What happens to American Expansion after a CSA victory?

[History Learner]

How does the South prevent itself from being very badly devastated by war? It had a 1/3 of the population of the North, 1/10 of industrial production of the North and around 1/2(slaves +Unionists) against it. So how exactly are they going to prevent coming out of it a wreck , win or lose?

By winning the war early enough to prevent it from being fought in the Confederate heartland. "I don't like Richmond" =/= "The fields have been salted, the farms burned, the factories destroyed and I'm pretty sure someone shot our dog for good measure"

If they try to expand into Mexico they get stomped. The French were forced to leave, it would go no better for the Confederates. If it goes bad enough say hello to the Great Revanchivist War which the US will win.

The French were not forced to leave, they abandoned the project because of Prussia arising as a major power on their immediate border as well as more pressing colonial requirements closer to home. Prior to this, they were holding Mexico down with about 50,000 troops.

Spain was not willing to sell Cuba to the US , it would be no more willing to sell to the CSA.

Actually Spain was willing to sell Cuba and there was talks to this effect in 1870. I'm also not sure why Spain would be less willing to deal with the CSA than the USA; you can't claim slavery because the Spanish were still allowing slavery in Cuba. Matter of fact, that's a bonus to the CSA for purchase because a sell to the Confederates would be more in line with the interests of the colonial elite since it would entail the least disruption.

The US was offering real currency while the CSA had nothing but greybacks.

Said Graybacks were backed by cotton, and the bonds for such were eagerly sought by foreign investors.

The US expanded little after the ACW. Outside of Alaska and some Pacific Islands there wasn't much else. Alaska is huge but it is mostly wasteland and even more so in the 19th century.

Uh, what? Puerto Rico, many isles in the Pacific, Alaska, Hawaii, the Philippines and various attempts on Cuba and Central America. There was also, you know, the whole effort to annex Canada from 1866 to about the start of World War I. You also had Senators and businessmen advocating for the annexation of vast sums of Mexican territory, up to the entirety of it, to 1919 and during WWII there was some scattered talk of annexing Japan as repayment for Pearl Harbor. H.L. Mencken was writing columns about annexing Canada and Australia in 1931 if the U.S. had joined the Central Powers.

Quite frankly to say the U.S. didn't expand a lot after the Civil War, both in actuality and desire to do so, is to ignore all of American history from 1865 to around 1945.

 

[Johnrankins]

By winning the war early enough to prevent it from being fought in the Confederate heartland. "I don't like Richmond" =/= "The fields have been salted, the farms burned, the factories destroyed and I'm pretty sure someone shot our dog for good measure"



The French were not forced to leave, they abandoned the project because of Prussia arising as a major power on their immediate border as well as more pressing colonial requirements closer to home. Prior to this, they were holding Mexico down with about 50,000 troops.



Actually Spain was willing to sell Cuba and there was talks to this effect in 1870. I'm also not sure why Spain would be less willing to deal with the CSA than the USA; you can't claim slavery because the Spanish were still allowing slavery in Cuba. Matter of fact, that's a bonus to the CSA for purchase because a sell to the Confederates would be more in line with the interests of the colonial elite since it would entail the least disruption.



Said Graybacks were backed by cotton, and the bonds for such were eagerly sought by foreign investors.



Uh, what? Puerto Rico, many isles in the Pacific, Alaska, Hawaii, the Philippines and various attempts on Cuba and Central America. There was also, you know, the whole effort to annex Canada from 1866 to about the start of World War I. You also had Senators and businessmen advocating for the annexation of vast sums of Mexican territory, up to the entirety of it, to 1919 and during WWII there was some scattered talk of annexing Japan as repayment for Pearl Harbor. H.L. Mencken was writing columns about annexing Canada and Australia in 1931 if the U.S. had joined the Central Powers.

Quite frankly to say the U.S. didn't expand a lot after the Civil War, both in actuality and desire to do so, is to ignore all of American history from 1865 to around 1945.

A bunch of small islands and some failed filibustering and a bunch of loose talk doesn't add up to major expansion to me, You could count the Philippines as significant but we didn't hold them very long. All the major long time expansion was already done. By the Civil War the US already had the lower 48 , it just had to be cut into states from territories and that is the area we REALLY wanted.

As far as the cotton backing the greybacks, that was already gone. The South simply didn't have enough cotton to back up their greybacks. The South does not grow infinite cotton after all. Once people found that out said greybacks would be worth even less than they already were.

 

[History Learner]

A bunch of small islands and some failed filibustering and a bunch of loose talk doesn't add up to major expansion to me, You could count the Philippines as significant but we didn't hold them very long. All the major long time expansion was already done. By the Civil War the US already had the lower 48 , it just had to be cut into states from territories and that is the area we REALLY wanted.

To classify the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, concessions in China, trust territories in the Pacific, the Virgin Islands and the Panama Canal as "nominal" expansion is without merit. To also claim we already had what we "wanted" is also irrelevant to that classification as well as demonstrable false; see the U.S. Congress having an entire act in 1866 to annex Canada in its entirety.

As far as the cotton backing the greybacks, that was already gone. The South simply didn't have enough cotton to back up their greybacks. The South does not grow infinite cotton after all. Once people found that out said greybacks would be worth even less than they already were.

This is false, with the foremost reasoning being that in 1861 till about early 1863 the Confederacy hadn't even put out those bonds. Within the remainder of 1863 and 1864 the Confederacy had years of production stored and was, indeed, continuously growing Cotton; examination of Confederate exchange rates also put paid to these claims.

 

[Old1812]

I'm not sure, but the United States could start touting itself as "the White Man's Land," as opposed to "those lazy Confederates who spend half their time bedding their slaves."

 

[fyrdhammer]

Wholly aside from the issue of whether the CSA could actually take Cuba, it's quite possible that the pressure on the south to expand and create new states is obviated by there no longer being a need to stack the senate with proslavery senators. You might see some Texas style filibusters and knights of the golden circle firebrands nevertheless, but one wonders if the relative expense of a war of conquest and the political incentives being much less tends to militate towards a CSA that stays home.

 

[Johnrankins]

To classify the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, concessions in China, trust territories in the Pacific, the Virgin Islands and the Panama Canal as "nominal" expansion is without merit. To also claim we already had what we "wanted" is also irrelevant to that classification as well as demonstrable false; see the U.S. Congress passing an entire act in 1866 to annex Canada in its entirety.



This is false, with the foremost reasoning being that in 1861 till about early 1863 the Confederacy hadn't even put out those bonds. Within the remainder of 1863 and 1864 the Confederacy had years of production stored and was, indeed, continuously growing Cotton; examination of Confederate exchange rates also put paid to these claims.

I didn't say "nominal" more "minor". The Philippines didn't last long, PR and Guam and Hawaii and the rest of the islands are of some value but would have been given up quite readily to retain the mainland US,Alaska is a frozen wilderness which even today is almost empty. US Congress may have passed a law but the US wasn't willing to risk the life of a single US soldier to get it. A serious try for Canada would have involved at least starting to march troops towards Toronto and Quebec. If we had actually invaded Canada and then lost I would agree with you but we didn't. Without marching troops north it wasn't even a serious attempt.

 

[Jurgen Wullenwever]

To also claim we already had what we "wanted" is also irrelevant to that classification as well as demonstrable false; see the U.S. Congress passing an entire act in 1866 to annex Canada in its entirety.

The Annexation Bill of 1866 was a bill introduced on July 2, 1866, but never passed in the United States House of Representatives. It called for the annexation of British North America and the admission of its provinces as states and territories in the Union. The bill was sent to committee but never came back, was never voted upon, and did not become law. The bill never came to the United States Senate.

This sounds as if it was never seriously considered.

 

[Johnrankins]

The CSA was also over $1billion in debt. Today that is no big deal but back then? I don't know if there was enough gold or cotton in the South to pay it off. The debt was literally 10X tax revenue.

 

[History Learner]

I didn't say "nominal" more "minor". The Philippines didn't last long, PR and Guam and Hawaii and the rest of the islands are of some value but would have been given up quite readily to retain the mainland US,Alaska is a frozen wilderness which even today is almost empty. US Congress may have passed a law but the US wasn't willing to risk the life of a single US soldier to get it. A serious try for Canada would have involved at least starting to march troops towards Toronto and Quebec. If we had actually invaded Canada and then lost I would agree with you but we didn't. Without marching troops north it wasn't even a serious attempt.

Nominal and minor effectively mean the same thing, but the wording is not relevant. The original point you made was the U.S. didn't really expand after the American Civil War and that it didn't want to; the length of time the Philippines was held, whether troops were used to take Alaska, etc is goal shifting from that baseline.

This sounds as if it was never seriously considered.

The Bill itself, no. The desire to annex Canada yes, and Seward attempted to do just that during the Alabama Claims.

 

[Jurgen Wullenwever]

The Bill itself, no. The desire to annex Canada yes, and Seward attempted to do just that during the Alabama Claims.

How much presumed support was there in Senate and House for taking Canada?

 

[History Learner]

How much presumed support was there in Senate and House for taking Canada?

The general idea was supported, although not in the form the Bill proposed. During the Alabama Claims, however, the Senate Foreign Relations committee advocated for the ceding of Canada as one of the possible manners of payment while London and Seward were focusing in on British Columbia.

 

[Johnrankins]

Sounds more like a negotiating tactic. A serious plan would have at least made it out of committee.

 

[Johnrankins]

Nominal and minor effectively mean the same thing, but the wording is not relevant. The original point you made was the U.S. didn't really expand after the American Civil War and that it didn't want to; the length of time the Philippines was held, whether troops were used to take Alaska, etc is goal shifting from that baseline.



The Bill itself, no. The desire to annex Canada yes, and Seward attempted to do just that during the Alabama Claims.

The point is the Philippines weren't as vital as say Nebraska or even Wyoming. The lower 48 were considered vital , the rest was expendable.

 

[History Learner]

The point is the Philippines weren't as vital as say Nebraska or even Wyoming. The lower 48 were considered vital , the rest was expendable.

That's still a deviation from what you were originally arguing, however.

 

[Fiver]

Mid-1862 was an interesting time for the CSA prospects, but she still had a claim to Arizona as well as peninsular Virginia and could still push for a plebiscite in Maryland (both mainland and peninsular) at any potential peace conference.

Plebiscites are popular in CSA victory scenarios, but after Bleeding Kansas, no sane Union politician is going to accept them. The Confederates would be wise to be avoid mentioning plebiscites as well, considering their general failure to hold plebiscites over secession from the Union. The Confederate position in mid-1862 is better than it would be later, but you provide no reason why the war would end that early. You also neglect to mention that the Union already held New Orleans, major portions of Arkansas and Tennessee. and significant parts of coastal Virginia and North Carolina.

I think Spain would be pragmatic enough to potentially sell a (rebellious) Cuba to the (perhaps very friendly) CSA to spite Washington and get out at a profit if no other choice remained.

In actual history, Spain spent decades fighting rebels in Cuba and refusing all foreign offers to buy it. You have provided no reasons for Spain to radically shift its views nor any real reason why Spain would be friendly with the CSA. If they did sell Cuba to the CSA, the Confederacy would inherit the decades of rebellion by the Cubans while finding yellow fever to be an even greater enemy.

Early 1862 has Sibley holding the southern parts of Arizona and New Mexico from roughly the Havasu Dam on the California border all the way back to Texas. At one brief time they even controlled New Mexico with a presence in southernmost Colorado, Sibley himself wrote of potential thrusts into SoCal, Colorado, etc.

The Confederacy lacked the troops and logistics to invade California. Their invasion of Arizona was the Confederacy's most successful attempt to take and hold Union territory, but it failed after only a couple months.

And prior to 5 March 1862 the French had not yet intervened in Mexico so directly as to put troops on the ground as much as agreed to do so via the Convention of London. A successful Confederacy might be able to diplomatically play Spain, the UK, and France off of each other to her benefit, especially if Juarez still retreats to northwestern Mexico with the rest of the country in Maximilian in charge of the rest of Mexico

So which Confederate politician do you see in the role of diplomatic genius on a level that makes Talleyrand, Metternich, and Bismark look like bumbling fools in comparison? In actual history, Confederate diplomats were at best mediocre.

A CSA in any position to do so will probably try to satellite or annex parts of Central America if only to prevent others from doing so.

The Confederacy might try, but to seize any of Central America they're going to need a real navy, as well as better logistics and offensive generalship than they ever manged in OTL. There's also the need of actually beating the locals and avoiding interference from the Union, Britain, Mexico, Spain, and possibly France.

Without Glorieta Pass there is still the band of troops under Sibley mobile and very much present in Confederate Arizona ar war's end.

Without Glorietta Pass, Sibley is still at the end of an extended supply line, his Union opponents haven't magically disappeared, and the Union California Column, which outnumbers Sibley, is still going to arrive in the near future. At best, Sibley might hold for another couple months, not for several years.

 

[Fiver]

I'm definitely assuming that a victorious South gets control of New Orleans (and Vicksburg and Natchez and Memphis) again. This is not an endorsement not of Southron jingoism so much as Northern exhaustion. Occupation might be leveraged for better peace terms, but there just wouldn't be an appetite for sustaining an open-ended hostile occupation after the surrender of the Army of the Potomac to the Graycoats.

How does the Confederacy force the surrender of the Army of the Potomac? Where do they find a general who can accomplish things that make Robert E Lee look like Gideon Pillow?

There would be, guaranteed, a lingering military hostility on both sides. But there would also be level headed politicians pushing for a sustainable peace because of all the profits that amicable trade could provide.

If the Confederacy was full of "level headed politicians pushing for a sustainable peace because of all the profits that amicable trade could provide". there never would have been a Confederacy in the first place.

 

[Fiver]

And this refutes what I said how? The value of property holdings in the slave system in 1860 was $3 Billion; at 5% alone on that, it amounts to $150 Million.

That's counting all slaves, including those in states that never left the Union and those who fled the Confederacy during the war. And continues to ignore that the same tax rates tolerated during the war would not be tolerated in peace.

And the Confederate had years of cotton stored up; see the Red River Campaign for example. Do you have a source that claims said loans were supposed to be paid back in less than two years? Doesn't match with most of what I've seen.

You seem to have switched topics from the Confederate greybacks to the Confederate cotton bonds. The Wikipedia article on the Confederate dollar, the "greyback", shows that the 3rd, 5th, 6th, and 7th series of greybacks were redeemable with interest between 6 months and 2 years after a peace treaty was signed. Combined that's roughly $400,000 in hard currency that the Confederacy is going to have to scrape up from nowhere or default on.

As to the Confederate cotton bonds, individual Confederates owned cotton, but most of them did not have years of cotton stored up, otherwise there would have been a glut on the market at the end of the Civil War. A lot less cotton was grown during the war due to the need for food crops as well as major portions of the Confederate labor force fleeing to the Union or engaging in work slowdowns. Additionally, much of the store cotton was destroyed to keep it out of Union hands. Most importantly, the Confederate government did not own this cotton, they would have to obtain it by taxing their people.

Your own chart shows inflation went from 700% to 50% as a result of the Currency Reform.

A 50% inflation rate is still ruinous, plus reducing the rate did not eliminate the economic damage already done by the earlier 700% inflation. Your own chart shows that after the Currency Reform, about 15 Confederate paper dollars were worth 1 dollar in hard currency.

 

[Fiver]

By winning the war early enough to prevent it from being fought in the Confederate heartland. "I don't like Richmond" =/= "The fields have been salted, the farms burned, the factories destroyed and I'm pretty sure someone shot our dog for good measure"

The Confederacy was suffering Bread Riots in spring of 1863, long before war reached the Confederate heartland. It got worse later, but only 2 years into the war many Confederates had been impoverished by inflation, their infrastructure was failing due to being overburdened by the war, many of their work force had run away, and the Confederate government had accumulated massive debts.

There's also the question of how does the Confederacy win the war that early? Where do they find a general so skilled he makes Robert E Lee looking like a bumbling incompetent?

Actually Spain was willing to sell Cuba and there was talks to this effect in 1870.

Interesting. What is your source for this?

Uh, what? Puerto Rico, many isles in the Pacific, Alaska, Hawaii, the Philippines and various attempts on Cuba and Central America. There was also, you know, the whole effort to annex Canada from 1866 to about the start of World War I. You also had Senators and businessmen advocating for the annexation of vast sums of Mexican territory, up to the entirety of it, to 1919 and during WWII there was some scattered talk of annexing Japan as repayment for Pearl Harbor.

Feel free to provide any evidence of the US attempting to annex Cuba, Central America, or Canada after the US Civil War.

H.L. Mencken was writing columns about annexing Canada and Australia in 1931 if the U.S. had joined the Central Powers.

So Menken wrote a speculative article on what might have happened if the US had joined the Central Powers in WWI? I'd be interested in reading it.

 

[History Learner]

That's counting all slaves, including those in states that never left the Union and those who fled the Confederacy during the war.

There was 429,000 slaves in the border states and 500,000 fled during the entirety of the Civil War, most in 1864-1865 from what I can gather. That leaves over 3,000,000 in the Confederacy, with an average price in 1860 of $800 that's still $2.4 Billion. The earlier the victory, the fewer runaways as well.

And continues to ignore that the same tax rates tolerated during the war would not be tolerated in peace.

Just like taxes decreased over the 20th Century in America? America in the Cold War is a useful example to compare to a victorious Confederacy.

You seem to have switched topics from the Confederate greybacks to the Confederate cotton bonds. The Wikipedia article on the Confederate dollar, the "greyback", shows that the 3rd, 5th, 6th, and 7th series of greybacks were redeemable with interest between 6 months and 2 years after a peace treaty was signed. Combined that's roughly $400,000 in hard currency that the Confederacy is going to have to scrape up from nowhere or default on.

It was unclear as to what you were speaking of. Confederation taxation on cotton exports alone was able to bring in around $4 Million in 1861 despite the blockade.

As to the Confederate cotton bonds, individual Confederates owned cotton, but most of them did not have years of cotton stored up, otherwise there would have been a glut on the market at the end of the Civil War. A lot less cotton was grown during the war due to the need for food crops as well as major portions of the Confederate labor force fleeing to the Union or engaging in work slowdowns. Additionally, much of the store cotton was destroyed to keep it out of Union hands. Most importantly, the Confederate government did not own this cotton, they would have to obtain it by taxing their people.

You've answered your own question here; the reason there wasn't a glut is because it was destroyed over the course of the war and a looking at cotton prices shows this was being reflected in the prices. We're also not talking about individual Confederates, we're talking about the Confederate government which did have control over massive amounts of cotton. Hence, why I said the Red River campaign.

A 50% inflation rate is still ruinous, plus reducing the rate did not eliminate the economic damage already done by the earlier 700% inflation. Your own chart shows that after the Currency Reform, about 15 Confederate paper dollars were worth 1 dollar in hard currency.

Which is a goal post shift on your part because whether or not the 50% rate is ruinous is a different issue from the earlier claim about the Confederacy being unable to restore the situation. Matter of fact, that proves how easily they could fix it; they passed the Currency Reform in early 1864 and then on until September of 1864, despite Lee being forced into Richmond and the Sherman advancing on Atlanta, the inflation rate fell from 700% to just 50% and was still falling until Atlanta fell. The reason it quit decreasing is obvious: the war had turned decisively against the Confederacy.

The Currency Reform Act shows that, had the Confederacy won, it could've easily fixed this crisis. This also ignores that inflation only began to become an extremely serious issue going into 1863, meaning an earlier victory would see the situation largely fix itself in the event of peace.

The Confederacy was suffering Bread Riots in spring of 1863, long before war reached the Confederate heartland.

Which again does not suggest immense damage had been done to the economic underpinnings of the Confederacy. Indeed, why bread riots existed is quite easily explained when one knows that Pre-War Confederate society was largely agrarian and the Confederate Army was largely farmers; a shortage of labor led to a decrease in production. It does not mean the farms had been burned and the fields salted.

It got worse later, but only 2 years into the war many Confederates had been impoverished by inflation, their infrastructure was failing due to being overburdened by the war, many of their work force had run away, and the Confederate government had accumulated massive debts.

Issues that did not arise until 1863 and thereafter could've been fixed fairly easily as I've pointed out.

There's also the question of how does the Confederacy win the war that early? Where do they find a general so skilled he makes Robert E Lee looking like a bumbling incompetent?

They can win very easily with the Generals they've got. Lee, for instance, damn near destroyed Pope's Army of Virginia in August of 1862. That would've brought in Anglo-French intervention, ending the conflict.

Interesting. What is your source for this?

Juan Prim was holding some talks with the Americans in secret on the subject. Here's some discussion of it here and here.

Feel free to provide any evidence of the US attempting to annex Cuba

See above.

Central America

IOTL: Panama Canal.

or Canada after the US Civil War.

Annexation Bill of 1866 and the suggestion by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to annex Canada as repayment for the Alabama Claims.

So Menken wrote a speculative article on what might have happened if the US had joined the Central Powers in WWI? I'd be interested in reading it.

Baltimore Evening Sun, Nov. 11, 1931, "A Bad Guess," H. L. Mencken

Most of England's appalling troubles today are due to a bad guess: she went into the war on the wrong side in 1914. The theory of her statesmen, in those days, was that, by joining France and Russia, she would give a death-blow to a dangerous rival, Germany, and so be free to run the world. But the scheme failed to work; moreover, it had unexpected and almost fatal results. Not only did Germany come out of the mess a dangerous rival still; France also became a rival, and a very formidable one. Worse, the United States was pumped up to immense proportions, and began to challenge England's control of the world's markets. The results are now visible: England has three competitors instead of one, and is steadily going downhill. If she had gone into the war on the German side she'd be in a much better situation today. The Germans would be grateful for the help and willing to pay for it (while the French are not); the French would be down and out, and hence unable to menace the peace of Europe; Germany would have Russia in Europe and there would be no Bolshevik [communist] nuisance; England would have all of Siberia and Central Asia, and there would be no Japanese threat and no Indian revolt; and the United States would still be a docile British colony, as it was in 1914. . . .

The United States made a similar mistake in 1917. Our real interests at the time were on the side of the Germans, whose general attitude of mind is far more American than that of any other people. If we had gone in on their side, England would be moribund today, and the dreadful job of pulling her down, which will now take us forty or filthy years, would be over. We'd have a free hand in the Pacific, and Germany would be running the whole [European] Continent like a house of correction. In return for our connivance there she'd be glad to give us whatever we wanted elsewhere. There would be no Bolshevism [communism] in Russia and no Fascism in Italy. Our debtors would all be able to pay us. The Japs would be docile, and we'd be reorganizing Canada and probably also Australia. But we succumbed to a college professor [Wilson] who read Matthew Arnold, just as the English succumbed to a gay old dog who couldn't bear to think of Prussian MP's shutting down the Paris night-clubs.

As for the mistake the Russians made, I leave it to history.

 

[marathag]

There was 429,000 slaves in the border states and 500,000 fled during the entirety of the Civil War, most in 1864-1865 from what I can gather. That leaves over 3,000,000 in the Confederacy, with an average price in 1860 of $800 that's still $2.4 Billion. The earlier the victory, the fewer runaways as well.

High prices, since Gold was $21/oz.

Wonder how much of that is bubble pricing. How much were slaves in Brazil worth after the ACW?