If the Confederacy won, would reunification happen?

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)

Well, it should be said the Allies were just that; an alliance of nations. OP, however, is talking about the forming of a single nation, which the Allies never did nor desired. With regards to Hitler, meanwhile:

"This is the last disgusting death-rattle of a corrupt and outworn system which is a blot on the history of this people. Since the civil war, in which the southern states were conquered, against all historical logic and sound sense, the American people have been in a condition of political and popular decay. In that war, it was not the Southern States, but the American people themselves who were conquered. In this spurious blossoming of economic progress and power politics, America has ever since been drawn deeper into the mire of progressive self-destruction. The beginnings of a great new social order based on the principle of slavery and inequality were destroyed by that war, and with them also the embryo of a future truly great America that would not have been ruled by a corrupt caste of tradesmen, but by a real Herren-class that would have swept away all the falsities of liberty and equality."

- Adolf Hitler, 1933
 
Well, it should be said the Allies were just that; an alliance of nations. OP, however, is talking about the forming of a single nation, which the Allies never did nor desired. With regards to Hitler, meanwhile:

"This is the last disgusting death-rattle of a corrupt and outworn system which is a blot on the history of this people. Since the civil war, in which the southern states were conquered, against all historical logic and sound sense, the American people have been in a condition of political and popular decay. In that war, it was not the Southern States, but the American people themselves who were conquered. In this spurious blossoming of economic progress and power politics, America has ever since been drawn deeper into the mire of progressive self-destruction. The beginnings of a great new social order based on the principle of slavery and inequality were destroyed by that war, and with them also the embryo of a future truly great America that would not have been ruled by a corrupt caste of tradesmen, but by a real Herren-class that would have swept away all the falsities of liberty and equality."

- Adolf Hitler, 1933


But-but Hitler was a socialist! And the Democrats are still the racist party! I know so because I have one meme about what LBJ said in 1954! La la la Strom Thurmond changed his ways when he became Republican! Nothing suspicious about changing parties just after the 1964 Civil Rights Act! Don't learn from 99.9% of history textbooks, learn from Dinesh D'Souza! He knows the real story! Hitler was a Democrat! I know because I got an email from my brother in law who also told me about Obama being born in Kenya. And Civil War was fought for states rights and had nothing to do with the preservation of slavery! Fake news!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And if you say that this source is a fact, well I have some alternative facts for you! I got them from the Bowlingreen library! You know, where the massacre happened! What Kellyanne Conway said!











I sincerely hope people know I was joking up there. I don't need people recommending me vitality pills from InfoWars :openedeyewink:.
 
Last edited:
Hitler was born 30 years after the ACW started. In any ATL he doesn’t exist.

Anyhoo, probably, and almost certainly by force.

I'm sorry, I wasn't as clear as I should have
been. What I meant was, ITTL, assuming
Hitler arises as in the 1930's as he did IOTL,
would his coming then, more than 50 years
say after the South had won the ACW, have caused the CSA & the North to reunify?
 
I'm sorry, I wasn't as clear as I should have
been. What I meant was, ITTL, assuming
Hitler arises as in the 1930's as he did IOTL,
would his coming then, more than 50 years
say after the South had won the ACW, have caused the CSA & the North to reunify?
Yes, I know what you are asking. I'm saying the question is irrelevant because Adolf Hitler won't exist. He won't be born, and so can't rise to power in the 1930s.

Edit: To put it more directly: Hitler as we know him was born in 1889. A POD 25 years earlier will lead to drastically different events in the lives of his parents going forward. For example, Alois Hitler only met Klara Polzl due to an affair which began when he hired her as a servant during his second marriage. And that only happened because when he was 13 he left home to apprentice to a cobbler shop in Vienna, join a frontier group in the Austrian Empire, married his first wife, cheated on his first wife with his second, etc.

If any of those events goes different, or even if he just doesn't hire Klara then Adolf Hitler never exists. That's completely ignoring the effects of random chance on births in general, but gives a simpler view on how someone won't exist in the future.

The Butterflies scream as they are massacred in the millions

I felt a great disturbance in the Board. As if millions of butterflies cried out in terror...and were suddenly silenced.
 
Last edited:
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.

While the numbers of slaves who escaped to the North were minimal, the reactions in Southern politics that this flow of slaves causes were pretty maximal. (See Stanley Harrold's Border War: Fighting Over Slavery Before The Civil War) Basically the Southern Political Classes were obsessed with the so called 'Under Ground Railroad', regardless of the numbers. If this flows continue, I expect an independent South to push the North over this, and perhaps one day push to far. (After all, they'll be even more cocky than they were OTL, but likely even weaker 20 years down the road.)

The Second Question is, how do the small free black communities in the North Develop. Although marginal, the fact that they were able to hold demonstrations and sometimes even influence the outcome of elections in Free States is an underatted but important part of the abolition / civil rights story. Assuming the North continues, or perhaps even accelerates, on a path of recognizing Black Civil Rights, (If only as a a response to antagonism to the South at first,) Even with a relatively limited trickle of escapees, you probably have a situation where in Northern politics some white politicians probably find it advantegous to gain the Negro vote by promising to undermine the the South's slave system. (Also, the Women's Movement itself kinda of spawned in the Anti-Slavery Movement. Then spun into Temperance before it finally arrived at suffrage. I can see both Temperance and Suffrage being lesser movements in a South win's future, at least until actual chattel slavery is abolished, but Northern Women still politically engaged in Anti-Slavery.)

But long story short, if Blacks can vote in the North, and continue to escape from the South even in limited numbers, that's going to have a snowball effect on Northern politics, even if it seems minimal at first.
 
Last edited:
Assuming the South's victory doesn't change the outcome of the Franco-Prussian War (A Big Assumption, But Not Impossible) WWI and Hitler might still come to pass. Despite Turtledove, I imagine both Rump U.S. and the C.S.A staying out ofg WWI, which might mean Germany just starves to surrender around 1920 or so.
 
Honestly, there's no way I see any reunification happening between the United States and the Confederate States for 2 reasons:
1. There would be too much hatred and animosity between the countries as well the cultures of the USA and the CSA distinctly different.
2. American-Confederate relations from there on after the Civil War (War of Southern Independence, War Between the States, whatever it's called) will be almost exactly similar to North Korea-South Korea, two nations torn apart by a war forever divided and constantly at odds with each other with a shared history and language but two worlds from each other.

The only people that would be even asking for a North-South reunification to happen would be American revanchists (more or less an Americanized version of French irredentists) unwilling to accept a independent Confederacy living side-by-side with the U.S. even then they are a minority. Unless, a Second War Between The States or Second War of Southern Independence breaks out then there will never be any U.S.-C.S. reunification whatsoever.
 
Honestly, there's no way I see any reunification happening between the United States and the Confederate States for 2 reasons:
1. There would be too much hatred and animosity between the countries as well the cultures of the USA and the CSA distinctly different.
2. American-Confederate relations from there on after the Civil War (War of Southern Independence, War Between the States, whatever it's called) will be almost exactly similar to North Korea-South Korea, two nations torn apart by a war forever divided and constantly at odds with each other with a shared history and language but two worlds from each other.

The only people that would be even asking for a North-South reunification to happen would be American revanchists (more or less an Americanized version of French irredentists) unwilling to accept a independent Confederacy living side-by-side with the U.S. even then they are a minority. Unless, a Second War Between The States or Second War of Southern Independence breaks out then there will never be any U.S.-C.S. reunification whatsoever.

The longer the CSA is independent, the more likely this is to be the case. The only analogy I can think of is the collapse of the Russian Empire, and the Reconquest of that Empire by the Communist Afterwards. If loosing the the ACW caused a radical party to come to power withing 10 years, I could see a ideoilogical based reconquest of the CSA. But traditional American politics won't lead to it, you'd need some revolutionary bent to it. (But Politics as we know it ends if the CSA wins, especially if they don't win by 1862, so whatever.)

Although most people assume the Post-Lost USA would be pretty conservative, and I'm not so sure of that, depending on how and when the loss occured. We're used to Northerners having no identity, but I iimagine there is at least a 50% chance that some "wierd" by our standards northern identity could take hold among the vetrans, first, who refused to believe all their friends died in vain, nor their lifelong cripplings.

What is the North going to say to 2,000,000 vetrans and another million orphans and widows? "My bad? Nevermind? Forget About It."
 
Last edited:
The longer the CSA is independent, the more likely this is to be the case. The only analogy I can think of is the collapse of the Russian Empire, and the Reconquest of that Empire by the Communist Afterwards. If loosing the the ACW caused a radical party to come to power withing 10 years, I could see a ideoilogical based reconquest of the CSA. But traditional American politics won't lead to it, you'd need some revolutionary bent to it. (But Politics as we know it ends if the CSA wins, especially if they don't win by 1862, so whatever.)

Although most people assume the Post-Lost USA would be pretty conservative, and I'm not so sure of that, depending on how and when the loss occured. We're used to Northerners having no identity, but I iimagine there is at least a 50% chance that some "wierd" by our standards northern identity could take hold among the vetrans, first, who refused to believe all their friends died in vain, nor their lifelong cripplings.

What is the North going to say to 2,000,000 vetrans and another million orphans and widows? "My bad? Nevermind? Forget About It."
I don't think it will be that way mainly because 1. The Confederate States are united by the fact they hate the United States ("Yankee agressors" as they would call them) and fought a war to secede from the North so there's no way any of the 13 southern states (Arkansas, Arizona, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Sequoyah/Oklahoma/whatever it's called, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia) will ever try to rejoin the USA no matter how bad the situation may be and 2. The U.S. already would be hostile and so would it's citizens towards the newly-independent CSA. I do agree Byron that that it would be almost impossible for a ideological conquest of the CSA by the USA under traditional American politics.

Also, furthering on a post Post-Lost USA I would say it would become more liberal and progressive in terms of Negro rights and slavery since the nation's most conservative region the South/CSA has already seceded though there would still be some nativist and anti-immigrant elements that exist (anti-Irish, anti-Chinese, anti-Italian, etc.). For my case that there would be an American revanchism (a la French irridentism), the whole thing about 2 million veterans and another million orphans and widows it's so massive I can't imagine the North/USA ever trying to forget about them they would already have been reminded that they were in a massive war that saws hundreds of thousands die and was costly plus these veterans, orphans, and widows would see the now independent Southern states as "lost territory" (since the likes of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia all fought for the Union during the American Revolutionary War, Tenneessee being a part of the U.S. since 1796, the Louisiana Purchase, Texas willingly joined the Union in 1845, and the Arizona and Seqouyah southern states once being U.S. territories) under an "illegal" government (the CSA) and that those states should be taken back, they would begin to spread these ideas in Northern newspapers and when they reach the masses they will soon believe them.

As for any Northern/American identity, there was already one dating back to the Revolutionary War prior to the Civil War and a new rival in the form of the CSA would mean the USA would try to reform that image to fit with their conflict with the Confederacy.
 
Last edited:
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?
I'd see USA-CSA relations exactly be like North and South Korea/India Pakistan. Think about it, both the North and the South have fought a won that saw hundreds of thousands die and seeing how bitter it would be for both countries I expect the U.S. and the C.S. have deep-seated hatred for each other with both sides having vastly different beliefs as to what caused the War Between the States and who's responsible.
 
I'd see USA-CSA relations exactly be like North and South Korea/India Pakistan. Think about it, both the North and the South have fought a won that saw hundreds of thousands die and seeing how bitter it would be for both countries I expect the U.S. and the C.S. have deep-seated hatred for each other with both sides having vastly different beliefs as to what caused the War Between the States and who's responsible.

Not to mention, the rest of the world will not sit still There will be other great powers out there, and I imagine if the U.S. is befriended by one, the C.S.A. would automatically be befriended by the other. Still, despite, Turtledove, I doubt European affairs would spawn new hostilities. However, I could see purely New World Events spawning hostilites, and perhaps Europeans becoming involved.

Simply put, I find it unlikely that Americans would fight because an Arch-Duke was assasinated in Sarajevo, but I could imagine Europeans fighting because a Senator was assasinated in Hawaii or Guadalupe and the Americans had already been at it for a year.
 
Not to mention, the rest of the world will not sit still There will be other great powers out there, and I imagine if the U.S. is befriended by one, the C.S.A. would automatically be befriended by the other. Still, despite, Turtledove, I doubt European affairs would spawn new hostilities. However, I could see purely New World Events spawning hostilites, and perhaps Europeans becoming involved.

Simply put, I find it unlikely that Americans would fight because an Arch-Duke was assasinated in Sarajevo, but I could imagine Europeans fighting because a Senator was assasinated in Hawaii or Guadalupe and the Americans had already been at it for a year.

To be honest, even if Britain does recognize the Confederacy (and I would expect for them to try to get them to recognize them) that doesn't automatically make them allies since the UK already had trade and investment coming into the U.S. prior to, during, and after the Civil War, so it doesn't matter if they recognize the CSA they won't be an ally but perhaps the British will be neutral towards the Americans and Confederates by continuing trade with both of them. As for New World events getting the Europeans involved well you forget that Woodrow Wilson wouldn't be the U.S. President in this timeline as he was from Virginia (part of the Confederacy) and was staunchly isolationist from 1914 to 1917 prior to the Lusitania sinking, he also chose to keep the USA out of the League of Nations after the war, since he would almost certainly be C.S. President that means Theodore Roosevelt is elected much earlier and as he was a pro-war president he would get America involved in the war a bit sooner first by by sending aid to the British (one of their top trading partners next to the Confederacy) and French (longtime ally) then after Lusitania sinks sends American volunteer battalions. As for the Confederacy, they would have two options either A. Choose to stay neutral or B. Choose a side either the German-led Central Powers or the Anglo-French-led Entente/Allied Powers. Hell, if the former is chosen, I could imagine an ATL version of the Zimmerman Telegram sent by the German Empire to the Confederates offering them control of Missouri, West Virginia, all of Arizona and/or New Mexico, and Maryland only for the British to decrypt it and cause even further tension between the Americans and the Confederates (the latter would try to deny it's existence) that may nor may not lead to another war between the two countries (depending how the situation escalates).
 
You are making a whole bunch of assumptions there. Why are Arizona, Oklahoma, or Kentucky seceding? All of those are still in the United States, and every Confederate attempt to change that was a dismal failure.

Well, the Confederacy had plans to get Kentucky and Arizona as well as Sequoyah. While during the war they didn't get those lands in a scenario where the South won the Civil War (or War of Southern Independence as they would call it) in the end perhaps they would demanding the Union to give them their claims of half of the Arizona Territory, Kentucky, and Sequoyah in a peace treaty or territorial compromise and for a consolation prize the North could keep the heavily Unionist West Virginia (it's unlikely they'd ever want to be a part of the rest of Confederate-held Virginia), their half of the Arizona Territory, and Missouri in exchange. While I see Kentucky more likely to go to the Confederates due to it's strategic importance, border with Tennessee, the fact that the first Confederate president Jefferson Davis and generals John C. Breckinridge and Albert Sidney Johnston were from that state and industry along with their half of the Arizona Territory and Sequoyah (as a lot of the Five Civilized Tribes living there were pro-Confederate) I see Missouri as unlikely since the state is too close to the Union. Over all, this is how the Confederacy gets Arizona, Sequoyah/Oklahoma, and Kentucky through either a territorial compromise or peace treaty but the Union gets to keep their half of Arizona, West Virginia, and Missouri.
 
Last edited:
Well, the Confederacy had plans to get Kentucky and Arizona as well as Sequoyah. While during the war they didn't get them those lands in a scenario where the South won the Civil War (or War of Southern Independence as they would call it) in the end perhaps they would demanding the Union to give them their claims of half of the Arizona Territory, Kentucky, and Sequoyah in a peace treaty or territorial compromise and for a consolation prize the North could keep the heavily Unionist West Virginia (it's unlikely they'd ever want to be a part of the rest of Confederate-held Virginia), their half of the Arizona Territory, and Missouri in exchange. While I see Kentucky more likely to go to the Confederates due to it's strategic importance, border with Tennessee and industry along with their half of the Arizona Territory and Sequoyah (as a lot of the Five Civilized Tribes living there were pro-Confederate) I see Missouri as unlikely since the state is too close to the Union. Over all, this is how the Confederacy gets Arizona, Sequoyah/Oklahoma, and Kentucky through a territorial compromise but the Union gets to keep their half of Arizona, West Virginia, and Missouri.
None of that answers the question. Yes the Confederates wanted those territories, but they have no capacities to actually TAKE them. Peace negotiations do not work under toddler rules, the CSA can't just point at something and say "mine". If they try the Union will most likely point out the shady secession of several states, and note that they hold significant portions of Tennessee, which might well prefer to stay in the Union going forward. Even if the CSA gets independence there is no reason to think they are getting a square inch beyond the states that actually seceded.
 
To be honest, even if Britain does recognize the Confederacy (and I would expect for them to try to get them to recognize them) that doesn't automatically make them allies since the UK already had trade and investment coming into the U.S. prior to, during, and after the Civil War, so it doesn't matter if they recognize the CSA they won't be an ally but perhaps the British will be neutral towards the Americans and Confederates by continuing trade with both of them. As for New World events getting the Europeans involved well you forget that Woodrow Wilson wouldn't be the U.S. President in this timeline as he was from Virginia (part of the Confederacy) and was staunchly isolationist from 1914 to 1917 prior to the Lusitania sinking, he also chose to keep the USA out of the League of Nations after the war, since he would almost certainly be C.S. President that means Theodore Roosevelt is elected much earlier and as he was a pro-war president he would get America involved in the war a bit sooner first by by sending aid to the British (one of their top trading partners next to the Confederacy) and French (longtime ally) then after Lusitania sinks sends American volunteer battalions. As for the Confederacy, they would have two options either A. Choose to stay neutral or B. Choose a side either the German-led Central Powers or the Anglo-French-led Entente/Allied Powers. Hell, if the former is chosen, I could imagine an ATL version of the Zimmerman Telegram sent by the German Empire to the Confederates offering them control of Missouri, West Virginia, all of Arizona and/or New Mexico, and Maryland only for the British to decrypt it and cause even further tension between the Americans and the Confederates (the latter would try to deny it's existence) that may nor may not lead to another war between the two countries (depending how the situation escalates).

While there was some Romanticism for the Confederacy among the British Aristocracy, including the Queen's-Consort, the majority were firmly anti-slavery by the 1860s, especially the working classes, whose influence was growing. Throw in industrialization, and you're right, the North in Britain's natural ally. (The British were never going to recognize the Confederacy, short Lincoln invading Canada for no reason during the middle of the war, see A World on Fire; Britain's Crucial Role in the American Civil War) As far as who becomes President in the North, I have no idea, but there will be no Reconstruction and no Lincoln Assasination, so that effects politics. Settling the west will be a big issue. I could see the North trying to get even more immigrants to block the South in to the west with homesteaders, which will effect politics even more, perhaps even in Europe. Imagine the U.S. Government subsidizing immigration costs as part of its national security strategy.

Anyways, I imagine there will be a great power war. But a part of me also thinks that a USA/CSA split is just inviting the concept of proxy wars and economic imperialism get an early start as well. Some enterprising young diplomats in Europe might see that economic potential of the Americas could be just as valuable a bauble, probably more so, than colonies in Africa and Asia, or even certain pieces of Europe.
 
None of that answers the question. Yes the Confederates wanted those territories, but they have no capacities to actually TAKE them. Peace negotiations do not work under toddler rules, the CSA can't just point at something and say "mine". If they try the Union will most likely point out the shady secession of several states, and note that they hold significant portions of Tennessee, which might well prefer to stay in the Union going forward. Even if the CSA gets independence there is no reason to think they are getting a square inch beyond the states that actually seceded.
Of course, they wouldn't work under toddler rules and they didn't exactly have the capabilities (well, at least only militarily and not politically) however since the Confederacy won they would likely go for those states but as I said there could be a consolation prize given to the Union for keeping say Missouri or West Virginia. Honestly, the seven states that did form the Confederacy and their secession (ordinances included) will already have been recognized by the Union so they wouldn't just say it's 100% shady. As for Tenneessee, Middle and West Tennessee were largely pro-Confederate so I don't see them wanting to stay in the Union (depending on how a Confederate Civil War victory plays out they might already have been brought back to the Confederacy) and East Tennessee as one commentator on this thread pointed out was one of the pro-Union areas where Unionists were being drowned out by the pro-Confederate secessionists. Listen, the point I'm trying to make as to why the CSA would get Kentucky, their half of Arizona, and Sequoyah it would be a simple territorial redrawing and a little consolation prize. The two sides (Union and Confederate) would negotiate over which state ends up to either side and the agreed concessions. It's that simple. If not, then a referendum could be made in a state like Kentucky to decide whether they will end up in the Union or the Confederacy.
 
Top