Some CSA questions

Can you explain further in the President of CSA question Nytram?
Meaning, what candidates were good to be pres?

Well, Davis wasn't elected President of the Confederacy. He was chosen to be President by politicians from South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas (though I'm not completely sure about Texas). It stands to reason therefore that any public figure from any of those states could have gotten the job in stead of Davis.
 
Davis as General-in-Chief might have limited the damage he did, incrementally, but he still might have promoted idiots like Polk

Had he not been president then Jeff Davis would have commanded the Mississippi State Army until that was absorbed into the Confederacy at which point it was likely that he would either become one of the Five Full Generals of the Confederacy or willing subordinated himself to Albert Sidney Johnston. In such a scenario Leonidas Polk will likely end up as Davis' second in command.
 
Well, Davis wasn't elected President of the Confederacy. He was chosen to be President by politicians from South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas (though I'm not completely sure about Texas).

That is true of his short tenure as Provisional President. However, the Confederacy did hold an election in early 1862, when the permanent Constitution went into effect, and he was elected President at that time.

It stands to reason therefore that any public figure from any of those states could have gotten the job in stead of Davis.

True.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Well, Davis wasn't elected President of the Confederacy.

Actually, although Davis was chosen as President by the Montgomery Convention, the Confederacy later organized elections in November of 1861, and Davis was duly elected by the people.
 
The CSA couldn't care less whether the natives in Africa rebelled or not, as its not going to affect them in any way. There is no ideological reason to think Bad Black Men, Let's Kill Them...

Actually they (and their predecessors in the US) did care quite a bit about slave revolts setting a bad example amongst their own slaves.

http://fcit.usf.edu/FLORIDA/lessons/sem_war/sem_war1.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=0X...esult&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false

If the CSA sets up its own little adventure in imperialism in Cuba or Santo Domingo, they don't want Ethiopians or others to be a source of inspiration for revolts.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Actually they (and their predecessors in the US) did care quite a bit about slave revolts setting a bad example amongst their own slaves.

If the CSA sets up its own little adventure in imperialism in Cuba or Santo Domingo, they don't want Ethiopians or others to be a source of inspiration for revolts.

I highly doubt that whatever concern they felt would be sufficient to impact public policy to the extent that the Confederacy gets involved in African affairs.
 
I highly doubt that whatever concern they felt would be sufficient to impact public policy to the extent that the Confederacy gets involved in African affairs.

Not to mention the question of where the Confederacy got the ability to launch and sustain cross-Atlantic operations.
 
Actually they (and their predecessors in the US) did care quite a bit about slave revolts setting a bad example amongst their own slaves.
And the US didn't do squat about Haiti. So neither would the CS. I think we get it already, you hate the CSA. That doesn't mean everything you can possibly think up about them is actually possible or even reasonable. I doubt Confederate soldiers are going to the far side of Africa to help Italy of all people conquer Ethiopia of all places.
 
And the US didn't do squat about Haiti. So neither would the CS.

Try again. The US, when it was led by slaveholding elites, did quite a lot against Haiti because it feared the example of its slave revolt.

----------------

http://soc.hfac.uh.edu/artman/publish/article_94.shtml

From 1804 until 1864, the United States refused to give diplomatic recognition to the world’s first independent black republic, fearful Haiti might set an example for the enslaved African population in the South....

The United States backed France in ordering Haiti to pay 150 million francs in gold to compensate for the costs of the war it won. In return, Haiti would supposedly be granted international recognition. Repayment locked Haiti into the role of a debtor nation –where it remains today.

Beginning in 1850, U.S. warships remained almost a constant in Haitian waters for 60 years. According to historians, this pattern of gunboat diplomacy led to the first U.S. occupation of Haiti, which began in 1915 and lasted 19 years.

----------------

If it maintains a brutal system, that has to be backed up by force. What I'm talking about is punitive expeditions or sending aid to Euro invaders in Africa, not CSA colonialism in Africa which is unlikely for reasons discussed already.

Again, we saw this pattern in Jackson's aggression which led to the seizing of Spanish Florida and in the Seminole Wars.
 
Last edited:
That is true of his short tenure as Provisional President. However, the Confederacy did hold an election in early 1862, when the permanent Constitution went into effect, and he was elected President at that time.

Actually, although Davis was chosen as President by the Montgomery Convention, the Confederacy later organized elections in November of 1861, and Davis was duly elected by the people.

Yes, but he basically ran unopposed in that election. There was certainly no major opposition to Davis and Stephens if there was any opposition at all. Had Howell Cobb or Robert Toombs or William Yancey been chosen to be the Provisional President of the Confederacy in early 1861 then they would similarly have been elected full President of the Confederacy in late 1861. It wasn't like the Southerners had much of a chioce was it? They elected him or...didn't vote? Elected some local figure with no national backing and no chance to get into office?
 
Just some CSA questions if they won/lost

- Would they rename Richmond to like something else, say Jefferson D.C.
There would be no reason to do so. Richmond would remain Richmond. However, the CSA constitution did have a provision for Congress to establish the same sort of capital-from-scratch that the US Constitution did. As for the name, there would be no single Washington-esque figure for the CSA (victorious General-in-Chief, President of Constitutional Convention, AND First President). It might be named Washington as well.
- Would Robert E. Lee run for president?
If he were healthy enough, there would have been many politicos who would have urged him to serve.
- Is there anybody else that could've been the President of the CSA during the war?
As mentioned above, any of the other contenders during the Provisional Convention might have swung it. Whether they would have been better choices is anyone's guess.
- Would Britain and France, honestly, really be allies with them (IMO, no, since they'd only ally them for cotton, but that was starting to die out)
Sure, for power politics reasons. Once it was obvious that the CSA could win on its own.
- And would the CSA be expansionist in Africa?
What for? It would have its hands full in the Caribbean.

Bonus question:
If the CSA won, would've D.C. been abanonded and moved to say New York since the capital is right next to there enemy?
Washington would probably have remained the de jure capital but the administrative functions would probably be moved.
 
Last edited:

Hashasheen

Banned
What about Confederate adventures in Central America? OTL, several groups nearly managed to take areas of Central America. Could they pull it off with more Confederate support?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
What about Confederate adventures in Central America? OTL, several groups nearly managed to take areas of Central America. Could they pull it off with more Confederate support?

Very likely. The Europeans weren't going to stop them, so long as the Confederates gave them basic economic assurances which they likely would have been more than happy to give. The Northerners really weren't in a position to stop them, and the Monroe Doctrine wouldn't really apply to the Confederates.

You're right about the pre-war filibusters, the most famous being William Walker (who actually ruled Nicaragua for a year or so in the 1850s). Almost all of the filibusters were Southerners, and they fed into a dream og a massive, slave-holding empire throughout Latin America.

Northern Mexico would be the first target, followed by Cuba. I'm currently reading "Blood and Treasure", the best history of the 1862 New Mexico Campaign, and it goes into great detail about the pre-war dreams of Latin American empire which would very likely have become post-war Confederate policy.
 

Hashasheen

Banned
Northern Mexico would be the first target, followed by Cuba. I'm currently reading "Blood and Treasure", the best history of the 1862 New Mexico Campaign, and it goes into great detail about the pre-war dreams of Latin American empire which would very likely have become post-war Confederate policy.
Interesting. I'll have to look it up on Amazon.

Second question:
In the aftermath of a successful Confederacy what would be the more likely route:
1. As an to expand the Confederacy’s influence and territory in the Caribbean, the Confederacy begin gun-running operations to Cuban rebels. After the sinking of a sloop and the hanging of several Confederate citizens as “pirates”, the Confederates declare war on the Spanish and prepare a “liberation” of Cuba; ignoring the Philippines as too costly a venture.
The Spanish bitterly lose to a combination of Confederates and Cubans on the island (though they hold the naval advantage) and agree to withdraw from Cuba which would become an independent state under the protection of the Confederacy. The Philippines revolt against the Spanish and cost them more than ever. Desperate for funds to short-stop the war-debt accumulated; the Spanish sell the Philippines to a third power (either Germany or Japan) and rid themselves of their Pacific nuisance.
Or:
2.As the Cuban rebellion grows more and more vicious, the Confederates make an offer for the Island, allowing the Spanish to hand off this thorn in their side and focus on the Philippine issue. The Confederate buy empties all available funds had in the government, and they are left holding the bag; forced to put down the rebellion harshly and transplanting mainland slave-owners and aristocrats to the island as a means of raising funds. The Spanish later sell off the Philippines as they recognize it to be too costly in terms of manpower, supplies and money. (Would Japan or Germany would be the more likely suspect?)
 
Interesting. I'll have to look it up on Amazon.

Second question:
In the aftermath of a successful Confederacy what would be the more likely route:
1. As an to expand the Confederacy’s influence and territory in the Caribbean, the Confederacy begin gun-running operations to Cuban rebels. After the sinking of a sloop and the hanging of several Confederate citizens as “pirates”, the Confederates declare war on the Spanish and prepare a “liberation” of Cuba; ignoring the Philippines as too costly a venture.
The Spanish bitterly lose to a combination of Confederates and Cubans on the island (though they hold the naval advantage) and agree to withdraw from Cuba which would become an independent state under the protection of the Confederacy. The Philippines revolt against the Spanish and cost them more than ever. Desperate for funds to short-stop the war-debt accumulated; the Spanish sell the Philippines to a third power (either Germany or Japan) and rid themselves of their Pacific nuisance.
Or:
2.As the Cuban rebellion grows more and more vicious, the Confederates make an offer for the Island, allowing the Spanish to hand off this thorn in their side and focus on the Philippine issue. The Confederate buy empties all available funds had in the government, and they are left holding the bag; forced to put down the rebellion harshly and transplanting mainland slave-owners and aristocrats to the island as a means of raising funds. The Spanish later sell off the Philippines as they recognize it to be too costly in terms of manpower, supplies and money. (Would Japan or Germany would be the more likely suspect?)

I can't see the independent state under CSA "protection" unless the rebels do extremely well. IOTL the rebellions took an extremely long time and were aided by aid from the US (not the govt but individuals) which likely isn't available in TTL. It seems more likely that Spain would accept the offer of a buyout and the CSA would want another state, esp a Confederized one culturally. IOTL the US actually invited Spaniards back to the island to raise the number of whites. But a CSA might want to hand out plantations as rewards to soldiers and political and business cronies or adventurers.
 
What about Confederate adventures in Central America? OTL, several groups nearly managed to take areas of Central America. Could they pull it off with more Confederate support?

In addition to what Anaxagoras points to, it'd be extremely easy for the CSA to take much of Central America. It might be harder to hold onto it. Miskito Indians and the Garifuna had been somewhat independent for quite a long time vs Spain and Britain.

The CSA may try puppet rulers as the US sometimes did IOTL in the early 20th century.
 

Hashasheen

Banned
Question: If the Confederates do buy Cuba, would the land there be used for more plantations for richer whites or would they just sell it cheap to poor whites as a means of increasing their hold on the island?
 
Question: If the Confederates do buy Cuba, would the land there be used for more plantations for richer whites or would they just sell it cheap to poor whites as a means of increasing their hold on the island?

Could go either way. The first is possible as it would bring capital to Cuba and start bringing in money and commerce rather quickly.

The latter would solidify Cuba as mentioned, and may well be a better option in the long term. Free market would eventually produce some wealthy plantations and you'd have a sizable Anglo population in Cuba.
 

Hashasheen

Banned
Could go either way. The first is possible as it would bring capital to Cuba and start bringing in money and commerce rather quickly.

The latter would solidify Cuba as mentioned, and may well be a better option in the long term. Free market would eventually produce some wealthy plantations and you'd have a sizable Anglo population in Cuba.
More and more I contemplate a Confederate TL.
 
Top