US Politics with independent CSA

Russia was also pro-Union during the war, so it would be interesting to really see where and if that alliance works.

I mean, considering that the UK is getting cotton from India and Egypt, that does in a way mitigate the value of Southern Cotton - especially considering that much of New England trade and textiles and food would be just as important for the UK. But at the same time it has to be just as valuable to Canada. That alone makes me wonder if in any Confederate TL you might get a semi-indepent Canada with its own Monarch, but still submissive to the Royals in the UK.

THat said, Russia is anti UK, but at the time is close with Prussia. So you may possibly see a Prussia-RUssia alliance, but that would depend on if Frederick and Wilhelm II go down the same path as OTL, that may change. Very much so considering that a Confederate Victory may delay German Unification in some way.

Yep, and you would likely see the US trying to gather allies in that situation. You could see the Prussian-AH-Russian alliance being joined by the US. That would be scary for GB and France.
 
And if the US actually allies itself with Prussia? This is far from unlikely in my book, particularly if France is also hostile. Bismark might not like the US but I doubt he would turn down an alliance, the man wasn't stupid. The US would still be a Great Power and very wealthy. Preferential tariffs at the expense of France and GB would be tempting.

There were and are a lot of German-Americans so such an alliance might help politically in both countries. If the US government feels an alliance with Prussia necessary or even just positive and pushes it in the press Germany gets a lot of favorable press in the US. This strengthens any pro-US feelings in the Reichstag because of the fact that countries like a favorable press. Austria-Hungry might get the same treatment, in fact, its problems with its various nationalities might gain it sympathy in the US seeing the various small states in the Empire the same as they do the Southern States of the CSA. Having the US allied with Prussia and AH is not good news for GB. It isn't certain by any means but it isn't wildly unlikely either.

How do you sell that? The US is 3,000 miles away and Prussia's potential enemies are all next door. The US isn't a naval power like France and Britain, and it has nothing to offer strategically which might deter the continental powers like Austria, France or even Sweden. Is the deal if Prussia gets into a war in Europe the US is involved? Why? How? It's not even a remotely reasonable alliance.
 
How do you sell that? The US is 3,000 miles away and Prussia's potential enemies are all next door. The US isn't a naval power like France and Britain, and it has nothing to offer strategically which might deter the continental powers like Austria, France or even Sweden. Is the deal if Prussia gets into a war in Europe the US is involved? Why? How? It's not even a remotely reasonable alliance.

By the 1870s the US can become a naval power basically any time it wants. It had a huge merchant fleet and thus quite capable of building seaworthy ships. It was primarily a brown water navy in the ACW because it was the quickest and cheapest way to blockade the South. It has a naval tradition, a huge steel industry, large armament factories, many ports and a large shipbuilding industry. In short, it can build a pretty powerful navy by the mid-1870s. It wouldn't happen overnight after all, it would start with preferential trade deals post-ACW and grow from there. By the 1880's at the latest it can be a quite powerful ally.
 
From what I understand, the US was wary of formal alliances with foreign powers. The back-and-forth over the League of Nations shows this sentiment died pretty hard.
 
Different circumstances. The US didn't have an enemy at its backdoor all that time either. There was no significant threat to the US until 1940 or so. A CSA right next door changes things. Countries change over time reacting to changed circumstances. The CSA would be considered a direct threat to the US and it would respond accordingly.
 
Expect a U.S. that is more militaristic and, potentially, labor-focused. A North American republican Prussia, perhaps a New Sparta.
 
The US only got over the Civil War politically in the late 1890s OTL, so I would think it'd take at least that long until revanchism dials down in United States politics.

Immediate issues the US will be facing following a peace treaty
  • There is a hostile power to its immediate south, meaning the United States will now for the first time need a large standing army and a large navy.
  • This hostile power has re-enslaved black union soldiers that it captured. Unless, as part of the condition of the peace, these soldiers were returned, it's going to be a BIG issue.
  • The midwest is still going to be very dependent on the Mississippi River for export of products to the wider world and the east coast. Even with railroads, it's just a lot cheaper to stick things on a boat and send it down the Mississippi. The CSA will be taxing traffic through the Mississippi, most likely.
  • There are still five slave states in the union. There is still going to be a slavery debate.
  • There's going to be a LOT of southern unionists moving north. Hundreds of thousands of people fleeing the south is going to be a big issue.
  • Freedom now is just across the Cumberland River for most slaves in the south. Meanwhile lots of black in the US and abolitionists are going to be agitating for an aggressive policy towards the Confederacy. What should US policy be with regards to apprehending fleeing slaves at the border, assisting these slaves escape from the south, etc
  • There's going to be a discussion of where the US capital ought to be.
  • The country to the south is an economic basketcase and likely will become dependent on European finances. The US does not want a European satellite/proxy due south.
  • What rights should blacks get in the rump United States?
  • Copperheads are likely going to be seen as traitors, and I don't think it's unlikely that a stabbed-in-the-back mythos could emerge regarding the copperheads.


The Republicans aren't looking too hot, but the Democratic base has just defected from the country. Odds are a new party will emerge to challenge the Republicans, likely calling itself the Liberal Party considering the OTL 1872 challenger party to the Republicans was the Liberal Party. A third minor party along the lines of the OTL Greenback party likely will also exist.

OTL there weren't that many blacks in northern states before the Great Migration. There are going to be a lot more blacks and thus a lot more republicans in the US TTL.



Other issues that will fester over time will be the growing political strength of the west (which will probably emerge more quickly, as a larger army means the indian wars will settle more quickly which will mean the west will be settled more quickly), industrialization, fights over money (hard money vs greenbacks), tariffs, immigration, etc.


I don't really see why US politics would be much more left than OTL. Most Bourbon Democrats were non-southern.
 
Last edited:
The US only got over the Civil War politically in the late 1890s OTL, so I would think it'd take at least that long until revanchism dials down in United States politics.

Immediate issues the US will be facing following a peace treaty
  • There is a hostile power to its immediate south, meaning the United States will now for the first time need a large standing army and a large navy.
  • This hostile power has re-enslaved black union soldiers that it captured. Unless, as part of the condition of the peace, these soldiers were returned, it's going to be a BIG issue.
  • The midwest is still going to be very dependent on the Mississippi River for export of products to the wider world and the east coast. Even with railroads, it's just a lot cheaper to stick things on a boat and send it down the Mississippi. The CSA will be taxing traffic through the Mississippi, most likely.
  • There are still five slave states in the union. There is still going to be a slavery debate.
  • There's going to be a LOT of southern unionists moving north. Hundreds of thousands of people fleeing the south is going to be a big issue.
  • Freedom now is just across the Cumberland River for most slaves in the south. Meanwhile lots of black in the US and abolitionists are going to be agitating for an aggressive policy towards the Confederacy. What should US policy be with regards to apprehending fleeing slaves at the border, assisting these slaves escape from the south, etc
  • There's going to be a discussion of where the US capital ought to be.
  • The country to the south is an economic basketcase and likely will become dependent on European finances. The US does not want a European satellite/proxy due south.
  • What rights should blacks get in the rump United States?
  • Copperheads are likely going to be seen as traitors, and I don't think it's unlikely that a stabbed-in-the-back mythos could emerge regarding the copperheads.


The Republicans aren't looking too hot, but the Democratic base has just defected from the country. Odds are a new party will emerge to challenge the Republicans, likely calling itself the Liberal Party considering the OTL 1872 challenger party to the Republicans was the Liberal Party. A third minor party along the lines of the OTL Greenback party likely will also exist.

OTL there weren't that many blacks in northern states before the Great Migration. There are going to be a lot more blacks and thus a lot more republicans in the US TTL.



Other issues that will fester over time will be the growing political strength of the west (which will probably emerge more quickly, as a larger army means the indian wars will settle more quickly which will mean the west will be settled more quickly), industrialization, fights over money (hard money vs greenbacks), tariffs, immigration, etc.


I don't really see why US politics would be much more left than OTL. Most Bourbon Democrats were non-southern.
While slaves that have escaped to Union lines will be an issue, if there's no EP, would there even be black soldiers at all?
 
While slaves that have escaped to Union lines will be an issue, if there's no EP, would there even be black soldiers at all?

Assuming that the north does not pass an anti-slave law like the EP after, considering they are majority free starts, I would think that something would be passed.

\
 
By the 1870s the US can become a naval power basically any time it wants. It had a huge merchant fleet and thus quite capable of building seaworthy ships. It was primarily a brown water navy in the ACW because it was the quickest and cheapest way to blockade the South. It has a naval tradition, a huge steel industry, large armament factories, many ports and a large shipbuilding industry. In short, it can build a pretty powerful navy by the mid-1870s. It wouldn't happen overnight after all, it would start with preferential trade deals post-ACW and grow from there. By the 1880's at the latest it can be a quite powerful ally.

In the 1870s the US steel industry was still quite tiny compared to the continental powers, even still compared to Britain, and it didn't hit its peak till near the turn of the century. Sure they could build a reasonably large navy, but would they be willing to take on the expense of one which could be a challenge to the great naval powers. Then you'd get to the questions about the need for a large navy, whether that would benefit Prussia, and the domestic consensus of why should they be in hoc to a European power. Neither side has much to offer the other. It's a very questionable alliance.

The US only got over the Civil War politically in the late 1890s OTL, so I would think it'd take at least that long until revanchism dials down in United States politics.

Immediate issues the US will be facing following a peace treaty
  • There is a hostile power to its immediate south, meaning the United States will now for the first time need a large standing army and a large navy.
  • This hostile power has re-enslaved black union soldiers that it captured. Unless, as part of the condition of the peace, these soldiers were returned, it's going to be a BIG issue.
  • The midwest is still going to be very dependent on the Mississippi River for export of products to the wider world and the east coast. Even with railroads, it's just a lot cheaper to stick things on a boat and send it down the Mississippi. The CSA will be taxing traffic through the Mississippi, most likely.
  • There are still five slave states in the union. There is still going to be a slavery debate.
  • There's going to be a LOT of southern unionists moving north. Hundreds of thousands of people fleeing the south is going to be a big issue.
  • Freedom now is just across the Cumberland River for most slaves in the south. Meanwhile lots of black in the US and abolitionists are going to be agitating for an aggressive policy towards the Confederacy. What should US policy be with regards to apprehending fleeing slaves at the border, assisting these slaves escape from the south, etc
  • There's going to be a discussion of where the US capital ought to be.
  • The country to the south is an economic basketcase and likely will become dependent on European finances. The US does not want a European satellite/proxy due south.
  • What rights should blacks get in the rump United States?
  • Copperheads are likely going to be seen as traitors, and I don't think it's unlikely that a stabbed-in-the-back mythos could emerge regarding the copperheads.


The Republicans aren't looking too hot, but the Democratic base has just defected from the country. Odds are a new party will emerge to challenge the Republicans, likely calling itself the Liberal Party considering the OTL 1872 challenger party to the Republicans was the Liberal Party. A third minor party along the lines of the OTL Greenback party likely will also exist.

OTL there weren't that many blacks in northern states before the Great Migration. There are going to be a lot more blacks and thus a lot more republicans in the US TTL.



Other issues that will fester over time will be the growing political strength of the west (which will probably emerge more quickly, as a larger army means the indian wars will settle more quickly which will mean the west will be settled more quickly), industrialization, fights over money (hard money vs greenbacks), tariffs, immigration, etc.


I don't really see why US politics would be much more left than OTL. Most Bourbon Democrats were non-southern.

Unless the black population grew substantially (something which moderate Republicans and Democrats would have every reason to discourage) I don't see the issue of black rights being more than a niche issue which probably serves to split the Republican Party in the 1868 elections. If there was no EP in this scenario (which would mean fewer black troops) slavery remains legal in the remaining slave states and they'd be touchy about attempts to infringe upon it. Which is a boon to the Democrats who opposed Emancipation. Black troops won't be a big issue for them or most voting whites, who were apathetic at best and hostile at worst to the idea of black labor competition.

I also don't see why the Copperheads would be viewed as traitors, if we're dealing with a scenario where they were elected into power they'll probably be seen as the sane people who tried to stop the bloody war, which leaves the Democrats dominant. If the Republicans split over black rights and anti-Confederate foreign policy the Democrats would basically be the only party left in the running come 1868. The stab in the bath myth is absurdly unlikely to take root in that scenario.

The big issues would be war debt, military spending, the capital, foreign trade, and slavery. I could see the Democrats winning through 1868 for the Republicans to produce a coherent policy by 1872 which might bring them together to win and address many of the festering issues.

I suspect you'd enter the reverse of the aftermath of the War of 1812 and get an era of Hard Feelings all around.
 
In the 1870s the US steel industry was still quite tiny compared to the continental powers, even still compared to Britain, and it didn't hit its peak till near the turn of the century. Sure they could build a reasonably large navy, but would they be willing to take on the expense of one which could be a challenge to the great naval powers. Then you'd get to the questions about the need for a large navy, whether that would benefit Prussia, and the domestic consensus of why should they be in hoc to a European power. Neither side has much to offer the other. It's a very questionable alliance.


For one thing it would need a very large navy as compared to OTL to discourage any further interference by GB and France in its affairs. It doesn't need a big enough navy to defeat the entire RN or French Navy, just enough for it to be risky for them to send enough ships that far away without risking their own colonies. That would take a decent sized navy off the bat.

If aligned with Prussia it makes it riskier for GB and makes it easier for Prussia vs either GB or France. With a potentially hostile US at its rear with a decent sized navy, they would have to have their heads turned in two directions. It also makes it harder for them to interfere in the Americas if they have to look at Prussia at the same time.
 
There is a hostile power to its immediate south, meaning the United States will now for the first time need a large standing army and a large navy.
Which is really unfortunate, because the US may well embark on a massive campaign of military spending based around what it thinks is state-of-the-art technology (muzzle-loading rifles, smoothbore muzzle-loading Dahlgrens, wooden ships and Monitors), only to witness the Prussian victories in Europe using breech-loading artillery and rifles and then have it followed up with a global recession in the 1870s.

The EP was in 1862. Odds are any peace would be in 1863.
The Emancipation Proclamation was issued because Antietam was enough of a victory to justify it. With a peace in 1863, odds are there isn't an opportunity to issue an Emancipation Proclamation.

This hostile power has re-enslaved black union soldiers that it captured. Unless, as part of the condition of the peace, these soldiers were returned, it's going to be a BIG issue.
While slaves that have escaped to Union lines will be an issue, if there's no EP, would there even be black soldiers at all?
Are there any captured black soldiers with a 1863 peace? 1st Kansas Coloured Troops has a skirmish in October 1862 but loses only killed and wounded; 54th Massachussets starts recruiting in February 1863 and first goes into action in July 1863; 1st USCT doesn't muster in until mid-1863.

OTL there weren't that many blacks in northern states before the Great Migration. There are going to be a lot more blacks and thus a lot more republicans in the US TTL.
Or there are going to be a lot of laws preventing black people from settling in Northern states, like those of Oregon (Article 1, section 13; "No free Negro, or Mulatto, not residing in this state at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall come, reside, or be within this state, or hold any real estate, or make any contracts, or maintain any suit therein; an the Legislative Assembly shall provide by penal laws, for the removal, by public officers, of all such Negroes, and Mulattos, and for their effectual exclusion from the state, and for the punishment of persons who shall bring them into the state, or employ, or harbor them," approved 8,640 to 1,081 in 1857) or Indiana (Article 13; "No negro or mulatto shall come into or settle in the State", approved 113,828 to 21,873 in 1851), or Illinois (Article 14; 'The general assembly shall, at its first session under the amended constitution, pass such laws as will effectually prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this state,' approved 50,261 to 21,297 in 1848).

Unless the black population grew substantially (something which moderate Republicans and Democrats would have every reason to discourage) I don't see the issue of black rights being more than a niche issue which probably serves to split the Republican Party in the 1868 elections. If there was no EP in this scenario (which would mean fewer black troops) slavery remains legal in the remaining slave states and they'd be touchy about attempts to infringe upon it.
Just to put some numbers to this: the 1860 census shows the core Union (all states and territories except the 11 Confederate states and Kentucky) as holding 344,626 free blacks and 207,211 slaves. The Union retaining Kentucky tips that over to a slave majority - 355,310 free blacks and 432,694 slaves. Granted, you've got population movement during the period of the war and possibly some afterwards. However, you've also got the basic fact that many of those slaveowners are influential public figures, and that when the Civil War ended historically free blacks couldn't vote in 19 of the 24 Northern states.
 
And any colonies GB has in the Americas is likely going bye-bye in the great war it has.
Most discussion threads on whether the USA (including the former CSA) could decisively defeat the British Empire in a war have come to a more or less consensus that most probably Britain (barring improbable Harry Harrisonesque blunders) would win up to around 1912/13 and the Haber-Bosch process (or TTL equivalent) for synthesising nitrates being introduced. An early militarisation might alter that equation somewhat in the favour of the USA, but so would the US having to strongly defend its Mexican and CSA borders in the favour of Britain. So probably 50 years until the US could take its revenge. By then a whole new crop of politicians, business leaders, Supreme Court judges. Do they keep the flame of revanche burning brightly or do they have other priorities?
 
I honestly don’t see there being any real revanchism in the North. After a few years I don’t think anyone in the US is really going to care about or want the southern states back.

Could see there being some type of “American Congress” where trade laws and the like effecting both nations could be proposed and legislated. Such a body was discussed in the Confederate Congress and included in its 1864 peace outline (which I think passed, might have to check). Also promoted by copperheads iirc. I do doubt the usefulness/effectiveness of such a body though.
 
Most discussion threads on whether the USA (including the former CSA) could decisively defeat the British Empire in a war have come to a more or less consensus that most probably Britain (barring improbable Harry Harrisonesque blunders) would win up to around 1912/13 and the Haber-Bosch process (or TTL equivalent) for synthesising nitrates being introduced. An early militarisation might alter that equation somewhat in the favour of the USA, but so would the US having to strongly defend its Mexican and CSA borders in the favour of Britain. So probably 50 years until the US could take its revenge. By then a whole new crop of politicians, business leaders, Supreme Court judges. Do they keep the flame of revanche burning brightly or do they have other priorities?

All you need is bird shit or bat shit to get potassium nitrate. It is a common as hell compound, there is a reason countless tons were made worldwide. Just because the cheapest source was controlled by GB doesn't mean it isn't found elsewhere. The reason black powder was cheap and widespread is because all the ingredients are cheap and widespread. If it were potassium nitrate was rare gunpowder wouldn't have been used, it would be too expensive.
 
Top