Could the CSA fight Spain?

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.
Yes, a baseless accusation that Lincoln was going to force change through legislation, which was asinine as it would have required a Constitutional amendment to get rid of. Thus a political cause for getting rid of it.

Economically, they would have been forced to get rid of it eventually, which is what I mean by "natural death" of slavery. If there is no money in it, there is no point in doing it, and why I was talking about them Industrializing when the North "couldn't" do it before. With actual need for the goods, there would be people that would do it, particularly if there is money in it, which there would be.


By quick, I mean a war that is over in a year or two, which admittedly would require the "Stupid Virus" to hit McClellan and other General's harder than it did OTL. And Britain/France recognizing the CSA.
 
If everything goes right for the CSA between 1861 and 1900 (maybe President Beauregard in 1867, given that he was somewhat more liberal than the fire-eaters), they could beat Spain. However, unlike the claimed goal of the US, the CSA would openly be in the war to conquer Cuba. Therefore, the rebels and Spain might temporarily team up to beat Johnny Reb (maybe Cuba becomes a dominion like OTL Canada as a compromise). Puerto Rico certainly stays with Spain, possibly until the present day like French Guyana.
 

Free Lancer

Banned
Yes, a baseless accusation that Lincoln was going to force change through legislation, which was asinine as it would have required a Constitutional amendment to get rid of. Thus a political cause for getting rid of it.

Economically, they would have been forced to get rid of it eventually, which is what I mean by "natural death" of slavery. If there is no money in it, there is no point in doing it, and why I was talking about them Industrializing when the North "couldn't" do it before. With actual need for the goods, there would be people that would do it, particularly if there is money in it, which there would be.


By quick, I mean a war that is over in a year or two, which admittedly would require the "Stupid Virus" to hit McClellan and other General's harder than it did OTL. And Britain/France recognizing the CSA.

And in the OTL has proven even if the South should change economicaly does not mean they will without a apparent reason the south was stubborn that way.

In a world were the CSA wins its independence slavery wilL most likely not die until the 1880s with the CSA doing everything it can to hold the thing up for as long as it can and that will rout the CSA away from the inside.
 
Yes, a baseless accusation that Lincoln was going to force change through legislation, which was asinine as it would have required a Constitutional amendment to get rid of. Thus a political cause for getting rid of it.

Economically, they would have been forced to get rid of it eventually, which is what I mean by "natural death" of slavery. If there is no money in it, there is no point in doing it, and why I was talking about them Industrializing when the North "couldn't" do it before. With actual need for the goods, there would be people that would do it, particularly if there is money in it, which there would be.


By quick, I mean a war that is over in a year or two, which admittedly would require the "Stupid Virus" to hit McClellan and other General's harder than it did OTL. And Britain/France recognizing the CSA.
When do regimes change practices that have clearly failed if their motivation behind them is ideological? OTL offers no examples of this.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
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.
1. Why? In 1913 cotton production was the largest single sector in the OTL US and the US had a massive share of the global market. The only difference with a separate CSA is that northern US mills pay duty on the cotton and the south makes a larger profit on that sector.

2. Balls. The CSA was founded on a mixture of globalised free trade and a captive labour force. Whilst the CSA won't protect it's industries (which are already considerable compared to anywhere except Britain or the NE USA) it will continue to industrialise apace. In the early 20th it will experience a massive oil boom and become an incredibly wealthy country rather than just a very wealthy country.
 
1. Why? In 1913 cotton production was the largest single sector in the OTL US and the US had a massive share of the global market. The only difference with a separate CSA is that northern US mills pay duty on the cotton and the south makes a larger profit on that sector.

2. Balls. The CSA was founded on a mixture of globalised free trade and a captive labour force. Whilst the CSA won't protect it's industries (which are already considerable compared to anywhere except Britain or the NE USA) it will continue to industrialise apace. In the early 20th it will experience a massive oil boom and become an incredibly wealthy country rather than just a very wealthy country.
Just like Imperial Russia is the greatest industrial power in Europe and St. Petersburg the largest industrial region in Russia, eh? :rolleyes:
 

Free Lancer

Banned
1. Why? In 1913 cotton production was the largest single sector in the OTL US and the US had a massive share of the global market. The only difference with a separate CSA is that northern US mills pay duty on the cotton and the south makes a larger profit on that sector.

2. Balls. The CSA was founded on a mixture of globalised free trade and a captive labour force. Whilst the CSA won't protect it's industries (which are already considerable compared to anywhere except Britain or the NE USA) it will continue to industrialise apace. In the early 20th it will experience a massive oil boom and become an incredibly wealthy country rather than just a very wealthy country.

First that was reference to the CSA if it won its independence and the implications that will follow it.

Second Yes No Change the CSA was primarily founded to protect the slavery since it tied into cotton and the baseless accusation that Lincoln will get rid of slavery.
 

Spengler

Banned
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:
I suspect the United States would intervene before all the settlers were kicked out. For "humanitarian" purposes of protecting "good Christians".
 
Food for thought:
-Depends on how large the CSA is and how it wins its independence
-US Navy will enlarge with a threat on its southern border, it will not stagnate such that Chile might be able to land on the West Coast in 1880
-CSA will industrialize to some extent at least around Birmingham AL, Atlanta, and probably eastern Tennessee
-Railways and local industry will be expensive and painful but necessary, the government will encourage these
-CSA will want to build their own cotton mills probably on the Atlantic coast as in OTL, look for Savannah and Charleston to become industrial centers
-Independent CSA will have the strongest navy it can afford to keep vital trade lines open, this may include buying ships from the UK if necessary
-With the US Army likely to get more funding the small arms and artillery technology might advance more quickly. Imagine what John Browning might be able to make out of a Mondragon Rifle given enough time and reason
-Spain could draw the US and CS together as a means of tossing out yet another dying Empire. Cuba to CSA, Philllippines and Puerto Rico to USA?
-Does CSA hold any Central American or OTL Mexican territory? The Golden Circle philosophy held by some of their leaders makes me think they will try to take over some other areas first
-Is slavery still legal in the CSA by 1898? I think the UK will have kittens if it is...
 
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.
That would be seven kinds of wishful thinking. I mean, let's face it, historically, Americans are famous for never letting a grudge go. A hundred and fifty years later, we're still refighting the civil war, forty years later we're still grinding on Vietnam, and we kept Quaddaffi and Hussein and Iran in our bad books for periods decades after decades.

A war where the CSA defeats the US. That won't ever be forgiven. Forget about amicable relations. The whole slavery issue won't ever be overlooked. Southern arrogance will not be overlooked. The US will despize the CSA.

Spain never ever sold its colonial holdings, and after expending blood and treasure to suppress a rebellion, its not going to just sell. Sorry, won't happen.

The Cuban rebels were abolitionists, about the worst kind of people to get in bed with the confederacy.
 
Quick question I always have been wondering... If the CSA was able to gain independence, would this not also open the door for other succession movements, as it would legitimize the idea that states have the right to leave the union?
 
I suspect the United States would intervene before all the settlers were kicked out. For "humanitarian" purposes of protecting "good Christians".
Well, I think it's more the USA would wait until the *CS* settlers are kicked out and then plead "self defense" by distorting incidents that in all probability involve Comanches instead of Navajos and Pueblos as a justification to move in, and essentially presenting the CSA with a Fait Accompli.
 
That would be seven kinds of wishful thinking. I mean, let's face it, historically, Americans are famous for never letting a grudge go. A hundred and fifty years later, we're still refighting the civil war, forty years later we're still grinding on Vietnam, and we kept Quaddaffi and Hussein and Iran in our bad books for periods decades after decades.

A war where the CSA defeats the US. That won't ever be forgiven. Forget about amicable relations. The whole slavery issue won't ever be overlooked. Southern arrogance will not be overlooked. The US will despize the CSA.

Spain never ever sold its colonial holdings, and after expending blood and treasure to suppress a rebellion, its not going to just sell. Sorry, won't happen.

The Cuban rebels were abolitionists, about the worst kind of people to get in bed with the confederacy.
Indeed, about the best case is a North Korea-South Korea like armed to the teeth mutual gazing into the abyss of a DMZ, the worst case is the USA absorbs the CSA after CS nationalism of a sort has had time to sink in and you get a West Bank/Gaza Strip of the size and scale of Western Europe. :eek:
 
Not if New England seceded to protest the Federal response to the draft riots, or something else similarly contrived.

And if California seceded for no reason despite not having a national identity.

And Columbia as well despite the Oregon Territory having even fewer people living there and even less of its own identity.

Also something something Copperheads.
 
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.
The US offer was in 1897, which was well into the Cuban War of Independence.
 

Free Lancer

Banned
Not if New England seceded to protest the Federal response to the draft riots, or something else similarly contrived.

And if California seceded for no reason despite not having a national identity.

And Columbia as well despite the Oregon Territory having even fewer people living there and even less of its own identity.

Also something something Copperheads.
I would love to see California its own nation, but with a prepared Union and with the Fear of the US breaking apart if CSA won means the Union will be more than ready to keep the rest of its States in line.
 
That would be seven kinds of wishful thinking. I mean, let's face it, historically, Americans are famous for never letting a grudge go. A hundred and fifty years later, we're still refighting the civil war, forty years later we're still grinding on Vietnam, and we kept Quaddaffi and Hussein and Iran in our bad books for periods decades after decades.

A war where the CSA defeats the US. That won't ever be forgiven. Forget about amicable relations. The whole slavery issue won't ever be overlooked. Southern arrogance will not be overlooked. The US will despize the CSA.

Spain never ever sold its colonial holdings, and after expending blood and treasure to suppress a rebellion, its not going to just sell. Sorry, won't happen.

The Cuban rebels were abolitionists, about the worst kind of people to get in bed with the confederacy.
Possibly, and probably, however that doesn't mean that at that particular time (meaning 1890's) that the two would be "at each other throats". Hell, look at the period between the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, the US and England, while hating each other, interacted in trade and stayed out of each other's wars (US-Franco pseudo war, and the Napoleonic Wars...even if the English consider the War of 1812 being part of those wars.) even when the English were impressing US citizens both at sea and on land.

Unless there is a reason for the US to fight the CS while the CS is involved in a war with Spain, they wouldn't get involved, they might be rooting for the Spanish, but there wouldn't be a reason for the US to get involved.


As for the Cuban's....well, they would probably be looking just to throw off the yoke of the Spanish and looking to get material for their war effort and if that means getting weapons from the CSA...well, they can deal with that later. Though I'm sure they would probably look to the US for more political support than the CS.
 
Top