Economy of a defeated union

As a companion to a thread on the economy of a vicorious confederacy in the Civil War, how does this effect the US economy? Is there, as Turtledove suggests, a depression-like period afterwards? is the US more industrialised as a result? Does this effect or prevent the recovery of the Bison? Is the US a more blue collar or white collar nation as a result? How does this effect politics, without a large, mainly conservative, southern voting block in elections? Does the US later effecively turn the Confederacy into a banana republic? Do US-based oil companies control the oil in texas?
 
A US shorn of the South would depend more, perhaps much more on international trade. I could envisage a larger merchant navy and more robust shipbuilding industry.
But seeing as it would be more dependent on exports, the Union might develop in a more uneven, cyclical manner. IE global 'panics'/recessions would have a greater effect.
 
As a companion to a thread on the economy of a vicorious confederacy in the Civil War, how does this effect the US economy? Is there, as Turtledove suggests, a depression-like period afterwards? is the US more industrialised as a result? Does this effect or prevent the recovery of the Bison? Is the US a more blue collar or white collar nation as a result? How does this effect politics, without a large, mainly conservative, southern voting block in elections? Does the US later effecively turn the Confederacy into a banana republic? Do US-based oil companies control the oil in texas?

Lost the game

I think you need to decide how the north loses. Is it still a long war or a short one. Relatively bloodless or even more costly. What size is the south? Have other powers been brought in or did it stay an 'internal' conflict? Is there a fairly quick reconciliation between the powers or continued and deep hostility?

There's a world of difference between a north that gives up say after a 64 election but has secured most of the border states, or even one that didn't fight at all and one that dragged in Britain and France and struggled on until say 65-66 but gets grown into dust virtually and possibly loses not only a fairly maximum south but other areas.

I am presuming a conflict that lasts basically until 64-65 but where the south does better, avoids some of the devastation of OTL and the north loses the will to continue the fight. That is not too dissimilar to OTL so we can draw parallels.

I would have to disagree with Hyperbolus. A major conflict between the south and the dominant NE was over the latter's protectionist policies that forced the south to use more products from the north. Without the south, which is now free to buy from world markets the protectionist element in the north would be even stronger. Also without the products of the south, chiefly cotton, they have lost one of their main export products, as well as the captive market and the tax revenue of the south. Even if there are not economic problems with the use of the Mississippi the US is likely to be more introvert after the conflict.

The exception might be if it seeks to increase exports to pay off some of its debts. With a lost war, unless it was markedly shorter those would be worse than OTL because it would have lost the revenue from the south [tax, captive market and export goods] and because with an independent south military expenditure would probably be higher. As such there might be a desire to find export goods to fund the deficit.

One big question might be attitude to immigration, which could go either way. Without immigrants from the south, few blacks except for those who can escape and possibly few whites because of mutual hostility the north might be more open to settlers from Europe and elsewhere. Or having lost a large chunk of their WASP element they might be more hostile to settlers from eastern and southern Europe, possibly also to Catholics, so you could see earlier controls on immigrations.

This is a huge factor because on the 1st extreme the US could develop similar to OTL while the other extreme could see a drastic slowing in the rate of growth of the population and the economy.

Steve
 
In the short term there would be some pretty severe disruptions, enough to make any Turtledove scenario vanishingly improbable. The South can only win a short war circa 1862, while that's just short enough of OTL to make the economic chaos of a losing war quite severe indeed. Bereft of the CSA states, the USA facing an unstable frontier where slaves are going to be, particularly when absent the CS states slavery disappears altogether in the USA walking over the border to freedom, meaning possible CS Army raids to get them back, will require a large standing army in peacetime.

This in turn will rather somewhat hamper OTL-style economic growth, and will also in the very long term have rather negative impacts on overall US culture. The USA is also going to be a rather more narrowly capitalist society, and the USA that emerges postwar will reflect Northern culture's strong points and weak points. The US economy is going to have a larger military sector, and this in turn may spur US interventionism in the Caribbean and Pacific faster than IOTL, while on the whole the USA is a far smaller share of the global economy than our own.

A USA that shifts to a predominantly capitalist society without the South will also develop a very different political spectrum, as the South was the center of a few trends that will not be there in a post-split USA, while intra-Northern divisions would become larger and more important.
 
OTL growth (1865-1898):

"American what production increased by 256 percent, corn by 222 percent, refined sugar by 460 percent, coal by 800 percent, steel rails by 523 percent, and the miles of railway track in operation by over 567 percent. 'In new industries the growth, starting from near zero, was so great as to make percentages meaningless. Thus the production of crude petroleum rose from about 3,000,000 barrels in 1865 to over 55,000,000 barrels in 1898 and that of steel ignots and castings from less than 20,000 long tons to nearly 9,000,000 long tons.
...
The role of foreign trade in the US's economic growth was small indeed (around 8 percent of its GNP derived from foreign trade in 1913, compared with Britain's 26 percent), but its economic impact was considerable. Traditionally, the United States had exported raw materials (especially cotton), imported finished manufactures, and made up for the usual deficit in 'visible' trade by the export of gold. But the post-Civil War boom in industrialization quite transformed that pattern. Swiftly becoming the world's largest production of mamnufactures, the United STates began to pour its farm machinery, iron and steel wares, machine tools, electrical equipment and other products onto the world market." (from The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers).

It still has most of its territory, particularly the highly industrialized part. I wouldn't say there will be no damage at all, but it won't be crippling by any means.

Cotton is not king post-war.
 
ver the border to freedom, meaning possible CS Army raids to get them back, will require a large standing army in peacetime.

We didn't have an enormous standing army before the Civil War, even though Canada and the UK were not our close allies at the time, no?

Also, military spending was a pretty small portion of GDP at the time, no?
 
We didn't have an enormous standing army before the Civil War, even though Canada and the UK were not our close allies at the time, no?

Also, military spending was a pretty small portion of GDP at the time, no?

Canada didn't have a large portion of its population regularly crossing the border with each crossing an individual international incident waiting to happen. It was a small part of GDP, it'd be a lot more in any such TL, which is *why* it crimps growth.
 
Canada didn't have a large portion of its population regularly crossing the border with each crossing an individual international incident waiting to happen. It was a small part of GDP, it'd be a lot more in any such TL, which is *why* it crimps growth.

I meant globally, actually. I think the Kaiserreich peaked at... 3.7%?

I could see that the northern states would pursue more growth policies. It's interesting that a lot of major developments happened when the southern states were gone; the transcontninental railroad, land grant colleges...
 

mowque

Banned
Canada didn't have a large portion of its population regularly crossing the border with each crossing an individual international incident waiting to happen. It was a small part of GDP, it'd be a lot more in any such TL, which is *why* it crimps growth.

Yes, it will. Curious to see how it effects the West, as well.


Will we see a Turtledove-esque Socialist uprising?
 
I meant globally, actually. I think the Kaiserreich peaked at... 3.7%?

I could see that the northern states would pursue more growth policies. It's interesting that a lot of major developments happened when the southern states were gone; the transcontninental railroad, land grant colleges...

They had some severe flaws, though. Without the South's strong influence on the US military that's going to end up being filled by Northerners who otherwise would be contributing to the economy, and their defensive precautions still mandate a larger army because slavery exists in all CS states.

Yes, it will. Curious to see how it effects the West, as well.


Will we see a Turtledove-esque Socialist uprising?

Indeed. I think one of the few things TL-191 got right was a more rapid end to Western settlement. I think the emergence of a strong Socialist Party also fits primarily because without the South the new USA will be even more strongly capitalist and agrarian populism would have a lot less roots to draw from while socialism would have far more to do so. A USA and CSA that develop even to the 1890s in independent directions would in several profound ways be quite alien to each other, but being black in either one is going to be unpleasant. :(
 
The United States is going to undergo a profound cultural shift. The loss of the confederacy will make America considerably whiter, less WASP's, more urban, and more catholic.

As the CSA claim's the Southern leaders of the American revolution as their own, the union will rewrite its history to emphasize the importance of New England and the Middle colonies. In the process the ideal of the Jeffersonian farmer is likely to be discarded. The "American Story" therefore becomes one of cosmopolitan cities and frontiersmen.

In practical turns this will likely mean the north will have a bruised ego for a while. Until it heals, it will be looking for some means to prove its strength as a nation. I'd imagine the immediate result would be a much bloodier end to the Indian wars, and potentially the Union striving for a greater presence in the Pacific.

Secondly the government is likely to be much more involved within the United States economy. Railroads are no longer a mode of transportation, they are an essential component for national defense. Steel and powder mills vital components for protecting American from enemies at home and abroad. The nascent robber barons will undoubtedly make a killing off the resulting government contracts.

Thirdly, the US will be much more cosmopolitan. The WASP identity will forever be associated with the confederacy. The United STates is likely to see its immigration being much more concentrated (as the said individuals are unlikely to go south) and to continue unabated for a much longer period of time. The city will go from somethign viewed with suspicion, to the distinguishing feature of "american" civilization. Nativism's will lose much of its constituency, taking with it the notion of national prohibition. Furthermore immigrants from Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe will likely give the United States a catholic plurality much earlier than in OTL.
 
I think King Gorilla has it right - defeat is going to alter the political consensus of the US body politic, and probably radicalise a section beyond anything seen in OTL. Labour, other potential secessionists, and political radicals all might see that resorting to violence against the federal government is a legitimate means to an end, because it worked for the South.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Top