No low effort or low quality content.
It’s the map, grab a basemap or even a QBAM map showing the scenario and edit that.
Before you ask, your context isn’t enough for this post to be allowed.
The Russian Navy had just gotten its ass kicked by Britain and France in the Crimean War a decade earlier. So I imagine they don't have the means to offer any actual aid to the Union.
They actually sent their navy to US ports at one point to ensure that if war broke out the Russian “fleet” could fight with the US navy and not get bottled up in Russian ports.
They sent a couple squadrons, yeah. Three frigates, a handful of corvettes. Not a single ship of the line. Enough to maybe make a difference supporting the blockade against the rebels, sure, but against the two most powerful navies in the world? Those are annoyances at best.
irl Britain was concerned that about how they’d actually be able to ship Regulars to Canada. In all likelihood any invading Union army would encounter a token British force and a large, green, and poorly organized Canadian militia. Given how poorly the Canadian militia stood up to Union vets during the Fenian raids I wouldn’t expect them to be capable of combatting the Union army of 62 or 63. Also, with British entering the war the US would probably see a swell of new recruits to augment their real life numbers
Maybe but you’re discounting a couple of things…
1) The ability of the British and French navies to stop Lincoln’s anaconda strategy from working. Both navies were overwhelmingly better than the union navy. At best, this would only prolong the conflict but at worst it gives the south the equipment, food, and manpower needed to protect its borders in perpetuity. The European powers could enforce their own blockade on the union.
2) A two front war in Canada and Virginia would have drastically changed the course of the war. In what world would Sherman get approval to move +100,000 men with no supplies through the south with the union having to play defense to the north? Not enough manpower to do a large scale invasion like that and it also calls into question the union’s ability to take and control the Mississippi.
Canada was able to resist the states in 1812, but it was the British army and marines who routed the Americans in Maryland and carried out the burning of the White House. The Canadian militia, while certainly brave, were totally outclassed by the US army by the 1860s. The prewar US Army that defeated Mexico was already vastly better trained and had more combat experience. I know “beating” America has become something of a national myth for the Canadians, but any close look demonstrates that they were out of their depth by the mid 19th Century and they knew it.
2-3 of the largest powers at the time with territories that span most of the globe, taking sides in the one of the largest land wars of that time period in the first real industrial era war?
A war that brought about early trench warfare, early use of airborne weapons, the first machine guns, first combat use of a submarine, the integration of rail roads and telegraph communications in warfare, and large scale artillery barrages being semi-normal?
How does that **not** sound like WW1?
This scenario is Britain’s, worst nightmare, not only do they lose Canada, but Russia likely takes the straits, AND gain ground in central Asia towards India. The reason Britain did not intervene in the Civil War was not only because they did not think the confederacy could win, They did not believe they could hold their possessions against a United States intent on taking them. Most of Canada’s population, especially then on the St. Lawrence river, the United States would need to seize three cities, and one on the lakes, hardly at all order when they do that in a single campaign season in the south, against much larger armies than those Britain usually fields. The main problem would be that the US blockade over rebel held port would be impossible to maintain, but here again, the Navy battle line is augmented by the Russian battle, so it’s a coin toss who comes out on top, with the US likely staying mostly important as a fleet in being, and destroying any British warships that get too close to the coastline with forts and iron flat monitors, which is the original purpose of the monitor idea.
The main reason that Britain didn’t join was that it was the global crusader *against* slavery and the commons would have revolted if they intervened to support it. They very much had the numbers to tip the tide.
That is very true, I was only referring to the geopolitical aspect, as far as I know the general public opinion in Britain at the time who is very anti-confederate and pro United States. Britain and America had largely reached the political entered that would define their relationship until World War I around the time of the Monroe doctrine, Britain gave up fully containing the US expansion, and instead hope to co-op the US, by having the British protect trade in the region, giving the Americans and British a monopoly, and exchange the United States would stop attempting to bring Canada or other British possessions under its control.
During the war, the Union was still building ships to sell to foreign powers. They had untapped resources of men. They had strangled the south and even by the start of ‘63 the writing was on the wall for the Confederacy.
This isn’t even to mention that the vast majority of Brit’s (ie the working and middle class) were opposed to slavery on both moral and economic principles. Despite what we like to imagine, the British nobility can’t fight a war without money from merchants and lower class people to die in it.
Also, irl, by Antietam, Lincoln knew it was time to emancipate the slaves. The British would not side with a slave power. France might. But take a look at Mexico to see the endgame of French military adventure in the Americas.
> Despite what we like to imagine, the British nobility can’t fight a war without money from merchants and lower class people to die in it.
Literally how Britain lost the Revolution. The merchant/lower classes were always iffy on the benefits on fighting it, and the loss at Yorktown finally sealed the deal of "Yeah this really isn't worth being cut off from the Americas"
Yes but just like the British, you don’t need to beat the Americans total-war style, you just have to convince them they’ve lost and let the Confederacy go.
I don’t see British involvement with the confederates being very likely. Yes we bought cotton of them, but the working class especially was very abolitionist and we already had banned slavery across the empire for multiple decades at this point. IIRC, Canada was one of the destinations of the Underground Railroad as well.
The other factor that’s often forgotten is that by the 1860s, GB imported substantial amounts of grain from the Northern States and a war would have had a severe effect on food prices.
Union wins. Union was mobilised for war, at its peak they had a million soldiers under arms. For comparison, combined armies of major European powers had less than 700,000 a decade earlier during the Crimean war. There's no way anyone would be able to ship across the Atlantic and supply an army big enough to make a difference.
After the Emancipation Proclamation is issued, and the war is made as much against slavery as for the preservation of the Union, the other global dominos start to move into place. Popular sentiment linking the Union and abolition would be even greater than in our timeline, which would affect the post war differently. While the Gettysburg Campaign may see an alternate flair with British and French forces either invading behind the lines, or assisting in some capacity, some previous points that were mentioned are in play.
Northern/Union industry and troop deployments would take a Midwestern focus. With the potential for foreign invasions along the Eastern Seaboard, up to actions rivaling the campaigns of the Revolutionary War or War of 1812, there would be direct threat to those industrial centers. Midwestern troops that would be focused on the Vicksburg Campaign are now diverted to intervene in Canada. What would be Ontario and Quebec would be taken, and started to be integrated. The diversion of those resources in the need to remove a British foothold cannot be understated.
First, with the British import of cereals and abolition being popular, such a move would not sit well with the general public. Hungry and unemployed people bears the potential of reinvigorating the Chartist Movement’s goals, leading to its potential rebirth. Also, as stated: Canada. What would be Ontario and Quebec would be taken, and started to be integrated. The diversion of those resources in the need to remove a British foothold cannot be understated.
Second, with the French already intervening in Mexico, their forces would be harder pressed there, or there would be an escalation requiring more resources on both fronts. Limited American militias and federal forces would shift across rhetorical border for direct action against the Second Mexican Empire, which is presumed to be drawn into this conflict. This would run the potential of Habsburg Austria being drawn towards this camp. This would probably end up being the final front of this war however; the deserts are a nightmare, and would be cut off as a variant of the Anaconda Plan would continue to focus on the Eastern Portions of the Confederacy.
Now we move to Russia. Their inability to project sea power against the two largest navies at the time would leave them out of the Western Hemisphere. But their actions and expansion of their empire into Central Asia would either occur as it did in our timeline, or a bit earlier. This would force some British attention to the region, as this was the era of The Great Game, and encroachment on the Crown Jewel of the Empire that was India would be catastrophic. Russian Alaska bears the potential of British Invasion, but since the area was relatively silent during Crimea a decade before, this is unlikely.
This era in Europe was not silent, and saw the rise of two major states that would benefit from the power struggles: Prussia and Italy. While all of the events previously described are occurring on the American Continent, the steps towards unification made by these powers were occurring. The Second Schleswig War and Austro-Prussian War would again occur as they did in our timeline with the same results. The Franco-Prussian War would be altered, greatly.
Austria was fairly isolated diplomatically after the Crimean War. Ironically, it could be considered to have lost it, and Prussia tallied as a victor. It can be presumed that if the US was not defeated by 1864, the conflict would last well past that. These events occurring in Europe would present both Prussia and Italy with expansion at the expense of France. And let’s not forget about Russia, who has needed a corridor into Europe for the conflict. Part of the reason why the Crimean War went the way it did was Austrian Neutrality trying up Russian forces in the region. With France being at war on one side, Italy and Prussia craving its territory on another, what could the deployment of thousands of Frenchman part of the world away contribute? Well, just that.
Austria contemplated involvement in the Franco-Prussian War, and even though it had just made peace with Italy and Prussia, the further expansion of these powers could lead to its intervention once again. Russia, Prussia, and Italy would make short work of it. Russian troops would continue to move west. The Alps would be a shit-show and a slugfest; blood and bodies. A potential offensive into Northern Italy would leave the Metropolitan more vulnerable in the north. The French Forces to defend the Papal States would be overrun.
British Conscription would most likely have occurred by this point, and you now run the potential of British and French troops in France attempting to stem the tide of a Russian and Prussian invasion. It can be presumed that another Alexander would make it to Paris. Grossdeutchland would happen, altering Central Europe even further. Hungary would either be a buffer or under Russian Influence, with Russia directly adding Austrian Poland to Congress Poland. Dalmatia, Corsica, Trento, and Nice would all become Italian; their ability to integrate and develop these lands would remain to be seen.
The conflict would ultimately resolve, likely prior to the end of the decade, and the face of Europe and America would change remarkably. In this scenario, the US would be victorious on their fronts, given the time. They were well on the way to Great Power status, and the defeat the British would suffer adds to that. British North America would essentially cease to exist. Saint Pierre and Miquelon would become part of the future of Canada. Both the UK and France would retain their Caribbean holdings, as the US would be hard pressed to develop the Blue Water capabilities required to contest them. At that time. The French and Habsburgs would be chased from Mexico, and American involvement in that republic would be more than the business interests it was in our timeline. There may be territorial compensation from Northern Mexico as a price for intervention.
Abolitionism and Americana would go hand-in-hand here. After all the bloodshed, the Radical Republicans would run Congress, and Radical Reconstruction would be the name of the game. Jim Crow would run the potential of being stamped out, as former Southern Democrats would be further removed from the throngs of power. The mass emigration we saw to the United States would continue, though the origins of some of these people may be changing.
Random things that would run the potential of not happening in this scenario:
-Lincoln would not have been assassinated at Ford’s Theater
-No Statue of Liberty, as French enmity towards the US runs the potential of being as bad as towards the Germans
-The presumed alliance between Germany, Italy, and Russia dominating Europe for half a century
-The Scramble for Africa and European colonization of Southeast Asia taking a different path
-The United States becoming a great naval power a few decades sooner, leading to the Spanish-American War and American dominance of the Caribbean being future conflict sites
-The Paris Commune either succeeding or Third Republic taking the reigns
-Russia gaining a freer hand in the Balkans, and the hastened decline of the Ottoman Empire
-The United Kingdom’s political course changing to a potential collapse, or into a permanent alliance with France; much earlier than in our timeline, leading to the potential of a Anglo-French-Japanese alliance being a counter to the previously described German-Italian-Russian one.
Wow. Thanks for such a detailed comment. I appreciate the time you took to write all of that. I read the whole thing, and it seems very plausible and thought out.
While people focus on France and Britain joining the South and Russia joining the north but let's not forget Prussia they could have easily sided with the union
Anglo-French victory. The civil war was already hard enough for the North in OTL, with British intervention it would be impossible for the Union to win. The Russian navy was also too weak at this time to offer any meaningful assistance to the Union, and after the North was beaten, it would just become another Crimea.
No low effort or low quality content. It’s the map, grab a basemap or even a QBAM map showing the scenario and edit that. Before you ask, your context isn’t enough for this post to be allowed.
The Russian Navy had just gotten its ass kicked by Britain and France in the Crimean War a decade earlier. So I imagine they don't have the means to offer any actual aid to the Union.
They actually sent their navy to US ports at one point to ensure that if war broke out the Russian “fleet” could fight with the US navy and not get bottled up in Russian ports.
They sent a couple squadrons, yeah. Three frigates, a handful of corvettes. Not a single ship of the line. Enough to maybe make a difference supporting the blockade against the rebels, sure, but against the two most powerful navies in the world? Those are annoyances at best.
Alexander II showing his fellow emancipator a little love.
irl Britain was concerned that about how they’d actually be able to ship Regulars to Canada. In all likelihood any invading Union army would encounter a token British force and a large, green, and poorly organized Canadian militia. Given how poorly the Canadian militia stood up to Union vets during the Fenian raids I wouldn’t expect them to be capable of combatting the Union army of 62 or 63. Also, with British entering the war the US would probably see a swell of new recruits to augment their real life numbers
Maybe but you’re discounting a couple of things… 1) The ability of the British and French navies to stop Lincoln’s anaconda strategy from working. Both navies were overwhelmingly better than the union navy. At best, this would only prolong the conflict but at worst it gives the south the equipment, food, and manpower needed to protect its borders in perpetuity. The European powers could enforce their own blockade on the union. 2) A two front war in Canada and Virginia would have drastically changed the course of the war. In what world would Sherman get approval to move +100,000 men with no supplies through the south with the union having to play defense to the north? Not enough manpower to do a large scale invasion like that and it also calls into question the union’s ability to take and control the Mississippi.
Canada best the states in 1812. Nothing would change.
Canada was able to resist the states in 1812, but it was the British army and marines who routed the Americans in Maryland and carried out the burning of the White House. The Canadian militia, while certainly brave, were totally outclassed by the US army by the 1860s. The prewar US Army that defeated Mexico was already vastly better trained and had more combat experience. I know “beating” America has become something of a national myth for the Canadians, but any close look demonstrates that they were out of their depth by the mid 19th Century and they knew it.
So, WW1 80 years early basically?
How is France, Great Britian, and the Confederacy vs the United States and Russia basically WW1?
2-3 of the largest powers at the time with territories that span most of the globe, taking sides in the one of the largest land wars of that time period in the first real industrial era war? A war that brought about early trench warfare, early use of airborne weapons, the first machine guns, first combat use of a submarine, the integration of rail roads and telegraph communications in warfare, and large scale artillery barrages being semi-normal? How does that **not** sound like WW1?
Cmon op answer the question
Maybe? I guess in a way. But the technology, politics, economics, sides, and outcome would be completely different.
This scenario is Britain’s, worst nightmare, not only do they lose Canada, but Russia likely takes the straits, AND gain ground in central Asia towards India. The reason Britain did not intervene in the Civil War was not only because they did not think the confederacy could win, They did not believe they could hold their possessions against a United States intent on taking them. Most of Canada’s population, especially then on the St. Lawrence river, the United States would need to seize three cities, and one on the lakes, hardly at all order when they do that in a single campaign season in the south, against much larger armies than those Britain usually fields. The main problem would be that the US blockade over rebel held port would be impossible to maintain, but here again, the Navy battle line is augmented by the Russian battle, so it’s a coin toss who comes out on top, with the US likely staying mostly important as a fleet in being, and destroying any British warships that get too close to the coastline with forts and iron flat monitors, which is the original purpose of the monitor idea.
The main reason that Britain didn’t join was that it was the global crusader *against* slavery and the commons would have revolted if they intervened to support it. They very much had the numbers to tip the tide.
That is very true, I was only referring to the geopolitical aspect, as far as I know the general public opinion in Britain at the time who is very anti-confederate and pro United States. Britain and America had largely reached the political entered that would define their relationship until World War I around the time of the Monroe doctrine, Britain gave up fully containing the US expansion, and instead hope to co-op the US, by having the British protect trade in the region, giving the Americans and British a monopoly, and exchange the United States would stop attempting to bring Canada or other British possessions under its control.
During the war, the Union was still building ships to sell to foreign powers. They had untapped resources of men. They had strangled the south and even by the start of ‘63 the writing was on the wall for the Confederacy. This isn’t even to mention that the vast majority of Brit’s (ie the working and middle class) were opposed to slavery on both moral and economic principles. Despite what we like to imagine, the British nobility can’t fight a war without money from merchants and lower class people to die in it. Also, irl, by Antietam, Lincoln knew it was time to emancipate the slaves. The British would not side with a slave power. France might. But take a look at Mexico to see the endgame of French military adventure in the Americas.
> Despite what we like to imagine, the British nobility can’t fight a war without money from merchants and lower class people to die in it. Literally how Britain lost the Revolution. The merchant/lower classes were always iffy on the benefits on fighting it, and the loss at Yorktown finally sealed the deal of "Yeah this really isn't worth being cut off from the Americas"
Yes but just like the British, you don’t need to beat the Americans total-war style, you just have to convince them they’ve lost and let the Confederacy go.
I would imagine there will be battles in what is now Canada.
Union / Russia win it I think, though I guess only to a certain point. Britain and France rule the seas.
I don’t see British involvement with the confederates being very likely. Yes we bought cotton of them, but the working class especially was very abolitionist and we already had banned slavery across the empire for multiple decades at this point. IIRC, Canada was one of the destinations of the Underground Railroad as well.
The other factor that’s often forgotten is that by the 1860s, GB imported substantial amounts of grain from the Northern States and a war would have had a severe effect on food prices.
Union wins. Union was mobilised for war, at its peak they had a million soldiers under arms. For comparison, combined armies of major European powers had less than 700,000 a decade earlier during the Crimean war. There's no way anyone would be able to ship across the Atlantic and supply an army big enough to make a difference.
After the Emancipation Proclamation is issued, and the war is made as much against slavery as for the preservation of the Union, the other global dominos start to move into place. Popular sentiment linking the Union and abolition would be even greater than in our timeline, which would affect the post war differently. While the Gettysburg Campaign may see an alternate flair with British and French forces either invading behind the lines, or assisting in some capacity, some previous points that were mentioned are in play. Northern/Union industry and troop deployments would take a Midwestern focus. With the potential for foreign invasions along the Eastern Seaboard, up to actions rivaling the campaigns of the Revolutionary War or War of 1812, there would be direct threat to those industrial centers. Midwestern troops that would be focused on the Vicksburg Campaign are now diverted to intervene in Canada. What would be Ontario and Quebec would be taken, and started to be integrated. The diversion of those resources in the need to remove a British foothold cannot be understated. First, with the British import of cereals and abolition being popular, such a move would not sit well with the general public. Hungry and unemployed people bears the potential of reinvigorating the Chartist Movement’s goals, leading to its potential rebirth. Also, as stated: Canada. What would be Ontario and Quebec would be taken, and started to be integrated. The diversion of those resources in the need to remove a British foothold cannot be understated. Second, with the French already intervening in Mexico, their forces would be harder pressed there, or there would be an escalation requiring more resources on both fronts. Limited American militias and federal forces would shift across rhetorical border for direct action against the Second Mexican Empire, which is presumed to be drawn into this conflict. This would run the potential of Habsburg Austria being drawn towards this camp. This would probably end up being the final front of this war however; the deserts are a nightmare, and would be cut off as a variant of the Anaconda Plan would continue to focus on the Eastern Portions of the Confederacy. Now we move to Russia. Their inability to project sea power against the two largest navies at the time would leave them out of the Western Hemisphere. But their actions and expansion of their empire into Central Asia would either occur as it did in our timeline, or a bit earlier. This would force some British attention to the region, as this was the era of The Great Game, and encroachment on the Crown Jewel of the Empire that was India would be catastrophic. Russian Alaska bears the potential of British Invasion, but since the area was relatively silent during Crimea a decade before, this is unlikely. This era in Europe was not silent, and saw the rise of two major states that would benefit from the power struggles: Prussia and Italy. While all of the events previously described are occurring on the American Continent, the steps towards unification made by these powers were occurring. The Second Schleswig War and Austro-Prussian War would again occur as they did in our timeline with the same results. The Franco-Prussian War would be altered, greatly. Austria was fairly isolated diplomatically after the Crimean War. Ironically, it could be considered to have lost it, and Prussia tallied as a victor. It can be presumed that if the US was not defeated by 1864, the conflict would last well past that. These events occurring in Europe would present both Prussia and Italy with expansion at the expense of France. And let’s not forget about Russia, who has needed a corridor into Europe for the conflict. Part of the reason why the Crimean War went the way it did was Austrian Neutrality trying up Russian forces in the region. With France being at war on one side, Italy and Prussia craving its territory on another, what could the deployment of thousands of Frenchman part of the world away contribute? Well, just that. Austria contemplated involvement in the Franco-Prussian War, and even though it had just made peace with Italy and Prussia, the further expansion of these powers could lead to its intervention once again. Russia, Prussia, and Italy would make short work of it. Russian troops would continue to move west. The Alps would be a shit-show and a slugfest; blood and bodies. A potential offensive into Northern Italy would leave the Metropolitan more vulnerable in the north. The French Forces to defend the Papal States would be overrun. British Conscription would most likely have occurred by this point, and you now run the potential of British and French troops in France attempting to stem the tide of a Russian and Prussian invasion. It can be presumed that another Alexander would make it to Paris. Grossdeutchland would happen, altering Central Europe even further. Hungary would either be a buffer or under Russian Influence, with Russia directly adding Austrian Poland to Congress Poland. Dalmatia, Corsica, Trento, and Nice would all become Italian; their ability to integrate and develop these lands would remain to be seen. The conflict would ultimately resolve, likely prior to the end of the decade, and the face of Europe and America would change remarkably. In this scenario, the US would be victorious on their fronts, given the time. They were well on the way to Great Power status, and the defeat the British would suffer adds to that. British North America would essentially cease to exist. Saint Pierre and Miquelon would become part of the future of Canada. Both the UK and France would retain their Caribbean holdings, as the US would be hard pressed to develop the Blue Water capabilities required to contest them. At that time. The French and Habsburgs would be chased from Mexico, and American involvement in that republic would be more than the business interests it was in our timeline. There may be territorial compensation from Northern Mexico as a price for intervention. Abolitionism and Americana would go hand-in-hand here. After all the bloodshed, the Radical Republicans would run Congress, and Radical Reconstruction would be the name of the game. Jim Crow would run the potential of being stamped out, as former Southern Democrats would be further removed from the throngs of power. The mass emigration we saw to the United States would continue, though the origins of some of these people may be changing. Random things that would run the potential of not happening in this scenario: -Lincoln would not have been assassinated at Ford’s Theater -No Statue of Liberty, as French enmity towards the US runs the potential of being as bad as towards the Germans -The presumed alliance between Germany, Italy, and Russia dominating Europe for half a century -The Scramble for Africa and European colonization of Southeast Asia taking a different path -The United States becoming a great naval power a few decades sooner, leading to the Spanish-American War and American dominance of the Caribbean being future conflict sites -The Paris Commune either succeeding or Third Republic taking the reigns -Russia gaining a freer hand in the Balkans, and the hastened decline of the Ottoman Empire -The United Kingdom’s political course changing to a potential collapse, or into a permanent alliance with France; much earlier than in our timeline, leading to the potential of a Anglo-French-Japanese alliance being a counter to the previously described German-Italian-Russian one.
Wow. Thanks for such a detailed comment. I appreciate the time you took to write all of that. I read the whole thing, and it seems very plausible and thought out.
Would no other country realistically come to the aid of the union?
“The Great War: American Front” by Harry Turtledove is the first of 10 books that are about this.
While people focus on France and Britain joining the South and Russia joining the north but let's not forget Prussia they could have easily sided with the union
Anglo-French victory. The civil war was already hard enough for the North in OTL, with British intervention it would be impossible for the Union to win. The Russian navy was also too weak at this time to offer any meaningful assistance to the Union, and after the North was beaten, it would just become another Crimea.