WI The confederates were recognised by foreign governments?

[A Random Person]

What would change if European governments recognized the CSA as a country and started diplomatic missions in Richmond?

There are three candidates: Great Britain and France appearently nearly did so in the early parts of the war, Spain was a silent supporter of the rebels.

 

[deathscompanion1]

What would change if European governments recognized the CSA as a country and started diplomatic missions in Richmond?

There are three candidates: Great Britain and France appearently nearly did so in the early parts of the war, Spain was a silent supporter of the rebels.

Said governments get roasted by the population for supporting slavery and the USA remembers it a decade or two later if WWI or some analogue breaks out.

 

[Johnrankins]

Said governments get roasted by the population for supporting slavery and the USA remembers it a decade or two later if WWI or some analogue breaks out.

This and it doesn't help the CSA a damn bit. The only thing that would help is if GB would go to war with the US and break the blockade. The US recognizes the country of Bolivia but that doesn't mean that the US would be willing to go to war to protect it.

 

[Anaxagoras]

The United States had made it very clear that extending diplomatic recognition to the Confederacy automatically meant a declaration of war. Now, the question is whether Congress would go along with Lincoln on this...

A big consequence of foreign recognition is that the Confederate currency would be much more stable than it was IOTL, sales of Confederate bonds to European bankers would be more successful, and inflation in the Confederacy would be less than it was. After all, people will have more faith in a country's currency if that country is officially a country.

 

[SeanB]

The Confederacy still loses, but that might be a nice way to get the USA on the side of the Central Powers in WWI. It's not such a big historical divergence that the Great War or something similar should be butterflied entirely, so that could be very fascinating.

 

[Johnrankins]

The United States had made it very clear that extending diplomatic recognition to the Confederacy automatically meant a declaration of war. Now, the question is whether Congress would go along with Lincoln on this...

A big consequence of foreign recognition is that the Confederate currency would be much more stable than it was IOTL, sales of Confederate bonds to European bankers would be more successful, and inflation in the Confederacy would be less than it was. After all, people will have more faith in a country's currency if that country is officially a country.

Not that it would matter much. It would take much more than a few percentage points of inflation to do much of anything. In the end I doubt Lincoln would declare war as that wouldn't help the situation. Cooler heads would prevail and realize that recognition without intervention means nothing.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

The only way for that to happen is for the either a) the Confederates win some successes in the field making it look as though they could win the war and allow for foreign mediation, and b) the Union somehow mucks up the Trent Affair causing the British population to bay for American blood.

Otherwise there's no credible way for any nation to recognize them.

If it did happen, well in scenario a) Lincoln has practically already lost the war as there is no way he will last the next election and in scenario b) the British might just forcefully break the blockade rendering American economic strangulation moot and causing them to have to try and invade Canada to boot.

Either way the Union would be in piss poor areas if it happens.

 

[Kooluk Swordsman]

First question would be: why? With a rising Prussia and still powerful Russia {so everyone thinks} closer to their doorstep, why would Britain and France risk a war to recognize a slave-state? There's not much to gain and everything to lose.

Even if the U.S didn't declare war, once she won {and she would indeed win, barring a full-scale intervention by France and Britain, which would lead to war}, she would be royally pissed off at France and Britain. Britain would have to be on constant alert in Canada and the Caribbean. Not to mention that Britain was getting a very large percentage of its grain from the States.

If the CSA were recognized by Britain and France, the U.S looks for revenge later. I doubt she'd try and annex all of Canada, but once WWI breaks out, well, Germany won't be in a bad spot.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

The Confederacy still loses, but that might be a nice way to get the USA on the side of the Central Powers in WWI. It's not such a big historical divergence that the Great War or something similar should be butterflied entirely, so that could be very fascinating.

That's saying there is a Central Powers. I want to bang my head every time this comes up. That's saying that the balance of power in Europe isn't shaking up, it assumes the US doesn't go isolationist for lack of support, it assumes the Confederacy still exists to entice them to join said side, and it assumes no butterflies!

I'm sorry but it's just a personal pet peeve of mine. Everybody assumes some ridiculous TL-191 scenario where absolutely nothing changes!!

 

[Will Kürlich Kerl]

The Confederacy still loses, but that might be a nice way to get the USA on the side of the Central Powers in WWI. It's not such a big historical divergence that the Great War or something similar should be butterflied entirely, so that could be very fascinating.

The alliances will be butterflied away, Great Britain will be with the CSA while Russia will stick with the USA.

 

[SeanB]

That's saying there is a Central Powers. I want to bang my head every time this comes up. That's saying that the balance of power in Europe isn't shaking up, it assumes the US doesn't go isolationist for lack of support, it assumes the Confederacy still exists to entice them to join said side, and it assumes no butterflies!

I'm sorry but it's just a personal pet peeve of mine. Everybody assumes some ridiculous TL-191 scenario where absolutely nothing changes!!

Uh, did you read my post? I said the Confederacy would still lose, therefore...it would cease to exist and still be absorbed into the United States. That's why there would still be a Central Powers. The USA would still go Isolationist, but with a cooler relationship with the UK and France.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Uh, did you read my post? I said the Confederacy would still lose, therefore...it would cease to exist and still be absorbed into the United States. That's why there would still be a Central Power. The USA would still go Isolationist, but with a cooler relationship with the UK and France.

I was listing off a general pet peeve at the idea, your still wrong however, but for different reasons.

The US would not like any European power at this point and see them as meddling, and in this scenario they would probably still trade with Britain since they are their largest trading partner, no easy loans however.

The butterflies are still there and thus have to flap, meaning that there still may not be a Central Powers as we know it, Germany may have trouble unifying and the French Empire might not fall, and eccetera.

 

[SeanB]

I was listing off a general pet peeve at the idea, your still wrong however, but for different reasons.

The US would not like any European power at this point and see them as meddling, and in this scenario they would probably still trade with Britain since they are their largest trading partner, no easy loans however.

The butterflies are still there and thus have to flap, meaning that there still may not be a Central Powers as we know it, Germany may have trouble unifying and the French Empire might not fall, and eccetera.

I don't subscribe too much to the whole, "Abraham Lincoln sneezes during the Gettysburg address and therefore King George V isn't born."

Any timeline that acted that way would come across as silly to me. Meaningful changes should have at least somewhat meaningful causes, or else it's lazy writing.

Speaking from a literary standpoint, that is.

 

[AtriumCarceris]

Recognition meant war between Britain and the United States. At the beginning of the war this was stated outright, as Anaxagoras said.

But let's supposed not. Wouldn't at this point recognition mean a break of the blockade just in itself? I'm unsure of the laws at the time so I could be wrong, but wouldn't recognition mean that British and French ships would deliberately start ignoring the American blockade as Neutral parties? Akin to how in the First World War, America attempted trade with all powers in spite of any blockades? I'm not sure about that though, but I think that's how it is. If so, then Recognition means at the very least a significantly improved Confederacy.

 

[Johnrankins]

I don't subscribe too much to the whole, "Abraham Lincoln sneezes during the Gettysburg address and therefore King George V isn't born."

Any timeline that acted that way would come across as silly to me. Meaningful changes should have at least somewhat meaningful causes, or else it's lazy writing.

Speaking from a literary standpoint, that is.

Depending on how recognition plays out it could change things. The US is already an economic great power and a regional great power so it isn't too much of a stretch that recognition could shake things up a bit.

 

[Johnrankins]

Recognition meant war between Britain and the United States. At the beginning of the war this was stated outright, as Anaxagoras said.

But let's supposed not. Wouldn't at this point recognition mean a break of the blockade just in itself? I'm unsure of the laws at the time so I could be wrong, but wouldn't recognition mean that British and French ships would deliberately start ignoring the American blockade as Neutral parties? Akin to how in the First World War, America attempted trade with all powers in spite of any blockades? I'm not sure about that though, but I think that's how it is. If so, then Recognition means at the very least a significantly improved Confederacy.

Yes, but as the US found it GB could board it ships. GB boarded quite a few US ships in WWI but it didn't start a war. That means the US could board British and French ships without a causes belie.

 

[SeanB]

Depending on how recognition plays out it could change things. The US is already an economic great power and a regional great power so it isn't too much of a stretch that recognition could shake things up a bit.

If they end up not going isolationist, then it would shake things up significantly, yes.

 

[AtriumCarceris]

Yes, but as the US found it GB could board it ships. GB boarded quite a few US ships in WWI but it didn't start a war. That means the US could board British and French ships without a causes belie.

If I recall, the US saw this as a violation of their rights and told GB to stop, which they generally did.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Not that it would matter much. It would take much more than a few percentage points of inflation to do much of anything.

It's customary on AH.com to discount economics and finance as historical forces, perhaps because they are not that easy to understand. If you ask me, a sizable shift in the inflation rate of the Confederacy could do more to win the war for the South than half a dozen battlefield victories.

In the end I doubt Lincoln would declare war as that wouldn't help the situation. Cooler heads would prevail and realize that recognition without intervention means nothing.

If Lincoln doesn't follow through by declaring war (and Seward would have been chaffing at the bit about it), the the Union looks ridiculous on the world stage. After all, he had made it abundantly clear to Britain and France that recognition would mean war. If they do recognize the South and Lincoln does nothing, then makes the Union look weak and indecisive. This would have a terrible effect on Union morale both within the ranks and on the home front, while correspondingly beefing up morale in the Confederacy.

On the other hand, Charles Sumner was the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate and he likely would have worked very hard to prevent war, just as he had done during the Trent Affair.

 

[Elfwine]

It's customary on AH.com to discount economics and finance as historical forces, perhaps because they are not that easy to understand. If you ask me, a sizable shift in the inflation rate of the Confederacy could do more to win the war for the South than half a dozen battlefield victories.

We've been over this before, but I have to say again - the Army of Northern Virginia faced the same inflation rate as the Army of Tennessee, and yet the ANV won most of its battles.

Lowering the inflation rate doesn't change that one army has an awful lot of them U.S. guns and the other army is stuck with leftovers from the Mexican-American war (exaggerating only modestly - the AoT's artillery arm is underwhelming to put it charitably).

And yes, lower inflation might make some things easier. But it doesn't make up for Union battlefield victories, it doesn't give the Confederacy better commanders, it doesn't make up for overstretched (white) manpower - all of those things that are why the Army of Tennessee is sitting in Georgia in 1864.