Dissecting Worlds Series 6 Episode 4: The American Civil War

Well it is finally here, my guest spot on the Dissecting Worlds podcast, my first ever podcast appearance.  I join Kehaar and Matt Farr as we look at that popular alternate history setting of the American Civil War. Topics covered during the podcast include:

• Harry Harrison’s Star and Stripes series, the Trent Affair and options for European intervention.
• Harry Turtledove’s TL-191 and the romanticism of both sides of the ACW.
• The appeal (and consequences) of a Balkanized North America and an Anglo-American Union.
• Everyone's favorite winged extraterrestrials and South African Nazis.
• One of my favorite comic books: Captain Confederacy!
• Race in America and its legacy in fiction and reality. I'm calling you out H.P. Lovecraft!

Special thanks to Chris Nuttall, Richard Small and Roger L. Ransom for giving me food for thought while preparing for the podcast.

I hope you enjoy our discussion and remember: feedback is appreciated.

* * *

Matt Mitrovich is the founder and editor of Alternate History Weekly Update, a volunteer editor for Alt Hist and a contributor to Just Below the Law. His fiction can be found at Echelon Press, Jake's Monthly and his own writing blog. When not writing he works as an attorney and enjoys life with his beautiful wife Alana.

Musings on a Trent Affair War

Guest post by Chris Nuttall.

After I wrote a review of Harry Harrison’s Stars and Stripes series, some readers commented that I was being too harsh on Harrison.  I felt – and still do – that Harrison did not do enough (or any) research before putting pen to paper.  The war depicted in the trilogy isn't just implausible, it’s flatly impossible.  So...what might have happened if...

Well, it’s a little difficult to say, but I will try and outline the most likely possibilities.

The background is simple enough.  On November 8th, 1861, the USS San Jacinto, commanded by Union Captain Charles Wilkes, intercepted the British mail packet RMS Trent and removed, as contraband of war, two Confederate diplomats, James Mason and John Slidell.  The envoys were bound for Great Britain and France to press the Confederacy’s case for diplomatic recognition by Europe.  This was particularly galling to Britain as (aside from the issue of the US not honouring the British flag) they had fought the War of 1812 with the US at least partly over the issue of British ships removing Americans from captured vessels.  The first inclination of the British Government was to issue a harsh demand that the two be returned and the US publicly apologise and accept blame for the diplomatic disaster.  This would have been politically difficult for the US as Wilkes had already been hailed as a hero.

However, while British public opinion had been outraged by the slight, the truth was that there was very little support for the American South.  Prince Albert helped to convince the British Government to give Lincoln a way out of the dilemma without losing too much face, allowing diplomatic relations to return to normal.  Britain remained neutral for the rest of the Civil War.

The Trent Affair itself did not galvanise British opinion to demanding war.  Harrison’s POD is Prince Albert dying earlier, with the Queen blaming the US for his death.  I think that Harrison overestimates the Queen’s power, even in that era.  It is much more plausible for Wilkes to kill – accidentally or otherwise – one or more of the British crewmen on the Trent.  (Sinking the ship would be even worse.)  That is much more serious than merely removing a pair of CSA diplomats from the ship and leaves the British Government with far less room to operate.  Lincoln must be forced to eat crow, rather than being offered a way out of the crisis.

(This is part of a problem rarely understood by people who aren't in the hot seat at the time.  Governments like keeping their options open as long as possible, rather than being blunt in their public communications.  This sometimes also starts wars when one side misunderstands their opponent’s pronouncements, as in the Falklands War.)

The British demands will be harsh, backed by an even more outraged public.  This will be backed by an immediate embargo on US purchasing in Britain, which is more serious than it seems.  The US had bought up stocks of saltpetre in the UK and it was awaiting shipping at the time of the Trent Affair, all of which will now be impounded – creating a major powder shortage in the US.  Presumably the US will start kicking its own production programs into high gear, but this will still take time – 1863 by some estimates.

More seriously, the UK will be shipping troops to Canada, which wasn’t actually undefended.  Estimates vary, but given time the UK could muster and support an army of 500,000 soldiers.  Even without such a heavy muster, Canada will be reinforced by 155,000 British regulars from the UK – the British militia will take over home defence, if necessary.

The British Government will try hard to avoid a war, but as I noted above, it won’t have so much ground for accepting a compromise.  The CSA will probably take advantage of the chaos by offering everything from basing rights to cheap access to cotton.  This is a British interest (IIRC, the cotton-using factories in Lancashire suffered badly until new sources of cotton were established in the British Empire) but it won’t be enough to convince the UK to recognise the CSA as an independent government.  The CSA wasn't particularly popular in the UK, particularly among the antislavery campaigners.  (Once Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, it ended the threat of British intervention.)

Lincoln will also be trying to avoid a war, but he too will have little room for compromise.  In OTL, Wilkes was seen as a public hero.  It is possible that he might be regarded as a pirate in ATL, allowing Lincoln to hand him over for trial without facing an outraged public opinion, but that wouldn't get us a war.  Lincoln’s political enemies would also be using any sign of weakness as a hammer to beat him with; the Democrats feared that the Civil War was unwinnable and would have agreed to a truce, if they had been in power.  There would also be major economic dislocations from the British embargo.  The shortage of gunpowder wouldn't be the only problem.

Complicating matters is that his own cabinet would be bitterly divided.  Some elements of his government even believe that a war with Britain would reunite the country, which Lincoln feels is a fool’s dream.  (This isn't entirely implausible.  Some political leaders planned a war with Spain just prior to Lincoln’s election that would hopefully divert attention from the growing divide.)  Lincoln’s problems are vast, however; whatever terms he can offer politically won’t be enough to satisfy the British.

The one piece of good news is that the British haven’t recognised the CSA as a legitimate government – and may never do so.  Fighting a war to uphold British honour would be one thing, but the British Government doesn't wish to give the opposition something to unite around – like recognising a slave-holding power.  That doesn't stop the South from trying to buy supplies in the UK, or offering to sell cotton at reduced rates to the UK, but it’s not the diplomatic recognition they believe they need.

With the British squadrons being reinforced and Canada being increasingly heavily defended, Lincoln attempts to offer a compromise.  The CSA’s diplomats will be released and Wilkes will be censured by the US for exceeding his orders.  This is unacceptable to a British Government that has staked its position on forcing the US to disgorge Wilkes for trial in an unfriendly court.  Reluctantly, the UK takes the final steps towards war, with war aims that satisfy no one.

Harrison commits many errors of fact in his series and the most glaring lie in his analysis of the naval operations of a US-UK War.  Britain ruled the waves in 1862 and the USN would only briefly become superior towards the end of the Civil War, a position it would not enjoy again until World War Two.  Harrison states that the Royal Navy had only two steam vessels, both inferior to the US ironclad Monitor.  That is simply untrue.  The Royal Navy was the most modern fleet in the world at that and enjoyed a large number of steam vessels.  Furthermore, Monitor was not capable of operating on the open seas and the British ships were – as well as having much more long-range guns.  Precisely how they would match up in a fight has been hotly debated, but it wouldn't be the American walkover that Harrison describes.

Admiral Milne’s orders were to break the blockade of the CSA’s coast and destroy as much as possible of the USN.  The US’s dispositions might well change in the event of a possible war with Britain, as naval admirals believed that concentration of force was vitally important, something that would weaken the blockade considerably.  However, Milne enjoyed considerable superiority regardless of the precise American dispositions.  Chances are that he will shatter the blockade reasonably quickly and disperse the remaining American ships.  I don’t think that the UK would make any attempt to capture US-held positions in the South (as Harrison describes) because that would be overtly assisting the CSA.

The British also did plan on raiding Washington, as Harrison described.  I have been unable to find very detailed sources on Washington’s defences at that time (they were massively boosted throughout the war) but one source noted that Washington was defended by the entire XXII Corps and 9 Separate Brigades.  Raiding Washington might be possible (the Royal Navy liked the concept of raiding enemy territory, as they did in the Napoleonic Wars), but an occupation would be a pipe dream.  It is quite possible that the British will try a raid and get a bloody nose for their troubles.

I don’t know if there would be an encounter between British ironclads and Monitor.  If there was, online sources (here and here) suggest that the British would win.  I suspect that any American ships that escaped the dragnet would turn to raiding British merchant shipping.  This isn't exactly a bad idea, although it would harden attitudes in Britain towards the USA.

Whatever else happens, the US would be in deep economic trouble.  The British blockade would, for example, prevent gold and silver from being moved from California/Nevada, an important source of revenue that was normally transported by sea.  There would also be a stranglehold on US shipping, blocking imports and probably foreign loans.  The overwhelming source of federal income is from import tariffs, which are going to be drastically cut.  In the long term, the British might even consider seizing California as a source of gold.  It would certainly make the war pay for itself.

The CSA benefits from the war even without British recognition.  They see the blockade effectively lifted even if Britain doesn't recognise the south or directly co-operate with it. This enables it to trade, getting vital imports, and also make much more use of coastal commerce, which eases the strain on its railway network. Also there is the chance that, even if Britain doesn't recognise the south someone else, possibly Imperial France, might do so. Once one nation gives recognition it could well set the ball rolling as other won't want to get left out. Also France might offer recognition in return for southern acceptance of the project Napoleon III is starting to work on in Mexico.  In summary, the CSA will get a great deal stronger very quickly, although not enough to overwhelm the USA.

Canada will also be a major conflict zone.  It is possible that, as Harrison suggests, a border incident could start the fighting with both sides convinced that the other started it.  British commanders would not actually be eager to start a war – the US was vast, large enough to be impossible to defeat quickly, if at all.  On the other hand, the US might launch a limited offensive as soon as their commanders heard about the naval fighting.  Unfortunately, there are plenty of question marks over just what forces the US would have on hand to fight a war.

The British (and Canadians) would probably have a limited superiority in the area.  They’d also have more gunboats on the Great Lakes, giving them a chance to secure control of the water and move troops around faster than the US.  On the other hand, there would still be a great deal of confusion over what the actual goals of the war are – conquest of the US is pretty much impossible.  My guess is that the British would defend Canada and – if the opportunity presents itself – occupy New England and the Great Lake shores as bargaining chips for the peace talks, in line with European practice at the time.

Lincoln probably moves troops to the north from the front as soon as the first reports come in, probably giving the US the ability to establish new defensive lines further into American soil.  I think that by the end of the first round of fighting both sides would have acquitted themselves well, but the fighting would have stalemated with the British reluctant to press the offensive and the US concentrating on holding the line.

Now what?

The British will probably grow increasingly frustrated with the US as they try to find a way to get out of the war.  Fighting the US will be a major drain on British resources, adding to the problems caused by losing the US as a trading partner.  I’d expect there to be considerable political discontent in the UK, depending on how the war plays out publicly.  Jingoism is all very well, but fighting the US is likely to be costly.  There are also problems caused by the fact that the UK cannot actually overrun the US and declare victory.   By the end of 1862, if not before, British troops will probably take California and lay claim to the gold fields.  If this doesn't bring the US to the peace table, the UK will be committed to a long war that might be unwinnable.  A wild card is the attitude of the Russians or French.  The Russians might well have allied with the US, causing new problems for the UK.  And the French would be looking for their own advantages.

As I see it, there are several ways this could go from here:

First, the US reluctantly comes to the peace table with the UK and the CSA.  The issues have gone well beyond merely handing over Wilkes; chances are they’d lose California as well to the UK.  This probably needs Lincoln to be removed from office by the Senate and a general desire to end the war as quickly as possible, maybe helped by Lincoln trying to clamp down on dissent.  (Historically, Lincoln and his supports suppressed more dissent than is generally realised, particularly in Maryland.)  The UK will probably abandon the South to get the best peace terms possible.

Second, the CSA launches a major offensive, perhaps with direct support from the UK.  This alternate version of the Gettysburg Campaign probably leads to a major US defeat and the collapse of the Lincoln Government.  The US is effectively separated in two (three if you count Canada) and probably undergoes a major recession.  Alternatively, the offensive might fail and provide an excuse for the UK to leave the war early.

Third, the US hangs on grimly.  By 1862/3 they will probably have solved the gunpowder shortage by switching to using manure as a source.  They will also have mobilised additional Irishmen (who were keener on fighting the British than the South) and Black Americans, as well as building new factories far from the coastline and away from British raids.  In this alternate, the US probably breaks the defences of Canada by 1864 and takes the state (with the possible exception of Halifax), followed by a crushing advance into the South.  The war ends with the US restored and a major grudge against the UK.  Harrison’s delusions of a US invasion of the UK will remain delusions, but they will have good reason to counter the UK once the war is over.

Which one is more likely?  I don’t know.

Predicting the long term effects of the war is a difficult task (and largely done in thousands of ‘South wins the Civil War scenarios.’)  It clearly also depends on just what the actual outcome of the war is.  A short war might see history as we know it back on track.  A longer war will certainly have unpredictable effects.  Technology will advance (although not to the level suggested by Harrison); politics will change sharply.  An independent CSA will remain a slaveholding state for much longer, although how much longer is questionable.  (See this essay.)  American racial attitudes may harden if the blacks are blamed for a lost war, or Reconstruction might be much sharper if the CSA is crushed later.  And the British Empire may rule the waves for much longer.

I could probably do an essay on the possible outcomes I suggest above, if anyone is interested.

This may not have happened as I suggest, but I submit to you that it is a great deal more plausible than Harrison’s war.  And much more interesting too.

[I like writing these, but I need comments and feedback.  Reasoned disagreement is more than welcome, it is positively enjoyed.  Suggestions for new articles are welcome too.]

*      *      *

Chris Nuttall blogs at The Chrishanger and has a website by the same name. His books can be found on Amazon Kindle.

Problems with American Civil War Alternate Histories

According to Uchronia, American Civil War alternate histories are one of the two most written about alternate histories in the English language. It is easy to see why when you consider that the United States accounts for over 300 million of the English speaking world. Meanwhile, the war itself was a significant period of history.  It was one of the first examples of industrial war and one of the deadliest in American history. The legacy of the war is still felt in American culture as politicians and scholars endlessly debate the war.

Nevertheless, I fear that the topic in general often leads to bad alternate history.  A combination of factors often make these timelines implausible, whether they be misinterpretations of history or the personal bias of the author.  This article will explain some of the inherent issues with American Civil War alternate histories that authors should recognize before attempting to write their own alternate history based on the "War Between the States".

There are many potential points of divergence involving the war.  Four of the most popular PODs include the Battle of Gettysburg, the Trent Affair/British intervention, Lincoln surviving his assassination and time travel.  Other popular PODs include a harsher Reconstruction, the Battle of Shiloh, General Grant dying during the war, slave rebellions, the South being allowed to peacefully secede and Lincoln being assassinated earlier.  These PODs often create independent Confederacies, but not always.  Sometimes the South is peacefully allowed to secede, sometimes the North and South will reunite or sometimes the war will never end.  For the rest of the article, however, we will focus on the four most popular PODs and some of the issues inherent in each one.

First, the Battle of Gettysburg, which is by far the most popular of the American Civil War PODs.  Not only did it have the single largest number of casualties during the war, the battle is also described as a turning point of the war by historians.  Alternate history tends to accept that distinction by the sheer numbers of works that use an alternate outcome for the battle as the divergence point.  Yet is it a plausible POD?  William Forstchen, who wrote the Civil War Trilogy with Newt Gingrich and Albert Hanser, disagrees.  In his short story "Lee's Victory at Gettysburg… and Then What?", Forstchen speculates that even if the Confederates were victorious at the Battle of Gettysburg, weather, logistics, and the defenses of Washington would have combined to prevent any immediate Confederate victory in the American Civil War. 

This sheds doubt on whether the Battle of Gettysburg was an actual turning point of the war.  If it was a true jonbar hinge, the entire outcome of the war should be reversed if General Lee and his army were victorious.  In fact there is debate about whether Gettysburg was even a turning point.  Several historians have put forth other battles or events that are more significant to the outcome of the war.  This blogger feels that Battle of Gettysburg PODs reflect the human nature to pick a specific battle as being more important than others when deciding the outcome of the war, even if it means ignoring the other theaters of the conflict.

The next popular PODs are intervention by foreign powers (usually by the British after the Trent Affair) or time travellers.  I am combining these two divergences because they both equate to the same thing: outside intervention into the war.  Usually when someone else gets involved in the war, whether it is having British and French regiments at Gettysburg or time travellers handing General Lee an AK-47s, the Confederacy wins its independence. 

This reflects a major OTL concern of the Confederacy: that they pinned their hope of survival on military intervention by Britain and/or France.  If the Confederacy were desperate for international (or temporal) recognition and aid to win their independence, writing an alternate history where the Confederacy wins their independence without it may be implausible.  Since this includes such ASB elements as time travel, it should be a warning sign to any alternate historian interested in speculating on a Confederate victory.  You should tread carefully because it is very difficult to create a plausible alternate history involving the war without some sort of outside intervention.

Finally we get to President Lincoln surviving his assassination.  Abraham Lincoln led the country through a great constitutional, military and moral crisis.  He successfully preserved the Union, while ending slavery, and promoting economic and financial modernization.  Lincoln has been consistently ranked by scholars as one of the greatest U.S. presidents, so there is no doubt why so many alternate historians speculate on what would happen had he lived.  This POD, however, often reflect the wishful thinking on the part of the author.  This is very apparent in Superman: A Nation Divided where the rocket from Krypton landed in Kansas in 1844 and Superman becomes an abolitionist superhero who got involved in the American Civil War.  Superman will go on to prevent Lincoln's assassination and afterwards Lincoln goes on to serve two full terms and becomes the most popular American president in history. 

Seeing Lincoln as national martyr and endowing him with a recognition of mythic proportions is very poor history, which makes even worse alternate history.  He was assailed by Radical Republicans for his moderate views on Reconstruction, War Democrats who desired more compromise and Copperheads who wanted peace with the South.  Modern historians have cast doubt to his credentials as the "Great Emancipator" and his pro-business and nationalist views make him more likable to modern American conservatives than liberals.  Alternate historians cannot get caught up in wishful thinking about Lincoln.  He was a politician who was just as capable of failing to make the right decision.  He was not a superhero and alternate historians should not paint him as such.

That brings me to my next point: the bias of the author is more often reflected in American Civil War alternate histories then in any other alternate history.  Thus we tend to see American Civil War alternate histories being categorized under two extremes: wanks and grimdarks.

Let us begin with the wanks.  For those who do not know, wanks are when a single country is always successful, steadily expands and generally does better than is plausible.  Cofenderate States of America wanks are not difficult to spot.  Often the CSA steps into the shoes of the OTL USA, becoming the world's sole superpower while easily handling the issues of slavery, emancipation and race relations (often better than OTL).  These types of alternate history often fall under the Lost Cause theory of the American Civil War. 

This movement tended to portray the Confederacy's cause as noble and most of its leaders as exemplars of old-fashioned chivalry, defeated by the Union armies through overwhelming force rather than martial skill. Proponents of the Lost Cause movement also condemned the Reconstruction that followed the Civil War, claiming that it had been a deliberate attempt by Northern politicians and speculators to destroy the traditional Southern way of life.  It is not difficult to find examples of Confederate wanks, especially on the Internet.

Many have criticized this movement, saying it gives a false view of history and even going as far as to say it promotes racism.  Nevertheless, being overly infatuated with the South makes for a poor alternate historian.  Wanks are rarely, if ever, plausible (unless you subscribe to the idea that we exist in an American wank).  In the case of the Confederacy, alternate historians often ignore major issues inherent with Confederacy, such as their economy which attributed to the Confederacy's defeat in the Civil War.  Alternate historians should not allow romantic notions of any culture to replace good, old-fashioned research.

This applies to the other extreme as well.  Grimdarks where the Confederacy is used as a historical villain can be just as implausible as wanks that paint the Confederacy as shining beacon of civilization in the altered timeline.   It is this blogger's personal opinion that history is rarely black and white.  While the Confederacy stood for things that are abhorrent to many people in modern day society, it is truly difficult to vilify them when you consider the number of people in slavery today is higher than in any point in history.  It is often hypocritical of a modern-day alternate historian to paint a picture of a grimdark Confederacy, when our own world can be pretty grimdark for millions of people under the bonds of slavery.

Yet it still happens.  Probably the most notable example is Harry Turtledove's Great War multi-series.  This eleven-volume series has an independent Confederacy transformed into a Nazi-analogue, complete with their very own Hitler and Holocaust.  I understand that Turtledove was trying to tell us that "it can happen here", but one still wonders whether it was plausible.  While I realize that every culture has the capacity to commit horrible atrocities on others, the long centuries of anti-Semitism that eventually brought about the OTL Holocaust do not translate well into how the South would deal with its black population, even after a major loss in a war.

This brings me to my last major point about American Civil War alternate histories: do your research.  It is possible to create a timeline that gives the reader a realistic portrayal of an independent Confederacy, especially in the Information Age where you have access to virtually infinite amounts of content on the war, along with the opinions of scholars with varying viewpoints. Do not allow your bias or the myths on the Civil War (many of which are still taught in American schools) to cause you to sacrifice the hard work necessary to make a plausible timeline.

Nevertheless, whether your American Civil War timeline leans to the implausible extremes or tries to be as realistic as possible, it is still likely to be controversial regardless of where you publish it. Many Americans are still fighting the Civil War in the public arena. Some of the worst arguments I have witnessed between alternate historians involved the American Civil War. Lost Cause enthusiasts, militant Lincoln advocates and plaid old Internet trolls will tear apart whatever you create.  So be warned when writing an American Civil War alternate history, a hard skin and cool demeanor is a must.

In conclusion, American Civil War alternate histories are very difficult to write.  The most common PODs tend to be implausible and should be avoided.  Do not allow your personal bias to replace good research and be ready to deal with intense criticism from every side.  I do not mean to discourage would be alternate historians who wish to tackle this significant period of history, just be warned that to do it right is a lot harder then it looks.

* * *

Mitro is founder, editor and contributor of Alternate History Weekly Update. When he is not busy writing about his passion for alternate history, he spends his time working as a licensed attorney in the state of Illinois and dreams of being a published author himself one day.