Darth Revan,
This seems to be a bit of unnecessary rudeness, why bother. It just makes you look childish.
If, as I suggested, that in order to beat the British, the Union needs to make peace with the CSA then it is not likely that they would lose any of the west coast to the CSA. The American military presence on the west coast is so weak that the Union cannot really oppose an attempt by the British to occupy the key populated areas, San Francisco, Sacramento, the Goldfields and the Willamette even in a scenario where they defeat the British. Neither would I completely discount a French occupation of lower Alta California as this would be an excellent way of putting pressure on the Republican Mexican rebels in a world where the British were at war with the Union although it is unlikely.
The war of 1812 was a short war in which the Royal Navy were otherwise occupied and where they had no significant technological advantage over the US Navy and yet where they managed to effectively destroy the merchant marine of the USA. By the end of the war the American merchant fleet was either blockaded in port, reflagged, taken as prize (the British taking more than the US Privateers did) or laid up in foreign harbours due to astronomical insurance costs. The US merchant marine did not recover until the 1840s.
As to the US war fleet in the war of 1812 I would remind you that despite a number of victories in ship to ship battles the USN ended the war blockaded into harbour by the RN.
Your point is not clear.
Yes, but without significant British investment, without the CSA, possible without the west coast, with reduced immigration and an internal industrial sector that has been starved of investment and turned completely to war production for the duration of the war it is going to be a slow process lasting well into the first quarter of the 20th Century.
This is by definition a comment, you have suggested my ideas on the matter, which you attempt to ridicule by calling them ‘dreams’ and ‘absurd’. What is clear is that whilst you don’t appear to like my ideas and by inspection of your comment may not have understood them you are incapable of writing down an argument against them and have therefore resorted to ridicule instead.
Wow! You really have lost the plot. If the Union spend up to five years blockaded and fighting a war of attrition against the British whilst the CSA is free to trade with the rest of the world then there will be lots of refugees moving south from the Union and lots of capital too I would expect. What sort of economy do you think the Union will have after just six months fighting the British? The financial system and the banks will have collapsed. The only way forward would be as a command economy and the only way to achieve that is to effectively suspend most of the democratic organs of government.
Whatever gave you reason to think I have not looked at the statistic on immigration to the USA and emmigration from Europe available on the web? How relevant do you think it would be to a scenario where the British have blockaded the USA for several years and the CSA is independent? The answer is that similar numbers of people will still wish to get out of Germany, Britain and Ireland but they will end up at different destinations.
Thank you for clarifying. According to you, in the case of a U.S. victory scenerio over Britain, Britain would be occupying the entire U.S. West Coast. Before you object, lets look at what you have said on the subject. "ikely to be an impoverished USA which has possibly lost the west coast but which may have gained parts of the provinces of Canada". I'm sorry, but if the U.S. is crushing Britain further east (as you scenerio claims) why the heck is Britain wasting a crucial manpower occupying the U.S. West Coast. If things are going to hell in a hand basket for Britain, that goal should be their last priority. While I agree that the U.S. did not have much there, occuppying major cities on the West Coast for no reason whatsoever is a drain that Britain cannot afford. As for French involvement in this region, I again point out their inability to keep Maximilian on the throne.
As for the naval part of this debate, you said "It will have no war or merchant fleets left" This is a massive claim. I have no disagreement that America will be devestated on a naval level. However, I would like to see some evidence to back up your claim that America's merchant fleets didn't recover until the 40's. My point simply was that while America got the shit kicked out of it in 1812, that it recovered, rebuilt, and not only survived but prospered.
As for my point about the industrialists and the Baghdad, Berlin railroad, you had made the claim that Britain would end all investment in America. You never fully explained that, so I will have to take a stab at your intent in these words. Correct me if I am wrong. I assumed your point was that in the case of a long war between the U.S. and UK that patriotism etc would take over and British investors would not want to invest in their "hated" enemy. However, this is the exact opposite of how investors acted in OTL. At the hight of nationalistic rivalries in OTL, when the entente and CP's were starting to rub eachother the wrong way and a showdown seemed inevitable, British and French investors, in it for the money, helped begin to build the Baghdad, Berlin railroad, between their nations principle enemies, Germany, AH, and the OE. Very simply, they did not care. They followed the money. The same will happen here. Investors in America are not going to be put off anymore than investors in the Baghdad, Berlin railway.
As for your argument "Yes, but without significant British investment, without the CSA, possible without the west coast, with reduced immigration and an internal industrial sector that has been starved of investment and turned completely to war production for the duration of the war it is going to be a slow process lasting well into the first quarter of the 20th Century." As mentioned early, I am still grossly confused by your comment on the West Coast. As for the CSA comment, the loss of the South would have a much smaller impact than you suggest to future industrialization. That area has been and was one of the least industrialize parts of the country.
"Wow! You really have lost the plot. If the Union spend up to five years blockaded and fighting a war of attrition against the British whilst the CSA is free to trade with the rest of the world then there will be lots of refugees moving south from the Union and lots of capital too I would expect... The answer is that similar numbers of people will still wish to get out of Germany, Britain and Ireland but they will end up at different destinations.
Again, I was simply commenting about your complete miscomprehension on immigration and the economic potential of the South. Yes, people leaving Europe will have to go somewhere. That place is not the South. Very simply, the CSA is not the land of opportunity for the poor unwashed masses of the world. It lacks industrialization of the scale of the Union which constantly needs a pool of manpower which can be provided by immigrants. Instead, in its place, its labor is done primarily by slaves and is agrarian. For the most part, argrarian societies have not and do not need a constant and new labor force. Moreover, this said labor force has to compete with slaves, who are not paid period. An independent CSA will not attract new immigrants.
As for your complaint over me not going into detail over why the UK suddenly developing every South American country and pushing them in their orbit is utterly ASB, please. I have better things to do with my times than correct arguments which have no basis in reality whatsoever.
