A revanchivist war in 1876

What if GB and the US went to war in 1862 and the CSA got independence. Because it won so quickly it keeps all 11 states but the Union Slave States are still gone.

This thread makes the following assumptions

1) The CSA is where the North was in 1850 in industrialization by 1876.
2) The US economic growth rate is slowed down 25% from OTL
3) A colonial war breaks out between GB and France in 1875 that spirals out of control to total war in 1876.
4) The US takes this opportunity to declare war on the CSA.

What happens?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
If the CSA won independence before the Emancipation Proclamation and before large tracts of Confederate territory fell under Union control, we can assume that the institution of slavery remains intact more or less as it was in the 1850s.

With an early intervention of Britain, we can also assume that the Confederacy avoided the worst of the economic disaster that befell them IOTL, though they will still end the war considerably in debt.

By the mid-1870s, advances in artillery and small arms might work to the Confederacy's advantage, as they will be on the strategic defensive and therefore have greater opportunity for selecting the ground on which the battles are to be fought.

With a decade-and-a-half of independence, I suppose that the Confederacy will have "found its footing" as a nation. All things considered, I think the Union would face a very difficult task of defeating the Confederacy in this scenario.

But this all begs the question: why does the United States have such a revanchivist policy ITTL? A generation has nearly passed since the South seceded. The people of both sides will have gotten used to there being two nations. Are the Northern people really going to be willing to endure a massive bloodletting (not to mention high taxes and other burdens) because of something that happened many years before?
 
But this all begs the question: why does the United States have such a revanchivist policy ITTL? A generation has nearly
passed since the South seceded. The people of both sides will have gotten used to there being two nations. Are the Northern people really going to be willing to endure a massive bloodletting (not to mention high taxes and other burdens) because of something that happened many years before?



Depends how the CSA behaves. If she slaps heavy tolls on the Mississippi there could be trouble.

Of course this would be stupid thing to do, robbing New Orleans of a lot of business. But the Southern leadership were not the highest cards in the mental pack.
 
If the CSA won independence before the Emancipation Proclamation and before large tracts of Confederate territory fell under Union control, we can assume that the institution of slavery remains intact more or less as it was in the 1850s.

With an early intervention of Britain, we can also assume that the Confederacy avoided the worst of the economic disaster that befell them IOTL, though they will still end the war considerably in debt.

By the mid-1870s, advances in artillery and small arms might work to the Confederacy's advantage, as they will be on the strategic defensive and therefore have greater opportunity for selecting the ground on which the battles are to be fought.

With a decade-and-a-half of independence, I suppose that the Confederacy will have "found its footing" as a nation. All things considered, I think the Union would face a very difficult task of defeating the Confederacy in this scenario.

But this all begs the question: why does the United States have such a revanchivist policy ITTL? A generation has nearly passed since the South seceded. The people of both sides will have gotten used to there being two nations. Are the Northern people really going to be willing to endure a massive bloodletting (not to mention high taxes and other burdens) because of something that happened many years before?

The US population would also even more massively outnumber the CSA and its industry would be even more heavily outweigh it. Advances in small arms and artillary probably makes it harder, not easier for the CSA. The Union would both have the industrial technology to easily keep up and it is more difficult for the CSA and will find it much easier to maintain higher rates of fire. The US would have a much easier time of manufacturing and distributing tens or hundreds of millions of rounds of ammo than the CSA would.

As far as why they would? Why does Pakistan and India still hate each others guts and fought wars against each other long after independence? What about Israel/Arabs? North and South Korea? Besides it would be imposed by the outside and even more resented. With England and France at war with each other they could not do a damn thing and the CSA is doome.
 
Why is the idea of Britain intervening in the ACW so common here? On the side of the CSA even more so? Britain had nothing to gain by intervening on either side - even more so by intervening on the side of the CSA which would be supporting slavery (illegal for decades in Britain), whilst also breaking up a major trading partner who they were actually on decent terms with, with no territorial gain.
 
Why is the idea of Britain intervening in the ACW so common here? On the side of the CSA even more so(1)? Britain had nothing to gain by intervening on either side(2) - even more so by intervening on the side of the CSA which would be supporting slavery(3) (illegal for decades in Britain), whilst also breaking up a major trading partner who they were actually on decent terms with(4), with no territorial gain(5).

A few reasons:

1) Foreign intervention is perhaps the most plausible and reasonable chance of a Confederate victory that doesn't cripple it completely in the post-war world.

2) In terms of power politics not exactly, the British at this time were rather rightly worried about complete American dominance of the continent and potential expansion into the Caribbean and the Pacific which would threaten British interests in both those regions.

3) Technically yes, but in terms of the balance of power and a broader geopolitical situation, no. Until 1863 the war is not seen as anything but an internal issue about preserving the Union and until the passage of the 13th Amendment it isn't even about ending slavery as a whole.

4) Cordial is probably the better word. Neither side had a great interest in another war and little to gain from it. There were tensions and war scares to be sure, but the lack of will to follow any of it prevented war. However, Britain can damage a potential rival while not seriously disrupting her own trade and economic situation. The US depending far more on British imports than the other way around and any brief interruption caused by a war wouldn't be damaging to the British.

5) That depends on the peace treaty. The San Juan Islands fall into British hands here, there is no chance of an Alaska Purchase for the US post war, Hawaii is not going to be annexed by the Americans, and some minor border issues on the Pacific end will probably be cleaned up in the British favor.
 
Why is the idea of Britain intervening in the ACW so common here? On the side of the CSA even more so? Britain had nothing to gain by intervening on either side - even more so by intervening on the side of the CSA which would be supporting slavery (illegal for decades in Britain), whilst also breaking up a major trading partner who they were actually on decent terms with, with no territorial gain.

I agree it is extremely unlikely but I wanted to bend over backwards for a round two. I think even with that the South doesn't have much of a chance.
 
Top