Re: [OT] Invading America

On Thu, 30 May 2002 10:46:43 -0400, John Sowerby <sowerbyj@fiu.edu>
wrote:

>Yes, the politics is pretty strange. I know that the British wanted to
look 
>the other way at times for the sake of the cotton, but the slavery
issue 
>should still have been a sticking point in any alliance between the CSA
and 
>GB.

Not if Britain had recognized the South early on in the Civil War. Note
that
North didn't actually abolish slavery until 1864.

I haven't read _How Few Remain_, yet, which is the book that covers the
second
American Civil War. Turtledove is using either a win at Antietam by the
CSA,
or the "Lost Order" never getting lost as the point where history
changes. The
CSA successfully invades the north in 1862. This means that Lincoln
doesn't
have his "victory" and thus does not roll out the Emancipation
Proclamation.

Britain and France were both pretty close to recognizing the CSA in
1862.
Lincoln was a master politician. With a notable exception of
"blockading"
Southern ports, he steadfastly held to the idea that there was a civil
insurrection going on, and that the South was not a separate belligerent
(the
exception was declaring a "blockade" of Southern ports, but legally you
don't
"blockade" your own ports, you "close" them). The South was still part
of the
Union, and the war was all an internal "police" matter.

Before Britain or France would recognize the South as a belligerent,
separate
nation, they needed proof that the South would probably win the war.
Otherwise, they would be interfering in the matters of a sovereign
nation.
This was against international treaties and would result in all sorts of
commercial and military messes in Europe amongst the other powers.

Britain and France needed a major campaign victory before they could
recognize
the South as a nation. Up until August 1862, the Confederacy had managed
to
win most of the battles in the Eastern Theatre, but the Union army was
still
in Southern territory. In the west, the Union had seized New Orleans,
the
largest city in the Confederacy, and had won key strategic victories.
The
South needed something major to show that they were capable of winning
the
war. Taking the war to the North and winning a major battle on Northern
soil
would probably have done it. Capturing Washington (or maybe Baltimore or
Philadelphia, perhaps even Harrisburg) would definitely have done it.

In real life General Robert E. Lee began an invasion of the North by
marching
through Maryland. During the march, a copy of Lee's orders detailing the
location and march order of every unit (the copy intended for General D.
H.
Hill) was lost en route, and found by the Union. General McClellan took
the
order and struck at Lee. This ended in the battle of
Antietam/Sharpsburg. It
was really a draw, but since Lee retreated from the field the Union was
able
to claim it as a victory.

This victory was what Lincoln had sought. In order to stop Britain and
France
from recognizing the Confederacy, he had produced the Emancipation
Proclamation. It would free slaves in captured Southern territory (it
didn't
free slaves in states already captured, like chunks of Tennessee, nor
did it
free slaves in the northern slave state of Delaware). This was the first
big
step towards abolishing slavery. The average Briton was against slavery
(the
British aristocracy felt a bond with the Confederate "aristocracy",
though),
so the Proclamation would make it politically difficult for Britain to
recognize the Confederacy. 

Lincoln needed a victory before acting on this Proclamation. If he did
it
after a major loss, it would only look desperate. This would signal to
Britain
and France that a Confederate victory was inevitable, giving them the
excuse
they needed for recognition. Lincoln took the "victory" at Antietam and
used
it. The Proclamation went through at just the right time, and Britain in
particular backed away from Southern recognition.

If Lee had successfully invaded the North (against McClellan that was
quite
possible), or if the South had won at Antietam, it is quite possible
that
Britain would have recognized the South as an independent nation. This
would
have destroyed the legal fabrication that the South was in insurrection.
Britain would have put itself in the place of arbitrating a settlement
(British commerce was affected by the war, after all) and would have
intervened if the Union had balked. The South would have gained its
independence.

The South would then become an ally of Britain. It would probably start
to
dismantle slavery, though perhaps not for one or two decades after the
war. In
either case, the slavery issue would not prevent Britain from being
allies
with the CSA in this alternative time frame.

Allan Goodall		       agoodall@hyperbear.com
http://www.hyperbear.com

"At long last, the earthy soil of the typical, 
unimaginable mortician was revealed!" 
 - from the Random H.P. Lovecraft Story Generator: