New Confederation in late 189x

I wonder if there is any opportunity to create New Confederation in late 189x.
In that time the USA just started their expansion, gold standart was introduced...

UK opposed USA economically(all over the world and China and Latin America specifically) and politically.
So UK might team up with Spain, forming some alliance and supporting it against USA in Caribbean(Cuba) and China(Philippines)).
That's why there would be British-Spanish --American war or cold war for Cuba or Philippines.

Being able to blockade USA from sea UK cannot invade USA mainland (especially having to defend Canada).

Republicans (industry, banks, supporters of gold standart) might increase fleet and army spendings much more and demand war.
And Democratic (agriculture, silver standart supporters,....) party might get support of all opposing (peaceful) forces and try to block "unnecessary" military expenditures.

Simultaneously tensions between UK+Spain vs USA would increase. British fleet would "visit" american ports from Florida to Galvestone and from LA to Seattle to show their strength and ablility to stop trade.

UK obviously would support Democratic party and South+Pacific states (british banks can withdraw their investitions from eastern states industry and invest in south and pacific).

Let's say nation started to divide. Like "Ol' Good South"+Pacific states vs East+North.
And then ......authorities of "Ol' Good South"+Pacific states (mainly Democrats) start to speak about their neutrality, peaceful intentions. People recall Civil war, but know that Britain will help now to defend.

Then after some incedent (e.g. american intervention in Second Boer War) UK declared war and blockaded USA.
New Confederation was announced (leaded by Democratic party) and declared neutrality.
North and East States which left in USA tried to supress but was fight back (not trained army).

Then in this world SmallerUSA might team up with British arch-enemy Germany, and UK - with Japan.

to be continue....

So, were there any probability, possibility and political will to divide USA in that time, especially with British-American war ?

PS sorry for language and grammar ;-)
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
ASB! In the 1890s the US and UK had become pals, and the US accepted British dominance on the seas, while the UK accepted the Monroe Doctrine.
 
As long as the first Civil War is in memory, it's unlikely there'd be a second. Even with renewed north vs south tensions, Southern leaders (many of whom I'm sure were veterans of the Civil War, given their age and the time period) wouldn't support military action. They'd end up just being curb stomped again, and they know it. Maybe they'd get a little bolder with foreign support, but I don't think they'd go so far as to secede.
 
Hay-Pauncefote Treaty is only 1901.
Open Door Policy in China is 1900.
All it is impossible without victory in Spanish-American war after which USA got bases and control of routes to Latin America and China.
If UK would decide to stop USA by allying with Spain (and probably Japan), then USA with their 4-5 capitalships would lost.
And "party of war" in USA would lost or ,what I prefer, New Confederacy arise (with little british help ;-))
 
Southern leaders ..... wouldn't support military action.
No war. Just peaceful secession and neutrality.
'Cos southern and pacific states heavily relied on export and trade (with UK too) and real war with UK would affect them more than industrial north
 

Typo

Banned
Secession is not going to happen after the civil war, the collective national memory of a "won" civil war fought to keep the union together for decades afterward, and the American national identity is too firmly developed by this time to fracture along what amounts to a lost war and a weak economy. You are severely overestimating how easy it is for foreign powers to break-up a nation-state so long after its formation.

The scenario you describe is basically what almost happened with New England in the war of 1812, kinda ASBish for the 1890s.
 
No war. Just peaceful secession and neutrality.
'Cos southern and pacific states heavily relied on export and trade (with UK too) and real war with UK would affect them more than industrial north

Why would you think peaceful secession would work? After all, the south wanted peaceful secession in 1860 and 1861, and look how that turned out. A devastated economy, 260,000 dead (not including northern losses), ruined infrastructure, the forced freedom of slavery (as opposed to either reimbursement from the federal government or peaceful abolition at the state level), and, worst of all, the secession didn't actually secede. There's absolutely no way southern political leaders would try it again.
 
Ok. I don't suppose peaceful secession, especially on bordering states.

AND - Why not. There is new generation after Civil war, who want to change smth.

Texas always look aside - it will have excellent market for its oil and meat in Britain.

BTW after blocking of all USA ports (especially Caribbean and Pacific) local elites might decide to get more self-governance with british help.

Let's see map of such secession (pay attention that in secession take part only south&pacific states easily accessible via sea).

NewConfederation1.png
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but it belongs to ASB Forum. The USA even without South and Pacific states were too strong by 1890. It was first industrial power on the Earth, and it could mobilize two to three million-strong army. It wouldn't be easy, but at the end the South would be devastated again (and Blacks would receive full civil rights, probably). Moreover, the UK would lose Canada and, maybe, naval supremacy (but it would cost much effort on the American side).
White Southerners knew it, as well as British government, so they were not inclined to revolt or invade, respectively.
 

Typo

Banned
Ok. I don't suppose peaceful secession, especially on bordering states.

AND - Why not. There is new generation after Civil war, who want to change smth.
I think you really don't understand how national identity works, or the reasons as to why the civil war started and what it resolved, nor the effect of national trauma that was the civil war which lasts to -this- day.


BTW after blocking of all USA ports (especially Caribbean and Pacific) local elites might decide to get more self-governance with british help.
Isn't Continental US connected by land or something?

Again, I think you really need to understand the composition of a nation-state better. In particular you seem to be confusing empire-states and nation-states.
 
Last edited:

I think that you're just trying to force an issue that's not going to happen. Reiterating your statement doesn't make it any more true.

As others have pointed out, by the 1890s, America was one nation of one people. There was strife between groups, but America had developed a national identity by that point. Think of how Lee considered himself a Virginian in the ACW, not an American, which is why he joined the rebel army. That no longer applies in the 1890s. Most people were an American first, and a Virginian/Texan/whatever second. Think about recent historical breakups.

The Soviet Union: Definite divisions along republic lines. If you ask someone of Polish descent if he was a Pole or a Soviet, he'd probably say the former. I don't know whether you're old enough to remember the breakup, but I see that you're Russian. You think of yourself as Russian, yes, not a Soviet?
Yugoslavia: Same sort of thing. People were divided along ethnic lines. You were a Croat or a Serb or whatever, not a Yugoslavian.
Germany: A forced breakup after being occupied by four countries, along two blocs. Consider the fact that as the Soviet sphere slipped and East Germany was able to throw off Communism, both sides rejoined.
Korea: Same sort of deal. The big difference between Korea and Germany is that both sides currently have conflicting governments. As long as the Communists are in charge of North Korea and South Korea remains a republic, the governments won't let them reintegrate. But people from both sides want to!

In each of those examples, there were either divisions along ethnic/national lines, or a forced division after which incompatible governments took control. You're not going to see that in America. There wasn't that much political difference in the north and south, relative to other civil wars. There certainly wasn't a huge ethnic or national conflict. At most, you might see religious or ethnic enclaves (Deseret, Native American reservations, etc), but those are minor cases that wouldn't last on a large scale.
 
Top