Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
jnewt

Modern Day Confederacy

Recommended Posts

I'm in the process of researching potential candidates for my Confederate series, as well as creating the map and am looking for some advice.  I've decided to include the entirety of the states of Arizona and New Mexico in the Confederacy with my explanation being that they gained this land as part of an agreement to end the war.  Now I'm trying to decide if, by 2017, the Confederacy will have expanded.  Is it possible that they could have expanded and acquired the land of present-day Colorado (Kansas would then be surrounded by Confederate land on 3 sides), Utah, and/or Nevada?  I know Cuba is often included as part of the Confederacy in alternate histories, but I'm not quite sure how likely that would be, considering they would have to defeat the Spanish army, and the U.S. certainly wouldn't help them.  Is it possible that other Caribbean islands, such as the Bahamas, Jamaica, Haiti/Dominican Republic, or Puerto Rico become part of the Confederacy?  And what about Central America?  I've also thought about including Baja California plus another small part of Mexico to connect it to Arizona and give the Confederacy access to both the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean, but I don't see how they would go about this.  Anybody have any thoughts?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most likely Confederate Arizona (basically the southern half of what's now Arizona and New Mexico) is as far west as they would have gotten.  Probably the Indian Territory (now Oklahoma) as well.  I doubt the US would have given up any further western land in the peace negotiations.

Central America is interesting.  The Confederacy could have supported filibusters covertly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did have claims on the rest of Arizona and New Mexico, so that is reasonable.  They also had claims to the southern part of Nevada.  Also, which states (or former states for this purpose) would be included.  The Confederacy had claims on Missouri and Kentucky (in MO the governor was removed for being pro-confederate and in KY, a breakoff government was formed; also, both had representation in the confederate legislature).  How would this have been handled?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jnewt said:

I'm in the process of researching potential candidates for my Confederate series, as well as creating the map and am looking for some advice.  I've decided to include the entirety of the states of Arizona and New Mexico in the Confederacy with my explanation being that they gained this land as part of an agreement to end the war.  Now I'm trying to decide if, by 2017, the Confederacy will have expanded.  Is it possible that they could have expanded and acquired the land of present-day Colorado (Kansas would then be surrounded by Confederate land on 3 sides), Utah, and/or Nevada?  I know Cuba is often included as part of the Confederacy in alternate histories, but I'm not quite sure how likely that would be, considering they would have to defeat the Spanish army, and the U.S. certainly wouldn't help them.  Is it possible that other Caribbean islands, such as the Bahamas, Jamaica, Haiti/Dominican Republic, or Puerto Rico become part of the Confederacy?  And what about Central America?  I've also thought about including Baja California plus another small part of Mexico to connect it to Arizona and give the Confederacy access to both the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean, but I don't see how they would go about this.  Anybody have any thoughts?  

Cuba, other Caribbean Islands, and Central America are much more likely to have become Confederate Territories than Colorado, Kansas, Utah or Nevada. Spain was in bad shape by the Spanish-American War, and needed money for at least a century. This was part of the reason why the US kept trying to purchase Cuba. You could have the CSA purchase it or annex it by force because of some grievance. Puerto Rico and Dominican Republic could be taken at the same time. Haiti could be protected and then annexed, but they might not go for that considering their history. I think the US giving the CSA New Mexico and Arizona is very unlikely, unless in your alternate scenario, they had controlled those states during the War. If the US gave them any state it would be Oklahoma, which wasn't a CSA state, but was considered something like a territory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also to add. I think some of the Confederate states would probably consider going back in the Union throughout the early part of their history, at least until the country stabilizes. The Deep South, of course, would never consider such a thing. Texas might go independent in your scenario. I think expansion is far off or difficult for them to attain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Cuba, other Caribbean Islands, and Central America are much more likely to have become Confederate Territories than Colorado, Kansas, Utah or Nevada. Spain was in bad shape by the Spanish-American War, and needed money for at least a century. This was part of the reason why the US kept trying to purchase Cuba. You could have the CSA purchase it or annex it by force because of some grievance. Puerto Rico and Dominican Republic could be taken at the same time. Haiti could be protected and then annexed, but they might not go for that considering their history. I think the US giving the CSA New Mexico and Arizona is very unlikely, unless in your alternate scenario, they had controlled those states during the War. If the US gave them any state it would be Oklahoma, which wasn't a CSA state, but was considered something like a territory. 

Maybe Cuba, Hispaniola, and Puerto Rico as Caribbean Islands go - most others would have involved challenging the Royal Navy to annex - something not even the RL U.S. Navy was realistically capable of doing in a long term until after WW2, and something I'm pretty certain a Confederate Navy couldn't be victorious in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

They did have claims on the rest of Arizona and New Mexico, so that is reasonable.  They also had claims to the southern part of Nevada.  Also, which states (or former states for this purpose) would be included.  The Confederacy had claims on Missouri and Kentucky (in MO the governor was removed for being pro-confederate and in KY, a breakoff government was formed; also, both had representation in the confederate legislature).  How would this have been handled?

The following states will be included from 1867 on:  Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico (may or may not start off as a state), Arizona (may or may not start off as a state), Oklahoma or Indian Territory, Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee, and Kentucky.  As for your question on how to handle their claims on Missouri and Kentucky, I was planning on including them because they did both have representation in the Confederate legislature.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, vcczar said:

If the US gave them any state it would be Oklahoma, which wasn't a CSA state, but was considered something like a territory. 

From what I've read, it seems that most of the Native Americans in the Indian Territory/Oklahoma fought on the side of the Confederacy because they were promised their own state or protection.  If that's true, then I'm not sure they would even have to give the land to the Confederacy, the Indian Territory would just secede and join the Confederacy, and may not even be considered part of their negotiations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jnewt said:

I'm in the process of researching potential candidates for my Confederate series, as well as creating the map and am looking for some advice.  I've decided to include the entirety of the states of Arizona and New Mexico in the Confederacy with my explanation being that they gained this land as part of an agreement to end the war.  Now I'm trying to decide if, by 2017, the Confederacy will have expanded.  Is it possible that they could have expanded and acquired the land of present-day Colorado (Kansas would then be surrounded by Confederate land on 3 sides), Utah, and/or Nevada?  I know Cuba is often included as part of the Confederacy in alternate histories, but I'm not quite sure how likely that would be, considering they would have to defeat the Spanish army, and the U.S. certainly wouldn't help them.  Is it possible that other Caribbean islands, such as the Bahamas, Jamaica, Haiti/Dominican Republic, or Puerto Rico become part of the Confederacy?  And what about Central America?  I've also thought about including Baja California plus another small part of Mexico to connect it to Arizona and give the Confederacy access to both the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean, but I don't see how they would go about this.  Anybody have any thoughts?  

Harry Turtledove touches upon this topic in great detail, but he doesn't let it settle down a peace - he has two "wars of vengeance" instigated by the CSA afterwards, a Marxist uprising by Southern slaves backed and armed by a group in the North (though apparently not the Northern government), and, when the Great War comes around in July 1914, there's not a single, isolationist U.S. that doesn't enter the war until 1917, but both the North and the South are drawn in almost at once (and against each other) - the North on the side of the Central Powers (notably Germany and Austria-Hungary) and the South on the side of the Triple Entente. This doesn't sound like what you're pursuing, but I thought I'd being it to muse over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
7 hours ago, Patine said:

Harry Turtledove touches upon this topic in great detail, but he doesn't let it settle down a peace - he has two "wars of vengeance" instigated by the CSA afterwards, a Marxist uprising by Southern slaves backed and armed by a group in the North (though apparently not the Northern government), and, when the Great War comes around in July 1914, there's not a single, isolationist U.S. that doesn't enter the war until 1917, but both the North and the South are drawn in almost at once (and against each other) - the North on the side of the Central Powers (notably Germany and Austria-Hungary) and the South on the side of the Triple Entente. This doesn't sound like what you're pursuing, but I thought I'd being it to muse over.

If i should elaborate on what i think might have happened if the South had won the Civil War to the slave question. In the start of the 20th century the slaves would have been set free and deported back to Africa by the CSA government. A marxist uprising i don't see though as most slaves were illiterate and apolitical. To add to that they didn't have any military education while the white southerners had weapons at hand at all times and were militaristic by prefering militaristic education for their sons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this scenario would the CSA have eventually outlawed slavery? While it would happen much later than the US did I could realistically see it happen in the early 1900s. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, SirLagsalott said:

Is this scenario would the CSA have eventually outlawed slavery? While it would happen much later than the US did I could realistically see it happen in the early 1900s. 

Yes, they will outlaw slavery and I was actually planning on it being around the early 1900s. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jnewt said:

Yes, they will outlaw slavery and I was actually planning on it being around the early 1900s. 

Slavery would have been abolished in the CSA by the end of the 1880s, just as it was in every other country in the Western Hemisphere (including Brazil, which had more slaves than the US did).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pilight said:

Slavery would have been abolished in the CSA by the end of the 1880s, just as it was in every other country in the Western Hemisphere (including Brazil, which had more slaves than the US did).

I'd probably say Late 1890's or Early 1900's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NYrepublican said:

I'd probably say Late 1890's or Early 1900's

 

5 hours ago, jnewt said:

Yes, they will outlaw slavery and I was actually planning on it being around the early 1900s. 

Even if the South secures independence peacefully, the Khedive of Egypt would likely still screw them over by selling cheap cotton abroad without a slave labour force staining the "brand."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

I'd probably say Late 1890's or Early 1900's

No way it would have lasted that long.  The CSA would have discovered the same thing everyone else did, slavery isn't economically viable once you have a large enough free work force.  Once the supply of labor is sufficient, the price drops so that it's cheaper and easier to pay someone to work than it is to feed, house, clothe, and take care of slaves.  Not only that, hired hands work better and more efficiently than shackled ones.  Like I said, every country in the Western Hemisphere abolished slavery by the end of the 1880s.  The CSA would not have been an exception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, pilight said:

No way it would have lasted that long.  The CSA would have discovered the same thing everyone else did, slavery isn't economically viable once you have a large enough free work force.  Once the supply of labor is sufficient, the price drops so that it's cheaper and easier to pay someone to work than it is to feed, house, clothe, and take care of slaves.  Not only that, hired hands work better and more efficiently than shackled ones.  Like I said, every country in the Western Hemisphere abolished slavery by the end of the 1880s.  The CSA would not have been an exception.

Slavery was protected by the constitution there and given the historical environment in the south then they'd have resisted as long as possible.I'd still say sometime in the mid to late 1890's or at latest early 1900's

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Slavery was protected by the constitution there and given the historical environment in the south then they'd have resisted as long as possible.I'd still say sometime in the mid to late 1890's or at latest early 1900's

 

Brazil had an even more ingrained slave culture and a larger number of slaves.  They abolished the institution in 1888.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, pilight said:

Brazil had an even more ingrained slave culture and a larger number of slaves.  They abolished the institution in 1888.

Those attitudes were also more colonial as there it was abolished in the time of the 1st fully Brazilian generation while in the south it was obviously not such and very deeply ingrained even among the younger culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

Those attitudes were also more colonial as there it was abolished in the time of the 1st fully Brazilian generation while in the south it was obviously not such and very deeply ingrained even among the younger culture.

You forgot about the economic competition from the Khedive of Egypt, and shortly after, from Central Asia that flooded the international market at about time with cheap cotton without the negative tag on it's 'brand" of being from slave labour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Patine said:

You forgot about the economic competition from the Khedive of Egypt, and shortly after, from Central Asia that flooded the international market at about time with cheap cotton without the negative tag on it's 'brand" of being from slave labour.

I'm judging at the absolute latest if the most racist, pro-slavery holdouts possible were in power in the south.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like most of the generation who fought in the war would want to keep slaves for as long as possible, after all, they just gained independence with that being a central theme. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SirLagsalott said:

I feel like most of the generation who fought in the war would want to keep slaves for as long as possible, after all, they just gained independence with that being a central theme. 

But I'm bringing up diminishing markets that'll actually buy their cotton by that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2017 at 4:58 PM, koneke said:

A nowaday Confederacy would include Southern California.

That was already in Union territory 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×