CSA wins, makes harsh peace

At first, the CSA wins the ACW. It's not that important, how - let's say, Walker has Nicaragua, and Britain enters the war.

However, other than in other ATLs we had where the South only gets independent and maybe takes two or three border states, the Confeds and the Brits decide that the US shall never rise again. So they impose a peace as harsh as possible.

So it goes like this:
- All states and territories that allowed slavery go to the CSA. These are Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri and the territories of Nebraska, Utah and New Mexico.
- West Virginia is dissolved, since the CSA declares that this state only came to life due to Yankees trying to divide et impera. In the same way, Kansas becomes a slave state, because they say that the voting was influenced by Yankee agents from the NW and therefore invalid.
- And to make the borders of the CSA shorter, Arizona, Colorado, Oklahoma and DC also become Confederate.
- Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas become Canadian.
- California (with Nevada and Oregon) becomes independent.

Comments?
 
The whole affair with Mr. Walker (I forgot his first name) took place in 1856 or '57, awhile before the Civil War. If you're going to make such an alternate history don't forget to note that when you decide your point of departure. I could say much much more on everything else but I'll posted enough large posts for the time being. You may hear from me again soon though.
 
Not likely, unless the Confederacy wants its own rebellion on its hands. A harsh peace certainly isn't typical of a people that just wanted to go their own way. Also a harsh peace just sows the want for revenge, just think about the Treaty of Frankfurt between Germany and France.

Somehow 'At first, the CSA wins the ACW. It's not that important, how' just isn't going to cut it. There really needs to be some explanation, tho of course this usually spins out of control with everyone claiming to be Civil War Scholars. Someone will also bring up Britain's dependency on US grain, which definately has to be taken into account.

There is plenty of territory, along with its mineral resources, for the United States to become an economic powerhouse.

On the whole since the Confederacy still has to live next to the United States, and they have many shared and common histories, such harsh terms would be seen as counterproductive.
 
Are asking if this could happen, or starting from this premise?

I'll take the latter...

The US is now bent on revenge and launches a massive peace time military expansion over a period of several years. Please note that the majority of the US's power and wealth remains INSIDE the US.

The usual happens. Fortifications, large numbers of advanced monitors followed by coastal battleships, machine guns arrive a bit sooner, perhaps even some early armored cars, plus a standing army worthy of the remnant US population(which is still over 20 million in 1861 and doubles very soon). Plus the occupied Americans and the Underground Railroad for other efforts.

So one fine day in the 1880s the British are having problems somewhere else in the world and the US suddenly leaps. If Canada hasn't fortified the border and introduced total conscription, the US eats them for lunch. If they HAVE, they still go down unless the British have a permanent commitment there, by which I mean something on the order of more troops than the entire British Army in OTL.

Of course, if the result of this war is a massive and permanent expansion of the British Army then the British taxpayer is liiable to see the whole situation as a disaster. We might even see an effort to appease the US before matters come to a head.

Unfortunately the minimum would probably involve so much(independent West Coast, the new Canadian territories, AND support revising the CSA border) as to be shattering to whichever British party forced the original settlement.

So the war begins. Barring massive Canadian fortification and conscription AND a major British presence(say 150K minimum), the US walks over most of Canada, retakes the territory lost to Canada and reunites 'Pacific America' in one nation. Probably most of Canada is overrun too.

Now the US offers terms. The British to recognize the reunion with 'Pacific America' and the return of the 'new territories' to the US. In addition, either some monster reparations bill or perhaps all of Canada west of Ontario to be attached to the US. If the US did really well, both of those. If matters were closer perhaps no reparations or Canadian losses but just the first items.

Now the problem for the British is clear. The US has gotten what it wants and everyone recognizes that the trend heavily favors the defense in modern warfare. The US can now assume the defensive and bleed the British white.

It goes without saying that for the British to be the victim of a sneak attack and beg for peace is absurd.

The British are not helpless, presumably their fleet is still stronger than the US fleet and can establish some kind of blockade. I'm assuming the US sends out swarms of light privateers while keeping the battlefleet, perhaps in Long Island Sound with forts, heavy guns, and mines to keep the British out?

Additionally, the CSA can be counted on for support, if only to avoid the next revenge war from a much stronger USA. If the CSA is NOT there for support, then the British really have screwed up.

The problem is simple. Once the British decide not to yield, what do they do? Is there any plausible effort by the British, even with the CSA, that will restore the status quo? Years of effort, financially crushing costs, hundreds of thousands of lives and the total collapse of London's position in the world may be considered but to what end?

A blockade of indeterminate strength and a few landings to grab a West Coast foothold or parts of Quebec won't do it. Anything less than total victory means the US won. If YOU fought a war and announced the enemy was gaining an area the size of Western Europe with the treaty, convincing anyone that YOU were the winner would be a challenge.

Let's presume naval matters go as I think, with the British unable to win a decisive victory because the US fleet refuses to be lured out. The CSA jumps in. Canada, with British help, holds a line at the St Lawrence river and most of Ontario, later retaking most of British Columbia by seaborne landing.

However, American interior lines, planning, and emphasis on machine guns and experimental armored cavalry proves a crushing advantage out west. It also becomes clear that the CSA can't afford an offensive war against superior numbers and firepower, and can barely hold out in the west after a few debacles. Possibly a major slave uprising.

Finally the Kaiser and Tsar jointly negotiate a settlement.

Under the terms, no one pays reparations(but the US seizes British property inside the US and regained territories, Canada keeps current boundaries, plus Washington State. The Dakotas, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming revert to the US. 'Pacific America' returns to the US. Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri are yielded by the CSA, along with portions of Delaware, Maryland, and West Virginia.

By OTL standards this US would be much smaller and weaker in potential. By comparison with what prevailed for 20-30 years such concessions could only be seen as a shattering defeat by the British and CSA without even having the benefit of less tension with the US.
 
If the South could win the ACW, wouldn't they also be strong enough to absorb the North into a much bigger CSA? They could re-write the Constitution to adopt a confederacy (maybe using the Articles of Confederation), pack the Supreme Court, and either impose slavery everywhere, or just give the states their choice on slavery. That would be a horrific situation for blacks, as slaves fleeling north might be subject to deportation back to their home state. (If this continued long enough, slaves might be required to work in factories in the Industrial Revolution era.)

Eventually, however, the system would have to crack under global pressure from without and demographic pressures from within; maybe a coalition of anti-slavery European powers (France, Britain, etc.) plus Canada and maybe even Russia, would eventually support internal insurrections, blockade or invade the CSA and carve it up as spoils. That would be disastrous because then the USA might never be restored.
 
Last edited:

Valamyr

Banned
How about the overwhelmingly victorious South simply decides not to go its own way anymore, but to absorb the north? Capital moved to the south, nothern industries dismantled, constitution rewritten, voting rights limited to slaveowners, slavery the first guaranteed to white men, pricing regimes which allow the south to sell to the north exclusively its goods at inflated prices?

And Britain gains a few of the northernmost states to expand Canada with as thanks for her timely intervention which allowed this to occur.

I'm by no means a usual poster in South-wins thread, but this strikes me as the only way to avoid that the North rises again.
 
Britain gaining some of the western territories may actually cause a rift between her and the CSA. I remember reading that the territories had few people in them, but the miners and timbermen who made up what little American population there was tended to have CSA sympathies (in OTL, keeping the mines in the US was pretty important)...
 
CSA imposes reconstruction on the North. They argue that only the vicious oppression of the Yankees kept the workers poor and pass laws to reverse this.
1. Voting rights without property qualifications so that poor people can vote without farms or even houses.
2. Free public schools for all children and college scholarships for universal access to education.
3. 8 hour day mandatory, time and a half for overtime, and any time over forty hours a week.
4. Legal unions so that poor people can organise to bargain for better conditions.
5. Free land for homesteading so that any poor people can move to the frontier and settle land by just farming it.
6. Subsidised railroads to help the poor people move to the west coast and the great plains.
7. No tariffs so that poor people can buy imports cheaper than before the war.
8. No more immigration so that fewer people like my Hungarian ancestors can depress wages in the North.
Sounds fair. If Northerns can do that, so can Southerners!
 
@Grimm: Right, I simply took it for granted.
@Valamyr: Even some decades before 1861, the North had a higher population than the South and was still growing faster. The CSA annexing the US is too unrealistic. So I wondered how far they could go - if they only took the border states and the thinly populated territories, they could at least control it for a while.
@Dave: That's interesting, I didn't know that.

I had the idea a long time ago, in fact. Here's how it continues:

The CSA celebrate their victory and announce to everyone that they have the best soldiers of the world, one Souterner better than twenty Yankees and so on. Since they were successful, they don't change their ways much. They mostly import stuff they need from Europe, Canada or even the US, but don't bother that much about building their own industry, except for a few exceptions (some governors are a bit wiser than others). When the Great War begins, only the cities of Richmond and Atlanta have underground trains and a decent number of cars, but everywhere else the Old South hasn't changed too much. Due too peer pressure, there aren't any states in the CSA that have forbidden slavery yet, only some where almost noone has slaves. The CSA also acquired most of Central America and the Caribbean.

The US have changed a lot: They introduced conscription, built up their army, did everything they could afford. They also made an alliance with Germany. But since the CSA are allied with Britain (and indirectly, also with France, Russia and Japan) they didn't start a war yet.
They also changed on the inside: The many immigrants have altered the makeup of society, and so have the former slaves fled from the South and the wish for revenge against the CSA.

Britain has sent more soldiers to Canada, fearing the revenge of the US. They've been keeping their alliance with the CSA up, since they want to hold down the US.

Finally, WW1 happens, with the US on the sides of the CP and the CSA with the Allies. The war in Europe drags on as OTL; Germany does a bit better since there are less Brits in Europe, but they still don't manage to knock out France. In America, things don't look that good for the US - over the years, they've become too dependent on food for their growing population in the cities, and now the Royal Navy has cut them off. Of course, the old grudges against the CSA keep the people from rebelling, at least at the moment.

But the CSA slowly but steady advances. They are approaching the new capital of Philadelphia; the Brits are advancing through New England, aiming at Boston; and together, they are driving the US troops back in Wisconsin and Iowa, taking away their farmland.

In 1917, the war-tired Germans smuggle Lenin into Russia, much as OTL. Lew Bronstein aka Trotzkij isn't there, though; his family emigrated into the US after another pogrom in Russia.
At the moment, the US are almost willing to capitulate; the CSA have started an attack through Ohio, threatening to cut the un-occupied USA in two. The Canadians and Brits are attacking Boston with their artillery.
 
This is wierd. However, if the combined purpose of the CSA and Great Britain is to ensure that "the north" (the USA) never rises again, I don't see how the British would accept the CSA absorbing the north. Then you just get a "United States" by another name - and one which might be, in the long term, a bigger problem for the British in north america than the old United States. Plus, it is unlikely the CSA would accept such a deal unless it gave the California and other states on the Pacific.

How about having the British, not the CSA. absorb the rump USA. This might create a CSA consisting of the old south, all the border states, OTL Oklahoma, Arizona, New Mexico, and all or part of California, and an expansion of British North America to include all the rest of the former United States and its territories. This British get lots of prime temperate farmland, gold, and a developing industrial center more in tune with the industrial developments going on in Britain. The South gets its independence, rule over other slaveholding areas, and an outlet to the Pacific.
 
*bump*

It's not very realistic - the CSA defending with British help against the US is one thing, but dismembering the US (which would be what happened here) is ASBish at least.

Still I liked the idea, so I think about continuing it...
 
Grimm Reaper said:
Are asking if this could happen, or starting from this premise?

I'll take the latter...

The US is now bent on revenge and launches a massive peace time military expansion over a period of several years. Please note that the majority of the US's power and wealth remains INSIDE the US.

The usual happens. Fortifications, large numbers of advanced monitors followed by coastal battleships, machine guns arrive a bit sooner, perhaps even some early armored cars, plus a standing army worthy of the remnant US population(which is still over 20 million in 1861 and doubles very soon). Plus the occupied Americans and the Underground Railroad for other efforts.

So one fine day in the 1880s the British are having problems somewhere else in the world and the US suddenly leaps. If Canada hasn't fortified the border and introduced total conscription, the US eats them for lunch. If they HAVE, they still go down unless the British have a permanent commitment there, by which I mean something on the order of more troops than the entire British Army in OTL.

Of course, if the result of this war is a massive and permanent expansion of the British Army then the British taxpayer is liiable to see the whole situation as a disaster. We might even see an effort to appease the US before matters come to a head.

Unfortunately the minimum would probably involve so much(independent West Coast, the new Canadian territories, AND support revising the CSA border) as to be shattering to whichever British party forced the original settlement.

So the war begins. Barring massive Canadian fortification and conscription AND a major British presence(say 150K minimum), the US walks over most of Canada, retakes the territory lost to Canada and reunites 'Pacific America' in one nation. Probably most of Canada is overrun too.

Now the US offers terms. The British to recognize the reunion with 'Pacific America' and the return of the 'new territories' to the US. In addition, either some monster reparations bill or perhaps all of Canada west of Ontario to be attached to the US. If the US did really well, both of those. If matters were closer perhaps no reparations or Canadian losses but just the first items.

Now the problem for the British is clear. The US has gotten what it wants and everyone recognizes that the trend heavily favors the defense in modern warfare. The US can now assume the defensive and bleed the British white.

It goes without saying that for the British to be the victim of a sneak attack and beg for peace is absurd.

The British are not helpless, presumably their fleet is still stronger than the US fleet and can establish some kind of blockade. I'm assuming the US sends out swarms of light privateers while keeping the battlefleet, perhaps in Long Island Sound with forts, heavy guns, and mines to keep the British out?

Additionally, the CSA can be counted on for support, if only to avoid the next revenge war from a much stronger USA. If the CSA is NOT there for support, then the British really have screwed up.

The problem is simple. Once the British decide not to yield, what do they do? Is there any plausible effort by the British, even with the CSA, that will restore the status quo? Years of effort, financially crushing costs, hundreds of thousands of lives and the total collapse of London's position in the world may be considered but to what end?

A blockade of indeterminate strength and a few landings to grab a West Coast foothold or parts of Quebec won't do it. Anything less than total victory means the US won. If YOU fought a war and announced the enemy was gaining an area the size of Western Europe with the treaty, convincing anyone that YOU were the winner would be a challenge.

Let's presume naval matters go as I think, with the British unable to win a decisive victory because the US fleet refuses to be lured out. The CSA jumps in. Canada, with British help, holds a line at the St Lawrence river and most of Ontario, later retaking most of British Columbia by seaborne landing.

However, American interior lines, planning, and emphasis on machine guns and experimental armored cavalry proves a crushing advantage out west. It also becomes clear that the CSA can't afford an offensive war against superior numbers and firepower, and can barely hold out in the west after a few debacles. Possibly a major slave uprising.

Finally the Kaiser and Tsar jointly negotiate a settlement.

Under the terms, no one pays reparations(but the US seizes British property inside the US and regained territories, Canada keeps current boundaries, plus Washington State. The Dakotas, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming revert to the US. 'Pacific America' returns to the US. Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri are yielded by the CSA, along with portions of Delaware, Maryland, and West Virginia.

By OTL standards this US would be much smaller and weaker in potential. By comparison with what prevailed for 20-30 years such concessions could only be seen as a shattering defeat by the British and CSA without even having the benefit of less tension with the US.
Your assuming some very unbalanced development. To maintain such a massive build-up is going to cost the US a LOT. This will mean much higher taxes and retarded economic development. Also it will be less attractive to immigrants, as well as the fact that people from Britain/Canada and the south are unlikely to move there. In fact the mass movement into Canada is likely to be even larger as it has more and better land to develop. As such the US attack, when it comes, is likely to face a lot of opposition.

You also note that the line of military development favours the defence. However, despite the warning provided by the massive US build-up, the Canadians and British are lax enough that the US is able to conquer massive territories. Then the US is able to defend the bulk of those against attack from a more numerous opponent while facing attack from the south as well.

I think the basic scenario is unlikely as Britain repeatedly demonstrated its unwillingness to support the south. Unless the US picked a major fight with Britain I can't see it aiding the Confederates. Then, presuming a Union defeat I doubt if they would be after the sort of annexations you suggest.

However, if it did occur I think the follow on conflict you suggest could be quite likely. However I think it would be a lot more even than you suggest. Not sure who would win, if either side, but think you are being unrealistic presuming such massive early gains against would is almost certainly a prepared and organised opposition.

Steve
 
Well, I've been thinking on it for awhile and I have a developing timeline myself. On January 2, 1864 Patrick Cleburne presented an idea to the Confederate Congress to have the slaves freed so that they can fight for the South.

They of course rejected it. However, if they'd taken the offer then the South would've only been outnumbered by about 2-to-1 instead of 3-to-1. The former slaves would most likely be serving in one of a few functions.

Meat shield.
Commandos/Raiders.
Auxillaries.
Regulars.

Now, in my timeline they black troops were used as Regulars and Commandos. The Confederates of course not thinking that sneak and run tactics would actually work. And if you made them meat shields that would just incite a rebellion. So, once the Congress sees that in fact yes, commando hit and run style tactics are working.........they think, if a Negro can do it then a white man or an Indian can too.

That would be the turning point right there.

And of course once you had them winning.....more.....nations in Europe would be more willing to stand behind the Confederacy.
 

Darkest

Banned
Consider the Mormon Liberation Army of Deseret, somewhere down the road. It would be far too difficult to integrate slavery into our religion for too long. Eventually, there is going to be some kind of 'manifesto' or maybe a schism.

And, Mormons being the cool desert religious fanatics as they are, it's time for guerilla warfare to attain independence or gain the assistance of the USA. With our well-known involvement in firearm technology, we'll be able to match or exceed CSA armaments when put into 'jihad' mode. And, you can bet that we'll start some kind of underground railroad through those mountains we know so well.

It could go many ways. Maybe an autonomous region of the CSA, or part of the Pacific States, an independent area, or part of the USA. But I don't think they'll do too well with slavery.
 

Thande

Donor
Haggis said:
Well, I've been thinking on it for awhile and I have a developing timeline myself. On January 2, 1864 Patrick Cleburne presented an idea to the Confederate Congress to have the slaves freed so that they can fight for the South.

They of course rejected it. However, if they'd taken the offer then the South would've only been outnumbered by about 2-to-1 instead of 3-to-1. The former slaves would most likely be serving in one of a few functions.

Meat shield.
Commandos/Raiders.
Auxillaries.
Regulars.

Now, in my timeline they black troops were used as Regulars and Commandos. The Confederates of course not thinking that sneak and run tactics would actually work. And if you made them meat shields that would just incite a rebellion. So, once the Congress sees that in fact yes, commando hit and run style tactics are working.........they think, if a Negro can do it then a white man or an Indian can too.

That would be the turning point right there.

And of course once you had them winning.....more.....nations in Europe would be more willing to stand behind the Confederacy.
Robertp6165 has written a TL on this premise, called THE BLACK AND THE GRAY.
 
As far as the West Coast is concerned, IMO is mostly a matter to see if independence is popular or not in California. If it is, I doubt it can be re-taken so easily.

A smart move that the British might consider is to incentivate centrifugal tendencies (I mostly have New England and New York in mind: anti-conscription riots were pretty serious in New York in OTL, and if the USA are loosing in the ACW it will become worse. If New York goes, the same happens to New England - either together or separate).
 
I'm sorry, but I have to see a better POD to beleive this.

Asking what the CS would do to ensure the North "never rises again" is about like asking what the Continental Congress of 1783 would do to ensure Britian never rose again -- a ridiculous question. The CSA was massively inferior to the Union in military and economic strength, and the only way they can win the war is on the defensive -- inflicting so many casualties that the Stronger power decides victory isn't worth the prize. (Again, much like the ARW.) A "harsh peace" is impossible in this regard.

Adding Britian to the war won't particularly change this, as the UK already knows that launching a major land invasion of the US isn't worth the trouble (see 1812, War of) -- if they're in the war somehow, they'll settle for using the RN to break the blockade, shell a bunch of ports, and maybe grab New York, which they can then trade back to us for the chunks of Canada they lost and a nice fat indemnity. The British Empire has no interest in extending the war to gain a bunch of territory that will just revolt as soon as their backs are turned, let alone to win Kansas for the Rebels.

Besides, as others have pointed out, taking the western states in no way cripples the US -- it simply ensures that it will become Britian's permanent enemy, and a massively armed one. The British are smart enough to know that and avoid it. (The Confederates might not be, they ain't that bright, but they won't be in the driver's seat of an Anglo-Reb alliance.)

Sorry.
 
USSA: 1st year

OK, it's ASBish, but if we assume that it happened like that, and that WW1 happens on schedule, with the USA in the CPs' camp, I thought that the US (which'd be even more industrialzed than OTL, have a higher percentage of immigrants and are more open for left ideas) would have a Socialist revolution... voila, the USSA.

Jan 6th, 1917: Big riots in New York that spread to Philadelphia and the Southern Atlantic front. US soldiers form councils, make local armistice with CSA on Jan 14th; some fraternize with Appalachian soldiers.

Jan 23th: Socialists have gained control all over the USA, make armistice with CSA and Britain.

February: During the peace talks Allies demand high reparations, which the workers' and soldiers' councils are absolutely unwilling to pay. Peace talks are abandoned, war begins again. Bronstein / Trotzky starts organizing the Red Army.

March 5th: Battle of Chester. Wilmington, Delaware is taken by Red Army. CSA units in Southern New Jersey cut off, have to be evacuated by ship. Southern Atlantic front broken. Trotzky hurries North, where's enough work to do.

March 21st: Battle of Schenectady, NY. Brits and Canadians are beaten, Mohawk valley is liberated, connection to cities on Lake Ontario restored.

April 10th: Battle of Lawrence, Massachusetts. Brits and Canadians have to retreat to Portland, Maine.

During April, the Red Army thrusts South and occupies all the Chesapeake peninsula.

May: Trotzky organizes sailors' militia (who've been mostly unemployed during the war), sets them over to the North shore of the Lake. The Empire has to retreat troops from New England to guard the capital of Ottawa. They can't prevent Trotzky's strike to the West, where he unites with troops coming from Detroit and enclosing Toronto. Workers in the city start to rebel after propaganda leaflets are smuggled to the city, so it falls on May 17th. Now the Red Army controls the whole peninsula of Toronto.

June 2nd: Battle of Greensburg, Pennsylvania. CSA troops are driven back to Maryland / Virginia.

June 24th: Battle of Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin. Canadians are kicked out of Wisconsin, Duluth falls to Red Army.

July 3rd: Battle of Lewiston, Maine. Trotzky destroys the Canadian army, which gives him the opportunity to occupy all the lands south of St Laurent, except Nova Scotia, until July 30th. Now Montreal and Quebec are besieged.

July 18th: Battle of Pikesville, Maryland. The Atlantic army of the CSA is thoroughly beaten, and its survivors flee South - not only Baltimore, but the old capital of Washington (north of the Potomac) falls.

August 19th: Battle of Morgantown, Virginia (IOTL West Virginia). The Red Army opens the way for the conquest of Western Virginia, and later Kentucky and Tennessee.

September 2nd: Red Army liberates Minneapolis / St Paul. The latter one is renamed Bronstein.

September 28th: Northern Red Army strikes from Kingston, Ontario againt Ottawa. Canadian government flees to Quebec.

November 9th: Battle of Fort Dodge. Canadian Mississippi army and supporintg CSA militia defeated. Red Army takes control of the area between upper Mississippi and Missouri. Now the US have enough food for the starving people.

During the winter, the Allies barely manage to hold the front along the Missouri, Ohio, Potomac and St Laurent, despite Britain sending troops from Europe - where the situation is getting dangerous after Germany has made Russia sign an armistice.
 
Top