T
I'll try and defend my opinions in detail tonight, and get it posted up on Monday afternoon (
I look forward to understanding your reasonning. Thanks.
Best Regards,
Frederic
T
I'll try and defend my opinions in detail tonight, and get it posted up on Monday afternoon (
fhaessg said:Hi,
Still a very interesting TL.
However, I find I must point out a development I find a bit unlikely.
Specifically, the depth of the fall of France and Uk, given what really how I understand the 1845 war and the lack of real devastation on these countries ( as opposed to what a real war on the country territories would have brought ).
That some people think that the countries have gone down, with respect to their pre-war status is extremely likely. So is a temporary decrease in influance and even industry; However, I find a real long term decrease in industry and capital too implausible ( especially as they seemes to have invested quite heavily in other country industrialisation - e.g. France in the USA -, which should give them quite a financial clout, as the war didn't let them sell these interests - as happened to Uk in WWI -). I think France and Uk should have gone up right now and repassed USA and Germany, given the TL.
Also, I find Blanqui quite unlikely as french president, unless the character is very different from OTL, with a different philosophy and willing to work with the system. OTL, he was an anarchist and couldn't get much of a following, as he was too hardcore and unwilling to compromise, AFAIK. I think Louis Blanc could make a better character for this episode.
A Bonapartebrilliant
Still not 100% sure on your style personally but i like how this is going, so keep it up![]()
Thanks for reading and commenting. I think I could have plans for J P Boney![]()
Nicomacheus said:for one find the current timeline quite interesting, so consider this a resounding Huzzah in favor of continuation.
I find the alt-Civil War very interesting. What about William Seward for President of the Republic of New England? He was anti-slavery enough that he may have stuck with the Whigs rather than join the Progressives.
The first thing to consider is the attitude of the border states -- PA, NJ and perhaps Ohio. I could see New Jersey pulled by very different interest groups, the north siding with New England, the south preferring whatever path Philadelphia takes or tending towards the Federals. An interesting notion could be that PA and NJ retain their ties with the US but attempt to proclaim their neutrality as Kentucky did OTL. This effectively leaves this USA without a way to get at the rebellious New Englanders (Damnyankees) -- except for the fact that this USA possess on of the world foremost navies. Hence, it is actually possible for President Lee to honor PA and NJ's "neutrality" and still attack the RNE by marshalling the Union's naval forces. A naval blockade alone will probably stifle the RNE, since if it hasn't industrialized to its OTL extent, the RNE will depend heavily on trade (and even its industry will probably need commerce for raw materials). Additionally, the RNE will have a much, much smaller coastline to blockade than the CSA did OTL and the USA has a better navy to begin with. However, this will probably make the RNE's relations with the UPC (United Province of Canada) and thus the UK very interesting. Such an issue could prove very probelmatic to the SDF because it will pit anti-slavery, humanitarians against pacifists (with the latter seeming to be far more predominant in the SDF's formation in the aftermath of the World War).
I'm tempted to think that this Civil War's outcome will depend on the degree to which the issue is slavery or pacifism. New England seems to be more concerned with aggressive Manifest Destiny than slavery per se. [Also, just to clarify did any of the Chesapeake states like Virginia give up slavery voluntarily TTL?] I could well see the same kinds of political forces that made up the OTL Copperhead Democrats (non-anti-slavery forces, mercantile interests) eventually forming a movement that will favor re-absorption into the USA. This means that this Civil War may not be as decisive a powershift in favor of the Federal government, particularly with the precedent of Pennsylvanian neutrality. This could be an interesting topic to explore, IMO.
The Western theatre is a bit more simple. If attacking the RNE is largely a naval strategy, then more army units will be free to secure these states against any potential rebellion. However, what are the political ties of American Oregon? They seem most suited to potentially breakaway successfully--particularly if the US Navy is distracted in New England, perhaps. The fate of the Great Plains Confederacy is probably telling here as is the attitude of the British state set up in British Columbia and HBC lands.
The problem of course will be how international movements -- in Central America vis-a-vis Mexico and Spain and in the North vis-a-vis Britain -- influence the conduct of the American's Civil War. The fact that Germany seems poised to be figihting its own secessionist driven conflict could well leave the rest of Europe either pulled into that conflict or with their backyards secure enough to meddle in the New World. Additionally, Lee could well have some decisive flaws as a commander in chief: OTL as a defensive commander, the urge to seek a major victory on Union soil ultimately led to Gettysburg (even though Lee's contention that a victory there would have won the war for the South may well have been correct). TTL as an offensive commander might he 1) push PA into declaring for New England? (I don't think so because of his own sympathies, but this could be a very different Lee) or 2) fail to press hard enough against RNE or 3) win the war but rend the Constitutional fabric of the Union.
Tons of things to go on