The Confederate Empire

What TL could be made of this of what Terr. the C.S.A. has at the beggining of the WW1 as they are on the side of Germany?

OTL Confederacy states
Northern Mexican States
Terr. of the Carribbean
Terr. of Hawaii
Terr. of the Far East

ConfederateFly said:

What TL could be made of this of what Terr. the C.S.A. has at the beggining of the WW1 as they are on the side of Germany?

OTL Confederacy states
Northern Mexican States
Terr. of the Carribbean
Terr. of Hawaii
Terr. of the Far East

Click to expand...

Presumably Northern Mexico includes a major port on the Pacific, like Turtledove's CSA did. Therefore it can project a fleet across to Hawaii and .... what is the Terr of the Far East ?

My problem with the idea of WW1 is that why would it happen ? Turtledove himself never really explains how Europe is all the same, but the Americas are different. I think this really needs to be explained in some detail

From the extent of the CSA you have clearly got a nice timeline for the world

Well, there wouldn't be any Confederate Territory of Hawaii, since the United States, Britain and France are obligation by treaty to maintain Hawaii's independence. Also the Americans that settled in Hawaii were from New England and wouldn't have stood for any Confederate adventures.

David S Poepoe said:

Well, there wouldn't be any Confederate Territory of Hawaii, since the United States, Britain and France are obligation by treaty to maintain Hawaii's independence. Also the Americans that settled in Hawaii were from New England and wouldn't have stood for any Confederate adventures.

Click to expand...

How does that pan out with the dates ? Given that I think most US involvement came after the 1850s, how much of this is open to change and different development ?

Grey Wolf

I don't think, no matter how many ports the CSA has, they're ever going to rival the USA or Britain in the Pacific. They simply didn't have the sea-going tradition. I think they'd leave the Pacific to the United States and Britain. Even if they did want it, the British would be there first, and the US would be close behind. The CSA would be locked out before they could conceivably get going. Plus, I think we'd see a US-enforced "Truman Doctrine" against the CSA, preventing the spread of the nation and slavery.

Walter_Kaufmann said:

I don't think, no matter how many ports the CSA has, they're ever going to rival the USA or Britain in the Pacific. They simply didn't have the sea-going tradition. I think they'd leave the Pacific to the United States and Britain. Even if they did want it, the British would be there first, and the US would be close behind. The CSA would be locked out before they could conceivably get going. Plus, I think we'd see a US-enforced "Truman Doctrine" against the CSA, preventing the spread of the nation and slavery.

Click to expand...

Who is Truman ?

The thing with Hawaii is that it is independent, people can come etc and if a sizeable planter population came.... It depends how the internal politics all go... And in the last resort if faced with US annexation, the Queen of Hawaii might actually opt for being a Confederate protectorate BECAUSE they are weaker and won't impose direct rule over them

Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf said:

Who is Truman?

Click to expand...

By Truman Doctrine, I meant the policy of containment we followed against the Soviet Union in the years following WWII. Named after President Truman (1945 - 1952). I meant I think we'd see a ATL version of it, containing the CSA rather than the SU.

Walter_Kaufmann said:

By Truman Doctrine, I meant the policy of containment we followed against the Soviet Union in the years following WWII. Named after President Truman (1945 - 1952). I meant I think we'd see a ATL version of it, containing the CSA rather than the SU.

Click to expand...

Oh right ! I was thinking 'The Truman Show' - not letting him out of his own little area

Grey Wolf

The thing with Hawaii is that it is independent, people can come etc and if a sizeable planter population came.... It depends how the internal politics all go... And in the last resort if faced with US annexation, the Queen of Hawaii might actually opt for being a Confederate protectorate BECAUSE they are weaker and won't impose direct rule over them

Click to expand...

That is what I was thinking

what is the Terr of the Far East ?

Click to expand...

I was thinking of after recieving Hawaii in 1870 then in 1871 there would be a war against Spain for Cuba and Peurto Rico. Then since the Confederacy would have a base in Hawaii they could mount some kind of Offense in the Phillipines?

I would also like to say they have the Arizona Terr. and the Indian Terr.

ConfederateFly said:

I would also like to say they have the Arizona Terr. and the Indian Terr.

Click to expand...

I dont think that is too hard with a successful seccession

Grey Wolf

What TL could go with all the info?

Grey Wolf said:

The thing with Hawaii is that it is independent, people can come etc and if a sizeable planter population came.... It depends how the internal politics all go... And in the last resort if faced with US annexation, the Queen of Hawaii might actually opt for being a Confederate protectorate BECAUSE they are weaker and won't impose direct rule over them

Grey Wolf

Click to expand...

A treaty recognizing the independence of the Kingdom of Hawaii was signed between the US, France and Britain in London on November 28, 1843.

Going with an 1870 POD would place it during the reign of King Kamehameha V. Who wasn't particularly pro-American. I think people forget that the major strike against the Confederacy is the fact that it promotes slavery. By the South's definition the Hawaiians are a race of black Africans (I hesitate to use the "N" word). A nation that is entirely different than what the Confederacy stands for - multiethnic marriages, etc. isn't going to want anything to do with the Confederacy.

Also Hawaii is becoming important to the United States as its major supplier of sugar, since they won't be buying anything from the South. The money and mentality of 'big business' in Hawaii is New Englander. Because of Hawaii's strategic position in the Pacific there's no way the British or United States will allow it to fall into Confederacy's sphere of influence.

Is what year would the best chance for the Confederacy be to get Hawaii? If they don't get Hawaii that means no Phillipines ,but would they get Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Hispaniola?

David S Poepoe said:

A treaty recognizing the independence of the Kingdom of Hawaii was signed between the US, France and Britain in London on November 28, 1843.

Going with an 1870 POD would place it during the reign of King Kamehameha V. Who wasn't particularly pro-American. I think people forget that the major strike against the Confederacy is the fact that it promotes slavery. By the South's definition the Hawaiians are a race of black Africans (I hesitate to use the "N" word). A nation that is entirely different than what the Confederacy stands for - multiethnic marriages, etc. isn't going to want anything to do with the Confederacy.

Click to expand...

Hmm, I was under the impression that the Confederates accepted the Amerindians as equal enough. I think the question of slavery is a lot more complex than 20th century ideas of colour of skin and racial supremacy. Most white races believed themselves superior to coloured races, so the CSA would not stand out here. Unless they actually wished to make slavery legal in Hawaii they would not be seen as racial supremacists. The Hawaiians are clearly aware that they are not negroes. They will also probably have some degree of accommodation between the CSA and the Indian Nations to go on as an indication of a closeness of equality

Grey Wolf

Also there were units in the Confederacy that had chinese in them so I don't see why the Hawiains would't want the Confederates there?

ConfederateFly said:

Also there were units in the Confederacy that had chinese in them so I don't see why the Hawiains would't want the Confederates there?

Click to expand...

I can't figure out why the Hawaiians WOULD want the Confederates. If the Confederates ever looked kindly upon the Native Americans it was only as pawns in their war against the Union. The Confederates are not paragons of racial relations, particularly if they insist upon exporting slavery and introducing it where it never flourished to begin with (like Mexico). Heck, they are even considering reenslaving free blacks within their own borders.

Hawaii's strategic position means that it will fall into the sphere of influence of the Great Power that truly project its power into and across the Pacific, that would either Britain or the United States. These are the two powers that have an active and constant interest in the state of affairs in Honolulu. The Hawaiians, of the 1860-70s, will turn to the British most likely. After the 1870s they will be turned, by commercial interests, to the United States. The scenario as set up appears to place Hawaii firmly within the United States' sphere of influence because of access to the US market for Hawaiian sugar.

On the whole, the Confederate sphere of influence will probably be limited to the Caribbean, where it can easily dominate the region or at least rival Mexico.

What about this

OTL Confederacy
Northern Mexican States
Terr. of the Carribean(Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Hispaniola)
Indian Terr.
Arizona Terr.
Protracterate over Nicragugua

ConfederateFly said:

What about this

Protracterate over Nicragugua

Click to expand...

Haven't you ever noticed that you've been repeatedly misspelling Nicaragua for months now?

Also exactly what is a 'protracterate'? I used to use a protrator in grade school, is this something similar? Or do you mean - protectorate.

ConfederateFly said:

What about this

OTL Confederacy
Northern Mexican States
Terr. of the Carribean(Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Hispaniola)
Indian Terr.
Arizona Terr.
Protracterate over Nicragugua

Click to expand...

OK, back to the original question. Assuming that the existence of the CSA hasn't MASSIVELY altered European history, then how are they on the side of Germany ? Well, I assume the French did not remain in Mexico - Napoleon III had not wished for an open-ended adventure and after 1866 France had far more serious concerns at home. However, without the Union's ability to supply arms and munitions to Juarez, lets assume that Maximillian remains in power in Mexico City. The Northern Mexican provinces were Juarez's heartland IIRC, so maybe the CSA and Maximilian do a deal, with the Confederacy getting them in return for crushing Juarez for Maximilian.

Ironically, after France's defeat in 1870 this could leave both Mexico and the CSA in the growing German sphere. In order to actually HAVE a WW1 you need to have the Franco-Prussian War, Alsace-Lorraine etc or things begin to shift so much that whatever conflict emerges isn't sufficiently analogous to WW1. Without France to lean on, Maximilian is going to be relying on his Austrian and Belgian connections. Tie in with this close relations with the CSA and there's an opening for Austrian ties to become German in time

However, time changes things. For a start the Belgian connection will wear off, then later there will definitely erupt some kind of regional tension between the CSA and Mexico. After Maximilian's death (which may not be until the turn of the century) Agustin II Iturbide is going to have a less sympathetic attitude towards European connections and ties. It is possible that with his American connections he would start to look towards the Union

With Austria a subsidiary partner in the Triple Alliance, its possible that German interests come to emphasise the CSA. What I haven't worked out yet is why Germay would choose the Confederacy over the Union, unless some sort of Russian connection is involved. A weaker USA might look to some kind of formal arrangement with Russia... But again this would be aimed at Britain and not at Germany. Trying to unravel this is going to take some doing !

Grey Wolf