Flashpoints Along the CSA-USA Border After Confederate Victory

CdubeJr87 · Jul 25, 2026

After a Confederate victory, where along the border between the Union and the Confederacy would war most likely start up again?

The Confederacy would want a port on the Pacific, and if they couldn't make an agreement with Mexico for one on the Bay of California, it would probably invade California.

The border states would create interesting scenarios
Kentucky might become like the Israel-Palestine situation
Missouri might resemble Northern Ireland
Indian Territory (Oklahoma) might look like Pakistan after the partition of India or become Yugoslavia
West Virginia might be the equivalent of the Crimean region, with the CSA supporting separatist militias, especially after the coal barons start scrambling for its natural resources.
Kansas might look like Kurdistan, although the fact that the Confederacy would no longer need it for representation in the US Congress might negate its importance.
Delaware and Maryland might see small groups like the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria armed forces and the ETA - "Basque Homeland and Freedom"
The border between modern northern and southern New Mexico and Arizona might look like the one between North and South Korea

Both sides might want Cuba and the Dominican Republic, both for their natural resources and military strategic importance.

Josh The Lighthouse Guy · Jul 25, 2026

I think most of your comparisons miss the mark. USA-CSA was not divided by ethnicity or religion, thus the kind of conflict seen in most global examples of protracted internal conflict aren't relevant.

There might be some irredentism with Kentucky or eastern WV.

Confederate expansion to the Pacific would probably become an issue, though the Confederates could just bide their time until upheaval in Mexico provided an opportunity. Southerners might also try to stage a slow invasion via immigration like they did in Florida and Texas, albeit with greater difficulty since slavery was illegal in Mexico.

What would become of the Indian Territory is an interesting question, especially since it would form part of the border. Are there raids across the border? In which direction?

After independence, Confederate expansion would be primarily directed at Cuba.

JeffBrooks · Jul 25, 2026

CdubeJr87 said:
The Confederacy would want a port on the Pacific, and if they couldn't make an agreement with Mexico for one on the Bay of California, it would probably invade California.

Even if the confederacy had won the war, it would not be in a condition to pick a fight with anybody for a very long time. It would be completely bankrupt and will have suffered massive casualties, even under the best circumstances.

Library Lady · Jul 25, 2026

Depending on how far forward you want to restart the war, Illinois could be torn in half. This is what the 1860 election looked like in Illinois. Red is Republican. Blue is Democrat.

This is a current map of counties where non-binding referenda to leave Illinois to form their own state (or maybe join Indiana who actually wants them) have passed.

gary · Jul 25, 2026

Bet they would try for Round II for New Mexico (and then Arizona and California here Los Altos (modernly Los Angeles) would become the major port. This time they won't have "In the wagon with the white hat, General Sibley.... He looks dead." commanding (inkeeper's line from The Good, The Bad & The Ugly)l.

CdubeJr87 · Jul 25, 2026

Josh The Lighthouse Guy said:
USA-CSA was not divided by ethnicity or religion, thus the kind of conflict seen in most global examples of protracted internal conflict aren't relevant.

That brings up the Puritan New England vs. the Cavalier South, agrarian society vs. industrial society issue. Plus, you had the influx of German and Irish immigrants, with many of the former choosing to settle in the North.

Since Irish veterans from both sides of the war took part in the Fenian raids into Canada, that raises the question of which country the Irish would immigrate to most and which country would court Irish immigrants, depending on how the Irish independence issue would affect relations with Great Britain.

Library Lady said:
Illinois could be torn in half.

The southern portions of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio had much in common with Southern culture and politics. Marion County in Illinois actually sent a company of men to join the Confederate army.

CdubeJr87 · Jul 25, 2026

JeffBrooks said:
Even if the confederacy had won the war, it would not be in a condition to pick a fight with anybody for a very long time

Counter point
Wars in Eastern Europe right after World War I
Conflicts between the Republic of Texas and Mexico, including Texan expeditions into New Mexico
The Quasi-War between the United States and France a decade after they were allies

gary · Jul 25, 2026

Mexico may have been an easier avenue of approach. Not the entire nation, but sufficient land for a land route to a Pacific port. No more Hapsburg Emperor of Meixco.

We should all celebrate Cinco de Mayo. The Mexicans did us a favor by ejecting Napoleon III"s puppet.

Josh The Lighthouse Guy · Jul 25, 2026

CdubeJr87 said:
That brings up the Puritan New England vs. the Cavalier South, agrarian society vs. industrial society issue. Plus, you had the influx of German and Irish immigrants, with many of the former choosing to settle in the North.

Germans had been immigrating in noticeable numbers since the colonial years, mostly into PA, MD, and VA. They tended to integrate quite well into American society.

The Irish were the subject of prejudice in both the North and the South. And while they represented the majority of Catholics there were a number of smaller Catholic groups. Soon after the war Italian immigration made them the primary Catholic minority.

Puritans vs Cavaliers theory is a gross exaggeration of reality. And it's rather nonsensical on its face as the South became the most religious and conservative part of the entire country. They became the New Puritans.

Agrarian society vs industrial society is a cliche that ignores Midwestern agriculture, and later Great Plains agriculture. It's also about the dumbest reason to tear a country apart. A country needs both agriculture and industry to be economically successful.

Library Lady · Jul 25, 2026

gary said:
Mexico may have been an easier avenue of approach. Not the entire nation, but sufficient land for a land route to a Pacific port. No more Hapsburg Emperor of Meixco.

We should all celebrate Cinco de Mayo. The Mexicans did us a favor by ejecting Napoleon III"s puppet.

You know, I periodically wonder what would have happened if the US had kept Mexico all the way down to and including Mexico City after the Mexican-American War. I know the war wasn't all that popular with certain US constituencies at the time, but still. I can't recall ever seeing an alternative history novel on the subject.

JeffBrooks · Jul 25, 2026

I have spent more time envisioning a victorious Confederacy than just about anyone, but I have never understood why so many people think it would want or need a port on the Pacific coast. What purpose could it serve? Does anyone seriously think that they're going to haul wagon loads of cotton across thousands of miles of trackless desert to export it to China or Japan?

Realistically, a victorious Confederacy would try very hard to avoid provoking anyone and instead focus on its own economic recovery from the damage caused by the war. They certainly would not have the industrial capacity to build a trans-continental railroad for a very long time.

JeffBrooks · Jul 25, 2026

Library Lady said:
You know, I periodically wonder what would have happened if the US had kept Mexico all the way down to and including Mexico City after the Mexican-American War. I know the war wasn't all that popular with certain US constituencies at the time, but still. I can't recall ever seeing an alternative history novel on the subject.

If the United States tried to do that, the fighting in 1846-47 would only have marked the opening stages of a much longer and bloodier conflict. We'd be looking at a long-term partisan insurgency that the US Army would be poorly equipped to combat.

Generic Username · Jul 25, 2026

JeffBrooks said:
I have spent more time envisioning a victorious Confederacy than just about anyone, but I have never understood why so many people think it would want or need a port on the Pacific coast. What purpose could it serve? Does anyone seriously think that they're going to haul wagon loads of cotton across thousands of miles of trackless desert to export it to China or Japan?

You really need to get your hands on West of Slavery by Kevin Waite. Southerners had long been dreaming of a Trans-Continental Empire, with ambitions to take advantage of the booming Cotton trade with China and wanted a Pacific port to that end. Already by 1835, manufactured cotton goods and raw cotton itself made up the bulk of exports to China:

E8nh0QKWUAElqyf?format=png&name=small.webp

E8niLEdWEAE_QMe?format=png&name=900x900.webp

Between 1845 and 1860, the annual Sino-American trade grew from $9.5 million to $22.5 million. The desire to gain a Pacific port was driven by the fact the Planters wanted this trade on their own terms:

E8npZANX0Aw2jfN?format=png&name=900x900.webp

E8nptM_X0AEbWAN?format=png&name=900x900.webp

As for how, they did indeed plan for a Southern Trans-Continental railway. From Official explorations for Pacific railroads, 1853‑1855 by G. L. Albright (University of California Publications in History, XI, Berkeley, 1921):

Delegates from twelve southern states and several northern and western states met at Memphis in October, 1849, to discuss the question of a transcontinental railroad and to urge upon Congress the necessity of immediate action.46 Lieutenant Maury, superintendent of the National Observatory at Washington, and a man well informed upon the western and Pacific regions, was elected president. Resolutions were drawn up stating: first, that it was the duty of the general government to provide at an early period for the construction of a national railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean; second, that engineers should be appointed and surveys and the location of the route be completed by the general government; third, that for the construction of the road the public lands constituted a proper fund, and that it was the duty of Congress, after the building of the main trunk road, to aid by an appropriation from the national domain in the construction of branch railroads to connect with the Great Lakes and the great thoroughfares leading to the Atlantic, and also to aid in the construction of branches from the main trunk to suitable points on the Gulf of Mexico; and fourth, that in the event of the appropriation by Congress of a considerable portion of the public lands, or of the proceeds of the sales thereof, to the construction of a railroad, liberal appropriations of the public lands lying within the limits of the respective states should be made to aid in the construction.47

The proposed route, as advocated by the Memphis Convention, would commence at the port of San Diego, pursuing a direct line to the Colorado River; thence to the Gila and along the valley of the latter to El Paso del Norte; thence across the state of Texas to its northeastern boundary near the thirty-fourth parallel of north latitude, and terminating at some point on the Mississippi River between the mouth of the Ohio and the mouth of the Red, preferably at Memphis.48 The memorial of the Memphis Convention was referred to the House Committee on Naval Affairs, which reported August 1, 1850. The report of its chairman, Mr. Stanton, embodied the entire memorial and was accompanied by a bill providing for the survey of the proposed routes for a railroad across the continent.49

The St. Louis Convention, with similar objects in view, met in the same month and was attended by delegates from both northern and southern states. The guiding spirit of the meeting was Senator Benton, and it was due primarily to his influence that the following resolutions were passed: (1) "That, in the opinion of this convention, it is the duty of the General Government to provide, at an early period, for the construction of a central national railroad from the valley of the Mississippi to the Pacific ocean"; and (2) "That, in the opinion of this convention a grand trunk railroad, with branches to St. Louis, Memphis and Chicago, would be such a central and national one."50 To avoid state and local prejudices the Convention proposed that the government should confine its operations to the territory beyond the limits of the states, leaving the various branches to be built by the states through liberal grants of government lands. The Convention also urged the necessity of a thorough survey of all routes that might be considered practicable.

And, finally, the map:

JeffBrooks said:
Realistically, a victorious Confederacy would try very hard to avoid provoking anyone and instead focus on its own economic recovery from the damage caused by the war. They certainly would not have the industrial capacity to build a trans-continental railroad for a very long time.

I'd agree the Confederacy would be loath to restart the conflict with the Union particularly on grounds of naked aggrandizement against it. Adrian Brettle's Colossal Ambitions notes Confederate long term planning in this regard was already beginning to congeal by 1863 in this regard, as to the need to maintain relations in the Post War era. I think this is why a shift towards Mexico, as others have noted, is the most likely route for a Confederate outlet to the Pacific; they too seemed to grasp this well.

Generic Username · Jul 25, 2026

Library Lady said:
You know, I periodically wonder what would have happened if the US had kept Mexico all the way down to and including Mexico City after the Mexican-American War. I know the war wasn't all that popular with certain US constituencies at the time, but still. I can't recall ever seeing an alternative history novel on the subject.

I've been sketching out a scenario and researching this exact premise for about a decade now. It was a near run thing and, IMHO, would've averted the Civil War.

CdubeJr87 · Jul 25, 2026

Josh The Lighthouse Guy said:
Germans had been immigrating in noticeable numbers since the colonial years, mostly into PA, MD, and VA. They tended to integrate quite well into American society.

That is early colonial period.

There was a new wave of German immigrants after the 1848 Revolutions. Many of those midwestern communities did not integrate into American society. There's a reason why for years German was the second most spoken language in the US

Library Lady · Jul 25, 2026

CdubeJr87 said:
That is early colonial period.

There was a new wave of German immigrants after the 1848 Revolutions. Many of those midwestern communities did not integrate into American society. There's a reason why for years German was the second most spoken language in the US

My small rural hometown had both a Swedish Lutheran church and a German Lutheran church. My grandmother was the organist for the German Lutheran church for a number of years when she was young. Their services were still conducted in German in the 19-teens and possibly 1920s. I'm not sure if they switched to English in 1917 or not. Families of German descent had otherwise integrated into this community and were accepted.

major bill · Jul 25, 2026

While Delaware is on the small side, the loss of the use of the Delaware Rjver would have been a real blow to Philadelphia. I could see a conflict over Daware.

The loss of the use of the Ohio River to the Union could be another flash point.

The loss of the Mississippi River to the Unionwould have a major impact on the Union Midwestern states Again a major flash point.

If the Confederates could gain all of Illinois it would have access to the Great Lakes. If Southern Illinois was to secede and join the Confedercy, taking Northern Illinois might be worth the use of force.

Josh The Lighthouse Guy · Jul 25, 2026

CdubeJr87 said:
There was a new wave of German immigrants after the 1848 Revolutions. Many of those midwestern communities did not integrate into American society. There's a reason why for years German was the second most spoken language in the US

Integration doesn't happen overnight.

CdubeJr87 · Jul 25, 2026

Josh The Lighthouse Guy said:
Integration doesn't happen overnight.

It took the Germanophobia of World War I and II for many German Americans to stop speaking German, selling German foods, and even using their German surnames.

Don't forget Pennsylvania Dutch.

Many Germans in the South, especially in Texas, did not side with the Confederacy. Look up the Nueces Massacre. During the Camp Jackson Affair in St. Louis, Missouri, Union captain Nathaniel Lyons used German volunteers.

CdubeJr87 · Jul 25, 2026

Library Lady said:
This is what the 1860 election looked like in Illinois. Red is Republican. Blue is Democrat.

Missouri was already torn in half. Check out the area called Little Dixie. It connects with Illinois just along the line where the state was divided by Democrats and Republicans. Governor Claiborne Fox Jackson had both a provisional government and a Confederate government of Missouri, which was in exile in Jefferson, Texas.

Here's a discussion of the state's loyalties. https://civilwartalk.com/threads/analyzing-the-loyalty-of-missouri-1861-1865.139606/

major bill said:
The loss of the use of the Ohio River to the Union could be another flash point.

The loss of the Mississippi River to the Unionwould have a major impact on the Union Midwestern states Again a major flash point.

Since Cairo, Illinois, where the Ohio meets the Mississippi, was between the border states of Missouri and Kentucky, especially Kentucky counties that sided with the South, it would probably be a hot spot.

Flashpoints Along the CSA-USA Border After Confederate Victory

Private

Major

2nd Lieutenant

Captain

Major

Private

Private

Major

Major

Captain

2nd Lieutenant

2nd Lieutenant

Corporal

Corporal

Private

Captain

Brev. Brig. Gen'l

Major

Private

Private

Similar threads