HOME | DD
KantiaCartography — iPad Idea #4
Published: 2013-10-31 00:17:52 +0000 UTC; Views: 3025; Favourites: 46; Downloads: 22
Redirect to original
Description
Still workin on my Confederate States of America timeline. Just takin my time. This is an idea map for the southern border of the CSA. I no longer think having the CSA annex all of Mexico is the most realistic idea, but its still a work in progress. Have any questions or constructive criticism, just put them in the comments.Related content
Comments: 24
Nice idea of the state of Sequoyah, also do you see the states in the confederacy having more rights than they did before and roughly what time period is this map in ?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In some ways yes, but in order to stay Confederated the states would have to make a stronger constitution, or they would have fallen apart. President Davis already had a hard time controlling the states during the war.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Brilliant map and it is plausible. just finished reading some of Jefferson Davis's books from after the civil war. there were confederate politician who openly discussed what they called a tropical empire i.e steal more territory from Mexico! the country was almost knackered anyway after a civil war and a revolution.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you haven't already, you should watch the C.S.A. Mocumentary.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for the tip just finished it. Still can't see how ordinary citizens would have kept supporting slavery. After all if granddad had spent five or so years having blasted Yankees shooting at him while Reginald T. Fartswell the plantation owner was able to skip out because he owned 20 slaves or paid off a substitute, he might start seeing it all as a rich man's war and a poor man's fight.
Just finished reading the new book about the Irish born general Cleburne who avocated freeing the slaves, this man seemed to be more realistic than some of the planters who made up the political elite. Slavery was dying a natural death in every other country, states were industrialising and the Brits and French had learned they could get cotton cheaper in Egypt, India and Indo-China cheaper since they were colonies.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
As a mockumentary, its accuracy definitely isn't absolute. In OTL poor white planters did think of the Civil War as a rich man's war, but they were against abolition more than they were against the rich pricks, mostly due to racism and the will to one day have slaves of their own. One major cause of the ACW was the fact that as part of the USA the south could not sustain slavery due to soil depletion and crop diversification. If the CSA had survived, it would need to expand in order to continue practicing slavery, and northern states like Virginia and North Carolina would have industrialized on their own.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well said p.s have you ever come across the film documentary "Rocky Road to Dublin" managed to get a copy, it was made for the anniversary of our 1916 rising similar in tone to C.S.A but for Ireland, its been banned for over 30 years because it royally took the piss out of our own bigots in the same way.
Fifty years after independence Ireland still had all its Victorian slums still standing, the worst in Europe, our constitution mentioned the Catholic church as having a special place in the constitution, something that made my jaw drop when I was a law student and practically every author you could imagine was banned by the govt. e.g. Brendan Behan, James Joyce along with many poets and American and continental writers.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I am thinking of a CSA win TL where the CSA wins and gains Pacific territory by annexing southernmost California, [there is a Confederate movement in California in OTL and having it more successful is the POD] and not annexing at all any Mexican territory or even Cuba [I admit many Cuban Alternate History fans are riled about a CSA victory]. The "new" Mason-Dixon line is the same as in your map. I notice many CSA victory scenarios do not have Missouri or a part of it as CS territory.
BTW, is the CSA a superpower?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I tend not to have South California/Colorado as a CS state, but I dont think its too implausible. The CSA and the USA are both basically superpowers, but the CSA is known more for expanding overseas while the USA is known for expanding over land.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I've always had my doubts about a Confederate Mexico. The U.S.A. had a pretty strong grip on the western hemisphere, and I doubt think one lousy war would completely demolish this. At the very least there would be another war between the American nations in response to this aggression. Also, there's no way in hell that the C.S.A. could take down the Spanish, the only way we did it was because we already owned most of the Pacific already and could take out most of the colonies. The C.S.A. lacks that advantage, and plus I feel like their technological progress would be glacial at best, thus giving the Spanish their edge back. Other than that, the map seems plausible, I'm interested on the progress of the countries politics due to the inherent instability of their Articles-of-Confederation-esque Constitution.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
America's grip on the western hemisphere as it was in the 1860s was not what it is today. Great Britain already controlled most of the South American market and was making ground in Central America. Once the front shifted to the north and the British broke the USA's naval blockade of the CSA, which is completely within the realm of possibility, the CSA became one of the dominant forces in the Caribbean and Central America, 2nd only to Great Britain. After the end of the "War of Northern Agression", the CSA demanded that the French halt their occupation of Mexico and remove Archduke Maximilian of Austria from the throne. The French did not listen, but the Mexicans took care of Maximilian on their own, just like in OTL. After the restoration of the republic, Benito Juárez was re elected president and he allied with the CSA. In 1876, when Porfirio Diaz forcibly took control of Mexico and cut his ties with the CSA, the CSA invaded and occupied northern Mexico which was not under Diaz's control. After a short war, Diaz was removed from office and the northern Mexican states were ceded to the CSA, as was Yucatan (this parts still flexible). I can't say exactly, but I know the USA is currently going about some very touchy negotiations over the fate of the Dominion of Canada (little 1867 version), Rupertsland and the Northwest Territory. That part is still way back in my head.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In a world with a British-Confederate alliance, wouldn't the U.S. become utterly docile at the threat of a 2 front war? If so, why wouldn't G.B. press claims in Oregon and the Confederacy work to restore Missouri and Virginia? If the Confederacy allies with the British, I'd imagine that the Mexican crisis would have played out far differently considering the knee-jerk animosity between the French and British. And the C.S.A. would have no reason to invade Mexican soil without the approved consent of the people, much less have the international consent to annex the territory, especially if G.B. had a joint sphere in the area. Also, how therefore did the C.S.A. get control of Honduras with British Belize literally right there?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The British never landed troops during the War of Northern Aggression. They never tried to wrestle the NW Pacific away from the USA, because they never had troops on Yankee soil. The USA never tried to invade BNA because all of their troops were held up on the Potomac front. Weakening the USA's influence in the western hemisphere and gaining a new, loyal ally is all Great Britain got out of its alliance. I like that. The "Mexican Crisis". I might expand on that and get Great Britain in on the action. The CSA would actually have every reason to invade Mexico in this scenario, especially considering that public support would have been overwhelming. We Southern Republicans fueled Manifest Destiny and are always in support of territorial expansion. There's no question of whether or not the public would have supported invading Mexican territory. Why wouldn't Great Britain want the CSA to have a Pacific coast? Its an ally and is at an economic disadvantage as long as its restricted to the Atlantic. In this map it took control of Guatemala, not Honduras. The story behind that was that Guatemala tried to resolve its border dispute with British Honduras by invading it, and immediately Confederate forces occupying Yucatan invaded Guatemala to honor its alliance. Confederate sphere of influence was Mexico and Guatemal, and Britain got Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica. Just to let you know, Im still really iffy about the whole Guatemala-Yucatan statehood, so dont get too upset over that just yet cause it will probably change.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What I meant was the Mexican people would be up in arms over such an invasion considering they were still pretty sore about losing the Mexican Cession in '45. More than that, the reason that Andrew Jackson's plan to annex all of Mexico was because it would be a logistical nightmare to give that many mexicans citizenship. You might be able to get away with giving them Sonora and Baja California, because we 'had a claim' in 1854 and was mostly desert anyhow. Sorry, I misspoke on confusing Honduras and Guatemala.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Originally, and maybe still possibly, I planned to have the CSA purchase parts of Sonora, Chihuahua, and Baja California during the late 1860s, and then gain the other states of northern Mexico during some larger conflict in the late 1800s, but I decided I didnt like how that looked too much. I will still consider it, because all of this is still alterable. I haven't changed it yet, but I already edited the map so that Yucatan and Guatemal are only vassals of the CSA and not actual states.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not really sure where they'd get the money to purchase that considering the recently deflated price of the Confederate's main source of revenue, cotton. I suppose they could've forced the U.S. into punitive war reparations, but that seems unlikely to pass considering the U.S.'s general loathing of admitting defeat. You could have G.B. give them some sort of stimulus package loan in order to industrialize/ get off of cotton that they could spend a portion on expanding to the Pacific, but I imagine that would anger G.B. for misappropriation of funds. But I feel that its a more plausible solution than having the Confederates march into Mexico waving the Bonnie Blue Fag all down the Rio Bravo singing Manifest Destiny, and having the Mexican people lie back and take it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This is what I worked out today.
1865- The Anglo-Confederate alliance forces the USA to capitulate and recognize CS independence. The USA keeps CS occupied Maryland and Delaware, the US keeps the new state of "Kanawha", the CS keeps Kentucky, Missouri is split at the Missouri River, the Indian Territory goes to the CS, the northern half of the New Mexico Territory goes to the US, and the Arizona Territory goes to the CS.
1866- Expecting the US to renew hostilities in the near future, the CSA demands that France pull its forces out of Mexico and remove Archduke Maximilian of Austria from the throne. Great Britain supports the CSA and negotiates France's withdrawel from Mexico.
1867- Maximilian is executed by the nenewed government of Benito Juarez who allies with the CSA to guard against European expanionism.
1876- Porfirio Diaz forcibly took control of Mexico and declared himself dictator. Former Mexican President Sebastian Lerdo de Tejda escaped to Montgomery where he gained sympathy from the CS government and convinced them that Diaz was a tyranical military dictator.
1878ish- CS forces invaded Mexico and forced Diaz's goverment to step down. Originally the CSA planned to annex all of Mexico but the British wouldnt have it and forced the CSA to compromise. In the end, the CSA annexed only northern Mexico in return for British mining companies to have the right to operate in Sonora and Chihuahua. The CSA also gained future rights to construct a canal over the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.
1880s- The CS is pressured by Great Britain, France, and the USA to put their slaves up for manumission, and the CS economy goes into recession as the demand for cotton decreases. This period of transition is one of the hardest periods of the CSA's history as it is forced to adjust its economy through slow industrialization while constantly facing the threat of rebellion in its western states. At some point, Santo Domingo might have been annexed as a "resettlement colony" for former slaves.
1898- After years of rebellion, the Spanish Colony of Cuba was starting to threaten Confederate interests in the Caribbean (possibly Santo Domingo) and the CSA entered into negotiations with Spain about possible cession of the island to the CSA. Spain refused, the CSA moved in too close, and accidents happened. I will think more about the war later.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I like this, it seems plausible and very in line with policy of the time period. One contention I do have is that a canal through Tehuantepec would be impossible with technology available to the C.S.A., and be astronomically expensive and time consuming. The significantly smaller Suez Canal was one of the terraforming feats of the era, and it took 10 years to build. Even if it was only a bill for the future, it would be akin for the U.S. to strike an agreement with Mexico to one day fill in the Rio Grande. I like the idea of the Confederacy buying out Santo Domingo for future slave settlements. Perhaps the Confederacy could transition from cotton to a textile economy, or perhaps refinery/processing based venture capitalism, which could incite the Spanish-Confederate War after rebels threatened Confederate licensed sugar/banana/tobacco plantations. The Confederate companies could deploy Pinkerton-esque guards to 'protect Confederate interests' which could be misinterpreted as an act of war by Spain, who fires upon the factories, forcing the Confederates to retaliate and starting the war. Would this Monroe-Doctrine-less world create a scramble for South America rather than a scramble for Africa? Also, I feel like a G.B. distracted by nurturing its Dixie child would detract from its influence in Europe, perhaps creating a stronger Germany and a competent Central Powers.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I never stated that the CSA would actually contruct the canal, only that they would get the right to try sometime in the future. In all probability they would have to settle on constructing a trans-oceanic railway capable of hauling medium sized cargo ships of the era. And they probably wouldn't even finish that, but they would try given the chance. If they did annex Santo Domingo, then they would most likely have to put down Haiti to stop it from constantly invading. I dont see it trying to make Haiti a state, given its heritage, but it could possibly serve as a negroe resettlement colony until it was granted independence, worse off than it is OTL. The Spanish-Confederate War would probably start in a way similar to that, but the events of the war would have to be considerably different for the results I am aiming for. The CSA has to annex all of the Spanish Colonial Empire, only stopping short of taking Spanish Morocco. But Spanish Sahara, the Canary Islands, Spanish Guinea, the Spanish East Indies have to be annexed to fit the scenario. How the CSA will pull this off is still debatable. Maybe Great Britain or France sided with the CSA against Spain? But Im not a fan of that idea because then the CSA probably wouldnt get any territory in Africa. Im more partial to the idea that radical liberals overthrow the renewed monarchy against the unpopular war in order to bring about reforms, and in the process they are forced to cede their colonial empire to the CSA in order to protect the Spanish state. But I will have to do more research into the condition of Spanish politics at the time.
Im still debating this, but I feel like if Great Britain had sided with the CSA, then the economic costs would have taken a toll and grown unpopular on the islands. The USA, never one to value money over land gains, might be able to benefit in this and acquire British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, and Rupertsland. But at the moment I can't explain how this would happen without sounding preposterous so Ill leave it for another time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, Santo Domingo was owned by Haiti in the 1800's, so perhaps the Confederacy could purchase a loan on the land in exchange for 5 million dixie-dollars and protection rights over any future revolutions/ colonial expansionism, of which there were many. Perhaps the Confederacy could secretly ally themselves with the anarcho-liberals in exchange for capitulation of the colonial empire after their power is secured. The C.S.A. could call for peace talks in Havana, where a 'rebel' could bomb the building and hold the Spanish government hostage until the King abdicated.
Honestly, the U.S. drafted a bill to unilaterally annex Canada in the 1870's. It was never passed, but perhaps it could happen again, this time with another war on the American continent that the U.S. wins due to an invigorated economy brought about by rapid industrialization, and general instability amongst British troops over a pointless war.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If I remember correctly, Santo Domingo was only occupied by Haiti during the first half of the 19th century. By the 1880s when Santo Domingo would be annexed it would be an independent nation. I agree completely about the Spanish-Confederate War. If that bill did pass in the 1870s, then maybe it could be realized with the forcible annexation of British Columbia and a subsequent war with Great Britain that could be won in a major international upset. After the war, the terms of the treaty could require all British fur trading companies to leave the region and for the territories to be sold to the USA for the lowest possible price per acre. The Dominions of Canada and Newfoundland could remain a part of the British Empire, or maybe a part of a British Federal Republic depending on how the 21st century treats the monarchy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hispainola was complicated after the Haitian Revolution, some European nations failed to recognize its independence all together, let alone the division between Haiti and Santo Domingo. Up until the 20th century, the sovereignty of Santo Domingo from Haiti was fuzzy at best, their was a flood of regime change and revolution that tiped the balance of power constantly. Therefore, I feel that the Haitian governance du-jour would've gladly loaned out Santo Domingo if the C.S.A. could secure it, and then they wouldn't have to worry about revolution for a while. Ohh God, what terrible things do you have in store for our tea-drinking brethren?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Santo Domingo was independent enought to apply for US annexation right after the ACW OTL, so in this universe its independent enough to be forcibly annexed by the CSA. Once it is, border, soveriegnty, and etc disputes with Haiti could lead to Confederate occupation and control over all of Hispaniola. The "Santo Domingo Territory" could be split into two "Resettlement Districts" and later Haiti could be "let go".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1