Well, Heliumgod, don't worry about it. General Sheridan has just negated my need to finish the book I'm reading, and from buying the next one that I hadn't known about till a few posts ago (as posted above).
Well, I looked though a bibliography of Harry Turtledove, and WOW does he have a lot of books! Almost makes Asimov look anemic... Well, I guess a lot of that stuff was short stories too..., and I don't think anyone has written more than the late-great Dr., except perhaps Stephen King.
I wish I could've found that story I was talking about. I think it may have been a short story, but I don't think Turtledove wrote it anymore.
In another post on this board, some one mentioned that if the Suth had seceded in 1830, when the North was still unindustrialized, they could have been successful. Well, I've looked into that a little in the last few weeks, and I think the guy made a small goof (which happens to us all).
In 1820, Missouri applied for statehood. At the time, the USA was becoming sectionalized - viewing themselves as Northerners and Southerners - rather than nationalist, like we are now - all one country. The North had no use for slavery, and that was outlawed in Northern states. The South depended upon slavery for economic survival. The House was controlled by the North, because more people lived up there. The Senate was divided equally, with 8 states to each side, which meant the South still had enough power to prevent nationwide manumission.
Missouri was to be a free state, because it was in the North, and that would have made the South powerless to prevent the destruction of their economy. Missouri's statehood was delayed until 1821, when Maine also applied for statehood. At that time, the Missouri Compromise was created, stating that states would be admitted in pairs, and one would be free, and the other slave. There were other elements to it, but the agreement kept the nation together for another 30 years.
In 1851, more trouble arose, and it finally came to an unavoidable war in 1861; the two parts of the country couldn't resolve their differences peacefully.
So the question posed, what would've happened if the South had seceded in 1821, remains one that is intriguing me right now. Mexico was granted independence in 1821 through a bewildering set of circumstances (though their independence is quoted to be earlier - 1816, I think) and they sought the world for a person to accept the Crown of the Mexican Empire. Aaron Burr went down there to do just that, but was chastised by America for it. With a troubled and splitting USA too busy to dip its fingers into Burr's ambitions, he may have become the Emperor of Mexico.
Now, I have a whole lot more research to do on this, but in a short story I read (The War of '07), Burr managed to finagle the election of 1804 and take the Presidency from Jefferson (instead of the other way around). He then proceded to strengthen the central government far more than any radical Federalist would've dreamed. What we think of as the War of 1812 was instigated by Burr 5 years early, and was far more successful due to his policies and preparations. One of the last paragraphs in the story has a newspaper paragraph reporting the death of Emperor Burr I in 1836 or something like that.
A man like that, in control of Mexico, could have done a lot, I think. I'd have to do a LOT of research on this, but just basic thoughts lead me to believe that the Empire of Mexico would gobble up all of Latin America and perhaps the Caribbean and many if not all of the Confederated States. The USA would not have been able to take the Southwest, nevermind Texas or Oregon Country. In fact, it's possible the USA would consist of only New England and a few Midwest states, and the rest of the hemisphere would come under Mexican ownership.
But I don't know for sure. Conquest of all these areas seems unlikely, though there would have been wars, like the one that netted us Florida from Spain in 1819. I can see an envoy from Burr in European courts, telling those Kings and Queens that Mexico has a desire to purchase your Caribbean islands, and oh, by the way, your garrisons were terribly ineffective at withstanding invasions. How does a million dollars sound?
In "The War of '07" Burr is portrayed as a very forward-thinking person, employing submersibles and other weapons before they had gained worldwide acceptance. I have little doubt he'd go far, but would Mexico hold on to all her gains, as the USA has? Who knows.
What do you think? Is this plausible? I really don't forsee a divided USA/CSA being able to do anything about it. I have little trouble believing Burr a very ambitious and capable man. (He had enough gall to send a resume to be the Emperor of Mexico, after all, and he shot the man who cost him the Presidency.)
Well, I looked though a bibliography of Harry Turtledove, and WOW does he have a lot of books! Almost makes Asimov look anemic... Well, I guess a lot of that stuff was short stories too..., and I don't think anyone has written more than the late-great Dr., except perhaps Stephen King.
I wish I could've found that story I was talking about. I think it may have been a short story, but I don't think Turtledove wrote it anymore.
In another post on this board, some one mentioned that if the Suth had seceded in 1830, when the North was still unindustrialized, they could have been successful. Well, I've looked into that a little in the last few weeks, and I think the guy made a small goof (which happens to us all).
In 1820, Missouri applied for statehood. At the time, the USA was becoming sectionalized - viewing themselves as Northerners and Southerners - rather than nationalist, like we are now - all one country. The North had no use for slavery, and that was outlawed in Northern states. The South depended upon slavery for economic survival. The House was controlled by the North, because more people lived up there. The Senate was divided equally, with 8 states to each side, which meant the South still had enough power to prevent nationwide manumission.
Missouri was to be a free state, because it was in the North, and that would have made the South powerless to prevent the destruction of their economy. Missouri's statehood was delayed until 1821, when Maine also applied for statehood. At that time, the Missouri Compromise was created, stating that states would be admitted in pairs, and one would be free, and the other slave. There were other elements to it, but the agreement kept the nation together for another 30 years.
In 1851, more trouble arose, and it finally came to an unavoidable war in 1861; the two parts of the country couldn't resolve their differences peacefully.
So the question posed, what would've happened if the South had seceded in 1821, remains one that is intriguing me right now. Mexico was granted independence in 1821 through a bewildering set of circumstances (though their independence is quoted to be earlier - 1816, I think) and they sought the world for a person to accept the Crown of the Mexican Empire. Aaron Burr went down there to do just that, but was chastised by America for it. With a troubled and splitting USA too busy to dip its fingers into Burr's ambitions, he may have become the Emperor of Mexico.
Now, I have a whole lot more research to do on this, but in a short story I read (The War of '07), Burr managed to finagle the election of 1804 and take the Presidency from Jefferson (instead of the other way around). He then proceded to strengthen the central government far more than any radical Federalist would've dreamed. What we think of as the War of 1812 was instigated by Burr 5 years early, and was far more successful due to his policies and preparations. One of the last paragraphs in the story has a newspaper paragraph reporting the death of Emperor Burr I in 1836 or something like that.
A man like that, in control of Mexico, could have done a lot, I think. I'd have to do a LOT of research on this, but just basic thoughts lead me to believe that the Empire of Mexico would gobble up all of Latin America and perhaps the Caribbean and many if not all of the Confederated States. The USA would not have been able to take the Southwest, nevermind Texas or Oregon Country. In fact, it's possible the USA would consist of only New England and a few Midwest states, and the rest of the hemisphere would come under Mexican ownership.
But I don't know for sure. Conquest of all these areas seems unlikely, though there would have been wars, like the one that netted us Florida from Spain in 1819. I can see an envoy from Burr in European courts, telling those Kings and Queens that Mexico has a desire to purchase your Caribbean islands, and oh, by the way, your garrisons were terribly ineffective at withstanding invasions. How does a million dollars sound?
In "The War of '07" Burr is portrayed as a very forward-thinking person, employing submersibles and other weapons before they had gained worldwide acceptance. I have little doubt he'd go far, but would Mexico hold on to all her gains, as the USA has? Who knows.
What do you think? Is this plausible? I really don't forsee a divided USA/CSA being able to do anything about it. I have little trouble believing Burr a very ambitious and capable man. (He had enough gall to send a resume to be the Emperor of Mexico, after all, and he shot the man who cost him the Presidency.)