Could the CSA fight Spain?

[M79]

1. So how do the industrialize in an area that really hates the confederacy?

Eastern Tennessee holds some rail junctions and would potentially have hydropower and labor available. Yes, there are people who are opposed to it, but if there is little hope of international assistance I do not think we will see a low level guerilla war for decades to come. Some will move, others will succumb. Northern Georgia/Atlanta could also work.

2. The south was dominated by the planter class who really didn't like industrializing, why would they encourage it?

Planters will want cheaper transportation for moving goods. Railroads will be cheaper than moving goods by canals and internal canal projects (like Tennessee-Tombeege) are very expensive. If they can also build textile mills and ship out finished products instead of just raw products they can also charge more and increase their profits.

3. Why would the USA support the confederacy, especially if the confederacy likely takes to purging east Tennessee?

Why would they purge the area? If they win the war it means little or no support from Washington/Union and the area is recognized as CSA territory. If they are smart they will leave the area alone and offer amnesty in exchange for oaths of loyalty or something to that effect.

4. Yeah I'd like to see them try to actually conduct wars with out a navy.

Who argued that they would lack a navy?

5. Yeah and the CSA cares why?

The UK is likely to be a major comsumer of CSA goods. Money changes people's behavior very effectively, if the UK or other large trading partner(s) decide that doing business with slaveholding nations is no longer in their interest they can boycott and strangle the CSA economically.

As for a CSA army in 1895 - they are likely to have strong cavalry with carbines and rifles along with infantry armed with bolt-action rifles. Their military will have training and backgrounds in the American and British tradition. There could be exchange of officers and establishments of chiefs of staff by this time and if there are large scale slave revolts or guerilla activity then it might give the CSA experience in those fields.

 

[Elfwine]

Eastern Tennessee holds some rail junctions and would potentially have hydropower and labor available. Yes, there are people who are opposed to it, but if there is little hope of international assistance I do not think we will see a low level guerilla war for decades to come. Some will move, others will succumb. Northern Georgia/Atlanta could also work.

Why not?

Planters will want cheaper transportation for moving goods. Railroads will be cheaper than moving goods by canals and internal canal projects (like Tennessee-Tombeege) are very expensive. If they can also build textile mills and ship out finished products instead of just raw products they can also charge more and increase their profits.

And yet this did little to encourage railroad building OTL, except rail-to-river, which was far from sufficient for anything like a railroad net. As for textile mills - look at the fumbling OTL efforts.

Why would they purge the area? If they win the war it means little or no support from Washington/Union and the area is recognized as CSA territory. If they are smart they will leave the area alone and offer amnesty in exchange for oaths of loyalty or something to that effect.

If they were smart, they wouldn't have this problem in the first place.

The UK is likely to be a major comsumer of CSA goods. Money changes people's behavior very effectively, if the UK or other large trading partner(s) decide that doing business with slaveholding nations is no longer in their interest they can boycott and strangle the CSA economically.

As for a CSA army in 1895 - they are likely to have strong cavalry with carbines and rifles along with infantry armed with bolt-action rifles. Their military will have training and backgrounds in the American and British tradition. There could be exchange of officers and establishments of chiefs of staff by this time and if there are large scale slave revolts or guerilla activity then it might give the CSA experience in those fields.

What CSA goods? Cotton? They can get it from elsewhere if they decide the CSA is worth embargoing.

And I don't see why the CSA is going to have "strong cavalry". And no, a tradition of horsemanship in the countryside doesn't count.

Infantry armed with bolt action rifles? How exactly is the Confederacy keeping up with the latest technology with the budget issues it will have?

 

[Sicarius]

It's an open question if Confederate Texas would be able to control the oil industry. OTL martial law had to be declared because a lack of regulation was leading to premature exhaustion of oil supplies and radically low prices.

Edit: I also am not convinced the confederacy would have an army at all in the 1890s, or more than a skeleton force, anyway. Big standing armies in peacetime weren't even the norm in centralized nations, let alone in Confederacies with strong regional interests. I think the state militias would be the primary military force in Confederacy.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Brilliantly put!

Edit: And I do not believe that the US would get actively involved. Why would they want to annex all that backwards, hostile territory? They'd probably stand back and go:

The easiest reason in the world: so nobody else gets it. The result of this, however, is Israel-Palestine on a super-sized scale to a point where a US-screw is guaranteed.

 

[Cryptic]

Only in Confederate mythology. The average Confederate soldier had insufficient food, inferior equipment, and was more likely to be a conscript.

All true, and many armies have demonstrated a surprising ability to win despite lacking these things. Also a Confederate victory would solve the food and equipment problems.

As to generalship, Burnside is considered one of the Union's worst. Longstreet is considered one of the Confederacy's best. Burnside beat Longstreet. In independent command, Burnside beat every Confederate commander he faced, except for Lee.

Lee was certainly the Confederacy's best, far ahead of Bragg or either of the Johnstons. Lee was beaten by Meade, a Union second-stringer.

Poor confederate generalship, especially in the eastern theatre, is why the war ended in 1862, with the fall of Richmond - right?

Machinery for cotton picking only became a practical substitute for human labor in the 1950s.

I used 1885 as slavery became uneconomical in Brazil during that period. Slave based cotton (very labor intensive) plantations may have lasted a little longer, but I dont think one needed full mechanized picking ability before the balance was tipped against it.

 

[Snake Featherston]

All true, and many armies have demonstrated a surprising ability to win despite lacking these things. Also a Confederate victory would solve the food and equipment problems.

Name some of them and show how victory leads to resolving these issues, if you please? The moreso since the armies that win wars happen to be the well-fed ones lavishly equipped with firepower and at a crude level able to take 5 of their losses for 1 of the "superior" losing army.

Poor confederate generalship, especially in the eastern theatre, is why the war ended in 1862, with the fall of Richmond - right?

Strategically speaking the CSA was defeated in 1862 when Grant and Farragut cut it down to Vicksburg and Port Hudson holding the rest of it together. From there the Union just had to chop the CSA up bit by bit like a fine cook to a carrot.

The CSA's generals were lousy, many Union generals were, too. Practically speaking outside Virginia almost all the major victories were Union victories, in the Eastern Theater Lee had stalemates and defeats and was strategically irrelevant in six weeks when Grant put him up to the challenge of a sustained fight instead of pretty maneuvers that took more casualties than the Union did when the fighting started.

 

[Cryptic]

The CSA's generals were lousy, many Union generals were, too. Practically speaking outside Virginia almost all the major victories were Union victories, in the Eastern Theater Lee had stalemates and defeats and was strategically irrelevant in six weeks when Grant put him up to the challenge of a sustained fight instead of pretty maneuvers that took more casualties than the Union did when the fighting started.

And even given that, a Confederate army, especially one led by "A-Team" generals could easily fight and win a defensive war against Spain or Mexico. They could also bleed France dry. In short, the only power with the capability to sieze Confederate territory would be a resurgent union.

I agree that the ability of the confederates to out right sieze the territory of others was limited, but expansion into Yucatan (which was not part of Mexico proper at the time) and Cuba is technically feasible if done politically (regime change, local elites request CSA assistance, then agree to join CSA).

Name some of them and show how victory leads to resolving these issues, if you please?

Because a victorious CSA would not have internal food production disrupted and would not be blockaded. They could then purchase both weapons and machine tooling from Europe. Though nobody claims the Confederates were masters of industrialized weapons production, they were not luddites either.

 

[DG Valdron]

Is there a Confederate Screw timeline out there?

By which I mean a timeline where the Confederacy, through incredible luck, manages to win or negotiate its independence, and then high on its fluke, it proceeds to a series of disastrous misadventures in the Caribbean and Central America, a failed war with Mexico, Texas secession, the boll weevil, slave revolts, failure to industrialize, etc?

I'd pay money to read something like that.

I mean, let's face it, there's no shortage of Confederate Wanks out there.

 

[Cryptic]

Is there a Confederate Screw timeline out there?

By which I mean a timeline where the Confederacy, through incredible luck, manages to win or negotiate its independence, and then high on its fluke, it proceeds to a series of disastrous misadventures in the Caribbean and Central America, a failed war with Mexico, Texas secession, the boll weevil, slave revolts, failure to industrialize, etc?

I'd pay money to read something like that.

I mean, let's face it, there's no shortage of Confederate Wanks out there.

I think you should start one. I doubt such a timeline would lack readers on this forum. I would read it is as well, though Spain and Mexico successfully grabbing CSA territory would be ASB. Confederate misadventures in Yucatan and Cuba are far more realistic.

 

[DG Valdron]

And even given that, a Confederate army, especially one led by "A-Team" generals could easily fight and win a defensive war against Spain or Mexico. They could also bleed France dry. In short, the only power with the capability to sieze Confederate territory would be a resurgent union.

I agree that the ability of the confederates to out right sieze the territory of others was limited, but expansion into Yucatan (which was not part of Mexico proper at the time) and Cuba is technically feasible if done politically (regime change, local elites request CSA assistance, then agree to join CSA).

Because a victorious CSA would not have internal food production disrupted and would not be blockaded. They could then purchase both weapons and machine tooling from Europe.

The trouble is that the Confederacy is dominated by cheapskate shortsighted landowning elites with a history or regression, overreach and bad judgement. That's not the sort of bunch that will in peacetime be agreeable to paying a lot of taxes to support and equip a competent military.

I dunno about that. I'd suggest that any Confederate parity in military technology would vanish pretty quickly. European weaponry would probably be increasingly superior. They could buy, of course. But buying is expensive, and resupply more so. And as I suggested, they'd be inclined to go cheap.

As far as military prowess goes, the Confederate military set up, as I understand it, was state-based armies. Given the Confederacy's centrifugal tendencies, I don't think that a 'national' Confederate armed forces would be very likely, the states would just be reluctant to pay for it.

As to whether the Confederacy could wage a successful defensive war against Mexico... well, logistics were not the Confederacy's long suit, and the Mexican front is a long way off. I could really see a Confederacy war with Mexico being a dystopian cavalcade of errors.

As for France, it strikes me that there's only one thing that France would want in the Confederacy. That would be Louisiana. If there's local support, then France is a contender to take and hold it.

As for Spain, I think we all agree that an aggressive Confederate war against Spain is a complete non-starter. The question is, could Spain act successfully against the mainland. Maybe Florida.

 

[DG Valdron]

I think you should start one. I doubt such a timeline would lack readers on this forum. I would read it is as well, though Spain and Mexico successfully grabbing CSA territory would be ASB. Confederate misadventures in Yucatan and Cuba are far more realistic.

Empire of Mu
Axis of Andes
Land of Ice and Mice
Green Antarctica
Moontrap

All of which desperately require attention.

and I do consulting work on a couple of other timelines.
I'm overloaded.

 

[Cryptic]

As to whether the Confederacy could wage a successful defensive war against Mexico... well, logistics were not the Confederacy's long suit, and the Mexican front is a long way off. I could really see a Confederacy war with Mexico being a dystopian cavalcade of errors.

I think you are making the Mexican military 10 feet tall, perhaps due to a dislike of the CSA.

Mexico would be fighting an offensive war, did not have a good military record, did not have an industrial base, lacked logistics skills as well and probably did have some pretty deep internal socio economic divisions. If the CSA could fight the union to a stand still, I dont see why they cant win defensively against Mexico.

What I can see is a diasterous Mexican attempt to grab territory followed by an over confident CSA attempt to do the same in retaliation. The CSA then gets bogged down in guerilla warfare, sickness following a tactical defeat against elite Mexican units.

 

[Snake Featherston]

And even given that, a Confederate army, especially one led by "A-Team" generals could easily fight and win a defensive war against Spain or Mexico. They could also bleed France dry. In short, the only power with the capability to sieze Confederate territory would be a resurgent union.

I agree that the ability of the confederates to out right sieze the territory of others was limited, but expansion into Yucatan (which was not part of Mexico proper at the time) and Cuba is technically feasible if done politically (regime change, local elites request CSA assistance, then agree to join CSA).

I asked you to name those armies that won with impoverished resources against an enemy with superior resources. That wasn't an exceptionally difficult question.

Because a victorious CSA would not have internal food production disrupted and would not be blockaded. They could then purchase both weapons and machine tooling from Europe. Though nobody claims the Confederates were masters of industrialized weapons production, they were not luddites either.

They'll be a Tsarist Russia in terms of that: limited production, most of it around a capital thinly, if at all, resembling the broader country, a capital potentially exposed, and completely incapable of producing the weapons of modern war on a war footing.

 

[Snake Featherston]

I think you should start one. I doubt such a timeline would lack readers on this forum. I would read it is as well, though Spain and Mexico successfully grabbing CSA territory would be ASB. Confederate misadventures in Yucatan and Cuba are far more realistic.

Why would it be ASB? Other than the "Gringoes are always better at war" trope that has really never been true?

 

[Faralis]

And even given that, a Confederate army, especially one led by "A-Team" generals could easily fight and win a defensive war against Spain or Mexico. They could also bleed France dry. In short, the only power with the capability to sieze Confederate territory would be a resurgent union.

But why should Spain attack CSA?At that time Spain was completely on the defensive, the only reason I could see it is after a catastrophic CSA defeat trying to take Cuba, and if this happens I seriously suspect that the USA would retake the CSA just to ensure no one does it.

 

[DG Valdron]

Why would it be ASB? Other than the "Gringoes are always better at war" trope that has really never been true?

I would think that the problem is that both Spain and Mexico are unstable basket cases during the period 1865-1910. Mexico more so. But Spain was in fairly serious decline. It had essentially given up on doing more than holding what it had left. And it had fared poorly against its former colonies, as in the Chincha Islands War.

 

[Snake Featherston]

I would think that the problem is that both Spain and Mexico are unstable basket cases during the period 1865-1910. Mexico more so. But Spain was in fairly serious decline. It had essentially given up on doing more than holding what it had left. And it had fared poorly against its former colonies, as in the Chincha Islands War.

Sure, but they're facing a state that depending on the scenario might be much worse off than they are. Especially if the CSA's degenerated into a military dictatorship by that point.

 

[Cryptic]

I asked you to name those armies that won with impoverished resources against an enemy with superior resources. That wasn't an exceptionally difficult question.

Have there ever been nations which beat a better equipped opponent? Hmmm.... lets see:

Israel, Japan against Czarist Russia, Texas, Vietnam, North Korea (well almost), Russia against Napoleon, Finland, The United States before it became the United States, ancient Greece, ancient Carthage, Tecumsah (sp) and his Native American coalition, Lakota and Cheyenne coalition...

Why would it be ASB? Other than the "Gringoes are always better at war" trope that has really never been true?

Sigh, another straw man statement.

No, being gringo has nothing to do with it- ask Custer. What is relevent is fighting and winning an offensive war while lacking equipment, logistics, being out numbered and doing so when your society has lot of internal difficulties. That tends to be difficult

 

[Snake Featherston]

Have there ever been nations which beat a better equipped opponent? Hmmm.... lets see:

Israel, Japan against Czarist Russia, Texas, Vietnam, North Korea (well almost), Russia against Napoleon, Finland, The United States before it became the United States, ancient Greece, ancient Carthage, Tecumsah (sp) and his Native American coalition, Lakota and Cheyenne coalition...

Israel, at what point?

Japan in 1905? Citation needed.

Texas? Citation definitely needed..

Vietnam at which point in which war?

North Korea did not defeat either the ROK or the USA.

Russia was superior to Napoleon in artillery and in use of irregular troops, thus not applicable.

Finland when?

The USA in the ARW didn't defeat the UK, France, Spain, and the Netherlands defeated the UK.

Greece when? In the Graeco-Persian Wars you had heavy infantry fighting light infantry in close quarters.

Which war with Rome did Carthage?

When did Tecumseh win a war?

Red Cloud did win a war, but he was Lakota, not Lakota + Cheyenne.

 

[Esopo]

To a point where a relatively small Spanish force kicks the ass of rather larger CS forces well. If we factor in how unprepared for battle the 1890s *US* army is and speculate on what 30 years of slave patrols and garrison duty does to the CS Army......

So would spain create a protectorate on parts of the csa while the north would annex something else? it would have big consequences on the status of spain as a great power.