Southern Glory, American Fury

Awesome TL !! A Balkanized America is always fun.

Can we have a map please?

Thank you, lol, its nice to have a fan :)

As above, not sure how to do a map...

The USA one wouldn't be so difficult I guess since its more or less state entities which make up different combinations, rather than any different state borders

The rest of the world is going to be more of a problem ! I have worked out S America now (see Parts 4-6) but need to focus a bit more on Africa in this timeline before that can be properly mapped out

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Another question for you, Grey Wolf. How the CSA has addressed the slave question?
If Brazil is already moving toward slavery abolition with the blessing of UK and France, the confederated have to take a position. If CSA owns the victory over USA to the british and french intervention (as it seems), the abolition of slavery could have been a part of the price for their help. Besides, given the good economical relations, it would seems logical that CSA solved the problem someway.

Its quite possible that more would go to Mexico, and perhaps other S American states. Also to Canada, and into British Oregon, and California probably. You main question, tho, remains unanswered, I realise. I can imagine European capital setting up industry in the CSA, and thus some immigration of skilled workers and clerks etc, but these would probably just be settlement communities, rather than a precursor of mass immigration.

I would say that a lot depends on the CSA attitude toward immigrants. If they are seen as "useless rabble no better than negroes" the immigration flux would probably be diverted toward other places. But this would harm on the long period the CSA economy, since her industry would lack a lot of cheap manpower.
Other destination for immigrants could be the USA, if they manage to get out of the crisis, or South America, though the war between France and Argentina, where OTL a lot immigrants went, could alter this.

As for Africa, Italy and Germany are going to partecipate to the scramble for the black continent or are going to be excluded? OTL the italian penetration in Erythrea began in the 1880s with the british blessing, but in your TL? Besides OTL italian colonies were suitable to european settlement, so, if immigration toward the americas should become more difficult, we could see a larger presence of italian settlers in Africa, of course if Italy can find the money to finance all of this...

Generally speaking, your timeline is clearly going toward a rematch and I'm ready to bet that the spark will came from the USA...
 
Another question for you, Grey Wolf. How the CSA has addressed the slave question?
If Brazil is already moving toward slavery abolition with the blessing of UK and France, the confederated have to take a position. If CSA owns the victory over USA to the british and french intervention (as it seems), the abolition of slavery could have been a part of the price for their help. Besides, given the good economical relations, it would seems logical that CSA solved the problem someway.



I would say that a lot depends on the CSA attitude toward immigrants. If they are seen as "useless rabble no better than negroes" the immigration flux would probably be diverted toward other places. But this would harm on the long period the CSA economy, since her industry would lack a lot of cheap manpower.
Other destination for immigrants could be the USA, if they manage to get out of the crisis, or South America, though the war between France and Argentina, where OTL a lot immigrants went, could alter this.

As for Africa, Italy and Germany are going to partecipate to the scramble for the black continent or are going to be excluded? OTL the italian penetration in Erythrea began in the 1880s with the british blessing, but in your TL? Besides OTL italian colonies were suitable to european settlement, so, if immigration toward the americas should become more difficult, we could see a larger presence of italian settlers in Africa, of course if Italy can find the money to finance all of this...

Generally speaking, your timeline is clearly going toward a rematch and I'm ready to bet that the spark will came from the USA...


Thank you very much for your insightful comments and questions :)

Regarding slavery, I think the CSA would have had to agree not to expand it in the first instance, but only later when France annexes Cuba does abolition within the CSA become a real issue. I am thinking that even then it is done in stages - children are no longer born as slaves etc, leading towards compensated manumission later

Both Eritrea and Tunis are aspects that I am going to look into in detail and sort out tonight

Immigration is a good point. Brazil always seemed able to absorb immigrants (eg lots of Germans after WW2) whilst a more prosperous Mexico and Peru may also take more than OTL. Britain has also crushed the Boer states once and for all in this timeline, so settlement there will be encouraged

I guess I need to look at French emigration, numbers and patterns, to see how heavy it was in OTL anyway. I imagine that most permanent French settlers went either to Algiers or Indo-China, with more temporary settlement in W Africa (ie settling for a while then going back home). Whether French emigration went anywhere foreign, that would now be more likely to go to places under Franch auspices I don't yet know

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Got to go and feed the cat now

I'll work on comments/criticisms over night, as well as my ideas for Africa, slavery etc and hope to find more comments tomorrow morning

Pray let the cat have pooped !

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
OK, now I will shamelessly reproduce a list of facts that come from a "What If America" chapter. This list of facts comes with no interpretation from the author, and is used as the preamble to the rest of the "North-West Conspiracy" chapter. Now, before I do this, I will point out that none of the timeline I have written needs or requires or even uses any of this Conspiracy. Only the underlying facts, tensions and battleground that existed for it to be wrought on in OTL is of relevance here. And none of that is, as far as I know, open to challenge.

- - Clement Vallandigham, Ohio Congressman, arrested 1863 by General Burnside for supposedly making treasonous speeches, tried before a military tribunal where the federal judge advocate general controlled the case (acting as judge as well as prosecutor) and barred defence witnesses, ruled out testimony etc. Sentenced to imprisonment for treason but deported to the CSA

- - Indiana and Kentucky became Republican military dictatorships with manipulated elections and terror tactics used to retain political control (see below)

- - Some quotes from Thomas Fleming, the author
"By 1864 the Democrats of Kentucky and Indiana were a seething mass of rage in search of a target"
"If the Confederacy had made a general with the driving energy of James Longstreet or A P Hill commander in the West, Kentucky would have become a Confederate state - along with Tennessee"


- - 21st July 1862 Union general Jerry T Boyle threatened to arrest any Democrat who ran for office in Kentucky against the administration's slate

- - Republicans carried Kentucky in the 1862 midterm elections by stationing troops around polling stations, where in an era before secret ballots their commanders informed Democrats that they could not guarantee their safety if they were to vote, thus leading to many turning away without voting, or not bothering to turn up at all

- - Democratic Convention at Frankfort February 1863, Colonel Gilbert marched the 44th Ohio into the meeting hall and dispersed the assembly at bayonet point

- - 17 pro-Democratic newspapers in Kentucky were smashed up by mobs, whilst soldiers either joined in or watched with approval

- - Former governor and federal congressman John Morehead protested these tactics and was arrested and held without trial in federal prisons, subject to verbal abuse and semi-starvation until he pledged allegiance

- - Indiana - Democrats won control of the state legislature in 1862 elections, and would have refused to vote for the war budget. The Republican governor Oliver P Morton suspended the legislature and ran the state by decree for the rest of the war, using money Lincoln shipped to him from DC

- - The Indianapolis stat convention in Spring 1863 saw the meeting site surrounded by infantry and artillery with cannons trained on the speakers' platform. Cavalry roved the town and the state arsenal was under heavy guard. When Democratic speakers tried to speak they were interrupted and insulted by soldiers and Republicans seeded in the crowd, and when Democrats attempted to remove these they were themselves arrested and hustled off to jail. Cavalry yelling like demons circled around, frightening those on the periphery. Then when US senator Thomas Hendricks attempted to speak, 8-10 soldiers with bayonets fixed and a detachment of cavalry with sabres drawn closed in on the platform. Hendricks abandoned the platform, and the crowd dispersed in panic

- - Summer of 1864 a guerilla war raged in Kentucky, which General Stephen Burbridge used terror tactics to suppress, murdering 4 Confederate prisoners for every one Union soldier or sympathiser killed by the rebels

- - "The war had generated a strong sense of separate identity throughout the MidWest. There was a widespread opinion that the two original sections of the country were jointly responsible for the ruinous conflict, with most of the blame cast on New England"

And that is without going into the response in these states to the Emancipation Proclamation

- - - - - - -

The War of Southern Independence as outlined in this alternae timeline will have seen some significant differences. I am afraid that people don't factor this in. The above list is what DID happen in OTL, even with the factors that existed then. Add in to that mix the early fall of Washington DC, a Union which determines to go on fighting, a later alliance with France and Britain and the use of their forces in the continent, and the occupation of frontier states during the war by Confederate states and allies.

I would imagine that Lincoln, the Union army and the Republican party machine use even heavier handed tactics to hold onto, and hold down the rest of the old North-West. With Confederate raids, the attempted risings in place by Confederate sympathisers, and a general state of martial law and military rule, the stage would be well set

The defeat of the Union at the siege of Philadelphia is going to cut loose all Union-supported endeavours. Money from the centre will disappear, the armies will break apart, old vengeances will be acted out, and the forces long suppressed during the war will breathe in fresh air and break out on their own. Many a neutral, or even dispirited supporter of a failed Union, would look at North-West independence as a natural reaction. The war has shown that they are different, all that the federal government did was suppress them, and stamp on state's rights, and now they have a chance to make their lives anew

The states right aspect of this should not be overlooked. Indiana, Illinois wanted to run things as states first, part of the Union second, so in creating their own Confederacy in the image of the CSA they give back power to where they want it to belong. In the short term this is a successful move, empowering the people and enthusing them. In the longer term it leads to a weakened economic state that eventually leads to the NWC requesting assumption into the Confederacy

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Slavery and the CSA

A distinction immediately needs to be made between what is enacted at confederal level in Richmond, and what is within the states' rights and would be left to the states to decide. Where the line blurs, the former can seek to influence the latter, most effectively through positive coercion, such as in subsidies and promises.

As part of the agreement with Britain and France to send troops, supplies etc to aid the Confederacy, Richmond probably promises not to extend slavery into states where it does not exist, and to work to prevent all forms of international slave trading, including using CSA navy assets to prevent smuggling

Later, during the 1870s the Confederate government probably agrees to ban all inter-state slave trading, meanig that slaves can only be bought and sold within the state they live in

Beyond this it is down to the states themselves, although Richmond can push policies and reward those who accept them. I would think the twin approach would be

-1- States declaring that nobody will be born into slavery, and that henceforth any child born to a slave will be free

-2- Compensated manumission

Where there is reluctance, often borne of financial fears, the Confederate government can promise aid to pay for dealing with the children, and grants for manumission.

Whilst what the confederal government agrees to do is carried out pretty uniformly, and exceptions to this are dealt with by the force of arms, or of law, the actions of the states would be more patchy, with some way ahead of others, and the dragging effects of slavery would still be in existence in the 1890s

By then most states, if not all, would have decreed that nobody would be born into slavery, and manumission programmes would be in place. Some states would be almost slave free, whilst others would be the reverse, with only a small percentage of freedmen, even if all newborns are now no longer growing up to be slaves. Some states will have banned any sale at all of remaining slaves, whilst in others slave markets, perhaps not as thriving as in their heyday, would still remain

Best regards
Grey Wolf
 
A few notes on things :)

-1- CUBA
It is theoretically independent under French protection, but is in all but name a French colony. France provides the instructors for, and many of the officers of, the army, who are seconded from the Imperial Army and retain their allegiance to the Emperor. Coastal defence is in Cuban hands, but the customs inspectors are French, and the naval protection force is a French detachment operating in Cuban waters. Industry and trade is in the hands of French companies, and French landowners have bought up much of the more valuable real estate. France enforces the abolition of slavery, and at sea the end of the Atlantic slave trade. Cuba has consulates in the CSA, Mexico, Santo Domingo and Haiti, but no full embassies and no real or meaningful international relations.

-2- PATAGONIA
French thinking here was initially that they would place Oriele Antoine on the throne but be the power behind it, and that when he died he would will his kingdom to the Emperor in Paris. His death meant that his previously nominated successor, Aquile I, was now the supported king for Patagonia-Araucania, and was embraced as such by the Mapuche. French thinking at this stage was that he could be induced to abdicate in the name of the Emperor once the war had been won. However the peace with Chile and Argentina which ended the war included the clause that France would recognise the kingdom as a separate entity with its own line of monarchs. They thus cannot induce Aquile or his successors to surrender the kingship to Napoleon, but they can control the country in a similar way to Cuba.

-3- SICILY
Its independence recognised in the 1874 peace treaty, Sicily was a kingdom without a king, the rebels who had thrown off Italian rule having no love for the Bourbons of Naples whom they had earlier risen up against. However, the thought that this historic kingdom should be allowed to become a republic was not acceptable to the victors in the war, and Sicily was induced to accept a cadet line of the Two Sicilies as providing its king, whilst adopting a liberal constitution that reserved most powers for the parliament, and gave the monarch little more than emergency powers to work with

-4- THE PAPAL STATE
Rome and its environs remain the temporal possession of the Pope, supported not only by his traditional Swiss Guard, but now by his exotic African Guard, drawn primarily from French Senegalese soldiers.

-5- ITALY
Although possessing Venetia, the Southern Tyrol and Gorizia, and retaining of course Sardinia, Pantelleria etc, the Kingdom of Italy is minus both Sicily and Rome which seriously hampers its pretensions to be a modern power. The basis for its name is not in doubt (since Napoleon I's Italy was all based in the centre and North) whilst possession of Ligorno and of the arsenal of Naples give it a sizeable fleet capability. Turin is far from ideal as a capital, always having been envisioned as the temporary home of the Italian state, once that of Piedmont-Sardinia had metamorphised into a truer national vision. The House of Savoy do not of course see the need to move, but other factions within Italian politics favour a more central location - perhaps Ravenna for symbolic reasons

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Good update! It helps to clarify many obscure points.

Its independence recognised in the 1874 peace treaty, Sicily was a kingdom without a king, the rebels who had thrown off Italian rule having no love for the Bourbons of Naples whom they had earlier risen up against.

The hate for Bourbons in Sicily is not so clear cutted. While the actual resistance against Savoia, called derogatevely "brigantaggio", was more focused in the continental South, especially Calabria and Campania, it's worthy to note that the new kingdom of Italy spent over ten years to "pacify" the region using up to 120000 men. It's not clear, though, if this movement had precise political objectives or were just men driven desperate by the heavy taxation.
Since the situation, the british could have established a new kingdom under a cadet member of the windsor family. The possession of Sicily would make the british control of the mediterrean stronger than ever. The minor islands (Pantelleria, Eolie etc...) have to go with Sicily, though, since they rely on the great island to be supplied.

Turin is far from ideal as a capital, always having been envisioned as the temporary home of the Italian state, once that of Piedmont-Sardinia had metamorphised into a truer national vision. The House of Savoy do not of course see the need to move, but other factions within Italian politics favour a more central location - perhaps Ravenna for symbolic reasons

Ravenna was a little town with low infrastructure and no industry, hardly a good place to be a capital. But luckily you don't have to choose. In fact for a brief time Florence was capitol (from 1865 to 1870).
I'm curious to know how italian politics will evolve, after such a defeat. OTL Italy developed soon one of the strongest socialist party in Europe, if the conservative party and the crown are weakened enough by the war, maybe we could see a more leftish Italy?
 
Good update! It helps to clarify many obscure points.



The hate for Bourbons in Sicily is not so clear cutted. While the actual resistance against Savoia, called derogatevely "brigantaggio", was more focused in the continental South, especially Calabria and Campania, it's worthy to note that the new kingdom of Italy spent over ten years to "pacify" the region using up to 120000 men. It's not clear, though, if this movement had precise political objectives or were just men driven desperate by the heavy taxation.
Since the situation, the british could have established a new kingdom under a cadet member of the windsor family. The possession of Sicily would make the british control of the mediterrean stronger than ever. The minor islands (Pantelleria, Eolie etc...) have to go with Sicily, though, since they rely on the great island to be supplied.



Ravenna was a little town with low infrastructure and no industry, hardly a good place to be a capital. But luckily you don't have to choose. In fact for a brief time Florence was capitol (from 1865 to 1870).
I'm curious to know how italian politics will evolve, after such a defeat. OTL Italy developed soon one of the strongest socialist party in Europe, if the conservative party and the crown are weakened enough by the war, maybe we could see a more leftish Italy?

Excellent, thank you for that !

I didn't know about Florence - some great holes in what is laughingly called my knowledge ! Its in a great position, with its own heritage, and access to various ports

I hadn't realised about Pantelleria relying on Sicily for supply, but of course that makes perfect sense, so scratch that bit, and attach it to Sicily

I don't think the French would be happy to see a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha on the throne in Sicily, just like the British would not be happy to see a Bonaparte. I was under the impression that Sicily had risen up against the Bourbons but remembering exact data is beyond me right now. I didn't think they'd accept their "old king" or his son back, but could be induced to go with a cousin

Will have a think about Italian politics

Sorry I never got as far as Africa last night

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I didn't know about Florence - some great holes in what is laughingly called my knowledge !

It's not a widely known fact and since I'm italian it's clear that I have an unfair advantage on you :D.

I was under the impression that Sicily had risen up against the Bourbons but remembering exact data is beyond me right now. I didn't think they'd accept their "old king" or his son back, but could be induced to go with a cousin

The whole annexation of south is a tricky part of italian history. The official historiography, sabaudian first and fascist later, has always depicted the Bourbons as a corrupt goverment ruling over desperate masses, which desired eagerly to be united to the rest of Italy. A serious revaluation of the facts started only in the late 1960s.
To make along story short the upper and the middle class wanted the annexation for the obvious benefits and for the strong nationalism that permeated them. The lower classes just wanted a less oppressive rule. The new goverment soon shattered this hopes with a policy of repression and hard taxation. Some historians consider that the North treated the former bourbonic kingdom more like a colony than a part of the state. The italian goverment, besides, in order to captivate the support of the former elites, crushed sistematically all the aspirations of the lowest classes.
Some of these repressions happened during the conquest itself, like at Bronte in Sicily. When the local peasants rebelled against the landowners, a company of redshirts led by Bixio, Garibaldi' second in command and a socialist too, entered the town and quickly suppressed the revolt bloodily.
Incidentally, the Bronte's massacre was probably caused by Garibaldi's need to preserve the good relations with Great Britain. In fact the "Ducea of Bronte" belonged to the Nelson family since 1799, when the great admiral was named duke by the bourbon king.
 
Solving the German Problem

How about this as a summary ;-

-- Prussian/ N German forces take Vienna
-- Hungary rises up in rebellion
-- Bismarck gets the Prussian King to turn the NGC into the German Empire
-- The German Empire absorbs some of he defeated German states as sovereign states of the empire
-- A Southern Confederation is formed under German control
-- This SC includes Austria, Bavaria, Bohemia, Baden, Wurttemberg and Hesse-Darmstadt
-- The German Empire has basing rights at Trieste, and Austria has to cede half her navy

The Congress confirms, as well as :-

-- S Tyrol and Trentino to Italy
-- Recognition of Hungarian independence
-- Russia gets Galicia and Krakow as protectorates
-- Confirmation of the Papal State in Rome

-1- I realise Wilhelm I may be a problem, but if the generals, including Wilhelm's nephews, and the Crown Prince back the plan, then the old king can be won round
-2- Russia accepts Hungarian independence for the Polish protectorates, being more concerned about Polish independence than about that of Hungary
-3- Britain and France look to strengthen those who are not Germany, so Italy, Hungary come off better, and the acceptance of Russia's protectorates is seen as a small gain, even if neither is that happy to see Russian aggrandisement

The Spanish Crisis thus in some ways mirrors OTL's rather more, tho with the added aspect of the nascent Empire needing not to prove itself weak.

The eclipse of Austria and its involvement in the German sphere makes even a stronger France, allied to Britain still, very wary over encirclement, especially as Italy was allied with Prussia in 1866

The later collapse of the German alliance can be seen in these terms. Hannover is a kingdom within the Empire, whilst Bavaria and Austria are kingdoms in the Southern Confederation, in close alliance (subservience to) the Empire

In the peace, the Empire loses Hannover and Hesse-Kassel, but gains the Bavarian Palatinate since nobody is willing to restart the war for Ludwig II's sake

Bohemia may see some sort of German coup, keeping down the Czechs and supported by Berlin, keeping Bohemia a satellite even as the other German states break away from Berlin

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Hope someone can comment on the revision, since it hopefully addresses one of people's major concerns with the timeline

Thanks

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Hope someone can comment on the revision, since it hopefully addresses one of people's major concerns with the timeline

Thanks

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Grey Wolf

Some interesting ideas here but a couple of further queries.

a) Your comments in the post on slavery may solve that problem for the CSA in terms of its external relations. However it does generate a new one. If the slaves are freed there are a lot of new workers able to move and looking for employment. This is potentially going to cause a lot of resentment, especially in the NWC where a lot of the 'free soil' feeling was I believe that they opposed compertition from black workers. This is not going to differ greatly whether those workers are slaves or poorly paid free labourers.

b) After a bitter multi-year war, much of it fought over their core industrial territories France seems to be emerging as a highly expansionst power. Taking control over territory in central and south America and the historical French Indo China plus more in the far east and presumably much of the historical expansion in Africa. The defeat of Prussia/Germany would mean that France has become the dominant power in western continental Europe which in itself would make it Britain's chief rival again. If it then started aggressive expansion, especially in areas where Britain has strong interests, such as Argentina I'm wondering while Britain isn't making a strong stance against it. Britain, which has a larger industrial base and wasn't subject to occupation, is going to be in a better position to oppose France encroachments on its interests and I can't see any way it will let France rival the RN.

I'm also not sure that Britain would seek to gain so much in the Oregon region. Although that could be a possibility after a long and bitter war. With the US so divided what's happened in Canada? Has it still Confederated or possibly still split into several states? Without the political or economic threat from the US I could see British Columbia possibly staying separate, especially if it expands southwards. If it has and a trans-continental railway built, probably the 1st in TTL, then Canada could absorb a lot more people. You might also see it contesting with the CSA influence in the northern NWC region.

Steve
 
I just don't see the French doing that well against the Prussians. At the time of the war, the French command hierarchy was in complete dissarray with Napoleon III (likely) taking personal command of one of the armies (as he did in OTL Franco-Prussian war with the French Army of the Rhine) because his was a regime based in the armed forces, having played off of the Bonaparte name.

Nevermind that 1) French rail lines at the time were far inferior to Prussian/German; 2) the French lacked a war plan (again, speaking IOTL Franco-Prussian War) and diverting forces to Spain would only weaken their ability to wage war against the Prussians; 3) if the French were doing so well in Mexico, then Bazaine (the commanding French Marshal there) would likely not have been removed from Mexico--he was a mustang having worked his way up the ranks and was a French folk-hero. This made Napoleon III wary of him, and eventually Bazaine was blamed for the embarrassment of the "Mexican Adventure." Afterwards... well, Bazaine never forgave the Emporer. Of course, if he was recalled to France, Napoleon III would still be very wary of him.

However, I will admit this: The French rifle, the Chassepot far outstripped the Prussian needle-rifle of the time. The Prussian artillery, however, was the brand-new Kruger (?) breechloaders, while the French still had the lighter 4 and 12 pound smoothbore cannon. Morale in the French army (granted without the Mexican victory) was relatively equivalent to the Austrian morale of the previous Austro-Prussian war. Soldiers threw out their packs, dumped their cartridges (if they ever picked them up from the supply depots), and dranked/ate all of their rations and liqueur portions before marching out. Overall, it was disgraceful.

Should the French have won in the Mexican Adventure, the morale may be better. I stress the "may" of the previous. The fact that after 1866 the Prussian chief of staff Moltke began planning for a war with France (and the highly efficient and professional staff officers under him) would have simply negated any early gains the French may have made. Neither did the French organize any allies in the war (Austria, Denmark, etc) but merely assumed their 'war of revenge' and that Prussia would leave units to guard those frontiers.

The fact was, the Prussians had timetables for everything. The French did not. The Prussian troops arrived at the front fully supplied. The French did not. The Prussians had 1,000,000 reserves on top of their standing 300,000 regulars. The French had 400,000 standing regulars and virtually no reserves but a pathetic "armes mobiles" which were not mobile at all, but reserved for their territories.

The fact remains that the French, though they could muster 100,000 more at the beginning, getting them to the front would have cost them 3 weeks. The Prussians could get their 300,000 to the front in as little as 3-7 days. Nevermind the reserves within a couple more weeks, if that long.

Plus, the South German Bund had treaties with Bismarck for mutual German Defense. This was the fever pitch of the German nationality movement, which is evident in that many of Prussias gains in the German states, the governments voted themselves out of power for the betterment of Germans as a whole. The South Germans would have to come to the aid of Prussia or break their treaties and turn their backs on their fellow Germans. Unlikely.

In any event, I'm sorry, the French would never be able to hold the Prussians at that stage particlularly with forces spread from Mexico to Cuba to Spain and Algiers.
 
Grey Wolf

Some interesting ideas here but a couple of further queries.

b I'm also not sure that Britain would seek to gain so much in the Oregon region. Although that could be a possibility after a long and bitter war. With the US so divided what's happened in Canada? Has it still Confederated or possibly still split into several states? Without the political or economic threat from the US I could see British Columbia possibly staying separate, especially if it expands southwards. If it has and a trans-continental railway built, probably the 1st in TTL, then Canada could absorb a lot more people. You might also see it contesting with the CSA influence in the northern NWC region.

Steve


British Columbia is still going to have the same underlying issues of OTL, Canada promised the transcontinental railroad, and promised to take on the British Columbia debt. They'll still have the debt, and unless there's more traffic than in OTL (unlikely given that the USA is split), they'll still be broke, and need money to pay for everything, money that Canada has.

Given that France has emerged more active in the Pacific, perhaps enough to challenge Britain on the Pacific coast, I think that Britain would be MORE inclined to help "push" confederation through.
 
You see, I'm not sure about that at all

The Union is going to be bankrupt and riven by strife, so if a group of states look and see that a more secure future could be gained by seceding in turn then the elements within those states could rise to the fore

Initially they are independent, and simply align themselves with the CSA for security reasons, mainly because the latter are secured by Britain and France at this period

Only later when economic factors bring about bankruptcy do they petition to rejoin the CSA in confederation

As for Balkanisation of the USA, this is actually intended as being ANTI-Balkanisation

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

\you know its the whole confederation with the CSA that is hard to buy...

they are ideologically disparate entities. They are more economically and ideologically aligned with the rump USA. While the rump USA is not doing so well economically in TTL, its still likely to be a primary conduit for the midwest products to Europe and a primary market for them. While they can ship down the Mississippi to the CSA and the gulf and i suppose by this longer route to Europe. They can also ship the shorter route through the lakes and St. Lawrence to Europe....

Indeed if the USA is not an option some kind of Reciprocity agreement with Grt Britain actually makes far more sense. Becoming an economic appendage of BNA/Canada but retaining political independence. Actually I suspect the reciprocity agreements between BNA and the rump USA and the NW federation to have been renewed in the aftermath of CSA independence. If France is having primary importance in the aftermath in the CSA...I can see the British seeking a counterbalance further north in at least the NW.

As to Europe... the changes there are too boggling to comprehend, but I suppose are not out of the realm of possibility... though probably low where the entire annexation of Austria is concerned.
 
Among the many things already stated, I still see a problem in your Great War. At the time, Pan-Germanism was increasing in popularity. A war against non-germans, I suppose, would only strengthen this sentiment.

Also, King Ludwig II was not especially, er... gutsy or clever as a leader. I highly doubt he would take it on himself to encourage a rebellion mid-war. It simply wasn't his character, and I doubt the POD would effect that especially.
 
Economics of the NWC

will be dictated by the politics and economic priorities of the railroads...All of which are still likely to be financed, built and owned outright largely by their Eastern cousins HQ'd in either NYC or Philadelphia. If the NWC is independent I can see a preference for someone other than the Eastern rail barons building the rail infrastructure that is needed to carry the produce of the NWC to its markets but there are few if any other alternatives.

I would see greater investment by "the city" in the railnet of BNA to expand the reach of the Grand Trunk or the Great Western and direct that produce through the ports of Montreal and Quebec and exclusively to Empire shipping...Its in the Br. financial and political interest. The alternative is that some of the NW rail net is directed south to hubs in the Ohio valley ( Cincinnati, Evansville, Marietta or Huntington to bring more of that produce to alternative ports in Baltimore, Norfolk or Charleston. While easily acceptable to British financial interests, its not sensible politically. The first option is more sensible politically as it gives British investors more control of the flow of goods as it has to pass directly through BE terr exclusively to BE ships.

However this is not going to negate the pull of the Rump USA as a market nor negate the ability of the Eastern rail barons to build the railroads needed to carry the NWC produce to its markets in the USA. They will be competing fiercely between themselves ( as OTL) but will likely have greater British sponsored competition. Montreal is going to become an even larger player in trans Atlantic commerce and Detroit will benefit as the primary transit hub to BNA along with Port Huron.

The point being that if NWC insolvency occurs.. the BE has the deeper pockets to solve it and the economic history that is likely to trump anything the CSA can offer. They can probably offer some political incentives as well.

Btw, I haven't been able to determine exactly what happened to California or Utah Terr.? both Britain and France have an interest in seeing it remain an independent entity. If not controlled directly or by a controlled satellite. Obviously the CSA cannot in the end be called a Br. controlled satellite to the same extent as Mexico is French in TTL.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the comments; I'll read through them in detail tonight and see what I can work out

I think the criticism of France in the war against Prussian-led Germany is missing the point that France has had a major involvement on land during the ACW, which would have shwn up deficiencies on the one hand, but especially would have brought some of the cream to the top

In addition, France is fighting alongside Britain on land in 1869, and I don't really see it as France "doing well" considering that much of the fighting is in defence of Paris. Its only once the tide had turned against German forces that France is fully able to go onto the offensive here

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Top