honestly, I think really the US and CSA for the rest of the 19th century probably focus on mostly domestic stuff. Especially since politics will be turbulent. I do wonder if the CSA could have a growing leftist movement (especially if the CSA's economic situation doesn't improve substantially post-war) among the poor white populace.
Could/would the USA survive long-term after a CSA victory?
- Thread starter OldScifi
- Start date
Not really relevant to the question of secession in America given it's illegal in the first place and therefore wouldn't be a matter of congressional votes.
There's plenty of examples of small/low population areas successfully taking their independence from larger states. Especially when the larger state has already been destabilized and militarily defeated elsewhere.
I think the Mormons might try to move from Utah if they dislike the US enough but I don't think Mormon independence could last beyond the 1880s
The point is that the majority of the rump Union would be on board with the federal government and the Whig agenda of governance in general, so no more drive for secession. This majority also has most of the economic and military strength, which could be easily mobilized to quash secession attempts from the border states or the Mormons. Imagine Austria-Hungary but only Krakow trying to secede and the rest staying loyal.
Not if the core of that large nation remains largely unscathed from the war. Remember that most of the fightings were on Confederate grounds and far from the Union’s economic centers.
Look, Utah was just a landlocked territory with a population of just around 200,000 by 1880, many off whom were not Mormons. The Mormons are not going to get away with secession.
I meant migrating from Utah to somewhere else (maybe CSA if they aren’t as hostile as the US though kind of doubtful). I largely agree with you that the Mormons wouldn’t really be able to secede (rebel sure but it would be crushed after some time)
Normally because they had the backing of at least one great power and/or the rest of the neighbors didn't give a damn or didn't see them as "great, free land" before attacking in turn.
In this case the (local) great power is the United States, and there is no one willing to support Utah.
The CSA? That would in any case be considered an incentive to be MORE tough on the rebellion.
The British? No, they already have too many problems to deal with elsewhere.
Mexico? No, they have their own internal problems that are much more pressing, and logistics will be a hell.
Spain? The same as Mexico.
Any other candidate does not have the capacity to seriously project power to America without being distracted by some crisis at home that forces him to retreat to attend to it. Look at the Second French Invasion of Mexico for checking this
A lot depends on how badly damaged the Union states are in the war.
Assuming that the USA loses and the CSA wins with the help of France and the UK. UK and France may want tariff-free access to US markets as part of the peace treaty.
The remaining USA states lose the revenue of export of the cash crops for the southern states like cotton, tobacco, indigo, rice, and naval stores.
A lot depends on how well the USA adapts to being much smaller and being seen as weaker than the empires of Europe.
Long-term a much smaller USA staying out of WWI might be the biggest butterfly from an independent CSA.
Assuming that the USA loses and the CSA wins with the help of France and the UK. UK and France may want tariff-free access to US markets as part of the peace treaty.
The remaining USA states lose the revenue of export of the cash crops for the southern states like cotton, tobacco, indigo, rice, and naval stores.
A lot depends on how well the USA adapts to being much smaller and being seen as weaker than the empires of Europe.
Long-term a much smaller USA staying out of WWI might be the biggest butterfly from an independent CSA.
Personally I'm not really sure where this popular idea that an independent CSA would see a massive rise of leftism comes from.
Let us remember that in OTL the penetration of leftism in the South was quite marginal and many leftists did not even believe that it was worth trying to win over African Americans during much of the 19th and 20th centuries.
This, of course, also omits the fact that white supremacy and the abuse of African Americans was at the heart of the South's worldview (and apparently its economy, because they were the ones doing the dirty, hard, and dangerous jobs). It was not just nonsense to distract the (White) population that no one seriously believed, as I have seen is often assumed.
Generally, it's uncompetetive politics that favour certain regions over others that drive secessionist sentiment, not the other way around.
Depends how willing people are to die for a union that has already allowed a quarter of the country to walk out the door.
No, there's plenty of cases of that too.
Last edited:
That wouldn’t change inherently the rise of a potential Confederate Labor movement or something similar to Americas with the poor white population (which was the thing I was focusing on)
It does depend a lot on CSA policies in the early years and if economically it can recover decently
I think the CSA elite had the Rhodesian mindset. After WW2 the Rhodesians could have had large numbers of European displaced peoples from the slave labor to the ethnic Germans who were sent west to Germany, but they liked their society the way it was,a tiny privileged elite over a obviously different working class --African--. Bringing in poor whites would upset their world view. As much as a surviving CSA could use mass immigration in its port cities, I think the big shots didn't want to change their society no matter the need.
that sort of only makes the possibility of a rise in a Confederate Labour movement amongst the poor white population more likely if the trends of growing inequality in the south and inability to economically rebound remains
I would say that further exploitation of slaves is more likely than the creation of a Labor movement, and anyone who tries to organize one will be denounced as a spy for the North (no matter how ridiculous that is).
I don't see why both can't occur at the same time? I mean, even if the aristocratic class makes that claim towards the creation of a Labor movement, I don't see that as being different than what many nations in the Americas and Europe acted towards growing Labor movements and really if inequality still rises, it probably does get attempted and gain some level of traction after some difficulty
that only occurred due to deindustrialization, tense racial issues, and suburbanization. Plus the population of the metros didn't sufficiently decrease so I doubt it.
Now I do believe places like Texas would grow a population due to Oil and Land (I do think even with the slave focus economy of the CSA, there would be a drive for people to move there)
Note that all of the fightings were far away from Union’s industrial centers. Plus, while those commodity exports were nice, exports as a whole long accounted for like 6-7% of US GDP by 1860 and the US actually ran a trade deficit for most of the pre-Civil War period. In the end, it was mainly a domestic-driven economy.
The US had all the manpower, skills, tools and resources to adapt to new circumstances.
Also, France would not be capable of enforcing anything on the US.
Unless that politics is uniformly supported by like 20 out of 23 states. Secession only happens when the minority is strong enough to do so, you know, like the Confederate, and/or receives support from another great power.
Not going to happen. The movements from the North to the South were internal migration, not emigration. You would never ever have mass emigration from the US.
Don’t forget that loads of oppressed white Unionists and poor whites would leave for the North. Meanwhile, the Great Migration of African Americans would have been butterflied away. The Confederate would move towards South Africa/Rhodesia in terms of politics and society.
The OTL migrations to Texas were largely internal migrations from other parts of the US. ITTL, that would have been severely curtailed. Immigration is an entirely different beast from internal migration.
Last edited:
TIL that Yemen was able to regain its independence because Shiism was politically competitive in the Ottoman Empire, and not because it was a repressed and religiously distinct backwater province far from the empire's core.
Strength is dependent on will. If say Kentucky puts 100k very angry farmers in uniform and declares independence over the unjust imposition of sky high tariffs, would the Union really make a wholehearted effort to stop them, baring in mind that they've recently allowed/been forced to allow a quarter of the country to quit the Union? Maybe, but it's possible 20/23 states becomes 20/20 states, especially since the free traders' own policies wouldn't cut them off from American industry.
Last edited:
I mean, yeah but that doesn't change the formation of a confederate labour movement being a possibility though I agree it would function as a more developed South Africa/Rhodesia
I never said that the migration to Texas was immigration, so I don't see how this contradicts my statement.