If the Confederacy won, would reunification happen?

If the Confederacy won the war, what chances are there that a few decades later reunification occurs? What are the ramifications?

Reunification is only happening by force of arms in this scenario. The violence and bitterness of the Civil War will have left wounds too deep to be healed in one generation. Couple that with racial and class divides on both sides of the border and its probably (IMHO) a toxic brew that leads to another war within a generation absent some sort of external threat.
 
If the Confederacy won the war, what chances are there that a few decades later reunification occurs? What are the ramifications?

If the Confederacy is really as incompetent as some like to picture it*, some states (if not the whole country) will beg for readmittance into the Union. It might take some years of mismanagement, but I could see border states seceeding from the CSA if chaos and internal strife become the governing factors in Confederate policy. And once the CSA is small enough, a little expeditionary force would be all what's needed to enforce such a reunification.

*However, I really doubt that this scenario is likely to happen. It's true that the aristocratic, slave-owning government of the CSA made really bad decisions. But I don't think the Confederate ruling class can be considered as completly incompetent - after all, it managed to sustain a war against an enemy superior in numbers and industry for four years. It's possible to do worse.
 
How likely would the Union try to force the South back into the country around 3-4 decades after the war? The Industrial differences would be stark, unless the South starts mass industrialization (cannot see how they would compete with the North though, especially with the agrarian planter class in charge).
 
Reunification is only happening by force of arms in this scenario. The violence and bitterness of the Civil War will have left wounds too deep to be healed in one generation. Couple that with racial and class divides on both sides of the border and its probably (IMHO) a toxic brew that leads to another war within a generation absent some sort of external threat.

Certainly though pro-Union regions as well as African-Americans would help the North. This does help reunification chances.
 
If they did win somehow it only would’ve been with major territorial concessions that would frankly make a lot of the country unviable strategically so I think places like Texas would’ve come back and after that it would only be a matter of time before the rest was crushed
 
Certainly though pro-Union regions as well as African-Americans would help the North. This does help reunification chances.

The pro Union regions (East Tennessee, part of Texas, sections of North Carolina) were largely drowned out by the pro-secessionists in numbers, and through violence. In the work of about a generation those who don't emigrate will probably be at worst only grudgingly Confederate, with some deep down sympathy for the Union. Once the first real election goes through, those who remain will probably be largely content with their new lot.

African Americans in the CSA will be at best second class citizens with no right to vote, so their opinion won't count.
 
How likely would the Union try to force the South back into the country around 3-4 decades after the war? The Industrial differences would be stark, unless the South starts mass industrialization (cannot see how they would compete with the North though, especially with the agrarian planter class in charge).

Not likely at all, given that by the time four decades had passed nearly two generations would've come and gone with the current state of affairs (Separation) having occurred and distinct national identities having formed. As far as the viability of the North attempting to do so, it also seems unlikely for a Democracy to wage a war of conquest upon a similar power; that the independent CSA would hold around 40% of the population and a matching amount of industry as compared to the United States would also serve as a sufficient deterrent to such an aggressive move.

The pro Union regions (East Tennessee, part of Texas, sections of North Carolina)

To which region do you refer? Appalachian North Carolina, which I assume is what you meant, also voted in favor of secession.

7996_349157638559096_480218475_n.jpg
 
The pro Union regions (East Tennessee, part of Texas, sections of North Carolina) were largely drowned out by the pro-secessionists in numbers, and through violence. In the work of about a generation those who don't emigrate will probably be at worst only grudgingly Confederate, with some deep down sympathy for the Union. Once the first real election goes through, those who remain will probably be largely content with their new lot.

African Americans in the CSA will be at best second class citizens with no right to vote, so their opinion won't count.

I meant more assisting American troops when America invades places. If well organized, a third of the population rioting en masse would disrupt the Confederate war machine heavily.
 
I meant more assisting American troops when America invades places. If well organized, a third of the population rioting en masse would disrupt the Confederate war machine heavily.

Possibly, but that would be a massive undertaking and simply not possible in a slave society.

What about if pro-Union Americans are assaulted and the US population is getting sick and tired of pro-Union Southerners being attacked by Confederate mobs?

Nothing is done because the United States would not have the ability to enforce its will in the matter. Besides, ten years after secession there simply won't be that many people with openly disloyal sympathies left.
 
Would USA and CSA relations mellow out relatively quickly (be friendly in a generation)? Or would it turn into a India-Pakistan/North and South Korea situation where the borders are extremely militarized and deep hatred of each other greatly consumes both nations?
 
Also shouldn't forget how quickly those people who voted so stridently against secession became ardent Confederates once the shooting started. Augusta County in Virginia became a particularly striking example, as it repeatedly elected pro-Union delegates to the convention, but volunteered in huge numbers to fight in what would become the Stonewall Brigade once the war was underway. A prominent Unionist citizen became Colonel Baylor of the 5th Virginia, who Stonewall Jackson mentioned in his report of the battle of 2nd Bull Run falling gallantly at the head of his men. They took pride in mounting counterattacks by old men and young boys against Union troops to the very end of the war. So I don't think the US is going to find an open door in a lot of these formerly pro-Union regions. Appalachia could be a different story, but to paraphrase Sir Edmund Burke, a war for Appalachia is a war for a chamber pot.
 
I think it's perfectly possible for southerners to maintain a state identity over a CSA one, especially if the CSA becomes a clusterfuck we all think is likely. Eventually, the exuberant cost of maintaining a police state to stop the underground railroad will be too high for border states and they will want to end slavery, even if they have to go through economic collapse first. I can see some states seceding for readmission. CSA ideology also wouldn't be able to stop them, and they would face a thrashing from the USA if ihey tried.

While the deep south would take longer, I certainly think it's possible 50-100 years down the line, given a precedent has been set. Especially if the border states which switched turn out to be substantially wealthier than the CSA.
 
OK, here's a counter- question in this area to
throw out to my fellow posters:

Assuming ITTL that he came to power as he did IOTL, would the threat of Hitler cause re-
unification? Or @ least a CSA- USA alliance
which possibly could have led to reunification
down the road? (Remember, IOTL Hitler
actually managed to get Churchill, Roosevelt,
& Stalin- three quite dissimilar people!- to all
line up against him)
 
I think it's perfectly possible for southerners to maintain a state identity over a CSA one, especially if the CSA becomes a clusterfuck we all think is likely. Eventually, the exuberant cost of maintaining a police state to stop the underground railroad will be too high for border states and they will want to end slavery, even if they have to go through economic collapse first. I can see some states seceding for readmission. CSA ideology also wouldn't be able to stop them, and they would face a thrashing from the USA if ihey tried.

While the deep south would take longer, I certainly think it's possible 50-100 years down the line, given a precedent has been set. Especially if the border states which switched turn out to be substantially wealthier than the CSA.
CSA ideology would indeed be able to condemn them, as unlike the US Constitution, the Confederacy is explicitly described as permanent, thus precluding legal secession. Moreover, the costs of maintaining slave patrols are mostly borne by the locals, not the government; in exchange for the planters' patronage, non-slaveholders served on slave patrols as a kind of civic duty, and understood the importance of slavery in upholding the South's prosperity. The Underground Railroad is really a paper tiger; the number of slaves who actually escaped was pretty marginal, after all, and never formed an existential threat to slavery as an American institution.
 
One of the first books to address this idea was McKinley Cantor's If the South had Won the Civil War. What happens here is the CSA wins, with West Virginia still in the USA, as is Kentucky, but Maryland secedes. Within a relatively short time after this, don't recall exactly, Texas leaves the CSA as unhappy with the policies of Washington (now the CSA capitol "District of Dixie") and has also got the Indian Territory. You now have three countries. With the Spanish-Confederate War the CSA annexes Cuba, the USA never buys Alaska (spending $$ to build a new capitol Columbia formerly Columbus OH). The USA, CSA, and Texas are allies in WWI & WWII and the book ends in the 60s with the three countries having reunification talks and the massive buildup/threat in Russian Alaska.

IMHO I don't see reunification unless you have a scenario where the USA and CSA become parts of opposite international power blocs and develop permenent deep enmity (like the Turtledove series).
 
Assuming ITTL that he came to power as he did IOTL, would the threat of Hitler cause re-
unification?
Hitler was born 30 years after the ACW started. In any ATL he doesn’t exist.

Anyhoo, probably, and almost certainly by force.
 
OK, here's a counter- question in this area to
throw out to my fellow posters:

Assuming ITTL that he came to power as he did IOTL, would the threat of Hitler cause re-
unification? Or @ least a CSA- USA alliance
which possibly could have led to reunification
down the road? (Remember, IOTL Hitler
actually managed to get Churchill, Roosevelt,
& Stalin- three quite dissimilar people!- to all
line up against him)

The Butterflies scream as they are massacred in the millions
 
Top