Filibustering after Confederate victory?

Hey Guys,

Let's say that the Confederacy somehow wins the American Civil War in about 1863/4. Let's say they win through a successful Special Order 191, which leads to the capture of Washington D.C. The Union fights on for a while but they lose in the end and are forced to recognize the Confederacy.

Now how would a surviving Confederacy effect any future filibustering? Might we see filibustering continue and perhaps even encouraged? Or would filibustering simply die out as per OTL? Could we see a successful breakaway nation with many previously in the army take to filibustering for the thrills?

Cheers for the replies guys :)
 
I don't see filibustering being much more successful than OTL. The government might lend an expedition active support, and wind up in trouble with other powers in the after math of failure, but a major increase in successful filibustering I think is unlikely.
That being said, I do think that the CSA would be pretty aggressive in the Caribbean, and opportunistic of any situation that provided a chance for takeover or increased influence.
 

maverick

Banned
Wouldn't happen.

As it's been said elsewhere, the Confederacy didn't have the expansionist ambitions of the ante-bellum southerners, who themselves were driven by a desire to incorporate slaves states in order to keep the balance with the free balances in Congress and keep slavery alive. If the Confederacy is independent, then there is no need for further land.

More importantly, the Confederate mindset would most likely be isolationist, and contrary to wanting to expand in colonial adventures.

As IOTL, Fillibusterism is dead.
 
Wouldn't happen.

As it's been said elsewhere, the Confederacy didn't have the expansionist ambitions of the ante-bellum southerners, who themselves were driven by a desire to incorporate slaves states in order to keep the balance with the free balances in Congress and keep slavery alive. If the Confederacy is independent, then there is no need for further land.

More importantly, the Confederate mindset would most likely be isolationist, and contrary to wanting to expand in colonial adventures.

As IOTL, Fillibusterism is dead.

If, as is likely the more powerfull Union was still driving to the West and teh South was concerned about being to overshadowed or even threatened by the Union, wouldn't that give motive for continued southern expansion?
 
They might want to filibuster into the Caribbean or Mexico, but its unlikely for them to succeed outside of northern Mexico at best. They dont have the navy to take on any of the states in the Caribbean. Unless they pick fights with Sweden or Denmark. Which, granted, would be an interesting scenario.
 
They might want to filibuster into the Caribbean or Mexico, but its unlikely for them to succeed outside of northern Mexico at best. They dont have the navy to take on any of the states in the Caribbean. Unless they pick fights with Sweden or Denmark. Which, granted, would be an interesting scenario.

A war with Denmark over the Virgin Islands, maybe?
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
A war with Denmark over the Virgin Islands, maybe?
I feel that in such a situation, pretty much every country is going to say, "What the fuck....cut that out!" Which would certainly crimp Confederate ambitions (that were at the cost of European nations).
 
I feel that in such a situation, pretty much every country is going to say, "What the fuck....cut that out!" Which would certainly crimp Confederate ambitions (that were at the cost of European nations).

Basically my thoughts are the same. It would make an amusing short story I suspect. Going after the little Swedish island (St. Barnabus?) might be an even better substitute. ;)
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Basically my thoughts are the same. It would make an amusing short story I suspect. Going after the little Swedish island (St. Barnabus?) might be an even better substitute. ;)

Saint Barthelemy - and yes, I very much doubt people in Europe would be seeing the CSA doing it keenly; and Europe could cripple the CSA pretty hard with an economic war. Export-dependent agrarian economy and all that.
 
What about Cuba?

Still a slave using colony of Spain, assimilation into a CSA seem possible.

Hell, in the 1870s Cuba was in rebellion, suppressed OTL, but a nice monetary offer might have netted the CSA a nice big new state without even a war.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
What about Cuba?

Still a slave using colony of Spain, assimilation into a CSA seem possible.

Hell, in the 1870s Cuba was in rebellion, suppressed OTL, but a nice monetary offer might have netted the CSA a nice big new state without even a war.

Bolded the important part; filibustering in an american republic is one thing, filibustering in Spain is another altogether, expect european support to fall, and probably a bout of economic conflict with european trade considering a move to Brazil and high tariffs on CSA exports. After all the region is obviously going to be destabilized by the CSA. Plus the CSA lacks the kind of navy to take on Spain in the inevitable conflict if they don't take the hint when their economy starts creaking.

Also it has a few more problems, like the difference between the spanish and american notions of slavery (the only exception was Louisiana early on but by the time of the civil war the "free blacks" were an insignificant minority of barely a thousand people), the cultural incompatibilities in general ("let's hold slaves together" isn't much of an argument for a nation), like the rather different ways racial hierarchy was done in hispanic countries (from checking french and portuguese colonies, I'd say latin in general).
 
Last edited:
As it's been said elsewhere, the Confederacy didn't have the expansionist ambitions of the ante-bellum southerners, who themselves were driven by a desire to incorporate slaves states in order to keep the balance with the free balances in Congress and keep slavery alive. If the Confederacy is independent, then there is no need for further land.

The Confederacy was very expansionistic during the ACW. In addition to invading several slaveholding states in the belief they would join them. They also tried (and failed miserably) at invasions of California and Colorado. They also attempted to add the northern tier of Mexican states diplomatically.

The CSA was a place where old habits die hard. Just because they didn't need to balance Senators in Congress doesn't mean they would stop attempting expansion. The 1854 Ostend Manifesto gave a variety of reasons for wanting to annex Cuba, reasons many southerners would still believe after the ACW.

Trade is another reason for expansion. Much of southern leadership wanted a transcontinental railroad. That's why the Gadsden Purchase occurred. That's some of why they tried to obtain California and northern Mexico during the ACW. The 1860 platform of the southern Democrats said:

"Resolved, That the National Democratic party do hereby pledge themselves to use every means in their power to secure the passage of some bill to the extent of the constitutional authority of Congress, for the construction of a Pacific Rail road from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, at the earliest practicable moment."

I have no doubt some of the CSA states would be isolationist, but others would continue to be expansionist. This is just one of the internal conflicts that could lead to the breakup of the Confederacy.
 
Bolded the important part; filibustering in an american republic is one thing, filibustering in Spain is another altogether, expect european support to fall, and probably a bout of economic conflict with european trade considering a move to Brazil and high tariffs on CSA exports. After all the region is obviously going to be destabilized by the CSA. Plus the CSA lacks the kind of navy to take on Spain in the inevitable conflict if they don't take the hint when their economy starts creaking.

Also it has a few more problems, like the difference between the spanish and american notions of slavery (the only exception was Louisiana early on but by the time of the civil war the "free blacks" were an insignificant minority of barely a thousand people), the cultural incompatibilities in general ("let's hold slaves together" isn't much of an argument for a nation), like the rather different ways racial hierarchy was done in hispanic countries (from checking french and portuguese colonies, I'd say latin in general).

Would other european countries back up Spain with trade restrictions? WHy?

And what was the shape of the Spanish Navy at this time?
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Would other european countries back up Spain with trade restrictions? WHy?

And what was the shape of the Spanish Navy at this time?

Yes. That's why they call it the concert of Europe. More seriously, France had warranties on Spain, I suspect Britain did too.

Also, 7 Ironclad cruisers and I don't know how many ships of the line (probably about 40). Apart from a pair of cruisers and a few converted sloop of wars, the entire CSN is coastal units and their only major naval yard is in Virginia

And one good reason Europe would do this: they don't need the CSA (Brazil, India, etc can provide all the cotton they need) and it's currently trying to fuck with the balance of power.
 
Top