Some post-American Civil War Confederacy questions?

Ah yes, but in this timeline the French have also decided that the CSA are such splendid folks that its worth the blood and treasure to help them win a war they couldn't win OTL.

Admittedly, if Britain goes in, France is going in as well, no question.

Also, this is looking past the point of what a small army the British used in OTL to hold down their territorial possessions.

Just forget everything you've ever learned about supply lines, LOCs, logistics, and above all, the financial costs of a transatlantic war against a continental power on their own home soil. It didn't take the USA very long to forget all about the "insult to our flag" when the casualty lists came in from First Bull Run. After that, it was just about saving the Union (for the next year anyway).

How long would the British folk back home be cheering on a war over "insulting British sovereignty" when their own casualty lists start coming in? Not long, I would think. But again, that any casualty lists short of WWI levels:eek: would produce war weariness (in terms of demanding to know why harder attempts at diplomatic efforts were not sought)? Of course.

Consider this: In the US Civil War, the Union is fighting for its existence. The British Empire has other alternatives.

But generally in a Trent timeline that isn't a problem, because there's a certain blindness to the amount of force needed to hold chunks of entire continents as resource colonies. British troops can be shipped halfway around the world from India, and India won't rebel again. It shows a blindness to other cultures outside of Western Europe as well, in that Anglophilia was very much an upper-class Southron thing. The United States at the time has a founding story of kicking the British out, a story we're still kind of obsessed with and at the time were very obsessed with. But a British army will show up, and everyone will either be supine, or actively welcoming it.

:D:D:D You know, I think the title of "Neo-Conservative" really would fit Lord Palmerston.:p He really did seem to think a lot like Bill Krystol (though no where near the depths of Dick Cheney:mad:).

EDIT: Ah yes! The United States Army is entirely equivalent to the Maori or the Zulus! The US may have railroads, but they're really the equivalents of a bunch of indigenous peoples with pointy sticks!

Remember that hubris is everywhere, utterly world wide. And the humiliations of Afghanistan and the Zulu War have mostly not happened yet in the ACW. So, pointy sticks. Yeah.
 
Admittedly, if Britain goes in, France is going in as well, no question.



Just forget everything you've ever learned about supply lines, LOCs, logistics, and above all, the financial costs of a transatlantic war against a continental power on their own home soil. It didn't take the USA very long to forget all about the "insult to our flag" when the casualty lists came in from First Bull Run. After that, it was just about saving the Union (for the next year anyway).

How long would the British folk back home be cheering on a war over "insulting British sovereignty" when their own casualty lists start coming in? Not long, I would think. But again, that any casualty lists short of WWI levels:eek: would produce war weariness (in terms of demanding to know why harder attempts at diplomatic efforts were not sought)? Of course.

Consider this: In the US Civil War, the Union is fighting for its existence. The British Empire has other alternatives.



:D:D:D You know, I think the title of "Neo-Conservative" really would fit Lord Palmerston.:p He really did seem to think a lot like Bill Krystol (though no where near the depths of Dick Cheney:mad:).



Remember that hubris is everywhere, utterly world wide. And the humiliations of Afghanistan and the Zulu War have mostly not happened yet in the ACW. So, pointy sticks. Yeah.

I'll clarify: I was bringing up the small size of the Victorian regular army to say that when you start throwing a hundred thousand here, a hundred thousand there like so many Napikinwaffed super panzers, things get very real, very fast all over the rest of Britain's Empire. It limits the aggressiveness that the British can manage strategically.

Also, have we discussed the officer problem the British had at the time? In this case the British are rolling out a lot faster than they did just seven years earlier, and their commands don't seem to be the purchased commission nightmare fest that produced so much of the military genius of the Crimean War. While patronage system didn't produce much better initially, the "promote whichever officer who lived without panicking and soiling themselves" produced some pretty good field officers pretty fast.

Point being, there are plenty of forums on the internet for Sci-fi-esque writing where the Sun never sets on the British Empire, as every other power on Earth folds before well trimmed moustaches. But this forum tends towards "what could have happened (and is cool to me)" not just "(is cool to me)".
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Actually:

...And the humiliations of Afghanistan and the Zulu War have mostly not happened yet in the ACW. So, pointy sticks. Yeah.

article-2299043-18EBCBA6000005DC-824_634x441.jpg



20,000 British and imperial soldiers left India; 1 returned. That was 1842. A little more than pointy sticks on the Afghan side, but still - hardly muzzle-loading percussion rifles, artillery, etc.

Want one closer to 1861-62? How about the Great Redan?

CrimeaAlbum085.jpg

Again, more than pointy sticks, but less than rifled small arms and artillery.

Then there's this place - a few years later, but still:
battle-of-isandlwana.jpg

Pointy sticks vs. breechloading rifles - pointy sticks won.

And this one, which is interesting for all sorts of reasons:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=...PpRmzDOJ-J9MROU1r1PwnRpw&ust=1400647060366825

images


Both sides had breechloaders; the side whose home ground it was won.

The idea that Britain would run the table in ANY conflict in this period is - um - interesting.

Especially against peer competitors at oceanic ranges.

Best to the reality based community.
 
Last edited:
If we use the scenario given to us the future doesn't look rosy for any of the participants.

I think that the short term between Canada and the USA will be tense, but once trade picks back up that problem will sort itself out. I think there are just too many shared values and markets across the border and both sides have a vested interest in keeping things smooth and steady. If tensions don't reside, Canada now gets to arm the longest border in the world. The rump California will probably fall back into American orbit at some point though.

The Confederacy won... but now faces the arduous task of governing in peace. A state in California which it barely holds is going to cause issues down the line. If Texas goes anything like OTL it's going to become increasingly powerful in the CSA and will want recognition for it.

How slavery plays out is anyone's guess. I like to think it will be largely gone by the 20th century, but who knows. The rest of the world is going to become increasingly antagonistic to a slave owning nation, and because the CSA is an export driven economy I fully expect it to feel the pinch acutely until they end the institution. I fully expect them to ditch slavery and keep something almost as bad in it's place.

The CSA could conquer Cuba, but I doubt they'd ever put serious effort into it. There's just too many other things at home that need dealing with (slavery, internal secession, the USA etc.). The CSA will not be a superpower or probably even a great power. Probably somewhere along the lines of Argentina or Canada (if it can survive intact).

I guess things look not bad for Mexico comparatively.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
And along those lines:

I'll clarify: I was bringing up the small size of the Victorian regular army to say that when you start throwing a hundred thousand here, a hundred thousand there like so many Napikinwaffed super panzers, things get very real, very fast all over the rest of Britain's Empire. It limits the aggressiveness that the British can manage strategically.

Not to try and bring reality into one of these "sorts" of fantasy works, but the actual strength of the British and Imperial forces in 1861-62 was:

Regular Forces – 218,309 officers and men (includes active forces, depot and garrison troops, and overseas “local and colonial” forces; all volunteer; no conscription; 10-12 year enlistment). Of these, there are 192,852 “active” and 25,457 garrison and depot troops; plus “Foreign and Coloured” troops – 175,153 officers & men (India – 3 year enlistment)
Total (Regular) Peace Establishment – 393,462

UK “Troops of Reserve” – 258,336 (includes reserves and enrolled pensioners, militia, yeomanry, and volunteers in UK; militia and volunteer forces overseas; reserves and militia can only be called for home service duties; must volunteer for overseas duty, even limited; can not be conscripted for overseas duty)
British possessions abroad – 52,573 (note: includes BNA militia)
Total Reserve Establishment – 310,909 (does not include RIC or civil police forces)

Just to answer the obvious question:

Reserve troops – British North America:
Province of Canada – 10,000 militia (August, 1862); + 1,616 VC; 1,687 VA; 202 VE; 10,615 VI
NS – 269 VA; 2,132 VI (June, 1862)
NB – 1850 (VA and I) (March, 1861)
PEI – 1,643 (VA and VI) (June, 1862)
NF – 267 (5 cos.) (July, 1862)
BC & VI: 44 (August, 1862)

So, given the restrictions on deploying militia and volunteer units, the actually force that the British could draw from for expeditions in North America in this period are some 218,000 "British" troops and 23,000 provincial and colonial troops in Upper and Lower Canada and New Brunswick.

Note that the 218,000 British troops also include all the assigned British garrison and field forces in the UK, the Mediterranean, the Caribbean, Africa, Asia (other than the Indian forces), Australia and the Pacific, etc.

And when it comes to the Indian forces, it is worth noting how many Indian troops were used in the war with Russia and the wars (plural) with the South African republics in the same century. Hint: not many...

So, in a reality-based world and from a standing start, the useable British and "British North American" forces available for use in a war with the United States in 1861-62 are - maybe - 60,000 British troops and 26,000 or so "organized" colonial miltia and volunteers in British territories that actually adjoined the United States at the time...

It is also worth noting the above 86,000 or so is about three times the size of the initial British expeditionary force that went to the Black Sea in 1854-55. Consider how long it took after the causus belli in that war to get even 27,000 men ashore in the Crimea...

And it is also worth noting that the vast majority of the 60,000, depending on when the balloon goes up, are in Britain, Ireland, the Mediterranean, or the West Indies, and so (for the most part) have to cross the Atlantic ... presumably in mid-winter.

Source for the above is Petrie, Capt. Martin (14th F.) and James, Col. Sir Henry (RE, assigned to the Topographical and Statistical Dept., War Office), Organization, Composition, and Strength of the Army of Great Britain, London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office; by direction of the Secretary of State for War, 1863 (preface dated Nov., 1862)

Anyway, back to the never setting sun...

Best,
 
Last edited:
Not to try and bring reality into one of these "sorts" of fantasy works, but the actual strength of the British and Imperial forces in 1861-62 was:

Regular Forces – 218,309 officers and men (includes active forces, depot and garrison troops, and overseas “local and colonial” forces; all volunteer; no conscription; 10-12 year enlistment). Of these, there are 192,852 “active” and 25,457 garrison and depot troops; plus “Foreign and Coloured” troops – 175,153 officers & men (India – 3 year enlistment)
Total (Regular) Peace Establishment – 393,462

UK “Troops of Reserve” – 258,336 (includes reserves and enrolled pensioners, militia, yeomanry, and volunteers in UK; militia and volunteer forces overseas; reserves and militia can only be called for home service duties; must volunteer for overseas duty, even limited; can not be conscripted for overseas duty)
British possessions abroad – 52,573 (note: includes BNA militia)
Total Reserve Establishment – 310,909 (does not include RIC or civil police forces)

Just to answer the obvious question:

Reserve troops – British North America:
Province of Canada – 10,000 militia (August, 1862); + 1,616 VC; 1,687 VA; 202 VE; 10,615 VI
NS – 269 VA; 2,132 VI (June, 1862)
NB – 1850 (VA and I) (March, 1861)
PEI – 1,643 (VA and VI) (June, 1862)
NF – 267 (5 cos.) (July, 1862)
BC & VI: 44 (August, 1862)

So, given the restrictions on deploying militia and volunteer units, the actually force that the British could draw from for expeditions in North America in this period are some 218,000 "British" troops and 23,000 provincial and colonial troops in Upper and Lower Canada and New Brunswick.

Note that the 218,000 British troops also include all the assigned British garrison and field forces in the UK, the Mediterranean, the Caribbean, Africa, Asia (other than the Indian forces), Australia and the Pacific, etc.

And when it comes to the Indian forces, it is worth noting how many Indian troops were used in the war with Russia and the wars (plural) with the South African republics in the same century. Hint: not many...

So, in a reality-based world and from a standing start, the useable British and "British North American" forces available for use in a war with the United States in 1861-62 are - maybe - 60,000 British troops and 23,000 or so "organized" colonial miltia and volunteers in British territories that actually adjoined the United States at the time...

It is also worth noting the above 83,000 or so is about three times the size of the initial British expeditionary force that went to the Black Sea in 1854-55. Consider how long it took after the causus belli in that war to get even 27,000 men ashore in the Crimea...

And it is also worth noting that the vast majority of the 60,000, depending on when the balloon goes up, are in Britain, Ireland, the Mediterranean, or the West Indies, and so (for the most part) have to cross the Atlantic ... presumably in mid-winter.

Source for the above is Petrie, Capt. Martin (14th F.) and James, Col. Sir Henry (RE, assigned to the Topographical and Statistical Dept., War Office), Organization, Composition, and Strength of the Army of Great Britain, London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office; by direction of the Secretary of State for War, 1863 (preface dated Nov., 1862)

Anyway, back to the never setting sun...

Best,

Explains why the British were so into diplomacy and bribery in the 19th - that's not much of a ready force. And I'm assuming that even Little Mac could probably outgeneral Lord Cardigan.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
No assumption, its easily to find:

Explains why the British were so into diplomacy and bribery in the 19th - that's not much of a ready force. And I'm assuming that even Little Mac could probably outgeneral Lord Cardigan.

At the beginning of 1857, there were about 30,000 "British" troops in India; by the end of 1858, there were 92,000 "British" troops in India (including EIC); never again would the number of "British" troops in India drop below 60,000.

British (as opposed to Indian) maneuver battalions in India at this time included:

Cavalry: 8 + 3 EIC
Infantry: 50 + 9 EIC

The EIC "European" battalions/regiments were converted to the British establishment by 1861-62, but not without some serious internal dissension and problems with unit cohesion; there was a "mutiny" in the 5th European (EIC) regiment in 1859 that ended with a firing squad.

Basically, the 12 EIC battalion equivalents probably were not useable anywhere outside of India, at least for a few years.

Bottom line, not only were significant parts of the "Indian" element of the Army in India not going anywhere, the "British" element wasn't exactly untasked at this point...

Best,


 
This is very interesting but I am not sure if it is right? The British had quite a lot of ships on the North America and West Indies Station during the Trent Affair (35+ major steam warships). Several of these were at Vera Cruz, some at Bermuda, some off the Havana, one off Fortress Monroe, some cruising, at least one at Halifax but I have not yet tracked them all down, Currently I know of only two in northern waters during the affair. Thus I was intrigued by your statements about Sable Island. So I did some checking. Sable Island, Nova Scotia is about 300 km SE of Halifax in the Atlantic. It seems a strange place to park a fleet.


Forgive me, I think that there may have been a linguistic or cultural barrier.

Sable Island, off the coast of Nova Scotia is the site of well over 350 shipwrecks and a fairly significant piece of the local cultural lore.

British ships do not gather around Sable Island voluntarily. They gather there underwater. They sink there.

It was an oblique reference to the utter impossibility of assembling a major war fleet - something which in the context of the Trent affair and the time frames you are suggesting would require either teleportation or time travel.

Just curious, did you previously post here as 67th Tigers? I find some of your writing style and subject matter to be quite similar.

 
Queenstown (Cobh) to Halifax is just 2540 Nm or ten and a half days at just 10 knots. Queenstown to St. John is even less just 2040 Nm or just 8.5 day again at a very modest 10 knots.

New York City is just 2820 Nm from Queenstown (just under 12 days at 10 knots).
Bermuda is 2710 Nm (around 11.5 days at 10 knots) from Queenstown or 2930 Nm (12 and a bit days at 10 knots) from the Royal Navy Mediterranean Station dockyards at Gibraltar. Once the ships are at Bermuda it is less than three days to almost anywhere on the Union east coast at 10 knots.

Of course in winter on the North Atlantic you might make less than 10 knots in a warship or even a big liner but not very often and some of the big warships and liners could manage 12 or even 13 knots sustained under steam and without sails. Some like Warrior could do 17 knots under sail and steam.

The point being that the British would have very short lines of communication in a Trent Affair war compared to almost any other war they fought in the 19th Century be it the Crimean, First Indian War of Independence, Land wars with the Maori, Zulu wars or the Opium Wars. The British can move 5,000 marines to Portland, Maine and attack the place far faster than the Union can move 5,000 troops to Maine from say Louisville or even Washington DC for that matter. The Union has a rail system but most of it is very low capacity.

I have to say that I'm extremely skeptical of these assessments.

You're restricting your assessments to a hypothetical case of a pre-existing, organized and well stocked fleet arranged into a waiting armada proceeding together from point A to point B.

But your underlying assumption does not support this. You're positing a war breaking out between Britain and the United States in the middle of the civil war as a result of a complete failure of American diplomacy.

This, therefore, is not a war that Britain plans or seeks out, but a war that the two parties have blundered into without foresight or intent.

It would be one thing if you had the British Empire deliberately deciding to intervene in the Civil War as a means of castrating the potential of the United States, making plans and deploying its forces in readiness to move and then seeking out a cassus belli. But that's not your hypothetical at all.

Instead, you have an ad hoc war which catches the Prime Minister and Parliament by surprise. So you have to factor in time for the war to settle into the British political, procurement and military. War plans have to be developed, resources have to be allocated, or more likely re-allocated from other deployments. All of this takes time, a lot of it.

Navy ships have to be assigned. And it's not likely that they're all sitting in port waiting for 'who do bomb?' Rather, the order has to go out to the naval bases, the ships stopping in have to get their orders. An order of battle and fleet arrangement has to be determined. The ships must be provisioned and armed. An army must be mustered.

All of this takes time, a lot of it. You'd have to factor in at least six months to a year before the British would be fully mobilized. That's well past any reasonable window of opportunity to attack the United States.

Even if we accepted a much faster partial mobilization of forces, it's profoundly unlikely that Britain could mount a local offense faster than the US could assemble local defenses.

The best you could hope for would be some relatively ineffective shore raiding.
 
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Forgive me, I think that there may have been a linguistic or cultural barrier.

Sable Island, off the coast of Nova Scotia is the site of well over 350 shipwrecks and a fairly significant piece of the local cultural lore.

British ships do not gather around Sable Island voluntarily. They gather there underwater. They sink there.

It was an oblique reference to the utter impossibility of assembling a major war fleet - something which in the context of the Trent affair and the time frames you are suggesting would require either teleportation or time travel.

Just curious, did you previously post here as 67th Tigers? I find some of your writing style and subject matter to be quite similar.


No, frlmerrin and 67th Tigers are definitely two different people. but they DO know one another personally. frlmerrin is most definitely neither a sock puppet nor a meat puppet. That said, YES, the two men are VERY similar in their belief systems regarding the United States in the American Civil War, as well as the USA's role vis-a-vis the fate of the British Empire during and post-World War Two. They also have a very similar (if in fact not exact) attitude problem with anyone who disagrees with them.

That all said, 67th Tigers was not as prone to wall texting, but that's about the only sin that he is less guilty of compared to frlmerrin. And frlmerrin's wall texting problem has mostly gotten much better over time.:) Overall, frlmerrin's forum behavior has been far far superior.:cool:

frlmerrin is not as prone to embracing revisionists and negationists in the name of finding someone, anyone, of letters who will agree with him. Moreover, he isn't remotely as guilty of intellectual dishonesty. Not invoking entire books without specific excerpts, knowing full well said book references did not say what he claimed that they said. Nor is he as likely to embrace a lone negationist "historian" who is the only source that will say what he wants. frlmerrin may be guilty of spinning the facts like a top, but he certainly doesn't spin them like an ultracentrifuge.
 
Last edited:
The fact that they 'know each other personally' may explain many of the similarities. I would not necessarily assume geographical proximity, but would guess that their association came from similar or overlapping interests, which would go a ways towards the apparent concurrences. Thank you for clarifying the matter.
 
Specifically they would advance to and take up defensive positions at Fort Montgomery at Rouse’s Point if it could be taken, Ogdensburgh, Sacket’s Harbor and Fort Niagara if it could be taken or was empty. They would have done this because it was the middle of winter and the British had very few troops in the province of Canada but quite a few troops in Halifax and lots more coming from Britain quickly.


Quick troop movements in Canada in December? Quick and effortless crossing of the north Atlantic in December?


I also wrote later ‘Royal Navy sacks and burns the harbours of New York,’ by which I meant the city. This is a very traditional approach to naval warfare and the British would not have needed the Army to assist the navy and marines in this activity.

This cheerfully ignores US fortifications, troops, cannons, ships, and naval mines.

However I write in the OP ‘The Confederates, equipped with new materiel of war from Europe begin new offensives in the heartland and in Maryland/Pennsylvania in a bid to isolate Washington DC.’


The Confederates were already using British Enfields. The Confederates attempted these offensives in OTL and had plenty of "material of war" for those offensives. The Confederates also failed miserably.

Thus the Confederates need only worry about the Union troops from Colorado they have a secure flank and it is a much more even fight.

The Confederates only needed to worry about the Union troops from Colorado in OTL. Union reinforcements from California didn't arrive until long after the the Confederate forces had fled back to Texas in defeat.
 
Last edited:


Quick troop movements in Canada in December? Quick and effortless crossing of the north Atlantic in December?



In 1861 yet.


This cheerfully ignores US fortifications, troops, cannons, ships, and naval mines.

The US Coastal Artillery Corps was just about the only arm of the US Army that got as lavishly equipped as the rest of the army got penny-penched throughout US military history. Lots of congressional pork going to local House districts.



The Confederates were already using British Enfields. The Confederates attempted these offensives in OTL and had plenty of "material of war" for those offensives. The Confederates also failed miserably.


Yeah, the devestating contributions by the British would be naval intervention, not land. But if US balkanization is your story goal...

The Confederates only needed to worry about the Union troops from Colorado in OTL. Union reinforcements from California didn't arrive until long after the the Confederate forces had fled back to Texas in defeat.

Union Major General Canby was the foremost expert on desert warfare for either side in the ACW. The Confederate invasion of New Mexico from El Paso to Santa Fe was an act of strategic and logistical madness. But again, the Confederates were hoisted upon the petard of their own race hatred. They really seemed to think that they could "whip the Mexicans" in the ACW as easily as they did in the Mexican War. "These Mexicans never fought us so hard the last time!" was a common refrain heard among the Southron troops as they were forced back to Texas.

Canby let them go, calculating that the desert would do the job of destroying the Confederate Army of West Texas for him. He was right. Few of the rebels made it back to El Paso.:( And after what they had done to the German Texans, personally, I have no sympathy for them.:mad:
 
Last edited:
The Confederate invasion of New Mexico from El Paso to Santa Fe was an act of strategic and logistical madness. But again, the Confederates were hoisted upon the petard of their own race hatred. They really seemed to think that they could "whip the Mexicans" in the ACW as easily as they did in the Mexican War. "These Mexicans never fought us so hard the last time!" was a common refrain heard among the Southron troops as they were forced back to Texas.

But the Confederates didn't send troops or incursions into Mexico proper, did they?

You're speaking of the Mexicans remaining in the territories captured by and incorporated into the United States following the Mexican American war?
 
But the Confederates didn't send troops or incursions into Mexico proper, did they?

You're speaking of the Mexicans remaining in the territories captured by and incorporated into the United States following the Mexican American war?

YES. Sorry for the poor communication. The Confederates invading "Neuva Mexico" made zero distinction between Americans of Mexican descent and Mexican nationals, since the territory in question had only been in US control for less than 15 years, and those people of Mexican descent had been born Mexican citizens. They referred to anyone of brown skin as "Mexicans".

Also, you could expect considerable immigration from Mexico into the Arizona (Arizona-New Mexico) Territory following the Mexican War.

In addition, since 75% of the US Army that invaded Mexico were Southerners, you had to figure that the Mexican-American communities in Santa Fe were looking for serious payback.:D

More seriously, after what the Texans had done to White German-American immigrants in Texas, one can only imagine the consequences to Mexican-Americans had the Texans ever conquered New Mexico.:eek:
 
Generally, massacred them (e.g. Nueces, the "Great Hanging at Gainesville", etc.) or drove them to Mexico.

And this as the German-Americans were fleeing Texas in the face of such dangers anyway. If the Confederate Texans had just let them go, that would have been that. But they didn't want the German-American Texans gone. They wanted them dead.:mad:
 
I looked around. It seems to be equal parts horrific and incompetent. A microcosm of the Confederacy as a whole.
 

frlmerrin

Banned
ChewyGranola,

Thanks for replying very thought provoking. Once again sorry for the long delay in my reply.
(1) Are there any forces that would tend to break-up the USA further? What are they?
In your scenario I suppose the British could push for an independent New England, but I don't think the Union leadership would go for that. Other than that, I think a post-Bad Civil War Union would still be strong enough to put down the Inevitable Republic of Deseret or any other secession movements.
In my scenario the British are not quite that ambitious they do have a referendum held in Maine after the war as a result of it which chooses to stay in the Union rather than become a part of BNA. Realistically if the referendum were held during the latter parts of the American Civil and Anglo-Union wars this might have had some chance of success with the Abolitionists and Unionists mostly away with the US Army whilst the more commerce minded stayed at home. Once the armistice is agreed they all come home and reassert control of the state. As for the rest of the New England States, with the possible exception of Rhode Island with its large English born population, I think there is little or no chance of them wanting independence from the Union nor of the British thinking there may be a chance of them wanting it, Massachusetts as a counter-example was the cradle of the American rebellion after all.

I have not stated this in the OP scenario but in the time-line associated with it the British take Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Island as naval bases during the war and remain in occupation for several years as part of the peace.

I agree that the Union would be capable of putting down a Mormon rebellion after the war. In any case such a war would be pretty unlikely they has been pretty soundly defeated in the Mormon-American war (Utah war) in 1857-8 and occupied. There might not be the will or morale for another bid for freedom. On the other hand I can see California making a bid for parts of both Nevada and Utah at any peace Conference especially if Union troops have been withdrawn before the end of the war and replaced by California militia.
(2) Are there any forces that would tend to break-up the CSA? What are they?
The CSA would probably face problems with economics and
factional politics, as I said in my first post. Now I believe the CSA Constitution implies that secession is illegal, but that all depends on interpretation.
The oft regurgitated but rarely thought about assertion that the CSA would face economic problems really does not stand scrutiny in the context of this scenario. With an early end to the war (Aug 1862); far fewer of her young men are dead or maimed and can go back into politics, commerce and the labour force. Compared to the debt that the CSA built up by bond trading in OTL the debt built up in this scenario is very modest, it can probably all be dealt with by the post war expansion of the economy. By August 1862 inflation was modest. Note that even at the end of the OTL war in 1865, that large as it was, it was small in comparison to that in Weimar Germany or modern day Argentina. Old Confederate notes can be withdrawn from service and replaced with modern better printed notes to reduce counterfeiting (which was modest until at least July 1862 OTL) and control the inflation/deflation of the economy. The CSA is now one of the most attractive countries for British and other foreign investments. I would describe investment in its infrastructure as medium risk high gain. Any investment flowing into the Confederacy of course probably does so at the expense of investment in the USA.

The CSA has cotton to export and markets in Europe. The war has not been kind in some respects; it has opened the market to competition for example. On the other hand British’s manufacturers stocks of cotton have been seriously reduced and to some extent so has over production.
It is almost inconceivable that the brokerage and exchange for cotton would remain in New York or than the city would remain the main transhipment port between oceanic traders and coastal traders. The exchange is likely to go south, probably to Charleston just possibly north to Halifax. Transhipment through Charleston would encourage Confederate investment and involvement in trans oceanic steam ship to move the cotton rather than the older mostly sail Union merchant fleet.

Similarly the coastal trade ¾ Confederate to ¼ Union suggests a massive reflagging of the Union fleet to merchant Confederate will occur. This will of course require that the Confederacy develops a strong coastal and oceanic navy.

The CSA now has the fisheries on half of the Atlantic coast, all of the Gulf coast and a small enclave on the Pacific coast. The USA’s fisheries have been slashed dramatically they are left with half of the Atlantic coast and the Oregon coast on the Pacific. In OTL after the ACW the USA negotiated favourable access to the Grand Banks from BNA. In this Scenario that will not happen.

Retaining the lower Mississippi as an inland waterway would be a very attractive way of funding government. Union river steamers could be compelled to tranship their cargo to Confederate steamers at the border for example. Alternatively they could be compelled to pay a transhipment duty. There are many profitable alternatives.

In a few years the cattle trade will expand hugely in this scenario just as it did OTL. There is a good chance the centre of the cattle trade will not be Chicago but somewhere in the South with good transport access Shreveport is a possibility. It would then be able to supply the British colonies in the Caribbean. Perhaps as a result of this the Argentine meat trade never takes off as it did OTL. Even if Chicago does become the trade centre then much of the money flows south as the results of private sales, services, taxes and tariffs. Similarly to avoid cash going out of the CSA hog raising is likely to become popular with smaller farmers in the south. In this case its reasonably certain Chicago would not be the hub of the southern trade. This is because of the difficulty of transporting love hogs. I suspect somewhere on the east bank of the Mississippi would suit.
There is good bituminous coal in TTL Virginia, Western Kentucky (new state TTL) , Alabama and Tennessee, in what is now Oklahoma, Arkansas and Texas. There is lignite all over the Confederacy. There are numerous good deposits of iron adjacent to the most of the bituminous coal. Mining is an industry which has a long history of using slave labour. It should suit the Confederacy well. Similarly iron making and foundry work are other areas where slaves can be made good use of.

There is copper in California, Arizona, Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee. Zinc in Arkansas, Oklahoma (OTL) and Tennessee. Lead in Arizona, note lead was in such short supply for the Union in the OTL ACW they imported large quantities from Britain for bullets. There are major silver deposits in Confederate Arizona and significant deposits in Texas and California. There is some gold in the same area but small low grade deposits. There is a little mercury in California and large quantities of sulphur in Louisiana and Texas.

There are vast deposits of petroleum in Texas and large ones in Confederate California. There has been interest in kerosenes for lamp oil since 1850ish and the Russians have been drilling for oil since the late 1840s. There was an oil boon that started in the Province of Canada in 1858/9 feeding the huge demand for kerosene in the north and elsewhere. This demand will not go away at the end of the war. It will increase. It is cheaper to refine liquid petroleum on site and ship it to market as kerosene (because there are no unwanted products being shipped). Thus not only the wells would be in the CSA so would the refining capacity. On top of that there is a powerful argument that most of the shipping capacity would also be Confederate flagged and probably owned.

It is also worth noting that the Union whaling fleet would have far lost more ships to the British during the war than were lost in the Great American Whaling disaster of 1871 (33 vessels) and it is likely that the transition from whale oil to petroleum products would be far more rapid in this time-line.

The Union would for reasons discussed in other posts be facing a depression, serious financial difficulties including loss of much of the government’s revenue generation and the flight of capital. They are soluble problems but difficult ones.

On factional politics the Confederates have at least two sets of major fracture lines. The first split being the one between rich whites and the poor ones. The second split being between the one between the east and the west of the country. The latter should be fairly easy to resolve the latter much harder and could lead to dissolution of the Confederate state.

(3)Why would the CSA abandon black chattel slavery in this situation? Are there any forces that would compel it to do so? When might it do so?
The British were never comfortable with supporting a slave-based CSA, which is why the Emancipation Proclaimation was so important. In any CSA wins TL, I think that abandoning slavery, at least calling it something different or developing a Jim Crow like system, is going to be important for a CSA that wants to be a part of the world.
I'm not sure if 'never' is the right answer but sometime well in to the 20th Century certainly. There are no compelling reasons to do so.
(4) Would slave welfare become an issue in the CSA?
The slave owners didn't care for their slaves beyond being able to use them as work animals and profit. So I highly doubt that.
I think things are going to get very bad indeed for black people in the CSA in this scenario but I think their physical conditions will improve.
Clearly good business practice requires that a slave is not over used or broken. This will get standardised. Unfortunately it also dictates you dispose of the asset when it no longer delivers value.

The first thing that will impact them will be the introduction of ‘scientific breeding’ and the rise of breeding farms (worse nightmares than those in the fiction of K Onstott!). One would expect slaves would be bred for such features as strength, stamina, fecundity and docility. I note that in previous discussions of this topic on this board there was a large debate about if you could breed for docility in humans. I think you can others disagreed but in the end it does not matter. The Confederates will try. I suspect this activity will inform the coming eugenics movement in Europe.
The Confederates will formalise the treatment of slaves. I suspect education will be banned. This has worked well with other captive populations. Formalised collective punishment for escape or rebellion will also work well if it is conducted by the whole Confederacy or the individual state rather than owner level where there is a temptation to minimise punishment to ensure that the property damage is minimised. One would expect sex (as opposed to breeding) to be a privilege and gelding to be a punishment.

I would expect some sort of formal declaration that black people are not human but rather clever animals. As a result of this I would anticipate a series of major schism in the Protestant churches. Some of those in the North will espouse the humanity of blacks. Many of those in the South and no few in the North will embrace a new dogma contrary to this.

As a mitigation of this terrible situation I expect that ideas on animal welfare will cross the Atlantic and have significant impact in the CSA. RSPCA started in 1828 and became Royal in 1840. In 1877 Sewell wrote Black Beauty (it was a horse not a slave). I would thus expect the CSA and its states to start regulating the treatment of its slaves around 1880-90.

I SHALL MAKE THIS POINT ONCE AND ONCE ONLY: I DO NOT SUPPORT SLAVERY OR THE IDEA OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA. This is an exercise in extrapolation.

(5)When, if ever, would the USA abandon slavery? Why? Would it seek to forcibly repatriate freedmen and women to Africa or elsewhere?
With most of the slave owning states gone, I can see slavery being officially outlawed by 1870 at the latest.
I can’t see this happening. In this scenario Lincoln is never in a position to make an Emancipation Proclamation and the war is seem as being far more about State’s rights most certainly not a great moral crusade to free one’s fellow man.

The Union economy after the war will need all the financing it can get. There were nearly half a million slaves in the Union. Mostly owned by the wealthy, emancipating them would both remove a major potential tax revenue stream and alienate a large number of wealthy people. It would also result in a large number of penniless blacks competing for work with returned soldiers and laid off white workers in the depression that would undoubtedly follow a Union defeat in the ACW.

I also suspect as Ward Moore had it that free blacks, along with abolitionists would be blamed for the war and the loss of the South. Moves to emancipate those of them in bondage would not be widely supported.

Then there is the possibility than ideas on slavery and the non-human nature of black people from the more financially successful Confederacy in the early post war years might cross the border and be re-adsorbed.
Finally we have the rise of Marxism, combinations and Unions in the latter quarter of the 19th Century Union. It may well be that as establishment distaste for Marxism and Unionised labour grows it will be seen as Marxist and un-American to support abolition.

All of these factors lead me to believe the Union would remain a slave state until at least Q1 of the 20th Century and the only real prospect of emancipation coming is if the cause is taken up widely by both the Churches and the Unions (before they are crushed – I do not anticipate that would be any different to OTL).
6) Is there another USA-CSA war? When? Over what, who wins it and why?
I can totally see a second war, particularly if the CSA wants to expand their small strip of Arizona. As long as the Europeans stay out, the US would most likely win the war.
For reasons outlined in 7) below I can’t see this happening. Lots of little border clashes and hot headed junior officers trying to make a name for themselves but no war. There will be runaway slaves, hot pursuit by slave takers and the occasional bit beating up or hanging of slave takers north of the border. I don’t think there will be much smuggling as import tariffs and protectionism are going to be one of Britain’s key targets at the peace conference. Both sides would stand to lose far too much in a war see 7) below.

I don’t think the Arizona strip would be too much of an issue.
7)Is there another USA-Britain war? When? Over what, who wins it and why?
This is doubtful. The US and the UK historically don't have too many good reasons to go to war. The Civil War was the last time a war between these two countries was plausable, so unless the UK decides to help in Civil War Round 2, I say no.
I can’t make my mind up over this. I tend to think that it would be many years before the Union was strong enough to take on the British and by the time they were strong enough then there would be no point in doing so. On top of this the British and French are going to want Karlsruhe (TTL peace conference) to be another Congress of Vienna they will try and set things up so that there will be no war on the North American continent for a long time. Woe betide the nation that breaks that peace, it will have many enemies and its honour would be shite. The Union might get poor terms from Karlsruhe but they will not be harsh enough to drive them to war and international alienation.

However many US American posters have consistently claimed American Exceptionalism saying that unlike everywhere else in the world the Union and her people would never ever ever accept the humiliation of losing territory to the British (or indeed the Confederates) and thus another war would be inevitable. I struggle to see this myself but if it were true we are looking at a Union which gets defeated by the British once if not twice more in the 19th Century! This allows the Confederacy to pull further ahead of the Union in development terms and retards Union development. The idea has a certain narrative charm because you do end up with the Confederate super power but it is pretty unlikely that a government so stupid would be elected.

8) Is there a Californian-USA or Californian-CSA war? When? Over what, who wins it and why?
I think the US would be looking to reclaim California ASAP. It's a very valuable state, lots of agriculture, gold, access to the Pacific, English-speaking and easier to conquer than the CSA. So yeah, I bet this could happen.
California is well defended by the Rockies IF they cancel any transcontinental railway projects or at least fortify and guard the passes. They then need to guard the north of the state on the border with Oregon wherever that ends up being. To come through the desert the Union would have to cross Mexican and CSA territory which is unlikely.
If California were part of the informal empire then the British would probably support them but not militarily.

So in conclusion a war might happen but it would not be a sure bet for the USA.
9) Is there a CSA-Spain war? When? Over what, who wins it and why?
Depends on how the CSA is doing. If their economy tanks post war, I am not sure they could sustain it. Maybe as a distraction from growing slave unrest or class problems.
As I said above and elsewhere the economy has no reason to fail. I also anticipate slave unrest to dampen down as the 20th Century approaches.
I think there might be a war with Spain over Cuba. If it occurs before the revolution that displaced Isabella then the Confederates may well get their nice new navy sunk. If it is after that they have an excellent chance of winning.
10) Who buys Alaska, if anyone?
The US isin't in too good a position to buy Alaska, with losing the CSA AND California. Unless there's something I'm missing.
I’m struggling with this one a bit British don’t want it, Russian Imperials don’t want it, CSA won’t want it, USA and Mexico won’t want it and can’t afford it. Californians might want it and can afford it? What probably happens is EITHER the Russians hold on to it as a sleepy backwater OR the Californians or Unionists try and take it by population movement when the gold is discovered OR the British simply absorb it into Canada with the tacit approval of Moscow.
11) Would the USA still be able to become a power in the Pacific and Asia in this scenario? What happens in Hawaii, Korea and Japan. Does the USA still try to steal Guano Islands from other countries? Are they still involved in Blackbirding?
I suppose Hawaii could still be a protectorate, but with California gone I doubt the US has as much of a Pacific presence as in OTL.
With the stretch of coast from where ever the Californians have their northern border to Grays Harbour still gives them at least 400 km of coast in the Oregon and southern OTL Washington state. They still have at least two sites for good harbours but the Union presence would be much reduced from OTL and hemmed in by the British and Californians. It is much harder to see the Union deciding to absorb Hawaii in TTL and much harder to see the British, Confederacy, Californians and Mexicans putting up with it.

I can’t really see them going in for Blackbirding much at least not to OTL levels. I can see them trying to take over guano islands as in OTL but rather more cautiously due to the greater distance to the east coast and a weaker naval presence.
12) Could the CSA become a Pacific/Asian power? If so how and what happens?
Maybe, but again with an independent California the CSA doesn't have the coast. They are a continental/ Gulf of Mexico power.
I don’t think this possible, the Confederate west coast is short, probably less than 300 km and although it has the best harbour on the Pacific coast, San Diego the place is hemmed in by French Mexico and the Californians.

I suspect they will be up to their necks in Blackbirding but unofficially and deniably. I don’t think they have the need for guano which would cause them to risk war over it.
13) Could California become a Pacific/Asian power? If so how and what happens?
Possibly, but not at the level of the US now. Maybe more like Australia in OTL.
That feels about right.
14) Can the USA still become a superpower in the 20th Century?
I think the US still has the land, population and resources to be a superpower. Particularly if they retake California.
See below 15) I think a successful war with California would greatly increase its chances of becoming a superpower. I am however sure that if the British accepted California as part of the informal empire that the war would probably hurt the Union more than it gained her.
(15) Can the CSA become a superpower in the 20th Century?
It would be hard with the whole agrarian/slavery thing. I can see the CSA being as powerful as an OTL Brazil or Canada (though not anywhere as nice as Canada).
This is a very difficult one. The CSA would unquestionably be considerably weaker than the OTL USA as would the TTL USA. The Confederacy will be broadly comparable I think to the TTL USA by the first quarter of the 20th Century prior to that I think the CSA will have a considerable economic advantage. How both nations stack-up against the Europeans depends on the Lepidoptera. Too many border conflicts with the neighbors could seriously damage either nation. After Q1 of 20th Century I have no idea.
 
Top