Russia doesn't stop Britain and France from intervening in US CW

[sillygoose]

What role did Russia play in the U.S. Civil War?

Russian-American relations were not always so bitter and tense as now. During the American Civil War, Russia supported the Union primarily because...

www.rbth.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_of_the_American_Civil_War#Russia

They apparently even sent two fleets to US waters.

The western Europeans were considering intervening to break up the US and prevent it from becoming a continent sized world power, but Russian opposition convinced them to back off to avoid a war in Europe. But what if Russia was less overt about its position and the French and British intervened in 1862 and forced the North to recognize secession of the South?

How do you think things would play out in the Americas and internationally after an 1863 peace deal that saw the US divided?

Per the peace treaty the North has to allow free and fair elections in the border states after releasing political prisoners to see if they want to leave the USA as well. For the sake of argument let's say that Maryland and Kentucky join the CSA, but West Virginia, Delaware, and Missouri stay with the USA. Indian Territory/Oklahoma remain affiliated with the CSA while the US retains control over the New Mexico Territories and areas further west.

 

[Buba]

Considering the state of Russia in 1862 - and with its weakness bared for all to see a few years previously - was Russia even a factor?

Russian opposition convinced them to back off

Sorry, but this reads like some Turboslav ... daydreaming.

Nevertheless, world with CSA and USA is interesting
Come 1914* there are good chances that at least one - if not both - of the American countries raises hell over the illegal British blockade.

* - I'd not expect North American events to have much impact on European affairs, thus a WWI more or less as we know it breaking out is likely (as likely as in OTL).

 

[Buba]

The VMF (Russian Navy) probably served as inspiration for this:

 

[sillygoose]

Considering the state of Russia in 1862 - and with its weakness bared for all to see a few years previously - was Russia even a factor?

Sorry, but this reads like some Turboslav ... daydreaming.

Nevertheless, world with CSA and USA is interesting
Come 1914* there are good chances that at least one - if not both - of the American countries raises hell over the illegal British blockade.

* - I'd not expect North American events to have much impact on European affairs, thus a WWI more or less as we know it breaking out is likely (as likely as in OTL).

If we overlook the issues you bring up and get into the the fallout of such a POD, do you think that WW1 would have happened with the butterflies that would result after 1863? Those can often be unexpected, especially if the CSA is effectively allied with Britain and France for its survival. And if the US is looking for payback against the Entente.

I'm loath to give Harry Turtledove's version of this what if too much place in this discussion, but his scenario isn't implausible either.

 

[sillygoose]

Extra info about the impact of the Russian fleet sailing to the US during the war:

Accept Terms and Conditions on JSTOR

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary sources.

www.jstor.org

 

[Buba]

OTL WWI happening was an accident, although not unexpected. And 100% over European&ME issues.
Having two American states, one of which is sympathetic to the Entente, IMO does not change anything. French hateboner towards Germany? Russian and A-H rivalry? Germany as British boogieman de jeur? Germany worried by Russia's booming economy? All stay the same.
All IMO
Link does not work for me, 99% due to browser and/or OS issues.

 

[WolfBear]

What role did Russia play in the U.S. Civil War?

Russian-American relations were not always so bitter and tense as now. During the American Civil War, Russia supported the Union primarily because...

www.rbth.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_of_the_American_Civil_War#Russia

They apparently even sent two fleets to US waters.

The western Europeans were considering intervening to break up the US and prevent it from becoming a continent sized world power, but Russian opposition convinced them to back off to avoid a war in Europe. But what if Russia was less overt about its position and the French and British intervened in 1862 and forced the North to recognize secession of the South?

How do you think things would play out in the Americas and internationally after an 1863 peace deal that saw the US divided?

Per the peace treaty the North has to allow free and fair elections in the border states after releasing political prisoners to see if they want to leave the USA as well. For the sake of argument let's say that Maryland and Kentucky join the CSA, but West Virginia, Delaware, and Missouri stay with the USA. Indian Territory/Oklahoma remain affiliated with the CSA while the US retains control over the New Mexico Territories and areas further west.

I don't see the Union ever allowing Maryland specifically to secede since that would leave Washington, DC completely surrounded by the Confederacy. And building a new US capital is not easy or cheap.

 

[Buba]

The US Federal District still need be moved if Maryland is forced to remain in it. Look at the map ...

 

[WolfBear]

The US Federal District still need be moved if Maryland is forced to remain in it. Look at the map ...

Not necessarily; it can be well-protected by Union troops, no?

 

[Buba]

No.
How far is the White House from the border?
Inside blackpowder smoothbore cannon range ...

And even if the national-liberation aspirations of the northernmost Virginian counties are crushed by their annexation to the Evul! USA, good luck with finding funding for that standing army protecting the capital. It will be cheaper to move the capital to Saint Louis.
Pre ACW the Army numbered 15000 (fifteen thousand) men, remember.

 

[sillygoose]

I don't see the Union ever allowing Maryland specifically to secede since that would leave Washington, DC completely surrounded by the Confederacy. And building a new US capital is not easy or cheap.

Not sure why when Philidelphia was the capital during the revolution:
When and why was Philadelphia the capital of the United States? – Short-Facts

Space existed for the legislature, which would be considerably smaller without the south.

 

[WolfBear]

Not sure why when Philidelphia was the capital during the revolution:
When and why was Philadelphia the capital of the United States? – Short-Facts

Space existed for the legislature, which would be considerably smaller without the south.

But you'd also need to get Pennsylvania to give up Philadelphia, or at least a part of it, for a new capital district, no?

 

[Buba]

In 1863 Philadelphia too close to border and too far east?
Capital District - a square mile is enough ... President's cabin, Vice President's shack, Congress debating barn hall, High Court smoking longue - plus half a dozen huts for ministries - n' job's a gud'un!

Too much land and you end up with millions of people paying taxes yet without a vote.

 

[sillygoose]

But you'd also need to get Pennsylvania to give up Philadelphia, or at least a part of it, for a new capital district, no?

Not really, no need to make them give it up. Just have the seat of government there like they did during the articles of confederation.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

I would think that if the US would have to build a new capital in the event that Philadelphia and Washington, DC aren’t good options, how about Omaha, Chicago or Detroit? Or are the latter two too close to British Canada?

 

[WolfBear]

I would think that if the US would have to build a new capital in the event that Philadelphia and Washington, DC aren’t good options, how about Omaha, Chicago or Detroit? Or are the latter two too close to British Canada?

Omaha is good, but Chicago and Detroit could eventually become ruined due to the Great Migration. Denver is a good option.

 

[Buba]

Of those three locations, IMO Chicago wins hands down.
Close to the centre of the country, a transport hub. Detroit IS on the border ..,
Omaha may be too "out in the sticks". But it does have the inland location going for it, if people are jittery over Chicago being on a lake surrounded on all sides by the USA yet connected to a lake which might with a hostile navy on it.
But my vote still goes to the St.Louis area, be it in Missouri or across the river in Illinoise.

 

[WolfBear]

Of those three locations, IMO Chicago wins hands down.
Close to the centre of the country, a transport hub. Detroit IS on the border ..,
Omaha may be too "out in the sticks". But it does have the inland location going for it, even people are jittery over Chicago being on a lake surrounded on all sides by the USA, yet connected to a lake which might with a hostile navy on it.
But my vote still goes to the St.Louis area, be it in Missouri or across the river in Illinoise.

St. Louis right now is even more of a dump than Chicago is. At least Chicago still has some good areas. In theory, the bad parts of Chicago can be made into a separate city while a rump Chicago would remain composed of the good parts of Chicago.

Really, Chicago should be limited to its northern half if it were to ever become the US capital:

 

[stevep]

Extra info about the impact of the Russian fleet sailing to the US during the war:

Accept Terms and Conditions on JSTOR

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary sources.

www.jstor.org

As it states the purpose of the Russian moves was to have their fleet being somewhere that could not easily be blockaded if the Polish crisis led to war. With a belief that the fleet might have some use against British trade in such a position if war came. It might have an initial impact although since the British and French knew of their location during the crisis I would suspect that at least some preparations would be taken to cover this threat. Plus of course that once such a war started they would have to leave US waters, as the latter would seek to apply strict neutrality to avoid being dragged into such a war themselves. Given the poor size of the fleets and their lack of bases its likely they would be quickly hunted down if war occurred.

This purpose was kept from the Americans who seem to have persuaded themselves that it was some sign of support from Russia, presumably because it boosted their own morale at a precarious time. Obviously it had no impact on any decision for intervention in the USCW by the liberal powers. Probably far more importantly would have been that the crisis in Poland draw attention back to Europe rather than the crisis in N America.

Both groups seems to have deluded themselves. The Americans on the purpose and impact of the Russia 'visits'. The Russians on the influence of both the USN and the Russia navy as threats to British [especially] trade which they grossly overestimated.

 

[stevep]

OTL WWI happening was an accident, although not unexpected. And 100% over European&ME issues.
Having two American states, one of which is sympathetic to the Entente, IMO does not change anything. French hateboner towards Germany? Russian and A-H rivalry? Germany as British boogieman de jeur? Germany worried by Russia's booming economy? All stay the same.
All IMO
Link does not work for me, 99% due to browser and/or OS issues.

Would have to disagree here. Too many butterflies over 50+ years to say that alliances and power structures would be anything like OTL 1914 in such a scenario. Or that if a Anglo-French intervention - which is unlikely to force something such as a plebiscite on border states - prompted US hostility even if Britain and France were on the same side in some ~1914 crisis that hostility would still be there that much later. Its a strong possibility but far from certain given the assorted forces at work. If there was a long lasting hostility towards Britain and France what does the US do when the two are bitter rivals? How much would it be impacted by the loss of migrants, investments and economic development in such a scenario and how does that change its development. Does some idiot in either the USA or the CSA start a war before then, either with each other or a 3rd party?

In terms of butterflies if Britain and France get involved in an intervention in the USCW that would mean a lot of changes as their attention is taken from Europe and elsewhere for a while. If France made some sort of deal with the CSA and got quite close to it that could well prevent Napoleon III getting drawn into Bismarck's trap and the Franco-Prussian war occurring.

Other obvious butterflies. What if Frederick III doesn't get that fatal cancer and reigns as German emperor for say a couple of decades? Your going to see a lot less tension with Britain as no way is Frederick going to listen to an idiot like Tirpitz, especially if France is a bitter rival assuming that Bismarck got his wars as OTL. Your likely to see a more liberal German empire although likely to be some clashes with the more reactionary elements. Wilhelm might still be an idiot when he comes to the throne or he might have matured somewhat.

Even if Germany follows the same path there are so many other things that could change.