Alabama, circa 1850. Plans are afoot by a syndicate of wealthy planters and industrialists, who want to set up some iron furnaces and associated works in a new location. It is a fortunate area which has some key natural resources in abundance: iron ore, coal, and limestone. Everything which is needed to make some of the best iron & steel in the world. It is also at the site of the planned crossing of a couple of railroads (the Alabama & Chattanooga and South & North Alabama railroads), not too far from water transport, and in short has everything needed to make it a major source of iron production.
Problem: the small farmers in Alabama don't want any part of this. Industrialisation, railroads, canal building, and internal improvements are something they cordially detest most of the time, and doubly so if there's any hint of their hard-earned tax dollars being spent to pay for it. (Never mind that most of them don't pay tax, damnit, it's the principle of the thing). The project is blocked in the Alabama legislature, and its backers reluctantly shelve the idea.
Fast forward ten years, circa 1860, and many of the same people involved in the original plan are preparing for another political bid. They do get a bit of interest, but the build-up to the ACW more or less kills the idea. Once the ACW breaks out, Alabama has other priorities. In the end, the site won't be developed (as Birmingham, Alabama) until the 1870s.
So, WI the original attempt is successful? Iron furnaces are permitted on the Birmingham site - assume it has the same name, for convenience's sake - and industry starts up. Railroad construction goes ahead, linking Birmingham north, south, east and west, including a connexion to the nearby river port on the Black Warrior River, which allows barge traffic down to Mobile.
Birmingham thrives; once it's started, it has a momentum of its own. Labour isn't always the cheapest, but it's available: some slaves, some free blacks, a few (mostly unreliable) poor whites, perhaps a few immigrants. (The South didn't attract many immigrants, but Birmingham will be a minor additional pull, and most immigrants who did come South ended up in the cities). Iron production booms - call it 75,000 tonnes per year by 1860, and rising every year.
Significant side-note: in OTL, the 1850s were a time of major consolidation of iron production within the US of A. In the 1840s and earlier, there had been a lot of small-scale charcoal iron production all over the place - New England, the Upper South, and the Lower South.
During the 1850s, this changed dramatically. Iron production was shifting to more efficient processes which used coal in blast furnaces. This led to a concentration of iron production to a few centres, mostly in Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Basic iron prouction in the rest of the US of A dropped dramatically - most of the smaller local furnaces were out-competed and closed. Iron production in most of the South actually declined between 1850 and 1860. Virginia, South Carolina and Georgia produced less iron in 1860 than a decade before - in an era where other sectors of industry were growing rapidly, particularly in Virginia. About the only part of the South were iron production expanded was Kentucky, which thanks to its coal reserves was the leading iron producer in the South.
Now, when the American Civil War rolled around in OTL, this concentration of iron production would really bite for the South. Pennsylvania, Ohio and Kentucky weren't exactly supplying lots of iron any more. The South was really starved of the raw iron production which it needed for manufacturing purposes.
The Tredegar Iron Works, for instance - the largest in the seceded portions of the South - had a truly massive expansion of its manufacturing capacity during the ACW. At its top performance, it was capable of processing about 60,000 tonnes of basic iron (if memory serves) and turning it into all sorts of steel products, be it rifles, railroad tracks or rolling stock. The problem was that it never got that much iron - never more than half of that amount even in its best year. Other Southern industrial centres built up during the ACW (eg Selma) suffered from similar shortages.
ATL, now Birmingham is a thriving centre of iron production, and that rail crossing has the added benefit of linking rail nets east of the Mississippi. I doubt that the development of Birmingham will do much to disrupt the chain of events which led to the ACW - perhaps slightly more Unionism in upcountry Alabama, but that's about it.
When the ACW breaks out, though, the CSA has all the iron production they're likely to need (until the North's forces reach Birmingham, at least) and have a slightly better internal transportation network. Production of war materiel will be much easier, as will repair of rail nets. Along with much else.
Where do things go from here?
P.S. This post was inspired in part by my current re-reading of Starobin's "Industrial Slavery in the Old South" - sadly out of print nowadays, but packed full of examples of why anyone who argues that "slavery isn't compatible with industry" is really missing the point.
Problem: the small farmers in Alabama don't want any part of this. Industrialisation, railroads, canal building, and internal improvements are something they cordially detest most of the time, and doubly so if there's any hint of their hard-earned tax dollars being spent to pay for it. (Never mind that most of them don't pay tax, damnit, it's the principle of the thing). The project is blocked in the Alabama legislature, and its backers reluctantly shelve the idea.
Fast forward ten years, circa 1860, and many of the same people involved in the original plan are preparing for another political bid. They do get a bit of interest, but the build-up to the ACW more or less kills the idea. Once the ACW breaks out, Alabama has other priorities. In the end, the site won't be developed (as Birmingham, Alabama) until the 1870s.
So, WI the original attempt is successful? Iron furnaces are permitted on the Birmingham site - assume it has the same name, for convenience's sake - and industry starts up. Railroad construction goes ahead, linking Birmingham north, south, east and west, including a connexion to the nearby river port on the Black Warrior River, which allows barge traffic down to Mobile.
Birmingham thrives; once it's started, it has a momentum of its own. Labour isn't always the cheapest, but it's available: some slaves, some free blacks, a few (mostly unreliable) poor whites, perhaps a few immigrants. (The South didn't attract many immigrants, but Birmingham will be a minor additional pull, and most immigrants who did come South ended up in the cities). Iron production booms - call it 75,000 tonnes per year by 1860, and rising every year.
Significant side-note: in OTL, the 1850s were a time of major consolidation of iron production within the US of A. In the 1840s and earlier, there had been a lot of small-scale charcoal iron production all over the place - New England, the Upper South, and the Lower South.
During the 1850s, this changed dramatically. Iron production was shifting to more efficient processes which used coal in blast furnaces. This led to a concentration of iron production to a few centres, mostly in Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Basic iron prouction in the rest of the US of A dropped dramatically - most of the smaller local furnaces were out-competed and closed. Iron production in most of the South actually declined between 1850 and 1860. Virginia, South Carolina and Georgia produced less iron in 1860 than a decade before - in an era where other sectors of industry were growing rapidly, particularly in Virginia. About the only part of the South were iron production expanded was Kentucky, which thanks to its coal reserves was the leading iron producer in the South.
Now, when the American Civil War rolled around in OTL, this concentration of iron production would really bite for the South. Pennsylvania, Ohio and Kentucky weren't exactly supplying lots of iron any more. The South was really starved of the raw iron production which it needed for manufacturing purposes.
The Tredegar Iron Works, for instance - the largest in the seceded portions of the South - had a truly massive expansion of its manufacturing capacity during the ACW. At its top performance, it was capable of processing about 60,000 tonnes of basic iron (if memory serves) and turning it into all sorts of steel products, be it rifles, railroad tracks or rolling stock. The problem was that it never got that much iron - never more than half of that amount even in its best year. Other Southern industrial centres built up during the ACW (eg Selma) suffered from similar shortages.
ATL, now Birmingham is a thriving centre of iron production, and that rail crossing has the added benefit of linking rail nets east of the Mississippi. I doubt that the development of Birmingham will do much to disrupt the chain of events which led to the ACW - perhaps slightly more Unionism in upcountry Alabama, but that's about it.
When the ACW breaks out, though, the CSA has all the iron production they're likely to need (until the North's forces reach Birmingham, at least) and have a slightly better internal transportation network. Production of war materiel will be much easier, as will repair of rail nets. Along with much else.
Where do things go from here?
P.S. This post was inspired in part by my current re-reading of Starobin's "Industrial Slavery in the Old South" - sadly out of print nowadays, but packed full of examples of why anyone who argues that "slavery isn't compatible with industry" is really missing the point.