Confederate Expansionism After the Civil War?

[MerryPrankster]

Isn't Potosi in Bolivia or thereabouts? I thought that was where all the silver came from.

Of course, there could easily be more than one Potosi, unless this Confederate fellow is particularly insane.

 

[Jester]

Isn't alternate history revisionist by definition?

No, it is not.

Alternate history does not necessarily have some ideological goal, unlike historical revisionism. Alternate history writings may include some of the same goals as revisionist history- but I imagine such TLs are usually terrible (see right-wing FH, for example, such as Caliphate and the like.)

As to robertp's expertise, he certainly does have a good idea of the military realities of the Confederacy. But he makes the Confederacy out to be a far nicer place than it actually was. I again recommend the farce The Black and the Grey, which I found shortly after coming to this site (and I lurked well before March, thank you.)

As to his "evil Confederacy" TL, it read to me like a parody- a reductio ad absurdam targeted at those who criticised his vision of the Confederacy. An evil Confederacy is thus, as implausible as the rest of the events in that TL, where the Confederacy starts on the path of some Draka-analogue. It is not a serious consideration of the flaws of the Confederacy.

Interestingly to the discussion, there were some (admittedly short) discussions at killing the slave trade clause in the CS Constitution. The main reason was to allow a limited slave trade with Cuba, who at that time still legally possessed slaves. Obviously, it didn't get killed but opening the slave blocks of Havana could easily be a goal in a post-ACW Confederacy's expansion. Do not forget that Cuba was the second to last in the Western Hemisphere to legally abolish slavery.

EDIT: Also, if you need some evidence of Southern leader's support for a "Golden Circle" beyond the simple maintenance of the slave state-free state balance, I would suggest you look into much of the enthusiasm surrounding the Spanish-American War. The conquest of Cuba is often regarded as a factor which helped to re-unite the North and South- and the expansion of Southern agricultural business there was certainly a factor. Cuba had become by that time, a Megali Ideal sort of national destiny, slavery or not.

 

[MerryPrankster]

OTL the Confederacy had a lot in common with the Draka.

For example, in the Domination, "fundamental criticism of the slave system is forbidden" and the Security Directorate tried to nail Eric V.S. with "thoughts or actions deemed prejudicial to the security of the state."

(Granted, this was mostly tied in with his sending his serf daughter to America, but the Security Directorate also tried to censor his book about his war experiences.)

OTL, IIRC the Confederacy banned abolitionist literature from the mail and pro-slavery individuals had a propensity for violence against those who disagreed with them. The fact that slaves were a minority in most Confederate states (Mississippi excepted) probably kept the paranoia and resulting opppression from getting worse, but in a Confederacy that's 75+ percent slave, I could imagine things reaching Draka proportions.

Plus there's the expansionism, which Faeelin pointed out here.

 

[Stalker]

Well, what an expansionism of post-ACW Confederacy may be if it's gonna have a huge public debt before England and probably France?
Especially when England would consider Confederate State as its backyard in attempt to weaken the consequences of Monroe doctrine. I am afraid that in seceral decades the CSA, a poor, industrially backward agrarian country, may become a kind of British semicolony. Neither Spain's Cuba, nor Mexican Chihuahua or Sonora for that matter. It's all simply a dream.

 

[Wolfpaw]

EDIT: Also, if you need some evidence of Southern leader's support for a "Golden Circle" beyond the simple maintenance of the slave state-free state balance, I would suggest you look into much of the enthusiasm surrounding the Spanish-American War. The conquest of Cuba is often regarded as a factor which helped to re-unite the North and South- and the expansion of Southern agricultural business there was certainly a factor. Cuba had become by that time, a Megali Ideal sort of national destiny, slavery or not.

Well I agree with you on the Cuba thing, and Manifest Destiny (or a bizarre Dixie perversion of it at least) did survive into the 1850s and early 1860s, so I also agree that we'll probably see some Confederate adventurism post-CW.

I don't see why everybody thinks that the South is going to try and seize Cuba by force. I foresee them trying to buy it from Spain (probably spearheaded by folks like Soulé), only they'll put much more effort into it and be willing to offer more money for it than the USA ever did for a variety of reasons, many of which have been stated above.

I also think we ought not to underestimate or ignore the possibility of filibusters. A number of them (William Walker being the most famous of course) were good ol' Southern boys with dreams of expansion and were oft chummy with powerful Southerners. While the CSA may not be willing to go to war in order to take over northern Mexico or Nicaragua or a couple-three Caribbean islands for fear of upsetting certain interests, I can't see it lifting a finger to stop any filibusters that might spring up. Plausible deniabiliy can be a country's best friend

 

[Plumber]

Isn't Potosi in Bolivia or thereabouts? I thought that was where all the silver came from.

Of course, there could easily be more than one Potosi, unless this Confederate fellow is particularly insane.

Um, no. It's a Mexican State: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Luis_Potosí

Well I agree with you on the Cuba thing, and Manifest Destiny (or a bizarre Dixie perversion of it at least) did survive into the 1850s and early 1860s, so I also agree that we'll probably see some Confederate adventurism post-CW.

I don't see why everybody thinks that the South is going to try and seize Cuba by force. I foresee them trying to buy it from Spain (probably spearheaded by folks like Soulé), only they'll put much more effort into it and be willing to offer more money for it than the USA ever did for a variety of reasons, many of which have been stated above.

I also think we ought not to underestimate or ignore the possibility of filibusters. A number of them (William Walker being the most famous of course) were good ol' Southern boys with dreams of expansion and were oft chummy with powerful Southerners. While the CSA may not be willing to go to war in order to take over northern Mexico or Nicaragua or a couple-three Caribbean islands for fear of upsetting certain interests, I'm can't see it lifting a finger to stop any filibusters that might spring up. Plausible deniabiliy can be a country's best friend

I absolutely agree on every point. Annexing new republics led by filibusters would be the easiest way for the CSA to expand besides purchases. Speaking of which, I think a purchase of Cuba to be likely during the Ten Years' War to relieve Spain of the Cuban problem. How likely is the CSA to purchase Northern Mexico from Maximilian to give him money during the French intervention?

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Um, no. It's a Mexican State: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Luis_Potosí




I absolutely agree on every point. Annexing new republics led by filibusters would be the easiest way for the CSA to expand besides purchases. Speaking of which, I think a purchase of Cuba to be likely during the Ten Years' War to relieve Spain of the Cuban problem. How likely is the CSA to purchase Northern Mexico from Maximilian to give him money during the French intervention?

Spain is not going to sell anything. Everyone was trying to buy their possessions, and no matter how hard-pressed, they were never remotely willing to, except the useless Carolines, and after the loss of their empire, the other now-useless Pacific island chains.

As for CSA territory seizure, good luck. How does anyone propose that they accomplish this? With the massive CSA navy? The reserves of national industry? Do you not think this will be interfered with? Imagine the response of Cubans to the idea of the CSA marching in to impose their plantation slavery on them. And are the USA and the Powers going to sit around while the CSA conquers other lands to impose plantation slavery?

Let's get real here.

 

[Valdemar II]

I agree with Abdul there's no way CSA would be able to conquer Cuba at this point, and I doubt they will have better luck with Mexico. But honestly I think the Northen Latin America are going to be a lot off, while the Monroe doctrine has become a joke, and European powers are going to push for some kind of economical dominance, I doubt we will see any full recolonisation of of the area, and we won't see the abyssal behaviour of gilded age USA in the area.

 

[Jester]

There actually was a short abolitionist independence movement in Cuba right after OTL's Civil War- their declaration exalted Lincoln and saw the freeing of the village's slaves. (I say "short" because, while it lasted ten years, only a short time of it saw this faction at the head of it)

Slaveowners on the island could well have appealed to the Confederacy. (Considering that the fighters asked for annexation or protection from the US)

And again, it isn't a matter of actually being able to achieve it, it is a matter of trying for it and wishing for it. AHP, I know you have been a critic of Greek nationalist fantasies over Ionia- and they undeniably tried it as late as WWI, despite the fact that it made no sense militarily or demographically. Do not underestimate the power of an idea, people.

 

[Hawkeye]

Spain is not going to sell anything. Everyone was trying to buy their possessions, and no matter how hard-pressed, they were never remotely willing to, except the useless Carolines, and after the loss of their empire, the other now-useless Pacific island chains.

As for CSA territory seizure, good luck. How does anyone propose that they accomplish this? With the massive CSA navy? The reserves of national industry? Do you not think this will be interfered with? Imagine the response of Cubans to the idea of the CSA marching in to impose their plantation slavery on them. And are the USA and the Powers going to sit around while the CSA conquers other lands to impose plantation slavery?

Let's get real here.

I could see the Confederates grabbing Cuba; it would be unlikely but impossible. They might be able to pull off an invasion during the Ten Years War. The CS would still need a little luck but that has happened in history before and the US and Britain can't object since the CS is expanding into a place where slavery already exists instead of expanding it in new territories.

 

[Nugax]

What? Of course Britain and the US can object, the CSA has just invaded somewhere, its the work of moments to develop a rationale for intervening and then its just a matter of selling it to the public. They won't go "Oh ho Confederates, you've got us there!", if they want to they will stop it.

 

[MerryPrankster]

They could object, but...

1. Why? So long as it's not making previously-free territory slave, it's a lot less likely to provoke anger. Did anyone come to Spain's aid, diplomatically or otherwise, over the Spanish-American War?

2. Are Britain and the UK willing to fight over it? Bonus points if France is allied to the Confederacy to ensure the success of Maximillian in Mexico.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I agree with Abdul there's no way CSA would be able to conquer Cuba at this point, and I doubt they will have better luck with Mexico. But honestly I think the Northen Latin America are going to be a lot off, while the Monroe doctrine has become a joke, and European powers are going to push for some kind of economical dominance, I doubt we will see any full recolonisation of of the area, and we won't see the abyssal behaviour of gilded age USA in the area.

The Monroe Doctrine was really more enforced by the British than it was by the USA. If Germany develops as per OTL you may see them trying to get a foothold in the Americas, but I think it would be vigorously resisted by everyone.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

There actually was a short abolitionist independence movement in Cuba right after OTL's Civil War- their declaration exalted Lincoln and saw the freeing of the village's slaves. (I say "short" because, while it lasted ten years, only a short time of it saw this faction at the head of it)

Slaveowners on the island could well have appealed to the Confederacy. (Considering that the fighters asked for annexation or protection from the US)

And again, it isn't a matter of actually being able to achieve it, it is a matter of trying for it and wishing for it. AHP, I know you have been a critic of Greek nationalist fantasies over Ionia- and they undeniably tried it as late as WWI, despite the fact that it made no sense militarily or demographically. Do not underestimate the power of an idea, people.

I think what I'm saying is that they can wish for it all they want, they're not going to achieve it. If the Turks had had a stronger navy than the Greeks, there wouldn't have even been a war for "Ionia". Likewise, the CSA has no means to invade Cuba.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

They could object, but...

1. Why? So long as it's not making previously-free territory slave, it's a lot less likely to provoke anger. Did anyone come to Spain's aid, diplomatically or otherwise, over the Spanish-American War?

2. Are Britain and the UK willing to fight over it? Bonus points if France is allied to the Confederacy to ensure the success of Maximillian in Mexico.

1. Because invading the territories of European powers is frowned upon. Nobody came to Spain's aid because the USA was powerful. The CSA wouldn't be. Also, the USA was a non-slave power. The CSA isn't.

2. Yes. Not that they'd really have to. Just post a small naval squadron in the theater and that pretty much takes care of it. Not that they'd even need to do that, since Spain is more than capable of taking care of whatever power-projection capability the CSA has.

 

[Johnrankins]

You would likely see a push (particularly from the power mad Jefferson Davis) to expand slavery after the Civil War but the Confederacy would be lucky to survive not talk about expand.

 

[Hawkeye]

What? Of course Britain and the US can object, the CSA has just invaded somewhere, its the work of moments to develop a rationale for intervening and then its just a matter of selling it to the public. They won't go "Oh ho Confederates, you've got us there!", if they want to they will stop it.

They could object but for what reason? It doesn't affect Britain or the US and they don't have much to lose or gain from Cuba changing hands. The CS could go in claiming to "restore order" and then what would the media have to say about it? "Oh no, the Confederates are trying to end a war in Cuba. We must stop them at all costs!"

 

[Wolfpaw]

Spain is not going to sell anything. Everyone was trying to buy their possessions, and no matter how hard-pressed, they were never remotely willing to, except the useless Carolines, and after the loss of their empire, the other now-useless Pacific island chains.

Oh come now, they've still got the Philippines. The lovely, lovely Philippines...

As for CSA territory seizure, good luck. How does anyone propose that they accomplish this? With the massive CSA navy? The reserves of national industry? Do you not think this will be interfered with? Imagine the response of Cubans to the idea of the CSA marching in to impose their plantation slavery on them. And are the USA and the Powers going to sit around while the CSA conquers other lands to impose plantation slavery.

Well, how did William Walker take over Nicaragua? With the massive US Navy? The reserves of national industry? No, he did it using private funds raised by supporters and around 160 Americans and at least 170 locals after teaming up with native elites. Granted, Cuba was much more populous than Nicaragua was, but still.

And why wouldn't the Cuban elites want to join with the Southerners? The CSA's emphasis on states' rights will mean Cuba will likely be far more autonomous than it was under Spanish rule, the governor will likely be an actual Cuban rather than some chinless count from Madrid and his coterie of Spaniards, the introduction of a state legislature will mean the plantation owners now have legal control rather than mere influence, magnates in the CSA will likely invest far more into Cuba than the Spaniards ever did, etc., etc.

And what's this talk of "marching in to impose plantation slavery" when slavery already existed in Cuba? I grant you that there will likely be some significant problems with the sizeable chunk of free blacks on the island, but I'm sure Richmond will allow the local elites to take care of that particular issue.

They could object, but...

1. Why? So long as it's not making previously-free territory slave, it's a lot less likely to provoke anger. Did anyone come to Spain's aid, diplomatically or otherwise, over the Spanish-American War?

2. Are Britain and the UK willing to fight over it? Bonus points if France is allied to the Confederacy to ensure the success of Maximillian in Mexico.

Exactly. The CSA absorbing Cuba (either legally, militarily, or via filibusters) will not be viewed as expanding slavery since slavery already existed in Cuba. I will grant, though, that if the CSA pursues an idiotic policy towards the free blacks in Cuba, this could earn them some strong words from Britain and France. And only strong words.

Also, why would the UK and France support Spain over the CSA? They're really no better than the South on moral terms and much more unstable than even the most tinpot Latin American dictatorship. I mean, three civil wars in 43 years?

There's not even an economic or political impetus for Britain and France to support Spain. Which country is the bigger and more profitable market, the CSA or revolution-prone Spain and its laughable "empire"? Which one is going to be looking for/much more open to significant Anglo-French investment? Which one is going to be far more useful and cooperative to Anglo-French designs in the Western Hemisphere?

Like Abdul said, let's get real here.

 

[Johnrankins]

Oh come now, they've still got the Philippines. The useless, useless Philippines...

Well, how did William Walker take over Nicaragua? With the massive US Navy? The reserves of national industry? No, he did it using private funds raised by supporters and around 160 Americans and at least 170 locals after teaming up with native elites. Granted, Cuba was much more populous than Nicaragua was, but still.

And why wouldn't the Cuban elites want to join with the Southerners? The CSA's emphasis on states' rights will mean Cuba will likely be far more autonomous than it was under Spanish rule, the governor will likely be an actual Cuban rather than some count from Madrid and his coterie of Spaniards, the introduction of a state legislature will mean the plantation owners now have legal control rather than mere influence, magnates in the CSA will likely invest far more into Cuba than the Spaniards ever did, etc., etc.

And what's this talk of "marching in to impose plantation slavery" when slavery already existed in Cuba? I grant you that there will likely be some significant problems with the sizeable chunk of free blacks on the island, but I'm sure Richmond will allow the local elites to take care of that particular issue.

Exactly. The CSA absorbing Cuba (either legally, militarily, or via filibusters) will not be viewed as expanding slavery since slavery already existed in Cuba. I will grant, though, that if the CSA pursues an idiotic policy towards the free blacks in Cuba, this could earn them some strong words from Britain and France. And only strong words.

Also, why would the UK and France support Spain over the CSA? They're really no better than the South on moral terms and much more unstable than even the most tinpot Latin American dictatorship. I mean, three civil wars in 43 years?

There's not even an economic or political impetus for Britain and France to support Spain. Which country is the bigger and more profitable market, the CSA or revolution-prone Spain and its laughable "empire"? Which one is going to be looking for/much more open to significant Anglo-French investment? Which one is going to be far more useful and cooperative to Anglo-French designs in the Western Hemisphere?

Like Abdul said, let's get real here.

Would the US stand for it? One small naval force and the CSA's contact with Cuba is gone.

 

[mrmandias]

The will is probably there: the CSA is going to be a one-party Democratic state for awhile, the Democrats were the party of expansion. Also, the CSA's unwieldy political structure will make foreign wars an attractive way to create unity.

The means, however, are probably not.