If the Confederacy won, would reunification happen?

While there was some Romanticism for the Confederacy among the British Aristocracy, including the Queen's-Consort, the majority were firmly anti-slavery by the 1860s, especially the working classes, whose influence was growing. Throw in industrialization, and you're right, the North in Britain's natural ally. (The British were never going to recognize the Confederacy, short Lincoln invading Canada for no reason during the middle of the war, see A World on Fire; Britain's Crucial Role in the American Civil War) As far as who becomes President in the North, I have no idea, but there will be no Reconstruction and no Lincoln Assasination, so that effects politics. Settling the west will be a big issue. I could see the North trying to get even more immigrants to block the South in to the west with homesteaders, which will effect politics even more, perhaps even in Europe. Imagine the U.S. Government subsidizing immigration costs as part of its national security strategy.

Anyways, I imagine there will be a great power war. But a part of me also thinks that a USA/CSA split is just inviting the concept of proxy wars and economic imperialism get an early start as well. Some enterprising young diplomats in Europe might see that economic potential of the Americas could be just as valuable a bauble, probably more so, than colonies in Africa and Asia, or even certain pieces of Europe.

Well, I certainly in agreement that a USA/CSA split would cause proxy wars and economic imperialism that would interest the Europeans, but when I said Britain wouldn't automatically become allies with the Confederacy even if they recognize them and be neutral towards both the Union and the Confederacy I mean that Britain would just simply trade the two without aligning with either side (though that would change in WW1 and WW2 when they as you said ally with the North) after all some British did meet the Confederates or witness battles such as Gettysburg and the Confederacy would want to offer as much cotton to Britain as they could as well as (like you said) get young diplomats in Europe and that country interested in the Americas and perhaps allow them to invest business there. For who would become president of the United States if the Confederate States won the Civil War the timeframe of 1861-1863 (or to a lesser extent by some such as Anaxagoras 1864) was the years the Confederacy could have won there's the Trent Affair gone wrong for the Union resulting in the British siding with the Confederacy, General Robert E. Lee not losing Order-191, Shiloh being a (pyrrhic) victory for the South (if Johnston had stuck with his original plan to organize the troops in linear fashion and drive enemy Union troops into the swamps or weather didn't delay them) or Albert Sidney Johnston actually getting the tourniquet applied to him thus saving his life for another battle with Ulysses S. Grant (I highly recommend you read the book Dixie Victorious written by former U.S. Military Lieutenant Peter Tsousas and other war historians that cover all 10 possible Confederate victory scenarios) well's there the 1864 presidential election where Abraham Lincoln thought he never get reelected now imagine if one of those scenarios above had happened the Democrat candidate was former General George B. McCllelan and he would have won the election had he been in elected. On the topics of immigration and homesteading, I think I would agree with you that such a policy by the Union would certainly happen but there is still issue with having hundreds of thousands of non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants in America just to be used to block Confederate westward homesteading as there were still nativist, anti-immigrant elements that existed that would have objected to this plan.
 
Of course, they wouldn't work under toddler rules and they didn't exactly have the capabilities (well, at least only militarily and not politically) however since the Confederacy won they would likely go for those states but as I said there could be a consolation prize given to the Union for keeping say Missouri or West Virginia. Honestly, the seven states that did form the Confederacy and their secession (ordinances included) will already have been recognized by the Union so they wouldn't just say it's 100% shady.
That is not a consolation prize. The Union CONTROLS those territories. They have not seceded. They are not GOING to secede. A consolation prize would be the Confederates in control of those states and then "magnanimously" returning them in exchange for recognition of secession. Or to use an AH example, in the Decades of Darkness TL the United States's annexation of Texas was recognized by Britain and New England at the end of the War of 1833 as a consolation prize, to avoid engendering additional bitterness at a second lost war. Getting to keep your own territory, which you still control, is not an example.

As for the second sentence, you assume they will have been recognized why exactly? That's what the treaty is for. Up until that treaty is signed there is no reason for the US to recognize any such thing.

Finally, the Confederacy "going for those states", how? They already HAVE gone for them. They lost. And trying to get more territory through threats when they couldn't get it through military action, AND couldn't get it through the democratic process is not going to go over well with whoever is conducting the negotiations. Britain's view in favor of the south was (theoretically) built on democratic choice by the people living there (conveniently ignoring the slaves of course), and their belief that the North was unable to win the war. They are not in it to make the south's every desire come true at the drop of a hat. So we are left with my initial point, you are suggesting the CSA will get these territories on no other basis than "they want it". The big issue is that the idea they would GET these territories has been in popular AH fiction for a long time. I blame Turtledove.

(I highly recommend you read the book Dixie Victorious written by former U.S. Military Lieutenant Peter Tsousas and other war historians that cover all 10 possible Confederate victory scenarios)

Just to warn you, those books are...not good examples of plausible AH. I have personally never read that particular book, but I have read both Third Reich Victorious, and Rising Sun Victorious. Both were full of nonsense, an astounding amount of ignorance about the Second World War. If Dixie Victorious follows the same mold then I would not hold out much hope for its quality.
 
The decisive battle(s) that would lead to a CSA victory would be won in the east. CSA efforts in Arizona and Oklahoma were flops and basically shoestring operations that could not be reinforced/repeated given the geography. Kentucky would, at best, depend on the lines when the cease fire happens. IMHO the CSA being those states that actually seceded, probably minus West Virginia which formally left Virginia, would be what you see. Absent the CSA imposing a Versailles like settlement on a supine USA, which simply is not in the cards, you won't get the USA giving up territory that did not secede initially. even the Peace Democrats, whose slogan was "let our wayward sisters go", were not advocating for Kentucky, Indian Territory, Arizona, or any other US territory to be given to the CSA in a peace treaty.

FWIW in the Turtledove series the way Kentucky and Indian Territory (later Sequoyah) were pretty much occupied by the CSA when the war ended, and Arizona was not ceded to the CSA.
 
The implied question is how the Confederacy actually wins.

In all but the most CSA-wank scenario, I see an economically and politically non-viable CSA experiencing hyper-inflation, and generalised instability until it either collapses, or gets taken out in a second war twenty years later.
 
That is not a consolation prize. The Union CONTROLS those territories. They have not seceded. They are not GOING to secede. A consolation prize would be the Confederates in control of those states and then "magnanimously" returning them in exchange for recognition of secession. Or to use an AH example, in the Decades of Darkness TL the United States's annexation of Texas was recognized by Britain and New England at the end of the War of 1833 as a consolation prize, to avoid engendering additional bitterness at a second lost war. Getting to keep your own territory, which you still control, is not an example.

As for the second sentence, you assume they will have been recognized why exactly? That's what the treaty is for. Up until that treaty is signed there is no reason for the US to recognize any such thing.

Finally, the Confederacy "going for those states", how? They already HAVE gone for them. They lost. And trying to get more territory through threats when they couldn't get it through military action, AND couldn't get it through the democratic process is not going to go over well with whoever is conducting the negotiations. Britain's view in favor of the south was (theoretically) built on democratic choice by the people living there (conveniently ignoring the slaves of course), and their belief that the North was unable to win the war. They are not in it to make the south's every desire come true at the drop of a hat. So we are left with my initial point, you are suggesting the CSA will get these territories on no other basis than "they want it". The big issue is that the idea they would GET these territories has been in popular AH fiction for a long time. I blame Turtledove.



Just to warn you, those books are...not good examples of plausible AH. I have personally never read that particular book, but I have read both Third Reich Victorious, and Rising Sun Victorious. Both were full of nonsense, an astounding amount of ignorance about the Second World War. If Dixie Victorious follows the same mold then I would not hold out much hope for its quality.

Well, if there's no territorial compromise or peace negotiations and as I said a referendum could be held in states like Kentucky if the Union won't exactly give up control of those states in a peace treaty then perhaps a vote would be put to decide by both countries jointly to gauge public opinion and when I say there could be a referendum it's just simply allowing the people of in these states to decide if they want to join the Union or Confederacy and when the results come in they end up in either country that's it. Now let me specify this "consolation prize" it's actually the Confederacy giving up to any and all claims to Missouri, one half of Arizona and West Virginia (all of whom held by the Union at the time) and allowing the Union to keep them but at least get Kentucky, their half of Arizona, and Sequoyah in exchange for the peace/territorial compromise option, none of these options are by threat just negotiation only. Sir, we're talking about a timeline where the Confederacy won the Civil War it's very likely there's going to be a peace treaty or some armistice with the Union at least so the results will likely be different. The Confederacy wanted control of Kentucky and Missouri because they were slave states and Arizona so they could expand westward. I'm just giving you my opinion by the way so feel free to debate.
 
The implied question is how the Confederacy actually wins.

In all but the most CSA-wank scenario, I see an economically and politically non-viable CSA experiencing hyper-inflation, and generalised instability until it either collapses, or gets taken out in a second war twenty years later.

The two most popular scenarios these include are: General Robert E. Lee not losing Order 191 or Lee winning at Gettysburg, alternatively other scenarios such Shiloh for instance are involved. So depending on either scenario, the CSA go any way.
 
The decisive battle(s) that would lead to a CSA victory would be won in the east. CSA efforts in Arizona and Oklahoma were flops and basically shoestring operations that could not be reinforced/repeated given the geography. Kentucky would, at best, depend on the lines when the cease fire happens. IMHO the CSA being those states that actually seceded, probably minus West Virginia which formally left Virginia, would be what you see. Absent the CSA imposing a Versailles like settlement on a supine USA, which simply is not in the cards, you won't get the USA giving up territory that did not secede initially. even the Peace Democrats, whose slogan was "let our wayward sisters go", were not advocating for Kentucky, Indian Territory, Arizona, or any other US territory to be given to the CSA in a peace treaty.

FWIW in the Turtledove series the way Kentucky and Indian Territory (later Sequoyah) were pretty much occupied by the CSA when the war ended, and Arizona was not ceded to the CSA.

Well, in a Confederate victory depending on how it goes (ending as early as 1862 or as late 1864 or more), seeing how a lot of the Five Civlized Tribes in the Indian Territory were pro-Confederate they would be asking for the Union to let them go and be in the Confederacy, Kentucky (assuming if Leonaidas Polk and Braxton Bragg did not idiotcally invade in 1861) could go either way, and Arizona who knows? Any decisive Confederate victory in the east in 1863 or to a lesser extent 1864 is kinda hard even if we were to assume Lee won at Gettysburg for instance won't necessarily ensure the Confederates winning. This thread seriously doesn't seem to have one scenario that could see the Confederacy winning there's the aforementioned No Lost Orders or Lee wins Gettysburg followed by other scenarios such as The Trent Affair gone hot. It's fun to pick any plausible CSA wins the Civil War scenario though.
 
Sir, we're talking about a timeline where the Confederacy won the Civil War it's very likely there's going to be a peace treaty or some armistice with the Union at least so the results will likely be different.
And the war will be won by the Confederates in the east, not the west. It was in the east that the Confederate victories actually happened, while in the west they were driven back throughout the entire war, with only minor shifts during that time. This culminated of course in the severing of the Mississippi and ultimately in Sherman's March, but the point is that the Confederacy never had any chance of victory on that front. ALL of their efforts were failures. Even what little temporary success they found lasted a short time.

And I again repeat, what you are suggesting is not a consolation prize. Its just giving the Confederacy what they ask for, and accepting something that was the Union's anyway in exchange. An actual consolation prize would be if the Confederacy, in exchange for a recognition of the 11 seceded states agreed to take on a proportionate share of the national debt (which they didn't want to do for obvious reasons), or agreeing to not tax Union trade through New Orleans (and again, didn't want to do). It does not involve giving up another state nor territories.
 
And the war will be won by the Confederates in the east, not the west. It was in the east that the Confederate victories actually happened, while in the west they were driven back throughout the entire war, with only minor shifts during that time. This culminated of course in the severing of the Mississippi and ultimately in Sherman's March, but the point is that t the Confederacy never had any chance of victory on that front. ALL of their efforts were failures. Even what little temporary success they found lasted a short time.

And I again repeat, what you are suggesting is not a consolation prize. Its just giving the Confederacy what they ask for, and accepting something that was the Union's anyway in exchange. An actual consolation prize would be if the Confederacy, in exchange for a recognition of the 11 seceded states agreed to take on a proportionate share of the national debt (which they didn't want to do for obvious reasons), or agreeing to not tax Union trade through New Orleans (and again, didn't want to do). It does not involve giving up another state nor territories.
I'd say the east would be incredibly difficult for the Confederacy to win (if we're talking about Gettysburg) especially given that the west was as decisive as the east, personally I believe that if the Confederacy hadn't made some stupid decisions or mistakes like Leonaidas Polk and Braxton Bragg invading Kentucky (where they actually listen to Jefferson Davis on honoring Kentucky neutrality) or Albert Sidney Johnston dying (either he doesn't get shot in the artery or the tourniquet gets applied to him) perhaps things might have gone differently in the west. The one way I see a decisive Confederate victory in the east and thus the war (besides the whole Trent Affair between America and Britain) is Lee's Maryland Campaign in 1862 had the Confederate messenger not bumblingly lost "Lost Order 191". Predicting a Confederate victory in AH Civil War fiction is a bit tricky when taking other factors like what was happening in the east or west. But it's still fun to speculate though.
 
I'd say the east would be incredibly difficult for the Confederacy to win (if we're talking about Gettysburg) especially given that the west was as decisive as the east, personally I believe that if the Confederacy hadn't made some stupid decisions or mistakes like Leonaidas Polk and Braxton Bragg invading Kentucky (where they actually listen to Jefferson Davis on honoring Kentucky neutrality) or Albert Sidney Johnston dying (either he doesn't get shot in the artery or the tourniquet gets applied to him) perhaps things might have gone differently in the west. The one way I see a decisive Confederate victory in the east and thus the war (besides the whole Trent Affair between America and Britain) is Lee's Maryland Campaign in 1862 had the Confederate messenger not bumblingly lost "Lost Order 191". Predicting a Confederate victory in AH Civil War fiction is a bit tricky when taking other factors like what was happening in the east or west. But it's still fun to speculate though.

Nope, by Gettysburg the war was lost. The CSA hadn't stopped kicking yet, but they had lost the war by that point. Grant took Vicksburg at the same time, permanently slicing the CSA in two, effectively cutting off nearly a third of the country from the rest. From there nothing was going to stop the Union from crushing the CSA even if they had to march through Georgia and North Carolina (as Sherman did) to do so.

I agree that the 1862 Maryland Campaign is the best time for the war to be won, but it can't stop at Antietam (or an ATL version). The CSA is going to need repeated victories on that front to win the war. I've been working on a Confederate Victory TL for a few years (as I can, don't have much free time for research), and mine goes basically like this: a victory at Antietam, leading to the death of George Meade and the firing (again) of McClellan. Burnside is put in command, and is defeated by Lee during his withdrawal from the north. Burnside is fired, and Hooker takes command. Hooker is defeated in a Chancellorsville equivalent. Someone else gets put in charge, and is also soundly defeated in early 1863. This really points to a lack of ability by the Union to beat the ANV, and means the north is open for raiding.

With the war looking lost in the east, and with the reality that the better situation out west isn't making the war look better either at home or abroad, Lincoln is convinced to accept a British offer to negotiate a peace. Mindful of the need to keep Union grain flowing the British mediator gets the Union to accept full independence for the Confederacy, and accepts that no national debt will be transferred in the process, and all demands for compensation will be dropped. Furthermore, the CSA gives up all claims to additional territories within the United States (with the British basically getting those points conceded, so that if any territory went to them then the debt had to go too).

Going forward Prussia loses the 7 Weeks War to Austria (giving the latter control over most of Germany and leaving Prussia out in the cold on that front), Russia and the US begin to gain closer ties, the Democrats win the 1864 presidential election, only to be beaten by Ulysses S. Grant (the most successful commander of the war, and a staunch ally of the Republicans) in 1868 after the Republicans basically blame the Democratic opposition to the war as being a major reason it was lost. Under Grant the US Army professionalizes, using Prussian advisors in developing additional training techniques and helping put together a solid Union general staff, while also leasing the designs for Prussian guns going forward. All of this ultimately leads to another war in the late 1870s when the CSA tries to bully Mexico into selling part of its northern territory (yes the war scenario is similiar to How Few Remain, but that's because it actually WAS a goal of the Confederates, but I don't have as rosy a view of them as Turtledove).
 
a lot of these scenarios think the USA would just take back the CSA. if somehow the CSA gains independence one would think the political and cultural view of the north would change. If a southern victory happens my assumption would be for the population to turn on Lincoln and vilify his government. the narrative in the north would be that the south didn't win independence, the north didn't fight 'Lincolns war' but the people held firm to their principles that enforcing a government with a gun is against the founding of america (or some BS like that). after that conquering the south would just be a burden, economically and politically would probably just destabilise the USA. more importantly with an independent south how would any democratic american government justify a conquest of another nation.
 
Nope, by Gettysburg the war was lost. The CSA hadn't stopped kicking yet, but they had lost the war by that point. Grant took Vicksburg at the same time, permanently slicing the CSA in two, effectively cutting off nearly a third of the country from the rest. From there nothing was going to stop the Union from crushing the CSA even if they had to march through Georgia and North Carolina (as Sherman did) to do so.

I agree that the 1862 Maryland Campaign is the best time for the war to be won, but it can't stop at Antietam (or an ATL version). The CSA is going to need repeated victories on that front to win the war. I've been working on a Confederate Victory TL for a few years (as I can, don't have much free time for research), and mine goes basically like this: a victory at Antietam, leading to the death of George Meade and the firing (again) of McClellan. Burnside is put in command, and is defeated by Lee during his withdrawal from the north. Burnside is fired, and Hooker takes command. Hooker is defeated in a Chancellorsville equivalent. Someone else gets put in charge, and is also soundly defeated in early 1863. This really points to a lack of ability by the Union to beat the ANV, and means the north is open for raiding.

With the war looking lost in the east, and with the reality that the better situation out west isn't making the war look better either at home or abroad, Lincoln is convinced to accept a British offer to negotiate a peace. Mindful of the need to keep Union grain flowing the British mediator gets the Union to accept full independence for the Confederacy, and accepts that no national debt will be transferred in the process, and all demands for compensation will be dropped. Furthermore, the CSA gives up all claims to additional territories within the United States (with the British basically getting those points conceded, so that if any territory went to them then the debt had to go too).

Going forward Prussia loses the 7 Weeks War to Austria (giving the latter control over most of Germany and leaving Prussia out in the cold on that front), Russia and the US begin to gain closer ties, the Democrats win the 1864 presidential election, only to be beaten by Ulysses S. Grant (the most successful commander of the war, and a staunch ally of the Republicans) in 1868 after the Republicans basically blame the Democratic opposition to the war as being a major reason it was lost. Under Grant the US Army professionalizes, using Prussian advisors in developing additional training techniques and helping put together a solid Union general staff, while also leasing the designs for Prussian guns going forward. All of this ultimately leads to another war in the late 1870s when the CSA tries to bully Mexico into selling part of its northern territory (yes the war scenario is similiar to How Few Remain, but that's because it actually WAS a goal of the Confederates, but I don't have as rosy a view of them as Turtledove).
I like your idea for a Confederate Victory TL and I like how we agree that the 1862 Maryland Campaign was the best time the South could have won as well as Britain acting as a mediator for an American-Confederate peace treaty. I also do agree that the double whammy on the Confederacy losing Gettysburg and Vicksburg essentially meant the CSA had lost the war by that point. For a possible potential Confederate victory POD wcv215 why don't we look at Shiloh 1862 that battle in particular was a key victory for the Union and a devastating loss for the Confederacy as it allowed Grant to go into Corinith, MS "the Crossroads of the Confederacy" and eventually Vicksburg. The reasons as to why the Confederates didn't win at Shiloh were due to bad terrain and weather (which caused AS Johnston's army's planned attack on April 4 to be delayed to April 6), Leonidas Polk's idiotic refusal to march without a written order that wasted the Confederates precious time (see NY Times article Why the Battle of Shiloh Matters), the disorganization that existed among Confederate troops many of whom were as inexperienced as their Union counterparts (Albert Sidney Johnston's original plan was to organize his troops in a linear fashion and drive enemy Union troops into the swamp but when Beauregard who advised a retreat decided to draw up a very complex plan which involved organizing the troops in columns read Rethinking Shiloh: Myth and Memory which focuses on the common account of the battle and watch Civil War Trust's Shiloh video to know what I mean) and when they ate hot food when they stormed Union troops it also wasted valuable time, Don Carlos Buell's troops arriving on the second day of the battle when the defensive lines were stabilized, and Albert Sidney Johnston's death, if we were to take out of these factors (bad terrain/weather, disorganization or AS Johnston living etc) perhaps there could have been a Confederate victory depending on how the rest of the battle plays out whether if it's like OTL Shiloh or not.
 
My point was going to be that the problem with "CSA wins the Civil War" scenarios, and really "what if side X won war Y instead of losing it" scenarios is that it really makes a good deal of difference in HOW the Confederacy wins, if only to establish the year. But other commentators today beat me too it. I really like WCV's scenario.

Should there be a separate "Confederate victory in the Civil War" thread, using WCV's scenario as a starting point, or should that discussion just happen here. Because the thread subject itself is much narrower, whether there would be reunification.

My quick reaction is that I don't see the USA itself surviving a CSA victory in the Civil War, eg states secede, the federal government tries to stop them using force, leading to more states seceding, and then when it tries to force the states back into the Union gets beaten, the latter almost certainly be happening due to incredible incompetence (which actually came close to happening IOTL at least until Cameron was sent to Russia) in organizing and leading the war effort. After that in every political crisis more states would secede and form their own confederations, starting with California, remember the trans-continental railroad probably is butterflied away from happening in the 1860s.

On butterflies, it would take awhile for a war fought in the Americas to affect events in central Europe. The only immediate impact on Central Europe would be the survival of Maximilian's regime in Mexico or at least Max himself, which would affect his family but no one else in Central Europe. It certainly doesn't cause Austria to win a war they lost OTL only a few years later, and probably doesn't prevent an Austrian civil servant from hiring a maid. Would a Paraguayan victory in the War of the Triple Alliance have the same effect?
 
My point was going to be that the problem with "CSA wins the Civil War" scenarios, and really "what if side X won war Y instead of losing it" scenarios is that it really makes a good deal of difference in HOW the Confederacy wins, if only to establish the year. But other commentators today beat me too it. I really like WCV's scenario.

Should there be a separate "Confederate victory in the Civil War" thread, using WCV's scenario as a starting point, or should that discussion just happen here. Because the thread subject itself is much narrower, whether there would be reunification.

My quick reaction is that I don't see the USA itself surviving a CSA victory in the Civil War, eg states secede, the federal government tries to stop them using force, leading to more states seceding, and then when it tries to force the states back into the Union gets beaten, the latter almost certainly be happening due to incredible incompetence (which actually came close to happening IOTL at least until Cameron was sent to Russia) in organizing and leading the war effort. After that in every political crisis more states would secede and form their own confederations, starting with California, remember the trans-continental railroad probably is butterflied away from happening in the 1860s.

On butterflies, it would take awhile for a war fought in the Americas to affect events in central Europe. The only immediate impact on Central Europe would be the survival of Maximilian's regime in Mexico or at least Max himself, which would affect his family but no one else in Central Europe. It certainly doesn't cause Austria to win a war they lost OTL only a few years later, and probably doesn't prevent an Austrian civil servant from hiring a maid. Would a Paraguayan victory in the War of the Triple Alliance have the same effect?

Personally, I disagree the U.S. states would already be bitter and angry towards the C.S. states they would be unified together against one thing they have in common: the South. I don't think the USA wouldn't survive since they will be obsessed with the CSA and what it would be doing next.
 
The implied question is how the Confederacy actually wins.

In all but the most CSA-wank scenario, I see an economically and politically non-viable CSA experiencing hyper-inflation, and generalised instability until it either collapses, or gets taken out in a second war twenty years later.

I'll also add, the issue of their main labor source fleeing across the cumberland and northern freedmen with military experience coming down to cause trouble is going to be quite destabilizing.

The only way to deal with the slavery issue now that freedom isn't all the way in Canada is going to be to increase conscription for slave patrols. Now the class issues that were bubbling up in the south up until the civil war are going to be front and center (rather than buried under racial politics like OTL).

Internal discord, rebellions, insurrections, and a revanchist northern neighbor who at the very least needs to control the Mississippi River for geopolitical security? I don't think the CSA is going to last.
 
Last edited:
I'll also add, the issue of their main labor source fleeing across the cumberland and northern freedmen with military experience coming down to cause trouble is going to be quite destabilizing.

The only way to deal with the slavery issue now that freedom isn't all the way in Canada is going to be to increase conscription for slave patrols. Now the class issues that were bubbling up in the south up until the civil war are going to be front and center (rather than buried under racial politics like OTL).

Internal discord, rebellions, insurrections, and a revanchist northern neighbor who at the very least needs to control the Mississippi River for geopolitical security? I don't think the CSA is going to last.

Potential for independent Texas backed by U.S. in this scenario? A strong Texas would certainly put the CSA on the backfoot when dealing with the U.S.. I also think there would be clamors for liberating (from the U.S. and local point of view) of East Tennessee. Certainly Andrew Johnson would support said action (even if he's butterflied away from the presidency he's still an influential politician from East Tennessee). Perhaps Oklahoma territory would be demanded by the U.S. in a second war. Finally, for the sake of control of the Carribean, the U.S. would want Southern Florida. I don't see a total reunification, but I think parts of the C.S.A. would be lost.
 
Last edited:
Potential for independent Texas backed by U.S. in this scenario? A strong Texas would certainly put the CSA on the backfoot when dealing with the U.S.. I also think there would be clamors for liberating (from the U.S. and local point of view) of East Tennessee. Certainly Andrew Johnson would support said action (even if he's butterflied away from the presidency he's still an influential politician from East Tennessee). Perhaps Oklahoma territory would be demanded by the U.S. in a second war. Finally, for the sake of control of the Carribean, the U.S. would want Southern Florida. I don't see a total reunification, but I think parts of the C.S.A. would be lost.

I wouldn't see an independent Texas whatsoever since it fought a war with the other southern states. And I can't see the rest of what you're suggesting happening since the U.S. is more focused on it's existential crises than the Confederacy.
 
Not likely at all, given that by the time four decades had passed nearly two generations would've come and gone with the current state of affairs (Separation) having occurred and distinct national identities having formed. As far as the viability of the North attempting to do so, it also seems unlikely for a Democracy to wage a war of conquest upon a similar power; that the independent CSA would hold around 40% of the population and a matching amount of industry as compared to the United States would also serve as a sufficient deterrent to such an aggressive move.

Unlikely that a Democracy to wage a war of conquest upon a similar power? The Civil War is an example of that on both sides. The Confederacy started the war by announcing their intention to seize Washington DC and tried to forcibly annex Kentucky, Missouri, Arizona, and Colorado. And, of course the Union did successfully conquer the Confederacy in OTL. The Confederacy did have about 40% of the Union's population at the start of the war, but the Confederacy lost a higher percentage of population in the war, half a million slaves ran away, about 100 thousand white men from Confederate states joined the Union army, and the Union rapidly gained control of West Virginia and Tennessee. Plus the vast majority of immigrants went to free states, so the Confederacy would probably have 25% to 30% of the population of the Union at most. The Confederacy would not have 40% of the industry of the Union. At the time of the Civil War, they had roughly 12% the industry of the Union. That was concentrated in the Border States, which suffered the most damage during the war. Inferior infrastructure and lower tariffs also mean that Confederate industry would face greater obstacles to growth than Union industry.

That said, if the Union and the Confederacy do go 4 decades without another war, both sides would probably settle for a a peaceful status quo. But 4 decades of peace is unlikely - the Confederacy was a hostile expansionist power that believed all Union slave states, plus the major mineral producing territories and a route to the Pacific were theirs by right.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
Yes, I know what you are asking. I'm saying the question is irrelevant because Adolf Hitler won't exist. He won't be born, and so can't rise to power in the 1930s.

Edit: To put it more directly: Hitler as we know him was born in 1889. A POD 25 years earlier will lead to drastically different events in the lives of his parents going forward. For example, Alois Hitler only met Klara Polzl due to an affair which began when he hired her as a servant during his second marriage. And that only happened because when he was 13 he left home to apprentice to a cobbler shop in Vienna, join a frontier group in the Austrian Empire, married his first wife, cheated on his first wife with his second, etc.

If any of those events goes different, or even if he just doesn't hire Klara then Adolf Hitler never exists. That's completely ignoring the effects of random chance on births in general, but gives a simpler view on how someone won't exist in the future.



I felt a great disturbance in the Board. As if millions of butterflies cried out in terror...and were suddenly silenced.
It is your OPINION on philosophy that Hitler won't be born, and that's one minor possibility. However, that possibility is slight. Butterflies dont work that way and we don't need to get into another long argument on AH.com regarding it. Please don't be so adamant about making it FACT, because you're opinion isnt.
 
It is your OPINION on philosophy that Hitler won't be born, and that's one minor possibility. However, that possibility is slight. Butterflies dont work that way and we don't need to get into another long argument on AH.com regarding it. Please don't be so adamant about making it FACT, because you're opinion isnt.
No, its my view that probability stops the same people from being born who are conceived after the POD. It is fact that anyone who was born 20 years after the POD almost certainly will not exist. Not even due to genetics but simply from stopping the parents from meeting. FFS Hitler's mother was an INFANT at the time of the POD. Her life can take an entirely different course with barely any changes in her early life so she never even meets the father.
 
Top