Nevermore
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].
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].
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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].
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?
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
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 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