The USA's Sudpolitik: Revanchism After A Confederate Victory?

IIRC, the majority of the British populace more or less supported the Union. The CSA was supported mostly by a handful of noisy aristocrats.

After the Emancipation Proclamation, British opinion swung solidly behind the Union.

Nah, not so much.

It was noisy elites on both sides of the issue who dominated. Of course there were some very brave and selfless folk in the textile cities who essentially protested against their own interests, a fairly profound fact, but even they got on board primarily after the Emancipation Proclamation. In other words, up until the CSA had already lost its best chances the only strong British opinions were held by a scattering of ideologues. Throughout the war, mainstream British opinion shifted; from largely neutral (with an undertone of gleeful "stupid foreigners"), to slightly pro-Union after the EP, to firmly so once the writing was on the wall.

All-in-all, it strikes one that it was probably, but not inevitably, going the way it did.

Of course, as soon as the war was over, and slavery was banned in the US it turned out that everyone in British Isles had been secretly pro-Union the whole time. Everybody likes a winner....
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
It was noisy elites on both sides of the issue who dominated. Of course there were some very brave and selfless folk in the textile cities who essentially protested against their own interests, a fairly profound fact, but even they got on board primarily after the Emancipation Proclamation. In other words, up until the CSA had already lost its best chances the only strong British opinions were held by a scattering of ideologues. Throughout the war, mainstream British opinion shifted; from largely neutral (with an undertone of gleeful "stupid foreigners"), to slightly pro-Union after the EP, to firmly so once the writing was on the wall.

All-in-all, it strikes one that it was probably, but not inevitably, going the way it did.

Of course, as soon as the war was over, and slavery was banned in the US it turned out that everyone in British Isles had been secretly pro-Union the whole time. Everybody likes a winner....
Very well put :)
 
... why assume that the British may not soon repent support for the CSA and spend the rest of the 19th Century as they did OTL slowly weaning the USA into friendlier relations?

...and the 3eme republique will just say it was all Napoleon IIIs idea and they wish a fresh start in their relations.

It would need a geopolitical divide-et-impera-approach for any European power NOT to woo the United States which will still be the most industrious, wealthy and powerful nation on the American continent.
 
Guys

Having made the mistake of ploughing through the entire thread:eek:, although I was skimming a lot toward the end of the J&M v SF exchanges. As other posters said a lot depends on the details. However:

a) I think provided the CSA wins independence it will maintain it barring serious clashes or a total collapse of the latter. Once it's even grudgingly acknowledged by the north there will be bitterness, especially after a long war or if external powers are drawn in. However I doubt there will be enough desire to restart the war and conquer what is now recognised as an independent state under most circumstances.

b) The question of seriously clashes might become relevant depending as various people have mentioned on revanchist feeling. Most people seem to think this would come from the south given the highly unrealistic views of much of their leadership. This might not however be the case where it's been a long war which they have 'won' via exhausting northern will or foreign intervention. I think in such circumstances any fire-breathers are likely to be sat on pretty quickly by their fellows who don't want to restart the issue again, especially as many will realise how lucky they were to survive the 1st clash. However I could see continued border clashes, especially in the west and where either/both sides have groups who have lost out and been forces to flee to the opposing state. It's possible that under the right [wrong?] circumstances a political leader might swing a war from this. However would say it's unlikely if the 1st war has been pretty long and bloody.

c) I think more likely would be a serious collapse in the CSA, drawing in the US especially. Two main reasons for this. While I think Snake was way off target his quoting of the Confederate Constitution raises the points:

i) A state that denies itself protection for it's own industries in this period is going to seriously cripple hope of industrial development. Britain made this mistake and despite being the greatest industrial power at the start of the period with a large home market and well developed economic base gradually declined relative to it's competitors. [Note I'm not saying Free Trade was the only reason but it, coupled with other opposition to state intervention were a major factor]. Given the relatively primitive economic development of the CSA I can see it struggling to get major industries off the ground and suffering continually from foreign imports. Ultimately I suspect the CSA would have to change it's stance on this.

ii) It's allowance for any state to withdraw from the confederation, virtually at any time. This makes for a very unstable situation not to mention if say somewhere like Mississippi or Alabama withdrawal and the disruption of internal communications resulting. Or possibly even more so if Louisiana was involved with possibly effects on trade down the Mississippi.

The south would sooner or later have to see social and political change. Less possibly the question of blacks and slavery than the interests of the ordinary whites in comparison with the large estate holding aristocracy. This could occur fairly soon after a long war of independence, as with the system already disrupted the people who have fought and bled for the state are likely to demand a larger share in its governance. [Major conflicts often prompt this]. Like the landowner aristocracy in Britain, who also dominated the British economy in the 18th and early 19th centuries and were responsible for much early industrial investment, the planters are going to have to give ground sooner or later, one way or another. If it's later and violently then that might prompt US intervention but that and whether it was successful or not would depend on the circumstances.

Steve
 
ii) It's allowance for any state to withdraw from the confederation, virtually at any time. This makes for a very unstable situation not to mention if say somewhere like Mississippi or Alabama withdrawal and the disruption of internal communications resulting. Or possibly even more so if Louisiana was involved with possibly effects on trade down the Mississippi.

Steve

I broadly agree with your other points, but I'm curious what you think could realistically prompt secession from the Confederacy.

Of course, if the creature is collapsing in on itself border states might turn back toward the US, but then again they might not, depending on when this hypothetical collapse takes place. I mention it because it is the obvious one, though for the record I doubt that a declining CSA would collapse so much as enter a period of profound crises.
 
I broadly agree with your other points, but I'm curious what you think could realistically prompt secession from the Confederacy.

Of course, if the creature is collapsing in on itself border states might turn back toward the US, but then again they might not, depending on when this hypothetical collapse takes place. I mention it because it is the obvious one, though for the record I doubt that a declining CSA would collapse so much as enter a period of profound crises.

Admiral Matt

I'm not sure what would be it could be something as simple as a powerful group in a state deciding their not getting a fair deal in some way and that they can do better governing themselves. Possibly even say it's making an effort to industrialise, wants to establish protective tariffs to stop it's infant industries being swamped. Some argument, either way over taxes. Even personal differences between the state leadership and that of the confederacy as a whole. There were a wide range of views in the country at the time, some of the characters being pretty volatile so it could be something trivial, or more serious. Not saying anyone will but given the capacity in the constitution and the fact the civil war was fought over this issue at the very least it could be a political tool. I.e. If you don't give us what we want/think we deserve on this issue we're leaving.

It could be that, as with the initial USA in the 1780's an early weak constitution will be replaced by something more study and centralised simply because they need to. The US initially had many people arguing the same sort of arguments as the south before/during the civil war. Since unlike the US in the 1780's the south in the 1860-70s has a powerful and probably unfriendly large state on it's border, from which it has just 'escaped' they have an even stronger incentive to argue for change. More likely this would be a major source of debate and division inside the confederacy itself.

Steve
 
Top