Butterflies of a CSA Victory?

I belong to the group of people that truly believe that the Confederacy could only have gained its independence through direct recognition and aide from Britain. (Barring of course a POD that so changes history as to make it unpredictable.)

British recognition and aide would lead to an American declaration of war. Lincoln and Seward said as much and really had no other choice.

An American declaration of war would inevitably lead to an invasion of Canada. It's the only way to take the war to Britain.

It would either be a short farcical affair that both sides rush to bring to a status quo ante-bellum ending. Or it would be a nasty brutal affair that shocks the British public and devastates world trade. Britain would have to send troops and directly assist the Confederacy. Losses would be high and Britain would probably see a change of government. Three to four years of brutal war would leave the CSA, USA, Britain, Canada and possibly France / French held Mexico bitter and battered.

In Europe Russia and Prussia would seek to take advantage of this distraction. If France is bogged down in North America Prussia may push its advantage in Schleswig-Holstien War further. Perhaps a different route to unification by brokering a deal with a nervous and isolated Austria. Russia would probably crack down extra hard on the Poles and put pressure on the Ottomans.

With its overseas trade ravaged by American commerce raiders the British economy will suffer. It will recover, but America will be wary of British investment and the CSA will prove to be a poor economic ally. Cheap Confederate cotton will hurt the Egyptian and Indian economies as British investment pours into the CSA. But there will be growing movement that sees this as "blood money" as it earns profits on the backs of the black slaves. Expect this to quickly tie into the labor movement in Britain and France as industrial workers compare themselves to the Southern slaves.

The US will bust its butt to complete the transcontinental railroad and Lincoln will be there at its completion. Though blamed by some as the man who destroyed the Union, most Northerns will be very sympathetic to him. This will increase after the disastrous term of Horatio Seymour, the last Democratic president. Lincoln will do his utmost to quell any latent secessionist feelings in the West after moving to San Francisco. In the 1870s Sam Clemens will complete his biography, a book regarded by many to be one of America's greatest works of non-fiction.

Over the next two decades Britain will tire of spending massive amounts of money defending Canada and the CSA from the US. A disagreement over escaped slaves and Central American debt payments will culminate in a crisis that nearly launches another continent wide war. In the end Britain will abandon the CSA, which will loose Texas, the trans-Mississippi, and the Upper South over the next several decades, in order to mend relations with the US.

Texas will remain independent but at odds with a Mexico damaged by the reign of its French backed Emperor. Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, Louisiana, and even the old industrial heart of the Confederacy, Virginia, will rejoin the Union in the early years of the 20th Century. The Deep South will stubbornly retain slavery until the exceedingly vicious rebellions of the 1950s force the US and UK to intervene.

Alaska will still go to the US. Russia doesn't want it and they really don't want Britain to have it. The US economy will recover enough by the mid-1870s and its still a good way to geographically surround Canada.

Canada will be forced to reassess it relationship with Britain. A unpopular war allied to a slaveocracy will give the pro-Republic factions a lot of strength.

Ben
 
The French will almost assuredly win in Mexico with a Confederate victory... and if that happens the Austro-Prussian/Franco-Prussian wars are likely to change as well.

Maybe, MAYBE if the French are still feeling adventerous after Mexico they head down South and back Orélie-Antoine de Tounens in Patagonia and Araucania and instill another friendly monarchy.

The loss of the South on the American economy will be devastating and will likely butterfly the Alaska purchase. America will have significantly less influence in Latin America, and the Pacific could go any which way depending on the butterflies.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
The French will almost assuredly win in Mexico with a Confederate victory... and if that happens the Austro-Prussian/Franco-Prussian wars are likely to change as well.

Napoleon III might feel more emboldened in general if he is successful in Mexico. This might lead him to intervene in the Austro-Prussian War in favor of Austria. Alternatively, if he is feeling pretty good about himself, he might not feel the need to issue the incredibly stupid protest letter to Prussia in 1870, thereby butterflying the Franco-Prussian War entirely.
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
An Anglo-Confederate War if the CSA is fool enough to attempt to reopen the Transatlantic Slave Trade?

Well, officially, no, it'd be CSA smugglers that be the problem. They'd probably be around for a good while. Under all differnent types of flags, though. I suppose the British (and French) would "have ways of making them talk" which is what could cause the most friction though.
 
Well, officially, no, it'd be CSA smugglers that be the problem. They'd probably be around for a good while. Under all differnent types of flags, though. I suppose the British (and French) would "have ways of making them talk" which is what could cause the most friction though.
i could totally see an 1812-like war arising over a revitalized slave trade, with Britain, France, and maybe the US on one side and the CSA on the other (maybe supported by the few remaining slave states)
 
Everything would be speculation. Educated possibilities.

You, good sir, might as well have said, "Zebras walk on the moon" for all the contribution your statement made to the stated query. It's an Alt-History question, and thus everything speculation and educated possibilities. That simply goes without saying.

People here keep saying that if the Confederacy had won the American Civil War, the World Wars would not happen due to butterflies. Tell me, then, what would the worldwide effects of a Confederate victory be?

And ultimately, whenever a CSA-Victory thread is created, a hefty portion of the ensuing posts within are not even related to the OP, but instead focus on the "How" of the CSA victory in the first place... or rather, more appropriately, the "No Damn Way" options.

Well, I made a timeline (just one of the millions) on a CSA victory. Anyway, World War I still happens as Archduke Franz Ferdinand is still shot in Sarajevo...

So there are no major divergences from the Civil War itself, none that would ripple out over the ensuing half century to alter this key event? What... did you napalm the butterflies en masse or just garrote the ones that got close?
 
Well, officially, no, it'd be CSA smugglers that be the problem. They'd probably be around for a good while. Under all differnent types of flags, though. I suppose the British (and French) would "have ways of making them talk" which is what could cause the most friction though.

There was some talk in Congress in the 1850s about reopening the trade. Didn't go anywhere, but it might in the Confederate Clowngress. Some line or another about allowing the average man the opertunity to become one of the slave owners.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
There was some talk in Congress in the 1850s about reopening the trade. Didn't go anywhere, but it might in the Confederate Clowngress. Some line or another about allowing the average man the opertunity to become one of the slave owners.

I doubt it. Even if the Confederates didn't care about losing whatever goodwill they might have gained in Britain, reopening the Atlantic slave trade would reduce the value of the slaves already in the Confederacy, thereby inflicting financial pain on the very class of people who politically dominated the Confederacy.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Might a Confederate victory have butterflied away the Reform Act of 1867 in Britain? After all, the Union victory was seen as symbolic of a global movement of egalitarianism and greatly emboldened reformers in Europe. Absent such a victory, there might have been sufficient butterflies to lead to the bill's defeat.
 
And ultimately, whenever a CSA-Victory thread is created, a hefty portion of the ensuing posts within are not even related to the OP, but instead focus on the "How" of the CSA victory in the first place... or rather, more appropriately, the "No Damn Way" options.

Yet the "How" is essential to making educated guesses about subsequent events. Just let them go, a short war, a peace by exhaustion, and foreign intervention all lead to radically different post-war scenarios. That's not counting the TLs that ignore all realistic options and wank the Confederacy.
 
Latin America (especially South America) was largely Britain's sphere of influence in OTL. The Monroe Doctrine was a fine speech, but the US had no ability to enforce it til early 1900's and didn't really make inroads into South America until Britain vacated it during WWI.

I know that the Royal Navy was the primary "enforcer" of the Monroe Doctrine in the 19th century. I also know that by the 1890s, the European powers were trying to stick their foot in the door because of various debt crises in the Caribbean. And before that you had French intervention in Mexico and their attempt to build a Panama Canal. So the rest of Europe is already involving itself in the Caribbean despite the Royal Navy.

Ultimately, it was the US which kept them out. After the Civil War ended, the US dumped lots of war supplies to Juarez and made it very clear the US was going to support him over Maximillian. TR added the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine that said if intervention in Latin America needed to happen, it would be done by the US and not the European powers who wanted to collect on their debts precisely because he saw the European powers would intervene if the US didn't stop/pre-empt them.

Of course, this ties in with your comments that the US couldn't enforce it until the early 1900s. Of course, that's exactly when it started needing to do so. And it's about 30 years after any Confederate victory, which is why I earlier talked about "long term trends". The US, losing the south and its direct access to the Caribbean, won't be able to preempt the Europeans in the 1890s. And we don't know how things would have played out for the French Intervention in Mexico if the US couldn't aid Juarez. Would a French victory encourage more interventions? I think so.
 
my opinion is that Maximilian is toast in Mexico regardless of the outcome of the US civil war. The french basically took the approach of taking ostensible control of the country, declaring victory, and then retreating, leaving Max to his own devices. They quickly discovered this wasn't going to be an easy substitution of installing a crown in place of a president and life is good. At that point, they started withdrawing support. Max was going down slowly, or quickly, regardless of events. Did it influence others? Sure. It showed everyone, including the US, that it's best to just back a dictator and stay the hell out of trying to be the power in charge. Note that the US showed no interest in declaring any but Puerto Rico (and a few small islands) as colonies. They had possession of Cuba and spit it out as quickly as possible.

Monroe doctrine, as I said, was a fine speech. in South America, it didn't mean a darn thing until WWII or beyond. Britain gave legitmacy to it by backing down in 1895 when they had bigger problems in South Africa, but otherwise, nobody really saw any reason to get involved in the lost cause of central america region. I don't see as a case of the US keeping the Europeans out as much as it was a case of Europeans having the sense to steer clear of a mess and turning their sights on Africa. Still, I'll give you Central America, as that did end up the US sphere of interest.
 
Top