If the Confederacy wins the American Civil War, is the Union going to become revanchist over the next several decades and beyond?

[WolfBear]

If the Confederacy wins the American Civil War, is the Union going to become revanchist over the next several decades and beyond? In other words, being similar to post-1991 Russia and fantasizing about regathering its lost territories, if necessary, by force? Would the issue of escaped Confederate slaves fleeing up North eventually force this issue in the US? Or would a victorious Confederacy gain allies among the British, French, and/or et cetera and thus make an eventual Union reconquest of the Confederacy impossible? And would European powers actually be willing to support a country that still maintains slavery? I know that the Confederacy flirted with emancipation at the very end, but that was only when it was losing the war; here, this might not occur since the Confederacy might perform better on the battlefield and thus might feel that there is less of a need for it to make concessions on the slavery issue.

Anyway, what do you think?

 

[stevep]

If the Confederacy wins the American Civil War, is the Union going to become revanchist over the next several decades and beyond? In other words, being similar to post-1991 Russia and fantasizing about regathering its lost territories, if necessary, by force? Would the issue of escaped Confederate slaves fleeing up North eventually force this issue in the US? Or would a victorious Confederacy gain allies among the British, French, and/or et cetera and thus make an eventual Union reconquest of the Confederacy impossible? And would European powers actually be willing to support a country that still maintains slavery? I know that the Confederacy flirted with emancipation at the very end, but that was only when it was losing the war; here, this might not occur since the Confederacy might perform better on the battlefield and thus might feel that there is less of a need for it to make concessions on the slavery issue.

Anyway, what do you think?

Of course a lot depends on the circumstances but if the south wins a prolonged struggle - although in that case its likely to be reduced in size - or gains independence in part because of 3rd powers - say Lincoln doesn't back down over the Trent Crisis - then there's likely to be a 'we were robbed of victory' mentality as with the militarists in Germany after 1918 or as you say in Russia now.

How prominent this is and how long it lasts depends on the circumstances. If the south retains control of the lower Mississippi then it controls the primary route for bulk goods between the Great Plains and Ohio valley and the wider world. As such a new war between the two would hurt a lot of Americans economically regardless of the outcome on the battleground. The north could use a northern route via the St Lawrence although that is blocked during the winter or rail routes but the latter is less economic for bulk goods compared to water transit. As such there would be a big economic cost to the north for a new war and many people might prefer continued peace because of this.

Slavery is going to be another big issue but how welcoming were the bulk of the northern population to a lot of freed blacks heading north? Since if the south for any reason was to give up slavery the blacks are still likely to face a lot of discrimination and violent abuse so you could see many seeking to move north or west to the Union so there could be elements in the north reluctant to push the idea. Especially possibly if Lincoln and the abolitionists are seen as responsible for the war and for its failure and hence the division of the country.

At the same time there will be many in the north unwilling to accept the defeat and especially if its been a lengthy battle with a lot of blood lost. How prominent this would be and how long it lasts would depend on a wide range of circumstances.

With an independent south the north will be maintaining markedly larger military forces than it did before the war, which could be escalated further if that results in something of a race with the south or tension with Britain/Canada. This would mean a need for higher taxes on top of repayments of war debts which could be larger or smaller than OTL depending on the size and duration of the war. Plus of course Washington has lost the south as both a captive market for northern goods and a source of tax revenue in its own right. Have seen different estimates of how important the primarily agricultural products of the south were to the country as a whole but it would have been a factor. Especially if also the south lasts long enough for oil to be a big factor then it has a big economic boost but that could bring problems itself with TTL's 'Dutch disease' being say 'Texan disease' possibly?

The other big issue would be how the south fares. Does it become a rural backwater and possibly an equivalent of many Latin American states with a massive concentration of money and power in a few big landowners and military families or does it manage to broaden its social base and economic system? Does it fracture itself with possibly internal conflict and some states seeking to 'return' to the union. Let alone what happens with slavery and then after its finished the question of the large black minority.

 

[raharris1973]

No.

drops mike.

 

[WolfBear]

No.

drops mike.

So, they'll accept it as easily as the UK previously accepted the US's secession?

 

[raharris1973]

yes

 

[WolfBear]

yes

Even if a lot of Confederate slaves are going to be fleeing up north after escaping?

 

[stevep]

yes

I think that would depend on the circumstances. There is bound to be some revanchist feeling, especially since a large chunk of 'American' territory including several of the founding states have been lost. How significantly that would be and how long it would last would be the issue.

Even if its a relatively small minority, say 10-20% 'howling in the wildness' so to speak without any real hope of getting power it would cause tension, both within the rump US and with the south. This could be worsened by either:
a) Some elements talking direct action - i.e. John Brown's attack in Virginia or the Serbs who assassinated FF.

or

b) In some crisis that group gets a broader following - the classic example here is Hitler although you could also consider how Lenin and the Bolsheviks took over Russia. Note I'm not saying that its going to end up with a US that resembles Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia but just that fringe groups can manage to obtain power.

If neither of the above happens and there's no serious crisis then in a generation or two such feeling is likely to fade out as the people who fought in the war dir off and the wider nation accepts the continued existence of their southern neighbour.

 

[S'task]

As others have states it is ENTIRELY dependent on the HOW of the Confederate victory.

IE a victory happening in 1861 due to the Confederates marching right into Washington DC after the battle at Manassas is going to be seen as different than a victory happening in 1862 due to the Battle of Antietam not happening and a subsequent encircling of DC is going to be seen as different than a victory happening in 1863 due to a Confederate victory at Gettysburg is going to be seen as different than a victory happening in 1864 due to European Intervention.

The earlier the point of departure the less revanchist the Union will be, as less blood has been spilled and the less invested the population was in preserving the Union. The later we get, and the more it becomes obvious a Union victory was coming, the more revanchist things will get, and will be especially high if its due to European intervention.

Basically, if the Confederacy pulls out an early victory under their own power in 1861-1862, the Union will end up not caring, likely seeing it as "good riddance to bad rubbish". They'd move the Capital from DC to Philadelphia or New York and likely keep trucking along. But if you're looking at and 1863 to 1864 timeframe and especially with European intervention... then there's going to be much deeper feelings of revanchism and potentially a desire to not just punish the breakaway Confederacy, but the European countries that humiliated them.

 

[bintananth]

If the war ends quickly, the North and South can probably go their seperate ways without too much bitterness.

Shiloh was probably the tipping point where it went from "we can get divorced on somewhat amicable terms" to "this ain't ending until one side is crushed and can't continue".

After that you'd basically get a Cold War if the Confederates win where neither side can afford to start shit because both sides lose.

If not that, something like the EU where all of the states are independant and mostly doing their own thing could be a possibility: free trade with few restrictions on interstate movement and a common currency. American states are too interdependant to say "F-you, imma go it alone".

 

[stevep]

If the war ends quickly, the North and South can probably go their seperate ways without too much bitterness.

Shiloh was probably the tipping point where it went from "we can get divorced on somewhat amicable terms" to "this ain't ending until one side is crushed and can't continue".

After that you'd basically get a Cold War if the Confederates win where neither side can afford to start shit because both sides lose.

If not that, something like the EU where all of the states are independant and mostly doing their own thing could be a possibility: free trade with few restrictions on interstate movement and a common currency. American states are too interdependant to say "F-you, imma go it alone".

Not sure on that last bit as one other big issue for the south - and also western states as they developed - was the high tariffs on manufacturing goods that meant buyers paid a lot more than they would have done for European goods. Even without hard feeling between the two groups I think that the south would be unwilling to give the north such a favourable access to its home market. Have heard it argued that in a late war the central government might have developed strongly enough, especially with a clear continuing threat from the north might seek an high tariff to encourage the development of industry in the south. Think this would be unlikely but if they did that tariff would be against all nations including the north.

If there was extended tension and a multiple military build up the north has a lot more capacity but the south can rely at least somewhat on prepared defences, especially on rivers and other choke points to make any attack from the north more difficult and costly. Also once their accepted the independence of the south the north has the problem that this means international recognition so not only might there be reluctance in some in the north for another costly war but there are greater potentials for other nations to be drawn in, especially in terms of any blockade attempt by the north.

 

[stevep]

As others have states it is ENTIRELY dependent on the HOW of the Confederate victory.

IE a victory happening in 1861 due to the Confederates marching right into Washington DC after the battle at Manassas is going to be seen as different than a victory happening in 1862 due to the Battle of Antietam not happening and a subsequent encircling of DC is going to be seen as different than a victory happening in 1863 due to a Confederate victory at Gettysburg is going to be seen as different than a victory happening in 1864 due to European Intervention.

The earlier the point of departure the less revanchist the Union will be, as less blood has been spilled and the less invested the population was in preserving the Union. The later we get, and the more it becomes obvious a Union victory was coming, the more revanchist things will get, and will be especially high if its due to European intervention.

Basically, if the Confederacy pulls out an early victory under their own power in 1861-1862, the Union will end up not caring, likely seeing it as "good riddance to bad rubbish". They'd move the Capital from DC to Philadelphia or New York and likely keep trucking along. But if you're looking at and 1863 to 1864 timeframe and especially with European intervention... then there's going to be much deeper feelings of revanchism and potentially a desire to not just punish the breakaway Confederacy, but the European countries that humiliated them.

Very true. Of course an open revanchist elements, even if not politically dominant is going to have some costs. Including possibly higher costs for foreign investment and if their powerful enough to prompt a markedly larger military then that will have both economic and social costs. If the foreign power that the north is hostile to is Britain that would also mean continued tension over the security of Canada so that would have significant down-points for the union.

 

[Atarlost]

I can't see either nation giving up its western land claims and if another Bleeding Kansas type affair breaks out the Union will get revanchist really quick. The US was late to abolition among the great powers and at least the UK and France would find it embarrassing to support the Confederacy in such an event. I have my doubts that even in the 1860s the Confederacy would get as much support as southern revisionists like to think. England had a parliament and France was a republic. Both had already abolished slavery both at home and in their colonies. Openly supporting it in the Confederacy would be an embarrassment to their politicians.

 

[Cherico]

When you remove the south you also remove the restraining bolt that keeps New england utopianism, self rightousness and social engineering in check. Then you add this in.

This is the missippi river the longest most dense network of interconnected waterways in the world it lets out in Lousana, Look up river that's the foundry the industrial heart of the us and all of their products leave via that river into the international market. You expect me to belive that the confederacy wont fuck with that trade?

No their going to do it and that means you have an ecomic on top of a social reason for revenge and conquest. Which will happen.

 

[stevep]

I can't see either nation giving up its western land claims and if another Bleeding Kansas type affair breaks out the Union will get revanchist really quick. The US was late to abolition among the great powers and at least the UK and France would find it embarrassing to support the Confederacy in such an event. I have my doubts that even in the 1860s the Confederacy would get as much support as southern revisionists like to think. England had a parliament and France was a republic. Both had already abolished slavery both at home and in their colonies. Openly supporting it in the Confederacy would be an embarrassment to their politicians.

I agree the often stated southern alliance with European powers is overstated. [That takes you into stupidity such as Tuttledove's 191 TL 2nd conflict at a time when Britain and France were bitter rivals.] However once its formally accepted the south as an independent state, especially after a long war which has seen heavy losses then the bar for the north to decide on another round without the south screwing things up badly is a lot higher. Some of the military commanders are likely to argue for such but a lot of the pbi's who fought and saw friends die are going to be a lot more cautious about it.

I suspect that any peace settlement will resolve land claims, as opposed to aspirations. No point in having a peace settlement that doesn't delimerate the actual borders. Which could be a big issue as any war that doesn't have an early end or European intervention is likely to have the north sitting on a lot of southern territory, including after mid-1863 the length of the Mississippi, which for the reason Cherico mentions their likely to be unwilling to give up, at least without cast iron guarantees about unimpeded access.

 

[stevep]

When you remove the south you also remove the restraining bolt that keeps New england utopianism, self rightousness and social engineering in check. Then you add this in.

This is the missippi river the longest most dense network of interconnected waterways in the world it lets out in Lousana, Look up river that's the foundry the industrial heart of the us and all of their products leave via that river into the international market. You expect me to belive that the confederacy wont fuck with that trade?

No their going to do it and that means you have an ecomic on top of a social reason for revenge and conquest. Which will happen.

Are you assuming then the New England social engineering will be replaced even more with that of the robber barons of the gilded age?

On the 2nd point as I mention this would be a big issue for the north to avoid war provided that the south has control of all their territory after the peace settlement. [Which as I said in my last post here may not be the case]. Its possible that the south - or some element of it - may seek to screw over the north but they will have strong incentives not to breach any treaty agreements which allows free passage of the river by the US, which is likely to be in any peace agreement, especially if it means the north giving up such territory. A lot would depend on the conditions of the peace treaty and also how the south develops so can't rule out some rogue group causing problems but the same would apply with possible rogue groups in the north as well.

One issue here might be the status of river boats/cargo vessels transporting northern goods down the southern part of the Mississippi. If their under the northern flag then I could see issues with escaped slaves managing to reach one of them and a clash over the southern 'owner' regaining their 'property'.

 

[Buba]

The Mississippi can be made into "international waters" like the Danube. Has Argentina already declared freedom of navigation on the Parana? There is precedent ...
The river will be a golden egg laying goose for the CSW.
Also - South closes Mississippi = North blockades South (it will be years before the CSN becomes a major force). A lose-lose scenario for both sides. So I'd expect trade to flow.
As to escaped slaves - when will the USA end the Peculiar Institution?

 

[S'task]

As to escaped slaves - when will the USA end the Peculiar Institution?

Again, depends on the breakpoint.

If we're dealing with an early loss, they likely won't, as they won't want to drive the few slave states that remained in the Union into Confederate hands. Maryland is especially important there as so long as Maryland remains a Union state the US still can access and use the Chesapeake Bay. If they loose Maryland, the Confederacy pretty much controls both the Mississippi and the Chesapeake which is the northern terminus of the intercostal waterway. This would seriously impact much of the Pennsylvania trade and industry which tended to go out via that route.

Rather, they'll basically let slavery die on the vine handled by those states still in the Union. Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, and Kentucky are not as heavily invested into slavery and the plantation economy by this point and more maintained the institution out of cultural inertia. Cut off from the core of the South and its economy, they likely will end up abolishing slavery on their own over time to bring themselves more into the norm of the Union.

Bear in mind, for the Union slavery was not seen as a huge and important factor for the war until the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. Prior to that, it was all about keeping the Union together, it was after that that the war took on the moral weight (to the north) of ending slavery.

So basically, a Confederate victory pre-1863 would see it wither and not be an important thing to the Union. 1863 or later would likely see them adopt some form of formal abolition of slavery fair quickly after things settled.

 

[Cherico]

Are you assuming then the New England social engineering will be replaced even more with that of the robber barons of the gilded age?

On the 2nd point as I mention this would be a big issue for the north to avoid war provided that the south has control of all their territory after the peace settlement. [Which as I said in my last post here may not be the case]. Its possible that the south - or some element of it - may seek to screw over the north but they will have strong incentives not to breach any treaty agreements which allows free passage of the river by the US, which is likely to be in any peace agreement, especially if it means the north giving up such territory. A lot would depend on the conditions of the peace treaty and also how the south develops so can't rule out some rogue group causing problems but the same would apply with possible rogue groups in the north as well.

One issue here might be the status of river boats/cargo vessels transporting northern goods down the southern part of the Mississippi. If their under the northern flag then I could see issues with escaped slaves managing to reach one of them and a clash over the southern 'owner' regaining their 'property'.

You would still get robber barrons only their going to be even more self rightous moralizing busy bodies. Not only will the workers get hosed but the boss will give a sermon about how their workers are lowly scum. So basically kind of like silicon vally today.

As for the south not wanting to break treaty, thats not realistic, their economy will be devastated and more and more people will boycott their goods because slavery was an unpopular thing in the west, the obvious way to make money is to charge high tolls to exit the miss which screws over the north.

So unless the british are willing to sit there and protect the confederacy for ever there is no way america isn't going to attack, and if the british do that, the moment WW1 happens america joins the central powers to get revenge.

 

[stevep]

You would still get robber barrons only their going to be even more self rightous moralizing busy bodies. Not only will the workers get hosed but the boss will give a sermon about how their workers are lowly scum. So basically kind of like silicon vally today.

As for the south not wanting to break treaty, thats not realistic, their economy will be devastated and more and more people will boycott their goods because slavery was an unpopular thing in the west, the obvious way to make money is to charge high tolls to exit the miss which screws over the north.

So unless the british are willing to sit there and protect the confederacy for ever there is no way america isn't going to attack, and if the british do that, the moment WW1 happens america joins the central powers to get revenge.

Well that's the underlying message of a lot of [mis-]managers in the Anglo-sphere for the last few decades unfortunately.

I'm not sure about there being a massive boycott of southern goods as that didn't seem to be a massive issue for Brazil or the Spanish in Cuba for instance. The south is likely to be the prime supplier of a major product - cotton - for some time to come and could also - if we're unlucky - become a major producer of tobacco. Of course it could still screw things up either by internal collapse or picking needless fights with the north but I doubt there would be economic problems prompting the latter.

Even if Britain had been drawn into the conflict by said a Trent Incident crisis that ended in a conflict I don't see any great reason why Britain would be interested in putting out to preserve or even support the Confederacy. [Unless and even there probably only for a time if the US was rampantly revanchist and making clear its plans to attack Canada after the south. Which of course is going to have a pretty damaging impact on the recovery of the north from any such conflict].

It would be asking a lot to assume that something like WWI with the same alliances would be occurring with so many butterflies from such a long time before.

 

[Cherico]

The biggest problem is that if the south or Dixy leaves you end up removing the big giant restraining bolt that keeps new england from going off the rails.

Let me explain further, this is a region of the country founded by litteral cultists, on the positive side they have all of the energy because cults on the negative side unless they are countered by an equally strong personality (AKA the south) they will run roughshod over every one else and will go off the rails.

Now remove all of the brakes on american culture and hand them a crusade to fight.....

yeah that is not a recipe for peaceful coexistance thats a recipie for a blood fueled crusade where New England uses every method they have to isolate the south before showing up with an industrialized army to obliterate it and remake it in its image. Which is good for no one.

Fact is while losing the civil war was painful for the south it was likely the least worst option they were going to realistically get at that point.