Is Another War Between USA and CSA Inevitable?

[Mikestone8]

It's hard to say who would be in the top leadership positions of the Confederacy after the war is over. Most of the extreme fire-eaters were sidelined soon after the war began, after all.

FTM, Garrison and other prominent abolitionists didn't play much of a role on the Union side.

Oddly enough it had been the same in the ARW. Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine and other early fire eaters never amounted to anything once the war and its aftermath got properly under way.

 

[Elfwine]

I think the actual Confederate congress was pyrophagical enough for that statement.

Or at least overconfident.

And they, and to some extent the generals, represent the group in power socially.

 

[Johnrankins]

If the CSA gains independence because of foreign intervention or has it forced upon them then there will be bad blood and a desire for a rematch, probably around WW1 with the likely Confederate benefactors tied up in Europe

If it's more peaceful, North America may well end up knowing the same peace it knows in the OTL. A big issue would be territory, what does the CSA get and what does the USA stand to lose, does it get Kentucky, Maryland, the Indian Territory, the New Mexico Territory, does Missouri get split into a Confederate State of South Missouri and a Federal State of North Missouri?

In time it might be that the CSA becomes an ally of the USA and they enjoy a respectful partnership, slavery will be an issue but realistically the CSA could not maintain slavery in an increasingly industrialized world. Unless owners start making slaves work in factories which will piss off an awful lot of white Confederates. One option could be a Confederate alliance with the Empire of Brazil, the only other big slaveowning nation though it's got an abolitionist Emperor. Combined a CSA-Imperial Brazillian Pact could result in a more modernized and especially industrialized Brazil (to offset the much more agrarian CS reliance on the industrial USA) which would make the power-balance in the Americas much more interesting

And without a border there's less chance of the US helping Juarez against Maximillian I so the Empire of Mexico may end up lasting and becoming the feeble third sibling of the Richmond-Rio-Mexico City Axis

Slaves were ALREADY being used in factories and their number was increasing. Although another war would not be inevitable it would be extremely likely. The CSA government would be extremely fragile with a huge debt, ruined infrastructure, high inflation and Unionist areas all around the South. This is true even in an 1862 victory. There would need to be a large army to recapture slaves and prevent further escapes as their would no longer be a FSL in effect to the north or west. The US government would at the very least look the other way when the Underground Railroad helps free slaves. If nothing else that will hurt its chief rival. On the other hand the South was kidnapping Blacks before the war and not overly careful to make sure they were slaves or not. This will very likely continue after the war. No self-respecting government allows its citizens to be kidnapped on its soil, even 2nd or 3rd class ones. All this causes tension that makes an outbreak of war very likely. Once it does happen the CSA won't stand a chance.

 

[katchen]

No self-respecting government allows it's citizens to be captured on it's soil and taken away, but until the 14th Amendment passed, African Americans were not citizens anywhere in the United States. And there were quite a few places in the US where they were not at all welcome. Certainly not after sundown. In truth, the North was quite ambivalent about African Americans. For many Americans at that time, banning slavery meant banning African-Americans very presence, free or slave. For that reason, I doubt if the kidnapping of African-Americans would be seen by Americans as a reason for another war with the Confederacy.

 

[Nofix]

No self-respecting government allows it's citizens to be captured on it's soil and taken away, but until the 14th Amendment passed, African Americans were not citizens anywhere in the United States. And there were quite a few places in the US where they were not at all welcome. Certainly not after sundown. In truth, the North was quite ambivalent about African Americans. For many Americans at that time, banning slavery meant banning African-Americans very presence, free or slave. For that reason, I doubt if the kidnapping of African-Americans would be seen by Americans as a reason for another war with the Confederacy.

It'll be considered theft at least, under the idea that Slaves are property. And again no country is going to allow another one to steal it's people or its stuff without heavy payback.

 

[Johnrankins]

It'll be considered theft at least, under the idea that Slaves are property. And again no country is going to allow another one to steal it's people or its stuff without heavy payback.

Agreed, even if they are considered 3rd class citizens or residents or whatever you consider them they are on YOUR soil and no self respecting government is going to allow them to be seized on their own soil without doing something about it.

 

[Mikestone8]

Agreed, even if they are considered 3rd class citizens or residents or whatever you consider them they are on YOUR soil and no self respecting government is going to allow them to be seized on their own soil without doing something about it.

All of which raises another point.

If the CS victory is a "late" one, with the North getting tired and giving up in 1864, then huge chunks of the Confederacy are under Union occupation, esp in the Mississippi Valley. If the Union Army pulls out of this region, you're going to get many thousands of slaves attempting to go with them.

Where do they all go? I can't see any northern state being eager to accommodate them in such numbers. Can the North find anywhere to "bin" them?

 

[Johnrankins]

All of which raises another point.

If the CS victory is a "late" one, with the North getting tires and giving up in 1864, then huge chunks of the Confederacy are under Union occupation, esp in the Mississippi Valley. If the Union Army pulls out of this region, you're going to get many thousands of slave attempting to go with them.

Where do they all go? I can't see any northern state being eager to accommodate them in such numbers. Can the North find anywhere to "bin" them?

Send them out into the western deserts. New Mexico and Arizona Territories would be a good choice. Part of it tried to secede but with say 50,000 Blacks settled there you won't have to worry about it trying again AND it would stop any CSA attempt to go west. If you are really worried about it send some to Nebraska Territory just to be sure.

 

[zoomar]

Actually, I think this is a minority view - a view that reflects the fact that so many people read and talk about Turtledove's TL-191 series.

My own view is that a second war between the USA and CSA is highly unlikely because the CSA is not likely to become a major power and long term threat to the US. At least as long as it retains slavery (which I think will be as long as possible) it will have no permanent alliances with any major European nation. It will be inward-looking, and be forced to emphasize economic survival and adaptation to a world within which it is a pariah with not much to offer. King Cotton is dead.. On the other hand the US will be hesitant for reunification with southern states that retain slavery and as the US adapts to nationhood without southerners it will see less and less reason to risk money and lives reconquering it. In my opinion, it is far more likely that the confederacy will collapse with all or part of it being grudgingly accepted back into the USA (with very strong conditions) than it will again fight the US as a powerful unified federation.

 

[King Midas]

Maybe I should post this in the Unpopular Opinions thread.

But I see a Unionist reconquest effort extremely unlikely. IMNSHO, a Federal defeat would cause a "Viet Nam Syndrome."

"We just fought a devastating war! Unimaginable casualties, as well as horrific treasure expended! For what? For nothing! NOTHING! And now some sabre rattling idiot wants to do it again????" <Cue the "Thousands of Bodybags" meme>

 

[Elfwine]

Actually, I think this is a minority view - a view that reflects the fact that so many people read and talk about Turtledove's TL-191 series.

My own view is that a second war between the USA and CSA is highly unlikely because the CSA is not likely to become a major power and long term threat to the US.

Which has what to do with anything? Nations fight wars with countries that aren't "long term threats" to them all the time.

Ask Spain (victim of that in 1898) for an OTL example.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

Slaves were ALREADY being used in factories and their number was increasing. Although another war would not be inevitable it would be extremely likely. The CSA government would be extremely fragile with a huge debt, ruined infrastructure, high inflation and Unionist areas all around the South. This is true even in an 1862 victory. There would need to be a large army to recapture slaves and prevent further escapes as their would no longer be a FSL in effect to the north or west. The US government would at the very least look the other way when the Underground Railroad helps free slaves. If nothing else that will hurt its chief rival. On the other hand the South was kidnapping Blacks before the war and not overly careful to make sure they were slaves or not. This will very likely continue after the war. No self-respecting government allows its citizens to be kidnapped on its soil, even 2nd or 3rd class ones. All this causes tension that makes an outbreak of war very likely. Once it does happen the CSA won't stand a chance.

IMO, in this scenario, I would think the American government would eventually co-operate in sealing the border.

The enjoyment of seeing their enemies getting shafted would be more than balanced out by the desire to NOT have tens of thousands of poor starving blacks sneaking into and though out US territory.

But yes, the kidnapping would be stopped hard. THe South is going to have to give up on that one.

After a few slave hunters just don't come back, that job will stop being filled.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

And as for the Confederacy being expansionist, IMO their targets would Mexico, and other Latin American and Caribbean lands.

 

[zoomar]

Which has what to do with anything? Nations fight wars with countries that aren't "long term threats" to them all the time.

Ask Spain (victim of that in 1898) for an OTL example.

Point taken. I suppose I can ask Mexico as well.

OK, to be a bit more crass, countries fight wars with other countries to get something they want (that they can't easily get through diplomacy or money). With respect to the USA and CSA, I am among those that believe the USA will not want the CSA (and its millions of black africans - enslaved or otherwise) back - at least not enough to fight for it. I am also of the opinion that the CSA will be so weak and isolated diplomatically that the CSA would be unwilling to challenge the US and US could get just about anything it wanted from the CSA (like favorable trade arrangements, military bases, etc., just by waving sticks and carrots around - ergo, little reason for a wars with them

 

[Johnrankins]

IMO, in this scenario, I would think the American government would eventually co-operate in sealing the border.

The enjoyment of seeing their enemies getting shafted would be more than balanced out by the desire to NOT have tens of thousands of poor starving blacks sneaking into and though out US territory.

But yes, the kidnapping would be stopped hard. THe South is going to have to give up on that one.

After a few slave hunters just don't come back, that job will stop being filled.

The problem is that the border is way too long and there are far too few people to guard it. It would be hugely expensive for the US government to do. We can't seal the border with Mexico NOW, how can the US government do so in the 19th century?

The kidnapping wouldn't stop and a few slave hunters not coming probably would only make a dent in it. The pay is far too lucrative.

 

[Johnrankins]

Point taken. I suppose I can ask Mexico as well.

OK, to be a bit more crass, countries fight wars with other countries to get something they want (that they can't easily get through diplomacy or money). With respect to the USA and CSA, I am among those that believe the USA will not want the CSA (and its millions of black africans - enslaved or otherwise) back - at least not enough to fight for it. I am also of the opinion that the CSA will be so weak and isolated diplomatically that the CSA would be unwilling to challenge the US and US could get just about anything it wanted from the CSA (like favorable trade arrangements, military bases, etc., just by waving sticks and carrots around - ergo, little reason for a wars with them

The mere existence of the CSA is a threat to the US government. It sets the precedent that you can break up the country on a whim and get away with it. For a long time the US government would have to do everything in its power to make sure the CSA fails. It doesn't have to directly take over but it has to make sure that it is such a 3rd world disaster that no one in their right mind would want to repeat.

 

[thekingsguard]

It's all but guaranteed, given the nature of the split, and the spirit of the times. Very likely, Confederate independance would be forced on the USA by Britain/France, ensuring decades of bad blood, and every year that goes by, the rematch would go more and more in America's favor. All it takes is a single jingoistic President, and the USA will ride to war to reclaim our Southern States.

 

[Reggie Bartlett]

It's hard to say who would be in the top leadership positions of the Confederacy after the war is over. Most of the extreme fire-eaters were sidelined soon after the war began, after all.

Yes exactly, who would be leading the CSA at that point? James Longstreet? Woodrow Wilson?

These could be some moderate people compared to just 50 years earlier.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Actually, I think this is a minority view - a view that reflects the fact that so many people read and talk about Turtledove's TL-191 series.

My own view is that a second war between the USA and CSA is highly unlikely because the CSA is not likely to become a major power and long term threat to the US. At least as long as it retains slavery (which I think will be as long as possible) it will have no permanent alliances with any major European nation. It will be inward-looking, and be forced to emphasize economic survival and adaptation to a world within which it is a pariah with not much to offer. King Cotton is dead.. On the other hand the US will be hesitant for reunification with southern states that retain slavery and as the US adapts to nationhood without southerners it will see less and less reason to risk money and lives reconquering it. In my opinion, it is far more likely that the confederacy will collapse with all or part of it being grudgingly accepted back into the USA (with very strong conditions) than it will again fight the US as a powerful unified federation.

I agree with you. What makes good fiction doesn't necessary work out to good fact. The Canadians and Americans have gotten along for decades, not to mention the Anglo-American relationship that dates back centuries (including the Canadians of course).

 

[Johnrankins]

I agree with you. What makes good fiction doesn't necessary work out to good fact. The Canadians and Americans have gotten along for decades, not to mention the Anglo-American relationship that dates back centuries (including the Canadians of course).

Neither Canada or the UK were ever part of the same country. Hardly the same thing. You are far more likely to have an India/Pakistan, North and South Korea, North and South Vietnam situation than anything else.