Confederate States of America: An Inviable Nation?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, North and South Korea still want re-united Korea after all these years and Ho Chih Minh was willing to oversee two wars and his successors finished a third to re-establish one Vietnam. For any alternate USA loss of the South would become a geopolitical obsession akin to the USSR's monomania about regaining the Baltic States and Finland.

Or France's loss of Alsace-Lorraine, or Germany's loss of the Polish Corridor. Or Ireland's claims on Ulster......that the USA would treat the CSA any different is not born out by history.

Your scenarios are not the same. Korea was divided up by the great powers and North Korea ended up under a joke of leadership. Alsace-Lorraine was taken by force of arms.

The situation is closer to India and Pakistan, since victory shall establish ethnicity. Flash forward to 1880 and 1890 and the bulk of the population have only ever known the CSA. It is going to be a radically different country to the USA.

Lets be honest, if it ends up the economically backwards racially-fractured state it seems most people reckon it shall end up why would the Union possibly want it back? For all the narratives of how the Union went to war to end slavery its not as if the Union was free of racists. Would they want to bring however many millions of blacks and southrons into their republic? The same sentiments which kept the US from annexing Mexico when it almost certainly could have done would probably come into play.
 
Your scenarios are not the same. Korea was divided up by the great powers and North Korea ended up under a joke of leadership. Alsace-Lorraine was taken by force of arms.

The situation is closer to India and Pakistan, since victory shall establish ethnicity. Flash forward to 1880 and 1890 and the bulk of the population have only ever known the CSA. It is going to be a radically different country to the USA.

Lets be honest, if it ends up the economically backwards racially-fractured state it seems most people reckon it shall end up why would the Union possibly want it back? For all the narratives of how the Union went to war to end slavery its not as if the Union was free of racists. Would they want to bring however many millions of blacks and southrons into their republic? The same sentiments which kept the US from annexing Mexico when it almost certainly could have done would probably come into play.

Why did Ho Chih Minh want South Vietnam back? Why do India and Pakistan continue to fight wars when the Partition was decades ago?

An independent CSA is equivalent to this, but on a rather different scale. The CSA-USA wars would be some pretty large wars in terms of sheer land area, and the USA's going to need a large military at this point because a hostile CSA is not the same thing as perpetually-in-civil-war Mexico. Mexico's civil wars as a rule don't have the possibility of spilling over into US soil. The legacy of things like the Contraband Policy and Sea Islander experiments and West Virginia mean the USA is arguably going to have every reason in the world to want a large military to dissuade the CSA from starting a war with it.

Build a large military opposed to another nation, particularly in a context where desire to re-establish the full USA will become tempting with that military intended to secure the border against the CSA, the CSA's likely continual security problems, ensue Great Reunification War.
 
And in any alternate CSA, the planters will resist tooth and nail industrialization with much greater effect without the USA states to help bolster Southern advocates of industrialization. I've never understood the rationale whereby a state of slaveholders, by slaveholders, for slaveholders, less the cornerstone of race-relations perish from the Earth suddenly turns into a miniature example of a society its victory over would seem to confirm, not disprove, the notion that slavery is a superior economic system to capitalism.

Someone may correct me here, but I don't believe the CSA thought they were fighting against capitalism. Indeed, they felt their very cause was to protect private property. Slaves were used pretty profitably in a handful of factories towars the end of the civil war. I think the profit motive would cause it to happen in an independent CSA - and without having to pay wages, they could have probably undercut a lot of US industry.

The real problem would be agglomerating large numbers of slaves together in urban areas, in a society that could have become 70% slaves. You'd see all sorts of violent uprisings, and potentially black republics.
 
Someone may correct me here, but I don't believe the CSA thought they were fighting against capitalism. Indeed, they felt their very cause was to protect private property. Slaves were used pretty profitably in a handful of factories towars the end of the civil war. I think the profit motive would cause it to happen in an independent CSA - and without having to pay wages, they could have probably undercut a lot of US industry.

The real problem would be agglomerating large numbers of slaves together in urban areas, in a society that could have become 70% slaves. You'd see all sorts of violent uprisings, and potentially black republics.

No, eh? So all that rhetoric about "Yankee hirelings" and "wage slavery" referred to what? The Southern elite had a complete disdain for industrial wage-labor systems, they thought of it in the pure, unalloyed Jeffersonian ideal as a degrading thing that amounted to one man being enslaved by another man and disqualifying one for a voice in public affairs.

If they win the Civil War it will have to be a short war, and a short victory over a much larger, wealthier, industrial state is not likely to bolster the victors' enthusiasm for a system they defeated once.
 
Build a large military opposed to another nation, particularly in a context where desire to re-establish the full USA will become tempting with that military intended to secure the border against the CSA, the CSA's likely continual security problems, ensue Great Reunification War.

Except that after a generation or two its like Germany annexing France. The French won't accept it and Germany cannot afford it.
 
As I posted elsewhere, Grant puts it well.
“The South was more to be benefited by its defeat than the North. [The North] had the people, the institutions, and the territory to make a great and prosperous nation. [The South] was burdened with an institution abhorrent to all civilized people not brought up under it, and one which degraded labor, kept it in ignorance, and enervated the governing class. With the outside world at war with this institution, they could not have extended their territory. The labor of the country was not skilled, nor allowed to become so. The whites could not toil without becoming degraded, and those who did were denominated “poor white trash.” The system of labor would have soon exhausted the soil and left the people poor. The non-slaveholders would have left the country, and the small slaveholder must have sold out to his more fortunate neighbor. Soon the slaves would have outnumbered the masters, and, not being in sympathy with them, would have risen in their might and exterminated them. The war was expensive to the South as well as to the North, both in blood and treasure, but it was worth all it cost.”
 
No, eh? So all that rhetoric about "Yankee hirelings" and "wage slavery" referred to what? The Southern elite had a complete disdain for industrial wage-labor systems, they thought of it in the pure, unalloyed Jeffersonian ideal as a degrading thing that amounted to one man being enslaved by another man and disqualifying one for a voice in public affairs.

I think they objected to the idea of white people being suppressed to such slavery-like conditions. I agree they disliked the idea of Jeffersonianism, but that's because they believed in aristocracy, something they saw as naturally compatible with a property-owning, free entreprise system. Do you really think they'd make a law to stop a planter opening a factory and using his slaves on an assembly line?

Also, the reason they disliked Whiggish federal-funded improvements was precisely because they saw it as an immoral appropriation of private capital (taxes) to do it.
 
Let's save everyone some time, because this always pops up when people have these debates every two weeks or so:



There is no "Thou shalt not industrialize" clause in the Confederate Constitution. That said, the clause quoted above sharply decreases the likelihood of any sort of successful industrialization by a victorious CSA.

It creates other roads and possibilities to industrialization. The path chosen by the protectionalist North is not the only way. One does not need interventionalist government to industrialize. There are many paths, some short and some long, to industrialization.
 
the small slaveholder must have sold out to his more fortunate neighbor

Is this true? Seems reminiscient of Marx predicting that the petty bourgeoisie would have to sell out to the rich and become proletariat, when of course the opposite happened with the expanding middle class...
 
I think they objected to the idea of white people being suppressed to such slavery-like conditions. I agree they disliked the idea of Jeffersonianism, but that's because they believed in aristocracy, something they saw as naturally compatible with a property-owning, free entreprise system. Do you really think they'd make a law to stop a planter opening a factory and using his slaves on an assembly line?

Also, the reason they disliked Whiggish federal-funded improvements was precisely because they saw it as an immoral appropriation of private capital (taxes) to do it.

Yeah, in my experience the Wigfall crowd wanted to lose the war instead of conceding the kind of industrialism a CSA that wins the required short, victorious war would have to adopt in what passes for peacetime. I don't think they'd make that law, but I also can't see the planters accepting the necessity for assembly lines. As North Korea and Zimbabwe show it's perfectly possible to run a country in dystopic fashion and CS leaders are definitely capable of the Mugabe school of statesmanship instead of possibly conceding the Yankees had a point. The CS constitution made emancipation impossible and the CSA lacks the capital to strongly industrialize. The USA leaving it be would be a Cruel Mercy.....
 
It creates other roads and possibilities to industrialization. The path chosen by the protectionalist North is not the only way. One does not need interventionalist government to industrialize. There are many paths, some short and some long, to industrialization.

There are only so many of them that are viable when a larger neighbor likely to adopt Revanchist ideas borders your country and has sufficient military power to re-absorb it.
 
Yeah, in my experience the Wigfall crowd wanted to lose the war instead of conceding the kind of industrialism a CSA that wins the required short, victorious war would have to adopt in what passes for peacetime. I don't think they'd make that law, but I also can't see the planters accepting the necessity for assembly lines. As North Korea and Zimbabwe show it's perfectly possible to run a country in dystopic fashion and CS leaders are definitely capable of the Mugabe school of statesmanship instead of possibly conceding the Yankees had a point. The CS constitution made emancipation impossible and the CSA lacks the capital to strongly industrialize. The USA leaving it be would be a Cruel Mercy.....

They DID use some industrialism, profitably, towards the end of the Civil War though. I agree they wouldn't emancipate, but, as mentioned, I don't see slavery and industrialism as mutually incompatible. As for capital, surely King Cotton made huge profits, no?
 
They DID use some industrialism, profitably, towards the end of the Civil War though. I agree they wouldn't emancipate, but, as mentioned, I don't see slavery and industrialism as mutually incompatible. As for capital, surely King Cotton made huge profits, no?

Nothing specifically makes slavery in general and industry mutually exclusive. Just the pseudo-aristocratic attitude of the overwhelming majority of large slave owners.

And King Cotton simply supported a land & slave rich, cash poor pseudo aristocracy, so in a word, no. Not in the sense of money available for investment.

Had the South acted differently in regards to this, it could have been different - but it is in many ways underdeveloped economically at this point thanks to the kind of economy slavery as it was used created.

Building up gunpowder mills and the like as a war time scramble to somehow win/survive won't change this very much.
 
Last edited:
Build a large military opposed to another nation, particularly in a context where desire to re-establish the full USA will become tempting with that military intended to secure the border against the CSA, the CSA's likely continual security problems, ensue Great Reunification War.

Nah, I see a Great Reunification War as extremely unlikely. The war is likely to have been a costly one for the Union, and any Northern politician suggesting a grand war of reconquest is going to be committing political suicide.

No, if the South becomes very weak, I see this as much more likely:

1. Border Confederate states begin blaming the core Southern states for the economic problems, slave revolts, or whatever else is going on.

2. Certain politicians in said southern border states will begin advocating succession from the Confederacy. (Meaning rejoining the Union) Nobody's going to have any illusions about setting up an independent state between the USA and CSA.

3. The political situation in said border states will reach a fever-pitch as people begin dividing along class, geographic, and ethnic lines in the debate. Bleeding Kansas-like violence will probably start to occur.

4. At this point, the USA will claim that the CSA is forcibly trying to keep the tumultuous states in the Confederacy, will declare war on the much weaker CSA, and will invade with the stated mission of "freeing" the states that are in turmoil.

5. Unless the USA has seriously misjudged the situation in the border states, the pro-Confederacy forces in said states will crumble fairly quickly and flee further south, allowing the Union army to secure the most union-leaning states with only sporadic opposition.

6. Emboldened by their successes and the weakness of the CSA, the USA will gobble up any state with even slight anti-confederate leanings, leaving a rump Confederacy consisting of the Deep South.

7. While the most warhawk-like members of Congress will declare that the Union ought to reconquer the entire Confederacy, the loss of the first war will be fresh in everyone's minds. The majority, not wanting to get bogged down in enemy territory or be stuck with endlessly rebellious states, will instead force the CSA to cede all Union-occupied states back to the USA in exchange for peace and a withdrawal from the Deep South. (the only remaining Confederate States left)

8. After the second war ends and decades pass, if the Deep South falls even deeper into economic problems, that's when you'd start hearing words like "American re-unification" being bandied around. If re-unification became a reality, it would come as much from the Confederate side as the Northern side. If the remaining southern states do re-join the USA, it'll be late, maybe 1920s or later, after the generations who fought the hated Union in the two wars have died.

Also, when the CSA first begins to falter, I'd expect Union agents to try and influence Texas to secede and form "The Republic of Texas" with the idea of eventually re-absorbing it into the Union. This would probably happen before the war.

And of course, this is all assuming a worse-case scenario for the CSA after a CSA-victory scenario.
 
They DID use some industrialism, profitably, towards the end of the Civil War though. I agree they wouldn't emancipate, but, as mentioned, I don't see slavery and industrialism as mutually incompatible. As for capital, surely King Cotton made huge profits, no?

In and of themselves there's no reason to assume they are not. In terms of Confederate ideology taken with the results of a CS victory (which of course will overlook the minor matter of how in 1862 the CSA won despite nearly being cut in two) there is that basic Catch-22.

Nothing specifically makes slavery in general and industry mutually exclusive. Just the pseudo-aristocratic attitude of the overwhelming majority of large slave owners.

And King Cotton simply supported a land & slave rich, cash poor pseudo aristocracy, so in a word, no. Not in the sense of money available for investment.

Had the South acted differently in regards to this, it could have been different - but it is in many ways underdeveloped economically at this point thanks to the kind of economy slavery as it was used created.

Building up gunpowder mills and the like as a war time scramble to somehow win/survive won't change this very much.

Precisely. The South of OTL was extraordinarily inventive and capable given what it had to work with. If it had more to work with it would have been moreso. In most ATLs bar something with the ruthlessness of Stalinist politicos there's not a chance in Church the CSA would maintain the power gap that exists in the 1860s or its equivalent.

Nah, I see a Great Reunification War as extremely unlikely. The war is likely to have been a costly one for the Union, and any Northern politician suggesting a grand war of reconquest is going to be committing political suicide.

The problem with that is the most costly war is a long one, but the South can't win a long war. Its best chance is the joint offensive in late 1862, meaning neither the South nor the North end up particularly bad-off.

No, if the South becomes very weak, I see this as much more likely:

Relative to the USA it will be. Globally an independent CSA may not be, but against a USA it will lose any round II and if it survives with most of its territory intact Round III will be the end of the CSA.

1. Border Confederate states begin blaming the core Southern states for the economic problems, slave revolts, or whatever else is going on.

The way OTL Southern states blame every state in the USA but the former Confederacy for an existing malaise that exists mainly due to political ideas advocated mostly by politicians from those states?

2. Certain politicians in said southern border states will begin advocating succession from the Confederacy. (Meaning rejoining the Union) Nobody's going to have any illusions about setting up an independent state between the USA and CSA.

Secession. And frankly they may very well try to. The secession of the Confederacy is historically improbable, and if such an event happens what's going to stop people from trying to out-Davis Davis?

3. The political situation in said border states will reach a fever-pitch as people begin dividing along class, geographic, and ethnic lines in the debate. Bleeding Kansas-like violence will probably start to occur.

Unlikely. The CSA's experiences even in a TL-191-style short war will encourage it to use the Regular Army to put a lid on this kind of thing before it goes too far.

4. At this point, the USA will claim that the CSA is forcibly trying to keep the tumultuous states in the Confederacy, will declare war on the much weaker CSA, and will invade with the stated mission of "freeing" the states that are in turmoil.

The CSA is not going to be able to remotely counter that, either.

5. Unless the USA has seriously misjudged the situation in the border states, the pro-Confederacy forces in said states will crumble fairly quickly and flee further south, allowing the Union army to secure the most union-leaning states with only sporadic opposition.

So Bleeding Kansas-style bloodshed and ensuing bitterness is forgotten *just* because someone invades? Doesn't work like that in the real world anywhere in the world.

6. Emboldened by their successes and the weakness of the CSA, the USA will gobble up any state with even slight anti-confederate leanings, leaving a rump Confederacy consisting of the Deep South.

Actually if they can go that far they'd simply gobble the whole thing in one go.

7. While the most warhawk-like members of Congress will declare that the Union ought to reconquer the entire Confederacy, the loss of the first war will be fresh in everyone's minds. The majority, not wanting to get bogged down in enemy territory or be stuck with endlessly rebellious states, will instead force the CSA to cede all Union-occupied states back to the USA in exchange for peace and a withdrawal from the Deep South. (the only remaining Confederate States left)

Which is why India and Pakistan are still fighting over Kashmir. :rolleyes:

8. After the second war ends and decades pass, if the Deep South falls even deeper into economic problems, that's when you'd start hearing words like "American re-unification" being bandied around. If re-unification became a reality, it would come as much from the Confederate side as the Northern side. If the remaining southern states do re-join the USA, it'll be late, maybe 1920s or later, after the generations who fought the hated Union in the two wars have died.

So Rump!CSA with presumably North Korea-style paranoia has a personality transfer? OK, then.

Also, when the CSA first begins to falter, I'd expect Union agents to try and influence Texas to secede and form "The Republic of Texas" with the idea of eventually re-absorbing it into the Union. This would probably happen before the war.

And of course, this is all assuming a worse-case scenario for the CSA after a CSA-victory scenario.

That's not going to happen. Not unless the USA turns Texas into the North American version of Communist Poland.
 
Nah, I see a Great Reunification War as extremely unlikely. The war is likely to have been a costly one for the Union, and any Northern politician suggesting a grand war of reconquest is going to be committing political suicide.

No, if the South becomes very weak, I see this as much more likely:

1. Border Confederate states begin blaming the core Southern states for the economic problems, slave revolts, or whatever else is going on.

2. Certain politicians in said southern border states will begin advocating succession from the Confederacy. (Meaning rejoining the Union) Nobody's going to have any illusions about setting up an independent state between the USA and CSA.

3. The political situation in said border states will reach a fever-pitch as people begin dividing along class, geographic, and ethnic lines in the debate. Bleeding Kansas-like violence will probably start to occur.

4. At this point, the USA will claim that the CSA is forcibly trying to keep the tumultuous states in the Confederacy, will declare war on the much weaker CSA, and will invade with the stated mission of "freeing" the states that are in turmoil.

5. Unless the USA has seriously misjudged the situation in the border states, the pro-Confederacy forces in said states will crumble fairly quickly and flee further south, allowing the Union army to secure the most union-leaning states with only sporadic opposition.

6. Emboldened by their successes and the weakness of the CSA, the USA will gobble up any state with even slight anti-confederate leanings, leaving a rump Confederacy consisting of the Deep South.

7. While the most warhawk-like members of Congress will declare that the Union ought to reconquer the entire Confederacy, the loss of the first war will be fresh in everyone's minds. The majority, not wanting to get bogged down in enemy territory or be stuck with endlessly rebellious states, will instead force the CSA to cede all Union-occupied states back to the USA in exchange for peace and a withdrawal from the Deep South. (the only remaining Confederate States left)

8. After the second war ends and decades pass, if the Deep South falls even deeper into economic problems, that's when you'd start hearing words like "American re-unification" being bandied around. If re-unification became a reality, it would come as much from the Confederate side as the Northern side. If the remaining southern states do re-join the USA, it'll be late, maybe 1920s or later, after the generations who fought the hated Union in the two wars have died.

Also, when the CSA first begins to falter, I'd expect Union agents to try and influence Texas to secede and form "The Republic of Texas" with the idea of eventually re-absorbing it into the Union. This would probably happen before the war.

And of course, this is all assuming a worse-case scenario for the CSA after a CSA-victory scenario.

I always figured that it would end up with a situation the confederacy would just be South Carolina, Georgia (Potentially), Florida, Alabama and Mississippi.
 
Here's a thought: slaves in factories. "Wage slavery" and poor treatment of industrial workers will not be an issue for Dixiemen if it's the blacks who are in the factories.
 
Slavery didn't make the pre-1861 USA a pariah state, and it didn't hinder industrialisation, the CSA having a fairly reasonable industrial base (which was destroyed by Sherman). It would have had more but much of the capital investment went to New England pre-1861.

1860 census data shows you are wrong about industrialization. The Midwest had about the same population as the states that formed the CSA. The Midwest produced nearly three times as much industrial goods. It also shows value of products lagging behind capital invested in the South.

Sherman's March took him through Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. Even if Sherman destroyed every last bit of industry in those three states, that was only 27% of the Confederate industrial base.

Care to explain how Sherman destroyed the other 73%?:rolleyes:

American cotton will provide very large revenues well into the 20th century, as will other produce.

Are you familiar with soil exhaustion? Or perhaps the boll weevil?:rolleyes:

This is doubly so if independent, since mills will be built in the Carolinas and Georgia rather than New England ITTL.

Independence does not magically conjure up investment capital.

Whether states would secede is open to debate, but they'd lose large amounts of revenue.

Why would a state seceding from the CSA cause that state to lose large amounts of revenue?

There's always movement out west (to California, which may be part of a pro-confederate Pacific Republic depending on the butterflies), or indeed north in Iowa etc. (which were OTL full of southerners).

A pro-confederate Pacific Republic requires ASBs, not butterflies. The Southern Democratic Candidate pulled a bigger percent of the votes in Pennsylvania than he did in California. Only 2.6 percent of Ohio voters favored him.

Not that I don't expect people to leave the south for better economic opportunities, just like many did before the ACW in OTL.

However, OTL the devastated and dirt poor south post-ACW was not attractive to immigrants, but the vital, booming south pre-ACW was very attractive.

US Census results contradict you on this as well. The USA as a whole was 13.1% foreign born. In the 11 states of the CSA, 2.6% of the population was foreign born.

Or to put it another way, those 11 states had 29.2% of the total population, but only 5.7% of the immigrant population.
 
Last edited:
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top