How big could a victorious CSA get?

How large could a CSA that was victorious in the Civivl War get? Could they purchase territory from Mexico or Spain?
 
Aside from the eleven core states of the Confederacy, they had strong claims on Missouri and Kentucky. It's quite possible they could've obtained the Indian Territory and New Mexico territory as well.

Maryland and Delware? Very, very unlikely short of some major ASBs. As for territorial expansion after the Civil War... well, all kinds of theories there.

Turtledove's concept of the CSA getting Cuba and Puerto Rico from Spain and Sonora and Chihuahua from Mexico to get a Pacific port is plausable.

But even with the most massive defeat imaginable for the North, I can't picture the South gaining any more territory at the Union's expense than what I've outlined. That means no California too.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
The Union of the 15 Slave States was their goal (so including Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware), with Washington as their capital.

Extending westwards modern Arizona and NM were to be incorporated and there is a strong pro-Confederate group in California, especially SoCal. To the north, Oregon was even more pro-Confederate.

Further north, southern Ohio and Indiana were also extremely pro-Confederate.

So the answer is, if the people wishes were paramount, pretty darned big.
 
Let's see in addition to the original 11 states the CSA could get all the border states (Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and DC) along with Indian Territory, New Mexico Territory and possibly Southern California ( which was pro-Southern). Later the CSA could buy/conquer Cuba, Hispanola, some other Carribean islands, and parts of Mexico.
 
Let's see in addition to the original 11 states the CSA could get all the border states (Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and DC) along with Indian Territory, New Mexico Territory and possibly Southern California ( which was pro-Southern). Later the CSA could buy/conquer Cuba, Hispanola, some other Carribean islands, and parts of Mexico.
West Virginia isn't going to join the Confederacy under any circumstances. There was a good reason that the west seceded from the rest of the state in the first place. Even if the CSA won before WV became a state, or if they forcibly annexed it somehow, they would have a serious problem controlling the area.
 
West Virginia isn't going to join the Confederacy under any circumstances. There was a good reason that the west seceded from the rest of the state in the first place. Even if the CSA won before WV became a state, or if they forcibly annexed it somehow, they would have a serious problem controlling the area.

Yeah probably but the CSA probably could keep down most West Virginian rebels. Also it could satisfy their demands by making or keeping it a seperate state.
 
Yeah probably but the CSA probably could keep down most West Virginian rebels. Also it could satisfy their demands by making or keeping it a seperate state.
The West Virginians were very pro-Union, however, and wouldn't want any part in the CSA even as their own state.

It is true that the Confederate army could likely keep a rebellion there in check, but it would pretty much be a continuous occupation plagued by guerrilla warfare. It would be a very unmanageable region, and the CSA couldn't really afford the military manpower to hold it down with the threat of slave-rebellion continually looming.
 
The West Virginians were very pro-Union, however, and wouldn't want any part in the CSA even as their own state.

It was not really that they were pro-union. They had always thought that it was an unfair situation. Since they were generally poor farmers they had a great distaste for the aristocrats of southern society. That is why the opposed slavery as well, because they couldn't buy any

On that note. Would it be possible for the CSA to acquire any holdings is west Africa?
 
It was not really that they were pro-union. They had always thought that it was an unfair situation. Since they were generally poor farmers they had a great distaste for the aristocrats of southern society. That is why the opposed slavery as well, because they couldn't buy any

On that note. Would it be possible for the CSA to acquire any holdings is west Africa?

No that'd be hard because the CSA wouldn't have much naval capability and this would anger the European powers.
 
It was not really that they were pro-union. They had always thought that it was an unfair situation. Since they were generally poor farmers they had a great distaste for the aristocrats of southern society. That is why the opposed slavery as well, because they couldn't buy any

On that note. Would it be possible for the CSA to acquire any holdings is west Africa?
Whatever way you choose to look at it, it doesn't change the fact that West Virginia did not want any part of the Confederacy.

With regards to African colonies, its potentially possible if the Confederate Navy somehow becomes a lot more formidable, but I don't see that as incredibly likely. Even if it were to be accomplished, it would be difficult for the CSA to compete with the European powers in the colonial game.
 
Whatever way you choose to look at it, it doesn't change the fact that West Virginia did not want any part of the Confederacy.

With regards to African colonies, its potentially possible if the Confederate Navy somehow becomes a lot more formidable, but I don't see that as incredibly likely. Even if it were to be accomplished, it would be difficult for the CSA to compete with the European powers in the colonial game.
they wouldnt have too... they would just have to sign a treaty somehow to get Sierra Leone handed to them. with America having Liberia... this would make an interresting scenario. maybe cut up some of Portugal's empire. specifically, the land just to the north of Belgian Congo
 
Plus there is also the serious problem of how the CSA is gonna justify keeping a state in their country when it doesn't want to. All the West Virginians have to do is declare their independence and if the Confederates try to prevent them then they completely destroy any legal right for their own country to exist.

That being said if the CSA did become independent and WV declared it self independent or at least a part of the Union what would the International backlash be?
 
Exactly, Saladan. The CSA could not have lasted long as an independent, unified nation. Even during the war, Governors were refusing Davis's requests for troops, money and materiel. I can picture the South growing rather large early on as dissatisfied Union states peel off and maybe even some Mexican states join to escape either the French or Juarez. Possibly some overseas conquests, like Cuba, Panama, etc. But it couldn't last, and ultimately would be bad for the CSA to accept these new territories.

How long after they won the war would it have taken for SC or TX or LA to decide they didn't like clause 47 sec 19 of some bill in Richmond and threaten to secede from the CSA over a legislative tiff? If a state on the other side of the bill threatened the same, one or the other would have to either blink or secede. Repeatedly threatening secession can garner real benefits for a state if played well, and would become more and more common. (cf Quebec)

Union States like Oregon, California and Utah would dilute the CSA's southern premise. Imagine South Carolinians running around trying to figure how to justify not allowing Mormon multiple marriage in Utah, or what to do with the Chinese in their social structure when they move east from California. Or what to do with a man's six wives when he moves from Utah to SC. States rights are one thing, but this is another.

Former Union states like Kansas, Missouri, and Kentucky are unlikely to support slavery as a large institution. The growing seasons are too short, and who wants to pay to feed, house and provide healthcare for slaves when they have nothing to do from November to March? This divergent view of slavery could quickly lead to problems. The British Empire outlawed slavery thirty years earlier. How long until the colder states start thinking better relations overseas could be a good thing? And what happens when the CSA finds itself in a nation where a majority of the states and land area is de facto free of slaves?

Mexican states that joined could upset the apple cart, too. How would the CSA handle people with a different race, culture and religion sitting in the CSA legislature, demanding equal rights. Louisiana and Texas might yawn and move on, but the other states?

Let's say the CSA gained Cuba or Panama or Haiti. How long until they secede over, oh, I don't know... a different culture, language, religion and skin color? Would the CSA states really be willing to fight to keep them? And how do they justify it overseas?

I think the CSA would have a tough enough time keeping their original dozen states from breaking off here, there and everywhere. But growing bigger and maintaining it? I don't see it.

For goodness sake, they had three national flags in two years and people think they could have established a unified, harmonious nation that not only worked well together, but could extend it's territory?
 
Plus there is also the serious problem of how the CSA is gonna justify keeping a state in their country when it doesn't want to. All the West Virginians have to do is declare their independence and if the Confederates try to prevent them then they completely destroy any legal right for their own country to exist.

No. Secession is a right held by the States. Not by regions within States. Nobody had ever argued, prior to the war, that regions within States had a right of secession.
 
Exactly, Saladan. The CSA could not have lasted long as an independent, unified nation. Even during the war, Governors were refusing Davis's requests for troops, money and materiel. I can picture the South growing rather large early on as dissatisfied Union states peel off and maybe even some Mexican states join to escape either the French or Juarez. Possibly some overseas conquests, like Cuba, Panama, etc. But it couldn't last, and ultimately would be bad for the CSA to accept these new territories.

How long after they won the war would it have taken for SC or TX or LA to decide they didn't like clause 47 sec 19 of some bill in Richmond and threaten to secede from the CSA over a legislative tiff? If a state on the other side of the bill threatened the same, one or the other would have to either blink or secede. Repeatedly threatening secession can garner real benefits for a state if played well, and would become more and more common. (cf Quebec)

Union States like Oregon, California and Utah would dilute the CSA's southern premise. Imagine South Carolinians running around trying to figure how to justify not allowing Mormon multiple marriage in Utah, or what to do with the Chinese in their social structure when they move east from California. Or what to do with a man's six wives when he moves from Utah to SC. States rights are one thing, but this is another.

Former Union states like Kansas, Missouri, and Kentucky are unlikely to support slavery as a large institution. The growing seasons are too short, and who wants to pay to feed, house and provide healthcare for slaves when they have nothing to do from November to March? This divergent view of slavery could quickly lead to problems. The British Empire outlawed slavery thirty years earlier. How long until the colder states start thinking better relations overseas could be a good thing? And what happens when the CSA finds itself in a nation where a majority of the states and land area is de facto free of slaves?

Mexican states that joined could upset the apple cart, too. How would the CSA handle people with a different race, culture and religion sitting in the CSA legislature, demanding equal rights. Louisiana and Texas might yawn and move on, but the other states?

Let's say the CSA gained Cuba or Panama or Haiti. How long until they secede over, oh, I don't know... a different culture, language, religion and skin color? Would the CSA states really be willing to fight to keep them? And how do they justify it overseas?

I think the CSA would have a tough enough time keeping their original dozen states from breaking off here, there and everywhere. But growing bigger and maintaining it? I don't see it.

For goodness sake, they had three national flags in two years and people think they could have established a unified, harmonious nation that not only worked well together, but could extend it's territory?

On the slavery issue the CSA probably would have abolished slavery by 1900 so that issue would probably be gone by then. As for ruling over different ethnic areas such as Haiti or Cuba the CSA would just oppress them and make them second-class citizens like the US did before the Civil Right Movement. Finally I don't think the CSA would break apart because the President of the CSA would not attempt any massive centralized policy unlike the US.
 
Top