Will the us ever formalize relations with the condefedracey after a southern victory

Only if the Confederacy became in effect a British or French protectorate in acheiving independence (this presumes active European intervention) would the US not quickly establish normal diplomatic relations with the confederacy. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union, but he was also a realist. If the CSA won its independence on the battlefield with or without European recognition, I think he would bow to the inevitable. He would have to negotiate a settlement with the CSA as a fait accompli and formal diplomatic recognition would immediately follow. In fact, I think both sides would do more than simply share ambassadors...I think they would move quickly to establish friendly trade arrangements.

The USA would remain hostile to the CSA only if the new nation was perceived as a tool of foreign interests.
 

jahenders

Banned
I'm not saying any of those was probable, but that IF some combination of those had occurred, they could potentially impacted Union determination to win.

I disagree re Gettysburg, though. The whole affair was closer than you suggest. Ewell might have taken Cemetary hill on the first day, had he pushed, denying the Union the good ground. Alternately, if the rebels had taken and held the Round Tops it could have made much of the Union position vulnerable. Finally, Lee did not absolutely have to attack. As you note, he ignored lessons from throughout the war in attacking (especially on the 3rd day). He could have tried to maneuver around the Union army, putting Union cities at some risk. This option is explored well in Gingrinch's book "Gettysburg."


First Bull Run - McDowell had almost as many men who didn't go into action as did; even if JE Johnston or Beauregard had tried to advance, now the shoe is on the other foot and they would be attacking a defending force - which can take a position north of any number of water lines.

Shiloh - The problem for the rebels is AS Johnston attacked Grant's 49,000 with his own 45,000 on the first day, and even with the advantage of operational surprise, Grant's force held - with an entire division that wasn't even engaged in reserve. And the army artillery. And the gunboats. Amd then on the second day, Buell's 18,000 arrived...

Gettysburg - not really; the rebels had to attack and, not surprisingly, a veteran army under a solid commander on the defensive cleaned their clocks. Plus, Lee, forgetting Malvern Hill yet again.

Vicksburg - Grant being forced away from anything by Pemberton and JE Johnston is completely unlikely, especially since Grant turned in his best maneuver campaign ever in the summer of '63.

'64 - The US was so close to victory they could taste it; there's a reason 50 percent of Sherman's 3-year-veterans reenlisted that year for the duration.

Best,
 

frlmerrin

Banned
So many people that not only can't reply to the question but have to splatter the whole thread with posts expressing personal prejudice as to why the OP is foolish and misguided for asking the question in the first place. How sad.
 
I think formal relations would open quickly. There may or may not be a second war, but if the CSA survives the second war I think that eventually the USA and CSA will become quite friendly. It's even conceivable that, after the two move closer together on race, or at least, the South abolishes slavery (an practical inevitability I believe), the two could come back together. Though that is heavily dependent on how long before the subject can reasonably be discussed, after long enough the politics diverge too much and simple momentum and status quo block the issue. And all hope is lost once either abandons the name "American" to describe themselves. But it would not be the first time in history that a rebel splinter was peacefully reintegrated.

Another hitch is the World Wars, if the USA and CSA end up on opposite sides of alliance chains they could get dragged in against each other, though I think a more likely outcome is that neither American power gets involved in Europe.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Re Gettysburg - put it this way, the ANV had to attack if

I'm not saying any of those was probable, but that IF some combination of those had occurred, they could potentially impacted Union determination to win.

I disagree re Gettysburg, though. The whole affair was closer than you suggest. Ewell might have taken Cemetary hill on the first day, had he pushed, denying the Union the good ground. Alternately, if the rebels had taken and held the Round Tops it could have made much of the Union position vulnerable. Finally, Lee did not absolutely have to attack. As you note, he ignored lessons from throughout the war in attacking (especially on the 3rd day). He could have tried to maneuver around the Union army, putting Union cities at some risk. This option is explored well in Gingrinch's book "Gettysburg."

Re Gettysburg - put it this way, the ANV had to attack if Lee wanted to achieve anything from the operation; he could try and manever, but his army wasn't any fresher and it is certainly much more poorly supplied than Meade, and Meade was both operating on interior lines and outnumbered Lee by more than 20,000 men (25,000 according to Battles and Leaders), so the liklihood of anything decisive coming from that is vanishingly small.

Likewise, they simply could have withdrawn, presumably outdistancing Meade et al on the march south, but that would have been a waste of time and horseflesh.

The issue, again, is that by anything resembling a rational accounting, the rebellion was doomed to failure from Day 1. It had to be beaten down, of course, but the correlation of forces - economic, political, military, and demographic - was such that as long as the US was willing to fight, the end was predetermined. All the rebels ever had in abundance, as Margaret Mitchell noted, was arrogance...

One can posit the rebels having a streak of luck that would make anyone living in a ratonal universe blush (and, after all, one makes their own luck - and, as was said by Jesse Oldendorf after Surigao Strait: "never give a sucker an even break"), or McClellan or someone else becoming a Petain, but that's out there in the Twilight Zone.

There are those who wish really hard otherwise, but that's all they ever were - wishes.

Best,
 
Re Gettysburg - put it this way, the ANV had to attack if Lee wanted to achieve anything from the operation; he could try and manever, but his army wasn't any fresher and it is certainly much more poorly supplied than Meade, and Meade was both operating on interior lines and outnumbered Lee by more than 20,000 men (25,000 according to Battles and Leaders), so the liklihood of anything decisive coming from that is vanishingly small.

Likewise, they simply could have withdrawn, presumably outdistancing Meade et al on the march south, but that would have been a waste of time and horseflesh.

The issue, again, is that by anything resembling a rational accounting, the rebellion was doomed to failure from Day 1. It had to be beaten down, of course, but the correlation of forces - economic, political, military, and demographic - was such that as long as the US was willing to fight, the end was predetermined. All the rebels ever had in abundance, as Margaret Mitchell noted, was arrogance...

One can posit the rebels having a streak of luck that would make anyone living in a ratonal universe blush (and, after all, one makes their own luck - and, as was said by Jesse Oldendorf after Surigao Strait: "never give a sucker an even break"), or McClellan or someone else becoming a Petain, but that's out there in the Twilight Zone.

There are those who wish really hard otherwise, but that's all they ever were - wishes.

Best,

One thing at Gettysburg is that the Union army, although they had lost consistently in the past, by this stage they were a hardened, discipline army looking not only for a fight, but for a victory. They would have held Cemetery Hill on the first day, as they did on Little Round Top the second regardless of who was coming at them.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
All very true... and to be fair, the Army of the Potomac,

One thing at Gettysburg is that the Union army, although they had lost consistently in the past, by this stage they were a hardened, discipline army looking not only for a fight, but for a victory. They would have held Cemetery Hill on the first day, as they did on Little Round Top the second regardless of who was coming at them.

All very true... and to be fair, the Army of the Potomac, as a military organization, did not lose on the Peninsula - although its commander certainly did.

In the Seven Days, for example, all but one of the battles, including the last and arguably most significant, Malvern Hill, was a US victory in the field...

Not so much at the headquarters, of course, but that was not the average Billy's fault, much less most of the officers, up to and including the corps commanders...

Best,
 
All very true... and to be fair, the Army of the Potomac, as a military organization, did not lose on the Peninsula - although its commander certainly did.

In the Seven Days, for example, all but one of the battles, including the last and arguably most significant, Malvern Hill, was a US victory in the field...

Not so much at the headquarters, of course, but that was not the average Billy's fault, much less most of the officers, up to and including the corps commanders...

Best,

That may be true, but the Army of the Potomac did not really have any successful - or perhaps significant - victories until Gettysburg. Antietam may count, but Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville hurt them enough to learn from turning a defeat into a victory.

And you also have to consider that the AoNV, as well as its commander Lee, did believe in their invincibility due to their consistent victories since he practically took command of the army.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Oh, I agree, but I was just making the point that at

That may be true, but the Army of the Potomac did not really have any successful - or perhaps significant - victories until Gettysburg. Antietam may count, but Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville hurt them enough to learn from turning a defeat into a victory.

And you also have to consider that the AoNV, as well as its commander Lee, did believe in their invincibility due to their consistent victories since he practically took command of the army.

Oh, I agree, but I was just making the point that at the tactics/grand tactis/operational level (as opposed to the grand tactics/operational/strategic level) the Army of the Potomac was far from the hapless bunch they are sometimes perceived as...

McClellan's strategic leadership (or at times, lack thereof;)) has stained the army to a degree that is inaccurate, to a large part.

As far as Burnside and Hooker go, neither were sucessful at army level, but neither retreated repeatedly from battlefield victories, either.

Best,
 
I dunno; North/South Korea and China/Taiwan still refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of their enemy's respective governments.

That is because neither are separatist. Now admittedly the modern PRC doesn't want Formosa to become separatist but that is another matter entirely.
 
My personal favorite ultimate fate for the CSA is a slave rebellion toppling the government and turning it into a black-dominated country that remains somewhat racist against whites for a while. I imagine that version of CSA would keep open relations with the Union.
 
True, there's no way the South is going to win them all, but a few could make a difference:
1861: First Bull Run -- a more decisive Southern victory, DC threatened
1862: Shiloh -- very nearly a Union loss. If the South crushes Grant and Buell against the river, the US loses huge forces and Grant (either to death, capture, or he's relieved).
1863: Gettysburg -- a near run thing. If Lee wins and routs Union forces, there could be panic as major northern cities are threatened.
1863: Vicksburg -- Grant forced away, limiting US river use
1864: Just more US blood in general

Good up a point. However with the CSA doing better at Manassas and a victory at Shiloh I wouldn't think any battles after those two would happen as OTL.
 
Well if they've signed a peace treaty that means they've been compelled to at least recognize the Confederacy. The tragedy for all Unionists is that if foreign recognition is achieved it will be hard to put Humpty Dumpty back together again and the Confederacy will be de-facto an independent nation.

Otherwise the biggest issue which will force at least some level of discourse is economics. The regions of the US were pretty interdependent, the mills of New England couldn't function without Southern cotton and the South needed the cheap industrial parts of New England for its own small industries (here though New England will see itself competing with England for that market so that's a semi-amusing ripple). The Mid West also wants Southern tobacco and crops/cattle while the South wants Midwestern grain and other staples not easily grown there.

The other fact is you can't just up and ignore a new and large neighbor on the block.
 

jahenders

Banned
While it's true they'd be independent, I don't think all in the North (or South) would conclude that Humpty Dumpty could never be reassembled, in whole or in part. If, after the war, CSA doesn't appear to be a "good deal" for all of the states, I could see some breaking away (and CSA can't really argue against a right to secession). Then, if some of those that do essentially get rid of slavery (already in decline), I could see some asking for readmission to the Union.

As noted, there was a lot of interdependence so tariffs and taxes might be a big negative between interdependent entities. As you note, you could see others competing to supply either US and/or CSA. I could see some CSA states getting pretty concerned if CSA taxes/tariffs made some foreign suppliers look attractive to their key markets (vice versa for US).

Well if they've signed a peace treaty that means they've been compelled to at least recognize the Confederacy. The tragedy for all Unionists is that if foreign recognition is achieved it will be hard to put Humpty Dumpty back together again and the Confederacy will be de-facto an independent nation.

Otherwise the biggest issue which will force at least some level of discourse is economics. The regions of the US were pretty interdependent, the mills of New England couldn't function without Southern cotton and the South needed the cheap industrial parts of New England for its own small industries (here though New England will see itself competing with England for that market so that's a semi-amusing ripple). The Mid West also wants Southern tobacco and crops/cattle while the South wants Midwestern grain and other staples not easily grown there.

The other fact is you can't just up and ignore a new and large neighbor on the block.
 
I think in the long run the CSA would be able to argue against a right to secession, the USA did after all. Really I think long term the CSA would have a very powerful federal government simply because they feel the need to because of their small size. The US would be highly decentralized because faith in the central government was ruined by the lost war.
 
The CSA Constitution explicitly forbade its member states from seceding. Slaveholder hypocrisy for the win.
 
Top