Results of CSA victory

OK, what do you think would really happen if the South won the ACW?

If it survived the first 10-20 years? It would be an industrializing, first world country, like Spain. It would have given blacks the right to vote about the time of South Africa OTL and probably for similar reasons (international sanctions). Doomsday scenarios are just not realistic.

If it makes it to 1900 then it's prettymuch the richest nation on the planet.

IMO, the Confederate States of America will quickly break out of the united States' hatred. For one thing, they are very similar. After a while, slavery won't be in use. I laugh at the people who think slavery would last to the mid twentieth century.

Also, I think that the CSA will begin to centralize, much like the US did. Even Thomas Jefferson, the author of the belief in small federal government, expanded the presidential powers while in office (ex. Louisiana Purchase). I think a Confederate Civil War is very likely, but I also think the United States will get involved.

OK, a few things to think about:

1) How much turf does the CSA win?
2) When do they win the war/how much damage do they take during the war?
3) Is their victory diplomatic or military?

I do not think a CSA with only the core 11 states past 1863 is a viable entity as a major power in any sense past the 19th century and would likely be an eventual target for reconquest by the USA, or exist as a British satellite as a means to harass the USA. Eventually I see it either becoming a sort of Argentina with focus almost solely on agriculture and a chance to gain some industrial capacity but without a great deal of mineral wealth behind it until the discovery of oil. It might lead to an interesting scenario though if, in the later 20th century, it becomes an OPEC member and tries to retake KY, OK, and maybe WV by means of an oil embargo.

Assuming a military victory before or at Gettysburg without some sort of radical change, I figure the CSA takes their core 11 states with kentucky and modern Oklahoma. They begin a crash industrialization program focusing on northern Alabama, northern GA, and perhaps eastern TN later on. Rail transportation and steel manufacturing become immediate priorities and South Carolina becomes a world leader in textile manufacturing within 20 years. There is no Thanksgiving there, slavery persists into the first decade of the 20th or last decade of the 19th century under threat from British sanctions. A beaten US will ally with Germany and, if the UK had anything to do with the CSA victory, eye Canada for possible conquest. Washington will no longer be the capital and it will likely be moved to Chicago or Milwaukee or Philadelphia. CSA adventurers will try to take control of Cuba soon after the war ends and any territory in the Caribbean or Central America will also be eyed for possible conquest/intervention. They might even try to build a Panama Canal and cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of laborers/slaves, perhaps this is how slavery meets its end?

In the long run I see the CSA aligning with London and the USA with Germany with the likely conflict predicted by Turtledove for World War I. Confederate interests will turn to Pacific access at some point, and a land connection via Mexico would not be out of the question. However, I am not sure that the war will turn as Turtledove predicted and do not know if a conflict in the 1880s would be inevitable. The CSA will build a strong Navy and the USA will likely have one that is at least its equal, but where the CSA goes from there depends on how the rest of the orld unfolds. I do not think the Confederates would be easily reacclimated to USA rule after 2 generations of independence nor do I believe they would necessarily parallel the Germans for a world war II emulation. Should the CSA win a WWI scenario I think they would claim WV (if they don't take it initially), NM, AZ, and at least two of the three MD, MO, or KS. If the UA wins I tihnk they'd take KY, OK, and maybe western TX or parts of northern VA.

The CSA will not have the large borders that people assign it--it will probably be out Tennessee, West Virginia and the whole border region; it will also have to concede control of the Mississippi to the Union one way or the other.

Given that the CSA is going to be expansionist and keep slavery until forced to do otherwise, the Union is going to strongly ally with Mexico to stop Confederate aggression and retain a considerable standing army. The CSA is going to be overgeared for war, economically screwed through slavery (which will tie it to slowly declining cotton prices) and reliant on foriegn alliances for its survival.

Then those foriegn alliances drag it into a WW1 analog, probably against the United States.

The CSA gets trashed as it explodes in slave revolts and the Union makes a decision of how much of the CSA to take. Given that 50 years would have passed by this point, I think a "Confederate Identity" would remain, but the Union is going to leave a rump CSA standing--partially because the deep south is by now very poor and very backward, and partially because the US wishes to avoid assuming the debts of the Confederate Government.

The CSA thus ends up as a rump state--not annexed because it would involve spending that the United States does not want to commit to this situation. While not a third world nation, the CSA would be roughly equivalent to modern Mexico in wealth.

A lot depends on the circumstances under which it gains its independence. I think the most likely scenario is that following the one huge war, the U.S. federal government is seen as weak and America become balkanized. The reason I chose other instead of the balkanized warring states answer is my objection to the word "warring." The various nations would eventually become generally peaceful with each other following the break-up

Largely this depends on the POD, but assuming an early victory I think they'll keep their claims to AZ, NM, KY, MO (I've actually always kinda thought this was more likely than KY), and OK. If they win late I think they lose KY and MO.

Immediately following the war, they will increase their military and put more focus on railroads and industrialization; the earlier they win the smoother this goes. Barring an incredibly late victory as a result of arming slaves, slavery is not going to be abolished anytime soon; however, I do think that a win will start a discourse about it that wasn't present in the anti-bellum South and a combination of factors will lead to it being outlawed by all the states no later than the 1910's perhaps as early as the 1880's.

I don't expect any large scale North American expansion efforts from either the U.S. or C.S. other than I think the C.S. will look to extend its borders to the Pacific and look to purchase Baja either from the French or Mexicans, whoever wins. Cuba just seems like a disaster waiting to happen and I think they're likely to stay out of it. Depending on who's elected President in the United States there could be further attempts to take back some states during the 1880s and possibly tensions over issues in Mexico and along the border states with the United States could lead to fighting during WWI (assuming it's not butterflied away), I think by the WWII era the two will realize that they are both civil countries and maintain a healthy relationship that's better than OTL's Mexico, but not quite as healthy as OTL's Canada.

As I'm not sure what the magnitude of butterflies would be on Europe, it's hard to speculate on WWI and WWII. It's likely that the South would side with Britain and France and the U.S. with Germany, but who wins and what's carved up I couldn't say...so I'll assume a relative stalemate.

I think race relations are likely to progress faster in the United States, but about the same in the C.S. IOTL a major reason the South fought civil rights legislation so hard was because of the white majority took on a "us against them" attitude against toward the North that will be very different ITTL. Obviously, there will be still be numerous white supremacists who will fight any attempts at civil rights for blacks, but I think the South haven won the state's right battle and having a two-party system will lead to greater diversity that by the 60s sees the hyprocisy in denying civil rights to blacks. I wouldn't expect a black President, but I would expect equal rights under the law, women's rights as well; I wouldn't expect much for gays though.

I don't think it's going to be a superpower, but I would say a great power like Britain or France. Of course a POD anywhere within the POD and things change greatly. There's all sorts of scenarios that are plausible, especially considering what happens in Mexico early on.

They live up till 1900 or so, everyone hates them, they become a third-world nation, and U.S. takes over.

Bits of the CSA begin to break off, either immediately rejoining the USA, or attempting to exist independently before then joining the USA. The shrunken CSA would be centred around the cotton belt.

Then, over the following decades, the Black population would become increasingly rebellious and reforms would soon follow.

Eventually, a rump CSA becomes an African American homeland surrounded by the USA.

I think there is a tendency to assume that the CSA would either become some world-straddling empire or reunite with the United States- both of which I think are unlikely if we're assuming a viable Confederacy. The South would eventually become established and the idea of the US marching back in and re-establishing its rule would become pretty bizarre within ten or twenty years...
On the other hand, even today a CSA would be unlikely to have more than 50-60 million people- not really superpower material- though clearly that would weaken the US immensely. After factoring in the lower levels of Mexican immigration and European interest through the 19th and early 20th centuries its population could well be little more than 200m, compared to about 305m today.

Probably, slavery would have been abandoned some time in the 1880s under British pressure, though it'd be fair to suggest civil rights would be put back thirty or forty years compared to OTL.

Slavery is abolished in the late nineteenth century as the underground railroad ends at the Ohio River.

Some states will petition for re-admission to the US one by one. The hold-outs, though, will not be an African-American core around MS, AL, GA and SC, but Texas and Louisiana with their immense petroleum resources. I think the Great Depression would eventually force the whole union back together.

The Confederacy evolves into a state like Spain or Italy in Europe, by which I mean one of relative strength but nowhere near a superpower, not facism. It doesn't get reabosrobed by the Union, it might lose Texas but more or less it just remains a relatively strong country that lives mostly in isolation and tends to stay out of world politics.

A supremely mediocre future.

In the short timeline I wrote, I had the Confederacy end up an emerging power, on the tipping point of becoming a Great Power after falling into disarray following a loss in WWI and isolationism until the eighties.

I don't think it would be doomsday, but I don't think it would be cornbread and roses, either, for the C.S.

I think that the CSA would be in a state like today's Britain: not a superpower, but far from the weakest state on earth. I also think that the USA would be in a similar situation, but slightly stronger than the USA, and that after perhaps one later, huge war between the states they return to very friendly relationships (the US hasn't been at war with Canada since 1815 or with Mexico since 1848). I think Britain absorbs a lot of the American power vacuum and becomes the America of OTL, with a still viable colonial empire existing to this day.

I think that if the CSA wins pretty early in the war, it includes the 11 core states, plus KY and MO, the Indian territory, the CSA Arizona Territory, and also western Virginia and probably MD as well.

If it's a later victory, I don't think the CSA has any chance at MD or WV, and I think that MO is a slim chance as well, because it was much more pro-Union than KY. KY is a coin toss. I can't see a victorious CSA giving up TN at all.

I think the CSA does get the Indian territory, but probably doesn't get the Arizona territory with a late victory.

I think the biggest change is in Native American rights. I think that most Indians in the CSA would be pressured/forced to move to the Indian territory, but I definitely think it would get statehood as an Indian-dominated state pretty early, thanks to their contributions to the war effort.

Honestly, Turtledove got it pretty good until he brought in fascism. Regardless of how "undemocratic" the South may seem, the South would not resort to a complete lack of Democracy. It simply wouldn't be allowed to happen. The worst that could happen is a reintroduction of slavery after it's already been banned.

As others have said, it kinda depends on the POD. If the CSA achieves independence on it's own, then the USA is likely to be embittered for a few years, then shrug and continue with business. Even without the CSA states, it still has a huge amount of economic potential. If the CSA wins because Britain intervenes, then the USA will still be embittered for some years and then go on about it's business, but it's likely that the USA's normal isolationist tendencies will come back full force... it's unlikely that there will be a SAW, or American entry in WW1 (which puts in so many butterflies that the rest of the 20th century can't even be guessed at). No islands in the Pacific, no Puerto Rico, etc.

As for the CSA, it doesn't seem as if it'll have a happy history for a while... even during the war, when it was fighting for existence, there was a lot of friction between the states and the national government. Sooner or later, they'll have to address this...

I dunno why people think that the CSA will have any kind of success following a ACW victory. There is so much stacked against the south in the 1860's that any transformation into a major power is going to cost them a lot worse than they are probably willing to pay. The south at the time was pretty much an agricultural power with very little industrial capability to speak of, couple that with the albatross of slavery and you have some really huge barriers to modernization that the south will lack the unity to be able to get through, keep in mind that an abolition of slavery will probably be a very divisive issue in the south and if it is passed the CSA may very well split up over it(since they fought a war to protect the right to secede from the Union, the motivation to break away from the CSA will be higher). So either you have the CSA breaking up over slavery or it is kept as a form of compromise to retain unity(as happened with the founding fathers).

Now the longer slavery lasts the harder it will be for the CSA to industrialize, add in the falling cost of cotton and they are going to have a hell of a time paying for the war and paying to modernize their nation. The mexican government may very well decide to try and get back some of the territory it lost in the MA war seeing as how the confederacy seems weaker than the USA looks, which may be another costly war with Mexico, win or lose.

Meanwhile Lincoln or whoever the next president is will probably enact some permanent changes in order to strengthen the Union and the central government in order to prevent a future civil war. The USA will maintain a larger military than in OTL at the time, and simmering tensions between the two powers will lead to major military spending by the South which will only make it even harder for them to modernize. If the CSA avoids repatriation within a decade or two they will stay a sovereign nation, but they stand very little chance of being anything but a bankrupt and destitute third world nation by the early 20th century.

An alliance with England seems unlikely to me, as the only thing that the CSA has to offer the British is cotton and a counterpoint to the USA. Cotton is getting cheaper, and the later the victory comes the less reliant the British will be on American cotton anyway. And I don't know why the British would feel the need to keep the US in check except to keep them out of canada, in fact I think the British might just try and play nice with the USA so as to avoid them wanting to do such a thing.

The_Tsar said:

IMO, the Confederate States of America will quickly break out of the united States' hatred. For one thing, they are very similar. After a while, slavery won't be in use. I laugh at the people who think slavery would last to the mid twentieth century.

Click to expand...

Realistically slavery lasts until at least the 1920s or so. The constitution was written to make it damn near impossible to truly outlaw slavery and Southerners aren't suddenly going to give up slavery when their parents and\grandparents fought to perserve it. 1920s would make it 3 generations afterwards which weakens its link to the past. It is easier to fight and die to preserve what your parents and grandparents fought and died to preserve than if it is your great grandparents.

Bry said:

I think there is a tendency to assume that the CSA would either become some world-straddling empire or reunite with the United States- both of which I think are unlikely if we're assuming a viable Confederacy. The South would eventually become established and the idea of the US marching back in and re-establishing its rule would become pretty bizarre within ten or twenty years...
On the other hand, even today a CSA would be unlikely to have more than 50-60 million people- not really superpower material- though clearly that would weaken the US immensely. After factoring in the lower levels of Mexican immigration and European interest through the 19th and early 20th centuries its population could well be little more than 200m, compared to about 305m today.

Probably, slavery would have been abandoned some time in the 1880s under British pressure, though it'd be fair to suggest civil rights would be put back thirty or forty years compared to OTL.

Click to expand...

Give me a break!!! They are willing to fight and die to preserve slavery and are suddenly willing to give it up because the Brits pressure them a bit. Unless the UK is willing to fight a war over it there is no way in hell slavery is going to be banned even close to that early.

Johnrankins said:

Realistically slavery lasts until at least the 1920s or so. The constitution was written to make it damn near impossible to truly outlaw slavery and Southerners aren't suddenly going to give up slavery when their parents and\grandparents fought to perserve it. 1920s would make it 3 generations afterwards which weakens its link to the past. It is easier to fight and die to preserve what your parents and grandparents fought and died to preserve than if it is your great grandparents.

Click to expand...

The problem most people have with Slavery in the Confederacy is that they are fixed on one version of it and cannot see it being anything different. Most people think of Slavery within the Confederacy as being thousand of slaves working days on end on large plantations and, to be fair, that form of slavery was going to die out sooner or later but it wasn't the only form or slavery.

There were house servants as well, garderners, cook and the like who would still be around long after the thousands of plantation slaves became obsolete. That form of domestic slavery and similar forms would last much longer than the industrial sized slavery.

So, in conclusion, slavery would not be finished in the Confederacy before the 1900's but would continue in a smaller domestic fashion well into the 20th century itself but would not last until the millenium unless the 20th century turns out to be radically different from the OTL one.