Would the CSA ever manage to conquer Cuba?

[frlmerrin]

The big oil fields in Texas weren't discovered until 1901 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spindletop.

Actually that is true but misleading they were producing oil in large quantities at Corsicana, Texas from the early 1890s.

Furthermore in OTL they were producing oil from wells in Pennsylvania from the late 1850s. In a time-line where the Confederacy becomes independent they are going to want to have a domestic suppy of oil so as not to rely on a foreign supplier, the USA (and perhaps Russia at this time). It is reasonable that the Confederacy would develop wells in Texas, Louisiana, the Indian Territory and perhaps Kansas much earlier than in OTL. This might happen as early as the late 1860s, it is certainly going to happen before the end of the 1870s.

 

[frlmerrin]

You said . The CSA wouldn't have that much spending power even with a short/no war. Cotton and tobacco simply weren't THAT valuable <snip>

Actually cotton was that valuable, hugely valuable and remained that way for many many years after the ACW. From the cotton industry they can build both a textile and a garment industry. The cotton (futures) exchange moves from the USA to either Britain or more likely the CSA.

Tobacco is reasonably profitable, so is molasses, not to mention ground nuts

Selling cattle to the Union will be hugely profitable, hogs too. Then there is the huge fisheries. The Confederacy inherit half of the Atlantic fisheries and all of the Gulf fisheries from the Antebellum USA. The USA is going to be a big importer of fish if they have been to war with the British because as a result of that BNA sentiment is likely to ensure that USA trawlers are banned from the Grand Banks and the Banks of Newfoundland.

The coastal trade will all be by CSA vessels. The cotton exports could lead to a modern steam merchant fleet trading with Europe.

Plenty of minerals in even a small CSA and we are talking a big one. Enough coal and iron for a domestic iron and steel industry, sulphur and many other minerals including silver.

All that repetitive industrial work you can use slaves for.

The CSA is going to be very rich and successful.

 

[Johnrankins]

Actually cotton was that valuable, hugely valuable and remained that way for many many years after the ACW. From the cotton industry they can build both a textile and a garment industry. The cotton (futures) exchange moves from the USA to either Britain or more likely the CSA.

Tobacco is reasonably profitable, so is molasses, not to mention ground nuts

Selling cattle to the Union will be hugely profitable, hogs too. Then there is the huge fisheries. The Confederacy inherit half of the Atlantic fisheries and all of the Gulf fisheries from the Antebellum USA. The USA is going to be a big importer of fish if they have been to war with the British because as a result of that BNA sentiment is likely to ensure that USA trawlers are banned from the Grand Banks and the Banks of Newfoundland.

The coastal trade will all be by CSA vessels. The cotton exports could lead to a modern steam merchant fleet trading with Europe.

Plenty of minerals in even a small CSA and we are talking a big one. Enough coal and iron for a domestic iron and steel industry, sulphur and many other minerals including silver.

All that repetitive industrial work you can use slaves for.

The CSA is going to be very rich and successful.

Not nearly profitable to be a truly great power particularly after the bol weevil.

 

[Drizzt]

Actually cotton was that valuable, hugely valuable and remained that way for many many years after the ACW. From the cotton industry they can build both a textile and a garment industry. The cotton (futures) exchange moves from the USA to either Britain or more likely the CSA.

They could have done so before the war already. Just like technically Saudi Arabia would use it's oil wealth to become a bigger version of the UAE, instead of the sorry state it is. What's lacking in both cases is the people in power wanting to do so. After a successful seccesion the planter aristocracy still wont want to become captains of industry nor allow upstarts to compete with them for dominance.

Selling cattle to the Union will be hugely profitable, hogs too. Then there is the huge fisheries. The Confederacy inherit half of the Atlantic fisheries and all of the Gulf fisheries from the Antebellum USA. The USA is going to be a big importer of fish if they have been to war with the British because as a result of that BNA sentiment is likely to ensure that USA trawlers are banned from the Grand Banks and the Banks of Newfoundland.

The North was quite capable of feeding itself during the Civil War, there's no reason for them to buy imports form their rivals instead of continuing to do so afterwards.

The cotton exports could lead to a modern steam merchant fleet trading with Europe.

All that repetitive industrial work you can use slaves for.

The CSA is going to be very rich and successful.

See my first point. There wont be the necessary will to become a industrial or trade power.

Actually cotton was that valuable, hugely valuable and remained that way for many many years after the ACW.

Yes it was. What changed though, was that Britain started growing it's own cotton in Egypt and India during the Civil War. Originally fuelled by cotton demand due to the blockade, but with British Abolitionism and the war on slavery being in high gear, there's no reason the Brits wouldn't continue on developing them to wean themselves off their dependency of slave cotton.
Egyptian and Indian cotton would do to the CSA economy, what fracking is doing to OPEC.

 

[Viriato]

If the Confederacy is independent it no longer needs Cuba. The principal reason some southern democrats backed the annexation of Cuba, was they wanted to maintain the slave-state/free-state balance of power, under the guise of manifest destiny. The early raids into Cuba in 1849 were led by southerners and the only reason was to add to raise the number of slave states in the union.

By the early 19th century it became clear that the population of the free states was growing faster than that of the slave states, and this process accelerated up until 1861. Many southerners correctly feared that the congressmen from free states in the popularly-elected House of Representatives would be apathetic at best, hostile at worst towards slavery. Their numbers would increase, and therefore the voice of slave-states would be drowned out.

However, since seats in the Senate were not proportional (rather two seats per state selected by the state legislature), southern states simply needed to have at least the same number of slave states in the union to block any anti-slavery legislation form passing. To maintain this balance of power, several compromises were attempted. The first being the Missouri Compromise in 1819, this ushered in a period where if a free state were admitted to the union, a slave state had to be admitted as well.

In addition to this, the slave states soon became proponents of territorial aggrandizement in areas where plantation agriculture would predominate, and therefore slaves would be needed. To that end, southerners were overwhelmingly supportive of the annexation of Texas, and the Mexican War in 1848. Meanwhile, abolitionists especially in New England largely opposed this.

Cuba fit into this desire to have more slave states in the union so as to maintain their balance of power. If the CSA is independent it does not have to negotiate the balance of power, and therefore the annexation of Cuba would probably not be a pressing issue.

 

[Viriato]

They could have done so before the war already. Just like technically Saudi Arabia would use it's oil wealth to become a bigger version of the UAE, instead of the sorry state it is. What's lacking in both cases is the people in power wanting to do so. After a successful seccesion the planter aristocracy still wont want to become captains of industry nor allow upstarts to compete with them for dominance.



The North was quite capable of feeding itself during the Civil War, there's no reason for them to buy imports form their rivals instead of continuing to do so afterwards.


See my first point. There wont be the necessary will to become a industrial or trade power.


Yes it was. What changed though, was that Britain started growing it's own cotton in Egypt and India during the Civil War. Originally fuelled by cotton demand due to the blockade, but with British Abolitionism and the war on slavery being in high gear, there's no reason the Brits wouldn't continue on developing them to wean themselves off their dependency of slave cotton.
Egyptian and Indian cotton would do to the CSA economy, what fracking is doing to OPEC.

Whilst Egyptian cotton was high-quality and led to the industry there developing and cotton boom that lasted until around 1877, the Indian cotton was less than ideal for the spindles of the British textile mills. The Surat cottons were unsuitable and the bales often were full of stones and other impurities leading the spindles to break. In addition the Indian cotton fibres were short leading the yarns to break and required extra humidity leading to a large decline in output. In France however, the slower spindles there were able to handle the Indian cotton.

Also the following quote is a bit of an anachronism

"there's no reason the Brits wouldn't continue on developing them to wean themselves off their dependency of slave cotton."

It makes the assumption that the British government played a major role in developing the cotton industry. During this time, the British government intervened very little in the economy. British textile mills were going to buy cotton wherever it made the most economic sense. If cotton farming develops elsewhere, it will be because the free market dictates it. The 19th century is not the 1980s where sanctions were applied to countries. Brazil kept slavery (much harsher I'll add) until 1888 and Great Britain was that country's largest trading partner and largest foreign investor.

Raw cotton and cotton yarn remained the United States's single largest export until 1937. Even in 1913, 61% of the world's cotton was produced in the United States. I posted some of these figures below, showing just how important cotton still was as late as 1913. It clearly shows that cotton is nearly twice as high in export value as the second largest export (iron and steel).

List of Total Leading Exports from the USA in 1913
TOTAL $2,484,018,292
Raw Cotton $575,488,090
Iron and Steel $294,435,060
Breadstuffs $203,391,856
Meat and Dairy Products $157,486,469
Fossil Fuels $149,316,409
Copper and Copper Manufactures $144,909,117
Wood and Manufactures $114,777,513
Coal $67,209,514
Tobacco & Tobacco Manufactures $59,693,800
Leather and Leather Manufactures $59,994,68
Cotton Manufactures $55,536,267
Automobiles $35,453,643

For the U.K, Germany, France, Italy and Japan, cotton was their single largest import from the USA in 1913. Of the total cotton produced in the USA, 54% was destined for export abroad and another 25% went to Northern States.

Share of World Cotton Production in 1913
CSA 61%
India 17%
Egypt 7%
China 5%
Russia 5%
Brazil 2%

American cotton as % of cotton used in manufacturing of the leading textile producing countries in 1913
USA 90%
Great Britain 62%
Germany 61%
France 54%
Austria-Hungary 50%
Italy 64%
Russia 23%
Japan 17%
India 2%

Also, the cotton exports of the USA totaled more in value than the total exports of several other primarily commodity exporting countries. For comparison's sake I have added the figures of exports to the USA, as textile mills in the northern states overwhelmingly used southern cotton.

Total Exports in 1913
CSA Cotton Exports $771 million (includes exports to USA)
USA Cotton Exports $575 million (cotton exports only)
Argentina $485.5 million
Canada $393.2 million
Australia $382.1 million
Brazil $315.2 million
Cuba $165.2 million
Mexico $149.1 million