The CSA wins...now what?

[Michel Van]

Originally Posted by Jaded_Railman

A lot of 'CSA survives' TLs just end up being silly wanks that are looking more for a good story than actual alternate history. Then again, that pretty much describes most AH, so who knows?

Yes that true (see Movie "C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America")

but let see under realistic view

How won the CSA the Civil war ?
For example:
Special Order 191 not found by union and the Maryland Campaign a succes
England and France recognize the CSA in 1962
(France get a Deal with CSA for control over Mexico and Imports to CSA)
USA get cut in half Union and CSA,
CSA came out civil war weakened, almost destroy
with out Industry of north under there controll
they are dependent on imports from Europe like France, England, Belgium.
(like Cutton for Products)

until 1871 Prussia declared War with France and CSA send Troops to stop them
No German Empire, instead a Confederate States of Germany ?

Another example:
General Lee wins the Battle of Gettysburg in july 1863
and move to Washington D.C. - union Congress and Senate Senate to New York or Boston
(mabye president Lincoln and Vice President Hannibal Hamlin even killt by CSA assassin in Chaos)
CSA declared it self to winner of Civil War
in that case CSA has all the Industry its need and cheap slave workers for it
(here we have a Alliance among industry and cutton kings to ceep Slavery in CSA)
they can produce far cheaper as in Europe -> economic crisis -> raise of Communism to power Europe ?

[DMA]

Originally Posted by David S Poepoe

Already other posters have posted the seeds of other debates that will completely side track what you are wondering about.

Yes the piranhas are circulating, & I'll plead guilty, Your Honour...

But seriously, even given the limited possibility of Reb victory, however unlikely, the manner of CSA victory, however unlikely, will determine the nation that will emerge...

So are we talking about some Napoleonic victory in 1862?

Are we talking about an Anglo-French intervention?

Are we talking about my scenario where the South never invades Kentucky?

Or is it something else altogether?

All this will matter come the new, post-ACW, nation of the CSA...

[HueyLong]

Originally Posted by wkwillis

The Confederate Constitution did not have a secession provision. They must have forgotten.

No, their legal basis for secession relied on not including it in their new constitution.

Their argument assumed that it was inherent in the nature of the Constitution.

[67th Tigers]

Originally Posted by Durindal

Anyone who finds alternate history at all fascinating has probably pondered the question: What if the south had won the civil war? While I find it relatively simple to theorize a plausible scenerio in which they could win the war, I find it terribly difficult to imagine any scenerio in which the CSA could have prospered. Some people speculate about railroads, and conquests of Latin America but as imagine these things I wonder such questions as: " How could a nation with little or no industry, and no desire to industrialize, ever survive in an ever industrializing world? How could a country with secession written into its constitution ever stay united long enough to reassemble the resources, especially an army, capable of a conquest of Latin America? Unable to answer these questions I turn to you my peers and ask the question: " So the CSA wins...now what?"

Rubbish, if you read the contemporary literature coming out of the south, they wanted to industrialise (and hence increase their profit margin on cotton tenfold). The problem was that the northern banks would not loan the money necessary to industrialise at a reasonable rate.

IMHO: An independent CSA (with or without California) WILL industrialise, and will be a fairly prosperous nation, probably more so than the USAin the short-medium term (and US prosperity long term will certainly be harmed with the loss of access to the Tennessee, the major industrial regions around the Great Lakes no longer have a secure route for their goods).

As for Latin America, there's no indication of any potential moves there.

[HueyLong]

Originally Posted by 67th Tigers

Rubbish, if you read the contemporary literature coming out of the south, they wanted to industrialise (and hence increase their profit margin on cotton tenfold). The problem was that the northern banks would not loan the money necessary to industrialise at a reasonable rate.

IMHO: An independent CSA (with or without California) WILL industrialise, and will be a fairly prosperous nation, probably more so than the USAin the short-medium term (and US prosperity long term will certainly be harmed with the loss of access to the Tennessee, the major industrial regions around the Great Lakes no longer have a secure route for their goods).

As for Latin America, there's no indication of any potential moves there.

Many in the South did not want to industrialize. The New South's proponents are exaggerated greatly in influence.

besides which, after the war, they have no tariffs, so they have little incentive to build industrial infrastructure.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by 67th Tigers

Rubbish, if you read the contemporary literature coming out of the south, they wanted to industrialise (and hence increase their profit margin on cotton tenfold). The problem was that the northern banks would not loan the money necessary to industrialise at a reasonable rate.

Cite?

There is that whole lack of protective tariffs, a relatively lack of infrastructure, and the fact that the north had a relatively better infrastructure.

How does it lose access to the Tenessee, and what makes the Great Lakes insecure?

It's not like Germany failed to industrialize because it shared the Rhine with Belgium or France.

[Durindal]

Originally Posted by DMA

Yes the piranhas are circulating, & I'll plead guilty, Your Honour...

But seriously, even given the limited possibility of Reb victory, however unlikely, the manner of CSA victory, however unlikely, will determine the nation that will emerge...

So are we talking about some Napoleonic victory in 1862?

Are we talking about an Anglo-French intervention?

Are we talking about my scenario where the South never invades Kentucky?

Or is it something else altogether?

All this will matter come the new, post-ACW, nation of the CSA...

Let us assume that several errors made at Gettysburg never occurred and the Lee wins. Let us also assume that after Gettysburg Lee takes on a more aggressive approach and takes Washington. The Copperheads gain momentum and Lincoln loses the election in 1864 to McClellan who shortly after taking office recognizes southern independence. Now what?

[DMA]

Originally Posted by Durindal

Let us assume that several errors made at Gettysburg never occurred and the Lee wins. Let us also assume that after Gettysburg Lee takes on a more aggressive approach and takes Washington. The Copperheads gain momentum and Lincoln loses the election in 1864 to McClellan who shortly after taking office recognizes southern independence. Now what?

This will cause trouble as Virginia & Georgia haven't been ravished by the war overly much. So expect another American civil war by 1900 I would dare say.

Now why do I sum up the future of the CSA like this? Simple. States like Virginia, the northernish half of Georgia (around Atlanta for example), & probably North Carolina, will industrialise - especially considering their personal experience at seeing the strength of the Union, not to mention the likes of Longstreet et al will want to go into business for themsleves after the war. Tennessee may also industrialise raising like a phoenix from the ashes of the civil war. Similarly New Orleans, along with some other cities, will become even more cosmopolitan & consider trade & commerce far more important than any rural issues as well as slavery.

Hence you'll get a co-development of societies, culture, & politics, taking place within the CSA which will be incompatible with each other in the long run. The Old South, the slave owners, the cotton farmers, etc, will view the industrialisation of the "north" as a threat, whilst the new industrialised regions will view the "south" as an embarrising left-over from the past which is holding back the rest of the nation. Sure enough there'll be talk of secession sooner or later. And once a reformist CSA President comes to power, the issue of secession will explode all over again leading to another ACW.

[Jaded_Railman]

Originally Posted by Durindal

Let us assume that several errors made at Gettysburg never occurred and the Lee wins. Let us also assume that after Gettysburg Lee takes on a more aggressive approach and takes Washington. The Copperheads gain momentum and Lincoln loses the election in 1864 to McClellan who shortly after taking office recognizes southern independence. Now what?

The South taking Washington after middle 1863 is right up there with the unmentionable sea mammal in terms of plausibility. It was one of the most seriously fortified cities on the planet at this time, and the end of the Civil War saw the rise of the sort of defense capabilities that made WWI offensives impossible. Let me see if I can find the article someone wrote up here a bit ago on the subject.

[Kevin Renner]

The South had three decent chances to gain a political/miltary victory in the ACW.

The first was during the Penisular Campaign. If Johnston/Lee had destroyed the Army of the Potomac IMO the North would agree to terms

The second is Antietam. The AotP got lucky it wasn't amauled worse than it was.
The third is Gettysburg. Lee should not of fought on the second or third day but forced the AotP in to a battle on the move. Meade's force's were on the defensive forcing Lee's to come to them. But IMO after Chancellorsville Lee thought himself unbeatable.

But the idea of a CSA being able to remain a largely agrainian society through the end of the 19th Century is folly.

[Durindal]

Originally Posted by Jaded_Railman

The South taking Washington after middle 1863 is right up there with the unmentionable sea mammal in terms of plausibility. It was one of the most seriously fortified cities on the planet at this time, and the end of the Civil War saw the rise of the sort of defense capabilities that made WWI offensives impossible. Let me see if I can find the article someone wrote up here a bit ago on the subject.

True. Washington was one of the most fortified cities in the world at the time and perhaps capturing it would have been impossible but what about Harrisburg, or Philadelphia? What I was ultimately proposing was a scenerio in which the CSA is able to outlast the union without French or British intervention, which imo could have under no circumstances occurred because of the south's desire to preserve slavery, and gain independence through the election of McClellan over Lincoln. This is not to say that a McClellan victory would guarantee confederate independence, his wavering stance on the issue is a major reason he lost the election, but is only to be used as the POD to discuss what the CSA would have been like after the war. Would public education for all children be allowed? How would the south rebuild those parts of the nation that were ravished by war? How could they have industrialized the nation without abandoning its agrarian ways? No one can say for sure what would have happened, but I'm interested in what you, and anybody else who might be reading this, thinks would happen if they were able to gain its independence. What would politics be like in a newly formed CSA?

[67th Tigers]

Originally Posted by Durindal

True. Washington was one of the most fortified cities in the world at the time and perhaps capturing it would have been impossible but what about Harrisburg, or Philadelphia?

Not really. Observers thought the Washington defences weak, and only saved by the fact that the Confederates weren't very good troops. They're right, the firepower densities aren't very high at all, and most of the fortifications would not hold a reasonable force for any length of time.

[Ace Venom]

The oil boom would be beneficial if it isn't squandered. The CSA was sitting on resources, so it was just a matter of getting them and doing something with them. Of course, it wasn't like the vast resources of the USA.

[Durindal]

Originally Posted by Ace Venom

The oil boom would be beneficial if it isn't squandered. The CSA was sitting on resources, so it was just a matter of getting them and doing something with them. Of course, it wasn't like the vast resources of the USA.

True. The oil boom would have been beneficial to the CSA but in otl the oil boom didn't start until the turn of the century. Could the CSA have even survived that long?

[DMA]

Originally Posted by Durindal

True. Washington was one of the most fortified cities in the world at the time and perhaps capturing it would have been impossible but what about Harrisburg, or Philadelphia? What I was ultimately proposing was a scenerio in which the CSA is able to outlast the union without French or British intervention, which imo could have under no circumstances occurred because of the south's desire to preserve slavery, and gain independence through the election of McClellan over Lincoln. This is not to say that a McClellan victory would guarantee confederate independence, his wavering stance on the issue is a major reason he lost the election, but is only to be used as the POD to discuss what the CSA would have been like after the war. Would public education for all children be allowed? How would the south rebuild those parts of the nation that were ravished by war? How could they have industrialized the nation without abandoning its agrarian ways? No one can say for sure what would have happened, but I'm interested in what you, and anybody else who might be reading this, thinks would happen if they were able to gain its independence. What would politics be like in a newly formed CSA?

There are other more creditable scenarios than having a massive CSA victory at Gettysburg followed by the taking Washington in 1863. One is taking Washington in the aftermath of the Union Army of Virginia being annihilated at Second Manassas, where the AOP either isn't evacuated from Harrison's Landing in time to help the UAV or reach Washington in time to garrison it. This is will basically give you a result were the CSA, especially in the case of Virigina & Georgia, isn't devistated later in the war.

The second option is the South doesn't invade Kentucky as it's really in the western theatre where the Union won the war, not the eastern theatre. Yet in this AH instance, the western theatre is basically limited to Missouri, whilst the eastern theatre becomes a stalemate, where only northern Virigina is pretty much wreaked by the war, whilst Georgia, the rest of Virigina, not to mention Tennesse, remain undamaged.

The result of either scenario overly wouldn't effect my initial post-ACW timeline overly much. You'll still end up getting two CSAs develop side by side. They'll be an industrial one & there'll be an agrarian one. And they won't be compatible. So expect a second civil war around 1900 I'd dare say.

[Durindal]

Originally Posted by DMA

There are other more creditable scenarios than having a massive CSA victory at Gettysburg followed by the taking Washington in 1863. One is taking Washington in the aftermath of the Union Army of Virginia being annihilated at Second Manassas, where the AOP either isn't evacuated from Harrison's Landing in time to help the UAV or reach Washington in time to garrison it. This is will basically give you a result were the CSA, especially in the case of Virigina & Georgia, isn't devistated later in the war.

The second option is the South doesn't invade Kentucky as it's really in the western theatre where the Union won the war, not the eastern theatre. Yet in this AH instance, the western theatre is basically limited to Missouri, whilst the eastern theatre becomes a stalemate, where only northern Virigina is pretty much wreaked by the war, whilst Georgia, the rest of Virigina, not to mention Tennesse, remain undamaged.

The result of either scenario overly wouldn't effect my initial post-ACW timeline overly much. You'll still end up getting two CSAs develop side by side. They'll be an industrial one & there'll be an agrarian one. And they won't be compatible. So expect a second civil war around 1900 I'd dare say.

I'm curious. Why 1900?

[numberone]

I think, that as a non industrial nation in its time, it will fall under the influence of an imperial power. Since Prussia was a growing power, They may become involved with Confederate affairs.

If there is any post war Confederate isolationism, they will be dragged back into the global economy.

[DMA]

Originally Posted by Durindal

I'm curious. Why 1900?

It allows at least one, if not two, generations to come along. The likes of Davis, Longstreet, & company, plus those who fought with/under Lee, won't be around in positions of authority. So anyone who can keep the nation unified, because they're a hero of the 1st ACW, won't be around. And it's not an unusual historical pattern. For example: look at what happened to Yugoslavia, not that the CSA is identical to the post WWII Yugoslavia, but after Tito died, things pretty much went downhill from there.

[Snake Featherston]

My guess as to what a CSA would end up like is as follows:

First, depending on the POD, whether victory comes as a result of say, the Trent affair, or Lee's 1862 campaign like TL-191, the CSA has fought a war to preserve the Slave institution. People's lives have been spent, and there's a lot of wounded. So, slavery becomes dead-on crucial to the South. Considering the Russians abolished slavery in 1861, you've got the scenario of the South keeping slavery when the Tsars had abolished it. So, the South likely is an ally during its first 20 years of the UK and France. What happens with the Maximilian Adventure, I'm not sure. I'm not so certain the CSA would want a French puppet state near their borders, so they'd probably very clumsily try to stir up trouble. The South, once it got a lot of issues taken care of, would have created a more libertarian version of the USA with slavery for the South what industry is to the North.

By the 1880s, slavery as an agricultural basis is becoming unprofitable. Industrialization (barring some hothead sparking another war with the USA) is underway, and is likely financed by slave labor. Slavery may either become a large unpaid industrial workforce, one that enables the former planters to keep profits, or you may see a scenario emerging where a large permanent lumpenproletariat is kept as sharecroppers, basically the outright slavery dying off in place of the new, shinier version. Depending on which scenario occurs, the best the CSA can do is keep issues between Gulf Coast states, Atlantic Coast states, and Texas, from becoming the sort of problems it did for the Union before the breakup.

By the World Wars, you've got a nation that is economically stagnant, with a growing mass of people who are oppressed. Depending on which foreign policy the CSA uses, when the Revolution Years start with the Russian Revolution (butterfly effect doesn't remove the problems of the Tsardom, unfortunately), you've quite probably got an insurrection or two from either industrial slaves or the sharecroppers.

Once that happens, the CSA starts the long, slow slide to a police state on the South African model, particularly in the Black Belt. Either way, by the 2000s, the CSA would either have already imploded, or having been on the edge of doing so for a long time.

Just my 2 cents, of course.

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

My guess as to what a CSA would end up like is as follows:

First, depending on the POD, whether victory comes as a result of say, the Trent affair, or Lee's 1862 campaign like TL-191, the CSA has fought a war to preserve the Slave institution. People's lives have been spent, and there's a lot of wounded. So, slavery becomes dead-on crucial to the South. Considering the Russians abolished slavery in 1861, you've got the scenario of the South keeping slavery when the Tsars had abolished it. So, the South likely is an ally during its first 20 years of the UK and France. What happens with the Maximilian Adventure, I'm not sure. I'm not so certain the CSA would want a French puppet state near their borders, so they'd probably very clumsily try to stir up trouble. The South, once it got a lot of issues taken care of, would have created a more libertarian version of the USA with slavery for the South what industry is to the North.

By the 1880s, slavery as an agricultural basis is becoming unprofitable. Industrialization (barring some hothead sparking another war with the USA) is underway, and is likely financed by slave labor. Slavery may either become a large unpaid industrial workforce, one that enables the former planters to keep profits, or you may see a scenario emerging where a large permanent lumpenproletariat is kept as sharecroppers, basically the outright slavery dying off in place of the new, shinier version. Depending on which scenario occurs, the best the CSA can do is keep issues between Gulf Coast states, Atlantic Coast states, and Texas, from becoming the sort of problems it did for the Union before the breakup.

By the World Wars, you've got a nation that is economically stagnant, with a growing mass of people who are oppressed. Depending on which foreign policy the CSA uses, when the Revolution Years start with the Russian Revolution (butterfly effect doesn't remove the problems of the Tsardom, unfortunately), you've quite probably got an insurrection or two from either industrial slaves or the sharecroppers.

Once that happens, the CSA starts the long, slow slide to a police state on the South African model, particularly in the Black Belt. Either way, by the 2000s, the CSA would either have already imploded, or having been on the edge of doing so for a long time.

Just my 2 cents, of course.

Are you Harry Turtledove?