Answering the Call of Lafayette: America Intervenes in the Franco-Prussian War

[robertp6165]

The biggest obstacle to this scenario is the ethnic make up of the American population.

Even as recently as 1917 the U.S. had such a large number of recent German emigrants that our entry into WWI on Britain’s behalf was not a certainty. Some of the Pennsylvania Dutch National Guard units that we sent to France for WWI spoke their dialect of German as their everyday language. The officers of these units found that they and their French counterparts could communicate more effectively if the Americans spoke their German dialect and the French spoke Hoch Deutsch. One American unit strayed behind the German lines and was about to fired on by the Germans until the Germans heard the Americans using their Pennsylvania Dutch.

Some of my ancestors came from the Rhineland as early as 1730 and eventually settled in NC. English was their everyday language by the time the Civil War started, but my grandmother remembered that her grandparents still used their German dialect in the 1920s and 1930s whenever they didn’t want the children to know what was being talked about.

I seriously doubt that the U.S. would have gone to war with Germany at any time during the 19th century.

The Germans were more of a minority in 1870 than they would be in 1917. There are certainly some States where they had significant populations, but they were not considered a hugely influential power bloc in the United States at that time. And a great many of the Germans who were in America in 1870 were either refugees from the revolutions of 1848, or children of refugees from the 1848 revolutions. These people will have little love for the Prussian monarchy and be quite likely to support a war which they see as a means to undermine it.

And, it might be pointed out, the ethnic makeup of the American population in 1812 was almost entirely British, yet we went to war with Britain to protect freedom of the seas, which is what is happening in 1870 in the timeline. Given the number of times we have gone to war...both officially and unofficially...over that very issue (1798 vs. France; early 1800s vs. Barbary Pirates; 1812 vs. Britain; even our 1917 entry into World War I vs. Germany can be counted as one of these), it is certainly not a stretch to imagine it happening again in 1870.

 

[flaja]

He's President when the Franco-Prussian War breaks out in 1870. Did you actually read the timeline at all?

If the Civil War ended in April 1862, would Grant have done enough in the War to earn him the White House? In reality Shiloh undid Donnelson and Henry, and if it hadn’t been for Appomattox, Cold Harbor would have undone Vicksburg.

Furthermore, if the Civil War had ended in April 1862 in a Union victory, I would have to assume that something like McClellan’s Peninsula Campaign had been a rousing success for the Union. This would have made McClellan president, not Grant.


I went through the order of battle for the expeditionary force again and I did not see General George Thomas.

 

[flaja]

The Germans were more of a minority in 1870 than they would be in 1917.

German Americans are today the largest single ethnic group in the U.S. They comprise some 17% of today’s U.S. population.

Germans began arriving in America in the 1680s and since then some 8,000,000 Germans have moved to America.

The period that saw the largest number of German immigrants to America was 1840 – 1900. From 1840 to 1880 Germans were the single largest ethnic group to immigrate to the U.S.

23.4% of all Union troops during the Civil War were German or German American.

By 1900 Germans and German Americans made up 40% or more of the population of some U.S. cities.

In the 1990 census some 58,000,000 Americans claimed sole or partial German ancestry.

German was a co-official language of Pennsylvania until World War I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American

I’ve seen it claimed that historically, from before the Revolution to recent times, almost half of the American population has had German ancestry, with the other half having British ancestry. People like me have both and I would venture that even today almost half of all Americans have German ancestry and don’t know it because they haven’t researched their genealogy.

 

[67th Tigers]

The Army of the Potomac had almost 94,000 men at the Battle of Gettysburg. At the same time Grant had an army of 77,000 men laying siege to Vicksburg. So in 1863 the U.S. could easily have deployed 171,000 men without deploying the entire U.S. Army or relying on traitors from the South.

All up the Federals had 300,000 +/- 50,0000 for most of the war. This is pulling out all the stops in what is effectively a war of national survival.

The next major mobilisation is the war with Spain, and they managed to get 200,000 men all up with volunteers and militia, from a north and south with almost double the population of 1870. Maybe in 1870 they might get 150,000, then make deductions for home security, coastal defence and other sundaries, leaving an expeditionary Corps or Two .

 

[Zyzzyva]

I went through the order of battle for the expeditionary force again and I did not see General George Thomas.

Ummmm... As Rp6165 noted, Thomas got killed eight years earlier. So his absence from the order of battle is probably not a mistake.

 

[flaja]

All up the Federals had 300,000 +/- 50,0000 for most of the war. This is pulling out all the stops in what is effectively a war of national survival.

I would assume that under the scenario proposed here former Confederate troops could be included in the expeditionary force. Lee had 71,000 troops at Gettysburg which could bring the expeditionary force total up to 242,000. Add Pemberton’s roughly 33,000 men defending Vicksburg and the total is 275,000. I cannot find any data for the number of U.S. troops that had garrison duty in places like New Orleans and Memphis or any data on the number of troops that were serving in other Confederate armies. But I wouldn’t be one bit surprised if the U.S. could have launched a 500,000 man expeditionary force in 1870.

 

[flaja]

Ummmm... As Rp6165 noted, Thomas got killed eight years earlier. So his absence from the order of battle is probably not a mistake.

Does he say this in the first post in this thread? The only Thomas mentioned there is the fist name of Thomas Jackson.

 

[Zyzzyva]

Does he say this in the first post in this thread? The only Thomas mentioned there is the fist name of Thomas Jackson.

No, he says that in this post, in response to the first time you asked:

He was killed at the ATL Battle of Pittsburg Landing (Shiloh), August 25, 1862.

And, uh, you quoted from that post.

 

[flaja]

No, he says that in this post, in response to the first time you asked:



And, uh, you quoted from that post.

The passage that I quoted when I asked about Thomas in my first post in this thread is in the first post in this thread. It is that first post that I quoted from. I find no mention of George Thomas in that post.

 

[robertp6165]

German Americans are today the largest single ethnic group in the U.S. They comprise some 17% of today’s U.S. population.

Germans began arriving in America in the 1680s and since then some 8,000,000 Germans have moved to America.

The period that saw the largest number of German immigrants to America was 1840 – 1900. From 1840 to 1880 Germans were the single largest ethnic group to immigrate to the U.S.

23.4% of all Union troops during the Civil War were German or German American.

By 1900 Germans and German Americans made up 40% or more of the population of some U.S. cities.

In the 1990 census some 58,000,000 Americans claimed sole or partial German ancestry.

German was a co-official language of Pennsylvania until World War I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American

I’ve seen it claimed that historically, from before the Revolution to recent times, almost half of the American population has had German ancestry, with the other half having British ancestry. People like me have both and I would venture that even today almost half of all Americans have German ancestry and don’t know it because they haven’t researched their genealogy.

None of which contradicts my statement, which is that Germans were more of a minority in 1870 than they would be in 1917.

Lumping in "German Americans" and "people with German ancestry" with recent German immigrants is not really valid for the purposes of this discussion. People whose ancestors have been in American for a for more than one or two generations...and in some cases, as you point out, since the 1680s...are going to be loyal to America, not Germany. So the fact that they are here really isn't going to create an obstacle to going to war with Germany in 1870.

And, furthermore, you point out that the largest group of immigrants came between 1840 and 1880. This supports my statement that these are not going to be people who are in love with the Prussian monarchy...as the reason probably a majority of them left the homeland was due to the failed 1848 revolutions and the crackdowns which followed. Others would have left to get away from Prussian conscription laws. None of these people will object in the slightest to a war which could undermine the Hohenzollerns and the other petty German princes.

 

[robertp6165]

If the Civil War ended in April 1862, would Grant have done enough in the War to earn him the White House? In reality Shiloh undid Donnelson and Henry, and if it hadn’t been for Appomattox Cold Harbor would have undone Vicksburg.

Furthermore, if the Civil War had ended in April 1862 in a Union victory, I would have to assume that something like McClellan’s Peninsula Campaign had been a rousing success for the Union. This would have made McClellan president, not Grant.

You really need to read the timeline and the additions and corrections to it that have been made since the initial posting. In particular the history of the Civil War which was inserted later on.

The war ended in April 1863. The OTL version of Shiloh never occurred. Grant captured Vicksburg and Jackson, Mississippi in 1862, and also was the commander of one of the two Union armies which was involved in the siege and capture of the final Confederate Capital at Montgomery in April 1863.

I went through the order of battle for the expeditionary force again and I did not see General George Thomas

Again, you need to read the additions and corrections to the timeline, not just the initial posting.

 

[robertp6165]

All up the Federals had 300,000 +/- 50,0000 for most of the war. This is pulling out all the stops in what is effectively a war of national survival.

You are talking about actual strength in the field armies at any one time. This was not all the troops the Union had, because it does not include troops on garrison duty in the North and West, manning fortifications, performing rear echelon duties, etc. And using that number is not valid anyway when talking about the number America could have raised in 1870.

Around 2 million men served in the Union armies during the course of the OTL Civil War. I am assuming that a little more than half that number served in the ATL Civil War. In addition, I am assuming around 400,000 Confederate troops served during the war. That gives a potential pool of up to 1.5 million militarily experienced Civil War veterans upon which the U.S. could call in 1870.

The next major mobilisation is the war with Spain, and they managed to get 200,000 men all up with volunteers and militia, from a north and south with almost double the population of 1870. Maybe in 1870 they might get 150,000, then make deductions for home security, coastal defence and other sundaries, leaving an expeditionary Corps or Two .

We didn't really try very hard against Spain, which rightly regarded as a minor power by that time. One assumes that in a war with a major European power like Prussia/Germany...and with French reports of the numbers involved in the conflict...America would try a lot harder.

 

[flaja]

None of which contradicts my statement, which is that Germans were more of a minority in 1870 than they would be in 1917.

As far as national origin goes, the U.S. has never had a majority. But ethnic Germans and their descendants for at least several generations, as the largest minority, would have a great deal of say in setting U.S. foreign policy as it relates to any conflict between Britain and Germany/Prussia.

Lumping in "German Americans" and "people with German ancestry" with recent German immigrants is not really valid for the purposes of this discussion.

It is. It shows the amount of influence Germany could exercise over American politics.

People whose ancestors have been in American for a for more than one or two generations...and in some cases, as you point out, since the 1680s...are going to be loyal to America, not Germany.

You can prove this how? There were thousands of “Americans” in 11 southern states that were not loyal to America in 1861. What makes you think the thousands of people in this country who spoke German as their main if not their only language would have been loyal to the U.S. if the U.S. went to war with Germany? As I’ve pointed out in the post-1900 board the loyalty of recent German immigrants to the U.S. was highly suspect on the eve of WWI. If it weren’t for the fact the Great Britain didn’t sink cargo ships without warning (as Germany did) and then paid the American owners for the lost cargo, the U.S. could have very easily entered WWI on the side of Germany.

And, furthermore, you point out that the largest group of immigrants came between 1840 and 1880. This supports my statement that these are not going to be people who are in love with the Prussian monarchy...

But they did not all come from Prussia. The greatest single wave of German immigration to America did likely come after the failed revolutions of 1848- before Prussia had unified Germany. Not all of these immigrants were fleeing from the Prussians and most of these immigrants still strongly retained their Germany culture.

BTW: Have you ever heard of the German-America Bund? Hitler honestly believed that German-Americans would flock to the Vaterlands cause in WWII. The government had to lock up thousands of ethnic Germans during WWII because their loyalty was suspect. There is no reason to think the situation would have been any different in 1870.

 

[flaja]

You really need to read the timeline and the additions and corrections to it that have been made since the initial posting. In particular the history of the Civil War which was inserted later on.

This entire scenario is based on a revised history of the Civil War. Shouldn’t that revised history have been part of the first post?

 

[flaja]

We didn't really try very hard against Spain, which rightly regarded as a minor power by that time. One assumes that in a war with a major European power like Prussia/Germany...and with French reports of the numbers involved in the conflict...America would try a lot harder.

We didn’t need a world war type mobilization to deal with Spain. Our objective was to liberate Spain’s colonies, not to invade Spain proper. The most we had to do was match Spain’s colonial garrisons and considering that Spain was further from the colonies than the U.S. was, Spain would have had a harder time deploying troops than the U.S. did so we didn’t have to match any great number of troops. We didn’t try very hard against Spain because we didn’t need to.

 

[Nicomacheus]

This entire scenario is based on a revised history of the Civil War. Shouldn’t that revised history have been part of the first post?

Robert decided to post a general scenario first and then supplied a more detailed history of the war. It's a work in progress.

As to the points about loyalty to a perceived German nationalism, first I think Robert's points about the 1848 revolutions are quite germaine (hehe). If dissatisfied with the previous regime, then the immigrants in question are liberal. And they're not all Prussian.

Second, while immigrant groups were substantial enough OTL in the 1850s that major political movements formed on immigration issues, the immigrant communities themsevles weren't strong enough to weild political influence. Indeed, expecting Pennsylvania Dutch communites to act in 1870 as only Hitler thought the German-American Bund could in the 1930s seems pretty anachronistic. They could riot (Irish in the NY Draft Riots), but weild unified political influence in the style of OTL's 1910s-1920s? I don't see it. If the white protestant majority was big enough in 1914 to suppress the German population (and that population maleable enough to kowtow), it'll certainly be so in 1870. At the most, you might see the positions of say the Irish and the Germans begin to switch on the scales of American nativism.

Third, pro-German sentiment misses the point of the TL: America in TTL's 1870 owes Napoleonic France its national existence (or so it beleives). The nation is either flying high on the glory of military victory or Grant is looking for a convienent excuse to further cement North-South union with some good ol' fashion martial exploits.

 

[67th Tigers]

You are talking about actual strength in the field armies at any one time. This was not all the troops the Union had, because it does not include troops on garrison duty in the North and West, manning fortifications, performing rear echelon duties, etc. And using that number is not valid anyway when talking about the number America could have raised in 1870.

No, the field armies were about 200,000 in total, the other 100,000 were in garrisons etc..

Around 2 million men served in the Union armies during the course of the OTL Civil War. I am assuming that a little more than half that number served in the ATL Civil War. In addition, I am assuming around 400,000 Confederate troops served during the war. That gives a potential pool of up to 1.5 million militarily experienced Civil War veterans upon which the U.S. could call in 1870.

For how long though? Although 2.8m enlistments were processed (1.1m ITTL), and between 1.5 and 2.2m individuals served for any period (about 1m ITTL), in the first couple of years less than half the enlistments produced a trained soldier, and in 1864-5 only 1 enlistment in 8 resulted in a trained soldier.

In this case, we have the 1861 and 1862 intakes (the 1863 intakes were miniscule BTW), about 500,000 trained soldiers for the Union, and about 300,000 for the Confederacy.

We didn't really try very hard against Spain, which rightly regarded as a minor power by that time. One assumes that in a war with a major European power like Prussia/Germany...and with French reports of the numbers involved in the conflict...America would try a lot harder.

Spain was a full mobilisation war. It's just the mobilisation strength of the US is rubbish compared to Germany, France or even Britain.

 

[67th Tigers]

We didn’t need a world war type mobilization to deal with Spain. Our objective was to liberate Spain’s colonies, not to invade Spain proper. The most we had to do was match Spain’s colonial garrisons and considering that Spain was further from the colonies than the U.S. was, Spain would have had a harder time deploying troops than the U.S. did so we didn’t have to match any great number of troops. We didn’t try very hard against Spain because we didn’t need to.

No, the entire US military was brought to full mobilisation, and invasion of Spain was considered a possibility, as was defence against a Spanish Invasion Force. Only 1st, 5th and 8th Corps went overseas (being the ones with decent complements of regulars). The rest stayed in garrison at home.

 

[flaja]

As to the points about loyalty to a perceived German nationalism, first I think Robert's points about the 1848 revolutions are quite germaine (hehe). If dissatisfied with the previous regime, then the immigrants in question are liberal.

Then would these liberal Germans have been willing to fight a war on behalf of the reactionary France of Napoleon III?

I still say that culture, language and ethnicity would have outweighed politics. And not every German in the U.S. prior to the Civil War was a liberal. Southern armies during the Civil War contained a fair number of Germans- entire units in the Confederate armies were made up of Germans. Some slaves (especially in places like Texas) didn’t speak English because their masters only spoke German. My German ancestors came from the Rhineland long before the Revolutionary War. Historically these Germans were opposed to slavery, but some of my German ancestors still owned slaves.

And they're not all Prussian.

I’m not the one trying to say they were.

Second, while immigrant groups were substantial enough OTL in the 1850s that major political movements formed on immigration issues, the immigrant communities themsevles weren't strong enough to weild political influence.

German Americans have always been prominent in American politics and public affairs.

John Peter Zenger was a German immigrant who as a newspaper publisher in New York City was acquitted on charges of libel and sedition leveled against him by New York’s royal governor. His acquittal established the precedence of freedom of the press in America.

Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg was a 2nd generation German American and the first Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. Other members of the Muhlenberg family have a long history of serving in U.S. politics.

Michael Hillegas, the first Treasurer of the United States (during the Revolution and Confederation period), was also of German descent.

David Ziegler was a German immigrant and then a veteran of the Revolutionary War and then an aid to President George Washing and then the first mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio.

The German American Hiester Family of Pennsylvania provided U.S. Congressmen for the better part of the 19th century.

William C. Bouck, governor of New YorkState in 1843-1844 had German ancestry. His son was AG of Wisconsin from 1858-1860 and later Speaker of the Wisconsin state assembly.

Carl Shurz was a refugee from the failed revolutions of 1849. In 1857 he sought election as the lieutenant governor of Wisconsin, where he was prominent leader of the Republican Party. He later served as a general in the Union Army. After the war he was a newspaper editor and then a U.S. Senator from Missouri and then Secretary of the Interior.

Franz Siegel was a professional military officer who took part in the German revolutions. He then moved to the U.S. and served as the head of the school system in St. Louis before serving as a Union general in the Civil War. After the War Siegel became a journalist in Baltimore where he also served in politics as both a Republican and a Democrat. He later served as a pension agent in New York City.

Nicola Marschall, the designer of the CSA’s Stars and Bars and gray army uniform, was a German emigrant.

Indeed, expecting Pennsylvania Dutch communites to act in 1870 as only Hitler thought the German-American Bund could in the 1930s seems pretty anachronistic. They could riot (Irish in the NY Draft Riots), but weild unified political influence in the style of OTL's 1910s-1920s?

Yes, as my list of prominent German American political leaders shows.

Third, pro-German sentiment misses the point of the TL:

America in TTL's 1870 owes Napoleonic France its national existence (or so it beleives).

That’s not alternative history; it’s pure fantasy. A good alternative history scenario should not ignore and certainly should not try to alter details on a mass scale.

The nation is either flying high on the glory of military victory or Grant is looking for a convienent excuse to further cement North-South union with some good ol' fashion martial exploits.

The U.S. already had a long history of not helping France despite our Revolutionary era treaty of alliance. When much of royal Europe declared war on the new FrenchRepublic following the French Revolution, the U.S. remained neutral. And not even the rabid Francophile Thomas Jefferson could bring himself to support Napoleon I.

Note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hecker#American_experience_and_the_Civil_War: This German American military and political leader was enthusiastic about the unification of his German Vaterland following Germany’s victory over France in the 1870-71 war. If a re-United States of America went to war in Europe in 1870, it could just as easily have been on behalf of Germany.

 

[flaja]

It's just the mobilisation strength of the US is rubbish compared to Germany, France or even Britain.

Can you document total population figures for the U.S., Great Britain, France and Germany in 1870? On what data are you basing your conclusion that the U.S. could not have deployed a 500,000 man army in 1870?

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-was-the-population-of-the-us-throughout-its-history.htm

The 1860 U.S. census reported a total U.S. population of 31,443,000 people.

The 1870 U.S. census reported a total U.S. population of 38,558,000 people.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/hitch/gendocs/pop.html
The total population of Great Britain and Ireland in 1861 was 29,070,930.

The total population of Great Britain and Ireland in 1871 was 31,629,299.