How would you make France join the side of the Union and Britain join the side of the Confederacy, and what could be the possible outcome of this war.
How about this:
The Trent Incident results in a failure thus making the Brits declare war on the Union. Seeing this and knowing that they might loose the war due to the Brits. The Union made a secret agreement with the French to join their war on their behalf in exchange for giving them a free hand in Mexico and a promise to aid each other in a conflict with the Brits.
Was that possible?
and who would win the war between the Union, France and Confederate, Britain.
Frankly, no: France cares more about keeping on at least reasonable terms with Britain than anything in the western hemisphere.
I have to agree there; Britain's naval superiority would make it almost impossible for France to send any project force in the Western Hemisphere. There is a reason France wanted to make sure Britain was at least somewhat supportive before they would commit to getting involved in the Civil War OTL.Hmm. As a hypothetical, I'd say Britain-CSA. I'm not an expert at all, you'd do better to ask somebody else, but I'd reckon the naval advantage would tell.
Didn't the Brits indirectly support the CSA?
The CSS Alabama springs to mind as a counter-example; I don't recall any US warships being built in British shipyards. In fairness, the British government did later step in to stop the Laird Rams from being delivered to the CSA.No more than the US. They undertook great pains to be neutral, although some in the US would have preferred a more one sided neutrality.
The CSS Alabama springs to mind as a counter-example; I don't recall any US warships being built in British shipyards. In fairness, the British government did later step in to stop the Laird Rams from being delivered to the CSA.
Well, I would think that the overall progress of the war needs to be considered when looking at the Laird Rams vs. the Alabama. At the time the Alabama was launched (Late summer 1862) the CSA had pretty much reached its high-water mark in the East and the West. By comparison, the Laird Rams were seized in 1864, when it was fairly clear the CSA was not going to win and the only thing delivering the rams would accomplish is getting the US even angrier.Well, since the United States never attempted to have any warships built in British shipyards during the war, that's hardly proof of the British favoring the Confederacy over the Union. Indeed, quite the opposite, if you really consider the issue. The only way the Alabama got to sea was via an elaborate ruse...which worked exactly once. The British jumped on the Laird Rams and other Confederate ships being built in British yards when they were made aware of them by the Union so as to not allow such a ruse to be successful again.
If the Union HAD contracted with British shipyards to build warships for them, and the Confederacy had complained about it, do you honestly think the British have seized the vessels? The likelihood of that is about the same as the likelihood of a human walking on the moon in 1869. In otherwords, not bloody likely.
Well, I would think that the overall progress of the war needs to be considered when looking at the Laird Rams vs. the Alabama. At the time the Alabama was launched (Late summer 1862) the CSA had pretty much reached its high-water mark in the East and the West. By comparison, the Laird Rams were seized in 1864, when it was fairly clear the CSA was not going to win and the only thing delivering the rams would accomplish is getting the US even angrier.
There's an alternate history trilogy about the Trent Affair with a POD of 1861. At the time of the Trent Affair, OTL, Prince Albert was a calming effect on Queen Victoria, and war didn't break out. In the timeline of thisIt was the French who actually went and did something to piss the Union off (invading Mexico, although of course we were on board with that initially). If the French are going to go joining anybody, it'd be the Confederacy.
Assuming, of course, that we're talking about the old familiar things: Napoleon III, Davis, Lincoln, etcetera etcetera.
To sketch very roughly:
-Differant Great French War results in a qualified French victory and ongoing Anglo-French rivalry and hostility.
-Also results in the USA getting a thorough thump on the nose in *1812, leading to also ongoing Anglo-American hostility (and no terribly substantial Monroe doctrine).
-Britain swings further into reactionary authoritarianism after the war and doesn't swing back. While it's a big stretch to have it still slaving in the 1860s, it could have a much smaller franchise and more muscular executive who don't give a toss for popular liberal causes if they can knock America down a peg.
-Broadly similar seccession crisis in America. Britain takes advantage of a diplomatic tiff to try and secure independence for the *CSA. France lines up with the Union.
(On a sidenote, I've always thought that the more conventional scenario of Britain and France both teaming up with the OTL Confederacy, while not itself all that likely and certainly not likley to result in Alexander II sticking his head into the noose for Lincoln, would be a good opportunity for the Russians to try and pull what they waited until 1870 to do OTL and cancel the Treaty of Paris while nobody's watching.)
The Union and the Confederacy put aside their
differences and fought as one to repel the British invasion.
There's an alternate history trilogy about the Trent Affair with a POD of 1861. At the time of the Trent Affair, OTL, Prince Albert was a calming effect on Queen Victoria, and war didn't break out. In the timeline of this
trilogy, Prince Albert died earlier than OTL, and Queen Victoria declared war on the United States. The Union and the Confederacy put aside their
differences and fought as one to repel the British invasion.