US foreign policy after CSA secedes

Yay, another fucking CSA thread
I am for your imformation making this to gather info for a scenario I'm thinking of doing, so it's for a good cause

So, how will the southern secession affect US expansion westwards and their later actions upon the world stage.
I'm going with the realistic CSA here, as in the one that can't even beat Mexico, and the only reason all the other states don't secede is because they're scared of being snapped up by the north.

Maybe we need a CSA glossary the way we have one for SeaLion. Anyway...

I think it depends on how the CSA wins the war. If the UK and France are pivotal in their independence, look to the US finding allies in Russia and proto-Germany. If the CSA somehow wins on their own, then there might be a heckuvalot less hostility. Also, I think the foreign policy will be tempered by the relationship between the two at the end of the war. If the South wins by attrition or after a very long struggle where the Union essentially throws in the towel there will be bitter feelings but an acceptance of their secession with some irredentism for about a generation. If the secession is dependent on international forces or comes after a quick war there might be a "Stab in the back" myth and a burning desire to see the South reclaimed for two, three, even four generations.

What are the territorial extents of this CSA? If it is the standard 11+ Kentucky and possibly the Indian Territory then we are gonna see a more regional or hemispheric focus on foreign policy. Of course how the CSA got it's independence will matter greatly. If the CSA got foreign aid from Europe, most likely Britain or France, than the US is going to also seek out allies (this is probably the most plausible action in TL 191).

M79 said:

Maybe we need a CSA glossary the way we have one for SeaLion. Anyway...

Click to expand...

I agree, there was an explosion in them about a month ago.

I think it depends on how the CSA wins the war. If the UK and France are pivotal in their independence, look to the US finding allies in Russia and proto-Germany. If the CSA somehow wins on their own, then there might be a heckuvalot less hostility. Also, I think the foreign policy will be tempered by the relationship between the two at the end of the war. If the South wins by attrition or after a very long struggle where the Union essentially throws in the towel there will be bitter feelings but an acceptance of their secession with some irredentism for about a generation. If the secession is dependent on international forces or comes after a quick war there might be a "Stab in the back" myth and a burning desire to see the South reclaimed for two, three, even four generations.

Click to expand...

I'm not the most knowledgeable on the details of the Civil War, but for the sake of my scenario I'm gonna say the South won by themselves.
They're not gonna last very long anyway, so even if it's just one generation of irredentism that's all I really need.

IchBinDieKaiser said:

What are the territorial extents of this CSA? If it is the standard 11+ Kentucky and possibly the Indian Territory then we are gonna see a more regional or hemispheric focus on foreign policy. Of course how the CSA got it's independence will matter greatly. If the CSA got foreign aid from Europe, most likely Britain or France, than the US is going to also seek out allies (this is probably the most plausible action in TL 191).

Click to expand...

Kentucky stays with the Union after the war, Indian Territory is with the South.

See above.

Most likely Kentucky w/ Union, West Va. also. Indian territory can go either way. Rest of OTL USA stays. Assuming that France/UK helpful in CSA becoming independent, USA relations w/ those much chillier. OTL Russia was cozying up to USA during CW as counterbalance against UK, imagine this will be even more so. Also, come 1870 & Franco-Prussian War & unification of Germany, can see US closer to Germany than OTL. IF CSA signs formal alliances w/European powers might see the US go against Washington & do likewise.

Hawaii gets annexed maybe even sooner than OTL, and if US/Russia even closer Alaska might get transferred or might not. IMHO Spanish-American War gets butterflied away.

If the UK and Canada didn't actively aid the secessionists in the war, and if it's at all possible, the US will try to maintain as friendly relations with Canada as possible. It won't do to have the US sandwiched between two enemy countries.
I think you can expect a long and bloody civil war in Mexico, as both sides try to install a friendly regime in Mexico City. The same thing might happen in some of the Carribean countries. Independent Haiti, born out of revolution, historically made the CSA nervous, as it presumably inspired slaves in the Confederacy to rise up. The US didn't even recognize the country until the Civil War, when the departure of obstructionist Southern Congressmen made it possible. I imagine the US will maintain its wartime friendship with General Geffrard, and keep its naval base at Cap-Haitien. It would make a convenient springboard for covert ops, if Washington decides to encourage and arm hopeful Nat Turners in the Confederacy, and why wouldn't they?

jacobus said:

If the UK and Canada didn't actively aid the secessionists in the war, and if it's at all possible, the US will try to maintain as friendly relations with Canada as possible. It won't do to have the US sandwiched between two enemy countries.
I think you can expect a long and bloody civil war in Mexico, as both sides try to install a friendly regime in Mexico City. The same thing might happen in some of the Carribean countries. Independent Haiti, born out of revolution, historically made the CSA nervous, as it presumably inspired slaves in the Confederacy to rise up. The US didn't even recognize the country until the Civil War, when the departure of obstructionist Southern Congressmen made it possible. I imagine the US will maintain its wartime friendship with General Geffrard, and keep its naval base at Cap-Haitien. It would make a convenient springboard for black ops, if the US decides to encourage and arm hopeful Nat Turners in the Confederacy, and why wouldn't they?

Click to expand...

Sounds good, though I think you're overestimating the strength of the CSA here. The states are all going to want to be as autonomous as possible, the Civil War was about states rights and the strength of the federal government after all. The states will be likely to maintain their own militias over a large federal army, and as the CSA was born out of one huge secession, there's already a precedent set for other states simply refusing to tow the federal governments line, and leaving if they feel like they're being forced.
The whole thing is an anarchy waiting to happen, with only the possibility of expanding or an ever present threat from the US holding it all together. And with only a tiny federal army, expansion might not be the most practical thing.

Todyo1798 said:

The whole thing is an anarchy waiting to happen, with only the possibility of expanding or an ever present threat from the US holding it all together. And with only a tiny federal army, expansion might not be the most practical thing.

Click to expand...

Hell, if they try and Take Cuba, instead of just spreading out into South Florida and more marginal areas, the ensuing war would break the CSA, as I'm sure no-one from say, the Upper South would want to fight a Major war purely for the benefit of South Carolinian and Gulf-coast planters. Especially if it could possibly draw the Union or UK in.

NothingNow said:

Hell, if they try and Take Cuba, instead of just spreading out into South Florida and more marginal areas, the ensuing war would break the CSA, as I'm sure no-one from say, the Upper South would want to fight a Major war purely for the benefit of South Carolinian and Gulf-coast planters. Especially if it could possibly draw the Union or UK in.

Click to expand...

Well I'm sure there's some Southern support for expansion into Latin America and the Carribean, but the chances are those who aren't going to be of immediate benefit from the cmapaign are not going to offer much support for it.
For example, the Confederate President declares war on Mexico to try and divert the attentions of Texan scessionists. The war has no support east of the Missisippi, being seen as only a waste of tax payers money. It'll fail for various reasons, and once the Confederate army are ousted and the Mexicans start marching across the Rio Grande, the whole things gonna break apart.

OK, this is my opinion on CSA secession -

*Given the choice, Kentucky will leave and go with the CSA. Yes, the state government was pro-Union, but the bulk of the state especially Central and East was pro-Confederate. The state would also be the second or third most industrialized in the Confederacy

*Indian Territory is going with the Confederacy unless the Union occupies it, and given their opinions of Native Americans at the time I do not see them even *trying* to keep it

*West Virginia will probably stay in the Union if the CSA is not in a position of strength at the negotiating table, besides its northern counties want to leave and should be allowed to. Those south and inclusive of Charleston will want to go to the Confederacy.

*Missouri, New Mexico, and Arizona remain in the Union but will be Confederate targets for acquisition in any future war along with West Virginia, perhaps the Delmarva peninsula too.

*CSA will support adventurers and private expeditions into banana republics which can then be turned into Confederate states. Guatemala would be ripe in 1870 and most of Central America could be fodder for Richmond

*Cuba might not be incorporated into the CSA right away but will be a very friendly nation and might become a satellite. It will be close enough that it might incorporate into the CSA eventually but more likely will remain a very close ally.

Annexing Cuba means war with Spain, who were militarily far more powerful than the USA in the 1860's/70's.

I suppose a lot depends on the extent of the CSA. A lot of it was militarily occupied, some before it could declare secession. If left to "natural borders" then East Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, Indian territory, NM/AZ and the southern counties of California would be in the CSA, but some NW Virginia counties and NE Tennessee counties would be out.

The USA winds up far more militarized than IOTL, from the simple necessity of forestalling runaway slaves producing a renewed border. It will also be emphasizing its commercial ties with the wider world, and after a certain point its foreign policy will be to more or less ignore the CSA until its contradictions implode it, at which point the USA moves in to prevent anyone else doing so, winding up a super-Israel of sorts.

A more militarized USA crushes the Amerindians in ten years, flat. It's much easier to bulldoze them down with 30,000 out of 100,000 troops than it is with an army that amounts to a grand total of 16,000. The USA will wind up an imperialist just as per OTL, though the need to secure the CS border will handicap its military freedom of action relatively more than IOTL.

67th Tigers said:

Annexing Cuba means war with Spain, who were militarily far more powerful than the USA in the 1860's/70's.

I suppose a lot depends on the extent of the CSA. A lot of it was militarily occupied, some before it could declare secession. If left to "natural borders" then East Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, Indian territory, NM/AZ and the southern counties of California would be in the CSA, but some NW Virginia counties and NE Tennessee counties would be out.

Click to expand...

East Maryland, including Washington, Kentucky, where there was no CS sentiment in any scenario resembling OTL (otherwise Perryville and Richmond would have been much bigger victories than they were), Missouri, which the CSA lost in 1861 and never remotely had a chance to regain, NM/AZ, and southern California are "natural" borders?

I suppose this is from the mindset where razing all of New York to ashes regardless of what this means for the people IN NEW YORK qualifies as a moderate war plan.

There were somethign like 40,000 Kentuckians in gray...and most of them appear only in units recruited out of state. As in, they didn't muster in IN Kentucky. The idea that Kentucky or West Virginia was kept in the Union by the mighty bayonets of the Union army vastly overrates its presence in the states involved.

67th Tigers said:

Annexing Cuba means war with Spain, who were militarily far more powerful than the USA in the 1860's/70's.

I suppose a lot depends on the extent of the CSA. A lot of it was militarily occupied, some before it could declare secession. If left to "natural borders" then East Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, Indian territory, NM/AZ and the southern counties of California would be in the CSA, but some NW Virginia counties and NE Tennessee counties would be out.

Click to expand...

If the CSA seems likely to make a move on Cuba, I could see an alliance between Spain and the USA being established. If this alliance lasts past the point when Spain and the USA smash the CSA to bits between them, it could have interesting affects down the road in a hypothetical future war between Spain and Japan over the Phillipines, should such a conflict occur.

67th Tigers said:

Annexing Cuba means war with Spain, who were militarily far more powerful than the USA in the 1860's/70's.

Click to expand...

Not if Cuba's already independent.

Desmond Hume said:

If the CSA seems likely to make a move on Cuba, I could see an alliance between Spain and the USA being established. If this alliance lasts past the point when Spain and the USA smash the CSA to bits between them, it could have interesting affects down the road in a hypothetical future war between Spain and Japan over the Phillipines, should such a conflict occur.

Click to expand...

That, and if the USA should hold Key West and the Tortugas, any Confederate operation against a belligerent Union during a Cuban war becomes well, a suicide mission.

Desmond Hume said:

If the CSA seems likely to make a move on Cuba, I could see an alliance between Spain and the USA being established. If this alliance lasts past the point when Spain and the USA smash the CSA to bits between them, it could have interesting affects down the road in a hypothetical future war between Spain and Japan over the Phillipines, should such a conflict occur.

Click to expand...

Why would the US align with Spain? If it did how would the US react to the regime changes that went on in Spain after the ACW?

I have wondered what different actions the US would take in the Caribbean of the south seceded. Does anyone else think that it might be more likely for the US to aid Cuba in becoming independent from Spain during the 10 Years War in the 1870s than in OTL? Especially if it was more focused on the military/navy than in OTL.

Also I understand that during the Grant administration there were actions taken to accept the Dominican Republic as a US state. Some abolitionists like Frederick Douglas thought it would be beneficial to accept a country mainly composed of free African descended people. Others though thought it would damage the image of African people being able to govern themselves and so failed. Could this go differently ITTL? Personally I’d like to see The DR become a state. I wonder what it would be called if it did?

Snake Featherston said:

East Maryland, including Washington, Kentucky, where there was no CS sentiment in any scenario resembling OTL (otherwise Perryville and Richmond would have been much bigger victories than they were), Missouri, which the CSA lost in 1861 and never remotely had a chance to regain, NM/AZ, and southern California are "natural" borders?

I suppose this is from the mindset where razing all of New York to ashes regardless of what this means for the people IN NEW YORK qualifies as a moderate war plan.

Click to expand...

Actually there was *a lot* of CSA sympathy in Kentucky during the war, especially in the central and eastern parts of the state. They sent troops to both sides as individuals and even as units. Magoffin was pro-CS, the legislature was more pro-union, but remember that Louisville and Covington were the major population centers and both were along the Ohio River, which relied on the Union for trade.

Also I understand that during the Grant administration there were actions taken to accept the Dominican Republic as a US state. Some abolitionists like Frederick Douglas thought it would be beneficial to accept a country mainly composed of free African descended people. Others though thought it would damage the image of African people being able to govern themselves and so failed. Could this go differently ITTL? Personally I’d like to see The DR become a state. I wonder what it would be called if it did?


They couldn't call it Dominica, since there's already a (not yet independent) Carribean island with that name. Confusing, isn't it? What were they thinking, when they made up those names?
How about Dominicus? Or, Saint Dominic?

SPJ said:

Why would the US align with Spain? If it did how would the US react to the regime changes that went on in Spain after the ACW?

I have wondered what different actions the US would take in the Caribbean of the south seceded. Does anyone else think that it might be more likely for the US to aid Cuba in becoming independent from Spain during the 10 Years War in the 1870s than in OTL? Especially if it was more focused on the military/navy than in OTL.

Click to expand...

They'd probably a bit more proactive, and it might be easier for Marti to build up support for the Rebels in places like New York, especially if the CSA gets involved in a bad-blood scenario.

Without the Keys, though, it'd be hard to stage any serious operations, as there's no good jumping off point, as everything would have to be sent down the coast.

SPJ said:

Also I understand that during the Grant administration there were actions taken to accept the Dominican Republic as a US state. Some abolitionists like Frederick Douglas thought it would be beneficial to accept a country mainly composed of free African descended people. Others though thought it would damage the image of African people being able to govern themselves and so failed. Could this go differently ITTL? Personally I’d like to see The DR become a state. I wonder what it would be called if it did?

Click to expand...

IDK. It depends. I'd put money on it being simply named Dominica or Hispaniola or something.