Would a victorious CSA be in the Entente or CP?

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

One thing with geopolitics between 1870 and 1910 is that North America was a pretty stable place. No civil wars and loans were repaid. So North America wasn't a pre-occupation of European diplomats nor presented a flashpoint for the crisis. OTOH, when Mexico couldn't repay its debts and there were civil wars in both Mexico and the USA, Europeans did intervene militarily in Mexico and also the American Civil War produced a major diplomatic crisis in the Trent Affair.

So yes, if North America becomes a lot less stable as a result of the events leading to a successful Confederate succession, which is pretty much everything except for it occurring peacefully, then North America becomes a sphere for geopolitics and this starts affecting alliances in Europe. Its no different in this respect from Africa, China, or the Ottoman Empire and OTL it wae the Ottoman Empire and its successor states that provided the flashpoint for the Great War.

 

[JAG88]

The CSA has to care about a couple things:

1. Be capable of wage war without outside assistance in case of a renewed US war.
2. Maintain slavery.
3. Protect its trade.

So they need to industrialize, a given, cant depend on the US.

Can they really have the luxury of enter foreign wars when you have to concern yourself with possible slave revolts? Maybe if its something limited, Mexico, some Caribbean islands...

They need a strong navy, the CSA lives on foreign trade, the US did not, so there will be the need to not only challenge but to ensure freedom from US interference in case of war. They cant make them, so they need someone else, obviously their biggest trade partner and foremost naval architects at the time. At least for a while, the slavery thing is bound to cause trouble and the CSA would aim to create a domestic industry as well.

Would there be a USN/CSN naval race? If so, that is a sensitive subject for the UK, they would react if it grows enough to be a concern. Plus, there is the Canada border concern, IOTL that was solved to the advantage of the US, here? Doubtful, the US cant push the issue too far, it isnt as big, and the CSA is behind them... is it solved to the UK's advantage or allowed to fester?

In any case, North America is a far more important concern to the UK than IOTL, and its ability to affect outcomes is also enhanced.

Once WW1 begins, the UK would play both sides to its advantage, regulate their trade as far as possible, neither can react too strongly out of concern for the other, they would simply profit as much as they could, but NEITHER would enter the war.

So the Entente folds after the Russian, Italian and French armies collapse in 1917.

Edit: Forgot one bit, the CSA's white population is less than a FOURTH of the US one, do they address that? Allow German immigration (the protestant thing)? Or is it greed too much and plan to just use slaves to exploit the land?

 

[Deleted member 94680]

(FWIW, Robert Fogel in Without Consent or Contract did argue that a successful Confederacy would indeed have had direct effects on European politics, because the Confederacy could have used its power to support aristocratic against democratic forces in Europe. https://books.google.com/books?id=F-KIAOQxKigC&pg=PA415 I am not necessarily arguing that; I am saying that much more "minor"-seeming events with their roots in the 1860's could matter by 1914.)

What power would that be? A CSA that by almost all metrics would be weaker than the USA and saddled with crippling debts from its conception is seriously going to have a military strong enough to influence trans-Atlantic events? Are we suggesting the CSA would have enough influence to be a major player?

I just can’t see it myself.

 

[David T]

What power would that be? A CSA that by almost all metrics would be weaker than the USA and saddled with crippling debts from its conception is seriously going to have a military strong enough to influence trans-Atlantic events? Are we suggesting the CSA would have enough influence to be a major player?

I just can’t see it myself.

Fogel's argument (Without Consent or Contract, pp. 414-415) is that if the North had allowed peaceful secession, "The Confederacy could have financed its expansionist, proslavery policies by exploiting the southern monopoly of cotton production. A 5 cents sales tax on cotton not only would have put most of the burden of such policies on foreign consumers, but would have yielded about $100 million annually during the 1860s-–50 percent more than the entire federal budget on the eve of the Civil War. With such a revenue the Confederacy could have emerged as one of the world's strongest military powers, maintaining a standing army several times as large as the North’s, rapidly developing a major navy, and conducting an aggressive foreign policy. Such revenues would also have permitted it to covertly or overtly finance aristocratic forces in Europe who were vying with democratic ones for power across the Continent."

"...If the Confederacy had been allowed to establish itself peacefully, to work out economic and diplomatic policies, and to develop international alliances, it would have emerged as a major international power. Although its population was relatively small, its great wealth would have made it a force to be reckoned with. The Confederacy would probably have used its wealth and military power to establish itself as the dominant nation in Latin America, perhaps annexing Cuba and Puerto Rico, Yucatan, and Nicaragua as well as countering Britain’s antislavery pressures on Brazil.”) https://books.google.com/books?id=F-KIAOQxKigC&pg=PA415

 

[Alex1guy]

The Confederacy would probably end up owing Europe and lot of money. So it would be in the best interest of the people ruling the Confederacy to be on good terms with the Europe, most likely France and England

Oh yeah but the slavery thing will definitely make strain relations significantly, I doubt the Entente would view them as anything but a long term liability. They'd not want to drag the US into a war by alliance if they can avoid it.

 

[JAG88]

Fogel's argument (Without Consent or Contract, pp. 414-415) is that if the North had allowed peaceful secession, "The Confederacy could have financed its expansionist, proslavery policies by exploiting the southern monopoly of cotton production. A 5 cents sales tax on cotton not only would have put most of the burden of such policies on foreign consumers, but would have yielded about $100 million annually during the 1860s-–50 percent more than the entire federal budget on the eve of the Civil War.

Would such a tax had been feasible with a "states' rights" CSA?

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Fogel's argument (Without Consent or Contract, pp. 414-415) is that if the North had allowed peaceful secession, "The Confederacy could have financed its expansionist, proslavery policies by exploiting the southern monopoly of cotton production. A 5 cents sales tax on cotton not only would have put most of the burden of such policies on foreign consumers, but would have yielded about $100 million annually during the 1860s-–50 percent more than the entire federal budget on the eve of the Civil War. With such a revenue the Confederacy could have emerged as one of the world's strongest military powers, maintaining a standing army several times as large as the North’s, rapidly developing a major navy, and conducting an aggressive foreign policy. Such revenues would also have permitted it to covertly or overtly finance aristocratic forces in Europe who were vying with democratic ones for power across the Continent."

"...If the Confederacy had been allowed to establish itself peacefully, to work out economic and diplomatic policies, and to develop international alliances, it would have emerged as a major international power. Although its population was relatively small, its great wealth would have made it a force to be reckoned with. The Confederacy would probably have used its wealth and military power to establish itself as the dominant nation in Latin America, perhaps annexing Cuba and Puerto Rico, Yucatan, and Nicaragua as well as countering Britain’s antislavery pressures on Brazil.”) https://books.google.com/books?id=F-KIAOQxKigC&pg=PA415

Those “ifs” border on ASB and definitely aren’t OTL, so Fogel’s arguments don’t carry that much weight IMHO.

 

[David T]

Those “ifs” border on ASB and definitely aren’t OTL, so Fogel’s arguments don’t carry that much weight IMHO.

I would argue that peaceful secession, though unlikely, was not impossible, if Seward had been elected instead of Lincoln. https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/worst-union-president.438048/#post-16615102 In any event, while peaceful secession is unlikely, so is a Confederate victory in the War, so the question is which is the more improbable...

 

[SsgtC]

Those “ifs” border on ASB and definitely aren’t OTL, so Fogel’s arguments don’t carry that much weight IMHO.

Not to mention, in any "peaceful secession," only South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana are likely to seceed. Virginia and North Carolina definitely would not have. Tennessee was very unlikely to. And if Tennessee doesn't, Missouri and Arkansas won't because they won't want to be geographically isolated from the rest of the CSA. That leaves Texas. And while the odds that Texas secedes are higher than those for Tennessee, it's still slim. Combine the greatly reduced CSA, something like 95% of industry in the Union and the fractious politics of a Nation created via legal secession (and all the precedent that implies), and the CSA is likely to be a very short lived abortion. IMO, the CSA will begin to breakup within 10 years of being established. Likely with the various States petitioning to be readmitted to the Union within a few years of the breakup starting.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

I would argue that peaceful secession, though unlikely, was not impossible, if Seward had been elected instead of Lincoln. https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/worst-union-president.438048/#post-16615102 In any event, while peaceful secession is unlikely, so is a Confederate victory in the War, so the question is which is the more improbable...

Whilst it might not be impossible, it didn’t happen OTL and the OP as written made no mention of an alt-ACW/secession. Furthermore, the OP asks what an independent CSA would do, so successful secession should be assumed. I understand the scenario as written has many inherent weaknesses and whatabouts, but the OP is asking for the follow ons to a specific scenario and we should limit ourselves to that.

 

[marathag]

I honestly don't understand the idea some people have that the USA and CSA will be eternally hostile to each other.

Eternally?
Maybe not that long, but would be for some time,for some of the same reasons that India and Pakistan aren't friends.

all despite being part of the same nation for around 90 years under the Raj, slightly more time than the South had been part of the USA

 

[David T]

Eternally?
Maybe not that long, but would be for some time,

for some of the same reasons that India and Pakistan aren't friends, despite being part of the same nation for around 90 years under the Raj, slightly more time than the South had been part of the USA

Well, there isn't the same sort of religious conflict, and I doubt that there will be any "Kashmir"--certainly by the early twentieth century (probably much earlier) the boundaries are going to be set once and for all.

If you don't like the US-Canada analogy: The Franco-German border has been pretty quiet for decades, and relations fairly good, despite more than one bloody conflict between the two countries...

 

[SsgtC]

Well, there isn't the same sort of religious conflict, and I doubt that there will be any "Kashmir"--certainly by the early twentieth century (probably much earlier) the boundaries are going to be set once and for all.

If you don't like the US-Canada analogy: The Franco-German border has been pretty quiet for decades, and relations fairly good, despite more than one bloody conflict between the two countries...

Kentucky, Missouri and West Virginia would all be "Kashmirs."

 

[Zheng He]

Kentucky, Missouri and West Virginia would all be "Kashmirs."

And Maryland.

 

[marathag]

The Franco-German border has been pretty quiet for decades, and relations fairly good, despite more than one bloody conflict between the two countries...

50 years of the threat of a world ending War between the USA and USSR had much to do with that, since that's where the combat would be, two elephants fighting, with little regard for the locals.
And besides, the Germans finally figured out how to dominate the continent, by Political and Economic levers, than guys in grey with bayonets

 

[wcv215]

Kentucky, Missouri and West Virginia would all be "Kashmirs."

Also modern Oklahoma, and New Mexico.

And that’s assuming the CSA gets all the seceded states. The Union might well get part of Tennessee if they’re still occupying it at war’s end.

 

[David T]

Kentucky, Missouri and West Virginia would all be "Kashmirs."

Most likely there will be some peace treaty, immediately or not, to settle their fate. I just can't see the USA and CSA quarreling over the borderlands decade after decade.

 

[SsgtC]

Most likely there will be some peace treaty, immediately or not, to settle their fate. I just can't see the USA and CSA quarreling over the borderlands decade after decade.

Peace treaties are nothing but pieces of paper. They do nothing to settle resentment or soothe wounded pride. France and Germany had a peace treaty ending the FPW that supposedly settled the issue of Alsace-Lorraine. Guess what? It was still a sore spot for France over 40 years later in WWI. Twenty years after that, A-L was a sore spot for Germany. All told, that one region was a major issue between then for seventy years! And the USA/CSA will have half a dozen regions that one side or the other regards as "their" territory, irregardless of what some piece of paper says.

 

[David T]

Peace treaties are nothing but pieces of paper. They do nothing to settle resentment or soothe wounded pride. France and Germany had a peace treaty ending the FPW that supposedly settled the issue of Alsace-Lorraine. Guess what? It was still a sore spot for France over 40 years later in WWI. Twenty years after that, A-L was a sore spot for Germany. All told, that one region was a major issue between then for seventy years! And the USA/CSA will have half a dozen regions that one side or the other regards as "their" territory, irregardless of what some piece of paper says.

And yet after the Webster-Ashburton treaty there was not much further dispute over the Maine-New Brunswick border nor much sentiment for reopening the Oregon question after the Oregon Treaty. Sometimes nations (even nations that had been at war with each other as the US and UK had been twice, in each case the fate of Canada being one of the issues) do pretty much accept such decisions as final.

 

[wcv215]

And yet after the Webster-Ashburton treaty there was not much further dispute over the Maine-New Brunswick border nor much sentiment for reopening the Oregon question after the Oregon Treaty.

And you’ll note there wasn’t a war to impose said borders.