Could the CSA fight Spain?

And that has to ignore the elephant in the room ...

If CSA defeats the Union and just some 20 to 30 years picks a war with a neighbor the temptation for the rump USA to restart the war would be ... rather high.

Also, Mexico was rather neutral tending to pro USA in the OTL war ... in a CSA case were probably their relations are already very low ...

It could be very well a case of shooting oneself on the foot.
 
The US offered to buy Cuba for 300 million and was rejected. I doubt that a.) Spain would be any more willing to sell to the south, and b.) the Confederates could scrape that kind of money together.
however that was before a long drawn out war of independence by the Cubans and Yellow fever decimating the Spanish Garrison.

For the CSA to gain Cuba, the most likely action is to buy it from Spain at the height of the Cuban war for Independence when the political will of the Spanish is waning.


As for a War? I think if there is amicable relations between the USA and CSA, (shorter, less bloody war, CSA has all of it's territory plus parts of NM/AZ) the CSA would have money from their Cotton exports (both US and Europe) to build a modern Navy. They already had a history of experienced and capable Army officers. Parts of the south would industrialize quickly to pick up some of the slack that breaking from the USA would leave, Richmond, Atlanta and New Orleans as the most likely area's.

I can see the CSA supporting the Cuban rebels, smuggling in weapons, supplying money and other supplies, in exchange the CSA would promise to make them part of the CSA or some kind of protectorate status.
 

Free Lancer

Banned
In 1898 the CSA will be a crumbling ruin, its military pathetically small and outdated, its economy unable to sustain any type of war non-existent

A war against the CSA will most likely be a good thing for spain, able to take massive reparations for itself and basically anything else it wants from the CSA.
 
Last edited:
In 1898 the CSA will be a crumbling ruin, its military pathetically small and outdated, its economy to sustain any type of war non-existent

A war against the CSA will most likely be a good thing for spain, able to take massive reparations for itself and basically anything else it wants from the CSA.
While the US stands idly by?
 

Free Lancer

Banned
however that was before a long drawn out war of independence by the Cubans and Yellow fever decimating the Spanish Garrison.

For the CSA to gain Cuba, the most likely action is to buy it from Spain at the height of the Cuban war for Independence when the political will of the Spanish is waning.


As for a War? I think if there is amicable relations between the USA and CSA, (shorter, less bloody war, CSA has all of it's territory plus parts of NM/AZ) the CSA would have money from their Cotton exports (both US and Europe) to build a modern Navy. They already had a history of experienced and capable Army officers. Parts of the south would industrialize quickly to pick up some of the slack that breaking from the USA would leave, Richmond, Atlanta and New Orleans as the most likely area's.

I can see the CSA supporting the Cuban rebels, smuggling in weapons, supplying money and other supplies, in exchange the CSA would promise to make them part of the CSA or some kind of protectorate status.
Some things about this i should comment on.

first in 1898 the CSA cotton exports will be dying, Britain and France which will most likely be the CSA most important and only trade partners will have already be importing cotton from their own colonies thus leaving the CSA without a buyer for its most important crop.

Second since the CSA was founded on the principle of no-change and in this instance the CSA has won its independence it will most likely not industrialize not seeing a need to do so.
 
What I'd like to know is, if the CSA couldn't push them out, what happens next?

If Spain gives it back, wouldn't that kind of defeat the purpose of invading in the first place? If they never intended to keep the territory, why would they need to invade? The CSA threat would have been neutralized, so there would be no reason to invade other than for land-grabbing, IMO.

If the Spanish did keep what they conquered, it would put the USA in a really awkward position. On the one hand, it would have to enforce the Monroe Doctrine and have Spain leave (with force if necessary). However, doing this would lead them to help their #1 enemy! I would presume that the US would invade and keep the territory themselves, but I'm not sure what the CSA would think of that.
It might send a message to the US that the CS isn't as strong as it may have thought. If Spain kicks the CS's ass, then I suspect the US would try a second invasion almost immideately. If the CS is allies with Brittain and France... then we're having some fun.
 
In 1898 the CSA will be a crumbling ruin, its military pathetically small and outdated, its economy to sustain any type of war non-existent

A war against the CSA will most likely be a good thing for spain, able to take massive reparations for itself and basically anything else it wants from the CSA.
in 20 years? Unlikely, especially if the war is quick (about the only way the CSA could be in a position gain it's independence). Even if they are "forced" to disband slavery by outside political pressure (or even economic), the practice would still continue in all but name in some form. In a short Civil War setting, I don't see a lot of hate between the USA and CSA...maybe some low level animosity, but more a "let each do as they will" kind of situation. Besides, if the war is short, the South's foreign markets aren't dried up and the Egyptian cotton industry didn't have a chance to crack that nut open and fill the void left by the blockade of the Southern ports OTL. Granted, I don't see Cotton sustaining the South's economy for much longer than 20-40 years after the war, but in 1890's, probably not going to see a significant decrease yet.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I've never understood why the getting part of New Mexico/Arizona somehow makes the CSA stronger. I mean, the CS could barely power project into the Southwest, so ignoring the ASB chances of them getting it, why does it make the CSA more stable?

The South was one of the poorer areas of the nations during this time, and it is folly to think that mere independence will force industrialization and development when ready northern capital could barely get the ball rolling.
 
I've never understood why the getting part of New Mexico/Arizona somehow makes the CSA stronger. I mean, the CS could barely power project into the Southwest, so ignoring the ASB chances of them getting it, why does it make the CSA more stable?

The South was one of the poorer areas of the nations during this time, and it is folly to think that mere independence will force industrialization and development when ready northern capital could barely get the ball rolling.
Yes, one can only imagine how the CSA handles the problems of the Navajo and Apache *in addition to* holding down that huge mass of slaves. It might actually lead to a Gringo version of Pope's Rebelllion booting out the Anglos......:eek:
 
Some things about this i should comment on.

first in 1898 the CSA cotton exports will be dying, Britain and France which will most likely be the CSA most important and only trade partners will have already be importing cotton from their own colonies thus leaving the CSA without a buyer for its most important crop.

Second since the CSA was founded on the principle of no-change and in this instance the CSA has won its independence it will most likely not industrialize not seeing a need to do so.
largely depends on how long the Civil War lasted. They weren't founded on "no-change" they were founded on "no FORCED change" by Washington under the Constitution. Having to change based on economic conditions (ie needing industrial goods) is far different than being forced to change just because your neighbors want you too. In the CSA it would have been up to the individual states to get rid of slavery, not Richmond. It would have died a natural death because the economy would have had to change. Some industrialization of the south would have been done by slave labor, but most likely would have been free whites that moved to the cities from rural areas that can't compete with slave farming.
 
largely depends on how long the Civil War lasted. They weren't founded on "no-change" they were founded on "no FORCED change" by Washington under the Constitution. Having to change based on economic conditions (ie needing industrial goods) is far different than being forced to change just because your neighbors want you too. In the CSA it would have been up to the individual states to get rid of slavery, not Richmond. It would have died a natural death because the economy would have had to change. Some industrialization of the south would have been done by slave labor, but most likely would have been free whites that moved to the cities from rural areas that can't compete with slave farming.
Just like Communism did in the USSR or Fascism in Italy? :rolleyes:
 
in 20 years? Unlikely, especially if the war is quick (about the only way the CSA could be in a position gain it's independence). Even if they are "forced" to disband slavery by outside political pressure (or even economic), the practice would still continue in all but name in some form. In a short Civil War setting, I don't see a lot of hate between the USA and CSA...maybe some low level animosity, but more a "let each do as they will" kind of situation. Besides, if the war is short, the South's foreign markets aren't dried up and the Egyptian cotton industry didn't have a chance to crack that nut open and fill the void left by the blockade of the Southern ports OTL. Granted, I don't see Cotton sustaining the South's economy for much longer than 20-40 years after the war, but in 1890's, probably not going to see a significant decrease yet.
I do see it, especially if the CSA gets the Stupid Virus and decides its *next* task is to liberate *all* the slaves states in US control, including Maryland.........and it not getting the stupid virus is going to be difficult.
 

Free Lancer

Banned
in 20 years? Unlikely, especially if the war is quick (about the only way the CSA could be in a position gain it's independence). Even if they are "forced" to disband slavery by outside political pressure (or even economic), the practice would still continue in all but name in some form. In a short Civil War setting, I don't see a lot of hate between the USA and CSA...maybe some low level animosity, but more a "let each do as they will" kind of situation. Besides, if the war is short, the South's foreign markets aren't dried up and the Egyptian cotton industry didn't have a chance to crack that nut open and fill the void left by the blockade of the Southern ports OTL. Granted, I don't see Cotton sustaining the South's economy for much longer than 20-40 years after the war, but in 1890's, probably not going to see a significant decrease yet.
And what makes your think that the civil war could be quick? the only way for the CSA to wins its independece on its own is for Lincoln to lose the 1864 election and after that the CSA is in no position to demand anything

the USA has no reason to return the vast about of territory is has taken back to the south, ports likes New Orleans and and port hudson to name a few important areas.

The Souths cotton exports were beginning to dry up on the eve of the Civil war with Britain and France drawling cotton from their colonies it can not last another 20-40 years try ten years with the enterprise completely dead in the 1890s.

And this is not counting the world of other problems a nation like the CSA will be facing so i can safely the CSA will be in for a world of hurt if it goes to war in 1898.
 
I've never understood why the getting part of New Mexico/Arizona somehow makes the CSA stronger. I mean, the CS could barely power project into the Southwest, so ignoring the ASB chances of them getting it, why does it make the CSA more stable?

The South was one of the poorer areas of the nations during this time, and it is folly to think that mere independence will force industrialization and development when ready northern capital could barely get the ball rolling.
While part of the US they didn't NEED to industrialize, independently they would have to as imports would be much more expensive.

The south wasn't poor, just the wealth was more concentrated in a fewer people, as was the land. There were far more large plantation owners which concentrated the wealth. Industrialization decreases that. I'm not saying that there would be a LOT of industrialization, just more than there was prior to the Civil war, need for railroad, weapons, and tools would drive the need for the industrialization.
 

Free Lancer

Banned
largely depends on how long the Civil War lasted. They weren't founded on "no-change" they were founded on "no FORCED change" by Washington under the Constitution. Having to change based on economic conditions (ie needing industrial goods) is far different than being forced to change just because your neighbors want you too. In the CSA it would have been up to the individual states to get rid of slavery, not Richmond. It would have died a natural death because the economy would have had to change. Some industrialization of the south would have been done by slave labor, but most likely would have been free whites that moved to the cities from rural areas that can't compete with slave farming.
The CSA was founded on NO CHANGE, the CSA was founded on the a baseless accusation that Lincoln was going to get did of slavery when he became president.

And for the rest ill let my response rest on Snakes response.
 
While part of the US they didn't NEED to industrialize, independently they would have to as imports would be much more expensive.

The south wasn't poor, just the wealth was more concentrated in a fewer people, as was the land. There were far more large plantation owners which concentrated the wealth. Industrialization decreases that. I'm not saying that there would be a LOT of industrialization, just more than there was prior to the Civil war, need for railroad, weapons, and tools would drive the need for the industrialization.
Have to is no guarantee of will do. There are an infinite variety of states that had to do things that failed to ever do them.
 
Let's talk about alliances. Alternate Spanish-Dixie war has always intrigued me about the possibility of the U.S. allying with Spain. Could it happen? How'd that go? And what if the Confeds are allied to the Anglo-French?
 
Top