If the south won the war....

[Dave Howery]

While we've had a lot of threads dealing with the south winning the ACW, I am curious as to what a lot of you think their chances would have been afterwards. HT of course, has a whole series of books on this, but a lot of us don't seem to think he's right in his assumptions. So, let's discuss...
I'm making two assumptions: first, the south wins fairly early in the war, partly with the help of Britain and France (not militarily, but heavy-handed diplomacy). Exactly how isn't important, so long as it happens.
second, the CSA includes only the 11 seceeding states: VA, NC, SC, GA, AL, FL, MS, TX, LA, TN, AK); they gain no territory in the west (Sibley's expedition had no real chance of success) and do not get KY.
Let's look at:
economics: the south is going to have a hard time at first; they have very little capital for investment, and will be totally dependent on foreign investment. Will anyone be willing to do so? Also, the south had a problem with the plantation system, in that the big planters practically ran the banking system, and weren't big on investments for industry and such things.
slavery: while this would continue for a while, it would have to end, if only because of international condemnation. But it's likely that blacks will have no political or economic power, being merely low paid labor in the most menial jobs. Thus, immigration will likely still be low, as they won't want to compete with what is still practically slave labor.
international relations: HT assumes that the US will hold a grudge against Britain and France clear up to WW1... is this likely? After all, it's several generations later, and these two nations are important trading partners. Will the US go so far as to ally with Germany in WW1, ala HT, or will they simply stand aside and happily sell supplies to both sides. The CSA will naturally have warm feelings towards both countries, but would they go so far as to intervene in WW1? I'd think the US would get angry enough about it to insist that both American nations stay neutral in the 'European squabble'... and I think the CSA would do just that rather than have open warfare on their own border. Then there's Mexico... I don't think Maximillian will be able to stay in power with or without US disapproval. Mexico would be a Vietnam scenario to Napoleon, a running wound with no end in sight, and he'd give up on it sooner or later.
Stability: Would the CSA be able to stay together? A nation founded on secession seems rather unlikely to be a happy one, and the states found various reasons to squabble even in the depths of the war. And the US? A lot of us have wondered if there would be further secessions, with New England mentioned a lot. But is this the proper time frame for this? NE was indeed secession grumpy a lot in the early 19th century, but wasn't this mostly over with by 1860? Were there any other real threats of secession in what would be left of the US? If so, would the nation hang together at all, or break up into squabbling pockets?
Finally, what would be the affects on the 20th century of having a split America? Would the US ever become a superpower in this scenario, or would it be totally consumed with it's problems in N. America?
OK, go ahead and tear into my carefully devised questions....

 

[Brilliantlight]

While we've had a lot of threads dealing with the south winning the ACW, I am curious as to what a lot of you think their chances would have been afterwards. HT of course, has a whole series of books on this, but a lot of us don't seem to think he's right in his assumptions. So, let's discuss...
I'm making two assumptions: first, the south wins fairly early in the war, partly with the help of Britain and France (not militarily, but heavy-handed diplomacy). Exactly how isn't important, so long as it happens.
second, the CSA includes only the 11 seceeding states: VA, NC, SC, GA, AL, FL, MS, TX, LA, TN, AK); they gain no territory in the west (Sibley's expedition had no real chance of success) and do not get KY.
Let's look at:
economics: the south is going to have a hard time at first; they have very little capital for investment, and will be totally dependent on foreign investment. Will anyone be willing to do so? Also, the south had a problem with the plantation system, in that the big planters practically ran the banking system, and weren't big on investments for industry and such things.
slavery: while this would continue for a while, it would have to end, if only because of international condemnation. But it's likely that blacks will have no political or economic power, being merely low paid labor in the most menial jobs. Thus, immigration will likely still be low, as they won't want to compete with what is still practically slave labor.
international relations: HT assumes that the US will hold a grudge against Britain and France clear up to WW1... is this likely? After all, it's several generations later, and these two nations are important trading partners. Will the US go so far as to ally with Germany in WW1, ala HT, or will they simply stand aside and happily sell supplies to both sides. The CSA will naturally have warm feelings towards both countries, but would they go so far as to intervene in WW1? I'd think the US would get angry enough about it to insist that both American nations stay neutral in the 'European squabble'... and I think the CSA would do just that rather than have open warfare on their own border. Then there's Mexico... I don't think Maximillian will be able to stay in power with or without US disapproval. Mexico would be a Vietnam scenario to Napoleon, a running wound with no end in sight, and he'd give up on it sooner or later.
Stability: Would the CSA be able to stay together? A nation founded on secession seems rather unlikely to be a happy one, and the states found various reasons to squabble even in the depths of the war. And the US? A lot of us have wondered if there would be further secessions, with New England mentioned a lot. But is this the proper time frame for this? NE was indeed secession grumpy a lot in the early 19th century, but wasn't this mostly over with by 1860? Were there any other real threats of secession in what would be left of the US? If so, would the nation hang together at all, or break up into squabbling pockets?
Finally, what would be the affects on the 20th century of having a split America? Would the US ever become a superpower in this scenario, or would it be totally consumed with it's problems in N. America?
OK, go ahead and tear into my carefully devised questions....

Slavery would continue until at least 1900 with the 1920s more likely. Remember Southerners were willing to fight and die to preserve slavery and it is unlikely to change just because of pressure from outside. If anything it might cause them to cling to it even more to prove that they can't be blackmailed. However after two or three generations the pressure to industrialize will be overwhelming and slavery will end some time after that.

An admendment to outlaw secession is fairly likely in the US if it doesn't break apart quickly. If it doesn't pass such an admendment it will soon break apart itself due to an overly weak central government.
The CSA is unlikely to survive long and would soon break up into 11 or so independent nation-states. Its central government is so weak people would be wondering why they were sending money to Richmond to a government that couldn't actually DO ANYTHING.

As the London Times at the time stated the enemies of freedom would be strengthened. Expect autocratic governments to be stronger as a victory of slave power would strengthen those who want to keep their populations captive. Also since the US would likely ally itself with Prussia and Russia because of a lasting grudge against GB and France these countries would be strengthened.

 

[Raymann]

As for being a superpower, maybe? It's been 140 years of population movements but the South has about 90,000,000 people today which is more then every european country save Russia. That would mean the Union would still have about 200,000,000 people so I'm guessing yeah.

Considering the technological development the US has started, with the Confederacy on its border that would definatly go up. The real question is foreign involvement, for instance is the Spanish-American War butterflied away or fought by the Confederacy? If the Phillipeans aren't American, that would lessen the chances of the US getting involved in WWII.

Would the CSA become a superpower? Again depends, they would look for more territory definatly and might very well end up with several Carribbean posessions along with Northern Mexico. A lot people in the South have left over the years, this has only reversed in the 90's so I'd say, a modern Confederacy would have a population of 120-130,000,000. Add on to that the population of added territories:

Cuba 11,000,000
Puerto Rico 4,000,000
Hispaniola (for fun) 16,000,000
Chihuahua (Mexico) 3,000,000
Sonora (Mexico) 2,000,000
Baja California (Mexico, Norte & Sur)
3,000,000

Thats an extra 36,000,000 for a total of 166 million people max. The US had 150 million people in 1950 so the Confederacy has more then enough people to be a superpower in addition to the resources to do so.

 

[Raymann]

The CSA is unlikely to survive long and would soon break up into 11 or so independent nation-states. Its central government is so weak people would be wondering why they were sending money to Richmond to a government that couldn't actually DO ANYTHING.

The CSA would take the same path as the US, ten years or so with their Constitution to prove their point then they'll make a stronger one. The CS didn't leave the Union over problems with the text of the Constitution, just its interperation. They'll make a new Constitution virtually the same as the US one and add succession to it.

 

[Brilliantlight]

The CSA would take the same path as the US, ten years or so with their Constitution to prove their point then they'll make a stronger one. The CS didn't leave the Union over problems with the text of the Constitution, just its interperation. They'll make a new Constitution virtually the same as the US one and add succession to it.

Which would mean NOTHING, it just fought a war to preserve slavery and secession it would not suddenly outlaw it. Any central government that allows secession is by definition weak. Any time it does something someone doesn't like they bolt so the safest thing to do is NOTHING.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

In The Guns of the South Turtledove has one genuinely amusing scene where, having seen Lee win the presidency, the opposition begins talking about seceding, and Jefferson Davis storms to his feet and shouts that if they try it he will...stops short and with a look shock admits that he doesn't have the slightest idea what he'll do about it.

The big question needing to be answered is whether England or France were actually involved in the North losing or not. That makes a difference in future attitudes. If they did, trade is irrelevant. An interesting historical point is that in OTL Germany and France were each other's largest trade partner in 1914 and in 1939.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Dave, there are varying degrees of answers for your question. This discussion will probably soon grow to 10+ pages and a fairly heated debate. There are moderates and not so moderates, on each side.

"A nation founded on secession seems rather unlikely to be a happy one"

Now doesn't that strike you as an ignorant remark. Many nations have been formed by secession. Doesn't the United States itself come to mind! Most of the nations of central Europe were formed by secession from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. How about the Baltic States, the Ukraine and most of the new nations of Central Asia? How about the states of Texas and California.

 

[Tom_B]

Southern Deconstruction

Period one:

1] Golden Age -- lasts approx a decade after the war. Country looks functional and basks in triumphalism.

2] After that deep divisions appear. The notion of phasing out slavery resurfaces in the Border States and draws the scorn of the Deep South.

3] States start breaking away around 1880. The Union meanwhile goes from a Cold War posture to a constructive engagement policy.

4[ Circa 1890 a new rump CSA is formed with South Carolina, Georgia, North Florida (South Florida splitting to become its own country), Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. The new CSA Constitution is much less states rights. It prohibits states from either succeeding or freeing slaves without Federal consent. Meanwhile post slavery Virgina is asking for admission back into the USA.

1900 - Except for Texas and South Florida the breakaway Southern states have been reabsorbed into the USA. The Rump CSA is a political pariah in the international community and is starting to bear resemblance to current North Korea.

Tom

 

[Othniel]

In our timeline there was a group of confederate sympathersisers in Northern Mexico. Nuevo Leon tried to seceed from Mexico and annex Coahuila. With the confederacy backing them against the Mexican Goverment they might be able to become a free nation. Would any others of you see República de la Sierra Madre becoming a side-effect of a Confedary?

 

[Nicole]

Which would mean NOTHING, it just fought a war to preserve slavery and secession it would not suddenly outlaw it. Any central government that allows secession is by definition weak. Any time it does something someone doesn't like they bolt so the safest thing to do is NOTHING.

The Southerners believed the American Constitution permitted secession, yet it tok them until 1860 to actually secede. I'm sure that they didn't agree with everything all up to then. The Southerners saw secession as a last resort, so saying that they would bolt at "Anything" is most likely false.

 

[Brilliantlight]

The Southerners believed the American Constitution permitted secession, yet it tok them until 1860 to actually secede. I'm sure that they didn't agree with everything all up to then. The Southerners saw secession as a last resort, so saying that they would bolt at "Anything" is most likely false.

The first time doing almost anything is always the hardest. If you ask most soldiers they will tell you the first time you shoot someone is the hardest, after that it soon becomes routine. Once precedent has been set that you bolt the second something doesn't go your way it is hard to see why they wouldn't do so again.

 

[SirCliveWolfe]

Sirs,

You seem to be under the impression that the superpower of the time would do little to help the CSA. GBR has always looked to keep a 'balance of power' on any continent it could not take. The whole point of the Entente Cordial was to do this in europe.

GBR a 'super rich' superpower would pour money into the CSA in the way it had always done through it's greatest strength ie. it's banking and finance industry. The CSA would become as industrialised as the USA on the back of GBR's money and would look to move to at least an aparthite [sp?] system quite early, especialy if you had a cotton crop failure or a 'nose-dive' in it's price.

The US in 1914 would not be in a position to stop the CS helping her european friends and allies.

The idea that the men of the CSA died for slavery while their brave and democratic USA brothers died for the emancipation of slaves is rediculas and dangerous idea.

Your faithful servant,

Sir Clive Wolfe

 

[LDoc]

I would say the CSA has a golden period of about a decade with increasiong tensions between the variouse states of petty things (such as when to hold certain holidays) to majory ones (such as how much money to send to the federal gov. and state militias). During this "golden period" more and more slaves seek freedom in the north and, with much greater help fromt he north, the underground RR expands, leading to further suppression of slaves. Around late 1970's and slave revolt in the Carolina's erupts, with partial backing of Northern anti-slavery organizations, including some guns. Around this time Egyptian cotton is becomming a major competitor, leading to a economic down turn in the CSA economy. Other states send only token amounts of aid to the Carolina's, leaving them to surpress the rebellion on their own. The revolt is finally destroyed in the early 1880's, but with massive damage to the Carolina cotton industry. Cotton plantations begin to go bankrupt, as Egyptian cotton is easier to transport and the CSA lacks a real shipping fleet. The failed revolt also leads to further supression of slaves in many states. Texas becomes the first to secede in the late 1880's to early 1890's over lack of political power in the federal gov. and complete lack of aid durring the continued depression. On the promise of foriegn aid, the federal gov of the CSA passes an amendment ending slavery in the early to mid 1890's after Texa's secedes, but the vote is very close. Both Carolina's secede from the CSA. Sporadic fighting between the CSA and the Carolina's along with the slower-then-expected foreign aid, leads to the Representatives of Aarkansa, Tennesse, and Virginia to walk out around the turn of the century and ask for readmission into the USA. Another slave uprising occurs in the Carolina's, quickly devolving into a loosly organized ethnic war. The CSA enters a quasi war with the USA over pirate havens in Florida and Lousiana. A rump CSA continues into the 20th century, but is racked by racial tensions and violence.

The USA goes into a half decade of mourning, moral depression, and economic depression, as the textile and shipping industries goes through major breakups, but passes three amendments freeing all slaves, granting equal civil rights to all residence of the USA, and equal political rights, but is not stricly enforced. The republican party splits. Rapid immigration continues as in OTL, but industrialization slows. Mormons form the nation Desert, but it is quickly taking over by the USA. By the mid 1870's the USA is seeing a economic boom thanks to generouse government land grants and tax breaks. NGOs largly based in New England and the Old West (Ohio, Illionis, Indiana) increase support for the underground RR, while more radical elements sends free blacks back to plantations as organizers and contacts for arms shipments. From the 1880's to the late 1890's the USA goes through a gilded age similar to OTL. Relations with the CSA remains cool, but relations with UK and France as risen to almost pre war standars as both are important trading partners. Mexico declares war on Texas soon after it's secession, in the hopes of boosting support for the new Mexican dictator among the military, who were largly on Maximillians side. Initial success agains the poorly trained and equiped Texans, leads to talk of US invasion of Texas to stop the Mexican advance. After the Texans lose a critical battle near Houston, the USA intervenes. Texans cease to be a country in a matter of months, while Mexico is pushed back. Although US advance is slow at first, it quickly turns into a rout for the Mexican army. Mesico city is taken a year and half after the war begins. Mexico cedes all claims to Texas and falls under the US sphere of influnce. In the late 1890's the US sends a newly updated fleet into the Carribean to destroy pirate havens that have sprung up around Florida and Lousiana. A Spanish ship in a suspected pirate haven fires on US ships. This along with brutal treatment of Cubans and Filipinos, leads to the Spanish-American War. The ar goes along OTL lines with the complete dismantling of Spanish colonies in the Pacific and Carribean. At the begining of the 20th centurty the US accepts Arkansaw, Tennesse, and Virginia back into the Union as semi-states . Also a Nicoragian Canal is started, as US domination of Latin America and the Carribean is nearly complete.

 

[Faeelin]

Hmm.

Questions:

1) Why is the decline in otton prices of OTL averted if the Confederacy wins? Putting more cotton on the global market wouldn't icnrease it.

2) The Confederate Constitution Stated:

a)Congress had the power to "To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States."

b) "# To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof."


c) "2. No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any State on imports, or exports, shall be for the use of the Treasury of the Confederate States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of Congress."

d) "1. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired."

e)"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

In other words, to abolish slavery, 2/3 of the states must agree with it. To establish protective tariffs, 2/3 of the states must agree to it. To set up internal improvements, 2/3 of the states must agree with it.

SirClive: I may be naive, but why would the British suddenly decide to up and support a slaveholding nation?

I mean, which nation offers better business oppurtunities? The one which has an economy based on cotton and slave labor, or America?

And the idea that slavery wasn't dear to the Confederacy is a joke. Read its constitution.

Othniel: So I understand this, the Confederates opposed Maximillian? You sure about this?

David: To say the US was founded upon secession is stretching the truth. The US didn't secede because its candidates lost a national election.

 

[Diamond]

I too feel that the CSA would enjoy a brief 'time in the sun' until the ugly realities of economics rears its head. By around 1875, I believe Virginia will re-apply for admission to the US, and Texas, seeing opportunities for western and/or southern expansion, will secede and go it alone once more rather than anchor itself to a slowly decaying economy and culture.

What will become of Louisiana? They have one of the richest ports in North America, and are strategically important. I think Louisiana would likely develop into a point of contention between the US, the rump CS, and Texas, as they all try to sway the state to their side.

The problem I have is when you start talking about possible sides in WWI or II. A world with a different outcome for the ACW is going to be radically different, and sooner rather than later IMO. What makes you think any future wars will be even remotely similar in cause or circumstance to OTL?

 

[MrP]

Well . . . the American colonies seceded because they felt that their concerns were being ignored by a government they felt they could not control. the situation is not the same, but there are points of similarity like that.

 

[Faeelin]

Well . . . the American colonies seceded because they felt that their concerns were being ignored by a government they felt they could not control. the situation is not the same, but there are points of similarity like that.

You mean, the Southern states were denied representation in Congress, were ruled by a monarch seeking to become an absolute ruler who wanted to create a series of established churches in America and sought to violate state constitutions? And that the northern states were forcefully pursuing a mercantilist policy?

Wait, you don't mean that? Oh, well, nevermind then.



Off base what if: Abraham Lincoln, Emperor of the United States, King of Canada, Lord Protector of Mexico.

 

[MrP]

You mean, the Southern states were denied representation in Congress, were ruled by a monarch seeking to become an absolute ruler who wanted to create a series of established churches in America and sought to violate state constitutions? And that the northern states were forcefully pursuing a mercantilist policy?

Gee, it's almost as if you only have a Colonial perspective on things

I'm sure it's entirely reasonable to expect Britain, which supplies people and trade to the Thirteen Colonies also to pay for the upkeep of an army to protect against foreign aggression. It's also unreasonable to expect the colonists to pay a bit more tax than they are paying in return for said protection. Especially since they pay so much less tax than British subjects in Britain.

The Southern States felt they were denied representation in Congress.

They regarded Lincoln as a man who would fiddle with their peculiar instituion.

They believed Lincoln intended to uphold the United States' power over the rights of the States.

I don't say I support the South. Nor is the situation the same as that in the AWI/ARW! There are points of similarity - and I will maintain that viewpoint, because it is correct. There are also points of difference.

I like that Abe WI, though

 

[LDoc]

I don't htinkt he south ever thought they were being denied representation. Remember the variouse compromises concerning the MExican territories were considered Southern victories, as they continued to expanded slaveries bounderies northerward.

 

[David S Poepoe]

The American Revolutionary War wasn't that, since there was nothing revolutionary about the revolt. There was no major change in government, tho it was in its nature conservative. It was a War of Independence, the American colonies revolted against and seceded from Britain. The American Civil War was also hardly that since the Federal Government was not overthrown. It would be more properly called the War of the Rebellion or the War of Southern Independence.