Confederate Expansion
- Thread starter Snowstalker
- Start date
? Hard question really as most said that the CSA couldn't and most likely would not expanded but this is AH we are talking about so if the CSA Won the Civil war and some how maybe got support GB/UK maybe and then some money or riches and a port on the West Coast and pushed yanks up more north and took maybe parts of Maryland and maybe let what was the USA get suck into parts of Canada or something. What i mean is the USA loses most of it's territory so it could not hold it self together so it basically becomes a puppet or maybe just a stationary Country never expanding west but still holds power and maybe just unites with Canada and forms a new United Northern American State.
So I just voted all but what I really think would be maybe Cuba later on if CSA produce an Navy and maybe parts of Mexico to start with and then Hawaii and maybe some other Islands in the Caribbean’s and the maybe into Central America. but most might be bought like the islands like the Bahamas and maybe the other small islands and then they could maybe get a deal to make a Canal in Central America some where so they ally some Country and us Basic Capitalism to get their puppet nation there.
This is just the idea of the CSA expanding. But I really don’t see them getting to much Land as the USA didn’t even expand beyond normal terms like they expanded west and got some lands during the Spanish American war. but that’s really it but maybe like I and others said if CSA got lucky and rich maybe an early gold rush in California if they got there in time and maybe some allies some where they could get Cuba because Money and Oppression doesn’t mean impossible look at all the oppressive nations that existed before. They could maybe got some Caribbean islands bought and money back military and wars with maybe Spain and last a Canal never really into South America maybe they use the USA politics and just us Puppet leaders and money to bribe and get CSA back dictators elected there.
So I just voted all but what I really think would be maybe Cuba later on if CSA produce an Navy and maybe parts of Mexico to start with and then Hawaii and maybe some other Islands in the Caribbean’s and the maybe into Central America. but most might be bought like the islands like the Bahamas and maybe the other small islands and then they could maybe get a deal to make a Canal in Central America some where so they ally some Country and us Basic Capitalism to get their puppet nation there.
This is just the idea of the CSA expanding. But I really don’t see them getting to much Land as the USA didn’t even expand beyond normal terms like they expanded west and got some lands during the Spanish American war. but that’s really it but maybe like I and others said if CSA got lucky and rich maybe an early gold rush in California if they got there in time and maybe some allies some where they could get Cuba because Money and Oppression doesn’t mean impossible look at all the oppressive nations that existed before. They could maybe got some Caribbean islands bought and money back military and wars with maybe Spain and last a Canal never really into South America maybe they use the USA politics and just us Puppet leaders and money to bribe and get CSA back dictators elected there.
I think the answer here depends heavily on what kind of victory the CSA achieved to end the Civil War.
It seems that most here think that the South could only achieve some sort of token victory, possibly a stalemate, with the North. If that is so, then the CSA would have gone to the armistice talks with their hat in hand. That being the case, no expansion would be possible.
However, if the CSA has captured Washington, possibly in 1862, this may have turned out differently. I know this might be over the top but there was a window at the end of 1861-1862. Then the treaty talks would have been very advantagous for the Confederate States.
That being the case, the South could have negotiated for four seperate areas. Delaware and Maryland are out of the question. However, Kentucky and Missouri are possiblities. Slave states before the war, they might be tempting targets for negotiations after the war. Especially since the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't in effect yet.
The other two mentioned in CSA literature was Oklahoma and New Mexico. I'm not a Southern Ubber Alles but everything I've read that didn't dismiss the South out of hand, describes the CSA as being very expasionist minded toward the West. Though if the post war negotiations gave the South either of or both of these, then I think the South would have been very happy to sit tight for the time being.
Finally there is a last possiblity of expansion for the South by way of the Northern States of Mexico. If the South merely wrested a victory from the North then there would be no advantage to taking the Northern States of Mexico. It would just start the Civil War Ver. 2.
If the victory was more than just a "near run thing" then Maximilian might have tried to convince the CSA to take the Northern Mexico States. Maximillian must have worried about the promise the Union would enforce the Monroe Doctrine. The problem here is how powerful are the Union forces at this time? The CSA might have seen the Union entering Mexico as the end of their own asperations of a Western port. However, they would also understand how fragile the Sothern forces would be. Still no foreign expansion possible.
It seems that most here think that the South could only achieve some sort of token victory, possibly a stalemate, with the North. If that is so, then the CSA would have gone to the armistice talks with their hat in hand. That being the case, no expansion would be possible.
However, if the CSA has captured Washington, possibly in 1862, this may have turned out differently. I know this might be over the top but there was a window at the end of 1861-1862. Then the treaty talks would have been very advantagous for the Confederate States.
That being the case, the South could have negotiated for four seperate areas. Delaware and Maryland are out of the question. However, Kentucky and Missouri are possiblities. Slave states before the war, they might be tempting targets for negotiations after the war. Especially since the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't in effect yet.
The other two mentioned in CSA literature was Oklahoma and New Mexico. I'm not a Southern Ubber Alles but everything I've read that didn't dismiss the South out of hand, describes the CSA as being very expasionist minded toward the West. Though if the post war negotiations gave the South either of or both of these, then I think the South would have been very happy to sit tight for the time being.
Finally there is a last possiblity of expansion for the South by way of the Northern States of Mexico. If the South merely wrested a victory from the North then there would be no advantage to taking the Northern States of Mexico. It would just start the Civil War Ver. 2.
If the victory was more than just a "near run thing" then Maximilian might have tried to convince the CSA to take the Northern Mexico States. Maximillian must have worried about the promise the Union would enforce the Monroe Doctrine. The problem here is how powerful are the Union forces at this time? The CSA might have seen the Union entering Mexico as the end of their own asperations of a Western port. However, they would also understand how fragile the Sothern forces would be. Still no foreign expansion possible.
No, CSA would be too weak for expansionism. They might try to invade Mexico, but they'd lose.
Solomaxwell6
Banned
With what money? The only money the Confederate states are going to have is from cotton. The CSA is going to spend years paying off war debt, and when it's finally done with that, enough nations are going to begin mechanized farming and the price of cotton is going to drop (the price of cotton in the 1890s was, at times, less than half as much as it was in the 1870s!). There's simply not going to be enough money to purchase foreign lands, and I don't think foreign nations are going to be too keen on lending the CS money so it can purchase new territory and spread slavery.
I think you're confused about this. Prior to the Civil war, the South was very expansionist, and wanted to spread slavery, sure. But look at their motives. They didn't fucking love the institution of slavery so much that they wanted to export it to the rest of the world. They wanted more slave states simply so they could outnumber the free states in congress. Add the slave state of Sonora? Bam! Two free senators and a couple of reps potentially taken from the north. With an independent south, that's going to be unnecessary.
They considered slavery to be a necessary evil. "The black man is savage! He can't fend for himself. We are being kind, and providing them good work, and return in kind with shelter and food. Oh, and we can make a killing off of 'em." Neither of those motives apply here. They aren't going to make money just because some wealthy Mexicans can now have slaves. From the slavery-as-charity motive (which was really more of just a cover, anyway), it doesn't matter whether the slaves have an owner in Virginia or Chihuahua. There's no reason to expand slavery in new territory.
The US absolutely will. It's not very likely Europe would aid a Confederate land grab. With little fear of foreign interference, and a Confederate distracted in some third country, the US can and will take the chance to put the rebels in their place.
Again, maybe, maybe they could win against a fractured Mexico. They could potentially ally with one of the major factions. This faction provides the Confederates with the territory for a Pacific port. In exchange, the Confederates will now provide aid against that faction's enemies.
But the US would never let that happen. Days after the Confederate army steps into Mexico, the Union army would be stepping into Virginia and Tennessee.
Edit: Oh yeah, I voted for the Confederates expanding elsewhere. Why? Because the CSA conquering France is about as bloody likely as them expanding anywhere else.
Thank you kindly, Solo. I am getting weary of the whole impression of 1800's Southern elite being pickelhaub-wearing Nazis obsessing constantly over the idea of lebensraum and eugenics and whatnot. They tended to be lazy and greedy as all hell, yes, but they weren't Nazis.
I am going to point out William Walker, who, with the backing of merely a company, was able to successful invade and take over Nicaragua, before he was ousted by a coalition of other Latin American nations. Frankly, this demonstrates how easy it would be to invade and take control of one or more Latin American nations. I'm not talking about Confederate supported filibusters, not a giant mass-mobilization war, just a few filibusters supported by either the Confederate government, or rich slaveholders. Whenever we have discussions about how the CSA will do after independence, I am always on the side that says that they will be doing badly--weak and poor. In that sense, you're probably right insofar that the Confederacy would be unable to buy land from Mexico. Also, you're right on the reasons that people wanted to expand slavery in the United States, but you assume that once they left the USA, these expansionist feelings died. I see no evidence to support that idea. The Knights of the Golden Circle, a filibuster group, immediately started supporting the Confederacy during the ACW. Plus, there was a lot of plans, however unrealistic, for Confederate expansion after the Civil War. Jefferson Davis himself supported further expansion. Talk about counting your chickens before they hatch! As your point about USA intevention in such a scenario, I'm skeptical. The CSA will not be 'distracted' in Latin America. Perhaps in a war with Mexico, but not Latin America, where it would only take filibusters to conquer land. This also assumes that the USA will be looking for a round 2, which is something else that I am not convinced of. Again, it just depends on the exact POD. If it's a long and bloody war ending with the Union political will to fight collapsing, of if it ends with European intervention curb-stomping the USA, then why would the USA be eager for another war?
If the CSA wins, nether will be in a position to enforce the Monroe Doctrine.
And Leistungsfähiger Amerikan, If the CSA wins through European intervention the Union will be looking for round two. They will just be waiting until the Europeans don't care, or they are strong enough to fight against Europe. They would view such a defeat as Europe interfering with their nation, so even if they are curbed stomped, they would not accept it.
Solomaxwell6
Banned
Yes, I know who Walker is and what a filibuster is. How many of them successfully took over a nation?
Walker, who invaded during a civil war with the full support of one of the sides. That's not going to be a situation that happens consistently. While, sure, you can say "But Latin America has plenty of civil wars!" you're talking about
1) Going against one of the weaker Latin American nations. A filibuster against, for example, Brazil, is not going to work. Really, we're limiting this to just the central American nations or maybe some of the free Caribbean islands (and most of them were still colonies at the time). Most of the South American nations are too large for such a small force to successfully take over.
2) They need the assistance of at least some of the locals. After the first couple of attempts, especially with the memory of Walker, how often do you think locals will be perfectly willing to help a roving band of confederates?
3) Okay, let's assume some filibuster successfully found a weak nation in the middle of a civil war, backed and then turned on one side, and now finds itself in control of a nation. What's stopping other countries from kicking him out? Walker was president of Nicaragua for what, one year? Two? As soon as the CSA or a Confederate supported filibuster takes over a central American nation, the others are going to jump on it. They're smart enough to realize that the Confederates wouldn't just sit tight with their one new territory with no more expansionist ideas.
Which would fail.
You're mistaken. I was merely pointing out why your reason for belief in Confederate expansionist feeling, the expansion of slavery, is idiotic and requires an incredibly simplistic view of the Confederate mindset.
I bolded the important part of that statement.
If they actually decide to annex it (you know... expand) instead of having a friendly filibuster ruler (which also isn't going to happen, anyway, but hypothetically), they're going to really piss off the neighboring countries. If the US gives them a wink and a nudge, they won't need much to move against Confederate El Salvador, or whatever.
Because of ideology. Do you think the idea of manifest destiny or American exceptionalism are going to go away? And with manifest destiny and American exceptionalism, don't you think regaining lost territory would be the biggest priority? All that's going to happen is the US will gear up for the next war. The South fought back a lot harder than expected in the Civil War. But with better planning, that would be completely negated, especially as the Confederates stagnate and fall into poverty.
History is full of nations who lost a war trying again. Best example is Germany during the World Wars.
In a settled peace:
The Republicans are going to be just as eager to to retake lost Confederate lands. They'd blame the Democrats for declaring peace in a winnable war. Buff up military, and look for any excuse to fight. With a better prepared military geared specifically to fight the Confederates, and without the confusion as half the command structure suddenly switches sides, it's unlikely to go as it did the first time around, especially with an ally in Mexico or a central American coalition.
The Democrats, meanwhile, will not strictly be pro-Confederacy. Perhaps you'll see some pro-Confederate individuals in the southern midwest, but when most Americans want more territory, and a good faction of those Americans want Confederate territory, it'll be difficult to ignore a good opportunity for them to declare war.
In a European curb-stomp peace:
Europe isn't going to assist the Confederates in a war of aggression. That's pretty clear. So, America is going to have a green light to invade as soon as Confederate soldiers cross a border. It's pretty much as simple as that.
First off, I'm glad that we agree there was expansionist sentiment in the CSA. Secondly, I agree that there is no way the CSA is going after anything like Brazil; the best they'll get is Central American nations or Caribbean islands. Thirdly, my point was that if William Walker did so well, a filibuster supported by the CSA itself would logically do better. Sure, the other Central American nations could try and eject the Confederates, but this is alternate history. They could try and fail, or they could try and succeed. Frankly, I don't have as much faith in their military power as you do. The main threat, as you said, is the USA. But in the scenario you describe, where the USA is just looking for casus belli to reconquer the Confederacy, the Confederacy won't last that long enough to expand anyway. The existence of slavery itself could be used as a casus belli to invade, so in any scenario where the CSA expands, the USA has to be either ambivalent/friendly towards the CSA. Fourthly, you're right about my filibuster scenario not actually being Confederate expansion. I believe the CSA could set up puppet states/colonies, but outright annexation? Unlikely. So I guess you and I agree--there's no way the CSA can expand.
But don't get me wrong, I see your point about how unlikely it is that the Confederacy would survive in such a scenario AND be able to filibuster some small nations. But where we disagree is that I don't think that it requires ASB intervention, and in some alternate time line, it's possible that the CSA could have those unlikely circumstances met.
Solomaxwell6
Banned
I have a few more minutes so I'll add a little about your peace scenarios:
For the European curb-stomp: People tend to overestimate Europe's willingness to enter the war. Britain wanted a potential rival to be divided and weakened, yes. Britain didn't want to lose access to Confederate cotton, yes. But the British people were very opposed to the war. A Mancunian friend of mine told me about how Manchester has a statue of Lincoln in it... A wealthy industrial center that relied on cotton for its textile mills, Manchester still largely boycotted Confederate cotton and focused on other sources, since they were so opposed to the Confederacy. So in almost any realistic scenario, Britain will be, at best, only offering indirect support to the south, as OTL.
For the settled peace: The best hope for this is a Democratic presidential victory, 1864. Now let's consider the ramifications. The Democratic base was the south. What happens when the south leaves? Suddenly almost the entire nation will be Republican. You're basically going to have solid Republican states in upper New England, the west, and most of the midwest. The mid-atlantic and lower New England are going to be Republican-leaning swing states. Maybe you'll have Kentucky as the only decently solid Democratic state? And as you get population shifts and the midwest gets many, many more electoral votes? Only more solid Republican victories.
So in a peace scenario, you're either going to see a de facto one party state for decades and decades (even more so than OTL), or you're going to see the Democrats moderate and move much closer in ideology to the Republicans.
For the European curb-stomp: People tend to overestimate Europe's willingness to enter the war. Britain wanted a potential rival to be divided and weakened, yes. Britain didn't want to lose access to Confederate cotton, yes. But the British people were very opposed to the war. A Mancunian friend of mine told me about how Manchester has a statue of Lincoln in it... A wealthy industrial center that relied on cotton for its textile mills, Manchester still largely boycotted Confederate cotton and focused on other sources, since they were so opposed to the Confederacy. So in almost any realistic scenario, Britain will be, at best, only offering indirect support to the south, as OTL.
For the settled peace: The best hope for this is a Democratic presidential victory, 1864. Now let's consider the ramifications. The Democratic base was the south. What happens when the south leaves? Suddenly almost the entire nation will be Republican. You're basically going to have solid Republican states in upper New England, the west, and most of the midwest. The mid-atlantic and lower New England are going to be Republican-leaning swing states. Maybe you'll have Kentucky as the only decently solid Democratic state? And as you get population shifts and the midwest gets many, many more electoral votes? Only more solid Republican victories.
So in a peace scenario, you're either going to see a de facto one party state for decades and decades (even more so than OTL), or you're going to see the Democrats moderate and move much closer in ideology to the Republicans.
You can only butterfly away so many things. If the Confederate chance at peace rests with the 1864 election, all of that would likely be rendered mute by Grant and Sherman. Any hope of settled peace would have to happen before 1864, or there wouldn't be anything to settle.
mowque
Banned
They'd have to, that was one of the reasons for the war in the first place, expansion of slavery in the territories won by the Mexican-American War.
I could see them trying to get some land as a colony, as a way to solve their slave problem (slavery would need to be abolished) via forced settlement.
It's cheaper then policing.
As for Mexicans, crazy idea- could a Mexico-CSA merger occur at some point as an anti-American alliance? Could it win without being a MexiConfedWank?
It's cheaper then policing.
As for Mexicans, crazy idea- could a Mexico-CSA merger occur at some point as an anti-American alliance? Could it win without being a MexiConfedWank?
Based on their Constitution, they'd be required to reintroduce slavery into any conquered territories.
Not that the CSA is likely to have conquered territories. They don't need to balance Senators with the non-slaveholding states, but that doesn't erase the concept of Manifest Destiny. Many Confederates may feel they need to expand to counter Union power.
In OTL, the CSA's record on invasion is one of failure. Even when they won battles, they lost the campaigns because they lacked the logistical ability to support armies that far afield. Overseas expansion would also be hampered by their lack of an effective Navy.
William Walker was the only real success among the filibusters and he only lasted a couple years. He only got that far because he started as supporting one of the local faction, not seizing territory.
Actual CSA invasions of Central America would find the locals united against the CSA and the Central American States working together to kick them out. I'd expect several Confederate attempts, but long term success is unlikely.