Alternative Confederate ventures in the Caribbean?

[SpudNutimus]

Many of us know the tropes of wild Confederate expansion into the Antilles found in a large number of Confederate victory timelines, ranging from the semi-plausible idea of a purchase or filibuster of one or two major islands, to the outright ASB ramblings of the Golden Circle people both in their own time period and in retrospect. In particular, Cuba is the most often-discussed of these islands for fairly obvious reasons. It's directly across from the Confederate state of Florida, held by the relatively decaying Spanish colonial empire as opposed to Britain or France, continued to legally practice slavery into the 1870s, and was often discussed throughout the 19th century as a potential American state in real life both before and after the Civil War.

That said, there are major problems with it. It's by far the largest island in the Caribbean and as such would require very large investments in local infrastructure and political control, most likely having to be admitted to the Confederacy as a full state rather than a territory in order to court local elites. It experienced near-continual unrest from local pro-independence groups and abolitionists throughout its history under Spanish rule, notably the Ten Years' War fram 1868-1878, right within the timeframe of a likely Confederate annexation. Finally, there's the simple fact that it would take more energy to seize in the first place in any fashion than most other Caribbean islands; a potential filibuster would be much bloodier and drawn out in Cuba compared to smaller nearby islands, and a purchase of the island would just plain cost more, money which a fledgling Confederacy with already strained international economic support might simply not have.

What other Caribbean locations could be likely Confederate points of interest in the event that Cuba is deemed too costly or otherwise doesn't work out? The Confederacy would still likely want to expand into the region, the possibility is often discussed for a reason after all, and as time goes on they'll likely become increasingly desperate for new locations to expand a dwindlingly profitable slave economy to in the absence of possible Western expansion most likely blocked by the Union.

Some of the options I've considered:

1. Puerto Rico. If you can't have Cuba, go for the next best thing. It's smaller, likely cheaper, and while it did experience uprisings, significantly less politically rebellious than Cuba. Due to its distance from the Confederacy proper it'd most likely require a purchase from Spain rather than a filibuster, which as mentioned would most likely be negotiated as a smaller, cheaper step down from a purchase of Cuba for a financially strained Confederacy, although even then still in all likelihood quite expensive. There's also the fact that due to its small size the Confederacy could most likely administer it as a territory, rather than a full state as would most likely be required in Cuba, easing political considerations within the Confederacy itself. If this too fails due to either high cost or simply some issue with the Spanish themselves though, then that brings us to the next option.

2. The Danish West Indies. The Danish were, from the 1850s onwards, consistently losing money on the colony and debated the idea of a sale to the United States until they eventually were sold in the early 20th century in our world. Considering that the Confederacy, as mentioned pretty desperate for places to expand the slave economy to in the absence of Western territories, would likely be significantly more interested in the islands than the IRL United States (several attempts to sell the islands to the US throughout the late 1800s fell apart due to American lack of interest, eventually changing their minds during WW1 due to fears of German intelligence operations there), there's a good chance they could end up attempting to purchase the islands if both Cuba and Puerto Rico as options fail due to cost or size. The main problem with this one, though, is that slavery was abolished on the islands in 1848 by the Danish due to the threat of a local revolt. If the Confederates did purchase them with the intent to bring back slavery, they'd likely have to fight significant local unrest to take control first, likely a significant challenge for the small Confederate navy, but ultimately not impossible considering the unorganized nature of a potential local revolt compared to a uniformed Confederate military. Finally, we have the smallest and cheapest, but also likely most realistic, option.

3. Guano islands, particularly Navassa Island. In the event that every attempt at a major territorial purchase fails, I could very well see them still attempting to claim small, uninhabited or nearly uninhabited rocks around the Caribbean for the sake of guano mining, strategic interest, and just plain prestige. I list Navassa Island specifically as the most likely example due to its status as already claimed by the United States before the Civil War, a claim which the Confederacy could very well dredge up under the pretext of having inherited it under whatever independence terms they gained from the Union, although considering the larger size of the Union navy and their existing hold on the island it may prove troublesome to actually take control of. Another place which sticks out in this category is Isla de Mona, a small guano island between Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic administered as part of the former by Spain, which I could very well see them purchasing as a consolation prize in the event that a full purchase of Puerto Rico itself fails.

What do y'all think? Any others I may have missed?

 

[Bonniecanuck]

Saint Barthélemy under Sweden is a rather obscure one. Similar to the Danish West Indies, the re-sale of the island to France in 1878 had come at the end of a ten-year process of bidding and negotiating that had included the United States, with the island having been a drain on the Swedish treasury and its economy being in decline, exacerbated by natural disasters. However, since Sweden had abolished slavery in 1847, and thousands of Swedes joined the Union Army, you also run with the same difficulties with Denmark. That said, it is a smaller and more isolated island, so I feel like failing a negotiated purchase, a Confederate force could seize the island and declare its annexation, with Stockholm recognising the seizure as a fait accompli, though Washington will probably take action.

Since we're in this neighbourhood, I might also propose Saba and Sint Eustatius. The Netherlands abolished slavery in its West Indies possessions in 1863, and while there are the same aforementioned issues as putting down unrest by freedmen and sympathisers, there's been less of a generational gap that means there might be a more sizable local elite more willing to collaborate with the Confederacy. The Dutch, however, might not be nearly as willing to give these islands up for a couple reasons. First, at a glance there's no indication that they were particularly interested in giving these territories up like Denmark and Sweden were, and the comparatively stronger economic and military position of the Dutch military compared to Spain, to say nothing of their other colonies like Curaçao, would make a military seizure harder. Second, we do have some literature on bilateral relations between the Dutch and the Union, and despite a few incidents relations appear to generally be okay due to Washington adopting a conciliatory policy to smooth tensions over, so they might have a strong link with Amsterdam in the event of a Confederacy aligned with another European power.

 

[SpudNutimus]

Saint Barthélemy under Sweden is a rather obscure one. Similar to the Danish West Indies, the re-sale of the island to France in 1878 had come at the end of a ten-year process of bidding and negotiating that had included the United States, with the island having been a drain on the Swedish treasury and its economy being in decline, exacerbated by natural disasters. However, since Sweden had abolished slavery in 1847, and thousands of Swedes joined the Union Army, you also run with the same difficulties with Denmark. That said, it is a smaller and more isolated island, so I feel like failing a negotiated purchase, a Confederate force could seize the island and declare its annexation, with Stockholm recognising the seizure as a fait accompli, though Washington will probably take action.

Since we're in this neighbourhood, I might also propose Saba and Sint Eustatius. The Netherlands abolished slavery in its West Indies possessions in 1863, and while there are the same aforementioned issues as putting down unrest by freedmen and sympathisers, there's been less of a generational gap that means there might be a more sizable local elite more willing to collaborate with the Confederacy. The Dutch, however, might not be nearly as willing to give these islands up for a couple reasons. First, at a glance there's no indication that they were particularly interested in giving these territories up like Denmark and Sweden were, and the comparatively stronger economic and military position of the Dutch military compared to Spain, to say nothing of their other colonies like Curaçao, would make a military seizure harder. Second, we do have some literature on bilateral relations between the Dutch and the Union, and despite a few incidents relations appear to generally be okay due to Washington adopting a conciliatory policy to smooth tensions over, so they might have a strong link with Amsterdam in the event of a Confederacy aligned with another European power.

Ooh, forgot about Swedish Saint Barthélemy, that's another good one, thanks.

 

[History Learner]

Cuba is the easiest honestly, Spain was already exploring selling it IOTL to the United States in 1870 and I can definitely see the local elites being well disposed to such. Spain too would be okay with it given the Confederates can pay top dollar for the territory.

 

[Japhy]

Cuba is the easiest honestly, Spain was already exploring selling it IOTL to the United States in 1870 and I can definitely see the local elites being well disposed to such. Spain too would be okay with it given the Confederates can pay top dollar for the territory.

Not to likely.

 

[Japhy]

Anyway my hottake on the question of expansion is it ends with a lot of filibusters with their backs up against brick walls and with blind folds and cigarettes.

Certain segments of the Confederacy would love to expand. They would be in a bankrupt, shattering and fractious country and would have next to no support from that country and face active opposition from the United States, Latin America and the European Powers that continued Confederate survival would depend on.

In short, it ain't gonna happen, thankfully.

 

[History Learner]

Not to likely.

Cotton exports in 1870 alone were worth over $200 Million, with the Confederates have instituted an export tax on such in 1861. That's just one fund raising mechanism I've found they did, and which would be more than sufficient for the purposes of paying a large sum for Cuba. I really have no idea where the idea of a bankrupt Confederacy comes from, nor the idea it would lack international support. For an academic take on it, see Without Consent or Contract by Robert Fogel, pg 414-415:

If the Confederacy had been allowed to establish itself peacefully, to work out economic and diplomatic policies, and to develop international alliances, it would have emerged as a major international power. Although its population was relatively small, its great wealth would have made it a force to be reckoned with. The Confederacy would probably have used its wealth and military power to establish itself as the dominant nation in Latin America, perhaps annexing Cuba and Puerto Rico, Yucatan, and Nicaragua as well as countering Britain's antislavery pressures on Brazil. Whether the Confederacy would have sought to counter British antislavery policies in Africa or to form alliances with the principal slave-trading nations of the Middle East is more uncertain, but these would have been options.​

​

The Confederacy could have financed its expansionist, proslavery policies by exploiting the southern monopoly of cotton production. A [five cent] sales tax on cotton not only would have put most of the burden of such policies on foreign consumers, but would have yielded about $100 million annually during the 1860s—50 percent more than the entire federal budget on the eve of the Civil War. With such a revenue the Confederacy could have emerged as one of the world's strongest military powers, maintaining a standing army several times as large as the North's, rapidly developing a major navy, and conducting an aggressive foreign policy. Such revenues would also have permitted it to covertly or overtly finance aristocratic forces in Europe who were vying with democratic ones for power across the Continent.​

 

[Indicus]

The Ten Years’ War was initiated by a revolutionary slaveowner freeing his slaves and inviting them to join the revolution. I’m not sure if it would happen as a Confederate victory would definitely weaken the international cause of abolition, but if it does it would spark panic in Confederate circles. What that would result in I’m not sure, but my rather overoptimistic scenario would be a failed Confederate invasion in the middle of the Ten Years’ War allowing the revolutionaries to beat the weakened Spanish.

 

[Japhy]

Cotton exports in 1870 alone were worth over $200 Million, with the Confederates have instituted an export tax on such in 1861. That's just one fund raising mechanism I've found they did, and which would be more than sufficient for the purposes of paying a large sum for Cuba. I really have no idea where the idea of a bankrupt Confederacy comes from, nor the idea it would lack international support. For an academic take on it, see Without Consent or Contract by Robert Fogel, pg 414-415:

If the Confederacy had been allowed to establish itself peacefully, to work out economic and diplomatic policies, and to develop international alliances, it would have emerged as a major international power. Although its population was relatively small, its great wealth would have made it a force to be reckoned with. The Confederacy would probably have used its wealth and military power to establish itself as the dominant nation in Latin America, perhaps annexing Cuba and Puerto Rico, Yucatan, and Nicaragua as well as countering Britain's antislavery pressures on Brazil. Whether the Confederacy would have sought to counter British antislavery policies in Africa or to form alliances with the principal slave-trading nations of the Middle East is more uncertain, but these would have been options.​

​

The Confederacy could have financed its expansionist, proslavery policies by exploiting the southern monopoly of cotton production. A [five cent] sales tax on cotton not only would have put most of the burden of such policies on foreign consumers, but would have yielded about $100 million annually during the 1860s—50 percent more than the entire federal budget on the eve of the Civil War. With such a revenue the Confederacy could have emerged as one of the world's strongest military powers, maintaining a standing army several times as large as the North's, rapidly developing a major navy, and conducting an aggressive foreign policy. Such revenues would also have permitted it to covertly or overtly finance aristocratic forces in Europe who were vying with democratic ones for power across the Continent.​

There is zero chance that the Confederacy is allowed to establish itself peacefully so there will be plenty of devastation in the country not to mention large numbers of Unionists rejecting the existence of the country. Outside of agricultural products the country would have no industry to speak of. During the war the Confederate Government proved it was inept at raising funds at home or abroad. The most likely outcome is that the Confederacy is a cotton-centered Banana Republic and certainly not as Fogel fantasized, a world power

Edit: also the Confederate cotton monopoly was dead by 1863 which is about as early a point as one can theoretically see them securing independence through force of arms.

 

[Japhy]

Also I hate to just go after authors rather then their quotes but Robert Fogel's main argument about Slavery was that slave owners didn't abuse their slaves because that didn't make economic sense. So like, I'm not going to take his idea of a Confederate super power with any amount of salt. He had an agenda and it sucked.

 

[History Learner]

There is zero chance that the Confederacy is allowed to establish itself peacefully so there will be plenty of devastation in the country not to mention large numbers of Unionists rejecting the existence of the country. Outside of agricultural products the country would have no industry to speak of. During the war the Confederate Government proved it was inept at raising funds at home or abroad. The most likely outcome is that the Confederacy is a cotton-centered Banana Republic and certainly not as Fogel fantasized, a world power.

The exact PoD of the OP has been left so it's hard to gauge the exact level of devastation, which is why I'm citing OTL levels of cotton exports achieved in 1870; i.e. after all the war devastation up until 1865. In other words, I'm talking about the absolute worst case scenario already, and it can only get better for them from there. The idea the Confederates were inept at raising funds is without any academic merit, and is specifically rejected in most literature from the past 50 years or so. Rose Razaghian of Yale University, for example, has found that the Confederate taxation mechanisms were extremely efficient and even as the CSA was entering terminal collapse in 1864 it managed to raise $140 Million in taxes collections.

As for the idea of industry the South contained about 15% of the national total, including the border states. Over the course of the war this dramatically expanded as the C.S. Government-which was highly centralized and effective contrary to the popular Lost Cause belief of small government minded Libertarians-practiced State Capitalism and dreamed of establishing an industrial empire to match their existing cotton foundations. To quote Modernizing a Slave Economy: The Economic Vision of the Confederate Nation by John Majewski, Chapter REDEFINING FREE TRADE TO MODERNIZE THE SOUTH:

The Confederacy, of course, never really had a chance to collect its tariff. If the seceding states had been allowed to leave without war, however, the Confederate tariff would have had a significant fiscal impact. According to economist Thomas F. Huertas, the South imported $200 million worth of northern goods in 1860 (see Table 5). With an independent Confederacy, northern goods would have been transformed into dutiable foreign trade. Under Confederate tariff schedules passed in May 1861, imported manufactured goods from the North and Europe would have yielded the Confederate treasury almost $34 million. The percentage of collected duties to the value of total imports would have been 14.3 percent, which was only slightly lower than the ratio of 16 percent for the entire United States in 1860. In per capita terms, every free person in the Confederacy would have paid $6.07 in duties. By way of comparison, the entire United States (both North and South) collected duties worth $53 million, or $1.94 per free resident in 1860. If the North had allowed the South to peaceably leave the Union, the Confederacy would still have increased the tax burden on its own citizens—an ironic result for a nation supposedly committed to free trade and limited government.​

​

The high rate of per capita taxation suggests the complex relationship between trade and Confederate nationalism. In some respects, the traditional southern commitment to free trade remained strong. In 1861, for example, South Carolinian G. N. Reynolds wrote in a letter to William Porcher Miles (a South Carolina delegate to the Confederate constitutional convention) that Switzerland was a model of free trade: ‘‘The result is that capital and industry flow solely in the most productive channels. So let it be with us.’’ Other secessionists thought in nationalistic terms and conceptualized trade not as a free-flowing river but as a weapon for punishing enemies. Referring to the North, Texas senator and former South Carolinian Louis Wigfall boasted, ‘‘Not one pound of cotton shall ever go from the South to their accursed cities; not one ounce of their steel or their manufactures shall ever cross our border.’’ A moderate revenue tariff that lowered duties on European goods while raising duties on northern goods synthesized these two potentially contradictory messages of free trade and Confederate nationalism. In the minds of many secessionists, free trade offered the Confederacy a means of escaping northern economic domination and solidifying international alliances. At the same time, secessionists could tout the ability of their government to penalize northern goods and protect southern manufacturers.​

​

In fusing free trade and protectionist impulses, secessionists spoke and wrote in a Hamiltonian idiom of economic modernization and economic nationalism. Just as Hamilton had imagined the United States becoming a world economic power, secessionists envisioned the Confederacy as a vehicle for promoting economic modernization. Confederate duties closely resembled (and sometimes exceeded) the 10 to 15 percent tariff rate proposed by Hamilton in his famous Report on Manufacturers (1791). The similarity in rates reflected shared goals of simultaneously promoting nation building and economic development. Hamilton wanted to make his new nation economically independent while simultaneously encouraging enough international trade to pay for his ambitious fiscal plans. His moderate tariff encouraged domestic manufacturing while generating enough revenue to finance the Revolutionary War debt. Confederates wanted tariffs high enough to penalize northern goods—thus encouraging economic independence—but still low enough to allow for a vibrant trade with Europe.​

 

[History Learner]

Also I hate to just go after authors rather then their quotes but Robert Fogel's main argument about Slavery was that slave owners didn't abuse their slaves because that didn't make economic sense. So like, I'm not going to take his idea of a Confederate super power with any amount of salt. He had an agenda and it sucked.

Fogel was an Ex-Marxist who is married to a Black Woman, his "agenda" was actually to rebuff a lot of racist notions about Black work ethics that were common in the 1960s and 1970s during the Civil Rights era. You're also deliberately misrepresenting his argument, which was not that there wasn't abuse-slavery itself is an abuse-but that slaves did have about equal access to medical care and that beatings and such were not as common as previously thought because of the very simple logic that beating your slave almost to death today meant he couldn't pick cotton tomorrow. It's worth noting most of his arguments are still accepted to this day, for the record.

Concerning the book I just cited:

In 1989 Fogel published Without Consent or Contract The Rise and Fall of American Slavery as a response to criticism stemming from what some perceived as the cold and calculating conclusions found in his earlier work, Time on the Cross. In it he very clearly spells out a moral indictment of slavery when he references things such as the high infant mortality rate from overworked pregnant women, and the cruel slave hierarchies established by their masters. He does not write so much on what he had already established in his previous work, and instead focuses on how such an economically efficient system was threatened and ultimately abolished. Using the same measurement techniques he used in his previous work, he analyzed a mountain of evidence pertaining to the lives of slaves, but he focuses much more on the social aspects versus economics this time. He both illustrates how incredibly hard and life-threatening the work of a slave was, as well as how they were able to form their own culture as a resistance to slavery. His main point ultimately comes across, though, as he explains how a small group of very vocal and committed religious reformers led the fight against slavery until it became a political force that captured the attention of the President of the United States. His book delves deeply into why some of America's most widely respected leaders went from seeing slavery as a highly profitable workforce (which his findings indicate as true) to something that must be abolished on moral grounds.​

 

[Elektronaut]

The actual historical record is so obviously that the Confederacy was a political and economic basket-case lead by a ruling class of clowns that the notion that it would have been able to both first conquer and then hold down the entire Carribean and Latin America is really not very convincing.

 

[History Learner]

The actual historical record is so obviously that the Confederacy was a political and economic basket-case lead by a ruling class of clowns that the notion that it would have been able to both first conquer and then hold down the entire Carribean and Latin America is really not very convincing.

Okay, let's walk through this; based on what? I don't think anyone is claiming they would conquer the entirety of the Caribbean or Latin America, though.

 

[History Learner]

Edit: also the Confederate cotton monopoly was dead by 1863 which is about as early a point as one can theoretically see them securing independence through force of arms.

Just now saw this edit, so forgive the late reply but that's not true:

 

[Ricardolindo]

Just now saw this edit, so forgive the late reply but that's not true:

I can't see the attachment.

 

[Charles EP M.]

That graph seems to show India was competitive with post-war USA on cotton sales for a few years and Egypt & Brazil had increased trade, so while the US was a dominant cotton producer it wasn't the only game in town for Britain. I could see the Confederacy struggling to get back to pre-war dominance if it's easier to demonise as the place that stinks of slavery (in favour of, admittedly, India the place we are owning at gunpoint).

 

[Elektronaut]

Just now saw this edit, so forgive the late reply but that's not true:

I feel like this is one of those 'have you looked at your own graphic?' moments. The original claim was that the south possessed a cotton monopoly, which as the graphic clearly shows, it did not. The Confederate fantasy of a cotton monopoly produced diplomatic failure during the war when they tried to force British recognition on the basis of that misaprehension. Not only was supply of good-quality cotton expanding in the world in the likes of India, Egypt and Mexico (Which I'm interested in that graphic omitting) there was already an existing prior over-supply of cotton relative to demand, which as the Confederates were posturing was sitting in British warehouses.

If the Confederates tried to price cotton too highly in a post-war world then it would just encourage that OTL rise of alternate supply, which would very likely not follow the graph anyway in the ATL post-war years given the political factors involved in a surviving Confederacy.

 

[Yossarian]

If the Confederates tried to price cotton too highly in a post-war world then it would just encourage that OTL rise of alternate supply, which would very likely not follow the graph anyway in the ATL post-war years given the political factors involved in a surviving Confederacy.

The Confederate States of America: History’s high thread-count Venezuela?

I think there’s also something to be said for the lack of Northern capital in stymying postwar expansion of the cotton industry presuming there’s at least some sort of stigma against being seen to help the Rebs get up on their own two feet - yes, funds will still flow south if the returns make sense, but the taps wouldn’t be wide open.

 

[Charles EP M.]

This all makes me wonder: let's say the Confederacy does manage to get a mediocre economy going from some cotton sales and the wartime industrialisation and lots of wheeler-dealing, it's in a crap position and there's a lot of upset poor people but it's not going to fall over. And then it decides it needs to spend the money it's collected on things like the Danish West Indies because they're obsessed with expanding the slave economy and showing they're Laughing Actually and all that.

If Virginia does start courting Denmark and Spain, does Washington also decide "actually we do want to buy the Danish West Indies" just to fuck over Johnny Reb?