Modern Day Confederate States of America

TFSmith121

Banned
So all the nasty realities go again

Again, ignoring the OP, wherein the states peacefully secede.


But even then, the minority of soldiers who owned slaves, weren't doing so for ideological reasons. The value of slavery was in the slaves themselves; once the technologies and practices of the 2nd Industrial Revolution become widespread, slaves will lose value. The slave is what made the average Southern family wealthier than the average northern family. Once that is gone, the veteran trying to provide for his family will not care about keeping slaves, even if he lost a leg and his brother in battle for the right to have them. Slaves are mouths that need to be fed and bodies that need to be clothed and sheltered (however poorly). If they're not being productive, there's no point in having them.



The C.S had the right to suppress insurrections and provide military for assistance to the states, upon request. And the Confederate government could and did raise taxes for the payment of its staff.

So all the nasty realities go away and its Scarlet and Ashley all the way down; got it.

Best,
 
But even then, the minority of soldiers who owned slaves, weren't doing so for ideological reasons. The value of slavery was in the slaves themselves; once the technologies and practices of the 2nd Industrial Revolution become widespread, slaves will lose value. The slave is what made the average Southern family wealthier than the average northern family. Once that is gone, the veteran trying to provide for his family will not care about keeping slaves, even if he lost a leg and his brother in battle for the right to have them. Slaves are mouths that need to be fed and bodies that need to be clothed and sheltered (however poorly). If they're not being productive, there's no point in having them.

Actually no, the pro-slavery ideology started at least a generation or more before the ACW. Due to the generations long argument with the North about it the South developed a whole ideology in defense of the institution. A generation or more of Southerners were preached to by mostly pro-slavery preachers and read pro-slavery propaganda in their newspapers. By the ACW the whole concept of Southern Regionalism was wrapped up in slavery. To be consider a respectable Southerner you had to be pro-slavery and that wouldn't end just because slavery became somewhat less profitable.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
True, just trying to point out

Considering that the Republicans massively won the Union Army vote it is quite more than that actually but with a lot of luck there could be enough demoralization that the CSA might barely be able to pull it off with maybe a chance in a thousand or less.

True ( re the soldier vote in 1864); just trying to point out why the US cause was so much more robust than that of the rebels, which was the definition of brittle.

Best,
 
I don't think a modern day CSA will be a superpower, but I also don't think it will necessarily turn into a total basket case. In 1860, it was behind the northern USA and much of western Europe in industrialization and economic development, but it was still probably equal to or ahead of many parts of Europe, not to mention the rest of the world. It would certainly have an uphill struggle to make the transition from being centered on plantation slavery to a more industrialized and diversified economy, but I don't see any reason why it could not become the equivalent of say Argentina or Brazil.

Can't see Argentina or Brazil. Those began and evolved as fairly diversified economies with substantial resource bases, remote from overpowering neighbors.

The CSA starts off as a single crop economy, which will shape its society and economic evolution. It will follow the trajectory of other single crop economies like Ecuador or Central America. Basically, a tiny landowning class monopolizing the resources, a neutered middle class in service to that landowning class, and a large population of slaves and poor whites living a marginal existence.

Infrastructure will be oriented towards export of raw materials. You won't have investment or economies of scale to support industrialization, which is going to die on the vine.

When the price of cotton collapses, the losses will be passed onto the subordinate classes. The rest of the country will go at fire sale prices. The Confederacy is screwed.
 
In what universe where the secession winter occurs in 1860-61 do the rebels "break away peacefully"? You can't have one with the other...

Best,

In the universe postulated by the OP in this thread that you apparently haven't read.

Exactly, he is greatly underestimating the ideology behind it . Ideology is important , historically it has trumped economic considerations over the short and intermediate periods. It might be considered in 1900 or so but not before. Even then it would take at least five but more likely ten to twenty years before it goes through.

Ideology is simply what those in charge sell to the masses to justify the death of their children. At the risk of getting political, American soldiers today are told they fight for freedom and democracy; do you think those in charge believe that as well?

Do you think the leaders of ISIS, many of whom were members of the Baath Party, honestly believe in the radical Islam they preach to motivate their soldiers and terrorists?

All wars are driven by greed. Greed for power and money. In this case, the entire economy was based upon slavery. Then ideology was spun to justify it. How else do you get other businesses and countries to buy your goods?

I think you are overestimating the ideology. Ideology doesn't mean shit when your family can't afford things it needs.


Except the Confederate States is based on the principle that if slavery is threatened a state can secede. So even if somehow an anti-slavery amendment were to get the support of the majority of states there would be states that would break away. When you have a hostile power to the north a civil war is the last thing you want.

And slavery was more than just an economic system and a way of keeping African-Americans down. It was the basis of the Southern social system, something that was so important to the South (at least the elites) that they started a civil war over it. There were plenty of Southerners who believed that slavery was not only a good thing, but also was what God wanted and was the best thing for African-Americans. Slavery has that, the threat of violence, and simple inertia (it takes a long time for a government to do anything) on its side. Sure, in a perfectly rational world once slavery was no longer economically sound it would be abandoned, but we don't live in a perfectly rational world (as TFSmith pointed out the death camps were objectively detrimental to the German war effort, but the Nazis still ran them. Clearly what is the most logical isn't always what people choose). The CSA would most likely try to find any possible solution that would let slavery remain in place, even though it would harm them.

The elites can't control an object's (in this case an enslaved person's) value. Brazil had a similar set up.

Your analogy of a deathcamp doesn't work, because Nazi Germany was an authoritarian dictatorship. A person can be irrational, but in a capitalist democratic republic the majority will vote in their rational self-interest.

Also secession isn't a threat intended to be used, it's a bargaining chip. Most likely the convention would be called to allow for states to decide for themselves on the question, and from there they could do what they want. And yes, inertia would probably keep it going in some states longer than in others. But eventually it gets to the point that as I stated, it's more of a hindrance than a help. When it gets to the point that slaves are unprofitable, even in scale, then it will be abolished. That doesn't result in societal collapse either, because a newly freed slave will have zero capital. You seem to think that because in OTL the south was devastated by the loss of slavery that the same would happen here; you're ignoring the fact that the war was fought on its territory, and that slaves were more valuable than the land they worked. When most of a society's capital is lost in an instant, of course you get a breakdown. But an independent south's citizens will be prone to and reacting to economic conditions, same as everywhere else, and capital will gradually move away from slave-driven economies to more profitable sectors.
 
Ideology is simply what those in charge sell to the masses to justify the death of their children. At the risk of getting political, American soldiers today are told they fight for freedom and democracy; do you think those in charge believe that as well?
At the very least they believe that if various terrorist groups aren't kicked out of their home bases they will be able to launch wholescale assaults on society which has been proven to be correct.

Do you think the leaders of ISIS, many of whom were members of the Baath Party, honestly believe in the radical Islam they preach to motivate their soldiers and terrorists?
Yes, there are a lot of religious fanatics in this world. The Baath Party was downplaying its more secular ideology for years. A lot of Baath Party members were Baath Party members in the same way Communist Party members were Communist Party members during the Cold War. They were in for the perks more than anything else.

All wars are driven by greed. Greed for power and money. In this case, the entire economy was based upon slavery. Then ideology was spun to justify it. How else do you get other businesses and countries to buy your goods?
No, just no. Too many societies have proved that wrong. If economics were the be all and end all the Nazis would have stopped at merely robbing the Jews instead of putting up expensive death camps . Stalin would have stopped Collectivization the moment its costs exceeded its benefits. Mao would have stopped the Great Leap Forward as soon as it proved unprofitable. You really need to read the link, it went on for pages on things that were obviously economically unproductive. In many cases economics is besides the point. People do things for other things than money.


I think you are overestimating the ideology. Ideology doesn't mean shit when your family can't afford things it needs.

Southerners starved for several winters before they gave up. They could have saved themselves that by simply surrendering earlier.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Except the issue is that

In the universe postulated by the OP in this thread that you apparently haven't read...

Except the issue is that if one is going to try and imagine a "successful confederacy" it sort of requires some sort of point of departure based on reality, not fantasy.

Best,
 
They "took away White Man jobs" OTL and nothing happened about it except that some White people lost their jobs. Like I said in OTL slaves were used for many things outside of field hands. Did you even read the above? What did working class Whites do when Black slaves were used as blacksmiths , carpenters etc.? Exactly nothing.

Ever read the memoirs of Frederick Douglas? If not, allow me to enlighten you to the typical white man's attitude to a black slave doing a white man's job. When Douglas was apprenticed at a shipyard he was assaulted by a gang of white apprentices, nearly losing his eye, simply because he was black.

Now imagine if those same men felt his mere presence threatened their continued career.

Of course I should also ask about the profitable return of slaves engaged in work like blacksmiths and carpenters (which again still happened more on plantations than outside of it) versus in mass cultivation. I'm unable to find any evidence that this was a greatly widespread practice either.

And slavery was more than just an economic system and a way of keeping African-Americans down. It was the basis of the Southern social system, something that was so important to the South (at least the elites) that they started a civil war over it.

Here we come to the crux of the problem. I will assume everyone in this thread is familiar with the slogan 'rich man's war, poor man's fight' which was used as a rallying cry for those not wishing to fight in the war, and was in particular aimed at the slave owning aristocrats who used their immense plantations as an excuse to sit out the war.

By and large the mass of Confederate civilians would be unable to own slaves, and have little economic use for owning them. If they continue to accrue costs over time for a system that does not benefit them something will give.

Sure, in a perfectly rational world once slavery was no longer economically sound it would be abandoned, but we don't live in a perfectly rational world (as TFSmith pointed out the death camps were objectively detrimental to the German war effort, but the Nazis still ran them. Clearly what is the most logical isn't always what people choose). The CSA would most likely try to find any possible solution that would let slavery remain in place, even though it would harm them.

No, just no. Too many societies have proved that wrong. If economics were the be all and end all the Nazis would have stopped at merely robbing the Jews instead of putting up expensive death camps . Stalin would have stopped Collectivization the moment its costs exceeded its benefits. Mao would have stopped the Great Leap Forward as soon as it proved unprofitable. You really need to read the link, it went on for pages on things that were obviously economically unproductive. In many cases economics is besides the point. People do things for other things than money.

Comparing the CSA to the Nazis is just wrong on so many levels. The problems with that comparison ought to jump out at anyone immediately. If not for the least reason the Nazis were more evil than the CSA could ever have hoped to be.

Here's the thing, the Confederate States were a capitalistic banana republic state whose sole claim to (surprising) wealth was the export of cash crops like cotton and tobacco. The Confederate elites who espoused this ideology clung to the institution of slavery precisely because it made them rich. Should that stop being the case, they will do something about it. They want to remain rich after all.

This is still the society after all who went to war explicitly defending slavery in their ideology, but after the war managed to turn on a philosophical dime to proclaim slavery was never that important at all.

Something tells me they could come up with a justification to change their peculiar institution to more suit their needs rather easily.

Southerners starved for several winters before they gave up. They could have saved themselves that by simply surrendering earlier.

That assumes that all Southerners who supported secession were fighting explicitly because they believed in the right to own other people, rather than more varied ideals or anything else at all.
 
Ever read the memoirs of Frederick Douglas? If not, allow me to enlighten you to the typical white man's attitude to a black slave doing a white man's job. When Douglas was apprenticed at a shipyard he was assaulted by a gang of white apprentices, nearly losing his eye, simply because he was black.
Not enough to stop the practice or even slow it down much, the number of slaves being used in factories was increasing prior to the ACW.


Of course I should also ask about the profitable return of slaves engaged in work like blacksmiths and carpenters (which again still happened more on plantations than outside of it) versus in mass cultivation. I'm unable to find any evidence that this was a greatly widespread practice either.
Depends on what you mean by widespread. Nearly as many as used in cotton fields? No Enough to be mentioned by Englishmen and Frenchmen touring the US? Yes.


Here we come to the crux of the problem. I will assume everyone in this thread is familiar with the slogan 'rich man's war, poor man's fight' which was used as a rallying cry for those not wishing to fight in the war, and was in particular aimed at the slave owning aristocrats who used their immense plantations as an excuse to sit out the war.
There weren't enough of those for it not to be a tough war. If that were the widespread belief than the war would have been won quickly and it little cost. It was there but it effected the war little.
will give.


Comparing the CSA to the Nazis is just wrong on so many levels. The problems with that comparison ought to jump out at anyone immediately. If not for the least reason the Nazis were more evil than the CSA could ever have hoped to be.

The Nazis were indeed far more evil than the Confederates, that wasn't the point. The point was governments do things for thing other than economic reasons all the time.


The Confederate States were a capitalistic banana republic state whose sole claim to (surprising) wealth was the export of cash crops like cotton and tobacco. The Confederate elites who espoused this ideology clung to the institution of slavery precisely because it made them rich.
Most ideology is self serving to some extent. Nazism was self serving as it boiled down to "As the Master Race we are entitled to anything we want" while Communism bils down to "The rich people have a lot of stuff and we don';t so let's steal it from them and give it to ourselves. Monarchies boil down to "I happen to be from a family chosen by God or gods to rule and so my family is entitled to everything they can get." Just because it is self serving doesn't mean it isn't believed. They have to justify to themselves after all.


Should that stop being the case, they will do something about it. They want to remain rich after all.

They will manage to dump some of the indirect costs on to the public as they were already doing.

This is still the society after all who went to war explicitly defending slavery in their ideology, but after the war managed to turn on a philosophical dime to proclaim slavery was never that important at all.

Something tells me they could come up with a justification to change their peculiar institution to more suit their needs rather easily.


That assumes that all Southerners who supported secession were fighting explicitly because they believed in the right to own other people, rather than more varied ideals or anything else at all.

Most were, the ideology was widespread. The majority of White Southerners believed that Blacks were "natural born slaves" as that is what they had been taught all their lives.
 

Spengler

Banned
All wars are driven by greed. Greed for power and money. In this case, the entire economy was based upon slavery. Then ideology was spun to justify it. How else do you get other businesses and countries to buy your goods?

I think you are overestimating the ideology. Ideology doesn't mean shit when your family can't afford things it needs.




The elites can't control an object's (in this case an enslaved person's) value. Brazil had a similar set up.

Your analogy of a deathcamp doesn't work, because Nazi Germany was an authoritarian dictatorship. A person can be irrational, but in a capitalist democratic republic the majority will vote in their rational self-interest.

Also secession isn't a threat intended to be used, it's a bargaining chip. Most likely the convention would be called to allow for states to decide for themselves on the question, and from there they could do what they want. And yes, inertia would probably keep it going in some states longer than in others. But eventually it gets to the point that as I stated, it's more of a hindrance than a help. When it gets to the point that slaves are unprofitable, even in scale, then it will be abolished. That doesn't result in societal collapse either, because a newly freed slave will have zero capital. You seem to think that because in OTL the south was devastated by the loss of slavery that the same would happen here; you're ignoring the fact that the war was fought on its territory, and that slaves were more valuable than the land they worked. When most of a society's capital is lost in an instant, of course you get a breakdown. But an independent south's citizens will be prone to and reacting to economic conditions, same as everywhere else, and capital will gradually move away from slave-driven economies to more profitable sectors.
Oh to be aq naive libertarian.
 
Top