The Sun Belt in a Confederate Victory TL

[Kevin R.]

Note: This involves events that occur in the 20th century, but the POD is the American Civil War, so I'm putting it here.

Over the last forty years, the "Sun Belt" -- the warm, sunny southern tier of the United States, stretching from Southern California through Georgia and Florida -- has been a dominant force in American politics. The population is heavily suburban, middle class, and often conservative*, and many of its inhabitants are transplanted Northerners who moved south for the nice weather (a far cry from the cold winters of the Northeast and Midwest) and the abundant jobs in the wake of World War II. Most of it is in the territory of the old Confederacy, but the similarities end there.

That last sentence brings up questions for any Confederate victory TL that goes beyond the 1950s. Assuming the Confederacy survives (which it probably will), it isn't likely that many Northerners would be too happy moving south of the Mason-Dixon line. That eliminates two-thirds of the Sun Belt, leaving only Southern California and the dry Southwest. What effects would this have on Northern politics, demographics, and development? Do the Northeast and Midwest continue to grow, reaching an almost European population density? Or, is there a different Sun Belt -- the Rocky Mountain states and the West Coast? This area also has a climate appealing to Northerners, especially as one moves south. However, the issue of water comes up. Many Western states are already having water problems with their OTL populations. What happens when everybody who would've moved to Atlanta or Dallas in OTL starts moving to Cheyenne or Billings? (Can somebody get me figures for how many people the water supplies of these states can theoretically support? Thanks.)

----------

* I'm sure that many people from Austin, New Mexico, Miami, or Los Angeles would take issue with that assumption. However, places like that are a minority in the Sun Belt. Remember Nixon's southern strategy?

 

[robertp6165]

Note: This involves events that occur in the 20th century, but the POD is the American Civil War, so I'm putting it here.

Over the last forty years, the "Sun Belt" -- the warm, sunny southern tier of the United States, stretching from Southern California through Georgia and Florida -- has been a dominant force in American politics. The population is heavily suburban, middle class, and often conservative*, and many of its inhabitants are transplanted Northerners who moved south for the nice weather (a far cry from the cold winters of the Northeast and Midwest) and the abundant jobs in the wake of World War II. Most of it is in the territory of the old Confederacy, but the similarities end there.

That last sentence brings up questions for any Confederate victory TL that goes beyond the 1950s. Assuming the Confederacy survives (which it probably will), it isn't likely that many Northerners would be too happy moving south of the Mason-Dixon line.

Well, actually that is not necessarily a good assumption, and whether it was a good assumption would depend on a lot of things, such as...

1) Relations between the U.S. and the C.S. If relations have remained relatively friendly most of the time and the situation has evolved into something similar to that of Canada and the U.S., for example, where up until quite recently you didn't even have to take a passport with you to travel over the border, that could encourage a lot of Northern tourism which might later translate into migration.

On the other hand, if relations have been traditionally chilly, and getting entry visas is not easy as a result, that would obviously be a major roadblock to Northern migration South.

2) Relative tax rates of the U.S. and the C.S. If the CSA has much lower tax rates than the USA, you might see a lot of Northerners decide to retire down South because their standard of living might be better.

3) Relative exchange rates of U.S. and C.S. currency...if the C.S. dollar trades significantly lower than the U.S. dollar, once again, you might see a lot of Northern retirees settling in the CSA so their Social Security checks (assuming such a thing still exists in the ATL) or retirement checks have more purchasing power.

4) The Southern economy. If the South is experiencing a tech boom while the Northern cities are turning into a rust belt, as in OTL, and provided #1 above is favorable, you could see a lot of Northerners coming South to find jobs.

 

[King Gorilla]

Very interesting topic.

I think some sort of American sunbelt is inevitable, presuming of course the USA emerges as both an economic power and creates a post industrial economy. However I have a feeling that the sunbelt will be much smaller and narrower in range, largely confined to the pacific coast and the transportation hubs of the west and great plains.

The sun belt emerged as a center of fast economic growth and development during the mid century due to a wide variety of reasons. The New Deal allowed for the construction of vast amounts of infrastructure that was previously unavailable. This brought, roads, phone lines, and electrification to largely poor and rural areas. This also generally meant cheap power for industry and cheap water for agriculture. Given that the sunbelt was largely unindustrialized pre-WWII, large concentrations of war industries were built there. This brought in high paying jobs both for locals and immigrants from other parts of the country. The emergent cold war insured that these industries would remain in busy, and their presence demanded both a skilled, highly educated workforce, and technologically advanced supporting industries ranging from machine tools to electronics. Postwar development was also spurred on due to a number of contributing factors. Sunbelt states tended to have cheaper land, lower taxes, fewer regulation, and weak to non-existent unions. They also tended to have a more modern infrastructure, more geared towards the paradigm shifting use of the automobile, versus older obsolescent rail. The invention and mass production of air conditioning helped seal the deal, by making living and working bearable during the hottest and most humid days of the summer.

I doubt the CSA would ever develop an economy sophisticated enough to produce a sunbelt on its own. This is due to its extreme reluctance to both build infrastructure, and fund education. However, high-tech and modern industry is likely to emerge in texas anyway, if only do to the demands of a petro chemicals industry. The USA in such a world is likely to continue investing in California. However, without either a pacific war, or a cold war, I doubt southern California will be a center for both the aerospace industry and the military industrial complex. The west however will likely remain unloved, and end up being hotter drier versions of the Dakotas.

 

[Lugal]

The invention and mass production of air conditioning helped seal the deal, by making living and working bearable during the hottest and most humid days of the summer. I doubt the CSA would ever develop an economy sophisticated enough to produce a sunbelt on its own. This is due to its extreme reluctance to both build infrastructure, and fund education. However, high-tech and modern industry is likely to emerge in texas anyway, if only do to the demands of a petro chemicals industry. The USA in such a world is likely to continue investing in California.

This is a big one. While the southwest and California could use some type of evaporative cooling, the Confederacy itself (with the exception of Texas) would be too humid. Economically, evaporative cooling is much cheaper than vapor compression air conditioning. So if the Union keeps the southwest, which it probably would, the CSA sunbelt could be bypassed.

 

[robertp6165]

I doubt the CSA would ever develop an economy sophisticated enough to produce a sunbelt on its own. This is due to its extreme reluctance to both build infrastructure, and fund education.

There was no actual reluctance to build infrastructure or fund education. The South just disagreed about where the funds were to come from...whereas the North tended to favor national subsidies, the South favored State and local funding, or private enterprise.

 

[King Gorilla]

There was no actual reluctance to build infrastructure or fund education. The South just disagreed about where the funds were to come from...whereas the North tended to favor national subsidies, the South favored State and local funding, or private enterprise.

Well there was a reluctance to fund education for a significant percentage of the confederacy's population. Minus its black population, the south had a fairly high literacy rate all things considered. While I wouldn't say the South was anti education, they placed less emphasis on it than New England or the old Northwest. Having fewer landgrant schools and universities hurt the south in this regard.

But educationally, one of the keys towards success in the sunbelt, were the existence of research universities such as Caltech. These schools functioned in close cooperation with the corporations who funded them, the symbiosis of them helped bring additional jobs and industry to their regions.

As for infrastructure, I have my doubts. I'm skeptical that any one southern state, absense petrodollars, could spend the millions needed to pursue and maintain rural electrification, highway construction, and irrigation. Similarly, I highly doubt private interests would pursue such interests in poor rural backwaters. Southern infrastruture will probably end up staying concentrated in traditional centers of commerce.

 

[Faeelin]

There was no actual reluctance to build infrastructure or fund education. The South just disagreed about where the funds were to come from...whereas the North tended to favor national subsidies, the South favored State and local funding, or private enterprise.

Oddly, the southern tradition led to a significantly poorer education system, expressed in both universities/colleges and literacy rate.

This is of course ignoring that it was illegal for 1/3 of the south to learn to read.

 

[David S Poepoe]

As for infrastructure, I have my doubts. I'm skeptical that any one southern state, absense petrodollars, could spend the millions needed to pursue and maintain rural electrification, highway construction, and irrigation. Similarly, I highly doubt private interests would pursue such interests in poor rural backwaters. Southern infrastruture will probably end up staying concentrated in traditional centers of commerce.

What the Southern states had no problem with was raising and spending money on infrastructure projects that were within their own respective states. They were against funding projects that would be used to benefit other regions.

 

[King Gorilla]

What the Southern states had no problem with was raising and spending money on infrastructure projects that were within their own respective states. They were against funding projects that would be used to benefit other regions.

Yes, but would any southern state be willing to individual raise the money necessary to produce a project on scale of the TVA or the interstate highway system. The federal government's backing of these projects, amongst countless others laid down the infrastructure that gave way to the sunbelt.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Yes, but would any southern state be willing to individual raise the money necessary to produce a project on scale of the TVA or the interstate highway system. The federal government's backing of these projects, amongst countless others laid down the infrastructure that gave way to the sunbelt.

I think its possible that the interstate highway system could be built or a near equivalent. The major burst of construction is post-WWII which proved that such a system had its benefits beyond that of civil defense. Also most states' highway systems are a hodge-podge of federal, state and county funded road construction which weaves together roadways of warying types.

One can look to the pre-ACW construction of railroads in the South as evidence that the region could be linked together. Also we can not dismiss the likelihood of private enterprise coming forward to build these roads.

I'm also a little undecided about the actual value of the TVA and if its construction was more of a 'make work' type of project.

 

[AmIndHistoryAuthor]

There is a continuing Southern reluctance to fund education to this very day. The Southern states are dead last in funding education, dead last in literacy rates, lowest pay for teachers, etc.

In some Southern states you have a significant faction that opposes public education of any kind, wants vouchers only, or even church sponsored education only. In Texas I recall the religious right actually defunded much of the funds dedicated to public education and moved the money directly to building more prisons and hiring more cops. Which makes sense in a weird way, a less educated young population will be committing more crime. And the South leads regionally in crime rates as well.

All of these trends accelerate in a CSA victory scenario. Recall also the South industrialized very slowly IOTL, about 70 years after the North, which is still far more industrial to this day.

The sun belt boom was partly driven by union busting, by companies wanting to exploit their workers more nakedly. With far smaller anti union numbers in the US congress, outsourcing to the CSA's third world stagnant monoculture economy could more easily be prevented.

I also have a hard time imagining a reconciliation between the US and the CSA. How friendly were West and East Germany to each other? North and South Korea? (Please, no arguments about how it was solely driven by outside forces. That certainly is not true in Korea's case.)

Such a reconciliation would only be possible if the central issue dividing the nations is resolved, IOW if slavery is abolished ands civil rights insured for nonwhites. And like in Germany's (and probably Korea's) case, the seceding nation no longer has a reason to exist and is reabsorbed pretty quickly.

 

[King Gorilla]

I'm also a little undecided about the actual value of the TVA and if its construction was more of a 'make work' type of project.

But the long term benefits of the TVA, and other hydrological projects are undeniable. I cannot think of very many incidents were private interests have bankrolled the construction of dams. Dams are however convenient sources of cheap electricity and very useful for wide scale agriculture. The building of these enormously benefited the South, as well as the West in the postwar era. Government intervention is one of the only reasons why there is electricity in many rural regions, and prior to said dams, many of the sunbelt's hotspots were quite impoverished. Cheap power and cheap labor were two of the major reasons for the sunbelt's success.

 

[David S Poepoe]

I also have a hard time imagining a reconciliation between the US and the CSA. How friendly were West and East Germany to each other? North and South Korea? (Please, no arguments about how it was solely driven by outside forces. That certainly is not true in Korea's case.)

Such a reconciliation would only be possible if the central issue dividing the nations is resolved, IOW if slavery is abolished ands civil rights insured for nonwhites. And like in Germany's (and probably Korea's) case, the seceding nation no longer has a reason to exist and is reabsorbed pretty quickly.

Well, I've got to admit that the US being reabsorbed into the Confederacy is pretty unlikely. I don't see why there should or would be any reunion between the two nations.

The examples of East Germany and North Korea do initially have to do with outside forces, but at a point internal self-interest by the ruling party takes over.

 

[W.W.A.F.T.]

Fistly, I have to laugh at the thought of people moving to billings for better weather in the winter. that being said, without the texan oilfields, the bakken formation (eastern montana, western north dakota, north-east wyoming) will see considerably more development, so billings, williston, bismark, and gillete will be larger.

secondly, assuming that relations between the two countries aren't exactly friendly, which they probably aren't, the largest centers of migration are likely to be pheonix, santa fe, southern california, and salt lake city.

 

[Mark E.]

There could be a significant demographic shift in the 1860's and 1870's. With a CSA victory, the Underground Railroads end at the US/CS border. Northerners might buy up and free slaves from a cash-hungry South; others will be led north over the border. Many ex-slaves might be settled in the sparsely populated upper Midwest.

In the 1870's, a large wave of German immigrants might find the Great Lakes regions more "occupied" and opt to settle in the South where more opportunities are now available. They will bring skilled trades, thus improving industrialization in the South.

 

[Hendryk]

There would be as many Northerners willing to move to the CSA in TTL, as there are Americans willing to move to Mexico in OTL. A hot and muggy place with no decent infrastructure and a bigoted, racially-polarized population wouldn't hold much attraction to young entrepreneurs.

The more popular destination would likely be the Pacific Northwest, which even in OTL has proved plenty attractive to this kind of demographic.

 

[Mark E.]

A hot and muggy place with no decent infrastructure and a bigoted, racially-polarized population wouldn't hold much attraction to young entrepreneurs.

Bit it did. That is where the term "carpetbagger" came from.

 

[Constantinople]

The more popular destination would likely be the Pacific Northwest, which even in OTL has proved plenty attractive to this kind of demographic.

Mmm Seattle is awesome.

 

[King Gorilla]

There could be a significant demographic shift in the 1860's and 1870's. With a CSA victory, the Underground Railroads end at the US/CS border. Northerners might buy up and free slaves from a cash-hungry South; others will be led north over the border. Many ex-slaves might be settled in the sparsely populated upper Midwest.

In the 1870's, a large wave of German immigrants might find the Great Lakes regions more "occupied" and opt to settle in the South where more opportunities are now available. They will bring skilled trades, thus improving industrialization in the South.

Well, it all depends on what types of immigrants you are talking about. Alot of immigrants came to the midwest and great plains thanks to the homestead act. This effectively gave them free land in exchange for settling. The immigrants attracted by this tended to be a bit more prosperous, given the initial capital needed to start farming. I would venture to say that escaped slaves would not be joining these ranks. More likely escaped slaves would find themselve, much like in OTL, settling in the industrial cities. I have a hard time believing that their presense will do much to dissuade the massive german immigration that the upper midwest experienced.

This is especially true given that despite the loss of thousands of escaped slaves, the south is still going to have alot more blacks than the north. Given the agrean nature of its economy, free/cheap land will be much shorter in supply. Finally their are much fewer industrial jobs, more over they are likely to be industrial jobs that involve competition with unpayed slave labors. These things don't seem to be terribly condusive to immigration.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

There could be a significant demographic shift in the 1860's and 1870's. With a CSA victory, the Underground Railroads end at the US/CS border. Northerners might buy up and free slaves from a cash-hungry South; others will be led north over the border. Many ex-slaves might be settled in the sparsely populated upper Midwest.

In the 1870's, a large wave of German immigrants might find the Great Lakes regions more "occupied" and opt to settle in the South where more opportunities are now available. They will bring skilled trades, thus improving industrialization in the South.

Highly doubtful. The northerners were not exactly pro-black. Sure there were lots of abolitionists, but not many wanted to actually LIVE with ex-slaves in their neighborhoods. They just hated the institution. For instance, remember the race riots during the civil war and just about every succeeding decade with the greater immigration of blacks to northern industrial jobs. As for the Germans, well, they weren't especially fond of the south and were not very well liked by the people there. Sure, there was sizable German immigration to the south pre-civil war, and a bit afterward, but nothing like the north with its wide open spaces and liberal policies, especially in the midwest. Remember, many of the German immigrants were coming over to escape the repressive government at home and many were socialist. The south is not going to look kindly on that, nor were Germans going to be fond of slavery, as many fought for the north for that very reason.