Subject: Re: Civil War/Dixie
From: mbusse@midway.uchicago.edu (Marty Busse)
Date: 1997/04/19
Message-ID: <E8wFDt.3ME@midway.uchicago.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
[Subscribe to soc.history.what-if] 
[More Headers]
In article <NYgJCCAtiOWzMw12@greenoak.demon.co.uk>,
Tom Burke <Tom@greenoak.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <5j419o$bq9$1@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu>, Joseph Raymond
>Frechette <jfrechet@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> writes
>[snip]
>>That is what is missing from this thread, the actual reasons for the UK
>>becoming involved. I must admit (as an American) that I took it for
>>granted that MY nation would never do anything so incredibly foolish but
>>never stopped to think about the judgement on the other side.
>
>The timing is crucial. Someone mentioned something right at the
>beginning of the thread about the 1864 election. That's when I think UK
>recognition of the CSA might have happened - if Lincoln was defeated and
>McClellan became President. Remember that in mid 1864 the Union was
>pretty war-weary - Grant's way of waging war was very expensive even
>when he won (Spotsylvania) and appallingly so when he lost (Cold
>Harbor). McPherson in "Battle Cry of Freedom" reports that the total of
>dead, missing and wounded from the Army of the Potomac from May 4 to the
>end of June was 65,000 - they had only lost 100,000 (same categories) in
>the whole of the previous three years. Of course, Army of N Virginia
>losses were huge also, and equally unsuppportable in the long run. But
>the CSA could win simply by surviving; the USA had to win outright. In
>the autumn of 1864 the issue was the election.
>
>McPherson recounts that there was great war-weariness in the north in
>this time. There was a peace overture that Lincoln rejected, and this
>was good propaganda for the Democrats. In August Lincoln was advised
>that an election then would result in defeat for the Republicans.
>Although the Democrats platform was negotiation with the CSA as a
>prelude to re-admission to the Union, and the CSA leadership had no
>intention of re-entering the Union, the Democrats said that the
>negotiations would be preceeded by an armistice. That would be
>tantamount to a Confederate victory - a nation in existence, with an
>army in being, negotiating with another nation. Perhaps the negotiations
>would fail; or perhaps some compromise would emerge that would allow
>some sort of loose alliance between the USA and the CSA; perhaps the
>confederate states would be members of two unions.....
>
>Anyway, that's the moment that the UK recognises the CSA. Lincoln is
>gone; McClellan is in the White House. The CSA exists and is negotiating
>with the USA. There is silence on the battle-fields. The clamour to
>"bring the boys home" is growing very loud all over the North and West.
>The blockade is lifted. And then Jefferson Davis says that if the UK
>wants to ship southern cotton, then it would have to recognise the CSA -
>"why, it's the gentlemanly thing to do". And we do it.
>
>What happens after that I don't know. Would the USA be re-invigorated to
>restart the war? Or might it, in fact, keep the armistice with the CSA
>but turn on the UK in whatever way it could, in a paroxysm of bitter
>fury?
>
>In OTL, of course, what actually happened was that Sherman captured
>Atlanta and this totally transformed the political situation. Lincoln
>was a winner and McClellan had to change the Deomcrat's platform. On the
>military front my assumption is that Hood let himself be hoodwinked by
>Sherman; sallied forth with an attack and was badly beaten; and had to
>evacuate the city because Sherman had almost got around him. My feeling
>is that Johnston would have done better. In the long run if the war
>continues Atlanta must fall, but it might have held until November; and
>that could have made all the difference.
>
>Let's assume that my possible outcome above is what happens - USA in
>negotiation with CSA, and a cease-fire in existence, but very, very
>angry with the UK. What happens next? And what's the long-term outcome,
>with transatlantic enmity instead of co-operation?
The UK's recognizing the CSA would give Lincoln a big boost. As you note,
Sherman's capturing Atlanta helped Lincoln in OTL: in this TL, Lincoln
defeats McClellan by an even larger margin than he did on OTL. (Note: if
Johnston stays on, IMHO, he would have done far better against Sherman
with his Fabian tactics, but the CSA leadership was very impatient with
him. I agree with you on that 100%: Hood was the worse of the two.
This means that the UK is coming into the war as it winds down, as the USN
is a lot stronger than it was at the beginnig of the war, and with only
limited amounts of ironclads. Of course, the USN's ironclads are not
really fit for a big sea battle. IIRC, the CSA didn't have many ports
left, so breaking the blockade at this point is of little help. The Union
forces also have a lot of manpower to deploy North: the idea of conquering
Canada is een more attractived at this point, and Seward would probably
have pushed it hard. Draft troubles are probably still going to be there,
but not as bad: the Irish draft rioters who erupted in NY the year before
are going to be less of a problem.
Sherman might not be marching to the sea, depending on how fast the RN can
get to the US, and in what numbers, it may be dangerous to meet the fleet
to get supplies, although Sherman might still want to "make Georgia howl!"
France is not likely to help, as it has its own problems in Mexico.
Russia isn't likely to get involved at this point, although it did send a
fleet to show the flag the year before: Poland has exploded in the
interim, and that is going to concern the Russians more than anything
else. Prussia and Austria have acted against Denmark at this point, and
are gearing up for their fight with one another, so they probably aren't
going to be involved. (Note: at least some historians blame Gladstone,
IIRC, for not opposing Prussia's moves against Austria and later moves
against France: he'll probbaly be blamed even more in this TL for
"frittering away the fleet in defense of a lost cause while Prussia
mastered the continent," or some such.)
Significant help for the Confederacy is going to take some time: the
forces in Canada have been augmented at this point, but not by much, and I
sincerely doubt they'd stand long against the Union.
All the monitors and such have been, for the most part, built by this
point, so I can't see the USN going out to sea and facing the RN in a
fleet action. Most likely, the USN stays close to shore or in port,
while the shipyards start working on better sea-going designs: some of the
Confederate designs would be much better for this kind of thing, and the
USN has access to them at this point, having captured and/or refloated a
few.
So, the CSA still loses, the RN and USN just sit back, and Canada is lost.
The French still leave Mexico, while Britain finds itself unable to do
much to help the CSA or Canada. There are some desultory raids, a few
situations where the Monitors manage to catch RN ships close to shore, and
eventually the BRitish government amkes a peace, not really able to match
the USA's building program and Army size, as well as keeping watch on that
of France. (Which, in OTL, got very significant again in the 1860s, and
stayed that way until the late 1880s.) The treaties are signed in 1867 or
so, Seward also purchases Alaska, and a huge hullabo is made in the US
about "Manifest Destiny" being fulfilled. Mexico gets nervous, and so
does Spain.
--
"If you consider all the unpleasantness you've encountered while you're
alive, it seems improbable it would all come to an end simply because you're
dead."-Peter Hoeg