What happens to American Expansion after a CSA victory?

[Johnrankins]

Depends on the victory conditions.

After Atlanta - CSA is lucky if they only lose Tennessee, likely to lose northern Arkansas, northern Virginia, southern Florida, western/northern Texas, and New Orleans as well. Little if any expansion if they survive at all!

True

After Chickamauga - CSA may get OTL Oklahoma in the peace settlement but likely lose parts of TN, maybe northern AR, maybe western TX, maybe northernmost VA. Southernmost FL is up for grabs but may stay Confederate.

Sounds about right, the Union might throw in OK to get a peace settlement if it gets the rest. OK wasn't worth much.

Early 1863 - CSA will still lose parts of Tennessee and any claim to lukewarm Southern states but likely can get OTL Oklahoma and may eye northernmost Mexican provinces, especially as Juarez moves northwest. Cuba is a long-term goal probably as part of a purchase while Dominica may join for assumption of debts with Haiti being conquered. Not too much in the two decades beyond that though.

CSA will try for North Mexico only if they were willing to got to war with France. They weren't and if they were stupid enough to try this ends with the US winning the war quicker as there is no way they can beat the US and France at the same time. Spain will sell Cuba when hell freezes over . Even the CSA wasn't stupid or suicidal enough to want Haiti. They were fully aware what happened during the Haitian Revolution.

After Stones River 1862 - There is still a sizeable Confederate base in southern Kentucky and another in Missouri, one or both gets split and CSA troops still control enough of OTL West Virginia to push for the Ohio River as its boundary (maybe keeping it as a separate state given tension with the Rochmond elite) minus the Harper's Ferry area, the panhandle, and the counties adjacent Maryland with B&O track running through them. OTL Oklahoma is almost certainly in CSA hands at war's end while Arizona (here the southern parts of OTL AZ and NM) may become a CSA territory. Northern Mexico, Cuba, and much of Central America definitely get on the menu though perhaps not for 3-5 years as the nation rebuilds.

Kentucky, mabe but not Missouri. There were too many Unionists in Missouri. WV is gone, the one and only time RE Lee tried to fight in WV he got his butt kicked so bad he never tried again. WV is simply too mountainous for the CSA to take. If by some miracle they take it it stays part of VA. NM and AZ are out. The CSA can't hold them and the US would know it. Central America yes, Cuba and Mexico no. If they try it they get stomped.

Early 1862 pre-Glorieta Pass (or later in early 1862 if this battle's outcome is reversed): CSA retains all of Kentucky or Missouri south of the river of same name and part of the other along with OTL Oklahoma, OTL AZ and NM with eyes on Chihuahua, Sonora, Baja California, Colorado, SoCal, and maybe even the Utah territory. Badly needed gold starts getting into Confederate coffers and expansion, along with industrialization, come shortly after the war ends.

Definitely not, the CSA can't take and hold the American territory and war with Mexico means war with France.

Trent Affair or 1861 in general - as above but likely with mainland Maryland getting a plebiscite as well and a CSA Missouri and Kentucky. Little Egypt/Southern Illinois and southern Indiana *might* get one as well though it is not guaranteed.

CSA Missouri and Kentucky are quite possible but the rest not. The CSA didn't exactly have a surplus of manpower and logistical support.

 

[Fiver]

The south wants Cuba and people in hell want ice water. The Confederate navy needs to beat Spain to get Cuba, and I'm not sure they could even do that. And if they do, I'm sure the Union would be more than happy to intervene and send the Confederates to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.

That's not counting the Cubans, who fought for their independence from 1868-78, 1879-80, and 1895-98. Add in disease and the main thing produced by Confederate attempts to annex Cuba would be dead Confederates.

 

[Fiver]

Didn't the Southerners only want the annexation of Cuba pre-civil war so it could serve as a slave state in congress? With that no longer needed, is annexing a heavily-populated island that doesn't even speak English really worth the effort? Unless you're talking about just influencing Cuba and the Caribbean, which seems like a no-brainer for the CSA.

Free state-slave state balance was one reason the south was expansionistic, not the only reason. Soil exhaustion meant they wanted to lands to grow tobacco and cotton on. And they still believed in Manifest Destiny - even 40 years after the Civil War, a lot of southerners wanted to annex Cuba.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

That's not counting the Cubans, who fought for their independence from 1868-78, 1879-80, and 1895-98. Add in disease and the main thing produced by Confederate attempts to annex Cuba would be dead Confederates.

Not sure why the South would go after Cuba since the whole point was to add electoral votes, now a moot point, but guerrilla warfare relies on being able to hide among the civilian population. Eliminate that (as the South would considering moral bankruptcy on their nation's founding) or control it (as the British did in rthe Boer War), and it's all over for the weaker side. Granted, until WW2 disease greatly outnumbered battlefield casualties even if you count a "John got a minor bullet wound and then it turned into a lethal infection" as battlefield casualty. Dysentary is a bitch

 

[Alternator]

I disagree, the British are likely to eye Michigan and Wisconsin along with northern Minnesota for resources while taking Maine would bring the large fisheries of the Bay of Biscay totally under their control. In addition the acquisition of key chunks of northern New York State could put the largest economic engine of the United States under British threat at their leisure, so that would be a consideration as well.

In any timeline where the British dedicate the entire military might of the British Empire to defeat the United States - and that's what it'd take to win so decisively that actual states are being carved away - then Russia has gone NOM NOM NOM on the Ottomans, would claim central Asia (and panic the British in the process so hard, with the threat of losing India, that the British almost certainly lay off the Americans on the spot), the Prussians can inflict whatever claims they want upon the Austrians (and in a few years, on the French - the British will be in no shape to protest), and the Russian pro-American diplomacy would solidify into an outright alliance: after all, America clearly needs foreign friends, and the Tzar has been friendly in the past.

The prospect of a Russo-American alliance has the British shitting bricks, especially with an ascendant Prussia aligned with Russia.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

There's the problem, the people running the colonies are the belligerent ones. And what they see is an America that was defeated on the battlefield and had its navy swept from the seas. And they're going to say, "Hey Britain, these Yankees aren't so tough. We want our claims back that you gave away because you said it would be too much trouble. It turns out these guys are chumps. God save the Queen."

We could say the same for America. Are people in the Midwest going to care about the northern plains when the CSA is independent right next door? Doubtful.

Canada has only just managed to cobble together a compromise to even make itself A Thing, has its hands more than full of huge swaths of territory empty of loyal locals (But alot of surely natives and Metis) and it's not like the Union got curbstomped; rather, it was doing rather well in a one on one fistfight before getting suckerpunched in the back of the head by the current heavyweight champion of the world. Britain knows the locals aren't in a position to make huge landgrabs stick and the cost of doing so will ultimately have to come at their own expenses and focus of the Empire... right when they thought they were easing up on direct local management by allowing the colonies to Confederate and take on some of the burdan of local self government.

IOTL there was serious talks between Spain and the USA about Cuba being sold off; no reason to assume the CSA wouldn't attempt the same.

I seem to recall the Isabella Regeime responding to those offers that they'd prefer to see Cuba sunk to the bottom of the sea than sell her to the Yanquis. Of course, when that throne falls I suppose Spain might come under pressure from her creditors to find cash, but the Dixon's aren't exactly going to be swimming in free capital for the foreseeable future.

 

[ArchimedesCircle]

I seem to recall the Isabella Regeime responding to those offers that they'd prefer to see Cuba sunk to the bottom of the sea than sell her to the Yanquis. Of course, when that throne falls I suppose Spain might come under pressure from her creditors to find cash, but the Dixon's aren't exactly going to be swimming in free capital for the foreseeable future.

Who might buy it? Maybe the north would, both to spite the confederacy and to get a direct shot at the confederacy's soft underbelly. Or maybe the Cubans will just break free if/when the monarchy ends. In that scenario would they take Puerto Rico with them?

 

[GorillaTheater]

I was thinking about this a while back when some of us were commenting on the fact that you don't see too many confederate flags on pick up trucks around our part of Texas, and are much more likely to see the Lone Star flag. When Texans have a moment of some reactionary yearning, it tends to be for the days when we were independent, not for when we were in the CSA. It made me wonder whether at some point we would have tried to secede from a Confederacy which lasted longer. If we did and were successful, there goes any CSA expansion west of the Sabine.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

Who might buy it? Maybe the north would, both to spite the confederacy and to get a direct shot at the confederacy's soft underbelly. Or maybe the Cubans will just break free if/when the monarchy ends. In that scenario would they take Puerto Rico with them?

I don't think Spain would openly sell, tbh: they'd dump the Philippines well before a colony as white, relatively well controlled, prestigious, and wealthy as Cuba. If it doesn't break away/start hosting a government-im-exile from Spain during the circular firing squad period that is the mid-late 1800's, than I actually expect to see evolutions on the Pact of Zanjon that bring Cuba into a stance similar to Canada. Indeed, the division probably benefits the prospect of long term Spainish hegemony over the island: whichever one of the American states are trying to get it will face protest/opposition by the other, who will prefer the island in the weak, inactive hands of Spain than their enemy.

 

[Johnrankins]

Not sure why the South would go after Cuba since the whole point was to add electoral votes, now a moot point, but guerrilla warfare relies on being able to hide among the civilian population. Eliminate that (as the South would considering moral bankruptcy on their nation's founding) or control it (as the British did in rthe Boer War), and it's all over for the weaker side. Granted, until WW2 disease greatly outnumbered battlefield casualties even if you count a "John got a minor bullet wound and then it turned into a lethal infection" as battlefield casualty. Dysentary is a bitch

Because it would want the land for cotton and tobacco. The problem is that Spain would prevail against any realistic CSA and if they are too busy the US would probably blockade the island while shipping supplies and food to the Cubans. That would score points for the US at a very cheap cost and the CSA could do all of nothing to prevent it.

 

[Bucky]

IOTL there was serious talks between Spain and the USA about Cuba being sold off; no reason to assume the CSA wouldn't attempt the same.

Other than they couldn't afford it. The Confederacy was going to be pathetically cash-strapped. Of course French and Dutch bankers would be happy to loan them the money. But the interest rates would leave them in economic peonage to western Europe. Rather than isolated, my guess is that an independent Confederacy is going to be Europe's bitch by 1900, and begging for Monroe Doctrine protections from Uncle you-know-who.

 

[History Learner]

I seem to recall the Isabella Regeime responding to those offers that they'd prefer to see Cuba sunk to the bottom of the sea than sell her to the Yanquis.

Sure....but that's irrelevant because the Monarchy was long since out of the picture when the talks were being had in 1870.

Of course, when that throne falls I suppose Spain might come under pressure from her creditors to find cash, but the Dixon's aren't exactly going to be swimming in free capital for the foreseeable future.

Other than they couldn't afford it. The Confederacy was going to be pathetically cash-strapped. Of course French and Dutch bankers would be happy to loan them the money. But the interest rates would leave them in economic peonage to western Europe. Rather than isolated, my guess is that an independent Confederacy is going to be Europe's bitch by 1900, and begging for Monroe Doctrine protections from Uncle you-know-who.

The value of the South's slave holdings was equal to the entirety of the North's railroads, factories, etc. A 5% tax was placed upon it in 1864 and they also taxed exports unlike the United States; Pre-War budget of the Union had been about $60 Million, the Confederacy would easily be looking at around a $200 Million budget after the war. Debts were also easily serviceable until about 1864 and even then they Confederacy could handle their debt burden about as well as the U.S. did Post-War given their expanded tax base.

 

[Johnrankins]

Sure....but that's irrelevant because the Monarchy was long since out of the picture when the talks were being had in 1870.





The value of the South's slave holdings was equal to the entirety of the North's railroads, factories, etc. A 5% tax was placed upon it in 1864 and they also taxed exports unlike the United States; Pre-War budget of the Union had been about $60 Million, the Confederacy would easily be looking at around a $200 Million budget after the war. Debts were also easily serviceable until about 1864 and even then they Confederacy could handle their debt burden about as well as the U.S. did Post-War given their expanded tax base.

The problem is they would have no money. The debts were not easily serviceable before 1864, by late 1862 they were in debt to their ears and it just kept getting worse. It is just by 1864 it would have taken divine intervention to pay them off rather than it would take merely completely crushing taxes to pay off.

The real price of slaves fell steadily during the war. No doubt victory would have raised their price again but not nearly to the same level. Almost no one had money to buy them and even in a victory few would. The slaves would be of no value for loans. Neither GB nor France would accept them for collateral and the US would have made any loans to the CSA illegal or highly expensive. Most US wouldn't accept slaves as collateral either even if legal and the CSA banks would be near broke. The cotton and tobacco is already pledged away and so can't be used to secure loans. Basically, even in a fairly early victory the CSA is in a financial hell after the war.

The CSA would have had a greatly shrunken tax base even in a successful war. Its farms , railroads,buildings etc. were raided at a fairly early stage and barring a fairly early victory they won't have parts of TN and VA. They can kiss WV and VA north of the Rappahannock goodbye if the Union decides to fight at all. In short the CSA would be a financial wreck.

 

[Johnrankins]

Other than they couldn't afford it. The Confederacy was going to be pathetically cash-strapped. Of course French and Dutch bankers would be happy to loan them the money. But the interest rates would leave them in economic peonage to western Europe. Rather than isolated, my guess is that an independent Confederacy is going to be Europe's bitch by 1900, and begging for Monroe Doctrine protections from Uncle you-know-who.

I doubt that the French and Dutch would be happy to loan them money, unless the victory is pretty early and the CSA is willing to jack its taxes through the roof to pay off the old debt.

 

[Bucky]

I doubt that the French and Dutch would be happy to loan them money, unless the victory is pretty early and the CSA is willing to jack its taxes through the roof to pay off the old debt.

That's how they got Mexico. West European bankers loved loaning money to export-dependent nations. And the CSA was cotton-rich and dollar-stupid. Cotton was 60-80% of the US's export crop in 1860. And like all American farmers, they were willing to mortgage the farm to leverage more improvement loans, hoping for a big pay-off with next year's crop. Pretty much what the rest of the unindustrialized Americas did in the mid-to-late 1800s.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

That's how they got Mexico. West European bankers loved loaning money to export-dependent nations. And the CSA was cotton-rich and dollar-stupid. Cotton was 60-80% of the US's export crop in 1860. And like all American farmers, they were willing to mortgage the farm to leverage more improvement loans, hoping for a big pay-off with next year's crop. Pretty much what the rest of the unindustrialized Americas did in the mid-to-late 1800s.

... yah, and that's the problem. The forgein credit rating of Southerners are going to be garbage if the peace terms don't recind the repudiation of debts to Northern factors and their unilateral transformation into payments to the treasury in Richmond. And if they do agree to service honor the debts (and probably pay Unionists and the Feds. for confiscated property) you just dumped another burdan on the economy that further sucks out liquidity.

Oh, and you'll be paying in gold backed bills thank you very much. None of this soft cotton money.

 

[History Learner]

The problem is they would have no money. The debts were not easily serviceable before 1864, by late 1862 they were in debt to their ears and it just kept getting worse. It is just by 1864 it would have taken divine intervention to pay them off rather than it would take merely completely crushing taxes to pay off.

I literally just explained how this is not accurate; in 1864 tax collections from the slave head tax were effective in raising over $100 million. Debt was also readily serviceable given the specifics of the debt.

The real price of slaves fell steadily during the war. No doubt victory would have raised their price again but not nearly to the same level. Almost no one had money to buy them and even in a victory few would. The slaves would be of no value for loans. Neither GB nor France would accept them for collateral and the US would have made any loans to the CSA illegal or highly expensive. Most US wouldn't accept slaves as collateral either even if legal and the CSA banks would be near broke. The cotton and tobacco is already pledged away and so can't be used to secure loans. Basically, even in a fairly early victory the CSA is in a financial hell after the war.

An odd claim to make given Anglo-French investments in Brazil continued unimpeded despite the retention of slavery and that the U.S. was doing business with the Confederates even during the war; the Red River campaign was fought entirely to cut down on that largely. I also have no idea what you are talking about with the cotton crop being pledged away.

The CSA would have had a greatly shrunken tax base even in a successful war. Its farms , railroads,buildings etc. were raided at a fairly early stage and barring a fairly early victory they won't have parts of TN and VA. They can kiss WV and VA north of the Rappahannock goodbye if the Union decides to fight at all. In short the CSA would be a financial wreck.

Not at all.

 

[Alternator]

I literally just explained how this is not accurate; in 1864 tax collections from the slave head tax were effective in raising over $100 million. Debt was also readily serviceable given the specifics of the debt.



An odd claim to make given Anglo-French investments in Brazil continued unimpeded despite the retention of slavery and that the U.S. was doing business with the Confederates even during the war; the Red River campaign was fought entirely to cut down on that largely. I also have no idea what you are talking about with the cotton crop being pledged away.



Not at all.

All the worthless paper money in the world doesn't mean jack to foreign creditors, who want something reliable, something backed by gold.

 

[History Learner]

All the worthless paper money in the world doesn't mean jack to foreign creditors, who want something reliable, something backed by gold.

And yet, the Union used the Greenback.

 

[Johnrankins]

I literally just explained how this is not accurate; in 1864 tax collections from the slave head tax were effective in raising over $100 million. Debt was also readily serviceable given the specifics of the debt.

Maybe in your universe but in ours taxes maxed out at 10% of all revenue for the CSA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_war_finance
and raised 8% altogehter https://eh.net/encyclopedia/money-and-finance-in-the-confederate-states-of-america/.

An odd claim to make given Anglo-French investments in Brazil continued unimpeded despite the retention of slavery and that the U.S. was doing business with the Confederates even during the war; the Red River campaign was fought entirely to cut down on that largely. I also have no idea what you are talking about with the cotton crop being pledged away.

Brazil actually had things of value outside of slaves. After even a fairly short civil war the South would not. Brazil had intact railroads, plantations, warehouses etc. while the CSA would have less and less of that over time. To put it bluntly Brazil was not just coming out of a very bloody and destructive civil war while the CSA would be. So Brazil could use other things besides slaves to use as collateral. France and England would not accept slaves as collateral as they didn't consider they weren't property .

As far as the cotton goes that cotton was backing the old debt and you can't pledge the same bail of cotton twice. The bonds outstanding were equal to years of total cotton production by 1864 and months by late 1862 and you can't grab all the cotton from the growers without paying for it and the only thing the CSA had to pay for it was greybacks.