The South is America

[Campbell1004]

Okay, so I have been teasing the idea that the South would become the "center," of America in the aftermath of America's birth. Mainly this is because I believe with a few impressive factors (weapons, industry and railroads "eisenbahn zeit") they could overcome the population bonus the North has. So the Confederacy needs people to want to invest in the South. One of the biggest turn offs for industry was the fact there wasn't a lot of cheap labor, seeing as the North was more attractive to immigrants. Because all of the immigrants went North there was, "no one," to work the factories. How can more people become interested in the South? Well, if you eliminate slavery people will probably flock to the South and the investors will most likely follow, establishing factories in Atlanta, Richmond and other cities. But if you eliminate slavery will there be a huge issue over which the American nations will fight? If you believe the American Civil War was about slavery, you will probably say no. But if you know it was about States Rights, or animosity. What if the Founding Fathers shoot to eliminate slavery, a civil war breaks out and the "North," somehow wins. That's not important, just register that it happened. So now there is some pretty thick animosity between the north and the south (this will play a huge role in the war to come).

Moving on, leaving details to those who come after. The South is now a whole lot more attractive to immigrants and capitalists. Originally the Transcontinental Railroad was going to be built in the South, so let's just assume the First Transcontinental Railroad is built in 1845 in the South (the second will be built in the North in 1860 - the North will only have one line, while the South will have several). Because of first TCR being in the South, more immigrants from the South will be attracted towards California (doesn't mean they technically be loyal to the CSA when it breaks away - but they might have family back in the Carolinas, Georgia and Virginia and they wont be happy that Union troops will be marching south to possibly shoot them in the face).

So now the South has several TCR, probably a lot more railroad infrastructure and a ton of settlers from the southern states in gold-rich California. Along with the immigrants and infrastructure came capitalists who built factories from everything to rifles, bullets, clothes.... everything (even paper-weights shaped like America). That's not to say the North doesn't have infrastructure, industry and a strong workforce but the south definitely is equal too or just behind them (the North would still be pretty attractive, some areas are similar to European climates like Ohio and Germany).

Now, when the "Second Civil War," breaks out you have this MUCH bigger Civil War occurring than what we had OTL. Both sides are going to be fielding huge armies (thought its going to take some time to mobilize, the majority of the soldering stock in the first few months will be the standing armies and the patriotic militia who flock to the armies amassing on the border) mainly drafted from the lower classes. Pretty much both armies are going to have the mentality that the Union army had during the war. There will be a lot of desertion, but there will be those that believe in their country and will fight hard for it.

The East will probably be a blood-soaked battlefield and the West will definitely be more intense than it was OTL (there might even be some major battles in California - Fight you Bear-Flags, Fight!). But with these factors, can the Confederacy win the War?

Personally, I think the Confederacy can A; win the war within 5ish years it was fought in OTL..... B; the South will last a whole lot longer and even if the Union wins there will be enough insurgency to make Vietnam look like a May Day Parade..... C; the Confederacy wins a disgustingly bloody war that lasts a whole lot longer than it did OTL and the factors that made WW1 OTL so bloody are really really really evident during this war.

Tell me what you think.

 

[Elfwine]

That this needs a POD which completely changes the direction the two regions were going.

As for cheap labor: If that's all you need, helllooooo. Slavery is a source of cheap labor.

And so on.

Sufficient to say, if you remove slavery as an issue, you also radically change the South and much of American politics.

The idea of the South being more even with the North isn't a bad one, but this is...not how to go about it.

 

[Campbell1004]

That this needs a POD which completely changes the direction the two regions were going.

As for cheap labor: If that's all you need, helllooooo. Slavery is a source of cheap labor.

And so on.

Sufficient to say, if you remove slavery as an issue, you also radically change the South and much of American politics.

The idea of the South being more even with the North isn't a bad one, but this is...not how to go about it.

POD was the Founding Fathers trying to eliminate slavery, leading to an earlier civil war that led to animosity between the states (which culminates into the second civil war - kinda like the European Wars with Germany).

Yea, slavery is cheap labor. But so is immigrant workers without minimum wages, labor unions or the ability to sue big companies. And guess which one allows more immigrants (workers) to come into your country? Dont forget, slavery scared immigrants away from the South.

This isn't how you go about it? Specify.

 

[Elfwine]

Yea, slavery is cheap labor. But so is immigrant workers without minimum wages, labor unions or the ability to sue big companies. And guess which one allows more immigrants (workers) to come into your country? Dont forget, slavery scared immigrants away from the South.

And that had more to do with a lack of opportunities than just "Ew, slavery."

Its not necessarily true that slavery means less workers, either. You want more workers, you need more to bring them in. Just subtracting slavery from the OTL South won't do.

This isn't how you go about it? Specify.

If you eliminate slavery, you've just radically derailed the course of events. To the point that even contemplating whether or not there is a civil war in the 1860s is like trying to decide the king of Great Britain with a POD in the 12th century.

Not quite as extreme, but its the same problem.

If you eliminate slavery, there still needs to be a reason for people to want to go to the South. And for people to invest there. And for them to build factories. And so on.

Also, Atlanta specifically might not be founded in this timeline - its one of the relatively new cities of the South as the ACW (exact date escapes me at the moment, but its within the last quarter of a century I think).

If you eliminate slavery, you've also eliminated the most divisive issue of American politics. And you can't have tariffs take their place if both regions want to have high tariffs on the same products, which they would if both are similarly developed. You can't have States's Rights because there is no one interfering with the rights of the states - well, you could come up with something but it wouldn't be there just to be convenient.

I could continue, but essentially, you need to back to the ending of slavery and figure out what kind of effect that actually has and what happens to those ex-slaves and ex-slave owners before you can come up with a Transcontinental railroad and later events.

Too many things are impacted by the changes you made to just casually leap over them to that point. Butterflies and ripples from the rocks being thrown into the pond are going to have a massive impact on individuals by the 1840s.

 

[Finn]

The Founding Fathers were not crazy enough to try ending slavery.

And if they somehow did get rid of it the Civil War wouldn't have happened. No, it wasn't solely about the slaves but it wouldn't have occurred without them because the South wouldn't have reason to get themselves so worked up about state's rights, not enough to start a war.

 

[Elfwine]

The Founding Fathers were not crazy enough to try ending slavery.

And if they somehow did get rid of it the Civil War wouldn't have happened. No, it wasn't solely about the slaves but it wouldn't have occurred without them because the South wouldn't have reason to get themselves so worked up about state's rights, not enough to start a war.

State's rights didn't start a war in the first place, tied to slavery or not. The number of times "slavery" is mentioned in the declarations of why the Southern states seceded is sickening. The mention of states rights (or state's rights or however its spelled)? Practically nil.

 

[Finn]

State's rights didn't start a war in the first place, tied to slavery or not. The number of times "slavery" is mentioned in the declarations of why the Southern states seceded is sickening. The mention of states rights (or state's rights or however its spelled)? Practically nil.

I actually agree, but I'm pointing out that even states' rights wouldn't have been enough to start the war. The basic fact is that the CSA was fighting so that the richest among them could use humans as draft animals. The USA was fighting not to lose a quarter of its territory.

 

[Campbell1004]

And that had more to do with a lack of opportunities than just "Ew, slavery."

No... it's... No, Slavery scared people way because it didn't provide enough opportunities for immigrants.

Its not necessarily true that slavery means less workers, either. You want more workers, you need more to bring them in. Just subtracting slavery from the OTL South won't do.

You couldn't bring slaves in after a certain point in American history, you had to breed them here in America.

If you eliminate slavery, you've just radically derailed the course of events. To the point that even contemplating whether or not there is a civil war in the 1860s is like trying to decide the king of Great Britain with a POD in the 12th century.

Not quite as extreme, but its the same problem.

The animosity is what causes the Civil War. It would be like the Germans occupying France after WW1, saying its New Germany or something ridiculous and then the French rise up in rebellion twenty or thirty years later. You're not going to listen to some guy who invaded your country, turned it upside down and is telling you what to do.

If you eliminate slavery, there still needs to be a reason for people to want to go to the South. And for people to invest there. And for them to build factories. And so on.

It isnt cold down there. Giant bugs, yes. New England winter, no.

Also, Atlanta specifically might not be founded in this timeline - its one of the relatively new cities of the South as the ACW (exact date escapes me at the moment, but its within the last quarter of a century I think).

With this immigration into the south, you're going to have cities.

If you eliminate slavery, you've also eliminated the most divisive issue of American politics. And you can't have tariffs take their place if both regions want to have high tariffs on the same products, which they would if both are similarly developed. You can't have States's Rights because there is no one interfering with the rights of the states - well, you could come up with something but it wouldn't be there just to be convenient.

Never said tariffs and I never said States Rights, I'm saying animosity.

The Founding Fathers were not crazy enough to try ending slavery.

And if they somehow did get rid of it the Civil War wouldn't have happened. No, it wasn't solely about the slaves but it wouldn't have occurred without them because the South wouldn't have reason to get themselves so worked up about state's rights, not enough to start a war.

Can't we just say it did and work from there? Why is the How so important and not the Because? This is about the South fighting a war against the North that is practically on even footing, not about the Founding Fathers and what they did. Just accept that they did it and let's focus on the meat of the question. Please.

State's rights didn't start a war in the first place, tied to slavery or not. The number of times "slavery" is mentioned in the declarations of why the Southern states seceded is sickening. The mention of states rights (or state's rights or however its spelled)? Practically nil.

It was their right to own slaves. A right ordained to them by the states. That's how I see it, not saying that's right.

I actually agree, but I'm pointing out that even states' rights wouldn't have been enough to start the war. The basic fact is that the CSA was fighting so that the richest among them could use humans as draft animals. The USA was fighting not to lose a quarter of its territory.

Animosity.

 

[Elfwine]

I actually agree, but I'm pointing out that even states' rights wouldn't have been enough to start the war. The basic fact is that the CSA was fighting so that the richest among them could use humans as draft animals. The USA was fighting not to lose a quarter of its territory.

Agreed. You might get a division between states rights and central government that leads to two parties that eventually tear things apart, but it wouldn't be much of a spark - more like the first step in a long road to disaster.

 

[Finn]

Animosity.

Well of course there was animosity, I'm just stating why there was animosity. There are reasons for it.

 

[Elfwine]

No... it's... No, Slavery scared people way because it didn't provide enough opportunities for immigrants.

The problem is that if there had been more opportunities, slavery wouldn't have hurt.

You couldn't bring slaves in after a certain point in American history, you had to breed them here in America.

Which worked rather well.

The animosity is what causes the Civil War. It would be like the Germans occupying France after WW1, saying its New Germany or something ridiculous and then the French rise up in rebellion twenty or thirty years later. You're not going to listen to some guy who invaded your country, turned it upside down and is telling you what to do.

Not...really...sure...how this is at all the same thing.

It isnt cold down there. Giant bugs, yes. New England winter, no.

And your point is...?

People moved to the United States and the parts of the United States they did for reasons other than the weather. I'm not sure how much the weather came up on any scale.

With this immigration into the south, you're going to have cities.

Without there being reason for immigration to the South, you're not.

Never said tariffs and I never said States Rights, I'm saying animosity.

Genetic hostility is not grounds for war.

Can't we just say it did and work from there? Why is the How so important and not the Because? This is about the South fighting a war against the North that is practically on even footing, not about the Founding Fathers and what they did. Just accept that they did it and let's focus on the meat of the question. Please.

No. If you want to pose an alternate history scenario, you need one that can actually accomplish your objectives, not just "somehow it happened." At least outside the ASB part of the forum.

It was their right to own slaves. A right ordained to them by the states. That's how I see it, not saying that's right.

A right not threatened by the government, or ordained to them by the state government.

Animosity.

Well of course there was animosity, I'm just stating why there was animosity. There are reasons for it.

The voice of reason!

No, seriously.

 

[oshron]

ill read over this whole thread at a later time, but one way you could make the deep south the epicenter of america would be to perhaps have the spanish establish successful colonies in that region earlier, perhaps in florida and along the northern shore of the gulf of mexico. when the revolution comes around, it becomes a joint effort by the spanish-speaking south and the english-speaking north to secede against both england and spain and join together as a single nation with two official languages. the only potential monkey wrench that i can see here, though, would be that the north would likely be protestant and the south catholic

 

[Campbell1004]

The problem is that if there had been more opportunities, slavery wouldn't have hurt.

Yes? And here there is no slavery... so there are plenty of opportunities. I dont really know what we're discussing here. I'm willing to move on. How was your day?

Which worked rather well.

Yes, but you said "bring more in," in confused me is all.

Not...really...sure...how this is at all the same thing.

The Union was imposing its will over the South after the first Civil War.

And your point is...?

People moved to the United States and the parts of the United States they did for reasons other than the weather. I'm not sure how much the weather came up on any scale.

Two places are the exact same economically, both offer benefits. But one has extremely skewed seasons (hot summers, wicked cold winters). The other is pretty warm year round, gets kinda cold in the winter but is bearable.

Without there being reason for immigration to the South, you're not.

Yes? You are? The South is going to have equal to or slightly less immigration than the north. Probably about equal.

Genetic hostility is not grounds for war.

Tell Hitler that. Anyway it's not even about Genetic hostility, it's about political animosity.

No. If you want to pose an alternate history scenario, you need one that can actually accomplish your objectives, not just "somehow it happened." At least outside the ASB part of the forum.

But I am not saying, "The Confederacy gets Lighsabers," or something like that all Im saying is, "Look, this happens, we don't know how, but this happens because of it. Run with it!" I don't see what the big problem is. Why does everyone have this thing for POD's and I seem to be the only person that likes after-effects?

A right not threatened by the government, or ordained to them by the state government.

Slavery was popular sovereignty. States protect the sovereignty of the people. And Lincoln, while not a staunch abolitionist, had a reputation (or his party did, can you clear this up for me?) for wanted freedom for the blacks.

The voice of reason!

No, seriously.

Hey, now. I'm just trying to have some fun with history. No need to start hurting feelings!

 

[Elfwine]

Yes? And here there is no slavery... so there are plenty of opportunities. I dont really know what we're discussing here. I'm willing to move on. How was your day?

Ending slavery doesn't create opportunities. You need more jobs, more free/affordable land, more...you know, what brought people up north.

Yes, but you said "bring more in," in confused me is all.

Ah. Yeah, my bad.

The Union was imposing its will over the South after the first Civil War.

It was imposing its will meaning...what?

Two places are the exact same economically, both offer benefits. But one has extremely skewed seasons (hot summers, wicked cold winters). The other is pretty warm year round, gets kinda cold in the winter but is bearable.

Two places are not the exact same economically or geographically.

Yes? You are? The South is going to have equal to or slightly less immigration than the north. Probably about equal.

Probably not. Not unless it is offering something that it isn't. Ending slavery hasn't made new jobs or freed up new arable land, has it?

Tell Hitler that. Anyway it's not even about Genetic hostility, it's about political animosity.

Stupid typo, that was meant to be 'generic" hostility. People are going to need a reason to stay angry.

But I am not saying, "The Confederacy gets Lighsabers," or something like that all Im saying is, "Look, this happens, we don't know how, but this happens because of it. Run with it!" I don't see what the big problem is. Why does everyone have this thing for POD's and I seem to be the only person that likes after-effects?

Because what those after-effects are heavily depends ON the POD and what changes unfold from the change to events.

Slavery was popular sovereignty. States protect the sovereignty of the people. And Lincoln, while not a staunch abolitionist, had a reputation (or his party did, can you clear this up for me?) for wanted freedom for the blacks.

Wanting freedom for the blacks and threatening to use the federal government to abolish slavery are two different things.

Hey, now. I'm just trying to have some fun with history. No need to start hurting feelings!

How about making a point?

You need something where you have events that lead up to the events you're saying you want to have happen (want in the sense that's the kind of timeline you want to write about/discuss).

Your "Let's end slavery at the time of the Founders!" doesn't provide that.

I'm all for having fun with history, but if you want - for instance - the first Transcontinental Railroad to be built in the South you need to have events leading up to that and then to follow how those events and that (the railroad) lead to other events.

 

[Campbell1004]

Ending slavery doesn't create opportunities. You need more jobs, more free/affordable land, more...you know, what brought people up north.

Well, yea I guess ending slavery would. Need people to work farms don't you? And when the mid factory boom comes around and you have these Southern cities just waiting to explode into new economic heights.

It was imposing its will meaning...what?

Well for one they just fought a war, there's probably going to be an occupation. But a large standing army in early America is probably going to bankrupt our tiny nation, so the South will probably win its independence even if they lose the war. The federal government cant... I guess....

Two places are not the exact same economically or geographically.

Not geographically no... but they would offer the same opportunities, the south probably more so. You already have business forming in the North, the south probably has none of that when the nation is just starting out. And if they dont have a certain business, that's where a capitalist is going to plant his roots, where the unfurnished market is.

Probably not. Not unless it is offering something that it isn't. Ending slavery hasn't made new jobs or freed up new arable land, has it?

It did in our history, at least with a few decades. And with the territories opening up, the South might be seen as a door into the fertile Mississippi Valley or the uncharted West.

Because what those after-effects are heavily depends ON the POD and what changes unfold from the change to events.

But we know the POD, we just don't know how it happened.

Wanting freedom for the blacks and threatening to use the federal government to abolish slavery are two different things.

Which did the South see it as?

How about making a point?

How about establishing a setting, then asking a question?

How about not having that questioned answer and instead people want to go back and hack the build up with a hatchet while completing ignoring the question.

There is no need to do that. All you need to do is recognize that there is a setting, a situation is unfolding and you need to think about how this situation is going to end.

You need something where you have events that lead up to the events you're saying you want to have happen (want in the sense that's the kind of timeline you want to write about/discuss). I'm all for having fun with history, but if you want - for instance - the first Transcontinental Railroad to be built in the South you need to have events leading up to that and then to follow how those events and that (the railroad) lead to other events.

Why? Why do we need this? Why do we need this background when we can just create anything we want and discuss that? Why do we have to "prove," it can happen?

 

[Elfwine]

Well, yea I guess ending slavery would. Need people to work farms don't you? And when the mid factory boom comes around and you have these Southern cities just waiting to explode into new economic heights.

And you already have people. The ex-slaves.

Well for one they just fought a war, there's probably going to be an occupation. But a large standing army in early America is probably going to bankrupt our tiny nation, so the South will probably win its independence even if they lose the war. The federal government cant... I guess...

An occupation only to the extent necessary to maintain federal control, which isn't .

Not geographically no... but they would offer the same opportunities, the south probably more so. You already have business forming in the North, the south probably has none of that when the nation is just starting out. And if they dont have a certain business, that's where a capitalist is going to plant his roots, where the unfurnished market is.

Or where the best market is, which is tilted towards the areas immigrants poured into OTL.

It did in our history, at least with a few decades. And with the territories opening up, the South might be seen as a door into the fertile Mississippi Valley or the uncharted West.

Not more so than how the North is seen as a door into the west, however. And as far as I know, Ohio>Tennessee.

But we know the POD, we just don't know how it happened.

Something we kind of do need to with something so unlikely.

Which did the South see it as?

A threat to slavery. States rights had nothing to do with it.

How about establishing a setting, then asking a question?

How about not having that questioned answer and instead people want to go back and hack the build up with a hatchet while completing ignoring the question.

There is no need to do that. All you need to do is recognize that there is a setting, a situation is unfolding and you need to think about how this situation is going to end.

A setting without foundations or development.

Why? Why do we need this? Why do we need this background when we can just create anything we want and discuss that? Why do we have to "prove," it can happen?

Because otherwise we're just pulling things out of thin air with no connection to anything but imagination and fantasy.

 

[Campbell1004]

Because otherwise we're just pulling things out of thin air with no connection to anything but imagination and fantasy.

And what is the problem with that? What is the problem with just enjoying what you can create with a minor background? Why does this have to be about proof, facts and probable direction? Christ, god knows that Turtledove, Conroy and practically every single alternate history author out there just takes a story set in a certain time and builds off of that. He (or she) mentions a POD and explains it briefly but they never go into great detail.

People here seem to spend more time making things real and less time making things enjoyable.

 

[mowque]

And what is the problem with that? What is the problem with just enjoying what you can create with a minor background? Why does this have to be about proof, facts and probable direction? Christ, god knows that Turtledove, Conroy and practically every single alternate history author out there just takes a story set in a certain time and builds off of that. He (or she) mentions a POD and explains it briefly but they never go into great detail.

People here seem to spend more time making things real and less time making things enjoyable.

Go to the Writers Section. Seriously, that would be more your speed.

 

[Apollo 20]

One very large problem with the South becoming the center of the US is the climate. Hot, humid and generally very unpleasant for a good chunk of the year. The South did not become a major center of US population until the widespread advent of air conditioning made it bearable year-round. Can you imagine working in a steam powered factory when the outside temperature and humidity are both hovering around 85 (30C)?

Another reason the North drew so many European immigrants is that the climate there was comparable to what they were used to (think Germans in the Midwest) and, in an era where agriculture was a major part of the economy, there was better farmland in the East and Midwest than in the South. An additional factor favoring the North for early industrialization was natural resources; plenty of coal and iron. There's a reason Pennsylvania developed a large steel industry...

 

[Finn]

Can you imagine working in a steam powered factory when the outside temperature and humidity are both hovering around 85 (30C)?

The death toll would be worse than cotton picking slavery!