even notice it since its not like the 'slave catchers' will be swarming over the border in significant numbers, probably in twos and threes taking at the most one or two people back to the CSA. Hell how many would they even take back a year? Definitely not enough to warrant the US directly intervening.

If the profits are high enough criminals will run the risk of getting killed. Look at the illegal drug trade. Plenty of people go in it even though a lot of them get killed by other criminals.

Where is the profit coming from though? It was one thing for these fellows to do it when the law was on their side, but when they run the risk of being caught and hung by either government if enough official notice comes down on their actions?

This isn't going to be a big thing, the money won't be nearly enough and the risks are probably going to be outstandingly against the gain.
 
The problem I have with this whole idea is that since its just random private individuals hiring men to kidnap freed slaves from Union border states then I can't see there being much of an issue.

I mean look at it this way, these guys are probably crossing the border then nabbing individuals who have illegally entered the country and were probably on the lower end of the scale for income and for all intents and purposes were probably unnoticed by the population at large. Sure maybe sometimes they'll actually kidnap a proper US citizen but its hardly a casus beli for war, maybe sanctions and strong pressure exerted on the CS to put a stop to it, but I doubt the US government at large will be actively able to even notice it since its not like the 'slave catchers' will be swarming over the border in significant numbers, probably in twos and threes taking at the most one or two people back to the CSA. Hell how many would they even take back a year? Definitely not enough to warrant the US directly intervening.



Where is the profit coming from though? It was one thing for these fellows to do it when the law was on their side, but when they run the risk of being caught and hung by either government if enough official notice comes down on their actions?

This isn't going to be a big thing, the money won't be nearly enough and the risks are probably going to be outstandingly against the gain.

The number of people involved would probably be greater than you think and the number nabbed would be greater than you think.. A prime field hand was worth at least $1000 in 1860 which is worth about $20,000 today. So every time you kidnap a Black American you are probably being paid the equivalent of $1,000 or more. Throw in the difference in standard of living in it closer to $5,000 (People are at least 5 times more wealthy today even when accounting for inflation) or more. At $5,000 + a pop I don't think you will have many problems finding enough kidnappers.

They DO run the risk of getting hung by US authorities if they get caught but almost certainly not CS ones. At most they spend a few weeks in jail and are given a show trial where they are found not guilty.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Thanks for the kind words

If I were you I'd take a look at TFSmith121's Burnished Rows of Steel, if you haven't already. It's noteworthy, though, that even in that scrupulously researched TL he/she is finding it difficult to actually make it come to war.

A couple more triggers will be pulled in the next chapter (I hope this weekend), pending the grading of another 20+ Western Civ midterms...

I may just have to chuck the idiot ball Pam's way; however, he was 77, and very much a man of his times (being born in 1784)...not exactly "Lord Cupid" in the 1860s.

Best,

Lord_Palmerston_1863.jpg
 
Top