CSA Politics?

Hey Guys,

Lately there's been a lot of threads about the Confederate States of America around. Now I've noticed that a lot of people doubt the CSA's ability to work politically in a sensible manner, and it's almost common thought that the CSA would simply break up soon enough. Now I don't know much about Confederacy politics, but could someone explain why they think the CSA might break up and just be dysfunctional politically? Because to me it seems the CSA wasn't that different from the USA, apart from obvious differences such as more aristocratic, slavery etc.
 
You just outlined it. It was an effort at a democracy dominated by a group of "aristocrats" in turn dominated by regional pride and their urge to defend the morally indefensible. These things are not good for a nation's long-term health. If the CSA avoided splintering apart, it would probably be because of a slide towards dictatorship.
 
CSA OTL

OTL the first turm of the CSA congress showed a lot of unity. In the second turm exterior states were calling for more sacrafice than interior states. This makes sence since they were under attack. If the south was winning maby it would have been different. For example arming slaves. Exerior congressmen were more likely to want to try it. I can see were this polacy could backfire.
 

Keenir

Banned
You just outlined it. It was an effort at a democracy dominated by a group of "aristocrats" in turn dominated by regional pride and their urge to defend the morally indefensible. These things are not good for a nation's long-term health. If the CSA avoided splintering apart, it would probably be because of a slide towards dictatorship.

then how did the US avoid it between 1788 and 1840?
 

Keenir

Banned
Because to me it seems the CSA wasn't that different from the USA, apart from obvious differences such as more aristocratic, slavery etc.

the US had plenty of slavery, even just in the Union states. there were just as many (if not more) aristocrats - in Boston, for example, we call them Brahmins.
 
Essentially, the CSA was founded on the idea of a lack of a strong central government. There would be nothing to tie the states together, and thus nothing to stop them from breaking apart.
 
Essentially, the CSA was founded on the idea of a lack of a strong central government. There would be nothing to tie the states together, and thus nothing to stop them from breaking apart.
Agreed in part. The CSA was using an Articles of Confederation mentality seeking a US Constitution coherence. But there is something keeping the south together which is identity. The South has its own culture, society, ways, etc. which are distinct from the north.
 
Last edited:
then how did the US avoid it between 1788 and 1840?

Barely. There were several near-Civil Wars before the real one, and slaveowners held a powerful and increasingly repressive role in the nation's government.

Further, extend the dates a little, and--we sort of didn't. In fact, the whole 'splintering' thing is what we're talking about.
 
Agreed in part. The CSA was using an Articles of Confederation mentality seeking a US Constitution coherence. But there is something keeping the south together which is identity. The South has its own culture, society, ways, etc. which are distinct from the north.

Well, yes. The issue is different: what happens when South Carolina does something that's objectionable to the people of Georgia? If the states have diverse economic interests, for instance, the absence of a strong unified government would almost certainly lead to intense conflict.
 
I have read the CSA constitution, i feel it not such different from USA.
If they win the war victory sentiment should be able to keep the 11 states togheder long enough to build a national sentiment(something i think they feel, if not they don't spilled their blood in counteless battle to defend the south), and constitution is emendable.

I feel that may be some upper south state(Tennesse nearly sure, may be Arkansas, Northern Texas perhaps) should wish to rejoin USA or have some strong Unionist moviment but i seen no Texas republic.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
CSA would certainly be a looser union than the US, more an alliance of independent States. However the Alliance called CSA would probably not break up, since they'd probably fear their Northern neighbour.
 
The history of loose alliances is full of examples of them breaking up over differing goals. Often this occurred in the face of forces that could pick them off separately if the didn't stick together.

Modern transportation and communication has helped create the image of a common Southern culture, but Virginia was different than Louisiana, Texas was different than South Carolina.

The Confederacy was founded on the idea that any state can leave at any time for any reason. That means any Presidential election and any major decision by any branch of the CSA government risks losing some states or even outright fragmentation.
 
I think the big problem is Texas. Texas has an identity almost entirely seperate from the rest of the South due mainly to its brief stint of Independence. With the CSA founded on the right to seceed, they can't stop states seceeding from them, and Texas is, IMO, likely to. Abolitionist East Tennessee, and borderline Missouri, Kentucky and Arkansas may rejoin the union. On the other hand, I find it quite concievable for a southern core of Virginia, the Carolinas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and West Tennessee to stay together, and for Texas to maintain an alliance with the rest of the CSA.
 
Top