Darth Revan
You may not like it but Telemond's_Lamb_Chop is correct. The only sort of 'victory' here the US could win is a kind of limited pyrrhic one where it hunkers down and avoids a total defeat simply because it doesn't make a quick peace and continues a low level conflict simply because Britain is not interested in the huge cost of trying to occupy large parts of the north. It is even conceivable that as he said it might make some permanent gains from Canada, although I think that is unlikely.
However to do that, as he says, its likely that the union would make steps that would seriously derail it's later development. Not just by running it's economy into the ground but also causing itself serious social damage. Given that it could make peace with Britain fairly easily by conceding the point it was in the wrong in the Trent Affair, as it did OTL, how else is it to sustain a long and destructive conflict? Where is it going to get the funds for waging the war and persuading farmers, merchants etc to provide goods when the government only has probably highly inflated paper script to exchange for it? Or to continue conscripting troops for a bitter and costly war that is being fought for no clear purpose?
Furthermore he is right that this is only a possibility if Lincoln, or possibly someone else if he is quickly replaced, makes a rapid peace with the south. If the union tries fighting the south and Britain at the same time it's screwed. With an independent south that will free up troops and resources and allow some smuggling through the blockade and possibly some exports via the south.
Think over some of the points discussed.
a) The north can probably use the same methods as the south to get powder but this takes time. Several months for nitrate beds for instance. During that period the south was able to continue to import supplies to make up the shortfall because it had a long coastline and the north lacked ships and bases with which to cut off trade. The north has a much shorter coastline and the RN is much, much stronger and has bases in Canada and Bermuda as well as the possibility of capturing others such as Nantucket. [I'm leaving out the west coast here as without a trans-continental railway there's no way the US can export that way]. Hence very quickly the union will be unable to get powder or any other imports it relied on e.g. weapons, iron & steel and railway tracks. Not to mention that the vast majority of them came from Britain anyway.
Don't forget the union will need more powder than it did against the south. Even if peace is made with the Confederates we're assuming a sizeable northern front
and defence of the coastline. The latter means a lot of artillery and that really eats up the powder, even without training, practice etc.
b) On finances as said all three sources of revenue for the government will be crippled by a war with Britain. No tariffs and no way they will get gold and silver out of the west. Furthermore I can't see many people investing in a lost cause like a country that has picked a war with the world's super-power while already in the midst of a civil war. What other options does the union have? It can print money but I suspect the union will suffer devaluation of it's currency fast enough and that will make things much worse. Do that and you will pretty shortly need troops to extract supplies from merchants at gunpoint to get anything. The other option is to raise taxes but we know how the Americans feel about taxes, especially for an expensive and pointless war. It's theortically possible but given the huge amount of funds that will be supplied levels would need to be very, very high. And that's not allowing for any corruption or other waste. Even so I doubt they would be able to raise the sort of forces that it maintained historically, let alone the greater ones needed to face Britain, with or without the south.
c) You seem to find it strange that the US can hold it's own in the north and possibly even make gains but still lose in the west. Given it's virtually impossible to move forces overland without a railway the union can't practically reinforce the region. Virtually everything [and everybody] that reached the region came by sea, across the Pacific, around the Cape or across the isthmus in central America.
While Britain can cut off the gold and silver supplies by blockade it can also do this by occupying the area in central California. This has the bonuses of possibly getting the bullion themselves and also give an additional counter to seek to force America to the table. That could mean California is traded back at the peace in return for any Canadian land occupied and reparations from the US. However if the war lasts several years then not only is the US unlikely to be holding much Canadian land or in any state to pay reparations but the west coasters may well decide they don't want to be tied to the American albatross. [Especially if it's deeply indebted, looking to them as a cash-cow and possibly seriously restricting personal freedoms].
d) While once peace is restored immigration and foreign investment will be possible again they are likely to be badly affected by the war. With immigration for the duration it has been diverted to other areas and that will mean people following family out are likely to be drawn into those other areas. Also a war torn and deeply indebted America, economically prostrate and committed to a high tax policy and possibly likely to clash again with it's neighbours is going to look a poorer option. [I say high tax because it will need both to pay off much higher debts than OTL from a weaker financial base and because it will almost certainly have a markedly higher military bill. Simply the existence of the south and continued tensions with Britain are likely to ensure that. [This ignores any revanchist sentiments that are likely to be about and would seriously deter settlers.
The same factors would apply to foreign investment. The weaker and less stable US will be a much poorer bet. As such less money will be available and the interest demanded for such loans are likely to be higher as US credit will be weaker. This will be especially the case if the US has groups arguing for a war of revenge against either Britain or the south or if it does something stupid like trying to default on it's foreign debts.
e) On the south American states who do you think was the source of the vast bulk of their investment anyway? It was known as the informal empire as Britain supplied the vast majority of investment, developing industries, agriculture, mines, railways etc. In this case other Europeans may make more inroads while Britain is at war but once that is over, with the US a poorer market, even with greater access to the CSA, it's likely to get more investment, along with more settlers from Europe. As such it's likely to be more developed and stronger. This may mean resentment at the level of British investment over time but also that it's far less likely to accept any Monroe Doctrine crap that relegates it to being an American economic zone. Which will also be simpler as the war will kill any pretence that the MD has any real part to play.
As TLC says the US could avoid 'defeat' in such a conflict but it's likely to cripple itself seriously in the process and set itself on a path that creates greater problems for it later on.
Steve
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.
