Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Weird replies, namely the ones assuming that the states of the Confederacy wouldn't do rational things for its national self-preservation.
1. Just the same as the United States junked the Articles of Confederation after the Revolution, the Confederacy would probably recognize the need for some kind of more powerful central authority, particularly with the United States as the convenient bogeyman on its northern border.
.
Some members of the Confederacy might recognize the need for a stronger central government, and others would be in strong opposition to such a thing, arguing "What was our revolution for if we are to wind up trampling on States Rights this way?" The basis for fragmentation might well lie in the animosities which arose from such an attempt.
What seems the rational thing to do, may or may not produce rational results.
What is weird about including irrational outcomes as possibilities? History is chockablock which examples. What was rational about WW I?
Well, France was hip-deep in a ruinous expedition in Mexico and would soon be destroyed by Prussia in 1870, doubt it.
Likewise, Mexico was in similar straits, having still shaking off its French occupiers.
And Spain was a tottering colonial power.
So, no.
In the absence of the threat from Lincoln, its not clear that France would have left Mexico. So its likely that there Maximillian is still Emperor when France is defeated (not destroyed) by Prussia in 1870. Assuming that still happens - if UK and France have worked together for CSA independence (see it MATTERS how you get to CSA independence) then maybe UK is closer to France, and present a united front against Bismarck? In which case Bismarck, no fool, may try an alternative approach to German unification.
In the absence of the threat from Lincoln, its not clear that France would have left Mexico. So its likely that there Maximillian is still Emperor when France is defeated (not destroyed) by Prussia in 1870. Assuming that still happens - if UK and France have worked together for CSA independence (see it MATTERS how you get to CSA independence) then maybe UK is closer to France, and present a united front against Bismarck? In which case Bismarck, no fool, may try an alternative approach to German unification.
As a matter of policy, the UK remained deeply reluctant at getting embroiled in a general European war. The exception was the protection of the Low Countries. Further, British and French relations were not nearly as close in 1870 as they would be in 1914. Far from it. France was considered to be the UK's chief world rival at the time, and the two country were coming close to hostilities over the colonial division of Africa. Further, the British and German royal houses were all related, so the rise of a united Germany was not seen as a bad thing. It was only when Wilhelm II began his massive naval building program in the 1890s that the UK's perception of Germany began to change. It wasn't until the following decade that the British were willing to adopt any kind of formal understanding with the French. Even then, coordination between British and French forces in World War I was awful due to the centuries of hostilities between the two countries.
As far as Maximilian's presence in Mexico, I doubt that would have lasted. Republican forces were already gaining ground against the French in early 1865 without material aid from the Americans. Further, given the military skill of the Confederacy, why do you think they wouldn't have responded to the French incursion in their own backyard? Assuming the Confederacy's defeat of the United States in the conflict, then the French would have proven a piece of cake. And given the pro-Confederate sympathies of the British during the war, why on earth do you think the UK would have thrown their support to their long-time global rivals? That theory makes no sense.
Some members of the Confederacy might recognize the need for a stronger central government, and others would be in strong opposition to such a thing, arguing "What was our revolution for if we are to wind up trampling on States Rights this way?" The basis for fragmentation might well lie in the animosities which arose from such an attempt.
What seems the rational thing to do, may or may not produce rational results.
What is weird about including irrational outcomes as possibilities? History is chockablock which examples. What was rational about WW I?
Funny. Many asked the same questions during the Constitutional Convention. And that was without a hostile power sitting on the United State's frontier.
As a matter of policy, the UK remained deeply reluctant at getting embroiled in a general European war..
They wouldnt necessarilly have to get involved in a land war in europe to help the French - diplomatic support would have helped, as would a naval demonstration.
Quote:
The exception was the protection of the Low Countries. Further, British and French relations were not nearly as close in 1870 as they would be in 1914..
Under Napoleon III French and UK policy was quite close, in particular as both were hostile to Russia (nappys illegitimacy made him an enemy of the Tsar).
Quote:
Far from it. France was considered to be the UK's chief world rival at the time, and the two country were coming close to hostilities over the colonial division of Africa..
The scramble for africa had not yet begun. You are mixing up 1870 with the 1880s. Russia, not France, was UKs chief great power rival.
Quote:
Further, the British and German royal houses were all related, so the rise of a united Germany was not seen as a bad thing. .
UK foreign policy was made by the cabinet, not the crown. Had royal ties conflicted with balance of power considerations, the latter would have been what mattered. UK had of course good reason to fear a united dominant Germany - however in 1870, France looked more threatening. In a time line where UK and France have worked together to support the CSA, that might be somewhat different.
Quote:
As far as Maximilian's presence in Mexico, I doubt that would have lasted. Republican forces were already gaining ground against the French in early 1865 without material aid from the Americans. Further, given the military skill of the Confederacy, why do you think they wouldn't have responded to the French incursion in their own backyard?
Because France had been supportive of the CSA, more so than the UK (it was nappy who pushed for joint recognition and Palmerston who opposed it) And I am assuming in a CSA wins scenario, France has been more active in supporting the CSA. Why would the CSA prefer Mexican republicans, to a conservative monarchy? They certainly worked well with Maximillian during the ACW.
Quote:
Assuming the Confederacy's defeat of the United States in the conflict, then the French would have proven a piece of cake. And given the pro-Confederate sympathies of the British during the war, why on earth do you think the UK would have thrown their support to their long-time global rivals? That theory makes no sense.
Im assuming no conflict between Maximillian and the CSA. And again, diplomatically isolated Napoleon was generally aligned with the UK during the period under discussion.
This would be a good book to read to get a better understanding of the period
Funny. Many asked the same questions during the Constitutional Convention. And that was without a hostile power sitting on the United State's frontier.
Your argument was that the Confederacy would have thrown off the cause for which they had just fought a bloody revolution, in favor of a rational recognition of the need to forsake those values and instead, reproduce the system against which they had just rebelled.
My counter was that such a change would have been strongly resisted, probably to the point of another rebellion if a segment of the Confederacy attempted to impose such things.
I am at a loss as to how your above post relates to any of that.
Something to consider is if the CSA won the war they would have to of fought a different war to achieve that out come. Perhaps if they would have attacked the north or if the war was not fought in their back yard. If they would of preemptively freed the slaves there would be no contrabands or USCT, Freedman's Bureau, Reconstruction and they would of had another 4 million people to support their effort. Maybe reconstruction in the North ? IMO The South might have emerged fundamentally different from what it was at the beginning of the war.
If you can get Harry Turtledoves' series, it starts with; "What Few Remain", I think it could very well have been this way.
The South won the Civil War and another before WWI. WWI was a victory for the North, with severe reperparations placed on the South. You see where this going?
I agree-the States Rights issue would have brought long time issues between states to a head. Even individual states would have broken up into city-states. I think eventually a strong dictatorship type of government would try to seize power or Britain would claim the CSA as it's colony (with the US blessing).
The internal feuding would prove to be more trouble than it's worth to outside investors, so the CSA would become some closed, isolated country like North Korea.
Interesting options. I see as the states in the CSA pulled away from each other someone arising with military support who would push to force them back together, perhaps its own dictatorship. I'm not sure that Britan would care. During the war they started growing cotton in India, and there it was dirt cheap to grow, they controlled the shipping and the territory and it was well within their sphere of control.
I see this new dictatorial reign either saving or tearing apart the CSA for good. It would depend on how much support the military gave it, this being a military which was not loyal to states but the cadre. If it was something good for foreign governments to deal with a unified CSA they'd help arm it with the latest. It would also depend on how locals in the toolies took the takeover, if they began a guerilla war against it or not.
I agree, if some sort of unity was not found, the CSA in whatever form would become isolated and probably feed off its own divisions. The European nations had already started replacing the supply of cotton early on and it was the only real product which was produced. Internal trumoil would disrupt the production of a crop which required a large, well behaved labor force as well. so without the stability, their ability to produce would be crippled.
As for slavery, it would continue, but in small scale as large scale farming was disrupted. And if there was turmoil, it would provide the perfect opportunity for slaves to run and play a part as guerillas and raiders themselves. With a situation like this, the orderly rules of slavery would be hard to enforce. The willingness for themselves of a labor force might become recognized as valuable. Tenant farming would as it did replace slavery. It's very possible it would not end, but fade in a complex, and unstable society.
The US would not be effected by this except to have to keep a force on an unstable border with I presume a lot of refugees crossing. Economically their power was in milling cotton, not growing it, so they might be effected by losing their sorce, but more likely they'd be the producers of the end product from any source.
One thing which would most certainly not occur is the US becoming the power it has if it had an unstable CSA at its border to keep watch on which would also divert money and resources from westward expansion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
