AHC: Britain and France help the Confederacy, but the Union wins anyway

[qazse]

A common trope I've come across in Confederate victory scenarios is that the Confederacy wins the war with the aid of Britain or France, or both.

Let's try and subvert that. How can you make it so that the Confederacy receives the aid of Britain and France in the war, but the Union wins anyway?

 

[BELFAST]

That is going to lead to difficult relations post-war.
WWI might not see the Americans helping the British and French.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

It would require intervention well past the point the Confederacy could realistically be saved. Post 1863 at least. Hypothetically if you got the Laird Rams affair to blow up, Britain and France intervention in a limited naval capacity as a punishment to try and force the Union to the negotiation table might allow it. The Union could still win, whether that be through military power or a a negotiation on the basis of reunion.

 

[Hawkeye]

Maybe it would depend on the nature of how the Europeans joined? Perhaps Lord Palmerston gets a bad idea lodged in his head and he is dead set on dividing the rival US to secure British interest in the Americas. He strongarms a declaration of war by slim majority through parliament at the cost of public disapproval and tries to assuage controversy by promising an easy war where the Southerners and French will do the heavy lifting.

Meanwhile General McClellan has a flash of genius and actually uses his army while General Grant gets noticed earlier. A more aggressive US destroys the Army of the Northern Virginia and captures Richmond by late 1862 and it becomes clear that the British will need to invest much more into the war than previously promised. Lord Palmerston is booted from the office of Prime Minister and the new government negotiates before the Union can defeat the Confederacy and turn its undivided attention to Canada.

 

[Narrowback57]

I think it means that the Russian and/or German Empires have a good chance of a good friend in the western hemisphere and the French at least will be worrying about their Caribbean holdings, British might be too powerful for Yanks to directly mess with, but the Great Lakes,Windsor Ontario,Pacific Northwest and Ireland could be in play somehow

 

[Nivek]

That is going to lead to difficult relations post-war.
WWI might not see the Americans helping the British and French.

Nah once the Rockefeller and Morgan realize their money is gone if the British empire is dead, they will call politicians to do their bidding.

Maybe the USA is even more anti entente in the international conferences? maybe more anti-European all around?

 

[Viking25]

Maybe the USA is even more anti entente in the international conferences?

How was the USA anti entente specifically and in what conferences?

 

[Hawkeye]

I think a more anti-British US might drive an Anglo-German alliance. The reason Anglo-American relations improved in OTL was that the changing political situation in Europe forced the British to focus on either the eastern hemisphere or the western. Britain chose to recognize America's growing influence by allowing them to mediate the Venezuela crisis in 1895 and received a favorable settlement as a result. But a hostile America might make Britain reluctant and they instead choose to acknowledge Germany's growing influence in Europe instead. Especially if Germany focuses on Russia (whom they have common cause with the Anglo's) instead of getting in an naval arms race with the British.

In either case, whether Britain is Entente or a Central Power, I doubt that they could rely on American loans, so they would have to cannibalize their economy as Germany did to finance the war.

 

[Citycat]

This would not be good for the US in the long term. There would be an uneasy peace between Washington and its neighbours. The US also had limited political influence abroad and very few friends apart from perhaps Russia, while the UK was the most powerful and influential country in the world.

The European powers led by the UK and France would seek revenge. And they could rally other European powers behind them. You would get a coalition of the British, French, Confederates and then probably the Germans, Italians and Spanish all wanting a piece of the New World through bullying or even invading the US.

 

[BELFAST]

This would not be good for the US in the long term. There would be an uneasy peace between Washington and its neighbours. The US also had limited political influence abroad and very few friends apart from perhaps Russia, while the UK was the most powerful and influential country in the world.

The European powers led by the UK and France would seek revenge. And they could rally other European powers behind them. You would get a coalition of the British, French, Confederates and then probably the Germans, Italians and Spanish all wanting a piece of the New World through bullying or even invading the US.

That might happen if the CSA won the civil war.

 

[dfl_90]

If intervention comes much earlier than 1864, then the US isn't in a good spot to eke out a clean victory. After that point, they probably have enough momentum to see the conflict through. British and French aid is likely going to be mostly in materiel and naval support, rather than boots on Confederate soil. In the end that doesn't solve the Confederacy's long term problems. The conflict probably quietly ends once the South surrenders. The US in unlikely to be in a position to punish the British or French for their actions and they probably feign an excuse to justify the intervention.

One interesting knock on effect would be a likely Anglo-American rivalry, especially in the Pacific. Oregon is already resolved, but Alaska and Hawaii might much more contentious acquisitions for the US. Russo-American relations might remain better for longer given the common geo-political enemy. Similarly Japan and the UK might maintain their relationship rather the UK dumping them for the US as in OTL. WW1 may not look particularly different, although the chance the US remaining neutral certainly goes up. For WW2 however, a Japan with a strong ties to Britain is probably less likely to go rogue. That might butterfly the whole Pacific theater of the war away, making it primarily a European war.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

A pre-war POD might help. If the US pays more attention to its peacetime military, such that it has plenty of strong fortifications in its major ports and along its northern border, it will be in a much better position to fend off British/French attacks in these areas whilst also maintaining its war effort in the south.

I do think people are perhaps overestimating the effects on long-term Anglo-American relations, though. There are plenty of examples of countries invading one another and then patching up relations afterwards, if they think that being allies is more advantageous than being enemies. Heck, the US and Britain fought two wars IOTL and it didn't stop them becoming friends later in the century. Particularly if the Union ends up winning anyway, I think the US will be quite happy to team up with Britain fifty years later, if that's what's in the US' interests.

 

[Insane Ranter]

A common trope I've come across in Confederate victory scenarios is that the Confederacy wins the war with the aid of Britain or France, or both.

Let's try and subvert that. How can you make it so that the Confederacy receives the aid of Britain and France in the war, but the Union wins anyway?

What level of "help" do you mean? Sending troops and fighting battles, just naval warfare, using UK and French ships to "by-pass" the blockade and buy CSA cotton, just sending money and/or supplies?

Caleb Huse bought a good amount for the CSA in OTL.

​