Could the USA have still become a global superpower even if they lost the Civil War?

[NedStark]

There were no slaves in British Canada or Mexico, Canada had indentured servants, and the Mexicans completely abolished slavery when they got independence.

He is referring to the Black Slaves in the US who escaped slave states and then went all the way to Canada to become free during the Antebellum.

In addition, the CSA would not possess the prestige and soft influence that various European countries had.

 

[NedStark]

Their economy was in shambles, their notes in circulation near useless, with the Czech and Austrian gold reserves tiding them over for a short while before against the Nazi economy became stagnant. The Nazis structured their economy to extract resources to survive, and they needed monetary resources to be able to continue, which was also partially why the Nazis turned to Austria and Czechoslovakia, besides the obvious nationalist goals. The Poles were the ones who had the highest gold reserves barring France and Italy on German borders, so the Germans turned to them. Whatever the Nazis have done, their economic focus on knowing that they needed to plunder gold reserves to keep their economy afloat was something that they did on an economic level. The Nazis knew that they needed plunder to keep their economy afloat. Their economy was structured in that matter. When your entire economy is built on plunder, then the Nazi decision to go to war despite intercontinental economic links was actually for the regional situation economically sound. Neither the USA nor the CSA economy was built on the basis of autarky which needed plunder to survive

All of these happened because the Nazis threw out economic principles and embarked on an unsustainable rearmament programs as well as all sort of economic and monetary "tricks" from 1933 (and even worse from 1936 onwards) in order to realize Hitler's vision.

 

[NedStark]

You are completely missing my point. I am not advancing an opinion, I am dismissing the evidentiary value of the statements you are advancing. The United States and Confederacy might or might not fight a war at some point after their separation, peaceful or otherwise, but trying to decide whether or not they will is not even slightly informed by wartime statements of government officials speculating about what might be the case years or decades later. Those statements have only slightly more utility than asking any random Union or Confederate citizen about the subject, or even any random modern historian. You're the one advancing the claim that economic ties between the United States and the Confederacy will absolutely prevent any future war at any point whatsoever, so you are the one who needs to provide evidence for this. I don't have to provide anything, because my position is that it's impossible to predict whether or not the Confederacy and Union will fight later than the 1860s since that will depend on unknown later political, economic, and social developments in both countries

OK, let's say we decide to agree that national interests trump morals and religions. Well, a war could have easily blown up again over something like a Panama canal - the possession of which would have been national interest to both countries and the US would have never backed down over this, especially against the CSA.

 

[Sarthak]

have seen one guy (@Fiver) cited the exactly same source in some older threads and stated that former CSA accounted for 9.5% of total US manufacturing output in 1914, which would equal around 3% of world output, much lower than France and Austro-Hungarian Empire but above Italy.

I am using it as a secondary source from An Annual Index of U. S. Industrial Production, 1790-1915 by Joseph Davis.

And, don't forget the climate issue - there is a reason why the South only truly took off after the invention of air conditioner.

That really doesn't explain the relatively high economic growth of the south before air conditioning

He is referring to the Black Slaves in the US who escaped slave states and then went all the way to Canada to become free during the Antebellum

I apologize. However Britain did return slaves to the USA as long as they were not a part of the international slave trade.

In addition, the CSA would not possess the prestige and soft influence that various European countries had.

That doesn't really matter. Brazil didn't have European prestige and their slaves were returned. Spain did not have french or British prestige they were returned. The ottomans basically had no prestige in the 19th century they were returned.

All of these happened because the Nazis threw out economic principles and embarked on an unsustainable rearmament programs as well as all sort of economic and monetary "tricks" from 1933 (and even worse from 1936 onwards) in order to realize Hitler's vision.

Exactly my point. For an economic system that depended on war, going to war is a sound proposal.

 

[UniversalCommons]

It depends on what happens next. The south invades Mexico because of the slave problem. Mexico appeals to the United States and Canada. Another war breaks out, the south loses. The United States and Canada are United into a very big state with the south split between Mexico and the newly reformed United States.

 

[JSilvy]

The CSA may be like Argentina– a rapidly increasing agricultural economy that then stagnates and goes through a bunch of turmoil. Combine the fact that it would have, erm, an unpleasant political climate and investors may be wary. I think the CSA would become highly unstable and unable to compete with the US, at most a thorn in the country's backside. That being said, the US would still be kept from projecting power overseas. The US would likely be able to remain the hegemon of the Americas, but probably would not project power overseas to the same extent. If it were to reconquer the CSA during one of the World Wars, it would be more likely to reach that point eventually, but it would have to pacify the reconquered territory first.

 

[Nenshou Yuuki]

It depends on what happens next. The south invades Mexico because of the slave problem. Mexico appeals to the United States and Canada. Another war breaks out, the south loses. The United States and Canada are United into a very big state with the south split between Mexico and the newly reformed United States.

Erm, Britain still owns Canada, so Mexico wouldn't be appealing to Canada, it'd be appealing to Britain.

If the US lost the civil war it's entirely possible that France and Austria are successful at installing a friendly regime in Mexico, which mean if the CSA invades they'll end up against France, which would not end well.

 

[NedStark]

Exactly my point. For an economic system that depended on war, going to war is a sound proposal.

But it was also because of the Nazis' non-sensical policies that the German economy became one that depended on war in the first place.

 

[Saluriel]

USA is successful superpower precisely because it has no regional rivals that can pose a threat and is geographically well protected along with great agricultural lands and navigable rivers

An Independent South would nullify all that and even though USA would be power, it wouldn't reach the level of power it did in OTL

The best the South could hope for is to be like Mexico or South Africa. The Confederacy would be a banana republic beholden to Northern business interests. The plantations would be mortgaged to Northern creditors, the textile mills would be ownrd by Northern companies, Standard Oil or some equivalent would basically own the government of Texas, etc. Eventually racial tensions would lead to something like the Troubles at best, Rwanda at worst. Within a decade the Confederacy would cease to be seen as a threat and begin to be seen as a client state like Venezuela, the Central American republics, or Cuba. If a President of the CSA hostile to Northern business interests gets elected, the Confederacy would have its first coup d'etat.

 

[cerebropetrologist]

The British government also did return American slaves as long as they weren't a part of the international slave network trade

Britain did return slaves to the USA as long as they were not a part of the international slave trade

When?

"In obedience to Your Excellency's comments I have perused the accompanying letter from G. C. Antrobus Esquire, His Majesty's charge d'affaires at the Court of Washington and have attentively considered the question referred to me by Your Excellency thereupon-namely - "Whether the owners of several Negro Slaves who have fled from the United States of America and are now resident in this Province can be permitted to come hither and obtain possession of their property, and whether restitution of such Negroes can be made by the interposition of the government of this Province" and I beg to express most respectfully my opinion to your Excellency that the Legislature of this Province having adopted the Law of England as the rule of decision in all questions relative to property and civil rights, and freedom of the person being the most important civil right protected by those laws, it follows that whatever may have been the condition of these Negroes in the Country to which they formerly belonged, here they are free - For the enjoyment of all civil rights consequent to a mere residence in the country and among them the right to personal freedom as acknowledged and protected by the Laws of England in cases similar to that under consideration, must notwithstanding any legislative enactment that may be thought to affect it, with which I am acquainted, be extended to these Negroes as well as to all others under His Majesty's Government in this Province. The consequence is that should any attempt be made by any person to infringe upon this right in the persons of these Negroes, they would most probably call for, and could compel the interference of those to whom the administration of our Laws is committed..."
(John Beverley Robinson, Attorney General of Upper Canada, 1819)

There were no slaves in British Canada or Mexico, Canada had indentured servants, and the Mexicans completely abolished slavery when they got independence.

Indeed:

"Reacting to the economic and social threat of runaway slaves, Texans called for presidential action in 1847, and requested the negotiation of extradition agreements with Mexico. Extradition talks between Mexican minister Luís de la Rosa and Secretary of State John M. Clayton began in 1849 and continued until mid-1850. The convention signed on July 20, 1850, provided for the mutual surrender of fugitives from justice but omitted reference to fugitives from service or labor, and the United States Senate refused to act on it.
"An agitated Texas legislature sent a resolution to Congress in 1850, again asking for an agreement between the United States and Mexico for the mutual surrender of “all criminals, robbers, persons held in bondage, or fugitives from justice.” Efforts under the auspices of President Zachary Taylor achieved no more success than had those of his predecessor, James Polk. Mexico remained adamant in her refusal to allow the return of slaves who found freedom within her territory... Estimates of the number of escapees range widely from hundreds to hundreds of thousands, but most likely there were several thousand fugitive Negroes in Mexico in the 1850s...
"Early in 1857 Forsyth [John Forsyth, United States minister in Mexico] admitted his failure on the treaty issue. He found himself blocked by Mexico's “British-borrowed cant of philanthropy about slavery.” He suggested extradition of “fugitives from justice, service, and labor, equally applicable to their Peon system with ours of Negroes,” but the Mexicans resolutely refused...
"Despite pressures from a government which had not been unwilling to use force to obtain its objectives in the past, Mexico once more reaffirmed her protection of fugitive slaves. She recommitted herself in the Constitution of 1857 to freedom for all fugitive slaves who set foot on Mexican soil. She also constitutionally proscribed any international extradition treaty covering individuals who had been slaves... and the article protecting fugitive Negro slaves from extradition received unanimous approval from the eighty-five deputies present. It became Article Fifteen of the 1857 Constitution.] The sentiments expressed in the Mexican Constitution differ markedly from those revealed that same year by the United States Supreme Court in the famous Dred Scott decision."
(Rosalie Schwartz, Across the Rio to Freedom: U.S. Negroes in Mexico)

Impossible to imagine the United States being anywhere near so petty as to refuse the newly independent and much smaller Confederacy a treaty agreeing to extradite escaped slaves.

 

[Brahman]

The best the South could hope for is to be like Mexico or South Africa. The Confederacy would be a banana republic beholden to Northern business interests. The plantations would be mortgaged to Northern creditors, the textile mills would be ownrd by Northern companies, Standard Oil or some equivalent would basically own the government of Texas, etc. Eventually racial tensions would lead to something like the Troubles at best, Rwanda at worst. Within a decade the Confederacy would cease to be seen as a threat and begin to be seen as a client state like Venezuela, the Central American republics, or Cuba. If a President of the CSA hostile to Northern business interests gets elected, the Confederacy would have its first coup d'etat.

Not necessary, an Independent South can be a formidable force that could divert the interests of United States from global to regional, Infact let us take the real world example of India and Pakistan here -

India by all means should have crushed Pakistan, it had larger everything, from Military, Economy, Population, resources, etc, Yet Pakistan still is by and large a Rival and threat to India due to a formidable military and a great foreign Policy for most of its history, it is not unthinkable that South would have transformed into something similiar, allying with European Powers and keeping USA in check through a smaller but a strong military and economy

 

[Saluriel]

Not necessary, an Independent South can be a formidable force that could divert the interests of United States from global to regional, Infact let us take the real world example of India and Pakistan here -

India by all means should have crushed Pakistan, it had larger everything, from Military, Economy, Population, resources, etc, Yet Pakistan still is by and large a Rival and threat to India due to a formidable military and a great foreign Policy for most of its history, it is not unthinkable that South would have transformed into something similiar, allying with European Powers and keeping USA in check through a smaller but a strong military and economy

Why would there be prolonged hostilities? America would be the Confederacy's biggest trading partner. Bad blood would settle, the Americans would (I agree with other posters) seek ports in the Caribbean to make up for the loss of Florida as it pertains to exerting influence on that region, and life would go on. The Americans would continue to industrialize far faster than the Confederates, the gap would grow wider and wider, any industrialization that takes place in the Confederacy would be paid for with American or European capital, etc.

European powers would recognize the Confederacy as a part of the American sphere of influence. If the Confederacy gets too uppity and closes the Mississippi river to free trade then they would soon see American troops occupying the Mississippi valley until they behave. Maybe the Americans occupy New Orleans and even lease it from the Confederacy a-la Hong Kong, but eventually the gap in industrialization and social cohesion would grow so great that the Confederacy would have no choice but to behave.

If the Confederacy were to become hostile to American oil companies then Texas and Oklahoma would become independent shortly thereafter. The Confederacy would be stable with American support, but not too stable because Washington needs to keep the ability to overthrow governments in Richmond that won't cooperate. Eventually the Confederacy would be subjected to the Good Neighbor policy the same as Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, etc. Without the New Deal vast parts of the Deep South would lack electricity until the 1960s and 1970s. Smuggling marijuana across the border would be big business in Appalachia. Mobile would be a big port for smuggling cocaine and heroin.

Eventually integration and land reform would be forced on them because the Americans won't want a communist rebellion on their border and worrying about that distracts from other Cold War priorities. The 1990s would therefore be the period where the Confederacy finally transitions to democracy. In 2021 it would have a GDP per capita comparable to Mexico, and a rapidly-growing economy as the .Americans invest in them and Mexico as a counterweight to China.

The Confederacy would never be an independent power. They would always be a supplicant power.

 

[Brahman]

Why would there be prolonged hostilities? America would be the Confederacy's biggest trading partner. Bad blood would settle, the Americans would (I agree with other posters) seek ports in the Caribbean to make up for the loss of Florida as it pertains to exerting influence on that region, and life would go on. The Americans would continue to industrialize far faster than the Confederates, the gap would grow wider and wider, any industrialization that takes place in the Confederacy would be paid for with American or European capital, etc.

European powers would recognize the Confederacy as a part of the American sphere of influence. If the Confederacy gets too uppity and closes the Mississippi river to free trade then they would soon see American troops occupying the Mississippi valley until they behave. Maybe the Americans occupy New Orleans and even lease it from the Confederacy a-la Hong Kong, but eventually the gap in industrialization and social cohesion would grow so great that the Confederacy would have no choice but to behave.

If the Confederacy were to become hostile to American oil companies then Texas and Oklahoma would become independent shortly thereafter. The Confederacy would be stable with American support, but not too stable because Washington needs to keep the ability to overthrow governments in Richmond that won't cooperate. Eventually the Confederacy would be subjected to the Good Neighbor policy the same as Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, etc. Without the New Deal vast parts of the Deep South would lack electricity until the 1960s and 1970s. Smuggling marijuana across the border would be big business in Appalachia. Mobile would be a big port for smuggling cocaine and heroin.

Eventually integration and land reform would be forced on them because the Americans won't want a communist rebellion on their border and worrying about that distracts from other Cold War priorities. The 1990s would therefore be the period where the Confederacy finally transitions to democracy. In 2021 it would have a GDP per capita comparable to Mexico, and a rapidly-growing economy as the .Americans invest in them and Mexico as a counterweight to China.

The Confederacy would never be an independent power. They would always be a supplicant power.

I do agree with US and CS eventually warming up, But with CSA taking away a chunk of land as well as geographic features that protect the United States in OTL, there is no absolute way that USA becomes near Hyperpower like in OTL, but it would remain a great power with above average global influence

Here are videos that summarizes how and why USA is so powerful worldwide, which essentially comes down to its Geography -

if you notice, it is Very Clear that Geography is the key reason for US power, without which it will not reach Superpower Status

 

[Fernan3451]

The US might be interested in grabbing more Caribbean territory here in order to get ports to encircle the confederacy and assert its hemispheric dominance. Santo Domingo (almost annexed OTL) and the Danish West Indies (nearly purchased in 1867) seem like the most likely options.

Earlier Spanish-American War and Danish-American War or purchase of territory?

 

[Deleted member 109224]

Earlier Spanish-American War and Danish-American War or purchase of territory?

There was the Virginius Affair OTL in which some Americans bought a former confederate steamer and sailed to Cuba during the 1870s Cuban war, but it looks like those folks were Southerners (including former Confederate officers). If the Confederates look likely to get into a war with Spain, the US might just jump in to block the Confederates from expanding to Cuba.

There'd be no need for a Danish War. Denmark was already willing to sell to the US in 1867 - the issue is Congress didn't pass the Treaty.

 

[Diego]

Such as?

Plains: They are much better than the hills and mountains in Brazil for agriculture, transportation and even urbanization.
Lack of Tropical Climate and Forests: they bring tropical diseases and are a pain to get rid of them.
Navigable Rivers: Brazil has some, but not in the right places, the other rivers are just another barrier to transportation.
Trains: It is easier to build and operate railroads in the CSA, mostly because of geography, less capital is needed, less costs to operate, means more profits.

That basically meant that the Confederacy had a developed interior. Brazil on the other hand wasn't able to develop its interior, there were too many hills, mountains and forests to do that. Only after some technologies were introduced, like Internal Combustion Engines to power Cars, Locomotives, Trucks and Tractors it became possible to develop and colonize the interior.

Just to give an idea, until the last quarter of the 19th century in the Province of São Paulo civilization would go only up to the region were now is the City of Bauru around 320km from the sea, in Paraná it would go only up to Ponta Grossa, 170km into the continent, in Santa Catarina it would only go up to the mountains around 50 km from the coast, then there would be a green desert and Lages on the other side of the mountains, but Lages existed because it was part of the trail that connected São Paulo to Rio Grande do Sul, it followed some of the few areas of open fields between the forests of the southern region of the country.

At the time the open areas of Brazil were mostly semi-arid caatinga, a barren Cerrado (a Savana that would become productive in the 1970s) and the Pampas, the Pampas are good land to agriculture, but they were dangerous because of the frontier with Uruguay and Argentina, that region was neglected because of that. Today most of the forests were put down and we have farmland in those areas.

 

[Issei Uzumaki]

Seems like this thread got way off track since the original question was about the US (union) losing not what the CSA would do or become. Ill give a brief overview for CSA before hitting the USA points. I guess the question for me first is when do they win? That could change things some. I'm going to go with Lincoln losing in '64 to McClellan.

So Lincoln loses and McClellan decides to offer peace to end the war, however by the time he is inaugurated the South is pretty much beaten so his terms are pretty much simple. The US will allow the 11 states (not the ones claimed with split governments like Kentucky or Missouri) but the South must recognize West Virginia as a state in the Union. The CSA would also have to recognize that any slave that makes it to the Union will be granted freedom and will not be returned and that any US citizen of color visiting the south for some reason must have their rights respected. Something along these lines is offered and agreed to but hey, from the southern viewpoint they are independent.

First some draw backs for the south. If i'm not mistaken the vast majority of coal and iron deposits are outside of the CSA, especially with Kentucky and WV in the Union. Birmingham was formed post war in OTL and I imagine someone will eventually form steel mills there again like the Sloss Furnaces so they will have some domestic production of steel but will have to import coal once they reach a certain threshold of industrialization but for the time being, I believe the reserves within AL, TN, small part of SW VA, and parts of TX should suffice. However, the economy will largely remain plantation/agrarian based, though eventually much like Asia took on textile plants away from OTL US, the CSA would eventually do this with cheaper labor. The problem will be the US had tremendous immigration OTL, the south will not see nearly as much due to slavery and there simply not being the need for the cheap labor initially that immigrants provide. I imagine the South resembling a third world country up until oil becomes king and the oil revenue from Texas will help it boom like the third world nations of OTL like the mid-east that grew wealthy from oil money, though it would have to diversify at some point due to smaller reserves compared to mid-east. One point of the south OTL, post war and really even to this day, most of the South have received more federal tax distributions than they give to the government, meaning you wont have that income for them to live off of so they will have to develop. Best bet for a productive, powerful CSA would be at earliest mid 20th century, though I think '70s or'80s is more likely.

Now as for the US. Having given up the CSA states they still have the rest of the territory they held and coast to coast access. They still finish the trans-continental railroad started under Lincoln and most likely still make a push to buy Rupert's land and Alaska. Most likely, just like OTL, the UK steps in to stop the Ruperts Land sale but Alaska still happens. You may, however, see a larger focus of US citizens going into BC so there is a greater chance the US could end up annexing it at some point. Not a sure thing by any means but more possible in new TL. Also, the US didn't suffer near the damage on it's own soil during the war as the south would have had by March of 1865, so the money the US spent rebuilding the south now gets spent on debt payments and other capital projects or even buying more land like Alaska. Seward proposed the idea of buying Greenland and Iceland from Denmark in 1867 but no official offer was made IIRC. So you might see a stronger push to make that happen.

Lets just assume Alaska and Hawaii get added as well as other OTL Pacific holdings. Lets look at demographics first. The vast majority of blacks ( Dont know exact amount but something like 85 to 90% maybe a little more) were in the south. After the civil war, this mostly remained unchanged until the great migration in early 20th century, leading blacks to migrate north and provide good cheap labor that immigrants from Ireland and other European countries had provided. You wont get this in OTL as there would be immigration quotas at some point though some surely will make there way across. One must also wonder if race relations improve more in the Union than OTL. For example, would a smaller black population lead to less conflict and maybe more acceptance that you tend to see in modern UK? Relations are by no means perfect there but I could easily make the argument that blacks are treated better in modern UK than they are in the US, especially southern US OTL. So while there would still be blowback, just like OTL against Irish / Catholics, you probably don't see the same level which means more stability. More stability means greater economic growth. I would not be surprised if the CSA eventually got hit by it's own civil war once blacks were freed or maybe even a large scale slave rebellion, you might even see a 2nd war with the Union as they offer to help the rebels.

Economic growth being the next point, The US had a clear overall population edge in OTL and would retain that. It wasnt really until AC was invented that you started seeing a real shift south towards cheaper land and production. This allows the US to still establish a dominant manufacturing and textile industry and the major ship building areas are still in the US as well compared to the CS. All the major manufacturing centers in the Union during the war would remain so post war so they would already have the edge there. While there are certainly resources in the south, everything the US needs to be successful is in its territories, even most of the Uranium mining is in US hands. I think TX has some deposits but nowhere else in the South going by a quick google search. The only draw back will be the loss of TX oil though I'm sure the US will still import plenty and probably cheaper than abroad simply due to it's location close to TX, though you still have oil in PA, OK, and AK. You also have key trade ports in NYC, Philly, LA, Seattle, all within the US.

Let me say this as someone with deep southern roots. Having a united country with the South definitely helps from a defense perspective and certain resources like timber. However, in trying to be objective I feel 100% confident in saying the US would in no way be hindered in becoming a global power without the CSA attached. I think the only real difference is you may see a larger regular army and navy with a potential hostile nation in the CSA. I'm really fascinated to see how the US would respond to Cuba. Many people automatically assume the south making a play for Cuba but they would be so battered in this TL economically and with loss of generation of men that I can't see them realistically buying or taking any territory for several decades at minimum. So does that mean no Spanish-American war or just one with the Union? The Teller amendment came about to protect US sugar industry not out of some altruistic gesture to protect Cuba. Without the Southern sugar industry, maybe there is a war but no amendment and the US ends up with Cuba, thus stopping CSA expansion. Plus there may not be the same hesitancy to add a large black population that Cuba had in this new TL. Regardless of how expansion goes, I repeat my statement. The US could and would have been able to achieve superpower status without the South. I know their are other things I'm not thinking of off the top of my head but I truly believe anyone arguing against the idea could be successful refuted.

 

[Kevin C. Smith]

Seems like this thread got way off track since the original question was about the US (union) losing not what the CSA would do or become. Ill give a brief overview for CSA before hitting the USA points. I guess the question for me first is when do they win? That could change things some. I'm going to go with Lincoln losing in '64 to McClellan.

Now as for the US. Having given up the CSA states they still have the rest of the territory they held and coast to coast access. They still finish the trans-continental railroad started under Lincoln and most likely still make a push to buy Rupert's land and Alaska. Most likely, just like OTL, the UK steps in to stop the Ruperts Land sale but Alaska still happens. You may, however, see a larger focus of US citizens going into BC so there is a greater chance the US could end up annexing it at some point. Not a sure thing by any means but more possible in new TL. Also, the US didn't suffer near the damage on it's own soil during the war as the south would have had by March of 1865, so the money the US spent rebuilding the south now gets spent on debt payments and other capital projects or even buying more land like Alaska. Seward proposed the idea of buying Greenland and Iceland from Denmark in 1867 but no official offer was made IIRC. So you might see a stronger push to make that happen.

Lets just assume Alaska and Hawaii get added as well as other OTL Pacific holdings. Lets look at demographics first. The vast majority of blacks ( Dont know exact amount but something like 85 to 90% maybe a little more) were in the south. After the civil war, this mostly remained unchanged until the great migration in early 20th century, leading blacks to migrate north and provide good cheap labor that immigrants from Ireland and other European countries had provided. You wont get this in OTL as there would be immigration quotas at some point though some surely will make there way across. One must also wonder if race relations improve more in the Union than OTL. For example, would a smaller black population lead to less conflict and maybe more acceptance that you tend to see in modern UK? Relations are by no means perfect there but I could easily make the argument that blacks are treated better in modern UK than they are in the US, especially southern US OTL. So while there would still be blowback, just like OTL against Irish / Catholics, you probably don't see the same level which means more stability. More stability means greater economic growth. I would not be surprised if the CSA eventually got hit by it's own civil war once blacks were freed or maybe even a large scale slave rebellion, you might even see a 2nd war with the Union as they offer to help the rebels.

Economic growth being the next point, The US had a clear overall population edge in OTL and would retain that. It wasn't really until AC was invented that you started seeing a real shift south towards cheaper land and production. This allows the US to still establish a dominant manufacturing and textile industry and the major ship building areas are still in the US as well compared to the CS. All the major manufacturing centers in the Union during the war would remain so post war so they would already have the edge there. While there are certainly resources in the south, everything the US needs to be successful is in its territories, even most of the Uranium mining is in US hands. I think TX has some deposits but nowhere else in the South going by a quick google search. The only draw back will be the loss of TX oil though I'm sure the US will still import plenty and probably cheaper than abroad simply due to it's location close to TX, though you still have oil in PA, OK, and AK. You also have key trade ports in NYC, Philly, LA, Seattle, all within the US.

Yes (and my apologies for helping derail the thread early on)...there are two main considerations that affect the post secession development of the USA: 1) Loss of economic resources, and 2) the problems posed by a hostile CSA.

Resources: There is little of value that the USA loses before (as you said) oil becomes a factor. But I believe that there will be no (or no significant) loss of access to CSA raw materials (cotton, maybe some coal, and later oil). The USA will simply buy what it wants/needs from the CSA as it did before. Yes, this now counts as some sort of foreign trade deficit but the other factors of US capital and finished goods exported back will almost certainly minimize or eliminate that. There is nothing to slow, let alone prevent, the USA's economic development to otl superpower status, assuming analogous international developments.

Hostility: The only way I can see the CSA succeeding at secession is if the Union decides to let it go, with no more than a little fighting (like, a few riots in South Carolina). So, there is nothing to be hostile about. (As was pointed out above, the Underground Railroad will be a perennial problem but the Union's reply would probably be along the lines of, "Well, have your Congressmen in Washington propose a solution...oh, wait! That's right...you don't have Congreesmen in Washington anymore. How's that workin' out for ya?" No way will the CSA precipitate a war over it. They will just have to watch their own borders better. Sucks to be them.) With no war, there will be no hostilities to speak of. The USA would continue to cut the army to an Indian patrol/deportation force, and let the Navy rot at the piers. There would be no standing military to drain resources away from settlement and development, same as otl. The only real differences that I can find is that the USA will enter both world was flying a 32-ish star flag.

An interesting question was brought up earlier-how would a CSA secession (especially an unchallenged one) affect the USA's future integrity? This could be very much a detriment to the USA attaining its otl superpower status if it is threatened by future breakups. I think, however, that a CSA secession will move the remaining Union states to either legislate (or probably amend the Constitution) to declare that the Union is henceforth perpetual and indissoluble. At the very least, I would expect that any new admissions to the Union would be on the declaration expressly forgoing any right of secession. Even the mildest possible legislation would require approval of the general government to secede (even Lincoln did not say that secession was forbidden per se, but that secession without consent certainly was).

In short, a successful CSA secession would probably be less of a speed bump on the USA's road to global superpower than was the otl Civil War.

 

[Issei Uzumaki]

An interesting question was brought up earlier-how would a CSA secession (especially an unchallenged one) affect the USA's future integrity? This could be very much a detriment to the USA attaining its otl superpower status if it is threatened by future breakups. I think, however, that a CSA secession will move the remaining Union states to either legislate (or probably amend the Constitution) to declare that the Union is henceforth perpetual and indissoluble. At the very least, I would expect that any new admissions to the Union would be on the declaration expressly forgoing any right of secession. Even the mildest possible legislation would require approval of the general government to secede (even Lincoln did not say that secession was forbidden per se, but that secession without consent certainly was).

As you mention about risking future breakups is why I think it more likely that a battle gets fought, otherwise the Unions integrity becomes too weakened. Hence the reason I chose the '64 election POD, as that is a reasonable place to split off without admitting secession is legal and in fact, would probably lead to Constitutional changes to prevent further instances, at least IMO. Having the south go without a fight just leaves too many potential issues, I think they would have to be challenged regardless.

 

[GenghisKhanfan]

So I was watching a Real Life Lore video about what a modern CSA would look like if it suddenly reformed today, and one thing that caught my attention was that if the US lost the South, it would still be the #1 power in the world (the CSA would be #3, behind the USA and China). That made me wonder, in an alternate timeline where the United States lost the Civil War and the Confederate States became a legitimate nation, could they have still go on to become a global superpower even despite it?

Of course, the big issue that the US is no longer an isolated fortress, but now the land that encompasses it is split in two, and I imagine the USA and CSA as being major geopolitical rivals, and that would encourage a land grab on both ends to further their power. On both ends, the maps would look quite different. We could probably expect a rematch down the line, if the US becomes hungry enough for revenge and the CS wants to prove their dominance again, but it's hard to say. I don't think it would work quite like Southern Victory, if only because later on it was basically about transplanting 20th century Europe to America, which is unlikely.

But the big takeaway is how the US had developed to become the top power because of it's perfect geography: The only land borders being Canada (a weaker ally up north) and Mexico (a third world impoverished nation), with the only other nations near it being the small islands in the Caribbean. That would not be the case here, and just not having that advantage could prevent the US growing to being a top dog.

What do you think?

Part of me says there would be something of a cold war between the USA and CSA. They never engage in hostilities themselves, but fight thru proxies-much as the US and USSR did during the OTL Cold War. This would continue until both sides were so financially exhausted that they come together and bring their cold war to an end, possibly even paving the way for a North American Defense Organization with Canada, Mexico and Central America

Another part of me says they would start working cooperatively to counter other rising powers such as Russia and China. While there would still be some mistrust within their respective governments, the threat of being overtaken by a foreign power would be so much that such misgivings would be easily buried and over time could disappear entirely. As odd as this comparison will sound, it would be like North Korea fully shedding its communist regime, embracing democracy, yet wishing to retain its sovereignty while at the same time opening its border with South Korea and allowing for greater military and diplomatic cooperation