Post-Civil War: The Union Never Heals

You guys are right. The more I've looked into this and considered the situation, the majority of the members of the Confederate government wouldn't go for this plan, as it WOULD be seen as defeatism.
HOWEVER....in the wake of Lincoln's death, and the rise to power of the Radicals who would want to seek revenge upon the South, I believe a few of the more moderates in the government and or the aristocracy at large WOULD start to worry more about their own skins and not about "the Cause". With this in mind, I see these few individuals setting up settlements in Cuba. They would tell the others later on, as the war started to turn for the worst and their idea of having somewhere to flee is vindicated. And as the war begins to end, more and more would try to flee, though not all would make it thanks to the Northern Blockade. Those who do make it to Cuba would begin to rebuild. AFTER the war is over, and the blockade eases up, many Southerners would likely try to flee the persecution of the invading Yankees.

As far as the Spanish in Cuba...the Confederates would make arrangements before hand. Swear nominal allegiance to Spain in return for limited autonomy in their own lands. They'd pay taxes when needed. But they'd also be bribing locals to be more helpful as well.

At least that's how I see this type of scenario playing out.

They might want to flee but the logical place is Mexico not Cuba as ships and boats are expensive and there is NO MONEY! A few Southerners, sure. Enough to matter, no. Even going to Mexico will be difficult as you need supplies on the march and again you have no money.
 
I'm just going to take this discussion in a completely different direction. Supposing Lincoln is killed in 1862, won't this slightly destabilise the Union war effort? Not enough to lose, but enough for the war to end in 1866.
Its just I thought that with that extra time, Davis and the government might have time to retreat into Texas and defend the west towards the tail end of the war. At the same time, Lee is ORDERED to wage guerrilla warfare on the Union. The South could be drenched in blood for years.
 

Solroc

Banned
I'm just going to take this discussion in a completely different direction. Supposing Lincoln is killed in 1862, won't this slightly destabilise the Union war effort? Not enough to lose, but enough for the war to end in 1866.
Its just I thought that with that extra time, Davis and the government might have time to retreat into Texas and defend the west towards the tail end of the war. At the same time, Lee is ORDERED to wage guerrilla warfare on the Union. The South could be drenched in blood for years.

Very interesting take. Hamlin did have political favors to fulfill, so that could translate into even more incompetence until industrial might and population make up for it. That, and the now prevailing paranoia that the Confederates and/or Democrats are trying to deliberately to decapitate the Radical Republican leadership through assassination or coercion.

Either way, the U.S. is not going to be a fun place to live for at least 20 years.
 
Naw, its not gunna be good. Assuming my scenario, Davis and his government could defend Texas and Oklahoma with forts and Native auxiliaries while the actual South is a mess of military governors, vigilantes, guerrillas and reprisals against freedmen. With a virtual Republican dictatorship in power, and big money being poured into the military to try and quell the South, I have to points.
1. There will be less men and resources to devote to the Western Territories, so will these areas stay that way?
 
Naw, its not gunna be good. Assuming my scenario, Davis and his government could defend Texas and Oklahoma with forts and Native auxiliaries while the actual South is a mess of military governors, vigilantes, guerrillas and reprisals against freedmen. With a virtual Republican dictatorship in power, and big money being poured into the military to try and quell the South, I have to points.
1. There will be less men and resources to devote to the Western Territories, so will these areas stay that way?

1: How much so? Considering the strength of the US economy and the size of the population...

2: (to be added when you post your second point)
 
2. Could dominance by one party and a deeper isolation because of the horrific internal issues lead to America being less important on the international scene? Less immigrants and all that, AND the Russians could decide to just sell Alaska to Britain with America in such a state.

As another point and this is a long way down the line, could you see novels, films and games romanticising the 'Wild South'? More sympathetic and balanced African-American parts in film earlier than in OTL could be possible.
 
1: How much so? Considering the strength of the US economy and the size of the population...

2: (to be added when you post your second point)

Well, prospective immigrants will be less likely to want to go to a country in the throes of sectarian violence, particularly in a nation which isn't quite the beacon of democracy it was. So settlement may be slower, less soldiers to protect them from the Native Americans and less resources to put into infrastructure or railways.
 
Well, prospective immigrants will be less likely to want to go to a country in the throes of sectarian violence, particularly in a nation which isn't quite the beacon of democracy it was. So settlement may be slower, less soldiers to protect them from the Native Americans and less resources to put into infrastructure or railways.

That may be true, although given the comparisons, they might still feel its better.

As for being in the throes of sectarian violence: Exactly what is this going to be like? I mean, OTL Reconstruction was "the throes of sectarian violence", but most immigrants didn't go to the South anyway.

On the other hand, if we have (ex)Confederates acting like Fenians...
 
That may be true, although given the comparisons, they might still feel its better.

As for being in the throes of sectarian violence: Exactly what is this going to be like? I mean, OTL Reconstruction was "the throes of sectarian violence", but most immigrants didn't go to the South anyway.

On the other hand, if we have (ex)Confederates acting like Fenians...

Terrorist attacks are not to be unexpected. Moderate Southerners may migrate west to escape attention.
 

Solroc

Banned
Out of confusion, define "terrorist attacks." Do you mean bushwacking activities in the ex-Confederacy, or actual attacks on U.S. proper at the time? May the Confederates try something crazy like blow up Congress?

And as much as the North is abolutionist, it still has that sense of white supremacy. Will the Confederates try to exploit that or have they already sunk so low that even the most virulent racists in the Union would not want to be associated with them?
 
Out of confusion, define "terrorist attacks." Do you mean bushwacking activities in the ex-Confederacy, or actual attacks on U.S. proper at the time? May the Confederates try something crazy like blow up Congress?

And as much as the North is abolitionist, it still has that sense of white supremacy. Will the Confederates try to exploit that or have they already sunk so low that even the most virulent racists in the Union would not want to be associated with them?

There is white supremacy, and then there is White Supremacy. You didn't see legal (or illegal) segregation, much less barring at the polls, in the North. Professional baseball was segregated, but you didn't have angry White mobs (backed up by the police and the National Guard) sweeping through the stands at Ebbetts Field lynching Blacks for showing up to watch the Dodgers play. No "Whites Only" public restrooms and drinking fountains. A Black child could wade into a public pool in Seattle without being deliberately drowned, or starting a race riot.

Even such things as the Detroit Race Riots in 1943 were started by transplanted Southerners.:mad:
 
I don't see why ex-Confederates wouldn't be able to carry out terrorist attacks across the US and Washington is particularly vulnerable. I think only a few would consider something as extreme as Congress. But memorials, monuments and individuals are all fair game.
If there is a diaspora of Southerners to other parts of the Union, or to Brazil/Cuba/Mexico and a lot of former Confederates are disenfranchised then Blacks would be suddenly quite powerful. Northerners may be swayed by 'the rise of the African
 
Naw, its not gunna be good. Assuming my scenario, Davis and his government could defend Texas and Oklahoma with forts and Native auxiliaries while the actual South is a mess of military governors, vigilantes, guerrillas and reprisals against freedmen. With a virtual Republican dictatorship in power, and big money being poured into the military to try and quell the South, I have to points.
1. There will be less men and resources to devote to the Western Territories, so will these areas stay that way?


Virtual Republican dictatorship? Only if you mean just down south as it is doubtful Notherners would tolerate one up north. In any case if this drags on too long expect Southerners to be kicked into the Western Deserts or Alaska until they decide that the war is really over and if they keep it up everyone they know is going to be sent to some God foresaken place.
 

Solroc

Banned
Virtual Republican dictatorship? Only if you mean just down south as it is doubtful Notherners would tolerate one up north. In any case if this drags on too long expect Southerners to be kicked into the Western Deserts or Alaska until they decide that the war is really over and if they keep it up everyone they know is going to be sent to some God foresaken place.

I think the assumption is that the South's going to be ruled as a dictatorship. They just got one or two of their Presidents killed and they caused one of the bloodiest wars in America's history over whether or not blacks were slaves or humans. They're going to sit on the traitors, their Constitutional rights be damned, until they submit, die off, or leave.

The North will relatively see a minor population loss due to their brothers, fathers, and sons being stuck for occupation and counterinsurgency roles, but the influx of immigrants will eventually make up for this.
 
Could I make one minor point which is probably more grammatical than political?

The phrase "sectarian violence" is what Northern Ireland suffered with fighting between Protestants and Catholics. What TTL's southern USA would suffer seems like "sectional violence", which is what I think the original writer really wanted to say, no?
 
Considering that the result of Mexico allowing large groups of Americans to live in Texas and California resulted in the US anexing them both along with a lot of other territory I think Cuba will think three times before allowing large numbers of Southerners to move there. This is particularly true because they were the ones calling for the conquest of Cuba the loudest. My guess is the Cubans will simply kick them off the island.

That is a definite possibility. The cubans elite, however, was also in a demographic race against the rest of the cuban population. They could be tempted to welcome confederates, especially if Spanish immigration / financial support had slowed.
 
I think the assumption is that the South's going to be ruled as a dictatorship. They just got one or two of their Presidents killed and they caused one of the bloodiest wars in America's history over whether or not blacks were slaves or humans. They're going to sit on the traitors, their Constitutional rights be damned, until they submit, die off, or leave.

The North will relatively see a minor population loss due to their brothers, fathers, and sons being stuck for occupation and counterinsurgency roles, but the influx of immigrants will eventually make up for this.

As I said "Only if you mean just down south as it is doubtful Notherners would tolerate one up north.". I was saying that it would be extremely unlikely outside the old Confederacy areas not inside it.
 
As I said "Only if you mean just down south as it is doubtful Notherners would tolerate one up north.". I was saying that it would be extremely unlikely outside the old Confederacy areas not inside it.

There is also that many Southerners moved to the Union to enjoy the standard of living in an undamaged and more affluent North. They took their racism North with them, but not their Confederatism. They didn't dare.:mad: They included some of my own ancestors. Including Confederate-sympathizing members of the Lincoln family.:eek:
 
There is also that many Southerners moved to the Union to enjoy the standard of living in an undamaged and more affluent North. They took their racism North with them, but not their Confederatism. They didn't dare.:mad: They included some of my own ancestors. Including Confederate-sympathizing members of the Lincoln family.:eek:

True enough. Many Southerners moved to the North after the war. In fact quite a few Southerners moved north before the war because it was already considerably richer.
 
Top