CSA wins. How long until a civil war between Richmond and some of the states

Let's say that the CSA wins the Civil War. How long will it take before a southern civil war breaks out between the government in Richmond and some of the southern states. Which states are most likely to fight against Richmond? How would the war go? Would the U.S intervene?
 
Texas might begin fight against central government when from there find oil and its economy boost but perhaps Texas don't want share all its money with other states. And perhaps some state want abolish slavery but central government doesn't accept that. But I think that USA just watch when CSA is on civil war and later takes these states which has seceded from CSA.
 
It depends on what precedents they believe.

Hamilton and Madison theorized in the Federalist Papers that if the US continued to operate under the Articles of Confederation, due to their emphasis on state power over the federal government, there would be a point where the question would come up as it is primarily a contract between states can one state simply absolve it like any individual could with a contract or would it require the unanimous vote of all states like any other piece of legislation? That question was never answered as the United Confederation of America didn't last long enough to formally confront that problem.

The CSA didn't codify their government on the Articles of Confederation but they did operate with an emphasis on state reliance during the ACW which created logistic in OTL. Whether that emphasis remains is questionable because by glances at the constitution they adopted it closely resembled the US Constitution except with emphasis on 2 year term limits for Congress, guarantees protecting slavery in any new states or territories admitted and makes convening for Constitutional Amendments far more expedient by requiring 3 states to call the assembly to vote.

The last part is interesting because then any 3 states within that union could theoretically call for if not the abolishment of slavery at least an Amendment so the federal government no longer is a guarantor in protecting it. The question would be getting such votes passed as it would require 2/3rds majority of most states or any other method of the majority's choosing to be ratified.
 
Let's say that the CSA wins the Civil War. How long will it take before a southern civil war breaks out between the government in Richmond and some of the southern states. Which states are most likely to fight against Richmond? How would the war go? Would the U.S intervene?

If it does happen, it wouldn't be for a while, and it's likely that any civil war would end with the rebelling states being re-annexed by the Union if the government happens to be particularly gung-ho about propping up slavery.....vice-versa if otherwise.
 
I give it ten-twenty years. It would take a miracle for the CSA to make it to the 1900s in one piece - much longer than that, and it would take an act of God.
 
A independent CSA in my view would last until about the eighteen eighties when all the issues that they ignore or bury become to big and featured for to long to ignore.

The most prominent of which would be the economy, with the main stream CSA politics i would imagine having changed very little with heavy emphasis for slave holding Agriculture that falls well behind Industrialization.

Souths infrastructure which was not all that great to begin with would fall further behind the technology of the day without any improvements or invest for expansion which would lead to further degradation in the economy which would lead to more worsening of the local and national conditions in every sector.

And thus the domino effect rooting away every sector of the CSA until finally it is outright destroyed by the US or one of the CSA states succeeds from the CSA thus sparking a civil war and then is destroyed by the US.
 
As Bensel argued in Yankee Leviathan, it was the South which was actually more centralized and statist than the north, depending on the expropriation of private property for the war effort and by the end, essentially running things as a command economy. This is one of the many reasons why the "states' rights" argument is garbage.

So, to answer your question, rebellions against Richmond actually started during the war nearly everywhere inland and would only have gotten worse if somehow the CSA won.

A victorious CSA would necessarily be an international pariah state with an economy down the shitter(even if they scrapped central planning they'd still have nobody to buy their cotton), huge local revolts, and a powerful, pissed-off neighbor who's just waiting for the facade of order to come crashing down, a punchline to a bad joke. I give it 10 years max.
 
A independent CSA in my view would last until about the eighteen eighties when all the issues that they ignore or bury become to big and featured for to long to ignore.

The most prominent of which would be the economy, with the main stream CSA politics i would imagine having changed very little with heavy emphasis for slave holding Agriculture that falls well behind Industrialization.

Souths infrastructure which was not all that great to begin with would fall further behind the technology of the day without any improvements or invest for expansion which would lead to further degradation in the economy which would lead to more worsening of the local and national conditions in every sector.

And thus the domino effect rooting away every sector of the CSA until finally it is outright destroyed by the US or one of the CSA states succeeds from the CSA thus sparking a civil war and then is destroyed by the US.

Aren't you assuming here, that the CSA will be a North Korea-style isolationalist entity, foregoing trade and contact with outsiders, and with no attempts at diplomacy?
I mean...we all thank our lucky stars that the Union won, but whenever I come across: "Oh, the CSA would just have collapsed soon after, and then it'd have been the same result as now, and we'd all live happily ever after", I immediately become sceptical. Lots of countries rose from seemingly impossible odds. Despite been deeply racist, the leaders of the CSA weren't imbiciles.
 
Aren't you assuming here, that the CSA will be a North Korea-style isolationalist entity, foregoing trade and contact with outsiders, and with no attempts at diplomacy?
I mean...we all thank our lucky stars that the Union won, but whenever I come across: "Oh, the CSA would just have collapsed soon after, and then it'd have been the same result as now, and we'd all live happily ever after", I immediately become sceptical. Lots of countries rose from seemingly impossible odds. Despite been deeply racist, the leaders of the CSA weren't imbiciles.

The evidence is rather mixed on that. Not as a matter of racism and slavery, but there's very little that could be called statesmanship in the CSA in the 1860s.

I doubt it would be anything like "the same result as now", but saying the CSA's leaders weren't imbeciles gives them more credit than some of their policies deserve, one might even say most.
 
Aren't you assuming here, that the CSA will be a North Korea-style isolationalist entity, foregoing trade and contact with outsiders, and with no attempts at diplomacy?
I mean...we all thank our lucky stars that the Union won, but whenever I come across: "Oh, the CSA would just have collapsed soon after, and then it'd have been the same result as now, and we'd all live happily ever after", I immediately become sceptical. Lots of countries rose from seemingly impossible odds. Despite been deeply racist, the leaders of the CSA weren't imbiciles.

The south's main trade product ( and one might say only product in it) was cotton, which by the time of the Civil war was being effectively sidelined by Cotton from France's and England's colonies.

Given the heavy conservative nature at that time and the way the South office holders and men of political nature went about their work its very unlikely that the South would be in such a rush to switch to different trade products.

And even if they did its hard to think that any trading Nations would want to do business with a slave holding nation and since the South is a Trading and Agriculture based economy it would be devastating economically.

The very widely held view that the CSA wouldn't be able to function or stand alone on its own hold much of it to the massive and heavy fissures that formed during the Civil War.

Governess wanting to keep their troops in their owns states, whilst at the same time wanting more troops from other states insisting their states were more important than any other.

The East and West fronts are living proof of that, the Confederacy in the West was a complete mess of political officers who had no idea what they were doing (Polk being the biggest example) and kept in their positions by Davis because their individual states wanted them their thus hurting what ever chances the CSA had in the war.

Not to mentation how the CSA west was basically sacrificed for the East, the massive political problems that the Richmond encountered and only grew more and more larger as the war went on adequately demonstrated just how the CSA form of government was unworkable and would snap given the right amount of pressure.

The stubborn defense of Southern arms are the only reason why it managed to hold up for so long.

Given all that it really stretches the thinkable when one thinks of the CSA able to properly function in peace time, let alone being able to advance economically, politically and socially.

And yes Nations like men have beaten the odds before but in this scenario and from what we have seen of the CSAs Political order when confronting issues during the Civil War i heavily doubt the CSA could survive.
 
The south's main trade product ( and one might say only product in it) was cotton, which by the time of the Civil war was being effectively sidelined by Cotton from France's and England's colonies.

Given the heavy conservative nature at that time and the way the South office holders and men of political nature went about their work its very unlikely that the South would be in such a rush to switch to different trade products.

And even if they did its hard to think that any trading Nations would want to do business with a slave holding nation and since the South is a Trading and Agriculture based economy it would be devastating economically.

The very widely held view that the CSA wouldn't be able to function or stand alone on its own hold much of it to the massive and heavy fissures that formed during the Civil War.

Governess wanting to keep their troops in their owns states, whilst at the same time wanting more troops from other states insisting their states were more important than any other.

The East and West fronts are living proof of that, the Confederacy in the West was a complete mess of political officers who had no idea what they were doing (Polk being the biggest example) and kept in their positions by Davis because their individual states wanted them their thus hurting what ever chances the CSA had in the war.

Not to mentation how the CSA west was basically sacrificed for the East, the massive political problems that the Richmond encountered and only grew more and more larger as the war went on adequately demonstrated just how the CSA form of government was unworkable and would snap given the right amount of pressure.

The stubborn defense of Southern arms are the only reason why it managed to hold up for so long.

Given all that it really stretches the thinkable when one thinks of the CSA able to properly function in peace time, let alone being able to advance economically, politically and socially.

And yes Nations like men have beaten the odds before but in this scenario and from what we have seen of the CSAs Political order when confronting issues during the Civil War i heavily doubt the CSA could survive.

The South was literally a command economy, and even in peacetime a siege mentality would set in and I highly doubt the government would give up the central planning once they took that power.

They would face no trade from the US, probably little from Europe, especially with the USN still probably disrupting things on the high seas or directly blockading ports.

So yes, I think the North Korea comparisons are pretty apt.
 
Let's say that the CSA wins the Civil War. How long will it take before a southern civil war breaks out between the government in Richmond and some of the southern states. Which states are most likely to fight against Richmond? How would the war go? Would the U.S intervene?

The Confederacy was founded with the idea that it was okay to secede if your candidate lost. You could see breakaway attempts as early as 1867, with South Carolina and Texas being the most likely.
 
Top