I don’t usually try to write ACW WIs, but I don’t remember seeing something like this before.

The general POD is that the Trent Affair leads to war due to miscommunication. As has been amply demonstrated in various threads on this forum, the British government was (however reluctantly) prepared to go to war over the Trent Affair. The terms of their ultimatum were clear enough: a positive response within 7 days, including releasing Mason and Slidell, or war. The British ambassador to Washington, Lord Lyons, did what he could by relaying the contents unofficially to Seward and meeting unofficially at least twice before he officially presented the ultimatum.

On the advice of Charles Sumner, Lincoln at first backed the idea of referring the matter to arbitration rather than handing over Mason and Slidell. While initially belligerent himself, Seward had come around to the view that releasing the two Confederate commissioners was the only course to avoid war. Ultimately, Seward’s view prevailed and the crisis was resolved.

So the divergence is that Lincoln ends up responding to the British ultimatum with a proposal for international arbitration rather than releasing Mason and Slidell. This comes about either because Seward doesn’t grasp the problems with suggesting arbitration, or he’s indisposed due to a surfeit of lampreys, and/or Sumner is more influential in pushing for arbitration (in OTL, I believe he was busy in the leadup to the vital US Cabinet meeting).

So, Lincoln responds to the British with an arbitration proposal, Lord Lyons (as per his instructions) withdraws his legation from Washington D.C. War is declared.

This is, however, not as harsh a war as might be assumed. Lincoln is not particularly keen on fighting the British any more or for any longer than he has to. Britain, for their part, will fight if they need to but aren’t keen on expanding the war any more than necessary.

What this means is that, in terms of land-based combat... there isn’t any. The British government vetoes proposals to capture Portland, Maine; while a useful rail junction to supply Canada, it might make the U.S. even more determined to fight. On the Northern side, some troops are recalled from facing the Confederacy and sent north to guard against any British-Canadian invasion attempts, and potentially to invade Canada if it is deemed necessary – but Lincoln chooses not to issue such an order since he doesn’t particularly want to broaden the war either. In any event, winter campaigns aren’t a very bright idea, which both sides recognise.

Various U.S. coastal cities and towns call up militia (however poorly-armed they might be), or perhaps call some troops home to defend against the perceived British threat. There’s lots of excitement and fear about potential British invasions of coastal regions, but the only U.S. casualties will be from disease or friendly fire; the British aren’t interested in invading random towns.

In short, the Trent War turns into a Phoney War analogue on land.

Navally, things do involve some combat, though it’s not an all-out war. The Royal Navy already had ships on deployment in Bermuda, and wastes no time in breaking the Northern blockade of the Confederacy. Not so much to benefit the Confederacy – which the British are not particularly interested in supporting – but as it’s a convenient way to force engagements with some elements of the U.S. Navy and sink them. The U.S. Navy indeed loses some vessels in combat around the bloackade, though more are recalled to protect Northern ports. The North also abandons its coastal lodgements in the Confederacy (Cape Hatteras, Port Royal, quite possibly others I’m missing). Plans for further amphibious assaults such as those which led to the capture of Nawlins or the Peninsula Campaign are obviously shelved until the matter of Britain is resolved.

Britain does declare a blockade of Northern ports, and deploys a decent chunk of the Royal Navy to do so. There are some clashes with U.S. naval vessels, largely won by the British. USS Monitor causes some reaction but since the British are not conducting a close blockade, does not accomplish much. There is some occasional exchange of gunfire between British ships and U.S. coastal forts, but Britain also isn’t keen on extending the war by mounting major actions against U.S. cities or naval yards.

Ultimately, the (relatively) cheap costs of the war and low bloodshed thus far means that both sides are able to agree to a ceasefire in mid-April 1862, with a formal peace negotiated a month or two later.

The results? Well, in many areas this leads to short-term pain for the North and short-term gain for the South, but not much long-term change. The North suffers some short-term hardship since they no longer have powder available for a while, are unable to import firearms, can’t get British-quality iron, and so forth. Quite a few Northern merchant vessels are sunk, captured by the Royal Navy, or re-flagged to avoid capture. The North suffers a worse bank run and economic crisis than it had in OTL, with lots of people losing lots of money in the short-term, but confidence is largely restored when peace returns and it’s clear that Britain is not going to recognise the Confederacy.

On the Confederate side, there is a huge rush of confidence initially. Gradual disappointment follows when it becomes clear that even when at war, Britain has no interest in recognising the Confederacy. The Trent War is a war fought for British interests and British honour, not to win Confederate independence. However, the collapse of the blockade means that the Confederacy can trade freely for a while the North and Britain settle their differences.

In military terms, there’s been a pause in U.S. operations against the Confederacy for a few months. With peace, the North is able to resume trade and shipments of war material from Britain, and redeploy its troops back to face the South. The U.S. Navy is somewhat battered, but not completely destroyed. The Confederacy has been freed for a while of some manpower which it needed to defend against coastal incursions, but then the North has also got some further troops which can be redeployed from former coastal lodgements or previously planned amphibious operations.

However, there is one rather large twist: France and its reaction.

Even before the Trent War, the French ambassador to Washington, M. Mercier, had on several occasions proposed to Lord Lyons that the two countries undertake joint action to end the blockade of the Confederacy and/or recognise the Confederacy. By early 1862, Napoleon III was also keen to have the blockade ended, and contemplated recognition of the Confederacy, though he remained reluctant to move without British support.

In this ATL, once Britain goes ahead and declares war on the North, France sends letters of support (which they sent in the lead-up anyway), but also decide to act on their desire to recognise the Confederacy. Napoleon III expects the Trent War to last longer than it will, but more to the point, recognition allows easier trade with the Confederacy in the short-term, and also allows leverage to ensure that the blockade is not restored.

When Britain settles for peace quickly, Napoleon III is surprised and not entirely happy, but expects that the North will now make peace with the Confederacy. He is not prepared to back down and withdraw recognition of the Confederacy. He also believes that the blockade should not be resumed (France really hated the blockade in OTL), and would be prepared to consider intervention in the ACW, alone if necessary, to ensure that the blockade is not reformed.

Of course, it soon becomes clear that the North is not going to recognise the Confederacy. Napoleon III is prepared to go to war if he believes it necessary, though he will offer to mediate between North and South first. Lincoln, of course, won’t accept mediation with rebellious states which the USA does not recognise as sovereign in the first place. Napoleon III won’t rush into war with the North, but he can and will declare any blockade illegal, and any Northern stopping of French-flagged ships will be treated as a casus belli.

If war comes, France is unlikely to send more than token land forces, since Napoleon III is far more interested in Mexico. They may send some military advisors and/or war material. The French Navy is relatively free to operate, though, to break any blockades and act as a fleet in being to prevent the North trying any amphibious operations against the South. Maybe they could try to blockade the North in turn, either all of the east coast or (more likely) the nearer ports to the Confederacy (which they would need to base out of anyway).

France will trade with the Confederacy, and possibly offer loans as well, secured against cotton (or just buy cotton). Some British merchants will probably also trade with the Confederacy, too, since cotton offers a lot of profit to cover moral dilemmas (plus any lingering resentment of the North).

So, what happens next? Does Lincoln press ahead with the blockade and risk French intervention? Does he resume the war without the blockade and just try to beat the Confederacy on land? What are the North’s prospects, either way? The ACW has just become much harder to win for the North, but probably not impossible – the balance of resources is still in their favour.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
This is, however, not as harsh a war as might be assumed. Lincoln is not particularly keen on fighting the British any more or for any longer than he has to. Britain, for their part, will fight if they need to but aren’t keen on expanding the war any more than necessary.
I think this analysis of British intentions is probably not correct - they were planning on hitting fast and hard so as to produce a short war and avoid greater overall loss of life (at sea) while defending Canada (at land). So you're definitely going to get a blockade, and with a blockade the Union is basically f*cked in strategic terms unless they can get a peace... and their only way to hurt the British is in Canada.

What this means is that, in terms of land-based combat... there isn’t any. The British government vetoes proposals to capture Portland, Maine; while a useful rail junction to supply Canada, it might make the U.S. even more determined to fight. On the Northern side, some troops are recalled from facing the Confederacy and sent north to guard against any British-Canadian invasion attempts, and potentially to invade Canada if it is deemed necessary – but Lincoln chooses not to issue such an order since he doesn’t particularly want to broaden the war either. In any event, winter campaigns aren’t a very bright idea, which both sides recognise.

Various U.S. coastal cities and towns call up militia (however poorly-armed they might be), or perhaps call some troops home to defend against the perceived British threat. There’s lots of excitement and fear about potential British invasions of coastal regions, but the only U.S. casualties will be from disease or friendly fire; the British aren’t interested in invading random towns.

In short, the Trent War turns into a Phoney War analogue on land.

Navally, things do involve some combat, though it’s not an all-out war. The Royal Navy already had ships on deployment in Bermuda, and wastes no time in breaking the Northern blockade of the Confederacy. Not so much to benefit the Confederacy – which the British are not particularly interested in supporting – but as it’s a convenient way to force engagements with some elements of the U.S. Navy and sink them. The U.S. Navy indeed loses some vessels in combat around the bloackade, though more are recalled to protect Northern ports. The North also abandons its coastal lodgements in the Confederacy (Cape Hatteras, Port Royal, quite possibly others I’m missing). Plans for further amphibious assaults such as those which led to the capture of Nawlins or the Peninsula Campaign are obviously shelved until the matter of Britain is resolved.

Thing is, while the North is standing pat (largely unable to take the offensive) they have the problem that the Confederacy is purchasing all the weapons the North did OTL. That's several hundred thousand smoothbores and rifles (paid for how? Cotton, of course), and it could actually lead to the Confederate Army being larger than the Union one.

It's also very likely the case that the US Navy loses almost their entire blockading fleet - in most cases the British ships are actually able to intercept them before they reach home - and that's nearly every ship the US has. The main exception is the Newport News squadron, which can retreat up the Chesapeake.

As for the issue of land combat, I've said above why I think that the Union's going to want to fight on land - though of course with a resolution by April then the roads haven't opened yet in Canada. It's a serious setback for the Union, but one they could eventually recover from if they had the will to keep fighting into Lincoln's second term... if he gets one.



In this ATL, once Britain goes ahead and declares war on the North, France sends letters of support (which they sent in the lead-up anyway), but also decide to act on their desire to recognise the Confederacy.
As per OTL US policy that means an immediate US declaration of war; of course, could have been a bluff by Lincoln and/or Seward.

If war comes, France is unlikely to send more than token land forces, since Napoleon III is far more interested in Mexico.

Mexico was fought with maybe a division of French troops or so - the same amount could have been sent to the Confederacy without much strain, France had a larger standing army than Britain and fewer colonies. In any case, advisors would be hugely useful to the Confederacy and would probably see their troops substantially able to outfight the Union (e.g. charge home against defending riflemen on a hill as per Solferino? Accurate rifle fire at ~200 yards as per Vincennes? Or just have a formed French division completely dominating the Western Theater of the war operating from a base in New Orleans.)

Frankly, I think the thing which made the Union able to overcome the Confederacy was their sea control (it constrained imports and exports, mandated the diversion of guns and troops to the coast, and allowed the Union much better supply) - and if you sink most of the US Navy and then give the Confederacy months to keep building theirs, the CSA's going to have a much more credible navy of their own. (Witness Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana and all the other ironclads the CSA didn't quite finish in the OTL.) Add in the French navy giving support, and the South's main problems largely evaporate - sure, they still have fewer troops, but now they're better trained and better armed than OTL and they don't have the Federal coastal lodgements to deal with or to divert heavy guns or effort to... result is that the OTL Union advances are (IMO) hard to see happening even close to on schedule. Certainly Sherman's March to the Sea is outright impossible.


If there's any questions, go ahead and ask! I certainly think the Union's strategic problem with either British or French support for the Confederacy is pretty intractable, but if there's a way to produce a blue-water navy quick-sharp for the Union then that might not apply. (Coastal monitors will not do, they're completely vulnerable if attacked outside a harbour.)
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Oh - something else that comes to mind is talking about the French navy.

First off, they have a large number of steam liners, though not as many as the RN. Thus they can provide pretty cataclysmic force where needed.

Secondly, they have plenty of ironclads - not just the original Lave and Devastation type, but also some built in 1859 for river work. They can build more of these as needed, and this gives them control of the Mississippi etc. and may well allow an expedition up the Potomac! (Post-Gettysburg the Potomac still did not mount guns able to stop Ironclads, OTL.) Even if not, the ironclads mean that the Union is by no means guaranteed to win the river war - the Paixhans are pretty good as they go.
 
Last edited:
Even though the region probably sees not a single French soldier, I think they push for a retro-cession of the Gadsden Purchase and the port of San Diego in the peace treaty. Such of move makes Maximilian's reign that much easier.

Even a phony war is going to have massive changes on the 1862 midterm elections. That run on the banks might not implode the Union economy but it will damn sure leave enough people destitute that the peace faction sees a huge strengthening. The lack of gold from California exacerbates the Union's financial woes and they have to print more paper that isn't backed by much of anything. Inflation goes up, desertions go up and war opposition goes way up. All of that short term pain happens at a very inopportune time for the Union.

A French division in the west would be a really fun scenario though.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Even a phony war is going to have massive changes on the 1862 midterm elections.
FWIW even OTL the Republicans actually lost - it took War Dems to keep them in.

All of that short term pain happens at a very inopportune time for the Union.
This is why I tend to hold a Trent War would be disastrous for Union war aims - it's at the point the war fervor and outrage over secessions is wearing off and the actual cost of the war is coming home, and when the big purchases made to fight the war are delivered.
 
This is why I tend to hold a Trent War would be disastrous for Union war aims - it's at the point the war fervor and outrage over secessions is wearing off and the actual cost of the war is coming home, and when the big purchases made to fight the war are delivered.

The Confederacy had a literal do or die scenario in regards to the near economic collapse during the war. The Union does not, and my strong suspicion is that a good portion of the moneyed class (which is linked arm-in-arm to British capital) sees the damage inflicted by the blockade they're the first to hop on the peace wagon.

French soldiers are just icing on the cake for the Confederacy.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The Union does not, and my strong suspicion is that a good portion of the moneyed class (which is linked arm-in-arm to British capital) sees the damage inflicted by the blockade they're the first to hop on the peace wagon.
Meanwhile, even the most war-hungry political sort will have trouble convincing the public that they now need to radically revise their planned expenditure upwards for a second time - oh, and please come and fight the British and/or Confederacy with these old flintlock smoothbores, badly built rifles, and - actually, just bring a pitchfork, we don't have the gunpowder to really issue everyone guns even if we had them.
(That's going to be the Democrat argument, no matter how close it is to reality!)
 
I think this analysis of British intentions is probably not correct - they were planning on hitting fast and hard so as to produce a short war and avoid greater overall loss of life (at sea) while defending Canada (at land). So you're definitely going to get a blockade, and with a blockade the Union is basically f*cked in strategic terms unless they can get a peace... and their only way to hurt the British is in Canada.
Certainly Britain is going to impose a blockade, shortly after smashing as much as they can find of the Union fleet on Confederate blockade duties first. My understanding was that they would not launch land offensives or naval raids on land facilities, at least until it was clear that the blockade would make the USA back down. (And, indeed, in this scenario the North does back down before anything further is necessary.)

Thing is, while the North is standing pat (largely unable to take the offensive) they have the problem that the Confederacy is purchasing all the weapons the North did OTL. That's several hundred thousand smoothbores and rifles (paid for how? Cotton, of course), and it could actually lead to the Confederate Army being larger than the Union one.
It certainly could. I'm not sure where and whether the Confederacy would launch major operations in the meantime. They need to let winter clear in most regions, though the snow presumably clears earlier in Kentucky than in Canada.

It's also very likely the case that the US Navy loses almost their entire blockading fleet - in most cases the British ships are actually able to intercept them before they reach home - and that's nearly every ship the US has. The main exception is the Newport News squadron, which can retreat up the Chesapeake.
I wasn't sure with war timing and communication who would get the order to run first from all ports, but even best case for the US Navy is a large part of their strength gone.

As for the issue of land combat, I've said above why I think that the Union's going to want to fight on land - though of course with a resolution by April then the roads haven't opened yet in Canada. It's a serious setback for the Union, but one they could eventually recover from if they had the will to keep fighting into Lincoln's second term... if he gets one.
Oh, the Union certainly prepared troops to fight in Canada if necessary. It's just that I figured that with the combination of winter and waiting to see if it was possible to resolve the war first, Lincoln didn't order the attack until testing the waters first with a ceasefire. Which Britain in turn accepted, so it wasn't necessary to order the troops to attack into Canada.

As per OTL US policy that means an immediate US declaration of war; of course, could have been a bluff by Lincoln and/or Seward.
That could have meant a war in OTL. ATL, with Britain already at war, Lincoln isn't interested in courting an additional foe that quickly. No doubt there will be diplomatic noise about it, but not immediate declaration of war.

Mexico was fought with maybe a division of French troops or so - the same amount could have been sent to the Confederacy without much strain, France had a larger standing army than Britain and fewer colonies. In any case, advisors would be hugely useful to the Confederacy and would probably see their troops substantially able to outfight the Union (e.g. charge home against defending riflemen on a hill as per Solferino? Accurate rifle fire at ~200 yards as per Vincennes? Or just have a formed French division completely dominating the Western Theater of the war operating from a base in New Orleans.)
France was certainly capable of maintaining land forces in the Confederacy if it so chose, but it's a question of how much effort they want to put in. Everything costs, after all. Mexico is looks rather more of an attractive target given that in OTL the Mexicans inflicted some serious defeats on French and French-backed forces. So if France is raising a second division, it may end up in Mexico to secure Napoleon III's real interest there, unless the Confederacy is looking in dire straits.

Frankly, I think the thing which made the Union able to overcome the Confederacy was their sea control (it constrained imports and exports, mandated the diversion of guns and troops to the coast, and allowed the Union much better supply) - and if you sink most of the US Navy and then give the Confederacy months to keep building theirs, the CSA's going to have a much more credible navy of their own. (Witness Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana and all the other ironclads the CSA didn't quite finish in the OTL.) Add in the French navy giving support, and the South's main problems largely evaporate - sure, they still have fewer troops, but now they're better trained and better armed than OTL and they don't have the Federal coastal lodgements to deal with or to divert heavy guns or effort to... result is that the OTL Union advances are (IMO) hard to see happening even close to on schedule. Certainly Sherman's March to the Sea is outright impossible.
Best case for the Union is certainly a longer war. Even if they maintained roughly the same schedule of advances in the west as OTL, there's at least a six month pause from the outbreak of the Trent War while troops are shipped up north, brought back, and need to be re-equipped with arms, powder etc once Britain lifts the blockade. It will be hard to maintain that pace of advance anyway... which brings the political question into play since there's at least two elections (1862 and 1864) before any possible victory.

If there's any questions, go ahead and ask! I certainly think the Union's strategic problem with either British or French support for the Confederacy is pretty intractable, but if there's a way to produce a blue-water navy quick-sharp for the Union then that might not apply. (Coastal monitors will not do, they're completely vulnerable if attacked outside a harbour.)
The only way to build a Union blue-water navy quickly that I can think of is to get Britain to build it for them. Which could be rather difficult...
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Certainly Britain is going to impose a blockade, shortly after smashing as much as they can find of the Union fleet on Confederate blockade duties first. My understanding was that they would not launch land offensives or naval raids on land facilities, at least until it was clear that the blockade would make the USA back down.
Land offensives, no, but it still means the USN's crippled. As for naval raids, it's hard to tell - OTL they certainly did so in the Sea of Azov in 1855-6, and port attacks are part and parcel of fighting on the Great Lakes (but if it thaws before then there's no problem, of course).

ED: I seem to remember some line from Milne about how he "regretted" the "necessity" of basically destroying New York and Boston. I think it's an open question as to whether he'd actually go through with that - conceivably, though, he could capture Boston almost by accident as the forts are unarmed at the time of Trent.

It certainly could. I'm not sure where and whether the Confederacy would launch major operations in the meantime. They need to let winter clear in most regions, though the snow presumably clears earlier in Kentucky than in Canada.

It's going to have a permanent effect - the Union's size can't just spring back to their OTL point. It means the summer campaign is entirely likely to be one where the Confederacy, not the Union, set the strategic initiative.

The only way to build a Union blue-water navy quickly that I can think of is to get Britain to build it for them. Which could be rather difficult...

They could buy some of one from France, but TTL that's also not possible.
 
Last edited:
Oh - something else that comes to mind is talking about the French navy.

First off, they have a large number of steam liners, though not as many as the RN. Thus they can provide pretty cataclysmic force where needed.

Secondly, they have plenty of ironclads - not just the original Lave and Devastation type, but also some built in 1859 for river work. They can build more of these as needed, and this gives them control of the Mississippi etc. and may well allow an expedition up the Potomac! (Post-Gettysburg the Potomac still did not mount guns able to stop Ironclads, OTL.) Even if not, the ironclads mean that the Union is by no means guaranteed to win the river war - the Paixhans are pretty good as they go.
Certainly France can project considerable power. This is why in the original scenario, I'm not sure whether the North would decide it was worth the fight to reinstate the blockade. Yes, it severely weakens their ability to fight the South, but it's also pretty clearly guaranteed to bring France in. At least in the short term, if the North fights without the blockade, then France stays out. It's a difficult equation either way, but I'm not sure which would be the likely choice. Both are metaphorically poison pills.

Even though the region probably sees not a single French soldier, I think they push for a retro-cession of the Gadsden Purchase and the port of San Diego in the peace treaty. Such of move makes Maximilian's reign that much easier.
That's the sort of thing which would give the North the motivation to fight on, though. It's one thing to have states secede, but this is taking what's clearly Northern territory. France may ask for it, but I'm not sure how insistent they would be.

Even a phony war is going to have massive changes on the 1862 midterm elections. That run on the banks might not implode the Union economy but it will damn sure leave enough people destitute that the peace faction sees a huge strengthening. The lack of gold from California exacerbates the Union's financial woes and they have to print more paper that isn't backed by much of anything. Inflation goes up, desertions go up and war opposition goes way up. All of that short term pain happens at a very inopportune time for the Union.
Oh, yes, it's an ugly scenario. The full political outcome is hard to judge, but at the very least the Lincoln administration would greatly benefit from some tangible victories in the second half of 1862, before the midterm elections, or its difficulties will grow much worse thereafter.

A French division in the west would be a really fun scenario though.
Definitely. It'd be interesting to explore.

FWIW even OTL the Republicans actually lost - it took War Dems to keep them in.
Any thoughts on which way would the Constitutional Unionists jump, if they held the balance of power? Their entire raison d'etre seemed to be avoiding taking a position on slavery, though generally pro-Union. Their decision could be decisive.

The Confederacy had a literal do or die scenario in regards to the near economic collapse during the war. The Union does not, and my strong suspicion is that a good portion of the moneyed class (which is linked arm-in-arm to British capital) sees the damage inflicted by the blockade they're the first to hop on the peace wagon.
Although the Union conceding to peace may create another bank run and panic, too.

Meanwhile, even the most war-hungry political sort will have trouble convincing the public that they now need to radically revise their planned expenditure upwards for a second time - oh, and please come and fight the British and/or Confederacy with these old flintlock smoothbores, badly built rifles, and - actually, just bring a pitchfork, we don't have the gunpowder to really issue everyone guns even if we had them.
(That's going to be the Democrat argument, no matter how close it is to reality!)
It's going to be nasty, certainly. It depends how many Democrats were War Democrats in OTL and how likely they were to switch, and also whether the Constitutional Unionist minority is inclined to support Republicans or Democrats.

ED: I seem to remember some line from Milne about how he "regretted" the "necessity" of basically destroying New York and Boston. I think it's an open question as to whether he'd actually go through with that - conceivably, though, he could capture Boston almost by accident as the forts are unarmed at the time of Trent
Milne deciding to attack New York and/or Boston is certainly plausible, but not a certain outcome, as far as I can tell. For the purposes of the scenario I'm assuming either that he holds off, or that more explicit instructions come from London about avoiding port engagements.

It's going to have a permanent effect - the Union's size can't just spring back to their OTL point. It means the summer campaign is entirely likely to be one where the Confederacy, not the Union, set the strategic initiative.
This is generally bad for the Union, but oddly enough there may be circumstances where this backfires on the Confederacy. They were never very effective at operating on Northern soil in OTL, and if they get ambitious and try to invade the North, that may cost them.
 
I am not going to get into another argument with Saph over his scenario and simply take this one as presented, as it fits a lot of my own thinking on this one.

My own belief:
Jan-April 1862 Civil War in the West is unchanged, as it is easily recognized nothing is going to happen in regards to Canada until Spring (which could be as late as May depending on the weather). Those Union armies are already armed and in the field and are relatively small compared to the great mass of troops in the East.
Meanwhile the naval actions as noted
May 1862 Peace between Britain and the United States breaks out (as spring is coming and neither wants to escalate things further) but meanwhile France has leaped in as stated above and for the same reasons Napoleon III managed to mire himself into a protracted colonial war in Mexico and would ultimately blunder into a fatal war with Prussia he acts as suggested. In part it is because he thinks the Union is a paper tiger.

So lets look at the situation

While the British had bases at Bermuda, Halifax and probably could seize Marthas Vineyard/Nantucket, the nearest French base is Martinique. Most of their warships are designed for operations in the Mediterranean and are not designed for the hard bounding of the North Atlantic. They have ample power to prevent a Union blockade but the French Navy is going to be hard pressed to mount a blockade against the Union coast lines (either of them as the West coast is a thing).

Supplying an army against Arizona or southern California has an extremely long supply line across the Sonoran and Chihuahua deserts which are impractically long, and that portion of northern Mexico is thinly settled and cannot support operations from its own resources. So any operations against California requires either direct naval transportation from France via French India, the portions of Indochina seized so far, then across 7,000+ miles of Pacific Ocean, or through the Atlantic, Gulf of the Mexico, overland Vera Cruz to Acapulco then up the coast to whatever port the French can seize.

Then there are troop issues. The Mexican campaign has 40,000 French troops involved. There are another 3,000 or so French troops involved in conquering Cochin China (still fighting in 1862). As those troops are then supporting the continued occupation they are busy for the duration of this scenario. I don't know how many troops are minding the store in French Algeria and Tunisia, but we can assume a fair number. The French Army is only around 400,000 men, and that includes colonial garrisons, so we can assume at most 300,000 are available after all of that. The French are not going to let Napoleon send the Garde Mobile to North America (as it is supposed to be the home defense force) or strip France of regular troops to go empire building against the Americans. The peak strength of the French Army in Crimea was around 110,000 (including 30,000 held in reserve in Turkey) so it seems reasonable that a French field army of 50-75,000 men could be assembled somewhere. Most likely for the logistical reasons above that somewhere would be supporting the Confederates and the easiest location for that is the Mississippi valley.

The United States meanwhile is certainly undertaking a mass naval construction campaign even more intense than it did historically, and economic efforts to deal with the weaknesses indicated by the brief war with the British will continue (crash programs to produce more steel, higher grades of iron both of which occurred during the Civil War, as well as gunpowder manufacture). Most likely the US Military Railroad will build the transcontinental railroad following the Union Pacific or Northern Pacific routes (which would have interesting implications post war ...would the US government sell it or keep it and allow a railroad company to manage it?)

1862-63 Would see limited offensives on the Union side at least as it is continuing to mobilize after suffering delays. What the South would do is a little harder to predict. Lee would not be in charge initially, as Joseph Johnston is in command in Virginia. Johnston was never one to launch offensives without a huge amount of prodding and likely stalemate in 1862. The French could send that army I guessed at above to help in the West, and it with the support of French gunboats and Confederate troops most likely would invade Missouri and Kentucky. That would be were the big battles would be fought. Saint Louis is not going to fall easily and the same reason that Columbus was a natural fortress for the Confederacy (until outflanked by Donelson) make it a similar fortress for the Union.

My guess, the Franco-Confederate invasions of Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri end up failing in 1863 after so pretty intense fighting. If the French go to the east, the Union retains all of the advantages it had historically in the West and "Little Mac" manages to win a defensive victory in Maryland or Pennsylvania because I don't see either him or Joe Johnston changing their basic personality traits and abilities. That probably gets Joe fired and Lee put in charge sometime in 1863.

From then on its a war of attrition. The French can't spare too many more troops (only 400,000 total committed in the Crimean War and that includes replacing losses of 95,000 men dead and that includes their naval forces in that 400,000). The Confederate manpower pool remains its critical weakness and eventually it will bleed to death, the French will pull back to Mexico and somewhere around 1866-67 the Union conquers the South and imposes a peace.

Political will is probably going to be a lot firmer here for the Union. For one thing while the British war might be written off as a blunder by Lincoln, the intervention of the French is going to unite War Democrats (remember they too were pissed at Southern Treason, which is exactly what they called it) and the Republicans even more firmly as a French intervention is obviously aggression for the benefit of French Imperial pretensions. The first major Union victory will bring about the Emancipation Proclamation that resulted in 130,000 African Americans joining the Union Army by the end of the war in OTL. The British might not sell anything to the Union but the Germans, particularly the Prussians, will be happy to do so as it will help them in their goals (keeping the French busy gives them a free hand, even more so than OTL, to beat up Austria in 1866).

The US will build a large navy and that navy is going to tear up French merchant shipping. While the Union might lose its merchant fleet (and did to a large extent historically) to reflagging and the like, any French blockade is eventually doomed to failure. We probably would see the monitors reduced in influence as the lead ship does not have a famous victory and the US build warships modeled on British designs by 1864-65 and significant numbers by 1866. By that point the French are going to have problems of their own. The Prussians beat up the Austrians (as there is no reason to assume that will change, or the reasons for it) and Prussia is a major concern for France 1867-70. At that point the French are looking for a way out.

The Union Army peaked at a million men on the roles by 1865. By that point the South was doing good to keep 250,000 in the field (and that number historically then crashed). Assuming historical casualties, adjusting up a bit for fighting the French, and around 450,000 Union dead (up 100,000 from historical), the historical (roughly) Confederate figures and probably around 100,000 French dead by 1865 (all causes as disease is still a major problem plus the usual losses from skirmishing and of course the blood toll of major battles).

In the end the South goes down as the only power that could really save it is the British Empire, who has no particular interest in doing so (and even less so after the Emancipation Proclamation), and when caught, a lot of Confederate political leaders are going to get tried and executed for treason (the Union is going to be very angry about bringing in foreign troops to fight Americans on American soil). We might see some Confederate generals hanged as well.

Eventually the French are ejected from Mexico too, if for no other reason than the US will keep that a running sore for as long as it takes by pouring in weapons to the Juarez, or because of events in Europe make it impossible for the French to maintain the military support to their client state.
 
Last edited:
That's the sort of thing which would give the North the motivation to fight on, though. It's one thing to have states secede, but this is taking what's clearly Northern territory. France may ask for it, but I'm not sure how insistent they would be.

There's a lot of places I can see the Union going to the mattresses for, but Yuma doesn't make the short list. The territory used to be Mexican, is still populated by Mexicans and has very little value to a nation tearing itself apart.

It seems like a grand gesture Napoleon III would go for, but it's importance is extremely low given that the bulk of any prospective peace will be dealing with the south and the British, the French and Mexico will be a mere afterthought.
 
Top