Confederate Independence: How powerful is the US?

The bulk of American wealth and power for most of its history from the Civil War to the mid-20th century was the American North and American West. These were the areas where most growth occurred and most immigration directed itself.

Let's say the Confederates succeed in breaking away, but Tennessee, Northern Virginia, Northern Arkansas, and the Florida Keys remain American (ergo and 1862/1863 peace) and the Mississippi River is declared an international waterway.

How powerful is the US in this situation? I imagine it'd dominate its politically unstable southern neighbor pretty handily even without direct reconquest. The US here probably will be more incentivized to maintain a larger standing army and larger Navy and could probably afford to do so with the money that it historically spent on reconstruction going toward the military here.

If Grant is US President here, the US may end up with Santo Domingo TTL, which has the plus of giving the US a significant naval center but the downside of having an insurgency to handle for a short while.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
This was covered in some (very) old threads, I believe.
US industrial growth would be slowed down by having a smaller internal market.
Also, the money from cash crop exports from CSA would not be used to buy US made manufactured goods, but spent on British or other European goods.
So, subtract the south from the US total in 1860 and then slow down growth by 25-30%. Which is very inaccurate and a "guesstimate" at best, and "ass-pull" at worst, I admit.
Look at 1914 USA and subtract one third of the GDP?
 
As petroleum emerged in Pennsylvania in the Civil War era, this resource would be well recognized in the North. But by the end of the 19th century, Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma [territory] would see the petroleum boom. No doubt USA businessmen would secure mineral rights in the South before the CSA realized their value.
 
Well the South exported cotton and other cash crops to the north. No reason they won't here, especially as even a rudimentary rail system will make overland trade much faster than it was before.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
As petroleum emerged in Pennsylvania in the Civil War era, this resource would be well recognized in the North. But by the end of the 19th century, Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma [territory] would see the petroleum boom. No doubt USA businessmen would secure mineral rights in the South before the CSA realized their value.
Indeed. All the smart businessmen were in the North.
And it is improbable for the CSA Gov't using Eminent Domain if necessary to regain those mineral rights.
 
Somewhere in the vicinity of 70-80% as powerful as it was IOTL for the remainder of the 19th Century, although relative to the Confederacy would be a bit different. Eventually, if we presume a course roughly OTL, by the mid to late 20th Century it will probably be 50% less powerful.
 
As petroleum emerged in Pennsylvania in the Civil War era, this resource would be well recognized in the North. But by the end of the 19th century, Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma [territory] would see the petroleum boom. No doubt USA businessmen would secure mineral rights in the South before the CSA realized their value.

Issue is, the oil in Texas was discovered by a stubborn Ohioan who kept sniffing around areas other folks kept telling him had no oil. Odds are Texan oil might not be discovered at all. Meanwhile Oklahoma is American here.


Indeed. All the smart businessmen were in the North.
And it is improbable for the CSA Gov't using Eminent Domain if necessary to regain those mineral rights.

I could see the CSA turning into something of a Peronist state over time. Folks like Wade Hampton and Benjamin Tillman rising through the ranks seems likely as the country falters.

Somewhere in the vicinity of 70-80% as powerful as it was IOTL for the remainder of the 19th Century, although relative to the Confederacy would be a bit different. Eventually, if we presume a course roughly OTL, by the mid to late 20th Century it will probably be 50% less powerful.

Interesting. I think we might see much more of the southern population (loyalists, poor whites, and blacks) make a Great migration north TTL, and there were a number of immigrants to Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas historically (Germans, Czechs, Italians, Poles, and Jews) who'd probably go to the US here instead.

-------

As for the subject of the US lacking as large an internal market, what's to say that the North won't play hardball with the CSA in either banning/taxing their Cotton unless they open their market OR opening the market by force like with China and various Latin American nations?
 
Last edited:

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
As for the subject of the US lacking as large an internal market, what's to say that the North won't play hardball with the CSA in either banning/taxing their Cotton unless they open their market OR opening the market by force like with China and various Latin American nations?
Sorry, but ...
Tax? How? It's a different country.
Ban? The CSA has other buyers. While the USA has to import from half a world a world away. Until there is some sort of "boycott slave-gathered cotton" movement in Europe it is shooting yourself in the foot.
Force open? So - a new costly war? Congress will love such an idea ... the CSA is a bit stronger than various Latin American countries and is adjectant to the USA.
 
Sorry, but ...
Tax? How? It's a different country.
Ban? The CSA has other buyers. While the USA has to import from half a world a world away. Until there is some sort of "boycott slave-gathered cotton" movement in Europe it is shooting yourself in the foot.
Force open? So - a new costly war? Congress will love such an idea ... the CSA is a bit stronger than various Latin American countries and is adjectant to the USA.

Tax, as in tariffs. It'd be an import tax.

Ban? The Europeans (Britain in particular) abhorred slavery and following the Civil War there was a boom in Egyptian and Indian Grown Cotton. Europe could pretty easily get Cotton from other supporters. The US still has Tennessee, Missouri, and Northern Arkansas here and could conceivably grow its own (free labor) cotton and I'm sure those producers would lobby hard in favor of tariffs on the CSA's Cotton.

Force open... yes. The US would even within a decade be far stronger than the CSA which would have A LOT of internal issues and even without direct conflict the North has plenty of means for pressuring the south (Unionist southerners tended to live in the geographic area most suited for guerilla conflict, the north could support slave revolts, etc). The disparity between the north and south in terms of industrial strength and wealth would only continue to grow over time and TTL it'd be even greater than OTL.

As long as the US isn't trying to completely reconquer the south, it really wouldn't take much effort on the part of the US to quickly occupy the bulk of the CSA's major ports (Norfolk, Wilmington NC, Charleston, Mobile, New Orleans, Galveston... done) and the Sea Islands and just sit there until it gets what it wants. It's not like gunboat diplomacy always involved total occupation of a country. Plus between the bluffs of Memphis, Red River, Ouachitas, Red River, and Appalachians the US can secure its own border on land fairly easily.
 
Last edited:
As for the subject of the US lacking as large an internal market, what's to say that the North won't play hardball with the CSA in either banning/taxing their Cotton unless they open their market OR opening the market by force like with China and various Latin American nations?
Tax? How? It's a different country.
I presume he means an import tariff on Confederate cotton. What he doesn't realise is that that kind of tariff will make cotton more expensive to Union manufacturers, but no more expensive to anybody else in the world. The same goes for the Union banning it: all that means is that there's more Confederate cotton for other countries to use.

The US here probably will be more incentivized to maintain a larger standing army and larger Navy and could probably afford to do so with the money that it historically spent on reconstruction going toward the military here.
This is an open question to the thread, because I haven't been able to find good figures: how much money did the US (and by the US, I mean the Federal government and the Northern states) actually spend on Reconstruction? Presumably a considerable amount of the burden was taken up at the state level and funded by state property taxes or borrowing. Federal tax revenues came from tariffs and income tax (and therefore would be lower without the South), but were spent largely on pensions for Union veterans (with Confederate veterans being paid by their states) and repayment of Federal bonds (of which the majority were held by Northern citizens). This is an important question, because if there's no net fiscal transfer (or even a fiscal transfer out of the South), then there isn't any extra money to spend on the military without raising taxes or tariffs.
 
Last edited:
Probably weak. Escaped slaves will go to the north. When it comes time to vote, the e-slave descendants will push the USA towards trying to free CSA slaves. USA either wins a costly reconquest war or they will do stuff like embargos or whatever to put pressure and this drains USA resources that could be spent doing something more important for the North's economy. Heck, even a tax break would have the money better spent than trying to put pressure on the south from the perspective of "get power now" although the latter might be arguably better use for the sake of morality if it results in freed slaves or at least "nicer" treatment (if pressure on the CSA does neither, then that money is pretty much down the tubes being wasted from a geopolitical perspective and not relieving suffering whatsoever)
 
Here's a tidbit I thought about: The Chinese Exclusion Act

The Act historically passed the House with 69 Republican votes, 202 Democratic votes, and 51 Congressmen not voting.

The Act passed the Senate with 9 Republican votes, 22 Democratic votes, and 29 Senators opting not to vote at all.

Most Democrats at the time came from the south, so naturally there'd be fewer Democrats to push for the act. If the Chinese Exclusion Act doesn't happen (which I think it may not) the US population may be far larger and thus US economic strength would be greater.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
Here's a tidbit I thought about: The Chinese Exclusion Act
The Act historically passed the House with 69 Republican votes, 202 Democratic votes, and 51 Congressmen not voting.
The Act passed the Senate with 9 Republican votes, 22 Democratic votes, and 29 Senators opting not to vote at all.
Most Democrats at the time came from the south, so naturally there'd be fewer Democrats to push for the act. If the Chinese Exclusion Act doesn't happen (which I think it may not) the US population may be far larger and thus US economic strength would be greater.
I am not sure if sch direct comparisons are fair. Without the States now in the CSA - surely US internal politics would be different? With different R and D?

BTW - what rises as the "other party" in the CSA?
 
As long as the US isn't trying to completely reconquer the south, it really wouldn't take much effort on the part of the US to quickly occupy the bulk of the CSA's major ports (Norfolk, Wilmington NC, Charleston, Mobile, New Orleans, Galveston... done) and the Sea Islands and just sit there until it gets what it wants. It's not like gunboat diplomacy always involved total occupation of a country. Plus between the bluffs of Memphis, Red River, Ouachitas, Red River, and Appalachians the US can secure its own border on land fairly easily.

The feasibility of military intervention depends to a large degree on what the rest of the world would think of it. Since the most plausible ways for the CSA to win involve foreign intervention of some kind, it's quite possible that an independent South would have European military backing, which would make sending in the troops a much bigger commitment for the US.
 
I am not sure if sch direct comparisons are fair. Without the States now in the CSA - surely US internal politics would be different? With different R and D?

BTW - what rises as the "other party" in the CSA?

Yeah, for the US the same Democrat vs Republican split likely won't remain, but I think the broader point holds that southern democrats did disproportionately support certain policies, Chinese Exclusion being one of them.

In the US, I could see a "Liberal Party" emerging as a result of the 1872 election, although the populist/greenback/silver republican movement may pop up later as a western force and it'd be an open question who they eventually merge in to or if they replace one of the parties.

In the Confederacy, they actually had elections during the war. The 1863 election had two factions called Proadministration and Antiadministration, but they weren't formal parties.

Virginia's 1863 Gubernatorial Election involved Three Democratic Candidates. My money is that you'd have the Democrats and another party (perhaps called Whigs). I think the Red Shirts may pop up as a movement still, likely in opposition to the Democrats here.
 
The feasibility of military intervention depends to a large degree on what the rest of the world would think of it. Since the most plausible ways for the CSA to win involve foreign intervention of some kind, it's quite possible that an independent South would have European military backing, which would make sending in the troops a much bigger commitment for the US.

There's OTL evidence that the rest of the world didn't care much when the US mucked around and bullied its neighbors, so I think by the 1870s the US will have a free hand to do as it likes.
 
Issue is, the oil in Texas was discovered by a stubborn Ohioan who kept sniffing around areas other folks kept telling him had no oil. Odds are Texan oil might not be discovered at all. Meanwhile Oklahoma is American here.

Someone would have discovered oil in Texas one way or the other. Possibly British oilmen since in many ways the surviving CSA would have been a British client state.
 
There's OTL evidence that the rest of the world didn't care much when the US mucked around and bullied its neighbors, so I think by the 1870s the US will have a free hand to do as it likes.

IOTL the rest of the world hadn't been responsible for securing those neighbours' independence. Plus, it really depends on how the butterflies go. If, for example, the CSA ends up turning into essentially a British or Anglo-French client state, there's no way those countries would be fine with the US mucking around with their new puppet.
 
Top