Out of curiosity, how plausible are the events of this mockumentary?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.S.A.:_The_Confederate_States_of_America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.S.A.:_The_Confederate_States_of_America
PC: CSA: The Confederate States of America
- Thread starter Snowstalker
- Start date
0%
The Confederacy taking all of the Union, and the rest of the Americas(besides Canada).....0%
The Confederacy taking all of the Union, and the rest of the Americas(besides Canada).....0%
It's not meant as a realistic alternate history...more an examination of bigotry inherent in American culture past and present and race politics.
Mark 4 Morrel Barrel
Banned
While there are lots of alternate history stories with the CSA taking over south America this is pretty asb.
Now first though I would sat that people should watch this documentary (its on youtube). The effort that went into it and the acting and the creation of realistic era movies (I married an abolotionist was funny) was great.
However some ASB things.
If I remember correctly the CSA invasion into Maryland was sucessful but Lee still puld back. Then for some reason after Lincoln emacipates the slaves (or was it after) Birtian and France help the Confederacy. Then gettysburg still happens but France and Britian some how helps the confederacy take over the US.
Not sure about population statistics but im pretty sure theUS outnumbered the CSA by quite alot. So even if D.C and Philidelphia were taken the CSA couldn't take over all the US aginst the will of most of its people. At most and I mean best CSA wank I can see during the civil war is-
All the CSA obviously
West Virginia returned
Maryland, Kentuck, Delaware and Missouri taken over
And the New Mexico territory taken.
Now after that they are somehow able to force slavery onto all of the US. And then demand Canada to return any runnaway slaves. Canada refuses and in an interview the CSA is still mad about that 150 years later. I think the major majority of people in the US got over the burning of washington by the time WWI rolled around.
Then the CSA is able to get the North's population to go to war with Mexico- which should have France's Maximillian puppet- which means the country that helped the CSA conquere the USA is now having its puppet attacked.
Then they force all Mexicans into second class citezenship. And also have all asian immigrants turned into Slaves even if they already have citizenship. THen they appearently lie and try to get more asian immigrants to come and become slaves.
Then all South American countries suddenly declare war on each other and then the CSA rolls in and takes them over. Oh also the Jewish ambassador that helped gain recognition for the CSA has his religion mostly outlawed and all Jews are forced into the Manhattan ghetto.
Then without the CSA's support I think, France and the UK still win WWI. And then even though they defeat germany by themselves mostly the USSR took too many casualties so after the war they are forced back to prewar borders appearently or just aren't a superpower.
Rock and Roll is deemed abolotion music for some reason and Elvis is forced to go to canada. I think Oswald was mad at Kennedy for supporting mannumission. And lavery even wih factories, is still stronger than ever in the 21st century.
Oh and the slave trade from Ssouth Africa still exisists.
And the CSA invades the Japanese empire and takes it over along with Vietnam. Gets into plenty of skirmishes and eventually a cold war with canada and the Cotton Wall is formed.
So ASB
Now first though I would sat that people should watch this documentary (its on youtube). The effort that went into it and the acting and the creation of realistic era movies (I married an abolotionist was funny) was great.
However some ASB things.
If I remember correctly the CSA invasion into Maryland was sucessful but Lee still puld back. Then for some reason after Lincoln emacipates the slaves (or was it after) Birtian and France help the Confederacy. Then gettysburg still happens but France and Britian some how helps the confederacy take over the US.
Not sure about population statistics but im pretty sure theUS outnumbered the CSA by quite alot. So even if D.C and Philidelphia were taken the CSA couldn't take over all the US aginst the will of most of its people. At most and I mean best CSA wank I can see during the civil war is-
All the CSA obviously
West Virginia returned
Maryland, Kentuck, Delaware and Missouri taken over
And the New Mexico territory taken.
Now after that they are somehow able to force slavery onto all of the US. And then demand Canada to return any runnaway slaves. Canada refuses and in an interview the CSA is still mad about that 150 years later. I think the major majority of people in the US got over the burning of washington by the time WWI rolled around.
Then the CSA is able to get the North's population to go to war with Mexico- which should have France's Maximillian puppet- which means the country that helped the CSA conquere the USA is now having its puppet attacked.
Then they force all Mexicans into second class citezenship. And also have all asian immigrants turned into Slaves even if they already have citizenship. THen they appearently lie and try to get more asian immigrants to come and become slaves.
Then all South American countries suddenly declare war on each other and then the CSA rolls in and takes them over. Oh also the Jewish ambassador that helped gain recognition for the CSA has his religion mostly outlawed and all Jews are forced into the Manhattan ghetto.
Then without the CSA's support I think, France and the UK still win WWI. And then even though they defeat germany by themselves mostly the USSR took too many casualties so after the war they are forced back to prewar borders appearently or just aren't a superpower.
Rock and Roll is deemed abolotion music for some reason and Elvis is forced to go to canada. I think Oswald was mad at Kennedy for supporting mannumission. And lavery even wih factories, is still stronger than ever in the 21st century.
Oh and the slave trade from Ssouth Africa still exisists.
And the CSA invades the Japanese empire and takes it over along with Vietnam. Gets into plenty of skirmishes and eventually a cold war with canada and the Cotton Wall is formed.
So ASB
This is as bad as Harry Harrison's Stars and Stripes trilogy; I should know, I saw both the mockumentary and read the books.
cw1865
Mexico/Ostend Manifesto/Filibustering
The Mexican War was supported by the South, the Ostend Manifesto indicated a desire to annex Cuba and there were quite a few 'filibustering' attempts. I'm not saying the South would've been strong or large enough to conquer the entire continent of South America, but a CSA can only expand either: 1. at the expense of the rump union or 2. by looking further south.
The Mexican War was supported by the South, the Ostend Manifesto indicated a desire to annex Cuba and there were quite a few 'filibustering' attempts. I'm not saying the South would've been strong or large enough to conquer the entire continent of South America, but a CSA can only expand either: 1. at the expense of the rump union or 2. by looking further south.
Well the film is obviously not a serious work of historical investigation/study.
Although if you wanted to try and make a plausible version of it - I believe there were some plans to reunite the country under the confederacy rather than the union amongst some copperhead democrats in the northwest.
The idea (if I remember correctly, this is all off the cuff) was that an uprising of anti-war democrats in Indiana, Illinois and a few other western states would gain control of their respective states and join with the CSA, following which most of the other states would follow out of a desire to end a seemingly unwinnable war. New England was just sort of expected to go off its own way.
Off course this is all terribly unlikely, and in OTL the plot fizzled to nothing.
Although if you wanted to try and make a plausible version of it - I believe there were some plans to reunite the country under the confederacy rather than the union amongst some copperhead democrats in the northwest.
The idea (if I remember correctly, this is all off the cuff) was that an uprising of anti-war democrats in Indiana, Illinois and a few other western states would gain control of their respective states and join with the CSA, following which most of the other states would follow out of a desire to end a seemingly unwinnable war. New England was just sort of expected to go off its own way.
Off course this is all terribly unlikely, and in OTL the plot fizzled to nothing.
Spengler
Banned
about as plausible as the Draka. The British empire would not have recognized the confederacy so easily. Also the CSAs economy seems to be made up entirely about supporting a rather inefficient economic system yet its a world power that just doesn't work. Finally the fact that mass slave rebellions wouldn't tear the place from with in eventually. PLus the whole western states joining the CSA is itself extremely implausible.
Alright, let's analyze.
First, Jeff Davis annexes the Union, mandates slavery, and transfers the capitol to Washington. No southerners have a problem, and there is no northern uprising.
Next, they conquer all of Latin America by 1920s. They also outlaw all religions outside Christianity, enslave the Asians, and turn Long Island into a Jewish Ghetto.
Next, Hitler somehow still comes to power. Butterflies be damned! Same for Einstein, the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Pope John Paul II (On the film's website).
After blasting through the Japanese Empire, the CSA annexes it, so the Phillipines, Japan, Korea, much of China, Indochina, and most of the Pacific is CSA property.
Other events of the twentieth century take place much as planned, with the USSR replaced by Canada, and South Africa (implied) to remain in Apartheid. And the CSA, economically at least, is the ultimate mercantilist wet dream. Totally isolationist (aside from conquests), with no foreign trade, so it must be completely self-sufficient, extracting wealth from colonies.
If you find this plausible, I pity you.
First, Jeff Davis annexes the Union, mandates slavery, and transfers the capitol to Washington. No southerners have a problem, and there is no northern uprising.
Next, they conquer all of Latin America by 1920s. They also outlaw all religions outside Christianity, enslave the Asians, and turn Long Island into a Jewish Ghetto.
Next, Hitler somehow still comes to power. Butterflies be damned! Same for Einstein, the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Pope John Paul II (On the film's website).
After blasting through the Japanese Empire, the CSA annexes it, so the Phillipines, Japan, Korea, much of China, Indochina, and most of the Pacific is CSA property.
Other events of the twentieth century take place much as planned, with the USSR replaced by Canada, and South Africa (implied) to remain in Apartheid. And the CSA, economically at least, is the ultimate mercantilist wet dream. Totally isolationist (aside from conquests), with no foreign trade, so it must be completely self-sufficient, extracting wealth from colonies.
If you find this plausible, I pity you.
cw1865
The British toyed with the idea of recognizing the Confederacy. If Lee wins at Antietam, it was a definite possibility. The Trent Affair almost brings the US and Britain to blows....no Southern cotton was having an effect on the textile mills.
Confederate independence is always something fun for me to think about while I'm bored. As far as taking the entire Union 0% chance even with the assistance of France and Britain. To much man power and industrial power up north. Even Canada has a finite amount of troops and can't afford to lose any of its defensive capacity.
As far as Confederate independence in general as far as the orginal states there were several times at which it was possible to scrape some deal out with Britain and France.
Without the European duo I don't see a chance of any southern independence simply because Lincoln would've fought until the south was worn down. It doesnt matter if they had the will, what they needed was the supplies to feed the armies and the trained men to embody the dream, the south had both in short supply.
As far as Confederate independence in general as far as the orginal states there were several times at which it was possible to scrape some deal out with Britain and France.
Without the European duo I don't see a chance of any southern independence simply because Lincoln would've fought until the south was worn down. It doesnt matter if they had the will, what they needed was the supplies to feed the armies and the trained men to embody the dream, the south had both in short supply.
cw1865
Naval?
I could see British recognition coupled with a limited effort directed solely at the British Navy lifting the Union blockade. Britain still has to worry about Canada, still a constituent part of the Empire (Dominion of Canada still hasn't happened yet). So, I really don't see British intervention in the form of soldiers on the ground. I see this simply as Britain telling the Union: "OK, its over, let them go"
Even after 1863, the Confederates still had a shot at a political victory. If the Democrats get McClellan elected, its possible McClellan ends the war with an independent south. You can thank Retreatin' Joe Johnston and an insanely aggresive Hood who smashed the Army of TN to bits at Franklin for the fall of Atlanta, perceived by many historians to be the point at which Lincoln would win the election of 1864
I could see British recognition coupled with a limited effort directed solely at the British Navy lifting the Union blockade. Britain still has to worry about Canada, still a constituent part of the Empire (Dominion of Canada still hasn't happened yet). So, I really don't see British intervention in the form of soldiers on the ground. I see this simply as Britain telling the Union: "OK, its over, let them go"
Even after 1863, the Confederates still had a shot at a political victory. If the Democrats get McClellan elected, its possible McClellan ends the war with an independent south. You can thank Retreatin' Joe Johnston and an insanely aggresive Hood who smashed the Army of TN to bits at Franklin for the fall of Atlanta, perceived by many historians to be the point at which Lincoln would win the election of 1864
OK, suppose that Confederacy moves to liberate Maryland in summer 1861, after Lincoln had declared martial law in May, and Washington falls, either on march or after blockade of some length far in the rear of Confederate frontline in Pennsylvania. Further, let us assume that Lincoln and cabinet DON´t evacuate to Philadelphia or New York and go on leading the overwhelming population of Union in a war of attrition, for example because they try to be brave and hold the capital, and when they finally decide to evacuate they botch it and get intercepted, either by land or say have their ship run on Confederate minefield on lower Potomac.
It is still 1861, and while the freshly recruited Union armies are still on the loose on the fields, the legitimate Union executive - President, Vice President and Cabinet - are all dead or Confederate prisoners of war.
How will the northern states and armies go about coordinating military effort and political negotiations with CSA?
It is still 1861, and while the freshly recruited Union armies are still on the loose on the fields, the legitimate Union executive - President, Vice President and Cabinet - are all dead or Confederate prisoners of war.
How will the northern states and armies go about coordinating military effort and political negotiations with CSA?
While it is true that the antebellum South was expansionist, the argument that this automatically means an independent Confederacy would have been expansionist is not necessarily valid. In order to make that claim, you have to ignore the reason why the antebellum South was expansionist, namely the desire to gain new territory which could be organized into Slave States to balance out the growing power of the North in the United States Congress. An independent Confederacy would not have the need to do that, as it would no longer be part of the Union, and not represented in the United States Congress.
Now, the Confederates might have, especially if they had maintained their hold on the Confederate Territory of Arizona, been interested in absorbing the northern tier of Mexican states, especially Sonora, because that would given them access to the Pacific Ocean. But the idea that they would have been interested in absorbing all of Mexico, not to mention South America, is just absurd.
cw1865
Manifest Destiny / Expansionist Tendencies
In light of US history as it actually occured in the 19th century, particularly considering the Mexican War (All-Mexico movement fails of course), the subsequent Spanish-American War and a desire to have the Panama Canal (although before a firm plan is in place, its a desire for 'a' canal)
The 19th century Democratic Party is EXPANSIONIST, plain and simple.
http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_all_mexico_movement_18471848
All-Mexico has some support in the Northeast on the basis that we could do a better job than Mexico's leaders, but ultimately the votes against ratifying the Treaty with Mexico coming from the Democrats are based on the fact that they wanted more territory:
Polk writes: "
In light of US history as it actually occured in the 19th century, particularly considering the Mexican War (All-Mexico movement fails of course), the subsequent Spanish-American War and a desire to have the Panama Canal (although before a firm plan is in place, its a desire for 'a' canal)
The 19th century Democratic Party is EXPANSIONIST, plain and simple.
http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_all_mexico_movement_18471848
All-Mexico has some support in the Northeast on the basis that we could do a better job than Mexico's leaders, but ultimately the votes against ratifying the Treaty with Mexico coming from the Democrats are based on the fact that they wanted more territory:
Polk writes: "
“Most of the Democratic Senators who will vote against ratification, will do so because they desire to secure more territory.”
Now, clearly there is a motivation to ensure a state balance between free and slave states, but even Northern Democrats (Douglass) supported All-Mexico and some Northerns are supporting All-Mexico based on Manifest Destiny: "
Now, clearly there is a motivation to ensure a state balance between free and slave states, but even Northern Democrats (Douglass) supported All-Mexico and some Northerns are supporting All-Mexico based on Manifest Destiny: "
Moses Beach, editor of the New York Sun, wrote in October 1847 that “to liberate and ennoble…is our mission.” Many viewed annexation of Mexico as part of Divine Providence, an inevitable consequence of Manifest Destiny. “The final result,” according to Seymour Connor and Odie Faulk, “ …would be a grand United States of North America, embracing both Mexico and Canada.”
Even after the slavery question is resolved, the US still fights the Spanish-American War and takes the Phillipines and other Spanish possessions.
The better assumption is that an independent Confederacy would have many of the expansionist tendencies as the US. The only question is whether they could've actually pulled it off.
Even after the slavery question is resolved, the US still fights the Spanish-American War and takes the Phillipines and other Spanish possessions.
The better assumption is that an independent Confederacy would have many of the expansionist tendencies as the US. The only question is whether they could've actually pulled it off.
Claiming that the "All Mexico Movement" of the 1840s proves that the Confederates in the late 1860s and onwards would have wanted to expand into all of Mexico and South America is really grasping at straws. It should be noted that a large reason why the "All Mexico" movement failed is because of opposition from Southerners...for example, people like John C. Calhoun...who didn't want to absorb all those Spanish-speaking, Catholic Mexicans. It wasn't only Northern opposition that killed the idea. Were there demagogues on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line who wanted to absorb all of Mexico in 1848? Of course there were. Does that have anything to do with likely Confederate policy twenty years down the road? Nope. The idea that the Confederates would even want to absorb all of Mexico...much less that they would want to absorb several times that many Spanish and Portuguese speaking Catholics by absorbing South America is, again, absurd.
Historically, the Confederates did express interest in acquiring northern Mexico as a route to the Pacific. Outrage over Spanish atrocities might have led to a Confederate-Spanish War, just as it did to a Spanish-American War in OTL. Beyond that? There just is not the motivation.
Last edited:
PrairieVoice
Banned
In the movie the arrival of red coated British troops at the battle of Gettysburg is what turns the tide. In the movie they have Union forces fleeing at the site of the British.
But in real life, were not many of the Union troops at Gettysburg Irish? With their built in Anti-British hatred do you think they would have run from the British when they had guns in their hands?
PS. I was at the movies premier and spoke with the director. He admitted some of his movies flaws but felt the overriding theme was against racism. Personally I feel this movie does poorly on this level compared to other movies that deal with racism like "Billy Jack".
But in real life, were not many of the Union troops at Gettysburg Irish? With their built in Anti-British hatred do you think they would have run from the British when they had guns in their hands?
PS. I was at the movies premier and spoke with the director. He admitted some of his movies flaws but felt the overriding theme was against racism. Personally I feel this movie does poorly on this level compared to other movies that deal with racism like "Billy Jack".
cw1865
No Motivation?
The Confederacy did intend to expand "the slave empire". It was one of the ideas espoused by the Fire-Eaters in the 1850s. It was an idea thrown about in 1860 campaign speeches by men like John B. Gordon in 1860, when he spoke of Southern slaves playing banjos in Nicaraugua and Mexico in the future, of a Confederate banner waving from Delaware Bay to the Pacific.
Jefferson Davis had long been an advocate of expanding slavery. He spoke of it forcefully while a US Senator and Secretary of War. He was a strong backer of attempts to buy or conquer Cuba. He was offered command of one filibustering expedition, but turned it down; he suggested Robert E. Lee, and Lee declined. When the expedition failed and the Spanish were after the head of the leaders, he gave a speech in which he said "I want Cuba, and I intend to have her!"
His spots did not change once he became President of the Confederacy. In the early days in Montgomery in 1861, when the Confederacy desperately wanted international recognition, Mexico sent an ambassador to discuss the situation, prepared to extend recognition. This would have been the very first nation to recognize the Confederacy. Davis refused to meet the man because, as he said, it might prove embarassing if he had to invade Mexico within a year or two.
Even as the Civil War raged, Confederate government agents conspired to pave the way for extension to the Pacific by bribing the governors of states in northern Mexico. Plans -- not very realistic ones, but plans -- were laid on how to do that. Agents were dispatched through Mexico to California to foment revolt there. There was also, of course the Confederate attempt on what we now see as the states of New Mexico and Arizona, which was to be followed by the occupation of southern California.
All of this fits in neatly with Davis' pre-war career. He had been the mover and shaker behind the Gadsden Purchase from Mexico after the Mexican War. He was promoting a RR route from New Orleans to the Pacific, and wanted that land to build it on. His idea stayed with him, and all signs were he would have tried to implement it if he could.
I don't know how many people in the South felt this way, but it was a widely and hotly discussed topic in the 1850s. We might quibble over whether or not it was supported by "many" or "most" Southerners, but it was certainly a favored idea of "a lot" at the time. When the term "Manifest Destiny" was coined in the 1840s, it was mainly a theme for aggressive expansion held most ardently by Southerners, by any means necessary.
This excerpt from the NY Times shows the most cynical, propagandized version:
“The original school of secession conspirators looked almost entirely to the establishment of a great Slave Empire in the semi-tropical regions bordering upon the Gulf of Mexico. The Border States, to which we have thus far confined our military operations, were not expected nor desired to join the black oligarchic military Empire. They were looked upon rather in the light of outworks, to belong to the South, or to remain neutral, as they pleased, but really to be used as a barrier against the Abolition encroachments of the Northern States. At first extending from South Carolina to Florida, and sweeping from thence in a semicircle to the Rio Grande, the new Empire would speedily subjugate the feeble States of Mexico. Cuba and other West India Islands would be annexed, and all the negroes and peoples of other inferior races reduced to their normal condition of Slavery. The Gulf of Mexico would then form a central lake, round which would circle the States of the grand Confederation, whose corner-stone should be Slavery, and its rulers the lords of the plantation. This was the dream, fevered but gorgeous, of the conspirators who imagined they had fallen heir to the visions of AARON BURR -- such men as SLIDELL, JEFF. DAVIS, TOOMBS, RHETT and WIGFALL.”
Post Civil War, a Confederate victory places Cuba and at least some portion of Mexico into the cross-hairs.
The Confederacy did intend to expand "the slave empire". It was one of the ideas espoused by the Fire-Eaters in the 1850s. It was an idea thrown about in 1860 campaign speeches by men like John B. Gordon in 1860, when he spoke of Southern slaves playing banjos in Nicaraugua and Mexico in the future, of a Confederate banner waving from Delaware Bay to the Pacific.
Jefferson Davis had long been an advocate of expanding slavery. He spoke of it forcefully while a US Senator and Secretary of War. He was a strong backer of attempts to buy or conquer Cuba. He was offered command of one filibustering expedition, but turned it down; he suggested Robert E. Lee, and Lee declined. When the expedition failed and the Spanish were after the head of the leaders, he gave a speech in which he said "I want Cuba, and I intend to have her!"
His spots did not change once he became President of the Confederacy. In the early days in Montgomery in 1861, when the Confederacy desperately wanted international recognition, Mexico sent an ambassador to discuss the situation, prepared to extend recognition. This would have been the very first nation to recognize the Confederacy. Davis refused to meet the man because, as he said, it might prove embarassing if he had to invade Mexico within a year or two.
Even as the Civil War raged, Confederate government agents conspired to pave the way for extension to the Pacific by bribing the governors of states in northern Mexico. Plans -- not very realistic ones, but plans -- were laid on how to do that. Agents were dispatched through Mexico to California to foment revolt there. There was also, of course the Confederate attempt on what we now see as the states of New Mexico and Arizona, which was to be followed by the occupation of southern California.
All of this fits in neatly with Davis' pre-war career. He had been the mover and shaker behind the Gadsden Purchase from Mexico after the Mexican War. He was promoting a RR route from New Orleans to the Pacific, and wanted that land to build it on. His idea stayed with him, and all signs were he would have tried to implement it if he could.
I don't know how many people in the South felt this way, but it was a widely and hotly discussed topic in the 1850s. We might quibble over whether or not it was supported by "many" or "most" Southerners, but it was certainly a favored idea of "a lot" at the time. When the term "Manifest Destiny" was coined in the 1840s, it was mainly a theme for aggressive expansion held most ardently by Southerners, by any means necessary.
This excerpt from the NY Times shows the most cynical, propagandized version:
“The original school of secession conspirators looked almost entirely to the establishment of a great Slave Empire in the semi-tropical regions bordering upon the Gulf of Mexico. The Border States, to which we have thus far confined our military operations, were not expected nor desired to join the black oligarchic military Empire. They were looked upon rather in the light of outworks, to belong to the South, or to remain neutral, as they pleased, but really to be used as a barrier against the Abolition encroachments of the Northern States. At first extending from South Carolina to Florida, and sweeping from thence in a semicircle to the Rio Grande, the new Empire would speedily subjugate the feeble States of Mexico. Cuba and other West India Islands would be annexed, and all the negroes and peoples of other inferior races reduced to their normal condition of Slavery. The Gulf of Mexico would then form a central lake, round which would circle the States of the grand Confederation, whose corner-stone should be Slavery, and its rulers the lords of the plantation. This was the dream, fevered but gorgeous, of the conspirators who imagined they had fallen heir to the visions of AARON BURR -- such men as SLIDELL, JEFF. DAVIS, TOOMBS, RHETT and WIGFALL.”
Post Civil War, a Confederate victory places Cuba and at least some portion of Mexico into the cross-hairs.