There are hundreds of threads ctalking about the american civil war, and how if it had gone differently, it would have affected america. But, I am more interested in what a divided US means for Europe. OTL, France used the turmoil of the American Civil War to intervene in Mexico, and Spain used this time to reinvade the Dominican Republic. Both projects ended in failure, but arguably, a contributing factor to that failure was the Union victory in the ACW, and the reimposition of the Monroe Doctrine preventing these countries putting more effort into their new world adventures. With the US officially divided into two weaker states, would we see European powers show a renewed interest in latin america? Would the USA and CSA be able to stop this? Which European powers would stand to benefit the most from this?
Effects of Confederate Victory in ACW on European imperialism in the new world?
- Thread starter Maburo
- Start date
Because of the independence movements in the late 19th century?
And will the british be succesful in stopping the other europeans? Wasn't there also Belgium that tried to form a colony in Guatemala? And, I can't remember wehre I read it, but, didn't Britain itself have something of an interest in Patagonia?
Also, unrelated to the responses thus far, but, what does a divided America mean for Alaska. Will the Russians still sell it? To whom?
Probably that way. Another way is that CSA will purchase or even outright conquer the island but this seems bit unlikely since USA and Britain probably wouldn't allow that.
Russia probably try to sell Alaska at least firstly but not sure would USA still buy that. Another option woudl be Britain but I am not sure would Russia agree to do that.
If France's Mexican adventure is successful I could totally them try and prop up the Kingdom of Auracania and Patagonia assuming Prussia doesn't come knocking.
to be honest i doubt the confederacy would have the means to do either by the time spain is vulnerable to either
Interesting, I hadn't ever heard of this attempt! What's the relevance of Prussia though?
Why?
"Don't worry about the barn when the house is on fire." All of France's imperial ambitions might be moot of Prussia comes along and kicks her teeth in.
Spain returned to the Dominican Republic because the Dominican rulers believed that this would mean getting rid of their debts. A stupid move that I honestly don't understand why they played along. What matters is that the United States did little to nothing to help the Dominicans drive out the Spanish.
In any case, you could see the Dominicans decide that they would rather be Spanish than risk being immediately attacked and enslaved by the British-backed victorious CSA (one of the main reasons for the Dominican resistance was the fear that the Spanish would enslave them - given that Spain back then had not abolished slavery in the Caribbean I guess it makes sense that they believed that even if it didn't seem to be in the plans-).
As for Puerto Rico, since it did not have a noteworthy independence movement, it could have been preserved. The problem would have been Cuba, which, as noted, had a well-established nationalist resistance movement.
It is certain that the cutting off of American funding (which in any case began around 1870), while it would have caused them problems, would not have stopped them or forced them to disband, because nationalist movements generally do not function around to receive foreign funds, nor do people suddenly decide "you know, I think this nationalism is bullshit, it's much better to be treated like the biggest piece of garbage by my colonial power, at least they have money!".
No, the CSA would not have financed the Cubans, they would horribly loathe the idea of paying "armed blacks" in case their own slaves "gain ideas"
On French imperialism in Mexico, I could see the CSA supporting France simply because they hate the idea of a Mexican Republic aligning itself with the United States and encircling them on two fronts.
As for the British Empire, the "balance of power theory" which is treated as quasi-religious dogma and which is supposedly the main guideline of British foreign policy states that its main priority is to prevent wars in Europe and to be totally indifferent to what is happening in the New World. (Except when they try to provoke wars in the name of forcing countries to submit).
In any case, you could see the Dominicans decide that they would rather be Spanish than risk being immediately attacked and enslaved by the British-backed victorious CSA (one of the main reasons for the Dominican resistance was the fear that the Spanish would enslave them - given that Spain back then had not abolished slavery in the Caribbean I guess it makes sense that they believed that even if it didn't seem to be in the plans-).
As for Puerto Rico, since it did not have a noteworthy independence movement, it could have been preserved. The problem would have been Cuba, which, as noted, had a well-established nationalist resistance movement.
It is certain that the cutting off of American funding (which in any case began around 1870), while it would have caused them problems, would not have stopped them or forced them to disband, because nationalist movements generally do not function around to receive foreign funds, nor do people suddenly decide "you know, I think this nationalism is bullshit, it's much better to be treated like the biggest piece of garbage by my colonial power, at least they have money!".
No, the CSA would not have financed the Cubans, they would horribly loathe the idea of paying "armed blacks" in case their own slaves "gain ideas"
On French imperialism in Mexico, I could see the CSA supporting France simply because they hate the idea of a Mexican Republic aligning itself with the United States and encircling them on two fronts.
As for the British Empire, the "balance of power theory" which is treated as quasi-religious dogma and which is supposedly the main guideline of British foreign policy states that its main priority is to prevent wars in Europe and to be totally indifferent to what is happening in the New World. (Except when they try to provoke wars in the name of forcing countries to submit).
Rattenfänger von Memphis
Donor
The Spanish were pretty active in Latin America in 1865, especially in regard to Peru and Chile as this Wikipedia article about the Chinca Islands War illustrates. (See QUOTE below). During this war Great Britain and the United States(which had won the American Civil War by this time) were neutral for the most part. This British and American neutrality could happen in other conflicts. Earlier when the French invaded Mexico, the British fleet that was with the French, withdrew and Great Britain did not interfere with the French invasion.
But, had the United States split into two countries, its influence and probable will and ability to intervene in Latin American affairs would have been diminished. As this map from the Wikipedia article on the Chincha Islands War shows, there were many border quarrels which could no doubt be exploited by the European powers to acquire spheres of influence.
The Wikipedia article mentions the on-going Paraguayan War where Paraguay was fighting against Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. Just a few years later the War of the Pacific would be fought by Chile against Peru and Bolivia. And a few years after that the newly unified European countries of Germany and Italy would be joining other nations in seeking colonies and spheres of influence. Another Wikipedia article, “Imperial German Influence On Republican Chile, shows this “soft” power.
I think this shows that European nations could have probably intervened in Latin America, depending on how they did it and especially if the United States was divided into two countries. This was years before the Venezuelan Crisis of 1902 - 1903 where Great Britain, Germany and Italy blockaded Venezuela.
Wikipedia Chincha Islands War said:
Puerto Rico interests me the most out of all this tbh. It was ambivalent by the late 1890s about Spanish rule but wasn’t agitating for independence like Cuba’s long-running nationalist movement, but at some point PR is going to want more than just being Spain’s Hawaii. Do they become a full-on province, or just go their own way later down the line? (I’m assuming that Cuba and DR/Santo Domingo exit Spanish control at some point, either via peace or violence)
Mexico has already banned slavery by this point, though, and I don't really see Maximilian as being likely to change that. So there are going to be slaves escaping into Mexico, which will likely be a point of contention between Mexico and the CSA (in fact, quite a few slaves OTL escaped via the Underground Railroad to Mexico, to the point that Texas passed a law banning Mexicans from talking to slaves).
Also, if Maximilian is doing better, the US may decide to recognize imperial Mexico and try to cut a deal with them precisely because they realize it'd let them encircle the CSA on two fronts.
Last edited:
Well, apparently Puerto Rico was already a full Spanish province from 1809 to 1814 and sent people to the Spanish Cortes from that time on. We could see that in this type of situation it is decided that it is a good idea to keep it as an autonomous province or a full Spanish province. Especially if Cuba and Santo Domingo separate again, making PR the only trace of Spanish presence in the Caribbean.
Ferdinand VII and his absolutism. Another evidence against him as the worst leader Spain had at this time.
TIL that Puerto Rico was briefly a Spanish province for realzies.