CSA Independence

Which CSA independence is most likely or best?

  • Confederates dominate in North America

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • CSA and USA on equal terms

    Votes: 11 4.7%
  • CSA weaker than USA

    Votes: 77 33.0%
  • CSA significantly weaker close to third world

    Votes: 71 30.5%
  • CSA reconquered at a later date by the USA

    Votes: 68 29.2%
  • CSA conquered by someone else

    Votes: 3 1.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 1.3%

  • Total voters
    233
I don't think it's certain the Confederacy would be a failed state.

Certainly they would need to change, but every state faces periods where they have to change.

And I don't know if slavery would last that long. Formal slavery that is. Lot of pressure from the outside world that would disappear with even a change to a crappy sharecropper system.

Now by the mid 20th, I see an increasingly radicalized black population, and a increasingly reactionary white population.

THat could go a lot of different ways, most badly.

Okay, but if the South collapses into civil war or it fractures apart, the Union heads South and wins.

Slavery is locked into the Southern Constitution, and can't be ended (or even discussed) at the state level. I think the South is stuck with it for as long as the Soviets were stuck with communism (~70 Years). By 1950 or so, its anyone's guess whether the Union wants to take back a North Korea analog.
 
I think that there would be next to no smuggling, for purely economic reasons. There was no shortage of slaves in the Confederacy. Smuggling slaves in from Africa would require intensive capital investment in terms of ships, crews, and the whole paraphernalia necessary to avoid the authorities, along with the risk of capture by the Royal Navy and arrest by the Confederate authorities themselves.

That sounds logical, but the risk of capture by the Royal Navy and arrest by the US authorities did not stop slave smuggling occurred before and during the Civil War. Slaves from Africa were sold throughout the period, so clearly it was a profitable venture. And there were shortages of slaves in parts of the Confederacy, entrepreneurs like Nathan Bedford Forrest could become immensely wealthy from the internal slave trade.

Moreover, since plantation slaves represented a significant portion of a landowner's wealth, there would be powerful political forces at work to ensure that any smuggling is ruthlessly clamped down upon. Any slave smuggled in from Africa would represent a net loss to the wealth of the landowner class. Since these people would be the ones running the government, they would do whatever it took to ensure that such smuggling never happened.

Dropping slave prices was only a concern for those who were selling slaves. The vast majority of large landowners selling slaves were the unsuccessful ones, forced into the sales due to financial difficulties. Successful large landowners sought to expand their number of slaves and thus favored lower slave prices. So did the smaller slaveholders, a major part of the Confederate middle class. In 1850, British consuls found the Governor of South Carolina was actively engaged in slave smuggling.


 
The French would have gladly supported and used the Confederates if the British did likewise (which until the Emancipation Proclamation was quite likely) and considering their vested interest in Central America and Mexico the Confederate States make a logical counterweight to the United States and would basically run the French cotton industry with their exports until around 1890.

The British government had no intention of recognizing the Confederacy. France was not going to do so without the British. Even if one of them allied with the Confederacy, it would only be for the duration of the war.

None of these scenarios make sense but I'll just address them in order:

Real wars have started with less of a causus belli. Ever heard of Jenkins Ear?

1 -The slave trade was not finished by this point. Slave smugglers were caught by the Union during the Civil War.

2- The South was expansionist during the war as well. They tried, highly unsuccessfully to gain the northern tier of Mexican states during the war. Then there's their lonbgstanding desire for Cuba, which had more reasons than just the expansion of slavery.

"Indeed the Union can never enjoy repose, nor possess reliable security, as long as Cuba is not embraced within its boundaries. Its immediate acquisition by our government is of paramount importance, and we cannot doubt but that it is a consummation devoutly wished for by its inhabitants." - the Ostend Manifesto

And why do you persist in assuming that France would support the Confederacy, not just during, but after the war? They had enough problems just trying to hang on to Mexico.

3 - By their actions during the ACW, the Confederacy made it very clear that they considered all of the slaveholding states, the major ore-producing territories, and a route to the Pacific theirs by right. They'll be lucky to keep all of the 11 actual states that seceded. There will be revanchism over West Virginia and likely northern Virginia as well. There will be revanchism over Kentucky and Missouri. There will probably be revanchism over the loss of part or all of Tennessee and Arkansas to the Union.

I never said there would be revanchism against France, but Confederate expansionism is likely to put them into conflict with French Mexico. For that matter, French expansionism is likely to put them into conflict with the Confederacy. Even if they ally for the duration of the Civil War, which is very unlikely, that won't prevent them from coming into conflict any more than the French alliance during the Revolutionary War stopped the Quasi-War from happening.

Confederate revanchism against the Union or desire for expansion into Mexico, Central America, or the Caribbean could easily get them involved with one or more nations with a real navy. Letters of marque would be one way the Confederacy could try to make up for the material disadvantage.

And France actually has a navy and for the record the Confederacy probably wouldn't be stupid enough to not get one (not a good one, but they'd have one).

Yes, France has a navy, but it would be used to further French interests, not Confederate interests. Of course the Confederacy will build a navy, but their economic problems and lack of industry mean the Spanish Navy will outclass them until at least 1900.

Confederates were bad racists by the day and they may not have loved 'Latins' but they were at least civilized compared to blacks in their eyes. Cubans wouldn't be enslaved.

I never claimed that the Confederates would try to enslave the Cubans. I merely pointed out that the Cubans spent decades and hundreds of thousands of lives fighting for independence. They are not going to be any more accepting of Confederate rule than they were of Spanish rule. Even if Spain does nothing to oppose Confederate aquisition of Cuba, the Confederate will need decades to fully subdue Cuba.

Contrary to some whacky theories people throw around the Confederate leadership were actually fairly logical and sane individuals who didn't engage in war and slavery for shits and giggles. They weren't D&D style 'chaotic evil' overlords and certainly didn't do things just because.

This response has precisely nothing to do with anything I said. Confederate leaders were illogical enough to start a war with a larger, more industrialized nation simply because they lost an election. At the very least, some Confederate states will threaten secession if they don't get their way and some may attempt secession even if it seems illogical. The whole idea that any state can leave at any time for any reason is a recipe for balkanization.

The idea of a state seceeding over the slave trade is fantastic to say the least.

South Carolina nearly didn't join the Confederacy because it banned the international slave trade. If a radical like Rhett was to become governor, there is a distinct chance South Carolina would go its own way.

States are hardly going to just secede because there is union sentiment on the border, there was Confederate sentiment across some of those borders!

I did not say that either. Union sentiment in the Border States would make them more prone to leave the Confederacy, which combined with actions of the Confederate government that are unpopular in the Border States could lead to those states rejoining the Union. It would, as I previously noted, probably require a short war with little damage to the Border States.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
 
It should also be noted, that in the CSA in OTL that hispanics were enfranchised, they were allowed to vote in the states they were largely in (Texas, Florida, Louisiana) and allowed to serve in the Confederate military and hold rank.

If the CSA were to grab Cuba or a chunk of Mexico, I don't see how that will change, they won't be seen as equal to whites (as was much of the custom was in the Western Hemisphere), but will be seen as civilized.

I don't believe anyone has suggested the Confederacy would try to enslave Hispanics. OTOH, period northern Mexico and Cuba were violently opposed to foreign rule. They will resist the Confederates as much as they did the French and Spanish respectively in ATL.

The fillibustering before the war were the attempts to gain more slave states to balance out the slave-free states representation. Post CS Independence it is going to be for the necessity of a Confederate Pacific coast and possibly Carribean regional dominance.

The Confederacy was also expansionistic during the Civil War. The problem with Confederate dreams of expansion is their track record offense was poor.
 
Was their workforce really that poorly educated?

38% of their work force was slaves who typically were not taught to read. Southern doctrine was not to spend public funds on private interests, which included public schools. Poor whites in the South had far higher illiteracy rates than the rest of the country. In the 1900 Census, 26% of adult males from the former Confederacy were illiterate, as opposed to 3% for the rest of the US. The disparity probably would have been worse without the public schools built in the south during Reconstruction.

Debt is pretty standard for war time. Inflation isn't that uncommon either.

The Union and the Confederacy each amassed about $2.7 billion in debt, making the per capita debt for the Confederate nearly three times higher. By mid-March of 1863, the Confederate dollar had lost 90% of its purchasing power. It got much worse before the end of the war.
 
Last edited:
Only if you assume that the post-war Confederate government would be run by men like the pre-war fire-eaters, folks like Robert Rhett and William Yancey. It wouldn't have been, since the war itself cleared those people away like the sweeping of a broom.

I'm assuming that the post-war Confederate government would be run by "Moderates" like Jefferson Davis. That Confederate government was belligerent and expansionistic. They fired on Ft. Sumter and announced their intention to seize the Union capitol. They invaded Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, and Arizona, and attempted to invade Colorado. They tried to acquire the northern tier of Mexican states during the ACW.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
38% of their work force was slavers why typically were not taught to read. Southern doctrine was not to spend public funds on private interests, which included public schools. Poor whites in the South had far higher illiteracy rates than the rest of the country. In the 1900 Census, 26% of adult males from the former Confederacy were illiterate, as opposed to 3% for the rest of the US. The disparity probably would have been worse without the public schools built in the south during Reconstruction.

According to the historian James McPherson, 80% of Confederate soldiers were literate when they joined the army and many of them were taught to read and write during the war (not much to do between battles, after all). So, while literacy rates were higher in the North (about 90% of Union soldiers could read and write), it was not massively so.

The Union and the Confederacy each amassed about $2.7 billion in debt, making the per capita debt for the Confederate nearly three times higher. By mid-March of 1863, the Confederate dollar had lost 90% of its purchasing power. It got much worse before the end of the war.

Sure, but if the Confederacy actually wins the war (i.e. achieves independence) than the value of Confederate currency will be considerably higher than it was IOTL. The value of Confederate currency plunged during the war because it became increasingly obvious that the Confederacy was not going to survive and therefore than Confederate paper money was going to be worthless. If the Confederacy does survive, than the currency will have at least some value.

This is not to say that the South isn't going to be dealing with massive inflation. It obviously will. But to use OTL as an example of what would happen to the value of Confederate currency ITTL doesn't make much sense.
 
According to the historian James McPherson, 80% of Confederate soldiers were literate when they joined the army and many of them were taught to read and write during the war (not much to do between battles, after all). So, while literacy rates were higher in the North (about 90% of Union soldiers could read and write), it was not massively so.

All Southern soldiers are White and 38% of the population was Black among whom almost no one could read. If 38% of the population was Black it meant 62% of the population was White. 20% of 62 is around 12% and 12+38 = 50 which means about half your workforce is illiterate.
 
I don't believe anyone has suggested the Confederacy would try to enslave Hispanics. OTOH, period northern Mexico and Cuba were violently opposed to foreign rule. They will resist the Confederates as much as they did the French and Spanish respectively in ATL.



The Confederacy was also expansionistic during the Civil War. The problem with Confederate dreams of expansion is their track record offense was poor.

In the quote that I made, I was referencing a post by EnglishCanuk, Confederate whites (American whites too) will not see hispanics as equal to them, but will enfranchise them because they were seen as civilized.

Northern Mexico you can make a case however. The landowners there weren't too indifferent from feudal lords from times of yore. I think many of the "Haciendas" there may have something to gain from joining the CSA at least. Outside of that, that part of Mexico had the closest thing to a state's rights-ist mentality for the day. Those states were largely removed from the Mexican government, were largely rural and pastoral and did at times side with their homestate/towns over (or with) the Mexican government time and time again.

The Mexican Revolution in 1910 pretty much exemplified this, when Benito Juarez' government's legacy came down on itself, which caused Portfirio Diaz to take power as dictator and that in itself imploded. During each of the power shifts, the rail lines and cities into the US (TTL CS) in these states were extremely important to both sides. And the CSA wants them to be able to get a Pacific Coast in Guaymas. Because of the CS victory, Juarez and Diaz' presidencies are butterflied away and you have French/Austrian blood running the country.

If Maxamillian is Emperor of Mexico, with the country largely pacified with French and Confederate support after the CS gains independence. This could lead to an extremely interesting set of circumstances to the people and landowners of Sonora, Chihuahua, Couhilla/Nuevo Leon where in which the CSA is vying for a Pacific Coast (and one of these states, Nuevo Leon, WANTED to join the CSA) and pretty much all lands immediately north of El Paso del Norte (OTL Juarez, Chihuaha) and Nogales, Sonora are in Confederate control. Add to it, not any Austrian blood, but a Hapsburg sits on the throne in Mexico City, and while the Conservaties in Mexico don't like him, he's the best guy they got.

All Southern soldiers are White and 38% of the population was Black among whom almost no one could read. If 38% of the population was Black it meant 62% of the population was White. 20% of 62 is around 12% and 12+38 = 50 which means about half your workforce is illiterate.

All Confederate soldiers were white? The majority were white, yes. But tell that to the Cherokees, Choctaws, Creek, Seminole, Chickasaws, Catawba, Osage. And then the Tejanos, Mexicans, Cubans, Spaniards and other hispanics who served in the Confederate military.
 
Last edited:

Anaxagoras

Banned
All Confederate soldiers were white? The majority were white, yes. But tell that to the Cherokees, Choctaws, Creek, Seminole, Chickasaws, Catawba, Osage. And then the Tejanos, Mexicans, Cubans, Spaniards and other hispanics who served in the Confederate military.

Obviously he was talking about black slaves.
 
All Confederate soldiers were white? The majority were white, yes. But tell that to the Cherokees, Choctaws, Creek, Seminole, Chickasaws, Catawba, Osage. And then the Tejanos, Mexicans, Cubans, Spaniards and other hispanics who served in the Confederate military.

Which made up what? 2%? 3%? Maybe 5%? Virtually all of whom were illiterate as well.
 
My point exactly, there were so few Native Americans, Hispanics and Asians in the CSA Army on a percentage basis they can be ignored for the calculation.

You said they were "all white". I provided proof that it wasn't the case. I don't think you can give an accurate percentage on minorities in Confederate service.

But since making up percentages is how you like to play, you are baseless on a lot of things you say on the subject.
 
You said they were "all white". I provided proof that it wasn't the case. I don't think you can give an accurate percentage on minorities in Confederate service.

But since making up percentages is how you like to play, you are baseless on a lot of things you say on the subject.

We both know you are nit picking and it was only a few percentage points.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
I'm assuming that the post-war Confederate government would be run by "Moderates" like Jefferson Davis. That Confederate government was belligerent and expansionistic. They fired on Ft. Sumter and announced their intention to seize the Union capitol. They invaded Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, and Arizona, and attempted to invade Colorado. They tried to acquire the northern tier of Mexican states during the ACW.

The events surrounding the firing on Fort Sumter are very well known. As for Kentucky, Missouri, ect., there was an itsy-bitsy war going on when they launched those offensives. Attacking the enemy is considered a fairly ordinary policy when fighting a war. At least, I think I read that in a manual somewhere.

But even if your contention was correct, why would you assume that the post-war policies of an independent Confederacy would be the same as those indicated by pre-war statements of some of its leaders? Is it not possible that the consequences of the war itself would lead to major changes in outlook?
 
We both know you are nit picking and it was only a few percentage points.

You said the Confederate army was "all white", which it wasn't.

That is like me saying that the Union army was "all white" or that 1/4 of it's forces were freed blacks, neither were the case.

Both armies were majority white, but I never said they were exclusively anything.
 
You said the Confederate army was "all white", which it wasn't.

That is like me saying that the Union army was "all white" or that 1/4 of it's forces were freed blacks, neither were the case.

Both armies were majority white, but I never said they were exclusively anything.

Give it a rest, a few percentage points won't change the calculation significantly.
 
Top