Confederate Victory: When does the Confederacy become a pariah state?
- Thread starter Victor Hatherley
- Start date
As far as I know, the cost of producing sugar in Florida was higher than in the Caribbean islands.
The Confederate Constitution made no mention of secession - this was quite intentional, as the centralizers didn't want to have regions seceding while other delegations wanted to keep that right, but also because they thought if they did make explicit mention of secession in the CSA Constitution one way or another, it would be an implicit admission that secession under the US Constitution was illegal, which they denied.
During the war, Georgia, North Carolina, and Arkansas all had governors who were quite assertive against the Central Government, and I would imagine that to fracture CSA unity, it would merely take Virginia following this path.
But as for US favoring Unionists, they would've been handled rather roughly and nobody else in the Confederacy had much sympathy for their viewpoint
Not sure about this when the entire CSA produced over 50% less manufacturing output than Massachusetts, I mean, Massachusetts, in 1860. And Massachusetts already fell behind Pennsylvania and New York in 1860.
The CSA's industrial output in 1861-62-63 when they had control of most of their industrial territories trumped Italy, Spain, Portugal & the Ottomans combined. People underestimate the industrialization the USA underwent. At the time of the Civil War, Britain, France, Prussia, Austria & Belgium were the only powers with a greater industrial base. Massachusetts is also a very bad example. As a counterpoint i can point out that the CSA outproduced all of Western USA by 1.85x. New England, New York Pennsylvannia and to an extent, Illinois were the centers of American industries. Also the claim that Massachusetts outproduced the CSA throughout the entire War is not a fact supported by the numbers. According to Jacqueline T. Lynch's book on the Civil War homefront in New England, Massachusetts produced 1.5 million tonnes of war material in the 4 years of war. The CSA produced 1.38 million tonnes of war material from Textiles and mining alone. New England produced 36% more however, yes, but to say simply one of the constituent states of New England did is factually disingenuous
There was some talk amongst proslavery ideologues that expansion of the base of slaveholders down the socioeconomic scale would be beneficial - the problem of course is that while the marginal productivity gains would not necessarily offset the marginal cost increases in all situations
Not all agreed on this, of course. But in a situation where the existing infrastructure for the maintenance of the slave system is irrevocably destroyed by the war, and I would argue that by late 1863, this was already the case, there may not be many other options beyond some kind of proto Black Codes system of controlled and managed acceptance of abolition in certain circumstances, which late in the war, some in the CSA Congress were considering, out of necessity.
Much of this may be dependent on just who is in power in the Confederacy after the war and what their primary concerns are. The social upheaval brought about by the war manifested itself in different ways - there was a genuine sense of Confederate Nationalism that had developed, but also an intense localism regarding issues of public order. You had religious revivalism spreading throughout the armies, and this often raised questions about slavery that nobody had particularly great answers for or agreement on. The prewar political class was on the wane - the fire eaters of the 1850s played little role in the CSA. I think there was the potential for military dictatorship that could provide an answer to the slavery question, but just as easily, you could see the CSA collapse along regional lines.
By the 1880’s cane sugar was priced out by beet You could still make some money from cane but it most certainly was not profitable like 200 years before.
Even them was profitable enough for Japan as Taiwanese sugar was a massive capital Enterprise for them and alongside jade mining, fueled japanese taxes,so money is still there,was till 1960s that sugar prices collapse
The Caribbean monopolized sugar cane production, so unless the CSA goes into a war with an European power to conquer some islands they would not be able to make use of the sugar cane
Sugarcane was already being produced in Louisiana before the civil war, and to this day is grown in Louisiana, Texas and Florida.
Just to prove how inferior the Confederates were on terms of their capacity to industrialize. New Haven County - A SINGLE COUNTY - in Connecticut, produced firearms at a value 10 times greater than the entire Southern US. And the North had as many factories as the South had industrial workers (the north had 100 thousand factories, the same number of industrial workers in the South)
Wouldn't a victorious CSA, at least initially, avoid anything that appeared “federalist”? By that I mean, having a centralized government with encompassing “nationalistic“ goals, would be the antithesis of why they fought in the first place. Wouldn’t many of the states, while actively adhering to a “confederacy”, actually be looking out for their own best interests first?
ric350
ric350
They'll become a pariah in the late 1800s. Brazil abolished slavery in 1888, which is going to leave the Confederacy as more of an outlier. My guess is the Confederacy is pressured into abolishing slavery sometime between 1890-1910 for several reasons. First, this was an era that saw increased coordination of the Great Powers, with the Scramble for Africa, the Eight Nation Alliance, etc. This was the era where international law really took off. Second, the United States. I don't expect the Confederacy and US to be long-term enemies. The US won't become some revanchist robot, once it has given up and accepted Confederate independence, that will be it other than perhaps border disputes and some hot words about slaves escaping north (quite possible a treaty has some guarantees about returning them, but the US isn't going to bother acting on them).. There will be some distrust, but also a lot of trade, giving leverage. The Progressive Era is well-suited for a strong movement to pressure the Confederacy to end their barbaric practices, with the ATL equivalent of Teddy to push it along. Third, there will be internal pressure as interest groups besides plantation owners grow stronger. People on here like to talk about how the South was backward, but that is only in comparison to the North, which was insanely developed for the time, with only the British really coming close. In its own right, the Confederacy had the industry of a lesser great power, although wealthier than them prior to the Civil War.
I don't expect an invasion or something, rather increasing quiet threats and leveraging trade with the Confederacy, until eventually a Confederate administration ends official slavery. Then of course comes the slavery-in-all-but-name and Jim Crow. Treatment of Blacks is always going to be something that causes the Confederacy diplomatic problems. It might be a great power, but it won't be a superpower, unlike the US, so easier for other countries to make a big deal about it. Further, the South in OTL US was the backward part which was easy to ignore, while for the Confederacy, that is the whole of it.
I don't expect an invasion or something, rather increasing quiet threats and leveraging trade with the Confederacy, until eventually a Confederate administration ends official slavery. Then of course comes the slavery-in-all-but-name and Jim Crow. Treatment of Blacks is always going to be something that causes the Confederacy diplomatic problems. It might be a great power, but it won't be a superpower, unlike the US, so easier for other countries to make a big deal about it. Further, the South in OTL US was the backward part which was easy to ignore, while for the Confederacy, that is the whole of it.
The point of departure for such a political entity matters greatly to any discussion of this topic. Because yes at the very start you are talking about an attempt for a political entity somewhere in-between the power of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution that wouldn't mess with the economic wellbeing of the planter class. At this point there is no Virginia, no North Carolina, no Tennessee, we are talking about a rump southern Confederacy.
No war and they are left to walk away then you have a very weak central government and very strong states. The end result would have probably been a failure and them petitioning to return to the Union after a while. There would have been no real Confederate nationalism to speak of here and instead individual states with their own self pride and sense of self conception.
The inclusion of the northern South after the call for troops revised the Confederacy's self-image very quickly. Concepts not amenable to the new states tossed out by the cotton state fire eaters that it was a revolution against federal power itself and even the founding fathers were told to take a hike. Suddenly the founders are back, Washington is on the currency and the national seal of the Confederacy, and secession is recast as the next stage of the American revolution started in 1776.
The war itself promoted centralized power and separate forms of nationalism North and South. The longer the war goes on the stronger the center gets, the weaker the states, and the stronger nationalism becomes.
A Confederacy that manages to survive a long war and becomes independent in lets say 1866 would not be the kind of entity in terms of its power over the states that the politicians who originally pushed for secession would have ever wanted. Some powers would be rolled back certainly in peace time, but not all and certainly the war time nationalism wouldn't be going anywhere.
Last edited:
And you think the CSA would treat natives better after the war? You know, the land-hungry Confederacy that wanted more land to expand slavery to. Natives might be tolerated if they attack the US, but the Confederacy will be just as hostile long-term as the US was.
Uh, 1861 - 65?
It is certainly possible, I won't say it isn't, but less likely than the USA historically. According to Caught in the Maelstrom by Clint Crowe, the CSA did fully recognize the full autonomy of the Pro-Confederate Nations with the control of currency, military and foreign policy ceded to Richmond in return for full autonomy. Federal annuities were paid off to the nations - which were invalidated by the union in 1865 - and none of the pro-Indian laws were abrogated throughout the Civil War despite the fact that the CSA would have highly profited from abrogating them and taking direct control of the civilian administrations of the natives as well. Judah P. Benjamin's letter to Davis in early 1864 clearly warned Davis that any ideas of abrogating certain native rights which was being put forward by Stephens would be fully rejected by the CSA HoR, Senate and Cabinet. The CSA wanted to use the Natives as the 'ideal' show to the world, and potentially create a fifth element within the United States. The CSA following the path of the USA in abrogating the Natives could happen, but because the CSA remained very pragmatic regarding the Natives IOTL despite the total war they were facing outnumbered and outgunned, I personally find it unlikely that the CSA would follow the same path as the USA in regards to the Natives.
What I mean is, when and where did the US State Department say the Confederacy was “more favourable to Jews and Native Americans”?
There are two answers, depending on whether or not the CSA tries to expand aka the knights of golden circle plan.
- If not the answer is the turn of the century, during the backlash to the Congo Free State and possible CSA colony in Africa around the turn of the century. CSA becomes an international pariah with the people of the UK and France demanding to know why their governments ever supported slave owners.
- If so, France, Spain and the UK side with the Mexican Empire and crush the CSA within 15 years. Mexico takes western CSA territory, major slave and native revolts which likely lead to independent nations, Texas is convinced breaks away, maybe they take New Orleans. The rest of the CSA limps along as international pariah, bitter, realizing that the great powers used them to cripple the USA, but unwilling to beg USA for forgiveness.