The Anglo-Confederate War(s) c.1869-c.1889?

[The Admiral Hook]

In many, if not most, alternate history discussions on the American Civil War in which the United Kingdom (and by extension, France) recognize and assist the Confederacy, it is heavily and correctly implied that the U.K. would insist upon the eventual abolition of slavery - either as a condition of said assistance and/or post-war as a condition of continued support and trade.


However, as we all know, the ACW was a war fought almost entirely for a state's right to preserve, protect, and likely even to expand the institution of slavery and the Confederate States of America themselves were a rogue state founded and bent upon the continuation of human bondage.


The Confederacy would never have abolished slavery to the satisfaction of the United Kingdom - and some argue may not ever have attempted to do so at all. The United Kingdom will not sit idly by and allow the Confederacy to continue its abhorrent practices without consequence.


Frequently, these contradictory philosophies are recognized and occasionally some future conflict is vaguely addressed, but I've never found any specific discussion on exactly how or when this phantom war breaks out; not to mention any informed guesses on its course or result, which seems strange considering that these truths represent an obvious and undeniable powder-keg.


So, let's talk about it here.


We know quite a lot about British military capabilities, war aims, and figures during this time from her OTL conflicts in Africa and Afghanistan, and can safely deduce the state of the Confederate military and many of its likely key leaders from our own history.


For purposes of additional simplicity, I'd like to remove the United States from our focus, if possible. We'll assume she was completely and utterly defeated in the alt-ACW. Now ashamed, humbled, economically depressed, and likely demilitarized, the U.S.A. would have little ability or political initiative to actively or effectively favor one of her enemies over the other and I imagine would either 'support' and trade with both equally or neither of them at all.


As the end of slavery in North America would be a major war aim, we're looking at a war in which British inspired slave rebellions and active recruitment of Americans of color - free or escaped - would probably be a significant part of strategy (as will, of course, the infamous and oft-referenced blockade).


However, the British would likely go to war over more than slavery. Interests in the Caribbean, control of the markets for non-Asian cotton, collection of war debts, strangling a rival naval power in its crib, and many more possibilities come to mind. While a reconquest of the southern half of her former American colonies is politically unlikely, it's also tempting to address - as this is the height of the British Empire's era of ambition towards large, hard fought, colonial conquests.


How would war break out between the U.K. and the C.S.A. anytime between 1869 and 1889, how would it be fought, who would fight it, and what would likely be the results?


Thank you all in advance, I'm very much looking forward to this discussion.

 

[Bmao]

Assuming that we are going with the handwavium that the US is somehow not involved in any war that involves the CSA, so soon after the Civil War, a war between the British and the CSA would probably happen somewhere in the Carribbean where British interests are at stake. Perhaps they fear an expansion of slavery, or want to ensure that the balance of power remains in North America. However, if the British for whatever reason decide to go all in on the Confederates, then the USA is going to be involved.

 

[History Learner]

One wonders why there wasn't an Anglo-Brazilian war.

 

[Falecius]

I think the starting scenario has to be clarified. I understand that CSA allied with the British in the ATL's USCW and the USA are utterly defeated by this alliance somehow. To remove them from the equation, you need a disaster of a war followed by a truly Carthaginian peace, which leaves you with the largest possible Confederacy and a larger Canada as well. The CSA, however, is going to be badly bruised by the war in the immadiate aftermath, while the British navy dominates North American waters quite nicely now. In the early years, reasons for war are going to be there, but flashpoints may arise gradually. Slavery is the biggest issue of course, especially if a victory-drunk Confederacy does stupid things to expand it, such as resuming filibustering in the Caribbean and Central America. The French are also likely to be involved (the scenario makes a Habsburg Mexico quite more possible and continued French presence there is going to happen in this case). Countries like Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Central American states, as well local colonial powers in the Caribbean, would then come to see the CSA as a regional bully. The British public dislikes the CSA over slavery even if Richmond is ostensibly firendly and grateful. They are NOT going to set any slave free in the years after secession, that would defeat the entire point of seceding in the first place, no matter what London thinks. Conversely, London is NOT going to war with the CSA in order to enforce emancipation unless the CSA acts extremely provocative, such as both resuming the Atlantic slave trade AND attempting forcible expansion in the Caribbean. They will not try such things before around a decade post-war, and Britain would go some considerable length in order to avoid all-out, gloves-off war. Perhaps they'll try blockade and limited naval conflict in order to teach the Confederates a lesson, it starts as slightly ramped up gunboat diplomacy. Let's say this backfires, with a botched coup by a pro-peace faction in Richmond and counter-coup by an fire-eating junta (say, Nathan Bedford Forrest becomes dictator with the support of the most ardent expansionist planters and slave-owners). I think that hardliners in charge in Richmond are needed to explain why Britain goes as far as making a full liberation war out of this. The British governments thoroughly despised slavery, but they were also deeply racist. They would go into a long, costly and bloody war in order to enforce abolition on a white, Christian large country far away that enjoys rough technical parity with them. The logistics of this war would be daunting for Britain unless the USA are willing to assist. The scenario assumes they are not, and they might even be actively hostile, which would help the Confederates immensely. In the end, of course, there's no question of Britain losing in any war with the CSA, in a military sense. The point is whether Britain has the political will to fight until emancipation is achieved, something that the CSA would resist to the utmost degree. But precisely because the CSA are likely committed to preserve slavery, they would likely cave in with other concessions in order to break said political will, provided, of course, that they are smart ebough (which they may not be, since they managed to be at war with the largest naval and industrial power on the planet in the first place).
The closest analogue to this war IOTL would be the Boer War, but this is going A LOT harder for the British than the Boer War ever was.

 

[The Admiral Hook]

This is precisely the type of discussion I was hoping for, thank you.

Part of the reason I wanted to try to eliminate the U.S. from consideration was that, firstly any 'Franglo-Confederate' victory in the ACW is likely to be a total one over the Union. This probably results in a U.S.A. which in my opinion experiences a severe depression, a de-militarization, and more than likely an isolationist, racist, nativist foreign and domestic policy.

Secondly, and perhaps more important to remember: The rebellious slave holding traitors that tore the country apart were assisted by America's first and most historic enemy. It strikes me as difficult to fathom the United States being politically capable of supporting and assisting either Johnny Reb or the Lobsterbacks one over the other.

Of course, you're all correct to assume that the U.S. will be nervous either way the war goes.

Perhaps the U.S. begins neutral, then opens trade with the U.K. in the hopes of weakening the South for eventual reunion. When the U.K. begins to become more bold in her excursions into the North American interior, the U.S. would begin trading with both belligerents equally, hoping to keep them both bogged down and bleeding them both dry.

Finally, the U.S. might then completely cut off the British and fully support the Confederacy, preferring their American cousin to their imperialist former oppressor and in the hopes of post-bellum reunification.

It's an interesting scenario at any rate.

Regardless, I really wanted to keep U.S. discussion to a minimum to simplify the war militarily and to focus on leading figures and strategy, theaters of battle, and political disputes back home without a too-soon resurgent U.S. muddying the waters.

If you believe even a humiliated and isolationist U.S. could pick a favorite out of her two most vicious enemies, recent or historical, by all means let's discuss what they would be likely to do.

No restrictions whatsoever on good discussion!

 

[Alex Zetsu]

The South loses without British recognition, so it seems unlikely the British decide abolition is a must a few years after not caring...

 

[Alternator]

This is precisely the type of discussion I was hoping for, thank you.

Part of the reason I wanted to try to eliminate the U.S. from consideration was that, firstly any 'Franglo-Confederate' victory in the ACW is likely to be a total one over the Union. This probably results in a U.S.A. which in my opinion experiences a severe depression, a de-militarization, and more than likely an isolationist, racist, nativist foreign and domestic policy.

Secondly, and perhaps more important to remember: The rebellious slave holding traitors that tore the country apart were assisted by America's first and most historic enemy. It strikes me as difficult to fathom the United States being politically capable of supporting and assisting either Johnny Reb or the Lobsterbacks one over the other.

Of course, you're all correct to assume that the U.S. will be nervous either way the war goes.

Perhaps the U.S. begins neutral, then opens trade with the U.K. in the hopes of weakening the South for eventual reunion. When the U.K. begins to become more bold in her excursions into the North American interior, the U.S. would begin trading with both belligerents equally, hoping to keep them both bogged down and bleeding them both dry.

Finally, the U.S. might then completely cut off the British and fully support the Confederacy, preferring their American cousin to their imperialist former oppressor and in the hopes of post-bellum reunification.

It's an interesting scenario at any rate.

Regardless, I really wanted to keep U.S. discussion to a minimum to simplify the war militarily and to focus on leading figures and strategy, theaters of battle, and political disputes back home without a too-soon resurgent U.S. muddying the waters.

If you believe even a humiliated and isolationist U.S. could pick a favorite out of her two most vicious enemies, recent or historical, by all means let's discuss what they would be likely to do.

No restrictions whatsoever on good discussion!

The bolded part simply isn't true: unless Britain and France both go single-minded laser focus into supporting the CSA, then the victory will be because of blockade, minor landings, and mostly an inability to conquer the Confederacy proper. France is busy with Mexico, so that level of focus on defeating the Union is ASB; they are not going. Britain+CSA with French support can certainly win, but they can't go about destroying cities and occupying industrial centers without huge dedication and consequences.

If Britain commits that strongly to crushing the Union, then there's a great big bear watching and licking his chops. Russia was pro-Union, and is not going to passively stand by while the British commit their entire military to defeating the Americans - OTL, the possibility of a formal Russian-American alliance was enough to convince the British to back off on multiple occasions. The Tzar is likely to openly offer military support, is guaranteed to offer diplomatic support, and now has a free hand to act militarily anywhere he damn well pleases, because the French and British are too busy to stop him. This is roughly a decade after the Crimean War - with a free hand to launch Round Two, why not try for Constantinople this time? Or, how about seizing Central Asia and give the British an aneurysm as India suddenly looks vulnerable? Openly backing the Prussians and seeing what Bismark can do when nobody is able to interfere - France and Britain busy, Russia allied, and Austria the next target OTL?

From the British perspective, handing the Russians a free hand and a ready ally is an unacceptable trade when, at most, the Union has grievously offended in diplomatic matters (a worst-case Trent Affair, for example). A crippled USA after the ACW, one unable to even intervene in a British-Confederate conflict, belongs in the ASB forum.

For a more normal defeat: the USA might not automatically intervene immediately. Losing hundreds of thousands of lives in a failed effort to block secession could very well instill great caution, and the possibility of the British and Confederates quickly settling their issues once the USA starts mobilizing is a grave risk. The idea of allowing the CSA and Britain to weaken themselves, and then attacking both the Confederacy and Canada more or less simultaneously, would be hugely appealing - but it also requires stockpiling military supplies.

 

[The Admiral Hook]

While I disagree about the impossibility of things going far worse for the Union in OTL's ACW and/or far better for TTL's Anglo-Confederate alliance, and strongly disagree that it in any way would necessitate divine or extraterrestrial interference, I do broadly agree with you on the above's implausibility, @Alternator and find your last paragraph particularly intriguing.

Let me explain my focus on keeping the U.S. a less important player:

For ease of discussion over a one-on-one Anglo-Confederate War in the 1870s or 80s I went with a 'head-canon' scenario involving PODs/butterflies commonly used and all combined - i.e. Union draws first blood, a Southern conspiracy involving the U.S.-Canadian border, a worse Trent Affair, seizure of Southern bound U.S. warships, sinking of British boats, etc. and combined all that with most of the common Confederate victory PODs, such as capture of Washington, Order 191, Gettysburg, dead Grant, dead Sherman, dead Lincoln, the success of the entire assassination plots from Booth and Co., etc.

Throw in a much better Franco-Hapsburg showing in Mexico (Spanish and British forces remain slightly longer, a few more battles decisively won, Juarez captured, Diaz becomes turncoat, no Black Decree, etc.) and I think the stage is largely set for a complete Union stomping.

I like it too because it results in a far more overconfident Confederacy, a more humiliated North, and maximum entangling of Anglo-Confederate ties - all of which leads to a pretty good starting point for a brutal one-on-one war when the South refuses to pay their British debts, expands slavery, reestablishes the Atlantic slave trade, and/or commits some unforgivable nautical aggression in the Atlantic or Caribbean.

After harsh peace terms for the 'United' States, I can easily see the already pretty racist, xenophobic, and nativist attitudes of the North becoming more prevalent, and best case abolitionists and worst case people of color being blamed for both the war and for the defeat - possibly even involving free blacks being 'sold down the river.' With isolation preferred and perhaps even enforced I don't find it particularly unlikely that this, combined with war reparations, a temporary dip in industry and trade, and the inevitable post-war depression all resulting in at least a temporarily weak, isolated, puritanical, anti-immigrant, pariah state in which both the common citizen and the framers of foreign policy equally loathe both the British and the treacherous South and are desirous of their eventual bloodshed, suffering and collapse for generations. With no political or patriotic will to forgive either enemy and no ability to effectively support them at any rate, I found what I believed to be the ideal scenario to explore the inevitable Anglo-Confederate War.

This doesn't have to be the specific scenario you go with, and honestly I'd like to keep it pretty open. That's just what I was personally thinking to best simplify our theorizing.

However you do bring up an excellent point, re: The United States gradually and perhaps even clandestinely building up forces to invade the South and Canada once the two powers have bled one another dry.

The Anglo-Confederate War being followed shortly thereafter by a Second Anglo-Confederate Alliance strikes me as plausible and fascinating and I can see it going all sorts of ways.

If, however, we're insisting on the Northern States getting involved in the Anglo-Confederate War the question still remains with whom do they side?

The British are their historical enemy and it would be immediately realized that without their intervention the South most likely would have been brought to heel and the nation would have almost certainly remained united. The British too would likely have added insult to injury by slicing off precious American chunks to be added to British North America. Add to all this the fact that their new Southern neighbor would still perhaps be considered Americans - despite the horrors of their rebellion - and closer in blood, culture, and history to them than the British they had long disowned, an argument could be made that the Confederacy was the lesser of two evils and British intervention, invasion, imperialism, and influence could not be allowed to triumph on American soil - be it United, Confederate, North, South, or West.

On the other hand, hatred of that convenient scapegoat the American black aside, this would perhaps be seen as the second and final battle against the institution of slavery, something Northerners would no doubt still find a worthy pursuit. The British are far stronger, and sure to win in the South and direct military intervention by the U.S. could come with London's promise of returning those new Canadian land acquisitions to their rightful American homes on the map. It might perhaps be easier to forgive the British than the morally bankrupt traitors south of the Mason-Dixon and there would certainly be more to gain at any rate.

While we're at it, we must also consider the possibility that Hapsburg Mexico too will enter the war on one side or the other. If we're going to complicate it, then let's get wild...

Either way, I'm trying myself to focus on the actual war.

Blockades and Caribbean-Atlantic naval clashes aside, where might we see the most land fighting and under whose leadership? I believe strongly that we will see British (and probably Canadian) ground units as every other British war of this period involved heavy expeditionary forces even when it involved unfamiliar terrain and harsh local resistance.

Slave insurgencies and Native American allies backed, inspired, and armed by the British also seem like an interesting area of discussion. I'm fascinated by that idea. There are plenty of loyal people of colour throughout the British Empire (Africa, obviously, and India) and even many in the U.K. proper. Using these individuals as agents of insurgency in the Deep South make me long for a TL...

Anyway, sorry for the length. Thanks for the replies and I'm looking forward to more.

 

[The Admiral Hook]

The South loses without British recognition, so it seems unlikely the British decide abolition is a must a few years after not caring...

Actually, the British cared quite a lot. One of the main reasons the British did not recognize the Confederacy (other than that it honestly didn't have to) despite their well documented flirtation with the idea was slavery itself.

In this scenario, the South offers assurances that it will gradually limit and eventually abolish slavery, but once victorious very quickly doubles down on the institution, enforcing and expanding it further.

For a society as abominable as the Confederate American South victory means the full extent of their barbarous cruelty would be unleashed. It won't take long for the British to get wind of the enslavement of 'one-drop' whites, the reinslavment of free people of color, capture of Caribbean blacks for servitude, a reestablishment of the Atlantic slave trade, death camps for rebellious slaves and southern abolitionists, and perhaps even filibusterer adventurism in the Caribbean.

The British would certainly have the political will and means to explore all out war against the Confederacy.

 

[Falecius]

Actually, the British cared quite a lot. One of the main reasons the British did not recognize the Confederacy (other than that it honestly didn't have to) despite their well documented flirtation with the idea was slavery itself.

In this scenario, the South offers assurances that it will gradually limit and eventually abolish slavery, but once victorious very quickly doubles down on the institution, enforcing and expanding it further.

For a society as abominable as the Confederate American South victory means the full extent of their barbarous cruelty would be unleashed. It won't take long for the British to get wind of the enslavement of 'one-drop' whites, the reinslavment of free people of color, capture of Caribbean blacks for servitude, a reestablishment of the Atlantic slave trade, death camps for rebellious slaves and southern abolitionists, and perhaps even filibusterer adventurism in the Caribbean.

The British would certainly have the political will and means to explore all out war against the Confederacy.

No, death camps won't happen. The rest is very possible, though reviving the Atlantic slave trade is a very long shot as the Confederates would irk Britain in the most obvious way: this may be sufficient to cause limited (naval) war, though alone would likely not be enough to puch the British into the enormous hassle of actually landing an expeditionary force. Whitehall was certainly not a charity devoted to the freedom of slaves as such.

 

[RPW@Cy]

One wonders why there wasn't an Anglo-Brazilian war.

There was. Granted it wasn't particularly long and never involved a formal DoW, but I'd say the Royal Navy raiding Brazilian ports, Royal Marines getting involved in pitched battles on land with Brazilian troops and Brazilian diplomatic protests receiving a reply that was basically the 19thC equivalent of "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough" applies (why yes, Palmerston was Foreign Secretary at the time, why did you ask?)...

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Actually, the British cared quite a lot. One of the main reasons the British did not recognize the Confederacy (other than that it honestly didn't have to) despite their well documented flirtation with the idea was slavery itself.

They did flirt with the idea of recognizing the confederacy but ultimately decided not to. If they cared enough about abolition, they would not recognize it. The scenario you describe of having buyer's remorse because everything you said is implausible. The reason is that everything you mentioned except death camps was on the table... and the British knew it. They knew "one drop whites" were already enslaved in the South before the civil war, they knew that many free people of color got enslaved (heck, it was publically available information that slaveowners with runaway slaves caught people vaguely looking like their runaways and had a sham trial), they knew any Caribbean Blacks ending in Southern controlled territory would likely be enslaved, and they wouldn't care about filibusters in the territories of these new Latin American states.

In short, they knew the idea of the South going abolitionist was as likely as Brazil was. (In 1862, both societies had the institution baked in, one had it yanked out and the other took more than a decade to get rid of it by royal force... so back in 1862 without hindsight not likely).

They might have the means to go to war over slavery, but before they did that they would give the Northerners a crack at crushing the rebellion.

 

[Captain Seafort]

They might have the means to go to war over slavery, but before they did that they would give the Northerners a crack at crushing the rebellion.

Or they might decide that the US is unlikely to destroy an institution they've shown nothing but tolerance of, and therefore the solution is to support the Confederacy in order to concentrate most of the slaves in the former US in a new country that is far more vulnerable to British diplomatic and economic pressure.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Or they might decide that the US is unlikely to destroy an institution they've shown nothing but tolerance of, and therefore the solution is to support the Confederacy in order to concentrate most of the slaves in the former US in a new country that is far more vulnerable to British diplomatic and economic pressure.

Supporting a bunch of rebels who started a fight over slavery just so you can apply pressure for them to do the opposite of their goal of revolt seems like a money pit. Applying diplomatic pressure on US would have more effect than on a weakened country founded on the principal of slavery.

 

[Captain Seafort]

Supporting a bunch of rebels who started a fight over slavery just so you can apply pressure for them to do the opposite of their goal of revolt seems like a money pit. Applying diplomatic pressure on US would have more effect than on a weakened country founded on the principal of slavery.

Applying diplomatic pressure on the US had achieved jack shit up to then, the Confederacy would be far more vulnerable to economic pressure without the far more economically developed northern industrial areas protecting them, and the UK was already sustaining an anti-slavery money pit in the form of the West African Squadron.

 

[Falecius]

Applying diplomatic pressure on the US had achieved jack shit up to then, the Confederacy would be far more vulnerable to economic pressure without the far more economically developed northern industrial areas protecting them, and the UK was already sustaining an anti-slavery money pit in the form of the West African Squadron.

Did the British ever try to apply even the slightest form of diplomatic pressure on the US before 1860, in order to get slavery abolished? I think they considered it a purely US internal matter, as long as the Americans were not (officially) into the Atlantic slave trade. After all, Britain was fairly happy to buy American cotton the slaves harvested. If they wanted America to abolish slavery so badly, they would have put huge tariffs on American cotton, or they would have done some other sort of pressure. As far as I know, they never did anything of the sort. And that was because sections of the British society profited from that.
To repeat myself: they certainly despised slavery, and took serious steps against the slave trade, but they were not prepared to go into a major, expensive conflict solely in order to force abolition of slavery elsewhere (though they might have been willing to do that about expansion of slavery; think what happens if somehow the CSA takes over Hispaniola and forcibly enslaves most of the people living there; London would be furious).

 

[The Gunslinger]

The bolded part simply isn't true: unless Britain and France both go single-minded laser focus into supporting the CSA, then the victory will be because of blockade, minor landings, and mostly an inability to conquer the Confederacy proper. France is busy with Mexico, so that level of focus on defeating the Union is ASB; they are not going. Britain+CSA with French support can certainly win, but they can't go about destroying cities and occupying industrial centers without huge dedication and consequences.

If Britain commits that strongly to crushing the Union, then there's a great big bear watching and licking his chops. Russia was pro-Union, and is not going to passively stand by while the British commit their entire military to defeating the Americans - OTL, the possibility of a formal Russian-American alliance was enough to convince the British to back off on multiple occasions. The Tzar is likely to openly offer military support, is guaranteed to offer diplomatic support, and now has a free hand to act militarily anywhere he damn well pleases, because the French and British are too busy to stop him. This is roughly a decade after the Crimean War - with a free hand to launch Round Two, why not try for Constantinople this time? Or, how about seizing Central Asia and give the British an aneurysm as India suddenly looks vulnerable? Openly backing the Prussians and seeing what Bismark can do when nobody is able to interfere - France and Britain busy, Russia allied, and Austria the next target OTL?

From the British perspective, handing the Russians a free hand and a ready ally is an unacceptable trade when, at most, the Union has grievously offended in diplomatic matters (a worst-case Trent Affair, for example). A crippled USA after the ACW, one unable to even intervene in a British-Confederate conflict, belongs in the ASB forum.

For a more normal defeat: the USA might not automatically intervene immediately. Losing hundreds of thousands of lives in a failed effort to block secession could very well instill great caution, and the possibility of the British and Confederates quickly settling their issues once the USA starts mobilizing is a grave risk. The idea of allowing the CSA and Britain to weaken themselves, and then attacking both the Confederacy and Canada more or less simultaneously, would be hugely appealing - but it also requires stockpiling military supplies.

Russia isn't going to support the USA in the era, they're still reeling from the Crimean War, in the midst of major army reforms, freeing the serfs and a Polish rebellion. They're a decade away from any major political action outside their sphere of influence.

There could be long term movement closer to the USA but during the Civil War, Russia very much has its hands full and won't make any movement to help America.

 

[kent]

At what point do the French and British start to help the South? Before Grant? Before or after Gettysburg? Only with British or French troops could the South hope to overcome the North. The British might end the Union blockade of Southern ports but that does not overcome the balance of manpower the North had. British or French troops active in the North would leave such a bad taste that the North would work hard to build up it's Army and Navy to protect it's self. Railroads would be rushed across to California, Oregon and Washington to tie those states to the Union. Then when The South and England go to war I could see the North sitting back and picking up the pieces.