Could/would the USA survive long-term after a CSA victory?

[OldScifi]

There's been plenty of discussion on whether the CSA could survive long-term. There has also been discussion on the other side. Certainly some at the time believed that if states succeeded in secession it was likely to lead to the disintegration of the USA or perpetual warfare or some such.

I've always thought there was a wide swath of possibilities for the nature of international relations of a CSA victory - I don't think it impossible that within a few years, the USA is right back to buying cotton and selling finished goods (money talks and look at relationships after various other OTL wars) and yet I also don't think it impossible the entire CSA falls apart in a similar timeframe. I don't necessarily have enough grasp on the power players mindsets or which ones would remain power players.

And I have even more trouble for the USA. So much depends on how a CSA victory happens - how many are killed on each side, how much infrastructure destroyed, how long was the war, what other countries were involved, what politicians and parties survived the electoral slaughter? Because those details can lead to very different outcomes.

Does it reach the point where now any state that doesn't get their way can threaten to secede (because the Federal government won't want to fight another war)? Or does the Federal government try to beef up the military and take more controls to prevent recurrence? Do either state governments or the Federal government turn to violence more readily or shy from it more forcefully? That's the question - now that it happened once, does the specter of it happening again hang over everyone or do things stabilize? Which is the more likely?

 

[HyperMuscularDemon]

The USA could survive a CSA victory, but at a huge cost. The American government is likely to be hugely unpopular, and there might even be a resurgence of New England separatism. Alaska would remain with Russia for a time before Canada might buy it. In fact, Canada could expand a lot into the OTL western American states, gaining a lot of territory.

 

[Lalli]

USA would fell to political chaos and GOP probably would be discredited for many years. There too probably would be some local secessionist ideas but these probably are not very succesful. But USA would survive anyway.

 

[Thon Taddeo]

The US would survive just fine, though politics might be turbulent for a while. There were no real secessionist movements of note during this time (outside of the the Confederacy, of course).

 

[Kevin C. Smith]

With the people that believe in secession gone, I would expect that there will at least be legislation-and probably a constitutional amendment-prohibiting any such thing in the future. There will be none left to vote against it. That said, I expect that the CSA simply changes from being an underdeveloped section of the USA to an under (possibly un-) developed country on the American continent. Ahead of Mexico but behind Canada.

 

[Thon Taddeo]

With the people that believe in secession gone, I would expect that there will at least be legislation-and probably a constitutional amendment-prohibiting any such thing in the future. There we be none left to vote against it. That said, I expect that the CSA simply changes from being an underdeveloped section of the USA to an under (possibly un-) developed country on the American continent. Ahead of Mexico but behind Canada.

The issue with a constitutional amendment banning secession is that such an amendment implies secession was legal before its ratification, thus retroactively justifying the Confederate cause.

 

[Lalli]

With the people that believe in secession gone, I would expect that there will at least be legislation-and probably a constitutional amendment-prohibiting any such thing in the future. There we be none left to vote against it. That said, I expect that the CSA simply changes from being an underdeveloped section of the USA to an under (possibly un-) developed country on the American continent. Ahead of Mexico but behind Canada.

CSA is indeed going to be pretty much behind of USA and Canada since it is at least until early 20th century pretty non-industrialised and urban life has big part of Confederate culture.

The issue with a constitutional amendment banning secession is that such an amendment implies secession was legal before its ratification, thus retroactively justifying the Confederate cause.

Problem is that pre-secessionist constitution didn't clearly tell whether secession is legal or not. Now Congress would want to ensure that no one else could do that.

 

[GreenCanary]

USA without the South still contains too big of a population or resource base to fail, and it would still be an immigrant magnet.

 

[quickdraw101]

The better question is can the CSA survive.

 

[Daylight Savings]

As OP said, the nature of the victory is important here. Credibility of the scenarios aside, there's a huge difference between Gettysburg and Vicksburg are close losses and the North elects an antiwar candidate in 64 and the Trent affair drags in the UK who fully mobilize, burn every major coastal city, occupy the Oregon territory, and force the cession of all border states at the negotiating table.

Realistically in either scenario the North survives, but the degree to which it thrives is affected.

 

[Hastings]

Realistically the North will be just fine even in a Trent Affair scenario. There may be some short-term economic impact, but will be fine long-term. Its quite industrialized, literate and prosperous. States are not going to succeed just for the shear fun of it and you've removed the main regional tension existing for most of US history. In some ways this will probably be a more harmonious country. It will also be one that is much more European for lack of a better term without the south. A lot of the distinctive features of the US are due to having the South.

 

[JanWellem]

The USA could survive a CSA victory, but at a huge cost. The American government is likely to be hugely unpopular, and there might even be a resurgence of New England separatism. Alaska would remain with Russia for a time before Canada might buy it. In fact, Canada could expand a lot into the OTL western American states, gaining a lot of territory.

Too late for that, the border had already been agreed upon in the 1848 Oregon Treaty.

 

[Daylight Savings]

Realistically the North will be just fine even in a Trent Affair scenario. There may be some short-term economic impact, but will be fine long-term. Its quite industrialized, literate and prosperous. States are not going to succeed just for the shear fun of it and you've removed the main regional tension existing for most of US history. In some ways this will probably be a more harmonious country. It will also be one that is much more European for lack of a better term without the south. A lot of the distinctive features of the US are due to having the South.

That's what I was trying to say. It's going to be fine. But there's no denying it'll be different in a scenario where the CSA ekes out a peace by exhaustion and one where they suffer major damage to their infrastructure and a significant loss of land. Sure they could recover from any damage, but the national mindset will be different and the development trajectory will change if there is a strong chance of a siege mentality taking hold.

 

[Board 3659]

Personally the US still has a lot of potential with its industry in the North. Politically it will be a mess and I can imagine that the CSA would try to find ways to encourage some level of immigration to places like New Orleans or Charleston resulting in potentially a different ethnic make up in the North and South

 

[Daylight Savings]

Personally the US still has a lot of potential with its industry in the North. Politically it will be a mess and I can imagine that the CSA would try to find ways to encourage some level of immigration to places like New Orleans or Charleston resulting in potentially a different ethnic make up in the North and South

Immigration is competition for slave labor. The elites would see their wealth, which is largely tied up in slaves diminished. It'll take a lot of economic strife before they adopt a pro immigration stance.

 

[Board 3659]

Immigration is competition for slave labor. The elites would see their wealth, which is largely tied up in slaves diminished. It'll take a lot of economic strife before they adopt a pro immigration stance.

True though it probably still occurs. I mean Brazil is a good indication of this. I think slavery for the CSA would exist up to the mid-1880s (even if it did, there would be likely a rising business or mercantile class wanting to end it). I say the CSA politically would be pretty messy post-independence IMO, and with how the CSA comes out of the war with a lot of inflation, there would be some who would desire promotion of industry

 

[Daylight Savings]

True though it probably still occurs. I mean Brazil is a good indication of this. I think slavery for the CSA would exist up to the mid-1880s (even if it did, there would be likely a rising business or mercantile class wanting to end it). I say the CSA politically would be pretty messy post-independence IMO, and with how the CSA comes out of the war with a lot of inflation, there would be some who would desire promotion of industry

The thing is, the Confederate Constitution explicitly forbade the abolition of slavery. It's going to take a while to jump over that hurdle. Shaking up a cornerstone of your government so soon after fighting a war to found it is going to take some major failures, not just pressure from businessmen. That's not to say it can't happen, but it will take some time.

 

[HyperMuscularDemon]

Personally the US still has a lot of potential with its industry in the North. Politically it will be a mess and I can imagine that the CSA would try to find ways to encourage some level of immigration to places like New Orleans or Charleston resulting in potentially a different ethnic make up in the North and South

Okay. You make a good point, but who would be willing to immigrate to the Confederacy?

 

[Mildtryth]

The thing is, the Confederate Constitution explicitly forbade the abolition of slavery. It's going to take a while to jump over that hurdle. Shaking up a cornerstone of your government so soon after fighting a war to found it is going to take some major failures, not just pressure from businessmen. That's not to say it can't happen, but it will take some time.

At the same time, even before the war, slave ownership had been concentrating in fewer and fewer hands, the war and its hardships only exarcebated these tendencies, and who knows what may come from that and how that will affect Confederate politics going forward even if they win:

...But no counterfactual speculation is required to discern the contours of the slaveholding South’s internal crisis. [...] Slave ownership was concentrating in fewer and fewer hands. Thirty-five percent of Southern families owned slaves in 1830, but that number fell to about 30 percent by 1850 and fell still more precipitously to 25 percent in 1860. The price of slaves skyrocketed to the point where a single “prime” field hand cost what, in today’s currency, would amount to tens of thousands of dollars. Yeoman farmers who aspired to slave ownership were thwarted, and even the sons of established planters found it difficult to reproduce the wealth of their parents. Meanwhile, the rates of landlessness became widespread in many parts of the South, and the number of poor whites increased dramatically. For a slaveholding class that had long justified itself by claiming that buying a slave was the first step up the social ladder, the ladder’s collapsing rungs generated both an ideological and a political crisis...

 

[Board 3659]

The thing is, the Confederate Constitution explicitly forbade the abolition of slavery. It's going to take a while to jump over that hurdle. Shaking up a cornerstone of your government so soon after fighting a war to found it is going to take some major failures, not just pressure from businessmen. That's not to say it can't happen, but it will take some time.

That is true. It’s why I say in the 1880s and onward where significant portions of the government are taking an active anti-slavery position where change can realistically occur imo

At the same time, even before the war, slave ownership had been concentrating in fewer and fewer hands, the war and its hardships only exarcebated these tendencies, and who knows what may come from that and how that will affect Confederate politics going forward even if they win:

yeah it’s why I think some more progressive party might end up forming that would try to challenge the old slave aristocracy.