Realistic effects of a Confederate victory in late 1862 on the rump USA?

ven if Germany acted similarly to how they did in OTL (a rather big assumption considering the potential butterflies) that still probably would not prevent the USA from declaring war on Britain. There would probably not be much in the way of American weapons or munitions exported to Britain[.]
I agree with the second part so far as this goes, I'm just unsure of the first, as far as where I think we don't agree.
 
I don't understand why this idea keeps coming up? Order 191 just means the Battle of Antietam doesn't happen. The battle would happen somewhere east of South Mountain instead. Not being destroyed by it, is a lot different then defeating the Army of the Potomac. The chances of the Confederates capturing Baltimore was almost nil.
 
Countries have also historically started wars against their own best interest out of nationalistic pride. In this case, Britain would have been the enemy of the USA in three wars, the last of which would have been not only humiliating but seen as a threat to national survival. Those relations are not improving in the forseeable future.
France was the enemy of Britain for centuries, longer than the US has existed. That didn't stop them from becoming allies in 1914.

Also, the US in this scenario wouldn't actually know for certain that it could have beaten the CSA if Britain and France hadn't intervened.

Countries that start wars against their own best interest tend not to remain countries for very long.
 
Let's say that Special Order 191 never falls out of that Confederate scout's pocket, and the Confederates win at Antietam, and occupy Baltimore, threatening D.C. Afterward, Britain and France force the USA on the pain of war to recognize Confederate independence, and the USA concedes. What happens next? What are the realistic effects of this on the rump USA?

This is inane. France in this is very much secondary, it cant act unless Britain lets it and Britain is neutral in the same way as the US has been neutral in the Arab Israeli wars, techncally thats the case but only one side gets actively helped. RN officers accompany USN boarding parties just outside territorial waters to explain that the USN is perfectly in its rights, RN warships accompany US coastal squadrons invading the south to advise British Subjects to get out of the way and if they do not they cannot expect HMG to do anything about loss of property or loss of life.

The US can do things that force Britain to go to war, but it requires a US attack on British Interests and does not automatically mean Britain recognizes the CSA it may just mean the RN takes up the whole of the blockade of the south and extends it up to the Canadian border. Britain might be the second country to recognize the CSA but the first has to be the USA.

The practical politics is that the Liberal government majority is dependent on a group of MPs who are rabidly anti slavery, as in fund John Brown anti slavery. The slightest suggestion that the Government is going to recognize an english speaking slave state and Disraeli is kissing hands in the morning and everyone knows it.
 
I don't understand why this idea keeps coming up? Order 191 just means the Battle of Antietam doesn't happen. The battle would happen somewhere east of South Mountain instead. Not being destroyed by it, is a lot different then defeating the Army of the Potomac. The chances of the Confederates capturing Baltimore was almost nil.
Because people like CSA victories and the image of the British empire dealing a crippling blow to the USA. Of course a Confederate victory, even with British assistance usually involves overlooking the logistics of projecting power across the Atlantic, the military circumstances, and American will to fight, since preserving the Union was seen as a matter of national survival. The best case scenario for Britain getting involved in the ACW would be a Trent War that quickly leads to a negotiated peace between the Union and Britain, while the Union still defeats the CSA. Anything else, although bad for the USA would cost Britain dearly and probably would not lead to a Confederate victory anyways.
France was the enemy of Britain for centuries, longer than the US has existed. That didn't stop them from becoming allies in 1914.

Also, the US in this scenario wouldn't actually know for certain that it could have beaten the CSA if Britain and France hadn't intervened.

Countries that start wars against their own best interest tend not to remain countries for very long.
France and Britain had a common enemy in Germany. What common enemy would spur the USA to ally with the UK? In this scenario it's unlikely to be Germany because a lack of weapons sales to Britain would butterfly away the things Germany did that eventually provoked the American declaration of war in OTL. If Britain played its cards right, they might get American neutrality, but they're not getting the USA to ally with them. And France is a country that started wars against its own best interest, it's still there today.
 
Top