CSA: Sick Man of the Americas?

ninebucks

Banned
Again I'm no expert on southern American history but beyond the Mason-Dixon line was hardly an industrial powerhouse was it?

Because the government in Washington favoured developing the North, to the detriment of the South. The Civil War was fought by the CSA so that they might be free to diversify their economy at a pace decided by their own voters.

My personal beliefs of what a Confederate-win TL would look like are quite different from a lot of others'. I imagine that an independent CSA would make abolishing slavery and modernising its agricultural system its top priority, (to gain internal food security, to placate its huge Black population and to remove Abolitionism as a motive for a Northern invasion).

The second generation of Confederate leaders would be committed industrialists and urbanists, they'd encourage investment and skilled immigration from abroad while creating model cities of harmonious ethnic co-existance, (the fact that post-Reconstruction Southerners saw Blacks as a Northern Fifth Column cannot be understated as a cause for OTL Southern racism IMHO, its what turned the ignorant casual racism of the pre-War period into the maniacal genocidalism of the KKK and the totalitarian nastiness of Segregation - in a TL where Blacks are not viewed as traitors to the South, but rather as a valued part of it, (a victorious CSA would have had to have recruited a huge number of Black soldiers if it was to win in the first place), racial integration has as good a chance of taking off as in any other first world nation).

By the third generation, (early 20th Century), the CSA will be as developed as the USA and will be more than ready to enact serious political reforms.

By the fourth generation, the CSA will be ready to elect its first Black president, (or prime minister or whatever, its not definite that the CSA will keep its original War-time constitution for so long). By this time the CSA will be a very different place to the US, its politics will be much more socially orientated, the government will see itself as the protector of social cohesion, and will not favour economic development over that goal. The CSA will have a welfare state more comparable to OTL Europe than OTL America.
 
Because the government in Washington favoured developing the North, to the detriment of the South.

Umm. Given that there were numerous Southern presidents, with Southern representatives in Congress, wha?

My personal beliefs of what a Confederate-win TL would look like are quite different from a lot of others'. I imagine that an independent CSA would make abolishing slavery and modernising its agricultural system its top priority, (to gain internal food security, to placate its huge Black population and to remove Abolitionism as a motive for a Northern invasion).

But they just whipped the damnyankees, and fought a war over freeing slaves. This sounds like what you would like to happen, rather than what would.
 
Because the government in Washington favoured developing the North, to the detriment of the South.

uh, not exactly. Developers preferred the north over the south because the former had hordes of immigrants who could be wage workers, while the south had far less population, and it would have been mostly slaves who would be available for factory work. Furthermore, the south had very little investment capital (New York state had more than the entire south), and the big plantation owners sat on the boards of most banks, and made sure that capital funding helped them, not factory owners. But the big reason that the south wasn't industrialized was because economics had made it that way; in general, the south was the source of raw materials (cotton, etc.) that went north into the factories there...
 
Okay so we've got an agriculturally focused but still industrially strong country, how about its polity?

If the CSA stuck to its decentralised ideal how would power develop, would the President become a more ceremonial position, either de jure or de facto due to corruption at local level? A more parliamentary system, with the Speaker as PM? My idea is for a story so interesting is just as good as factual here.

I know its a Southern stereotype but how ingrained were the Long-style Governor dictators and would they be the real power in a Confederate state?
 
I'm not sure how well the tariffs actually helped Argentina with economic growth in the late nineteenth century; there's still some considerable economic argument on that point. Some authors ascribe Argentina's economic growth during that period to high immigration rather than protectionist policies, and some say that the main intention of high tariffs in Argentina were to raise government revenue rather than encourage native industry.

Well, that's probably right. There wasn't a coherent policy to encourage industrialization in Argentina during the period 1853-1880. Some politicians propose it in the 1870s, and then again in the 1890s, but they were a minority. The prevalent idea was that very high tariffs would just mean higher prices for consumers with no gains in terms of industrialization. And previous experiences (like the protectionist bill passed in 1835 under Rosas) hadn't been succesfull in creating a modern industry.

But, since the government needed money to modernize the country, build schools and equip an army , sometimes tariffs were raised, as it was easier to raise money in this way than to, for example, create a direct tax on rent or land (which would have been much more resisted).

A lot of infraestracture was built in this period (railways, sewer systems, modern ports, electrical plants). Some were funded by the government, but most were by foreign capitals (mainly British).

The fact was that the country was small in terms of population, and lacked both the capitals (and the internal market) needed for industrialization. Gradually, however, some sectors of the economy were able to accumulate a lot of capital, due to the export of agricultural products. But they were very reluctant to invest in infraestructure or, let alone, industry. The only started doing so after the crisis of 1929, when investing in industries became very profitable.
 

ninebucks

Banned
Umm. Given that there were numerous Southern presidents, with Southern representatives in Congress, wha?

Most of whom had interests in plantation agriculture, and thus weren't too representative of the South as while.

But they just whipped the damnyankees, and fought a war over freeing slaves. This sounds like what you would like to happen, rather than what would.

Yeah, there is a degree of wishful thinking, but its not completely unfounded. The idea that ordinary Southerners fought their war to defend the institution of slavery strikes me as being revisionistic and ridiculous, I'm sure if we went round to a Confederate army barracks and asked the soldiers what they were fighting for, few if any of them would have replied, 'so that the rich land owners can keep exploiting slave labour'.

Working-class White Confederate war veterans could end up being unlikely advocates for Black liberation, if Black Confederates end up fighting alongside them in the War. IMO, the fact that working-class White America and working-class Black America managed to co-exist for so long without realising how many interests in common is one of the most unlikely things in OTL. I imagine a CSA-victory TL where the two ethnic groups join forces against the rich White class that, after all, pushed them into fighting a ruinous war in defence of a doomed socio-economic system.
 
It'd be the U.S' little brother, but it's not like Mexico is going to take a chunk of it or something. I'm not sure "sick man" applies.

It's a reference to the phrase 'sick old man of Europe' which was used by some to describe the Ottoman Empire in its later years.
 
Most of whom had interests in plantation agriculture, and thus weren't too representative of the South as while.

And since these were the movers and shakers in the CSA, things change why?

The idea that ordinary Southerners fought their war to defend the institution of slavery strikes me as being revisionistic and ridiculous, I'm sure if we went round to a Confederate army barracks and asked the soldiers what they were fighting for, few if any of them would have replied, 'so that the rich land owners can keep exploiting slave labour'
That's true. They also all wanted to own slaves as well.

Working-class White Confederate war veterans could end up being unlikely advocates for Black liberation, if Black Confederates end up fighting alongside them in the War. IMO, the fact that working-class White America and working-class Black America managed to co-exist for so long without realising how many interests in common is one of the most unlikely things in OTL. I imagine a CSA-victory TL where the two ethnic groups join forces against the rich White class that, after all, pushed them into fighting a ruinous war in defence of a doomed socio-economic system.

An interesting theory which unfortunately doesn't seem to have much relationship to Southern (or, well, anywhere's) race relations.
 
poor whites didn't fight in the ACW because of slavery; they hated both the rich plantation owners and the negroes equally. They fought for 'states' rights' and because of a life-long indoctrination about how the Yankees were dominating and abusing the south. If the south had won the war, the poor whites wouldn't have welcomed the negroes as equals in their struggle against the rich; quite the opposite....
 
Top