Let’s say the Confederates win the ACW by 1862-63 with either Turtledove’s POD of Order 191 not being lost or something like the Trent Affair escalated into a naval war between Britain and America, giving the CSA legitimacy and them securing independence. While most Confederate TLs obviously and understandably focus mostly on North America, I frequently wonder what the confederacy’s victory would have meant for Europe?
Confederate Victory’s Effect on European History
- Thread starter Tresckow
- Start date
Jes Lo
Banned
The Confederacy would be looking for any possible allies in Europe in order to make economic and diplomatic ties to guarantee their protection from the US. Britain and France would be the go-to allies, meaning the CS would export whatever they want in order to build up their infrastructure and economy to compensate for the war and to build a new nation. They'd be willing regardless, but the CS would probably be obligated to toe the line of whatever agenda Britain and France would pursue, with them providing aid diplomatically and financially. It's a massive cliché that's done almost every time this scenario plays out, but if either France or Britain or some other ally makes a move in Central/South America, the CS would be the go-to military ally and the manpower provided by the CS would be an asset to the war effort. If France or Britain want to protect their holdings in the Caribbean, the CSA's their guy as they'd start to build their sphere of influence there as well. The CSA wouldn't be making any military impacts in any potential European war, at best a few volunteers and the occasional general, but that's probably a non-issue.
France is trying to make the Empire of Mexico happen at this point, so they've got an obvious interest in an alliance with the CSA, which by virtue of being on Mexico's northern border, can either give French forces in Mexico strong support or serious problems. It's not solely a coincidence that the Empire Maximilian was deposed in 1867, shortly after the ACW ended.
Britain is in for a political crisis, I think- especially if the Union does anything about slavery in the border States still under their control, which is IMO likely to happen sooner or later. Palmerstone and Gladstone were both pro-CSA (for different reasons) but Gladstone suffered complaints from his party about his stance, since a large portion of English Liberals were anti-slavery and (correctly) viewed the Union as the only moral option in the war. With the confederacy losing OTL, the Liberal party was able to pull back together from its split between pro-Gladstone and anti-CSA factions and go on to dominate British politics for the next couple of decades. A Confederate victory, on the other hand, would heighten the stakes between the two sides by making the irritant permanent- British foreign policy still needs to seek allies in North America, meaning they still have to choose which country they support every election cycle. The conservatives would presumably take advantage of the infighting, but in between Palmerston and Disraeli OTL they really lacked leadership, and I don't know who could step up if Gladstone is falling down.
Beyond that, I'd expect most of Europe to largely shrug and move on- groups in states unaffiliated with the conflict might be vocal about their opposition to the CSA and slavery to demonstrate their moral superiority to the countries backing her, but I doubt anyone would start boycotting cotton or taking any other major steps to intervene- unless diplomats for one side or another were very successful, but of course that's difficult to predict. Russia might be an obvious ally for the US actually- she has very few trade links with the CSA, had supported the US against Britain before, and was about to enter the Great Game period anyway- in a Trent Affair TL the US might really start caring about Russo-British conflicts over Afghan borders.
Britain is in for a political crisis, I think- especially if the Union does anything about slavery in the border States still under their control, which is IMO likely to happen sooner or later. Palmerstone and Gladstone were both pro-CSA (for different reasons) but Gladstone suffered complaints from his party about his stance, since a large portion of English Liberals were anti-slavery and (correctly) viewed the Union as the only moral option in the war. With the confederacy losing OTL, the Liberal party was able to pull back together from its split between pro-Gladstone and anti-CSA factions and go on to dominate British politics for the next couple of decades. A Confederate victory, on the other hand, would heighten the stakes between the two sides by making the irritant permanent- British foreign policy still needs to seek allies in North America, meaning they still have to choose which country they support every election cycle. The conservatives would presumably take advantage of the infighting, but in between Palmerston and Disraeli OTL they really lacked leadership, and I don't know who could step up if Gladstone is falling down.
Beyond that, I'd expect most of Europe to largely shrug and move on- groups in states unaffiliated with the conflict might be vocal about their opposition to the CSA and slavery to demonstrate their moral superiority to the countries backing her, but I doubt anyone would start boycotting cotton or taking any other major steps to intervene- unless diplomats for one side or another were very successful, but of course that's difficult to predict. Russia might be an obvious ally for the US actually- she has very few trade links with the CSA, had supported the US against Britain before, and was about to enter the Great Game period anyway- in a Trent Affair TL the US might really start caring about Russo-British conflicts over Afghan borders.
You probably get tariff-free imports of industrial goods from Europe to the CSA and the CSA exporting farm goods like cotton, tobacco, rice, indigo, naval stores(turpentine).
Spanish America war may not happen.
America split in 2 would stay out of any major conflict in Europe like ww1 or ww2 etc. ww1 might end much earlier maybe in 1916 without US loans etc and might result in white peace. Soviets may not come to power.
Hostile relation between France, the British Empire and the Union. The Union may turn a blind eye to rebels like the Irish getting arms and money to fight the British.
so could be earlier rebellions in Ireland.
The royal navy might be more focused on controlling the growth of the Union navy.
Spanish America war may not happen.
America split in 2 would stay out of any major conflict in Europe like ww1 or ww2 etc. ww1 might end much earlier maybe in 1916 without US loans etc and might result in white peace. Soviets may not come to power.
Hostile relation between France, the British Empire and the Union. The Union may turn a blind eye to rebels like the Irish getting arms and money to fight the British.
so could be earlier rebellions in Ireland.
The royal navy might be more focused on controlling the growth of the Union navy.
Likely some start to see the United States as a potential proxy battlefield and chessboard for European conflicts. California's association with the Union lacks a railroad, Cascadia's is even less, the Mormons might seek independence after their experiences, and Nuevo Mexico is either Confederate or *very* remote within the Union. Texas might also think it can do better on its own, especially after oil is found there. A Great Lakes Federation around Chicago and a New England Federation around New York are also possibilities.
I don’t think a CSA would butterfly things like German and Italian Unification to drastically. On the contrary, if the French Empire successfully set of the Mexican Empire, they may have to leave some French troops to stop any revolts against the regime.
However, give it a few decades between 1880s to 1910s, there could be alternate alliances between Europeans and the USA and CSA that could potentially bring the Great War directly to the American continent. There’s also the fact that the CSA would be eying the Caribbean, which could lead to a war with Spain, but not with the British or French since they’re too powerful and potential allies with the CSA
However, give it a few decades between 1880s to 1910s, there could be alternate alliances between Europeans and the USA and CSA that could potentially bring the Great War directly to the American continent. There’s also the fact that the CSA would be eying the Caribbean, which could lead to a war with Spain, but not with the British or French since they’re too powerful and potential allies with the CSA
That railroad used a lot of ex-Confederate labor and passes through some tricky terrain, even in OTL it would be four more years before it was completed and this time the US is not victorious in the war. California has gold and other valuable resources - it could be broken off and made its own nation/satellite of UK. There is also a chance that the Mormons decide to go their own way (maybe as part of a larger peace conference?) which makes Promontory Point foreign soil in that case.
A much more militaristic Britain.
So, if Britian goes to war with the Union - Britiain does this for her own reasons not just for the Confederacy.
What would Britain want from the Union? An end to tarriffs and Latin America remaining British Sphere of Influence. Probably California and a Native buffer state under British protection. If British-Confederate Alliance wins the treaty mandates no tarrifs on British goods and no US influence anywhere south of The Confederacy.
So Northern industrialisation will be a lot slower than OTL and the British Empire would be much more economically powerful. British attitudes are less defeatist, place more faith in military solutions and Britain seeks to kill her military and Industrial competitors by military means. Britain would target Russia then Germany seeking to destroy their potential as industrial powers - in that order.
Britain probably takes California and there is no US presence in China.
If Britain and France are allied in support of the Confederacy, this probably means closer ties so long as France makes clear she is a good doggie and British support for France and French victory in the Franco Prussian war, or the writing on the wall means it doesn't happen. The Germanies are bullied into being tarrif free re British goods.
Japan probably gets a lot more help in the Russo-Japanese war and ends up with the whole Russian Far East.
So, if Britian goes to war with the Union - Britiain does this for her own reasons not just for the Confederacy.
What would Britain want from the Union? An end to tarriffs and Latin America remaining British Sphere of Influence. Probably California and a Native buffer state under British protection. If British-Confederate Alliance wins the treaty mandates no tarrifs on British goods and no US influence anywhere south of The Confederacy.
So Northern industrialisation will be a lot slower than OTL and the British Empire would be much more economically powerful. British attitudes are less defeatist, place more faith in military solutions and Britain seeks to kill her military and Industrial competitors by military means. Britain would target Russia then Germany seeking to destroy their potential as industrial powers - in that order.
Britain probably takes California and there is no US presence in China.
If Britain and France are allied in support of the Confederacy, this probably means closer ties so long as France makes clear she is a good doggie and British support for France and French victory in the Franco Prussian war, or the writing on the wall means it doesn't happen. The Germanies are bullied into being tarrif free re British goods.
Japan probably gets a lot more help in the Russo-Japanese war and ends up with the whole Russian Far East.
Last edited:
Sadly, this delays emancipation (in the North, the South is obvious). The US won't be able to afford compensated emancipation, and uncompensated emancipation would drive the border states into the CSA.
Europe will decry slavery but as long as there's money to be made, they'll do business with the Confederacy.
Europe will decry slavery but as long as there's money to be made, they'll do business with the Confederacy.
Interestingly, I can see Britain becoming an ally of the USA within a handful of decades and being their main patron (while the CSA would likely have France for that honor). And since Russia was the primary supporter of the Union during OTL Civil War, then the USA could be another point of contention in the Great Game.
The most obvious change is that the USA will be a far less powerful ally in both World Wars. Not only that, but if the USA and Confederacy are on opposite sides of a World War, not only do they theoretically counterbalance each other but it would open up another theater of the war on North America. As a result, Germany has a much better chance of winning WW1, or if it loses WW1, it has a better chance of winning WW2.
Another change if the CSA secedes and is strong is potential North American expansion. There was already talks of Cuba potentially joining the CSA during the Civil War and the Dominican Republic tried to sell itself to the USA during the 1800s. If the Confederates win, they probably conquer the entire Spanish Caribbean after they recover from the war and I doubt Spain would be able to fight for them back. The Confederates can also annex the Dutch Caribbean countries with ease and cruelly reintroduce slavery there. If Maximilian still winds up being executed, I could see the Confederates trying to take land from Mexico next.
Another change if the CSA secedes and is strong is potential North American expansion. There was already talks of Cuba potentially joining the CSA during the Civil War and the Dominican Republic tried to sell itself to the USA during the 1800s. If the Confederates win, they probably conquer the entire Spanish Caribbean after they recover from the war and I doubt Spain would be able to fight for them back. The Confederates can also annex the Dutch Caribbean countries with ease and cruelly reintroduce slavery there. If Maximilian still winds up being executed, I could see the Confederates trying to take land from Mexico next.
It depends on how it is achieved - a hands off internal collapse of the Union, whether TL-191 style, through an 1864 Lincoln loss, or some other way, is a completely different scenario from one where the UK gets drawn into a North American conflict and the world is forced to digest what such a major shift in the balance of power means. A purely internally driven Confederate victory has the most potential for a minimal impact outside of the issue of slavery and its image in public opinion, in Europe and elsewhere. Other ties between the CSA and Europe would have to develop on their own out of European interests and initiative. On the other hand, if Britain intervenes on the side of the CSA for whatever reasons and this policy is vindicated, someone has already mentioned how this could embolden British confidence to simply employ a big stick in pursuit of its interests around the world, including in North America. Put no stock in the idea that the UK and US will inevitably be chums. In this world, both sides have every political incentive for hostility, regardless of the fact that certain close economic ties will continue in the world of money people. Daily trade is not the end-all be-all of a nation's economic interests, and that didn't stop WWI, WWII, or the current US-China deterioration. Britain won't be going to war to take California, but during a Trent war over Canada, British leadership may get fanciful ideas of splitting the US apart, such as the Northwestern Confederacy that the Confederates and some northern copperheads put their faith in, but which had negligible support. They'll find they are not able to project that kind of power into the heart of the US.
One fallout would be the USA's first "special relationship" - it would not be with the UK or some other democratic nation, but with Russia and/or Germany. It's killing far too many butterflies for my comfort to speak even of the First World War with an 1860s POD, but one can see the political cartoons with Britannia fending off the three eagles.
A France that remains occupied in Mexico will likely not entertain needless wars with Prussia. Germany will have to be united some other way. It would be interesting to explore a gradual German unification that takes decades and endures setbacks. Same for Italy, if it can be kept out of Rome (and Veneto).
It would be interesting to see what kind of influences and frictions there would be with a US-Russia relationship. It may or may not work, and it may do things like bring the Polish question to awareness in the US or bolster the influence of Russian liberals and constitutionalists.
It's not clear that American democracy as we understand it would survive a civil war defeat. It's always just kind of assumed that a US with a heavily militarized politics and the "bigger government" that brings, nationalist revanchism, likely with a greater police state presence in everyday life, and engaging in the global power game with hostile nations on each border just continues on constitutionally the same. There are no American Boulangers in any timeline I'm aware of. It's amazing that that isn't explored more. Maybe the current political climate in the US will change that. That has huge implications for European, and world history.
One fallout would be the USA's first "special relationship" - it would not be with the UK or some other democratic nation, but with Russia and/or Germany. It's killing far too many butterflies for my comfort to speak even of the First World War with an 1860s POD, but one can see the political cartoons with Britannia fending off the three eagles.
A France that remains occupied in Mexico will likely not entertain needless wars with Prussia. Germany will have to be united some other way. It would be interesting to explore a gradual German unification that takes decades and endures setbacks. Same for Italy, if it can be kept out of Rome (and Veneto).
It would be interesting to see what kind of influences and frictions there would be with a US-Russia relationship. It may or may not work, and it may do things like bring the Polish question to awareness in the US or bolster the influence of Russian liberals and constitutionalists.
It's not clear that American democracy as we understand it would survive a civil war defeat. It's always just kind of assumed that a US with a heavily militarized politics and the "bigger government" that brings, nationalist revanchism, likely with a greater police state presence in everyday life, and engaging in the global power game with hostile nations on each border just continues on constitutionally the same. There are no American Boulangers in any timeline I'm aware of. It's amazing that that isn't explored more. Maybe the current political climate in the US will change that. That has huge implications for European, and world history.
I can see an equivalent of the OTL Third Republic without a Boulanger - the American democratic tradition was far more entrenched than 19th century France.
Russia and Germany are good choices ITTL, but without major divergences I would say that Russia is more likely as it used to support America and would not play games in Latin America like Germany did IOTL. And if the borderline ASB scenario that is Germany being unified as a republic happens, there is no doubt that the German Republic would be a default, natural ally.
Maybe France? It depends on whether France intervenes in the American Civil War or not, and whether the Bonarparte regime survives in the end, and/or whether its foothold in Mexico lasts.
Sorry, Spanish navy was too powerful for the Confederates in the 19th century.
This would not happen. The Northern states had far more shared interests and unified political/cultural values with each other than with any Southern states. And by that time even the rump Union would be too powerful to be broken up.
That is possible.
Without tariffs, only industries in the union that can compete with European goods will survive. Long term this could mean a more competitive Union industry and cheaper industrial goods in the union. Without tariff Union over goes back to selling land to homesteaders.
OTL until the 1920 most Americans export were farm produce.
As for the UK getting land from the union, that will depend on how badly the Union losses.
It might be interesting to see how long the union lasts.
As was said at the Gettysburg address
Both the Union and CSA may become targets for the imperialist powers in Europe look to make land grabs to add part of it to their empires.
If Alaska is not purchased by the union it may be a target for the European powers.
Last edited:
Why would the Confederacy be unable to conquer Cuba when America easily defeated Spain within 3 months! Especially considering the fact that Cubans already wanted to leave Spain and similar colonies in the area already separated from Spain without foreign help. I can't see the Confederates laying claim to Guam or the Phillipines or any other Pacific Spanish colony but Puerto Rico and especially Cuba should be a doable conquest for them.
This is a fantasy that ignores the historical reality that Great Britain did not, absolutely DID NOT, want a war with the United States, and further invents war goals (a permanent occupation of California, really?) that have no basis in OTL.
Why was the Trent Affair resolved peacefully? Partial credit goes to Lincoln doing everything he could to appease the British, but mostly because the British lacked an interest. The United States provided cheap food (other sources existed, but cost more, and food prices affect everyone's wallet) along with significant other trade, a great opportunity to reap huge investment returns, a friendly United States meant that Canada didn't require a large and expensive garrison, it meant the dominant local power shared similar goals in Latin America (the trade, much like the spice, must flow!), and - most important of all - it allowed the British Empire to focus her energies elsewhere.
Palmerston was fresh off the Crimean War and already had a history dealing with Seward in 1840 during that affair with a Canadian named MacLeod and a burning ship sent over Niagra Falls. Britain was ready to cut off saltpeter imports and amass for a strike on New York. They were not in a position to land troops in 1861 but they'd had eyes on California in 1848 among other areas. Palmerston was also willing to offer mediation if Lee's 1862 invasion of the North were successful, he nearly did so anyway.