DBWI: South loses War of Seccesion. Effects on US?

What it says on the tin. What if, for what ever reason (no Anglo/French involvement, better choice of Union commander etc) the Union is able to defeat and re-absord the Confederacy back into the United States? What sort of country would the modern United States be today with the addition of the Southern States? What happens to the South (i'd expect some sort of lengthy occupation followed by the 'reconstruction' proposed by some of the more radical republicans in Lincolns government) after it is defeated? What becomes of Afro-Americans after a northern victory? How does the absense of the CSA effect Latin America and the Carribean? How does a Union victory effect Anglo-American relations and Canada? Disscus...
 
What's your POD?

Well there are a few to choose from. I agree that most of the "Lee Loses at *Jefferson Hills, Union Victory within a year" TL's are unrealistic. A better POD i think would be to have the Trent Affiar fail to materialize into war so then the WoS remains an exclusivly American affair with no foreign intervention which, as has been said before, means an almost guaranteed Union victory.

*TTL's version of Getteysburg which ends in a Confederate Victory.
 
What it says on the tin. What if, for what ever reason (no Anglo/French involvement, better choice of Union commander etc) the Union is able to defeat and re-absord the Confederacy back into the United States?

Here we go again...

What sort of country would the modern United States be today with the addition of the Southern States?

Worse-off.:rolleyes:

Kidding. I'd say that maybe the country would have a smaller standing army than it does now. I'd also peg it to be a tad more to the right, since the South was and still is fairly agrarian, and agrarian areas prefer conservative governments usually.

What happens to the South (i'd expect some sort of lengthy occupation followed by the 'reconstruction' proposed by some of the more radical republicans in Lincolns government) after it is defeated?

That sounds about right.

What becomes of Afro-Americans after a northern victory?

Well for one thing, I'd imagine that they'd be redistributed differently, maybe the so-called "Black Band" is more to the south than it is now. I'd also doubt that their rebellions at the turn of the century would occur. Or the whole "Commune of New Afrika".

How does the absense of the CSA effect Latin America and the Carribean?

They'd probably be less united than they are now. The CSA had a tendency to annoy and anger them quite often up to the 40's, and that gave them a common enemy and thing to bind together with.

How does a Union victory effect Anglo-American relations and Canada? Disscus...

Well Canada would exist as an independent nation to start...

I've got to admit that I find the standard "Confederacy Loses" TLs rather unconvincing. What's your POD?

Maybe having guys like Grant and Kearny not be disgraced or die would be a good start. Plus having the UK and France's government collapse sooner would help too.
 
Here we go again...



Worse-off.:rolleyes:

Kidding. I'd say that maybe the country would have a smaller standing army than it does now. I'd also peg it to be a tad more to the right, since the South was and still is fairly agrarian, and agrarian areas prefer conservative governments usually.



That sounds about right.



Well for one thing, I'd imagine that they'd be redistributed differently, maybe the so-called "Black Band" is more to the south than it is now. I'd also doubt that their rebellions at the turn of the century would occur. Or the whole "Commune of New Afrika".



They'd probably be less united than they are now. The CSA had a tendency to annoy and anger them quite often up to the 40's, and that gave them a common enemy and thing to bind together with.



Well Canada would exist as an independent nation to start...



Maybe having guys like Grant and Kearny not be disgraced or die would be a good start. Plus having the UK and France's government collapse sooner would help too.

gah I am soo SICK of Americans who think, just cause a domion uses the King of England has their head of state 'they are just a british state'. You do it to us as well.

You lost get over your selves.

Also having their governments collapse? Why not keep trigger happy Union gunner not SHOT A SHIP IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS, which triggered the entire intervention, bet if the ambassadors, were still alive there would not have been a war.

But I agree with the rest of what you said, wasn't the ULSA (United Latin States of America), or what ever it's new name is, only formed during the third Mexico war, when the South look like it might take over all of central America?

Also could no GB/Fra intervention lead to no American-Russian alliance, thus no Anglo-German-Austrian-Japanese alliance, Four Emperors or something wasn't it. Thus no Great war as we know it.
 
Last edited:

Anaxagoras

Banned
Maybe having guys like Grant and Kearny not be disgraced or die would be a good start.

Grant? I thought he was the drunkard who let a Confederate Army march right up to within a mile of his force and launch a surprise attack at Shiloh? Sure, he won that single victory at Fort Donelson, but that seems to me to have been the result of the stupidity of the Confederate commanders rather than any skill on Grant's part.
 
gah I am soo SICK of Americans who think, just cause a domion uses the King of England has their head of state 'they are just a british state'. You do it to us as well.

You lost get over your selves.

OOC: Welp, there goes my whole "War Plan Crimson" schtick.

If you have to ask politely to the UK about your choice of PM, and said king can dismiss said PM, then yes, you are not a country. It's simple logic really.

Also having their governments collapse? Why not keep trigger happy Union gunner not SHOT A SHIP IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS, which triggered the entire intervention, bet if the ambassadors, were still alive there would not have been a war.

Still doesn't explain the Great Collapse of 1869 for the UK though. France had an excuse at least in the form of Germany forming. Plus, last I checked, the populations for both powers at the time were still pretty unenthusiastic about the whole thing and got pretty pissed as things progressed and prices began to seriously rise.

But I agree with the rest of what you said, wasn't the ULSA (United Latin States of America), or what ever it's new name is, only formed during the third Mexico war, when the South look like it might take over all of central America?

An oversimplification, but yes that was the key point. Honestly, I think it was more that Mexico failed totally at everything (leadership especially) that made the CSA seem so scary that did it though.

Also could no GB/Fra intervention lead to no American-Russian alliance, thus no Anglo-German-Austrian-Japanese alliance, Four Emperors or something wasn't it. Thus no Great war as we know it.

That'd be interesting at the very least. What sort of alliances might we be seeing in a world like that?

Grant? I thought he was the drunkard who let a Confederate Army march right up to within a mile of his force and launch a surprise attack at Shiloh? Sure, he won that single victory at Fort Donelson, but that seems to me to have been the result of the stupidity of the Confederate commanders rather than any skill on Grant's part.

I've always been on the mind that it was more Sherman's fault than Grant for that mix-up. After all, he was the one that left Pittsburgh Landing unprepared, DESPITE the fact that he had warnings that an attack was imminent. It was also his section that dropped the ball, but then again, seeing your commanding officer drop like a stone definitely would do that to an army.
 
Although it's obscure, in 1863 the Union nearly managed to secure a British pullout via negotiations, but the failure of the cotton crop in Egypt that year put paid to that idea.
 
It's tempting to think that a decisive victory would be seen as proof that racism was wrong, but that's just projecting. I know that I mention this a lot, but the entire field of metaideology was simply nonexistant before the 1880s. Besides, the United States would now contain all the people who in our world would be supporting Southlander slavery and quasi-slavers, and they'd all have grievences. mass support for equality would if anything be delayed into the 1910, no, make that the 1920s. I'm estimating that the first mass-audiance book or film or radio drama action-adventure story with an anti-discrimination message comes out in the former half of the 1940s.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
But I agree with the rest of what you said, wasn't the ULSA (United Latin States of America), or what ever it's new name is, only formed during the third Mexico war, when the South look like it might take over all of central America?

And yet when their financial system was about to collapse, who had to come hat in hand to the Bank of New Orleans to beg for a bailout?
 
Top