What would my CSA Victory timeline peace negotiations look like in my scenario?

Joined
Apr 6, 2019
Messages
4
#1
Hey everyone, i was wondering if you could help me give me an idea of what the terms of the peace negotiations of the USA and the CSA look like in my scenario of a Confederate Victory. So here it goes...

The Confederate campaign in New Mexico goes really well and they eventually get to California and take control of it and it's gold and all it's resources. The gold is then shipped to Europe, where Britain and France recognize the CSA after seeing the gold and conquering California. Britain and France then warn the USA to end the blockade or face naval war with Britain and France. Lincoln seeing this is a lose lose situation agrees to a ceasfire with the South. Also Jefferson Davis makes sure Kentucky's neutrality is not violated and Leonidas Polk doesn't invade it, the ceasefire occurs in April of 1863

What would the terms of the peace be?, What would happen to the border states? Would Britain and France make any concessions?

Tell me what would it be Thanks!
 

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
4,166
#2
1863 - ok. The addition of Cali gold to the Confederate Treasury would be a welcome addition. (Who is protecting it, mining it, refining it, transporting it back to the East Coast? The Confederacy already has a manpower issue...) Gold will buy her much on Euro markets if she can get it there. They will allow her to spend all she has. But then those purcheses have to get back through the Union blockade. Buying the recognition of Euro Governments is another matter entirely.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2019
Messages
2
#3
You pose a very interesting 'What if...'

The main obstacle to a negotiated peace is the belief that if the cost of war to the other side is great enough then the way to peace opens. This occasionally works (Vietnam for example) but more often it fills the other side with greater resolve. Hitler thought the Blitz would get England to the negotiating table (it didn't). Churchill believed that using the British air force to level Germany's cities would cause them to negotiate (again it didn't). In most cases war only stops when one side either doesn't have the capacity to continue, or believes the war is no longer winnable.
So to make your scenario work the North has to become convinced that the war can't be won. One way to make that a reality is if Britain did declare war, then the North would find itself fighting for it's life... and all sorts of possibilities open up.

Just my (probably overvalued) 2 cents. Thanks for making me think.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2016
Messages
670
#4
Jabe

I agree with the other comments. If the south managed to get California its going to help their cause considerably but its not going to be easy to get or to hold, or to exploit its resources, especially with union control of the sea. Possibly more important might be the loss of resources, especially fiscal, for the north but its still got a lot and as long as it can get loans from overseas there will be some strain on the northern economy but not greatly so.

Also I can't see the European powers being that willing to support it against the north without a much stronger reason. They can have access to Californian/Nevadian precious metals whoever controls them and have access to other resources elsewhere. Since a dow or open support for the south means at the least bad relations with the union, a much more important market and a potential problem for Britain in defending Canada its going to need something stronger. Napoelon III might fancy an advanture but he's already getting bogged down in Mexico and according to some reports Britain had discouraged him from suggestions of supporting the south. Hence I think it would need something stronger for either of the European big two to step into such open support of the south. That's why the Trent Incident going hot is such a common POD because it gives a clear and strong reason for Britain to go to war with the north.

Avoiding the invasion of Kentucky does help in keeping that neutral although don't know enough to tell how important or how long that might last. Would definitely help in the west and even more so if the union make a major intervention and a lot of people in Kentucky oppose them as a result.

A possible alternative, although not sure how likely it would be might be if Lincoln didn't come down hard on Fremont when he unilaterally frees slaves in I think it was Kentucky, which might drive it and at least elements of the other loyal 'slave' states into opposition. Less because of the question of slavery possibly than the infringement of a general, apparently supported by the central government, into states rights and the liberties of its [white] citizens.

Steve
 

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
4,166
#5
Sir, one other extreme wild card bubbled up in my head...The Confederacy secures Cali - regardless of how much or what parts...her conquests can't be retaken by the Union so are de-facto the territory of a belligerency. And then the Russians, (who have come as far south as the San Fran area) show up in force...Gold attracts many suitors...and if one can take it, so can others...
64

Just a thought,
USS ALASKA
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2016
Messages
670
#6
Sir, one other extreme wild card bubbled up in my head...The Confederacy secures Cali - regardless of how much or what parts...her conquests can't be retaken by the Union so are de-facto the territory of a belligerency. And then the Russians, (who have come as far south as the San Fran area) show up in force...Gold attracts many suitors...and if one can take it, so can others...
64

Just a thought,
USS ALASKA
Interesting idea but could the Russians in turn hold it? Their not likely to be popular with the Anglos, who I think are already the majority population and will earn the emnity of both American states, or of a reunited union if the north still wins. Which with no war and hence being able possibly to use friendly British bases could pose a serious threat to a very exposed Russian position. Or Russia gets involved in a war with either Britain or France and they could then take it from them.

Whichever way it turns out I suspect it wouldn't fit in with the scenario I presume Jabe wants of a successful and larger southern confederacy including the area.

Steve
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2019
Messages
4
#7
Interesting idea but could the Russians in turn hold it? Their not likely to be popular with the Anglos, who I think are already the majority population and will earn the emnity of both American states, or of a reunited union if the north still wins. Which with no war and hence being able possibly to use friendly British bases could pose a serious threat to a very exposed Russian position. Or Russia gets involved in a war with either Britain or France and they could then take it from them.

Whichever way it turns out I suspect it wouldn't fit in with the scenario I presume Jabe wants of a successful and larger southern confederacy including the area.

Steve

You would be correct sir
 



Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top