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

[Historico]

Well, that assumes they care about British expansion in Africa, which they really don't. Britain isn't really seen as a major enemy in this TL, at least not yet.



It may have been, by representatives of the new Liberty Party spoken of in Part Two. But they have so little influence in Congress that they have no chance of getting anything passed. In the ATL, a lot of the things that lead white people in the North to reconsider their views on the worthiness of blacks for citizenship, never happened.

The Emancipation Proclamation was never issued. Black men never served in the Union armies during the war, and they haven't been allowed to serve in the Indian Wars, the Franco-Prussian War, or the Spanish War.

Remember, in the years prior to the Civil War, the North was actually REGRESSING on that issue, with most states which had previously granted citizenship to free blacks revoking it during the 1830s, 1840s and 1850s, and many of them passing legislation banning any free blacks from even entering their States. There had to be some major contribution by blacks which was enough to convince the majority of white Northerners...who were at least as racist as white Southerners at that time...that free blacks were worthy of citizenship.

In OTL it was really the service of blacks in the Union armies during the Civil War that lead the majority of white Northerners to come to that conclusion. Since that never happened in the ATL, the path to black citizenship in the United States is going to be a difficult one indeed.

So I guess, to really get the ball moving on Citizenship for Blacks, we would need to see a particularly nasty atl Great War, in which free blacks or even slaves work side by side with the Union Officers? Also how about that list of States that have abolished slavery?

 

[robertp6165]

So I guess, to really get the ball moving on Citizenship for Blacks, we would need to see a particularly nasty atl Great War, in which free blacks or even slaves work side by side with the Union Officers?

Something like that would probably do it. Unlike the issue of slavery in the territories, where the radicals (abolitionists) and the mainstream (free soilers) could work together because the mainstream Northern white man feared competition from black labor in the territories, the black citizenship issue offers no benefits to the mainstream. The radicals can rail about it all they want, but they aren't going to make headway until the mainstream can see a benefit to moving on the issue.

Also how about that list of States that have abolished slavery?

So far...

Delaware-1869
Maryland-1873
Kentucky-1881

In upcoming segments planned so far...

Missouri-1891

Virginia will consider emancipation legislation in 1898, but it will fail.

I have not planned beyond that point so far.

 

[T3h_shammy]

This has the obvious makings of a world war 1 in which we see a Franco-Ottoman-Hapsburg-American alliance versus Britain and its "Alliance"

 

[Historico]

This has the obvious makings of a world war 1 in which we see a Franco-Ottoman-Hapsburg-American alliance versus Britain and its "Alliance"

I second that motion, and I eagerly await the next installment...Keep it comming old friend

 

[Moltke]

July 19, 1870--France declares war on Prussia. The Franco-Prussian War begins.

July 1870-May 1872--The Franco-Prussian War (or, as it will be known in the United States, “The German War”). As in OTL, Prussia manages to persuade the south German states to join the war against France,

Jumped into this one late, so I might have missed this if already addressed. If France is the one declaring war just as in OTL, IMHO that eliminates almost any way of getting American support, let alone troops in this conflict? People seem to forget that almost everyone thought Prussia was the one that would lose and need support in this war.

Just wanted to clear up justification in the TL before I commented on some of the other topics being discussed.

 

[robertp6165]

Jumped into this one late, so I might have missed this if already addressed. If France is the one declaring war just as in OTL, IMHO that eliminates almost any way of getting American support, let alone troops in this conflict?

I don't agree. With the dramatically improved relations between the U.S. and France in the ATL, including the U.S. assisting France in its military preparations pre-war (Herman Haupt went to France with the government's blessings, if you will recall), relations between the U.S. and Prussia are likely to have suffered, possibly enough that the little detail of who declared war on whom will be forgotten...quite aside from America's capitalistic frame of mind, which means they will be selling arms to the French just as soon as war breaks out. The Prussians in the ATL retaliated by sending out some commerce raiders to prey on American shipping. This drew America into the war.

 

[SirCliveWolfe]

Yes, we did, and I don't remember my questions being answered.

If the US could deploy 1m men in 1917 then why not half as many in 1870, it's not like anything has changes in 47 years is it?

Essentially, how the hell is the US going to a. raise, b. equip, c. transport and d. supply such a force.

Well I presume that as the main argument is that the US could do this in 1917 so half as much in 1870 is not problem, that this extends to shipping et al?

Lets not get into the question of how and why unreconstructed Confederates would agree to serve as officers in the occupying power.

They have had a 'light' & very short-lived re-construction, now their all chummy?

If you are too lazy to look back at the previous discussion, that's not my problem.

What a lovely and informative reply... I have read your responses and they do not really answer the questions

Que?

I think that he was asking what the economic effects of having over half a million men, fully equipped with Spencers and enough shipping and escorts to not only move them but their supplies, would do to the US economy?

 

[robertp6165]

What a lovely and informative reply... I have read your responses and they do not really answer the questions

The problem I have here is that we debated these same points when I wrote the first version of the timeline. In the second version of it I actually did revise the troop numbers downward, after considering the points 67th Tigers brought up in said debate, cutting them basically in half. Based on the discussion we had on those points, this seemed a reasonable compromise.

And then, after I posted this revised version of the timeline, 67th Tigers proceeds to try to start the same debate all over again.

Well, my answers to his questions haven't changed since the first time I answered them. I have already compromised and brought the numbers down a heck of a lot closer to what he said was possible in the first debate. Quite frankly, at this point, I don't really care if 67th Tigers thinks it's realistic or not. 67th Tigers thinks George Brinton McClellan was a great General, and that Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee were bad ones. He consistently quotes force strengths for Civil War armies that EVERY mainstream historian would disagree with. Why should I care what he thinks?

I think that he was asking what the economic effects of having over half a million men, fully equipped with Spencers and enough shipping and escorts to not only move them but their supplies, would do to the US economy?

If that is what he was asking, the answer is that under normal circumstances, war spending generally fuels an economic boom.

 

[Historico]

Shameless bump