PC: A referendum in Arizona after a CSA victory

Saphroneth

Banned
No border is more important then DC. Why would you pull from the East to reinforce godforsaken Michigan or Maine and leave DC open to invasion? Lincoln, and his staff, will protect DC even more, knowing it to be the weak link. It was one of the most heavily defended cities in the world ITOL. IF anything, they would increase it.

I can easily see a victory CSA with the UK backing them, but the UK backing is never going to translate to Redcoats marching, in mass formation, with Rebels into Maryland.
Okay, to clarify.

  1. I'm not talking about Redcoats marching into Maryland - the Redcoats are all up north in Canada.
  2. If your opinion is that the US would prefer to defend DC rather than the coast or the northern frontier that's fine - but realize that means NY and Baltimore occupied, Springfield armory captured, the DuPont powder works blown to bits and the occupation of essentially the whole of Michigan. There's 150,000 British troops in Canada by the thaw (~100,000 total Canadian militia counting the maritimes, plus 8-9 divisions of British regulars), plus the Royal Marines, and you need something to stop them (and NY and MI might simply refuse to provide their troops and keep them for themselves if they're expected to acquiesce to that!). Similarly, the coast needs some vague kind of defence. (Please feel free to say how many troops you think the Union would put up there, and remember that you're either putting untrained new recruits up there or you're stripping the field armies down on the front line.)
  3. Remember, OTL the Union and the Confederacy fought back and forth over Maryland in 1862. With Trent the Union army is smaller (it has to be, it does not have enough rifles to arm everyone it armed OTL - this means the expansion of OTL 1862 does not happen) and the Confederacy is larger (they've got all the troops OTL tied up on the coast). They also have the Virginia loose on the Potomac.
Frankly there's not enough resources for the Union to garrison everything. This is before getting into how the Union is now in a financial crisis (there was an OTL run on the banks, and now the routes to the goldfields are occupied by British troops and trade has collapsed).
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
What I'm saying is that the Union's army will be maybe 450,000 strong counting everyone with a weapon that goes bang, and they're dealing with - in aggregate - superior numbers, especially when you count the Royal Navy. They have to honour all the threats, and that means basically denuding their offensive capability and leaving them with no major reserves (even if they pull out of Maine completely).
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Further information - in early-mid 1862 it's actually quite easy to get through the fort ring, there's dead ground around the Rockville Turnpike. It's why Fort Kearny was built. There may be other gaps in this period - they tried to cover a 37 mile perimeter and extreme gun range was one mile, so roughly speaking about 5% of the guns can bear on a given point. (Compare to Sevastopol, which was a two mile perimeter for which over 50% of the guns could bear on a given point - you'd need almost 10,000 guns defending Washington to match the fortification density.)
 
Last edited:
In any feasible peace situation there's going to have to be give and take. This is what I've heard of the CS priority list:

  • The south considered Kentucky and Missouri their territory, and are not likely to part with it.
  • Maryland's eastern counties were pro-CS and the west pro-US. Here a partition could be effected. Delaware the CSA could easily write off.
  • They would likely insist on their NM territory and the promised 5 southern counties of California. California had already approved the separation of the southern 5 counties as the "Territory of Colorado" before the ACW and it was on the Presidents desk awaiting approval.
  • The CS would try and claim Kansas, but would perhaps negotiate that away.
  • The CSA also wanted Washington, and to make that city their capital.

In any war there will be give and take, but to get some of the changes proposed here the CSA would literally have to be delivering the ultimatum from the point of a bayonet in Washington!

Quite simply, even in a Trent scenario the British are in it for British aims. The CSA is at best a tertiary concern to the British and if they are going to affirm anything it would only be the original seceding states, or any which switched sides afterwards. The British are not going to fight or exert political pressure so the CSA can expand.

The Union by contrast, will not be under any obligation to give up any territory the CSA is not literally standing on whenever the peace treaty is concerned. To even force a referendum the South would at least have to be occupying the state/territorial capitals of places they wanted to be awarded at the peace table. To have a chance at making a claim for the Arizona territory in any hypothetical peace talks there will need to be Confederates on the ground attempting to enforce that claim. The North is simply the stronger opponent here and won't give up anything it doesn't have to.
 
Top