If the Confederacy will somehow win the American Civil War, will the Union ever attempt to wage a revanchist war against the CSA?

[WolfBear]

If the Confederacy will somehow win the American Civil War, will the Union ever attempt to wage a revanchist war against the CSA? Even several decades later, without it being formally styled as a revachist war but instead being claimed to be pursued for more humanitarian reasons such as attempting to free the Confederacy's black population and/or to uplift them? Also, in such a scenario, will the Union annex the entire CSA or will it aim to create an independent black ethnostate in a part of the CSA? (One ironic consequence of the CSA's secession from the US would be that the US would become much whiter; would US white supremacists really want to jeopardize this arrangement by bringing a lot of blacks back into the Union, even if they did want to free them and to stop the Confederacy from abusing them?)

Any thoughts on this? @Skallagrim @History Learner @stevep @Zyobot

 

[Bassoe]

The confederacy is fucked in any case thanks to technological progress making the entire base of its slave-labor-for-farming economy impractical.

Combine harvester - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Val the Moofia Boss]

If the Union was unable to conquer the Confederacy, then there is a good chance that the Union would be too weak to wage war against the Confederacy again with the intent to conquer it. The Union made a lot of money off of taxing Southern ports, and ofcourse their industry was dependent on materials produced in the South. Without that wealth, the Union will be much, much weaker and it would be impractical for them to try to wage war. The Union would be better off trying to colonize small, weak island nations like Cuba or Hawaii or the Philippines.

The Confederacy may wind up attacking the Union again, as slaves will keep fleeing across the border to the Union and the Union will refuse to return the slaves (which was one of the Confederacy's listed grievances for seceding). More and more John Brown style terrorists will keep coming down from the Union and stirring up trouble in the Confederacy. When these terrorists return to the North, the Union will not do anything about them or hand them over to the Confederacy. The Confederacy's elite would be losing millions and it would be in their interests to stop this bleeding, at least until they transition from a slave based economy.

 

[stevep]

If the Confederacy will somehow win the American Civil War, will the Union ever attempt to wage a revanchist war against the CSA? Even several decades later, without it being formally styled as a revachist war but instead being claimed to be pursued for more humanitarian reasons such as attempting to free the Confederacy's black population and/or to uplift them? Also, in such a scenario, will the Union annex the entire CSA or will it aim to create an independent black ethnostate in a part of the CSA? (One ironic consequence of the CSA's secession from the US would be that the US would become much whiter; would US white supremacists really want to jeopardize this arrangement by bringing a lot of blacks back into the Union, even if they did want to free them and to stop the Confederacy from abusing them?)

Any thoughts on this? @Skallagrim @History Learner @stevep @Zyobot

So much would depend on the circumstances. How the war ends and what relationships there are between the two powers and others? Is it a long with with both sides blooded badly or a short one. A shock series of southern victories possibly even leading to an occupation of Washington in 1862/63 is a lot different than a cease fire after repeated failures lead to Lincoln's defeat in the Nov 1864 elections.

Also how do the two nations develop in the following decades. Politically, socially and economically as well as militarily. If there's a revachist element in the north, which is very likely, how noisy is it and what impacts do that have on both the south and also possible results on migration and investment into the north. Does the south find a stable government system or fall into infighting or possibly further secession's? [Possibly does parts of the north decide to leave as well?]

Are there attempts by either power to expand beyond their current borders. For the south possible moves against Spain/Cuba, Mexico or elsewhere? Does a weakened and frustrated north still buy Alaska? Or move earlier or later for expansion into Hawaii and the Pacific? With the different ACW does France's advanture in Mexico survive and if so does it butterfly the Franco-Prussian war or does Max still get killed/expelled at some stage. How do other powers react to those events.

You could see things going in just about any direction. The continuation of slavery in the south - and possibly for a while in parts of the north - will be a big issue but its not the only one.

 

[Skallagrim]

Because manufacturing and industry in the North relied on raw materials from the South, the USA would have a vested interest in normalising relations after the war. They can import raw materials from elsewhere, but it would be more difficult and costly. The most obvious alternative source for many materials, furthermore, would be Brazil. That is: another country that, at the time, still retains the institution of slavery.

Similarly, the South can export its materials elsewhere, but this involves greater distance, and all meaningful other buyers have their own colonial empires from which they source materials. This limits the CSA's export potential.

In short: both the USA and the CSA will benefit from normalised relations, and will suffer considerably from revanchist attitudes. This will soon make revanchism broadly disliked, and viewed as a destructive attitude typically held by fools. (A correct assertion, incidentally.)

There will be tariffs involved, which will actually harm both economies a bit, but that's pretty much inevitable. The states forming the rump-USA will be somewhat poorer than those same states in OTL. The states forming the CSA, by contrast, will not be occupied and "reconstructed", so they'll generally consider themselves better off than in OTL.

Regarding escaped slaves: the North doesn't want them. The North won't be interested in screwing over the South, because doing so would hurt the North. The war was fought to keep the Union together, and the slaves ultimately didn't matter that much. If the Union is torn apart, then the next-best option is to keep the pieces at least well-aligned... and if that means screwing over escapees and just kicking them back across the border, then so be it.

Regarding slavery: as I've argued elsewhere, there is ample evidence that it works just fine in an industrialised context. See: Uyghurs in Chinese work camps, hard at work making parts for your new iPhone. Generally speaking, though, moving away from slavery makes economic sense. Paying members of a nominally free underclass a pittance and doing nothing else for them is cheaper than housing and feeding slaves that you own. In light of growing international diapproval of slavery, we may expect the CSA to evolve in this direction. (Black agitators will get treated like Uyghur agitators in China: off to a labour camp where they just get worked to death.)

The CSA will see little immigration. It is likely to try to continue its pre-war way of life, with clear social stratification, and poor whites being kept in line with the threat of "if the system ever collapses, the vengeful blacks will run rampant and kill you in your beds, rape your wives and daughters, and then take your jobs". The result is that the CSA will be staunchly reactionary, with a fairly small government... but one with considerable police powers (that will be used without hesitation). Over time, the CSA will become less and less pleasant to live in. A stagnated society for stuck in a self-made siege.

As I've argued, the USA will soon dismiss all notions of actual revanchism. And in the long term, the CSA will become a country they definitely don't want to re-absorb -- not even if the CSA begs them to.

 

[bintananth]

I could see the CSA re-joining the USA in the way divorced couples sometimes get back together: "This divorce decree absolutely sucks and we're probably better off with each other than having to abide by that."

 

[gral]

Because manufacturing and industry in the North relied on raw materials from the South, the USA would have a vested interest in normalising relations after the war. They can import raw materials from elsewhere, but it would be more difficult and costly. The most obvious alternative source for many materials, furthermore, would be Brazil. That is: another country that, at the time, still retains the institution of slavery.

Brazil and the USA had little trouble with each other, though, even after the North won and slavery was gone from the US. Also, by the mid-1860s, abolitionism was becoming a force in Brazilian politics.

 

[Skallagrim]

Brazil and the USA had little trouble with each other, though, even after the North won and slavery was gone from the US. Also, by the mid-1860s, abolitionism was becoming a force in Brazilian politics.

My poin is more that the occasionally-touted idea that the USA would embargo the CSA because they're a bunch of evil slavocrats doesn't hold up. The war wasn't really about that (for the Union, at least). And then you're left with "we buy from the slavers right next door" versus "we buy from the slavers much further afield".

I don't think for a second that revanchism is going to outweight the obvious economic considerations.

The CSA is just going to become the under-developed poor country to the direct South, from which you purchase a lot of materials on the cheap, and -- in more modern times -- to which you off-shore a lot of low-wage labour. (Which, ironically, is probably going to be the thing that keeps the CSA more or less functional!)

 

[raharris1973]

No

 

[Earl]

This will soon make revanchism broadly disliked, and viewed as a destructive attitude typically held by fools. (A correct assertion, incidentally.)

I think it depends. If the CSA wins by the intervention of Foregin powers, then even if there is economic benefits, Revanchism will be huge in the North, as they’d see it as Europe crushing American potential

 

[bintananth]

I think it depends. If the CSA wins by the intervention of Foregin powers, then even if there is economic benefits, Revanchism will be huge in the North, as they’d see it as Europe crushing American potential

Considering that Lincoln basically told Britain and France that if either intervened on the Confederate side the US would declare war on both the CSA ain't getting direct foreign military aid unless the British and French are feeling balsy.

One of the naval battles took place in the English Channel a few miles outstide Cherbourg and the last Confederate warship was chased pretty much half of the way around the world by the USN before her Captain and crew (most of whom weren't from a Confederate State) surrendered in Liverpool.

 

[Skallagrim]

I think it depends. If the CSA wins by the intervention of Foregin powers, then even if there is economic benefits, Revanchism will be huge in the North, as they’d see it as Europe crushing American potential

If the CSA wins by intervention of foreign powers, then the CSA functionally becomes a protectorate of said powers. Hilariously, this makes it all Britain's problem (because, let's face it, it'd be Britain). Britain hated slavery way more than most Republicans did, so in most cases, most Britain might do is offer mediation (so that the war doesn't interfere with British trade anymore).

If Britain intervenes, it's because the Union attacked one or more British ships and then refused to back down. In which case it's mostly an anti-USA war, with the secession of the CSA as a sort of by-product.

Either way, it's not happening, as the Trent Affair shows: Lincoln had made it clear that if Britain had reason to threaten war, the US position was to back down on the double. That's because in the 1860s, the comparative strength of Britain and the USA was distributed a bit differently than, say, 60 years later. And that's with the USA united. With the USA split up and already engaged in war against a league of seceded states, any war with Britain would be short. And it would end with the recoats burning Washington DC to the ground... again.

Considering that Lincoln basically told Britain and France that if either intervened on the Confederate side the US would declare war on both the CSA ain't getting direct foreign military aid unless the British and French are feeling balsy.

You have that the wrong way around. Initially, Lincoln was feeling pretty confident. He understood (unlike the Southern fire-eaters) that Britain detested slavery, and was as such unlikely to jump up to support a bunch of slavocrats. And he was right about that one.

But when the Trent Affair actually showed that Britain took international law very seriously and would declare war over even fairly minor US violations of British rights, Lincoln about-faced in about two days' time. After that, he explicitly gave orders to avoid any and all confrontations with Britain, and to -- in case of such confrontations happening ayway -- back down quickly.

As I've outlined above: in the 1860s, the USA wouldn't have stood a realistic chance in a war against Britain. It's basically the worst time for such a war to happen. Britain is at its strongest, it's not involved in a vast other war already (as in 1812), and the USA is involved in a vast other war already, and isn't yet the superpower that it would grow into half a century later.

The suggestion that if either Britain or France intervened on the Confederate side, the USA would declare war on both, finally, is patently absurd. Britain and France weren't even formally allied at the time.

 

[WolfBear]

Britain and France weren't even formally allied at the time.

Formally, perhaps not, but their alliance during the Crimean War was still within memory, no doubt.

Otherwise, excellent post!

 

[bintananth]

The suggestion that if either Britain or France intervened on the Confederate side, the USA would declare war on both, finally, is patently absurd. Britain and France weren't even formally allied at the time.

As early as 1814 British MP's were saying, in private, that the British Empire could not afford another war with the US.

The French certainly couldn't. The American Revolution basically left France bankrupt and when we were done fighting and resting from what was basically a big family feud we were still able to assist Mexico when they told Napolean III to go away.

 

[Skallagrim]

As early as 1814 British MP's were saying, in private, that the British Empire could not afford another war with the US.

First of all, I've noticed you positing quite a few nonsense claims as if they were facts, over the last few days. In this thread alone, you seem to have totally made up a story about Lincoln being enthousiastically in favour of threatening war with Britain. The opposite was true. I explained that. Suddenly, you stop talking about that.

Then, you seem to have totally made up the story that if either Britain or France intervened on the Confederate side, the USA would declare war on both. This is patently false, and also makes no historical sense. Suddenly, you stop talking about that, too.

In another discussion, you mistakenly conflated a poll tax and an eligibility test. I explained that mistake to you, and you (apparently deliberately and maliciously) tried to side-track the discussion to avoid having to admit even this minor error. When I repeated my explanation, you... guess what... suddenly stopped talking about it.


There's a pattern here. You post bullshit. That's okay. Lots of people post bullshit. But you post bullshit while loudly claiming that it's a concrete fact. And when confronted about it, instead of admitting to an error, you quickly duck away, avoid the line of discussion, and try to continue arguing about other points. All while never admitting you were wrong.

This makes discussion with you pretty pointless, at least until you decide to be a bit more honest. It doesn't look like it, because right now, you're citing nebulous British MPs that you claim had an opinion agreeing with yours. For starters, since you're demonstrably a bullshitter, I don't believe you unless you provide evidence. But on the off chance that you're actually telling the truth this time: British MPs at the time included radicals who believed all sorts of nonsense. So even if it's hypothetically accurate, your argument here is like saying "this is true because Jeremy Corbyn said it once, drunk, at a private dinner party".

Which is, as I'm sure you can understand, not an argument.

Now, if you intend to still debate these points with me, please start by admitting you were positing falsehoods (we'll assume unwittingly) on the three points I've referenced above, and then either provide direct sources about those claims by MPs you talk about, or admit you were wrong about that, too. If you can't or won't manage these things, please don't try to continue a discussion with me. I deal with enough bullshit at work. I don't want to spend my free time sifting through it, too.