CSA Victory Question

Please forgive me if this has been discussed before, but I'm of the opinion that the reason people start new threads on old topics is because it's pretty much painful trawling through pages and pages of discussion to find the talking points one is actually interested in.

So, putting aside the likelihood of a Confederate victory (I'm well aware there's a slim chance of it actually happening), my question is regarding the reabsorption of the South by the North. Let's assume the CSA achieves victory by 1865, and then by 1870-ish it begins to fall apart. If the CSA has its own civil war, how likely is it that the USA will move in to "restore order" and, in essence, reannex the collapsing union?

Or, what if it occurred much later, once again over the issue of slavery? States Rights? Texan Nationalism?

The question is basically - is there a chance we can end up with a handful of independent nations in the American South, or is it inevitable that the USA will wind up whole again?
 
I'd say that 1870 is quite early for a Confederate collapse. Give it a few decades of troubles, then it could very well collapse, but not a mere five years after a Confederate War of Independence.
 
I'd say that 1870 is quite early for a Confederate collapse. Give it a few decades of troubles, then it could very well collapse, but not a mere five years after a Confederate War of Independence.

Then forget the date - I don't think it's hugely important. I'm basically asking what the extent of northern revanchism will be. At which point would the USA throw its hands in the air and decide "Oh well!"?
 
Then forget the date - I don't think it's hugely important. I'm basically asking what the extent of northern revanchism will be. At which point would the USA throw its hands in the air and decide "Oh well!"?

opinions vary in this forum

Ultimately though it depends on how big (or small) the Confederacy is, how the Union (United States) handles issues created by the war such as former and escaped slaves, the national debt, its foreign policy, and whether outside help was involved in the partition of the United States. To name but some of the factors.

A lot of variables
 

Saphroneth

Banned
For my part, I tend to take the view that borders create nationalities quite quickly - especially when accompanied by a war of independence. So I suspect that if the US did move in, they'd have trouble meeting with a warm reception.

It's a difficult question, of course, because it basically depends on psychology.

Does the US go to the heavy expense of maintaining a large standing army? OTL the US armed forces dropped by 60% from 1815-16 and stayed there for another five years before halving again; OTL by 1871 the US Army had dropped down to about 30,000 troops total (meaning Aggregate Present and Absent).

So I think the likelihood is that the US simply might not have the manpower available to intervene in a big way!
 
*US becomes more socialist, more internationally aware, and is likely to maintain a standing army
*CSA is likely to centralize a bit, at least as far as trade and military matters go. But it's army will likely be European-educated and might favor class to ability.
*Paris will follow London's lead though this might keep Napolean III in power a while longer and allow Napolean IV to take the throne
*London will have the US boxed in and might try to break off the Pacific coast but ultimately a lot of people will want revenge and additional land
 

Saphroneth

Banned
*US becomes more socialist, more internationally aware, and is likely to maintain a standing army
Question is, how much of one? The US tended to have a tiny standing army relative to other Great Powers until post WW2, and it seems to be an institutional thing.
If you have the CSA internally mobilized you're talking about armies on the scale of 40,000 to 50,000 for the more populous individual states in extremis, and it's quite possible they'll pull a Greece and unite in the face of a 'foreign' attacker. To be able to march straight in with an expectation of easy victory would take a very big US army by the standards of the 19th century - either a lot of standing troops or a lot of reserve trained personnel - and that costs.
*CSA is likely to centralize a bit, at least as far as trade and military matters go. But it's army will likely be European-educated and might favor class to ability.
In this time period it's favouring class or wealth first and ability second at best, for most of them. The US was no different, so it might be a bit of a wash.
If the CS army's European-trained and educated, OTOH, and the US one isn't, then the CS army has a pretty hefty advantage. I'd be more inclined to say both would be a bit.

*London will have the US boxed in and might try to break off the Pacific coast but ultimately a lot of people will want revenge and additional land
That one depends how culpable the US thinks the British are, for the second bit. As for the first, I don't think the British would follow a deliberate containment strategy, not unless the US had been going a bit Seward's Campaign Speech and declaring war on everyone in sight.
 
For my part, I tend to take the view that borders create nationalities quite quickly - especially when accompanied by a war of independence. So I suspect that if the US did move in, they'd have trouble meeting with a warm reception.

It's a difficult question, of course, because it basically depends on psychology.

Does the US go to the heavy expense of maintaining a large standing army? OTL the US armed forces dropped by 60% from 1815-16 and stayed there for another five years before halving again; OTL by 1871 the US Army had dropped down to about 30,000 troops total (meaning Aggregate Present and Absent).

So I think the likelihood is that the US simply might not have the manpower available to intervene in a big way!

You are using situations when there was no significant military competitor sharing a border

Not the case in this situation
 
*US becomes more socialist, more internationally aware, and is likely to maintain a standing army
*CSA is likely to centralize a bit, at least as far as trade and military matters go. But it's army will likely be European-educated and might favor class to ability.
*Paris will follow London's lead though this might keep Napolean III in power a while longer and allow Napolean IV to take the throne
*London will have the US boxed in and might try to break off the Pacific coast but ultimately a lot of people will want revenge and additional land

Socialist .. maybe. A larger standing army and particularly a larger navy seems reasonably certain.

A lot depends on when the Union lost the war
 
I think it really depends on when the Confederacy falls apart. I've always thought the idea that the Confederacy could be "reabsorbed" to be a non starter after a point. Five maybe ten years the Union might go to reabsorb the south, but I think if several decades pass an independent identity would be to ingrained. I feel the US would just take territory they want and puppetize a fractured Confederacy. All depends on when though.
 
There might be states or parts of states that secede from the Confederacy and reapply for membership in the Union under the circumstances. It might even get awkward if, say, North Carolina decides it wants back and the rest of the CSA is in too much chaos to actually stop it.
 
Interestingly, the Confederate Constitution actually specifies that the new union was permanent, so secession has a tougher row to hoe compared to the US Constitution, which was vague enough for a coherent defense of secession, if not necessarily convincing. There could be no arguing that anti-Confederate secession was a revolutionary, not legal act.

If the Confederates moved to a national conscript-reserve system, given their precarious situation and potential affinity for European allies, they could have classes of about 45,000 (ballparking on that). Standing force+5 years of reservists would come out to about 315,000, which would be enough to resist invasion if the US doesn't maintain a huge standing army. Of course, they wouldn't all be available in a Confederate Civil War scenario, but just sweeping in and dismembering the Confederacy for free is probably not an option.
 
I figure that if the CSA did end up independent that they would have a European power supporting them, discouraging the US from reabsorbing it. Same goes for portions of the country that go rogue in a civil unrest scenario -- the power would support the legitimate government's claims to territorial sovereignty. If it gets to the point that Britain or France has no group to point to as legitimate, I imagine the US wouldn't want to involve itself in the mess.
 
For my part, I tend to take the view that borders create nationalities quite quickly - especially when accompanied by a war of independence. So I suspect that if the US did move in, they'd have trouble meeting with a warm reception.

Much like if Britain took Maine in a Trent War?

Does the US go to the heavy expense of maintaining a large standing army? OTL the US armed forces dropped by 60% from 1815-16 and stayed there for another five years before halving again; OTL by 1871 the US Army had dropped down to about 30,000 troops total (meaning Aggregate Present and Absent).

So I think the likelihood is that the US simply might not have the manpower available to intervene in a big way!

In OTL, the Union did not have a hostile, expansionist power on it's border, so it could afford to massively downsize the army after a war. In a Confederate independence timeline, the Confederacy is a hostile expansionist power across half of the Union's southern border, so the peacetime Union Army will be much larger than than in OTL. If the Confederacy has its own Civil War, the Union is very unlikely to intervene unless the states seceding from the Confederacy apply to join the Union. OTOH, the Union probably will give official recognition to any Confederate breakaway states.
 
I figure that if the CSA did end up independent that they would have a European power supporting them, discouraging the US from reabsorbing it. Same goes for portions of the country that go rogue in a civil unrest scenario -- the power would support the legitimate government's claims to territorial sovereignty. If it gets to the point that Britain or France has no group to point to as legitimate, I imagine the US wouldn't want to involve itself in the mess.

European support can't save them from themselves, themselves being the most immediate threat to their territorial integrity.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Much like if Britain took Maine in a Trent War?
Well, yes. Though if they took only the part of Maine with very few people in, then the effect would be lessened due to their being - well - very few people in it.

In OTL, the Union did not have a hostile, expansionist power on it's border, so it could afford to massively downsize the army after a war.
That's why I quoted the 1815-16 example, because that was straight after a war with an enemy which was still right there and which was now unoccupied. Similarly, of course, the US did not massively upsize their army after any of the antebellum war scares (Aroostock, Pig, Boarding Crisis, Crimping).
My point, of course, is that the US is unlikely to have a peacetime army on the same scale as the mobilized arrmies of the individual Confederate States put together. I certainly agree it's going to have a larger army than OTL.
 
Top