Without international trade the Union will find itself in desperate straights in a matter of a few months, 1862 is *not* 1914 and the internal markets of the Midwest are as yet unable to supply the needs and raw materials of Eastern commerce.
They are also likely to support measures that weaken the USA, including generous CSA borders with possible plebiscites in Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and the New Mexico Territory.
Little Mac, for all his faults, was a WAR Democrat and isn't going to give the CSA ANYTHING he doesn't have to!
Perhaps, but he would have owed his electoral victory largely to the efforts of men like Clement Vallandigham and George Pendleton, who would expect to have the political chips they had earned properly cashed in.
And be profoundly disappointed when he doesn't do what they want, they saw the handwriting on the wall OTL and were bitterly disppointed in Little Mac.
Canada CAN'T be used as a huge base for a number of reasons. One is that it is sparsely settled and is relatively little developed. There just is not that many people living in Canada. Two is that it is far away, thousands of miles which makes everything EXPENSIVE for the Brits . The US was a highly industrialized country not a technological backwater a century or two behind the times so it was HEAVILY ARMED AND WELL SUPPLIED. Three it has its empire to run and every man sent to North America can't be used to guard an empire that the rest of Europe is eying. To fight the US it needs to send tens of thousands plus many ships to supply them. Four, as I said the US had a larger population the GB did at the time so it can raise a larger army and the few people living in Canada won't help much. A few months of no international trade is NOT that big of a deal for the US, which can feed itself, fuel itself and arm itself entirely. It wouldn't need to import food, fuel or metals. It would take more than a few months for it to bite. The UK has no way of compelling the US to pay for it to go away. Also it is a two way street. GB would be compelled to buy food from somewhere else than the US and at considerably higher prices as it would import from there if it were cheaper. Trade with the US was very profitable to the British Merchant Class which would scream bloody murder at it being cut off. The Brits had large investments in the US which would be seized and sold if it went to war with the US. The London Exchange would instantly crash the moment war broke out for these reasons. For all these reasons it would be VERY stupid for GB to go to war with the US. It is easier for the US to invade Canada then the other way around due to population differences. The UK has no way of forcing plebiscites in KY or anywhere else. The Union doesn't want to garrison unfriendly states? What the Hell do you think it did during and after the ACW?
a. Doesn't have to be a *huge* base, just an effective one. I'm not saying the Canadians will invade across the Great Lakes nor that the British North Americans will be able to take over the whole country, but the British will be able to use Halifax (and Hamilton) as forward bases to set up a blockade.
b. All the more reason that, should it happen, they'll have the Union pay for it. No one said it was going to be cheap.
c. UK may have an empire to run but if its chief competitor France enters the fray on its side who else has the strength to challenge her Empire? Russia just had a rude wake-up call in the Crimea, the Ottomans are in no shape to do so, the NGF and Italy are still trying to unify their own countries, and Austria-Hungary is working to stay together.
d. GB has food sources form elsewhere, South America is coming into her own and other alternatives are available.
e. London's Exchange will not "instantly crash", they will be hit hard but they will not be knocked out. Again, if there is war and the US does something like seizure and sale, the UK will extract venegance, cash, and soil for her efforts.
f. US forces occupied the South because they saw the war through regardless of price. If they are willing to negotiate peace then it seems clear they are not willing to do that.
g. It would take something serious for the UK to put troops on the ground (different outcome for the Trent affair would do it) but if they decide to step in and recognize the CSA with a mediated peace they can threaten sanctions and embargoes against the US. Depending on how the peace comes down, the UK can force a plebiscite as part of the settlement...or victory. BTW, doesn't the US have a need for nitrates for its gunpowder stocks in 1861/2? Granted, Mammoth Cave in KY can be used, but in order to gear up for greater production it would take time and the nearby Louisvilel and Nashville railway could become a priority target for CS guerillas/raiders.
Snake:
CSA will call for all 11 states in any settlement, the original seven would likely not survive long on their own and the leadership should know that. If that is all they get the CSA will die on the vine likely within 15-20 years with harsh re-integration terms. Even the original 11 states would have trouble although the oil discoveries might help some of that. I would see an Argentina-like nation with almost a Latin American social structure emerging.
Fiver:
I disagree.
*Missouri would probably stay in the Union but a plebiscite would probably still be called as it is a slave state with a star on the Rebel flag via Neosho.
*Maryland would be tough to call early in the war (Note the governor, the arrests, and the relocation of the state assembly in 1861 - the governor himself is an interesting story as is the state's Confederate contribution). I can not honestly say how it goes, it will be close but the Union will push hard to prevent this from happening and might be willing to trade one plebiscite for another, especially in...
*Kentucky would go Confederate by roughly 2:1, its Union support is chiefly located in Louisville and the Ohio River but most of the rest of the state sympathizes with the rebellion. Many of the voters boycotted the 1860 election over the secession issue, resulting in a fairly pro-Union state assembly. They are also not stupid people - many of them decided to provide services to whichever side was passing through and there is little they can do with military forces nearby.
*New Mexico Territory is tough to call, but given how they reacted to Sibley despite everything in 1861, they either get divided or it's a coin toss.
*West Virginia gets dicey also as many of its counties supported secession, but I think Wheeling will join Ohio or Pennsylvania while Harper's Ferry and some of the nearby counties would go to Maryland. Again, it depends on the conditions of the peace.
And yes, the CSA lasted four years under appalling conditions as it was fighting for its existance. The Union will not be destroyed and I doubt she will endure the same conditions for that long. Bringing the UK and France to bear also raises the stakes - the UK will have the force projection capacity to shell Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, and Washington. Whether plausible or not the fear of a British invasion will be in the minds of many in those cities as well, especially the first two.
a. It needs a huge base if it wants any boots on the ground. A naval war won't be enough. The US was already large enough to be self sufficient.
b. The US will pay the UK a dime sometime after Hell freezes over, not before. The UK would need a large number of boots on the ground for it even to be remotely likely to happen and it doesn't have nearly enough boots to spare.
c. Russia is most likely, it wants revenge and if the UK is fighting the US it has far less troops and money to fight anywhere else.
d. At much higher prices, if they didn't have to pay more elsewhere for food they wouldn't get it from the US but wherever it is cheaper. South America didn't have nearly enough surplus food to sell to replace the US.
e. It would instantly crash and the UK has no way of compelling the US to cash or soil with a very large number of boots on the ground that it doesn't have to spare. The only thing it could do is sieze US property in the UK which is a fraction of the UK's investment in the US.
f. That doesn't mean it is willing to give up land it already has.
g. Saltpeter isn't exactly rare or hard to make. The US was already the size of Western Europe and would have no problems in producing saltpeter. Sanctions and embargoes are a two way street and wouldn't work. A US president that caves into blackmail is a one termer with NO influence for the rest of his term. His own party would back away from him.
Some comments as someone who sits between confident in the US and confident in Britain.
a) Quite. It doesn't necessarily need to produce much in Canada, but it has to be able to have supply depots in place.
b) And even if the Union somehow is persuaded to pay for it after the war, Britain has to raise the cash to pay for it now.
c) I'm not sure Russia would want to wage a war on the UK at this point. On the other hand, making sure Russia is not inclined to take the risk seriously saps the strength that can be drawn from "all over the empire", plus the risks of troubles in the various places that are held with the smallest possible forces as is.
d) This.
e) I'm not sure the US investments are that big a deal. But even a mere "serious blow" is going to make those impacted scream at the government, and not so much for revenge as to end this stupid war.
f) This.
g) Larger, I think - the seceding eleven alone is usually what's compared to "the size of Western Europe".
I wonder where he got the idea that 1860s Americans were weak willed spineless cowards willing to cave in easily because they weren't or that GB would be willing to lose huge amounts of money and many thousands of lives to save a slave holding society because they weren't.
I have no idea. There seems to be a great tendency to treat the US as either invincible or having won OTL only by the narrowest margin and at a barely affordable expense, and the UK as either invincible or . . . well, fortunately no one is seriously arguing for Harrison's Stars and Stripes Forever.
Interesting story in an Anglophobic sort of way, but utterly wretched alt-history.
I wonder where he got the idea that 1860s Americans were weak willed spineless cowards willing to cave in easily because they weren't or that GB would be willing to lose huge amounts of money and many thousands of lives to save a slave holding society because they weren't.
The problem, however, is that the CSA was frankly put an army of conscripts led by blundering, backstabbing idiots. It lost almost all the major strategic battles of the war and has only narrow chances to win the war, if it ever had them at all. Defeating the CSA is rather exaggerated in terms of what's actually required, it's akin to the Bolshevik victory in the Russian Civil War: it looks impressive until you dig into just what exactly was going on in the war. The CSA lost any chance to secure the strategic initiative in the period from Logan's Cross Roads to Pittsburg Landing. After that it could only prolong its death.
a. It needs a huge base if it wants any boots on the ground. A naval war won't be enough. The US was already large enough to be self sufficient.
b. The US will pay the UK a dime sometime after Hell freezes over, not before. The UK would need a large number of boots on the ground for it even to be remotely likely to happen and it doesn't have nearly enough boots to spare.
c. Russia is most likely, it wants revenge and if the UK is fighting the US it has far less troops and money to fight anywhere else.
d. At much higher prices, if they didn't have to pay more elsewhere for food they wouldn't get it from the US but wherever it is cheaper. South America didn't have nearly enough surplus food to sell to replace the US.
e. It would instantly crash and the UK has no way of compelling the US to cash or soil with a very large number of boots on the ground that it doesn't have to spare. The only thing it could do is sieze US property in the UK which is a fraction of the UK's investment in the US.
f. That doesn't mean it is willing to give up land it already has.
g. Saltpeter isn't exactly rare or hard to make. The US was already the size of Western Europe and would have no problems in producing saltpeter. Sanctions and embargoes are a two way street and wouldn't work. A US president that caves into blackmail is a one termer with NO influence for the rest of his term. His own party would back away from him.
However it is fully capable of making any war with it long and expensive. By 1860 it is clearly impossible for GB to take and hold large areas of the US. Even 67thTiger's link said that GB only hoped that it might be able to take Maine. That is all it is able to do, with some luck. Is it capable of breaking the blockade? Yes, but it isn't capable of conquering the US. That is what would be necessary for it to compel the US to give it money, to give up land to the CSA or to even hold plebeisites in the US. The problem for GB is that 1) The South is far more important to the US than GB so it is willing to make far greater sacrafices to keep it then GB is willing to make for slightly cheaper cotton and 2) The CSA is MUCH closer to the USA than the USA is to GB. The US at the time was the #2 industrial power on the planet, had a larger population than GB and thousands of miles away. The US doesn't need to destroy the British Empire it merely has to make war so expensive to GB that the war isn't worth it. That it CAN do.
1. An embargo of the US along with the recognition of the CSA by the UK will probably be enough. UK ships would sail for CSA ports, if they are fired on then the USA is the aggressor and I do not think Lincoln is keen to take the war internationally. France will likely follow the UKs lead on this, and if the two of them are acting together then that should be enough to bring everyone to the conference table.
2. If the US seizes assets you can wager that they will be made to pay something when the UK intervenes. If the UK has to set up a blockade of the US or if they are fired on it becomes pride and image, the UK will want something in return for her efforts.
3. Russia is dealing with the January Uprising for much of the same timeframe as the American Civil War, I do not think Alexander II is likely to fight a protracted war at home and abroad. Besides, the country is undergoing a lot of reform under him and he would likely look to his existing backyard before trying to expand it.
4. How much of the US economy is based on agricultural exports in 1860 if the South is taken out of the picture? Even without cotton the US takes a serious hit if food exports are halted. Britain does have other suppliers she can use, and in case of bigger UK demand it might accelerate development of alternative suppliers and facilitate Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, and other nearby countries to plant more to pick up the slack. Remember that by 1860 mechanization allowed the UK to supply something like 80% of her own food, too - if worse comes to worse they could find ways around a cut-off by the US.
5. Again, I disagree that the LSE would "instantly crash", it would be hurt but not terminally.
6. If the price of peace is acceptable or if the Union is forced to make concessions they would likely consider it. The CSA is not India or Asia, the Europeans of the time are much more likely to respect the wishes of the local populations under the circumstances. Again, I think we are likely to see plebiscites if the UK steps into the war.
7. a US president who allows its major East Coast cities to come under threat of bombardment, invasion, or who goes off on wild foreign adventures that the country is not likely to win is also in jeopardy. If the UK makes moves near Halifax and the threat of invasion is present in Massachusetts or elsewhere, what does that do to troop morale? Also look at a map to see how close three of the four largest Union powder manufacturies are from the ocean in 1862.
Note: Governments faced with large threats can be pragmatic when necessary. Bravery of the troops is not in question, but Lincoln will have a hard time dealing with three or more countries warring with the US at the same time. If the threat of embargo and UK involvement is not enough, then the US will be in for a lot of trouble as their navy is decimated, their ships/trade placed under threat, and their cities threatened if not shelled. Where your ignorance about my opinions concerning the Union's armed forces comes from is unknown, but there is a difference between bravery and foolhardiness where wars are concerned. Lincoln is not likely to try to fight the CSA, France, and UK at the same time. If he does it would be terrible for the US, and while it will be difficult for the UK to occupy large swathes of the US (especially in the short term) they can do quite a bit of damage and destruction.
Just a reminder-Japan wanted to do this to the USA in WWII. Just because the USA can do this or plans to do this does not mean it can do this in practice, the moreso when engaged in a civil war on a massive scale like this.
The big difference is unless you constantly hand Lincoln the idiot ball the war won't be started by a direct attack on GB! The US would have been willing to pay far less if it intervened in Japanese affairs and was fighting a war IT started. It would look more like Vietnam (Which was also during a civil war) and less like WWII.
Can we start having more conversations about how Arkansas can be effected?
CSA will call for all 11 states in any settlement, the original seven would likely not survive long on their own and the leadership should know that.
I disagree.