US allies with Russia in Crimea

If the US got involved in the Crimean War on the side of Russia what would be the result?

Why would they do that? They didn't really care about European politics.

Anyways, if the USA did get involved in the Crimean War, this will be a USA-screw. The USA is too busy focused on domestic issues, like the Kansas War in Kansas, and the growing issue of slavery. If anything, the USA can't really send soldiers into the Crimea for a while, while Great Britain will be able to send troops into the Pacific Northwest, blockade the USA coast, and even encourage and support a Mexican invasion of the American Southwest to get their lands back that they lost in the Mexican-American War. In 1956, Fremont decisively defeats the Democratic candidate, setting off the American Civil War 4 years earlier, while there are still US troops in Russia, so the CSA will have an easier time defeating the USA.
 
Last edited:

Anaxagoras

Banned
If the US got involved in the Crimean War on the side of Russia what would be the result?

There is absolutely no reason for them to do this. What on earth would they gain? The entire foreign policy of the United States for the preceding several decades had been centered around staying out of European conflicts.

If for some astonishingly stupid reason they did get involved, they would quickly find their ports blockaded by the combined fleets of Britain and France, their merchant marine swept from the seas of the world, and their economy brought to the brink of ruin.
 

katchen

Banned
If you're looking for a way the Crimean War can somehow impact on North America, have a somewhat different policy in Alaska in which Alaska is treated as part of Russia instead of administered by Baranof's company in the leadup to the Crimean War. This would likely mean the creation of a cossack host in interior Alaska around Ft. Yukon and another cossack Host in the Alaskan Panhandle. When war starts, they attack Western Canada, living off the land as they know how to do.
Cossack hosts in Hudson's Bay Company territory would give the British Canadians fits. They would be small in number but the British would be hard put to come up with the numbers needed to dislodge them. Could they call upon the Americans for help or would the Americans listen to Count Steckl and do nothing on the assurances that they could purchase the Northwest from Russia after the war.?
 
If the US got involved in the Crimean War on the side of Russia what would be the result?

They won't, Monroe Doctrine and all that. Besides, Civil War is looming. If they did join, for some ASB reason, they would not be able to help in any way, except having their fleet sunk and their ports blockaded. USA at this time had absolutely no way to send troops to Crimea. (at least not with the Royal Navy having a say in the matter. And they WILL have a rather strong opinion on the issue.)
 
The slavery issue kept the US internally focused for a long time but maybe if you can somehow lessen that as an issue like make the North indifferent to slavery somehow. Heck I don't even understand why they cared so much they were racist as hell but for some reason they drew the line at slavery even though free black worked for a little better then slave wages.
 
They won't, Monroe Doctrine and all that. Besides, Civil War is looming. If they did join, for some ASB reason, they would not be able to help in any way, except having their fleet sunk and their ports blockaded. USA at this time had absolutely no way to send troops to Crimea. (at least not with the Royal Navy having a say in the matter. And they WILL have a rather strong opinion on the issue.)

Exactly why are you bringing up the Monroe Doctrine at all?
 
If you're looking for a way the Crimean War can somehow impact on North America, have a somewhat different policy in Alaska in which Alaska is treated as part of Russia instead of administered by Baranof's company in the leadup to the Crimean War. This would likely mean the creation of a cossack host in interior Alaska around Ft. Yukon and another cossack Host in the Alaskan Panhandle. When war starts, they attack Western Canada, living off the land as they know how to do.
Cossack hosts in Hudson's Bay Company territory would give the British Canadians fits. They would be small in number but the British would be hard put to come up with the numbers needed to dislodge them. Could they call upon the Americans for help or would the Americans listen to Count Steckl and do nothing on the assurances that they could purchase the Northwest from Russia after the war.?

In 1853? Who exactly are they attacking? The Blackfoot or Plains Cree? the tribes of British Columbia like the Kootenai? There isn't much in the way of "white" settlement to go after, just lots of moderately pro HBC natives. Living off the land puts them in direct conflict with some pretty well armed and numerous groups with some pretty heavy warrior traditions.

Cossacks vs the Blackfoot would be very interesting.
 
In 1853? Who exactly are they attacking? The Blackfoot or Plains Cree? the tribes of British Columbia like the Kootenai? There isn't much in the way of "white" settlement to go after, just lots of moderately pro HBC natives. Living off the land puts them in direct conflict with some pretty well armed and numerous groups with some pretty heavy warrior traditions.

Cossacks vs the Blackfoot would be very interesting.

If the Russians lose like OTL, I could see Alaska going to British North America.
 
Actually, there was a diplomatic controversy during the period resulting from American citizens being recruited into the British army, for which the British ambassador was expelled. I suppose it's remotely possible that the American government might have decided to attempt a repeat of 1812, claiming neutral rights as an excuse to invade Canada and hope they can hold onto it in the ensuing peace. It would have been a reasonable time to do so, as well: the Royal Navy is busy with amphibious operations against Russia, the British army is so stretched that the militia have been embodied, and the Canadians have only just formed an active militia.
 
Actually, there was a diplomatic controversy during the period resulting from American citizens being recruited into the British army, for which the British ambassador was expelled. I suppose it's remotely possible that the American government might have decided to attempt a repeat of 1812, claiming neutral rights
Any American citizens recruited by the Btitish army at that stage would have been volunteers, not 'pressed'. There was no conscription for the Army until WW1.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
It would have been a reasonable time to do so, as well: the Royal Navy is busy with amphibious operations against Russia

Only part of the Royal Navy. Those ships which were not involved in the Black Sea operations would have been more than sufficient to eat the entire United States Navy for breakfast and then wonder what to do for lunch.
 

katchen

Banned
I know that the Civil War was likely to have broken out if Fremont won in 1856. But what about if Winfield Scott had won the White House in 1852?
I'm asking because I could see attacking Canada on a pretext as a way to save the Union if it was in danger. Seward wanted a foreign war in 1860. What were Winfield Scott's views on expansion? Has anybody on the list done a TL on a possible 1852 Winfield Scott Administration?
 
Any American citizens recruited by the Btitish army at that stage would have been volunteers, not 'pressed'.
The fact that they were volunteers is probably why America didn't go to war, but the fact that recruiting them is still a breach of neutrality legislation is probably why Britain accepted the dismissal.

Only part of the Royal Navy. Those ships which were not involved in the Black Sea operations would have been more than sufficient to eat the entire United States Navy for breakfast and then wonder what to do for lunch.
The crisis came to a head after the Crimea was over so the availability of ships historically is not a perfect indicator, but the Times on 11 June 1856 indicated that, once proposed reinforcements had been dispatched, the North America station would consist of the following ships:
Nile (91)
Powerful* (84)
Boscawen* (70)
Imaum* (72)
Pembroke (60)
Cornwallis (60)
Euryalus (51)
Amphion (34)
Vestal* (26)
Eurydice* (26)
Termagant (24)
Cossack (21)
Pylades (21)
Arachne* (18)
Malacca (17)
Falcon (17)
Archer* (15)
Mariner* (12)
Daring* (12)
Buzzard+ (6)
Argus+ (6)
Basilisk+ (6)
Scorpion* (6)
Hermes+ (6)
(Note: * = sail, + = paddle)

It's not the worst fleet in the world, but it's qualitatively and quantitatively inferior to the force Admiral Milne had during the Trent affair (which included nine screw battleships) and lacks big frigates capable of taking on the USS Merrimack- though, fortunately, she's the only one of her class which would have been ready. It's also far short of the force the Admiralty Hydrographer thought Milne would need to just blockade the northern coastline (6 battleships, 11 frigates, 23 sloops, 20 gunboats). This is where the issue of the Crimea comes in: it becomes more difficult for the Royal Navy to raise such a force when ships and/or men that in 1862 would be available for North America are being used against Russia.

Notice that the US wouldn't be doing this out of the goodness of their heart, but for an issue of neutral rights and potential gain of territory. In essence, the United States would be throwing the dice in the same way they did in 1812 and might have done in 1862. It's a gamble that they can take and hold Canada quickly enough that the British can't reinforce it; that the harm British naval power can do them is minimal or at least tolerable; and that the stalemate will force Britain to come to terms in such a way as to leave the US with Canada at the peace table. I'm making no prediction of whether those assumptions are correct or not, just pointing out that the American government might have thought it worth the stake.
 
Last edited:

katchen

Banned
And this is where American politics comes into it. The President at the time in OTL, Franklin Pierce, simply wouldn't do it. Pierce's priorities are trade reciprocity with Canada and US acquisition of Cuba as a slave state. Pierce, though from New Hampshire, is behonden to "slave power" moneyed special interests for his election as President.
Winfield Scott, his opponent on the other hand, might well have "rolled the dice" as you said and gone for military action against Great Britain, perhaps balancing it with conquest of Cuba, both to get the South on board and as a base with which to take the British Bahamas and Jamaica. Having Cuba would make all the difference in taking both those places, between long naval expeditions vulnerable to the kind of naval operations and interception that the British are good at and supply across short straits (Florida to Cuba, Cuba to Jamaica, Cuba to Bahama Islands) that spread the Royal Navy thin on the sea at a time when it would also be trying to blockade the entire American coast.
And Winfield Scott would dearly like a rematch with Great Britain to avenge the War of 1812 before he dies. Not to mention the fact that such a war might arrest the disintegration of the Whig Party.
I don't know if it would work out. But it could happen this way.
 
And Winfield Scott would dearly like a rematch with Great Britain to avenge the War of 1812 before he dies. Not to mention the fact that such a war might arrest the disintegration of the Whig Party.
If you can get Seward into a position of power, the likelihood goes up- Seward believed that Canada desperately wanted to join the Union and just needed a little push. I've got a couple of quotes from him here.
 
Top