AHC/WI: British join ACW, US still wins
- Thread starter Zuvarq
- Start date
France
If England joins and America still wins France and Spain fight for domination in Europe France wins conquers England. America wouldnt invade England distance travel would be to great for sustainable operations. the Spanish American and Mexican American wars wouldnt come anywhere near close to history. My guess is that neither war would happen and with that America would stagnate long term and possibly not enter WW1 at all
If England joins and America still wins France and Spain fight for domination in Europe France wins conquers England. America wouldnt invade England distance travel would be to great for sustainable operations. the Spanish American and Mexican American wars wouldnt come anywhere near close to history. My guess is that neither war would happen and with that America would stagnate long term and possibly not enter WW1 at all
Clarification: The US does not need to conquer Canada even though they probably could. The only condition for winning is that they destroy the Confederate States of America.
The Mexican-American War already happened in the 1840s.
And when an industrializing or industrialized free market state gets larger, it generally grows in power rather than stagnating.
That doesn't make any sense. Spain was greatly weakened by this time period, and France does not have enough the resources to invade England.
The Mexican-American War already happened in the 1840s.
And when an industrializing or industrialized free market state gets larger, it generally grows in power rather than stagnating.
What's the POD for British entry into the war, OP? Are we rolling with the bog standard Trent Affair ATL?
Any POD. Trent Affair may be the easiest.
The goal is to have a drawn-out war that is still a total Union victory.
Question there - how much is Britain doing?
Full out British effort is going to be too much for the US, but it's also "But why would Britain commit that much to a conflict that isn't worth it?" - Britain's other commitments are going to wind up missing those troops and ships.
amphibulous
Banned
It's pretty simple:
- The US is stupid enough not to back down over the Trent
- The British make a moderate naval effort - nothing too much is worth it or politically possible
- The CSA is able to export some cotton and import some more weapons
- The US is stupid enough not to back down over the Trent
- The British make a moderate naval effort - nothing too much is worth it or politically possible
- The CSA is able to export some cotton and import some more weapons
There was another thread a while back that went into some depth with primary sources about Britain's preparations in case they got dragged into the war.
Basically despite tripling the Canadian garrison and trying to upgrade the militia beyond 'armed farmer', a semi-focused Union invasion in summer would probably have rolled them over. At sea? Well the Royal Navy has assumed advantage but depends what they send really. An attempted blockade of the Union would quickly lead to a proper invasion of Canada to seize possible naval bases.
You'd need some very aggressive handling from Washington. Even with Lord 'loony' Palmerston at the reigns the British were well aware of their disadvantages in such a conflict.
Basically despite tripling the Canadian garrison and trying to upgrade the militia beyond 'armed farmer', a semi-focused Union invasion in summer would probably have rolled them over. At sea? Well the Royal Navy has assumed advantage but depends what they send really. An attempted blockade of the Union would quickly lead to a proper invasion of Canada to seize possible naval bases.
You'd need some very aggressive handling from Washington. Even with Lord 'loony' Palmerston at the reigns the British were well aware of their disadvantages in such a conflict.
From what I've read on the ACW, including bits from the British side of things (the latter of which my experience is extremely limited btw), there was simply no public mood for support of the Confederacy. The issue for the British public was slavery. No one in the House of Commons (much less the average person on the street) wanted to give meaningful support to a slave state, much less spend lives and treasure propping up such an institution.
Even the Union acting preposterously stupid to provoke the British would be a difficult thing to envision - and even if the British were provoked into war, their 'assistance' of the Confederacy would be lukewarm at best.
We're talking serious ASB influence - which is fine, but it simply needs to be said.
On the other hand, I would love to see how the Army of the Potomac late 1864 to mid 1865 handles the British Army - or any European force.
Even the Union acting preposterously stupid to provoke the British would be a difficult thing to envision - and even if the British were provoked into war, their 'assistance' of the Confederacy would be lukewarm at best.
We're talking serious ASB influence - which is fine, but it simply needs to be said.
On the other hand, I would love to see how the Army of the Potomac late 1864 to mid 1865 handles the British Army - or any European force.
British intervention might also make a boost for Union morale. Nothing hurts the cause of a secessionist group like foreign intervention; it gives the opening to Lincoln to paint the CSA as a British puppet and further undermine their legitimacy. Considering every CS state except South Carolina contributed at least one volunteer regiment to the Union Army I could see this hurting Richmond's credibility among some sections in Southern society, bolstering the position of Southern Unionists, and giving the North a slight morale bump. That bump will probably turn into a surge when British Canada gets squashed by the Union Army.
Britain jumping in also means the Union Navy can take a different approach: why enforce a blockade when every British ship bound for the CSA, along with the blockade runners, are now fair game on the high seas as military targets? Britain declaring war effectively declares the British merchant marine to be open season for privateering and with the Union pressed by the British Empire and the CSA I could see the Union turning to privateering on a large scale to throw another wrench in the works.
Can i ask were the Union is going to get the troops needed to do this? Its not as if Canada is undefended, Canadian Militia are decent especially we you compare them with American (and both sides in the ACW had militia-quality forces and the added effect that the union does not have powder). And that is before you take into account British regulars.
Kaptin Kurk
Banned
Well, Britain getting involved would probably keep the Irish in line, and butterfly away some of the OTL support for Armistice / Negotiation with the South. There was a great deal of British sympathy for the South during the war, although there was a great deal of Unionist sympathy as well. At least from reading "A World on Fire", it seems that that the country was probably split about 60/40 pro-Union, which is means you'd need probably something even more than the Trent affair to trigger a war.
The U.S. behaving badly in the Trent affair probably makes England a little less willing to enforce strict neutrality visa-vie ship building and monies mid-to-late war, but I doubt it triggers a decleration of war. Well, at least a 50/50 chance it does not. It's not like the British as a whole were chomping at the bits to get involved in the conflict at the time, and many of their politicians were quite aware of the posturing both sides - North and South - were engaged in diplomatically and took a lot from each with more than a few grains of salt.
But say it does go bad, this obviously can't but help the South. On the other hand, I do think a big question is whether or not this happens before or after the Emancipation Proclamation, and how Britain handles that. Unfortunately for the Union, France will probably also come into the War if Britain does, which will be even more problematic. On the other hand, I'm not sure if the other European powers will simply be idle in such a situation either. The Union at least will be looking for allies, at that point.
Most likely England and France are able to secure confederate independence, but probably after a longer war then they bargained for, circa 1869. The situation has changed in Europe, America is devastated. England and France will probably have bigger political problems than OTL, since they basically fought a war for nothing at best and slavery at worst getting a bunch of their people killed. Canada will a confusing place, with probably less of a unified identity, as the Americans who migrated there are either expelled or never truly absorbed....
I doubt it'll play out exactly like Turtledove imagined, but I figure at the very least, you've either created a strong 20th century enemy for Britain in the North, and a lukewarm ally at best in the South, or a pretty much a isolationist North America, and a Canadian Dominion which is likely to be less stable in the future.
Last edited:
amphibulous
Banned
Then Canada gets annexed
Maybe, maybe not. The only sane situation is if the UK makes a moderate naval effort and leaves sufficient in reserve to deter the US. The US makes a "signalling" move on Canada, the two sides talk, peace breaks out - the UK wants to keep Canada, the US wants to keep its navy and merchant marine. It's a self-stabilizing system that can only be broken by huge stupidity.
amphibulous
Banned
It's even worse than that:
- The UK was making a fortune selling guns and gunpowder to the Union
- The UK was importing vast quantities of Union corn
Self interest and morality were perfectly aligned; it would have take enormous determination from Washington to get more than a token slap on the wrist for the Trent - they'd really have to declare war on the UK! And even then a major British troop deployment in the US would be a fantasy.
If war between the US and Great Britain lasts for more than a year then Canada is swamped. Canada's population, relative lack of military industry compared to the Union, and long supply lines to Britain and more professional troops means by the law of numbers alone the Union can get more soldiers and equipment into Canada faster than the British can stop them or effectively defend against. It would delay major Union action against the South but not by enough to save the CSA.
That's also assuming no one in Europe decides to take advantage of the Anglo-French distraction. The Union had some pretty good relations with the Russian Empire at the time along with other possibilities so there's nothing stopping Lincoln from reaching out to Europe for allies to open a second front or shortage of grievances to motivate intervening. This won't hurt Britain as much but France is going to have to choose between winning the war in North America and losing in the metropole or letting the CSA go twist in the wind while holding off whatever continental allies emerge.