What alliances with what countries could the CSA benefit from economically and domestically?

I mean that's what happened in my timeline, so it could be personal bias. IMO I don't think it would've ended with Balkanization. The Deep South would get thoroughly beaten by the Upper South in the event of civil war.

No, in 1863 he was driven from the Republican capital to Chihuahua, which was near the Texas border.

Of course they'd want to. It'd keep relations with France good, it'd give them access to the Mexican markets, it'd be another ally on the world stage, it could give them access to the Pacific, and be a counterweight to the US.

The CSA Civil war? I can see that changing the CSA, it'd be enough to change the constitution which would allow for certain other things to happen. I'll have to read it. It'd be interesting.
 
That would be hilariously ironic. What about balkinization? Isn't the CSA supposed to be about a state being able to leave the country?



Juarez wasn't almost defeated in 1865 though. Republicans held command of the countryside and even booted out conservatives and their allies from some key cities and held other cities. I have to say, short of a pre-war POD that deals with the Confederacy's inadequate supplies, funds, and manpower, the CSA can't afford to send anything until after the Civil War. That is what Jabe will have to do to make this a reality. But does the CSA really want Mexico as an ally? I mean...Mexico is a hot mess.

Juarez was the glue that held the opposition together, and there were at least three times he very nearly got captured or escaped capture. If any one of those succeeds the whole movement falls apart in infighting and coming to terms with the French.
 
Well if they keep slavery for a long enough time there is possibility of a communist revolution; obviously this would mean abolition of slavery. Which would mean that the USSR could be an ally assuming they still form.
 
Well if they keep slavery for a long enough time there is possibility of a communist revolution; obviously this would mean abolition of slavery. Which would mean that the USSR could be an ally assuming they still form.

Marx would either have a heart attack or role over in his grave. You kind of skipped two phases of economic development/material history there...
 
Turtledove, I assume he means that the African American slaves will revolt and cause a socialist revolution. Now, of course, I don't know how they will get weapons to actually fight a revolution nor gain enough numbers to get them by force, you know with a white population that deeply hates and distrusts them immensely. I mean any revolution would be a failed one and will have difficulty getting off the ground with a people that are intentionally kept illiterate.
 
I can't see there being slave revolt, at least not succesful such. Firstly slaves should get some revolt leaders, weapons and even low level fighting skills. And in CSA it would be nearby impossible. And succesful slave revolts are anyway quiet rare so even if someone slave is able call rebell and rebels get weapons CSA military forces or perhaps even just national guard would crush such quickly.
 
Marx would either have a heart attack or role over in his grave. You kind of skipped two phases of economic development/material history there...

I imagine that he has already rolled over in his grave considering the various socialist revolutions that occured in OTL; looking at you democratic kampuchea. So this would just be another roll in the grave. :coldsweat:

Turtledove, I assume he means that the African American slaves will revolt and cause a socialist revolution. Now, of course, I don't know how they will get weapons to actually fight a revolution nor gain enough numbers to get them by force, you know with a white population that deeply hates and distrusts them immensely. I mean any revolution would be a failed one and will have difficulty getting off the ground with a people that are intentionally kept illiterate.

I imagine that the USA would be happy to fund this socialist revolution, since I don't see them being allies at all but instead bitter rivals. So naturally they would be happy to fund such movements within the country. Mind you I think such an attempt at a revolution would happen in a surviving CSA but its chance of success isn't the greatest; of course stranger things have happened in OTL. :)
 

dcharleos

Donor
I'm not familiar with this TL. Is the CSA constitution the same as OTL constitution? If so, I don't see how the CSA can end slavery given the clauses in the constitution specifically designed to prevent such a scenario.
They amend the Constitution. That's how slavery was abolished IOTL.


The real deal breaker for the UK was slave trade. The tension between Brazil and the UK got real high because of Brazil's continued importation of slaves after the 1820's. The Royal Navy started attacking Brazilian ships over it.

But the international slave trade was illegal in the US since 1808 and also illegal in the CS Constitution.

That made a bit of a difference, but I wouldn't count out a CSA relationship with Europe. But I don't think the CSA can have both the French and the British. That's like having cold war US and USSR as your best ally during the Reagan administration.

I think you have a point there, but you're overstating the rivalry between the UK and France.

The French people, even before a Union victory, were increasingly against the large expense France was undertaking it what was a proto-Vietnam war of sorts. Then the French had to also worry about Otto Van Bismarck and his antics a lot closer to home.

Exactly. That's why they would welcome the help.

Not to mention that Maximilian was a staunch liberal.

Not so liberal that he refused the help of defeated Confederates IOTL.

Not to mention Conservatives were fanatical Catholics. Why would they want to ally with anti-Catholic protestants

The Confederacy wasn't particularly anti-Catholic.


The CSA did not have 450,000 soldiers in 1865.

That was never my position. It was in 1863.

So that means sending precious troops to Mexico.

I don't think its reasonable to think that the Confederates are going to fight Mexico while fighting the US. One war at a time. I was imagining the hostilities between the US and CS ending, and then a demobilizing CS sends an expeditionary force to Mexico.

Personally, I don't think the Confederates can win the war if they barely win. They can't be scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of manpower like they were IOTL. There would be no incentive for the US to quit if victory is clearly within reach. In order for the Confederacy to win, they have to dominate up until the 1864 election, winning clearly, convincingly, and often enough that Democrats kill it in the 1862 elections, and the North becomes increasingly divided and riven by domestic unrest. Maybe the Confederates don't have to run the table, but they need to run a good 80% of the table.

Before anyone says that's unlikely, I'm well aware. It is absolutely possible for the South to have won the Civil War. It is also very unlikely. You play the scenario out 100 times, and the South wins five, ten times. But that also means that an extant Confederacy is not going to be an economic and military basket case. At least not immediately.

Who would supply them? The French?

Again, I'm imaging this happening after the war with the US is over. But yes, partly the French. The French, the Mexicans, themselves. All of the above.

The CSA was also practically broke during the war. Even if the CSA got loans from France, they'd be crushed by the interest rates alone.

There would be no incentive for the CS to assist the French and Mexican Empires for a high-interest loan. The idea is that the CS assistance is mutually beneficial. A low-interest hard money loan to stabilize the currency, loan forgiveness, something like that.

The French don't want to piss away all that blood, treasure, and prestige, so they have to make the deal worthwhile.

Any CSA assistance would have to come after the war.

Absolutely. My bad if I didn't make that understood in the originial post.
 

dcharleos

Donor
That would be hilariously ironic. What about balkinization? Isn't the CSA supposed to be about a state being able to leave the country?

As a matter of fact, that wasn't what the CSA was about. They specifically state in the preamble to the Constitution that the document forms a "permanent federal government."

I know, the irony is strong.
 
Top