Imperialism

[Unionist]

Every always trashes the Union for being imperial, but it seems(to me anyway) that most of that came from the south. If the south succeeded in seceding, would they have tried to conquer other areas? Certainly they would have made the push west and possibly north, but would they have gone to Cuba and Mexico? Thanks

 

[JeffBrooks]

Whether they wanted to or not, an independent Confederacy would have been in no position whatsoever to try to conquer anything. Their manpower would have been decimated, their infrastructure would have been wrecked, and they would have been so deeply in debt that the bulk of their public revenue would have had to go to interest payments to European bankers. Attempting to expand into Mexico would have brought them into conflict with France, while attempting to expand into Cuba would have brought them into conflict with Spain. The British also would not have approved of the Confederacy throwing its weight around in Latin America, as it would have disrupted their lucrative business interests throughout the region. They were trying to win European goodwill, not pick fights with them.

 

[matthew mckeon]

Historically, its hard to argue that the urge to expand territory under American control is somehow limited to one section. Some southern leaders pushed to expand into the Southwest, and farther into Central America and Cuba.

 

[Samuel.Sohm]

Every always trashes the Union for being imperial, but it seems(to me anyway) that most of that came from the south. If the south succeeded in seceding, would they have tried to conquer other areas? Certainly they would have made the push west and possibly north, but would they have gone to Cuba and Mexico? Thanks

Imperialism was the fashion back then, and Americans in general (at least in the 1890's) believed themselves puritan compared to the others in the "Colonial Club." All that changed after the Spanish-American War and we joined the colonial club..... BTW Good to see you back!

 

[Unionist]

Imperialism was the fashion back then, and Americans in general (at least in the 1890's) believed themselves puritan compared to the others in the "Colonial Club." All that changed after the Spanish-American War and we joined the colonial club..... BTW Good to see you back!

Perhaps I am misinformed, but weren't many New Englanders very much against the Mexican American war. Some even refused the poll tax because it supported the war.

 

[rpkennedy]

Perhaps I am misinformed, but weren't many New Englanders very much against the Mexican American war. Some even refused the poll tax because it supported the war.

Yes, some opposed the war, seeing it as a naked land grab for the pro-slavery powers.

R

 

[Mason and Dixon]

Every always trashes the Union for being imperial, but it seems(to me anyway) that most of that came from the south. If the south succeeded in seceding, would they have tried to conquer other areas? Certainly they would have made the push west and possibly north, but would they have gone to Cuba and Mexico? Thanks

I don't "trash" any empire for expansion.. I think it's par for the course.
It seems like every empire from history wanted and/or attempted to expand it's realm & influence.. I think ultimately, its just part of the human condition,.. probably part of every biological condition as well, like the movement of vines & herds (?)

 

[ole]

Any nation that didn't pursue imperialism wasn't properly motivated.

Now that imperialism is passe and resisted, we're talking about a different time.

We had our time, as did every nation. It's not entirely done with.

 

[Freddy]

Imperialism was the fashion back then, and Americans in general (at least in the 1890's) believed themselves puritan compared to the others in the "Colonial Club." All that changed after the Spanish-American War and we joined the colonial club..... BTW Good to see you back!

We did keep The Philippines until 1946, but I think WWI and WWII were big factors in that we needed territory in Asia to fight on a global scale if required. WWII ends and The Philippines gain independence. Cuba was given independence quickly. Guam and Puerto Rico are still our territory. PR could be a state or independent if it makes up its mind.

 

[Unionist]

I'm not looking for a defense of imperialism. I am not declaring it good or bad, I'm pointing out they hypocrisy of some people trashing the Union for it.
My real question is, is there any evidence that the south wanted to expand into Cuba and Mexico? Thanks

 

[Nathanb1]

Hawaii. Pure imperialism.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

"Imperialism" didn't have quite the same negative connotations then as it does now. Things called "empires" weren't automatically assumed to be evil.

Not that there weren't detractors. Many Whigs, including a young Lincoln, were unhappy with the Mexican War, which they saw as largely a land-grab from a weaker power. And later on, after Kipling had written "The White Man's Burden" to welcome the US to the ranks of the imperialists after taking the Philippines, someone wrote in response, "We have taken up the white man's burden / of the black and of the brown / Now kindly tell us, Rudyard / How may we put it down?"

 

[Unionist]

Is there any evidence that south intended to go for Cuba and other countries?
Again, not attacking imperialism, I'm saying I found southern garment rending over the issue to be a bit hypocritical. I'm not attacking the south, that is merely my opinion.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Is there any evidence that south intended to go for Cuba and other countries?

There were calls for that sort of thing, and support for "filibusters," paramilitary expeditions to foment revolution in various Central American and Caribbean countries and possessions. How much that would have translated into deliberate national-level intentions is difficult to estimate. But in the era of "Manifest Destiny," it wouldn't have been completely out of the question.

 

[JeffBrooks]

Is there any evidence that south intended to go for Cuba and other countries?

Not officially, no. Before the war most expansionists had been Southerners. But the rationale was that slavery had to be extended in order to bring more slave states into the Union and thereby prevent Northern anti-slavery elements from gaining control of the government. Obviously, if the South had succeeded in winning its independence, this would no longer have been a factor.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Not officially, no. Before the war most expansionists had been Southerners. But the rationale was that slavery had to be extended in order to bring more slave states into the Union and thereby prevent Northern anti-slavery elements from gaining control of the government. Obviously, if the South had succeeded in winning its independence, this would no longer have been a factor.

Yeah. Plus, I'd imagine, while there would still be some of the 'fire-eater' stripe advocating further expansion of slavery anyway, there probably would have been very little widespread support for a war of conquest so soon after surviving a war of independence. Perhaps a generation or two down the road, but that would have all depended upon how the Confederate States of America balanced itself out politically as a going concern.

 

[Sid J.]

The Sibley Campaign into New Mexico, as poorly planned and disatorous as it was, was exactly that:

Sibley's New Mexican campaign.--its objects and the causes of its failure.


by T. T. Teel, Major, C. S. A.

The object of his campaign in New Mexico was 1 explained in detail by General H. H. Sibley to the writer in a conversation which occurred just after the former had assumed command of the army. His plans were in substance as follows: While in the United States army and stationed in Arizona, he had acquired full information as to the resources of that Territory and of New Mexico; and as to the condition of the United States forces in those Territories, the quantity of Government stores, supplies, transportation, etc. He had informed President Davis of these things, and had submitted to him the plan of campaign.President Davis had authorized him to enlist three regiments in Texas, to constitute a brigade to be mounted and mustered into the service, with such arms as could be obtained in Texas, and, upon arriving in New Mexico, the brigade was to be furnished with arms and equipments out of the supply already captured or that might be captured. His campaign was to be self-sustaining; President Davis knew that Colonel John R. Baylor, with less than five hundred troops, had captured large supplies and was in possession of all of Arizona and the lower part of New Mexico; Sibley was to utilize the results of Baylor's successes, make Mesilla the base of operations, and with the enlistment of men from New Mexico, California, Arizona, and Colorado form an army which would effect the ultimate aim of the campaign, for there were scattered all over the Western States and Territories Southern men who were anxiously awaiting an opportunity to join the Confederate army. Upon the arrival of his brigade at Mesilla, Sibley was to open negotiations with the governors of Chihuahua, Sonora, and Lower California, for supplies, etc. The objective aim and design of the campaign was the conquest of California, and as soon as the Confederate army should occupy the Territory of New Mexico, an army of advance would be organized, and "On to San Francisco" would be the watchword; Califo rnia had to be conquered, so that there would be an outlet for slavery, the boundaries of the Confederacy, as they then existed, including none of the Territories, but with New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Utah there would be plenty of room for the extension of slavery, which would greatly strengthen the Confederate States. If the Confederates succeeded in occupying California, New Mexico, and Arizona, negotiations to secure Chihuahua, Sonora, and Lower California, either by purchase or by conquest, would be opened; the state of affairs in Mexico made it an easy thing to take those States, and the Mexican President would be glad to get rid of them and at the same time improve his exchequer. In addition to all this, General Sibley intimated that there was a secret understanding between the Mexican and the Confederate authorities, and that, as soon as our occupation of the said states was assured, a transfer of those Mexican states would be made to the Confederacy.Juarez, the President of the Republic (so called), was then in the City of Mexico with a small army under his command, hardly sufficient to keep him in his position. That date (1862) was the darkest hour in the annals of our sister republic, but it was the brightest of the Confederacy, and General Sibley thought that he would have little difficulty in consummating the ends so devoutly wished by the Confederate Government.
The direct cause of our discomfiture and the failure of our campaign was the want of supplies of all kinds for the use of our army. The territory which we occupied was no storehouse.Colonel Canby's order to destroy everything that would be of use to the Confederateshad been fully enforced. Thus we were situated in the very heart of the enemy's country, with well-equipped forces in our front and rear.
General Sibley was not a good administrative officer. He did not husband his resources, and was too prone to let the morrow take care of itself. But for this the expedition never would have been undertaken, nor would he have left the enemy between him and his base of supplies, a mistake which he made at Fort Craig, The other reasons for the failure of the campaign were want of supplies, ammunition, discipline, and confidence. Under such circumstances failure was inevitable. Had Colonel John R. Baylor continued to command, the result might have been different.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:2001.05.0044:chapter=8.82

 

[ForeverFree]

Whether they wanted to or not, an independent Confederacy would have been in no position whatsoever to try to conquer anything. Their manpower would have been decimated, their infrastructure would have been wrecked, and they would have been so deeply in debt that the bulk of their public revenue would have had to go to interest payments to European bankers. Attempting to expand into Mexico would have brought them into conflict with France, while attempting to expand into Cuba would have brought them into conflict with Spain. The British also would not have approved of the Confederacy throwing its weight around in Latin America, as it would have disrupted their lucrative business interests throughout the region. They were trying to win European goodwill, not pick fights with them.

Prior to the war, Southern politicians spoke openly of their imperialist intentions. This is from the Southern Democrats party platform:

Democratic Party Platform (Breckinridge Faction) of 1860 / November 6, 1860​

​

...Resolved, That the platform adopted by the Democratic party at Cincinnati be affirmed, with the following explanatory resolutions:​

​

...Resolved, That the Democratic party are in favor of the acquisition of the Island of Cuba, on such terms as shall be honorable to ourselves and just to Spain, at the earliest practicable moment.​

​

It's not hard to believe that, had no shooting war occurred with the USA, the CSA would have made some attempt - diplomatic or otherwise - to gain control over Cuba, at least.

- Alan

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

It's not hard to believe that, had no shooting war occurred with the USA, the CSA would have made some attempt - diplomatic or otherwise - to gain control over Cuba, at least.

I think "had no shooting war occurred" is the operative phrase. I can see in that case a scenario where the United States (one with slavery still intact) gains control over Cuba. What I question is whether the Confederate States could have swung it... having just survived a war of independence where 'all they asked was to be left alone,' I don't see the mothers of sons in the Confederate States Army being too thrilled about sending them even farther afield on a war of conquest. And I don't see the rump United States or Britain (or Spain, for that matter) simply sitting back and letting it happen.

Not saying the fire-eaters wouldn't still have been pushing the idea, of course.

 

[Unionist]

So it all boils down to speculation? Where did this rumor start? Thanks for all the answers thus far