AH Challenge: 1864 CSA/USA Alliance

[david3565]

My last AH Challenge fizzled, so here is another. How could England and France come on the side of the CSA and then turn against her? How could they also make enemies of the Union in the process? How could Mexico and Canada become involved? Detailed scenarios and timelines welcome...

 

[Xen]

I did something similiar with TL on the old boards. Basically the US Constitution was written in such a way that it allowed secession in times of peace (it was forbidden in times of war which is why New England couldnt secede in 1812). The Union and Confederacy go their different ways but have a common enuugh history they get along well, with the Confederacy swearing to uphold the Monroe Doctrine.

There is tension in the 1880s as the Union joins Europe in placing tariffs on the Confederacy until they ban slavery. This causes some border states to consider leaving the Confederacy and rejoining the Union. There were also tensions about fugitive slaves escaping to the North, and the Union refusing to allow bounty hunters or anybody else the access to hunt them. The south takes care of this more than less with the Border Guard. The South finally ends slavery in 1885, and the tariffs are dropped.

The Confederacy is extremly weak when it enters World War I on the side of Britain,France and the US in 1916. After the war the CS is bankrupt more than less leading several states to break off and either go off on their own or join the US. Louisiana and Texas become Republics while Arkansas, Kentucky, and Tennessee rejoin the Union, when the Depression hits Virginina and North Carolina secede and rejoin the Union (the US flag goes from 9 stripes to 11).

 

[david3565]

Interesting, but I was hoping for a POD during the Civil War.

 

[David S Poepoe]

My last AH Challenge fizzled, so here is another. How could England and France come on the side of the CSA and then turn against her? How could they also make enemies of the Union in the process? How could Mexico and Canada become involved? Detailed scenarios and timelines welcome...

Have you looked at Harry Harrison's Stars and Stripes AH books? They're probably some of the worst AH books around.

 

[david3565]

Have you looked at Harry Harrison's Stars and Stripes AH books? They're probably some of the worst AH books around.

That is where I got the rough idea. After reading some reviews of the book I realized it was a stinker, but the general idea definitely had some merit.

 

[emperorharry86]

That is where I got the rough idea. After reading some reviews of the book I realized it was a stinker, but the general idea definitely had some merit.

What arre those books about?

 

[Ace Venom]

1864: The Race invades Earth, but much of their war equipment suffers critical failures. The USA and CSA put aside their differences to fight against the alien invaders. The Confederacy agrees to fight alongside Union soldiers only on the condition of Confederate independence.

Sure enough, the Confederacy collapses with the Race is able to successfully recruit Confederate slaves to their ranks...oh well, I tried. It's not like this whole premise isn't ASB territory to begin with.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Actually, Harrison's books has Victoria going mad and having Britain declare war upon the United States. The British Admiral leading the attack mistakenly attacks Biloxi, Mississippi in the Confederacy - positively one of the worst and stupidest PODs one can imagine. The USA and CSA patch up there differences and the problem of slavery is resolved by a evening long chat with Jefferson Davis in the White House.

Needless to say this AH triology last three books too long. The Americans (reunified) make all these great technological advances, while the British seem to be fools. The US liberates Ireland and then lands forces in Britain and overthrows the Monarchy and establishes a republic.

 

[david3565]

1864: The Race invades Earth, but much of their war equipment suffers critical failures. The USA and CSA put aside their differences to fight against the alien invaders. The Confederacy agrees to fight alongside Union soldiers only on the condition of Confederate independence.

Sure enough, the Confederacy collapses with the Race is able to successfully recruit Confederate slaves to their ranks...oh well, I tried. It's not like this whole premise isn't ASB territory to begin with.

Actually, no, it isn't at unlikely as you think. England was already pondering coming on the side of the CSA and the French had troops in Mexico to support the monarch they had installed. If the French and English cut an under-the-table deal...

 

[Tom_B]

Primary vs Secondary Concerns

Actually, no, it isn't at unlikely as you think. England was already pondering coming on the side of the CSA and the French had troops in Mexico to support the monarch they had installed. If the French and English cut an under-the-table deal...

Neither Jeff Davis nor Abe Lincoln would like the French control of Mexico (and I doubt the Britis are overjoyed either) but that is a secondary concern and would be insufficient to cause the ACW to be set aside immediately. It might cause a victorious CSA and a post Lincoln President to form an alliance in the mid 1870's, esp. if one or more state in the CSA has abolished slavery by then (which I think likely--but not all the states and definitely not the CSA as an entity).

Harrison's whole concept is loopy.

 

[Norman]

I've thrown this out before, but I'll try again. If the US has a different president than Lincoln, and there is a genuine threat to the two nations, such as overly ambitious french plans for Mexico that include annexation of Texas.

 

[david3565]

I've thrown this out before, but I'll try again. If the US has a different president than Lincoln, and there is a genuine threat to the two nations, such as overly ambitious french plans for Mexico that include annexation of Texas.

And that is something I was pondering, excpet your POD could be much "smaller." A victory at Gettysburg provides the British with the material evidence needed that the CSA has the potential to win, with support. They decide to ally with the CSA.

The French know this through intelligence networks before the CSA or US. Take a look at Napoleon the III, who ruled at this time, and you'll see he was the type of person to try at something ambitious like annexations. I don't think he would go for Texas. Too many people who have too many guns and would get pissed off at having the Mexican Army marching through their back yard. He might try and go for parts of Texas or Arizona or New Mexico. In conjunction he might try and play up the annexations with a nationalist platform to galvanize Mexican politics in support of the installed monarch. If he is successful, a new Mexican "Manifest Destiny" could take root. Always good for a ruler who wants to expand an Empire.

The other consideration is that Napoleon III can not stop the British from supporting the CSA and the potential power shift that might result. But if you can't beat them, join them. The French can play the trump card of being potential allies to the Union. The French have, since the ARW, been on friendly terms with the US and they certainly might accept French help if the British supported the CSA. The British can't stop the French from doing that. The only alternative is an alliance. They help the British gain back lost territory if they help the French-backed Mexican government gain back some. They both help the CSA gain idependence. Maybe Mexico can share in some of the cotton trade afterward.

They decide on a two-sided pincher tactic, launching troops from bases in Mexico and Canada while simultaneously launching blockades against various ports and raiding ships. This goes on for a while with some successes and failures on all sides. The CSA/French/British have made some siginifcant gains in territory, but still have not captured any of the most vital military or industrial centers of the Union. The Union hasn't succeeded in stopping the advance, but has bloodied them quite a bit and minimized the effectiveness of the blockades.

The French, or more specifically Napoleon III, has been engineering a popular revolt in Texas and Louisiana. The Quebec plan was still-born, the Texas one falls apart, but the Louisana one gets farther. Far enough that it requires a sizable force to put it down. The CSA finds out, through a messy trail left behind, that it was engineered by the French. They complain to the British about it. The diplomatic response is "live with it."

The British aren't in a position to respond. French troops are quartered with British troops and hopelessly intertwined. They use the same joint supply lines. Trying to fight the French would would be suicide. The British position is to see it through and commence damage control when all is said and done.

The CSA is in an even worse position. They take the British postion and they have the potential to loose several of the States to French ambitions. If they fight them, they will probably loose. The French and British are already sitting in their home territory, in several cases quartered with one another. The French and British can also switch sides and help the Union pacify the South.

Now some of the CSA States could switch back to the Union, but that does come close to guaranteeing victory, nor is it conducive what they had been fighting this war over. They also risk some measure of retribution and distrust if they do switch sides.

Settling their differences with the Union goes from being an inconceivable notion to the most reasonable course of action. Combined, their forces, having the home advantage, have the greatest chance of repelling the French/British. The CSA knows it is going to have to compromise after the war it over, but it is the price that has to be paid.

That is how you get an alliance and Canada and Mexico involved...

 

[Tom_B]

The French, or more specifically Napoleon III, has been engineering a popular revolt in Texas and Louisiana. The Quebec plan was still-born, the Texas one falls apart, but the Louisana one gets farther. Far enough that it requires a sizable force to put it down. The CSA finds out, through a messy trail left behind, that it was engineered by the French. They complain to the British about it. The diplomatic response is "live with it."

The British aren't in a position to respond. French troops are quartered with British troops and hopelessly intertwined. They use the same joint supply lines. Trying to fight the French would would be suicide. The British position is to see it through and commence damage control when all is said and done.

The CSA is in an even worse position. They take the British postion and they have the potential to loose several of the States to French ambitions. If they fight them, they will probably loose. The French and British are already sitting in their home territory, in several cases quartered with one another. The French and British can also switch sides and help the Union pacify the South.

Now some of the CSA States could switch back to the Union, but that does come close to guaranteeing victory, nor is it conducive what they had been fighting this war over. They also risk some measure of retribution and distrust if they do switch sides.

Settling their differences with the Union goes from being an inconceivable notion to the most reasonable course of action. Combined, their forces, having the home advantage, have the greatest chance of repelling the French/British. The CSA knows it is going to have to compromise after the war it over, but it is the price that has to be paid.

That is how you get an alliance and Canada and Mexico involved...

David,

Very fanciful. Bottomline is Lincoln and Davis uniting to fight anyone just doesn't work. So is the idea Lincoln was not the President at the start of the ACW --if so why is there a civil war? Is the name that is missing in your WI President McClellan--well that gets rid of the biggest problems. But with Lincoln the concept is extremely simple--preservation of the Union and the noneixstence of the Confederacy. Now is the compromise you propose is that Davis gets the states of the Confederacy (and he'd have to get each one to do so) then Lincoln would agree to amnesty and promise that slavery in exisiting states would be not be abolished. Yes he would do this. The Union is preserved. But he would never ever enter into an arrangement where the CSA is acknowledged. Because that means the Union is not preserved.

There are some other problems. Just who is revolting in Louisiana or Texas? Is it that French speaking Cajuns fantasize about being ruled by France again?
Don't buy that one either.

I don't really see this "interwining" of British and French forces either. They have a long history of amity and while a marriage of convenience alliance is possible (just barely though) the British would want to keep things seperate--more cobelligerents than true allies. France operates out of Mexico and Britain operates out of Canada--not exactly on top of each other.

Napoleon III was ambitious and made a lot of mistakes but in this TL they get carried to an extreme I do not accept. He has a growing problem much closer to home in this time period. Verstehen Sie? At most he might look for a "border adjustment" in Arizona and I see that way down on the list of CSA priorities. (again if we want to fantasize about a 1870's CSA/USA alliance that's a horse of a different color)

 

[david3565]

David,

Very fanciful. Bottomline is Lincoln and Davis uniting to fight anyone just doesn't work. So is the idea Lincoln was not the President at the start of the ACW --if so why is there a civil war? Is the name that is missing in your WI President McClellan--well that gets rid of the biggest problems. But with Lincoln the concept is extremely simple--preservation of the Union and the noneixstence of the Confederacy. Now is the compromise you propose is that Davis gets the states of the Confederacy (and he'd have to get each one to do so) then Lincoln would agree to amnesty and promise that slavery in exisiting states would be not be abolished. Yes he would do this. The Union is preserved. But he would never ever enter into an arrangement where the CSA is acknowledged. Because that means the Union is not preserved.

The compromise could widely vary. Maybe the CSA demands calls for new Constitutional Amendments to be introduced if return for dissolving the Confederacy. Maybe they abolish slavery in return for reparations. I don't know. Remember, all old courses of action are untendable and no one is crazy enough to start up a war again without some extreme provocation. What it means is that the Sotuhern States ultimately gain some concessions from the Federal government while agreeing to come back into the fold relatively unscathed.

There are some other problems. Just who is revolting in Louisiana or Texas? Is it that French speaking Cajuns fantasize about being ruled by France again? Don't buy that one either.

In Texas you have slaves who want their freedom and a large Mexican population who might want to get the gringos out of their back. In Louisana you have more slaves and maybe more than a few who might identify with their French heritage and might like being rewarded for their efforts. Some of those people might be in high places. A French military planner might rationalize a greater chance of success by thinking they'll catch them off guard.

I don't really see this "interwining" of British and French forces either. They have a long history of amity and while a marriage of convenience alliance is possible (just barely though) the British would want to keep things seperate--more cobelligerents than true allies. France operates out of Mexico and Britain operates out of Canada--not exactly on top of each other.

If your the French, you're going to want Quebec, which means your going to have an interest of quartering troops in Canada. The British might might agree to let go of that territory in exchange for capturing some of the Northwestern States and Territories. You're also going to demand having your troops quatered together to keep things nice and honest. The British might demand it or the French might as well.

Introducing another angle, it could be that the British promise help to the CSA and then the French find out. The French make their demands. Why don't the British simply pull out of the deal with the CSA? Well, there is issue of honor. Saving face is a big issue and to break an alliance is no small decision. You also then have the economic angle. The British want and need trade. Breaking an alliance most likely means loosing the cotton trade.

Napoleon III was ambitious and made a lot of mistakes but in this TL they get carried to an extreme I do not accept. He has a growing problem much closer to home in this time period. Verstehen Sie? At most he might look for a "border adjustment" in Arizona and I see that way down on the list of CSA priorities. (again if we want to fantasize about a 1870's CSA/USA alliance that's a horse of a different color)

His problems won't come to a head until 1868 OTL and greed might blind him to potential risks that do exist pre-1868. He sees North American balance of power shifting and he wants a piece. But there might also be another explanation

He might have an advisor who he trusts, but who has ambitions of his own, perhaps larger than Napoloen III. A Himmler or Rasputin type.

 

[pisces74]

My last AH Challenge fizzled, so here is another. How could England and France come on the side of the CSA and then turn against her? How could they also make enemies of the Union in the process? How could Mexico and Canada become involved? Detailed scenarios and timelines welcome...

Heres an AAR for a game I played set just after HT's how few remain but before american front.

The U.S. and C.S. start out at war. The C.S. and Britanada quickly carve up the eastern coast using Britains fleet and the Confederate army. Everything north of Boston on the eastern U.S. coast goes to Britanada. everything south to the Confederacy. The confederacy agrees to a "marshallesque" type plan of repairations to Britain. The U.S. and C.S. agree to a ceasefire, as America drives westward in an attempt to destroy the native american civilization. Britanada continues trying to invade The Dakota's and Oregon. The confederacy quickly begins to copy Britains strong navy, and takes out a heafty loan from france to diversify its debt to the U.K. Seeing a lapse in Confederate army units, the U.S. invades Kentucky and western Tennesee, while creating an alliance with Maxmillan of Mexico. initial success causes the confederacy to sue for peace losing Kentucky and west Tennesee. However the new confederate Navy pummells the Mexican coast. Maximillan calls on France as The U.S. needs to consolidate its hold on Its newly gained territory and it diverts its attention to Utah in rebellion. The French fleet is sunk in the caribbean, and its bahamian holdings lost, Vera Cruz becomes head of a atlantic Mexico prediposed to the Confederacy and against Maxmillan. The U.S. defeats Utah in rebellion and attempts another landgrab at the former mexican confederate holdings from L.A. and Arizona. This attempt fails due to the recent completion of a confederate transcontinental railroad. The CSA's wesern holdings are besieged, but mostly secure (barring occasional railroad sabotage, no siege is successful in the western theater) The CSA negotiates a cease fire with the U.S. continues its naval buildup, and declares war on French and Spanish holdings in the Caribbean. France activates its alliance with Mexico which has left its alliance with the U.S. However Mexico doesn't know that A confederate fleet has "rounded the horn" and is on the way to take its non- baja Pacific ports. France and Spain lose all Caribbean island holdings. Maxmillians Mexico is reduced to a portless interior empire that makes miniscule progress into the northern former mexican Confederacy. Britain takes the opprotunity to attack French South American holdings by proxy. Britain cancels its alliance with the confederacy citing Confederate jingoism against european allies, and begins demanding reparations causing the confederate dollar to bottom out in value. However The U.S. instead of attacking a weakend Confed, Has built up a considerable pacific fleet and launches an attack on the Canadian west coast. Using its pacific navy The U.S. achieves a breakthough and occupies Vancouver and Victoria and outlying regions (it didn't concern me so I wasn't paying attnetion to the Pacific NW.) having the British Fleet stationed at the home islands The confederacy completes its domination of the Caribbean by declaring war on Britanada (the small border that the CS and Canada shared was throughly entrenched by this time) The British fleet is sunk between Barbados and Delaware by Confederate coastal defense units and the CS navy. (with heavy heavy losses effectively causing both Transatlantic navies to cease to exist) A starving imperial Mexico vainly attemepts to break north into Texas and is summerarily delt with in order to boost faith in the confederate armed forces which are swiftly feeling the effects of attrition. and at the end of 1910 you have what amounts to a benign ignorance of a state of war between the C.S. and U.S. with understaffed, underfed, underarmed armies looking at each other over quiet trenches while an anti european seige mentality closes over the north american continent.

 

[Max Sinister]

WI union is dissolved many decades before - in the 1840s, or even after ARW?

And Victoria going mad and declaring war sounds like nonsense, sorry. At this time, other people had real power. She wasn't Louis XIV.

 

[Wendell]

WI union is dissolved many decades before - in the 1840s, or even after ARW?

And Victoria going mad and declaring war sounds like nonsense, sorry. At this time, other people had real power. She wasn't Louis XIV.

To be fair, it was Albert's moderate approach that let the Trent Affair conclude short of war.