The Boll Weevil infestation in an Independent CSA.

[Reggie Bartlett]

You still haven't explained how on God's green Earth the CSA is going to afford buying ANY land from Mexico. Even in 1862 it is heavily in debt. It isn't hopeless but everyone wants to be paid off first.

Since the CSA gets it's independence early on, it just keeps on with paying off it's debts for the next couple decades. Also since the CSA has Maximillian down in Mexico as a friendly power, it doesn't make it impossible for them to buy territory from him.

That's why I'm pretty much stating that the CSA buys those Mexican territories during James Longstreet's presidency (1880-1886).

 

[benjamin]

I doubt it. The Union would want to make sure that the CSA has no access to the Pacific and that map make South CA vulnerable. Free travel up and down the Mississippi would be more important to the CSA than the USA. The US can rail everything east if need be. Without free access to the Mississippi the trade is going be shipped through Boston instead of New Orleans.

I thought I implied that. The US will be against giving the Confederacy any access to the Pacific, but it will be in some way up to the European powers that ensure Confederate victory to decide. Either way its not really in anyone's interest to give the CSA a Pacific port.

As for Mississippi trade...it's important to both sides about evenly, but a Southern strangle hold on the lower Mississippi will anger the US. Sure rail travel can make up some of the difference but barge/river travel is (even today) the most cost efficient means of moving bulk freight like grain and coal. As much of the Confederacy's most valuable trade will go overseas, probably on British ships, they won't have as much use for the upper Mississippi.

Benjamin

 

[Johnrankins]

Since the CSA gets it's independence early on, it just keeps on with paying off it's debts for the next couple decades. Also since the CSA has Maximillian down in Mexico as a friendly power, it doesn't make it impossible for them to buy territory from him.

That's why I'm pretty much stating that the CSA buys those Mexican territories during James Longstreet's presidency (1880-1886).

They are going to have a huge army to pay as well. My guess (and certainly their fear would be) as soon as England or France (Whichever power broke the blockade. Most likely France as Nappy was far more pro-confederate than Palmerston ever was. ) the Union will attack the CSA. When that happens the CSA is doomed. Without European protection and a tech gap much larger than OTL it goes under.

 

[Johnrankins]

I thought I implied that. The US will be against giving the Confederacy any access to the Pacific, but it will be in some way up to the European powers that ensure Confederate victory to decide. Either way its not really in anyone's interest to give the CSA a Pacific port.

As for Mississippi trade...it's important to both sides about evenly, but a Southern strangle hold on the lower Mississippi will anger the US. Sure rail travel can make up some of the difference but barge/river travel is (even today) the most cost efficient means of moving bulk freight like grain and coal. As much of the Confederacy's most valuable trade will go overseas, probably on British ships, they won't have as much use for the upper Mississippi.

Benjamin

The most Europe will do is break the blockade, they won't put boots on the ground. Even the most pro-CSA MPs stated very clearly they weren't for that. GB tried to do that twice earlier when the US was weaker and it didn't exactly turn out well for them. Without boots on the ground there is only so hard they can push. The only thing Europe really wants is the cotton trade. It has no other reason to back the CSA.

 

[benjamin]

The most Europe will do is break the blockade, they won't put boots on the ground. Even the most pro-CSA MPs stated very clearly they weren't for that. GB tried to do that twice earlier when the US was weaker and it didn't exactly turn out well for them. Without boots on the ground there is only so hard they can push. The only thing Europe really wants is the cotton trade. It has no other reason to back the CSA.

British actions in OTL disprove your conjecture. They knew full well, and the US made it abundantly clear, that breaking the blockade and recognizing the Confederacy meant war. During the Trent Crisis the British put thousands of troops into Canada because they knew that territory was extremely vulnerable. Any British interference in the war will almost assuredly see US moves against Canada. While there may have been some very delusional MPs who believed that breaking the blockade and recognizing the Confederacy would just be accepted by the US and everyone would gone with their lives all hunky-dorry like, everyone else (including those in Palmerston's government) knew otherwise. That's why the British war plans called for near immediate offensive operations to bring the war to a quick end. Failure to act would endanger Canada. Either way this requires "boots on the ground."

Benjamin

 

[67th Tigers]

British actions in OTL disprove your conjecture. They knew full well, and the US made it abundantly clear, that breaking the blockade and recognizing the Confederacy meant war. During the Trent Crisis the British put thousands of troops into Canada because they knew that territory was extremely vulnerable. Any British interference in the war will almost assuredly see US moves against Canada. While there may have been some very delusional MPs who believed that breaking the blockade and recognizing the Confederacy would just be accepted by the US and everyone would gone with their lives all hunky-dorry like, everyone else (including those in Palmerston's government) knew otherwise. That's why the British war plans called for near immediate offensive operations to bring the war to a quick end. Failure to act would endanger Canada. Either way this requires "boots on the ground."

Not quite.

The RN had the power to effectively destroy the ability of the US to prosecute any war. The US knew this too, which is why they didn't try and call the UK's bluff, because they knew it wasn't one.

The only objection in cabinet to war with the US over the Trent was Lord Grey, who thought sending 75,000 Imperial troops to Canada and raising 100-150,000 Canadian troops would be expensive. As late as June 1863 an intervention is a possibility and a private members bill was before the House (stopped by Lee's defeat at Gettysburg).

The British fully expected parts of Canada to be overrun, but as long as the major Imperial fortresses were held (and they almost certainly would be) then any US occupation would be temporary. Whilst the US armies died in their own private reruns of the Sebastapol siege.

 

[benjamin]

Not quite.

The RN had the power to effectively destroy the ability of the US to prosecute any war. The US knew this too, which is why they didn't try and call the UK's bluff, because they knew it wasn't one.

The only objection in cabinet to war with the US over the Trent was Lord Grey, who thought sending 75,000 Imperial troops to Canada and raising 100-150,000 Canadian troops would be expensive. As late as June 1863 an intervention is a possibility and a private members bill was before the House (stopped by Lee's defeat at Gettysburg).

The British fully expected parts of Canada to be overrun, but as long as the major Imperial fortresses were held (and they almost certainly would be) then any US occupation would be temporary. Whilst the US armies died in their own private reruns of the Sebastapol siege.

Yes, but this still requires "boots on the ground" as the reinforcement of Canada during the Trent Crisis illustrated. While less specific than your's I'm not sure what part of my assessment you're objecting to.

ADDED: I'm not sure how the RN is going to interfere in anyway with the ordinance factories in such places as Pittsburgh. While I'm pretty darn sure that the UK can put the whipping to the US in this time frame, it will not be as easy as you contend. Most contemporaries in Britain had a real fear that Canada might be lost.

Benjamin

 

[Johnrankins]

British actions in OTL disprove your conjecture. They knew full well, and the US made it abundantly clear, that breaking the blockade and recognizing the Confederacy meant war. During the Trent Crisis the British put thousands of troops into Canada because they knew that territory was extremely vulnerable. Any British interference in the war will almost assuredly see US moves against Canada. While there may have been some very delusional MPs who believed that breaking the blockade and recognizing the Confederacy would just be accepted by the US and everyone would gone with their lives all hunky-dorry like, everyone else (including those in Palmerston's government) knew otherwise. That's why the British war plans called for near immediate offensive operations to bring the war to a quick end. Failure to act would endanger Canada. Either way this requires "boots on the ground."

Benjamin

Some boots on the ground in Canada where they would be defending themselves in treches is one thing shooting up US cities is another. That is asking for a bloodbath. They already tried that twice when the US was far weaker and that didn't work well for them. By 1860 the US had the highest standard of living in the world and was 2nd in industrial output. Any war in the US proper would NOT be a walk in the park despite 67thtigers delusions. If they get into a bloodbath in North America for a 3rd time in a century Palmerston's government is likely to fall. That is one of the many reasons they stayed the hell away from the ACW.

 

[benjamin]

Some boots on the ground in Canada where they would be defending themselves in treches is one thing shooting up US cities is another. That is asking for a bloodbath. They already tried that twice when the US was far weaker and that didn't work well for them. By 1860 the US had the highest standard of living in the world and was 2nd in industrial output. Any war in the US proper would NOT be a walk in the park despite 67thtigers delusions. If they get into a bloodbath in North America for a 3rd time in a century Palmerston's government is likely to fall. That is one of the many reasons they stayed the hell away from the ACW.

Yes, I know.

But IF (given that this is an AH forum) war does occur, than Britain will need to make a major commitment to defeat the US. I agree that 67th oft exaggerates the ease in which the UK will steamroll the US in this time period. See Above.

Benjamin

 

[Snake Featherston]

The most Europe will do is break the blockade, they won't put boots on the ground. Even the most pro-CSA MPs stated very clearly they weren't for that. GB tried to do that twice earlier when the US was weaker and it didn't exactly turn out well for them. Without boots on the ground there is only so hard they can push. The only thing Europe really wants is the cotton trade. It has no other reason to back the CSA.

They don't *need* boots on the ground, in any scenario where they intervene the economic dislocations alone are enough to call the war quits. Lincoln would also have more sense than to try to fight the UK and France *and* the CSA at one time.

British actions in OTL disprove your conjecture. They knew full well, and the US made it abundantly clear, that breaking the blockade and recognizing the Confederacy meant war. During the Trent Crisis the British put thousands of troops into Canada because they knew that territory was extremely vulnerable. Any British interference in the war will almost assuredly see US moves against Canada. While there may have been some very delusional MPs who believed that breaking the blockade and recognizing the Confederacy would just be accepted by the US and everyone would gone with their lives all hunky-dorry like, everyone else (including those in Palmerston's government) knew otherwise. That's why the British war plans called for near immediate offensive operations to bring the war to a quick end. Failure to act would endanger Canada. Either way this requires "boots on the ground."

Benjamin

Which in the event of an actual war would be more of an insurance policy than actually used, though if they were actually used they'd go through the Union army like crap through a goose. The Union army was a ferocious military machine........against the intrigue-ridden utter incompetent failures that characterized the Confederate army's generalship. Against any proper European army of a Great Power they'll be torn to shreds. The British Army is not Bragg's army, it's much better than Lee's army will ever be. At this point in time the UK's got the ability to strangle the Union war economy.....and the later in the war the actually worse it gets, as the US population was getting downright tired of a seemingly endless interminable, bloody war. Expanding wars in that kind of political situation at home is frankly put suicidal.

Some boots on the ground in Canada where they would be defending themselves in treches is one thing shooting up US cities is another. That is asking for a bloodbath. They already tried that twice when the US was far weaker and that didn't work well for them. By 1860 the US had the highest standard of living in the world and was 2nd in industrial output. Any war in the US proper would NOT be a walk in the park despite 67thtigers delusions. If they get into a bloodbath in North America for a 3rd time in a century Palmerston's government is likely to fall. That is one of the many reasons they stayed the hell away from the ACW.

A walkover? No. A decisive British victory? Yes, actually. The Union Army won almost all the major battles of the Civil War, but it did this against guys like Earl Van Dorn, Sterling Price, Braxton Bragg, Albert Sidney Johnston, John Sibley......people who frankly don't really have much to offer except how not to run a war properly. The British, by contrast, have one of the best, most modern armies in the world, with experience at fighting modern war against European-style armies, and also with experience fighting enemies that badly outnumbered their own. This'd be as bad as the Anglo-French intervention in the Taiping Rebellion, and the Union Army against an army that understands the proper use of cavalry and has a functional, well-handled artillery arm is not going to be as impressive as it often was against a Confederacy that had neither.

 

[Reggie Bartlett]

It should be made clear that with the admission of new territories, the CSA's population has grown.

Outside of the original 9 Million, the growth over time and the annexation of Kentucky and later Sonora and Chihuahua and maybe Cuba has raised the CS population by 2-3 million.

Out of all this the CSA could field a larger army, maybe 1.5-2Million.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Yes, I know.

But IF (given that this is an AH forum) war does occur, than Britain will need to make a major commitment to defeat the US. I agree that 67th oft exaggerates the ease in which the UK will steamroll the US in this time period. See Above.

Benjamin

Yes and no. It'd need a fair-sized army to do it, but the USA's experiences with fighting an enemy whose tactics often consisted of audacious headlong attacks into superior numbers and firepower and bluffing, without adequate artillery or cavalry, with a leadership focused far more on the rival cliques in the military and political high commands than actually fighting their Union counterparts, as describes every single CS Army save Lee's Army and Lee only moderated it as it existed in his army, too, is not anywhere near adequate to handle the British at this time. Tactics that work against Earl Van Dorn or Braxton Bragg will not against the British.

 

[Snake Featherston]

It should be made clear that with the admission of new territories, the CSA's population has grown.

Outside of the original 9 Million, the growth over time and the annexation of Kentucky and later Sonora and Chihuahua and maybe Cuba has raised the CS population by 2-3 million.

Out of all this the CSA could field a larger army, maybe 1.5-2Million.

It fielded 800,000 IOTL. The CSA's problem was never, strictly speaking, manpower. After all it had only to break the will of the North to conquer it, not to seek an active victory on the battlefield. And without a sufficient industrial base for a protracted war a larger army is more of a curse than a blessing.

 

[Johnrankins]

Yes and no. It'd need a fair-sized army to do it, but the USA's experiences with fighting an enemy whose tactics often consisted of audacious headlong attacks into superior numbers and firepower and bluffing, without adequate artillery or cavalry, with a leadership focused far more on the rival cliques in the military and political high commands than actually fighting their Union counterparts, as describes every single CS Army save Lee's Army and Lee only moderated it as it existed in his army, too, is not anywhere near adequate to handle the British at this time. Tactics that work against Earl Van Dorn or Braxton Bragg will not against the British.

How many men do you see the Brits commiting to such a fight? They were at war with the US twice before and it didn't go well. The US is MUCH more powerful in 1862 than 1814! After two wars in America they were not eager for round 3. That is one of the many reasons why Palmerston insisted they stay out. The few who were for recognizing the CSA insisted Seward was bluffing. Not one of them said they were for recognizing the CSA at the cost of war with the USA.

 

[Snake Featherston]

How many men do you see the Brits commiting to such a fight? They were at war with the US twice before and it didn't go well. The US is MUCH more powerful in 1862 than 1814! After two wars in America they were not eager for round 3. That is one of the many reasons why Palmerston insisted they stay out. The few who were for recognizing the CSA insisted Seward was bluffing. Not one of them said they were for recognizing the CSA at the cost of war with the USA.

Didn't go well? In the American Revolutionary War they won almost all the major battles and the largest single battle of the war. In the War of 1812 the USA was drubbed in almost every single major battle, New Orleans significantly happening *after* the peace treaty. It was not fear of the USA's military power but wanting to intervene only in a winning war that stayed their hand, primarily because nobody wants to reinforce failure if they can avoid doing it. The US Army in the US Civil War had enough trouble against an enemy with all these problems. It *did* lose at Chickamauga and in many of its battles with Lee. And this is an enemy that as noted had no proper artillery, no proper cavalry, and pitifully poor infantry leadership.

The British have the economic advantage as a force multiplier which means their number of troops is not *required* to match that of US troops who will be suffering problems of ammunition and the overall economic chaos caused by such a war. And I repeat what worked against an overall poor Confederate leadership is a recipe for a curbstomp defeat against the British.

 

[Johnrankins]

Didn't go well? In the American Revolutionary War they won almost all the major battles and the largest single battle of the war. In the War of 1812 the USA was drubbed in almost every single major battle, New Orleans significantly happening *after* the peace treaty. It was not fear of the USA's military power but wanting to intervene only in a winning war that stayed their hand, primarily because nobody wants to reinforce failure if they can avoid doing it. The US Army in the US Civil War had enough trouble against an enemy with all these problems. It *did* lose at Chickamauga and in many of its battles with Lee. And this is an enemy that as noted had no proper artillery, no proper cavalry, and pitifully poor infantry leadership.

The British have the economic advantage as a force multiplier which means their number of troops is not *required* to match that of US troops who will be suffering problems of ammunition and the overall economic chaos caused by such a war. And I repeat what worked against an overall poor Confederate leadership is a recipe for a curbstomp defeat against the British.

In the ARW they won the battles but lost the war. It was like the Vietnam War where the US won all the battles but lost the war. Was the US eager to go round two? No more so were the British. They conceded most of what the US wanted before the War of 1812 broke out. As far as most were concerned they lost a lot of men and treasure and gained zip. The War of 1812 was a strategic stalemate as neither side gained much of anything from it. Again it was a matter of losses for no benefits. A third war would probably have a similar result, win a large number of battles for no strategic result.The Brits aren't going to sacrifice men just to win battles but to achieve a strategic objective. If there is no strategic benefit out of it it doesn't matter how many battles you win. You have just paid something to get nothing.

 

[Snake Featherston]

In the ARW they won the battles but lost the war. It was like the Vietnam War where the US won all the battles but lost the war. Was the US eager to go round two? No more so were the British. They conceded most of what the US wanted before the war broke out. As far as most were concerned they lost a lot of men and treasure and gained zip. The War of 1812 was a strategic stalemate as neither side gained much of anything from it. Again it was a matter of losses for no benefits. A third war would probably have a simular result, win a large number of battles for no strategic result.

No, it wasn't like Vietnam. The USA had the aid of no less than three rivals of the UK able to squeeze it in far more critical areas and providing direct intervention on US behalf, fighting the UK openly. The British conceded independence but maintained forts and supporting their own Native allies against the USA, and in the War of 1812 the USA was in the Pollyanna view stalemated, in a realistic view it got drubbed on land and sea.

The UK recognizes the Confederacy, brings one of the best armies of the time, and strangles the US economy.....the USA's waging a large-scale Civil War and was vulnerable to economic pressure to sustain said war. This is akin to British intervention in the Taiping Rebellion and with the same result for the side it intervenes in favor of. Of course the US Dolchstosslegende will attribute its defeat to the British and refuse to see any flaws with how it fought the Confederacy....

 

[Fiver]

2. The territorial integrity of Virginia (and Tennessee) is not up for negotiation. Period. There can be no West Virginia in any CSA victorious scenario.

The US is not going to hand over any state they control to the CSA. The Confederacy getting West Virginia is extremely unlikely. In a peace by exhaustion, which I feel is the most likely CSA win, the Confederacy will lose most or all of Tennessee and Arkansas at best.

No matter how good they do, the CSA is only going to get territories that they can take and hold. In OTL, they abjectly failed to take and hold Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and Arizona. A timeline where they get any of those is a CSA-wank.

Arizona and Indian Territory are unquestionably going to the CSA, as per the map. One should note there is no need to "conquer" AZ, it seceded on its' own and in the typical war ends in 1862 scenario is still an established CS territory.

Perhaps in the timeline you come from.

In OTL, the CSA got their butts kicked in the New Mexico Campaign by a mix of US regulars, Colorado and New Mexico volunteers, and New Mexico territorial militia. The Confederates only had about 2500 men, had difficulty supplying them, lost over a third of their force, and by July 1862 lost all of Arizona Territory, plus a bit of west Texas.

The question is would the CSA gain the six pro-Confederate counties of California?

You mean the two nominally pro-Confederate counties of California. To call their support for the Confederacy tepid is understating things. A couple dozen Californians took up arms for the Confederates.

The only way the Union loses southern California is if the British intervene militarily. It will only stay "Confederate" as long as Britain continues to commit military force.

This would give them access to the Pacific and they'd drive the Southern Pacific Railroad through to Los Angeles, probably before any Union effort was completed.

Please tell me you're joking. Don't you know anything about period rail construction capabilities?

 

[Reggie Bartlett]

The US is not going to hand over any state they control to the CSA. The Confederacy getting West Virginia is extremely unlikely. In a peace by exhaustion, which I feel is the most likely CSA win, the Confederacy will lose most or all of Tennessee and Arkansas at best.

No matter how good they do, the CSA is only going to get territories that they can take and hold. In OTL, they abjectly failed to take and hold Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and Arizona. A timeline where they get any of those is a CSA-wank.

Perhaps you didn't pay attention to the POD, it is in September 1862. In late 1862 the CSA still held all of East Tennessee and large areas of Middle Tennessee, the only part of Tennessee the Union held was a Confederate stronghold that engaged in guerilla violence constantly, and Arkansas was still largely in CS hands, except for areas of the northern part of the state North of Little Rock, which would inevetably be returned in the peace treaty. This POD also doesn't negate that after Lee's political victory in Maryland the Army of Tennessee embarks on an ATL version of the Heartland Offensive and has Kentucky wrangled from the Union. Arizona is gained in the peace treaty. They don't get New Mexico, or West Virginia (save for a couple counties), Missouri or Maryland. They just get what they were able to get in late 1862 and after the peace treaty. That isn't a wank, Fiver. It's not impossible.

 

[Fiver]

Since the CSA gets it's independence early on, it just keeps on with paying off it's debts for the next couple decades. Also since the CSA has Maximillian down in Mexico as a friendly power, it doesn't make it impossible for them to buy territory from him.

In OTL, Confederate currency had lost so much value that by 1863, people had stopped counterfeiting it. And Maximillian's hold is shaky enough that selling off Mexican territory would probably bring him down.