A realistic CSA timeline

How long do you think it would take for the South to be independent in name only being little more than a protectorate of the US in TTL? 1900? 1920?
 
Alternatively, British businessmen would invest in Confederate businesses and do-gooder British philanphropists could provide a great deal of aid to the Confederacy in its economic ruin and thus make it little more than a British protectorate. Seems about as likely as Northern Businessmen investing their money in the south.

Maybe you could have a faux-war of businessmen in the Confederacy between British and US businessmen vying for control of the Confederacies resources.
 
Alternatively, British businessmen would invest in Confederate businesses and do-gooder British philanphropists could provide a great deal of aid to the Confederacy in its economic ruin and thus make it little more than a British protectorate. Seems about as likely as Northern Businessmen investing their money in the south.

Maybe you could have a faux-war of businessmen in the Confederacy between British and US businessmen vying for control of the Confederacies resources.

Risky for the Brits as it is in the backyard of the US and meddling in the CSA risks the US meddling in Europe. Also the CSA is MUCH closer which means less transportation costs. The railroads connect right up with the US. Also the Brits seemed to consider the Western Hemisphere the American "sphere of influence". Getting too involved with the CSA would run counter to that policy.
 
Risky for the Brits as it is in the backyard of the US and meddling in the CSA risks the US meddling in Europe. Also the CSA is MUCH closer which means less transportation costs. The railroads connect right up with the US. Also the Brits seemed to consider the Western Hemisphere the American "sphere of influence". Getting too involved with the CSA would run counter to that policy.

So you don't know any economic history then? South America was British and other europeans investment area right up to WW1, and the Monroe doctrine was underwritten by British naval power.

Britain doesn't give a shit about the US meddling in Europe as it has no capability to do so, the US also has a massive paucity of capital to apply abroad, as its a tied up in its own internal development, the US was taking massive investment from the UK right up to the turn of the century, there's no way they're competing in foreign investment markets, or even in manufactured goods markets till the 1890s or so.
 
The British, as a global political force in the late 1800's/early 1900's were kind of committed to weakning any rival powers that might emerge and if permitting the United States to gain control of the resources of the Confederacy, especially with the increase of rival industial manufacturers in the US, would result in the strengthening of the US and make them a more of potential rival to global economic dominance then I see no reason to suggest that the British would not be prepared to get involve themselves in the Confederacy and attempt to gain control of those resources themselves.

And the British do-gooders would get involved regardless of the risk. There is all to much money available to the upper-class in British society in this time and there isn't a shortage of people willing to donate money to a good cause. Feed the poor, clothe the hungry and so on.
 
So you don't know any economic history then? South America was British and other Europeans investment area right up to WW1, and the Monroe doctrine was underwritten by British naval power.

Britain doesn't give a shit about the US meddling in Europe as it has no capability to do so, the US also has a massive paucity of capital to apply abroad, as its a tied up in its own internal development, the US was taking massive investment from the UK right up to the turn of the century, there's no way they're competing in foreign investment markets, or even in manufactured goods markets till the 1890s or so.

I know that the Brits enforced the Monroe Doctrine, that is part of my point. As long as the RN kept Europe out of the Americas GB could be sure that the US would keep any disturbances from spinning out of control and effecting Canada and GB's Caribbean colonies and at US expense and lives. As such it made the Western Hemisphere basically the US sphere of influence. By the 1870s at the latest it was clear that the US would be able to interfere in Europe by the 1890s and at least cut into British markets if not effect the balance of power there. There was a reason that the French gave the US the Statue of Liberty on its centennial and it wasn't out of the goodness of its heart. It was clear by then that the US was a rising power and France wanted to get on its good side. GB was no less forward looking in its foreign policy. What does GB gain by annoying the US? The pathetic CSA market? Not worth it in the long run.
 
Last edited:
The British, as a global political force in the late 1800's/early 1900's were kind of committed to weakning any rival powers that might emerge and if permitting the United States to gain control of the resources of the Confederacy, especially with the increase of rival industial manufacturers in the US, would result in the strengthening of the US and make them a more of potential rival to global economic dominance then I see no reason to suggest that the British would not be prepared to get involve themselves in the Confederacy and attempt to gain control of those resources themselves.

And the British do-gooders would get involved regardless of the risk. There is all to much money available to the upper-class in British society in this time and there isn't a shortage of people willing to donate money to a good cause. Feed the poor, clothe the hungry and so on.


GB was mostly worried about the European balance of power not the America's balance of power. Annoy the US too much and it might ally itself with rising Prussia or Russia. It is far safer to try and ensure the US remain isolationist than risk its getting involved in Europe because its worried about British interference in the CSA. Great Britain's foreign policy tended to be conservative and the CSA simply wouldn't be worth much. The thing is the CSA is far more valuable to the US than it is to GB.
 
Last edited:

pnyckqx

Banned
When McClellan takes command the war is already in the endgame. Lee is shut up in the siege of Petersburg, Hood has been effectively destroyed etc.

Also, it's far more likely the CSA would have become a dependency of the UK and part of the "informal empire". US and UK business interests would likely vie for investment in the CSA.
with all due respect, i believe that you missed the conditions of the OP.

Hood and the Army of Tennessee does NOT get destroyed in the Nashville campaign, because Hood never takes command ITTL. Johnston manages to delay Sherman long enough to prevent Lincoln from winning the election of 1864. Whether the more agressive Union Generals push an all-out-offensive in anticipation of the McClellan Presidency is anyone's guess.
 
I think OTL was a pretty realistic Confederate Timeline. A Confederate Victory Timeline should have victory in 1862 or before, by 1864 its pretty much to late.
 
I think OTL was a pretty realistic Confederate Timeline. A Confederate Victory Timeline should have victory in 1862 or before, by 1864 its pretty much to late.

It just won't happen while Lincoln is POUS. He won't quit and the CSA has no chance of conquering the North.
 
McClellan was anti-abolition and anti-civil rights, but he'd give up the Union the day Hell froze over. He'd also be smart enough not to screw up a war that's all but won, and the primary difference is that this war ends without a 13th, 14th, or 15th Amendment, meaning Reconstruction is much more murky and horrible and slavery is never really legally abolished. McClellan would have more political problems than Lincoln but militarily he *was* a War Democrat.
 
McClellan was anti-abolition and anti-civil rights, but he'd give up the Union the day Hell froze over. He'd also be smart enough not to screw up a war that's all but won, and the primary difference is that this war ends without a 13th, 14th, or 15th Amendment, meaning Reconstruction is much more murky and horrible and slavery is never really legally abolished. McClellan would have more political problems than Lincoln but militarily he *was* a War Democrat.

Remember in TTL the war is not all but won. Johnston is not going to go to TN but keep falling back in GA. Sherman will not be able to "march to the sea" in such circumstances but will have to go the old fashioned way with needing real supply lines slowing him down. When he becomes president he replaces Sherman with one of his cronies, maybe Ambrose Burnside. I think Grant is too popular for him to do replace but he will keep him on a tighter leash. 1866 rolls around and you have a congress that won't vote for funds to continue the war.
 
Top