Subject: A CSA Time Line Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:31:23 -0500 From: Carlos Thompson Organization: - Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if This is not an original time line but I would like to check for plausability. The POD is not clear, nor the details but please do not star a flame on justifications. The South had conduced a better war, winning a few more battles, until the Union decides to recognize the secesion in a truce... some how the war was still with no clear winner nor chances from any victory in the forseeable future. Border states stay in the Union and Mississippi navigational rights are granted. California, and any other state or territory are still part of the USA. A bill is passed in US congress to make further secession illegal. Slavery is banned in the US and anybody stepping on US soil was officially free. (well, escaped slaves become a problem near the border: they are free once the made to the US but white people don't like them: they are foraignes... but deporting them back to the CSA is considered by most people like enslaving them back... which is anticonstitutional). The CSA is recognized as an independent nation by at least USA, Spain, the UK and Mexico. Their constitution is made to preserve slaves and to grant most freedom to the states. The CSA don't attempt to annex Cuba, Northern Mexico or any Caribbean or Central American nation. Part because the US has granted military intervension if the CSA attempts to expand... and the US had continued to increase both the Army and the Navy. The CSA just don't want another war (neither the USA, but that's another point). By the turn of the century, the CSA is the only country in the Americas and Europe with legal slavery, and had keep an industrialization path with combined free and slave labour and a big slave labour in the cotton and tabacco plantations. However free black populations had increassed mainly in New Orleans, Texas and New Mexico, but also in the deep South. At this time, the USA and the CSA have soften relationships. The USA had helped Cuba independence movement, getting involved in a war against Spain and the CSA allowed USA to base some opperations from Florida. The USA got also involved in Panama. At this time the CSA was little involved in what happened to Latin America, except Cuba and Mexico, due proximity and common borders) Mexico revolution happens... take some names more or less but it happens, with possibly some different outcome. Then, a big war happens in Europe. Details of who fight who have differed from OTL but England and France are fighting Germany. Neither the USA (with big pro-German and pro-British feelings, but with bigger isolating feeling) nor the CSA (similar feelings than the USA) But having a bigger merchant marine and a bigger navy, USA interests in Europe brings the Union into war siding its biggest comertial partner after the CSA: the United Kingdom. Due to the rivality against the CSA (which didn't showed up as another war), the USA behaves better than OTL as is better trained and better armed. The war ends favouring the British-French-USA and allies over Germany and allies, and heavy reparations are imposed on Germany. Hitler or any other nasty German leader had been butterflied away. Germany never recovers as a world power in this time line... but Japanese expansionism still conflicts to US interests in the Pacific. In a Pacific war, USA, British and Russian forces defeat Japan, who lasts still more than a year from having lost the war and have the home islands invaded to final surrending (no A-bomb). The CSA was not involved in any of those wars, and by 1950 has a big industry (on the line of Brazil, Argentina or Australia at the time), based on free and slave labour, and big plantations based on mechanized and slave labour. By this time the free black population surpases the number of slaves. Free blacks in the CSA, however, live in similar conditions than free blacks in the South in OTL. In New Mexico slavery is practically non-existant and free black population is big. What next? How would the situation become in 2000? -- Carlos Th Subject: Re: A CSA Time Line Date: 29 Mar 2001 00:32:48 GMT From: tagehring@aol.com (Tommy Gehring) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >Subject: A CSA Time Line >From: Carlos Thompson chlewey@my-deja.com >Date: 28-03-01 4:31 P Eastern Standard Time >Message-id: <3AC2582B.5913B64B@my-deja.com> > >This is not an original time line but I would like to check for >plausability. The POD is not clear, nor the details but please do not >star a flame on justifications. > >The South had conduced a better war, winning a few more battles, until >the Union decides to recognize the secesion in a truce... some how the >war was still with no clear winner nor chances from any victory in the >forseeable future. Border states stay in the Union and Mississippi >navigational rights are granted. California, and any other state or >territory are still part of the USA. Does this include New Mexico? >A bill is passed in US congress to make further secession illegal. >Slavery is banned in the US and anybody stepping on US soil was >officially free. (well, escaped slaves become a problem near the >border: they are free once the made to the US but white people don't >like them: they are foraignes... but deporting them back to the CSA is >considered by most people like enslaving them back... which is >anticonstitutional). A little lenient, but okay, I can see that. >The CSA is recognized as an independent nation by at least USA, Spain, >the UK and Mexico. Their constitution is made to preserve slaves and to >grant most freedom to the states. > >The CSA don't attempt to annex Cuba, Northern Mexico or any Caribbean or >Central American nation. Part because the US has granted military >intervension if the CSA attempts to expand... and the US had continued >to increase both the Army and the Navy. The CSA just don't want another >war (neither the USA, but that's another point). So, basically the CSA exists at the USA's whim. Again, I can see this (the bit about being tired of war), but just barely. >By the turn of the century, the CSA is the only country in the Americas >and Europe with legal slavery, and had keep an industrialization path >with combined free and slave labour and a big slave labour in the cotton >and tabacco plantations. However free black populations had increassed >mainly in New Orleans, Texas and New Mexico, but also in the deep South. Why would the USA part w/ New Mexico? Lotta silver in them thar hills... >At this time, the USA and the CSA have soften relationships. The USA >had helped Cuba independence movement, getting involved in a war against >Spain and the CSA allowed USA to base some opperations from Florida. >The USA got also involved in Panama. At this time the CSA was little >involved in what happened to Latin America, except Cuba and Mexico, due >proximity and common borders) I can't see the CSA letting US troops into and out of Florida. >Mexico revolution happens... take some names more or less but it >happens, with possibly some different outcome. Then, a big war happens >in Europe. Details of who fight who have differed from OTL but England >and France are fighting Germany. Neither the USA (with big pro-German >and pro-British feelings, but with bigger isolating feeling) nor the CSA >(similar feelings than the USA) But having a bigger merchant marine and >a bigger navy, USA interests in Europe brings the Union into war siding >its biggest comertial partner after the CSA: the United Kingdom. How? Why? >Due to the rivality against the CSA (which didn't showed up as another >war), the USA behaves better than OTL as is better trained and better >armed. Again, if the CSA exists at the USA's whim, why do they care? >The war ends favouring the British-French-USA and allies over Germany >and allies, and heavy reparations are imposed on Germany. I thought you said the USA went to war with the UK.... >Hitler or any other nasty German leader had been butterflied away. >Germany never recovers as a world power in this time line... but >Japanese expansionism still conflicts to US interests in the Pacific. >In a Pacific war, USA, British and Russian forces defeat Japan, who >lasts still more than a year from having lost the war and have the home >islands invaded to final surrending (no A-bomb). > >The CSA was not involved in any of those wars, and by 1950 has a big >industry (on the line of Brazil, Argentina or Australia at the time), >based on free and slave labour, and big plantations based on mechanized >and slave labour. By this time the free black population surpases the >number of slaves. Free blacks in the CSA, however, live in similar >conditions than free blacks in the South in OTL. In New Mexico slavery >is practically non-existant and free black population is big. I just don't see slavery lasting past the 1930's. Especially if the Dust Bowl hits Oklahoma and Texas, putting all those farmers out of work. They're going to come East and want factory jobs, jobs held by slaves. Not cool. I can see an apartheid system cropping up around the turn of the century, maybe a bit afterward. >What next? > >How would the situation become in 2000? Well, the USA doubtless had to deal w/ the CSA at one point, unless they both live in peace and look at each other as slightly conked in the head. Kinda like live in peace and look at each other as slightly conked in the head. Kinda like OTL's USA and Canada... :-D === "If I went around claiming I was Emperor, simply because some moistened bink lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!" -Holy Grail Tommy Gehring Richmond, Virginia http://www.geocities.com/ta_gehring/index.html Subject: Re: A CSA Time Line Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:36:23 -0500 From: Carlos Thompson Organization: - Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Tommy Gehring wrote: > >The South had conduced a better war, winning a few more battles, until > >the Union decides to recognize the secesion in a truce... some how the > >war was still with no clear winner nor chances from any victory in the > >forseeable future. Border states stay in the Union and Mississippi > >navigational rights are granted. California, and any other state or > >territory are still part of the USA. > > Does this include New Mexico? I was thinking in including NM because this make things more interesting. It depends on how plausible it would be, given a POD in 1862 or later. > >A bill is passed in US congress to make further secession illegal. > >Slavery is banned in the US and anybody stepping on US soil was > >officially free. (well, escaped slaves become a problem near the > >border: they are free once the made to the US but white people don't > >like them: they are foraignes... but deporting them back to the CSA is > >considered by most people like enslaving them back... which is > >anticonstitutional). > > A little lenient, but okay, I can see that. Which would be the weakest points here? > >The CSA is recognized as an independent nation by at least USA, Spain, > >the UK and Mexico. Their constitution is made to preserve slaves and to > >grant most freedom to the states. > > > >The CSA don't attempt to annex Cuba, Northern Mexico or any Caribbean or > >Central American nation. Part because the US has granted military > >intervension if the CSA attempts to expand... and the US had continued > >to increase both the Army and the Navy. The CSA just don't want another > >war (neither the USA, but that's another point). > > So, basically the CSA exists at the USA's whim. Again, I can see this (the bit > about being tired of war), but just barely. Well, as I said, the situation at the end of the war was that there was no clear winner. The Union can't see a clear victory over the rebels who were defending well their territory, but most of the states loyal to the union have not suffer for the war, except for the soldiers that have been dying (well, probable the D.C. was attacked)... at some point, people in the North think on the secesion war as people would feel about Vietnam a century later iOTL: it is not worth that many sons death just to keep some states in the Union. This doesn't mean that the USA will feel that they lost, and the USA continue to develope its army and its navy, not beacuse they want a rematch but just to be prepared. Some kind of cold war would arise. > >By the turn of the century, the CSA is the only country in the Americas > >and Europe with legal slavery, and had keep an industrialization path > >with combined free and slave labour and a big slave labour in the cotton > >and tabacco plantations. However free black populations had increassed > >mainly in New Orleans, Texas and New Mexico, but also in the deep South. > > Why would the USA part w/ New Mexico? Lotta silver in them thar hills... Point taken... probably New Mexico is still in the Union or partitioned. What was the feeling in New Mexico during the war in OTL? > >At this time, the USA and the CSA have soften relationships. The USA > >had helped Cuba independence movement, getting involved in a war against > >Spain and the CSA allowed USA to base some opperations from Florida. > >The USA got also involved in Panama. At this time the CSA was little > >involved in what happened to Latin America, except Cuba and Mexico, due > >proximity and common borders) > > I can't see the CSA letting US troops into and out of Florida. Thirty something years after the war (one generation), common interests have ease relationships. Still a big deal of cotton from the CSA is bought by mills in the USA. The Mississippi is navigated by USA merchant ships, etc. > >Mexico revolution happens... take some names more or less but it > >happens, with possibly some different outcome. Then, a big war happens > >in Europe. Details of who fight who have differed from OTL but England > >and France are fighting Germany. Neither the USA (with big pro-German > >and pro-British feelings, but with bigger isolating feeling) nor the CSA > >(similar feelings than the USA) But having a bigger merchant marine and > >a bigger navy, USA interests in Europe brings the Union into war siding > >its biggest comertial partner after the CSA: the United Kingdom. > > How? Why? Probably much the same way it happens OTL: during the war US people and commerce crosses the Atlantic to and from the UK... the Germans sink a comercial boat with lots of US civilians or a USN scort. > >Due to the rivality against the CSA (which didn't showed up as another > >war), the USA behaves better than OTL as is better trained and better > >armed. > > Again, if the CSA exists at the USA's whim, why do they care? The USA have been preparing for a rematch. At this time the CSA/USA relationships are easy, but tension still exists either because the CSA was willing for expansion, slave-related tensions, etc. Both the USA and the CSA are in guard even if the have cooperated (like in the Cuba-Spain crisis). > >The war ends favouring the British-French-USA and allies over Germany > >and allies, and heavy reparations are imposed on Germany. > > I thought you said the USA went to war with the UK.... I said the USA went to war siding the UK, not against the UK. > >Hitler or any other nasty German leader had been butterflied away. > >Germany never recovers as a world power in this time line... but > >Japanese expansionism still conflicts to US interests in the Pacific. > >In a Pacific war, USA, British and Russian forces defeat Japan, who > >lasts still more than a year from having lost the war and have the home > >islands invaded to final surrending (no A-bomb). > > > >The CSA was not involved in any of those wars, and by 1950 has a big > >industry (on the line of Brazil, Argentina or Australia at the time), > >based on free and slave labour, and big plantations based on mechanized > >and slave labour. By this time the free black population surpases the > >number of slaves. Free blacks in the CSA, however, live in similar > >conditions than free blacks in the South in OTL. In New Mexico slavery > >is practically non-existant and free black population is big. > > I just don't see slavery lasting past the 1930's. Especially if the Dust Bowl > hits Oklahoma and Texas, putting all those farmers out of work. They're going > to come East and want factory jobs, jobs held by slaves. Not cool. Well, I'm thinking that many bankrupted farmers would free the slaves increasing the amount of free blacks, but many influential people, mainly in the deep South are still slaveowners. Factory jobs are not completely incompatible with slaves, and domestic service and mining would still have room for slavery. It would be interesting to see how the forces pro and antislavery would evolve in the kind of society the South would evolve if an independent nation. New Mexico (with no or little plantations) in the CSA would make very interesting things: who convinient would be slavery in ranching? > I can see an apartheid system cropping up around the turn of the century, maybe > a bit afterward. Well. An aparthaid system with places for only whites (only enslaved blacks allowed, with standard restrictions), places where free blacks are allowed to live, places where both free black and whites live aside, as longer as the black _respects_ their position. Places (few and mainly in the CSA west) where people care little on race... > >How would the situation become in 2000? > > Well, the USA doubtless had to deal w/ the CSA at one point, unless they both > live in peace and look at each other as slightly conked in the head. Kinda like > OTL's USA and Canada... :-D I would imagine that small frontier chocks would probably arise (scaped slaves, liberating parties, bandits, indian raids, etc.) I could imagine a situation similar to USA-Mexico when not in war, but no real war. OTOH: I could see the rising of guerrilla movements in the CSA... mainly if communism arise in this ATL... this will eventually made some crisis in USA-CSA relationships. Proabably a USA-Canada relationship shifted one or half a century. In and ATL Usenet, USA-CSA flames would be much more virulent than USA-Canada flames. -- Carlos Th Subject: Re: A CSA Time Line Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:52:42 -0600 From: "Robert J. Kolker" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Carlos Thompson wrote: > > Proabably a USA-Canada relationship shifted one or half a century. In > and ATL Usenet, USA-CSA flames would be much more virulent than > USA-Canada flames. That is a VERY interesting point you have brought up. In the ATL would the CSA-USA flames take the form of abominating the influence of Yankee industry and entertainment in Dixie? If Canadians can look down their noses at the U.S.A. for primarily cultural reasons, so could a viable CSA a century down stream. There is a virtual certainty that U.S.A. investment in Dixie industries and properties would raise hackles among the Southrons. How would Dixie react if Walt Disney (who could possibly exist in theATL) opens an entertainment park in Florida, C.S.A? Would the Powers that Be bitch and moan that Mickey, Goofey and Pluto were really crypto Yankee Icons? Bob Kolker BTW: Mickey was originally Steamboat Willy, possible a border state character. Subject: Re: A CSA Time Line Date: 30 Mar 2001 22:41:19 GMT From: mwstone@aol.com (mike stone) Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >From: Carlos Thompson chlewey@my-deja.com >This doesn't mean that the USA will feel that they lost, and the USA >continue to develope its army and its navy, not beacuse they want a >rematch but just to be prepared. Some kind of cold war would arise There was none between the US and Britain after the War of 1812 >The USA have been preparing for a rematch. What exactly would be the _purpose_ of such a "rematch"? If it is merely to seize a border district or two, say in New Mex, then it hardly seems worthwhile when the US already has half a continent. OTOH, an all-out war of reconquest is absurd. It requires millions of men (many of them first or second-generation immigrants who didn't even live in America in 1865) fighting for years to avenge their grandfathers' defeat. Even if successful (at a huge cost) all they get is a vast area of devastated land, inhabited by a poor and ill-educated population - and that's just the _whites_ :-) As for the other part of the CS population, what would the US want with it? After all, this US is close to lily-white compared to that of OTL, and, given the racial attitudes of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, will be pretty determined to stay that way. The last thing it'll want is to saddle itself with the South's racial problems -- Mike Stone - Peterborough England "The English people are like the English beer. Froth on top, dregs at the bottom, the middle excellent" - Voltaire Subject: Re: A CSA Time Line Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 18:11:08 -0500 From: Carlos Thompson Organization: - Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 mike stone wrote: > > >From: Carlos Thompson chlewey@my-deja.com > > >This doesn't mean that the USA will feel that they lost, and the USA > >continue to develope its army and its navy, not beacuse they want a > >rematch but just to be prepared. Some kind of cold war would arise > > There was none between the US and Britain after the War of 1812 I was thinking in the sense that people then feel that the war was not finnished. I have no details on the War of 1812, but as I understand OTL Civil War was far nastier than 1812, and this was even worst in my timeline... and it didn't conclude. Both the CSA and the USA look at each other as potencial enemies at truce: there are no hostilities, business can be carried between eachother, but chances are there will be hot war sooner, later or luckly never. > >The USA have been preparing for a rematch. > > What exactly would be the _purpose_ of such a "rematch"? > > If it is merely to seize a border district or two, say in New Mex, then it > hardly seems worthwhile when the US already has half a continent. > > OTOH, an all-out war of reconquest is absurd. [...] Well, I would thing that inmediatly (1870's) there could be thought as eventually reconquer the rebel land, but the real purpose is not to loose a war. Even if they do business together, there are also some tensions. Besides, they are both preparing to war: building ships, developing guns. If the USA build a better gun to handle the Indian problem, the CSA would build a superior one "just in case", and so will the USA. OTOH, the USA don't want the CSA to become too powerfull so they are taken in the Monroe doctrine, and the only way to grant this is to be in the edge on military technology. > As for the other part of the CS population, what would the US want > with it? After all, this US is close to lily-white compared to that of > OTL, and, given the racial attitudes of the late 19th and early 20th > centuries, will be pretty determined to stay that way. The last thing > it'll want is to saddle itself with the South's racial problems But there are racial problems: escaped black are seen the USA as a hope to become free, and freed blacks are seeing in the USA a place where they will not be eventually reenslaved. As I posted previously, this is an internal problem in the USA, as adopting them is inacceptable to many whites, and handling them as illegal inmigrants and deporting them back to the CSA is morally inacceptable for many (many would claim that that is reenslavement, something anticonstitutional). Besides the CSA don't like the USA protecting escaped negroes (one more thing favouring the cold war on both sides). As I said, the problem was not to conquer the CSA and its people (white or black), but just to be prepared against a potencial enemy. (I don't think that the USA never planed to invade Russia during the cold war OTL, except a little invasion after winning, just to keep things in order while a new friendly Russian government would be settled. This happened in Japan or in Haiti. I would see this scenario for USA in my ATL: "if they attack us or one of our allies, we will fight and win and make terms for a friendlier neighbor") > -- > Mike Stone - Peterborough England > > "The English people are like the English beer. > > Froth on top, dregs at the bottom, the middle excellent" - Voltaire Subject: Re: A CSA Time Line Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 04:23:16 GMT From: Dont.send.spam@me.look.at.sig (c.gray) Reply-To: Brick Wall Organization: not much Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 18:11:08 -0500, Carlos Thompson wrote: >But there are racial problems: escaped black are seen the USA as a hope >to become free, and freed blacks are seeing in the USA a place where >they will not be eventually reenslaved. As I posted previously, this is >an internal problem in the USA, as adopting them is inacceptable to many >whites, and handling them as illegal inmigrants and deporting them back >to the CSA is morally inacceptable for many (many would claim that that >is reenslavement, something anticonstitutional). This is likely to be a non-issue in the Rump USA described. In our timeline, where blacks were emancipated and largely had freedom of movement inside the USA, very few moved North until after WWI, with most arriving well after the Great Depression. In an alternate timline, where Black migrants need to escape from slavery, are deterred by severe punishment and disicpline, and then need to illegally cross an international border, black migration is likely to be a tiny trickle. Circa 1920, Free Blacks will be an exotic minority group and a demographic non-entity in most Northern cities, like Chinese or Persian immigrants. ---------------------------------------------------- Chris Gray, Man of Unlimited Potential! (Yet, oddly, of limited accomplishments). Contact me at midasear atthingy aol dot com. I munge my reply address because I am a raving paranoid. Email will NO LONGER reach me at "cgray@tgg.com" so spam away. Subject: Re: A CSA Time Line Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 09:30:53 -0700 From: Keith Morrison Organization: NTNet Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Carlos Thompson wrote: > > mike stone wrote: > > > > >From: Carlos Thompson chlewey@my-deja.com > > > > >This doesn't mean that the USA will feel that they lost, and the USA > > >continue to develope its army and its navy, not beacuse they want a > > >rematch but just to be prepared. Some kind of cold war would arise > > > > There was none between the US and Britain after the War of 1812 > > I was thinking in the sense that people then feel that the war was not > finnished. I have no details on the War of 1812, but as I understand > OTL Civil War was far nastier than 1812, and this was even worst in my > timeline... and it didn't conclude. The difference between the Civil War and the War of 1812 was that by the time the 1812 war ended, everyone had pretty much realized that it was a bad idea to start with, no one ended up losing much of anything everything ended the way it began. -- Keith