Effect of Confederate Independence on Europe?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

If the South were to fight well enough to get British and French recognition in 1862 and eventually get peace with the USA, establishing itself as an independent nation and resuming its cotton economy, what effect would that have on Europe? The USA would be rightly pissed at the British and French, but too weakened to really do much about it. The Franco-Prussian war is coming soon and I don't see the butterflies from America affecting that outcome. Going forward what would it mean for Europe to have a split America and would it prevent WW1? What are the prospects for a renewed American war and how would the Europeans react to a round 2?
 
Looking forward to certain someones completely derail the thread by arguing the CSA couldn't have won no matter what. I'll post my thoughts a bit later when my headache's gone
 
It has been argued in the past that Round 2 of the ACW happens at the first opportunity. So if WWI isn't completely butterflied away, the USA would likely use the huge distraction called the Western Front to jump in at the CSA's throat again. This time, the USA wins decisively in North America, and the *Entente lose decisively in Europe.

And I know that this scenario has been done by Turtledove before, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a likely scenario.
 

Deleted member 1487

It has been argued in the past that Round 2 of the ACW happens at the first opportunity. So if WWI isn't completely butterflied away, the USA would likely use the huge distraction called the Western Front to jump in at the CSA's throat again. This time, the USA wins decisively in North America, and the *Entente lose decisively in Europe.

And I know that this scenario has been done by Turtledove before, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a likely scenario.
One serious problem with Turtledove is that the Entente would lose faster without US support and active need to use all Canadians in the Americans plus contribute more troops there. Instead Germany get a much freer hand in Europe due to the RN needing to combat the USN and HSF and not being able to use their full force in Europe due to the Canadian front. Even if Canada wouldn't be involved the US wouldn't be selling to the Entente which would pretty much ensure they are far weaker in terms of combat strength due to lack of US food, explosives, oil, and steel. Which means a CP victory by 1916.

Of course angry Uber-USA that conquers the South and potentially Canada would be quite frightening and pretty much keep the defeated Europeans from recovering after losing WW1.
 
One serious problem with Turtledove is that the Entente would lose faster without US support and active need to use all Canadians in the Americans plus contribute more troops there. Instead Germany get a much freer hand in Europe due to the RN needing to combat the USN and HSF and not being able to use their full force in Europe due to the Canadian front. Even if Canada wouldn't be involved the US wouldn't be selling to the Entente which would pretty much ensure they are far weaker in terms of combat strength due to lack of US food, explosives, oil, and steel. Which means a CP victory by 1916.

Of course angry Uber-USA that conquers the South and potentially Canada would be quite frightening and pretty much keep the defeated Europeans from recovering after losing WW1.

Don't go by Turtledove. By that time in his series it was all about the selling of books and nothing else. Europe's map BY 1914 would almost be unimaginable to us.:confused:

Its far more likely that Britain keeps to the Pax Britannica and doesn't get involved in a prospective ACW 2, unless you are imagining handwaving the politics of a longer Mexican Conquest, Slavery versus Abolitionism, the Austro-Prussian War, the Great Reform Act of 1867, the Franco-Prussian War, the establishment of the Third Republic, plus Italian and German Unification.

I would guess among other things:

No Statue of Liberty
A more aggressive Germany
Possibly an earlier WWI?:confused:

A big question that I can't guess at is this: What happens to the late 19th-early 20th century European Naval Race if the US Navy is NOT there as a potential (1) backup to the Royal Navy, with whom they were having decent relations IOTL by the start of WWI? Or do the Germans feel more encouraged to engage in greater naval construction with the British distracted by massive non-OTL commitments in NA? Its hard to believe that the CSA would (if they're still around) ever have the $$$ for a first-class blue water navy.

1) POTENTIAL, I said, not real. But the Imperial Germans couldn't dismiss the idea completely. In fact, this eventually did actually happen when the USN sent a force of battleships to join the Grand Fleet as the Sixth Battle Squadron.:cool: Too late for Jutland by far, but it made any thought of sortieing by the High Seas Fleet go from wishful thinking to out-and-out suicide.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
I wouldn't want to disappoint Hank, but:

If the South were to fight well enough to get British and French recognition in 1862 and eventually get peace with the USA, establishing itself as an independent nation and resuming its cotton economy, what effect would that have on Europe? The USA would be rightly pissed at the British and French, but too weakened to really do much about it. The Franco-Prussian war is coming soon and I don't see the butterflies from America affecting that outcome. Going forward what would it mean for Europe to have a split America and would it prevent WW1? What are the prospects for a renewed American war and how would the Europeans react to a round 2?

I wouldn't want to disappoint Hank, but the odds of "the South were to fight well enough to get British and French recognition in 1862 and eventually get peace with the USA, establishing itself as an independent nation and resuming its cotton economy" are roughly zero.

See:
npscw_facts-01.jpg


and (not the greatest example of cartography, but it makes things clear):



The thing is, a rebel victory by 1862 (remembering the war began as such in April, 1861) is roughly like the "home by Christmas" meme in 1914... as in, not likely at all.

Best,
 

Deleted member 1487

That map is after the 'lost order' POD, which would change things in the west a fair bit; plus the other issue is political, not just military. I get the deck is stacked against the south in raw terms, its just early on the South got most of the military and the North's leaders were abysmal. Can you honestly say there was no potential POD that would have the south get independence?
 
That map is after the 'lost order' POD, which would change things in the west a fair bit; plus the other issue is political, not just military. I get the deck is stacked against the south in raw terms, its just early on the South got most of the military and the North's leaders were abysmal. Can you honestly say there was no potential POD that would have the south get independence?

Your best bet is an earlier war completely, since the weight of numbers/industry would be more favorable to the South the farther back you go. At any rate, I think s*** would hit the fan long before the 1910's under these conditions, both from the CSA's internal instability and because the US would want to seek allies on the continent after such blatant interference in their internal affairs. You might see a surviving League of the Three Emperors plus one, for instance.

Meanwhile, in the South, the cotton-based economy is doomed to destruction at the hands of the Boll Weevil at some point, at which point the state is in danger of failing completely. The Union probably wouldn't have let the secessionist states go completely intact to begin with, and they'll certainly start picking off chunks of it as opportunities present themselves. Eventually, London and Paris would be wise to just give up on the Confederate project as a bad job, at which point the US will either retreat inwards as it begins a belated Reconstruction, or it'll turn northwards for more. In the meantime, Russia and Germany are liable to take advantage of the British preoccupation in Asia and Africa, respectively.
 

Deleted member 1487

So how long before the South collapses and is reabsorbed? Also how is the US-UK-France relationship going to evolve after the South is cut loose and reabsorbed into the US?
 
So how long before the South collapses and is reabsorbed? Also how is the US-UK-France relationship going to evolve after the South is cut loose and reabsorbed into the US?

thekingsguard has some good material on just how messed up the CSA was here and here. Given how the country was basically designed to be a single-industry economy, I'd say that the critical moment would be the arrival of the Boll Weevil, which took root in the US between the 1890's and the 1920's, but depending on butterflies may arrive earlier or later. IOTL, it was largely responsible for a switch to peanut farming, but TTL wouldn't have George Washington Carver doing anything meaningful, so that's out of consideration. Regardless, I think that the economy and subsequently the political system would collapse completely once these effects start to really get going.

All of this is somewhat dependent on the nature of the peace settlement, of course. Given just how much of the South had been overrun even by the end of 1862 IOTL, it seems optimistic to assume that they'd even have the entirety of the eleven historical states intact at the end of the war, let alone anything extra. As for US-UK-France relations, I'd say it depends on their internal political situations at the time. Could be anything, really.
 
So how long before the South collapses and is reabsorbed? Also how is the US-UK-France relationship going to evolve after the South is cut loose and reabsorbed into the US?


I could see a general distrust of Europeans in both North and South. In the North because of the Europeans' initial "interference", and in the South because the Europeans would be seen as having thrown them to the Yankee "wolves".
 
I think the South could win if the North had disastrous leadership and a string of real bad luck. It's incredibly unlikely, I just don't think it's impossible. The North's worst possible enemy is itself.

So how long before the South collapses and is reabsorbed? Also how is the US-UK-France relationship going to evolve after the South is cut loose and reabsorbed into the US?

There's no reason to think the South would collapse. It would eventually be dirt poor, but I think Southern nationalism from the victory would prevent it from ever being reabsorbed into the Union. After a while the people of the US would adopt a "good riddance" attitude, especially as the South's reputation goes down and down in Europe due to the continuance of slavery.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Except even the "close of 1861" line means:

That map is after the 'lost order' POD, which would change things in the west a fair bit; plus the other issue is political, not just military. I get the deck is stacked against the south in raw terms, its just early on the South got most of the military and the North's leaders were abysmal. Can you honestly say there was no potential POD that would have the south get independence?

Except even the "close of 1861" line means the rebels have been driven out of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, to all intents and purposes, as well as multiple enclaves (eastern shore, Virginia; Hampton Roads, Va; Hatteras and Ocracoke islands North Carolina; Port Royal, South Carolina; Key West, Florida; Fort Pickens, Florida, and Sip Island, Mississippi) which are all in U.S. hands and provide significant checks on traffic into most of the important rebel-held ports.

By September, 1862 (if Antietam or some variant is your point of departure), the U.S. has driven the rebels out of New Mexico, most of the Indian Territory, much of northern Arkansas, both western and middle Tennessee (including Nashville, second largest manufacturing center in rebel territory in 1861-62), New Oreleans (largest and richest rebel city and largest rebel port), additional significant parts of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, enclaves in Gerogia and the Carolinas, and important parts of Virginia.

There's no way for the rebellion to win independence on the battlefield that doesn't require very unlikely changes that would choke an elephant...

They can last longer than they did historically, and they can cause more bloodshed, but winning a victory, in anything approaching historical reality, is pretty much impossible.

Best,
 
So many possible butterflies, so hard to predict, in any "CS wins civil war" TL by the time you get to 1914 you can basically do whatever you want

I suggest generally a stronger France at the expense of Germany, but not much stronger


Also, to those who are trying to hijack the thread by saying the CS could never have won the war - yes they could have won, the odds were stacked against the confederates, but they could have "won" the war
 

TFSmith121

Banned
How do you think, then?

So many possible butterflies, so hard to predict, in any "CS wins civil war" TL by the time you get to 1914 you can basically do whatever you want ... I suggest generally a stronger France at the expense of Germany, but not much stronger ... Also, to those who are trying to hijack the thread by saying the CS could never have won the war - yes they could have won, the odds were stacked against the confederates, but they could have "won" the war

How do you think that would occur, then?

OP says 1862 ... how would you suggest the rebellion led by Jefferson Davis et al "wins a victory" in 1862?

Keep in mind how brittle the rebellion was, as a government, economy, and military:

Here's the Cabinet:

President - Davis; VP - Stephens;
State - Toombs (1861), Hunter (1861-62), Browne (1862), Benjamin (1862-65);
Treasury - Memminger (61-64);
War - Walker (1861); Benjamin (1861-62); Randolph (1862); Seddon (1862-65);
AG - Benjamin (1861); Keyes (1861); Bragg (1861-62); Watts (1862-63);
Navy - Mallory (1861-65);
PM - Reagan (1861-65).

Here are the senior "army/departmental/theater" commanders:
Virginia - Beauregard (1861); JE Johnston (1861-62); Smith (1862); Lee (1862-65);
Mississippi/Tennesee/Kentucky - AS Johnston (1861-62); Beauregard (1862); Bragg (1862-64);
Trans-mississippi - Price (1861-62); Hindman (1862) Holmes (1862)

etc etc.

The point is, the rebellion was militarily, politically, and economically what it was - a reactionary, poor, and generally poorly educated society of six million people that depended upon the labor of 3 million enslaved human beings to function.

That's not exactly a recipe for success in a total war with a much richer, liberal, and generally well educated society of some 21 million...

Best,
 
The point is, the rebellion was militarily, politically, and economically what it was - a reactionary, poor, and generally poorly educated society of six million people that depended upon the labor of 3 million enslaved human beings to function.

That's not exactly a recipe for success in a total war with a much richer, liberal, and generally well educated society of some 21 million...

Best,

So does the Confederacy become a classical south American country? Like Bolivia? Or, worse, like Haiti?
 
Grand Alliances

If the south is an independent nation, thenhere's a couple of big picture options...

1. Some European powers chose to back it, and as a result, the USA allies with other European powers. Result: The USA is MUCH more militarized in this timeline, and involved in European affairs. Britain has a BIG problem if they're seen as a friend of the CSA, as Canada is essentially ripe for the picking if a militarized USA decides to take it. It would take a lot of work to render Canada tough enough to deter the USA. A USA deeply involved in European affairs produces MAJOR butterflies.

2. Europe decides not to get involved in the USA/CSA feud--perhaps realizing that the CSA is doomed if the US decides to get serious about removing it from the board. Even in that situation, Europe needs to pay more attention to the USA than in OTL, as it has more military power. Europe may well, in that case, proceed much like in OTL for some time. Both sides in the European Alliance System will need to court the USA, or at least placate it...
 
There's no reason to think the South would collapse. It would eventually be dirt poor, but I think Southern nationalism from the victory would prevent it from ever being reabsorbed into the Union. After a while the people of the US would adopt a "good riddance" attitude, especially as the South's reputation goes down and down in Europe due to the continuance of slavery.

It takes way, way more than just "Southern nationalism" to make a viable nation-state. I should start by pointing out that without the large-scale migration of blacks northwards that occurred IOTL but wouldn't be allowed by the CSA, black population growth would outpace that of white southerners. They were already a third of the population of the South at the time of secession, and would have grown larger, which would inevitably lead to more and more violent repression to keep them all in chains. Think Sparta and the helots, for a sense of the long-term state of things. Also, there was significant Unionist support among white populations, especially in areas like Appalachia and Texas that could lead to (continued) counter-revolutionary guerrilla warfare should the CSA succeed. All of this in some pretty rough terrain, mind you.

Add to all this the fact that the Confederacy as designed was a statist oligarchy which forced non-slaveholders into the military while denying them a voice in government, along with the already poor economy that's poised to become completely unsalvageable in a few decades when the Boll Weevil strikes, and it really isn't a pretty picture. As for the Union letting them go: why should they? They control the Mississippi delta, a serious economic inconvenience, and are probably seen as the result of foreign meddling (the only realistic way for them to win independence in the first place). Put those together, and they're a threat to the American heartland, not to mention their proximity to the capital. No, I really don't see the US shrugging their shoulders, moving the government back to Philadelphia, and writing off the whole Mississippi south of Cairo, Illinois.

I suggest generally a stronger France at the expense of Germany, but not much stronger

Why? How would they benefit from this, one way or another?

1. Some European powers chose to back it, and as a result, the USA allies with other European powers. Result: The USA is MUCH more militarized in this timeline, and involved in European affairs. Britain has a BIG problem if they're seen as a friend of the CSA, as Canada is essentially ripe for the picking if a militarized USA decides to take it. It would take a lot of work to render Canada tough enough to deter the USA. A USA deeply involved in European affairs produces MAJOR butterflies.

Turtledove popularized this idea, but I don't see why it would ever happen. It just doesn't deliver any benefit to the European powers, since all the Confederacy has to offer them is a tool against the United States, but the US is only an enemy to someone in Europe if the latter chooses to make themselves America's enemy. It's a Catch-22. Funnily enough, though, if this had all happened in the 1890's, I think Kaiser Wilhelm would have been much more receptive, given his inexplicable desire to take on the US in the Caribbean for reasons that bewilder me...


2. Europe decides not to get involved in the USA/CSA feud--perhaps realizing that the CSA is doomed if the US decides to get serious about removing it from the board. Even in that situation, Europe needs to pay more attention to the USA than in OTL, as it has more military power. Europe may well, in that case, proceed much like in OTL for some time. Both sides in the European Alliance System will need to court the USA, or at least placate it...

I'm still in the camp that thinks a successful independent CSA requires British intervention, so that colors my assumptions regarding who the US would approach when shopping for allies. Russia is the first logical choice, since they also have a bone to pick with the Tommies, and given their good relations with Germany at this time, the latter's also an option. If the UK and France saw their relations cool, then the French might also get approached, but only if they didn't intervene jointly in the Civil War, which they might not have done, given they were already up to their neck in problems in Mexico. If we get more adventurous, then a more successful China might also prove an asset, since they and the US would probably share a dislike of both Britain and Japan.
 
Last edited:
If the south is an independent nation, thenhere's a couple of big picture options...

1. Some European powers chose to back it, and as a result, the USA allies with other European powers. Result: The USA is MUCH more militarized in this timeline, and involved in European affairs. Britain has a BIG problem if they're seen as a friend of the CSA, as Canada is essentially ripe for the picking if a militarized USA decides to take it. It would take a lot of work to render Canada tough enough to deter the USA. A USA deeply involved in European affairs produces MAJOR butterflies.

2. Europe decides not to get involved in the USA/CSA feud--perhaps realizing that the CSA is doomed if the US decides to get serious about removing it from the board. Even in that situation, Europe needs to pay more attention to the USA than in OTL, as it has more military power. Europe may well, in that case, proceed much like in OTL for some time. Both sides in the European Alliance System will need to court the USA, or at least placate it...

Agreed, in the first case GB has a lot of problems the next time it is in a war in Europe. The US would have allies in Europe. Even without the South it is a major player and having it on your side would help. The US would want an ally to counter the UK and there are quite a few countries that would want to ally to counter the UK as well. It might well be Prussia/Germany which is rising during this period. A US allied with Germany when it is fighting the UK makes things tough for the UK.

In the second it is considerably less likely to join alliances but it will be more militarized because it needs to keep an eye on the CSA. A militarized US needs to be paid attention to even in the 1870s, even without the South.
 
Top