America without the South

Breckenridge of Kentucky, one of the four presidential candidates in 1860, went south only to learn to his anguish that during the war the CSA would embrace all the expansions of government and reduction of individual rights that the USA did, if not even more so, and often before the USA did, leaving him looking rather hypocritical(and aware of it) for going south to avoid all manner of policies embraced by the south at some point.



One interesting question might be what would have happened if the CSA had won and a president(Lee?) been elected who favored gradual emancipation for the slaves. Turtledove has an amusing scene in The Guns Of The South where, having lost the election, prominent figures including the defeated VP candidate call for secession from the CSA and Jefferson Davis starts to make some fierce vow only to stop and realize that he's on the verge of either vindicating Abraham Lincoln or brand himself a criminal.

Depending on your perspective.:D



If such a crisis had erupted could the CSA allow itself to break up peacefully, even ignoring the near certainty of this resulting in not two but multiple nations. South Carolina, for one, being likely to be isolated from the other hard core slave states.

Would this war only have been plausible if the pro-slavery contingent found themselves losing power or might it be possible for more moderate states like Virginia to consider leaving only to wind up at war?

And what might this mean for the USA, other than a mocking laugh of vindication heard round the world? If it was the more moderate states facing war over secession might states like Arkansas or Tennessee seek to return to the Union? And how would France or the UK respond if they had paid a price in relations with the US, after the CSA won some battle which could not be reversed rather than the dramatic intervention some see as plausible, only to see a real chance of the US slowly reclaiming the CSA bit by bit?
 
Grimm,

I've got a steampunk TL featuring a surviving Confederacy in which Tennessee bolts back to the Union at some point, Texas (and some associated ex-Mexican territories) go independent, and Virginia is only kept in the Confederacy by force of arms.

The TL also has steam-powered Mecha, airships, and air pirates based in Afghanistan-like Arkanas and the Indian Territory. :)
 
I’ve heard this, but have been unable to find any evidence that backs it.

Robert William Fogel (1989): "Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery". Particularly chapter 4, "The development of the Southern economy".

There's more detailed information in other works by Fogel and associates, such as Fogel & Engerman (1974) "Time on the Cross: The economics of American Negro slavery".

1860 Census Data shows the south produced 8% of the total US manufacturing. By 1870, that had dropped to 5%.

The 1860 (and 1850) US census data underrepresents Southern manufacturing. It turns out (as per Fogel) that the US census data for the mid-nineteenth century was rather haphazard and inconsistent as to what it classified as "agriculture" and what it classified as "manufacturing".

For instance, sugar factories were typically larger than textile mills, and rice-cleaning mills in the South were larger than grain or flour mills in the North, yet in the 1850 and 1860 censuses, most sugar and rice cleaning was classed as "agriculture", while grain and flour mills in the North were classed as "manufacturing".

Or the treatment of handicrafts such as blacksmithing or other artisan crafts. In the North, the census always classified blacksmiths etc as manufacturing - whether rural or urban. In the South, rural (slave) blacksmiths and other artisans on plantations were classified as agriculture.

Correcting for this removes about half of the industrial gap between the North and the South. Offhand, I don't know what that would make the South's percentage of US manufacturing in 1860, but it would be a lot higher than 8%.
 
Jared,you haven't established that the facilities for cleaning sugar or rice were of the slightest industrial use at any other purpose, nor that rural blacksmiths, north or south, were remotely comparable to urban blacksmiths.

More importantly none of that establishes that the CSA industrial disadvantage against the USA should actually be discounted by half.
 
Jared,you haven't established that the facilities for cleaning sugar or rice were of the slightest industrial use at any other purpose,

Nor were the flour and grain mills in the North, yet all of those were factories. It's just that in the US censuses of 1850 and 1860 (corrected in later censuses, afaik), flour and grain mills - located in rural areas, and useful for no other industrial purpose - were classified as manufacturing. Yet in the South, sugar refineries and rice-cleaning mills - located in rural areas, and mostly not much use for any other rural purposes - were classified as agriculture. Either both of them were manufacturing, or neither were, which is the point Fogel made.

Come to that, it may not be quite true that sugar factories (or at least their workers) can't be retooled for other purposes. These weren't factories for cleaning sugar, they were steam-driven factories for refining sugar, complete with artisans, experienced workers, etc. Sugar factories might be retoolable, or at the very least their support infrastructure (ie the people who make and maintain the steam presses etc) might be. But that's a minor point.

nor that rural blacksmiths, north or south, were remotely comparable to urban blacksmiths.

Maybe rural blacksmiths weren't comparable to urban blacksmiths, although I wouldn't count on that - a lot of industry at this point, in the North and the South, was quite decentralised. Less so in the north-eastern states than the rest of the country, but true of most industry in the states west of the Appalachians, whether North or South.

But that's beside the point. The point was that quoting the raw census data that shows the South had only 8% of the US manufacturing base in 1860 is not accurate, since the classification categories were inconsistent.

More importantly none of that establishes that the CSA industrial disadvantage against the USA should actually be discounted by half.

It's fairly straightforward. Either rural blacksmiths and rural crop-working factories are involved in manufacturing, or they're not. If they are manufacturing, then rural blacksmiths (and other rural artisans), sugar refineries, rice-cleaning mills, and othey are part of the South's manufacturing base, and they should be counted.

Or if rural blacksmiths and rural crop-working factories are not manufacturing, then Northern grain and flour mills, and northern rural blacksmiths, should not be counted as manufacturing.

Personally, I'd count all of them as manufacturing (as per William Fogel). All of these require industrial or proto-industrial skills, some experience with machine tools, other supporting skilled workers and infrastructure, etc. The grain and flour mills of the North were one part of the spread of industrialisation there, and the rice mills and sugar refineries (especially steam-driven ones) were similarly part of the spread of industrialisation in the South.

Either way, though, the disparity between the manufacturing bases of the North and the South is a lot less than 12:1.
 
I wonder how the north would be sans Texian oil. The north would be left with Oil from Pennsylvania and Californian and would need to start importing earlier or get power from other sources, coal maybe. The Texas Oil Boom would aslo have a larger impact on the smaller south.
 
Robert William Fogel (1989): "Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery". Particularly chapter 4, "The development of the Southern economy".

There's more detailed information in other works by Fogel and associates, such as Fogel & Engerman (1974) "Time on the Cross: The economics of American Negro slavery".

Fogel's work has been rather controversial and criticized for the data used (or not used) and the conclusions drawn.


The 1860 (and 1850) US census data underrepresents Southern manufacturing. It turns out (as per Fogel) that the US census data for the mid-nineteenth century was rather haphazard and inconsistent as to what it classified as "agriculture" and what it classified as "manufacturing".

Correcting for this removes about half of the industrial gap between the North and the South. Offhand, I don't know what that would make the South's percentage of US manufacturing in 1860, but it would be a lot higher than 8%.

I expect Fogel was counting all of the slaveholding states as opposed to just those which formed the Confederacy. By the 1860 US Census, the total slaveholding states produced 15% of total US manufactured goods. To be the 4th largest industrial power, that's going to require 48% of all US manufacturing be from slaveholding states.

I personally doubt that over 2/3rds of all southern industrial production was incorrectly reported as agriculture by the 1860 Census.

Also, the CSA does not have all of the slaveholding states and those states that formed the CSA only have 8% of the total manufacturing listed in the 1860 Census. Even if we assume 2/3rds of all southern industry was incorrectly listed as agriculture, that still gives the CSA only 26% of the industrial base that the USA has.

Based on those assumptions, an independent CSA would be the 7th largest industrial power in the world.

Of course, that doesn't take into account the damage to CSA manufacturing capability that would occur during the war.
 
I wonder how the north would be sans Texian oil. The north would be left with Oil from Pennsylvania and Californian and would need to start importing earlier or get power from other sources, coal maybe. The Texas Oil Boom would aslo have a larger impact on the smaller south.

The oil boom doesn't start until about 1900. By that point Texas may no longer be part of the CSA. I expect it would draw a significant number of poor whites from other parts of the CSA, which could cause economic problems and political tensions. Considering this is also the same time the boll weevil is spreading across the CSA cotton fields, that could get rather messy.
 

Warsie

Banned
Grimm,

I've got a steampunk TL featuring a surviving Confederacy in which Tennessee bolts back to the Union at some point, Texas (and some associated ex-Mexican territories) go independent, and Virginia is only kept in the Confederacy by force of arms.

The TL also has steam-powered Mecha, airships, and air pirates based in Afghanistan-like Arkanas and the Indian Territory. :)

post the link please.
 
I think Kentucky and the Indian Territory are likely to end up in the CSA after the war, most of KY wanted to leave and it will be a difficult task to keep that state in the Union. The CSA will have an industrial base on an axis from Birmingham, AL to Atlanta, GA to about Greensville, SC connected by railways. There was a banking system in the South but it was focused on New Orleans, which was taken so early in the war as to eliminate it from playing a part in the Southern war effort. Southern industry will grow, though not at the rate of the Great Lakes or New England.

I see a Western nationalism potentially emerging, the divide at the Rockies will be exacerbated with the South now outside of the country and the areas around California and Utah might decide they could do better on their own eventually. I do not see them seceding per se but do see an increased awareness that they are the future of the country and perhaps see a few state-based or regional political parties emerging. There will be expansion by the Confederacy though, especially into Cuba, probably into northern Mexico (they met with the governors of the border states from Tamapulias to Sonora in the late 1861 timeframe and at least one was ready to join before the ARizona situation came up). I could see adventures into Central America as well, eventually we see a smattering of grey in Latin America. Cuba certainly, perhaps the Yucatan and Hispanola, and possibly Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Guatemala, El Salvarod, the old Republic of the Rio Grande, and Honduras as well.

Slavery will not last into the 20th century. Britain offered recognition of the Confederacy in 1862 if they would abandon slavery and they said no. But if cut off from trade with Europe it will die quietly, perhaps on the eve of the 20th century or 1890. Brazil will become an ally as will the Boer Republics so long as it does not interfere with the UK. US naval power will be expanded while the Confederacy will focus on submarines as much as surface craft. I could also see more military innovations on both sides, perhaps the Mondragon rifle is "borrowed" and its quirks fixed to allow a semi-auto battle rifle by 1910. I figure the US and CSA have a good war left between them but not sure as to when it will happen. If the observers in the Franco-Prussian war think it is bloody enough we might avoid dragging a European war to North American soil, but I doubt it. The US will experience a great deal of immigration but I think the South will see a lot of population increase by natural means, and the South will be more religiously inclined than the North for better or worse.

By the 20th century I see a South coming into its own with the oil industry booming and cheap labor allowing for faster industrialization by Northern automakers who are not willing to risk union labor riots, allowing states like Arkansas, Mississippi, and Kentucky to build a respective industrial base of their own. Engineering will take on special prominence in Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama because of the industries there. Overall the standard of living might not be as high as the north but it is much better than most of the rest of the world. Using World War I as a cutoff point, if only because I'm not sure what the 20th century would look like and whether a full war would be brought to North America, I see a Confederacy of 16-20 states (Cuba and three to seven others in Latin America) with electrification moving throughout the country if only slowly and automobiles starting to appear as they do in the US. Education is more difficult to obtain for the poor but not impossible if the parents are willing to help with it. Industrial output is at 5th-8th place globally behind the the UK, US, Germany, France, and perhaps Italy or Russia. While not entirely self-sufficient the CSA does well enough for itself. Mississippi is becoming a banking haven as is Florida due to their very Libertarian laws, which are drawing international wealth seeking to avoid taxes from elsewhere. CSA submarines are as advanced as anyone else's in the world and perhaps as good as German technology in the early 1920s due to increased emphasis on research.

Otherwise there are variables and it is not a perfect world but a victorious CSA is not floundering as some would think.
 
A bit optimistic, I would say. Just a bit.

The cost of militarily-capable ships is going up. The Confederacy's tax revenue in 1860 might pay for one dreadnought, but they're going to need more than one, and they'll need to spend tax revenue elsewhere.

In my steampunk TL, I depict the Confederacy successfully snarfing northern Mexico, but their attempt to invade Cuba turns into a disaster.
 
I think Kentucky and the Indian Territory are likely to end up in the CSA after the war, most of KY wanted to leave and it will be a difficult task to keep that state in the Union.

In OTL, most of Kentucky had no desire to fight for the Confederacy. This was shown repeatedly when Confederate Armies invaded the state expecting volunteers to flock to the colors. Far from obtaining Kentucky, an independent CSA is going to be lucky to keep Arkansas and Tennessee.

Indian Territory was deeply divided with forces fighting on both the Union and Confederate sides, but it did seem slightly more pro-Confederate. Expect this to last until a Confederate leader proposes a new Trail of Tears or even enslavement of the Indians.

The CSA will have an industrial base on an axis from Birmingham, AL to Atlanta, GA to about Greensville, SC connected by railways.

The Confederate industrial base was in the border states. Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina combined had less industry than Virginia.

The Confederate rail system was falling apart long before Union armies started marching through the deep south. The Confederate government dictated rates to the railroads, which meant the railroads were unable to properly maintain or replace rails or rolling stock. It will take years for the railroads to be restored to pre-war operating condition.

There was a banking system in the South but it was focused on New Orleans, which was taken so early in the war as to eliminate it from playing a part in the Southern war effort.

New Orleans was the only part of the Confederate banking system with much hard currency, but most of that was gone before New Orleans fell. Confederate fiscal policy led to runaway inflation and massive public debts.

Southern industry will grow, though not at the rate of the Great Lakes or New England.

An unintended effect of the Union blockade was it provided protectionism for Confederate industry. Post-war, Confederate industry will have compete with foreign manufactures. Also the CSA military’s post-war need for manufactured goods will drop dramatically. Confederate industry is in for some rocky times in the first years after the war.

There will be expansion by the Confederacy though, especially into Cuba, probably into northern Mexico (they met with the governors of the border states from Tamapulias to Sonora in the late 1861 timeframe and at least one was ready to join before the ARizona situation came up). I could see adventures into Central America as well, eventually we see a smattering of grey in Latin America. Cuba certainly, perhaps the Yucatan and Hispanola, and possibly Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Guatemala, El Salvarod, the old Republic of the Rio Grande, and Honduras as well.

The population of none of these states want to be Confederate. Most are rife with tropical diseases that will kill Confederates in droves. The Confederacy does not have and cannot afford a blue-water navy. In OTL, all Confederate attempts to acquire enemy territory failed miserably. Every one of these risks US involvement, leading to a two-front war for the Confederacy. Most risk war with a major European power.

Mexico has a larger free population than the Confederacy and cannot be blockaded by them. If the French are still in Mexico, things get really sticky for the Confederates.

The only certain thing about an attempt to seize Cuba is that Spain has a real navy, is significantly more powerful, and has historical claim to a lot of the Confederacy.

The one thing that could be counted on to get Central America to work together was invasion by pro-slavery forces, typically with passive support by the British. This is the best chance the Confederacy has for acquiring foreign territory, but it will take a lot longer to pacify than the Confederates expect.

The Confederacy cannot afford the blood and treasure for any of these foreign ventures, but I expect them to try for at least some of these. Odd are highly in favor of Confederate failure, and even if they succeed the main product of these colonies will be dead Confederates.

Slavery will not last into the 20th century. Britain offered recognition of the Confederacy in 1862 if they would abandon slavery and they said no. But if cut off from trade with Europe it will die quietly, perhaps on the eve of the 20th century or 1890.

If the Confederacy resists British pressure to end slavery as long as OTL’s Brazil, then the Confederacy will end slavery in the 1920s. Of course, Brazil hadn’t fought a war to preserve slavery nor made emancipation illegal in their Constitution, so the 1920s is probably optimistic for an end to Confederate slavery.

The Brazilian government was overthrown when it ended slavery. The Confederate government was founded on the idea that any state can leave at any time for any reason. At a minimum, this will result in more reactionary states leaving the Confederacy.

Brazil will become an ally as will the Boer Republics so long as it does not interfere with the UK.

What do Brazil and the Boers gain from this?

US naval power will be expanded while the Confederacy will focus on submarines as much as surface craft.

The Hunley killed a lot more Confederates than Unionists.

]I figure the US and CSA have a good war left between them but not sure as to when it will happen.

The Confederacy is unlikely to survive a second war with the Union. Either side could have a real or imagined cause at any point after the signing of the peace.

The US will experience a great deal of immigration but I think the South will see a lot of population increase by natural means, and the South will be more religiously inclined than the North for better or worse.

Natural population increase in the Union would be comparable to the Confederacy. Immigration heavily favors the Union.. Better economic opportunities will lead to many southerners, particularly pro-Union ones, emigrating to the US.

The Confederacy will probably be more religiously conservative than the Union. Nothing but Confederate mythology indicates they were more religiously inclined.

By the 20th century I see a South coming into its own with the oil industry booming and cheap labor allowing for faster industrialization by Northern automakers who are not willing to risk union labor riots, allowing states like Arkansas, Mississippi, and Kentucky to build a respective industrial base of their own.

Kentucky was never part of the Confederacy and in 1860 had a better industrial base than the 2nd and 3rd most industrialized states of the CSA. By the time the oil boom hits, there’s a good chance Arkansas and Texas aren’t Confederate any more.

In period, cheap labor went where the factories were.. Union manufacturers will not be moving factories to the Confederacy, they’ll be using cheap southern labor as scabs in Detroit, Chicago, and Pittsburgh.

Overall the standard of living might not be as high as the north but it is much better than most of the rest of the world.

If we only look at the white population of the Confederacy, that’s probably true until the boll weevil hits. If anything resembling the Depression occurs, they’re in real trouble. A Confederate government is going to be less inclined to attempt job-creation programs than the Hoover administration.

Using World War I as a cutoff point, if only because I'm not sure what the 20th century would look like and whether a full war would be brought to North America, I see a Confederacy of 16-20 states (Cuba and three to seven others in Latin America) with electrification moving throughout the country if only slowly and automobiles starting to appear as they do in the US.

At independent Confederacy will be lucky have still have 11 at the end of the ACW. (At the least, Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennessee will be smaller than at the start of the war, likely also Louisiana and Mississippi. Foreign ventures are more likely to result in loss of Confederate territory than the gain of new states. And every political, military, or economic issue risks the Confederacy losing states.

By 1914 the putative Confederacy could be down to Alabama (minus the pro-Union northern counties, Georgia (also minus the pro-Union northern counties), and Florida (minus the parts taken by the Spanish when the Confederacy tried to invade Cuba.) Best case, they’ve also got Mississippi (minus the Union controlled counties near the Mississippi River) and South Carolina (after unsuccessfully attempting to go it as an independent state).and maybe an rebellion-plagued territory or two (not state) in the Caribbean or Central America.

Education is more difficult to obtain for the poor but not impossible if the parents are willing to help with it.

The spirit is willing, but the pocketbook is weak. Most white Confederates will get no more than a grade school education. Many won't get that much.

Industrial output is at 5th-8th place globally behind the the UK, US, Germany, France, and perhaps Italy or Russia. While not entirely self-sufficient the CSA does well enough for itself.

How does it achieve this?

Mississippi is becoming a banking haven as is Florida due to their very Libertarian laws, which are drawing international wealth seeking to avoid taxes from elsewhere.

In OTL the Confederacy dictated wage and prices. They forced railroads to carry government cargoes at a loss and ships to carry government cargoes for free. They drafted workers to prevent strikes and force businesses to complete government contracts. By 1863 there were more bureaucrats in Richmond than in Washington. The Confederate government funded itself by massive deficit spending and runaway inflation. They confiscated civilian firearms, instituted internal passports, and tried to institute Prohibition.

Which of those would a Libertarian support?

CSA submarines are as advanced as anyone else's in the world and perhaps as good as German technology in the early 1920s due to increased emphasis on research.

By 1914 the Confederates should be able to build submarines better at killing the enemy than their own forces, but they would lack the industrial and engineering base to be cutting edge.

Otherwise there are variables and it is not a perfect world but a victorious CSA is not floundering as some would think.

How do they pay off $2.7 billion in public debt with yearly government revenues of $65 million? How do they get a stable currency? What do they do about the 10% of their white draft-age men being in the Union army? How do they deal with the pro-Union guerrillas? What do they do about 1/7th of their slaves having run away?
 
Last edited:
If it did survive, it would be the world's first Fascist state, years before Mussoloni. Judging by all the government intervention, you would see corporatist economics arise in an attempt to pay off the debt. All the cultural values are there, as is the necessity.

This will have interesting repercussions when whatever the equivalent of World War 1 and 2 arrive. Somehow, I don't think Fascism can take off seeing how the world has an example of it, and that place is a total hellhole by now.
 
Fiver: I would recommend you do some more reading about Kentucky in the Civil War, the state was *very* deeply divided and sent lots of troops to Confederate armies. The journals I have read indicate that Louisville, Owensboro, and Covington were more pro-Union but just about the rest of the state leaned Confederatem especially in the early part of the war. Remember that the state came very close to secession as well and its governor tried hard to make that happen.

As for industry, the Birmingham-Atlanta-Greenville axis will be central to the rest of the nation, close to several water sources, and close to raw materials. Industries near the border are nice but not good for security, so while some may move others will want a fresh start in areas that can minimize transportation costs. Also Confederate interests will allow for some Confederate insutry to thrive starting with steelworks, cotton/textile mills, and small-scale industries then branching out from there.

Confederate fiscal policy had a paucity of hard currency because it was taken early in the war, but New Orleans fell before the major bouts of inflation hit. Remember, the Union will exist after the war regardless, but the Confederacy was fighting for its existance - every loss hurt the credit of the nation and eventually the printing presses showed that.

As for expansion, Cuba's planter elite and the governors of several Mexican states will sympathize with the Confederacy, so incorporation of those territories will not be so difficult as you may think. Tamapulias, Nuevo Leon, and Coahuila will not be tough to get if the South plays its cards right. Cuba might be tricker but Spain would be fighting more than some local rebels, their small arms advantage with the Mauser seen in the Spanish-American war would also not be in place at that time.

If you like I can suggest a few other books or resources for you that might give you a better idea of the facts, there is no reason why the Southern states would be in such dire straits as you imagine barring a victory-by-treaty in early/mid 1865.
 
Top