Subject: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 17:34:05 GMT From: Carlos Th Organization: Deja.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if In several threads, including the last hypotetical CSA tread, one of the proposed scenarios include an invation of Cuba, Mexico or Central American by either the CSA or the USA. I've seen this scenario also in future history. I have no dubt that today's military technology from the USA would be able to control key infrastructure in any Latin American country, but I think that an occupation army would have truble controling rebel population in larger countries (or even in countries like Panama or Haiti, if they would have wanted to annex, instead of depose current leader). Technology from future USA would do a better job. I don't expect any Latin American country catching up the USA in military technology unless there is a major cathastrophe in the USA (ASB or a metheor), at least in the following 100 years. But I also dubt that a military annexation of a large Latin American country (Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Peru) would success in that period. (I'm not talking about political handicaps but only on military ones). Anyhow, let's say that either the CSA or the USA in 1880 would have attempted to conquer the Caribean or Latin America, with 1880 technology, and let's imagin that the Brittish wouldn't support that invasion but wouldn't try to deffend the invaded nations unless their interests are damaged (they would defend Jamaica but probably not Mexico, but would sell weapons to Mexicans). I could imagin successfull invasions in Cuba (Spain), Dominican Republic or Haiti, probably some Central American countries, but I don't think that they would succed invading Mexico, much less any South American country. Even if we had many political problems and civil wars and border wars, we had developed an identity as new nation states with concepts like patriotism and nationalism. Latin American countries wouldn't be easy prays from the begining and wouldn't accept becoming colonies from a new power half a century later we stopped being colonies from Spain, which mean large rebel groups opposing the anexation or colonization if the invasion had succeded. or am I mistaken? Which would have been the countries a colony hunger USA or CSA would have attempted to take? Which would have been the ones they could have easily invade? Which would have been the ones that could be easily controled once invaded? -- Carlos Th Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Subject: Re: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 18:21:39 GMT From: "Robert J. Kolker" Organization: AT&T Worldnet Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Carlos Th wrote: > > Which would have been the countries a colony hunger USA or CSA would > have attempted to take? Which would have been the ones they could have > easily invade? Which would have been the ones that could be easily > controled once invaded? Why would the U.S. want to conquer, control or otherwise micromanage miserable South American colonies filled with third world savages. If it is for the resources, there is an easier way. It is called * buying *. This is much cheaper in the long run Subject: Re: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 20:11:07 GMT From: Carlos Th Organization: Deja.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 In article <3A4A32CF.1133FDDB@usa.net>, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote: > > > Carlos Th wrote: > > > > > Which would have been the countries a colony hunger USA or CSA > > would have attempted to take? Which would have been the ones > > they could have easily invade? Which would have been the ones > > that could be easily controled once invaded? > > Why would the U.S. want to conquer, control or otherwise micromanage > miserable South American colonies filled with third world savages. > If it is for the resources, there is an easier way. It is called > * buying *. This is much cheaper in the long run I cannot imagine political or economical reasons either in OTL USA, but CSA threads usually suggest an expantion of the CSA towards Latin America (which I would think the same you asked about U.S.) My question is not about "why" but reather on "how"... if we want a PoD it could be any time after (or even before) the American Revolution, probably even the ACW, in which a CSA or an imperialist USA or a United Kingdom of America or what ever would feel they want to conquer the whole Americas or as a big buch of the Americas as they could manage (Monroe doctrine in the sense of "Americas for the Americans" when people read "Americas" as the hemisphere and "Americans" as citizens of the USA). -- Carlos Th Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Subject: Re: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 13:22:30 GMT From: DF (not@home.yet) Reply-To: nobody@home.yet Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Carlos Th wrote: >Robert J. Kolker wrote: >>Carlos Th wrote: >>>Which would have been the countries a colony hunger USA or CSA >>>would have attempted to take? Which would have been the ones >>>they could have easily invade? Which would have been the ones >>>that could be easily controled once invaded? Seems we've practiced a few times in various ways in Nicaragua. Then there's Cuba and Puerto Rico 'round the turn of the last century. Then we effectively carved off a piece of Colombia and called it Panama. Later, the Dominican Republic. Seems it was never worth it to keep any but Puerto Rico, which Bill Clinton, just this week, proposed a commission to consider for statehood again. >(Monroe doctrine in the sense of "Americas for the Americans" when >people read "Americas" as the hemisphere and "Americans" as citizens of >the USA). Sounds a bit reminiscent of "Asia for the Asiatics," the motto of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Subject: Re: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 14:15:54 GMT From: Carlos Th Organization: Deja.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 In article <3a4b3362.278420935@news.earthlink.net>, nobody@home.yet wrote: > Carlos Th wrote: > >Robert J. Kolker wrote: > >>Carlos Th wrote: > >>>Which would have been the countries a colony hunger USA or CSA > >>>would have attempted to take? Which would have been the ones > >>>they could have easily invade? Which would have been the ones > >>>that could be easily controled once invaded? > Seems we've practiced a few times in various ways in Nicaragua. > Then there's Cuba and Puerto Rico 'round the turn of the last > century. Well, Cuba and Puerto Rico were not independent states, they would have been more willing to change the ruler than any South American country. (Same goes for Philipines). Anyhow I think that neither Cuba nor Puerto Rico would make a big resistance to a US intervension. As was previously said, if a CSA had seceeded (pascefully or through a war), the Caribean would become strategic for the USA. > Then we effectively carved off a piece of Colombia and called > it Panama. I was just thinking in Panama where the channel area was US territory untill 1997. I wonder what-if USA (OTL or ATL) would want to take the whole Panama (province of the Republic of Colombia, former state of the United States of Colombia). I don't think that 1903 Panamenians where much willing to pass from a province of centralized Colombia into a territory of US but given enough diplomacy... Anyhow Panama sesesion, backed by US, was actually more political than military. Anyhow I think that 1903 USA would have been able to militarily (and politically) annex the whole Panama as a territory. > Later, the Dominican Republic. Seems it > was never worth it to keep any but Puerto Rico, which Bill > Clinton, just this week, proposed a commission to consider > for statehood again. > > >(Monroe doctrine in the sense of "Americas for the Americans" when > >people read "Americas" as the hemisphere and "Americans" as citizens > >of the USA). > Sounds a bit reminiscent of "Asia for the Asiatics," the motto > of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Well, was the motto in OTL 19th century US, up to the US-Spain war of 1998. -- Carlos Th Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Subject: Re: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 16:16:46 GMT From: "Robert J. Kolker" Organization: AT&T Worldnet Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Carlos Th wrote: > > Anyhow Panama sesesion, backed by US, was actually more political than > military. Anyhow I think that 1903 USA would have been able to > militarily (and politically) annex the whole Panama as a territory. Ownership of ALL of Panama is of dubious value. Why own the whole thing when all you need is a narrow strip? Bob Kolker Subject: Re: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 22:36:08 GMT From: DF (not@home.yet) Reply-To: nobody@home.yet Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Carlos Th wrote: >nobody@home.yet wrote: >>Carlos Th wrote: >>>Which would have been the countries a colony hunger USA or CSA would have >>>attempted to take? Which would have been the ones they could have easily >>>invade? Which would have been the ones that could be easily controled once >>>invaded? >> Seems we've practiced a few times in various ways in Nicaragua. Then >> there's Cuba and Puerto Rico 'round the turn of the last century. > Well, Cuba and Puerto Rico were not independent states, they would have > been more willing to change the ruler than any South American country. > (Same goes for Philipines). Anyhow I think that neither Cuba nor > Puerto Rico would make a big resistance to a US intervension. True, can't argue with that. > As was previously said, if a CSA had seceeded (pascefully or through a > war), the Caribean would become strategic for the USA. Dependent on the actions of the CSA, I suppose. >> Then we effectively carved off a piece of Colombia and called it Panama. > I was just thinking in Panama where the channel area was US territory > untill 1997. '99, wasn't it? > I wonder what-if USA (OTL or ATL) would want to take the whole Panama > (province of the Republic of Colombia, former state of the United States > of Colombia). Might depend on the level of lobbying effort put forth by United Fruit, et al. > I don't think that 1903 Panamenians where much willing to pass from a > province of centralized Colombia into a territory of US but given enough > diplomacy... Or intimidation. Or money. > Anyhow Panama sesesion, backed by US, was actually more political than > military. True, but they knew the big stick was laying around somewhere. > Anyhow I think that 1903 USA would have been able to militarily (and > politically) annex the whole Panama as a territory. Undoubtedly. Ultimately, it could have been a good thing for the Panamanian people. Puerto Ricans have done rather well by the system compared to many of their Caribbean neighbors. >>Later, the Dominican Republic. Seems it was never worth it to keep any but >>Puerto Rico, which Bill Clinton, just this week, proposed a commission to >>consider for statehood again. >>>(Monroe doctrine in the sense of "Americas for the Americans" when people read >>>"Americas" as the hemisphere and "Americans" as citizens of the USA). >> Sounds a bit reminiscent of "Asia for the Asiatics," the motto of the Greater >> East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. > Well, was the motto in OTL 19th century US, up to the US-Spain war of 1998. I don't know of anybody off the top of my head who advocated direct control of the entire hemisphere. There was certainly some expansionist sentiment arguing for overseas continuation of Manifest Dstiny which got us Hawaii, and the Spanish-American war booty, but that was really the most of it. Subject: Re: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 14:47:20 GMT From: Carlos Th Organization: Deja.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 DF worte: > Carlos Th wrote: > >nobody@home.yet wrote: > >>Carlos Th wrote: > >>>Which would have been the countries a colony hunger USA or CSA would have > >>>attempted to take? Which would have been the ones they could have easily > >>>invade? Which would have been the ones that could be easily controled once > >>>invaded? > >> Seems we've practiced a few times in various ways in Nicaragua. Then > >> there's Cuba and Puerto Rico 'round the turn of the last century. > > Well, Cuba and Puerto Rico were not independent states, they would have > > been more willing to change the ruler than any South American country. > > (Same goes for Philipines). Anyhow I think that neither Cuba nor > > Puerto Rico would make a big resistance to a US intervension. > True, can't argue with that. > > > As was previously said, if a CSA had seceeded (pascefully or through a > > war), the Caribean would become strategic for the USA. > Dependent on the actions of the CSA, I suppose. > > >> Then we effectively carved off a piece of Colombia and called it Panama. > > I was just thinking in Panama where the channel area was US territory > > untill 1997. > '99, wasn't it? > > > I wonder what-if USA (OTL or ATL) would want to take the whole Panama > > (province of the Republic of Colombia, former state of the United States > > of Colombia). > Might depend on the level of lobbying effort put forth by > United Fruit, et al. > > > I don't think that 1903 Panamenians where much willing to pass > > from a province of centralized Colombia into a territory of US > > but given enough diplomacy... > Or intimidation. Or money. indeed. > > Anyhow Panama sesesion, backed by US, was actually more > > political than military. > True, but they knew the big stick was laying around somewhere. I guess. Anyhow Colombia had just passed for a big civil war (the last civil war in which two parties fought each other nationwide, and one of the bloodiest), but Panamá was almost untouched by that war. This meant that Colombia wasn't in big mood for any kind of resistance. It was kind of gunboot diplomacy the way US backed the Panamaian independence. At that time there were more US militaries in Panama city and Colon, deffending United Fruit interests, than Colombian militaries. > > Anyhow I think that 1903 USA would have been able to militarily > > (and politically) annex the whole Panama as a territory. > Undoubtedly. Ultimately, it could have been a good thing for > the Panamanian people. Puerto Ricans have done rather well > by the system compared to many of their Caribbean neighbors. I wonder how a Drug war or something like that would have developed if USA had a land boundary with Colombia... Well, if the Darien gap can actually count as a land boundary. -- Carlos Th ================================O=O===== Chlewey Thompin http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/9028 ---------------------------------------- Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Subject: Re: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 01:15:20 GMT From: DF (not@home.yet) Reply-To: nobody@home.yet Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 Carlos Th wrote: >I wonder how a Drug war or something like that would have developed if USA had >a land boundary with Colombia... Well, if the Darien gap can actually count as >a land boundary. It would probably look rather similar to the drug war we've seen OTL with Mexico; ranging from Nixon's "Operation Intercept," to providing logistics assistance to parts of the Mexican government that purport to oppose the drug trade. Note that an "Intercept" would be considerably easier with a very short border like the one between Panama and Colombia. I don't see any actual invasion of a country right next-door similar to what McCaffrey seems to be advocating in Colombia. Subject: Re: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 23:23:10 GMT From: bguerrero@my-deja.com Organization: Deja.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 > > Which would have been the countries a colony hunger USA or CSA would > have attempted to take? Which would have been the ones they could have > easily invade? Which would have been the ones that could be easily > controled once invaded? > > -- Carlos Th > Post-Civil War, I think the USA is out of the running as far as Mexico, short of even greater chaos there as a result of _their_ civil war. It would entail absorbing a huge, poor, Catholic, non-English speaking populace for little potential gain. And the costs would be enormous. The USA is a pretty good candidate for island annexation, however. Up the cost of the Spanish-American enough, or present a credible threat that, say, Cuba might fall under another European hegemon and we might do it. Or should I say _they_ might do it, as my family would at this point be one of the annexees rather than annexers. :^) The CSAs potential will depend heavily on post-war relations with the rump USA and the UK, and relations with the UK will depend quite a bit on how the US sees the UK's role in the successful secession. Losing the South should not dent Northern industrialization much, so the CSA will end up either hyper-acquisitive in a misguided attempt to "bulk up" for safety or will toe the line and hope to avoid further war. (Even a successful secession will leave a clear impression on Southern minds about what a near-run thing it was. I'd expect them to avoid actually doing anything to piss-off the USA whenever possible.) I think Turtledove got it right in postulating that an acquisitive CSA might go after a couple of northern Mexican states in order to open up a Pacific route, but would also forgo heavily populated Mexcan territories. Again, much pain for little gain. The islands are again a good target, and the CSA will have fewer qualms about grabbing oneany pretext at all. Haiti/DR might be problematic because of the race issue, however, as I expect CSA ideology would call for re- inslavement or some such, which the UK might not stand for and the US would be indignant about. Further south than the Isthmus is going to be left to gunboat diplomacy rather than annexation. It is unlikely that either OTL USA or ATL USA/CSA are going to want to start a European land-grab in South America, the high-pain-low-gain equation holds even more so _and_ they have to deal with the UK as both a Power and a creditor to these places. Kolker is not off the mark when he asks why the USA/CSA would conquer when the locals are perfectly willing to sell, and you don't have to pay for a garrison to boot. I don't think Mexican or islander military strength will enter much into the equation. Successful guerilla actions require an external power to act as a subsidizer, and it seems unlikely to me that any Power of the period would openly antagonize another in that fashion. Nobody was really looking for a war, after all. Particularly if CSA relations with the UK are good, I don't see anybody running guns on a large scale to occupied Cuba or Puerto Rico. A trickle might cross from the USA into Mexico, but then the US is risking war (possibly a Great Power war) for the sake of? Bernard Guerrero Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Subject: Re: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 00:33:50 GMT From: Noel Organization: Deja.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 In article <92dtko$44c$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, bguerrero@my-deja.com wrote: > > > > > Which would have been the countries a colony hunger USA or CSA would > > have attempted to take? Which would have been the ones they could > have > > easily invade? Which would have been the ones that could be easily > > controled once invaded? > > > > -- Carlos Th > > > > Post-Civil War, I think the USA is out of the running as far as Mexico, > short of even greater chaos there as a result of _their_ civil war. It > would entail absorbing a huge, poor, Catholic, non-English speaking > populace for little potential gain. And the costs would be enormous. ---Not in the north, which was rather unpopulated at the time. A substantial Spanish-speaking popu- lation, yes. Huge, no. > The USA is a pretty good candidate for island annexation, however. Up > the cost of the Spanish-American enough, or present a credible threat > that, say, Cuba might fall under another European hegemon and we might > do it. Or should I say _they_ might do it, as my family would at this > point be one of the annexees rather than annexers. :^) ---In OTL, Santo Domingo offered to sell itself to the United States. Grant's bad relations with Senator Sumner scuttered the deal. One thing rarely pointed out, is that had the CSA won its independence, the strategic value of an American territory in the Caribbean would have gone up considerably, and the deal might have been pushed through. This is before the Organic Acts. Most likely Santo Domingo winds up on the road to statehood, although it will take a long time. Racism against what will assuredly become known as the "Negro Territory." > I think Turtledove got it right in postulating that an acquisitive CSA > might go after a couple of northern Mexican states in order to open up > a Pacific route, but would also forgo heavily populated Mexcan > territories. Again, much pain for little gain. The islands are again > a good target, and the CSA will have fewer qualms about grabbing one > given any pretext at all. Haiti/DR might be problematic because of the > race issue, however, as I expect CSA ideology would call for re- > inslavement or some such, which the UK might not stand for and the US > would be indignant about. ---That's why Cuba's the only real option. Even in Puerto Rico the institution was dying out. Turtledove didn't specify, but I imagine that annexation was a result of intervention in that timeline's equivalent of the Ten Years War. > Further south than the Isthmus is going to be left to gunboat diplomacy > rather than annexation. It is unlikely that either OTL USA or ATL > USA/CSA are going to want to start a European land-grab in South > America, the high-pain-low-gain equation holds even more so _and_ they > have to deal with the UK as both a Power and a creditor to these > places. Kolker is not off the mark when he asks why the USA/CSA would > conquer when the locals are perfectly willing to sell, and you don't > have to pay for a garrison to boot. --Although the crack about "Third World savages" makes me loth to even appear to agree with him. Noel Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Subject: Re: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 15:23:15 GMT From: bguerrero@my-deja.com Organization: Deja.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 > > ---In OTL, Santo Domingo offered to sell itself > to the United States. Grant's bad relations with > Senator Sumner scuttered the deal. > > One thing rarely pointed out, is that had the CSA > won its independence, the strategic value of an > American territory in the Caribbean would have > gone up considerably, and the deal might have > been pushed through. > > This is before the Organic Acts. Most likely > Santo Domingo winds up on the road to statehood, > although it will take a long time. Racism against > what will assuredly become known as the "Negro > Territory." On the positive side, you don't have much of an unreconstructed white population, so there is little cause for Jim Crow-type legislation. Assuming that US military spending keeps the place afloat economically, it might not be a bad place for an American black live. As compared to Dixie, anyway. The Feds might even see good reason to turn it into a "floating armory" and subsidize some industrialization. > > ---That's why Cuba's the only real option. Even in > Puerto Rico the institution was dying out. It can be reintroduced as long as it happens on a small scale. :^( I think the big objection to Haiti is that they would have to re-enslave an entire population, which would be monumentally ugly. I don't think the Victorian middle-classes of the world would stand for it. > > Kolker is not off the mark when he asks why the USA/CSA would > > conquer when the locals are perfectly willing to sell, and you don't > > have to pay for a garrison to boot. > > --Although the crack about "Third World savages" > makes me loth to even appear to agree with him. > > Noel Bob sure has a way with words, doesn't he? :^) Even when he's right he manages to slip something in to piss you off. On the upside, we never have to worry about him getting into politics, due to both inclination and ability.... Bernard Guerrero Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Subject: Re: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 16:18:53 GMT From: "Robert J. Kolker" Organization: AT&T Worldnet Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 bguerrero@my-deja.com wrote: > Bob sure has a way with words, doesn't he? :^) Even when he's right he > manages to slip something in to piss you off. You think it is easy to be a Son of a Bitch don't you? It requires constant practice. Like playing the piano. > On the upside, we never > have to worry about him getting into politics, due to both inclination > and ability.... I am as unlikely to indulge in Politics as I am to go to a House of Ill Repute. Wait a minute! What is the difference? Bob Kolker Subject: Re: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: 29 Dec 2000 01:56:17 GMT From: coyu@aol.com (Coyu) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Robert Kolker wrote: >You think it is easy to be a Son of a Bitch don't you? It requires >constant practice. Like playing the piano. I don't need practice, Bobbo. Subject: Re: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 20:02:46 GMT From: Carlos Th Organization: Deja.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Bernard Guerrero wrote: > > ---In OTL, Santo Domingo offered to sell itself > > to the United States. Grant's bad relations with > > Senator Sumner scuttered the deal. > > > > One thing rarely pointed out, is that had the CSA > > won its independence, the strategic value of an > > American territory in the Caribbean would have > > gone up considerably, and the deal might have > > been pushed through. [...] > I think the big objection to Haiti is that they would have to re- > enslave an entire population, which would be monumentally ugly. I > don't think the Victorian middle-classes of the world would stand > for it. Let's say, USA in Santo Domingo and the CSA trying to re-enslave Haitians... Well, I don't realy think this happening but it would be nice to think how events would develope. -- Carlos Th Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Subject: Re: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 19:47:07 GMT From: Noel Organization: Deja.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 In article <92g691$rhf$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Carlos Th wrote: > Bernard Guerrero wrote: > > > > ---In OTL, Santo Domingo offered to sell itself > > > to the United States. Grant's bad relations with > > > Senator Sumner scuttered the deal. > > > > > > One thing rarely pointed out, is that had the CSA > > > won its independence, the strategic value of an > > > American territory in the Caribbean would have > > > gone up considerably, and the deal might have > > > been pushed through. > [...] > > I think the big objection to Haiti is that they would have to re- > > enslave an entire population, which would be monumentally ugly. I > > don't think the Victorian middle-classes of the world would stand > > for it. > > Let's say, USA in Santo Domingo and the CSA trying to re-enslave > Haitians... > > Well, I don't realy think this happening but it would be nice to think > how events would develope. ---Neat idea, but like you I can't figure out why so many people on this newsgroup think that the Confederates would want to enslave the Haitians. Much pain, little gain, and subduing a popu- lation is way different than maintaining in bondage people brought over from a different continent. A Confederate conquest of Haiti sounds to me like ASB territory. Best, Noel Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Subject: Re: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: 29 Dec 2000 20:24:12 GMT From: abraxus263@aol.com (Abraxus263) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 I believe that the chances of a nineteenth century mostly-OTL USA invading LAtin America are about the same as us invading them now. What would be the point? gaining a sarming mass of poverty-stricken peasants that,at the time, were viewed as racially inferior. Somethin of a pity though -- its been a long time since the US has gotten some much-needed lebensraum. Subject: Re: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 21:46:51 GMT From: Noel Organization: Deja.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 In article <20001229152412.12094.00000447@ng-cd1.aol.com>, abraxus263@aol.com (Abraxus263) wrote: > I believe that the chances of a nineteenth century mostly-OTL USA invading > LAtin America are about the same as us invading them now. What would be the > point? gaining a sarming mass of poverty-stricken peasants that,at the time, > were viewed as racially inferior. Somethin of a pity though -- its been a long > time since the US has gotten some much-needed lebensraum. ---Please, God, tell me this is a tasteless joke. I can deal with people regretting the lack of U.S. expansionism on the basis that American institutions, with all their faults, would give the peoples of Latin America greater freedom and opportunities AS INDIVIDUALS than their own social systems. I may or may not agree, but I certainly understand the impulse. What I can't abide are those who regret the relative lack of U.S. expansionism because they want to see more of the map splashed with "their" color, as opposed to someone else's. So tell me you're joking. "Lebensraum" is not a word to toss around lightly. Noel Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Subject: Re: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 22:33:30 GMT From: "Robert J. Kolker" Organization: AT&T Worldnet Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Noel wrote: > So tell me you're joking. "Lebensraum" is not a word > to toss around lightly. The Lebensraum notion is totally bogus for the U.S. The U.S. is unequally populated with about 80 percent of the people living in major metro regions or cities. In fact, the U.S. is pretty damned near empty. I have driven around the country some and once you get out past Chicago and in most of the South there is hardly a soul to be seen between the towns. Also if you fly over the U.S. at night especially over the midwest the amount of dark areas compared to the lights coming from the towns is immense. The last thing this country needs is Lebensraum. Ninety percent of the people live on ten percent of the land. Bob Kolker Subject: Re: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: 30 Dec 2000 00:04:57 GMT From: abraxus263@aol.com (Abraxus263) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >I can deal with people regretting the lack of U.S. >expansionism on the basis that American institutions, >with all their faults, would give the peoples of Latin >America greater freedom and opportunities AS INDIVIDUALS >than their own social systems. A fair amount of my view is centered around this basis, as you call it. I do believe that American control over portions of our southern neighbors would result in fewer of the incessant civil wars, dictatorships, etc. I have yet to see anation that produces an end result superior to that of the USA's. >What I can't abide are those who regret the relative >lack of U.S. expansionism because they want to see more >of the map splashed with "their" color, as opposed to >someone else's. Ah, the good 'ole Yankee manifest destiny in action. Well, I would be lying if I said that the paper fantasy of lines on maps didn't influence some of my thinking. Its effect is limited solely to my less intelligent subconscious, have no worry. Nonetheless, I am a Unionist in the strongest sense of the word. I'm sure you have no idea what I am talking about so allow me to explain. I believe that humanity should, and will eventually, coalesce into a single, unified front. Any move that lessens the number of competitors squabbling amongst themselves humanely, justly, and most of all in a stable fashion is one I would support. If combining the nations of the Western hemisphere under the Stars and Stripes reduces the amount of time which must pass before unification, then I would support it with all my heart. >So tell me you're joking. "Lebensraum" is not a word >to toss around lightly. Lol. I am aware of the taint to this word, most Jews with memories are. Subject: Re: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 21:37:56 -0400 From: Randy McDonald Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Abraxus263 wrote: > > >I can deal with people regretting the lack of U.S. > >expansionism on the basis that American institutions, > >with all their faults, would give the peoples of Latin > >America greater freedom and opportunities AS INDIVIDUALS > >than their own social systems. > > A fair amount of my view is centered around this basis, as you call it. I do > believe that American control over portions of our southern neighbors would > result in fewer of the incessant civil wars, dictatorships, etc. I have yet to > see anation that produces an end result superior to that of the USA's. Hmm. Canada, Australia, Finland, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, France, Switzerland, (west) Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Japan, New Zealand ... All of those societies have standards of living at least roughly comparable, and often superior for disadvantaged classes, than the United States. Face it: The American war isn't the only way. > >What I can't abide are those who regret the relative > >lack of U.S. expansionism because they want to see more > >of the map splashed with "their" color, as opposed to > >someone else's. > > Ah, the good 'ole Yankee manifest destiny in action. Well, I would be lying if > I said that the paper fantasy of lines on maps didn't influence some of my > thinking. OK: Personally, I think that the 1775 frontiers of Canada, and the 1848 frontiers of Mexico, are much nicer. > [deletia] > > I'm sure you have no idea what I am talking about so allow me to explain. I > believe that humanity should, and will eventually, coalesce into a single, > unified front. Any move that lessens the number of competitors squabbling > amongst themselves humanely, justly, and most of all in a stable fashion is one > I would support. If combining the nations of the Western hemisphere under the > Stars and Stripes reduces the amount of time which must pass before > unification, then I would support it with all my heart. R-i-ight. If a united Western Hemisphere ever emerges, it will likely be either as part of a multilateral federation or as a westward extension of the European Union. There aren't very many Canadians at all, and fewer Latin Americans, who want to become Americans. Get with it. _________________ Randy McDonald mcdonald@isn.net rmcdonald@upei.ca _________________ Subject: Re: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: 30 Dec 2000 03:15:49 GMT From: abraxus263@aol.com (Abraxus263) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >Hmm. Canada, Australia, Finland, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, >France, Switzerland, (west) Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Japan, New >Zealand ... > >All of those societies have standards of living at least roughly >comparable, and often superior for disadvantaged classes, than the >United States. Ha ha ha aha aha ha ha ha ha hahah aha hah.ha. I hate to break it to you, but the economies of the aforementioned countries save Germany and perhaps switzerland, are slowly deteriorating from inefficiency. The benefits of their quasi-socialist economy, especially in Scandinavia and France, are slowly suffocating the system. As for Japan, oy. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about if you say that japan is better for the lower classes. It is a monopolistic economy with higher prices, lower wages, and, if you've been reading the Wal Street Journal recently, has suffered chronic recessions in the last couple of years that have almost resulted in economic collapse. >OK: Personally, I think that the 1775 frontiers of Canada, and the 1848 >frontiers of Mexico, are much nicer. this defies analysis. Perhaps you've had tad bit too much of egg nog recently. >If a united Western Hemisphere ever emerges, it will likely be either as >part of a multilateral federation or as a westward extension of the >European Union. Aha ha ha ha aha ha aha ha hah. A westward extension of the EU. This, good sir, is fantasy material .>There aren't very many Canadians at all, and fewer Latin >Americans, who want to become Americans. Get with it. Canada: so what? the confederation will be economically (and then politically) absorbed by the US in a couple of decades. L.A.: That was the idea behind forcible annexation. Think before you type. Subject: Re: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 00:43:25 -0400 From: Randy McDonald Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Abraxus263 wrote: > > >Hmm. Canada, Australia, Finland, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, > >France, Switzerland, (west) Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Japan, New > >Zealand ... > > > >All of those societies have standards of living at least roughly > >comparable, and often superior for disadvantaged classes, than the > >United States. > > Ha ha ha aha aha ha ha ha ha hahah aha hah.ha. I hate to break it to you, but > the economies of the aforementioned countries save Germany and perhaps > switzerland, are slowly deteriorating from inefficiency. The benefits of their > quasi-socialist economy, especially in Scandinavia and France, are slowly > suffocating the system. The welfare states do need reform, but in case you haven't read, oh, _The Economist_ lately, Europeans have been reforming their welfare states, establishing more flexible labour markets and adopting new communications technologies en masse. > As for Japan, oy. You clearly have no idea what you are > talking about if you say that japan is better for the lower classes. It is a > monopolistic economy with higher prices, lower wages, and, if you've been > reading the Wal Street Journal recently, has suffered chronic recessions in the > last couple of years that have almost resulted in economic collapse. Yes, the chronic recessions. Talk to Doug Muir. He'll document to you that income distribution is far more even in Japan than in the United States, that living standards are quite high, that US-style social dysfunctions are rare -- that, in short, despite its failings, life in Japan is quite good. > >OK: Personally, I think that the 1775 frontiers of Canada, and the 1848 > >frontiers of Mexico, are much nicer. > > this defies analysis. Perhaps you've had tad bit too much of egg nog recently. Why? Myself, I think that a Canada that includes the Midwest, with borders on the Ohio and the Mississippi, is much more, well, natural -- the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin would be finally united, for instance. As for Mexico, well, the straight-line northern frontier of Mexico is much nicer than the jagged frontier between the US and Mexico that prevails currently. A Mexican eastern frontier on the Red and Sabine rivers is likewise quite elegant. > >If a united Western Hemisphere ever emerges, it will likely be either as > >part of a multilateral federation or as a westward extension of the > >European Union. > > Aha ha ha ha aha ha aha ha hah. A westward extension of the EU. This, good sir, > is fantasy material Why? The EU is being expanded eastward, isn't it? In the European Union, you already have a union of restive semi-sovereign countries such as you propose. Why invent something if you have it already? > .>There aren't very many Canadians at all, and fewer Latin > >Americans, who want to become Americans. Get with it. > > Canada: so what? the confederation will be economically (and then politically) > absorbed by the US in a couple of decades. R-i-ight. That's why the only people who fly the American flag are tourists. > L.A.: That was the idea behind forcible annexation. Think before you type. Um, your assumptions are far less plausible -- and far more offensive -- than anything I've yet committed to USENET. I think that I know what's going on out there in the wider world. You, pour soul, don't seem to have a sweet clue. _________________ Randy McDonald mcdonald@isn.net rmcdonald@upei.ca _________________ Subject: Re: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 16:47:21 GMT From: "Robert J. Kolker" Organization: AT&T Worldnet Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Randy McDonald wrote: > > Talk to Doug Muir. He'll document to you that income distribution is far > more even in Japan than in the United States, that living standards are > quite high, that US-style social dysfunctions are rare -- that, in > short, despite its failings, life in Japan is quite good. Unless you are of Korean descent or bonrin (eta). Japan still has a caste system. Bob Kolker > Subject: Re: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: 30 Dec 2000 17:42:03 GMT From: abraxus263@aol.com (Abraxus263) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >Unless you are of Korean descent or bonrin (eta). > >Japan still has a caste system. I rarely agree with Bob Kolker, but this is one of those times. If you have ever been to Japan or know anything beyond the most cursory examinations of the history books, you know that they have an extensive history of closed markets and high trade barriers. The end result of all the tariffs and such is that prices for all products are usually about 3 to 4 times as high. This system is weighted to protect native manufacturers and merhcants (i.e. the rich) at the expense of the working classes. Wealth may be more evenly distributed in Japan, but it is still far more difficult for the lower classes to prosper than in the US. Subject: Re: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 14:56:24 -0400 From: Randy McDonald Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Abraxus263 wrote: > > >Unless you are of Korean descent or bonrin (eta). > > > >Japan still has a caste system. > > I rarely agree with Bob Kolker, but this is one of those times. If you have > ever been to Japan or know anything beyond the most cursory examinations of the > history books, you know that they have an extensive history of closed markets > and high trade barriers. The end result of all the tariffs and such is that > prices for all products are usually about 3 to 4 times as high. This system is > weighted to protect native manufacturers and merhcants (i.e. the rich) at the > expense of the working classes. Wealth may be more evenly distributed in Japan, > but it is still far more difficult for the lower classes to prosper than in the > US. Cite? -- _________________ Randy McDonald mcdonald@isn.net rmcdonald@upei.ca _________________ Subject: Re: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 04:41:04 GMT From: DF (not@home.yet) Reply-To: nobody@home.yet Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Randy McDonald wrote: >Abraxus263 wrote: >Face it: The American war isn't the only way. Interesting typo there Randy ;-) >>>What I can't abide are those who regret the relative lack of U.S. expansionism >>>because they want to see more of the map splashed with "their" color, as opposed >>>to someone else's. >> Ah, the good 'ole Yankee manifest destiny in action. Well, I would be lying if >> I said that the paper fantasy of lines on maps didn't influence some of my >> thinking. > OK: Personally, I think that the 1775 frontiers of Canada, and the 1848 > frontiers of Mexico, are much nicer. Me, I kinda like the borders of California a few years before Gaspar de Portola came along ;-) >>I'm sure you have no idea what I am talking about so allow me to explain. I believe >>that humanity should, and will eventually, coalesce into a single, unified front. >>Any move that lessens the number of competitors squabbling amongst themselves >>humanely, justly, and most of all in a stable fashion is one I would support. If >>combining the nations of the Western hemisphere under the Stars and Stripes reduces >>the amount of time which must pass before unification, then I would support it with >>all my heart. > R-i-ight. > If a united Western Hemisphere ever emerges, it will likely be either as part of > a multilateral federation or as a westward extension of the European Union. There > aren't very many Canadians at all, and fewer Latin Americans, who want to become > Americans. Get with it. Und vat makes you sink zat ve are at all concerned viss vat ze Canadians und Latin Americans vant? ;-) Subject: Re: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: 28 Dec 2000 03:31:55 GMT From: prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 <> The USA occupied the Phillipines succesfully (true its not in Latin America but it does have a large population). During the early twentieth century the US was able to seize small areas of Latin America almost at will. A large scale operation might be tough but it'd be doable. > let's imagin that the Brittish wouldn't support that >invasion but wouldn't try to deffend the invaded nations unless their >interests are damaged Umm, that is implicit support of the course of action. ----------------- He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do, The fears of years, like a biting whip, Had cut deep bloody grooves Across our backs. -Etheridge Knight Subject: Re: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 04:02:11 GMT From: robert_kolker@hotmail.com Organization: Deja.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 In article <20001227223155.08435.00001364@ng-mp1.aol.com>, prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) wrote: > it does have a large population). During the early twentieth century the US > was able to seize small areas of Latin America almost at will. A large scale > operation might be tough but it'd be doable. Seize but not hold. The Marines would go into Nicaragua. The would prove that what is good for United Fruit is good for American, then they would go. Bob Kolker > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Subject: Re: 19th century CSA or USA invading Latin America Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 15:24:33 -0500 From: Jair Organization: Sprint Canada Inc. Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Carlos Th wrote: > > Which would have been the countries a colony hunger USA or CSA would > have attempted to take? Which would have been the ones they could have > easily invade? Which would have been the ones that could be easily > controled once invaded? > Well, since you are setting this scenario in 1880, I would see the USA having a hard time getting much of South America. As has been discussed in a previous thread, the Chileans had a pretty good navy at the time which would cause no amount of misfortunes to the Americans. And while the Brazilians might not have the same level of training or equipment as the Americans, they do count with a large army operating within their soil, coupled with inevitable British support. Ditto for the Argentinians. Even if the Americans succeed in conquering part of South America, holding it will be even more problematic, with local caudillos organizing guerrilla forays into American-held territory. Central America and Mexico would be easier to control, but the question that has to be asked is why? I know you've handwaved the why of such an invasion aside, but the why is crucial if we are to understand how such an invasion would be carried out - the two are very interrelated in my view.