American Civil War becomes a world war?

[VidaLaVida]

I once saw this idea alluded to in a thread a while ago about the Trent Affair causing Britain to join the ACW. However, I couldn't find any thread based on this idea alone, so I thought I'd make a thread for it. My knowledge of the details are pretty fuzzy, so I've got a lot of blanks in my understanding of the scenario.

Basically, what would it take for the American Civil War to end up involving the major European powers to such a degree that their involvement in the American conflict ends up triggering a major world war within and beyond North America? If I remember correctly, the idea in the thread I remember suggested the idea that the Trent incident causes Britain to declare war on the United States, perhaps not as an ally, but a co-belligerent, to the Confederacy. In return, the Union, not wanting to fight two foes alone, forms an alliance with an opposing power, the most likely candidate being Russia (who is in the midst of the Great Game against Britain, and had been the European power most friendly with the U.S. for a while).

Beyond wrapping your head around the ironies of a Britain/Confederacy alliance against a U.S./Russia alliance, this in turn spirals into a war between these powers and their potential allies, igniting a world war. I'm intrigued by this idea, but, obviously, have serious reservations about its plausibility.

Still, how could this potentially happen? What would need to happen for the American Civil War to be a mid-19th Century Serbia that sparks a major conflict between world powers? What would be its likely outcome?

 

[JosefStalin]

I once saw this idea alluded to in a thread a while ago about the Trent Affair causing Britain to join the ACW. However, I couldn't find any thread based on this idea alone, so I thought I'd make a thread for it. My knowledge of the details are pretty fuzzy, so I've got a lot of blanks in my understanding of the scenario.

Basically, what would it take for the American Civil War to end up involving the major European powers to such a degree that their involvement in the American conflict ends up triggering a major world war within and beyond North America? If I remember correctly, the idea in the thread I remember suggested the idea that the Trent incident causes Britain to declare war on the United States, perhaps not as an ally, but a co-belligerent, to the Confederacy. In return, the Union, not wanting to fight two foes alone, forms an alliance with an opposing power, the most likely candidate being Russia (who is in the midst of the Great Game against Britain, and had been the European power most friendly with the U.S. for a while).

Beyond wrapping your head around the ironies of a Britain/Confederacy alliance against a U.S./Russia alliance, this in turn spirals into a war between these powers and their potential allies, igniting a world war. I'm intrigued by this idea, but, obviously, have serious reservations about its plausibility.

Still, how could this potentially happen? What would need to happen for the American Civil War to be a mid-19th Century Serbia that sparks a major conflict between world powers? What would be its likely outcome?

Prussia, or the North German Federation, could also be an ally do to the Germans making up a large portion of American ancestry.

 

[hasdrubal barca]

Just like to remind everyone that the French are at this point running around in Mexico, so maybe they can be dragged in some way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_intervention_in_Mexico

Also their are a lot of German's fighting for the Union prehaps we can drag some of the German states in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XI_Corps_(Union_Army)

 

[VirginiaHistoryTeacher]

I once saw this idea alluded to in a thread a while ago about the Trent Affair causing Britain to join the ACW. However, I couldn't find any thread based on this idea alone, so I thought I'd make a thread for it. My knowledge of the details are pretty fuzzy, so I've got a lot of blanks in my understanding of the scenario.

I've always wondered this: if Britain joins up with the Confederacy, why would France jump into bed with the Confederacy, too? Britain and France are LEGENDARY enemies of one another, and I would think Texas would be threatened by the French presence in Mexico at this point in time.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

I've always wondered this: if Britain joins up with the Confederacy, why would France jump into bed with the Confederacy, too? Britain and France are LEGENDARY enemies of one another, and I would think Texas would be threatened by the French presence in Mexico at this point in time.

Britain would NEVER join with the Confederacy. Britain was heavily anti-slavery by this point so I can't see any sane government (especially Lord Palmerston) ally with them. And at this point Britain and France actually got a long pretty well. They had allied in the Crimean war and against China. Plus Napoleon III was a notorious Anglophile and wanted a full alliance.

 

[deejay45]

Without some major POD, the British are unlikely to get involved.

First off, they don't have a clear benefit in doing so. Though they would like to see the US fail at that time or at least be humbled, going to war isn't exactly a cost effective option.

Second the slavery issue was a big hurdle for the Brits. They occupied a similar position to the one that the states follow now, and were one of first, or were they the first?, to ban slavery. Supporting the CSA, would make them look bad, they put an effort to end slavery, and then support a slave owning nation.

Third Cost. Going to war in the states and risking Canada just wasn't worth the cost to humble a former colony.

This of course means that the French are a no go. Nappy 3 wanted to avoid the mistakes of his namesake, and keep on good terms with the British. If they weren't going to get involved, it was highly unlikely he would.

 

[Herman Gigglethorpe]

Just like to remind everyone that the French are at this point running around in Mexico, so maybe they can be dragged in some way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_intervention_in_Mexico

Also their are a lot of German's fighting for the Union prehaps we can drag some of the German states in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XI_Corps_(Union_Army)

Yes! I'm glad someone brought up the time of Emperor Maximilian. This is the reason Cinco de Mayo exists. The whole reason Napoleon III decided to make a puppet emperor was because the U.S. was in a Civil War, and they didn't want "Anglo" countries to be too powerful. Unfortunately for both Napoleon and Maximilian, the U.S. supported the restoration of Benito Juárez after the war ended.

One problem for anyone siding with the Confederacy is the slavery issue. Would they be forced to make some kind of concession to gain allies like in How Few Remain? Confederate cotton also became irrelevant thanks to Egypt growing the crop.

 

[Lindseyman]

If Seward is President instead of Lincoln he was more than capable of upsetting the British so much that they could be driven to declare war on the US. It would however be unlikely for the reasons mentioned above. They might wage an economic war on the US AFTER they have won the ACW but the US would be such a good market during the reconstruction that I can't see British Industry letting it happen

 

[Escape Zeppelin]

A weaker Mexico and a stronger CSA

I think you'd have to have some major changes for Europe to get involved in the American Civil War. As people above have pointed out slavery was a major issue against British support for the CSA and France as busy in Mexico. And neither had any real reason to fight for or against the US.

I think a good departure point would be the Mexican-American War. If the US was to take more of Mexico's territory in that war it could lead to a stronger Confederacy. The French in Mexico (less afraid of US retaliation because of the stronger relative strength of the CSA) use the opportunity of the war to invade the lost Mexican territory as a Mexican "liberator". They unite the Mexican people under French rule with dreams of a restored Mexico. France allies with the US against the CSA in exchange for a return of some of the former Mexican land. The US, worried about losing the war agrees to turn over the territory as it's full of people they don't want and barely controlled anyway.

Bringing a client Mexico solidly into the French empire and a strong CSA in the Caribbean could probably get Spain involved in the war. Their history of slavery and their island possessions, including Cuba, make them a possible ally for the CSA to help raid French and Mexican shipping. Spain sees the turmoil as an opportunity to bring their navy to Latin America and reassert dominance over some of their old colonies.

It's a stretch but US-France-Mexico vs CSA-Spain war would have a possibility of spreading elsewhere but I can't see the European powers letting it get out of hand like WWI. Barring France or Spain doing something stupid like attacking Gibraltar, I just can't see Britain entering the war even then. They have nothing to gain by fighting when they can just sit on the sidelines selling weapons to everyone and feeling smug. Especially after the Emancipation Proclamation. The UK might not have the best relationship with the US but the general population truly hated slavery.

 

[VirginiaHistoryTeacher]

I love this sorta thing. Alternates on the ACW are my favorite. I'm currently working on an alternate of Confederate victory that begins during the American Revolution.

 

[robcraufurd]

Prussia, or the North German Federation, could also be an ally do to the Germans making up a large portion of American ancestry.

Except that almost all the notable Germans on the Union side- Franz Sigel, Louis Blenker, Alexander Schimmelfennig, Carl Schurz, Max Weber, August Willich, Frederick C. Salomon- fought against the Prussians in 1848. That's why they're in America.

Given how unlikely it is that the war escalates via Britain or France entering to support a slaveholders' rebellion, I wonder if there's any mileage in a European war being extended to the Americas. Russia's fleet, after all, hid in Union ports when it looked like war would break out over Poland (presumably in the hope that they wouldn't have to scuttle themselves shortly after the outbreak, like the Black Sea Fleet in the Crimea). It's possible that Union officials might have bent the neutrality rules on their behalf- allowing Russian cruisers more than the 24 hour limit to refit, that sort of thing. They might even have built ships for the Russians as they did during the Crimean War, in line with the 1822 Supreme Court decision that "there is nothing in our laws, or in the law of nations, that forbids our citizens from sending armed vessels, as well as munitions of war, to foreign ports for sale. It is a commercial venture which no nation is bound to prohibit, and which only exposes the persons engaged in it to the penalty of confiscation."

As far as I can see, though, that Britain would go to war over Poland in the 1860s is a fairly tenuous proposition; that she would then go to war with the Union about breaches of neutrality is even more so.

 

[hasdrubal barca]

Except that almost all the notable Germans on the Union side- Franz Sigel, Louis Blenker, Alexander Schimmelfennig, Carl Schurz, Max Weber, August Willich, Frederick C. Salomon- fought against the Prussians in 1848. That's why they're in America.

more so.

Also Princess Vicky and Crown Prince Frederick just got married, so i doubt Prussia is looking to go against English interests.

 

[Herman Gigglethorpe]

Also Princess Vicky and Crown Prince Frederick just got married, so i doubt Prussia is looking to go against English interests.

Were royal marriages still important to diplomacy in the 19th century? This is an honest question. I would have thought that it would have diminished by then.

Also, most of the royal families being related didn't stop WWI. I don't see how it would be much different here.

 

[hasdrubal barca]

Were royal marriages still important to diplomacy in the 19th century? This is an honest question. I would have thought that it would have diminished by then.

Also, most of the royal families being related didn't stop WWI. I don't see how it would be much different here.

Kaiser Wilhelm: "To think that George and Nicky should have played me false! If my grandmotherhad been alive, she would never have allowed it"

Queen Victoria served as an overseer to all the little brat monarchs, with her still alive they will follow orders!

 

[robcraufurd]

Were royal marriages still important to diplomacy in the 19th century? This is an honest question. I would have thought that it would have diminished by then.

They were apparently still important enough for the following notice to have been published on the engagement of the Prince of Wales to Alexandra of Denmark:

"We understand that the marriage of the Prince of Wales to Princess Alexandra of Denmark has been privately settled at Brussels, and that it is based entirely on mutual affection and the personal merit of the young princess, and is in no way connected with political considerations..."

 

[hasdrubal barca]

They were apparently still important enough for the following notice to have been published on the engagement of the Prince of Wales to Alexandra of Denmark:

"We understand that the marriage of the Prince of Wales to Princess Alexandra of Denmark has been privately settled at Brussels, and that it is based entirely on mutual affection and the personal merit of the young princess, and is in no way connected with political considerations..."

that marriage was meaningless Prussia was still allowed to smack Denmark.

 

[robcraufurd]

that marriage was meaningless Prussia was still allowed to smack Denmark.

But the fact that an official announcement had to be made stating that the marriage was not for political reasons is quite pertinent to the question of how important royal marriages were to diplomacy in the 1860s, is it not?

 

[Flocculencio]

Except that almost all the notable Germans on the Union side- Franz Sigel, Louis Blenker, Alexander Schimmelfennig, Carl Schurz, Max Weber, August Willich, Frederick C. Salomon- fought against the Prussians in 1848. That's why they're in America.

Also Princess Vicky and Crown Prince Frederick just got married, so i doubt Prussia is looking to go against English interests.

Well and also because states don't go to war for this...

Prussia, or the North German Federation, could also be an ally do to the Germans making up a large portion of American ancestry.

...unless it's an excuse for a casus belli where actual state interests are at stake. The American Civil War threatens none of the German states or their interests in any meaningful way.

 

[Masky]

The United States gets directly involved in the conflict in Mexico, and France is forced to counter the United States. Since Britain was in the coalition against the Republicans of Mexico in the height of the war, perhaps Britain and even Spain are drawn in the war against the United States. Though the United States was tied down with defeats by the Confederates, this would be hard to imagine unless the US has a few decisive victories early on.

Even regarding the American Civil War and not the war in Mexico, Napoleon III supported the Confederacy because of its cotton exports. All he needed was British support, and then he would have aided the Confederates (but probably not declare war on the US directly, but rather give the CSA French weapons).

With French interests in grave danger, though, France would have to act.

If somehow the German unification is involved, the war could expand into Europe, though this would be unlikely as well.

 

[BELFAST]

The Brits are not going to war with Russia as they have just finished fighting the Crimean war.

To make war more lightly you need the Union navy to sink the Trent in international waters.
Royal navy would be able to blockade union ports.