TL-191: Rivals - Confederates, Yankees, and the Banana Wars - 1900-1914, 1917-1939
- Thread starter Alterwright
- Start date
I check, and Trinidad and Tobago is the leading Caribbean producer of oil and gas, the world's largest exporter of ammonia and the second largest exporter of methanol.
Yep. First discovered in 1853 it makes up for a good chunk of the islands economy even to today.
Which would make the island highly prized by Confederate, British and Union forces for its strategic and logistical value.
Well! Sounds like Trinidad would be a target for the war machines of the Confederates and the Yankees! Knowing the Confederates and how short of resources they might be, this island might be invaded. That is, if the Confederates can even get its Navy there.
THe Confederates wouldn't be invading Trinidad in the 1900-1914 period. OTL, it was a British colony until 1958, andI think it would remain that way up until at least 1914 ITTL, unless anyone can think of a reason otherwise. Not to mention, Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma would produce far more oil than Trinidad, plenty for the CSA's possible needs, so it would be a pointless endeavour.
In the Interwar period, now, this is something to speculate about. The novels say nothing about the disposition of Britain's other colonies in the Americas, aside from the Bahamas and Bermuda being ceded to the US. This means that we have no information on the status of Jamaica (aside form other speculation about Marcus Garvey establishing a republic there), Trinidad and Tobago, British Honduras, British Guiana, Barbados, and the Leeward and Windward Islands.
In the Interwar period, now, this is something to speculate about. The novels say nothing about the disposition of Britain's other colonies in the Americas, aside from the Bahamas and Bermuda being ceded to the US. This means that we have no information on the status of Jamaica (aside form other speculation about Marcus Garvey establishing a republic there), Trinidad and Tobago, British Honduras, British Guiana, Barbados, and the Leeward and Windward Islands.
My head cannon is that the Union took the more choice British colonies in the Caribbean and latin America following the First Great War. With the rest being set up as classic vassal states to the Union.
One thought is that the Union decided to take a page from the Romans and granted land in newly acquired territories & colonies to veteran soldiers post FGW.
That's actually a pretty good idea. Would go a long way to explaining why Sequoyah voted to remain in the US after Al Smith gave The Snake the plebiscites he wanted. I can also see there being plenty of such land being distributed out in Manitoba and Albert and Saskatchewan.
As regards the British Caribbean colonies, I might suggest Trinidad and Tobago and Barbados being made into American client states as ou said, gaining independence decades ahead of time. Especially since these states with their large populations of free, self-governing blacks would be incredibly galling to the Confederacy.
I suspect that the post-War Caribbean is likely to see almost as much "Shadow Boxing" as Mexico - with the US, the CSA and quite possibly other interested parties scrambling to set up a status quo that suits their own interests (while working to undermine others) in the aftermath of the British withdrawal from the Western Hemisphere and the contraction of that "Golden Circle" the South would doubtless be so eager to establish/maintain.
Most likely through deniable assets, as per the Confederate intervention in Mexico - with the Mexican volunteers doubtless acting as the back door through which assets can be dispatched into other areas of interest (it seems highly likely that South America would see some interest, given that the Latin American nations would appear to have kept fighting the Great War even after the rest of the World stopped to take breather "between rounds" as it were).
Most likely through deniable assets, as per the Confederate intervention in Mexico - with the Mexican volunteers doubtless acting as the back door through which assets can be dispatched into other areas of interest (it seems highly likely that South America would see some interest, given that the Latin American nations would appear to have kept fighting the Great War even after the rest of the World stopped to take breather "between rounds" as it were).
Or, the CSA could just declare the local governing elites to be “Creoles” as a large number of them truly were. The CSA could then deal with them the same way they dealt with the creole Pierre Toussaint Beauregard by making him a CSA general.
In short, any CSA expansion was going to involve elite CSA figures who were willing to dial down the white supremacy side of slavery (even abolitionist countries at the time mixed big doses of white supremacy into their abolition stances) and emphasize the planter culture aspect of slavery in the CSA.
My guess is that a victorious CSA moves to brings Cuba (planter culture, was only very slowly and incrementally freeing slaves by 1860) and Haiti (planter culture, paper emancipation of foreign owned slaves was instantly replaced by mandatory share cropping “contracts” held by local creole elites) into their orbit.
Then factor in that slavery was going to be uneconomical in the CSA by 1880s and would probably replaced by uhmm……. “Perpetual share croppers on long term contracts”. As a result, the CSA planter elite would be on completely common terms with many parts of the Carribean where local creoles ran identical systems during that time.
The CSA might even get really ambitious and support the independence of the Yucatan from Mexico. Spain never considered the Yucatan to be inherently part of Mexico proper and the Yucatan was a MX federal territory until the 1960s. Then factor in that the CSA and local Yucatan elites saw eye to eye regarding the need to preserve what was billed as the God ordained planter culture supported by either slaves (CSA in 1860s) or by "perpetual sharecroppers" (Yucatan 1860s).
In the end the affirmation of the Planter Culture was paramount. Differences in Race, language, religion etc. between CSA elites and locals were not really important to CSA elites (backwoods whites- yes. But... backwoods whites would remain in the backwoods and out of diplomatic missions).
Last edited:
I see the Timeline 191 United States being generally more eager to take those colonies for their own. Especially immediately after the First Great War and the nationalistic high that was running through the country. Plus there'd be a certain level of pleasure at the fact that they were finally able to take territory from their mortal enemies the British.
Cuba may well have enough of a creole-hidalgo element/Independence Movement to support a Confederate takeover (as one way of getting out from under Spain), but there is no way in Earth or Heaven or Hell that the Republic of Haiti - a nation established by a Slave Uprising - is going to do business with the Confederate States or that the Southern Fire-eaters are going to swallow any species of accommodation with Haiti.
Pray pardon my intensity, but the scenario described really would seem to be as unlikely as Spartacus voting for Marcus Licinius Crassus!
In actuality, it was more of a nationalist uprising than a slave uprising.
The same people that led Haiti's slave uprising very quickly established a "perpetual share cropper" system that differed very little from the former slave system. The only difference to the newly emancipated slaves were that they were "free" (well, on paper) and that the new uhmm.... "mandatory share cropping contract holders" were local creoles and not from mainland France. Ironically, the elite locals spoke the same French as the mainlanders, had the same over all planter culture goals as the former mainland French and even resembled them to a pretty good degree.
In short, nobody in the CSA would care what the emancipated / "emancipated" Haitian slaves thought and very few local Haitian elites cared either. Rather, what mattered to both elites was the need to mutually support the planter culture. The authorites in Port au Prince had far more in common with Richmond and especially, New Orleans than they did with the uptight, perpetually meddling Yankees of New York.
Heck, a few, but not many, of the Yankees were even talking about real social equality between land owning elites and the uhmm....."field help". Slave or perpetual share cropper- field help was still field help and desperately needed for "the system" to work. Such talk was about as welcome as a spoiled peach pie in Georgia, or a spoiled French Tarte in Port au Prince.
Last edited:
I have a similar headcanon. While I view the CSA only gaining control of Cuba and maybe a few other minor islands, the rest of the Caribbean is basically owned by either Britain or France. After the First Great War, I lean towards the plausible idea that all British and French colonies in the Western Hemisphere were taken away from Britain and France, most of which became independent decades before they would in OTL. The books only mention the Bahamas becoming U.S. territory but say nothing about the islands southeast of Puerto Rico.
Trinidad and Tobago seem too far for the USA's concerns, but I can imagine they could be part of an earlier "Compact of Free Association", if not independent.
1867 Charles Crawford, CSA Diplomatic Corps proofreads his speech to be given to the Haitian Assembly. He will be accompanied by two French peaking creole planters from Louisiana. The speech is centered on:
- Affirming that the CSA and Haiti (well at least the elites) humbly submit tot he will of God in maintaining the God ordained class structure as expressed through.... the Planter Culture.
- That Both nations have stood against tyranny and won their right to self destiny through arms.
- That both nations face the continued threat posed by meddling trans national "Yankees" who have rejected God's divine social plan. They have no love of the land nor of theuhmm.... "people of the land". Instead the "yankees" promote souless machines operated by wage slaves- yet tell other free people (i.e. planters) how to live.
After the speech, Crawford and the Louisiana creoles propose the details: Haiti and the CSA enter into a mutually beneficial defense and trade Commonwealth. CSA naval units will visit Haiti and a CSA military mission will inform the Haitians about the latest Yankee defeating tactics. Of course, there will be plenty of balls and maybe even a marriage or two.
- Affirming that the CSA and Haiti (well at least the elites) humbly submit tot he will of God in maintaining the God ordained class structure as expressed through.... the Planter Culture.
- That Both nations have stood against tyranny and won their right to self destiny through arms.
- That both nations face the continued threat posed by meddling trans national "Yankees" who have rejected God's divine social plan. They have no love of the land nor of theuhmm.... "people of the land". Instead the "yankees" promote souless machines operated by wage slaves- yet tell other free people (i.e. planters) how to live.
After the speech, Crawford and the Louisiana creoles propose the details: Haiti and the CSA enter into a mutually beneficial defense and trade Commonwealth. CSA naval units will visit Haiti and a CSA military mission will inform the Haitians about the latest Yankee defeating tactics. Of course, there will be plenty of balls and maybe even a marriage or two.
Last edited:
I agree. Britain and France were both rapidly industrializing and had the ability and pre-disposition to aggressively defend even minor imperial holdings- especially from upstarts like the CSA. That would limit CSA "regime changing" to Spanish possessions and perhaps Dutch possessions. But in the days before oil, strong arming the Dutch possessions would be more trouble than they were worth. A CSA attempt to do so would probably lead to Anglo French intervention on the Dutch side under fears of: “Aruba today, maybe Jamaica or Martinique tomorrow- better nip it in the bud”.
That would really just leave Spanish islands for a regime change. As you mentioned, Cuba would be a very desirable addition to the CSA “Planter Commonwealth”. The question would be if the new CSA would risk war with Spain over strong arming Cuba into a “regime ‘n orientation change”. My guess is that the CSA would look for softer targets. Independent Haiti was not backed by a European power and thus subject a CSA “carrot and stick” approach of joining the CSA led Commonwealth.
Other soft targets for the CSA could include Nicaragua, Honduras and maybe…. Yucatan Mexico. Yucatan especially had a planter culture. Nicaragua and Honduras had one only to a smaller degree. But…. with European imperial powers getting centuries of head start, CSA would need to be content with the remainders.
Haiti is out as a Confederate target. In the books, it has been a US backed state since the late nineteenth century due to Confederate designs on it. It is also invaded by the CSA during both Great Wars, further pointing to its being hostile towards the blatantly white supremacist CSA. Yucatan is also highly unlikely, as its part of Mexico, a Confederate ally. Its unlikely to the point of impossibility that Francisco Jose would be supporting the Confederates in the Great War if said Confederates had absconded with another part of his Empire.
On the other hand Confederate support for the Mexican Empire might well be contingent on the Emperors permitting the Confederacy to use their dominions as the strategic highway over which the South might run its efforts to establish something like the fabled "Golden Circle" so earnestly desired by a certain sort of Confederate Megalomaniac; while the South might not be able to establish de jure supremacy in the region, it MIGHT be able to exercise a de facto hegemony over Central America (and to some degree the Caribbean) prior to the First Great War (while working hand in glove with Mexico).
I agree entirely - in fact my suspicion is that Confederate dreams of hegemony in the Caribbean (as opposed to the Gulf of Mexico, which would be sowed up TIGHT through the acquisition of Cuba) is a far from sensible ambition, given their likely dependancy on British support to counterbalance growing Yankee naval supremacy over the Southern Confederacy. Nonetheless it seems very possible that the CSA would make at least some efforts to exert themselves and improve their situation in the region, if only because accepting they cannot wield any authority in their own backyard would be tantamount to quietly accepting status as a second- or third-rate power.