What if the CSA won: Filibustering 101

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Inspired by the conversation in
The Slave States Seceded to Protect Slavery--The Rest is Baloney
esp this post
No, I've heard of William Walker, but his filibustering activities occurred while the South was still part of the United States and was, In fact, dead before the first Southern state seceded.
It seems folks inspired by the glory and valor of Southern men at arms figure they can take over the world or at least parts of it.

Let's assume
  • an Independent CSA
  • a desire for fortune and honor
  • a desire for conquest
Let's do some work. Let's figure out.
  1. When? What year and how much of the original CSA is independent.
  2. Why? Lots of good farmland undeveloped in Texas and Miss, of course, how much of that is available depends on #1.
  3. Money Honey?: How much and where does it come from. This is the tax-averse South run by folks that don't want to pay for anything that does not get cotton to the river or catch runaway slaves.
  4. Navy? Gotta have one. Brits and French have interests in the same area and can interdict supplies, help the opposition and mess up things in general.
  5. Who? Will Southerners fight for conquest or not and where will able-bodied fighting men come from. Also determined by #1
  6. How? Got to have arms. Also depends on #1
  7. Government? Need a consolidated government to wage war. Another #1 thing to ponder.
  8. Diplomacy? Going to need it.
  9. The US: Wwill it slink into hiding or seek every opportunity to impede Southern Conquest.
  10. Unexpected stuff: Going to happen.
Have run. Start now.
 
The only formula that makes sense for an independent Confederacy is one based on Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas.
In this scenario the United States is so exhausted at the end of the war that no attempt is made to vanquish the western Confederacy, which is able to retake New Orleans, which becomes the financial and naval capital of the Confederacy, with the political capital in Austin. Austin = Washington, D.C. and New Orleans = New York. That seems to be the most reasonable starting point, similar to the weakness of federal control in real history.
 
The Fillibusters' expansionist objectives did not start with them, nor did it end with them. There can be little doubt that, had the rebels won, they would have sought ways to expand their territory.

Maybe, maybe not, we know what the United States and other countries did during the post-war 19th century. What an independent CSA would have done is purely speculation.
 
This'll be fun.

I've often thought the Confederacy wouldn't have held up for long as an independent nation, at least not if it didn't develop a more robust economy not dependent on cotton, be willing to give up some states rights for a more effective federal government, and change some other opinions such as being willing to develop infrastructure like railroads. Anyway, here's a few thoughts off the top of my head regarding the OP questions.

I think some type of peace would have had to have been reached by 1863 or too much of the confederacy would have been ruined and too many men killed and crippled for them to do much. It's possible that with secession accepted (if begrudgingly) that one or two of the border states might have decided to throw their luck in with the confederacy even if they hadn't been willing to secede initially. That's because they might have thought they'd get a better economic deal than staying with the Union. I'm not sure about Missouri - it might have split into two states, one going south as that might have presented a solution to their division (but I realize it was very complicated so that might not have been as easy as a simple split). Anyway, I don't see any confederate states abandoning the cause.

I agree that expansion - including into things not agricultural - would have been necessary for the confederacy to be something other than what we would now call a third world nation. Cotton was on the way out as Europe was already finding other sources. It certainly would have remained a very important crop but it wouldn't have been king. Also, cotton needs new land so even a cotton-based economy would require expansion. Fighting another war over U.S. territories doesn't seem like a winning strategy so I think the confederacy would have acted on their plans to go to places like South America. They could use the French Mexican model and set up puppet governments and continue using slave labor on plantations. For money they could do what the U.S. was doing - tax imports but that'd only work for a while. That's another change they'd have to make to be viable: tax something. But if they developed other commodities such as mines and were successful in South America they could just extract and exploit natural resources by nationalizing. They could have also exported slaves to South America if such became not as needed on domestic plantations.

I think some place more central with rail and/or river connections (e.g. Nashville or Memphis) - or maybe a port city like Charleston - would have made a better capital than Richmond but I suppose for a while Richmond would do. A navy and development of ports would have been necessary for not only defense but to allow for all the importing and exporting they'd need from both continents. I also think they'd really need to build those railroads or they would have a hard time just getting stuff to and from the ports. A well-developed shipping industry, similar to what the northeast had,could have developed and would have been another source of tax income. If ports and an import-export economy took off insurance and banking houses would have been close behind. I'd bet there would have been a lot of northern investors looking to get pieces of the action in the new country who could have provided capital for a number of things.

All that said, I think it more likely that an independent confederacy would have floundered because they'd not have been willing to make the social and political changes necessary to get beyond a small, privileged slavocracy and an individual state mindset. They could have got by for a time as a third world country but not developed into anything more and that, in turn, could have resulted in some of the more successful states eventually petitioning the Union to re-join.

The U.S. would, of course, compete economically as it did with all other countries but would certainly have protected the territories. I doubt they'd have got involved in trying to prevent south American expansion though; another reason for the confederacy to go that route.
 
Last edited:
Maybe, maybe not, we know what the United States and other countries did during the post-war 19th century. What an independent CSA would have done is purely speculation.
Thanks for your response.
Indeed.
 
The Fillibusters' expansionist objectives did not start with them, nor did it end with them. There can be little doubt that, had the rebels won, they would have sought ways to expand their territory.
 
Not exactly. The slave owners pressured President Buchanan to purchase Cuba from Spain. Slave owners attempted to sieze parts of Mexico "the Republic of Sonora " was briefly established. Slave owners financed William Walker to sieze Nicaragua several times.
Has we have debated many times Southners were just as eager to kill Indians and sieze their land as were the Yankees.
During the Civil War the Confederacy tried to sieze the New Mexico territory but were stoped largely Mexican American troops.
The facts show slave owners and the Confederacy were eager to aggessively sieze territory.
Leftyhunter
The Southern States were still in the US and wanted to counter Northern expansion.
 
While still in the United Staes, it was largely in response to the westward expansion into stolen Indian lands which would have increased the power of the North to the detriment of the Southern States.
Westward into the territories AKA expansion into stolen Indian lands that Southern politicians demanded as in GA, Al, and the LA purchase or as a result of the Mexican War the Southern Politicians wanted or the annexation of Texas also something the Southern Pols wanted. Seems more of a miscalculation to me by the Southern politicians.

The rise of the Republican Party with its so-called "free soilers" was especially troubling.
It troubled slave owners looking for lots of cheap lands at the expense of average joes.

During the war, the Confederate States were too busy defending the land that it had for serious attempts at national expansion beyond its existing borders.
That is true.
After the war, who knows, it was an age of imperialism, the US didn't let the Pacific Ocean stop their dreams of new territories. What an independent CSA would have done is speculation, it would have likely sought to counter any US moves into the Caribean and Latin America, but with slavery on the way out it in the western hemisphere, it is unlikely it would have risked conflict to gain new slave territory.
CSA vs United Fruit?
Politically and economically an independent CSA didn't need them.
An independent CSA does not need land and slaves?
 
Westward into the territories AKA expansion into stolen Indian lands that Southern politicians demanded as in GA, Al, and the LA purchase or as a result of the Mexican War the Southern Politicians wanted or the annexation of Texas also something the Southern Pols wanted. Seems more of a miscalculation to me by the Southern politicians.

It troubled slave owners looking for lots of cheap lands at the expense of average joes.


That is true.

CSA vs United Fruit?
An independent CSA does not need land and slaves?

?
 
This'll be fun.
Hopefully
I've often thought the Confederacy wouldn't have held up for long as an independent nation, at least not if it didn't develop a more robust economy not dependent on cotton, be willing to give up some states rights for a more effective federal government, and change some other opinions such as being willing to develop infrastructure like railroads. Anyway, here's a few thoughts off the top of my head regarding the OP questions.
Agree. Filibusering is wishful thinking otherwise.
I think some type of peace would have had to have been reached by 1863 or too much of the confederacy would have been ruined and too many men killed and crippled for them to do much. It's possible that with secession accepted (if begrudgingly) that one or two of the border states might have decided to throw their luck in with the confederacy even if they hadn't been willing to secede initially. That's because they might have thought they'd get a better economic deal than staying with the Union. I'm not sure about Missouri - it might have split into two states, one going south as that might have presented a solution to their division (but I realize it was very complicated so that might not have been as easy as a simple split). Anyway, I don't see any confederate states abandoning the cause.
Good points, maybe East TN, North Al and North GA form a Union State. I don't think any Border States will join.
I agree that expansion - including into things not agricultural - would have been necessary for the confederacy to be something other than what we would now call a third world nation. Cotton was on the way out as Europe was already finding other sources. It certainly would have remained a very important crop but it wouldn't have been king. Also, cotton needs new land so even a cotton-based economy would require expansion. Fighting another war over U.S. territories doesn't seem like a winning strategy so I think the confederacy would have acted on their plans to go to places like South America. They could use the French Mexican model and set up puppet governments and continue using slave labor on plantations. For money they could do what the U.S. was doing - tax imports but that'd only work for a while. That's another change they'd have to make to be viable: tax something. But if they developed other commodities such as mines and were successful in South America they could just extract and exploit natural resources by nationalizing. They could have also exported slaves to South America if such became not as needed on domestic plantations.
Agree but the Brits and French also have ambitions and maybe a post-war will too US-the United Fruit Company comes to mind.
I think some place more central with rail and/or river connections (e.g. Nashville or Memphis) - or maybe a port city like Charleston - would have made a better capital than Richmond but I suppose for a while Richmond would do. A navy and development of ports would have been necessary for not only defense but to allow for all the importing and exporting they'd need from both continents. I also think they'd really need to build those railroads or they would have a hard time just getting stuff to and from the ports. A well-developed shipping industry, similar to what the northeast had,could have developed and would have been another source of tax income. If ports and an import-export economy took off insurance and banking houses would have been close behind. I'd bet there would have been a lot of northern investors looking to get pieces of the action in the new country who could have provided capital for a number of things.
Agree, but a lot of moving pieces there.
All that said, I think it more likely that an independent confederacy would have floundered because they'd not have been willing to make the social and political changes necessary to get beyond a small, privileged slavocracy and an individual state mindset. They could have got by for a time as a third world country but not developed into anything more and that, in turn, could have resulted in some of the more successful states eventually petitioning the Union to re-join.
Agree
The U.S. would, of course, compete economically as it did with all other countries but would certainly have protected the territories. I doubt they'd have got involved in trying to prevent south American expansion though; another reason for the confederacy to go that route.
A possibility.
 
I'd say at least at the 501 level, we need to go over the heads of the "accurate history" types. :wink:
One point is assuredly how many deserters and where the heck will they desert to in the depths of a South American rain forest or Mexican desert.
 
Good points, maybe East TN, North Al and North GA form a Union State. I don't think any Border States will join.

Hadn't thought about the unionist portions forming a state; quite possible. You might be right about the border states but Kentucky did seem to be on the fence and control of the rivers would have been a big issue for them so maybe they'd have gone south.

Agree but the Brits and French also have ambitions and maybe a post-war will too US-the United Fruit Company comes to mind.

Agree - might not have been so easy but I think way more possible than expanding westward.

Agree, but a lot of moving pieces there.

Indeed. That's a large part of why I don't think it really would have happened; too many moving pieces necessary. The CSA couldn't even get past the states' rights thing to fight the war that threatened their very existence. Why expect them to do so in peace time ?
 
Hadn't thought about the unionist portions forming a state; quite possible. You might be right about the border states but Kentucky did seem to be on the fence and control of the rivers would have been a big issue for them so maybe they'd have gone south.
Depends a lot of how the war ends. Maybe the Union does not let them go
Indeed. That's a large part of why I don't think it really would have happened; too many moving pieces necessary. The CSA couldn't even get past the states' rights thing to fight the war that threatened their very existence. Why expect them to do so in peace time ?
Agree. A lot of contingent things have to break for the CSA which IMHO is improbable.
.
 
What about the French adventure in Mexico? It was possible largely because the US was engaged in putting down the rebellion. Once that was accomplished, it was far less likely to succeed and eventually failed.
Would the same thing have happened if the rebels had won? Might french control of Mexico been a condition for obtaining recognition of the Richmond government?
Or would the newly independent CSA have followed its Fillibuster instincts and fought France and the Mexican people to expand slavery into Mexico?
 
What about the French adventure in Mexico? It was possible largely because the US was engaged in putting down the rebellion. Once that was accomplished, it was far less likely to succeed and eventually failed.
Figure the CSA now borders Mexico hard to tell what the US would do.
Would the same thing have happened if the rebels had won? Might french control of Mexico been a condition for obtaining recognition of the Richmond government?
Could be, exchange of land for CSA military support or both. OTOH the insurrection might be real bad.
Or would the newly independent CSA have followed its Fillibuster instincts and fought France and the Mexican people to expand slavery into Mexico?
I doubt it, but as in above, an exchange of land for military support is possible by either side.
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top