Wrapped in Flames: The Great American War and Beyond

[Shnurre]

The real concern would be China and the inevitable Mandchurian part if the railroad. But again, misusing a quote that has not been huttered yet... Whatever happens, the *insert European power* have got the [Gatling/Maxim/Nordenfelt] gun and they have not.

If you mean Manchurian as in Outer Manchurian (aka southern part of Russian Far East centered around the Vladivostok), then it is if course necessary, but its’ acquisition is pre PoD (the Convention of Peking was in 1860).

If you mean Manchurian as in Manchurian Proper there is nothing inevitable in routing the railroad through there. Yes, the route through Manchuria was cheaper (mostly because of plainer relief) but not by that much. Even from the point of length the railroad built to Chinese border and through Chinese territory was only marginally shorter than the railroad built north of Amur River (1894 km v. s. 2051 km). This is of course because the railroad from Vladivostok to Khabarovsk was built in early 1890s anyway (644 km from juncture to Chinese Eastern Railway), but connecting Amur River and Vladivostok was of paramount strategic importance.
Moreover, the decision on building Chinese Eastern Railway was made in the second half of 1890s, when much of the Trans-Siberian Railway was already built. The initial plans were to built the railway north of Amur and these plans were started to implement immediately after Russo-Japanese War.

Overall IOTL the decision to build railroad through neighboring country was an extremely costly blunder that both wasted Russian Empire resources and lead to a rapid development of a massively important region of rivaling regional power. Of course, the plan was to grab Manchuria for Russia and if this was successful then it all would be worth it (so perhaps it should be called a gamble rather than a blunder, but it was a rather desperate gamble).

ITTL even the slight change of circumstance can lead to different outcomes.
If Chinese government is a bit more stable ITTL than Russia can implement its initial plan of Amur railway.
Conversely if Russia reaches Manchuria by railroad a decade, or better two decades earlier than IOTL, the plan to grab Manchuria can be much more successful (the Chinese settlement of Northern Manchuria really took off in 1890s, so if it is Russian territory by then, it potentially can be integrated into Russia in the same way Far East was IOTL; Japan also probably cannot challenge Russia in the region until early 1900s, so Russia can be way more entrenched by the time Japan can be ready to act).

Ah this one gets it!

Is it possible to construct a Trans-Siberian Railroad in the late 19th century? Someone means to find out! But I am getting a little ahead of myself...

All the technology to build Trans-Siberian railroad is there from 1860s at least. The only thing that really prevented Russia from doing so is the lack of funds. So, if Russia ITTL has wealthy outside investors or if it chooses to prioritize railroad building over e. g. Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878 (that costed an insane amount of money, more than full cost of Trans-Siberian railroad, helped to liberate Balkans, but lead to very meager gains on part of Russia not to mention that it caused inflation and reduced Russian ability to loan money for decades), it can definitely build the railroad substantially earlier than IOTL.

Moreover, you should take in mind that even partial completion of railroad would lead to massive changes in Siberia (and also would massively bootstrap Russian economy).

Connecting Russian railway network to Ural Mountains would massively boost Russian heavy industry (some 1100 km in addition to a privately owned "island" railroad from Perm to Tyumen through Ekaterinburg built IOTL by early 1880s; but the local capitalists wanted to build it since early 1860s, so if they get permission from authorities quicker and especially if there is a perspective of this railroad connecting to main Russian railroad net, it can certainly happen in early 1870s).

Going from Tyumen to Omsk, Ob River and the capital of Western Siberia Tomsk (another 1450 km) can bring extremely cheap grain to Ural Mountains and to Russia proper where it can be traded abroad and industrial goods to West Siberia from Ural. Moreover, it would lead to extremely rapid settlement of steppes in southern West Siberia and OTL Northern Kazakhstan (in the first 15 years after the completion of Trans-Siberian railroad the population of Western Siberia and OTL Northern Kazakhstan doubled going from 4 million people to more than 7.5 million; this was the region where the majority settlers in 1895-1915 went). Tomsk is also close to Kuzbass region extremely rich with coal and iron as well as other natural resources that are known since XVIII century but that cannot really be put to proper use without railroad bringing workers and grain to the region and transporting coal, steel and industrial goods to European Russia and international markets.
Additionally, the availability empty and extremely fertile land can potentially soften the situation with freed peasants left without land.

From Tomsk it is 650 km to Krasnoyarsk, a region extremely rich with gold, fur and other natural resources, but where the price of grain is 3 times the price of grain in Tomsk (in other parts of Central and Eastern Siberia it is several times higher).
From Krasnoyarsk it is 1100 km to Irkutsk on lake Baikal, from where it is 250 km to Kyahta on Chinese border that was a center of extremely profitable tea trade (by mid XIX century yearly imports of tea were over 10 thousand tons; through Kyahta around 10% of Russian foreign trade was conducted; more than 10 thousand people were employed in transporting the tea over Siberia and just their yearly wages were around two million rubles).

I can go on, but to sum up Russia definitely could build at least the part of railroad to the west of Lake Baikal in 1870s-1880s.
It would have the length of some 4300 kilometers (in comparison Central Pacific Railroad built in 1860s is 3000 km) in addition to the Ural Railway privately built IOTL (or alternatively it follow the historical southern route without connecting to the Ural Railway, requiring some 4400 km railways built). Moreover, even partial completion (say to Tomsk, which requires 2550 km built) would bring Russia massive economic and strategic benefits.

Now, completing the railway all the way to Vladivostok is another 3100 km if going through Manchuria (and without building any additional railways diverging from main track such as railway to Khabarovsk, Sretensk and Port-Arthur built IOTL before the Russian-Japanese War) or 4100 if going north of Amur.
But if Russia builds the section of railroad to Baikal by late 1870s-early 1880s in the next decade it probably can complete the railroad to Vladivostok.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

It seems like the recipe for an intra-Confederate civil war of their own down the line, as the Upper South tends to get more "Northernized" in economy and mentality.

There were pre-existing differences between the Upper and Lower South even before the war. Places like Kentucky, Virginia and Tennessee did have slightly more industrially diverse economies, and per-capita lower slave ownership that states like Georgia and South Carolina. That was one of the reasons why those states waited so long to secede until Lincoln called for force to put down the rebellion. Largely the only thing that tied them together was the threat of ending slavery and the ideological belief in white supremacy.

After the war there will be big changes in the Upper South as more than 200,000 slaves are gone, meaning there's fewer slaves in Kentucky, Virginia and Tennessee than before the war. That will, in the short term, decrease the value of slave property in those states and dampen their impact on the economy. In the long term, slightly less so. However, I wouldn't say they'll be "Northernized" in mentality, Kentucky was the closest OTL and yet a lot of that state's politicians were either secessionists or sympathetic to them (something I was seriously surprised by, though in hindsight probably shouldn't have been). So even Lincoln's slightly heavier hand in Kentucky was enough to tip them over the edge in WiF.

Going forward, they will have disputes with Richmond, but not enough to set off the chain reaction to counter secession. For now...

They don't have the phrase the dog who caught the car yet. They're going to need it in the C S A.

Oh boy will they. Independence will be a mixed bag for the South. Going forward it will be interesting to look at how a Confederacy with very different ideas on the distribution of power will view itself. The Supreme Court will be one bit of a clusterfrag let me tell you!

 

[Icedaemon]

It does seem that the southern leadership is mostly just kicking various problems down the line for their future successors. Cotton extraction, with a basic textile industry, would only diminish in global importance, while anyone finding slavery too odious would seek alternatives to buying from the confederacy. Not building a supreme court could easily lead to legal confusion down the line.

 

[Knightmare]

It does seem that the southern leadership is mostly just kicking various problems down the line for their future successors. Cotton extraction, with a basic textile industry, would only diminish in global importance, while anyone finding slavery too odious would seek alternatives to buying from the confederacy. Not building a supreme court could easily lead to legal confusion down the line.

Look, if the CSA was capable of forward thinking, they wouldn't have seceded. The only reason it worked here was the UK stepped in. Otherwise....

 

[John_Smith12]

It seems like the recipe for an intra-Confederate civil war of their own down the line, as the Upper South tends to get more "Northernized" in economy and mentality.

Honestly that's kinda inevitable, with just how economically and demographically superior the North is. The Southern merchant class is going probably have significant connections to their Northern counterparts

 

[EnglishCanuck]

The New World Order 1866 Part 4: The Mexican Empire​

“Despite debts which seemed to be ever increasing, the Mexican Empire was, gradually, cementing its control over the major cities and the hinterlands of Mexico. Though guerrilla bands did occasionally stalk near the capital, the ongoing reorganization of the Mexican state, and the pockets of stability propped up by imperialista and European bayonets, meant that a degree of goodwill was beginning to form towards the emperor from the average Mexican. While his advisors were chronically frustrated with Maximillian’s tours of his new country, the ability of the people to see and meet the emperor as a man, not just a figure in far off Mexico City, had the effect of making him a physical presence in the minds of Mexicans. Especially his penchant for random (and costly) acts of charity. So often would he embark on these quixotic tours of his new nation that it would not be until 1870 when he spent a full year in the capital. In what could almost be considered a modern act of political meet and greet, Maximilian unintentionally used these good will tours to craft a domestic base for himself.

In the villages and the haciendas Maximillian would experience the poverty and near feudal nature of most of his people. He would write passionately to Mexico City that laws must be passed to protect “the least of my people” from their quasi feudal overlords. Personal meetings with local priests and parishioners allowed him to go around the Church hierarchy that tried to stymie him. These meetings often endeared him to average laborers, while annoying the hacendados who ran the land. Though often they were outwardly gracious and deferential, many would mock the Emperor after he left. One man would go so far as to make a show of making the lives of his laborers easier, but rescind on such good treatment after the Emperor and his entourage had left. To his great misfortune, Maximilian returned and upon seeing this about face, the Emperor had a rare show of rage and ordered the man imprisoned. Stopping just short of giving the land to the people, he informed the hacendados children that he would again return and he had best find the land as he left it.

Though rare, such outbursts often caused Maximilian some respite when he was disrespected as he would often not change his mind after the fact. Prone to avoiding conflict, he would stick firmly to decisions made unless Carlota talked him down. Conflicts with many of his European advisors would often end this way, and Carlota preferred her Belgian countrymen, but Maximilian would heap praise on his Austrians. This, naturally, led to less French influence becoming tolerable at court, which caused deep annoyance with Napoleon in Paris. When Maximilian wrote him requesting another loan to cover his personal expenses, Napoleon ordered his government to refuse until another load of the existing debt was paid that year.

Minus the debt his government faced, Maximilian became obsessed with reorganizing the nation in a way that he could have a Chamber of Deputies elected to fully pass laws for the nation. To that end he divided Mexico into 50 administrative regions, aiming to rationalize the administration of the empire[1]. Instead of old regional ties, these would be based on natural or geographic borders as much as possible, while taking terrain and climate into consideration. This was hoped to have a good number of prefects who could administer from a central regional capital. That way taxes could be collected, government orders promulgated, and the nation slowly tied together by the intervention of imperial forces in trouble spots. However, many of these regions would have representation in name only, with representatives elected from the towns speaking for the whole of the department. It would be some time before the major southern departments had proper representation, or even overall imperial authority.

Maximilian’s next fixation was binding these diverse regions together with the greatest of modern transportation, railroads. Though the rail line from Veracruz to Mexico City was being constructed, Maximilian saw railroads connecting the north and south of his nation, and even a railroad which would tie the Atlantic and Pacific coasts together. In September of 1864 the Imperial Mexican Railway Company had been chartered in London, with the implicit understanding it would be chartered to help connect Mexico City to the sea. Maximilian, with word that the line was expected to be completed - depending on interruptions - by 1870, worked to get them to invest in lines to the north of Mexico City as well. He would often speak of his dreams for the future of Mexico as a prosperous nation connecting everything from the Atlantic to the Pacific and an ‘entrepot for Asia to Europe’ with Blasio when he was in a wistful mood..

The war though, came first…” - Maximilian and Carolta: A New World Dynasty, Margaret Amberson, 2014

Departments of the Second Mexican Empire​

“The fighting in the vastness of northern Mexico dragged on as Juarez entrenched with his followers in Chihuahua hoped that the geography could work to their advantage. Some suggested a withdrawal to California, worrying that if Juarez fell he would have no clear successor to take over. His closest ally and chief successor, Sebastián Lerdo de Tejada, encouraged Juarez to retreat from El Paso del Norte at least further west to Nogales, closer to the much friendlier American border. They were getting no meaningful supplies through Texas, save from smugglers, and Juarez’s followers were in as much danger from the Texans as they were from the French and imperialistas. Worse, emboldened Comanche raiders were making their way into northern Mexico again, terrifying the inhabitants who withdrew support to defend themselves[2].

Despite it all, Juarez would not be moved to despair, and often encouraged his allies that they would fight. He said “I would rather die with a rifle in my hands, wrapped in the national flag, than take a single step off our holy soil.” Sadly, fewer of his followers seemed to feel that way. A small exodus began from Mexico of liberal leaning politicians and intellectuals, largely to California. As pay became scarce, desertions increased amongst the Republican ranks.

Eventually, Juarez acceded to Tejada’s advice and withdrew to Nogales, as the French forces advanced northwards. With dwindling resources, another siege was untenable. As 1866 came to a close, Juarez would move his government to Nogales, leaving a silent and sullen El Paso draped in white flags as General de Castagny’s men marched in. They were welcomed from across the border by Texas officials and Confederate officers, eager to cement a trading friendship with the new government.

The territory which the Republic effectively controlled continued to shrink…” – The Mexican Adventure, Marc Braudel, 1986

----

1] Though these will become how its governed, often times people will continue to use the old names and territories as shorthand.

2] Yet another bad knock on effect of the Comanche effectively having free reign in the Southwest.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

If you mean Manchurian as in Outer Manchurian (aka southern part of Russian Far East centered around the Vladivostok), then it is if course necessary, but its’ acquisition is pre PoD (the Convention of Peking was in 1860).

If you mean Manchurian as in Manchurian Proper there is nothing inevitable in routing the railroad through there. Yes, the route through Manchuria was cheaper (mostly because of plainer relief) but not by that much. Even from the point of length the railroad built to Chinese border and through Chinese territory was only marginally shorter than the railroad built north of Amur River (1894 km v. s. 2051 km). This is of course because the railroad from Vladivostok to Khabarovsk was built in early 1890s anyway (644 km from juncture to Chinese Eastern Railway), but connecting Amur River and Vladivostok was of paramount strategic importance.
Moreover, the decision on building Chinese Eastern Railway was made in the second half of 1890s, when much of the Trans-Siberian Railway was already built. The initial plans were to built the railway north of Amur and these plans were started to implement immediately after Russo-Japanese War.

Overall IOTL the decision to build railroad through neighboring country was an extremely costly blunder that both wasted Russian Empire resources and lead to a rapid development of a massively important region of rivaling regional power. Of course, the plan was to grab Manchuria for Russia and if this was successful then it all would be worth it (so perhaps it should be called a gamble rather than a blunder, but it was a rather desperate gamble).

ITTL even the slight change of circumstance can lead to different outcomes.
If Chinese government is a bit more stable ITTL than Russia can implement its initial plan of Amur railway.
Conversely if Russia reaches Manchuria by railroad a decade, or better two decades earlier than IOTL, the plan to grab Manchuria can be much more successful (the Chinese settlement of Northern Manchuria really took off in 1890s, so if it is Russian territory by then, it potentially can be integrated into Russia in the same way Far East was IOTL; Japan also probably cannot challenge Russia in the region until early 1900s, so Russia can be way more entrenched by the time Japan can be ready to act).

All the technology to build Trans-Siberian railroad is there from 1860s at least. The only thing that really prevented Russia from doing so is the lack of funds. So, if Russia ITTL has wealthy outside investors or if it chooses to prioritize railroad building over e. g. Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878 (that costed an insane amount of money, more than full cost of Trans-Siberian railroad, helped to liberate Balkans, but lead to very meager gains on part of Russia not to mention that it caused inflation and reduced Russian ability to loan money for decades), it can definitely build the railroad substantially earlier than IOTL.

Moreover, you should take in mind that even partial completion of railroad would lead to massive changes in Siberia (and also would massively bootstrap Russian economy).

Connecting Russian railway network to Ural Mountains would massively boost Russian heavy industry (some 1100 km in addition to a privately owned "island" railroad from Perm to Tyumen through Ekaterinburg built IOTL by early 1880s; but the local capitalists wanted to build it since early 1860s, so if they get permission from authorities quicker and especially if there is a perspective of this railroad connecting to main Russian railroad net, it can certainly happen in early 1870s).

Going from Tyumen to Omsk, Ob River and the capital of Western Siberia Tomsk (another 1450 km) can bring extremely cheap grain to Ural Mountains and to Russia proper where it can be traded abroad and industrial goods to West Siberia from Ural. Moreover, it would lead to extremely rapid settlement of steppes in southern West Siberia and OTL Northern Kazakhstan (in the first 15 years after the completion of Trans-Siberian railroad the population of Western Siberia and OTL Northern Kazakhstan doubled going from 4 million people to more than 7.5 million; this was the region where the majority settlers in 1895-1915 went). Tomsk is also close to Kuzbass region extremely rich with coal and iron as well as other natural resources that are known since XVIII century but that cannot really be put to proper use without railroad bringing workers and grain to the region and transporting coal, steel and industrial goods to European Russia and international markets.
Additionally, the availability empty and extremely fertile land can potentially soften the situation with freed peasants left without land.

From Tomsk it is 650 km to Krasnoyarsk, a region extremely rich with gold, fur and other natural resources, but where the price of grain is 3 times the price of grain in Tomsk (in other parts of Central and Eastern Siberia it is several times higher).
From Krasnoyarsk it is 1100 km to Irkutsk on lake Baikal, from where it is 250 km to Kyahta on Chinese border that was a center of extremely profitable tea trade (by mid XIX century yearly imports of tea were over 10 thousand tons; through Kyahta around 10% of Russian foreign trade was conducted; more than 10 thousand people were employed in transporting the tea over Siberia and just their yearly wages were around two million rubles).

I can go on, but to sum up Russia definitely could build at least the part of railroad to the west of Lake Baikal in 1870s-1880s.
It would have the length of some 4300 kilometers (in comparison Central Pacific Railroad built in 1860s is 3000 km) in addition to the Ural Railway privately built IOTL (or alternatively it follow the historical southern route without connecting to the Ural Railway, requiring some 4400 km railways built). Moreover, even partial completion (say to Tomsk, which requires 2550 km built) would bring Russia massive economic and strategic benefits.

Now, completing the railway all the way to Vladivostok is another 3100 km if going through Manchuria (and without building any additional railways diverging from main track such as railway to Khabarovsk, Sretensk and Port-Arthur built IOTL before the Russian-Japanese War) or 4100 if going north of Amur.
But if Russia builds the section of railroad to Baikal by late 1870s-early 1880s in the next decade it probably can complete the railroad to Vladivostok.

Thank you for all this! I've been perusing it for a few days now as its given me quite a lot to think about. I will be extremely curious on more of your thoughts after I post more of the 1866 world in review section, mostly because the route that will be taken is, in essence, the same, but will have two Pacific terminus for Russia that they consider!

 

[Ironshark]

I like Juarez and Maximilian so this is just a tragedy

although every version of it is TBH
Spilting mexico into departments would make it more like Cntral America

WW1 hints with the European influences in Mexico city ?

 

[EnglishCanuck]

It does seem that the southern leadership is mostly just kicking various problems down the line for their future successors. Cotton extraction, with a basic textile industry, would only diminish in global importance, while anyone finding slavery too odious would seek alternatives to buying from the confederacy. Not building a supreme court could easily lead to legal confusion down the line.

That is quite true. Davis doesn't want to deal with many problems (one of the issues of having a one term president is that they have a fixed time with which to try and accomplish an agenda, what could go wrong?) and many down the line issues he wants to focus on might not be shared by his successor.

The South would, even by OTL standards, have a corner on the global cotton market, but that market won't be lucrative forever. It has until the 1880s, give or take, before it becomes a bit of an economic weight around the South's neck unless they diversify. Whether the planter class will accept that is an extremely open question. But there are still capitalists in the Confederacy, and they have other lucrative cash crops that they might want to seize upon. I have a future Confederate economy mapped out. It isn't a highly mechanized one, but its one that can make certain people rich.

Look, if the CSA was capable of forward thinking, they wouldn't have seceded. The only reason it worked here was the UK stepped in. Otherwise....

Oh they can forward think, but whether it's clear thinking is the question. I lean towards a "not so clear" on that aspect.

On another note, I do tend to reject the notion that the CSA could not have won, since it leans too much towards determinism. However, any CSA that won without foreign intervention of some sort would have been a broke, crippled, and thoroughly impoverished nation that would have had a load of debt that might have been impossible to pay off. Most likely turning them into a banana republic. With some kind of foreign intervention that prevents the Union from demolishing its way up the Mississippi and doing quite a number on the CSA through blockade, well... the South could rise to be a nation that is the equivalent of Belgium or Italy economically. Albeit one still trapped in backwards racial thinking and wedded to a system of white supremacy which would make Rhodesians blush.

However, all that comes at a price still, something I firmly adhere to in Wrapped in Flames as the founders of the Confederacy firmly based their beliefs on white supremacy and what many of them viewed as their God given right to expand that ideology through force. That sort of thinking comes at a price both domestically and internationally, though much more slowly than most would like. But as they say, the higher one climbs, the further one has to fall...

Honestly that's kinda inevitable, with just how economically and demographically superior the North is. The Southern merchant class is going probably have significant connections to their Northern counterparts

The pre-war economic ties are much to strong (and lucrative) that no one north or south of the border is going to wholly give them up. The mills of New England ran on Southern cotton, and the trade up and down the Mississippi is too lucrative to be ignored. There will be firm economic ties between the two republics, but whether that will be enough to offset future hostility remains to be seen,

 

[EnglishCanuck]

I like Juarez and Maximilian so this is just a tragedy

although every version of it is TBH

Maximilian, while deeply idealistic and wanting to try out the principle of an enlightened monarch in the New World. was not a monster. Some might call him an idiot, but he certainly wasn't a brutal tyrant intent on demolishing the democracy Mexico had built. Did he appreciate Republicanism? No, but he also didn't hate the Native Mexicans in the way that many "white" Mexicans did thanks to the long scars of the Spanish caste system.

In many ways he and Juarez were mirrors of one another, with similar liberal values, but different goals. What few remember is that while Maximilian signed a "Black Decree" OTL, Juarez had signed one at the onset of the French invasion. Yet Juarez won, and so we remember Maximilian's instead of his.

Spilting mexico into departments would make it more like Cntral America

Hmm that I did not realize!

WW1 hints with the European influences in Mexico city ?

Well, there was going to be European influence in Mexico City with the Empire with a Great War or no... however, whether Mexico ends up involved in the war is up for debate!

 

[DAv]

Good overviews of the nations in the aftermath of the Civil War. Looks like Mexico might come out of this with some good hopes for the future, providing a complete disaster doesn't occur, anyhow. And I think this is one of the few timelines that I've seen where someone has blundered into peace rather than war.

 

[naraht]

That is quite true. Davis doesn't want to deal with many problems (one of the issues of having a one term president is that they have a fixed time with which to try and accomplish an agenda, what could go wrong?) and many down the line issues he wants to focus on might not be shared by his successor.

The South would, even by OTL standards, have a corner on the global cotton market, but that market won't be lucrative forever. It has until the 1880s, give or take, before it becomes a bit of an economic weight around the South's neck unless they diversify. Whether the planter class will accept that is an extremely open question. But there are still capitalists in the Confederacy, and they have other lucrative cash crops that they might want to seize upon. I have a future Confederate economy mapped out. It isn't a highly mechanized one, but its one that can make certain people rich.



Oh they can forward think, but whether it's clear thinking is the question. I lean towards a "not so clear" on that aspect.

On another note, I do tend to reject the notion that the CSA could not have won, since it leans too much towards determinism. However, any CSA that won without foreign intervention of some sort would have been a broke, crippled, and thoroughly impoverished nation that would have had a load of debt that might have been impossible to pay off. Most likely turning them into a banana republic. With some kind of foreign intervention that prevents the Union from demolishing its way up the Mississippi and doing quite a number on the CSA through blockade, well... the South could rise to be a nation that is the equivalent of Belgium or Italy economically. Albeit one still trapped in backwards racial thinking and wedded to a system of white supremacy which would make Rhodesians blush.

However, all that comes at a price still, something I firmly adhere to in Wrapped in Flames as the founders of the Confederacy firmly based their beliefs on white supremacy and what many of them viewed as their God given right to expand that ideology through force. That sort of thinking comes at a price both domestically and internationally, though much more slowly than most would like. But as they say, the higher one climbs, the further one has to fall...



The pre-war economic ties are much to strong (and lucrative) that no one north or south of the border is going to wholly give them up. The mills of New England ran on Southern cotton, and the trade up and down the Mississippi is too lucrative to be ignored. There will be firm economic ties between the two republics, but whether that will be enough to offset future hostility remains to be seen,

"expand that ideology through force"...

Honestly, sometimes I think one of the few things less likely than a successful Operation Sea Lion in an ATL is an independent Confederacy that doesn't end up with war with the Spanish. In fact, I think it is easier to write a TL where the US with a post-civil war POD doesn't end up at war with Spain than one where the CSA does...

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Good overviews of the nations in the aftermath of the Civil War. Looks like Mexico might come out of this with some good hopes for the future, providing a complete disaster doesn't occur, anyhow.

I do think that something similar to the Porfiriato a decade or so earlier might be better for Mexico in the medium term. It doesn't necessarily offset coup attempts or banditry, but it does gin up more foreign investment at slightly less ruinous rates earlier. That Maximilian envisions himself as an enlightened liberal (in the monarchial sense at least) is a boon for at least a bit of democracy, but not so much that the oligarchs of Mexico might turn on him overall.

And I think this is one of the few timelines that I've seen where someone has blundered into peace rather than war.

There's many reasons I think McClellan would have been a disaster as a president, but his ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is certainly one of them! Blundering his way into the peace process is something I can easily envision him accomplishing!

 

[EnglishCanuck]

"expand that ideology through force"...

Honestly, sometimes I think one of the few things less likely than a successful Operation Sea Lion in an ATL is an independent Confederacy that doesn't end up with war with the Spanish. In fact, I think it is easier to write a TL where the US with a post-civil war POD doesn't end up at war with Spain than one where the CSA does...

Until a few years ago I felt that maybe the CSA wouldn't necessarily end up at war with Spain. Then of course I read more about how it was Southernors who enthusiastically backed William Walker, that Confederates from almost every state at one point or another backed the acquisition of Cuba, many former Confederates fought in the Ten Years War, the Cuban plantation owners were enthusiastically pro-South during the war, and how many Fire Eaters had an expansionist ideology... well the notion was disabused shall we say.

However, it would depend on the President of the Confederacy at the time. A Fire Eater would probably cook up a casus beli, but a moderate might be goaded into war.

Then when one considers how ridiculously inept most historic Confederate diplomats were... well the outlook gets worse.

 

[Nenshou Yuuki]

With this chapter we're already seeing a wedge forming between Mexico and France, Napoleon may be having buyers remorse in the future, I have a feeling even if France seeks closer ties with Russia Britain will be more than happy to capitalize on the worsening relations between between Mexico and France.

 

[Red_Galiray]

It's refreshing that we're exploring different avenues of the same topic! If dark sadly... but I mean to put an end to slavery in my own way TTL!



Oh it's a huge domestic loss for McClellan, and he's about to get two more self-own goals in 1866 too! His control over the Democratic Party has slipped rapidly, and his being at odds with them on military and some domestic matters, but having the Radicals and Republicans hate him on general principle means that even when they agree it is only through teeth clenched teamwork. However, even with Republicans getting a leg up soon, vote splitting between them and the Radical Democracy Party (Radicals for short because heaven forbid they call themselves Radical Democrats) is going to be a big problem in securing the Senate in certain states. That means the edge they get in 1866 is going to be less than you'd expect because a lot of people are suddenly much more sympathetic to the Radical Democracy Party going "We told you so!"

Breckinridge will be currently overjoyed, he didn't expect it but he's happy for his home state to be in the Confederacy. He is an ambitious man and he will be seen as a natural choice for successor to Davis, which is something that many will be happy/unhappy about. My President Breckinridge will probably have a happier ending than yours I think! The Fire Eaters - who were effectively sidelined during the war - are eager for peace to get their political feet back under them. The ideological battles that will be developing in the peacetime Confederacy will have far reaching effects.

I would expect the Radicals and Republicans to try and bury the hatchet or at least conclude fusion tickets to oppose McClellan. Unless the bad blood over their role in Lincoln's defeat is too much? And, it'd be hard for Breckinridge to get a worse ending that the one I have him. What's truly interesting about a peacetime President Breckinridge is how unlikely he's to listen to the Fire-Eaters, who'd probably feel slighted that their government isn't bowing to their will.

Chapter 123: The Great Disturbance and the Grey Terror

An appalling yet realistic outcome. Confederates were characterized by violent repression of the enslaved and Unionists during the war, resisted Reconstruction violently to the point that many areas approached a state of anarchy, and believed themselves entitled to destroying all their enemies to maintain their "sacred" power. In victory, they're bound to only be more vicious.

This included Democrats who like John Logan who did not wholly agree, or simply found the proposal from a man who was “half a secessionist” too odious to back.

I'm guessing that a lot of would-be Republicans are Democrats here instead, being politicians moved by ambition and wanting to be on the winning team more than anything.

 

[PaulJones202718]

That is quite true. Davis doesn't want to deal with many problems (one of the issues of having a one term president is that they have a fixed time with which to try and accomplish an agenda, what could go wrong?) and many down the line issues he wants to focus on might not be shared by his successor.

The South would, even by OTL standards, have a corner on the global cotton market, but that market won't be lucrative forever. It has until the 1880s, give or take, before it becomes a bit of an economic weight around the South's neck unless they diversify. Whether the planter class will accept that is an extremely open question. But there are still capitalists in the Confederacy, and they have other lucrative cash crops that they might want to seize upon. I have a future Confederate economy mapped out. It isn't a highly mechanized one, but its one that can make certain people rich.



Oh they can forward think, but whether it's clear thinking is the question. I lean towards a "not so clear" on that aspect.

On another note, I do tend to reject the notion that the CSA could not have won, since it leans too much towards determinism. However, any CSA that won without foreign intervention of some sort would have been a broke, crippled, and thoroughly impoverished nation that would have had a load of debt that might have been impossible to pay off. Most likely turning them into a banana republic. With some kind of foreign intervention that prevents the Union from demolishing its way up the Mississippi and doing quite a number on the CSA through blockade, well... the South could rise to be a nation that is the equivalent of Belgium or Italy economically. Albeit one still trapped in backwards racial thinking and wedded to a system of white supremacy which would make Rhodesians blush.

However, all that comes at a price still, something I firmly adhere to in Wrapped in Flames as the founders of the Confederacy firmly based their beliefs on white supremacy and what many of them viewed as their God given right to expand that ideology through force. That sort of thinking comes at a price both domestically and internationally, though much more slowly than most would like. But as they say, the higher one climbs, the further one has to fall...



The pre-war economic ties are much to strong (and lucrative) that no one north or south of the border is going to wholly give them up. The mills of New England ran on Southern cotton, and the trade up and down the Mississippi is too lucrative to be ignored. There will be firm economic ties between the two republics, but whether that will be enough to offset future hostility remains to be seen,

Which again brings me to my point: the worst thing they could do is win the war. Their ideology blinds them to obvious facts that will do them harm later on....which, given human nature, means doubling down on the things that make other nations see them as barbarous oafs who need humbling.

 

[naraht]

Until a few years ago I felt that maybe the CSA wouldn't necessarily end up at war with Spain. Then of course I read more about how it was Southernors who enthusiastically backed William Walker, that Confederates from almost every state at one point or another backed the acquisition of Cuba, many former Confederates fought in the Ten Years War, the Cuban plantation owners were enthusiastically pro-South during the war, and how many Fire Eaters had an expansionist ideology... well the notion was disabused shall we say.

However, it would depend on the President of the Confederacy at the time. A Fire Eater would probably cook up a casus beli, but a moderate might be goaded into war.

Then when one considers how ridiculously inept most historic Confederate diplomats were... well the outlook gets worse.

In 1870 iTTL you could still argue that the United States even with a quarter of its land and a third of its population ripped away, defeated in a continent spanning war had still had a better 19th century than Spain. The question is how the CSA can interact with the groups fighting for Cuban Independence, can *any* of them be convinced that being part of the CSA is good thing, or would it be straight conquest with those groups that were massively opposed to each other over Cuba independence from Spain working together. (But the pressures that lead to the Glorious Revolution are still there for Spain.)

 

[EnglishCanuck]

I would expect the Radicals and Republicans to try and bury the hatchet or at least conclude fusion tickets to oppose McClellan. Unless the bad blood over their role in Lincoln's defeat is too much?

At some point, but I envision the "Era of Hard Feelings" as a time when both sides are uncompromising because they view the other as being responsible for the lost election of 1864. The current Republican Party who call themselves "Wigwam Republicans" after the ideas at the first Republican Convention blame the Radicals for vote splitting and losing the election for being uncompromising. The Radicals blame the Wigwams for being to willing to back off on Emancipation and the hard measures needed to defeat the South. There's some merit to both groups, but its so much name calling and blaming atm which will make 1868 a wild time. There's issues with this in the Democratic Party too, they won, but there's lingering hard feelings between War Democrats and Copperheads that will have an effect.

And, it'd be hard for Breckinridge to get a worse ending that the one I have him. What's truly interesting about a peacetime President Breckinridge is how unlikely he's to listen to the Fire-Eaters, who'd probably feel slighted that their government isn't bowing to their will.

True! I don't plan on a junta executing him!

The Fire Eaters and other rabid secessionists were less influential than I expected for the war, many either being sidelined by events or with men like Robert Toombs, sidelining themselves by being unwilling to work with men like Davis who managed to get into power. That they don't necessarily believe in a party system means they are probably going to shoot themselves in the foot during an election. Though in the Senate and Congress that's a different matter.

An appalling yet realistic outcome. Confederates were characterized by violent repression of the enslaved and Unionists during the war, resisted Reconstruction violently to the point that many areas approached a state of anarchy, and believed themselves entitled to destroying all their enemies to maintain their "sacred" power. In victory, they're bound to only be more vicious.

The pure vigilante violence was endemic to the South. I find it incredibly likely that the Confederate Army is going to be playing the role of peacekeeper between states/factions rather than invading its neighbors. However, this kind of violence will be far from unknown across the Confederacy, even if they manage to keep more slave uprisings in check for the next little while.

Casual political violence was the norm in the South, and while in the antebellum period much of it was directed at those who were insufficiently servile to the Slave Power, some could end up directed at ideological enemies too. Though I'm still torn on how that can get decided. The Grey Terror feels like it would send those who disagreed with the Confederacy overall fleeing while acting as a way of keeping those who were (mostly) happy with the new status quo in.

Though something interesting I realized was that the Confederate Constitution did not enshrine voting rights, which meant that the states get to decide who can vote based on whatever criteria they please. Presents an interesting set of conclusions for state governments to decide how to win elections in the future.

I'm guessing that a lot of would-be Republicans are Democrats here instead, being politicians moved by ambition and wanting to be on the winning team more than anything.

Precisely that. Some of it is ambition, some of it is believing that the Republican Party is doomed to the dustbin of history thanks to the loss of the war.

I can thankfully imply they will be wrong.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

With this chapter we're already seeing a wedge forming between Mexico and France, Napoleon may be having buyers remorse in the future, I have a feeling even if France seeks closer ties with Russia Britain will be more than happy to capitalize on the worsening relations between between Mexico and France.

Somewhat, but as long as Max keeps paying his debts to Napoleon, he's not going to cut off the Mexicans. Cash cows are like that, you don't shoot them when they're working. Napoleon III currently has a very American facing view at the moment because he now has two very potentially useful nations to use to expand his ambitions.