Would a modern day CSA be a first or third world nation?

[Johnrankins]

Period alliances were for the duration of a war, not long term events. Governor Santiago Viadurri offered to join Nuevo Leon and Coahiula to the Confederacy, but no one else from those states seems to have supported Viadurri, he soon fled to the Confederacy. Had the Confederacy attempted to annex northern Mexico, Maximillian would no longer have been their ally.

Bingo, that is the one thing he refuses to admit. If Max wins in Mexico those lands go to Max not the CSA. Even if they were out and out allies one ally doesn't sell their land to the other ally without very good reasons. Max is no more likely to sell (and quite possibly less) Northern Mexico to the CSA as the CSA is to sell Texas to Max.

 

[Johnrankins]

Where did the remaining 24% of British investment go? From the partial list you give, it seems Britain invested most heavily in their own overseas possessions.

Which makes sense since that would directly benefit them the most.

 

[Johnrankins]

This assumes they get the Indian Territory in the peace deal and many of the tribes were pro Confederates.

The first may or may not happen and the second doesn't matter. Once White Southerners decide they want the land in the Indian Territory they will take it no matter how strongly they were allied to the CSA. Very few people North or South gave a damn what "injuns" thought and that is all that the Confederacy would consider them, "stupid injuns". They were willing to USE the Indians but they in no way considered them near equals.

 

[Peter]

Lol @ people comparing the CSA with Congo.

Its a country full of Anglo-Saxons. Of course it will be rich. Or the Anglo-Saxons will be, at any rate. Like today.

Geography doesn't mean shit. It's the people that makes a country, whether in Rhodesia, Scotland or Australia.

 

[Johnrankins]

Lol @ people comparing the CSA with Congo.

Its a country full of Anglo-Saxons. Of course it will be rich. Or the Anglo-Saxons will be, at any rate. Like today.

Geography doesn't mean shit. It's the people that makes a country, whether in Rhodesia, Scotland or Australia.

Nobody said it would be Congo but more like Mexico or at worst Honduras. Besides I didn't know it was inevitable for Anglo-Saxons to be rich.

 

[The Uchronian]

Lol @ people comparing the CSA with Congo.

Its a country full of Anglo-Saxons. Of course it will be rich. Or the Anglo-Saxons will be, at any rate. Like today.

Geography doesn't mean shit. It's the people that makes a country, whether in Rhodesia, Scotland or Australia.

Um, no. Check your ethnic chauvinism at the door pal, this ain't Stormfront, you know.

 

[CalBear]

Lol @ people comparing the CSA with Congo.

Its a country full of Anglo-Saxons. Of course it will be rich. Or the Anglo-Saxons will be, at any rate. Like today.

Geography doesn't mean shit. It's the people that makes a country, whether in Rhodesia, Scotland or Australia.

What the HELL is this?

On the slight off chance this was meant ironically, this is only a kick. You have just used up every single inch of leash you have on this site.

See ya' in 7.

 

[frlmerrin]

I feel truely cheated CalBear,

It would have been so much more fun to ask Peter to defend and back-up his apparently unsavory assertions rather than kicking him. All that did was demonstrate that you have control of the thead and he does not. It leaves the idea of racial superiority (which to be fair he may not have meant) unchallenged.

 

[Johnrankins]

I feel truely cheated CalBear,

It would have been so much more fun to ask Peter to defend and back-up his apparently unsavory assertions rather than kicking him. All that did was demonstrate that you have control of the thead and he does not. It leaves the idea of racial superiority (which to be fair he may not have meant) unchallenged.

Well, apparently he never heard of the Ottoman Empire, the Persian Empire, the Chinese Empire and the Mongolian Empire among others. If I were an alien from another planet looking down on Earth circa 1400 or so I would bet on China or possibly India or the Ottoman Empire being the predominant power for the next 500 years not England, Spain or France.

 

[DG Valdron]

I have Scottish ancestors. They emigrated, not because of wealth, but appalling grinding poverty, and displacement. Their lords literally ran them off with guns because they wanted to farm sheep on their former tenants lands. The Scottish experience was in many ways one of continuous misery and displacement.

 

[Nassirisimo]

I have Scottish ancestors. They emigrated, not because of wealth, but appalling grinding poverty, and displacement. Their lords literally ran them off with guns because they wanted to farm sheep on their former tenants lands. The Scottish experience was in many ways one of continuous misery and displacement.

Please, I live in Manchester (United Kingdom) which has been a fine example of the industry of the Anglo-Saxon race. Certainly, grueling poverty, poor conditions that would inspire Marxism or general industrial horror were never to be found here.

Also, since when was Rhodesia "rich". Certainly, it was comparatively (though not absolutely) better than it was to day, but when compared to Western Economies at the same time, it was really quite poor. Indeed, Britain until the 1980's seemed to be falling quite drastically behind the other fully developed European countries in terms of GDP.

 

[Johnrankins]

I have Scottish ancestors. They emigrated, not because of wealth, but appalling grinding poverty, and displacement. Their lords literally ran them off with guns because they wanted to farm sheep on their former tenants lands. The Scottish experience was in many ways one of continuous misery and displacement.

The Irish as well. There are more people of Irish descent in the US than in Ireland itself for a reason!

 

[The Uchronian]

I have Scottish ancestors. They emigrated, not because of wealth, but appalling grinding poverty, and displacement. Their lords literally ran them off with guns because they wanted to farm sheep on their former tenants lands. The Scottish experience was in many ways one of continuous misery and displacement.

Sad but true. And even in America they didn't always get a fair shake, either(including, and perhaps especially at times, down South, ironically enough).

Please, I live in Manchester (United Kingdom) which has been a fine example of the industry of the Anglo-Saxon race. Certainly, grueling poverty, poor conditions that would inspire Marxism or general industrial horror were never to be found here.

I understand this was meant to be sarcastic?

The Irish as well. There are more people of Irish descent in the US than in Ireland itself for a reason!

Very true as well.

 

[Fiver]

This assumes they get the Indian Territory in the peace deal and many of the tribes were pro Confederates.

That is assuming the Confederacy gets Indian Territory. The tribes being pro-Confederate won't matter a bit when the white Confederates decide they need more land.

You might want to read some of my later posts on this subject on why it is unreasonable. In fact it might cause the Black Union soldiers in the North to go AWOL and march on the south using what they have.

Before the war, southerners always wiped out slaves engaged in rebellion as well as killing slaves or free blacks suspected of aiding the rebellion. White southerers strongly believed that a successful slave revolt would result in rape and massacre of the white population by the blacks. A larger slave revolt will convince even southern Unionists that this is a battle for survival. It would take time, and some black people would probably escape to Union territory, but the Confederacy would be willing to spend another 500,000 lives to exterminate all rebellious slaves.

 

[mightfly]

That is assuming the Confederacy gets Indian Territory. The tribes being pro-Confederate won't matter a bit when the white Confederates decide they need more land.

Honestly i made these points before as well and an argument for why the Confederacy most likely won't get the Indian Territory.

Before the war, southerners always wiped out slaves engaged in rebellion as well as killing slaves or free blacks suspected of aiding the rebellion. White southerers strongly believed that a successful slave revolt would result in rape and massacre of the white population by the blacks. A larger slave revolt will convince even southern Unionists that this is a battle for survival. It would take time, and some black people would probably escape to Union territory, but the Confederacy would be willing to spend another 500,000 lives to exterminate all rebellious slaves.

Before the war and after the war are two different times. I see people don't klike the idea the Confederacy would have been overthrown by a slave rebellion but by 1964 it becomes a very real possibility in a CSA late victory. Another 500,000+ lives might be what it takes and that is assuming no other powers get involved and the CSA doesn't break because it will be fighting after the war with the Union has ended and its debts start getting called in.

The War against the slaves likely mean the remaining plantations are not running well and the women are doing the work. It might take 2 years to break the slaves fighting back especially if the Union military blacks defect to form a larger Army to defend the slaves.

This means the South's recovery doesn't start till 1866 if not later.

 

[Socrates]

Sad but true. And even in America they didn't always get a fair shake, either(including, and perhaps especially at times, down South, ironically enough).

I'm not sure. The Ulster Scots might have had a tough time of it, but the proper Scots went on to be planters themselves.

 

[Socrates]

Well, apparently he never heard of the Ottoman Empire, the Persian Empire, the Chinese Empire and the Mongolian Empire among others. If I were an alien from another planet looking down on Earth circa 1400 or so I would bet on China or possibly India or the Ottoman Empire being the predominant power for the next 500 years not England, Spain or France.

It is a reasonable point, however, that in every part of the world settled by the English that those of English descent turned out wealthy. I think it would be better to make the case why, say, South Africa, is such a different case to the CSA.

 

[Johnrankins]

It is a reasonable point, however, that in every part of the world settled by the English that those of English descent turned out wealthy. I think it would be better to make the case why, say, South Africa, is such a different case to the CSA.

Very well, a big reason for the success of the British Colonies are they were under the protection of the British Empire. Even after independence they were part of the British Commonwealth. That meant that they could spend less money on national defense. None of them save Canada had an advanced country right next door. In the CSA's case it would have an advanced, wealthy and hostile neighbor to the north. It could not possibly have a relatively small defense budget. It also went through a war that was far more devastating than any of the British Colonies went through. Being part of the British Empire none of them had a crushing debt load and the pound was rock solid as opposed to Confederate Dollars which were going down in value by double digits every month.

 

[katchen]

Period alliances were for the duration of a war, not long term events. Governor Santiago Viadurri offered to join Nuevo Leon and Coahiula to the Confederacy, but no one else from those states seems to have supported Viadurri, he soon fled to the Confederacy. Had the Confederacy attempted to annex northern Mexico, Maximillian would no longer have been their ally.



The first commercially viable cotton picking machines were not available until the 1950s. Planters bankrupted by the boll weevil will not be allowed to free their slaves, these valuable assets will be sold to pay debts. The only slaves freed by the boll weevil will be those too old or infirm to work, who will be free to starve.

See! Nuevo Leon STILL wanted out from under Mexico!

 

[Johnrankins]

See! Nuevo Leon STILL wanted out from under Mexico!

No, the GOVERNOR wanted out from under Mexico which is not at all the same thing. The governor is not everyone in Nuevo Leon and there is no evidence cited that most people of that area agreed with him.