CS Victory: US Culture?

Would California, Nevada, and Oregon try to break off from the US if the CS won?

Not a chance. There wasn't the political will to do so.

The West lacked either the population, the economic base, or the infrastructure to support independence. Being sparely populated it "imported" most of its manufactured goods from elsewhere, and it produced little of value beyond specie which while certainly profitable is a poor foundation for a national economy.

Likewise, the West had very little to gain from independence. The Union was committed to building the rail infrastructure which would allow it to fully participate within the greater American market (ie be able to profitably sell its agricultural surplus) Likewise said infrastructure when built, would grant the US access to Asian markets providing a ready stream of business for the regions ports.
 
Last edited:
As this topic once again begs the question..."What's the POD?", I'll say, for conversation's sake, that there is a POD with the range of the Trent Affair on one end and Antietam on the other. Another thing to clarify is that barring a POD that extends well before 1860; the South won't be let go without a fight as all the major Republican candidates were Unionists. So with Lincoln as President and a POD in the range given above we can be assured of a few things. 1.) In order to win the South needs European intervention by way of political recognition, breaking the blockade and large amounts of military supplies. 2.) The Union will declare war on any European power that recognizes the South prior to a final treaty. 3.) The Union will focus on destroying the Confederacy and fight defensively in along the Canadian border. This follows the spirit of Lincoln's belief that the Union fight only one war at time and plays to the US's strengths. 4.) The North will fight until it is truly defeated or until the Republicans loose control of Congress and are thus forced into a negotiated peace (this is more likely and I'll assume the Democrats do very well in 1862 and force a peace in May of 1863). 5.) The peace treaty will not be overly harsh and Britain will gain only a few square miles of land along the boundary with Maine as well as Hawaii. The US will be forced to recognize the French puppet government in Mexico.

Also very likely is that the US will pass a few bits of choice legislation during the period between the POD and a final peace treaty. 1.) Homestead Act that includes settling free negroes on land paid for by Abolitionist Societies. This will pass by a slim margin due to an unlikely alliance between abolitionists and urban democrats who want blacks removed from eastern cities. 2.) Repudiation of the Fugitive slave laws as well as compensated emancipation. These will cause future friction but at the peace Treaty Britain can not in good conscious ask that they be overturned. 3.) First move towards an amendment barring secession. 4.) Transcontinental railroad act with the line running from St. Louis to San Francisco.

The peace treaty will allow each border state to vote on their status. In Delaware the vote is overwhelmingly pro-Union. Maryland is bitterly divided but Union control of the Chesapeake Bay had already forced many slave owners to head South so the state votes to remain in the Union. Kentucky narrowly votes to go to the Confederacy which leads to decades of internal strife. Missouri, with the promise of a trans-continental railroad, votes by a wide margin to stay in the Union. The Indian Territory and Confederate Arizona (at France's demand) also go to the Confederacy. Britain evacuates San Francisco and refuses to push the Oregon issue as they fear moving the border back to the Columbia will only lead to future trouble as American immigrants pour in (something that already threatens in New Caledonia).

Now that I've gone a bit over board with the background...we can look at Northern culture post Southern secession.

The North was bigoted and racist, but no more so than the rest of the world at the time. In fact in that regards it was a pretty decent place. That's why even in OTL millions of people made the decision to move there despite the prejudice against them. This will still hold true. A bad recession immediately following the war will slow immigration a bit but not for long. The Dems will control Congress for a little while and probably win the 1864 presidential election, but their constant cozing up to the South and refusal to raise tariffs will hurt them in the long run. They'll block an amendment to end slavery but the institution is dead in the North. Even the Democrats won't be dumb enough to oppose an amendment barring secession. Anti-immigration legislation will fail because in order to keep wages low, especially since the Homestead Act, the Northeast will need immigrants.

The North will be more militarized, but it might end up similar to Switzerland in that regard. The distrust of a standing military won't go away over night, especially if some dill weed like McClellan interfered with the Federal government during the period leading up the the end of the Civil War. Also, lessons learned from the breaking of the blockade will see an increase in the size of the Navy.

Overall the US will be much more liberal in regards to civil rights. During the brief interlude in which the Dems play nice with the South, states will once again pass Personal Liberty laws and attempts to recapture slaves will lead to violence. Except for a few states in the Mid West blacks will be rather well treated in the North. Even those Mid West states will give up on racism far earlier than OTL.

Music will still have black minstrel influences and thus jazz, which might end up being a form of "freedom music." In plays the lazy abusive plantation owner will become a cliche character along with the scheming European banker/politician/aristocrat (who also abuses the working class of his country). The Labor movement could go either way. The loss of the South won't make the average worker's plight any worse, and a more open land ownership policy in the West will work to make it better by increasing wages. The Indians will have it worse off in the short run but better in the long run. They will be swamped by numbers faster and have fewer or no reservations, but this could lead to a more equal land distribution system similar to what I envision for blacks. This will give individual Indians their own privately held land and do away with the corruption of the Reservation system. Furthermore with blacks leading the way and being larger in numbers there may be less conflict over all as blacks historically worked better with Indians and race will be less of an issue (this will lead to citizenship for Indians at much earlier date as well).

Benjamin
 
There were always free blacks in the states that became the Confederacy. The institution will last forever, whether or not the plantations do is a different question.

Like it did in Brazil? Eventually slavery would collapse, it's just a question of whether the CSA does first. The CSA simply won't have the money for an increasingly police state while it has a continued arms race with a huge industrialising country. And a huge land border across flat land doesn't help either problem.

Even the most ideological state has to eventually bend to reality. Think of Salazar's fascist Portugal. The whole establishment were zealots committed to holding on to Angola and Mozambique, but eventually the sheer cost bled the country so much that even when the leader wouldn't buckle, his subordinates did and took him out over the issue. See the People's Republic too: a communist state that embraces private property and capitalism just a few decades after being created.
 
Like it did in Brazil? Eventually slavery would collapse, it's just a question of whether the CSA does first. The CSA simply won't have the money for an increasingly police state while it has a continued arms race with a huge industrialising country. And a huge land border across flat land doesn't help either problem.

Even the most ideological state has to eventually bend to reality. Think of Salazar's fascist Portugal. The whole establishment were zealots committed to holding on to Angola and Mozambique, but eventually the sheer cost bled the country so much that even when the leader wouldn't buckle, his subordinates did and took him out over the issue. See the People's Republic too: a communist state that embraces private property and capitalism just a few decades after being created.

Brazil didn't structure its own political system to make emancipation impossible. Brazil did not start with an antebellum history of ever-increasing surveillance state politics. Brazil didn't have an independence war history of its own army engaging in mass repression of its own civilians. All this applies to any short-war victory Confederacy. The Confederacy's leaders did a very good and thorough job of rigging their system to be incapable of adapting to the modern world, and they should be given credit for it.

And again, the plantations won't last forever. Slavery, however, will because the CSA has no legal means to abolish it.
 
Brazil didn't structure its own political system to make emancipation impossible. Brazil did not start with an antebellum history of ever-increasing surveillance state politics. Brazil didn't have an independence war history of its own army engaging in mass repression of its own civilians. All this applies to any short-war victory Confederacy. The Confederacy's leaders did a very good and thorough job of rigging their system to be incapable of adapting to the modern world, and they should be given credit for it.

And again, the plantations won't last forever. Slavery, however, will because the CSA has no legal means to abolish it.

And the Third French Republic couldn't legally abandon a republican form of government. It didn't stop them did it? Plenty of changes have happened to plenty of polities through non-legal means throughout history. Americans' unique experience of a continuous constitution only changed by legal means seems to make a lot of them blind to this.
 
And the Third French Republic couldn't legally abandon a republican form of government. It didn't stop them did it? Plenty of changes have happened to plenty of polities through non-legal means throughout history. Americans' unique experience of a continuous constitution only changed by legal means seems to make a lot of them blind to this.

Well it didn't actually abandon it. The Germans conquered it. There was a difference. The CSA deliberately rigged itself to be incapable of changing, so if you're claiming they can somehow do this, you need more evidence than simple generalities and claims of this being somehow America-wank to prove it.
 
Well it didn't actually abandon it. The Germans conquered it. There was a difference. The CSA deliberately rigged itself to be incapable of changing, so if you're claiming they can somehow do this, you need more evidence than simple generalities and claims of this being somehow America-wank to prove it.

The CSA could not abolish slavery on a national Federalized level, what, pray tell, is preventing slavery from being abolished on an individual state-by-state basis in the CSA?
 
The CSA could not abolish slavery on a national Federalized level, what, pray tell, is preventing slavery from being abolished on an individual state-by-state basis in the CSA?

The aforementioned system that means any reduction of slavery in one part of the CSA is useless without reducing all of it. It takes more than "Because I said so" to convince me that a state with Barnwell Rhett as one of its founding fathers will ever abolish slavery before it's re-conquered by the USA as it disintegrates under its own rotten weight.
 
Well it didn't actually abandon it. The Germans conquered it. There was a difference. The CSA deliberately rigged itself to be incapable of changing, so if you're claiming they can somehow do this, you need more evidence than simple generalities and claims of this being somehow America-wank to prove it.

The Germans didn't impose the new form of government on France. The French cabinet VOTED for Petain to be made dictator. By definition, I can't have evidence for what would happen in a counterfactual. But a financial crisis, or rioting from lower class whites, or an unstoppable slave revolt or an invasion by the US, or a military coup could all lead to situations where the gravity of the situation means the constitution could be suspended.
 
The North will be more militarized, but it might end up similar to Switzerland in that regard. The distrust of a standing military won't go away over night, especially if some dill weed like McClellan interfered with the Federal government during the period leading up the the end of the Civil War. Also, lessons learned from the breaking of the blockade will see an increase in the size of the Navy.

You might also see a creation of a Northern General Staff System. If the legacy of the Civil War is viewed as a conflict where superior Confederate leadership triumphed over superior Northern manpower and material there will certainly be an effort to rectify such matters before the next war. This need would be reinforced if there was also a European intervention in said war.

While a large standing army may be politically impossible, a larger better equipped army than OTL is more or less inevitable. Whats more, the North is likely to be particularly concerned with rapid mobilization especially if threatened with the possibility of a multi-front war.
 
The Germans didn't impose the new form of government on France. The French cabinet VOTED for Petain to be made dictator. By definition, I can't have evidence for what would happen in a counterfactual. But a financial crisis, or rioting from lower class whites, or an unstoppable slave revolt or an invasion by the US, or a military coup could all lead to situations where the gravity of the situation means the constitution could be suspended.

Actually the Germans *did* impose it by virtue of overrunning France in six weeks and not wanting immediately to have to face a war with France in the colonies by overdoing the peace in the short term. Vichy was only a short-term thing from the German POV. It does not, however, directly apply to the CSA which like the USSR and Nazi Germany made ideology directly intertwined with its system. If the CSA had been more like Brazil and kept slavery vital to its economics but not intertwined with its political system to the degree the CSA did, I might agree with you.

This is not, however, the CSA of OTL or any recognizable Civil War scenario.
 
The OTL CSA refused to scrap slavery in any meaningful sense when it was in the process of being conquered and was by the end whatever territory Lee's army was on at that precise moment. An ATL CSA that wins a shorter war will abolish slavery the day Hell freezes over and not a moment before. What will, however, change is that the plantations won't last forever. The CSA will also have *a* free black minority which people usually forget about.

And there will be a Civil Rights movement in any ATL CSA the moment there's Anarcho-Capitalist movements in any ATL USSR.

at what point did i say theyd immediatly do it if they won?

can anyone read english anymore or understand the nuances in language?

its being shown that they couldnt sustain it forever....slavery by that point in history was becoming universably condemmed, and if the csa wanted international recognition and trade then they wouldve had to drop it eventually...plus the black populations wouldve rebelled more after the war too

mabye 40 years down the line it wouldve started, or 50, but slavery in the csa wouldnt have lived out the centuary
 
at what point did i say theyd immediatly do it if they won?

can anyone read english anymore or understand the nuances in language?

its beign shown that they can sustain it forever....slavery byt that point in history was becoming universably condemmed, and if the csa wanted international recognation and trade then they wouldve had to drop it eventually...plus the black populations wouldve rebelled more after the war too

mabye 40 years down the line it wouldve started, or 50, but slavery in the csa wouldnt have lived out the centuary

Just as the USSR scrapped Communism and is currently the authoritarian union of states prevailing from the Baltic to Central Asia to the Pacific today, eh? The CSA deliberately rigged itself to have slavery forever when it was the only area aside from Brazil with a large slave population left in the New World. International isolation will only make the Rhetts of the Confederacy crazier and more self-righteous and monopolizing the CSA's discourse further. Think North Korea, not PRC.
 
Nappy's entire FP towards the ACW was "Don't do anything without Britain's full support."

So, I'd recommend you have Britain break the blockade (they're really the only ones who can) and have France tag along, rather than the other way around.
I've read that many times on this site that Nap III only stayed out of the ACW b/c Britain didn't go first. Yet after reading others comment on how much he still wanted to aid the CSA for the sake if his plan in Mexico I was hoping on writing a TL in which Nap III has some extra incentive to aid the CSA without Britain’s blessing. I mainly want to do this b/c PODs with Britain joining the CSA have been done allot and I want something different. Also I really want to avoid the USA invading Canada and I am hoping that this can be avoided by keeping Britain out of the ACW even if the French get involved. What do you think?
The Indians will have it worse off in the short run but better in the long run. They will be swamped by numbers faster and have fewer or no reservations, but this could lead to a more equal land distribution system similar to what I envision for blacks. This will give individual Indians their own privately held land and do away with the corruption of the Reservation system. Furthermore with blacks leading the way and being larger in numbers there may be less conflict over all as blacks historically worked better with Indians and race will be less of an issue (this will lead to citizenship for Indians at much earlier date as well).

Benjamin
Now that gives me some inspiration! Any other ideas on that?
Brazil didn't structure its own political system to make emancipation impossible. Brazil did not start with an antebellum history of ever-increasing surveillance state politics. Brazil didn't have an independence war history of its own army engaging in mass repression of its own civilians. All this applies to any short-war victory Confederacy. The Confederacy's leaders did a very good and thorough job of rigging their system to be incapable of adapting to the modern world, and they should be given credit for it.

And again, the plantations won't last forever. Slavery, however, will because the CSA has no legal means to abolish it.

I want to write a TL that involves the CSA setting up a system to free there slave population a couple of decades after the war as a means of "military necessity"(like with their rail system during the war) so as to avoid slave riots, and international issues that come from escaped slaves over the US border. I do plan on this being unpopular but will also be seen as necessary to avoid further conflicts and/or wars with the North and/or within the CSA itself. Also I want to include a "Negro Relocation Program" in which the freedmen are placed on isolated reservations like the Native Americans of OTL. Do you think such a plan is too far fetched?
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
The Germans didn't impose the new form of government on France. The French cabinet VOTED for Petain to be made dictator.
It's worth bearing in mind that the Third Republic never had a constitution, which meant it could kinda do whatever it wanted. Legally, the Third Republic only ceased to exist in 1946.
 
I wonder how US cuisine would be changed? I mean before the rise of Kentucky Fried Chicken. Would Peanut butter exist? Washington Carver might have escaped to the North or he probably wouldn't get to invent it in the south.

Coconut Cream Pie and Banana Cream pie would probably not exist. After all Coconuts and bananas both came from the New Orleans port's. But maybe los angeles would be a different route for Tropical foods.
 
Last edited:
The USA in all probability winds up sharply more like Canada and the European states of its time than the Confederacy. Without the Southern states that were in the old Confederacy it embraces industrialization and capitalism on a much more sweeping fashion while the absence of the reactionary planter elite prompts the emergence of Social Democracy, Socialist, and Communist movements as *the* challenge to the elite. The USA now has every reason for a larger land army, will be orienting itself against slavery and to some extent for greater racial equality in its own territory, and the more the CSA degenerates into a basket case, the less the USA will actually consider a full-fledged re-absorption of the Confederacy unless it has no choice. The CSA will probably wind up surviving in the fashion of Zimbabwe and North Korea, given money to avoid its collapse and the ensuing but inevitable disintegration.

Thus the USA winds up more militarized than IOTL (if for nothing else than the desire to AVOID a war caused by the inevitable attempts by slaves to run over the US-CS border and the inevitable slavecatcher raids that follow), but more European-style than IOTL in terms of political situations and challenges (industrializing, democracy, no giant agrarian caste system stuck in an 1880s timewarp into the 20th Century), and in all probability as the CSA proves to be an economic sinkhole keeping one eye on its rickety former cousin without focusing too much on the Confederacy at all.


If the CSA gains independence via help from Europe the US might well wind up LESS like Europe in reaction. If the CSA gets help from GB and France the US will likely swing towards Prussia and Russia as counterweights. That would imply more conservatism not less.
 
I think both of these statements can probably be true. Yes, there will likely be nationalism/revanchism in the USA, but it will fade in time, and in part it will fade because of immigration because immigrants and their descendents won't have any memory of the old Union and won't be hugely invested in restoring it.

Instead of race, I suspect the great dividing lines ITTL's USA will be class and ethnicity, with divisions between WASP-y types whose ancestors were in America before the war and working-class white ethnics who came later. Assuming a two-party system remains in effect, this division might translate into the division between who supports which political party.

It will be revanchist for a LONG time, bet on 40 years+ particularly if Europe got involved. Immigrants or no immigrants most Americans will have ancestors that fought in it for quite a while and most people, including immigrants, go along with the majority. Don't expect the immigrants to be unaffected by the pro-Union sentiment of the American populace at large, particularly when the continued existence of slavery is pointed out.
 
I want to write a TL that involves the CSA setting up a system to free there slave population a couple of decades after the war as a means of "military necessity"(like with their rail system during the war) so as to avoid slave riots, and international issues that come from escaped slaves over the US border. I do plan on this being unpopular but will also be seen as necessary to avoid further conflicts and/or wars with the North and/or within the CSA itself. Also I want to include a "Negro Relocation Program" in which the freedmen are placed on isolated reservations like the Native Americans of OTL. Do you think such a plan is too far fetched?

It wouldn't happen as THE PLANTERS were the government and they would give up slavery some time after Hell froze over. Now a revolution of some sort COULD get rid of it.
 
You might also see a creation of a Northern General Staff System. If the legacy of the Civil War is viewed as a conflict where superior Confederate leadership triumphed over superior Northern manpower and material there will certainly be an effort to rectify such matters before the next war. This need would be reinforced if there was also a European intervention in said war.

While a large standing army may be politically impossible, a larger better equipped army than OTL is more or less inevitable. Whats more, the North is likely to be particularly concerned with rapid mobilization especially if threatened with the possibility of a multi-front war.

I doubt a large, standing army would be politically impossible. The reason Americans were historically against it OTL was there were few people who saw the need for one. All the Great Powers were across the ocean and would have a damn difficult time conquering the country. Now with its biggest enemy just across the border that would change and in a hurry!!
 
Top