How revanchist is the United States likely to get after a crushing Confederate Victory via British intervention?

[the Imperium of Canada]

Let's just go with the classic Trent Affair escalates PoD that leads to Britain going to war against the United States, which predictably goes rather badly for America, dragging on until 1864 and ends with Washington forced to recognize the independence of the Confederacy (which gets the Arizona and New Mexico territories in the peace deal) and to ced parts of northern Maine, Michigan, and Oregon to Canada.

So after such a humiliating and grinding war, How likely is a feeling of revanchism against the Brits and the Rebs likely to grow in the United States, like what happened with France after the OTL Franco-Prussian War? How would this likely affect US politics and culture in general?

 

[Leonidas]

Leaving aside the implausibility of this PoD, there is no way the Brits would annex United States territory into Canada aside from some throwaway border adjustments. The population of those areas would practically swamp the Canadians and destabilize the entire region.

 

[Alternator]

Extremely, because in this scenario the British were not merely out to punish the United States for the offenses in the Trent Affair - they instead made a conscious decision to inflict maximum damage on a future competitor. It'll be kept going in part because a target is so close at hand: neither Canada nor the Confederacy will ever be able to keep up in population or industry, requiring Britain to garrison the one and support the other.

This puts a drain on British manpower and finances, so they can be less involved in Europe and less successful as colonizers, but likewise puts a drain on the American finances - a significant standing army and quality navy are not cheap. There will be somewhat less investment in the United States by British merchants, but probably not all that much, as merchants like money and it was far and away one of the best opportunities for profit. It may lead to the major West Coast ports being built up sooner as naval bases, which in turn forces Britain to build up a base in British Columbia, and the transcontinental railroad in the United States becomes more important (OTL, work started not long after our POD, so this isn't going to be delayed much if at all).

The Canadian transcontinental railroad does have a significant disadvantage in passing close to the American border and cannot readily be built too much further north, so that's one more problem for the British to deal with.

Overall, I think the winners are Russia, who face a weaker Britain in the Great Game, and Prussia, who have an easier time diplomatically with British power focused elsewhere.

 

[TyranicusMaximus]

Britain would never support the power that wants to expand slavery. Full stop.

 

[Interdimensional Nomad]

While I'd consider an Anglo-American war over the Trent Incident and others (I imagine there would at least need to be a few similar incidents/skirmishes within the same timeframe to push it to war) to be just on the edge of plausibility, the CSA would only be worth supporting because of how it forces the US to direct most of its efforts there, and indeed Britain would be trying to make it as clear as they could (both to their citizens and the international community) that they're only allies of convenience, that they're in the war solely because they themselves were "wronged" by the US, and that they in no way support the CSA other than the distraction they are for the US, or its peculiar institution. Which does not bode well for the prospects of a lasting alliance between the two after the war.

They might be able to sweep the issue under the rug for at least a few years after the war, while the public is distracted by the angry rhetoric between the UK and US, or the Prussian situation. I imagine France is going to suffer an even worse defeat against Prussia than in OTL, after having spent blood and treasure in the American War, and being forced to keep part of their military stationed in Mexico so the still-existent Second Mexican Empire stays propped up. But eventually, the issue of the alliance with a slave power will come to the forefront. It would likely be a galvanizing issue for the political left; imagine workers decrying their government's support for the continuation of slavery and thus the regression of workers' and peoples' rights in general, or citizens boycotting cotton picked with slave labour, which could lead to the election of a government unfriendly to the CSA and in favour of dropping the alliance or demanding the CSA abolish slavery. The Confederate political system made this basically impossible, so dropping the alliance it is.

This is if the CSA's natural tendency towards expansionism (it was always pro-slavery politicians who demanded the US seize more territory down south for the expansion of the plantation system) doesn't kill the alliance first. Once Spain is falling apart in the Third Carlist War, perhaps they could hardly resist the opportunity to pounce on Cuba. Or they invade Haiti because a country founded by a slave revolt is something they can't stand having next door. Or they try to forge an alliance with Brazil, prompting fears among the more progressive wing of British politics that the world's remaining slaveholding nations are standing together to protect and expand their ideology. Either way, Britain would be highly uncomfortable with this and cut them off.

There's also the chance that, as France is forced to pull out of Mexico while busy getting defeated by Prussia, the Confederates take the opportunity to seize its northern states while it falls back into civil war (perhaps as "payment" for offering token support to Maximilian's forces and then spiriting out him and his government when things go south).

By the year 1900, the Civil War-era alliance of convenience would be long dead, repudiated by an increasingly liberal UK that found it politically untenable, and unaffordable to a badly defeated France that now has a powerful enemy next door and can no longer afford military adventures in North America (if they're a democracy like the Third Republic, they would find it just as unpalatable as the UK; it they're authoritarian revanchists because of their worse-than-OTL defeat they may find it morally acceptable, but that won't matter anyway since they can't afford it regardless). The CSA would be diplomatically isolated, left alone with whatever allies it found/coerced in the Americas, and whatever ill-gotten gains it might have opportunistically grabbed.

The UK may have sent out peace feelers to the US, assuring them that their alliance with the CSA is long dead and that they're just as anti-slavery as they are. But even after all these decades, I don't think the US would be in a forgiving mood. They still have a slice cut out of them, the defeat would still be in living memory for some, and of course they would still officially be laying claim to the seceded states. And knowing the advantages they had over the CSA, the blame for how the war went wrong would be laid squarely on the European powers that couldn't mind their own business. Alliances would have been forged by now, likely with the US and the UK in opposite ones, so all Britain can hope for is that the US gets an excuse to go to war with and destroy the CSA before a general war starts in Europe, so they don't have to fight them again. Because they'd be in a worse position than in any previous wars with them if that comes to pass.

 

[Diego]

France is going to suffer an even worse defeat against Prussia than in OTL, after having spent blood and treasure in the American War

France didn't take part in the war according to OP.

and being forced to keep part of their military stationed in Mexico so the still-existent Second Mexican Empire stays propped up

After losing a war the US probably wouldn't be so bold to give support to Juarez, and even if they decide to support him they are very limited in their capabilities of even reaching him, also the Confederacy wouldn't be interested in Mexico and even less in getting on the wrong side of anyone. Without support Max win the war and the French don't need to keep troops there, their presence would probably be reduced to a battalion or two at most.

This is if the CSA's natural tendency towards expansionism (it was always pro-slavery politicians who demanded the US seize more territory down south for the expansion of the plantation system)

There was pressure from both sides, if the Confederacy was the one that pushed more it was because they wanted more slave states, and if the North was against expansion it was because they wanted the opposite, it wasn't because the southerners had a compulsion for expanding and the North didn't, they had the same kind of ambitions in opposing directions, also I must point out that the US continued its expansion after the Civil War.

Or they try to forge an alliance with Brazil

What does Brazil can offer the Confederacy and what does the Confederacy could offer to Brazil?! Neither could defend the other and even if they could Brazil already has the US as its main commercial partner.

This is if the CSA's natural tendency towards expansionism (it was always pro-slavery politicians who demanded the US seize more territory down south for the expansion of the plantation system) doesn't kill the alliance first. Once Spain is falling apart in the Third Carlist War, perhaps they could hardly resist the opportunity to pounce on Cuba. Or they invade Haiti because a country founded by a slave revolt is something they can't stand having next door. Or they try to forge an alliance with Brazil, prompting fears among the more progressive wing of British politics that the world's remaining slaveholding nations are standing together to protect and expand their ideology. Either way, Britain would be highly uncomfortable with this and cut them off.

The Confederacy is broken after the Civil War, its economy is destroyed, their debt will be paid only after many decades or even a century or two, the US is breathing on their neck, as I said before, they are not in a position to cross anyone, I would say that even Haiti is big game for them...

 

[Father Maryland]

Britain would never support the power that wants to expand slavery. Full stop.

Well they very well might fight the US (if the Trent Affair went worse) and effectively secure the independence of the CSA. But right after that things start getting really awkward. Britain prided itself on abolishing the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade, hunting slavers, and banning formal chattel slavery in the empire in 1832.

The simple fact that the CSA will be completely unrepentant about it's slavery and depending on

A) How badly the war damaged them

and

B) Just how stupid the CSA leadership is

They might try something as dumb as trying to restart the Trans Atlantic Slave trade (presumably ineffectively) and trying to expand southward either via Fillibuster or formal invasion in the territories in the Caribbean/Mexico/Latin America that pre war Fire Eaters had strongly supported annexing in order to spread slavery.

Even without that the whole affair will get super awkward.

The CSA is effectively a state built entirely around slavery and any attempt to abolish it will pretty much instantly kill any sense or nationhood and cause massive civil disruption. That said the CSA's slaving makes supporting them very difficult for the Brits after the heat of the Trent Affair/War has died down and the British public realize they have essentially helped preserve and expand slavery to a great deal. And without British support the CSA is doomed in a handful of years with even a US wounded by a failed war would still be able to beat the CSA if it didn't have large scale foreign support.

So the CSA keeping slavery makes Britain supporting her more and more difficult each year. But the CSA Abolishing slavery more or less destroys any reason for it's existence and quite possibly would lead to a break up of the CSA with some states rejoining/being conquered by the US and others splintering it's squabbling feuding states.

 

[Slime_blob]

Russo / French / American / Austrian and others Alliance vs UK / Germany / Italy / CSA Alliance in the great war hmmmm sounds interesting ends badly for UK and co.

 

[marktaha]

Read Turtledove's TL191 series?

 

[unprincipled peter]

Leaving aside the implausibility of this PoD, there is no way the Brits would annex United States territory into Canada aside from some throwaway border adjustments. The population of those areas would practically swamp the Canadians and destabilize the entire region.

unless the OP edited the territory grabbed by the brits, all they took was fairly minor border adjustments. There's no real population, at the time, in the northern parts of Maine, Michigan, and Oregon (which I assume means Oregon territory : OTL Washington). Canada isn't going to get swamped.

 

[unprincipled peter]

Britain and CSA will form an uneasy Alliance. Just as Britain was willing to buy southern products, they'll be willing to buy CSA products. They'll also look to take the industrial trade in that region, leaving northern rump USA out in the cold. This will force USA to play nice with CSA in an effort to resume north/south trade. Britain will pressure CSA to put USA at a trade disadvantage. Hard to do that while also pressuring an end to slavery.

Northerners were already growing tired of the war, OTL, and sans some victories would have accepted a separation of states. The British entry would have fueled a northern Lost Cause - if it weren't for the damned Limeys, we'd have won this war! - but would this have been enough to look to retake the south? IF the CSA stabilizes itself, and I think it can, the north will see it as too tough a nut to crack to make it worth it, especially if north/south trade can resume.

There will be anger against the Brits, but the USA will see resumption of trade as more valuable than a border readjustment.

There'll be a lot of moving parts, but ultimately there's an accepting of a new situation.

 

[Father Maryland]

unless the OP edited the territory grabbed by the brits, all they took was fairly minor border adjustments. There's no real population, at the time, in the northern parts of Maine, Michigan, and Oregon (which I assume means Oregon territory : OTL Washington). Canada isn't going to get swamped.

Considering how tiny Canadas Anglo population was even a few tens of thousands of Americans will cause major problems.

That and the Brits/ Canadians don't actually gzin much with those annexations.

 

[Sarthak]

Considering how tiny Canadas Anglo population was even a few tens of thousands of Americans will cause major problems.

That and the Brits/ Canadians don't actually gzin much with those annexations.

In 1860, British North America had a population of 1.3 million. The territories in America that the British coveted had a grand total of..........40,000 or ~2.9%. Half of those numbers won't care considering the large amount of Canadian immigrants in those areas and the other half won't really be able to do much about it all considering if a war does happen, the British military is going to be there to stamp down on any sort of activity like in 1857 and 1837. And frankly 40000 people won't be able to even manage any sort of resistance like the proto civil disobedience of some southern people in the former CSA.

 

[Sarthak]

Also British policy throughout the civil war was that if they were dragged into the war they would be co-belligerents with the CSA not allies.

 

[Saramello]

The U.S. would be revanchist as hell. They would be extremely, extremely pissed at the British for aiding the traitors of the south. It's only a matter of time and circumstance until they re-annex the confederates or see them as worthless (given a lack of industry and any real worth especially once slavery ends). Given the fact the Confederacy was facing an uphill battle keeping slaves in the upcoming decades, their economy would eventually falter due to labor shortages and slave revolts (and even after freeing the slaves they'd be more brutal than IRL when they were somewhat constrained by the constitution).

Also, expect a "liberation" of Canada should the British ever be badly tied down in a future war, such as WW1, in whatever form it keeps.

The US, even without the south, will have a larger population and industrial base than the Confederacy and British North America combined. It's a matter of when, not if, the Union gets its revenge.

 

[PGSBHurricane]

A more realistic POD would be something like the Confederacy winning at Gettysburg or Antietam. A successful invasion of the North would prompt British intervention who would force the Union to recognize the CSA and come to a negotiated piece. The Confederates would probably get Kentucky plus Arizona and Indian Territories. In any case, to answer your question more directly, the US probably wouldn’t go overly revanchist because their focus would likely turn inward, ignoring the rest of the world including a Victorious CSA. The only exception my be Alaska and that’s because Russia would probably be the Union’s closest ally given that the British sided with the CSA and would want a North American ally to counterbalance the British in the Great Game. Given that Russia didn’t want Alaska and they didn’t want it to fall into British hands, maybe they just force the US to buy it, making it the only exception to America’s generally increasing isolationism.

 

[Father Maryland]

A more realistic POD would be something like the Confederacy winning at Gettysburg or Antietam. A successful invasion of the North would prompt British intervention who would force the Union to recognize the CSA and come to a negotiated piece. The Confederates would probably get Kentucky plus Arizona and Indian Territories. In any case, to answer your question more directly, the US probably wouldn’t go overly revanchist because their focus would likely turn inward, ignoring the rest of the world including a Victorious CSA. The only exception my be Alaska and that’s because Russia would probably be the Union’s closest ally given that the British sided with the CSA and would want a North American ally to counterbalance the British in the Great Game. Given that Russia didn’t want Alaska and they didn’t want it to fall into British hands, maybe they just force the US to buy it, making it the only exception to America’s generally increasing isolationism.

The Confederates gaining Arizona and Kentucky seems really unlikely by Gettysburgh. Mostly because by that point vast swathes of the CSA Are under military occupation by the US and even with a victory at Gettysburg the US still has large numbers of well armed well equipped Soldiers.

By that point New Orleans, most of Louisiana, a big chunk of Northern Virginia, part of Tennessee, the Georgia sea islands and various islands off the coast of the CSA along with the majority of the Missippi River Valley as well as the entire river are in US hands
So demanding significant territorial concessions when the US is actively occupying a massive chunk of the CSA and even with a win at Gettysburh the CSA just doesn't have the means to evict them.

For the CSA the best possiblity would

1) Most of the occupied portions of Northern Virginia are kept by the US either as a military district or annexed to DC. Similarly the US keeps Fort Monroe and the Delmarva portion of Virginia is annexed to Maryland
2) The US keeps Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Arizona as well as certain forts along the Missippi ( Fort Donelson, Island number ten and Vicksburg primarily.
3) The US has free transit rites through the Missippi River including no Tariffs on US goods exported down the River through New Orleans. The US might maintain a extraterritorial exclave in or near New Orleans to facilitate trade.
4) The US keeps the Georgian Sea Islands as well as the sea forts of Fort Pickens, Fort Jefferson and Fort Taylor. Perhaps also the Florida Keys.
5) A plebiscite is held in East Tennessee to determine whether it stays a part of Confederate Tennessee or counter secedes forming a new US state.
6) The US retains all other Territory's besides the Indian territory which remains Confederate.
7) Some agreement regarding the Contrabands and other Freed slaves trailing the US Army.

Thats the best they can get without the Brits going into a full bore war with the US to satisfy Confederate demands.

In return the US Army evacuate the large swathes of the CSA it holds. By that point the US controls so much that the CSA can't take back itself that thats the best I can see for them.

 

[Father Maryland]

unless the OP edited the territory grabbed by the brits, all they took was fairly minor border adjustments. There's no real population, at the time, in the northern parts of Maine, Michigan, and Oregon (which I assume means Oregon territory : OTL Washington). Canada isn't going to get swamped.

Yes but why? Canada already has lots of non settled/ colonized land. Why do those adjustments? Especially because It doesn't take a genius to realize doing so will badly sour British/ Canadian- US relations. And that the US is obviously a rising industrial power which even without the Rebel states the US massively out numbered Canada.

And that said sore point will mean long term military tensions neccestating more miliarized Canada and a long term very expensive requirement to station fat more Britisj/ Imperial troops in Canada. The expense of needing to maintain a regular division or two in Canada for decades would cause many British politicians to falter.

And t his is still a period where the domestic Canadian political scene is chaotic and retains decent independence or republican inclined sorts. The cost of pissing off their much larger neighbor for some semi worthleds chunks of land and rhe resulting need to militarize far more then OTL requiring much higher taxes and possibly conscription. The Brits would expect the Canadians to bear a large part of the financial costs for a lar h e Imperial Garridon.

That could risk theoretically greatly strengthening Canadian Nationalistic republicans because as far as their concerned they'd been mostly peacefully interacting with their American neighbors for years. Now the US ( which is far larger and more militarized the Canada) suddenly faces the real risk of war, having to help pay for the B t itish garrison and their own army/ militia neccesitating things like much higher taxes to pay for all that.

All for a couple bits of land that are pretty much useless to Canada.

Its just a terrible idea all around. You ensure making a new long term enemy, have to tax and spend vastly more in order to potentially defend themselves from a enemy they didn't want. And I imagine the Quebecers are just thrilled at suddenly paying vastly more taxes to help the Anglo Canadians/ British.

Basically what makes those bits of territory worth the long term costs.

 

[unprincipled peter]

Yes but why? Canada already has lots of non settled/ colonized land. Why do those adjustments? Especially because It doesn't take a genius to realize doing so will badly sour British/ Canadian- US relations. And that the US is obviously a rising industrial power which even without the Rebel states the US massively out numbered Canada.

And that said sore point will mean long term military tensions neccestating more miliarized Canada and a long term very expensive requirement to station fat more Britisj/ Imperial troops in Canada. The expense of needing to maintain a regular division or two in Canada for decades would cause many British politicians to falter.

And t his is still a period where the domestic Canadian political scene is chaotic and retains decent independence or republican inclined sorts. The cost of pissing off their much larger neighbor for some semi worthleds chunks of land and rhe resulting need to militarize far more then OTL requiring much higher taxes and possibly conscription. The Brits would expect the Canadians to bear a large part of the financial costs for a lar h e Imperial Garridon.

That could risk theoretically greatly strengthening Canadian Nationalistic republicans because as far as their concerned they'd been mostly peacefully interacting with their American neighbors for years. Now the US ( which is far larger and more militarized the Canada) suddenly faces the real risk of war, having to help pay for the B t itish garrison and their own army/ militia neccesitating things like much higher taxes to pay for all that.

All for a couple bits of land that are pretty much useless to Canada.

Its just a terrible idea all around. You ensure making a new long term enemy, have to tax and spend vastly more in order to potentially defend themselves from a enemy they didn't want. And I imagine the Quebecers are just thrilled at suddenly paying vastly more taxes to help the Anglo Canadians/ British.

Basically what makes those bits of territory worth the long term costs.

I'm just going with the OP scenario. It's plausible, even if not likely. Those were historical border disputes. In the event of war, pride takes over a lot of otherwise rational thought.

 

[PGSBHurricane]

The Confederates gaining Arizona and Kentucky seems really unlikely by Gettysburgh. Mostly because by that point vast swathes of the CSA Are under military occupation by the US and even with a victory at Gettysburg the US still has large numbers of well armed well equipped Soldiers.

By that point New Orleans, most of Louisiana, a big chunk of Northern Virginia, part of Tennessee, the Georgia sea islands and various islands off the coast of the CSA along with the majority of the Missippi River Valley as well as the entire river are in US hands
So demanding significant territorial concessions when the US is actively occupying a massive chunk of the CSA and even with a win at Gettysburh the CSA just doesn't have the means to evict them.

For the CSA the best possiblity would

1) Most of the occupied portions of Northern Virginia are kept by the US either as a military district or annexed to DC. Similarly the US keeps Fort Monroe and the Delmarva portion of Virginia is annexed to Maryland
2) The US keeps Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Arizona as well as certain forts along the Missippi ( Fort Donelson, Island number ten and Vicksburg primarily.
3) The US has free transit rites through the Missippi River including no Tariffs on US goods exported down the River through New Orleans. The US might maintain a extraterritorial exclave in or near New Orleans to facilitate trade.
4) The US keeps the Georgian Sea Islands as well as the sea forts of Fort Pickens, Fort Jefferson and Fort Taylor. Perhaps also the Florida Keys.
5) A plebiscite is held in East Tennessee to determine whether it stays a part of Confederate Tennessee or counter secedes forming a new US state.
6) The US retains all other Territory's besides the Indian territory which remains Confederate.
7) Some agreement regarding the Contrabands and other Freed slaves trailing the US Army.

Thats the best they can get without the Brits going into a full bore war with the US to satisfy Confederate demands.

In return the US Army evacuate the large swathes of the CSA it holds. By that point the US controls so much that the CSA can't take back itself that thats the best I can see for them.

Fair enough. I guess what I said would apply more with Antietam since the CSA would have more time on its side.