The Confederate Economy

[Faeelin]

Why do most of the C.S.A. win scenerios involve them getting involved in Latin America? Why does it seem necessary for them to do so?

I agree it makes no sense, especially given the probable poor state of the Confederate army.

 

[pisces74]

Why do most of the C.S.A. win scenerios involve them getting involved in Latin America? Why does it seem necessary for them to do so? Wasn't one of the ideas of the Confederacy to "be left alone; live and let live?" The C.S.A. should concentrate on defending the territory that they have and build a strong military not for offensive measures in Latin America but for defensive purposes. They would have bigger fish to fry after the war before needing to worry about Latin America. The only immediate foreign involvement I can see is Mexico - obtaining some land to allow the Confederacy a Pacific port and an ocean-to-ocean railroad. And this can be done thorough negotiation, and not military conquest.

1) Most of the confederate gentry fought in the Mexican war, Texas wanted more of Mexico but didn't recieve it. It is not outside the realm of possibility to see and second Mexican war This time with the CSA.

2) union Secretary of state Seward preposed a war with Spain over Cuba to keep the Confederacy in the Union, If the US kept telegraphing a move on Cuba the CS would probably invade just to keep it from going freesoil. Also it would make sense for the CS to do everything possible to make the Carribean a confederate lake.

3) William Walker became President of Nicaruaga through filibustering, it is not outside the realm of possibility That other confederate filibusters would attempt to create bannana republics and petition to join the CSA.

4) War with latin republics give an excuse for the nesscessary military build up needed to compete with the U.S.

 

[Faeelin]

3) William Walker became President of Nicaruaga through filibustering, it is not outside the realm of possibility That other confederate filibusters would attempt to create bannana republics and petition to join the CSA.

4) War with latin republics give an excuse for the nesscessary military build up needed to compete with the U.S.

So, a rapaciously aggressive nation that's going to war merely to test its military muscle, with an elite that doesn't respect the constitutions of other nations (and, eventually, its own?)

Hail Generalissimo Forrest!

 

[BrianP]

1) Most of the confederate gentry fought in the Mexican war, Texas wanted more of Mexico but didn't recieve it. It is not outside the realm of possibility to see and second Mexican war This time with the CSA.

2) union Secretary of state Seward preposed a war with Spain over Cuba to keep the Confederacy in the Union, If the US kept telegraphing a move on Cuba the CS would probably invade just to keep it from going freesoil. Also it would make sense for the CS to do everything possible to make the Carribean a confederate lake.

3) William Walker became President of Nicaruaga through filibustering, it is not outside the realm of possibility That other confederate filibusters would attempt to create bannana republics and petition to join the CSA.

4) War with latin republics give an excuse for the nesscessary military build up needed to compete with the U.S.

Point 1 - It is most likely that the Confederacy would not have the means to begin waging war with Mexico until the 1880's, so we are talking 35-40 years passing after the Mexican-American War. Would Texas be over getting more territory by this time? Also, would the Confederacy want Texas to get bigger?

Point 2 - I haven't heard that before so I cannot really comment on it.

Point 3 - I don't know much about this either so I'll leave it be.

Point 4 - Wouldn't the constant threat from the United States be enough justification?

EDIT: I just read some stuff about William Walker...very interesting...

 

[AuroraBorealis]

Why do most of the C.S.A. win scenerios involve them getting involved in Latin America? Why does it seem necessary for them to do so? Wasn't one of the ideas of the Confederacy to "be left alone; live and let live?" The C.S.A. should concentrate on defending the territory that they have and build a strong military not for offensive measures in Latin America but for defensive purposes. They would have bigger fish to fry after the war before needing to worry about Latin America. The only immediate foreign involvement I can see is Mexico - obtaining some land to allow the Confederacy a Pacific port and an ocean-to-ocean railroad. And this can be done thorough negotiation, and not military conquest.

I'd agree that there are far too many TL that concentrate on a CSA swallows Mexico...then Central America/Cuba scenario. This is not likely unless France withdraws from Mexico, and then its an iffy proposition. The likely scenario is as proposed the purchase of Mexico's NW from Maximilian. It creates an ally in Mexico and not a subject population. France will be able to continue to prop up Maxy with CSA assistance. With the Brits assisting the CSA and France mexico there is not a lot that the Union could do....You could still get filibusters in Nicaragua though but I don't think that it would spread beyond that Unless there was Anglo-French assistance...and I don't think that would be forthcoming. They would want to advance there own agenda's there instead. Purchasing Cuba though may be a given though to avoid a war that the US can intervene in. Unless Imp. Japan attacks Spain in the Pacific first of course.

I am not even sure they would go to war a la Turtledove when the sale occurred if they were opposed by such a combination of forces. If so it would probably be very short.

 

[BrianP]

3) William Walker became President of Nicaruaga through filibustering, it is not outside the realm of possibility That other confederate filibusters would attempt to create bannana republics and petition to join the CSA.

I still don't see a reason why they would want a bunch of bannana republics joining the C.S.A. I still think it would take the Confederacy a very long time to build up a military and economy large enough to both march on Latin America and keeping it honest and defend the long U.S./C.S. border. Besides, they won the war and can keep slavery as long as they see fit. So why the need to expand it elsewhere?

I can perhaps see in later years, by the time of OTL Spanish-American War, of the Confederacy wanting to control the Caribbean, but just barely. I think they would be happy just maining an even keel with the U.S. in economic and political influence in the region; perhaps a bit more than an even keel. Perhaps there could be a Spanish/Confederate alliance in 1898? The C.S. wants Spain to keep control of Cuba to maintain the status quo and the U.S. wants it independent (so it can influence - and perhaps control it)?

 

[Faeelin]

This is not likely unless France withdraws from Mexico, and then its an iffy proposition.

You know, I wonder what'll happen in 1870, if the French are still in Mexico.

 

[Faeelin]

Idle thought: The US takes Santo Domingo in this TL, to spite the Confederacy and gain a naval base in the Caribbean.

 

[Straha]

Idle thought: The US takes Santo Domingo in this TL, to spite the Confederacy and gain a naval base in the Caribbean.

That's a very plausible suggestion. I have it happening in my CSA TL... Haiti also eventually joins the US too.

 

[pisces74]

Walker isn't half the character SoS Seward was, to this day there is a debate on whether he was geniuinely trying to help Lincoln, or make him catastrophically screw up.

I don't see how the CSA couldn't develop a siege mentality, and while I don't see the CSA becoming facist per se' I could easily see them pioneering a fascist economic policy.

 

[Hierophant]

Here our some thoughts.

1. Beleive do to the very looseness of the Confederate Constituition that it is inevitable that without radical changes it seize to be anything more than a customs union/defense pact, and possibly disentegrate. The fall of the Cotton King had begun at the start of the war and there is no real reason for it to stop. The British are not going to stifle the rise of cotton production in India and Egypt (which is directly to there own benifit) so that a bunch of slaveholders can continue there ways. The French and the rest of Europe might be a little more open to buying from some one else then the British, but as the US and British Empire were the two single largest consumers of Cotton at the time, I doubt the almost total removal of the South's two biggest markets is going to be something they can recover from.

2. As to Confederate expansion into Latin America and the Caribbean. There won't be. Firstly they are not going to have the money and secondly it would take the combined forces of several states, most likely all, to be able to seize a country and hold it. I think also in this situation you could see the US and British Empire's pulling together in this one, to enforce the Monroe Doctrine. In this scenario its possible that by present day country's like Mexico could have a higher standard of living then the majority of the South.

 

[philjd]

Interesting..as all the Confederates win scenario's are.

Cotton market with the US..... once the dust settles, there is no reason why the North will not buy the South's cotton.. it has to be cheaper than shipping it half way round the world.... Fair enough a smaller 'quality' market for the better Egyptian cotton... BTW did you know that the best (quality) cotton in the world comes from Antigua?

'Foreign adventures' - the British will have to walk a very fine line, probably backing the North more on balance as the Canadian border is somewhat long and its also in Britains interest to 'restrain' interventions in any of the other countries in the America's.

Southern infrastructure:- it is a possibility that, like Argentina and much of South America, that not only does Britain lend the money to invest in railroads etc, but also supplies the hardware too (rails etc). There was a reason why the US introduced its horrendously high tariffs, especially on metal goods....

Southern Domestics.... they are going to have major stability problems a la Russia, Caribbean and South America if they retain slavery....

Panama Canal - it will probably be Britain or France who builds it in this TL, with major knock on effects for the Navies of the South and North.

regards
Phil

 

[robertp6165]

Here our some thoughts.

1. Beleive do to the very looseness of the Confederate Constituition that it is inevitable that without radical changes it seize to be anything more than a customs union/defense pact, and possibly disentegrate.

The Confederate Constitution was a virtual carbon copy of the U.S. Constitution, but it included better mechanisms for defusing conflicts between the States. Given that the U.S. was able to get along for 85 years without disintegrating under what was arguably an inferior document, there is no reason to assume the Confederacy would have fallen apart within a short time.

The fall of the Cotton King had begun at the start of the war and there is no real reason for it to stop. The British are not going to stifle the rise of cotton production in India and Egypt (which is directly to there own benifit) so that a bunch of slaveholders can continue there ways. The French and the rest of Europe might be a little more open to buying from some one else then the British, but as the US and British Empire were the two single largest consumers of Cotton at the time, I doubt the almost total removal of the South's two biggest markets is going to be something they can recover from.

Even with the destruction and disruption wrought by the war and the transition from slave labor to free labor, Southern cotton continued to dominate world markets in OTL right up until the arrival of the boll weevil. Competition from Egypt and India barely dented sales, and Britain remained the number one market for Southern cotton. There is no good reason why that would suddenly be changed because the Confederacy was independent. There is also certainly no reason for Yankee factory owners to boycott cotton grown next door in order to import more expensive cotton from overseas.

 

[Faeelin]

The Confederate Constitution was a virtual carbon copy of the U.S. Constitution, but it included better mechanisms for defusing conflicts between the States. Given that the U.S. was able to get along for 85 years without disintegrating under what was arguably an inferior document, there is no reason to assume the Confederacy would have fallen apart within a short time.

The US constitution didn't forbid the establishment of free states, or protective tariffs, or internal improvements. Carbon copy is a bit much.

Even with the destruction and disruption wrought by the war and the transition from slave labor to free labor, Southern cotton continued to dominate world markets in OTL right up until the arrival of the boll weevil.

Sure; but the price of cotton would decilne, even faster than in OTL.

 

[robertp6165]

The US constitution didn't forbid the establishment of free states, or protective tariffs, or internal improvements. Carbon copy is a bit much.

Actually, the Confederate Constitution didn't forbid the establishment of free states. As for your other points, I didn't say that the Confederate Constitution was a carbon copy of the U.S. Constitution. I said it was a VIRTUAL carbon copy. Yes, differences did exist between the two documents, but well over 95% of the text of the Confederate Constitution was copied directly from the U.S. Constitution. And none of the differences you cite would be likely to lead to a breakup of the Confederacy...quite the opposite, in fact, because they would tend to reduce conflict between the States.

Sure; but the price of cotton would decilne, even faster than in OTL.

That's somewhat questionable, given that it was rapidly increasing cotton production in the South during the 1890s which, in OTL, was the biggest factor behind the decline in cotton prices and the collapse of the cotton market. Assuming the rapid growth in production still occurred in an ATL independent Confederacy, you might be right. But this might not have been the case. If you are right, slavery will be abolished just that much sooner...

 

[Faeelin]

Actually, the Confederate Constitution didn't forbid the establishment of free states.

For all intents and purposes, it did.

"Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired. "

"(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due. "

So, in other words, a state cannot declare that a slaveowner cannot bring slvaes with him, if he travelled into another state. How could you possibly ban slavery?



Though I do get a kick out of the fact that the South's constitution declared that "(3) The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. "

There's an irony in a state founded on secession immediately discussing what to do in the event of, err, secession.

That's somewhat questionable, given that it was rapidly increasing cotton production in the South during the 1890s which, in OTL, was the biggest factor behind the decline in cotton prices and the collapse of the cotton market.

First you claim that the south would produce more cotton, in an ATL where the South wasn't as damaged. Now you claim that it is a questionable claim to say that the south would produce more cotton, and thus drive down the price. Which is it?

If you are right, slavery will be abolished just that much sooner...

Or, of course, you use the slaves for other tasks.

Also, this doesn't really make business sense. It'd cost more to actually pay the slaves, rather than making them grow their own food on the side.

 

[pisces74]

or have king cotton transform to king corn, or other foodstuff, which was already being discussed in the 1860s.

Then initiate a slave buy back program. give free slaves 40 acres and a mule almost guaranteeing the production of foodstuffs, then charge tax on the land. carrot meets stick.

 

[Jared]

or have king cotton transform to king corn, or other foodstuff, which was already being discussed in the 1860s.

Except that corn returned no profit to speak of, if used with slaves. In terms of return on investment, sugar offered the best returns of all, but was only practical in limited areas of the mainland United States (mostly the southern extremities of Louisiana and Mississippi, and parts of Florida). Cotton was the next-most profitable choice, and could be grown over a wide range of areas. Failing that, tobacco and wheat would be the major agricultural choices, but slaves would again become economically viable in industry before then...

Then initiate a slave buy back program.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Confederate Constitution:

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

Good luck getting a constitutional amendment passed or a Confederate Supreme Court which won't strike down a compulsory buy-back program. At least for a very long time.

Not to mention that the price of a buyback will be prohibitive for quite a while.

give free slaves 40 acres and a mule almost guaranteeing the production of foodstuffs, then charge tax on the land. carrot meets stick.

I'd love to know how this would be funded, particularly where this land is coming from and who's paying for it. A tax on the land isn't going to cover the costs for a long number of years, and that's just for starters.

Personally, I think that the best chance is with a free-birth law. A law which rules that all current slaves will remain as such for life, but that children of slaves will be free on the twenty-first birthday, would have the best chance of making it past a sympathetic Supreme Court.

 

[David S Poepoe]

For all intents and purposes, it did.

"Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired. "

"(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due. "

So, in other words, a state cannot declare that a slaveowner cannot bring slvaes with him, if he travelled into another state. How could you possibly ban slavery?

A state may legislate the emancipation for all its resident slaves, by whatever means it deems legal. However, it may not emancipation those passing thru or not residing within. State 'A' could pass a law, or amend its constitution, emancipating all slaves residing within its borders on January 1, 1880 (for example). Its possible that many slaveowners will just remove their slaves temporarily from the state, but the state legislature may figure out some way around that. It would be that any slaves entering the State 'A' after January 1, 1880 would remain slaves. Property will not be unfairly taken from its owner. There one would have a free state, but one where the laws of property ownership are defended.