For Texas, wouldn't it be the Third Republic of Texas? I thought there was a Second Republic OTL that existed very briefly between Texas seceding from the Union and before joining the CSA.
Cinco de Mayo
- Thread starter KingSweden24
- Start date
- Status
regarding the annsxation of Texas....Clay is as expansionist as Polk, Jackson and even Seward. He us a die-hard expansionist of the manifest destiny of the United States.
The man wanted Texas regardless of his opinion on slavery.
This is the first I'm hearing about this. I know the Governor, Sam Houston, did not want to secede due to correctly thinking it was suicide but I never heard of them forming a second republic of Texas.
They didn't. Sure, there was a brief time between them seceding and joining the Confederacy, but they never claimed to be a 2nd republic or anything like that.
Idk if I'd go that far. He certainly wasn't quite a Polk or the other expansion hawks, though the idea that he was anti-annexation seems like historical revisionism. Tacit ambivalence is probably the best way to put it (Clay was, after all, a weathervane, even if he was a pretty astute one)
The Forgotten Front: The Isthmian Campaigns of the Great American War
"...advantage; firstly, the infrastructure in southern Mexico was infamously subpar east of the Tehuantepec railways, and the rail transport system of Centro was designed to ship cash crops from the interior to company-run port facilities on the coast. There was thus no particularly easy way for the mobilized Reserva Primera Mexicana to advance by land to Nicaragua other than by foot, and the Mexican forces under General Victoriano Huerta [1] began their long trudge after rail lines sufficient to transport them at mass scale ended at Comitan in Chiapas.
The hope for the nascent Bloc Sud, then, was for Centroamerican forces led personally by their controversial president Manuel Estrada Cabrera to march rapidly across the infamously poor roads of eastern Honduras, link up with Conservative Nicaraguan rebels who had been scattered throughout the forests of the border country for years, and then punch south towards Managua and ideally break Zelaya's government while it enjoyed the initiative, and then wait for Mexican reinforcements to pin Americans against the Canal. The second piece of this strategy would be for Mexican naval vessels to harass and interdict American vessels in both the Caribbean and Pacific to prevent them from ably reinforcing their positions in Nicaragua and eventually starve out the US Marines there until the Canal, at the very least the seizable Pacific end of it, was theirs.
Smedley Butler had other ideas. The Nicaragua Squadron in the Gulf of Fonseca was activated effectively immediately on September 9th; when word of Mexico's declaration of war against the United States arrived on the 14th, the USS Indiana and her escorts opened sealed orders from the Naval Department to immediately, in case of hostilities, treat Centro as an enemy. Within hours, all port facilities on Fonseca were shelled and destroyed and nearly every non-Nicaraguan vessel that could float even fifty yards from a dock was sunk. "If they come," Butler coyly transmitted via his final telegram to the Presidio in San Francisco before oceanic cables were cut, "they will at the very least not come by sea."
The Nicaraguan Squadron shifted southwards to guard the Pacific mouth of the Canal, and on the other side of the Isthmus the same was done with the Caribbean Squadron; both of its "divisions" were activated on the 10th and diverted from St. Thomas and Haiti to Bluefields. Naval officers suspected - again, correctly - that Brazilian vessels would not have time to intercept them and that the priority would be to defend Nicaragua rather than be isolated and defeated in detail in the Windward Passage or its immediate vicinity. Three of Mexico's four dreadnoughts were in the Gulf of Mexico, and none of the Confederate or Brazilian naval vessels would be in the area early enough to prevent their defensive posture at Nicaragua - this effectively made the key strategic position of the United States a naval fortress within a week of the war starting, and made the logistical and strategic position of the Bloc Sud considerably more difficult if their goal was to seize the Canal, rather than merely make it inconvenient for the United States to use..." [2]
- The Forgotten Front: The Isthmian Campaigns of the Great American War
[1] You want this fucker nowhere near the capital, which I'm sure Reyes knows, hence why he's being sent off to the Isthmus (which I'm honestly debating just making the name of the region/country at this point, a la License to Kill where Bond goes to Not-Panama to take on Totally-Not-Noriega)
[2] Bet the Chileans are wishing they hadn't gone on that weird late July joyride and then sent their ships home from Panama's coast now, eh?
The hope for the nascent Bloc Sud, then, was for Centroamerican forces led personally by their controversial president Manuel Estrada Cabrera to march rapidly across the infamously poor roads of eastern Honduras, link up with Conservative Nicaraguan rebels who had been scattered throughout the forests of the border country for years, and then punch south towards Managua and ideally break Zelaya's government while it enjoyed the initiative, and then wait for Mexican reinforcements to pin Americans against the Canal. The second piece of this strategy would be for Mexican naval vessels to harass and interdict American vessels in both the Caribbean and Pacific to prevent them from ably reinforcing their positions in Nicaragua and eventually starve out the US Marines there until the Canal, at the very least the seizable Pacific end of it, was theirs.
Smedley Butler had other ideas. The Nicaragua Squadron in the Gulf of Fonseca was activated effectively immediately on September 9th; when word of Mexico's declaration of war against the United States arrived on the 14th, the USS Indiana and her escorts opened sealed orders from the Naval Department to immediately, in case of hostilities, treat Centro as an enemy. Within hours, all port facilities on Fonseca were shelled and destroyed and nearly every non-Nicaraguan vessel that could float even fifty yards from a dock was sunk. "If they come," Butler coyly transmitted via his final telegram to the Presidio in San Francisco before oceanic cables were cut, "they will at the very least not come by sea."
The Nicaraguan Squadron shifted southwards to guard the Pacific mouth of the Canal, and on the other side of the Isthmus the same was done with the Caribbean Squadron; both of its "divisions" were activated on the 10th and diverted from St. Thomas and Haiti to Bluefields. Naval officers suspected - again, correctly - that Brazilian vessels would not have time to intercept them and that the priority would be to defend Nicaragua rather than be isolated and defeated in detail in the Windward Passage or its immediate vicinity. Three of Mexico's four dreadnoughts were in the Gulf of Mexico, and none of the Confederate or Brazilian naval vessels would be in the area early enough to prevent their defensive posture at Nicaragua - this effectively made the key strategic position of the United States a naval fortress within a week of the war starting, and made the logistical and strategic position of the Bloc Sud considerably more difficult if their goal was to seize the Canal, rather than merely make it inconvenient for the United States to use..." [2]
- The Forgotten Front: The Isthmian Campaigns of the Great American War
[1] You want this fucker nowhere near the capital, which I'm sure Reyes knows, hence why he's being sent off to the Isthmus (which I'm honestly debating just making the name of the region/country at this point, a la License to Kill where Bond goes to Not-Panama to take on Totally-Not-Noriega)
[2] Bet the Chileans are wishing they hadn't gone on that weird late July joyride and then sent their ships home from Panama's coast now, eh?
Do we have an Great American War version of Gallipoli coming up in the future?
How are other South American countries and Europe in general reacting to the news of this war? Are they treating it as "oh here they go again" weariness or as spectators eating popcorn taking bets who is going to win?
A problem with an independent Texas is that, due to its size and relative security, it will likely become, like the Eastern cities, a primary destination for pan-Confederate refugees and their slaves, many of whom would not be fond of any attempt to 'jump-ship'.
You could have the state-sanctioned equivalent to the 'Great Migration', with those same former slaves coming under welfare and naturalization programs, however that plays-out. Despite lack of opportunity and segregation, not an insignificant percentage of Negroes would remain in the Confederacy for want of familiarity and security, even loyalty, than anything else, considering the 'doleful' suffering of Black refugees IOTL.
Annexation of Confederate Territories is one thing, annexing an entire Confederate State, a well-developed one at that, with the intention of forcibly transforming it into some freedmen's republic is another. Politics is not always some Hearts of Iron game, in which success is measured by territory that can be gained. Attempting to mold the American settlement into Brest-Litovsk is mind-boggling, to say the least.
You'd have to consider what the hell the U.S. Army will do with the thousands of Negro refugees, classed as property under international law, who attempt to establish camp behind their lines, probably in the vicinity of cities. IOTL one solution was to simply return them to work on plantations confiscated by the Treasury, such as in Mississippi. At Port Royal and New Orleans they essentially became a proud yeoman class under Federal military protection. I can see able-bodied men being organized into new segregated units (despite probable executive military desegregation c. 1918). They could also perform menial Army tasks for wages. But to funnel them all into Kentucky, to serve as some idealistic haven for those same yeoman communities? I don't know. Not every white Kentuckian will join the refugee trains south. Redistribution of property was far more practicable in OTL Mississippi and Alabama, not so much in 1910s Kentucky, a State which is fairly industrialized and dominated by white small-holders. For example: "Mississippi in 1860 had more than 6,460,000 acres of improved land in farms and plantations, and nearly 12,670,000 acres of unimproved land, with only 354,000 white inhabitants. Alabama approximately 6,400,000 acres of improved land, and 12,690,000 unimproved, with only 526,500 white people." The U.S. occupation, if OTL Tennessee is any indication, will result in the utter wastage of the surrounding country as black and white refugees attempt to find employment and relief in Union-occupied Louisville, Nashville, Memphis, etc. Not the most tempting prospect for any man seeking new life. Many Blacks IOTL possessed little desire to 'go North' anyway, with their "strong local attachments and a preference for the Southern climate".Personally, I agree with you strongly here. I think by far the most likely outcome is the US just leaving Ketucky with the Confederacy; far far less problems that way (for reasons that others have explained far better than I myself could - including cost, integrating Confederate citizens, racial issues and all the like. Add to this the fact that the US want's to neuter the Confederacy after the war, but to do so in such a way that doesn't lead to another coflict 20 years down the line; something that taking their most industrialized state would almost be assured to do.
But having said that; having a Republic of Kentucy as a protectorate of the United States and a place for those Freeden lucky enough to reach to have a a real shot at their lives ... is a really really cool idea and something that would be fun to explore. So I'm torn. Luckily, however, it's not my timeline and not my decision
In an ironic turn of events; if the US government's policy was more Wilsonian (although not HEADED by Wilson), such a Republic would be FAR more likely.
You could have the state-sanctioned equivalent to the 'Great Migration', with those same former slaves coming under welfare and naturalization programs, however that plays-out. Despite lack of opportunity and segregation, not an insignificant percentage of Negroes would remain in the Confederacy for want of familiarity and security, even loyalty, than anything else, considering the 'doleful' suffering of Black refugees IOTL.
Annexation of Confederate Territories is one thing, annexing an entire Confederate State, a well-developed one at that, with the intention of forcibly transforming it into some freedmen's republic is another. Politics is not always some Hearts of Iron game, in which success is measured by territory that can be gained. Attempting to mold the American settlement into Brest-Litovsk is mind-boggling, to say the least.
There is no way the United States is going to give them back to the Confederacy.....
In regard to "classified as property under international law". As of 1900 can a Confederate citizen take their slave to Paris (/London/Berlin) and expect that if the slave escapes that the police will bring the slave back and allow the confederate to beat his slave to death? If not, what about the Confederate ambassador to each of those countries? Does the USA allow that???
I'm pretty sure that if the Union has no problem enforcing abolition on the remainder of the Confederacy, then they will have even less fucks to give about forcing Texas to accept the same.
This hardly means that there won't be Confederate migration to Texas, but if they do they won't brining any freedmen with them - even if they could encourage any former slaves to come with them, they will be equally free in Texas as they will in the Confederacy.
I agree with you that annexing a Confederate state will be a problem for the Union. I also agree that the absorbing and dealing with thousands of freedmen is going to be an issue for the Confederacy.
I utterly disagree, however, that the Union would even consider for one iota or a millisecond about turning them back over to their former masters. Nor do I think that the international community is suddenly going to get a bee in their bonnet about Freedmen being 'stolen property' from the Confederacy. Even with a more Conservative Europe, the continent has largely moved well beyond slavery and would view the practice as abhorrent (albeit, one they are willing to turn a blind eye to for the sake of business - but which they are hardly going to go to bat for. Hell, they'll be celebrating when abolition passes). Finally, the Union will make sure that their enforcement of abolition is completely legal - the treaty will include it and the Confederste Congresss will be forced to vote on and pass it. And that will be enough for the international community.
The bigger issue is how willing the Union will be to post-war black refugees in the decades after the war. And, unfortunately, I take a dimmer view of that - at least until the 1950s or so. But I'm willing to.he proven wrong.
Years of planning of this war and Maximillian not once thought increase the infrastructure in Southern Mexico? I know hindsight is 20/20, but this is inexcusable.
Hmm, what about the Union annexing Kentucky but making it a designated zone for refugees from the Confederacy(Freedmen) to settle? It could help allay fears of a great trek north among the Americans, while also filling Kentucky with people utterly opposed to any Confederate revanchism. Such a policy would likely make many former Confederate Whites voluntarily pull up stakes too.
The Americans would still get the territory/resources while denying them to the CSA fr good. And sadly Whites would for the forseeable future dominate economically(Carpetbbagers?) and likely wield disproportionate political power even in an African American majority Kentucky. And then we have the holdout White Confederates hating the other two groups. It would make a for a truly strange/interesting state.
The Americans would still get the territory/resources while denying them to the CSA fr good. And sadly Whites would for the forseeable future dominate economically(Carpetbbagers?) and likely wield disproportionate political power even in an African American majority Kentucky. And then we have the holdout White Confederates hating the other two groups. It would make a for a truly strange/interesting state.
We'll get there soon!
Nothing quite at that level of clusterfuck but the Confederates do have, sooner than you think, an amphibious landing they'll attempt that goes sideways.
These are both huge complications, yes. A refugee crisis of the size we're talking about here has no scale equivalent in North American history; it'd be at a level of the post-WW2 expulsions of Germans from Eastern Europe or the Partition of India, in the number of people it could potentially involve. I honestly have no idea how I'm even going to begin to try to write that.
Exactly, that, Dan.
There'd be something similar to the 1918 or 1924 Immigration Acts, certainly. Probably more like the first one - the threat of Bolshevism and post-WW1 chaos in Europe did so much to inform the latter act, while the first one was nowhere near as tight and restrictive. All those freedmen lack one major advantage of Black Americans during OTL's First Great Migration - they are not citizens moving internally within their country.
You know, I've never thought of that. How did that work pre-ACW?
Eh, not really. That area is still the underdeveloped backwater of Mexico even today, there's a huge gap in development between the resort areas on the Oaxacan coast and the Riviera Maya (@pathfinder or @Capibara can correct me here if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that Mexicans from that part of the country generally experience discrimination from their countrymen who hail from wealthier states and cities)[1], and rail in Central America really did only exist starting around 1900 or so in order to move bananas to the coast. There not being rail systems capable of moving 60-70k men logistically through the Guatemalan and Honduran jungles and mountains is how it would be.
[1] Indeed this was a big part of AMLO's pitch to voters in southern Mexico in every campaign he's run - that he'd jumpstart the development of "forgotten" areas like Oaxaca, Chiapas and the Yucatan that get ignored by the government sans the resort corridors
Isn't that basically what happens in TL-191?
KingSweden is correct. Even today, the south/southeast area of Mexico is the most underdeveloped area of the whole country: Chiapas, Guerrero and Oaxaca mainly (excepting the resort areas of Oaxaca, Acapulco and the main cities in Chiapas). The Yucatán peninsula benefits from oil and tourism. I would guess that in this TL, even if these regions eventually reach a higher level of development than in OTL, I would assume that at the start of the 20th century, they'd still be a backwater, as the Empire has focused mainly on the altiplano and then the north and the west.
Re: Kentucky, I think it would be interesting (maybe not entirely plausible, but interesting) if the US did somehow come to the conclusion that a protectorate south of the Ohio was a reasonable idea. I could see it being sold to the public as cheaper than annexation, while still securing navigation on the Ohio River. But plot twist, in 5-15 years the Confederates more or less move back in while everyone else is distracted by some other crisis, and/or an American government that doesn't think it's worth the effort to effectively protest.
Doing this without making it a "guys guys its the remilitarization of the Rhineland/Danzig Corridor!" would be interesting. Like Huey Long just marches right back in or something, but the US blinks and doesn't go to war. Or something. Idk, got time to think on that! Haha
I love this timeline and I say this 100% with love and I don't want you to change anything because the depth is what makes it a masterpiece: at the rate you are going it will be 2025 before we get to the 1930s ITTL. So yes, you've got lots of time to mull over possibilities.
War in the Cone
"...splitting the difference and sending troops across the Rio Negro toward Montevideo first, and gradually crossing the Uruguay into Argentina thereafter. The infighting between Army and Navy in Brazil is of course infamous for its role in limiting Brazil's achievable objectives in the Great American War, but the infighting within the Army, between the ideologue Hermes da Fonseca and his similarly partisan, positivist officer cadre and the more professional staff-level planners, kneecapped Rio de Janeiro's ambitions early on, too.
The slow mobilization of Brazilian forces of course did not go unnoticed in Argentina and gave Buenos Aires time to plan lines of defense at key fording points of both the Uruguay and the Parana to its west; Ricchetti developed what became known as Plan M, for "Mesopotamia," which described Argentina's options to defend behind the broad and wide rivers of the river to keep Brazil away from its more developed provinces. Brazil's first attempted crossing, upstream of Salto, was a grueling, gruesome battle; though their forces were able to cross after three days of heavy fighting and bombardment, they suffered disproportionate losses and the Argentine forces were able to withdraw and regroup on the dirt road towards the city of Parana.
The developments in Uruguay proper were not as promising. The Blanco rebels had already pushed the Colorado forces well south of the Rio Negro and the support of the most professional corps of the Brazilian Army dramatically leveraged their advantages. The last government positions on the Rio Yi completely collapsed in the last week of September and the Fuerza Cisplatina found that its main role was screening defenses for retreating Uruguayan forces moving backwards to the capital. A defensive line was established between San Jose del Mayo, Florida and Cerro Colorado, effectively ceding the port of Colonia del Sacramento to Brazil. The question of how easily Argentina could evacuate its expeditionary force if need be was now a live one, and the Naval Office's reports to President Drago and his war cabinet were not optimistic. As the defense of Montevideo began, no good options remained in Uruguay..."
- War in the Cone
The slow mobilization of Brazilian forces of course did not go unnoticed in Argentina and gave Buenos Aires time to plan lines of defense at key fording points of both the Uruguay and the Parana to its west; Ricchetti developed what became known as Plan M, for "Mesopotamia," which described Argentina's options to defend behind the broad and wide rivers of the river to keep Brazil away from its more developed provinces. Brazil's first attempted crossing, upstream of Salto, was a grueling, gruesome battle; though their forces were able to cross after three days of heavy fighting and bombardment, they suffered disproportionate losses and the Argentine forces were able to withdraw and regroup on the dirt road towards the city of Parana.
The developments in Uruguay proper were not as promising. The Blanco rebels had already pushed the Colorado forces well south of the Rio Negro and the support of the most professional corps of the Brazilian Army dramatically leveraged their advantages. The last government positions on the Rio Yi completely collapsed in the last week of September and the Fuerza Cisplatina found that its main role was screening defenses for retreating Uruguayan forces moving backwards to the capital. A defensive line was established between San Jose del Mayo, Florida and Cerro Colorado, effectively ceding the port of Colonia del Sacramento to Brazil. The question of how easily Argentina could evacuate its expeditionary force if need be was now a live one, and the Naval Office's reports to President Drago and his war cabinet were not optimistic. As the defense of Montevideo began, no good options remained in Uruguay..."
- War in the Cone
- Status