ISOT WI select Union and Confederate states and forces ISOT from Jan 1863 to Jan 1823?

[raharris1973]

WI select Union and Confederate states and forces ISOT from Jan 1863 to Jan 1823?

The limitation is that only those states (and people and forces on the land of those states) that were admitted parts of the Union in 1823 are ISOT back in time, whereas any state that was still in a territorial phase (like Florida or Minnesota or Arkansas), or still foreign territory (like Texas and California and Oregon) is not ISOT back and its downtime 1823 version remains in place. Likewise, any forces in position in non-ISOT-ed states or territory 'miss the ride' back in time.

That leaves the line up CSA states as follows: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana (Florida, Arkansas, Texas, and any controlled parts of Indian territory and Arizona/New Mexico territory are missing).

That leaves the Union as follows: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, occupied Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky (Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, California, Oregon, Nevada, all territories are missing).

How does the war proceed from there, with various missing states/territories and military units, and the surrounding world being switched to that of 1823?

How does the aftermath of the war go, including the re-settlement of downtime territories. Does the USA (or CSA, if it somehow survives) re-expand to the west coast by claiming its share of Oregon, re-annexing Texas, and going to war with Mexico again for California?


-------a 2nd variant on this scenario -


WI select Union and Confederate states and forces ISOT from Jan 1863 to Jan 1785?

The limitation is that only those states (and people and forces on the land of those states) that were admitted parts of the Union in 1785 are ISOT back in time, whereas any state that was still in a territorial phase (like Florida or Minnesota or Arkansas), or still foreign territory (like Texas and California and Oregon) is not ISOT back and its downtime 1885 version remains in place. Likewise, any forces in position in non-ISOT-ed states or territory 'miss the ride' back in time.

That leaves the line up CSA states as follows: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia

That leaves the Union as follows: New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, occupied Virginia.

How does the war proceed from there, with various missing states/territories and military units, and the surrounding world being switched to that of 1823?

How does the aftermath of the war go, including the re-settlement of downtime territories. Does the USA (or CSA, if it somehow survives) re-expand to the west coast by claiming Louisiana, and later its share of Oregon, re-annexing Texas, and going to war with Mexico again for California?

 

[ATP]

WI select Union and Confederate states and forces ISOT from Jan 1863 to Jan 1823?

The limitation is that only those states (and people and forces on the land of those states) that were admitted parts of the Union in 1823 are ISOT back in time, whereas any state that was still in a territorial phase (like Florida or Minnesota or Arkansas), or still foreign territory (like Texas and California and Oregon) is not ISOT back and its downtime 1823 version remains in place. Likewise, any forces in position in non-ISOT-ed states or territory 'miss the ride' back in time.

That leaves the line up CSA states as follows: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana (Florida, Arkansas, Texas, and any controlled parts of Indian territory and Arizona/New Mexico territory are missing).

That leaves the Union as follows: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, occupied Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky (Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, California, Oregon, Nevada, all territories are missing).

How does the war proceed from there, with various missing states/territories and military units, and the surrounding world being switched to that of 1823?

How does the aftermath of the war go, including the re-settlement of downtime territories. Does the USA (or CSA, if it somehow survives) re-expand to the west coast by claiming its share of Oregon, re-annexing Texas, and going to war with Mexico again for California?


-------a 2nd variant on this scenario -


WI select Union and Confederate states and forces ISOT from Jan 1863 to Jan 1785?

The limitation is that only those states (and people and forces on the land of those states) that were admitted parts of the Union in 1785 are ISOT back in time, whereas any state that was still in a territorial phase (like Florida or Minnesota or Arkansas), or still foreign territory (like Texas and California and Oregon) is not ISOT back and its downtime 1885 version remains in place. Likewise, any forces in position in non-ISOT-ed states or territory 'miss the ride' back in time.

That leaves the line up CSA states as follows: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia

That leaves the Union as follows: New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, occupied Virginia.

How does the war proceed from there, with various missing states/territories and military units, and the surrounding world being switched to that of 1823?

How does the aftermath of the war go, including the re-settlement of downtime territories. Does the USA (or CSA, if it somehow survives) re-expand to the west coast by claiming Louisiana, and later its share of Oregon, re-annexing Texas, and going to war with Mexico again for California?

Union still had at least 2:1 numerical advantage,and almost all factories.South now could not buy modern weapons from England - becouse they do not have it yet.
So,South fall quicker.What next?

1.1823 - USA is attacking Mexico and maybe Canada.Till other countries made technological gap vanish,they dominate both Americas/maybe except Canada/
2.1785 USA is attacking both Spain and England.They dominate both Americas,take Canada and Alaska, AND maybe save France from jacobins and Poland from second Partition.MAYBE take Australia.
Probably not - they would not care for anything but Americas.

 

[Buba]

In both cases the USA list of states looks impressive - but that's due to the length padded by such inconsequential non-entities like Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine or Delaware.
Nifty map (should be accurate ... ):

The CSA loses Arkansas and Texas, both cut off and/or lost anyway. The USA loses some maize growers and mines in the Midwest. Hence, the CSA does not really lose anything (in this regard) while the USA loses "not much" (with one exception, see below) - but it can afford to do so.

Hence a small "gain" for the CSA.

Also, in both cases the USA lacks the Gold of the West - not having Californian gold suxx. Even if it did not pay for the war by itself as 60M (asspull figure based on monthly shipments of 1-1,5M of gold a month) pales versus the 60B spent overall, it was important in providing the specie shoring up the North's paper money. Without it the USD might had suffered same inflation as the CSD, plus any assorted issues with paying for imports.

Not that the CSA is not without its problems - it looses its export markets and arms suppliers. Same applies to the US - e.g. where will it buy British steel for its rifles?

1785 - close enuff fer goverment work

My first though had been "Norff smash!" but looking at the map - I'm not so sure anymore.
Although only half of the CSA is left, yet even less of the USA is "still there". Will the industry of Pennsylvania be enough? Will there be political will to continue the fight?

In both cases the ramifications abroad - technological and political, immediate and future (more so) simply overturn the OTL. The 1785 ISOT in particular - e.g. the Bastille will be overflowing inside weeks. But 1823 just as well - the Great Powers in Europe learn who backstabbed whom and when - fun times!
In Russia Alexander is almost gone and irrelevant, but Nicholas will be PISSED! Starting with Brother Lazy Bum & Brickhead Dearest who caused the needless ascension crisis in 1825.

Even with the USN steel ships being crap, the navies of 1785 and 1823 will get mighty excited over them

 

[stevep]

Union still had at least 2:1 numerical advantage,and almost all factories.South now could not buy modern weapons from England - becouse they do not have it yet.
So,South fall quicker.What next?

1.1823 - USA is attacking Mexico and maybe Canada.Till other countries made technological gap vanish,they dominate both Americas/maybe except Canada/
2.1785 USA is attacking both Spain and England.They dominate both Americas,take Canada and Alaska, AND maybe save France from jacobins and Poland from second Partition.MAYBE take Australia.
Probably not - they would not care for anything but Americas.

I can't see the US sent back to 1785 saving the French monarchy? For one reason why would they as a republic, want to support an autocratic state dominated by the aristocracy and clergy? They might seek to prevent or at least discourage the excesses of the revolutionary period when everything went berserk.

Also OTL the young US used the excuse of the revolution and change of government to default on the debts it had to France for the aid in the revolutionary war. Since they were never actually paid 1785 France still have a claim to them being repaid now so there is another interest for the US in letting the French monarch die.

 

[Buba]

can't see the US sent back to 1785 saving the French monarchy?

It would not the Feds nor Confeds doing this - but Concerned Private Citizens showing up at Versaillies with a few books ...
I trust the Internationally Recognised French Authorities doing the rest
Maybe testing the guilottine on the necks of the never to be heads of the Revolution?
The Bourbons-Orleans better flee France ASAP ...
Also, eve if these won't be Yanks or tr00 Americans from Down Dixie, then there must be some Frenchmen in the ISOTed territories and some will wish to spare their country the future bloodbath.
Teehee - there are pretenders to the French IMPERIAL throne in US territory ... Charles Bonaparte is 32, his younger brother - 20. Although Charles was in FRance at the time of the ISOT, I think.
Maybe even Bourbon Orleans as well? I vaguely remember, maybe even correctly , that a prince or two served with the Union?

 

[stevep]

It would not the Feds nor Confeds doing this - but Concerned Private Citizens showing up at Versaillies with a few books ...
I trust the Internationally Recognised French Authorities doing the rest
Maybe testing the guilottine on the necks of the never to be heads of the Revolution?
The Bourbons-Orleans better flee France ASAP ...
Also, eve if these won't be Yanks or tr00 Americans from Down Dixie, then there must be some Frenchmen in the ISOTed territories and some will wish to spare their country the future bloodbath.
Teehee - there are pretenders to the French IMPERIAL throne in US territory ... Charles Bonaparte is 32, his younger brother - 20. Although Charles was in FRance at the time of the ISOT, I think.
Maybe even Bourbon Orleans as well? I vaguely remember, maybe even correctly , that a prince or two served with the Union?

A pro-Bonaparte is possibly more likely since in 1860 Nappy III was on the throne and most of the years since 1785 had been under one or other of the two Bonaparte while only a relatively short period had been under the restored Bourbon's and another stretch under the house of Orleans. However they would probably want the revolution to go ahead to give their hero a chance to obtain power.

Mind you Napoleon is possibly going to have a short life expectancy if someone does pass details of his future to the French monarchy. Provided their less incompetent that OTL of course.

 

[raharris1973]

1823 - Awesome map, @Buba

The CSA loses Arkansas and Texas, both cut off and/or lost anyway. The USA loses some maize growers and mines in the Midwest. Hence, the CSA does not really lose anything (in this regard) while the USA loses "not much" (with one exception, see below) - but it can afford to do so.

Hence a small "gain" for the CSA.

Also, in both cases the USA lacks the Gold of the West - not having Californian gold suxx. Even if it did not pay for the war by itself as 60M (asspull figure based on monthly shipments of 1-1,5M of gold a month) pales versus the 60B spent overall, it was important in providing the specie shoring up the North's paper money. Without it the USD might had suffered same inflation as the CSD, plus any assorted issues with paying for imports.

Not that the CSA is not without its problems - it looses its export markets and arms suppliers. Same applies to the US - e.g. where will it buy British steel for its rifles?

Agree - loss of lands and the wealth and productivity of those lands is relatively worse for the USA than the CSA, but not by large margin.

The USA *still* remains by far the overpowering manufacturing power and food-producing power over the CSA. Certain imports are lost from the outside world, but the effects of lost arms imports should be even worse on the CSA, and no other country in the 1823 is capable of designing a capable blockade runner to fight the 1863 Union blockade, so the CSA just has the ones on hand within 50 miles to work with.

But 1823 just as well - the Great Powers in Europe learn who backstabbed whom and when - fun times!
In Russia Alexander is almost gone and irrelevant, but Nicholas will be PISSED! Starting with Brother Lazy Bum & Brickhead Dearest who caused the needless ascension crisis in 1825.

Even with the USN steel ships being crap, the navies of 1785 and 1823 will get mighty excited over them

"News from the future" would more easily be worked to the advantage of incumbent governments in Europe, using knowledge of who betrayed who, or who revolted to punish, imprison, exile, or execute potential rebels and coupsters for their 'pre-crimes' against the states. And that's even with many of the foreign born populations in the USA, of Irish, German, English, Scottish, French, (and in much smaller numbers, Canadians, Mexicans, Italians, Poles, Bohemians, Hungarians, Spaniards, Greeks, Chinese, etc.) favoring 'regime-change' at home in relatively high numbers.

After the immediate round of purges and suppression though, the spread of new ideas, changed circumstances and so on, will likely bring about new pressures for change in Europe, some revolutionary, along with some new revolutionaries, unknown to our history.

Union still had at least 2:1 numerical advantage,and almost all factories.South now could not buy modern weapons from England - becouse they do not have it yet.
So,South fall quicker.What next?

Yes the Union still has an advantage, but I don't see why this all by itself makes the war go a lot faster, especially with the Union having less gold. Also, CSA imports of weapons and ammo in 1863-1865 were somewhat limited in OTL. Here their imports of modern stuff will be down to zero, but it wasn't much anyway, so they were mostly working with domestic production anyway.

1.1823 - USA is attacking Mexico and maybe Canada.

Doubtful they want to take on an increased number of enemies, at least while the CSA still lives, or even immediately afterward. Plus, many of the leading Republicans, like Lincoln, had been on the record as anti-war Whigs during the Mexican war. A west coast can still be obtained peacefully through a negotiated partition of Oregon with Britain.

---@Buba, @stevep, @ATP, @everyone, Getting back to the relative advantages and disadvantages of the USA and CSA in the 1863 to 1823 scenario, the Union war effort and Republican rule, now committed to the emancipation project as well, is on more perilous "political" ground because of the loss of several of the most Republican leaning and/or pro-Abolitionist states, like Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kansas, California, Oregon, and Nevada.

This means that the off-year Gubernatorial and state legislative elections of 1863, and the Presidential and Congressional elections (and state elections) of 1864, will all take place, with states much more potentially unfavorable to the Republicans - Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, having a greater relative weight in the Electoral College. That gives Democrats, whether 'Peace Democrats'/'Copperheads' or 'War Democrats' a better chance at winning power in the White House and Congress.

The Union will also not have the same ready stream of immigrant flows in place and ongoing that was part of augmenting its wartime labor force and armies.

The Union may still find ways to work around these problems. It could actively advertise and promote itself, its homesteading and job opportunities aggressively in Europe to drum up emigration from 1820s Europe to gain soldiers, workers, and farmers.

To alter the Electoral College for partisan and sectional advantage, the Republicans could also put on some crash settlement programs in the 'lost states' on US sovereign land around the Great Lakes and Midwest, and possibly even Oregon setting up some select towns, farms, and mines with thousands of settlers. Then they could shamelessly do rushed admissions of new/old states in the Union to keep orphaned Senators (and some Representatives) in Washington employed. After all, in OTL, Congress admitted Kansas, West Virginia, and Nevada during OTL's Civil War. New, 'faux' states admitted by such a shameless process would probably only have one Representative and 3 electoral votes, but the 2 Senators still pads the Electoral College vote, likely in favor of the Republicans.

I anticipate the Union still winning, and by 1865, 1866 latest.

Postwar, you have some interesting situations with reconstructing the United States. For one, with Texas not being part of the United States, tens or hundreds of thousands of hardcore Confederates, unwilling to live under Union government may decide to settle in nascent Anglo settlements of Texas with defeat of the CSA or in the final stages of the war.

Additionally, although not entirely lacking white settlement, Florida and Arkansas (including most of Oklahoma at this time) remained in its 1820s territorial stage. The 1820s version of Arkansas territory had predominantly local Amerindians in the east and plains Amerindians in the west, the Five Civilized tribes not having been exiled there by that time. Reconstruction era Union government could reserve the Florida and/or Arkansas territories as set-asides for Freedmen/Coloured settlement as opposed to predominantly white settlement in the rest of the western territories.

 

[Buba]

1823 - Awesome map,

Amazing what a google search can find on Deviantart, eh?

A skimming of the wiki on 1864 House elections suggests the ISOT producing a small net gain for the Dems/peacniks.
Remember that the Emancipation Declaration concerned slaves ONLY in yet unconquered territories.

Interesting point about possible Unbent and Unbroken Freedom Fighters and Refugees from the CSA swamping Tejas. A side effect could be butterflying away the annexation of Mexican territory, the USA's western border remaining as fixed in 1819.

There will be immigrants enough - Europe was quite well populated, even overpopulated in places (looks at Ireland and Little Poland).

The Great Powers in Europe might be at each other's throats inside half a year of the ISOT. That besides or on top of the clamping down on "subversives". Life span of troublemakers like Garibadi, Marx, etc. drops. As I've already mentioned, Bourbon-Orleans better flee France. In Spain Fernando locks up Carlos?

The November Uprising in the Kingdom of Poland is IMO mostly due to Nicholas' stupid, although the stupid of "patriots" (saboteurs, I call them!) should not be underestimated. Maybe an unintended consequence of the ISOT would be Constantine assuming the throne, thus butterflying away the revolt or pushing it down the line to the 1840s? Constantine was pretty much as Polonophile as Older Brother had been.
Nicholas will still be his successor (Constantine was in a morganatic marriage) and he is not likely to get smarter, hence provoking a revolt is very probable. Or maybe he will wise up, looking at the disaster his reign had been ...

 

[Buba]

I succumbed to my curiosity and checked.
Jerome Bonaparte's son is in the USA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A9r%C3%B4me_Napol%C3%A9on_Bonaparte

The eldest grandson:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Napoleon_Bonaparte_II

is lost with the ISOT, as he was Fighting For France.
But his Little Brother (an astonishing 21 years' difference!) is in the USA, in Elementary School:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Joseph_Bonaparte

 

[ATP]

I succumbed to my curiosity and checked.
Jerome Bonaparte's son is in the USA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A9r%C3%B4me_Napol%C3%A9on_Bonaparte

The eldest grandson:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Napoleon_Bonaparte_II

is lost with the ISOT, as he was Fighting For France.
But his Little Brother (an astonishing 21 years' difference!) is in the USA, in Elementary School:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Joseph_Bonaparte

So,if they end in 1785 they would try first prevent revolution and then made Bonaparte Emperor,and in 1823 only wait for Bonaparte taking power in 1848?

@raharris1973 - i think,that considering how weak Mexico was in 1823, USA would attack them even if Lincoln do not wonted that.Hawaii was annexed when president do not wanted that,too.

 

[Atarlost]

@raharris1973 - i think,that considering how weak Mexico was in 1823, USA would attack them even if Lincoln do not wonted that.Hawaii was annexed when president do not wanted that,too.

I concur. No way Mexico is keeping the California gold fields.

 

[Buba]

considering how weak Mexico was in 1823, USA would attack them even if Lincoln do not wonted that

I concur. No way Mexico is keeping the California gold fields.

Well, the USA is somewhat otherwise occupied. With the CSA.
In the meantime knowledge about those gold fields leaks out and Britain or France or jointly as an Axis of Evul! swoop in with guaranties of Mexico's borders. Or steal that land for themselves. Think a Pastry War writ large.
The USA has 40 years of tech advantage. But before it would be free to act some time will pass, the CSA will sell the technology to the UK and France, the USA was an exporter of farm produce and importer of technology and capital, etc. etc. It is in no way a superpower. It does not operate in a vacuum and - even with the temporary tech advantage - it needs the outside world much more than post 1900 or 1920, let alone post 1945 USA.
E.g. Britain can deny it saltpetre for gunpowder. The USA can make its own, but settting up production will take at least a year if not longer. Volume - in two years? In the meantime what - bows and arrows? Trebuchets?

 

[ATP]

Well, the USA is somewhat otherwise occupied. With the CSA.
In the meantime knowledge about those gold fields leaks out and Britain or France or jointly as an Axis of Evul! swoop in with guaranties of Mexico's borders. Or steal that land for themselves. Think a Pastry War writ large.
The USA has 40 years of tech advantage. But before it would be free to act some time will pass, the CSA will sell the technology to the UK and France, the USA was an exporter of farm produce and importer of technology and capital, etc. etc. It is in no way a superpower.
E.g. Britain can deny it saltpetre for gunpowder. The USA can make its own, but that'll take at least a year if not longer. In the meantime what - bows and arrows? Trebuchets?

If England acted at once - yes.And,if South at once sold them technology.Both rather improbable.

 

[Buba]

1785
Important question - 1785 or 1863 state borders? Look at Virginia and Georgia on the map ...
If 1863 - the western armies of both countries are gone. It is purely an ANV verus Army of the Potomac match.

 

[stevep]

Well, the USA is somewhat otherwise occupied. With the CSA.
In the meantime knowledge about those gold fields leaks out and Britain or France or jointly as an Axis of Evul! swoop in with guaranties of Mexico's borders. Or steal that land for themselves. Think a Pastry War writ large.
The USA has 40 years of tech advantage. But before it would be free to act some time will pass, the CSA will sell the technology to the UK and France, the USA was an exporter of farm produce and importer of technology and capital, etc. etc. It is in no way a superpower. It does not operate in a vacuum and - even with the temporary tech advantage - it needs the outside world much more than post 1900 or 1920, let alone post 1945 USA.
E.g. Britain can deny it saltpetre for gunpowder. The USA can make its own, but settting up production will take at least a year if not longer. Volume - in two years? In the meantime what - bows and arrows? Trebuchets?

Some good points although Britain like other great powers have to weave a narrow line in terms of how much they can do. Britain possibly especially because a 1863 US, even with most of its western territories gone is a serious threat to Canada. On the other hand if the US occupy Canada then Britain has a markedly freer hand.

However once they realise how much the north and south - or at least the parts brought back - have changed, especially in terms of technological advances they will know they need desperately to catch up or their very vulnerable, which will be the case for every other would be great power.

The Monroe doctrine was announced in Dec 1823 so about this time Britain is stepping in to prevent France leading an alliance of autocratic powers seeking to reimpose Spanish rule on their lost territories in the Americas. Is this decision affected? Could there be some deal where Britain accepts France doing such - in return for France and allies supporting British claims to the N American NW and possibly also getting California thrown in? Or do they seek an agreement with the new union, although that's likely to be rejected as OTL, or possibly sit back and see if both the autocratic bloc and the north keep each other busy for a few years while Britain seeks to catch up technologically and secure its own interests?

Plenty of other possible permutations and combinations that could occur.

 

[raharris1973]

1785
Important question - 1785 or 1863 state borders? Look at Virginia and Georgia on the map ...
If 1863 - the western armies of both countries are gone. It is purely an ANV verus Army of the Potomac match.

1863 state borders

 

[WolfBear]

The 1785 ISOT in particular - e.g. the Bastille will be overflowing inside weeks.

Years, no? 1789 - 1785 = 4 years.

 

[Buba]

1863 state borders

In such case I have a feeling that the ACW ends with a draw, i.e. a CSA win.
The Western Front was wiped out. There will be no victories at Vicksburg or Atlanta to cheer up the war weary (or war hostile) population. Only the inconclusive blood baths in Virginia. And there is no way around Virginia for a a force of meaningful size as the "open flank" is mountainous wilderness.
Come 1864 elections the peaceniks win.
Hmm, with Lincoln getting the boot and no Midwestern freesoilers and abolutionists, with the shock of the ISOT, the north proposes and the south accepts the Corwin Amendment? Although after two years of war it might be too late for this.

As to international ramifications - the fact is that in 1785 all the Powers are sick and tired of war and broke. Neither France nor Britain are ready for round X of their ceaseless wars, while Spain has no chestnuts in the fire here. Neither the USA nor CSA have markets for their wares. The USA does not have grain to export, BTW. What exactly did the USA/CSA export from the Original 13, besides cotton and tobbaco? Whale oil? Dried fish? Protestant missionaries? Here it could export steel products - but what size market for them?

 

[raharris1973]

In such case I have a feeling that the ACW ends with a draw, i.e. a CSA win.
The Western Front was wiped out. There will be no victories at Vicksburg or Atlanta to cheer up the war weary (or war hostile) population. Only the inconclusive blood baths in Virginia. And there is no way around Virginia for a a force of meaningful size as the "open flank" is mountainous wilderness.
Come 1864 elections the peaceniks win.
Hmm, with Lincoln getting the boot and no Midwestern freesoilers and abolutionists, with the shock of the ISOT, the north proposes and the south accepts the Corwin Amendment? Although after two years of war it might be too late for this.

As to international ramifications - the fact is that in 1785 all the Powers are sick and tired of war and broke. Neither France nor Britain are ready for round X of their ceaseless wars, while Spain has no chestnuts in the fire here. Neither the USA nor CSA have markets for their wares. The USA does not have grain to export, BTW. What exactly did the USA/CSA export from the Original 13, besides cotton and tobbaco? Whale oil? Dried fish? Protestant missionaries? Here it could export steel products - but what size market for them?

I was thinking the CSA was relatively more advantaged in the 1785 version for this reason, the western theater getting cut off, the Union losing generals like Grant and Sherman, and the ANV vs AOP stalemate remaining with the CSA keeping generals Lee and Jackson.

I think it is too late for the south to accept reunion, even under the Corwin amendment.

Even though conquering the southern Atlantic states likely becomes impossible in a politically acceptable amount of time, and western infrastructure is so primitivized it cannot support mass armies, the west becomes an interesting adjunct theater through 1863 and 1864.

CSA and USA cavalries and rangers operate against each other in the west, trying to incite the native tribes against each other. To some extent, there will be a rail and canal and turnpike building race to extend infrastructure to the west, and I expect the north, with Pennsylvanian industry, to have a pretty clear advantage in that.

we cannot rule out a Lincoln re-election or Republican victory, because pro Republican and abolitionist New England states have inflated #s of EVs compared to population, but Democrats are favored.

But even if a peacenik administration is elected, it will hope at first to negotiate re-Union. If forced to concede secession of the Atlantic Confederate states, it probably will still contest control of the trans-Allegheny west, containing the CSA.

 

[Buba]

Couldn't the two American countries simply agree on a 38N border (latitude of southern Wee-Vee)? All along to the Shinning Sea at the Other Side?
Suddenly the Eire Canal becomes very strategic - it gives access to the three central lakes - that's most of the Old North West. And provides much better access to the western York Peninsula than the British have. British outflanked?
Hmm - would be this one of the few scenarios where the USA kicking the British out of Canada be relatively easy?
Loyalists who had fled "patriot" repressions to Canada post 1783 would naturally be wary of Yankee Conquest, before discovering that they are dealing with grandchildren of those who cleansed them out.

I expect the north, with Pennsylvanian industry, to have a pretty clear advantage in that.

True. Thus I'd expect the South to set up Birmingham ASAP.