If the Confederacy won, would reunification happen?

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.



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.



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.



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.

When I'm talking about these scenarios like I mentioned above I'm discussing how these could have played out if a different decision was made or if this battle had a different result it's just for fun though. Now about Dixie Victorious I acknowledge while some might have ignored some realities others were plausible it just so happened that chance didn't give them the opprotunity. For the southern support of nativism it was just like it's northern counterpart too. All of this is just personal opinion.
 
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.

In 1860, the soon-to-be Confederate states made up about 40% of the US population. As you note, in OTL that had dropped to 25% of the US population by 1910. To maintain that 40% would require the Confederacy to have over twice the population of OTL's former Confederate states, which is nigh-ASB.

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.

Confederate political doctrine on free trade would require their tariffs to be lower than Union tariffs. The South's rail infrastructure was heavily deteriorated by the Civil War and was only standardized in OTL due to northern investment. If the Confederacy has similar industrial growth growth to OTL, by 1909 the Union would have over 5 times as many manufacturing establishments, over almost 7 times as many workers, and over 10 times as much product as the Confederacy. To have Confederate manufacturing be 40% of OTL's US manufacturing in 1909 would require the Confederacy to have over 3 times as many manufacturing establishments, over 5 times as many industrial workers, and over 7 times as much manufactured goods as in OTL. That seems unlikely even if the Confederacy suffered less economic damage than in OTL.
 
In 1860, the soon-to-be Confederate states made up about 40% of the US population. As you note, in OTL that had dropped to 25% of the US population by 1910. To maintain that 40% would require the Confederacy to have over twice the population of OTL's former Confederate states, which is nigh-ASB.

Not at all, as I noted. According to the 1910 Census, the former States of the Confederacy plus Oklahoma and Kentucky comprise 26,339,474 people; this is roughly a quarter of the total U.S. population (Both North and South). As compared to the rump USA's population of 65,889,022, however, this is 39% of its size. Given that the Confederacy would have reduced casualties, it would definitely be over 40% of the ATL USA's total.

Confederate political doctrine on free trade would require their tariffs to be lower than Union tariffs. The South's rail infrastructure was heavily deteriorated by the Civil War and was only standardized in OTL due to northern investment. If the Confederacy has similar industrial growth growth to OTL, by 1909 the Union would have over 5 times as many manufacturing establishments, over almost 7 times as many workers, and over 10 times as much product as the Confederacy. To have Confederate manufacturing be 40% of OTL's US manufacturing in 1909 would require the Confederacy to have over 3 times as many manufacturing establishments, over 5 times as many industrial workers, and over 7 times as much manufactured goods as in OTL. That seems unlikely even if the Confederacy suffered less economic damage than in OTL.

The Confederacy immediately adopted the Pre-war tariff rates of the United States, and efforts to abolish such never found any political ground during the Confederacy's existence. With the war over and thus the ability to focus on repairs, as well as the retention of their own domestic capital which was equal to that of the North, there will be plenty of funds to finance such reconstruction. As for the Confederate industry, in 1860 the South held about 15% of the nation's industry, which was a number it wouldn't regain until the 1910s; without the intense destruction of the final year of the war, they would keep that base of 15% (Roughly 20% in comparison) and, presuming they just have the slower growth rate of OTL, they'd be close to 30% ATL by the 1910s (roughly 40% in comparison).
 
In 1860 the northern states had approximately 18.5 million, border states 2.5 million free & .5 slave, southern 5.5 million free, 3.5 million slave. If the border states, as OTL end up with the Union the relative free populations are 21 million Union, 5.5 million CSA meaning the CSA has about 21% of the free population of the prewar USA. If the border states are split evenly this mean 19.75 million/6.75 million so the CSA has about 25% of the free population, if the border states all go south this is 18.5 million/8 million, so the CSA has 30% of the free population. If you include slaves the CS population is from 30% to 39% (max) which includes ALL free and ALL slave in the border states and represents the practical maximum for the CSA. Slaves contribute labor for the CSA with several caveats - slave industrial labor is not as efficient as free industrial labor OTL for a variety of reasons, and one can argue about the relative efficiency of slave labor across the board.
 
For the southern support of nativism it was just like it's northern counterpart too.

There was certainly nativism in both the free and slave states, but it was definitely stronger in the slave states. The American or "Know Nothing" Party was virulently anti-immigrant. In the 1856 Presidential election, 44% percent of the voters from slave states voted Know Nothing, while 13% of the voters from free states voted Know Nothing. The worst the Know Nothings managed in a slave state was better than the best they managed in any free state. In 1850 New York had more immigrants than all 11 states that formed the Confederacy had a decade later in 1860.
 
There was certainly nativism in both the free and slave states, but it was definitely stronger in the slave states. The American or "Know Nothing" Party was virulently anti-immigrant. In the 1856 Presidential election, 44% percent of the voters from slave states voted Know Nothing, while 13% of the voters from free states voted Know Nothing. The worst the Know Nothings managed in a slave state was better than the best they managed in any free state. In 1850 New York had more immigrants than all 11 states that formed the Confederacy had a decade later in 1860.
Now in an independent Confederacy I wonder how the South would react to any potential immigration, after all by the time war broke out between the North and the South the latter had Jews from places such as Germany (then divided between different states), Hungary, Russia, Poland (then under Russian control) just like the North did and one-third of all Jews in the South were living in Lousiana (home of Henry M. Hyams: lieutenant governor of the state, Judah P. Benjamin "the brains of the Confederacy", and Edwin W. Mose: Speaker of the Lousiana House who later became district judge) there were also Jewish communites in places such as Charleston (long history dating back to the colonial era as eraly as 1695), New Orleans (again one-third of Southern Jews lived in Louisiana), Richmond (Jewish congregation in the war and currently home to a Jewish military cemetry in the modern day), Memphis, Nashville, Mobile, and Shreveport as well as scattered ones in Arkansas and Mississippi (see The Jewish Confederates by Robert N. Rosen). An independent CSA would certainly have a party system different from that of the U.S. perhaps they'll emerge a Southern anti-immigrant party like the Know Nothings opposed to the ongoing immigration in the South at the time Fiver.
 
Top