Wrapped in Flames: The Great American War and Beyond

[Cryostorm]

Japan and Germany both had US troops on their soil, and it didn't stop them from becoming US allies. France had German troops on their soil, and they become allies.

And the US has had British troops on its soil before, when Washington was burned in the War of 1812.

True, but to point to the France and German it took how many wars and the utter devastation of both nations, and the temporary destruction of Germany itself, to make them allies? Not to mention it was to combat the greater threats of both the USSR and reduce their dependence on the US.

The US and Britain could eventually make peace and ally but that would probably require a reason for them to do so when they are likely to be two of the strongest nations and be rivals even at the best of times, like OTL. I don't see anything that would convince the US that the British are the lesser of two evils at this time.

 

[generalurist]

Germany and Japan had US troops on their soil OTL and became allies, but that was because they got utterly crushed and forced to surrender unconditionally, so the USA was able to forge a friendly government out of the ashes. The USA in TTL's civil war got badly battered by the slavers and redcoats, but looks like it will survive as a definite continuation of what it was before the war, albeit reduced. So there will be a lot of resentment to build.

 

[Cryostorm]

Clearly, this war will lead to American hatred of Britain and an inevitable alliance against it.

Look at France and Britain- from the seventeenth century to 1815 both countries were locked in a series of brutal conflicts and attempted invasions, which ended up forming the very core of the English national identity. That was why, despite the best efforts of diplomats, France and Britain were never able to act as allied powers since.

Or Russia and France- after thirty years of war that ended with the Tsar in Paris, and then the Crimean War forty years after that, Paris and Moscow never managed to form an entente.

Or the Ottomans and Austria- I know there was some suggestion that they could have fought on the same side in WW1, but they'd been rivals for centuries. Clearly it was ridiculous.

It's like suggesting that the Americans could switch from recognising Taiwan, a wartime ally, to the PRC who they'd fought an expensive and humiliating war with- or that they'd back Pol Pot after bombing the hell of out of him, just because he stood against Vietnam. Or that they'd end up backing Vietnam again after they decided they didn't like the PRC after all!


Ridiculous.

1. Relationship mellowed after France was utterly crushed by Britain in the Napoleonic wars and were still rivals up to the emergence of Germany as a power they both feared.

2. France considered Russia a threat up to the point that Germany became a much closer and more pressing one.

3. Pretty much stayed enemies and rivals till Germany forced them to be on the same side, and technically only co-belligerents with each other allied to Germany.

4. All of these were a case of using one enemy against another, PRC vs. USSR, Cambodia vs. Vietnam, Vietnam vs. PRC.

So yes, all these points show that the US and Britain can be friends again. Just either have one completely and utterly dominate the other to the point that resistance is considered futile or have there be a country both nations fear more than they hate each other.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Union victories in the east a draw in the north and a series of defeats in the west were basically the opposite of what I thought might happen haha

I'm now genuinely curious what you were expecting!

 

[The Gunslinger]

Thomas leaves and the whole of Kentucky unravels, that was a brutal battle.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

If America and Britain's interests clash after the war, they will not ally.

If they align- especially if the City of London regains its role as a vital driver of American economic growth and industrialisation which is in both country's interest, they will not try to start a war.

People wildly overestimate the role of national grudges in the late nineteenth century. Again, that historiography is simply out of date. Even the most infamous case, France and Alsace-Lorraine, was far more complicated than popular culture then and now allows. The French and Germans were perfectly capable of working together (see the Triple Intervention,) and the interest of the French public in the lost provinces ebbed and flowed.

I'm not even convinced that there would be a driving interest in the USA to get back the southern states, let alone define its foreign policy as being anti-Britain.

Could the US end up fighting another war with the UK? Absolutely, that's completely plausible. Could it end up nursing its grudges? Absolutely.

Is it doomed to do either? No, and only the most banal reading of history would lead to that conclusion.

 

[Admiral Spaun]

Well, it does make sense to think that some territory and war reparations should help the CSA survive

The CSA had enough internal problems to collapse even with war reps.

 

[Admiral Spaun]

What does the domestic British political situation look like? I remember a lot of the British working class were quite sympathetic to abolitionism and the Union and probably aren't too thrilled with getting into a war to support slavery.

 

[Teiresias]

I'm not even convinced that there would be a driving interest in the USA to get back the southern states, let alone define its foreign policy as being anti-Britain.

Even if the US did want the Southern states back, they don't know how things would have turned out without British intervention. They don't know they would have won the war if Britain hadn't gotten involved.

Plus, there are going to be people who will argue that it's all Lincoln's fault for mishandling the Trent crisis. They'll say 'if he hadn't screwed up, Britain would have left things alone'.

Not to mention it's entirely possible that the Confederacy collapses into a bunch of slave rebellions and becomes a failed state. In that case the US may well consider itself lucky to be out if it: 'Can you imagine how bad it would be if they were still part of the Union? If we had to sort that mess out?'

 

[PGSBHurricane]

The CSA had enough internal problems to collapse even with war reps.

I didn't mean it would guarantee its survival indefinitely. Just help it hop along in the short term.

 

[PGSBHurricane]

I wonder what happens with Japan, France, and Russia, aka Britain's major allies in OTL WW1. I've seen TLs where the alliance system is the same as OTL except the CSA and USA take opposite sides (or both join the Entente) and others where literally none of them are allied with Britain and America is best friends with Russia.

 

[RCAF Brat]

What does the domestic British political situation look like? I remember a lot of the British working class were quite sympathetic to abolitionism and the Union and probably aren't too thrilled with getting into a war to support slavery.

On the one hand, they really won't like the CS, and those feelings will likely make themselves felt after the war ends. The Confederacy will likely find that their independence is a poisoned chalice, as relations with Britain will be frosty at best so long as slavery is a thing.

On the other hand, the US was stupid enough to start a war with the British Empire. The overwhelming majority, including the same people who despise the Confederacy, are going to be very pissed off at the US for that.

 

[Teiresias]

On the other hand, the US was stupid enough to start a war with the British Empire. The overwhelming majority, including the same people who despise the Confederacy, are going to be very pissed off at the US for that.

Not to mention that the US is going to have its own domestic issues to focus on. Voters may not be happy with the idea of endless interventions instead of bread-and-butter issues.

Plus, 1860s US was very racist, and the idea of racial equality was rather a fringe viewpoint, even among supporters of abolition. They're unlikely to be very interested in trying to help the slaves.

 

[Icedaemon]

One thing which I believe has not been mentioned: how many of the lessons of the Crimean war have the British been able to internalize and implement something to cover?

 

[jwgview]

They're unlikely to be very interested in trying to help the slaves.

Except to stick it to the Confederacy. I could see the USA turning a blind eye to escaped slaves that are sent on to Canada (let the Brits handle them) or private societies established to return the slaves to Africa on a larger level than setting up Liberia.

 

[jwgview]

With a more strained relationship with Britain (I forget how things are with France), future European conflicts could see the USA truly being neutral and suppling both sides of the conflict. And using a stronger navy to protect their new trade routes. Perhaps even going on their own empire building to provide forward bases for power projection. Even more than what happened IOTL in the 1880s - 1900s.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Damn, the CSA is actually winning in the Missisipi. The Union is going to have very little leverage in the peace negotiations once this war ends.

ah the western theater how i missed you.
Seems like all fonts are at a delicate balance and nearing a endgame .I hope whoever wins all sides put up a glorious fight.

Sadly we'll be saying goodbye to the Western Theater for a while after this! But at the rate I'm going we should reach 1864 and some very interesting events soon!

The Confederate supremacy in the West is one of those long term results of British intervention. Starting in 1862 New Orleans didn't fall and, even with Grant pushing southwards, the ability of the CSA to get new supplies and move material by sea to ports in the Gulf and up to the armies in the field was invaluable. Couple that with the fact they after a time the Confederates were able to keep recruiting the situation on land was able to be stabilized. The worst part for the Union was that the Confederacy was able to rebuild their river squadron relatively unhindered. Where OTL the Union could move with relative impunity up the Mississippi to help their campaigns, now they have to be cautious. The shock of the British built ironclads was something they weren't quite prepared for!

out of of topic I just learned stonewall jackson OTL visited the UK and Canada before the war.Wonder if lee or davis took him aside to learn about there new Allies at one point.
would have been a cool scene.

Great chapter again!

Now there's something I didn't know! He's one of those people I'm more slowly building a non-military understanding of. I've got a few great books on his Valley Campaigns, but little on the man himself. Though this trip abroad has me thinking that I should learn more and maybe have a scene in the novel...

And many thanks!

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Thomas leaves and the whole of Kentucky unravels, that was a brutal battle.

There's going to be a "do I stay or do I go" bit of thinking in Washington/Philadelphia! They've got to do something to get their house back in order on all fronts.

What does the domestic British political situation look like? I remember a lot of the British working class were quite sympathetic to abolitionism and the Union and probably aren't too thrilled with getting into a war to support slavery.

There's two more chapters I'm writing on the military side, a bit of a postscript to the major campaigns and some naval oddities to pad out the military side of 1863, but after those I'm already working on the political updates for the Union, the Confederacy, Canada and Britain.

For some hints:

Chapter 75: A Fire in the Rear

Chapter 76: Crossing the Gulf

And that will round out the year 1863 for Chapter 77: 1863 A Year in Review

I wonder what happens with Japan, France, and Russia, aka Britain's major allies in OTL WW1. I've seen TLs where the alliance system is the same as OTL except the CSA and USA take opposite sides (or both join the Entente) and others where literally none of them are allied with Britain and America is best friends with Russia.

I think I've said before that I don't intend to do TL-191, Mr. Turtledove did that bit of history well enough that I have no intent of following the template! I have some ideas, but there's going to be some interesting butterflies which have effect in the 1860s. From China, Prussia, to Russia and Japan, we're going to see some very different events in the 19th century!

On the one hand, they really won't like the CS, and those feelings will likely make themselves felt after the war ends. The Confederacy will likely find that their independence is a poisoned chalice, as relations with Britain will be frosty at best so long as slavery is a thing.

On the other hand, the US was stupid enough to start a war with the British Empire. The overwhelming majority, including the same people who despise the Confederacy, are going to be very pissed off at the US for that.

Independence for the CSA would be, interesting. The British did not join the war to help the Confederacy gain independence, but there's a cadre of politicians who are keen to see it happen. The Confederacy and Britain would not find their interests aligning very strongly, but depending on how both nations interact with the US things would maybe put Britain on the "hold your nose and do it" path to cordial relations with the South. That said, there's anxious noises coming from the Tuileries on what's happening in North America, and Britain doesn't exactly like that either.

Though one thing I'll say is that abolitionists in Britain are hopping mad about the war. Not that Britain got involved, but from their perspective that the Union got Britain involved in the first place. The Duke of Argyll in particular is not exceedingly happy about the circumstances he finds himself in, though he's a bit out of the loop on the decision making process, but I'll cover that more in Chapter 76.

 

[ReconGuy02]

Independence for the CSA

May I ask, what CSA would have? 11 states, 11 states + Arizona, or 11 states + KY and SoMO?
I know, this is provoking you to spoil the story kinda, as war is far from over, but still...

 

[Roland Traveler]

Clearly, this war will lead to American hatred of Britain and an inevitable alliance against it.

Look at France and Britain- from the seventeenth century to 1815 both countries were locked in a series of brutal conflicts and attempted invasions, which ended up forming the very core of the English national identity. That was why, despite the best efforts of diplomats, France and Britain were never able to act as allied powers since.

Or Russia and France- after thirty years of war that ended with the Tsar in Paris, and then the Crimean War forty years after that, Paris and Moscow never managed to form an entente.

Or the Ottomans and Austria- I know there was some suggestion that they could have fought on the same side in WW1, but they'd been rivals for centuries. Clearly it was ridiculous.

It's like suggesting that the Americans could switch from recognising Taiwan, a wartime ally, to the PRC who they'd fought an expensive and humiliating war with- or that they'd back Pol Pot after bombing the hell of out of him, just because he stood against Vietnam. Or that they'd end up backing Vietnam again after they decided they didn't like the PRC after all!


Ridiculous.

Quick question, did any of those result in the sundering of the nation? Of the breaking off of what was considered an integral part of the nation? Because as far as I’m aware, Britain left France intact territorially, the French had no interests in dismantling Russia, and the Austrians never carved off core Ottoman territories. Neither did the PRC, Pol Pot, or Vietnam break off part of the US.

Here, Britain could very well be responsible for the independence of the CSA. That’s not just a national humiliation, that’s an attack on national sovereignty. British intervention won’t result in the loss of Oregon, California, or some colonies (although Oregon and California would be very sore points for the US), it resulted in the loss of four of the thirteen original colonies, in the loss of a key part of the nation. It would be much more akin to the relationship between Imperial Japan and China (breaking off Manchuria), Imperial Germany and the Soviets (loss of the entire Russian western frontier), or Sardinia-Piedmont-Italy and Austria (Austria owning Lombardia) than France and Britain.

Imagine if the US sailed over to Britain during a rebellion by Northumbria/Wales/Scotland, beat the British to the point they couldn’t continue fighting the independence movements. Would you imagine the British would get over it because commerce? Or how about if Britain broke off Normandy or Brittany from France? Actually a better analogy would be breaking off Occitania instead of just Normandy or Brittany. Would France become friendly to Britain just because the two make money off each other?

The point is, British intervention resulting in Confederate independence isn’t just a humiliation for the US, it’s an attack on its very being. While the two may very well rebuild a working relationship, that doesn’t mean they’ll like each other. An anti-British policy doesn’t have to mean war, it can be as simple as not providing them support, giving them additional tariffs, or looking the other way while exiles from Britain operate out of the US. I’d say it would probably be like the relationship between the PRC and the USA today, unlikely to lead to war, but plenty of jockeying and political maneuvering against each other even though both trade extensively with the other.