mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
By Erik Sass
In the years leading up to the Civil War, many Northerners and Southerners alike wanted the federal government to take a more aggressive approach toward acquiring new territory. In fact, some private citizens, known as filibusters, took matters into their own hands. They raised small armies illegally; ventured into Mexico, Cuba, and South America; and attempted to seize control of the lands. One particularly successful filibuster, William Walker, actually made himself president of Nicaragua and ruled from 1856 to 1857.
For the most part, these filibusters were just men in search of adventure. Others, however, were Southern imperialists who wanted to conquer new territories in the tropics. Abolitionist factions in the North greatly opposed their efforts, and the debate over Southern expansion only increased tensions in a divided nation. As the country drifted into war, U.S. Vice President John Breckinridge of Kentucky warned that “the Southern states cannot afford to be shut off from all possibility of expansion towards the tropics by the hostile action of the federal government.”
But Abraham Lincoln’s election in November 1860 put an end to the argument. The anti-slavery president refused to compromise, and war broke out in April 1861.
Confederate Colonies, South of the Border
Winning the war was clearly a higher priority for the Confederacy than conquering Latin America, but growth was certainly on the post-war agenda. Confederate president Jefferson Davis made sure the Confederate constitution included the right to expand, and he filled his cabinet with men who thought similarly. He even hinted that the slave trade could be revived in “new acquisitions to be made south of the Rio Grande.”
During the Civil War, Confederate agents attempted to destabilize Mexico so that its territories would be easy to snatch up after the war. One rebel emissary to Mexico City, John T. Pickett, secretly fomented rebellion in several Mexican provinces with an eye to “the permanent possession of that beautiful country.” Pickett’s mission ended in failure in 1861, but fate dealt the South a better hand in 1863. French Emperor Napoleon III seized Mexico, and the move provided the South with a perfect excuse to “liberate” the country after the Civil War.
Of course, Mexico was just part of the pie that the South hoped to inherit. Confederate leaders also had their eyes squarely on Brazil—a country of nearly 4 million square miles and more than 8 million people. Prior to the outbreak of the war, U.S. Naval Academy founder Matthew Maury dispatched two Navy officers to the Amazon basin, ostensibly to map the river for shipping. Instead, they were secretly plotting domination and collecting data about separatist movements in the region. When the South lost the war, Maury refused to abandon his plans. He helped 20,000 ex-rebels flee to Brazil, where they established the Confederate colonies of New Texas and Americana. To this day, hundreds of descendents of the Confederados still gather outside Americana to celebrate their shared heritage of rocking chairs and sweet potato pie. In a strange way, a part of the Old South still survives—thousands of miles below the U.S. border.
ED. NOTE: This story comes from the latest edition of mental_floss magazine. Be sure to check it out here, or pick up a subscription below.
Shhh…super secret special for blog readers.
Comments (13)
Comment
- Follow mental_floss
“Abolitionist factions in the North greatly opposed their efforts…”
Although ardent abolitionists – a small portion of the Northern population – likely expressed great opposition to Southern expansion into Central America, a great number of Northerners (no less racist than their Southern brethren) supported limited expansion as a way to avoid a large scale migration of Blacks to Northern territory – a result they considered very undesirable, indeed.
posted by Ben on 7-23-2008 at 6:34 pm
Nowdays Americana is a typical city in the state of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Americana is my birth city, but I do not think that I knew anyone that had american origins along the 18 years I lived there. Most of the its inhabitants have either italian, portuguese or african origins (I have all of thoses, by the way). As far as I know, most the american families went back to United States after a few years. But they indeed introduced cotton and watermelon cultures in the region. Along the years, and with the help of other immigrants and brazilians, Americana has became a strong textile center in Brazil (which is struggling in the last years with Chinese competition). And around October you can yet get the cheapest and sweetest watermelons I ever tasted!!! For these two gifts, I thank you, America!!
posted by Daniel on 10-6-2008 at 7:20 am
So, the North didn’t want them to expand because they thought that it would allow a large number of Blacks into their region? I recently read (in an encyclopedia) that Lincoln did not want to sign to free the slaves but had no choice. That he believed there should have been a superior race, meaning white. So, was he just as racist? I understand people are happy he freed them but should there be so much praise of him? Just wondering. Not really clear on that part of history.
posted by Debra Robinson on 11-9-2008 at 3:27 pm
President of Mexico Benito Juárez (a full-blooded Zapotec Indian born on March 21, 1806, in the Oaxaca village of San Pablo Gueletao, Oaxaca, MEXICO.)found John T. Pickett guilty of being an illegal alien and threw the confederate rebel into a Mexico City jail for thirty days and then expelled him from the country. Mexico would have to wait about 150 to get KFC.
posted by Sancho Whitehead on 11-9-2008 at 3:31 pm
What people don’t know about the Civil War from both the North and South’s point of view can fill volumns of books. I do Civil War Reenacting and I have learned so much from being in this club it is amazing. For the Civil War to have been such a big part of our Country’s history there is so much of it left out of the classrooms. Least now it is being taught that Slavery wasn’t the main issue and that the mighty dollar was. It was a war of economics. Pure and simple. Slavery became a side issue about midway into the war. Most Southerners and Northerners could have cared less about slavery as most either did not own slaves or it didn’t impact them. And Lincoln did not free the slaves in the Northern states, only the southern states.
posted by Rodney C. on 11-9-2008 at 6:06 pm
Somehow the title, “The Confederacy’s Plan to Conquer Latin America”, turned to slavery. Well we now have a black president elect. This is history and maybe, just maybe, it will end up being possitive history.
I would also like to note: I used the term “black” and not African American. I am against this term. I have mixed roots but am still an American. What ever origin I have I am an American.
I would hope that the beginning of the end of racial barriers would be that those of us born in this country are Americans regardless of where our heritage came from.
posted by Bill on 11-9-2008 at 8:17 pm
Thanks Bill. I share your feelings on ending racial barriers. If we insist on pointing out the differences we never see where we are the same. There is nothing wrong with being proud of ones heritage but we should be most proud of the fact we are american. Even with it’s problems, it is still the best nation in the world.
posted by Kev in GA on 11-13-2008 at 10:08 am
I agree, I’m American of Mexican heritage. It got into slavery because I don’t really remember a lot I learned in school about this but Lincoln gets lots and lots of praise and just wondering if it’s justified. I understand the parts about conquering Latin America- I just figured people could school me on here…
So, Lincoln only freed the southern? How long did it take to free the rest and was that Lincoln? and this is why I brought up slavery up there…there were also Mexican slaves brought over and were used as maids, fruit pickers, landscapers…Conquering Latin America is a fascinating subject to me.
posted by Debra on 11-15-2008 at 2:07 am
wow guys hear what happened the south feared Lincoln would end their way of life he freed the slaves in any states who joined the confederates to help bring blacks into the fighting. ironically the south would of probably kept slavery longer if they had not separated. but thankfully they acted stupidly and allowed this country to join the rest of the civilized world by ending slavery. I think we would of failed in that act long term because the larger your turf the harder it is to keep together just look at the soviet union.
posted by dale on 12-3-2008 at 9:53 pm
Yes the war was over economic issuses but the root of those economic issues was the difference between the industrial North and agricultural South. Slavery was a key issue in economic battle. So while the war was about economics, slavery was a major issue as well. It is hard to boil the war down to one cause. It is disengenuous to exclude slavery as a cause because of the importance slavery in the Southern economic structure.
posted by Brian on 7-29-2009 at 12:35 pm
Something most people forget is Lincoln’s power over the Southern States.
He had none. He was president of the Union, but the Confederate States were a separate country at that point, recognized by others in the world (including the UK and France)This fact sheds light on two points most teachers try to gloss over.
1.) It technically was not a “Civil War” a civil war is a war between two factions within one country. This was a war between two separate countries. “The War Between the States” is the more accurate name. Of course, “The War against Northern Aggression” or “The War against Yankee Oppression” also work ;)
2.)Lincoln was not president of the COnfederacy, so he had no power over the CSA when he made his Emancipation Proclamation. It’s akin to Obama declaring that all British citizens are now Americans. He can say it until he’s blue in the face, but he is completely powerless to make it so, and no one is going to listen.
3.) Something I forgot to list, one would be well advised to look into the events leading up to the attack on Ft. Sumpter. Lincoln was not going to declare war. But he was not against pushing the South into a position where THEY had to fire the first shots. Then he could step in and declare open war. The South wanted to secede without fighting. The Northern forces outnumbered the Southern by a great degree and had all the major manufacturing plants. They were more numerous, and better armed and equipped. Yet the fighting still took 4 years and for a while it looked like the South would win. I
posted by Alec on 8-26-2009 at 5:31 pm
Racial barriers ending in America will only happen when white supremacy ceases to be economical. Until then, it is business as usual, no matter what comes out of Oprah or Bill Cosby mouth.
posted by James on 9-21-2009 at 9:05 pm
Rodney C. above hit the nail on the head.
The Civil War, as most wars in history, was fought for the money. Slavery only became an issue about half-way through it when it became politically expedient for Lincoln to abolish it.
Lincoln above all else wished to save the Union. Slavery meant nothing to him.
“My paramount object, is to save the Union, and not either destroy or save slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing the slaves, I would do it. If I could save the Union by freeing some and leaving others in slavery, I would do it. If I could save it by freeing all, I would do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because it helps save the Union.” — Abraham Lincoln
I am glad slavery was abolished, but please stop making the mistake of claiming the Civil War was about slavery.
posted by Josiah on 11-11-2009 at 6:19 pm