Alternate History Thread III

[Lord_Iggy]

Cool. Sounds quite interesting.

 

[das]

Note that I'm not disputing that the worst the union can get is a white peace

See my post. If the South rises up as well - as is likely to occur if the war trully bogs down, hurting cotton export badly amongst other things - the Union may as well cease to exist by the war's end, at least in its present form.

The Strategos, interesting, if somewhat familiar (and perhaps off-topic?) premise. I wonder where do you intend to take this.

 

[North King]

See my post. If the South rises up as well - as is likely to occur if the war trully bogs down, hurting cotton export badly amongst other things - the Union may as well cease to exist by the war's end, at least in its present form.

I don't think the South would secede (wars tend to unite most countries, except right after they lose, and the South would be doing better than the North, being more agrarian and less trade based) until the very end of the war, and only then if they lost, but there was certainly potential for the Union to lose large swathes of the West, and they'd definitely lose the bits of Maine that were disputed.

 

[Thlayli]

The British also can't win a war without land victories, and the retention of the Confederate officer corps (not very hard even in the later 1850's) could definitely tip the balance towards the Union.

Don't forget, the South seceded over Lincoln's election, and the accession of a pro-war, Northern Democrat (or even Breckinridge) could prevent both the success of the Republican Party, which would probably be opposed to foreign war, and the resulting final split, or at least postpone it.

EDIT: We can't rule out domestic British opposition to the war, which would primarily be focused on the free states of the north.

 

[das]

I don't think the South would secede (wars tend to unite most countries, except right after they lose, and the South would be doing better than the North, being more agrarian and less trade based)

Did war unite Austria-Hungary? I believe I already explained why all the factors that made things worse in the North-South relations will either stay as they are or get even worse. Do you expect the Southerners to eagerly fight for the addition of more free states, and in the north to make things worse?

Incidentally, just how much does the USA constitue an UNITED nation prior to the Civil War? IMHO it was quite clearly at least two nations under one roof back then.

As for agrarian, I again remind you that the South's economy largely depended on the EXPORT of agrarian goods, such as cotton, whereas the industrial North was somewhat more economically autonomous.

I'm not saying it will necessarily secede, but I think its very much a possibility.

 

[North King]

Did war unite Austria-Hungary? I believe I already explained why all the factors that made things worse in the North-South relations will either stay as they are or get even worse. Do you expect the Southerners to eagerly fight for the addition of more free states, and in the north to make things worse?

No one broke apart Austria-Hungary while World War One was still going strong, and that was far more brutal on the population than even the Civil War was.

Furthermore, a compromise could be fully worked out, as it was in 1820 and 1850; if the Union conquered Quebec or something like that, they could offer the deal of admitting Oklahoma, Kansas, or Nebraska as slave states.

Incidentally, just how much does the USA constitue an UNITED nation prior to the Civil War? IMHO it was quite clearly at least two nations under one roof back then.

No, it was one nation, just rather loosely held together. Certainly, people still said "The United States are", as textbooks are fond of pointing out repeatedly in history class, but that actually means very little; they were united states. They might have had the cultural unity of, say, 16th Century Spain, but Spain at that time fought France quite willingly, without any of their provinces managing to secede.

So no, you can't really call it two nations; it was one, but as you have already noted, the bonds holding it together were a little shaky. It was mostly an economic divide keeping the nation apart; "Dixie" culture is largely an invention by modern Confederate apologists who would like to see the Bible Belt rise again. However, the South in truth seceded mostly because of the slavery issue.

As for agrarian, I again remind you that the South's economy largely depended on the EXPORT of agrarian goods, such as cotton, whereas the industrial North was somewhat more economically autonomous.

Since it would not be a war based on slavery, we can assume that one European power or another will sympathize with the USA. Hence, blockade runners.

I'm not saying it will necessarily secede, but I think its very much a possibility.

A possibility, yes, but if it were likely, then they would have seceded in 1812.

 

[das]

No one broke apart Austria-Hungary while World War One was still going strong, and that was far more brutal on the population than even the Civil War was.

Austria-Hungary and the USA aren't quite the same, however, as far as the level of autonomy of the individual states goes. Seceding from the USA is generally far easier than seceding from Austria-Hungary (plus the Austro-Hungarians had to go a long way to prevent rebellions).

They might have had the cultural unity of, say, 16th Century Spain, but Spain at that time fought France quite willingly, without any of their provinces managing to secede.

But in the 17th century, Portugal seceded, and Catalonia, as well as Andalusia, tried to. Plus I'd argue that no part of Spain - not even Catalonia - depended quite so much on trade with France.

It was mostly an economic divide keeping the nation apart

Give an economic divide and the divides in the other spheres appear soon enough. There were also social differences, for instance. Not sure about cultural, but one can't say they were quite the same cultures, IMHO.

However, the South in truth seceded mostly because of the slavery issue.

Non. Slavery plus state rights. Here the latter argument will get stronger, due to the "damnyankees" using Southern soldiers to fight for their petty border disputes; plus they are probably deliberately trying to strangle King Cotton!

Since it would not be a war based on slavery, we can assume that one European power or another will sympathize with the USA. Hence, blockade runners.

Not sure quite what are you trying to say here... Firstly, sympathy isn't of very great importance on the political level. The only European power that could try and challenge Britain at this point is France... which is Britain's ally and is probably more interested in making a landgrab in Mexico or somesuch. Russia is too tired after the Crimean War, and isn't much of a naval power anyway. As for blockade runners, I don't recall those ever being very succesful, except when the blockades were too weak (yet you yourself said that the British will likely win the naval and economic parts of the war). Sure, they will allow the occasional breakouts, but in the longterm southern economy will be strangled.

A possibility, yes, but if it were likely, then they would have seceded in 1812.

I think Southern separatism as an issue arose in the 1820s, though. In the 1810s New England was the main troublespot in that regard.

 

[North King]

Austria-Hungary and the USA aren't quite the same, however, as far as the level of autonomy of the individual states goes. Seceding from the USA is generally far easier than seceding from Austria-Hungary.

Not really. If you'll notice, the USA is still together.

But in the 17th century, Portugal seceded, and Catalonia, as well as Andalusia, tried to. Plus I'd argue that no part of Spain - not even Catalonia - depended quite so much on trade with France.

Portugal and Catalonia really aren't comparable to the South; they both had different languages. And while I can't really understand anyone from the deep south p), they speak English nonetheless.

Give an economic divide and the divides in the other spheres appear soon enough. There were also social differences, for instance. Not sure about cultural, but one can't say they were quite the same cultures, IMHO.

Not nearly so prominent; the social differences and economic might as well have been the same, for that matter. Cultural differences were close to none; only wannabe Confederates who fly stars and bars from their pickup trucks really think that Dixie was a different culture from Yankee; simply different economic systems; they shared most everything else.

Non. Slavery plus state rights. Here the latter argument will get stronger, due to the "damnyankees" using Southern soldiers to fight for their petty border disputes; plus they are probably deliberately trying to strangle King Cotton!

Oh no, don't you dare try to pull that one on me.

Confederate apologists constantly moan about how the Union was deliberately violating their states' rights, when in reality, the entire issue was about slavery; period. To think it's about state's rights is to ignore the fact that all the efforts which put off the Civil War were based on moderating slave vs. free states. States' rights doesn't even come into the picture, except in the fake history that Southerners invent to make themselves feel better about themselves.

Not sure quite what are you trying to say here... Firstly, sympathy isn't of very great importance on the political level. The only European power that could try and challenge Britain at this point is France... which is Britain's ally and is probably more interested in making a landgrab in Mexico or somesuch. Russia is too tired after the Crimean War, and isn't much of a naval power anyway. As for blockade runners, I don't recall those ever being very succesful, except when the blockades were too weak (yet you yourself said that the British will likely win the naval and economic parts of the war). Sure, they will allow the occasional breakouts, but in the longterm southern economy will be strangled.

Actually, sympathy is very important; it simply wouldn't manifest itself through direct military aid. There are other ways, however, to direct aid to a nation.

I think Southern separatism as an issue arose in the 1820s, though. In the 1810s New England was the main troublespot in that regard.

Actually, it was there more or less from the beginning; the three-fifths clause in the House of Representatives (slaves count as three fifths of a person) was enacted specifically to appease the slave states.

 

[LittleBoots]

Confederate apologists constantly moan about how the Union was deliberately violating their states' rights, when in reality, the entire issue was about slavery; period. To think it's about state's rights is to ignore the fact that all the efforts which put off the Civil War were based on moderating slave vs. free states. States' rights doesn't even come into the picture, except in the fake history that Southerners invent to make themselves feel better about themselves.

Wow. Hey, I like you and all NK, but I think you're completely off-base here and I'm nowhere near a Confederate apologist. I assume you know that two slave states remained in the Union? That doesn't prove it wasn't about slavery, but it goes a ways towards establishing what I believe to be the truth: that slavery was a major issue, but things are far more complicated that "the entire issue was about _____; period" ever in history. Slavery was an issue, that is a definite truth. It was one of the largest issues. However, states' rights was an issue that cannot be denied.

With all due respect, I think your position is just as revisionist as many Southerners.

Aaaaand I disagree that the culture was the same (and again, I am hardly a wannabe Confederate and I dont' even own a truck). Economics were definitely different, which, in my opinion, was what fueled the cultural difference. Merchant middle class in the north essentially did not exist in the south. That alone creates a radically different social structure and goes a long way towards establishing a different culture as well.

But I'm not trying to provoke an argument. Discussion, yes. Argument no. The floor, sir, is respectfully yours. I eagerly await your response (although I'll be away for a couple hours and therefore unable to respond to your response).

 

[North King]

Wow. Hey, I like you and all NK, but I think you're completely off-base here and I'm nowhere near a Confederate apologist.

I have a rather bad reaction to anything Confederate; I fully admit that.

I assume you know that two slave states remained in the Union?

Of course; Maryland, which was mostly held in place by the strong Federal presence in DC, and Delaware, which was, as I mentioned, pretty much a Northern state anyway, slavery notwithstanding.

That doesn't prove it wasn't about slavery, but it goes a ways towards establishing what I believe to be the truth: that slavery was a major issue, but things are far more complicated that "the entire issue was about _____; period" ever in history. Slavery was an issue, that is a definite truth. It was one of the largest issues. However, states' rights was an issue that cannot be denied.

No, slavery was, simply put, the primary issue. Of course there were other considerations, but slavery is and always had been the primary division between the states; all other divisions between North and South derived from slavery. The simple inherent racism in the South was an outmoded institution, and the Civil War was essentially the symptoms of a very entrenched disease: it might have had other contributing factors, but very much the main cause was slavery, and that was the only one that's really worth considering except others being timing factors.

With all due respect, I think your position is just as revisionist as many Southerners.

Maybe a little, but not nearly as much. Slavery was the turning point, and it was the major political platform that parties ran on and against during the 1800s, so they seemed to agree with me.

Aaaaand I disagree that the culture was the same. Economics were definitely different, which, in my opinion, was what fueled the cultural difference. Merchant middle class in the north essentially did not exist in the south. That alone creates a radically different social structure and goes a long way towards establishing a different culture as well.

Nah, the cultural difference wasn't really pronounced, just an economic and subsequent social difference. Southerners spoke the same language, sang the same songs, read the same books, prayed to the same God (though they might have been a slightly different denomination some of the time), and sent their teens to Northern colleges.

(and again, I am hardly a wannabe Confederate and I dont' even own
a truck)

That's okay. No, seriously, I might have gotten a little harsh there, but it's exceptionally irritating to see people making excuses for one of the worst "rebellions against tyranny" to ever cross the face of the planet.

 

[das]

Not really. If you'll notice, the USA is still together.

So is the Russian Federation. Doesn't mean that it is impossible to break it apart if we try...

Portugal and Catalonia really aren't comparable to the South

Well Spain isn't really comparable to the USA, when you think of it.

Not nearly so prominent; the social differences and economic might as well have been the same, for that matter.

Naturally. They almost always are very interdependent. Doesn't mean you can claim that the economic ones were the only ones.

And as for culture, I already said that cultural divergence would have been a matter of time if political one were to be achieved. Hell, the fact that a certain degree of cultural divergence still did occur despite the South being completely defeated alone says a lot.

Oh no, don't you dare try to pull that one on me.

Confederate apologists constantly moan about how the Union was deliberately violating their states' rights, when in reality, the entire issue was about slavery; period. To think it's about state's rights is to ignore the fact that all the efforts which put off the Civil War were based on moderating slave vs. free states. States' rights doesn't even come into the picture, except in the fake history that Southerners invent to make themselves feel better about themselves.

Well, economic issues are generally more important than political ones, so I suppose I can agree with you in part; but the issue of state rights WAS an important one in the USA in general, and so to the South as well. I also happen to believe that the Nullification crisis did have a lot to do with bolstering Southern nationalism.

Actually, sympathy is very important; it simply wouldn't manifest itself through direct military aid. There are other ways, however, to direct aid to a nation.

Oh? Okay then. Who, with what and how? Somehow not a single nation comes into mind; as for private initiative, it can only do so much against the number one great power on the Earth.

Actually, it was there more or less from the beginning; the three-fifths clause in the House of Representatives (slaves count as three fifths of a person) was enacted specifically to appease the slave states.

That was sort of different, as the USA was still in its formative stage, and that means that pretty much every state had a certain degree of separatism; I do believe that Vermont was more troublesome in that regard than any Southern state.

No, seriously, I might have gotten a little harsh there, but it's exceptionally irritating to see people making excuses for one of the worst "rebellions against tyranny" to ever cross the face of the planet.

Well try to control yourself, please. Its quite annoying.

 

[North King]

Well Spain isn't really comparable to the USA, when you think of it.

Sure it is. The differences between the South and the North are roughly like the differences between, say, Castille and Andulasia.

Naturally. They almost always are very interdependent. Doesn't mean you can claim that the economic ones were the only ones.

They were the only really important ones.

And as for culture, I already said that cultural divergence would have been a matter of time if political one were to be achieved. Hell, the fact that a certain degree of cultural divergence still did occur despite the South being completely defeated alone says a lot.

Not really. People are suckers for the losing cause. There's a lot of fascination with the Celts these days, despite the fact that they've been defeated repeatedly over the past few thousand years.

Well, economic issues are generally more important than political ones, so I suppose I can agree with you in part; but the issue of state rights WAS an important one in the USA in general, and so to the South as well. I also happen to believe that the Nullification crisis did have a lot to do with bolstering Southern nationalism.

An important issue? Sure. One that lead to the secession of half the country? No. States' Rights really was not an important issue. I wish I had a different way to phrase this, so I didn't sound as though I were repeating myself, but that's simply the truth; state's rights was an issue mostly resolved by the end of the 1700s; from then on, it was politics at a national level: the south and the north trying to dominate one another politically, through electoral power.

Oh? Okay then. Who, with what and how? Somehow not a single nation comes into mind; as for private initiative, it can only do so much against the number one great power on the Earth.

Any nation. It doesn't really matter, as the USA will lose, but in any case, there would probably be someone or another who has a means and a motive.

That was sort of different, as the USA was still in its formative stage, and that means that pretty much every state had a certain degree of separatism; I do believe that Vermont was more troublesome in that regard than any Southern state.

Vermont was already separated; the only real troublespots in terms of secession were New England as a whole, and then the South, whenever slavery was threatened.

 

[das]

Sure it is. The differences between the South and the North are roughly like the differences between, say, Castille and Andulasia.

That's the problem, no they aren't. More like between Castille and Aragon, but even then its not nearly close enough.

They were the only really important ones.

Well technically that is quite enough.

There's a lot of fascination with the Celts these days, despite the fact that they've been defeated repeatedly over the past few thousand years.

Well, they won in Ireland. Anyway, it doesn't really change much. If the CSA were to secede succesfully I suspect its culture would've been about as different from the northern one as the OTL American one is different from British or Canadian culture.

One that lead to the secession of half the country? No.

a) One-third and b) I never said it led to said seccession by itself.

I wish I had a different way to phrase this, so I didn't sound as though I were repeating myself, but that's simply the truth; state's rights was an issue mostly resolved by the end of the 1700s; from then on, it was politics at a national level: the south and the north trying to dominate one another politically, through electoral power.

But as the North was winning, state's rights once more became an important issue for the South.

Any nation. It doesn't really matter, as the USA will lose, but in any case, there would probably be someone or another who has a means and a motive.

Doesn't answer my question. Point out any nation with means and motive here.

Vermont was already separated

Um...

the only real troublespots in terms of secession were New England as a whole, and then the South, whenever slavery was threatened.

Technically trade issues were also important in both cases.

Regardless, even if the seccession was only because of slavery, it still doesn't change anything. Would the issue of slavery disappear due to a war with Britain? No, but new ones would appear as well! All the British have to do is wait, and perhaps meddle a bit to help organise the insurgency if the Americans refuse to sign peace before it begins. Then when it does begin a British expeditionary force or two will be sent to help the rebels. Might just be enough, especially if combined with an invasion from Canada.

 

[North King]

That's the problem, no they aren't. More like between Castille and Aragon, but even then its not nearly close enough.

...Er... it's a perfectly good comparison, actually.

Well technically that is quite enough.

For secession? No. See below.

Well, they won in Ireland. Anyway, it doesn't really change much. If the CSA were to secede succesfully I suspect its culture would've been about as different from the northern one as the OTL American one is different from British or Canadian culture.

Yeah. And? They wouldn't secede.

a) One-third and b) I never said it led to said seccession by itself.

But it's not even considerable, so why are we discussing it?

But as the North was winning, state's rights once more became an important issue for the South.

No, the North wasn't winning. The North had a temporary electoral victory brought upon by a very stupid campaign by the Democrats; they simply feared that the North would outlaw their precious peculiar institution.

Doesn't answer my question. Point out any nation with means and motive here.

Enemy of Britain with ships. Not too hard to find.

Um...

What, did you think I meant, still is seceded? Vermont was separated from the Union for a time, then reintegrated; but in the interim, they called themselves a republic.

Technically trade issues were also important in both cases.

Only as a result of the economic issues.

Regardless, even if the seccession was only because of slavery, it still doesn't change anything. Would the issue of slavery disappear due to a war with Britain? No, but new ones would appear as well! All the British have to do is wait, and perhaps meddle a bit to help organise the insurgency if the Americans refuse to sign peace before it begins. Then when it does begin a British expeditionary force or two will be sent to help the rebels. Might just be enough, especially if combined with an invasion from Canada.

You're not getting it--nations don't magically decide to secede just because their nation is losing a war. If we look at American history, a war with an external power almost always goes towards uniting the nation, instead of dividing it; Americans are used to peace and quiet in their own homelands, and people interfering from across the ocean angers them deeply. So no, nothing like this fanciful secession of the South would happen; outside attacks would strengthen the unity of the States, as it always has.

 

[das]

...Er... it's a perfectly good comparison, actually.

No it isn't. Spain had greater cultural but lesser economic differences between its various parts. Also, it had more such parts.

they simply feared that the North would outlaw their precious peculiar institution.

Precisely. Why were they afraid? Because the North was winning, economically, demographically and otherwise.

Enemy of Britain with ships. Not too hard to find.

You're being excruciatingly annoying here. If its "not too hard to find", name one.

You're not getting it--nations don't magically decide to secede just because their nation is losing a war.

No. But they don't magically pull together just because their nation is fighting a war neither.

This requires no magic whatsoever, it simply requires war exhaustion, plus political stubborness on the American government part, opportunism on the part of the southern separatists and adroit meddling on the British part. All four conditions aren't hard to provide, and the oh-so-divisive institution of slavery or what have you is already there. While it is possible - perhaps even probable - that the very opposite will happen, I maintain that a reasonably botched war may lead to this.

 

[North King]

Well this isn't going anywhere.

 

[das]

In all due honesty, was it ever supposed to go anywhere? And if yes, then where?

You still haven't answered my question, btw.

 

[carmen510]

Can someone tell me where you get your brilliant ideas?

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Reading lots of history novels and simple curiosity, added to great factual knowledge?

 

[das]

Lots of unfree time (like in buses), plus factual knowledge, plus a special frame of mind that comes with experience in this. Oh, and Satan. Can't forget Satan.

Speaking of ideas, here is some more English political PoD material.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_Louis,_Elector_Palatine

He sounds like a nice compromise candidate for both the monarchists and the Parliamentaries (especially due to his obvious association with Protestant causes). Perhaps if Cromwell were to die in battle or something, Charles Louis may have ascended to the throne. Then England would've probably recovered from its instability faster, and may well have become involved in the Thirty Years War to reclaim the Palatinate (and grab some Spanish colonies while they were at it; maybe even going for Gibraltar, as I believe that plan was born during the OTL Protectorate). In particular in Charles Louis gets to keep the Palatinate, there might be some interesting ramifications as England will get involved in German politics much earlier than in OTL. I certainly can imagine an English presence in the Palatinate being tolerated as a counter to France (likely to become even stronger in this world due to the earlier English wartime assistance). The French and/or the Dutch would try to occupy it while fighting England as a bargaining ticket (as the French had intended to do with Hannover in the Seven Years War). Alternatively it may be used by the English as a base for an invasion of Netherlands (as the Palatines had Orange blood, they may try to claim the throne... how about a Kingdom of England-Rhineland, or England-Burgundy?). Oh, and ofcourse Louis XIV's early wars would go differently, as Charles Louis won't help him in the Dutch War. Not sure if that would be enough to stop France, though. In general this will probably lead to England becoming more of a continental power, at least for a while; that may impair its empire-building abroad somewhat.