Wrapped in Flames: The Great American War and Beyond

[EnglishCanuck]

Certain ex members of this site could get quite worked into a tizzy on the old Trent War TLs!

I'm not innocent to that description personally, but boy do I remember how heated some former members could get on the matter.

It's a bit of a weirdly emotional subject, the Civil War is an enormously consequential moment in American history, and through the Trent affair it came within a whisker of being an enormous international war which would have been a highly consequential moment in Atlantic and Anglosphere history as a whole!

Some of the arguments advanced back in the day were a bit much I must say. Though I'm still baffled by claims that one side or another could "run the board" in a year and make some huge victory.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

I guess Russia will have to involve itself, lest it's recent acquisitions in the region be threatened.

On that you can count. Let's just say that the remaining Manchu nobles are not keen to throw themselves at the mercy of the new Han dynasty, while the Russians have a historical beef with the "Tartars" and the Tsar would love the irony of being called upon to protect the people who were once Russians oppressors.

 

[galileo-034]

On that you can count. Let's just say that the remaining Manchu nobles are not keen to throw themselves at the mercy of the new Han dynasty, while the Russians have a historical beef with the "Tartars" and the Tsar would love the irony of being called upon to protect the people who were once Russians oppressors.

So Russia would put Manchus in the same bag as Mongols ?

Speaking of which, if the Qing are overthrown, they could as well make themselves vassals of the 'White Khan' in Outer Mongolia.

That said, the Transsiberian was still decades away and Russians would be hard pressed to project power in the region unlike the new dynasty (what's the name again? I didn't catch it).
Muraviev's seizure of the Amur basin in the 1850s happened, I believe, because it was to the Manchus a very fringe area and once the fait accompli was presented to them, they were too busy elsewhere to do anything about it.
Moving overland over the Trakt would be limited in scope and time scale, so I would say the sea route would be more practical for an intervention in Manchuria from the port of Vladivostok.

Perhaps the Russians could take the opportunity to seize the anchorage of Port Arthur as part of their intervention, which would be more practical than Vladivostok to make a point to the new Chinese dynasty, by threatening their coasts along the Yellow Sea, and the whole of Zhili in particular. No doubt, such a move would elicit a response both in London and Paris. At the very least, that would compell the French to push further their OTL 1866 intervention in Korea and actually keep a permanent presence in the peninsula; perhaps a British concession in Shandong as well?

 

[Gentleman Johnny]

I'm not innocent to that description personally, but boy do I remember how heated some former members could get on the matter.

It's a bit of a weirdly emotional subject, the Civil War is an enormously consequential moment in American history, and through the Trent affair it came within a whisker of being an enormous international war which would have been a highly consequential moment in Atlantic and Anglosphere history as a whole!

Some of the arguments advanced back in the day were a bit much I must say. Though I'm still baffled by claims that one side or another could "run the board" in a year and make some huge victory.

I remember an argument being made about how the US would basically collapse quickly due to a lack of arms they got from overseas that they now could not get due to the blockade.

Another similar one was about the US running out of saltpeter. I don't know much about the accuracy of these statements, but I do remember long arguments over them.​

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Wait doesn’t the south winning lead to rise of socialism and since communism was born during the civil war or before that we may see socialism or communism rising mainly in the Americas and it may take over the presidency of the USA

The original communist manifesto was published in 1848, which means most of antecedents of what we would consider modern communist thought already exist in thought outside the context of the US Civil War, though communism (and much of leftist thought) as we know it is still forming. There's plenty of room for something like it to form in the United States, and many of the soldiers who fought for the Union who fled the German states after 1848 brought with them their putative socialist/communist thoughts.

Might have some developments that's for sure.

 

[DarkAvenger]

Is the Fenian Brotherhood going to be involved in later events? I'm asking this because I think they were mentioned somewhere before in this thread. And who are the notable figures in the Brotherhood?

Also, would there be a Department of Justice in the US? IOTL, the DOJ was formed by President Grant in 1870 but since he is not likely to become President, does that mean there is no DOJ?

 

[fernerdave]

I'm not innocent to that description personally, but boy do I remember how heated some former members could get on the matter.

It's a bit of a weirdly emotional subject, the Civil War is an enormously consequential moment in American history, and through the Trent affair it came within a whisker of being an enormous international war which would have been a highly consequential moment in Atlantic and Anglosphere history as a whole!

Some of the arguments advanced back in the day were a bit much I must say. Though I'm still baffled by claims that one side or another could "run the board" in a year and make some huge victory.

Well these days the Alt Civil War TLs are much friendlier here in the peanut gallery!

 

[EnglishCanuck]

So Russia would put Manchus in the same bag as Mongols ?

The Europeans didn't seem to make that fine distinction really. The accounts I have read (and to be clear this is not intensive) see the Europeans often calling the Manchu the "Tartars" interchangeably.

Speaking of which, if the Qing are overthrown, they could as well make themselves vassals of the 'White Khan' in Outer Mongolia.

That said, the Transsiberian was still decades away and Russians would be hard pressed to project power in the region unlike the new dynasty (what's the name again? I didn't catch it).
Muraviev's seizure of the Amur basin in the 1850s happened, I believe, because it was to the Manchus a very fringe area and once the fait accompli was presented to them, they were too busy elsewhere to do anything about it.
Moving overland over the Trakt would be limited in scope and time scale, so I would say the sea route would be more practical for an intervention in Manchuria from the port of Vladivostok.

Perhaps the Russians could take the opportunity to seize the anchorage of Port Arthur as part of their intervention, which would be more practical than Vladivostok to make a point to the new Chinese dynasty, by threatening their coasts along the Yellow Sea, and the whole of Zhili in particular. No doubt, such a move would elicit a response both in London and Paris. At the very least, that would compell the French to push further their OTL 1866 intervention in Korea and actually keep a permanent presence in the peninsula; perhaps a British concession in Shandong as well?

The Russians would genuinely love to vassalize Manchuria, and despite having a small military presence, there's probably not much the new dynasty (I have not actually decided on a name yet ) would be able to practically do.

They have to walk carefully around the Europeans for now, but the new emperor now has an intimate understanding of Western weapons and steamships that the Qing court never had. That means he does, at least, understand that changes need to be made to the Chinese way of war, and that matters have to be made right so no more unequal treaties can be imposed on China.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Is the Fenian Brotherhood going to be involved in later events? I'm asking this because I think they were mentioned somewhere before in this thread. And who are the notable figures in the Brotherhood?

The Fenians will make their first appearance in 1866, so very soon! If you read Chapter 92 there is a particular individual who is very much involved in the Fenian Brotherhood...

In a post on them I will highlight their leadership, methods and goals, as it fits with a chapter.

Also, would there be a Department of Justice in the US? IOTL, the DOJ was formed by President Grant in 1870 but since he is not likely to become President, does that mean there is no DOJ?

To me it seems like a logical outcome eventually, but I don't think the McClellan or the [REDACTED] administration are likely to form it. That may fall to the [REDACTED] administration in the later 1870s.

Something to research for me!

 

[Meshakhad]

The Fenians will make their first appearance in 1866, so very soon! If you read Chapter 92 there is a particular individual who is very much involved in the Fenian Brotherhood...

In a post on them I will highlight their leadership, methods and goals, as it fits with a chapter.



To me it seems like a logical outcome eventually, but I don't think the McClellan or the [REDACTED] administration are likely to form it. That may fall to the [REDACTED] administration in the later 1870s.

Something to research for me!

Ah, President [REDACTED] of the great state of [CENSORED].

 

[NoThymeToulouse]

Does it make me a bad person if I hope the Fenians' attempts go even worse then OTL?

 

[sarahz]

Does it make me a bad person if I hope the Fenians' attempts go even worse then OTL?

no they pretty much call out for collective disdain. About all their activities achieved was to make the cause of Irish Independence look like it was run by the morally bankrupt and the comically inept in coalition, and i say that as someone who has always been favourably disposed to the cause.

 

[SultanArda]

The Fenians will make their first appearance in 1866, so very soon! If you read Chapter 92 there is a particular individual who is very much involved in the Fenian Brotherhood...

In a post on them I will highlight their leadership, methods and goals, as it fits with a chapter.

Thomas William Sweeny, from what I gathered is that individual you are talking about, right?
I can see Fenian Raids go better, as I can see quite a bit of businessman/politician/angry guys with money, funding them discreetly solely to spite the British and let them taste their medicine (in their own mind)
Maybe they managed to damage the Welland Canal, with more death on both sides?

 

[EnglishCanuck]

I remember an argument being made about how the US would basically collapse quickly due to a lack of arms they got from overseas that they now could not get due to the blockade.

Another similar one was about the US running out of saltpeter. I don't know much about the accuracy of these statements, but I do remember long arguments over them.​

I can speak to both (thanks research!) and while there's some truth in the statements, it vastly complicates the problem. The US did have a hard roof on the number of arms it could produce (it puts a hard 600-700,000 cap on the Union army in any year that isn't 1865) but the US was, so far as I can tell, not going to run out of weapons. There would certainly have been a deficit, but I struggle to see a true lack of weapons.

Its the same for saltpeter. I did do some napkin math back in the day, and it made me realize that even with smuggling and domestic production, it would even impact the number of offensives the Union could undertake, which then impacted many offensives.

The reason for all this is that in response to the OTL Trent affair, Britain did place a total embargo against arms sales to the US government, stopping all arms shipments. That was indeed a big supplier of both arms and powder for the Union in 1862, so there would need to be a work around created, which I know the US would be able to figure out eventually, but that eventually is key. If the US was willing to stay in the war to the point it would exhaust its opponents, then yes they could win. However, I did not see the US body politic wanting to do that, at least not to the point they could beat the British and CSA at the same time.

 

[Gentleman Johnny]

I can speak to both (thanks research!) and while there's some truth in the statements, it vastly complicates the problem. The US did have a hard roof on the number of arms it could produce (it puts a hard 600-700,000 cap on the Union army in any year that isn't 1865) but the US was, so far as I can tell, not going to run out of weapons. There would certainly have been a deficit, but I struggle to see a true lack of weapons.

Its the same for saltpeter. I did do some napkin math back in the day, and it made me realize that even with smuggling and domestic production, it would even impact the number of offensives the Union could undertake, which then impacted many offensives.

The reason for all this is that in response to the OTL Trent affair, Britain did place a total embargo against arms sales to the US government, stopping all arms shipments. That was indeed a big supplier of both arms and powder for the Union in 1862, so there would need to be a work around created, which I know the US would be able to figure out eventually, but that eventually is key. If the US was willing to stay in the war to the point it would exhaust its opponents, then yes they could win. However, I did not see the US body politic wanting to do that, at least not to the point they could beat the British and CSA at the same time.

Sounds about right to me.
On the other end of the spectrum, people said that Britain would collapse because the Atlantic is just SO large there's just no way they could get sufficient troops before the Union overwhelmed them.

Of course,​

there was also the "pulling the other hand out from behind their back" myth that was popular. Basically, the Union would just Hulk out if the British joined with hundreds of thousands of troops volunteering and they would suddenly all be equipped with repeaters.

Anyway, it was interesting to read about at first, but things got pretty heated in those days. It's very interesting to see how far we've come and how long it's been!​

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Does it make me a bad person if I hope the Fenians' attempts go even worse then OTL?

no they pretty much call out for collective disdain. About all their activities achieved was to make the cause of Irish Independence look like it was run by the morally bankrupt and the comically inept in coalition, and i say that as someone who has always been favourably disposed to the cause.

For what should be obvious reasons, I don't bear the Fenians any good will, but even with my own research, I have to comment that the Fenians ideas were, to be generous, quixotic. They had a split idea of how to liberate Ireland, and one was the the very crazy idea of holding Canada hostage, while the other was sending men and weapons to Ireland to fight in an uprising. The ones in Ireland would be seen as little better than terrorists (or to be blunt, organized crime, since they raised a lot of money from shaking down Irish immigrants) with their North American counterparts little better. The movement died out not because the cause of a free Ireland wasn't seen as a worthy one, but because the supposed paladins of that cause were a lot of backbiting, bitter and largely incompetent men.

Thomas William Sweeny, from what I gathered is that individual you are talking about, right?
I can see Fenian Raids go better, as I can see quite a bit of businessman/politician/angry guys with money, funding them discreetly solely to spite the British and let them taste their medicine (in their own mind)
Maybe they managed to damage the Welland Canal, with more death on both sides?

That's right! Thomas Sweeny, a one armed Irish son of a bitch! In spite of him, I can't help but respect him as not only a cool, collected, clever career soldier, but a man who was willing to put his body on the line for causes he believed in. Some of those causes were noble, others not so much.

Let's just say that you're not wrong that there are plenty of people (more than OTL) willing to turn a blind eye to Fenian activities in WiF. Despite losing the war to Britain, not everyone wants to roll over and play nice, and having some nice deniable (and disposable) assets to bleed the British will be seen as irresistible to many south of the border.

 

[DarkAvenger]

Speaking of which, there was a General Corcoran (I think that's his name) who was one of the founders of the Fenian Brotherhood in America and died in the Civil War in an accident in 1863 IOTL. I might have missed it but is he dead or is he still alive?

Almost forgot, but what happened to Brigham Young and the Mormons? Did they go to Utah or are they going to Confederate Arizona? If I remember correctly, Young was sympathetic to the Confederates.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Speaking of which, there was a General Corcoran (I think that's his name) who was one of the founders of the Fenian Brotherhood in America and died in the Civil War in an accident in 1863 IOTL. I might have missed it but is he dead or is he still alive?

Like OTL, Michael Corcoran was captured by the Confederacy at the Battle of Bull Run, but wasn't exchanged from Confederate prisons until September 1862, too late for many of the major battles of that year. In 1863 he was in New York state raising troops for the defence of that city, and the state of New York, with many of the Irish soldiers he raised being sent to defend Albany. When the war with the British ended, many of his troops were demobilized or sent south, his forces were guarding the lines of communication of the Army of the Potomac until after Mine Run in 1864.

Corcoran supported McClellan for president as he felt the treaty with the British was anathema both to the cause of the United States, but also because he did not love that Britain was making off with American territory. He's something of a folk hero in the Irish community and used his influence to help raise Fenian regiments in 1865 while still being a member of the 69th New York, and is a popular member of the Democratic party, with many assuming he will soon be a state senator. (Or invade Canada)

Almost forgot, but what happened to Brigham Young and the Mormons? Did they go to Utah or are they going to Confederate Arizona? If I remember correctly, Young was sympathetic to the Confederates.

Brigham Young supported the Union and the little Mormon support to the war can be found in Chapter 41. Other than providing some men to the battles to keep the Confederates bottled in Arizona, they mostly kept to themselves, patrolled the wagon roads, and did their best to keep their heads down as a collection of anti-Mormon officers and officials traipsed through Utah. Young is currently (as OTL) extremely interested in the planned transcontinental railroad. He's offering labor and lodgings to those looking to build it.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Sounds about right to me.
On the other end of the spectrum, people said that Britain would collapse because the Atlantic is just SO large there's just no way they could get sufficient troops before the Union overwhelmed them.​

Yeah, that was always an interesting argument which would have certainly surprised people at the time! I think that the words I manufactured for Winfield Scott that "our armies were facing the wrong way" was probably the best testament to the problem a sudden war with Britain the United States would have faced. It is not an exaggeration to say that almost every arsenal and government depot in the north had been emptied and its arms and accoutrements were sent to fight the South, to the point that even most of the government revenue cutters on Lake Ontario were shipped up the Saint Lawrence to take place on the blockade of the South.

The lag time for the Union in assembling forces just to block a thrust by the British is actually significant, because its not just moving the men, its moving all the supplies and accoutrements to actually keep them in the field! The British issues crossing the North Atlantic weren't trivial either, but the timescale for getting both armies ready meant that neither of them could have made any substantial advantage over the other on land immediately!

It's an interesting thing to theorize about.

Of course, there was also the "pulling the other hand out from behind their back" myth that was popular. Basically, the Union would just Hulk out if the British joined with hundreds of thousands of troops volunteering and they would suddenly all be equipped with repeaters.​

That I will admit was my particular bugbear about Tsouras own trilogy, the repeaters, not the Union hulking out. I really don't think enough people understand that you can't just start cranking out repeaters en masse alongside the ammunition to keep all your soldiers supplied in less than a years notice.

The old maxim that amateurs study tactics and masters study logistics should include a third category, neophytes study weapons. Doesn't matter how good your guns are if you can't get enough ammunition for them to shoot!

Anyway, it was interesting to read about at first, but things got pretty heated in those days. It's very interesting to see how far we've come and how long it's been!​

I think the discourse has generally become more civilized. I'm glad its calmed down from when I started writing TTL!

 

[mundi_mundi]

"... having some nice deniable (and disposable) assets to bleed the British will be seen as irresistible to many south of the border."

Yes, but to those south of which border are you thinking?

Bad jokes aside, excellent work as always EnglishCanuck! Sad to see the Maori wars looking to go even worse for the Maori, unless you're planning to pull a rabbit out of a hat?