USA-CSA alliance and other minutae

[loneranger]

Just have a couple of questions here as I was wondering about the Confederate States of America.

Firstly, as the thread title suggests is it at all possible that the United and Confederate States would have a cordial or even good relationship? I know that the perception in pop culture is that the two nations would stay bitter enemies until modern day. But the United States had it's own bloody breaking away from the United Kingdom and over time became very good allies. Could the United and Confederate States ever ally, perhaps against European intervention? Could something similar to NAFTA (or even more unified) lead to greater cooperation between the American states?

As an aside (didn't feel it warranted it's own thread) how would the CSA view the American Revolution? I can't really think of an equivalent situation that happened IOTL to compare it to so I am wondering what their perception of the (First) American Revolution would be.

 

[MorningDew]

This is going to get torn apart real quick.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Considering the only logical scenario where the CSA is independent is one where the people of the Union have willingly voted for a government which chose to negotiate peace, they can obviously have a cordial relationship.

Will they be best friends? No. Will they be daggers drawn/quasi cold war enemies from the CSA's inception to its inevitably bloody death? No. Too much wasted effort on the part of the Union, and the CSA is just not conceivably strong enough to cause a problem.

As to how the CSA would view the American Revolution? Well they would obviously consider themselves the true inheritors of the Revolution and Jeffersonian democracy. After all the Revolutionary War was fought over the right to secede and hold human beings in bondage and perpetuate the white race over the black

 

[West]

They are not going to get along.

The CSA will control an absolutly vital choke point for US trade, they will be bleeding escaped slave/refugees for a long time, and are going to become an economic basket case. They can tolerate each other but I don't see a deep abiding friendship.

 

[TFSmith121]

How does your CSA gain independence?

Just have a couple of questions here as I was wondering about the Confederate States of America.

Firstly, as the thread title suggests is it at all possible that the United and Confederate States would have a cordial or even good relationship? I know that the perception in pop culture is that the two nations would stay bitter enemies until modern day. But the United States had it's own bloody breaking away from the United Kingdom and over time became very good allies. Could the United and Confederate States ever ally, perhaps against European intervention? Could something similar to NAFTA (or even more unified) lead to greater cooperation between the American states?

As an aside (didn't feel it warranted it's own thread) how would the CSA view the American Revolution? I can't really think of an equivalent situation that happened IOTL to compare it to so I am wondering what their perception of the (First) American Revolution would be.

How does your CSA gain independence?

Best,

 

[RSY]

How does your CSA gain independence?

Best,

The only realistic scenario in which a weaker army prevails upon a vastly superior opponent is by the stronger side got temporarily screwed up but they misjudged it & take the short term defeats as a sign that they are vulnerable and therefore more willing to negotiate. In the Battle of Singapore, Percival's army was vastly numerically superior than Yamashita's and post-war analysis tend to agree that they could beat the Japanese if they didn't surrender. However after defeat upon defeat in Malaya and Japanese's successes in everywhere else, plus some effective bluffing by Yamashita, Percival decided that surrender was the best option.

The problem with this scenario in USA-CSA situation is that, unlike in Singapore which ended with Allied unconditional surrender, the best that CSA could get is an armistice with USA. They never had a chance of totally annexing USA. So sooner or later after the the armistice, USA will figure out that they actually have the strength to beat CSA and they will never hesitate to go to war for a second time.

 

[TFSmith121]

Plus, Singapore was an island and the

The only realistic scenario in which a weaker army prevails upon a vastly superior opponent is by the stronger side got temporarily screwed up but they misjudged it & take the short term defeats as a sign that they are vulnerable and therefore more willing to negotiate. In the Battle of Singapore, Percival's army was vastly numerically superior than Yamashita's and post-war analysis tend to agree that they could beat the Japanese if they didn't surrender. However after defeat upon defeat in Malaya and Japanese's successes in everywhere else, plus some effective bluffing by Yamashita, Percival decided that surrender was the best option.

The problem with this scenario in USA-CSA situation is that, unlike in Singapore which ended with Allied unconditional surrender, the best that CSA could get is an armistice with USA. They never had a chance of totally annexing USA. So sooner or later after the the armistice, USA will figure out that they actually have the strength to beat CSA and they will never hesitate to go to war for a second time.

Plus, Singapore was an island and the Japanese had control of the sea and the air, and Britain and Japan were in opposite hemispheres, and the US and USSR and Germany were also all in the war, along with a few other minor differences between 1861 and 1941...

Best,

 

[Johnrankins]

I think that the US and CS can be allies.... in the same sense Poland and the USSR were allies in the Cold War In other words the CSA being nominally independent but in reality a colony of the USA in all but name. In fact I think that is very likely , assuming the CSA isn't simply outright conquered in a second war a few years later.

 

[Mikestone8]

the best that CSA could get is an armistice with USA. They never had a chance of totally annexing USA. So sooner or later after the the armistice, USA will figure out that they actually have the strength to beat CSA and they will never hesitate to go to war for a second time.

If they think it is worth reconquering.

After all, if the CSA is an economic basket case, there will probably be a lot of emigration across the frontier. So the US can get back a sizeable portion of the South's white population without having to take its Blacks as well (bar a handful of runaways). May they not decide that this gives them the best of both worlds?

 

[British Republic]

The only realistic scenario in which a weaker army prevails upon a vastly superior opponent is by the stronger side got temporarily screwed up but they misjudged it & take the short term defeats as a sign that they are vulnerable and therefore more willing to negotiate. In the Battle of Singapore, Percival's army was vastly numerically superior than Yamashita's and post-war analysis tend to agree that they could beat the Japanese if they didn't surrender. However after defeat upon defeat in Malaya and Japanese's successes in everywhere else, plus some effective bluffing by Yamashita, Percival decided that surrender was the best option.

The problem with this scenario in USA-CSA situation is that, unlike in Singapore which ended with Allied unconditional surrender, the best that CSA could get is an armistice with USA. They never had a chance of totally annexing USA. So sooner or later after the the armistice, USA will figure out that they actually have the strength to beat CSA and they will never hesitate to go to war for a second time.

What if the CSA recevied support from other nations overseas such as France, Spain or even Britain?

 

[Johnrankins]

What if the CSA recevied support from other nations overseas such as France, Spain or even Britain?

Then the CSA dies the next time there is a great war in Europe. With Europe busy they can't interfere in the fight. The US would be hostile with whoever backed the CSA for a long time. It will also figure that it could have won the last time without European intervention. It will reform its military and it will only get stronger as compared to the CSA over time.

 

[matashowski]

After all the Revolutionary War was fought over the right to secede and hold human beings in bondage and perpetuate the white race over the black

Hey now, that reading counteracts a lifetime of propaganda. You're right, though (as much as any of us can be). In OTL, the Confederates viewed themselves as the successors to the revolution. And honestly, they probably had a more accurate reading to the Revolution than we do. They were closer, and the US had yet to become the empire that it is, so they wouldn't have been fed the whole "only taxes and freedom" bit as an origin story. I see the revolution and the civil war as basically the same thing, so there is no reason the two sides wouldn't eventually reunite (a la Murica and England).

 

[Johnrankins]

Hey now, that reading counteracts a lifetime of propaganda. You're right, though (as much as any of us can be). In OTL, the Confederates viewed themselves as the successors to the revolution. And honestly, they probably had a more accurate reading to the Revolution than we do. They were closer, and the US had yet to become the empire that it is, so they wouldn't have been fed the whole "only taxes and freedom" bit as an origin story. I see the revolution and the civil war as basically the same thing, so there is no reason the two sides wouldn't eventually reunite (a la Murica and England).

The revolutionaries did not fight for slavery. If it were the strongholds for the revolutionaries would have been Virginia , Carolina and Georgia instead of Mass and Penn , The crown loyalists were strongest in the slave south. The US and the UK are separated by 3000 miles of ocean while the CSA would be right across the border. One could be ignored the other would be a direct threat.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Hey now, that reading counteracts a lifetime of propaganda. You're right, though (as much as any of us can be). In OTL, the Confederates viewed themselves as the successors to the revolution. And honestly, they probably had a more accurate reading to the Revolution than we do. They were closer, and the US had yet to become the empire that it is, so they wouldn't have been fed the whole "only taxes and freedom" bit as an origin story. I see the revolution and the civil war as basically the same thing, so there is no reason the two sides wouldn't eventually reunite (a la Murica and England).

I think you missed the sarcasm in my reply I'm afraid.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Just to bump the idea of how the USA and CSA would see each other after the war, let's say (for the sake of discussion) the CSA wins independence for the original 11 seceding states in an 1864 peace of exhaustion and we have borders looking like this:

What are the biggest issues facing the two new nations?

Personally I can think of 3 off the top of my head:

1) Slavery. Yes a few of the border states still have slavery most likely, but there's still tens of thousands of slaves who have run across the border and the CSA is going to want them back (but I can't see any treaty saying anything but that those on Union territory will be free). That means bounty hunters and lots of sticky issues.

2) The Mississippi. This is one of the major trade routes in the US and with the CSA controlling New Orleans they have their proverbial feet on the throat of a major artery of US commerce. Now nothing I've read suggests the CSA would be big on tariffs and causing major economic disruption on those waters, but it will be a bone of contention for sure.

3) The Comanche. This one might surprise some people but it would be a big issue for both nations. The Comanche drove the line of settlement back 100 miles during the Civil War, and after the war there needs to be some serious push to drive them back. The Comanche might actually get a reprieve as each nation mistrusts the other over the intentions of a build up on the border to fight the Comanche, and they now have "safe" territory to retreat into when escaping from either side on a raid.

It would really remain to be seen if the CSA and USA could work together against a common enemy like this.

 

[galveston bay]

the only way the CSA exists is if Lincoln loses the 1864 election and the Copperheads have sufficient power to lever a peace platform into policy.

Which implies a lot of bad things happened to the Union War effort prior to that peace.

There are possibilities, but let us get to the meat of the matter.

The US and CSA would still have a lot of problems, one of which is the entire fugitive slave issue. Assume that the North decides to get around that by simply not accepting any, and if they get in, telling the CSA to piss off. The CSA certainly isn't going to have the power to enforce Union compliance.

Both nations are going to have some common interests. Neither is going to be happy about European interference in the Western Hemisphere. Both of them will have to trade with each other, because both have things the other needs. It could be like the trade France and Germany have in the period 1870-1914 (both were major trading partners of the other). Trade doesn't require warm feelings, just mutual needs.

As to an alliance....so if a European nation, like Imperial Germany, decided to move on Venezuela, or the Dominican Republic for example, then I can see a temporary alliance based on mutual interests.

After all the US allied with Stalin, and neither much cared for the other, but they both knew something worse threatened them both. So I think its plausible

 

[Anaxagoras]

As an aside (didn't feel it warranted it's own thread) how would the CSA view the American Revolution? I can't really think of an equivalent situation that happened IOTL to compare it to so I am wondering what their perception of the (First) American Revolution would be.

The Confederates celebrated independence Day and the Great Seal of the Confederacy featured George Washington on horseback (a bit ironic, since he would have clearly opposed the Confederacy). Lots of their rhetoric hearkened back to the American Revolution and they saw themselves as the true heirs to the Founding Fathers. I think that the historiography of an independent Confederacy would have seen the theme that the revolutionary ideals were getting lost in the old Union by the 1850s and secession was a means of restoring them.

 

[Anaxagoras]

The only realistic scenario in which a weaker army prevails upon a vastly superior opponent is by the stronger side got temporarily screwed up but they misjudged it & take the short term defeats as a sign that they are vulnerable and therefore more willing to negotiate. In the Battle of Singapore, Percival's army was vastly numerically superior than Yamashita's and post-war analysis tend to agree that they could beat the Japanese if they didn't surrender. However after defeat upon defeat in Malaya and Japanese's successes in everywhere else, plus some effective bluffing by Yamashita, Percival decided that surrender was the best option.

The problem with this scenario in USA-CSA situation is that, unlike in Singapore which ended with Allied unconditional surrender, the best that CSA could get is an armistice with USA. They never had a chance of totally annexing USA. So sooner or later after the the armistice, USA will figure out that they actually have the strength to beat CSA and they will never hesitate to go to war for a second time.

Plus, Singapore was an island and the Japanese had control of the sea and the air, and Britain and Japan were in opposite hemispheres, and the US and USSR and Germany were also all in the war, along with a few other minor differences between 1861 and 1941..

None of this has anything to do with what the OP is asking. It belongs in the Official Thread that has been created for discussion about whether the Confederacy had a chance to win.

 

[sloreck]

There is the classic book If the South Had Won the Civil War by MacKinlay Kantor where Texas secedes from the CSA sometime after the CW but the three countries are allied in WWI & WWII and are holding reunification talks in the '60's. IMHO that represents the most "cordial" possibility but is too optimistic. While I don't necessarily go as far as the Turtledove series, I expect relationships to be "correct" and chilly.Of course if the USA and CSA end up on different sides of European alliances that gets nasty.

Part of the problem is the USA and CSA had different views of themselves going in to the future. The CSA saw itself as a "squireocracy" producing agricultural products for export (King Cotton especially) with limited industrial development, importing produced goods with low tariffs. Additionally there was a significant move among political leaders to reintroduce property qualifications for voting, but the disenfranchised whites would be OK with that as they would always be above the black/slave population. On the other hand the USA was industrializing at a rapid rate and open to immigration. Of course, slavery was a big elephant in the room.

While the USA may not be thrilled with blacks after separation coming across the border I can't see them sending any back, and any blacks who are behind Union lines when the war ends won't be sent back either. This will piss off a lot of slave owners who have seen their valuable property decamp.

I can't see US & CS cooperation concerning the Monroe Doctrine, as I would expect Confederates to continue semi-official filibustering in Central America and attempts to expand. Other than potentially the Indian Territory which may be split (see the history of Stand Watie) further CS expansion west of Texas and north of the Indian Territory is out.

The CSA, if it continues with its ideal of a pastoral country, will become an economic basket case. OTL the British Empire was shifting to cotton grown in Imperial territory and even with a shortened ACW this will accelerate as it did OTL during the war. A good deal of the capital of the south was tied up in slaves, and was not available for investment in infrastructure (which the CSA government was very dubious about) or factories etc. The states rights constitution made investment in things like railroads difficult, and the CSA had multiple incompatible gauges in its admittedly limited and crappy system. So by the late 19th century, early 20th century you have a north that is pretty much in the same place economically as OTL with a decent franchise (women limited, blacks spotty) and a CSA which is economically a banana republic and a huge black problem...lots of them who will never be citizens, even if they are no longer slaves (anywhere from 20-30% of the population). Not natural allies, at best "correct" neighbors. At worse...like Turtledove lined up in opposing allowances.

 

[Saphroneth]

Do we know that Washington would have opposed the Confederacy, though?
I think it depends when you take him.
I mean, self evidently he was a slaveowner throughout his life and a Virginian. While I know his views on slavery evolved, if you take him as of 1776 he's recently offered a reward for the return of runaway slaves.