stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Jun 27, 2023 21:17:37 GMT
The other issue, assuming butterflies doesn't prevent Napoleon III's intervention in Mexico and interactions between the pro-French conservatives in Mexico and Texas is drastically different, This is a big assumption. Remove Mexico's defeat at America's hands from the historical equation, and French military intervention in Mexico becomes far from not a certain thing at all.
Sorry, missed this because of responding to Miletus12 but agree a lot depends on what happens with Mexico. If it can get over Santa Anna without disaster and avoid too much internal division then it has a chance of pulling through and becoming a significant regional power especially.
One issue that comes to mind is if Mexico isn't attacked does the US try war over the Columbia/Oregon region instead? The expansionists will be looking for somewhere. - Which could actually be an alternative path to the aims of the OP. The south won't be happy about new conquests and hence future states in the 'distant' north which won't be open to slavery so they would oppose such a war. Apart from the economic damage that would result as a result of the blockade. Note I'm not saying the US would win as that's very unlikely but the south might fear it would, or be opposed to paying the debts/reparations after the war.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Jun 27, 2023 21:19:06 GMT
The basic problem is perception. Mister Lincoln was not fooled. All that mattered was that Palmerston and Napoleon III were.
You can perceive Lincoln's back-down however you like but it was still a back-down.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jun 27, 2023 23:13:44 GMT
The basic problem is perception. Mister Lincoln was not fooled. All that mattered was that Palmerston and Napoleon III were.
You can perceive Lincoln's back-down however you like but it was still a back-down. Lincoln did not "back down", for the Laird Rams were not delivered, nor did the British interfere.
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Jun 28, 2023 0:56:27 GMT
At this period god did seem to look out for the American empire. Which is the actual ending to the original quote from Bismarck.
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Jun 28, 2023 1:12:03 GMT
One issue that comes to mind is if Mexico isn't attacked does the US try war over the Columbia/Oregon region instead? The expansionists will be looking for somewhere. - Which could actually be an alternative path to the aims of the OP. The south won't be happy about new conquests and hence future states in the 'distant' north which won't be open to slavery so they would oppose such a war. Apart from the economic damage that would result as a result of the blockade. Note I'm not saying the US would win as that's very unlikely but the south might fear it would, or be opposed to paying the debts/reparations after the war. Some politicians could lead the US there. Lewis Cass perhaps. Although he wanted to expand in the southwest in addition to the northwest. I tend to think that the US would not be so dumb as to force things to war with Britain, if it can get the same historical share of Oregon as historical, without war. As blood-curdling as American rhetoric could be at times, and as murderous as Americans could be against certain enemies, the pre-world wars, pre-Cold War United States was overall pretty logical and pragmatic about picking enemies of a size it could handle, and when fighting with bigger enemies, fighting them when they could only devote a fraction of their attention in the direction of the USA. American cocky rhetoric, when voiced by American politicians with power to actually control events, was more a tactic to win the esteem of their countrymen at home, or to keep their foreign negotiating partners on edge and feeling some urgency to resolve matters with a favorable to America compromise. I think the bolded part misrepresents the US as having some inherent bloodlust for a large-scale fight that had to be released *somewhere*, if not against Mexico, against Britain. I don't think the US policy was really that emotional. Polk knew what he was doing, and his likely replacements, like Henry Clay, would likely have been rational people too.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jun 28, 2023 2:46:29 GMT
At this period god did seem to look out for the American empire. Which is the actual ending to the original quote from Bismarck. I was being "ironic".
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Jun 28, 2023 19:05:28 GMT
You can perceive Lincoln's back-down however you like but it was still a back-down. Lincoln did not "back down", for the Laird Rams were not delivered, nor did the British interfere.
The US apologised and released the civilians illegally seized. Fact.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jun 29, 2023 13:21:44 GMT
Lincoln did not "back down", for the Laird Rams were not delivered, nor did the British interfere.
The US apologised and released the civilians illegally seized. Fact.
The Trent Affair: Diplomacy, Britain, and the American Civil WarWe never apologized. It was exactly as I wrote. You were not our friends. And as for your leadership, the only one on the British side of the equation; who had an ounce of brains, was Prince Albert. He knew the true situation and made a correct estimate and took correct action.
|
|
|
Post by diamondstorm on Jul 7, 2023 3:08:08 GMT
I think I've read a TL somewhere online where without the acquisition of Mexico's northernmost territory, the southern states secede even sooner and I think Kentucky and Missouri were included in this as well.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Jul 7, 2023 13:55:42 GMT
I think I've read a TL somewhere online where without the acquisition of Mexico's northernmost territory, the southern states secede even sooner and I think Kentucky and Missouri were included in this as well.
Its a possibility, as they would be denied the hoped for expansion into California and other points in the conquered territory - and of course be unaware that those areas would be free anyway. As such they would feel threatened by the danger of being outnumbered by slave states in the longer term. Although this is probably most likely to come later than OTL because it really needed at least one of: a) Someone like Lincoln, clearly hostile to slavery becoming president, which also needs a split in the opposition to such a policy that occurred OTL in 1860. & b) The balance of the free v slave states getting to the point where the latter fear their going to be forced to abandon slavery by the growing northern majority. Without California bei9ng American and then going free and opposition to the expansion of slavery elsewhere that might probably occur a bit later. Ditto if the expansion into the Oregon region is also blocked as that delays the growing anti-slavery majority developing.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jul 7, 2023 14:19:14 GMT
I think I've read a TL somewhere online where without the acquisition of Mexico's northernmost territory, the southern states secede even sooner and I think Kentucky and Missouri were included in this as well.
Its a possibility, as they would be denied the hoped for expansion into California and other points in the conquered territory - and of course be unaware that those areas would be free anyway. As such they would feel threatened by the danger of being outnumbered by slave states in the longer term. Although this is probably most likely to come later than OTL because it really needed at least one of: a) Someone like Lincoln, clearly hostile to slavery becoming president, which also needs a split in the opposition to such a policy that occurred OTL in 1860. & b) The balance of the free v slave states getting to the point where the latter fear their going to be forced to abandon slavery by the growing northern majority. Without California bei9ng American and then going free and opposition to the expansion of slavery elsewhere that might probably occur a bit later. Ditto if the expansion into the Oregon region is also blocked as that delays the growing anti-slavery majority developing.
How much do you know about California? The place had to be garrisoned by MORMONs just to keep those 20%ers heads down.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Jul 7, 2023 15:21:29 GMT
Its a possibility, as they would be denied the hoped for expansion into California and other points in the conquered territory - and of course be unaware that those areas would be free anyway. As such they would feel threatened by the danger of being outnumbered by slave states in the longer term. Although this is probably most likely to come later than OTL because it really needed at least one of: a) Someone like Lincoln, clearly hostile to slavery becoming president, which also needs a split in the opposition to such a policy that occurred OTL in 1860. & b) The balance of the free v slave states getting to the point where the latter fear their going to be forced to abandon slavery by the growing northern majority. Without California bei9ng American and then going free and opposition to the expansion of slavery elsewhere that might probably occur a bit later. Ditto if the expansion into the Oregon region is also blocked as that delays the growing anti-slavery majority developing.
How much do you know about California? The place had to be garrisoned by MORMONs just to keep those 20%ers heads down.
I know there was some support for the south in California. Whether the estimated 20% is accurate or not I don't know but that is still a number heavily outnumbered by the loyalists, even without the additional troops sent as things became more secure in the east. I note that the only violence reported in the article was by unionists who attacked suspected pro-confederates and their homes and that as in the east people could be imprisoned for their political views. As such the primary role for the garrison seems to have been protecting the minority from abuse.
Yet again your making statements then providing evidence that disagrees with what you say! Its also noticeable that your comment is nothing to do with the subject of the thread.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,988
Likes: 49,390
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 7, 2023 16:03:24 GMT
Stepping in here with the most likable color on the forum, lets play it nice, agree to disagree and focus on the topic of the thread.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jul 7, 2023 16:41:00 GMT
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,988
Likes: 49,390
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 7, 2023 16:45:20 GMT
I do believe that an American knows American history, better than a non-American. Lets not go that route miletus12, i am Dutch and that does not mean i know Dutch history better than a none dutch person.
|
|