Views on the South and Civil War if CSA won, but later lost

Spengler

Banned
Wait so nations don't want land that once belonged to them back if its stolen from them, as this would require the UK to have intervened, andit would be seen as only a victory of the UK? So the world wouldn't be dappled by mass slavery unlike how it was in history? Also the AMerican party system would change as a result of this conflict. Also you seem to be ignoring Ameircas already present tendency to see itself as the greatest nation on earth. It wil want to eliminate that which counters that narrative that being the CSA and if the CSA acts as a imperialist slave spreading warmonger like you say it will certainly get alot of support to do that. I mean I will say you've eliminated southern culture so less support of oligarchy in the late 20th century now, and no lost cause. So you have created a slightly better world.
 
Already is one, Land of Cotton, where the CSA turns into a backwater that looses to Mexico a decade later.

Three decades later and all it does is lose part of Texas and the US was helping it early to serve as a counterweight to the CSA, it is still around after that. What it does turn into in the long run is a virtual colony of the US. US citizens own virtually everything of significant economic importance but it is still around. https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...d-times-there-are-not-forgotten-redux.384495/
 

Spengler

Banned
Also I wonder how well the poor whites would take themselves losing "white" jobs to as they would see it to the blacks. They might form a party to ban the blacks from certain jobs. Like they did historically. Which actually helps illustrate how people do not act rationally as there was not rational reason why anyone would embrace segregation as it weakened everyone's economic prospects but the south kept it going for a life time. Really this belief that someone would irrationally start a civil war, and then suddenly act rationally is rather hilarious, as history shows they would feel emboldened in their irrationality if it produced positive results as they claim.
 
Last edited:
Wait so nations don't want land that once belonged to them back if its stolen from them, as this would require the UK to have intervened, andit would be seen as only a victory of the UK? So the world wouldn't be dappled by mass slavery unlike how it was in history? Also the AMerican party system would change as a result of this conflict. Also you seem to be ignoring Ameircas already present tendency to see itself as the greatest nation on earth. It wil want to eliminate that which counters that narrative that being the CSA and if the CSA acts as a imperialist slave spreading warmonger like you say it will certainly get alot of support to do that. I mean I will say you've eliminated southern culture so less support of oligarchy in the late 20th century now, and no lost cause. So you have created a slightly better world.

I'm saying that this specific nation was willing to cultivate peaceful relations with a newly independent offshoot. Britain didn't fight a war of revenge and reconquest against the U.S.A. for the French theft of their territory, because they were much better off trading with them, and it turns out people don't like fighting horrible wars of aggression all the time when they could just be trading.
 

Spengler

Banned
Britain existed 3000 miles away and was quite willing to attempt to regulate American trade up to the war of 1812. So your analogy is quite faulty.
 
Big difference between wartime trade regulation as part of a blockade of France and trying to reconquer them out of a feeling of revenge in the face of popular sentiment and rational self interest.
 
All right. Taking notes and elements from Timeline-191 and more, the South won the Civil War (With aid from the UK and French.) and stay independent. However, when WW1 rolls around (for the sake of argument, most everything else in the world happen OTL more or less) the USA allies with Germany and the CSA allies with the Entente. In the war, the Central Powers are victories. Germany and it's European allies win over the Allies in Europe, while the South falls and is forced to rejoin the Union.

Now, after all that, what would the US views and thoughts be about the Civil War and Confederate States, then and now?

(I know good bits of this is a bit ASB, and please correct me on anything you see fit.)
one problem here is that WW1 is 50 years later.... if history goes as OTL, then there has been 50 years of peace, and the north joining the CP just to get back the south seems kinda unlikely. In TL-191, HT had a second war between the north and the CSA/UK/France juggernaut to keep the fires lit...
 
Big difference between wartime trade regulation as part of a blockade of France and trying to reconquer them out of a feeling of revenge in the face of popular sentiment and rational self interest.

As pointed out GB is 3,000 miles away so the cost is higher and the threat is lower.
 

Spengler

Banned
Big difference between wartime trade regulation as part of a blockade of France and trying to reconquer them out of a feeling of revenge in the face of popular sentiment and rational self interest.
THey actually tried to break off NE in the war of 1812 and wanted to Conquer New Orleans and strip parts of the Northwest to effectivley limit the USA to being their client. So that does sound like borderline reconquest, but they didn't suceed.
 
As pointed out GB is 3,000 miles away so the cost is higher and the threat is lower.
That's still just a matter of degree (notwithstanding that it took acts of aggression from the Americans to give them cause to put an army in North American in the first place); it would still be a monumental effort of aggression, and there would still be massive political opposition to the idea, even assuming its electoral defeat in 1864 doesn't discredit it forever. If the democrats win the presidency and try to draw in as many immigrants as they can to shore up their voting base, any prowar faction is going to have a serious uphill battle gathering the political strength to force Americans into a war of aggression.
 
THey actually tried to break off NE in the war of 1812 and wanted to Conquer New Orleans and strip parts of the Northwest to effectivley limit the USA to being their client. So that does sound like borderline reconquest, but they didn't suceed.

That's blatantly false. New England was so opposed to the war that were questioning leaving all on their own, Britain had nothing to do with it. And Britain's goal in the old Northwest was murky at best, they wanted a buffer state in order to help protect Canada, it had nothing to do with hemming in the USA.

And every crisis that erupted for the next century, Britain opted for peace with America to preserve the trade relationship that was valuable to both parties.

It's impossible to say with any certainty what will happen with the future CSA, but conquest is only one of a myriad of options. America might just believe it behooves them to prop up a south and swallow up all the cheap southern exports and rule it from arm's length.
 

Spengler

Banned
Oh that could happen to, but this idea that the British didn't want to clientize America in the war of 1812 is false. Their goal to create a Native state and take New Orleans was just part of that plan. They didn't jsut impress AMerican crews because they needed crews but also becuase they saw Americans still as their colonists, itt took the war of1812 to disabuse that notion. Now rationally it didn't make sense to create a enemy that could if it had had better preparations taken British colonies and did in fact cause a quite a bit of damage early on the UK's merchant marine. But then they felt Instictivley that America was still there's as in the aftermath of the ACW many Ameircans would feel of the CSA. Likewise if the CSA is engaging in wars of imperialism alot of Americans would feel they needed to treat their petulant child to a proper beating. OR else just get rid of it.
 
That's blatantly false. New England was so opposed to the war that were questioning leaving all on their own, Britain had nothing to do with it. And Britain's goal in the old Northwest was murky at best, they wanted a buffer state in order to help protect Canada, it had nothing to do with hemming in the USA.

And every crisis that erupted for the next century, Britain opted for peace with America to preserve the trade relationship that was valuable to both parties.

It's impossible to say with any certainty what will happen with the future CSA, but conquest is only one of a myriad of options. America might just believe it behooves them to prop up a south and swallow up all the cheap southern exports and rule it from arm's length.

That is basically what it does in my TL where the South is nominally independent while in fact about as independent as Poland during the Cold War.
 

Spengler

Banned
Your timeline is frankly about the most plausible future of the CSA I could think of. For one thing John it actually takes into account how the actual people thought.
 
Oh that could happen to, but this idea that the British didn't want to clientize America in the war of 1812 is false. Their goal to create a Native state and take New Orleans was just part of that plan. They didn't jsut impress AMerican crews because they needed crews but also becuase they saw Americans still as their colonists, itt took the war of1812 to disabuse that notion. Now rationally it didn't make sense to create a enemy that could if it had had better preparations taken British colonies and did in fact cause a quite a bit of damage early on the UK's merchant marine. But then they felt Instictivley that America was still there's as in the aftermath of the ACW many Ameircans would feel of the CSA. Likewise if the CSA is engaging in wars of imperialism alot of Americans would feel they needed to treat their petulant child to a proper beating. OR else just get rid of it.

The impressment of sailors has more to do with differing views of citizenship between Britain and America and poor documentation on the American side than with dubious British claims on American sovereignty.

It should be noted that the actual war was started over the British blockade of the continent, and NOT the seizure of American naval personell, and that the American negotiators thought so little of the issue that it doesn't even come up in the Treaty of Ghent.

And again, the buffer state was never envisioned to hem in America, but to act as additional line of defense for Canada. Britain had intention of making America a client state, the relationship was incredibly beneficial to both sides pre-war... So beneficial that New England balked when war was declared. Britain had everything it wanted from America already, it didn't need it as a client state.
 

Spengler

Banned
The buffer state was to hem the USA in and prevent expansion, the British very much would have preferred to keep America as hemmned in as possible and the defeats in 1814 prevented that. As did Jacksons success in 1815.
 

Spengler

Banned
Dwight L. Smith"A North American Neutral Indian Zone: Persistence of a British Idea." Northwest Ohio Quarterly 61#2-4 (1989): 46-63.
 
Top