Confederate Victory Pet Peeve

Saphroneth

Banned
And in the meantime, sell all the guns, butter, and ships they possibly can to the rebels. And allow blockade runnera umpteen deep to operate from Bermuda, Nassau, etc.

Best,
Well, yes.
The British sold things - like rifles - to both sides. And they allowed ships to operate (with time limits) in their ports from both sides.

That's what "Neutral" actually means, you know.
That's why a lot of the actual blockading vessels purchased coal in places like Bermuda or Nassau.
 
Last edited:
Well, yes.
The British sold things - like rifles - to both sides. And they allowed ships to operate (with time limits) in their ports from both sides.

That's what "Neutral" actually means, you know.
That's why a lot of the actual blockading vessels purchased coal in places like Bermuda or Nassau.

Pressuring the Union to give up slavery while trading with the slaveocrats in the South. Yeah, that totally doesn't undermine your anti-slavery position.:rolleyes:
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Pressuring the Union to give up slavery while trading with the slaveocrats in the South. Yeah, that totally doesn't undermine your anti-slavery position.:rolleyes:
Actually, it somewhat does - they were trading with both sides.
This is because Free Trade is seen as a good thing in and of itself.

Now, they respected (and didn't test) the blockade, which is actually in and of itself a concession to the Union - the Union was insisting that they be granted legal blockade rights (which they got) while also insisting they were not a combatant because there was no war.

But when Confederate ships or Confederate private individuals showed up with money and purchased things, they were allowed to - because Free Trade was seen at the time as a positive good.

If the British had been really, really neutral, or even pro-Confederacy neutral, they'd be aggressively sailing civilian ships through the blockade at the threadbare points and dates - those times the Union doesn't have enough frigates on station to catch them, since a blockade only has legal weight if the blockader can enforce it.
 
Maybe if the Union lost a second war to the CSA in the future (unlikely) and they somehow made a new narrative over how the South gained independence it could happen, but the idea that a stab in the back myth and revanche ideology would develop purely out of the act of Confederate independence is really stretching belief in this case.

I doubt the US would descend into authoritanism. There would be revanchism, but it wouldn't be as large as German revanchism or even French revanchism. Same goes with the "stab-in-the-back" myth - it would exist, but it would be at a far lower level than the German one. As a result, no Hitler, Mussolini, or even a Boulanger could ever emerge.

However, this revanchism would be enough to destroy the Democratic Party
 
There would be revanchism, but it wouldn't be as large as German revanchism or even French revanchism.

Well whose going to be calling to reabsorb the South? Evidently by TTL the voters gave it up willingly (or at least were too exhausted to want to bring them back by force). New England certainly won't be sad the slavers are out of government, and the Mid West is only going to care about getting goods to market, the Pacific states aren't even involved and the West is going to care more about the Native Tribes being taken care of.

Same goes with the "stab-in-the-back" myth - it would exist, but it would be at a far lower level than the German one. As a result, no Hitler, Mussolini, or even a Boulanger could ever emerge.

Well who stabbed who in the back? It's hard to say someone stabbed you in the back when at least a small majority of the population has voted to have peace and there's no crippling treaty that embarrasses you ala Versailles.

However, this revanchism would be enough to destroy the Democratic Party

Would it? The Democrats had a secure enough base to survive OTL and they were the immigrant party during the Civil War, and dominant enough through the border states and Mid West to draw on a broad swathe of support there too.

If they get blamed at all for the secession it'll be far far down the line and they'll probably have entrenched in enough sections of the populace to survive any potential backlash rather nicely.
 
I imagine the Republicans would split since radicals would blame Lincoln and the moderates, like they briefly split IOTL when radicals formed the Radical Democracy Party in 1864. Democrats may have a short period of dominance, but soon a stab in the back theory will drain their support. The Republican Party will eventually reunite. The Democrats will also have the taint of having outright confederate supporters in their ranks, and there may be a Democratic split as the mainstream Democrats isolate copperhead elements in their party.
 
Top