Foreign Relations of an Independent Confederacy?

[Free Lancer]

I would say it would be a pariah.

I base this on the actions that the CSA did before the civil war, during the civil war and after the civil war.

No Nation likes to be associated with a nation that commits war crimes, and has racial view points and acts on those view points

 

[Ofaloaf]

Obviously, there would be no thought of running supplies by railroad to the Rio Grande, since no such transport network existed. Clearly, whatever supplies the Confederacy would provide would be sent by ship from Galveston or New Orleans to the ports on the eastern coast of Mexico.

In the longer run, though, the wrecked rail system of the Confederacy seems like a good opportunity for foreign capital investment, especially considered that the Confederate Constitution prohibited the central government from undertaking internal improvement projects. I can see the French undertaking rail construction projects in the Confederacy very similar to those which they undertook in Russia IOTL.

The bolded part is pretty funny, because about halfway through OTL's war the central government established a Railroad Bureau (ill-defined, with nebulous powers) and began using the power of Richmond to impress rail and material from some companies to be used in the repair of worn lines or the outright construction of new lines that were considered military necessities.

So even though they're constitutionally restricted from doing so, I wouldn't discount the central government out of hand. The Confederates were rubbish at following their own laws.

 

[Parrots88]

No Nation likes to be associated with a nation that commits war crimes, and has racial view points and acts on those view points

Yep,that's why Israel and South Africa had such a love affair in the 1970s and 1980s.

 

[Elfwine]

The racism part isn't going to matter very much in the 19th century - at least not compared to a century later, assuming things progress like OTL.

War crimes? That might be more problematic.

But the CSA just isn't a valuable ally. Even to France in Mexico, its convenient, but not worth bailing out.

 

[Johnrankins]

I can see as a problem child for both the French and the English. It will all depend weather or not slavery is phased out or not. If it continues beyond 1880 it moves into international pharia.

Then it is screwed. It would take near divine intervention for it to go that fast. Figure 1900 at the earliest for it starting to phase it out.

 

[MerryPrankster]

I could imagine the Confederacy being allied to Napoleon III in order to help maintain Maximillian's regime in Mexico, but once he falls, there goes friendly relations with the Great Powers.

(The more democratic Britain gets, the less friendly it will be to the Confederacy.)

Maybe they try to back King Leopold of Belgium over the Congo Free State issue, if it comes up in TTL? That might get them some goodwill in one European country.

 

[wormyguy]

Isolationist (or rather non-aligned, since they'd be quite free trade oriented, obviously). They'd have no use of getting involved in European affairs, or vice-versa.

 

[Samm]

War crimes? That might be more problematic.

Did the Confederacy ever commit any serious war crimes? I mean I am sure there were isolated incidents but I don't think they were overall any worse that the norm.

 

[Faeelin]

I could imagine the Confederacy being allied to Napoleon III in order to help maintain Maximillian's regime in Mexico, but once he falls, there goes friendly relations with the Great Powers.

Mmm. Don't forget, the Confederates didn't really want a strong Mexico, or a French one. It was useful to the extent they could leverage it against the USa, but beyond that?

 

[Elfwine]

Did the Confederacy ever commit any serious war crimes? I mean I am sure there were isolated incidents but I don't think they were overall any worse that the norm.

The USCT would disagree. Southern unionists might too.

 

[Wolfpaw]

Did the Confederacy ever commit any serious war crimes? I mean I am sure there were isolated incidents but I don't think they were overall any worse that the norm.

They had no qualms about massacring dissenters and made it a policy to execute every black person they caught in Union Blue, among other things.

I'm sure Snake will refresh our memories once he arrives...

 

[Free Lancer]

Did the Confederacy ever commit any serious war crimes? I mean I am sure there were isolated incidents but I don't think they were overall any worse that the norm.

The confederacy committed a lot of war crimes during the civil war.

But my point was that before the civil war, during the civil war, and after the civil war, the confederacy behaved in an Idiotic way and there is no reason that they would change those ways in the future.

So I see the CSA becoming the rabid dog of North America in the Future

 

[Samm]

But my point was that before the civil war, during the civil war, and after the civil war, the confederacy behaved in an Idiotic way and there is no reason that they would change those ways in the future.

But most of these things were committed in very extreme situations (to them anyway). They felt that there entire civilization was going to fall into chaos unless they were victorious. Once there is no immediate danger of them having to give up slavery why would they keep on acting like idiots?

Edit and as for war crimes yes they were committed but so did the Union on occasions.

 

[Elfwine]

But most of these things were commited in very extreme situations (to them anyway). They felt that there entire civilization was going to fall into chaos unless they were victorious. Once there is no immediate danger of them having to give up slavery why would they keep on acting like idiots?

Because they were idiots. The idea that their entire civilization is at stake is only true because they plunged it into a situation where it would be.

Edit and as for war crimes yes they were committed but so did the Union on occasions.

Nothing equivalent to the Confederate treatment of the USCT though. Individual occasions are one thing, you asked for things beyond that - well, the Confederacy did go beyond that.

 

[Free Lancer]

But most of these things were commited in very extreme situations (to them anyway). They felt that there entire civilization was going to fall into chaos unless they were victorious. Once there is no immediate danger of them having to give up slavery why would they keep on acting like idiots?

In the case of an Independent CSA the southerners will think those idiotic ways would have won the war for them, so there would be every reason for them to keep acting like morons

 

[Samm]

In the case of an Independent CSA the southerners will think those idiotic ways would have won the war for them, so there would be every reason for them to keep acting like morons

But in what way did the Southerners act like morons to the nations of Europe? Oh sure the civil war involves several points where they were idiots such as attacking Fort Sumter thus granting the Union a major propaganda coup by firing the first shot. But I think you underestimate the way countries act in there own self interest if you believe that such act will keep countries from allying with them. The main point that I believe may gain it allies is the fact that with a victorious Confederacy the USA will be unable to enforce the Munroe doctrine which will likely allow European powers to gain a foothold on South America. They will desire an ally. Also you assume that slavery will be regarded in this timeline the same as it is in ours. some countries will (such as likely Britain and America) but in some countries the very fact of a victorious confederacy may give it more respectability. It would also likely make countries such as Brazil more likely to keep there own slaves and the confederacy will be able to ally itself with fellow slave owners. I am not saying it will be awash with allies (Britain and the USA will likely dislike it) but I don't think it will exactly be a pariah state either.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Mmm. Don't forget, the Confederates didn't really want a strong Mexico, or a French one. It was useful to the extent they could leverage it against the USa, but beyond that?

They might not have a choice, if they need French aid for reconstruction or the French as a market for their exports.

(Especially if Britain has switched to other suppliers per OTL and doesn't need slave-based goods anymore.)

 

[Johnrankins]

But in what way did the Southerners act like morons to the nations of Europe? Oh sure the civil war involves several points where they were idiots such as attacking Fort Sumter thus granting the Union a major propaganda coup by firing the first shot. But I think you underestimate the way countries act in there own self interest if you believe that such act will keep countries from allying with them. The main point that I believe may gain it allies is the fact that with a victorious Confederacy the USA will be unable to enforce the Munroe doctrine which will likely allow European powers to gain a foothold on South America. They will desire an ally. Also you assume that slavery will be regarded in this timeline the same as it is in ours. some countries will (such as likely Britain and America) but in some countries the very fact of a victorious confederacy may give it more respectability. It would also likely make countries such as Brazil more likely to keep there own slaves and the confederacy will be able to ally itself with fellow slave owners. I am not saying it will be awash with allies (Britain and the USA will likely dislike it) but I don't think it will exactly be a pariah state either.

I think you are right about Brazil. With a fellow Western slaveholding society to point to they look less backwards in keeping slavery.

 

[AtriumCarceris]

I would have to say that the Confederacy didn't partake in any particularly heinous war crimes, no more than the Union or heck, most countries in war throughout history.

Of course that's just what I see. Every time I hear about some so called major Confederate war crime, I find it's been highly exaggerated in the telling here.

 

[Elfwine]

I would have to say that the Confederacy didn't partake in any particularly heinous war crimes, no more than the Union or heck, most countries in war throughout history.

Of course that's just what I see. Every time I hear about some so called major Confederate war crime, I find it's been highly exaggerated in the telling here.

So, you don't think its policy on and actions towards the USCT count?