DBWI no Battle of Fort Sumter

How might history be different if the Confederates hadn't fired on Fort Sumter?

(OOC: the CSA won the war in this TL)
 
This works against the USA.

I mean, zoom back toward 1914. The World System of Alliances had ensnared the USA and the CSA. If the CSA had not survived the Civil War, say by not seceding in the first place (no Ft. Sumter). The USA might well have supported the United Kingdom and France.

Obviously, it didn't happen that way: The UK and France screwed the United States by putting troops in the Confederacy. It was perhaps inevitable that Otto von Bismarck and later, Kaiser Wilheim, would include the United States in the Four Powers, and that the United States would crush first the Confederacy and then Canada, while Germany would begin with Russia and follow with France.

There would not be 62 States of the United States--No States of Cuba, Bahamas, Columbia, Lincoln, etc. Indeed, there might still be foreign governments playing in South America. It's hard to imagine that the defeats in 1862-4 and the defeat of President Lincoln would ultimately lead to an incredible conquering spree in the aftermath of the First World War. There would be no Treaty of New York signed in a fishing trawler in sight of the Statue of Liberty.

That Treaty of New York, along with Brest-Litovsk, Treaty of Kiel, and three Empires Agreement, would create a second world war of unimaginable proportions, a firestorm that broke Germany and nearly broke the USA. In a deep thirst of revenge, the USA and Germany, with support from Austria Federal Republic and the Ottoman Sultanate, did many things that would never have happened if the USA had never launched the war. We would never have dismembered the United Kingdom, breaking it back into England and forcibly liberating Ireland (Good US Ally) and Scotland (Lukewarm Ally). We would never have gutted Italy by Giving Austria all of Lombardy. And then the colonies--for goodness sake, so many nations and protectorates that could not work.

And this does not even begin to mention what happens when Thorez, Moseley, Stalin and Mussolini came to power.

There are those who say the the United States should never have begun on its imperial ambitions. But we did very well until 1951, and we still do better now than we could have before.

So, thank goodness for Ft. Sumter, and the CSA state surviving for 50 years--because without it, I doubt we would be as great a nation as we are today.
 
*cusses that an anti-CSA'er got in before me* :rolleyes:

The CSA had very little choice NOT to fire on Fort Sumter for a simple reason. When President Lincoln was approached by Confederate ambassadors to recognize the new nation as far as he was concerned because their had been no out-right violence the Confederacy was not in revolt, not a political unit and therefore not existent. As long as Confederate guns lay silent trade between North/South/Europe was undisturbed. So the ball was back in the CSA's court:
A) either fire on Fort Sumter and engage in a war with the USA and hope that Europe comes to their aid or
B) not fire...and not be recognized either as a nation or a belligerent power and confess a lack of soveriengty. Because trade was undisturbed Europe will carry on normally. As the South calms down and sees that Lincoln wants to keep the status quo, no masses of Yankees pouring over the borders, secessionism might fizzle up.
 
How might history be different if the Confederates hadn't fired on Fort Sumter?

(OOC: the CSA won the war in this TL)

You really need connect the dots there. If they don't fire on Sumter, the war is not guaranteed to happen. If the war happens anyway, you haven't established why the CSA would win.
 
I was thinking that the CSA basically sold itself out to the UK and France for its independence, making it some kind of protectorate of those two countries. Whether the CSA had what it take to take down the USA on its own will never be known, but thanks to the foreign intervention, they got their independence.

Of course, as soon as the UK and France withdrew their troops, a vengeful USA could be counted upon to fix the score.:D Without Fort Sumter, the USA would never have gained Canada or an Irish and Scottish Ally. And it's possible that the New Order in Eastern Europe might have been stillborn.

Besides, the CSA was still practicing Slavery in 1914--they essentially locked themselves into slavery in their constitution. Small wonder why they couldn't keep up with an industrializing USA.
 
The CSA had very little choice NOT to fire on Fort Sumter for a simple reason. When President Lincoln was approached by Confederate ambassadors to recognize the new nation as far as he was concerned because their had been no out-right violence the Confederacy was not in revolt, not a political unit and therefore not existent. As long as Confederate guns lay silent trade between North/South/Europe was undisturbed. So the ball was back in the CSA's court:
A) either fire on Fort Sumter and engage in a war with the USA and hope that Europe comes to their aid or
B) not fire...and not be recognized either as a nation or a belligerent power and confess a lack of soveriengty. Because trade was undisturbed Europe will carry on normally. As the South calms down and sees that Lincoln wants to keep the status quo, no masses of Yankees pouring over the borders, secessionism might fizzle up.
I hadn't thought of that.
 
I was thinking that the CSA basically sold itself out to the UK and France for its independence, making it some kind of protectorate of those two countries. Whether the CSA had what it take to take down the USA on its own will never be known, but thanks to the foreign intervention, they got their independence.

Of course, as soon as the UK and France withdrew their troops, a vengeful USA could be counted upon to fix the score.:D Without Fort Sumter, the USA would never have gained Canada or an Irish and Scottish Ally. And it's possible that the New Order in Eastern Europe might have been stillborn.

Besides, the CSA was still practicing Slavery in 1914--they essentially locked themselves into slavery in their constitution. Small wonder why they couldn't keep up with an industrializing USA.

Blue Max

The problem is, even if you presume so many things follow the path of OTL, despite the big changes, its unlikely that the bad guys would win WWI as you suggest. If the US is militant and expansionist then it will suffer serious economic and social problems which means it won't develop anything like as fast as OTL and Canada especially will be a lot stronger than OTL. Furthermore all the powers will factor in the expectation of attacks from the US on Canada and the south and they will plan accordingly.

Alternatively, and far more likely I suspect, the US will respond to approaches from Britain especially to improve relations and trade links. There might be a few extremists who want a new war of aggression against their neighbours but the bulk of the population will seek friendly relations and the mutual benefits that accrue. Similarly, no matter what the US does to drive Britain and France into co-operation with the south, unless they maintain that alliance by continued threats and hostile actions the confederacy and the European powers will rapidly drift apart. While there are potential common trading interests in that the south is a natural market for the European powers the differences over slavery are too deep. Either the south gives up slavery or it will continue to be a pariah. It may conceivably be the target of US aggression, although I think that's unlikely. [One other reason would be the degree of racism existing in the north. If they conquer the south they will inherit and be responsible for its black population].

As such, you could have something such as a Trent crisis that goes critical, meet the initial conditions of an Anglo-French alliance that defeats the north and secures southern intervention, virtually as a side issue. However the idea that the US will be rabidly hostile to its neighbours for a couple of generations is both highly irrational and unlikely. That this means no significant change in either the economic development of the US or international relations during the same period is basically ASB.

Steve
 
The UK Could not have finessed around their active support of the CSA. I sincerely doubt the CSA could have survived without General Robertson's Troops marching on New York City.

It is forgotten that the bulk of the English live in the previous Confederate States of America, and that the USA accepted a large number of Irish immigrants, in addition to being home to a large number of Germans already. The demographics serve a point: For the Average American, Germany was the ancestral home, not the United Kingdom. This is a view that the CSA took--many of their people were of English ancestry, and a tie to the United Kingdom is more likely.

Furthermore, the timing is all wrong. Historically, the UK and France Screwed over the USA by launching "Armed Diplomacy" in the Confederate states. Otto Von Bismarck appeared on the world stage only three years after a forced peace was signed by the USA--and he knew full well that the UK and France had chosen poorly. France had already attempted to grab Mexico, and that situation was very messy, but the occupation had the CSA's full support.

Fast forward a Generation. William Randolph Hearst's Yellow Journalism calls for imperial adventures, such as the Phillipines. But the real winner, once again, is the CSA, which turns Cuba into a slave state.

Foriegn Policy is driven partly becase the German and Irish people of the United States favor alliances with Germany over the United Kingdom. And of course, the veterans of the First Civil War are likely to be a bitter bunch of old men in 1914 as well. So, no, the UK and France had no chance to get around their diplomatic commitments of 1863-7, because Germany wasn't dumb enough to let them off the hook and the German/Irish Majority of the USA wanted to back the Fatherland over the "Meddlers". The USA suffered some 400,000 thousand losses in vain, because of the UK/France's meddling. These are not forgiveable issues. the USA holds a grudge as large as France's Grudge against Germany for the whole CSA affair.
 
(OOC: Could you take it to PM or something? I'd rather not see another thread derailed.)
 
. As long as Confederate guns lay silent trade between North/South/Europe was undisturbed. So the ball was back in the CSA's court:
A) either fire on Fort Sumter and engage in a war with the USA and hope that Europe comes to their aid or
B) not fire...and not be recognized either as a nation or a belligerent power and confess a lack of soveriengty. Because trade was undisturbed Europe will carry on normally. As the South calms down and sees that Lincoln wants to keep the status quo, no masses of Yankees pouring over the borders, secessionism might fizzle up.

This is the best explanation I've seen for why they fired on Ft Sumter.
 
Top