Once upon a time, I read some history article where the author said that the European powers were quite aware that in the immediate post-US Civil War, the US military was effectively the largest and most experienced in the world. He also said they were aware that the US War machine (factories, soldiers already holding guns and ammo, etc.) was already up and running at a furious rate.
His conclusion was that none of them wanted to tangle so much with that military at that time.
No government- or at least no government that is not utopianly libertarian- can voluntarily acquiesce to its own dissolution. If the southern states could renounce the federal government’s authority at will, the fed would become a toothless nonentity. Enough people in Lincoln’s administration and the Congress felt this way to support a war following Fort Sumter.
This in fact explains why so many libertarian/anarchist people denigrate Lincoln and the Union despite the profound illiberalism of the South: they see the Civil War as a prime example of government as a mindless superorganism concerned first and foremost with its own survival and perpetuation, human factors be damned.
“We are forced to side with the slaveholders since that devil Lincoln is a known statist.”
They were quite friendly towards France and wanted France to recognize them and intervene in the war. France toyed with the idea of joining in the war, and floated a proposal for an armistice in 1862 which they hoped would lead to the war permanently stopping so they could resume buying cotton. France didn’t want to intervene and end up at war with the US without British involvement, so never did anything more than publish the proposal, but in the alternative timeline where the Confederacy becomes independent it seems likely that France either already intervened to help, or secured closer ties with them at the end. Having a Confederacy trading cotton with France and serving as a buffer between French interests in Mexico and the US would be very much in France’s interest, and trading cotton with France and having a friendly European power against the US would be very much in the Confederacy’s.
Well when Booth shot Lincoln he yelled “Death to tyrants” not something like “Long live the confederacy”.
Plus a new fleet of ironclad warships. Supposedly Britain and France both had observers at the battle of the Monitor and the Merrimac. If the US wanted to they could have easily marched north and taken Canada from the British.
He also left behind a sealed letter he had written some time before the assassination, in which he said
And signed it
With naval power? The US couldn’t take Canada in the 1812 war.
The North had more and stronger Ironclads than all other nations on earth. We had individual squadrons with more ironclads than all other nations combined. Additionally, the British and French experimental ironclads, though not inherently bad as vessels, were not finished and were built to an already-obsolete design, like ships of the line. The Monitor type vessel has issues in open water, but they were being refined and eventually gave rise to the next generation of warship. However, I don’t believe the British or French had observers at Hampton Roads, although their representatives in Washington likely heard the details later that same day.
Additionally, Britain functionally couldn’t have done anything if the United States, or just the North actually did decide to invade Canada. Even if their fleet acted entirely unopposed in ferrying troops and supplies, they couldn’t sustain the kind of military in Canada that we could. Individual armies in the United States were marching around with the kind of forces that entire European nations had been combining to put into the field fifty years earlier. (Though admittedly, we never tried any concentration as large or mad as Leipzig.)
What could have possibly changed the size, equipment, and experience level of the U.S. military between 1812 and 1866? It’s not like they invaded and defeated a sovereign nation and then fought the most bloody and technologically advanced war to date.
[quote=“Pantastic, post:79, topic:917800, full:true”]
The historical USA was not capable of truly enforcing the Monroe doctrine until almost the 20th century, Britain was actually the primary one enforcing it since ‘no further European colonies in America’ suited their goals. The fact that Britain grabbed the Falkland islands and Belize without the US enforcing anything really highlights that. And the post-civil-war US would have to get to work enforcing in immediately, since there was already a major crisis.[/quote]
Yes/No. What is usually forgotten in American history, or for that matter, present, is that the Caribbean was not some far-off and unknown sea of mystery. Heavy American trade with the region dates back to long before Independence. The U.S. acted as a silent partner in numerous Latin American revolutions. Revolutionaries often traveled through New York as much as London, and used U.S. territory as a safe harbour in time of need. Of course, who knows what would have happened had the Confederacy broken off, but in point of fact the French position in Mexico was weak from the get-go, and North alone could have easily supplied Juarez with sufficient arms and support.
That is true, but we didnt have a army in 1812, mostly militia.
The Union Army at the end of the war was the most powerful on earth, full of battled hardened veterans.
Hell, just form up the Confederate and have them do it.
Dont forget that now there were railroads capable of moving large amounts of men and equipment. Some have said that if the civil war had come say 20 years earlier and seeing most “roads” in the south were not that great its doubtful the north could have moved enough troops to take the south.
Now, that I’ve never heard of.
And that is the problem with U.S. history as taught through high school in the U.S. The Daughter’s of the Confederacy and other groups have set out to completely whitewash the history of slavery and racism in this country. No one at the time had any doubt about why the South was fighting the war. They did not hide it, they not only felt no shame about wanting to expand slavery, they felt it was a moral imperative.
One can’t “white” wash slavery.
The Southern states wanted to keep control of the house of representatives by counting slaves as citizens. The compromise with the North was that Black people be counted as 3/4 of a person.
Well, they wanted to “count” slaves for the purposes of having seats in the House of Representatives allocated to them. They weren’t actually going to let them vote or anything like that. It’s not exactly wildly unreasonable for the states with no or few slaves to say “Hey, you guys are saying this group of human beings are ‘property’ but then you also want to count them like everyone else for the purposes of political representation. What’s up with that?”
Unfortunately everyone then compromised on the issue–the states without slavery or where slavery was in fact clearly on its way out didn’t say “No political representation for people you’re saying you own. Want to increase your representation in the House of Representatives? Start freeing your slaves, like we’re doing!” Maybe without various compromises on slavery the country would have been stillborn; but maybe, if the people in charge back then had understood just how destructive the issue was going to be, they would have found some way to actually put slavery “in the course of ultimate extinction”, and this country might be a century farther along in the path to equal justice and domestic tranquility.
(And it’s 3/5, not 3/4, of course.)
Not citizens, but persons.
Not sure how that is a response to what I wrote. Almost everyone involved with setting up the Constitution was racist. What does that have to do with the concerted effort to rewrite the history of the Confederacy over 100 years later?
Nitpicking, but the DotC effort began only about thirty years after the war.