Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

World War of 1883

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • World War of 1883

    It's 1883, 20 years since the end of the US Civil War, which resulted in the CSA becoming an independent nation. California declared its independence in 1864. The South has pursued a strategy of expanding Southward, and has annexed Cuba, and is ttrying to expand further in the Caribean, and into Venezuela and the countries and colonies to its east. The North is making every effort to settle the West, using its intercontinental railroad that goes from Chicago to the Columbia River. As a result of the British mediated peace treaty, West Virginia is a Northern state, What was Eastern Kentucky and Tennessee is the Northern state of Franklin, West of this is the Southern State of Washington, and Missouri is divided at the Missouri River.

    Mexico and California have had on and off skirmishes since the 1870's. There is an ongoing guerrilla war in California. The North and South have a heavily militarized border, and have frequent clashes in the areas Northwest of Texas.especially around Denver.

    The CSA is aligned with France, Mexico and loosely with Russia. Britain (and hence Canada), and Spain are aligned with the USA. Germany is very strong, having defeated France in 1870. Germany is offically non-aligned, following Bismark's strategy. They have developed a long distance navy built around cruisers, not meant to challenge the British. Germany has excellent relations with Argentina and Brazil, and sends many immigrants there. Its arms manufacturers, especially Krupp, supply Brazil, Argentina and Chile with the latest weapons. Many Southern and Eastern European immigrants go to South America, which is a peaceful continent.

    The South is seeing more and more slave revolts, which are encouraged by the North and most European countries.

    Full scale war breaks out in 1883, when the South sees it is losing the arms race with the North and it launches a war against the North, feeling it is now or never.

    How does the war play out?
    Last edited by lakechampainer; 29 Sep 09, 09:12.

  • #2
    If the Northern industrial expansion has carried on at the same rate as happened in the real world. Then a long and bloody war with a highly probably Northern victory.

    Now, the question is it a Northern victory with a seperate Confederacy or do they go the whole hog and try to re-absorb the Confederacy?
    "Sometimes its better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness" T Pratchett

    Comment


    • #3
      The anti slavery movement was part of a larger egalitarian movement that had growing since the Enlightenment. The folks on board that movement wont let the thing rest untill slavery is abolished. If the US abolitionists want to expend the blood the British abolitionists will provide any extra capitol needed to sustain a 'Anti Slavery' war.

      Comment


      • #4
        A few questions and notes:

        The continuation of slavery in the South is unlikely at this date. I could see Blacks being some sort of second class citizens or something but slavery would have ended simply on the basis of no existing need. Agriculturial improvements in machinery would have seen to that.

        What is the position of Texas and the Western US? I would assume that Texas (along with owning part of Arizona, all of New Mexico and, Oklahoma) would be an independent nation. They had no reason to continue as part of the Confederacy in a victory scenario.

        I would also assume that the US would own most of the plains and northern US or at least have some control over these areas.

        Given the plaucity of natural resources beyond agriculture in the South I would assume that they would largely remain an exporter of these products importing what they needed in manufactured goods for the most part.

        Comment


        • #5
          DARKPLACE,


          "If the Northern industrial expansion has carried on at the same rate as happened in the real world. Then a long and bloody war with a highly probably Northern victory.
          Now, the question is it a Northern victory with a seperate Confederacy or do they go the whole hog and try to re-absorb the Confederacy?"


          I have long been of the view that IF the ACW had resulted in an independent CSA, then there would have been a ACW2 within a decade or so.

          The USA would have become whole again.



          John.
          The PLO claims ALL of Israel!!! There will and can NEVER be a "2 State solution".

          Comment


          • #6
            I see Texas as being the heart of the CSA. I assume that Richmond would not be the capital of the CSA, it would be on the fringe of the country; I would think it might be Atlanta or Memphis. I think people in Texas would find more wealth having a lot of power in a larger country, much as they did the US in the 1900's with the Texas Railroad Commission, etc. I see New Mexico, Oklahoma as part of the CSA, while Kansas, Colorado and Arizona are in dispute (Arizona with California and Mexico). I see the USA and California having close relations and cooperating militarily, with groups on both sides wanting the two countries to rejoin.

            I assume that the CSA is making every effort to build its industrial base, but it finds it is further behind than it thought. I also assume that the North has a stronger Navy and better crews, but the CSA has better army units as a rule, since it is still a more rural society. The USA has better artillery.

            I think the USA would also move its capital, maybe Columbus or Indianapolis.
            Last edited by lakechampainer; 29 Sep 09, 15:50.

            Comment


            • #7
              I feel that once the war breaks out, Britain sees this as its great opportunity to permanently damage France's colonial empire. Mexico sees this as its chance to permantly gain back some or all of California. France feels it has to support it one great ally, the CSA, and its other ally, Mexico. It also unleashes its intelligence organization in Quebec, where it has been trying to undermine the British for years. The USA wants to win the war, but doesn't plan to invade the CSA heartland; there is little stomach for that only twenty years after the war, and besides, most of the working class is afraid if the two countries are reunited Blacks will come North looking for jobs, driving down wages.
              The CSA plan is to hold the line in the east and center, but to put most of its effort into trying to control all land east of the Rockies South of Denver. They also support their Mexican allies in an attempt to permanently lessen California's power, or more precisely, the future availability of its resources to the USA.

              I feel that in the war, Britain would heavily damage France's Navy. I think Mexico would make heavy inroads into sparsely populated Southern California. The USA would launch limited attacks along the river valleys, using its advantages in artillery, munitions and transport well. The main effort would be along the Mississipi south of St. Louis; the ultimate goal is to get a secure, second intercontinental rail route through Nebraska and on through California.

              I think in the end, the US gains territory, and starts to work on its new railroads. California decides to rejoin the US, and the US long range strategic plan is to get California and Arizona territory back. The USA is content to let the CSA wither on the inside from slave revolts and whites who want to end slavery. The USA feels that that the CSA has 25 or 50 years at most.

              The peace treaty is mediated by Germany, who laugh all the way to bank as they have made a fortune on the war, and their arch-enemies the French have been greatly weakened. Germany continues to supply capital and goods to Argentina, Brazil, and the other countries of South America. Krupp and the other arms manufacturers are happy to show their wares to any of the governments in South America.

              The leadership of the Russian Empire realize they are in real trouble, as there is now no real check on German land power.

              Italy also wins, as they joined the USA side once they were clearly winning, so it gains some territory from France.

              Given the new realities, the Germans in Austria Hungary began to think seriously that they would be better off as part of Germany.
              Last edited by lakechampainer; 29 Sep 09, 20:20.

              Comment


              • #8
                I see naval battles in the war taking place as follows:

                1. The major battle is the naval battle off Southern California/Baja California. It it fought mainly between the French Navy and the British Navy, with the Mexican Navy and the California Navy there also. The British win a smashing victory, with the advantages in gunnery, seamanship, and the ability to stay on station acting in their favor.

                2. The South Atlantic and Caribbean sea action is not that heavy, the CSA obviously has most of its fleet here but the USA and Britain see no need to engage it heavily here. The USA does launch raids and feints towards Norfolk.

                3. The British and French Fleets engage in a major battle west of France. The British are overly aggressive, and suffer heavier losses than the French, but the tactical loss is a strategic victory for the British.

                4. When the war breaks out, the Germans send their best cruisers off the coast in the seas east of the Brazilian and Argentine population centers. The two countries are grateful for this.

                5. Several French ships in the Indian Ocean are destroyed by the British.

                6. The Italian Navy attacks the French Mediterranean Fleet. The Italian Fleet suffers heavy losses, as the Italians expected, but this is the price they had to pay to get French territory after the war.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  A few questions and notes:

                  The continuation of slavery in the South is unlikely at this date. I could see Blacks being some sort of second class citizens or something but slavery would have ended simply on the basis of no existing need. Agriculturial improvements in machinery would have seen to that.
                  In 1860, blacks were worth BILLIONS of dollars-more than the land & the cotton combined. Which machinery improvements would have spelled the end of slavery? Per this site: http://inventors.about.com/od/tstart...a/tractors.htm it clearly says that
                  “Henry Ford produced his first experimental gasoline powered tractor in 1907, under the direction of chief engineer Joseph Galamb. It was referred to as an “automobile plow” and the name tractor was not used. After 1910, gasoline powered tractors were used extensively in farming.”
                  So it took almost 50 years after the war before “mechanized agriculture” would have entered the picture. If you are using that as the yardstick to measure when slavery would have been dropped, then they would have been waiting quite a long time for it. Not to mention the fact that the cotton gin, a technological breakthrough, helped pump new life into slavery & extended its life out many years. Perhaps mechanized agriculture would have spelled the end of slavery, or perhaps it would have spurred it even further along. We’ll never know. Necessity is also the mother of invention-the South was forced into a modernized farming situation in History because they lost the use of slave labor. In the scenario outlined here, slavery is not lost & a conservative climate of no-change may have prevailed far longer than if they had been forced to change (again, as it was in the real history of events). Slave labor could have easily have survived into the 20th century.

                  Anytime you take a What-If scenario, don't forget the Butterfly Effect. Changing one thing may affect how the outcome of the rest happens.
                  Last edited by hellboy30; 30 Sep 09, 11:37.
                  The muffled drums sad roll has beat the soldier's last tatoo. No more on life's parade shall meet that brave and fallen few.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The British navy can take care of its business in the Carribean quite easily with the Royal Navy and with the CSA cotton market with the British they're not going to argue. This being so , the British have no more reason to get involved in this American ding dong anymore than they did in the 1860's.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I agree Copenhagn. I see no intervention from most European (if not all) countries. At least for a long while - ala the US with regards to WWI. This is a North American vendetta and sometimes you just have to let the two involved straighten it out.
                      "War is sorrowful, but there is one thing infinitely more horrible than the worst horrors of war, and that is the feeling that nothing is worth fighting for..."
                      -- Harper's Weekly, December 31, 1864

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Land Conflicts

                        I see land conflicts during the war as follows:

                        1. The CSA main strategy is to attack west from Albuquerque and North towards Denver and reinforce whichever attack shows more success. In the east it plans raids into the US areas of the Shenadoah Valley, and Eastern Kentucky and Tennessee. If the war goes well, they plan on moving North through Illinois, as they believe there are many Southern sympathizers there who will rise in revolt. They know that the troops won't be sympathetic, as the USA follows a policy of not locating troops from Southern Illinois, Indiana and Ohio near their states: they are generally stationed east of the Appalachians. The CSA also has long running ties with Indians in USA territory and will coordinate with them.
                        The CSA military academy at Charleston has been focused on how to conduct deep raids that destroy an enemies infrastructure as Lee's army did in their war winning move in 1863.

                        2. The USA main strategy is to establish a new border running west from the Mississippi as far South as possible. They plan to attack along both sides of the Mississippi, making heavy use of river boats, which was one of their success stories during the war. They plan to stop at a predetermined point and build huge fortifications on both sides of the river. The US plans to attack at several points along the Missouri, and reinforce where it has the most sucess. The students at West Point have been studying these problems in depth. They have also modeled their staff after the German General Staff, recognizing how poor the army high command performed in the East in 1861 - 1863. The basic plan in the east is to show a move towards Richmond, but they are actually interesting in having an artillery heavy battle, as they have a huge advantage over the CSA in this area.

                        3. Mexico's strategy is simple: To defeat the Californians and then proceed as far north along the coast as they can before being stopped. They then plan to build fortifications to make the new borders permanent.

                        4. In Europe Germany goes on "maneuvers" in Alsace-Lorraine. They send patrols across the border, and there are skirmishes with France. Italy attacks France, and suffers huge casualties, but advance somewhat into France since they can put most of their army into the attack. The Italians don't expect the Austro-Hungarians to attack since they know Germany has advised them not to.

                        -In North America, the end result is that Mexico ends up advancing about 50 miles North in California, The CSA advances west and joins up with the Mexicans, their goal is too build a transcontinental railroad, but it will be hard since the California still holds LA and the land to the east. In mid-America the USA has established a line running roughly from the Missouri/Arkansas border west to the Rockies, and in the East after a lot of fighting it is pretty much status quo, expect the CSA has gained some ground in Franklin (the US state that was Eastern Tennessee and Kentucky) and the USA is occupying about 1,000 square miles of Northern Virginia. There is no peace treaty, just a truce.
                        Last edited by lakechampainer; 30 Sep 09, 14:50.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by hellboy30 View Post
                          In 1860, blacks were worth BILLIONS of dollars-more than the land & the cotton combined. Which machinery improvements would have spelled the end of slavery? Per this site: http://inventors.about.com/od/tstart...a/tractors.htm it clearly says that So it took almost 50 years after the war before “mechanized agriculture” would have entered the picture. If you are using that as the yardstick to measure when slavery would have been dropped, then they would have been waiting quite a long time for it. Not to mention the fact that the cotton gin, a technological breakthrough, helped pump new life into slavery & extended its life out many years. Perhaps mechanized agriculture would have spelled the end of slavery, or perhaps it would have spurred it even further along. We’ll never know. Necessity is also the mother of invention-the South was forced into a modernized farming situation in History because they lost the use of slave labor. In the scenario outlined here, slavery is not lost & a conservative climate of no-change may have prevailed far longer than if they had been forced to change (again, as it was in the real history of events). Slave labor could have easily have survived into the 20th century.

                          Anytime you take a What-If scenario, don't forget the Butterfly Effect. Changing one thing may affect how the outcome of the rest happens.
                          I very much agree with you, hellboy30, that we have to keep "The Butterfly Effect" in mind at all times. This is one of the reasons I enjoy Alternative Timelines so much. I also believe that there are things in History that are (almost) bound to happen, that Germany and Russia would fight for control of Eastern Europe, that Austria-Hungary would break up, that the Balkans would break into conflict after the Cold war, etc. To put it in physical sciences terms, these are entities in meta-stable positions, positions where a slight upset can lead to multiple, different more stable, "lower energy" positions. With these new stable positions will be new unstable situations, which are awaiting the next Butterfly.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Rethinking scenario

                            I did some research and rediscovered the double meaning of the phrase "don't assume"( in this case ass out of me, no one else). I found out some of the key errors I made were:

                            1. In mid 1863, the North already held down South of Cairo, Illinois, the Junction of the Ohio and Mississippi (they USA was besieging Vickburg). Missouri was pro-union 2/1 to 3/1 so it seems likely that down to maybe the Arkansas border was union.

                            2. The situation in Arizona and New Mexico was resolved prior to 1863, a key battle was the Battle of Glorieta Pass, won by Union forces. If the CSA had won here, they may have been able to threaten Denver. I was interested to read (on Wikipedia) that there was concern about Confederate sympathizers in what is now Montana. They were gold miners who had gone there in search of gold.

                            3. It seems likely the war would have ended with the two countries holding the territory they were on. I assume whites would be allowed to move to the other country if they chose.

                            4. I didn't realize the transcontinental railroad was as far north as it was. Does anyone know, was this built was it was solely for geographical reasons, or could it have been built further South?

                            5. I think it probably was unrealistic, as was pointed out, of me to think of Britain and the US being allies. I think it more likely that after 1870 Germany and the USA became strong allies. All the more so because of the large German influence in the North, especially in the midwest.

                            6. I would the USA would be to gradually try to woo back the 4 states of Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and CSA held Tennessee. They would focus on Virginia, since the US controlled the Appalachians in Eastern Kentucky and Tennessee.
                            Last edited by lakechampainer; 01 Oct 09, 09:29.

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X