Civil War & Ukraine War Article on Parallels/Anglo-French Intervention ACW

[Agent23]

Lessons From the U.S. Civil War Show Why Ukraine Can't Win

This actually reminds me of an old article the Econimist, while I still read that rag and before it degenerated totally thanks to muh inclusivity, had reprinted from the end of the US Civil War, they were shedding as much crocodile tears and salivating for the South as the MSM is shedding and salivating for Ukraine right now.

History does not repeat, but it often rhymes.

 

[bintananth]

Lessons From the U.S. Civil War Show Why Ukraine Can't Win

This actually reminds me of an old article the Econimist, while I still read that rag and before it degenerated totally thanks to muh inclusivity, had reprinted from the end of the US Civil War, they were shedding as much crocodile tears and salivating for the South as the MSM is shedding and salivating for Ukraine right now.

History does not repeat, but it often rhymes.

That article is completely wrong.

During the US Civil War the North basically told every European country that openly siding with the Confederacy is an Act of War and will turn our internal squabble into a worldwide conflict if you insist.

Russia isn't going that far and Ukraine does have open and official foreign support.

 

[Agent23]

That article is completely wrong.

During the US Civil War the North basically told every European country that openly siding with the Confederacy is an Act of War and will turn our internal squabble into a worldwide conflict if you insist.

Russia isn't going that far and Ukraine does have open and official foreign support.

Remind me, how well did America do against Britain the last time they fought, war of 1812, was it?

And this would have meant direct military aid from the French, too, not just the British.

Also, when I looked a bit into the subject a while back and I know for a fact that the British were selling warships and other weapons to the Confederates.

Palmerston was said to have regretted not going in balls deep and helping the Confederacy to his dying day.

Russian interference actually played a part in the situation, funny enough, since the Russians and the North were in a kinda-sorta alliance.

Also, from a purely political standpoint there are three differences:

First off, the Ukraininas did manage to secede from the USSR before it turned into the RSFSR, so they have more legitimacy.

And second, the USA is at a better position power-wise than the British and the French, who were also suffering from the early stages of imperial overstretch.

Never the less, the Rissuan Tzar told them to BTFO and IIRC threatened them with an attack if they attacked America, and the Prussians and other Anglo-French enemies were near and willing to have a go at them while they were overstretched.

A timeline like this would IMHO be quite interesting if done right, not like Turtledove's garbage and the usual leftoid gibberish where slavery exists in the south in the 21st century...

 

[bintananth]

Remind me, how well did America do against Britain the last time they fought, war of 1812, was it?

It was a draw.

The USNs "heavy frigates" - one of which (USS Constitution) is still afloat and in commission - actually outdisplaced Nelson's flagship HMS Victory while also being 4-5kts faster.

 

[Agent23]

It was a draw.

The USNs "heavy frigates" - one of which (USS Constitution) is still afloat and in comission - actually outdisplaced Nelson's flagship HMS Victory while also being 4-5kts faster.

Didn't it become a draw because of Jackson doing surprisingly well due to among other things luck and recklessness, and they managed to sack and burn Washington...?

Also, I think the British had bigger fish to fry on the continent.

If they had sent those hardened troops over to the Americas, well, it would have been painful.

Now, back to the previous derail, the French and the British were close ro the peak of their colonial power and industrial supremacy back then.

If they intervened on the side of the Confederacy it would have been a bloody mess and they would have been hitting the North's heartland from the north.

Your army and navy would have been no match for them and the Confederacy armed by them.

Rabid dog chewing on a rag doll level of painful.

 

[bintananth]

Didn't it become a draw because of Jackson doing surprisingly well

The Battle of New Orleans occured 15 days after the peace treaty was signed.

As for the chew toy part of your comment? Go look up The Battle of Cherbourg (1864) or the fate of CSS Shenendoah when it comes to just how relentless the US can be when "you poked the dragon".

 

[King Arts]

The Battle of New Orleans occured 15 days after the peace treaty was signed.

As for the chew toy part of your comment? Go look up The Battle of Cherbourg (1864) or the fate of CSS Shenendoah when it comes to just how relentless the US can be when "you poked the dragon".

In the 1860s Britain could have beat the shit out of America. The only reason they did not was because the confederates were assholes. I mean slavery was unpopular in the UK so a war to help slavers keep slavery would not have been popular domestically.

 

[AmosTrask]

The Battle of New Orleans occured 15 days after the peace treaty was signed.

As for the chew toy part of your comment? Go look up The Battle of Cherbourg (1864) or the fate of CSS Shenendoah when it comes to just how relentless the US can be when "you poked the dragon".

The British considered the USA a third tier priority behind Europe and India. Had you face the actual Royal Navy rather than small detachments you'd have lost the coast.

 

[Zachowon]

We didn't and had to save thier asses twicw

 

[Agent23]

The Battle of New Orleans occured 15 days after the peace treaty was signed.

As for the chew toy part of your comment? Go look up The Battle of Cherbourg (1864) or the fate of CSS Shenendoah when it comes to just how relentless the US can be when "you poked the dragon".

You go look at the Crimean war, or any other conflict during the modern period, to see what European great powers are capable of.

The USA will not survive the Confederacy, the British and the French ganging up on it, especially if they come through Canada while the bulk of US forces are fighting in the South, coupled with a British blockade and bombardment of Northern ports and naval installations.

 

[Buba]

And now for the "Union would win anyway" derail ...

 

[Agent23]

In the 1860s Britain could have beat the shit out of America. The only reason they did not was because the confederates were assholes. I mean slavery was unpopular in the UK so a war to help slavers keep slavery would not have been popular domestically.

Dude, many of the Confederacy's supporters in England were staunch abolitionists, like Palmerston, who I mentioned.

If they had gone in I am pretty sure they would have forced the Confederacy to drop slavery the way they did to Brazil.

 

[bintananth]

In the 1860s Britain could have beat the shit out of America.

They couldn't and were actually worried about losing Canada - which happened July 1, 1867, BTW - if they sided with the South.

 

[King Arts]

Dude, many of the Confederacy's supporters in England were staunch abolitionists, like Palmerston, who I mentioned.

If they had gone in I am pretty sure they would have forced the Confederacy to drop slavery the way they did to Brazil.

You do realize that the whole reason for the south chimping out was slavery. If they couldn’t have slaves then they don’t care about freedom from America.

They couldn't and were actually worried about losing Canada - which happened July 1, 1867, BTW - if they sided with the South.

No they couldn’t England was the world super power.

 

[bintananth]

No they couldn’t England was the world super power.

Yes, they were the the superpower of the of the day. The sun was always somewhere in the sky and shining somewhere above the British Empire.

The more astute members of the British government realized that the Sun was starting to set ... and said so as early as 1814.

"We can not afford another war with the United States." - An MP whose name I do not recall off the top of my head.

 

[Agent23]

And now for the "Union would win anyway" derail ...

If no other European power intervenes or runs interference for the Union the Union loses, hard.
I mean, Louis Napoleon III is a retard, but if the British could get him to concentrate forces into Quebec and hit from there then that will improve French chances.
The British and the French can attack from several directions over land as well as over sea.I do not know how the Union's industry is distributed but I'd assume that some of it would already be focused around the Great lakes region and/or in places like New York, with their convenient ports and lots of incoming immigrants that can serve as a workforce.
A combination of blockades, hit and run attacks and a few large offensives will tear the North apart, especially if they also bolster the confederacy and turn the South into a huge meatgrinder that can bloody the North and eat up their manpower and resources.

@bintananth what form would the South's government take and how much time will it take it to be "persuaded" by its new friends to emancipate the slaves?

What will happen with them?

Will they be as hated as they were in OTL, more hated, less hated since they will not be seen as the reason why the South was smashed?

In many countries that retained slavery, the slave owners were compensated by the government for the emancipation, so maybe between winning the war and getting financial compensation there might not be as much racial animosity and crap like the KKK.

Also, how independent will the Confederate government be?

I'd think that they will basically be an Anglo-British puppet that is heavily dependent on its patrons.

Will the Union be forced to cede to Britain and France territory?

Since it would have been damaged severely and vanquished, will it even exist?

 

[Buba]

Either France or Britain, singly, on the CSA's side, can defeat the Union, I agree.
An independent CSA would be more or less equaly independent as the USA. Why a puppet?
The form of CSA government is laid out in its constitution, which is the USA constitution with some improvements, a few new fuck ups, and enshrined slavery.
The CSA will abandon slavery - through Constitutional Ammendment, as that was the only possible legal way - somewhere around 1900.
Cession of Union territory to Britain and/or France? Maybe. Less likely to the latter.
But not anything major, I'd venture.
Maybe a nice 45th parallel border from Pacific to Lake Michigan, and continued eastward from the St. Lawrence River to the sea/Pentoscot River (basin)?
Even with succession of the South and possible territorial losses to Britain (France?) the USA will keep on going swimmingly. It will not be as rich as fast as it did in OTL, with loss of income from farm exports from South. In 1910 think 60M people and an economy about 125% that of Germany.

 

[Agent23]

Either France or Britain, singly, on the CSA's side, can defeat the Union, I agree.
An independent CSA would be more or less equaly independent as the USA. Why a puppet?

For starters the territory will be diminished in size as compated to the USA in the OTL, also, the war will be prolonged and be even more costly, since I doubt the French and British will prioritize the CSA, prop it up - yes, supply it with weapons - yes, work in its long term interest - no.
There will be lots of loans to pay, and the South's agrarian, slave-focused monoculture economy will not fare that well, cotton can be grown in British-held Egypt, too, and probably more cheaply, since transporting it to European and British markets and clothing/textiles factories will take less time.

One huge pain point for the Confederacy/South was the tariff regime that was designed to boost industrial development in the USA, cotton and manufactured goods will flow free, but the development of high value-added industries will be retarded.


Another huge problem will be their neighbor to the North, who will probably be quite revrevanchist and and that will force the Confederacy to prioritize military spending.

IMHO it is more likely that the place ends up like a slightly better version of your average Latin American country.

 

[WolfBear]

Lessons From the U.S. Civil War Show Why Ukraine Can't Win

This actually reminds me of an old article the Econimist, while I still read that rag and before it degenerated totally thanks to muh inclusivity, had reprinted from the end of the US Civil War, they were shedding as much crocodile tears and salivating for the South as the MSM is shedding and salivating for Ukraine right now.

History does not repeat, but it often rhymes.

I'll believe their predictions when they will actually occur. So far, Russotriumphalist predictions in this war have been spectacularly wrong!

 

[Agent23]

I'll believe their predictions when they will actually occur. So far, Russotriumphalist predictions in this war have been spectacularly wrong!

Yeah, Putin is gonna get overthrown and run out of missiles any day now...! A story we have been hearing for the better part of a year.

But, WolfieBoi, you believe whatever bullshit you want.