21st centry Confederacy

[Tprynn]

I'm trying to create a AT where the Confederate States of America survive into the 21st century. I have a very rough timeline but it is much to similar to Turtledove's Southern Victory for my liking. Anybody want to give me a few ideas.

Here's a few back round details:

• Segregation exist in the CSA until the 1990's (paralleling apartheid in south Africa
  ​
  )

• This confederacy is bigger the the OTL CSA, being made up of all of the OTL Confederacy plus Kentucky, Arizona territory, the Baja Peninsula, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, and Cuba.

• The USA is much larger having annexed Canada, Russian Alaska
  ​
  and several British
  ​
  territories in the Caribbean

• Most of the European and Asian empires still exist but have let go of most of the colonies

• The Great war still happens but the Central Powers win

Any help would be much appreciated.

 

[Hashasheen]

I'm trying to create a AT where the Confederate States of America survive into the 21st century. I have a very rough timeline but it is much to similar to Turtledove's Southern Victory for my liking. Anybody want to give me a few ideas.

Here's a few back round details:

• Segregation exist in the CSA until the 1990's (paralleling apartheid in south Africa)

• This confederacy is bigger the the OTL CSA, being made up of all of the OTL Confederacy plus Kentucky, Arizona territory, the Baja Peninsula, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, and Cuba.

• The USA is much larger having annexed Canada, Russian Alaska and several British territories in the Caribbean

• Most of the European and Asian empires still exist but have let go of most of the colonies

• The Great war still happens but the Central Powers win

Any help would be much appreciated.

the only advice I can give you is to remember the butterfly effect, since every change will change the course of history in some manner or another.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

The CSA would not take Missouri, Kentucky, or Arizona.

The CS's claim to Arizona was bull if there ever has been bull, since it had no way of taking it nor was there enough CS support there. So Arizona would never go for the Confederates (neither it nor New Mexico).

Missouri and Kentucky were moderately Confederate friendly, but the governments there that sought secession were kicked out circa 1861. So it'd be a hard sell logistically, but not as hard as Arizona.

Expansion into Mexico depends on whether Maximilian I is successful or not.

 

[DAv]

How would the US manage to get and maintain control of the Carribean colonies with no ports in the area ad a hostile nation to the south?

 

[thor2006]

How do they manage to conquer Canada. With a viable CSA would not the British not play on the rivalry between CSA and USA to prevent USA to gain Canada?

 

[Nytram01]

Were the Canadians particularly disposed to accepting the Americans as either their overlords or fellow countrymen? Was there a large section of British North America that was just waiting for the USA to come charging into their country to save them from their evil British overlords?

Cause, you know, I can see a lot of time, effort and money put into the attempt to annex Canada by the US only to fail because the locals dont want them there and Canada itself is too bloody big of a country for the US to ever really control fully.

 

[robertp6165]

The CS's claim to Arizona was bull if there ever has been bull, since it had no way of taking it nor was there enough CS support there. So Arizona would never go for the Confederates (neither it nor New Mexico).

You are actually wrong about this. The people of Arizona (the term "Arizona" at that time meant the southern half of the present day States of Arizona and New Mexico, not what it means today) actually held conventions in March and August of 1861 and ASKED to be annexed by the Confederacy. The Anglo population of that region...the only part that really counted in those days, as the Hispanic and Indian population was generally excluded from voting...was heavily in favor of Confederate annexation, for several reasons...

1) The U.S. Army started a war with the Apaches in 1860, then proceeded to withdraw almost all of its troops from the region in early 1861, leaving the inhabitants to the tender mercies of the Apaches. Hundreds of people were killed in various horrifying ways all over the region, ranches, mines, and even whole towns had to be abandoned, and in general, to quote one contemporary source, "it seemed the last glimmer of civilization was about to be extinguished."

2) The U.S. Government stopped providing U.S. mail service to the region, virtually isolating it from the outside world.

3) The settlers were heavily of Southern extraction.

There was some support from the Hispanic population as well, borne out by the fact that the various Confederate military units fighting in the Territory...several of which were actually raised in the Territory itself...contained a number of Hispanic recruits (these were all-volunteer units, so these men were not drafted). So Arizona would, indeed, have "gone for the Confederates" if the choice had been theirs to make.

Now, whether or not Arizona could have ended up as part of the Confederacy would have depended on a lot of things, which if they had gone differently, could have lead to continued Confederate occupation of the Territory. To name just one such scenario, Henry Hopkins Sibley's Army of New Mexico nearly won at Glorieta Pass (they actually did win the battle tactically, but the Unionists accidentally found the Confederate wagon train and burned it, forcing the Confederates to abandon the campaign), and had they done so, the Confederates would likely have taken Fort Union and the huge supply dump there. This would have given them the arms and equipment to maintain their hold on the territory for quite some time...possibly long enough for Confederate forces in the East to successfully win the war, allowing Arizona to be claimed as part of the peace treaty.

 

[General Mung Beans]

2 possibilities:

1. The CSA and the USA eventually reconcile and reunify sometime in the 20th century.
2. The CSA becomes a military oligarchy as black revolts are constantly surppressed by the CSA army and becomes sort of like a Latin American Banana Republic.

 

[Tprynn]

I'm going to try and make a stab at giving yous some answers

1) The USA has a much lower opinion of the Confederacy, seeing them as a backwards people and over time begins to see the succession as a good thing.

2) The CSA is very insular for the first few decades of its independence, choosing to isolate its self from the rest of the world till it can get its own house in order. They spend much of their time trying to build up an industrial base to compete with the USA

3) My explanation of the conquest of Canada is that Britain becomes distracted by a war with France and/or Spain in Africa and Asia, meaning they have to divert resources, meaning much less troops in Canada. The United States, still heavily militarized from fighting the War of Secession, are able to defeat the British troops garrisoned in Canada, annexing the whole country into the United States.

4) The CSA didn't get Missouri but Kentucky was surrendered to the CSA as pert to the peace treaty. In return, the Confederacy dropped its claims in Missouri, West Virginia and Maryland.

5) The more I think about it, the more unlikely it is for the Confederacy to get Arizona territory or the USA to get British territories in the Caribbean. Thanks for pointing out these flaws. It's all appreciated.

 

[Nytram01]

3) My explanation of the conquest of Canada is that Britain becomes distracted by a war with France and/or Spain in Africa and Asia, meaning they have to divert resources, meaning much less troops in Canada. The United States, still heavily militarized from fighting the War of Secession, are able to defeat the British troops garrisoned in Canada, annexing the whole country into the United States.

There still the problem of the local populous.

The Canadians will not stand for the Americans simply invading when Britain is distract elsewhere and will oppose the invasion. Even if, possibly when, the Americans win and gain control over Canada they will have to keep a large standing Army in the country to control it.

Unless the Canadians turn to the Americans for help in gain their independence from Britain then they will not accept any invasion attempt by the US, just like they didn't in the War of 1812.

The annexation of Canada can only occur if the Canadians themselves want to be annexed.

And what happens when the US invade Britain's largest territory? Does Britain just simply say "well we dont want to lose Canada but there nothing we can do"? Was Canada really worth so little to the British that they would rather fight over territory they didn't have yet than try to keep it?

 

[Stalker]

Canadians would not choose to become the Americans unless they have been suppressed to complete pulp. Laura Secord and the rise or Canadian nationalism during War of 1812, remember?
Turtledove's scenario is, of course, attractive and that's why he put to power the only man who could not only have pursued such a purpose but would have accomplished it - Theodor Roosevelt. He's a critical person if you want Canada annexed by the USA. No annexation, Alaska is not going to be annexed either - simply from the point of view of logistics - not because Russians have there any troops worth mentioning.
So, there are lots of additional preconditions to be made to make this TL working.
Presence of surviving CSA means their eventual transformation into local player who would extend its sphere of influence onto the whole of the Caribbean, and that means that France or whatever European power would be under growing pressure looking very much like actual kind of regional Monroe's Doctrine preventing them from establishing their interests in the region. Especially, when we speak of an "allied" state. Turtledove was very imaginative in the first place, having Maximilian Hapsburg survive Civil War and not being shot by the soldiers of President Juarez.
Actually, what CSA really could have accomplished was annexation of New-Mexico (more successful New-Mexico campaign or victory at the Battle of Glorietta Pass and Kentucky (reestablishing the pro-Confederate government).

 

[Tprynn]

Your demanding a lot on something I never really thought that hard about. Much more thought went into finding ways to keep the Confederacy alive till 21st century.
But because you people want an explanation so bad, here's my attempt at one. The war with France and Spain in Africa and Asia leaves the British drained. They could retake Canada if they wanted but doing so would mean diverting resources from other parts of the empire and leaving them open to invasion by another power. In the opinion of parliament, the price to retake Canada is not worth the destruction of the empire.
I hope that pleases some of you die hard British and your empire.

 

[ninebucks]

Congratulations, every one of your main points are implausible.

 

[Tprynn]

Congratulations, every one of your main points are implausible.

All I wanted was a bit of help creating a timeline where the CSA survives. But No, you had to go and poke holes in peoples creativity and tell them everything they did wrong without offering any bit of advice.
Bravo and well done to you

 

[thor2006]

All I wanted was a bit of help creating a timeline where the CSA survives. But No, you had to go and poke holes in peoples creativity and tell them everything they did wrong without offering any bit of advice.
Bravo and well done to you

Look you can drop the implausible facts like USA conquest of Cananda and Carabean islands and still have a timeline with a viable CSA.
An attack by USA against Canada will surely see an attack by CSA agaisnt USA.
Or you can begin work of an detail POD that ultimately will result in USA conquest of Canada(like :USA being allied with Imperial Germany in WWI and Germany and its allies winning WWI).Outside major world wars Canada will not be conquered by the USA.

 

[Tprynn]

Thank you for offering advice and not just poking holes in my logic

 

[thor2006]

Thank you for offering advice and not just poking holes in my logic

You also have to consider colonization patterns to be different than OTL. Probably USA, CSA and Canada will developed differently with different populations than OTL. If the British consider Canada is threated by an expansionist USA the province will be heavily settled and developed. Also it is improbably that Alaska would be bought by the USA and probably how USA got Hawaii would need to be clarified.

 

[The_Tsar]

I've been experimenting with this myself. You must remember that during the Civil War many people in Kentucky became strongly Unionist. I don't know if that is true with Missouri, but anyway, have the Union pass laws that are highly in favor of the North (because the South's gone with the exception of Missouri and Kentucky) that really piss off those two states. You can have them secede, have them become immediately absorbed by the CSA or have them linger like Texas for a while.

To get those Mexican provinces (which I also chose for my timeline) you can either have the CSA buy them (reasonably unlikely with the shortage of money that they'd have) or have a war with Mexico.

I can see some of the Europian powers existing due to America's absence the the World War(s).

What about World War II? Will there be one in your timeline?

The best chance of survival that I see for the Confederacy is to become strongly allied to the United States. That way you don't have a largely industrial power taking out the weaker one like in Turtledove's writings.

 

[Stalker]

Until gold has been found in Alaska and there's a gold rush, the purchase of Alaska looks extremely unlikely.
Moreover, I may happen - if happen at all - much later because the USA after the Secession would likely to have more other concerns and much less money.
Sandwich Islands are under British control. That means that the British would have a firm grip of that sector of Pacific thus securing their interests here as well as of the Russians in Alaska.
Still, I don't see how Maximilian Hapsburg is going to survive in Mexico, and that means that neither Sonora nor Chihuahua are going to be sold.
Concerning poking holes in your logic - that's not quite a correct attitude, IMHO. What people are mainly trying here is showing you that the policy of fitting events into the fixed pattern is often pretty unproductive.
The skeleton is your desire to have CSA survived until now - goos and well, I concur - but in the end you might find that the skeleton has grown quite a different flesh - and that might surprise you.

 

[Tobit]

2) The CSA is very insular for the first few decades of its independence, choosing to isolate its self from the rest of the world till it can get its own house in order. They spend much of their time trying to build up an industrial base to compete with the USA

I see a lot of problems with this point. My first thought was: "How will the CSA attempt to be insular if they were just supported by the UK in their war for independence?" But I guess it was never said how exactly the CSA won the war and the UK stayed out of it entirely (handwave). But I don't think an insular CSA could exist, simply due to the fact that the UK would not abide by it. The UK would essentially force the CSA to open its market one way or another. Cotton was what the UK required and the CSA doesn't have the ability to simply self industrialize, without any economic help from the UK. This arrangement I think would in the end turn rather one sided. The CSA (based on your other points) seemingly always being at war means it will need a lot of economic support. At one point the UK will call in their loans.

In general I think the CSA is not very economically viable, especially if the UK acts as it did in history by being a voracious market opening capitalist state. The CSA doesn't have the market pull to come close to beating the UK so it likely could not pull off what every other "late to the industrialization bandwagon" could do.