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.
Harry Turtledove wrote an umpteen-volume series on this subject.
The premise is this: What if the Confederate dispatch rider had not lost Lee's plans during the Battle of Antietam, thereby letting that total incompetent McClellan to fight Lee to a draw. In fact, Antietam shows what a boob McClellan was, because he still couldn't beat Lee with twice the troops and full knowledge of Lee's battle plans.
Anyway, the series begins with the premise that Lee winds up running amok in Maryland after a total rout of McClellan, Lincoln fleeing Washington, the Union suing for peace, and Britain recognizing the Confederacy.
Yeah, most of it is purple prose. Yeah, the dialog is amateurish, kind of a Twilight for history nerds. But it's still a fun exploration when you don't have another damned thing to read.
Basically, the Confederacy and Union fought three more wars before the Union finally overwhelmed the South.
Doesn't answer the question though. How does this affect US/British relations going forward? Does this solidify Britain as the "bad guy" in the American consciousness. Do the Germans win WWI as a result? If the Germans win, Hitler never rises.
Doesn't answer the question though. How does this affect US/British relations going forward? Does this solidify Britain as the "bad guy" in the American consciousness. Do the Germans win WWI as a result? If the Germans win, Hitler never rises.
Well, the entire question seems kind of obvious, as in "If I hurled myself off this twenty-foot-high ledge onto the sidewalk below, would it hurt" kind of obvious. Of course US/British relations would be damaged for the intervention would have helped tear the United States in two. How could they not be?
I was just doing the OP a kindness and recommended a series of books that explored all these questions and more in greater detail, from the outcome of World War I and onward. As one example, the United States revenges itself on Great Britain by taking Canada, siding with the Germans in World War I, etc.
It seems that Herodotus is asking whether the foreign relations part of Harry Turtledove's fictional alternate history series Southern Victory is plausible.
It seems that Herodotus is asking whether the foreign relations part of Harry Turtledove's fictional alternate history series Southern Victory is plausible.
IMO: sure, why not.
You hit the nail on the head. Everyone always looks at whether or not British and French recognition would have allowed the South to break away. I'm not interested in rehashing that. In my scenario, they interfered, and the South broke away. Had that happened, I'm interested in how this would have affected our relations with the three European powers as we headed towards WWI. Not many historians have really looked at this. Having Britain and France being seen as enemies of the US is a major game changer, and depending on what happens, could have altered history in a profound manner.
You hit the nail on the head. Everyone always looks at whether or not British and French recognition would have allowed the South to break away. I'm not interested in rehashing that. In my scenario, they interfered, and the South broke away. Had that happened, I'm interested in how this would have affected our relations with the three European powers as we headed towards WWI. Not many historians have really looked at this. Having Britain and France being seen as enemies of the US is a major game changer, and depending on what happens, could have altered history in a profound manner.
The reason not many historians don't look at this is because historians, by definition, are focused on what actually happened, not some fantastical 'what if' scenario. You might as well ask why physicists don't study a universe where the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not in effect.
I mean, history is the incredibly complex interplay of infinite factors ranging from the personalities of individual leaders to scientific advances to social trends and everything in between. Wild speculation on what would have happened had the United States and the Confederate States had been on opposite sides of World War I is kind of fun to speculate over in an idle moment, but not really something that can be studied and, ultimately, pointless. I mean, sheesh, what if Gavrila Principe missed? We can ask these questions all day long, but it wouldn't really advance our understanding of history one whit.
Without the south - The northern populations would have been made up of more than those of German and Irish descent. Even during the war, the northern states had an open immigration policy of those from Europe. And factoring in a Southern victory: That would have not prevented waves of African American slaves escaping into the north after the war, arguably much safer since northern states / a separate country would not be bound to return them. . . .
And that brings up another not often spoke about issue. Which was northern states actually fearing an influx of blacks into their states in the early 1860s and the solution was - Win the war, control and stabilize the south and effectively keep a large percentage of the black population in those southern states.
And as far as the England issue: England ultimately wanted Texas and any agreement to help the south would have had terms and conditions that included Texas.
There would not have been a large influx of blacks into the North after the Civil War any more than there had been before the war because the Confederates wouldn't willingly let them leave. Slaves were the South's major economic asset, and the states, if not the Confederate government, would have moved quickly to get control of the slaves who had left the plantations and were wandering the countryside or living in contraband camps.
If the British had forced an end to slavery, it would have still been hard for blacks to leave and enter the US as it's likely the US would have included severe limits if not an outright ban on Southern migrants on any legislation to control immigration.
The reality is that many slaves never left their plantations, and others who did, often returned to live as tenant farmers or share-croppers. Most ex-slaves never left the South, and it was only beginning around the time of WW I, when race relations in the South had deteriorated to the point that many blacks lived in constant terror, that significant numbers began leaving the South for the Northeast, Midwest or West.
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.
