How big could a victorious CSA get?

No. Secession is a right held by the States. Not by regions within States. Nobody had ever argued, prior to the war, that regions within States had a right of secession.
Even if that argument is used and the CSA forcibly keeps West Virginia, its going to very quickly turn into their "Appalachian Ulcer". Again, something which they cannot likely afford with the continuing threat of slave-rebellions, let alone annexing areas like Haiti or Cuba as some have suggested.
 
On the slavery issue the CSA probably would have abolished slavery by 1900 so that issue would probably be gone by then. As for ruling over different ethnic areas such as Haiti or Cuba the CSA would just oppress them and make them second-class citizens like the US did before the Civil Right Movement. Finally I don't think the CSA would break apart because the President of the CSA would not attempt any massive centralized policy unlike the US.
As to the CSA abolishing slavery, what we would likely run into is individual States abolishing slavery within their own borders over time, as any central government effort to abolish slavery would very likely lead to States seceding from the CSA as they had from the USA. What is debatable is how long it would take for each of these States to individually abolish slavery, as some of them I feel could likely hang on for a long time.

As to ethnic areas like Haiti and Cuba, while these areas might be Territories or Colonies of the CSA, it is exceedingly unlikely that they would be granted Statehood. The most simple reason for this is racism. This racism was not simply present in the CSA but in the USA as well. After the USA gained control of Cuba from Spain in OTL, there was talk of its being made a State, which was quickly and unceremoniously shot down because, quite simply, Americans didn't want those swarthy Spanish-speaking near-savages in the Union. If this was the attitude of an unbroken Union at the turn of the twentieth century, I can only imagine that the attitude of the CSA at that time or prior would have to be just as bad, if not worse.
 
Considering the cotton crash of the '70s, where the fuck is the CSA going to find the money - any money at all, in fact - for these Imperialist ventures? And when any one state feels weighed down by having to support a half-dozen ailing subsistence-farming states with no industry and a useless crop, what do you think they're going to do? Texas, Virginia, Florida - I'll lay odds they'd be peeling off from the Confederates inside a generation.
 
General Mung: Why would the CSA abolish slavery by 1900? What are the economic conditions that make it profitable to do so? What foreign nation has the influence to force the issue? And even if one did, say Britain, pushing for the abolition of slavery would remove cheap labor from the cotton fields, thereby raising the price of cotton being fed into Britain's mills.

OTL, there were 8.8 mln African-Americans in the US in 1900. Figuring 89% were in slavery in the south (the proportion in 1860), that implies 8 million slaves to be freed. What would be done with the slaves afterward? They were largely without education or an existing community of their own. No other nation in North America especially wanted them (at least not in those numbers), and shipping them all to Africa would be prohibitively expensive. The population of Canada at the time was about 7.2 million, split between Anglophone, Francophone and First nations. Do you really think there was going to be a majority black Dominion of Canada? Mexico had 14 million, but problems of their own.

Slaves were a major investment, the basis of both the Southern economy and the social structure. How would the resulting labor shortage be met?

How would the government offset the tremendous loss of wealth associated their emancipation? A young adult male laborer could expect to be worth in the range of $10K, in today's dollars. Taking millions of slaves out of the economy overnight would throw the economy of the south into instant recession, if not depression, with the CSA's GDP suddenly gutted.
 
I all honesty I think that slavery in the Confederacy would continue well into the 20th century.

It would be scarse in Virginia and its Upper-Southern neighbors by the early 1900's as they were in the process of downsizing Slavery as an institution in those states in OTL when the ACW began. I would guess that by 1930 Slavery would be almost extinct in Virginia and Arkansas and it would be close to that in North Carolina, Tennessee might hold on a bit longer but would be close behind the other Upper-Southern states in abolition.

The Deep-South on the other hand has more need for slavery on the whole and it would be unlikely that they would even begin to think about abolition before 1900. It would be most likely that one of the Deep-South states, most likely Flodrida, would begin to downsize the institution around the same time Virginia would be close to abolishing it in the 1930's. South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas would hold on to the institution longer simply becuase they would have more need of it.

That being said I think that Slavery on the whole would be mostly gone from the Confederacy by the 1960's and certainly wouldn't be around in the 2000's in any large-scale form. Slavery in the Confederacy might evole into a more domestic version of it rather than the thousands of slaves working on the plantantions. In that kind of form there would simply be no need for any one slaver holder to own more than 20 odd slaves, at most, for menial chores around the home.

Of course that is only in the form of a continuing slave-holder state rather tha a free one but it is the kind of evolution of the institution of Slavery that I think would likely occur in a victorious Confederacy scenario.

To the orignial purpose of this thread, I believe that the Confederacy can only realistically think about captuing one or two of the Mexican States/Provinces and maybe, if everything goes their way, Cuba but beyond that I dont think the Confederacy would ever truely be powerful enough or have the right sytem in place to expand far beyond that.
 
I really don't see it getting big at all, it'll be lucky to hold together what it comes out of the war with.
I suppose it could be somewhat feasable that it conquers Cuba but these scenarios where it becomes a super power and does more than the US did are just awful.
Its slavery is going to make it become a international pariah by the late 19th century and then there's that it isn't the best of basis for an economy anyway.
 
Its slavery is going to make it become a international pariah by the late 19th century and then there's that it isn't the best of basis for an economy anyway.

I'm not sure that true. Slavery will certainly make the Confederacy undesirable but I dont think it would be a pariah. There would be more than one country willing to do business and make alliances with the Confederacy despite them being a slave state. They may never make perminate allies out of Britain or France but I'd be willing to be that they could find someone who would side with them, perhaps the Fascists in Spain or Italy or something.
 
General Mung: Why would the CSA abolish slavery by 1900? What are the economic conditions that make it profitable to do so? What foreign nation has the influence to force the issue? And even if one did, say Britain, pushing for the abolition of slavery would remove cheap labor from the cotton fields, thereby raising the price of cotton being fed into Britain's mills.

OTL, there were 8.8 mln African-Americans in the US in 1900. Figuring 89% were in slavery in the south (the proportion in 1860), that implies 8 million slaves to be freed. What would be done with the slaves afterward? They were largely without education or an existing community of their own. No other nation in North America especially wanted them (at least not in those numbers), and shipping them all to Africa would be prohibitively expensive. The population of Canada at the time was about 7.2 million, split between Anglophone, Francophone and First nations. Do you really think there was going to be a majority black Dominion of Canada? Mexico had 14 million, but problems of their own.

Slaves were a major investment, the basis of both the Southern economy and the social structure. How would the resulting labor shortage be met?

How would the government offset the tremendous loss of wealth associated their emancipation? A young adult male laborer could expect to be worth in the range of $10K, in today's dollars. Taking millions of slaves out of the economy overnight would throw the economy of the south into instant recession, if not depression, with the CSA's GDP suddenly gutted.

I all honesty I think that slavery in the Confederacy would continue well into the 20th century.

It would be scarse in Virginia and its Upper-Southern neighbors by the early 1900's as they were in the process of downsizing Slavery as an institution in those states in OTL when the ACW began. I would guess that by 1930 Slavery would be almost extinct in Virginia and Arkansas and it would be close to that in North Carolina, Tennessee might hold on a bit longer but would be close behind the other Upper-Southern states in abolition.

The Deep-South on the other hand has more need for slavery on the whole and it would be unlikely that they would even begin to think about abolition before 1900. It would be most likely that one of the Deep-South states, most likely Flodrida, would begin to downsize the institution around the same time Virginia would be close to abolishing it in the 1930's. South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas would hold on to the institution longer simply becuase they would have more need of it.

That being said I think that Slavery on the whole would be mostly gone from the Confederacy by the 1960's and certainly wouldn't be around in the 2000's in any large-scale form. Slavery in the Confederacy might evole into a more domestic version of it rather than the thousands of slaves working on the plantantions. In that kind of form there would simply be no need for any one slaver holder to own more than 20 odd slaves, at most, for menial chores around the home.

Of course that is only in the form of a continuing slave-holder state rather tha a free one but it is the kind of evolution of the institution of Slavery that I think would likely occur in a victorious Confederacy scenario.

To the orignial purpose of this thread, I believe that the Confederacy can only realistically think about captuing one or two of the Mexican States/Provinces and maybe, if everything goes their way, Cuba but beyond that I dont think the Confederacy would ever truely be powerful enough or have the right sytem in place to expand far beyond that.

As others have said keeping slavery would make the CSA an international pariah and the CSA would simply solve that problem like OTL. Free the slaves but make them virtually peons by depriving them of most civil and political rights.
 
As others have said keeping slavery would make the CSA an international pariah and the CSA would simply solve that problem like OTL. Free the slaves but make them virtually peons by depriving them of most civil and political rights.

And as I said in the post above you; keeping slavery as an institution in the Confederacy would make the country undesirable for some of the international communities to deal with but not all of them.

Slavery would not stop the Confederacy trading with other countries or making alliances with other countries who might not have/like slavery but get some kind of benefit from an alliance or doing business with the CSA.

I'm sure that there would be more than one country who would be willing to turn a blind eye to the Confedeacy institution of Slavery if they got something out of it.
 
And as I said in the post above you; keeping slavery as an institution in the Confederacy would make the country undesirable for some of the international communities to deal with but not all of them.

Slavery would not stop the Confederacy trading with other countries or making alliances with other countries who might not have/like slavery but get some kind of benefit from an alliance or doing business with the CSA.

I'm sure that there would be more than one country who would be willing to turn a blind eye to the Confedeacy institution of Slavery if they got something out of it.

But why wouldn't they rather abolish slavery in name and make the ex-slaves into a source of cheap labor? It won't change the CSA much while satisfying the UK and France.
 
But why wouldn't they rather abolish slavery in name and make the ex-slaves into a source of cheap labor? It won't change the CSA much while satisfying the UK and France.

Maybe because Britain and France would probably just see through that ploy as a cheap attempt to appease the European powers without changing anything. Might not happen, I grant you, but it is a possibility.

It is far more likely that the Confederacy would adopt a long, slow, drawn out version of emancipation so that they can keep the European powers neutral enough towards them that they would still be willing to buy Cotton,Tabacco and other such things from the Confederacy but still retain slavery itself and get whatever benefits they can from that while doing lucrative business with the countries that dont care whether they have slaves or not.

The Confederacy does not have to be self-suficient nor does it have to be Britain or Frances lapdog. All it need to do to survive as a relatively strong nation is to do trade and stay at least neutral with the more powerful countries. It can get rid of Slavery at its own pace and Britain and France will be happy to let it, just so long as they can see it happening over time.
 
Even if that argument is used and the CSA forcibly keeps West Virginia, its going to very quickly turn into their "Appalachian Ulcer".

Oh, I agree with that. Which is why the Confederates in OTL didn't make a big issue out of West Virginia at the Hampton Roads conference in early 1865.
 
As to the CSA abolishing slavery, what we would likely run into is individual States abolishing slavery within their own borders over time, as any central government effort to abolish slavery would very likely lead to States seceding from the CSA as they had from the USA.

Abolition by the central government wouldn't and couldn't happen anyway. The national government was prevented from interfering with slavery at all by the Confederate Constitution. Abolition HAD to be done at the State level.

What is debatable is how long it would take for each of these States to individually abolish slavery, as some of them I feel could likely hang on for a long time.

Possible. However, whatever economic conditions lead to abolition (most likely the double whammy of the collapse of the cotton markets in the late 1890s and the arrival of the boll weevil in the early 1900s) will most likely affect slavery everywhere, leading to abolition in all States within a few years of each other. Certainly there may be a number of years between the first and the last one...in the North, the lag time between the first State to abolish slavery and the last was either 20 or 47 years (depending on whether you date the abolition of slavery to the year the law was passed, or the year the last slaves either were freed or died), for example...and the lag time may be commensurate in the Confederacy.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure that true. Slavery will certainly make the Confederacy undesirable but I dont think it would be a pariah. There would be more than one country willing to do business and make alliances with the Confederacy despite them being a slave state. They may never make perminate allies out of Britain or France but I'd be willing to be that they could find someone who would side with them, perhaps the Fascists in Spain or Italy or something.

They don't exist until well into the 20th century (IOTL, probally not here)

If Britain and the US are set against the CSA no one is going to ally with them. Anything they may gain from the CS would be dwarfed by what they loose by having Britain against them- particularly since a lot of other nations will no doubt follow Britain's lead.
Alligning yourself with the CSA would be directly saying you are challenging the current balance of power...It might happen at some point but its no long term survival strategy.
 
Top