ukron
Commander
"Beware of the French"
Posts: 1,433
Likes: 2,383
|
Post by ukron on May 11, 2020 11:33:59 GMT
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608 
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on May 11, 2020 17:39:55 GMT
Not something I have heard of before and interesting indeed. However... this is post-1900 in the pre-1990 forum. |
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on May 11, 2020 21:07:51 GMT
With regards to McClellan, his plan was to offer an armistice and then begin peace talks. The problem with such was well known by the Lincoln Administration and was why they repeatedly rebuffed European efforts along these lines in both 1862 and 1863; it's de facto recognition of the Confederacy as it gives official legitimacy to their government, inviting the Europeans to get involved. Even ignoring that, once the fighting stops, it's going to be next to impossible to restart with a Democratic congress elected on a Pro-Peace platform. McClellan will also not find friends with the Republicans in this regard, as once he promises to preserve slavery many of them will cease their support. As for France, it's Napoleon lol.
Napoleon III not Napoleon I. The former has much greater realisation of his countries limitation - albeit not how weak his military's top leadership and organisation was, as 1870 showed. Hence why he was reluctant to step in without Britain agreeing.
I agree that it would be difficult getting the war restarted if there was an armistice but I suspect not as impossible as your suggesting. The basic argument for the armistice is to stop fighting while trying to organise a peaceful unification. With a stated intent to resume the conflict if such agreement isn't achieved. For every northern who was willing to accept an independent south there will be other who reject the idea, hence the war in the 1st place. Plus an armistice doesn't mean ending the blockade, which was the main tool for continuing to weaken an already drained south.
Yes, Napoleon III but he was just as delusional as the first; his entire Mexican adventure is a firm example of that. Indeed, his designs are summed up as follows: As for McClellan, to summarize what an armistice would mean: With that action, the European powers would recognize the Confederacy and with a Pro-Peace Administration and Congress, it would be impossible for him to restart the conflict. |
|
ukron
Commander
"Beware of the French"
Posts: 1,433
Likes: 2,383
|
Post by ukron on May 12, 2020 6:20:18 GMT
Not something I have heard of before and interesting indeed. However... this is post-1900 in the pre-1990 forum. Ah, sorry Thanks for correction. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on May 12, 2020 11:43:25 GMT
Napoleon III not Napoleon I. The former has much greater realisation of his countries limitation - albeit not how weak his military's top leadership and organisation was, as 1870 showed. Hence why he was reluctant to step in without Britain agreeing.
I agree that it would be difficult getting the war restarted if there was an armistice but I suspect not as impossible as your suggesting. The basic argument for the armistice is to stop fighting while trying to organise a peaceful unification. With a stated intent to resume the conflict if such agreement isn't achieved. For every northern who was willing to accept an independent south there will be other who reject the idea, hence the war in the 1st place. Plus an armistice doesn't mean ending the blockade, which was the main tool for continuing to weaken an already drained south.
Yes, Napoleon III but he was just as delusional as the first; his entire Mexican adventure is a firm example of that. Indeed, his designs are summed up as follows: As for McClellan, to summarize what an armistice would mean: With that action, the European powers would recognize the Confederacy and with a Pro-Peace Administration and Congress, it would be impossible for him to restart the conflict.
Napoleon III had a much greater understanding of France's limitations - hence the fact he waited on a British lead which of course never came - before any recognition of the south. He over-estimated France's power in 1870 but then so did a lot of the rest of the world with many thinking that France would defeat the Prussian lead alliance and few if any a quick French collapse. Which was at least in part because Napoleon's own mis-leadership. He may have believed he could have achieved the sort of balance of power in the southern part of N America mentioned above but he would have found himself deeply mistaken.
There is a difference between a proposal by a foreign leader who the north has a reason to mistrust and which is seen as breaking up the union and a proposal for a peaceful reunification by a man elected as US President on the basis of it. Yes if things fell through there would have been a fair number who didn't want to resume full conflict but I suspect that would be at least as big a problem for the south, with its more limited resources and being blamed for the continued conflict as for the north.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on May 12, 2020 11:45:22 GMT
Heard of it before and vaguely away of events but unfortunately as James says a little outside the limits of this thread. Possibly start a thread on it elsewhere? Sounds from a quick look at the link as if it could have gone in multiple directions.
|
|
ukron
Commander
"Beware of the French"
Posts: 1,433
Likes: 2,383
|
Post by ukron on May 12, 2020 15:13:01 GMT
Heard of it before and vaguely away of events but unfortunately as James says a little outside the limits of this thread. Possibly start a thread on it elsewhere? Sounds from a quick look at the link as if it could have gone in multiple directions.
Agree...it will be interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on May 12, 2020 23:52:11 GMT
Yes, Napoleon III but he was just as delusional as the first; his entire Mexican adventure is a firm example of that. Indeed, his designs are summed up as follows: As for McClellan, to summarize what an armistice would mean: With that action, the European powers would recognize the Confederacy and with a Pro-Peace Administration and Congress, it would be impossible for him to restart the conflict.
Napoleon III had a much greater understanding of France's limitations - hence the fact he waited on a British lead which of course never came - before any recognition of the south. He over-estimated France's power in 1870 but then so did a lot of the rest of the world with many thinking that France would defeat the Prussian lead alliance and few if any a quick French collapse. Which was at least in part because Napoleon's own mis-leadership. He may have believed he could have achieved the sort of balance of power in the southern part of N America mentioned above but he would have found himself deeply mistaken.
There is a difference between a proposal by a foreign leader who the north has a reason to mistrust and which is seen as breaking up the union and a proposal for a peaceful reunification by a man elected as US President on the basis of it. Yes if things fell through there would have been a fair number who didn't want to resume full conflict but I suspect that would be at least as big a problem for the south, with its more limited resources and being blamed for the continued conflict as for the north.
By 1863, Napoleon was prepared to intervene on his own provided the situation was open to such. The UK, meanwhile, even in March of 1865 said recognition was contingent, not upon slavery, but upon the Confederates winning their independence upon the battlefield. As William Drayton informed Seward in the Summer of 1863, should the Government be driven out of Washington, recognition would follow from Europe for the Confederacy. With both the Army of the Potomac and Army of the Cumberland, 110,000 Union soldiers, the Federal's most veteran armies and nearly 20% of the entire Union Army, gone, the situation is therefore open for the French to intervene but also the British. As for McClellan, with a Pro-Peace Congress controlling the purse strings and his own cabinet against the War, he can do nothing. Negotiations will stall out and the public opinion of the North will not permit him to re-open the conflict; after all, he would've been elected on a Pro-Peace plank. The Europeans nations too, will take the sign of official recognition as key to interposing themselves into the proceedings too. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on May 13, 2020 11:31:45 GMT
Napoleon III had a much greater understanding of France's limitations - hence the fact he waited on a British lead which of course never came - before any recognition of the south. He over-estimated France's power in 1870 but then so did a lot of the rest of the world with many thinking that France would defeat the Prussian lead alliance and few if any a quick French collapse. Which was at least in part because Napoleon's own mis-leadership. He may have believed he could have achieved the sort of balance of power in the southern part of N America mentioned above but he would have found himself deeply mistaken.
There is a difference between a proposal by a foreign leader who the north has a reason to mistrust and which is seen as breaking up the union and a proposal for a peaceful reunification by a man elected as US President on the basis of it. Yes if things fell through there would have been a fair number who didn't want to resume full conflict but I suspect that would be at least as big a problem for the south, with its more limited resources and being blamed for the continued conflict as for the north.
By 1863, Napoleon was prepared to intervene on his own provided the situation was open to such. The UK, meanwhile, even in March of 1865 said recognition was contingent, not upon slavery, but upon the Confederates winning their independence upon the battlefield. As William Drayton informed Seward in the Summer of 1863, should the Government be driven out of Washington, recognition would follow from Europe for the Confederacy. With both the Army of the Potomac and Army of the Cumberland, 110,000 Union soldiers, the Federal's most veteran armies and nearly 20% of the entire Union Army, gone, the situation is therefore open for the French to intervene but also the British. As for McClellan, with a Pro-Peace Congress controlling the purse strings and his own cabinet against the War, he can do nothing. Negotiations will stall out and the public opinion of the North will not permit him to re-open the conflict; after all, he would've been elected on a Pro-Peace plank. The Europeans nations too, will take the sign of official recognition as key to interposing themselves into the proceedings too.
As you say if the situation was open to such. They may in this scenario have managed to badly maul the AotP but totally destroying it is pretty much impossible given the resources available to the south by this time and the capital is heavily fortified while the union have the rail system to pull in other forces.
Assuming William Drayton is this one? William_L._Dayton. It seems to be a popular name in US government at this time but he's the only one alive in this period and a northern Republican. He was US ambassador to France at this time so may have had a fair knowledge of what Napoleon planned but possibly less on the British situation. Although the capture on the enemies capital, despite much of the south already being occupied, might have a significant impact on opinion in Europe..
Your expressing an opinion on how powerless a McClellen Presidency would be to keep his word but is it more than that? If he offers peace and the south reject it then there's likely to be anger in both north and south against those doing so. It could go your way, or another.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on May 14, 2020 5:53:35 GMT
By 1863, Napoleon was prepared to intervene on his own provided the situation was open to such. The UK, meanwhile, even in March of 1865 said recognition was contingent, not upon slavery, but upon the Confederates winning their independence upon the battlefield. As William Drayton informed Seward in the Summer of 1863, should the Government be driven out of Washington, recognition would follow from Europe for the Confederacy. With both the Army of the Potomac and Army of the Cumberland, 110,000 Union soldiers, the Federal's most veteran armies and nearly 20% of the entire Union Army, gone, the situation is therefore open for the French to intervene but also the British. As for McClellan, with a Pro-Peace Congress controlling the purse strings and his own cabinet against the War, he can do nothing. Negotiations will stall out and the public opinion of the North will not permit him to re-open the conflict; after all, he would've been elected on a Pro-Peace plank. The Europeans nations too, will take the sign of official recognition as key to interposing themselves into the proceedings too.
As you say if the situation was open to such. They may in this scenario have managed to badly maul the AotP but totally destroying it is pretty much impossible given the resources available to the south by this time and the capital is heavily fortified while the union have the rail system to pull in other forces.
Assuming William Drayton is this one? William_L._Dayton. It seems to be a popular name in US government at this time but he's the only one alive in this period and a northern Republican. He was US ambassador to France at this time so may have had a fair knowledge of what Napoleon planned but possibly less on the British situation. Although the capture on the enemies capital, despite much of the south already being occupied, might have a significant impact on opinion in Europe..
Your expressing an opinion on how powerless a McClellen Presidency would be to keep his word but is it more than that? If he offers peace and the south reject it then there's likely to be anger in both north and south against those doing so. It could go your way, or another.
Steve
How are the resources of the South against such? IOTL, General Ewell was able to pierce Meade's flank, with Meade not finding out about this for 11 hours. The Army of the Potomac's only route of supply and retreat was the Orange and Alexandria railway; the nearest other Union controlled rail head is 100 miles away. Even worse, the Army of the Potomac was divided with a river between it. By the time Meade withdraw his forward detachments, Lee could have his entire Army behind Meade and in defensive positions, having cut his only means of escape. That's ~70,000 men killed or PoW, Gettysburg and Vicksburg repaid in full with extra on its own. However, as outlined, it does not stop there. At this point, there are no standing forces of size to deter Lee in the Eastern Theater. Washington might be heavily fortified but that is a weakness here; its garrison is immobile and even if that were not the case, it is smaller than Lee's 50,000 strong force. Washington is only supplied by one railway line to its North, while the Confederacy already in late 1861 showed they could cut the sealanes into the city with artillery positions along the Potomac. In effect, Lee can besiege the city into surrender and whether he takes or not is irrelevant, as he's as good as driven the Federals from the city. As Drayton said in July of 1863, such would bring about recognition; the UK position, as I said, was in agreement with this even at this stage that decisive success on the battlefield would lead to such. The Federals could, of course, prevent this by sending in reinforcements from the West. The problem therein is that any force of troops they could pull from the West would mean the loss of the 40,000 men currently under siege at Chattanooga. If the Federals lose both the Army of the Cumberland and the Army of the Potomac, that is 110,000 men, a clearly decisive set of circumstances. To put this into context, the French lost 122,000 at Sedan from a total Army strength that was about 300,000 larger than the Union Army in 1863. Either circumstance here is decisive for achieving Anglo-French recognition or even just French recognition, as well as breaking Union morale the same way French morale was broke. |
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on May 14, 2020 16:51:15 GMT
‘No French Revolution’.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on May 15, 2020 9:52:31 GMT
Depends on the cause. I assume you don't mean France doesn't interfere in the American rebellion and massively increase its debts further?
Possibly if the monarchy can succeed in persuading the clergy and aristocracy not to be so bloody stupid and to accept paying taxes. That could ease both the economic crisis and the social tension, although unless there's broader social change something is likely to happen sooner or later.
The other alternative, at least for a while, is that the monarchy and military dither less and are able to stamp down on unrest in Paris before it gets out of hand. There seems to have been opportunities for this but Louis XVI lacked the will to move quickly. Again you are likely to have a big storm sooner or later but that could be a generation or two down the line. Possibly after the next round of dynastic wars? Also you might still have unrest in some other areas but if the regime acts quickly their probably going to be repressed.
Either way a delayed revolution will likely mean things go on pretty much as before. Poland will still be partitioned as that had already started, probably in a similar way. France and Britain combined might oppose this but I doubt they would act together.
Since in the wider world the US revolution was a low level win for the Bourbon powers but Britain bounced back pretty quickly its likely that there will be another conflict at some point. A lot would depend on whether there would be war on the continent at the same time and if so what coalition was involved. If it was just a colonial conflict as in the 1770's then without the US rebellion the UK may get some revenge, especially since I suspect Britain may be more eager for a fight and some payback. You could even see a de facto alliance with the US here as a war with the Bourbon powers would increase the chances of the US being able to attack Florida for instance. For Britain I wouldn't assume great gains but probably strengthening its grip in India and say positions in the the Caribbean and what's now the Oregon region. Might also regain Minorca if things go well. Without a reaction against the French revolution and its violence you might ideally also see earlier political reform in Britain.
Russia I'm not sure on. Still going to develop as a great power but whether faster or slower I don't know.
Then at some point your going to see unrest in Europe that does take off. Probably most likely in France as its the most developed large continental power and with more contact with the rest of the world. Also its likely some will be inspired by what they know of the American revolution. Sooner or later there is going to be either a successful revolution or the system is going to have to accept reform and I fear the former is more likely.
Depending on this and whether its accompanied by the OTL level of military successes as to how strong the liberty, equality and fraternity sort of concept will spread or whether there will be anything massively different.
Anyway initial ideas.
Steve
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on May 20, 2020 17:28:33 GMT
Prussia's Friedrich III lives and the early years of his reign see Bismarck stay where he is.
No German attempts at global expansion?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,433
|
Post by lordroel on May 20, 2020 17:39:07 GMT
Prussia's Friedrich III lives and the early years of his reign see Bismarck stay where he is. No German attempts at global expansion? A larger German land army instead of having Friedrich III son spend his money on his pet navy, that is a troublesome for any German opponent.. |
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on May 21, 2020 1:24:53 GMT
‘No War of 1812’.
|
|
