WI: Total Confederate Victory in 1863

Anaxagoras

Banned
I think it's possible that, with almost 100% positive CSA outcomes in 1863, the Union might decide to cut its losses and at least start negotiations on peace/secession.

Not while Lincoln is in office. So for the Confederacy to win, you need a successful campaign season in 1864, rather than 1863.
 
the problem with direct European intervention in the Civil War is that the risks are huge while the benefits are minimal at best.

Well, if Britain got involved there's a sizeable possible benefit: for Britain to regain control of her Colonies, the U.S..

If the British and Confederates were allied against the U.S., and won, they would both benefit tremendously. Confederates get both their heartland and the border states. Britain gets the rest of what was the USA; industry and California make a truly great Empire. Plus a good ally to the south.

Of course Britain would have to be able to subdue the Unionist populace in the former USA.

If the British and Americans were on worse terms at this point in time, Queen Vicky could well order something like this.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Well, if Britain got involved there's a sizeable possible benefit: for Britain to regain control of her Colonies, the U.S..

That would have been absolutely impossible under any circumstances. And even if it had been possible, the British would never have wanted to reincorporate America into its Empire. It was having enough trouble with Ireland, after all. An American forcibly reannexed into the British Empire would have given them all the same problems of Ireland, just an order of magnitude greater.
 
That would have been absolutely impossible under any circumstances. And even if it had been possible, the British would never have wanted to reincorporate America into its Empire. It was having enough trouble with Ireland, after all. An American forcibly reannexed into the British Empire would have given them all the same problems of Ireland, just an order of magnitude greater.

If they threw in a load of sweetened trade deals it might be doable. Plus rename the Empire to the British-American Empire, give Abe Lincoln an important-sounding office, and advertise it as "union for prosperity" rather than "annexation". Should win over many of the patriots despite being purely ceremonial.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
If they threw in a load of sweetened trade deals it might be doable. Plus rename the Empire to the British-American Empire, give Abe Lincoln an important-sounding office, and advertise it as "union for prosperity" rather than "annexation". Should win over many of the patriots despite being purely ceremonial.

facepalm_big.jpg
 

Saphroneth

Banned
That's like a lion eating an entire elephant - it will not go well for either, and there will probably be a large explosion.
 
If they threw in a load of sweetened trade deals it might be doable. Plus rename the Empire to the British-American Empire, give Abe Lincoln an important-sounding office, and advertise it as "union for prosperity" rather than "annexation". Should win over many of the patriots despite being purely ceremonial.

Now, to continue our education of the original poster, (are you still here?) is one of the other common threads these forums see: the CSA as a solution to a problem.

In this case, the problem is that by the ascension of Elizabeth II to the throne of the United Kingdom, the UK has largely shot its bolt. It has fought two major wars, and while victorious, it is no longer the worlds largest economic power and it is in debt to a country that didn't even have a proper navy within living memory. Rapid de-colonialization followed. To some eyes on this forum depriving a large swath of the world of the enlightenment of British rule is a net bad. And it was caused by having another Western industrial power perfidiously grow wealthier than the UK.

This problem is often "solved" by having a victorious CSA, and weaker USA that in this situation is quite happy to slide into a British sphere of influence like a larger and slightly mouthier Canada. The British hegemony over North American often butterflys away all sorts of "distasteful" social developments, like unions and various civil rights movements. The CSA provides the Pax Britannia Eternum, and many in the USA become quite grateful for that fact.

The historical problems with this is that the British did do at least some of their Empire building in a fit of absentmindedness, and so much of it focused on so -called civilizing of the barbaric. Inspite of the American preference for coffee over tea and our tendency to call association football soccer, they are not viewed as barbaric, great plains versions of Rhodesia, ripe for Imperial plucking.
 
I have to disagree with the assertion that in a CSA victory scenario, the USA will begin to orbit the UK. Yes, at least for a time, the USA will be weaker vis-a-vis the UK and have less economic leverage. Having said that, the "rump" USA, as realistically seen geographically, with its resources, population in 1865, and the immigrants that will come to the USA (including some that would have gone to the CSA but will be less attracted to a slaveocracy) , will still become an industrial and economic powerhouse not much later, if at all, than OTL.

Given that any CSA victory scenario will probably mean more support by the UK of the CSA, either without actual participation or the RN escorting blockade runners, or even direct combat operations, the USA will NOT have a warm fuzzy feeling for the UK. Furthermore the CSA will most definitely be in the UK orbit, and I would expect the UK to mount a successful drive to replace industrial imports the CSA was getting from the USA with British products. That won't endear the UK to the USA either.

While the scenario of the CSA a formal UK ally and the USA a formal German ally is unlikely (though not impossible/ASB) I can certainly see a wide gap between the USA and UK lasting for a long time after the ACW ends with the CSA in existence.
 
I have to disagree with the assertion that in a CSA victory scenario, the USA will begin to orbit the UK. Yes, at least for a time, the USA will be weaker vis-a-vis the UK and have less economic leverage. Having said that, the "rump" USA, as realistically seen geographically, with its resources, population in 1865, and the immigrants that will come to the USA (including some that would have gone to the CSA but will be less attracted to a slaveocracy) , will still become an industrial and economic powerhouse not much later, if at all, than OTL.

Given that any CSA victory scenario will probably mean more support by the UK of the CSA, either without actual participation or the RN escorting blockade runners, or even direct combat operations, the USA will NOT have a warm fuzzy feeling for the UK. Furthermore the CSA will most definitely be in the UK orbit, and I would expect the UK to mount a successful drive to replace industrial imports the CSA was getting from the USA with British products. That won't endear the UK to the USA either.

While the scenario of the CSA a formal UK ally and the USA a formal German ally is unlikely (though not impossible/ASB) I can certainly see a wide gap between the USA and UK lasting for a long time after the ACW ends with the CSA in existence.

Oh, I disagree with the idea that a defeated USA would be very friendly to the UK as well.

It's more that this thread has somewhat had the character of a tutorial/whirlwind tour of the salient points any CSA Victory timeline has to overcome, and a brief sketch of some of the historiographical trends that crop up in such threads. The previous page of the thread touched on some of that produces the gallant men in gray who build a CSA that industrializes and integrates faster than the OTL USA and then defeats the Nazis and Communists single-handedly through sheer gallantry (coming soon to a Turtledove near you!). So I figured I'd touch on the roll that a super-Trent usually plays in the Eternal Empire types of threads where the Royal Zeppelin Navy keeps an enlightened British empire going into the 2300s.
 
Oh, I disagree with the idea that a defeated USA would be very friendly to the UK as well.

It's more that this thread has somewhat had the character of a tutorial/whirlwind tour of the salient points any CSA Victory timeline has to overcome, and a brief sketch of some of the historiographical trends that crop up in such threads. The previous page of the thread touched on some of that produces the gallant men in gray who build a CSA that industrializes and integrates faster than the OTL USA and then defeats the Nazis and Communists single-handedly through sheer gallantry (coming soon to a Turtledove near you!). So I figured I'd touch on the roll that a super-Trent usually plays in the Eternal Empire types of threads where the Royal Zeppelin Navy keeps an enlightened British empire going into the 2300s.

Is it wrong that I want to see a kaiju-scale Robert E. Lee wrestle an equally large Joseph Stalin, with the cinematography and scoring of a 1930s-vintage propaganda film? Because only a fifty-foot tall Lee can defeat the evils of Soviet Communism!

Re: Anglo-Yankee relations, barring an actual shooting war with Britain, relations between the U.S. and U.K. are probably going to be startlingly close to OTL. As short of super-Trent series of low-probability events that leads to limey bastards invading Maine, the only way Britain's getting involved in a mediated peace is if it's fait accompli. So there's not necessarily going to be any particular bad blood over British recognition of the Confederacy: It'd in all likelihood just be one of the many points of contention in the dysfunctional parent-teenager relationship between Britain and America.
 

Perkeo

Banned
IMO 1863 is the most unlikely year for a CSA victory since it is between the two time windows were I think a Southern victory is at all plausible:

a) Bull Run on steroids leads to a "Blitzkrieg" type victory in 1861/1862. Not likely, even by CSA-wins-ACW standards.

b) Stalemate until the presidential election of 1864 when Lincolm is kicked out of office and the North losses its will - NOT its ability - to fight on.

But in 1863, the CSA had all the disadvantages against them. The North hat all its strength mobilized and was well able to keep in the game even after e.g. a Confererate victory in Gettysburg.
 
Was this possible that the Confederacy could somehow crush the Union Army and force the US to negotiate peace either after Antietam or another battle ?

As others have noted, it was extremely difficult to destroy any army in the American Civil War. And popular as it is in published alternate histories, the Confederacy winning a single additional battle would not have been enough to make Lincoln or the Union public give up.

At Antietam Lee had no real chance of defeating the Army of the Potomac, He was lucky to have survived. The Lost Orders not being lost does nothing to change that,
 
Oh, I disagree with the idea that a defeated USA would be very friendly to the UK as well.
It depends whether the USA thinks with its brain or its gut. Because after the Civil War, their dream ally would probably have the following characteristics:

  • Uninterested in territorial gain on the American continent
  • Naval strength sufficient to deter other powers from intervening in the Americas
  • Strong anti-slavery tradition
  • Major arms producer (to equip Union armies and deny weapons and ships to the Confederacy)
  • Bonus cultural factors: English-speaking, common-law tradition, parliamentary/representative government.
 
Top