How bad would the financial situation be for an independent CSA?

The gauge will be dependent on the railroad, not the jurisdictions. Farmer A being a problem happened everywhere (or didn't, for reasons having nothing to do with the government).

Laws and regulations: Exactly what laws and regulations are going to be more problematic going from Georgia to Virginia than New York to Indiana?



The Feds didn't have much influence on what railroads faced or didn't in the US in the 19th century. Railroads had to work these things out themselves, and did. Somehow.

Interesting, I am hardly a railroad geek so I will take your word for it.
 
Interesting, I am hardly a railroad geek so I will take your word for it.

Its interesting how it works out, actually.

I wouldn't say a lack of central government isn't a problem - for instance, railroads will remain localistic concerns, most likely, because what interests Georgia won't interest North Carolina, and of course federal funding is impossible to acquire (not that the Confederate government has the money to fund railroads anyway), so the Confederate government's bugs will make life more difficult.
 
You could also build rail through a heap of gilded age stock fraud.

A popular process amongst the rail barons went as following. Announce a new rail company intent on serving region A by building rail lines B & C. Stock offerings would be sold in order to pay for the construction. Rail company would dramatically increase its number of shares, while the owners would divest themselves. Rail lines would be built, but the company is already bankrupt. Investors lose their shirts, former owners sweep in, buy up the now worthless stock, and fold it into their existing rail holdings.
 
You could also build rail through a heap of gilded age stock fraud.

A popular process amongst the rail barons went as following. Announce a new rail company intent on serving region A by building rail lines B & C. Stock offerings would be sold in order to pay for the construction. Rail company would dramatically increase its number of shares, while the owners would divest themselves. Rail lines would be built, but the company is already bankrupt. Investors lose their shirts, former owners sweep in, buy up the now worthless stock, and fold it into their existing rail holdings.

Repeat as desired.

You could even eliminate "rail lines would be built" to a great extent if you're really clever and unscrupulous.
 
How long would you guys say it would take for revolution to break out by soldiers not being adequately represented?

Even more importantly adequately paid or supplied? They were and would be paid with Confederate currency which was declining in value quickly. I think the Confederacy was very likely to evolve into a military dictatorship. I would give it maybe 5 years or so for that to happen and it could well happen quicker.
 
Even more importantly adequately paid or supplied? They were and would be paid with Confederate currency which was declining in value quickly. I think the Confederacy was very likely to evolve into a military dictatorship. I would give it maybe 5 years or so for that to happen and it could well happen quicker.

A thing that ought to be kept in mind. Not counting the PACS, which will only be owed the pay for three or less years, and then can be left to make a living the easy way (by comparison...), there's only going to be a tiny Confederate regular army.

You can say the Confederate will want a large force all you like, but it intended to use a similar model to the US, with ten thousand men or so in the regular army. And that ten thousand is assuming its fully recruited up to strength.

So supplied wouldn't be an issue. Paid might not be either if the Confederacy somehow manages to handle it for the pre-peace men.
 
A thing that ought to be kept in mind. Not counting the PACS, which will only be owed the pay for three or less years, and then can be left to make a living the easy way (by comparison...), there's only going to be a tiny Confederate regular army.

You can say the Confederate will want a large force all you like, but it intended to use a similar model to the US, with ten thousand men or so in the regular army. And that ten thousand is assuming its fully recruited up to strength.

So supplied wouldn't be an issue. Paid might not be either if the Confederacy somehow manages to handle it for the pre-peace men.

Wouldn't the CSA most likely be FORCED by the circumstances to have a large army? After all there is a big, rich and hostile country just over its northern border!
 
Wouldn't the CSA most likely be FORCED by the circumstances to have a large army? After all there is a big, rich and hostile country just over its northern border!

"And how exactly is it going to create this army?" Assuming it scraps the 1861 plans (reasonable enough, fair enough)

Conscription? That's going to be even worse than during wartime.
 
Doesn't make a difference. If you can't afford to keep a standing army, then your best bet is a militia.

And the idea that a volunteer army like the PACS (just about every single unit in the entire "Confederate army" in the ACW was technically part of the Provisional Army, Confederate States) can make up for the tiny regular army when necessary is part of the "tiny regular army" plan, I should note.
 
And the idea that a volunteer army like the PACS (just about every single unit in the entire "Confederate army" in the ACW was technically part of the Provisional Army, Confederate States) can make up for the tiny regular army when necessary is part of the "tiny regular army" plan, I should note.

Perhaps but I think it is more likely they will nearly bankrupt themselves trying to keep a large,standing army. After all they had one through the Civil War and the economy should improve somewhat afterwords as they rebuild infastructure and are able to trade freely with England and France. They would, of course, still suffer very high inflation as a result but I think they would consider that the lesser of two evils.
 
Top