Shipbucket

Very nice, but just curious, why would the CSA have Puerto Rico, considering it was taken by the US in the Spanish-American War, many years after the Civil War.

Trojan wrote:Very nice, but just curious, why would the CSA have Puerto Rico, considering it was taken by the US in the Spanish-American War, many years after the Civil War.

Who's to say what might have happened? Given thirty years to grow economically and industrially, it might have been the CSA that had gotten involved with Cuba in 1899 rather than the US. The independence movement was already pretty strong there and Spain's imperial power had been shrinking for a century. Also, presuming a hostile border with the US after the Civil War, the CSA would have been left with few options for eventual expansion except to go south into Mexico and the Caribbean. Hell, for all we know they could have simply bought the territory from Spain (just as the US bought territory from France and Spain at the turn of the 19th century).

All very good points, I suppose its quite feasible then.

Regarding my viewpoint about CSA expansions:

As i see it, the CSA was maybe the least successful expansionist country of North America. They relied heavily on foreign weaponry importations to equip their armies, navies and, later on, airforces while the industrialization process was still going on, at least to achieve the industrialization levels of their nothern neighbours.

They even suffered a considerable territorial loss because of their constitucional policy of giving more autonomy to the states. That's how a referendum was hold in Texas in 1885 and they became independent while mantaining very good relations with their old partners.

Does it mean they didn't expand? No. In 1898 they waged a war with Spain to conquest Cuba and they got it and Cuba was annexed as another state of the Confederation being Puerto Rico a mere possession.

However Cuba proved to be a nightmare fueled by the corrupt local government and the acts of guerrillas in the Cuban wilderness feed by the independentist will first and, later on, also by communist, leftist groups.
That's how Cuba became the CSA's Vietnam in this timeline and where this pic fits:

Confederate States of America (CSA), Hawker Hunter FGA9:



They decided to buy some Hunters to the United Kingdom after they proved to be very successful in bombarding rebel positions in Oman.

Awesome paint job, and nice backstory, any thoughts about what you would do about slavery? Thats the question that created the CSA in the first place, yet Its hard to see the CSA being able to heavily rely on international support, when slavery prevented from receiving enough international support to win the Civil War IRL. Its essential to the southern way of life and economy, but I'm not sure how sustainable it is for a multitude of reasons moral and historical reasons.

Regarding slavery, i think it would become obsolete with technological development, specially in the crop fields and it would dissapear with the passing of time.

About the international support and the dependancy of the CSA army on it, i meant that, compared with the north, their army was much more international.

Now, on with the history:

World War I (only major participants listed):

Entente:

-United Kingdom
-France
-CSA
-Italy (Latecomer because at first they were aligned with the central powers)
-Russia (Until Russian Revolution sparks)

Central Powers:

-Germany
-Austro Hungarian Empire
-USA
-Ottoman Empire

Important Neutral States:

-Texas
-Switzerland
-Mexico
-Scandinavian Countries


On August 1914 the First World War started. In American territory, the CSA controlled the states of Virginia (where their capital, Richmond, was located), North & South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabam, Tennesse, Mississippi, and Arkansas. Those where the territories that the pact of Nassau (the one which ended the Civil war in 1865) granted fully control to the CSA, while the USA got the rest (the only difference with OTL is that West Virginia would be named Allgheny).

However, the CSA still mantained claims on Missouri, Kentucky, Allgheny and Maryland, apart from Kansas. And, while they got support from the British Empire, in a secret telegraph, (kinda like the Zimmermann telegraph in OTL) in 1915 the CSA waged a war with the USA hoping to retake the aforementioned territories. At first they succeded, partially, because they could retake the southern half of Missouri, and greatest parts of Kentucky, while keeping a deffensive stance on the east.

Meanwhile, in the north, the US Army took the initiative and invaded Canada, but they understimated the Canadian winter and, on winter 1915 they suffered a great defeat against Canadian troops in Calgary, on the west and in Ottawa in the East. This gave the chance to the Canadian army to counter attack and, despite initial success on US lands, they were driven back and the frontlines on the north almost got inmobile because both sides took a deffensive stance, the Canadians because their resources were rather scarce to perform a massive offensive, and the US because they centered their efforts on holding up the Confederates at the south.

The southern fronts almost didn't change with some occasional skirmishes here and there and the typical failed offensives that were very typical of the First world war.

Some examples of the weaponry used by the CSA in this war:

Sopwith Camel:


Sopwith Triplane:


And, on land, the Mark V tank:



The war ended like in OTL, in November 1918 and with heavy human casualties for both sides and handing over the control of southern Missouri to the CSA.

However, as i said before, the technological advance made the slavery really expensive, and this gave freedomship to hundred of thousand African Americans in the CSA, however, as nobody wanted to employ them (they were, in the 20s highly discriminated), a very serious crisis emerged and, that crisis, mixed up with the crack of 1929, favoured the ascend to power of the fascism in this country...

And i stop here because i have plans for the World War 2.

EDIT: I apologize if i sound racist. It wasn't my intention. I only tried to tell an alternate history.

Nice

Reads similar to Turtledoves's AU, except in the books the coloured population of CSA was treated not as slaves but as second class citizens, working low wage, menial and dangerous jobs

After the Great War, would the British Empire not Declare war on the USA for attacking one of its Dominions, or at least in some way not want to punish them with war reparations etc. Especially as the peace between the USA and the British Allied CSA was signed in the Bahamas, a part of the British Caribbean

Rodondo wrote:Nice

Reads similar to Turtledoves's AU, except in the books the coloured population of CSA was treated not as slaves but as second class citizens, working low wage, menial and dangerous jobs

Thanks! Yes, i see the WW1 similar as the one in TL-191, the only difference is that IMO the CSA wouldn't abolish formaly the slavery, it would disappear gradually and freed slaves would be, indeed, second (and even third) class citizens. However the situation in the north would be identical, as it was in OTL.

Adenady wrote:After the Great War, would the British Empire not Declare war on the USA for attacking one of its Dominions, or at least in some way not want to punish them with war reparations etc. Especially as the peace between the USA and the British Allied CSA was signed in the Bahamas, a part of the British Caribbean

The great war left a very deep scar in the British society, specially in the human cost. They didn't want another war, specially with the rise of communist movements, the rise of the sufragist movement and so on. The treaty of Versailles made the central powers responsible for the war costs and it includes many territorial changes... except for the USA and the CSA which signed among them another treaty in Houston (neutral Texas) by virtue of which both states decided to return to status quo in territorial changes and, in order to keep the peace, the US war debt was partially forgiven. This didn't please many landowners and politicians in the CSA, and that favoured the ascend of popular unrest and the rise of fascism in this country.
It didn't please the winning powers (namely UK and France) because they considered it a betrayal of the Versailles treaty, however, they only made a formal complain and nothing else. Kinda like it happened in OTL when the USSR refused to pay the Russian war debts by the leased material that both UK and France leased to the Russian empire.

Why was the Houston treaty signed? Because of the pressure that many southern enterprise lobbies (like, for instance, Coca Cola) made in the confederate government because the US was their foreign market. And they knew very well that in an impoverished society their product couldn't be sold.

About the treaty of Nassau, it was signed in 1865 to put an end to the Confederate Secessionist war (the American Civil war), and by that time, both the USA and the CSA were neutral towards the British empire. I chose Nassau because it was one of the closest neutral lands.

To ilustrate the scenario with maps:

North America, 1914 (before the first world war started in North America:



After the Canadian counter offensive and the first confederate offensives which took control of southern Missouri as well as parts of southern Kentucky and a Kansas:



Btw during the scarce three months that the Canadian ocupation lasted on the state of Washington, a decree was sanctioned by the Canadian Governor General in virtue of which the state of Washington name was renamed as "George III Land".

After the US summer offensives which liberated the northern frontier:



And that's how the frontier got stuck until the end of world war 1.

What happened with Alaska, you may ask? Alaska wasn't seen as an important objective and neither Canada wanted to invade it and the US had not enough resources to plan an invasion of western Canada from there.