If the Confederacy won, would reunification happen?

No, its my view that probability stops the same people from being born who are conceived after the POD. It is fact that anyone who was born 20 years after the POD almost certainly will not exist. Not even due to genetics but simply from stopping the parents from meeting. FFS Hitler's mother was an INFANT at the time of the POD. Her life can take an entirely different course with barely any changes in her early life so she never even meets the father.
Ah, yes, if South Sudan hadn't gotten their independence my 2 year old wouldn't have been born. Because that affected my life so very much.
 
No, its my view that probability stops the same people from being born who are conceived after the POD. It is fact that anyone who was born 20 years after the POD almost certainly will not exist. Not even due to genetics but simply from stopping the parents from meeting. FFS Hitler's mother was an INFANT at the time of the POD. Her life can take an entirely different course with barely any changes in her early life so she never even meets the father.
Butterflies don't fly at the speed of light answers your first sentence. It is also not a fact that after 20 years no one will exist. The majority of the world is not affected by most PODs that you create, and especially not right away.
 
The odds are against reunification. I'm struggling to think of a single country that was divided by civil war/independence struggle that subsequently reunited.

Maybe Yemen, but that's still not a done deal. Germany was not partitioned by civil war. Korea is perhaps the best bet, but it hasn't happened yet.

Regards

R
 
Ah, yes, if South Sudan hadn't gotten their independence my 2 year old wouldn't have been born. Because that affected my life so very much.

Correct. You might still have a two year old, but it likely wouldn't be the same one. Genetics work randomly, and rerolling the dice would likely not result in the same outcome.

Butterflies don't fly at the speed of light answers your first sentence. It is also not a fact that after 20 years no one will exist. The majority of the world is not affected by most PODs that you create, and especially not right away.

Based on?

And yes the rest of the world IS affected. Not in an obvious way at first, other than purely random occurrences, but as you move farther out those become more and more obvious. And 20 years is not "right away".
 
Correct. You might still have a two year old, but it likely wouldn't be the same one. Genetics work randomly, and rerolling the dice would likely not result in the same outcome.



Based on?

And yes the rest of the world IS affected. Not in an obvious way at first, other than purely random occurrences, but as you move farther out those become more and more obvious. And 20 years is not "right away".
This is a prime example of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You can leave quantum mechanics out of this. A POD change is just that, THE change, it doesn't "reset" quantum mechanical "randomness". A change in 1000CE Mayan city does not mean someone born in 1002CE Japan is now a girl instead of a boy. There's no instantaneous change to the world. Butterflies only fly at the speed of communication and interaction for the era they are in (they fly faster in 2012 with airplanes and international commerce than they would in 1475 with isolated continents and caravel and camel transport). So please stop acting like you're stating facts; these are our opinions.
 
Correct. You might still have a two year old, but it likely wouldn't be the same one. Genetics work randomly, and rerolling the dice would likely not result in the same outcome.



Based on?

And yes the rest of the world IS affected. Not in an obvious way at first, other than purely random occurrences, but as you move farther out those become more and more obvious. And 20 years is not "right away".
And I believe I made myself clear we shouldn't hijack the thread on debating this. Please stop responding and making this an off-topic argument as I requested.
 
Personally, I disagree the U.S. states would already be bitter and angry towards the C.S. states they would be unified together against one thing they have in common: the South. I don't think the USA wouldn't survive since they will be obsessed with the CSA and what it would be doing next.

They'd only bear a grudge against the south and towards the federal government which dragged them into the ruinous war and split the country in two?

In 1812 the Democratic Republicans managed to spin the whole affair against the Federalists who were actually right about the costs and futility of the conflict instead of their own party's culpability in it or Britain's.
 
This is a prime example of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You can leave quantum mechanics out of this. A POD change is just that, THE change, it doesn't "reset" quantum mechanical "randomness". A change in 1000CE Mayan city does not mean someone born in 1002CE Japan is now a girl instead of a boy. There's no instantaneous change to the world. Butterflies only fly at the speed of communication and interaction for the era they are in (they fly faster in 2012 with airplanes and international commerce than they would in 1475 with isolated continents and caravel and camel transport). So please stop acting like you're stating facts; these are our opinions.

You base that on what exactly? And this has nothing to do with "quantum mechanical randomness". And, to be frank, your views are just as much opinions as mine, and you are also stating those as fact.

And I believe I made myself clear we shouldn't hijack the thread on debating this. Please stop responding and making this an off-topic argument as I requested.

You were the one who began this, and if you believe the discussion is derailing you may feel free to take your own advice..
 
You know, one thing that strikes me about the south is that we in the 21st Century hate their ideology and therefore assume they would not evolve. Look at how the American Revolutionary history how the essentially "Confederate" Confederation Continental Congress which fought in defense of weak government was creating the strong central government under the U.S. Constitution.

It happened because the founding fathers essentially "Wised Up", learned from their mistakes, and learned to make things work. I see no reason that the Confederates would be simularly shackled. They had men of talent, like Breckenridge and Benjamin. Among the "next generation" they had people like E. Porter Alexander, Mosby, Cleburne and others.

And I think with the common history, gradual Emancipation starting in the 1880's, industrialization (part of the change in ideology) could make the South a better place than the very low expectations I see routinely on the boards. I'm not saying would be great, but better.

And no, with their own sense of legacy, I never see them rejoining the US.
 
Last edited:
Guys we need to stay on topic, this thread is about whether or not the North (US) and the South (CS) would ever reunify.
 
While the Constitution of the CSA was in many ways a copy of that of the USA there were a couple of differences. One was, other than improvements for navigation of ports and rivers, there was to be no federal expenditure on public works. The other was that that a slave taken from one state to another could not become free if the latter state had abolished slavery. What this meant, in essence, was as long as one state had slavery they all did as manumitting a slave by entrance to a "free" state was unallowed taking of property. The automatic manumission of slaves taken by southerners in to states with such liberty laws prior to the ACW was a huge irritation to the south. To get rid of slavery in the CSA you'd need a constitutional convention to amend this article. What this means is, while it is likely slavery would eventually be done away with in the CSA (although not a guarantee) it would take quite some time to do it.
 
While the Constitution of the CSA was in many ways a copy of that of the USA there were a couple of differences. One was, other than improvements for navigation of ports and rivers, there was to be no federal expenditure on public works. The other was that that a slave taken from one state to another could not become free if the latter state had abolished slavery. What this meant, in essence, was as long as one state had slavery they all did as manumitting a slave by entrance to a "free" state was unallowed taking of property. The automatic manumission of slaves taken by southerners in to states with such liberty laws prior to the ACW was a huge irritation to the south. To get rid of slavery in the CSA you'd need a constitutional convention to amend this article. What this means is, while it is likely slavery would eventually be done away with in the CSA (although not a guarantee) it would take quite some time to do it.
Well, to be honest I think international pressure would be the best way to get rid of slavery in the CSA, I've already detailed the British forcing the Confederates to abolish slavery due to pressure from the working class and radicals of Britain.
 
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.

The Confederacy would probably have to produce at least one general who equals or exceeds Robert E Lee in skill just to gain independence. Keeping all of the 11 states that seceded would probably require Confederacy to produce least a couple generals who equal or exceed Robert E Lee. In OTL, the Confederacy made several attempts to seize and gain control of Union territory - West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, New Mexico, and Colorado. These attempts all failed, and usually failed miserably, even when the Confederates sent their best generals and were able to concentrate forces and were up against Union second stringers like Rosecrans. For the Confederates to seize New Mexico or Kentucky would require the Confederacy to produce a general that makes Robert E Lee look like Joseph Johnston and can get along with Jefferson Davis. For the Confederate to seize Kentucky and New Mexico would require the Confederacy producing at least one general who makes Robert E Lee look like Leonidas Polk and can get along with Jefferson Davis. Any Confederate general suddenly performing at the level Khalid ibn al-Walid or Subutai is wildly unlikely - for them to also be able to get along with Jefferson Davis is nigh-ASB.

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.

An excellent point.
 
Unlikely that a Democracy to wage a war of conquest upon a similar power? The Civil War is an example of that on both sides. The Confederacy started the war by announcing their intention to seize Washington DC and tried to forcibly annex Kentucky, Missouri, Arizona, and Colorado. And, of course the Union did successfully conquer the Confederacy in OTL. The Confederacy did have about 40% of the Union's population at the start of the war, but the Confederacy lost a higher percentage of population in the war, half a million slaves ran away, about 100 thousand white men from Confederate states joined the Union army, and the Union rapidly gained control of West Virginia and Tennessee. Plus the vast majority of immigrants went to free states, so the Confederacy would probably have 25% to 30% of the population of the Union at most.

The Civil War is an exception to the rule, in that it occurred under very select circumstances; outside of the UK and Finland, I cannot think of any other cases. As for the Confederacy being 40% of the population of the Union, the core 11 States of the ex-CSA were already a fourth of the total U.S. population in 1910; adding Kentucky and Oklahoma increases this to just shy of 30%. With reduced war losses, it's very doable to get it to about 40% in the following decades, which is what I'm talking about.

The Confederacy would not have 40% of the industry of the Union. At the time of the Civil War, they had roughly 12% the industry of the Union. That was concentrated in the Border States, which suffered the most damage during the war. Inferior infrastructure and lower tariffs also mean that Confederate industry would face greater obstacles to growth than Union industry.

Confederate tariffs were comparable to American tariffs, and the South had the second highest concentration of railroads in the world at the time of the Civil War. Presuming a similar growth rate to OTL alone would mean it would have about a third of the Industry of the Union, but we have every reason to assume it would have a higher rate.

That said, if the Union and the Confederacy do go 4 decades without another war, both sides would probably settle for a a peaceful status quo. But 4 decades of peace is unlikely - the Confederacy was a hostile expansionist power that believed all Union slave states, plus the major mineral producing territories and a route to the Pacific were theirs by right.

Which is false; Calhoun and other Slaveocrats were the main force against the annexation of Mexican territory by the end of that conflict, for just one example.
 
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.

In the treaty the ended the Revolutionary War, Britain acknowledged US independence, they did not recognize it. Unless they act in a grossly incompetent manner, the Union would not recognize Confederate independence, they would acknowledge it. The Confederacy would only get Kentucky or New Mexico if they occupied them at the end of the war - no sane Union government would trade away Kentucky and the Union would only trade away New Mexico if the Confederates gave up something valuable. Referendums are popular in AHs, but after Bleeding Kansas, they'd be political suicide for any northern politician that endorsed them. Confederate politicians probably wouldn't want to bring the subject up - virtually none of the Confederate states held referendums on secession.
 

JJohnson

Banned
Personally, I disagree the U.S. states would already be bitter and angry towards the C.S. states they would be unified together against one thing they have in common: the South. I don't think the USA wouldn't survive since they will be obsessed with the CSA and what it would be doing next.

I'd figure that if there's a peace, most likely negotiated by the UK, let's say with WV going Union, Kentucky going CS, Missouri staying Union, Indian Territory going CS, and Arizona split as claimed, or left/right, giving us effectively New Mexico (CS) and Arizona (US); in that event, the Union would recognize it, not like it, but won't really try to conquer them. They'd pass some amendments to outlaw slavery with gradual compensated emancipation, since they might be afraid of other states bolting, make the former slaves citizens, and maybe give them the right to vote. Then another making secession only possibly by 3/4 of both houses of the state legislature, and 3/4 of Congress outside of the state's delegation. With a lost war, the Union has to realize that secession is possible, but make it more difficult than a simple declaration of secession. That same amendment would also likely include an olive branch of sorts that any state having seceded may be readmitted by a 2/3 vote of its legislature and 2/3 of Congress, to let them choose to rejoin the Union later.
 

JJohnson

Banned
You know, one thing that strikes me about the south is that we in the 21st Century hate their ideology and therefore assume they would not evolve. Look at how the American Revolutionary history how the essentially "Confederate" Confederation Continental Congress which fought in defense of weak government was creating the strong central government under the U.S. Constitution.

It happened because the founding fathers essentially "Wised Up", learned from their mistakes, and learned to make things work. I see no reason that the Confederates would be simularly shackled. They had men of talent, like Breckenridge and Benjamin. Among the "next generation" they had people like E. Porter Alexander, Mosby, Cleburne and others.

And I think with the common history, gradual Emancipation starting in the 1880's, industrialization (part of the change in ideology) could make the South a better place than the very low expectations I see routinely on the boards. I'm not saying would be great, but better.

And no, with their own sense of legacy, I never see them rejoining the US.
You're more hopeful on the CS than most scenarios I see on AH.com, which boil down to:
1. The US is angry at the CS and reconquers part or all of the CS within 10-40 years
2. Without the CS, the US goes socialist/communist
3. Without the US, the CS goes military dictatorship/unstable banana republic/falls apart
4. The CS limps along and is still either racist, segregated, or has slavery/sharecropping into the late 20th/early 21st century
5. The CS never changes and is an international pariah and falls apart.
6. Without the US, the CS remains racist/segregated/unstated racist/slaveholding; if they're so Christian in the south, then they should eventually realize the error of racism/slavery.

The unspoken question is, what if they change? What if they realize their error and sin and emancipate and grant civil rights? What if, without OTL Reconstruction and the sour grapes it likely engendered, they make changes on their own? That could be explored in a timeline somewhere if someone has the time/inclination to do so.

Sorry to post here; I normally avoid anything CSA on AH.com because it's a powder keg for some people if you sneeze in the wrong direction. (That was sarcasm).
 
...the Confederacy could have won there's the Trent Affair gone wrong for the Union resulting in the British siding with the Confederacy, General Robert E. Lee not losing Order-191, Shiloh being a (pyrrhic) victory for the South (if Johnston had stuck with his original plan to organize the troops in linear fashion and drive enemy Union troops into the swamps or weather didn't delay them) or Albert Sidney Johnston actually getting the tourniquet applied to him thus saving his life for another battle with Ulysses S. Grant...

If Robert E. Lee had not lost Order-191 he still would have had to fight somewhere and due to logistics Lee still would have had to withdraw afterwards, which would lead to the ATL battle being considered a Union win. Albert Sydney Johnson's survival would not keep the Union from winning at Shiloh and in the long run would have helped the Union, since AS Johnston was clearly out of his depth as an army commander.

...(I highly recommend you read the book Dixie Victorious written by former U.S. Military Lieutenant Peter Tsousas and other war historians that cover all 10 possible Confederate victory scenarios)...

From the reviews I can find, one of these scenarios is the ludicrous idea that the Confederacy could produce ironclads faster than the Union could. Another is the Confederacy quickly acting on Cleburne's proposal to turn slaves into soldiers, which ignores the actual views of the majority of the white population of the Confederacy.

...well's there the 1864 presidential election where Abraham Lincoln thought he never get reelected now imagine if one of those scenarios above had happened the Democrat candidate was former General George B. McCllelan and he would have won the election had he been in elected.

If McClellan was elected in 1864, that would still give Lincoln about 4 months to win the war or be so close to winning that McClellan would see it through.

On the topics of immigration and homesteading, I think I would agree with you that such a policy by the Union would certainly happen but there is still issue with having hundreds of thousands of non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants in America just to be used to block Confederate westward homesteading as there were still nativist, anti-immigrant elements that existed that would have objected to this plan.

Any Confederates wishing to homestead farther west than Texas would have to renounce their citizenship and join the US, where due to population differences they would be completely drowned out by Union citizens homesteading west. Nativists cared little about immigrants homesteading the west, they were worried about them settling in the east and taking away the nativists' jobs. Another point is the slaveholding states were a lot more nativist than the free states, as shown by southern support for the "Know Nothings" and actual immigration patterns.
 
Which is false; Calhoun and other Slaveocrats were the main force against the annexation of Mexican territory by the end of that conflict, for just one example.

Calhoun's opinions on annexing Mexico have nothing to do with whether the Confederacy was a hostile expansionist power that believed all Union slave states, plus the major mineral producing territories and a route to the Pacific were theirs by right. These beliefs were clearly shown during the Civil War when the Confederacy attempted to forcibly seize the Union slave states, the major Union mineral producing territories, and Union territories that could lead to a route to the Pacific.
 
From the reviews I can find, one of these scenarios is the ludicrous idea that the Confederacy could produce ironclads faster than the Union could. Another is the Confederacy quickly acting on Cleburne's proposal to turn slaves into soldiers, which ignores the actual views of the majority of the white population of the Confederacy.
I mentioned the series is essentially a part of earlier with "Third Reich Victorious" and "Rising Sun Victorious", both of which are godawful works of plausible AH. The former has the Nazis winning at D-Day (offscreen) and thus forcing the Western Allies to drop out of the war (*insert roll-eyes here*), the July plot succeeding and this leading to a magical wonderland of magic and rainbows as the far right monsters in charge of it took power (*insert double roll-eyes here), and THEN the Nazis (look, I'm still calling them what they are) beat the Soviets AFTER Bagration (not enough eye-rolls in the world).

Also it has Sealion succeeding in two scenarios (no further explanation needed), the Brits surrendering because they...uh...not sure really, the Nazis getting an atomic bomb (without killing their own scientists...somehow), etc.

Rising Sun Victorious I remember less of, other than at least one scenario where the author straight up IGNORED ships that were between the Japanese and American forces at Leyte Gulf because...I don't know, I guess they didn't care. That book also had another wave being launched at Pearl Harbor (ugh), Japan conquering India (I guess they gained magic powers at some point), and IIRC at some point had the IJN (which barely got its ships to Hawaii as is) bombarding California (because presumably fuck reality).

Basically, all of the scenarios I've seen present a profound disdain for realities of the Second World War, and blatant contradicting/ignoring of facts when they don't fit whatever end-goal the author has in mind. This all leads to some really face-palming ideas put forward. I've seen it speculated that, in particular in the case of the German volume, that the writers were basically using the ideas of the German generals, who demonstrated a similiar outlook. And lost.
 
Top