AH Discussion: A (More) Realistic Timeline-191?

Nevermore

Well...we are presuming that the U.S. is distancing herself from the likes of the U.K. and France (with that embittered, 'look what you did to our country, you jerks' kind of attitude), and I figure even Remembrance Day could possibly crop up somehow down the line, if we're going to go in that direction. I think you could be right about the reduced navy as well, after all, presuambly a Democrat is in office right about now, and it's safe to say Republicans won't get elected into a major seat like the Presidency for a long time (for 'losing the war'); they might be trying to get the status quo back to that antebellum state. As I suppose we're going to have to think ahead a bit for WWI, I was merely trying to see how Britain could, either willingly or reluctantly, be partners with the CSA, is all. Also, that would technically mean Spain would probably declare war on the CSA for violating her treaty with her. If Spain teams up with the USA, I'd think this might butterfly away future Spanish/American conflicts.

What I meant was that OTL the USN atrophied grossly from the large, if virtually solely brown-water force built up during the civil war. In TTL there is an incentive to maintain larger forces due to the poor relations and contested borders with the CSA. However they will have less resources as a result of the defeat and the concentration will probably be on ground forces and river based ones. As such I expect the US to have a pretty small navy at this point. [Will be a lot smaller if it tangles with the RN but as I said I think those is fairly unlikely unless they do something rash].

I'm personally a bit iffy about this one. True, the U.S. is still the larger nation, and she bled a bit, but her navy would still be weakened. Also I disagree on the position of the Confederates being disadvantageous. They're far closer to Cuba than the USA is, and if the USA openly declares war on them, they're going to have to sail down directly to Cuba, with no friendly ports along the way. This gives the Confederates time to directly go to the island, take it over, and begin to build garrisons there; after all, it would be a lot less harder to ship supplies from Florida to Cuba, than, say, New Jersey to Cuba. Might the USA also start turning towards the Bahamas and Bermuda instead of Cuba? Maybe even the Sandwich Islands (today's Hawaii)?

Good points. However the north does have a good deal more industrial base, although this would be moderated if the south has purchased ships from European bases. As such if there is a lengthly conflict the south could have problems, especially since they would also be fighting the Spanish.

The other point would be whether it was a limited colonial conflict, fought mainly at sea or whether there would be conflict on the common border. If so that would rapidly dwarf any conflict in Cuba and the outcome would depend on how much each side has invested in its army and border defences. [Both in money and thought]. In this case the north would have the edge but if the south has invested wisely in good defences on key parts of the border and a couple of good river flottillas then it would be tough for the north to make significant progress. Again if the conflict involved Britain things would change drastically. [Although this would be unlikely I believe unless the US had a total rush of blood to the head and threatened/attacked Canada].


Hm...well, thanks for explaining that to me. I do suppose it's possible that a France that isn't defeated in keeping their puppet on the throne might feel a bit more confident about taking on Prussia once 1870 rolls around. Nor can we exclude what, as you said, French soldiers might learn in their time in Mexico, and what a successful operation there might mean. As for Austria...I just don't think it's possible, but this is just me. Austria is a landlocked nation that isn't anywhere even near the Atlantic. If Austria declares war on France, this creates a whole mess of problems of trying to get Austrian troops to Mexico; I personally think it's safer if they just sit the conflict out, especially if they're going to unify with Hungary the following year, which a war in Mexico might prolong, if not sort of self-destruct the possibility of (at least I'd think so). Question becomes then: how do we get the CSA and France into each other's good graces with one another? I also look at Mexico (whether it's still the 'Empire of' or not) as a natural ally of the CSA anyway, if for nothing else than their close proximity to one another.

I obviously didn't explain the bit about Austria very well.;) I was talking about if the Franco-Prussian war became lengthly and close matched and the French empire was surviving then Austria might intervene on the French side. Basically seeking to revenge 1866. If so, unless someone else gets involved, Prussia would probably suffer a serious defeat, although not without quite a fight. In that case then all bets would be off as to what would happen in Germany and Russia.

I was about to say, I hear Bismarck was very good at manipulating people into doing what he wanted them to do. Even if a war for independence was stalled, I think Prussia would have found some way to start one sooner or later. I'm not too familiar with Napoleon III, but as you say, I heard he was pretty prideful, which was a factor in the Franco-Prussian War in the first place (it was an elaborate hoax planted by Bismarck, wasn't it, that offended him?). Since I'm trying to keep the histories of countries relatively parallel to OTL with the USA's and CSA's eventual allies, maybe France getting involved into the war over Cuba should just not happen.

Bismarck's manouvering is the most common cause for the war, although some people have a different view. Basically he is supposed to have engineered the war, and set it so France was seen as the aggressor to presuade the southern kingdoms [Bavaria, Wurtemberg and Baden] to support Prussia in the conflict and later become part of the German empire. Without this they might have stayed politically independent, which would have reduced Prussian-NGerman dominance in Europe to some degree and might have complicated relations between the various nations.

If I recall correctly, this is also the same time as the Great Game is occurring in Europe between Russia and the U.K., right? I suppose that would make sense for Russia and the USA to somewhat conspire against Britain over this piece of land. The only problem I also foresee besides financial complications is, after such a defeat, could Seward, if he's even still in office, convince whatever president was in there to buy it?

There was tension over the situation in Central Asia and the approaches to India but probably more in terms of Russian pressure on the Ottoman empire and China, which threatened British interests in those regions. Not saying it would be impossible for Russia to sell Alaska to Britain, especially if they think they might go to war at some time with Britain and lose it in the conflict. However they would definitely prefer an alternative buyer, especially a rival to Britain. Not sure if America would have the money and will-power but don't think anyone else really has the desire.

Bad feeling? I wouldn't necessarily say that they'd feel bad over it, otherwise I don't think they would have seceded. ;) I do imagine that the Mississippi will probably remain open to the USA though, as it would be stupid for the CSA's president to refuse yankee access to it, as that would be a dumb move economically for them. Ironically, even though they seceded, they still need the US to help them in trade, as the US does likewise with them. I do imagine tariff systems and trade embargoes being placed along the river's borders though, as it's a good source of income, especially if some trade deals between the two nations go south.

It may be formally open but there are always ways to change such things. [I think after 1814 the peace treaty allowed British traders access to the Mississippi but the US found ways of blocking them]. However, more importantly, the key point is that it will be a burden on the US due to tariffs and a source of income for the south. Not dramatically so prehaps but will have an impact. Also, if a new conflict does occur between the two the river will be closed. The US must consider this in its interaction with the CSA. They can develop alternative routes, say by more extenive railway networks but that will cost money and be less efficient. It could also mean that there is an internal element in the US that will have a vested interest in good relations with the south and avoiding a new clash with them.

I do imagine a bit of a Cold War might errupt between the two nations. MAD, however, being not much of an issue, as we might see in the conflict over Cuba. You're probably right that conscription would most likely take place for both in case of the outbreak of another war, and they'd probably be quite paranoid of one another; agreements might be strained at times over things. If we're still planning on having the CSA in bed with the Central Powers, I'd think that the continued dislike (or maybe even outright hatred) of the two nations is likely; that was a direct wound to American pride, as we sort of touched on, and I don't think it would be forgiven likely (even if it really wasn't the U.K.'s or France's fault).

Was that a typo about the CSA in bed with the central powers? I was actually wondering whether there might be a limited conscription during peace time. Otherwise, given the higher living standards in the north especially and range of opportunities they might have trouble manning the markedly larger army they would want to maintain during this period.


Also, some other thoughts:

What of the rise of the Socialist Party? We haven't really talked of this yet, but...is it possible? I'm not really familiar with Lincoln's views on labor (or if he will be its founder at all), so is it really likely that the US will have a prominent labor political party represented in it? And what of the Republicans? If the Socialist Party begins to kick on the Democrats' shtick of being the left-leaning party, and the Democrats begin to head in the 'right' direction (pun intended), does the Republican Party's left and right factions get dissolved and absorbed into both? Or does it remain that 'middle man'?

A lot would depend on how closely the US develop parallels OTL. Are you still considering large scale industrialisation and immigration? Probably likely but by no means certain. If so and will a more militarised US with possibly greater control by big business interests a socialist party could well be more significant than in OTL.

Not sure if the democrats were the left-learning party at this time? [Although very difficult to tell as OTL so much was affected by the civil war].

However if still a large level of immigration, possibly even more originating from southern and eastern Europe then there could be markedly more social conflict, with a clearer religious/racial element to it. As such the new immigrants, will probably be less integrated into US society as a whole and hence more likely to adopt 'non-American' ideas like socialism.


Also, the Mormons. At this point in history, the USA and the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter-Day Saints wouldn't be on very good terms, with the occasional protest to see the nation of Deseret. Would the US try to stomp on them as hard as they could (to prevent another secession)? Or would they try to mediate peace better, to prevent that sort of thing from happening? I'd also imagine though, after the War of Secession, the USA would take out that part of the Constitution about the 'right to secede,' or make it at least clear you couldn't.

Don't know enough here. Gut feeling is that, especially given their vital position, and the reaction to a successful sucession, then the US government are more likely to make sure no further break-away's occur. [This could in turn mean that if the Mormons do clash with the government they might get assistance from the south and/or Mexico].

Also, the oddity of Japan. If the USA is against British interests, might they try to eventually send diplomats to entice the Japanese into being on their side rather than Britain's? Sure, Japan has no major imperial aspirations at this point (as it wouldn't begin until 1868), but it would directly affect how things would be done in the Far East and how it might lead to a stronger joint-American presence, and the fact that Japan could be a launching point for some colonies in China. After all, I'd imagine this defeat at the CSA's hands has implanted that little devil called 'imperialism' that all nations suffer at one time or another.

Depends on how things go. Think its highly unlikely that the US will get a close relationship with Japan. There will probably still be the racial problems over discrimination against Japanese settlement in California and also Hawalli if they annex it in TTL. More importantly the US is very likely to be even less interested in events across the Pacific as its attention will be even more concentrated on N America.

Britain's relationship with Japan developed in part because of developments in Europe. Britain was coming out of the period of 'splendid isolationsim' at a time when an ally in the NW Pacific would be beneficial, especially in restraining Russia. At the same time Japan, having won a war with China, found the other major European powers [Germany, France and Russia] ganging up to deny it the spoils of victory.

As such, while Japan. for geo-political reasons, is likely to end up on the opposite side of any alliance with Russia it could go either way. or stay largely neutral. Also are we presuming that some Russo-japanese war occurs and if so how does it go?



Also, what of the issues of the possible annexations of Maryland, Delaware, and maybe Kentucky? Turtledove posits that with a winning Army of Northern Virginia to the east, Braxton could have taken Kentucky. Maryland and Delaware are a bit more iffy though, as that area includes Washington, D.C.

I think it would depend on how the situation on the ground is at the time. Sounded like a fairly early victory and also the south might have to trade any gains in the Maryland region for getting the north out of places like New Orleans and parts of Tennessee. As such while there might be disputes over Kentucky I can't really see the north losing Washington.

One key question. How relativly are you balancing a desire for a more relatistic TL to a desire for a close run with the basic TL191? I.e. are you expecting to have something as unlikely as a WWI line up with the CSA on the allied side and a militarised US allied to the central powers?

Steve
 
First of all, I'd like to thank Hnau who gave information on the actual relationships between the USA and the Mormons historically. Much appreciated and will be taken into consideration! Thanks for helping out. :)

What I meant was that OTL the USN atrophied grossly from the large, if virtually solely brown-water force built up during the civil war. In TTL there is an incentive to maintain larger forces due to the poor relations and contested borders with the CSA. However they will have less resources as a result of the defeat and the concentration will probably be on ground forces and river based ones. As such I expect the US to have a pretty small navy at this point. [Will be a lot smaller if it tangles with the RN but as I said I think those is fairly unlikely unless they do something rash].

No, I think the general consensus among people here is that it's most likely a good idea for the USA not to tangle with Great Britain just yet, as that might all but crush their hope for a triumph someday. :p Your pointing out of more river-based units is actually quite interesting, and I can definitely see some interesting butterflies from this: more river-based battles later in the war than on the ocean between the USA and CSA? I do imagine that if the USA buys Alaska, they'll probably not want to start on a navy just yet.

Good points. However the north does have a good deal more industrial base, although this would be moderated if the south has purchased ships from European bases. As such if there is a lengthly conflict the south could have problems, especially since they would also be fighting the Spanish.

I'd imagine that, if they want to continue to try to keep up with the USA's industrial forces, they might need to get European ships. I once again ask the question: anyone know how powerful Spain's navy was at the time? I can't imagine much, if they couldn't start putting down their Latin America colonies in time before revolutions to occur. The USA attempting to carry themselves and Spain during a conflict in Cuba might be disastrous.

The other point would be whether it was a limited colonial conflict, fought mainly at sea or whether there would be conflict on the common border. If so that would rapidly dwarf any conflict in Cuba and the outcome would depend on how much each side has invested in its army and border defences. [Both in money and thought]. In this case the north would have the edge but if the south has invested wisely in good defences on key parts of the border and a couple of good river flottillas then it would be tough for the north to make significant progress. Again if the conflict involved Britain things would change drastically. [Although this would be unlikely I believe unless the US had a total rush of blood to the head and threatened/attacked Canada].

No, well I think the USA is likely to just stay fit with glowering across the border at Canada, no actions will be taken as seriously to them (yet) as in Timeline-191 1.0. I think it likely that the USA will try to do a knockout war quickly, so as not to engage the wrath of the CSA on land so quickly after they'd already lost a war against them in the span of more than a decade or two. It's been discussed that the South would most likely begin to invest in high defenses, sort of making an 'Iron Curtain' along her borders (of defenses, I mean).

I obviously didn't explain the bit about Austria very well.;) I was talking about if the Franco-Prussian war became lengthly and close matched and the French empire was surviving then Austria might intervene on the French side. Basically seeking to revenge 1866. If so, unless someone else gets involved, Prussia would probably suffer a serious defeat, although not without quite a fight. In that case then all bets would be off as to what would happen in Germany and Russia.

I think it best if Austria-Hungary should stay out of this conflict. Another poster on the other page (you should, ah, catch up as you're somewhat behind), they thought it unlikely that the French could keep the French Habsburg puppet afloat, and after some consideration, I sided with him on the issue. I'd imagine the Franco-Prussian War will then, without a more experienced France, can progress similarly like OTL. Austria-Hungary is going to have worry about all of the ethnicities she's going to keep in check now that she encompasses a large chunk of eastern Europe; a war would simply complicate things about this.

Bismarck's manouvering is the most common cause for the war, although some people have a different view. Basically he is supposed to have engineered the war, and set it so France was seen as the aggressor to presuade the southern kingdoms [Bavaria, Wurtemberg and Baden] to support Prussia in the conflict and later become part of the German empire. Without this they might have stayed politically independent, which would have reduced Prussian-NGerman dominance in Europe to some degree and might have complicated relations between the various nations.

Aye, I hear many different things about Bismarck: some praised him, others absolutely loathed him. The way I heard it was that he had planned it out (as you said) and then set it up so the French would 'offend' him and he'd sent his ultimatum to France. Knowing that Napoleon III wouldn't back down, he supposedly went ahead and declared war against France. As I said above, I think it that will probably turn out the Franco-Prussian War still doesn't go so well for the French and allows Germany to capture that key Alasce-Lorraine territory, which allows for steady industrial progress as in both OTL and Timeline-191 1.0.

There was tension over the situation in Central Asia and the approaches to India but probably more in terms of Russian pressure on the Ottoman empire and China, which threatened British interests in those regions. Not saying it would be impossible for Russia to sell Alaska to Britain, especially if they think they might go to war at some time with Britain and lose it in the conflict. However they would definitely prefer an alternative buyer, especially a rival to Britain. Not sure if America would have the money and will-power but don't think anyone else really has the desire.

Well, considering that Russia had just a decade ago fought the British in the Crimean War (well, not in actual conflict, but by their backing of the Ottoman empire), I think it unlikely that Russia would be so tempted to try to sell Alaska to them. True, it might complete their dominion over that sphere of our part of the world, but they might not see much value in it, same as how most of our politicians didn't when we did (though that would be different here, as we're territory-starved). I think it's pretty safe to say this might a direct reason as to how the US navy is stunted, at first: the financial drain from buying Alaska from Russia, coupled with a lost war, and all of the Indian Wars afterwards.

It may be formally open but there are always ways to change such things. [I think after 1814 the peace treaty allowed British traders access to the Mississippi but the US found ways of blocking them]. However, more importantly, the key point is that it will be a burden on the US due to tariffs and a source of income for the south. Not dramatically so prehaps but will have an impact. Also, if a new conflict does occur between the two the river will be closed. The US must consider this in its interaction with the CSA. They can develop alternative routes, say by more extenive railway networks but that will cost money and be less efficient. It could also mean that there is an internal element in the US that will have a vested interest in good relations with the south and avoiding a new clash with them.

As I said, I think both sides would be stupid to truly try to engage one another for economic reasons at this point: they do need each other. The South is still the largest exporter of cotton this side of the western hempishere at the moment, and the USA needs this for her textile mills and factories. Couple this with other crops that are in high demand, like tobacco, and the USA may not try anything too directly. I'm sure both sides would push each other at times, to see how far the other man might go to keep the status quo, but I doubt it getting much more violent than that. A more extensive railroad, you say? I don't think it could honestly be anymore extensive than the one in OTL, as they're just doesn't seem to be much point other than to blow the USA's nose at the CSA.

Was that a typo about the CSA in bed with the central powers? I was actually wondering whether there might be a limited conscription during peace time. Otherwise, given the higher living standards in the north especially and range of opportunities they might have trouble manning the markedly larger army they would want to maintain during this period.

Yes, I apologize, that was indeed a typo; I meant the USA. :eek: I see conscription being more likely occurring in the CSA than in the USA, as the CSA is well aware of the fact that the USA outnumbers her and might try to correct that fact by having better trained soldiers the next time they engage with each other (there's always a next time). I think if the USA pursues a similar strategy, then it's also likely they might watch each other and push each other politically around a bit so as not to have either get 'too comfortable' with a large army. Another problem we might need to address is the railroad industry in the CSA...

A lot would depend on how closely the US develop parallels OTL. Are you still considering large scale industrialisation and immigration? Probably likely but by no means certain. If so and will a more militarised US with possibly greater control by big business interests a socialist party could well be more significant than in OTL.

I think that a large scale industrialization, which was interrupted by the War of Secession, would still occur, albeit at a maybe slower rate than in OTL. As for immigration, I doubt the USA would care unless the immigrants might happen to be English (or any other ethnicity from the British Isles) or French, other than that, I'd think they'd be too preoccupied with what's going on south of their new borders and making sure the CSA stays 'in her place.' A slower American Industrial Revolution might hurt big businesses somewhat, as the progress is probably slower, but I'd think that those 'foreign' ideas brought over by the immigrants intermingle with big business ideas (the foreign workers not liking how big business owners are treating them), it could be possible. Check out some of the rest of the discussion about the possible rise of a Socialist Party on the earlier page.

Not sure if the democrats were the left-learning party at this time? [Although very difficult to tell as OTL so much was affected by the civil war].

Indeed, someone suggested that it could very well be that the Democrats drift towards more Socialist-like ideas anyway here in this ATL, even if the Socialist Party never arises to prominence like in TL-191 1.0. We think the Republicans are a bit tough to try to guestimate how they'll fair, but we think it likely they'll be hurt badly by the War of Secession.

However if still a large level of immigration, possibly even more originating from southern and eastern Europe then there could be markedly more social conflict, with a clearer religious/racial element to it. As such the new immigrants, will probably be less integrated into US society as a whole and hence more likely to adopt 'non-American' ideas like socialism.

Considering the US may not be too fond of northern European immigration in this ATL, but still be somewhat more accepting as they're not completely focused on it, I'd imagine that if such ideas were brought over, no such 'Red Scare' would occur anyway, as the ideas were becoming more popular with the poor. Not sure about integration however, because that would essentially be the clincher to help push along the rise of any form of Red party the USA might hope to have in its borders. We also had some interesting talks, so far, about what this would mean for later 'Red' revolutions around the world...specifically the Russian one (which I think would not fail, as it did in TL-191 1.0; but that's just me).

Don't know enough here. Gut feeling is that, especially given their vital position, and the reaction to a successful sucession, then the US government are more likely to make sure no further break-away's occur. [This could in turn mean that if the Mormons do clash with the government they might get assistance from the south and/or Mexico].

Hnau did a good job of explaining how relations between the Mormons and the USA were, which was by far more believable than what Turtledove has presented us with. We've also had some disagreements as to how preventions of further prevention of secessions may occur, though the consensus seems to be brute force (if the USA is heading west more aggressively, the Mormons may say 'uncle' much sooner than they did in OTL) or maybe even diplomacy.

Depends on how things go. Think its highly unlikely that the US will get a close relationship with Japan. There will probably still be the racial problems over discrimination against Japanese settlement in California and also Hawalli if they annex it in TTL. More importantly the US is very likely to be even less interested in events across the Pacific as its attention will be even more concentrated on N America.

I'm honestly not so sure; the USA may not completely like Japan (after all, racist ideas of the day), but I don't think they'd hate her as much as they did in OTL because their main concern is the Confederacy, and not what Japan's hijinks are in the Pacific. I also think it could be that the USA may try to form an alliance as soon as they begin to realize the sort of potential the Japanese navy (which will most likely still go on to be one of the world's most feared) has, after some sort of example to them. California has also already been annexed by the USA, even before the War of Secession. Hawaii will be interesting, as it's likely to happen much later than it did in OTL, as that means it has to pass from British to American hands.

Britain's relationship with Japan developed in part because of developments in Europe. Britain was coming out of the period of 'splendid isolationsim' at a time when an ally in the NW Pacific would be beneficial, especially in restraining Russia. At the same time Japan, having won a war with China, found the other major European powers [Germany, France and Russia] ganging up to deny it the spoils of victory.

I did think the end of the 'Splendid Isolation' had something to do with it. I think it would all depend on the US getting on Japan's good side before Great Britain, if this is even possible. While it might make sense diplomatically to go against Russia, it could also be an alternate tactic to try to begin making peace with her too, especially if the U.K. is tiring of the Great Game with the czar (I believe the conflict ended in OTL in 1902, right?). All it'd take for the Emperor of Japan to concur with the US, is skillful diplomacy (maybe even ironically where the idea of a 'Japanese empire' is implanted into the Japanese cultural consciousness): to convince them that Britain could turn on them someday in the event their interests collide, especially if they have elaborate future plans. Keep in mind that at least Prussia was also closely allied with Japan, and quite a bit in helping modern Japan form. If the USA could act as a buffer between Willhelm's Germany (and the Kaiser's admittedly racist views), Japan might be grudgingly ok to lend a hand to the Central Powers.

As such, while Japan. for geo-political reasons, is likely to end up on the opposite side of any alliance with Russia it could go either way. or stay largely neutral. Also are we presuming that some Russo-japanese war occurs and if so how does it go?

As I said earlier: if Great Britain is interested in perhaps quitting the Great Game with a treaty earlier than in OTL, that's essentially making peace with a Japanese enemy, and might reflect poorly in the eyes of the Japanese. As for the Russo-Japanese war, if both of them are still looking around for Empire, I think that a conflict is inevitable between them, and would most likely proceed to progress as it did in OTL (maybe with Britain stepping in afterwards to mediate the terms of surrender?).

I think it would depend on how the situation on the ground is at the time. Sounded like a fairly early victory and also the south might have to trade any gains in the Maryland region for getting the north out of places like New Orleans and parts of Tennessee. As such while there might be disputes over Kentucky I can't really see the north losing Washington.

Hm...well, all right, I was just wanting to know another opinion on this, as it's known historically they had aspirations for these two states. However, if the Confederacy is holding the capitol area, it is possible they could try to haggle the USA giving them Kentucky in return for Washington, D.C. to go back into Yankee hands. With this, they could promise to withdraw all troops from USA soil and 'leave them alone,' as CSA President Davis would have said.

One key question. How relativly are you balancing a desire for a more relatistic TL to a desire for a close run with the basic TL191? I.e. are you expecting to have something as unlikely as a WWI line up with the CSA on the allied side and a militarised US allied to the central powers?

I guess I'm trying to take Turtledove's ideas, and inject at least some form of realism into them. Hope this doesn't turn you off a bit from further discussion, as I know, as I said, his ideas seem to be rather unpopular. I wouldn't necessarily call his WWI lineup 'unlikely' either, especially if the CSA manumits her slaves at some point (probably due to international pressure and several uprisings in the country itself) and is trying to get buddy-buddy with at least one other foreign power. After all, being so alone on the continent without any friends (with the exception of maybe Mexico) would be quite a terrifying prospect for a country their size that's so out manned. If the USA goes galloping off into Germany's, Austria-Hungary's, the Ottoman empire's, and the Kingdom of Italy's (this is a bit of an idea I've got for when we start discussing how the USA's entrance into Central Powers politics will create butterflies) waiting arms. Who else could she honestly turn to in this situation?
 
No doubt the Union is obviously going to try to stabilize the areas she's got left. The fact that the Native Americans might be still running around, even if quickened wars are taking place, could be hazardous to future USA plans. It's simply not beneficial to have them doing so. The draft is probably likely, as it's attempting to gear up the next generation of Americans in the event of another possible war with their neighbor (after all, if that country had just kicked my butt the last fight, I'd be ready to try to come back and sock him one the next round).

So the United States has instituted a manhood draft. Which should probably encourage something from the CSA in response. Any fortifications on the American side need to be met from on the Confederate side. And since the USA so outmatches the CSA, the effects of this build up on Confederate morale, and national pyschology, will be interesting.

I think the USA always being stronger goes without saying unless the Confederacy somehow magically gains several key industrial regions of the USA. The USA probably outnumbers the CSA 3:1, or thereabouts. While Settling Accounts wasn't that great, it hammers home the point you're trying to make: to have any successful Confederate victory, they must have a quick, efficient war (similarly to how the U.S. handled the Gulf War in '91, or at least in theory). Anything longer than say a year is probably going to kill them, and any fighting afterwards is doomed from the start. Immigration I don't see much of a problem, as it was in OTL, especially if the USA is constantly paranoid about what's going on south of their border. As for relations between the U.K. (and in turn, France) and the U.S.A., I just don't think we can honestly be sure. Up until this time, they seemed to be getting along okay. With the U.K. and France helping demand recognition of the Confederacy, they would obviously become victims of the 'blame game,' even if it might be undeserved.

If the victory happens so fast, then I don't know if the French and British do get blamed. The Confederates in this TL basically need to win Bull Run in good order and then march on Washington. This kind of a win will create a whole different set of circumstances, politically, in the United States.

I actually never thought of the possible survival of Confederate States that way...that's actually a very interesting way to look at things. I'm not so sure it could come to pass, however. Sooner or later, though I have no doubt about the civil unrest within her borders, the C.S.A. might have to be a hypocrite and start forming a stronger central government if she wants to keep up with the U.S.A. and not fall into anarchy. You might think it not likely, but it's sort of surprising what people might do in the threat their country could fall apart. Former enemies may join with former enemies if it can mean saving something they both think just (despite the poor whites having to fight a 'rich man's war,' I believe most considered it their country as well, correct me if I'm wrong).

Oh well you could have a very, very messed up evolution of the Confederate "banana republic". The large slave population will need to be watched, given passes, watched some more. Run aways will be hunted ("Border Patrol" gets a whole new meaning). Basically, the Confederacy is going to need to form security services. The South had already given up some civil rights' in the name of keeping slaves in line. Censorship of books and other media, watching Union citizens who visit for business reasons, watching the ports for escaping slaves. The Confederacy is basically going to have to start creating a police state to maintain slavery. Except the Confederacy was founded on the principle of states' rights, so each state is going to have its own security services.

I think that this kind of a scenario becomes all the more likely because of the very short civil war that is being postulated. The member-states of the CSA are going to have all their fantasies about how easy it would be to walk away from the Union realized. The central government is going to be weak, ineffective, and with little ability (or will from the member-states) to exert centralized control. The whole point of the CSA was the supremacy of the states over the central government. The CSA was an alliance of like-minded states (all of whom shared peculiar ideas of what constituted property rights). Banana republics, with more pent up internal dissent than your average caudillo-ruled republic.

I'm not so sure about how the Mexican government would view the CSA. Surely, we can both agree that they'd be somewhat nervous about how they'd be treated by their (funnily enough) northern neighbors. As the air of snobbery and racism permeated the Confederate upper class, it could very well be Hispanics coming up and looking for work in the CSA, maybe volunteering to be some sort of indentured servant to work alongside the African-Confederates (would this be a proper term to use...?), could be discriminated against.

Hmmmmmm, I don't see it. Mexicans moving into the Confederacy that is. Most labor is going to be done with slaves, and if thats not good enough, I don't think that European immigration is going to fall enough that much (there will still be economic opportunities, especially in industrial sectors, for recent immigrants). Maybe Mexicans come into the Confederacy as part of that need for industrial labor.

The only problem I really see in a USA-Mexico friendship is logistics. Unless the President of Mexico (or whomever's in charge) goes by Baja California, then through California and across the US on a train to Washington, D.C. (or it could very well be Philadelphia at this point), it would be a nightmare trying to schedule appointments between the two nations. Though I suppose taking a ship from the Gulf of Mexico up into Pennsylvania or something could work out.

Alliances can be worked out between diplomats, they don't require face to face meetings with between the Presidents of the respective countries. The problem for the agreement will become that the USA now has a vested interest in the continuing stability and pro-American outlook of the Mexican regime.

That was me. I figured it the only logical conclusion to come to if the Confederates are looking with imperialism-tinted glasses southeast towards Cuba and want to make a move on it. Not only would it be a Yankee chance to kick the Confederacy in the shins for the last fight (even if they might not win it), they're pretty much desperate for some sort of foreign friendship, I'd think. Spain might just have to do . . . until Germany and with her, her own friendships.

The desperate Americans, allying to equally desperate Spain and Mexico? The Spaniards are about to be plunged into the 3rd Carlist War in '68, which will definitely open up the possibility of going about Cuba.

What kind of imperialist things are you expecting from the Union? I know United Fruit came out of merchant companies based in the northeast (Boston to be exact)

The Democratic Socialist Party of the United States of America? :p You raise excellent points on how that would affect a Socialist Party economically (and realistically), but as I said, it might not even get anywhere if Lincoln can't get someone who people might be more willing to trust than himself speaking for them, who's shrewd enough politically to know his stuff. Faeelin's response to what American Socialism might be like, something akin to the Populist/Progressive movements, might very well be what it could like, as you yourself sort of suggested: a teamup between 'big businesses' and the farmers. I also see no reason why the Americans wouldn't take out a page from Germany's/Prussia's book on international railroads, especially if they start to see how effective it's working for them too.

I see Lincoln as possibly a "celebrity" presidential candidate who is able to get national attention for the rising party. This would involve Lincoln in the creation and rise of the Socialist Party, but not involve him in the actual creation or organization of the new party.

Either way, if they collapse or continue on, they're still in an odd spot. I wasn't saying some of the things they'd implemented would be lost, no, I'm just saying they're most likely going to fall quite a bit from prominence. They promised to reunify the country and failed it, at that. I don't think that'd make you very popular with the people. I think, if they do still win some elections, it'll most likely be on the East Coast, where people were more likely to be affected by the War of Secession than, say, those in the state of California.

The Republicans basically were that business-farmers alliance. They were morally opposed to slavery (more opposed to the expansion of slavery into land they considered reserved for whites), and favored internal improvements and certain western land reforms (Homestead Act, Trans-Continential Railroad). The loss in the Civil War will hurt them, even cause parts of their coalition to fly off, but I think that their agenda remains partially undone, and it will still provide electoral firepower once the sting of defeat has worn off (I see Seward as probably becoming President in this TL).

I do not personally believe the CSA will lose this upcoming conflict in Cuba. Logistically, they're much closer to Cuba than either the USA or Spain. Nicomacheus brought up the point that it's unlikely the USA will have a larger navy than it did after the war at this point; the USA didn't get hurt much, but she's not totally in the position to go barreling against the CSA. However, the CSA might be, as I'd think that they would be trying to expand the size of their army and navy, just in case of the threat of a yankee attack again. As for Spain, I'm not sure how powerful her navy was, but I think that creates a problem if Spanish boats start meeting with yankee ones: they've got to get close enough to the Confederate coastline, and they've got to get to Cuba, which is all the way south in unfriendly waters. We already disagree on how the political situations of the CSA will turn out, but I do believe you've got somewhat of a point on re-annexation of the former Southern yankee states...

The Confederates probably won't lose the war, they will probably attack Spain during a particularly chaotic period of the Third Carlist War. The war will probably be won relatively quickly, since Spain is wrapped up in its own civil war.

How would the Cubans feel about the Confederate takeover?
 
So the United States has instituted a manhood draft. Which should probably encourage something from the CSA in response. Any fortifications on the American side need to be met from on the Confederate side. And since the USA so outmatches the CSA, the effects of this build up on Confederate morale, and national pyschology, will be interesting.

We were sort of discussing earlier that this might reflect OTL's Cold War, in a way, as both sides will try to continue to compete with one another over nearly everything (politics, expansionism, military, etc.). The Confederacy will most likely put up an 'Iron Curtain' of defenses along her borders in, what the country perceives, as a large, and rightly so, unfriendly force. I personally imagine that the CSA's chest will be puffed up due to its 'glorious' defeat of the Union with so little men and territory (a kind of 'David and Goliath' take of the war, if you will), and this will obviously become a source of national pride. I'd imagine further propaganda in case of another war will most likely see the use of this as imagery. "We made the yankees quit once, we can do it again!" or some other such thing, I'd think.

If the victory happens so fast, then I don't know if the French and British do get blamed. The Confederates in this TL basically need to win Bull Run in good order and then march on Washington. This kind of a win will create a whole different set of circumstances, politically, in the United States.

We were generally assuming that Turtledove's main idea, that the Special Orders 191 do not get lost, is still in tact here. See the second post on the first page by someone who's name I forget right now, to see an excellent, and more developed, explanation of how it would have gone. He posits that it's most likely Lee would have had an uninterrupted supply line, and that once Lee's, Longstreet's, and Jackson's forces met, nothing would really stop them from pushing north. I don't see Washington, D.C. being captured, maybe surrounded, but never entirely caught. I do imagine they'll terrorize it and start pushing even farther north, to isolate her though, as that would be seriously damaging to moral. Keep in mind as well, as someone else pointed out, that Europe is in need of cotton at the moment if this is 1862 and if it appears the Confederacy is winning...

Oh well you could have a very, very messed up evolution of the Confederate "banana republic". The large slave population will need to be watched, given passes, watched some more. Run aways will be hunted ("Border Patrol" gets a whole new meaning). Basically, the Confederacy is going to need to form security services. The South had already given up some civil rights' in the name of keeping slaves in line. Censorship of books and other media, watching Union citizens who visit for business reasons, watching the ports for escaping slaves. The Confederacy is basically going to have to start creating a police state to maintain slavery. Except the Confederacy was founded on the principle of states' rights, so each state is going to have its own security services.

The depiction of a totalitarian-like control on the areas they have is rather interesting, but I'm not so sure how well it'll continue. If the Confederacy wants allies, she will, at some point, need to start releasing her slaves (though this isn't to say African-Confederates will abandon their former masters entirely; after all, they've got nowhere else to go, because they've never been given an education, and might fall into the 'indentured servant' pitfall) if she wants someone to notice her in good terms. I'd imagine what you describe is most likely going to happen at first, and there is even precedence in OTL with the banning of 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' by the South before and during the war, so it's not out of the realm of possibility. The rivers as you said, will need to be watched, as we've already suggested expanded waterways are likely to be developed in this ATL due to the necessity of it for the two nations to trade easier (the Confederacy will either have little to no railroads, or will start to try to import from the USA for aid in this).

I think that this kind of a scenario becomes all the more likely because of the very short civil war that is being postulated. The member-states of the CSA are going to have all their fantasies about how easy it would be to walk away from the Union realized. The central government is going to be weak, ineffective, and with little ability (or will from the member-states) to exert centralized control. The whole point of the CSA was the supremacy of the states over the central government. The CSA was an alliance of like-minded states (all of whom shared peculiar ideas of what constituted property rights). Banana republics, with more pent up internal dissent than your average caudillo-ruled republic.

Even if the central government never gains what we would call 'true power' over the states that make her up, I'm not so sure I see them completely in revolt against each other at one time or another. Despite how much they might even wish it, they have to realize that they'll be having to rely on trade and such with each other if they want to continue as they do, which makes interstate wars a bit of a stupid idea, all things considered. Maybe, as a bit of a joke, Texas may try to secede at some point again, but I'd imagine the others would cry out and work together to crush it, if it tried. If more power is to be given to the CSA's central government, I'd imagine it would happen very slowly and quietly, without anyone truly noticing anything different, but it would become more apparent as time went by. Or if it wasn't so quiet, it might be hard for them to all agree on it, unless it had someone who was quite the charismatic orator...a Jake Featherston-like individual, I'd think.

Hmmmmmm, I don't see it. Mexicans moving into the Confederacy that is. Most labor is going to be done with slaves, and if thats not good enough, I don't think that European immigration is going to fall enough that much (there will still be economic opportunities, especially in industrial sectors, for recent immigrants). Maybe Mexicans come into the Confederacy as part of that need for industrial labor.

It depends on how badly they'll want work, I think. I'm not really familiar with Mexico's economy around this time, but I get the vibe if they're experiencing fractures of their own, with the republicans and monarchists squabbling, it would seriously hamper going to work, I'd think. The notion of having Mexicans come in for industrial labor is quite interesting, in fact, I think I'll look into that a bit more as well, especially if the African-Confederates are being hung up on doing more agrarian-based labor. I'd imagine European immigrants and poor white workers in the CSA may also join them, if opening factories are hiring cheap enough.

Alliances can be worked out between diplomats, they don't require face to face meetings with between the Presidents of the respective countries. The problem for the agreement will become that the USA now has a vested interest in the continuing stability and pro-American outlook of the Mexican regime.

Aye, especially if at this time it happens to be under that problematic French Habsburg emperor that we've been talking of so much in this thread. I might not necessarily say the USA starts to look at Mexico as vital so much as she's just one more nation to perhaps ally with in case of another Confederate attack. In other words, Mexico's future is considered slightly expendable in the grand scheme of things by US politicians. This could also lead to the crisis of US and CS diplomats attempting to dominate Mexico's politics as well, if they get wind of them sent over the border.

The desperate Americans, allying to equally desperate Spain and Mexico? The Spaniards are about to be plunged into the 3rd Carlist War in '68, which will definitely open up the possibility of going about Cuba.

I'd say that the US might be more wanting to invest in some sort of foreign aid a bit more than Mexico, as they'll be allied to Mexico anyway, another thought, if they're allied to Spain in the first place: after all, it's a part of the lingering Spanish empire in the western hemisphere. The US may also want to look itself superior to the CSA by keeping its promise to Spain that she wouldn't invade and try to annex Mexico, something the CSA is about to do. Spain in the midst of a civil war, might not be doing too well to truly try and back an American alliance with her, which complicates foreign relations quite a bit.

What kind of imperialist things are you expecting from the Union? I know United Fruit came out of merchant companies based in the northeast (Boston to be exact)

I'm honestly not too sure at this point. I think vested US interests may start to look towards the Bahamas and Bermuda as potential territories to secure, though it's possible that the Confederacy may try to take the Bahamas too, considering how close they are to Cuba. The US, with her now purchased Alaska, may start to try to send expeditions up there to explore it and get along better with her now formerly Russian citizens. It's also possible the US may start scoping out the Sandwich Islands/Hawaii, and maybe trying to compete with Great Britain in it. I imagine that US ambitions in the Pacific probably won't happen in this ATL, as the US will be far too busy focused on what the Confederacy's doing (and what Canada might be too, if the US has hostile relations against the U.K.).

I see Lincoln as possibly a "celebrity" presidential candidate who is able to get national attention for the rising party. This would involve Lincoln in the creation and rise of the Socialist Party, but not involve him in the actual creation or organization of the new party.

A bit of a figurehead to jump start a new political party is never bad, you're right. Couple this with the influx of generally left alone European immigrants in this ATL (with the US, once again, distracted with dealing with the CSA) and we might see some 'non-American' ideas like Socialism, as was pointed out, take root more deeply than in OTL. If poor European immigrants are wanting this, and begin to attract poor US workers, it could very well be the Socialist party will gain more mainstream prominence than in OTL. I think that we may need a person who works closely with Lincoln, but has his own ways of doing things and his charismatic about preaching his message; any ideas on a historical figure who fits the bill?

The Republicans basically were that business-farmers alliance. They were morally opposed to slavery (more opposed to the expansion of slavery into land they considered reserved for whites), and favored internal improvements and certain western land reforms (Homestead Act, Trans-Continential Railroad). The loss in the Civil War will hurt them, even cause parts of their coalition to fly off, but I think that their agenda remains partially undone, and it will still provide electoral firepower once the sting of defeat has worn off (I see Seward as probably becoming President in this TL).

Seward as president of the USA at some point, eh? Well, that's rather interesting...I'm honestly not too sure who's going to become president in either nation from what parties in this ATL, so if you've got ideas on who they might be, please feel free to share. :) So if the Republicans don't split up, I still imagine several might venture off into different parties, some of the right-wingers might stay though. If the Democratic party is the 'odd man' then, I'd imagine more lukewarm Republicans might join it, and maybe left-wingers go with the Socialists? I'd think this would be a reasonable enough assumption to make, especially, if the Socialists adopt an anti-slavery stance too, which would help make it appeal to non-white minorities in the future.

The Confederates probably won't lose the war, they will probably attack Spain during a particularly chaotic period of the Third Carlist War. The war will probably be won relatively quickly, since Spain is wrapped up in its own civil war.

Researching the Third Carlist War, I think you're probably going to be right here. It just doesn't seem that Spain could pull off two wars at once, especially one against such a far away nation as the CSA. I do think Spain could gain some US sympathy though, even if the US charges and loses against the CSA. After all, the USA knows the woes of being torn apart far too well now.

How would the Cubans feel about the Confederate takeover?

Going by Cuban history, I'd imagine some might be indifferent about the changing of hands as it really wouldn't matter to the slaves, in a way. However, they did have quite a reputation of attempting to rebel against the former Spanish owners (slaves and ethnic Cubans both), and might do so with the Confederacy. This could be another reason for the CSA to start enhancing her naval and army capabilities too, as they might be secretly trained for combat against the likely Cuban rebels they're bound to face. Suffice to say: I think the Confederates will not be willing to let go of their new prize, and may put down any and all resistance harshly (similarly to how they'll put down slave uprisings).
 
Top