Confederate Superpower
- Thread starter ConfederateFly
- Start date
Grey Wolf
Donor
Great Power
Well, if we accept that we are really talking about the CSA being a Great power in the period where there were NO superpowers but a world of great powers, then we are looking for its POWER-PROJECTION capability and its INFLUENCE beyond its own back door to be on a par with Russia or France or the late nineteenth century USA
Grey Wolf
Well, if we accept that we are really talking about the CSA being a Great power in the period where there were NO superpowers but a world of great powers, then we are looking for its POWER-PROJECTION capability and its INFLUENCE beyond its own back door to be on a par with Russia or France or the late nineteenth century USA
Grey Wolf
After the ACW how would the Confederacy make a Confederate Merchant Marine? Would they buy former blockade runners and have some built in Europe like the Owl
But wouldn't the goverment have a small merchant marine to sell cotton for products for the goverment? Like they did with goverment blockade runners because privately owned BR were bringing in private products for the citizens
Grey Wolf
Donor
LDoc said:
Here is the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. Perhaps everyone would like to read it ?
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/csa.constitution.html
Articles 12 and 13 of Section VIII have some bearing
Article 1 of Section IX has relevance to a previous discussion
Article 3 of Section X states explicitly
"Nor shall any State keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay"
Grey Wolf
Last edited:
the problem is that the CSA had no way of enforcing this. even durring the civil war their were state militias that were held back from the front to defend their native lands. The CSA couldn't even enforce the day of national holiday with different states chossing different dates. The whole purpose of the civil war and the souths scession was about states rights and i doubt if your going to have any kind of central authority over the states.
David S Poepoe
Banned
Realistically, it will all come down to financing a permanently standing state army and the harm it will do by having so many young men being withheld from the economy.
However, it appears to me most likely that there will be a small standing army which in time of war would find its ranks swelled by state militias. The ration of CS Army to CS Volunteers officers and men would probably be pretty low. There would probably be very slow mobilization plans.
What immediately comes to mind is the British Army in the Great War, and how the British Army officers regarded and treated the colonial troops. The professional officer corps will probably be were true Confederate nationalism and a want for a greater centralized government would originate from. Thoughts of the Austro-Hungarian Imperial and Royal Army also come to mind.
However, it appears to me most likely that there will be a small standing army which in time of war would find its ranks swelled by state militias. The ration of CS Army to CS Volunteers officers and men would probably be pretty low. There would probably be very slow mobilization plans.
What immediately comes to mind is the British Army in the Great War, and how the British Army officers regarded and treated the colonial troops. The professional officer corps will probably be were true Confederate nationalism and a want for a greater centralized government would originate from. Thoughts of the Austro-Hungarian Imperial and Royal Army also come to mind.
NapoleonXIV
Banned
tom said:
..., I don't think so. Thats a Great Power. A Superpower is like England after Vienna where she could readily defeat even the combined forces of her next two strongest rivals.(in navies) The theory is that no more than two countries will ever be able to get together quickly w/o going at each other first and so you can never be defeated and thus 'rule the world' as long as you have good diplomats who can keep big coalitions from forming against you. The US and Russia are probably the only two to exist together at once in modern history
Last edited:
What if the Confederacy somehow got a hold of Hawaii or Southern California would they have a better chance of recieving some colonies in the Pacific?
David S Poepoe
Banned
ConfederateFly said:
The Confederacy getting Hawaii ignores the fact that Britain, France and the United States have a treaty binding them to maintaining Hawaii's independence. At the least I see the British and Americans refusing to permit the Confederacy from occupying Hawaii. Regarding Southern California, which I guess would be solely the San Diego area or there abouts, I also don't see it happening. I doubt the US would permit the dismemberment of loyal state (tho that argument is kind of mute) and I don't think the Californians will stand for it. They are very anti-slavery, there is also the distance to which any campaign would have to be fought. No, I doubt either possibility.
The Confederacy simply doesn't have A) the natural resources to be a modern economic power B) the ability to get those resources C) the Confederacy didn't have a very modern mind set. Even if they have early gains once the 20th century comes around their simply gone as a factor in the world, if not sooner.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Baja California
I think he means Baja California when he says Southern (i.e. the long dangly bit that's still part of Mexico). Interestingly, at the time of the Treaty of Guadelupe-Hidalgo the Mexicans complained that San Diego was properly part of Baja and should not be ceded to the USA along with the rest of (Upper) California. But I don't think that with an 1860s POD we are looking at San Diego being split apart from the Union.
Hawaii IMHO is impossible. The CSA does not have the economic interests there that the USA had prior to annexation. And one cannot see the Confederacy getting such interests.
Grey Wolf
I think he means Baja California when he says Southern (i.e. the long dangly bit that's still part of Mexico). Interestingly, at the time of the Treaty of Guadelupe-Hidalgo the Mexicans complained that San Diego was properly part of Baja and should not be ceded to the USA along with the rest of (Upper) California. But I don't think that with an 1860s POD we are looking at San Diego being split apart from the Union.
Hawaii IMHO is impossible. The CSA does not have the economic interests there that the USA had prior to annexation. And one cannot see the Confederacy getting such interests.
Grey Wolf
Deleted member 36284
It's not implausible. If the CSA industrialized, conquered parts of the Caribbean and Mexico, and then maybe won a few more wars with USA while Union was in troubled times then maybe, just maybe. Alternatively you could have the USA fracture and split allowing the CSA to become dominant in North America.
RamscoopRaider
Donor
They wouldn't. Industrialize or win any later wars. Others know this far better than I
As for the US fracturing, once the CSA is gone the answer is no, not going to happen.