My "No Confederate Nostalgia" TL

I heard something similar. The CSA attempted to use 'King Cotton' to get the British into the war, but it failed disastrously because the British didn't actually need Confederate cotton, Egypt and India did make up for it. That said, I do think Cotton brought the South some cash even after the Civil War- even though there were other suppliers, they didn't totally replace the CSA for a number of years.

Well, it was that way because the South's bumper crops of 1859 filled the warehouses of Britain's industrial cities for two years. By the time they were running low, Egypt and India had already started filling the slack in with an ability to progressively move up to that and the blockade was plenty effective enough. Most Confederate cotton traded outside CS soil was actually with the United States....
 
Well, it was that way because the South's bumper crops of 1859 filled the warehouses of Britain's industrial cities for two years. By the time they were running low, Egypt and India had already started filling the slack in with an ability to progressively move up to that and the blockade was plenty effective enough. Most Confederate cotton traded outside CS soil was actually with the United States....
Interesting. That would make an interesting POD for an alternate Civil War, if there was no major bumper crop(which I assume means a large amount of crop saved up) and the British got more involved.
 
Interesting. That would make an interesting POD for an alternate Civil War, if there was no major bumper crop(which I assume means a large amount of crop saved up) and the British got more involved.

It would indeed. The problem, however, is any alternate weather pattern that damages said bumper crop might make Harper's Ferry the touch-off of the US Civil War.......meaning the first year of the war is under President Buchanan. :eek:
 
It would indeed. The problem, however, is any alternate weather pattern that damages said bumper crop might make Harper's Ferry the touch-off of the US Civil War.......meaning the first year of the war is under President Buchanan. :eek:
:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Can we really call it a civil war since Buchanan will let them leave? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Can we really call it a civil war since Buchanan will let them leave? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

He did send the Star of the West to Charleston. If the South goes batshit flipping insane he might be a Neville Chamberlain with Lincoln as his Churchill. Hopefully leaving office on a better note than May 40.....:eek:
 
I like the idea, but it seems to me that you're almost trying too hard. I've always been one of those people in the Confederate threads that talks about the CSA being a relatively weak banana republic. So to me, your 'No-Confedarate Nostalgia TL' is just a timeline about what would actually happen to the CSA! My real curiosity is how specifically the CSA will disappear, because the CSA Constitution IOTL did forbid states from leaving the Confederacy. Will the USA simply annex the CSA in another war? Will the CSA have its own Civil War for states wanting to leave the Cofedaration? Or will there be slave revolts that tear the nation apart, creating ex-slave Republics? There are quite a few ways it could be done, and it makes the internal politics of the CSA important, since they will determine what happens to the CSA. If the new nation liberalizes, then perhaps it could slowly dissolve peacefully, but if it retains slavery and refuses to industrialize, relying instead on cotton, the nation could very likely violently collapse in revolution and civil war.


My guess is that the South either completely breaks apart as one state after another leaves in a huff when someone doesn't get what they want OR their is a CSA Civil War trying to stop it. After which it gets gobbled up by the US because none of the individual states can protected themselves from the United States and they get picked off one by one or worse for the CSA the CSA has to fight the US and itself at the same time.
 
My guess is that the South either completely breaks apart as one state after another leaves in a huff when someone doesn't get what they want OR their is a CSA Civil War trying to stop it. After which it gets gobbled up by the US because none of the individual states can protected themselves from the United States and they get picked off one by one or worse for the CSA the CSA has to fight the US and itself at the same time.

My guess is that one or two strong military dictators hold the CSA together as its problems become insurmountable, a CS Civil War begins with the rise of the third and the US Army gets drawn in Mexican Revolution-style and this in turn produces the US victory in Round II.
 
My guess is that one or two strong military dictators hold the CSA together as its problems become insurmountable, a CS Civil War begins with the rise of the third and the US Army gets drawn in Mexican Revolution-style and this in turn produces the US victory in Round II.

I could easily see that happen as well. I think we agreed the most likely dictator is Forrest.
 
I could easily see that happen as well. I think we agreed the most likely dictator is Forrest.

We did. I think any such dictatorship would be increasingly broken on the internal contradictions of the Confederate state, as the CSA is too huge and has too many self-inflicted weaknesses in an economic and military sense to endure regardless of how it ends. At most two dictators, neither of whom ultimately solve anything except to make the Confederacy's problems worse, a third one attempts to take control, and it all blows up.

The Confederate military after that kind of dictatorship, even after two generations under two military dictators is not exactly going to be equipped to stop a US Army in this scenario. The dictators keep a lid on things in a manner that is unable to endure and the ultimate collapse reflects the contradiction of Confederate ideology and Confederate reality.

The USA, having gone on to bigger and better things is likely to be drawn in by a variant of Villa's Raid.
 
The USA didn't launch an all-out invasion of Mexico in response to Pancho Villa's raid in OTL, so why would it aim to totally reconquer the Confederacy in TTL?

"Propelled by the momentum of its victories." The war would not be aimed, it would be the accidental result of US troops being drawn in and US leaders suddenly realize how hollow the Confederacy actually is........
 
Any successful Confederate secession would probably be a lot bloodier than the Villa Raid. Any ACW would leave a lot more grudges in its wake and I imagine there'd be a lot more desire for revenge.

Plus the U.S. would be reclaiming territory it views as rightfully its, whereas attempting to grab more of Mexico would be an attempt at taking more. One is more likely to resent losing than forgoing an opportunity to gain.
 
Top