Is the US destined to go to war with an Independent CSA

Matt, again, I'm the one using actual incidents of the pre-war and independent CSA of OTL, you're using nothing but speculation and personal attacks.

1) Your fixation on the Provisional Congress neglects one reality of the antebellum South: universal suffrage arrived much later and much more incompletely there than in the North. It was not a tradition, it was a new and rather despised challenge to a class accustomed to a total monopoly on power. There's no tradition or basis for this to overthrow, there's restoring order as the planters wish it to be. Note that the CSA was created by conventions, undemocratically, and formed by a Provisional Congress that was never actually elected by anyone in the new nation. Note, also, that in CS Congressional elections Southerners elected a lot of anti-Confederate politicians to the Confederate Congress, which is one reason *why* the founders of the CSA wanted to limit the franchise.

2) Look, man, I'm the one using facts. What facts are in the assertion I'm referring to here? I'm pointing out things like the Confederacy's foundations in a narrow section of overall Southern politics, its foundation by undemocratic means, its free and easy reversion to totalitarian political means to control itself, and all you've got is again personal attacks and complaining as opposed to an actual argument.

3) They meaning the founders of the Confederacy. This factionalism depended on which state we're talking about. In the original seven there were a good deal of people who did like universal manhood suffrage, usually the people enfranchised in the time immediately preceding the war. There were a larger number of politically involved citizens who wanted the traditional patronage basis of society to continue always and forever. And there were Confederate nationalists who felt that the entire issue needed to be waited upon until after independence. If we bring in North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas things get really messy and convoluted as far as their vision of Confederate society.

4) No, the Confederacy was a souped-up rebellion reliant upon armed force that got shitcanned. There again was no Confederate nation, there was the one hard core of Confederate nationalism in the Confederate army and there were Confederate politicians attempting and failing to establish a Confederate state.

5) The argument about the postwar South meets the following purpose: Confederate military defeat followed attempts by the Confederate President to abolish slavery and recruit slaves as soldiers, this in 1865 and the attempts very much failed. Upon this Foundation the post-war South went to the Black Codes and then to their more moderate successor segregation and to a pale ghost of the Confederacy where an elite sharply identified with the Confederacy restored an agarian economy dependent on unfree black labor. This indicates how thoroughly entrenched the class system in the South actually was, though the segregation-era class system was actually simpler than the old South's had been. The pre-war South had seen a repeated tendency to things like gag orders in the FEDERAL Congress, use of patrols, complete censorship of challenges to their order, the establishment of a surveillance state system, and in all this there is not the least foundation for an enduring Confederate democracy.

Would it disappear overnight? No. Would it last a single generation? Also no. Is this a sign that the Confederate state would disappear with it? Not in the least, as a dictatorship in the CSA's particular context is more stable than democracy will ever be, not least from not having to cube a circle as its very foundation. And a CS dictatorship, in all likelihood run by the Confederate Army, will be far more aware of its weaknesses relative the USA and will be very unlikely so long as its base of power is stable to be involved in any such war.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Matt, again, I'm the one using actual incidents of the pre-war and independent CSA of OTL, you're using nothing but speculation and personal attacks.

No, you are doing what you generally do. You make sweeping generalisations which you can't back up (or even sometimes try and back them up with something from a google search that in fact undermines your own argument, as recently witnessed). When challenged on the paucity of evidence you retreat back to claims of "personal attacks" and "demand apologies".
 

Spengler

Banned
No, you are doing what you generally do. You make sweeping generalisations which you can't back up (or even sometimes try and back them up with something from a google search that in fact undermines your own argument, as recently witnessed). When challenged on the paucity of evidence you retreat back to claims of "personal attacks" and "demand apologies".
Wow I've never ever seen a comment full of lies in my life. Also I love how you say evidence before opinion because all we get out of you are what could at best be called opinions.
 
Last edited:
No, you are doing what you generally do. You make sweeping generalisations which you can't back up (or even sometimes try and back them up with something from a google search that in fact undermines your own argument, as recently witnessed). When challenged on the paucity of evidence you retreat back to claims of "personal attacks" and "demand apologies".

Frankly I still demand an apology from you when you said I invented the change of base to the James. And frankly Matt's whole schtick is to claim the CSA didn't mean anything it said and blatant historical negationism about what the CSA really was. And I am not interested in another round of Anatoly Fomenko shenanigans with you.
 
In regards to the original question as to whether the event of an independent CSA would inevitably cause the two American republics to become bitter enemies, I'd say no. If the Lincoln administration had withdrawn all troops from the occupied Southern forts, and thus removed the ultimate spark for the war, you would have a confederation of seven Gulf States whose economies were fully dependent on the trading of cotton with outside parties, including the USA. Because of this, and perhaps because of their overruled objections to past tariffs, this confederation had stated their intent, upon secession, of making their major ports (New Orleans, Charleston) into low tariff free trade zones. While this terrified certain vested interest groups in the north, and was stated as one of the reasons for persecuting the war by William T. Sherman, the positive effects such zones would have in the US would, over time, build a lot of positive feelings towards the Confederacy in the interior parts of the United States.

So, what would those perks have been?

1. The lifting of the protective tariff on Southern ports would have broken the attempts of northern manufacturing interests to gain a monopoly on manufactured goods sold in the United States and, now, the Confederacy. This would have caused them to have to compete with foreign manufacturers, thus lowering prices and encouraging innovation, which would have benefitted US citizens.

2. Having free trade zones so close and competing with New York, Chicago, and Boston could very well have caused a reduction of tariffs in the United States, which would have invited more trade and prosperity to the country.

Taking those two notions into account, and assuming there is no bloody, bloody war between the two countries, I see no reason why the citizens of either country would see each other as any less than kin who now lived in different houses. The potential for war between the U.S. and the C.S.A. would be very limited.

Of course, you could always turn things around a bit, and have the Republicans abolish the Fugitive Slave laws in retaliation for the South opening up its ports to free trade. This could bring in the potential for some of the states in the Upper South to threaten secession, which might turn into armed conflict, but unless there is a catalyst like Ft. Sumter I have a hard time seeing war actually breaking out, and without a serious war there would not be enough rancor between the two countries to stimulate future armed conflict.

Just my take on it.
 
No, you are doing what you generally do. You make sweeping generalisations which you can't back up (or even sometimes try and back them up with something from a google search that in fact undermines your own argument, as recently witnessed). When challenged on the paucity of evidence you retreat back to claims of "personal attacks" and "demand apologies".

1) Your own sources don't say what you claim they do. That's what happens when you cherrypick data. Rendering your interminable homemade lists and charts of "facts" valueless.

2) No unbanned forum member engages in as many ad hominems as yourself.

3) No unbanned forum member matches your level of historical negationism.

4) Better SF's making sweeping generalisations than your firing shots that barely hit your targets at all followed by your claims of "Bullseye!":rolleyes:

5) I do agree with you about SF's demands from you for an apology. It is patently ridiculous to expect an apology from you about anything to anyone, other than your most favored cliche' "I'm sorry you're an idiot".

6) Ditto for suggesting you admit an error, except for your second most favored cliche' "I was wrong, you ARE an idiot."

Maybe SF is just venting. Because there's no way I can see you ever indulging in humility.:(
 
We've all read books and timelines involving an Independent CSA. There are a number of ways of which this could be achieved but what I am wondering is that are the CSA and USA destined to become bitter enemies and fight several wars as occurs in every timeline, or are they more likely to become the best of friends?

I understand that this depends on how the south achieved independence. If it was peaceful, than the relations between the USA and CSA would most likely be peaceful. If it was a hard fought war without foreign aid than I would think it would be tense at first but by the end of the century things would have cooled down and the two would be pretty friendly. However if the CSA had achieved victory after a hard fought war with foreign assistance I can imagine the CSA and USA being more enbittered with eachother.

These are just my thoughts, who else wants to chime in?

Ignoring all the comments that have come before mine, I'll attempt to discuss my feelings on the topic.

Yes, the answer really depends on how Confederacy gains its independence. But even without Lincoln it's highly unlikely that the North will just let the Confederacy go peacefully. The idea of the United Sates as a special and nearly sacred land had a strong emotional hold on many politicians in the North.

So for me I believe that only through conflict will the Confederacy gain independence and further more its absolutely essential that at least Great Britain intervene. Without foreign assistance the Confederacy is a lost cause.

That being said even after the Confederacy gains its independence there will be many issues that continue to plague foreign relations between the two nations.

1. Territorial Disputes - Regardless of how the treaty that ends the ACW turns out there will be legitimate land claims to be made be either. If Maryland stays in the Union the slaveholders of the counties around the Chesapeake will be angry. If Kentucky goes to the Confederacy, Unionists in that state will resist. Any of these issues could be the spark for further conflict. Of course over time the people of these regions will make due but if it becomes a national policy or a point of political contention for an interest group or political party these hard feelings could last for a long time.

2. Rights of Transit - With the most important water way in North America going through the hearts of each nation free travel down the Mississippi will be crucial to both nation, especially the Union. The increased of railroads will mitigate this to some degree, but if the Kentucky is also in the CSA than yet another important waterway quickly becomes a flashpoint.

3. Emotional Nationalist Conflicts - The idea of the US as a united republic and the last great democratic stronghold of democracy was a powerful idea to the people of America. Much of the reasoning after Sumter but before the Emancipation Proclamation for the war was built upon the sanctity of the Union. The destruction of the Union would cause lasting animosity regardless of how it occurs.

4. International Affairs - If the Confederacy had to rely on foreign intervention to attain independence, something I see as a given; then the US will also look for allies (one of the few areas where I think Turtledove was spot on in TL-191). When Europe goes to war then a system of alliances will also drag North America along.

5. Slavery - The war was and any future tensions will stem from the existence of that "peculiar institution." Regardless of how the war ends, if the South wins slavery will survive in some form for a long time afterwards. Also to survive will be abolitionist agitation, the Underground Railroad and cross border slave patrols. All of these will work against their being lasting peace between the two nations.

Given these issues it seems very likely to me that future conflict between the Confederacy and the Union is nearly inevitable.

As for for the rest of the arguments contained in this thread...I'm right and the rest of you are wrong.

Benjamin
 
Ignoring all the comments that have come before mine, I'll attempt to discuss my feelings on the topic.

Yes, the answer really depends on how Confederacy gains its independence. But even without Lincoln it's highly unlikely that the North will just let the Confederacy go peacefully. The idea of the United Sates as a special and nearly sacred land had a strong emotional hold on many politicians in the North.

So for me I believe that only through conflict will the Confederacy gain independence and further more its absolutely essential that at least Great Britain intervene. Without foreign assistance the Confederacy is a lost cause.

That being said even after the Confederacy gains its independence there will be many issues that continue to plague foreign relations between the two nations.

1. Territorial Disputes - Regardless of how the treaty that ends the ACW turns out there will be legitimate land claims to be made be either. If Maryland stays in the Union the slaveholders of the counties around the Chesapeake will be angry. If Kentucky goes to the Confederacy, Unionists in that state will resist. Any of these issues could be the spark for further conflict. Of course over time the people of these regions will make due but if it becomes a national policy or a point of political contention for an interest group or political party these hard feelings could last for a long time.

2. Rights of Transit - With the most important water way in North America going through the hearts of each nation free travel down the Mississippi will be crucial to both nation, especially the Union. The increased of railroads will mitigate this to some degree, but if the Kentucky is also in the CSA than yet another important waterway quickly becomes a flashpoint.

3. Emotional Nationalist Conflicts - The idea of the US as a united republic and the last great democratic stronghold of democracy was a powerful idea to the people of America. Much of the reasoning after Sumter but before the Emancipation Proclamation for the war was built upon the sanctity of the Union. The destruction of the Union would cause lasting animosity regardless of how it occurs.

4. International Affairs - If the Confederacy had to rely on foreign intervention to attain independence, something I see as a given; then the US will also look for allies (one of the few areas where I think Turtledove was spot on in TL-191). When Europe goes to war then a system of alliances will also drag North America along.

5. Slavery - The war was and any future tensions will stem from the existence of that "peculiar institution." Regardless of how the war ends, if the South wins slavery will survive in some form for a long time afterwards. Also to survive will be abolitionist agitation, the Underground Railroad and cross border slave patrols. All of these will work against their being lasting peace between the two nations.

Given these issues it seems very likely to me that future conflict between the Confederacy and the Union is nearly inevitable.

As for for the rest of the arguments contained in this thread...I'm right and the rest of you are wrong.

Benjamin

Best damn review I've seen on this entire thread.:)
 
Best damn review I've seen on this entire thread.:)

Thank you. I get a bit tired of the digressions these threads often take.

I haven't been around much do to health problems, but hopefully the worst is past and if my ribs will ever heal I'll post a lot more in the future.

Benjamin
 
We've all read books and timelines involving an Independent CSA. There are a number of ways of which this could be achieved but what I am wondering is that are the CSA and USA destined to become bitter enemies and fight several wars as occurs in every timeline, or are they more likely to become the best of friends?

I understand that this depends on how the south achieved independence. If it was peaceful, than the relations between the USA and CSA would most likely be peaceful. If it was a hard fought war without foreign aid than I would think it would be tense at first but by the end of the century things would have cooled down and the two would be pretty friendly. However if the CSA had achieved victory after a hard fought war with foreign assistance I can imagine the CSA and USA being more enbittered with eachother.

These are just my thoughts, who else wants to chime in?

My thoughts are yes. But I base this on a few reasons.

1. The Confederacy is only going to gain legitimacy after it has been granted international recognition and other nations have moved in to negotiate for them. This would most likely be Britain or France (though I've always seen France as the prime contender with Britain just following along). So the US will most likely be in conflict with these two nations (though Britian will probably move away from the CSA as they will despise the idea of slavery).

2. Ideologies. The Confederacy has a very strict and authoritatian style of governing. They had censorship and gag orders before the war, the government won't get much better after. They will by necessity be a military state and thus have an aggresive policy. Slavery will also drive many Northerners to despise the Confederacy and that old ideological feud will continue.

3. The Union will (for at least one or two generations) desire the territory they lost back. They were the top dog on the continent and will be quite upset at having lost this position. Animosity will not disappear overnight.
 
Ignoring all the comments that have come before mine, I'll attempt to discuss my feelings on the topic.

Yes, the answer really depends on how Confederacy gains its independence. But even without Lincoln it's highly unlikely that the North will just let the Confederacy go peacefully. The idea of the United Sates as a special and nearly sacred land had a strong emotional hold on many politicians in the North.

So for me I believe that only through conflict will the Confederacy gain independence and further more its absolutely essential that at least Great Britain intervene. Without foreign assistance the Confederacy is a lost cause.

That being said even after the Confederacy gains its independence there will be many issues that continue to plague foreign relations between the two nations.

1. Territorial Disputes - Regardless of how the treaty that ends the ACW turns out there will be legitimate land claims to be made be either. If Maryland stays in the Union the slaveholders of the counties around the Chesapeake will be angry. If Kentucky goes to the Confederacy, Unionists in that state will resist. Any of these issues could be the spark for further conflict. Of course over time the people of these regions will make due but if it becomes a national policy or a point of political contention for an interest group or political party these hard feelings could last for a long time.

2. Rights of Transit - With the most important water way in North America going through the hearts of each nation free travel down the Mississippi will be crucial to both nation, especially the Union. The increased of railroads will mitigate this to some degree, but if the Kentucky is also in the CSA than yet another important waterway quickly becomes a flashpoint.

3. Emotional Nationalist Conflicts - The idea of the US as a united republic and the last great democratic stronghold of democracy was a powerful idea to the people of America. Much of the reasoning after Sumter but before the Emancipation Proclamation for the war was built upon the sanctity of the Union. The destruction of the Union would cause lasting animosity regardless of how it occurs.

4. International Affairs - If the Confederacy had to rely on foreign intervention to attain independence, something I see as a given; then the US will also look for allies (one of the few areas where I think Turtledove was spot on in TL-191). When Europe goes to war then a system of alliances will also drag North America along.

5. Slavery - The war was and any future tensions will stem from the existence of that "peculiar institution." Regardless of how the war ends, if the South wins slavery will survive in some form for a long time afterwards. Also to survive will be abolitionist agitation, the Underground Railroad and cross border slave patrols. All of these will work against their being lasting peace between the two nations.

Given these issues it seems very likely to me that future conflict between the Confederacy and the Union is nearly inevitable.

As for for the rest of the arguments contained in this thread...I'm right and the rest of you are wrong.

Benjamin


Agreed. I think conflict is near inevitable. For one thing even in a peaceful breakup there will probably be the abolition of slavery very soon afterwords. If KY is gone there is little reason not to do so right away. Once that happens say good by to the Fugitive Slave Law and slaves can escape merely by going to the US instead of all the way to Canada. Southerners won't like that and will try to kidnap them back. Countries aren't happy when you kidnap their citizens, 2nd class or not. Eventually that will lead to war.
 
Best damn review I've seen on this entire thread.:)

Seconded. Though one element I'd add as a potential issue that might start conflicts would be the instability of the Confederate government, as the other 5 are written with an assumption that there'd be two governments able to formulate and implement agreed-upon policies, which is far more unlikely in the context of the Confederacy than it would ever be in the USA. There'd also be a potential issue where the CS Army might assume de facto the kind of autonomous political influence that was so dangerous in Germany and Japan's history by virtue of its influence on CS nationalism and the more dangerous situations for a newly independent CS state than greeted the newly independent US state.
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
Matt, again, I'm the one using actual incidents of the pre-war and independent CSA of OTL, you're using nothing but speculation and personal attacks.

Look man, I'm asking you to provide evidence, that's all. If you think that's a personal attack, then you're just too far gone.

If you refuse to provide actual evidence, instead of supposition based on the same kind of broad generalizations that gets people believing in Reptilians and Banker Conspiracies, then we're done here. You've essentially ruined this topic but asserting that your opinion is correct and anyone who disagrees is ignoring 'the evidence' (which you refuse to provide).

Enjoy your life. You really won't get far on bluster alone.
 
Look man, I'm asking you to provide evidence, that's all. If you think that's a personal attack, then you're just too far gone.

If you refuse to provide actual evidence, instead of supposition based on the same kind of broad generalizations that gets people believing in Reptilians and Banker Conspiracies, then we're done here. You've essentially ruined this topic but asserting that your opinion is correct and anyone who disagrees is ignoring 'the evidence' (which you refuse to provide).

Enjoy your life. You really won't get far on bluster alone.

I have provided plenty of evidence and specific examples. I have yet to see this reciprocated. But once again: the CSA is built on an exceptionally poor foundation for democracy, the rise of a military dictatorship actually resolves several gordian knots of CS democracy, and a military dictatorship in the particular context of an independent Confederacy is *less*, not *more* likely to attack the United States.
 
Agreed. I think conflict is near inevitable. For one thing even in a peaceful breakup there will probably be the abolition of slavery very soon afterwords. If KY is gone there is little reason not to do so right away. Once that happens say good by to the Fugitive Slave Law and slaves can escape merely by going to the US instead of all the way to Canada. Southerners won't like that and will try to kidnap them back. Countries aren't happy when you kidnap their citizens, 2nd class or not. Eventually that will lead to war.

Exactly. The US has always defined itself by how it differs from other nations, especially its perceived enemies. This will be even more important in a US vs CS situation as their national identities diverge. This means the US will go out of its way to oppose Confederate policies which will in turn infuriate Confederate politicians.

I always found it odd that in much AH where the Confederacy wins the US becomes even less free and liberal (in a classical liberal sense). Yes, racism existed throughout the northern states and many states in the Midwest actually forbade free blacks, but overall the North was still far better than any of the slave states. The North will intentionally move to differ itself from the Confederacy and embarrass those European nations now tied to the Confederacy economically and militarily. Without Southern opposition the US will move towards equal rights at a much quicker pace.

This alone will further increase tensions between the two nations.

Benjamin
 
Exactly. The US has always defined itself by how it differs from other nations, especially its perceived enemies. This will be even more important in a US vs CS situation as their national identities diverge. This means the US will go out of its way to oppose Confederate policies which will in turn infuriate Confederate politicians.

I always found it odd that in much AH where the Confederacy wins the US becomes even less free and liberal (in a classical liberal sense). Yes, racism existed throughout the northern states and many states in the Midwest actually forbade free blacks, but overall the North was still far better than any of the slave states. The North will intentionally move to differ itself from the Confederacy and embarrass those European nations now tied to the Confederacy economically and militarily. Without Southern opposition the US will move towards equal rights at a much quicker pace.

This alone will further increase tensions between the two nations.

Benjamin

I can actually see that in terms of being more militarized, US security situations didn't require a large peacetime army through much of the 19th Century and the 20th Century. A CSA, which is likely to be unstable *and* with potential irredentist claims made at US expense requires a completely different security policy, one that might well fundamentally alter the USA's entire view of its military. The USA would certainly explicitly outlaw secession afterward. I agree that otherwise the USA might well embrace more radical racial equality for no other reason than to spite the Confederacy.
 
I can actually see that in terms of being more militarized, US security situations didn't require a large peacetime army through much of the 19th Century and the 20th Century. A CSA, which is likely to be unstable *and* with potential irredentist claims made at US expense requires a completely different security policy, one that might well fundamentally alter the USA's entire view of its military. The USA would certainly explicitly outlaw secession afterward. I agree that otherwise the USA might well embrace more radical racial equality for no other reason than to spite the Confederacy.

Yes, and like in OTL the military will actually lead the way in racial equality. Integration will occur way earlier and much press will be made out of any victory of black soldiers over the Confederate troops.

Benjamin
 
Top