Blue Max, it wasn't t he issue of slavery that caused Britain to stay out of the war, it was that Lincoln made IT the war. Up till the EmancProc, the ACW was about Federal Government over States' or States' over Government's.
Which is why the CS Constitution explicitly prevented free states from joining this Jeffersonian paradise, is it?
1. Anyway, I think that Britain and France would help the South recover quickly when (if) it became a country with cotton, tobacco, etc. despite slavery. And since those BIG nations are involved, I don't think much, if not any, international problems would come about. However, internal problems are a whole different matter. 3 should say what would happen decently.
Actually there was a bumper crop of cotton in 1859 and by the time that became relevant Egypt and India gave Britain the same amount. Of course if the South decides to willfully *not* use cotton to finance itself thinking it can blackmail the British Empire......that's geopolitics of the Harry Harrison sort. And did not work.
2. The above just about summed up this. Cotton mainly started to decline because the Union's blockade cut about 5 million yearly exports of the crop to Britain. If the South won, I'd think cotton would resupply rather quickly.
On the contrary, the British Empire stepped in to fill the void of OTL, and no POD will ever give the CSA a snowball's chance in Hell of matching the Raj as a source of cotton.
3. I combined 3 and 4 because they're the same. Thing is, states could secede from the South if they wanted to. That could cause some serious problems. And what would happen to Maryland if the South won the war? Maybe it would be one of the spoils. The Missouri and Kentucky problems are strange too. A peaceful matter would be a delegation to decide which side to lean towards. The other is a civil war in those states (like Bleeding Kansas!). Since blacks were growing in population all over the deep south, something would have to be done to either decrease their population or increase the whites'.
1) No, actually I don't think this is something that would happen in the real world. The CSA would have discovered hypocrisy on this issue faster than you could shake a stick at it. ITOL it already assumed vaster, more wide-sweeping power over its citizens than Lincoln did. If foreign intervention makes it possible the USA *will* treat it as India-Pakistan, meaning there's nothing good for the CSA to do and the options range from merely "bad" to "clusterfuck".
(1) Ever read Harry Turtledove's Settling Acounts: The Grapple? If so, do you remember Camp Determination? If not, it was a
concentration camp to kill blacks. Even though that was in 1943, someone in the South may have developed the idea to eliminate the CSA's enemies.
Yeah, the state founded to protect slavery the institution is going to kill off 1/3 of its population whose status as slaves it spent so much in money and lives to secure? Improbable in the extreme barring replacing Jeff Davis's personality with that of Pol Pot.
(2) Let's say the Civil War had damaged the North more than the South. Because of Britain and France, the Confederacy swiftly recovers (or does not plunge the nation into depression). Davis organizes a policy to persuade his allies to stop all trade with AMerice (i.e. revenge). The Union plunges into depression, as the South seems to shine golden. Immigrants pay attention to this. Soon, Charleston, New Orleans, etc. become ports of entry. The islands off of North Carolina become like Ellis Island. White population greatly increases.
This is vanishingly unlikely. The USA could lose to the joint offensive, but there will always be the geopolitical reality that it's much easier for the USA to hurt the CSA than the other way around.
Though there were a number of challenges confronting the CSA, the first two would not be largely significant.
1. Slavery, despite being written into the CSA constitution, was a doomed institution. It would not have persisted into the 20th century for dozens of reasons, not the least of which being that a large percentage of Confederate higher-ups understood that, regardless of any aid you granted it, the institution would fall away naturally with time. Also considering that some sources say the Confederacy intended to have various methods of self-emancipating, and other anti-slavery programs to encourage the British and French to ally with them, it's doubtful CSA slavery would have lasted even as long as its Brazilian counterpart.
The CS Constitution made emancipation a virtual impossibility and forbade any kind of action to extend to industrialization. Slavery would be held to in the atavistic sense that the CSA was all about. And in fact I would not be surprised if the CSA and Brazil at least have some thought about a joint New World slaveholders' bloc as they're both the last two slaveholding nations in the New World.
2. The CSA was a sought after trade partner. Has the US not initiated a blockade, the CSA would have continued the trade associates it had prior to the war: Britain, France, Spain, Portugal and Russia were all recipients of future-CSA members' goods prior to the ACW. Furthermore, it's doubtful either state would maintain a large standing army, given the tradition of the time to rely more on a small, professional army to stall an attack, and a larger, volunteer force to repel it, which persisted in OTL into WWII. Furthermore, both Atlanta and Richmond were viable manufacturing cities, though admittedly not as potentially fruitful as Pittsburgh or Chicago, they were seen as prime markets for manufacturing, and had already opened a number of factories between the time of secession and the fall of the cities. Railroads, too were being made, planned to connect Atlanta to Texas. The US advance actually destroyed more southern factories and railroad lines then were produced by the North during the war.
The USA didn't maintain a large standing army because there was no nearby enemy that required one. An independent CSA due to West Virginia and fugitive slaves, not to mention the legacy of the War of Secession would be a completely different geopolitical ballgame. The taboo against a standing army would disappear with a hostile enemy right next door south of the Potomac. Due to the CS Constitution's prohibition of industrialization if it tries an arms race with the USA, it will lose.
The CSA may become an earlier USSR and collapse from inability to sustain itself over a long period of time, or there may be 2, possibly 3 US-CS Wars. There will in no circumstances be Confederate Blitzkrieg and a Philadelphia nukes after three prior wars.
3. Internal disputes could be handled in a number of ways. More often then not, it would fall to the two disputing states to decide upon a proper method, with the federal government only stepping in if there was a military engagement between the two, or if mediation was requested. Counter-secession is doubtful to occur, largely due to the shown propensity of the Union to attempt to retain lost states. It's doubtful any of the more Northern states would have seceded for fear of invasion, and the more southern states would be kept member by geographic ties (excluding Florida, which would have likely remained due to its reliance on the other member states for economic power).
This is more North Korea-South Korea or India-Pakistan than anything analogous to more harmonious break-ups. The USA will be getting a revanchist mindset and justifying the large standing army is easy with the CSA south of the Potomac. If it comes to that, too, the USA is much more able to afford a large standing army and pay for it than the CSA is, as the USA was already industrial and the CSA made industrialization and emancipation impossible bar a military putsch by liberal-minded CS officers (itself not very likely).
4. The pre-ACW south was actually prime for immigration. It got a large number of European immigrants in the 40's and 50's. The reason for the decline in post-ACW immigration to the South is due to the massive destruction and economic crippling of the South caused by Sherman's Total War, which burned millions of dollars in farmlands, railroads, and industrial buildings. Furthermore, it's likely the CSA would have turned to Mexico as a source of labor and numbers, as the relatively weak Mexican state would have presented a prime opportunity for expansion, for, despite it's stance of State's rights, like the rest of the country, the CSA believed strongly in expansion, and claimed New Mexico and Arizona territories as its own.
Not by comparison to the USA. And ITTL with the CSA an unstable society and the likelihood of creeping CS military takeovers of that society that's not going to encourage emigration. And at any moment the CSA's leaders decide Round II with the Yankees is a good idea they get smashed and absorbed back into the USA.