Faeelin
Banned
Okay, in a lot of scenarios that involve the CSA it's sort of assumed that the Confederacy will end up snaffling Cuba. This isn't entirely surprising. It's right off the coast of the CSA, it had a sugar industry of some value, and while the Spanish navy might be a bit large at some points in Spanish history, there are moments when things were a bit sticky for the spanish on the island anyway. But is it likely? Let's play with this, using the standard "America loses at Antietam" scenario.
There were ties between Confederate planters afraid of the end of slavery and groups in the United States before the Civil war, particularly in the southern states. Polk tried to purchase the island, Davis and Lee thought bout joining a filibustering expedition in 1851, the governor of Mississippi supported such attempts, and so forth. After the civil War, of course, there would be less of a need to balance out the growing number of free states with slave stats, but preserving slavery would be something that the Confederates care about.
In Cuba itself, there were many who preferred reform within the Spanish Empire to independence alone, or being "liberated" by a bunch of American soldiers. Efforts at reform under liberal governors hit a gridlock in 1868, however, when Queen Isabel II was deposed in 1868. Combined with increasingly hras rule under Governor Francisco Lersundi, creole landowners raised the flag of rebellion. The rebellion was initially supported by the poorer land (in this context, small plantation) owners, but it faced some critical obstacles. Among them? Slavery.
Carlos Manuel de Cespedes led the Revolutionary movement, and had freed his slaves to join the army. However, he was not a staunch abolitionist. While Cespedes urged slaves to revolt, some wealthy conservatives wanted independence without ending slavery. American aid was a trickle, and while Spain was initially distracted by the Third Carlist War that broke out in 1872, but once the war ended could deploy 70,000 troops to subdue the island.
Okay, so let's take the ATL. I can imagine the Lee (or Forrest, or whoever is leading the Confederacy in 1868) being happy to send aid and arms to prop up its little brother in Cuba. (The Spanish reaction will not be amused). But...
You have America. Turtledove assumed quiescent Democrats who bent over for the confederacy up until a Republican victory in the 1880s. That's quite possible.
It's also possible that by, 6 years after the war ended in 1862, the US is on the road to recovery. It's not a fan of the Confederates. They're a bit too willing to spark internaitonal incidents when their slave catchers try to chase people across the Ohio River; they're contemptuous of Yankee fighting abilities; etc. And to be honest, President Seymour, while an opponent of war, has a sympathetic ear for New York interests which wouldn't mind influence in the Caribbean.
I am not sure how Britian would feel about this all, but my gut is that since victory for Confederate backed forces in Cuba would see the prolongation of slavery, they would not be fond of Richmond sending filibusters.
Thoughts?
There were ties between Confederate planters afraid of the end of slavery and groups in the United States before the Civil war, particularly in the southern states. Polk tried to purchase the island, Davis and Lee thought bout joining a filibustering expedition in 1851, the governor of Mississippi supported such attempts, and so forth. After the civil War, of course, there would be less of a need to balance out the growing number of free states with slave stats, but preserving slavery would be something that the Confederates care about.
In Cuba itself, there were many who preferred reform within the Spanish Empire to independence alone, or being "liberated" by a bunch of American soldiers. Efforts at reform under liberal governors hit a gridlock in 1868, however, when Queen Isabel II was deposed in 1868. Combined with increasingly hras rule under Governor Francisco Lersundi, creole landowners raised the flag of rebellion. The rebellion was initially supported by the poorer land (in this context, small plantation) owners, but it faced some critical obstacles. Among them? Slavery.
Carlos Manuel de Cespedes led the Revolutionary movement, and had freed his slaves to join the army. However, he was not a staunch abolitionist. While Cespedes urged slaves to revolt, some wealthy conservatives wanted independence without ending slavery. American aid was a trickle, and while Spain was initially distracted by the Third Carlist War that broke out in 1872, but once the war ended could deploy 70,000 troops to subdue the island.
Okay, so let's take the ATL. I can imagine the Lee (or Forrest, or whoever is leading the Confederacy in 1868) being happy to send aid and arms to prop up its little brother in Cuba. (The Spanish reaction will not be amused). But...
You have America. Turtledove assumed quiescent Democrats who bent over for the confederacy up until a Republican victory in the 1880s. That's quite possible.
It's also possible that by, 6 years after the war ended in 1862, the US is on the road to recovery. It's not a fan of the Confederates. They're a bit too willing to spark internaitonal incidents when their slave catchers try to chase people across the Ohio River; they're contemptuous of Yankee fighting abilities; etc. And to be honest, President Seymour, while an opponent of war, has a sympathetic ear for New York interests which wouldn't mind influence in the Caribbean.
I am not sure how Britian would feel about this all, but my gut is that since victory for Confederate backed forces in Cuba would see the prolongation of slavery, they would not be fond of Richmond sending filibusters.
Thoughts?