Realistic CSA victory timeline

[Grey Wolf]

I can't see that, unlike the Jews there simply wouldn't be enough Blacks with any sort of education to make it into the leadership. A signifigant percentage of Poor Whites should have gotten at least a high school education by the time the revolution broke out. The average Black revolutionary would be an escaped field hand.

There WERE some educated blacks - there's the bridge builder, who even did a magnificent staircase in IIRC an Alabama courthouse. In the war he was drafted into ship building, but he was clearly an educated man, just about able to run his own business due to his expertise.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[WeisSaul]

They were never close to invading. Invading the US at this time would be madness. They already lost one war and was stalemated in another with the US when the US was much weaker. Unlike 1812 the US was the 2nd largest industrial power on the planet by 1860 and had numerous large cities that you would need to occupy. Do you know how many troops they would need to occupy New York, Chicago, Boston, Philidelphia etc? The cost would far, far exceed whatever they made off of cotton. The most the Brits would do is break the blockade and reinforce Canada to fight off an expected American invasion.

I suppose the UK could recognize the CSA, delcare a naval war to break the blockade, and if the US made good it its threat to declare war on any nation that recognized the Confederacy, Britain would fight a defensive war against the United States in Canada. Britain could allow for volunteer regiments being sent to the Confederacy, while making no equivalent offer for the United States. If the US attacked Canada, anti-Americanism would likely kick off in Britain. The United States would still be fighting a two front war, it'd just be on more preferable terms.

I could see a rapid annexation of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, PEI, and maybe Ontario, with a Quebec puppet being established that would control Quebec (lower Canada), Labrador, and St. Pierre and Miquelon. The US would probably invade BC and take everything up to the 51st parallel, and it would try for Bermuda and the Bahamas. Of course, this is only if a USS Maine style screw up happens and Russia joins the war on the Americans' side. Without Russia, the Canadian Confederation will likely remain secure, aside from a possible Nova Scotia and New Brunswick annexation.

I wrote a shortlived TL which featured a victorious CSA. The POD had the british foreign minister to the US during the American "Volunteer" scandal which results in him not being replaced and so when the trent affair comes around he mishandles the situation and things escalate to British intervention in the war. Despite this, the CSA barely manages to survive(Virginia winds up being kept in the union due to Union troops occupying it at the end of the war).

I managed to get to the early 80's and things were shaping up to having a very militarized Union and a destitute CSA(fighting against an insurgent leftist KKK) going for a rematch. Brazil was industrializing earlier, Napoleon III was leading an increasingly aggressive France, and Russia was becoming a republic under a surviving Alexander II.

I was planning on having the US gain some extra territory down the line but not from Canada, and not by forceful conquest.

Sounds like Santo Domingo, The Danish Virgin Islands, North Borneo, Samoa, and some purchased land from Spain and Mexico (Cuba, Puerto Rico, Sonora, Baja, etc.)

 

[Dan Reilly The Great]

Sounds like Santo Domingo, The Danish Virgin Islands, North Borneo, Samoa, and some purchased land from Spain and Mexico (Cuba, Puerto Rico, Sonora, Baja, etc.)

Actually, I must correct myself, most of the new territory is not gained through military conquest. Some would be, although it isn't a massive chunk of land in the grand scheme of things, and is quite plausible in the context of the TL.

 

[AlexanderHamilton]

The CSA was doomed

Two things:
1) The Confederacy was based on states rights, and thus, at the slightest provocation (a disagreement over internal improvements, or a tariff dispute between the eastern and western states) the more independent-minded state (i.e. South Carolina, Texas) would have seceded again.

2) By 1862, the Union forces had invaded most of Tennessee, and the port of New Orleans, and had complete control of the Mississippi river. The northern states would not have given up the outlet to the Gulf of Mexico, and would not have let the CSA unite. The only way out is if the south wins in a month, as they thought they would.

My favorite situation is that the war lasts a little longer, so that Lincoln loses reelection to McClennan, who makes peace with the CSA on terms that are acceptable to most northerners; Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi form the CSA (with SC eventually becoming its own country). The new country has natural borders at the Appalations and the Mississippi river.
As for the land across the Mississippi; Texas reverts to being the Republic of Texas. Louisiana is forced back into the union (with runaway slaves eventually becoming the majority). Oklahoma is an independent Indian nation. (oh yeah, I forgot about Arkansas..)

 

[67th Tigers]

They were never close to invading. Invading the US at this time would be madness. They already lost one war and was stalemated in another with the US when the US was much weaker. Unlike 1812 the US was the 2nd largest industrial power on the planet by 1860 and had numerous large cities that you would need to occupy. Do you know how many troops they would need to occupy New York, Chicago, Boston, Philidelphia etc? The cost would far, far exceed whatever they made off of cotton. The most the Brits would do is break the blockade and reinforce Canada to fight off an expected American invasion.

The warplan was for a LIMITED invasion of the US to seize the major invasion routes. Ft Montgomery, Ft Niagara, Detroit and a few other places were to be seized in a coup de main the day war was declared (or even the day before) and reinforced as rapidly as possible. If the St. Lawrence is open 50,000 regular soldiers can be in Montreal in weeks, far quicker than the US can move major forces northwards.

New York and Boston? They planned to burn those cities to the ground using their unchallenged naval supremacy. By the same token gunboat flotillas would move onto the Great Lakes (and if successful would burn Chicago), up the Delaware (to burn Philadelphia) etc.. Navigation of the Mississippi should be reopened when the starving remanants of the Gulf force surrender (they were fed entirely by sea) and the RN can operate there too.

The only place they wanted to destroy but would require a land commitment was Pittsburg.

The point was to destroy the US war fighting capacity by destruction of all major war industries.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Two things:
1) The Confederacy was based on states rights, and thus, at the slightest provocation (a disagreement over internal improvements, or a tariff dispute between the eastern and western states) the more independent-minded state (i.e. South Carolina, Texas) would have seceded again.

2) By 1862, the Union forces had invaded most of Tennessee, and the port of New Orleans, and had complete control of the Mississippi river. The northern states would not have given up the outlet to the Gulf of Mexico, and would not have let the CSA unite. The only way out is if the south wins in a month, as they thought they would.

My favorite situation is that the war lasts a little longer, so that Lincoln loses reelection to McClennan, who makes peace with the CSA on terms that are acceptable to most northerners; Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi form the CSA (with SC eventually becoming its own country). The new country has natural borders at the Appalations and the Mississippi river.
As for the land across the Mississippi; Texas reverts to being the Republic of Texas. Louisiana is forced back into the union (with runaway slaves eventually becoming the majority). Oklahoma is an independent Indian nation. (oh yeah, I forgot about Arkansas..)

Little Mac would never do that. He'd do something much worse: reunify the USA but try to reimpose slavery.

 

[Johnrankins]

The warplan was for a LIMITED invasion of the US to seize the major invasion routes. Ft Montgomery, Ft Niagara, Detroit and a few other places were to be seized in a coup de main the day war was declared (or even the day before) and reinforced as rapidly as possible. If the St. Lawrence is open 50,000 regular soldiers can be in Montreal in weeks, far quicker than the US can move major forces northwards.

New York and Boston? They planned to burn those cities to the ground using their unchallenged naval supremacy. By the same token gunboat flotillas would move onto the Great Lakes (and if successful would burn Chicago), up the Delaware (to burn Philadelphia) etc.. Navigation of the Mississippi should be reopened when the starving remanants of the Gulf force surrender (they were fed entirely by sea) and the RN can operate there too.

The only place they wanted to destroy but would require a land commitment was Pittsburg.

The point was to destroy the US war fighting capacity by destruction of all major war industries.

Burn New York and Boston to the ground? So you are saying that the British High Command was TOTALLY INSANE! That would flat guarentee that the US wouldn't negotiate with GB under ANY conditions. 50,000 men is a drop in the bucket. The Union lost 350,000 men OTL and had more men at the end than when it started! What you have done is made sure virtually EVERYONE in the North is extemely pissed at you and what will happen when British troops come back in body bags in the 10s of thousands? You might get them to recognize the CSA but that would only to free up troops to hurl them ALL at Canada. You do know there were tons of Irish in the US at the time, mostly in NYC and Boston. They were reluctant to fight the CSA because they didn't want to compete with the Blacks for jobs but you can damn well bet they will sign up in droves to fight the English even without the stupidity of burning down NYC and Boston. The Brits gave up in 1776 with far less than 50,000 casualties against a US that was far weaker! You seem to be under the delusion that the US in 1860 was no stronger than 1812 when it was the #2 industrial power on the planet. GB would NOT be willing to take tens of thousands of casualties and almost certainly the interior of Canada to boot for slightly cheaper cotton.

 

[lloyd007]

The warplan was for a LIMITED invasion of the US to seize the major invasion routes. Ft Montgomery, Ft Niagara, Detroit and a few other places were to be seized in a coup de main the day war was declared (or even the day before) and reinforced as rapidly as possible. If the St. Lawrence is open 50,000 regular soldiers can be in Montreal in weeks, far quicker than the US can move major forces northwards.

New York and Boston? They planned to burn those cities to the ground using their unchallenged naval supremacy. By the same token gunboat flotillas would move onto the Great Lakes (and if successful would burn Chicago), up the Delaware (to burn Philadelphia) etc.. Navigation of the Mississippi should be reopened when the starving remanants of the Gulf force surrender (they were fed entirely by sea) and the RN can operate there too.

The only place they wanted to destroy but would require a land commitment was Pittsburg.

The point was to destroy the US war fighting capacity by destruction of all major war industries.

Limited invasion... burn down NYC and Boston...

From a 5 minute google search I came up with the basic facts that A: the US was very incredibly concerned with coastal defense, and B: had developed all manner of big, nasty guns to combat coastal invaders including a 20", 117,000 pound 'Rodman Gun', that was placed... in a NY harbor fort...

For the Brits to even get into NY harbor they can try and go through the East River... and invariably wreck themselves on the rocks... or go through The Narrows... which is called "The Narrows" because it only a mile wide... and was protected by Fort Hamilton, the place where the 20" Rodman guns eventually resided...

To think that taking out NYC, with over a million residents between it and Brooklyn would require anything less than Crimean War + levels of effort (especially since you don't have a major ally who is right across the Black Sea rather than the Atlantic) is insanity.

 

[Dan Reilly The Great]

Burn New York and Boston to the ground? So you are saying that the British High Command was TOTALLY INSANE! That would flat guarentee that the US wouldn't negotiate with GB under ANY conditions. 50,000 men is a drop in the bucket. The Union lost 350,000 men OTL and had more men at the end than when it started! What you have done is made sure virtually EVERYONE in the North is extemely pissed at you and what will happen when British troops come back in body bags in the 10s of thousands? You might get them to recognize the CSA but that would only to free up troops to hurl them ALL at Canada. You do know there were tons of Irish in the US at the time, mostly in NYC and Boston. They were reluctant to fight the CSA because they didn't want to compete with the Blacks for jobs but you can damn well bet they will sign up in droves to fight the English even without the stupidity of burning down NYC and Boston. The Brits gave up in 1776 with far less than 50,000 casualties against a US that was far weaker! You seem to be under the delusion that the US in 1860 was no stronger than 1812 when it was the #2 industrial power on the planet. GB would NOT be willing to take tens of thousands of casualties and almost certainly the interior of Canada to boot for slightly cheaper cotton.

Agreed, and IIRC 50,000 troops was about the total number of troops that the british had in all of canada, including regulars and militias, and that was in the time leading up to Trent when the British were anticipating possible hostilities with the Union. The British commander of forces in BNA was effectively begging for more troops from back home but never got them.

Palmerson was no fool, he would have engaged in a limited conflict in order to prop up the confederates long enough to tire out the Union, a full scale protracted conflict was the last thing he wanted.

 

[Johnrankins]

Limited invasion... burn down NYC and Boston...

From a 5 minute google search I came up with the basic facts that A: the US was very incredibly concerned with coastal defense, and B: had developed all manner of big, nasty guns to combat coastal invaders including a 20", 117,000 pound 'Rodman Gun', that was placed... in a NY harbor fort...

For the Brits to even get into NY harbor they can try and go through the East River... and invariably wreck themselves on the rocks... or go through The Narrows... which is called "The Narrows" because it only a mile wide... and was protected by Fort Hamilton, the place where the 20" Rodman guns eventually resided...

To think that taking out NYC, with over a million residents between it and Brooklyn would require anything less than Crimean War + levels of effort (especially since you don't have a major ally who is right across the Black Sea rather than the Atlantic) is insanity.

Not to mention the fact that the British public would be thrilled with the idea of burning down a city with a million inhabitants, pissing of a Great Power in its backyard, taking tens of thousands of casualties and most likely losing Canada all for slightly lower prices for cotton which the cost of the war just wiped out! They would be doubly thrilled that it would help a slave based society. I never knew Palmerston was a complete idiot! Also burning down a huge city like New York (which as pointed out would be far more difficult than he seems to think!) without MAJOR provocation or the existance of GB itself on the line would likely convince the various European Powers that GB was being run by madmen and the thing to do make alliances to prevent whatever insanity comes out of the British cabinet next.

 

[eliphas8]

Two things:
1) The Confederacy was based on states rights, and thus, at the slightest provocation (a disagreement over internal improvements, or a tariff dispute between the eastern and western states) the more independent-minded state (i.e. South Carolina, Texas) would have seceded again.

Ive said it before and ill say it again, the confederacy was not based on states rights. In fact they where downright authoritarian much of the time and their Constitution took away many rights states had in the Union.

I do agree with you that they are doomed though just for different reasons.

 

[Johnrankins]

There WERE some educated blacks - there's the bridge builder, who even did a magnificent staircase in IIRC an Alabama courthouse. In the war he was drafted into ship building, but he was clearly an educated man, just about able to run his own business due to his expertise.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Some, yes but not enough. Well educated Blacks were VERY FEW and far between, not enough to make much of a difference. You not only need an educated core you need some people in the 2nd ranks who have some sort of education. I doubt you could find enough in the CSA, education for Blacks were THAT BAD down south.

 

[Tocomocho]

...

What did I say about countries expanding like the blob on the map?

 

[Snake Featherston]

The warplan was for a LIMITED invasion of the US to seize the major invasion routes. Ft Montgomery, Ft Niagara, Detroit and a few other places were to be seized in a coup de main the day war was declared (or even the day before) and reinforced as rapidly as possible. If the St. Lawrence is open 50,000 regular soldiers can be in Montreal in weeks, far quicker than the US can move major forces northwards.

New York and Boston? They planned to burn those cities to the ground using their unchallenged naval supremacy. By the same token gunboat flotillas would move onto the Great Lakes (and if successful would burn Chicago), up the Delaware (to burn Philadelphia) etc.. Navigation of the Mississippi should be reopened when the starving remanants of the Gulf force surrender (they were fed entirely by sea) and the RN can operate there too.

The only place they wanted to destroy but would require a land commitment was Pittsburg.

The point was to destroy the US war fighting capacity by destruction of all major war industries.

If this is a limited plan then you have an odd idea of limited. New York and Boston burned to the ground? FFS, that goes right into "Generalplan Ost vor Leningrad" territory.

 

[Johnrankins]

If this is a limited plan then you have an odd idea of limited. New York and Boston burned to the ground? FFS, that goes right into "Generalplan Ost vor Leningrad" territory.

Yeah. in his universe Palmerston is not only stupid but EVIL. You would think a British Super-patriot like him would NOT want to make the British government look like mindless, bloodthirsty butchers who would make good predecessors for the Third Reich!!!

 

[Snake Featherston]

The problem with a realistic CSA victory TL is that a realistic CSA will be in no position to wage any serious foreign wars with any of its neighbors, while its history as per novels would be some truly Byzantine levels of intrigue. That has a relatively niche market as far as novels go, certainly in Alternate History.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Yeah. in his universe Palmerston is not only stupid but EVIL. You would think a British Super-patriot like him would NOT want to make the British government look like mindless, bloodthirsty butchers who would make good predecessors for the Third Reich!!!

Quite so. Given how Europeans reacted to the *Boer War camps* if the British deliberately seek to burn to the ground two large cities (and as he didn't say anything about removing the inhabitants first or how, if at all, they'd ever do that it gets worse the more it's thought about).....the British start randomly razing cities of white European-style states to the ground then they get immediately removed from the pale of civilized nations. Those good old Victorian double-standards. I mean Sherman's burning of Atlanta at that time got massive flack, this would basically screw both societies for good as far as that goes and the real winners are the Tsar and the King of Prussia.

 

[Johnrankins]

Quite so. Given how Europeans reacted to the *Boer War camps* if the British deliberately seek to burn to the ground two large cities (and as he didn't say anything about removing the inhabitants first or how, if at all, they'd ever do that it gets worse the more it's thought about).....the British start randomly razing cities of white European-style states to the ground then they get immediately removed from the pale of civilized nations. Those good old Victorian double-standards. I mean Sherman's burning of Atlanta at that time got massive flack, this would basically screw both societies for good as far as that goes and the real winners are the Tsar and the King of Prussia.

As you know Sherman ordered the civilians to leave before burning Atlanta. How the Brits are able to do that with a city the size of New York is beyond me! How the Brits get enough manpower to take the city in the first place is a real mystery to me. The US will fight tooth and nail for New York and 50,000 men are FAR from enough! He also seems to forget the MASSIVE INVESTMENTS the Brits had in the US. The second the war breaks out they can kiss those assets goodbye! I am sure THAT would please the merchants of London!!!

 

[SPJ]

Just a quick question here. I'm working on a timeline that would involve a CSA victory and I'm thinking about French involvment without the aid of the British. Does anyone know of some good ways to convience Napolean III to aid the South without Britain's approval, or some other timelines that already involve this kind of situation? One interesting idea I have so far is what if he had some sort of religous reawakening and decided to get on the Pope's good side by helping the south since the Pope had already given the CSA his blessing. Ideas?

 

[Johnrankins]

Just a quick question here. I'm working on a timeline that would involve a CSA victory and I'm thinking about French involvment without the aid of the British. Does anyone know of some good ways to convience Napolean III to aid the South without Britain's approval, or some other timelines that already involve this kind of situation? One interesting idea I have so far is what if he had some sort of religous reawakening and decided to get on the Pope's good side by helping the south since the Pope had already given the CSA his blessing. Ideas?

Well, Nappy was far more gung-ho for the CSA than Palmerston was so I think French involvement was far more likely than British involvement. Maybe he underestimates 1860 US as much as 67th Tiger seems to!