Poll: When Would the CSA Eliminate Slavery

By What Point Would The Confederacy Have Eradicated Slavery?


  • Total voters
    556
Status
Not open for further replies.
It doesn’t have to be 10 percent I’m just giving numbers. I’m bad at that part of it so I’m giving wide ranges. I’m asking couldn’t the south have a higher percentage compared to the north to lessen the gap a good bit?
Not enough. The US would have 5 times the population and 10 times the economy with the gap growing over time. The South would have less chance of beating the US than WW2 Japan. At least the population gap wasn't so wide.

I’m also hinting at rapid industrialization through non democratic means on the confederacy part or at least limited. Industrialization always rapidly changes thing. The north will have a consumer market and the south might have state capitalism and focus on certain industries much more. What if 30 years down they are focusing heavy on war materials during peacetime and the north isn’t.

The USSR shows what happens then. The CSA would not be nearly as big or populous as Russia.

They don’t know each other exact stockpiles. I’m also say a police force that is highly militarized is going to be needed and desired by everyone to prevent slave revolts. They will spend on that even if it hurts them a bit. Those police training isn’t going to be too different from more modern military training. They have to train people how to put down revolts and unrest. They might not be training like napoleonic armies but they are training more like modern military units.
It is going to be a lot different than modern military training. Criminals and escaped slaves are not standing armies. The US army is going to have machine guns, artillery and eventually trucks, tanks, and planes. Rioters and escaped slaves have none of that. They also don't have either the C3 or discipline a real army has. It might allow them to shorten their training a bit but the police are not a real army.

The CSA backward domestic conflicts is training them how to fight with modern weapons and small units across large rugged terrains(a lot of confederacy). The confederacy going to be plagued with violence of all types it isn’t unreasonable to say they will come up with oppressive means to solve these issues and also indirectly transition it into a more militarized nation while being justified to citizens as “keeping order”(that excuse doesn’t work as well in northern culture.
They will have a lot of experience dealing with unarmed or poorly armed rioters and escaped slaves. They will have no experience dealing with artillery and machine gun fire and that is before planes and tanks are added to the mix.

One reason our nation hasn’t fallen to a strongman as often. Also the south will fear not having a big defensive force will lead to them being the next Haiti. So cost is likely over extended a bit but the people accept that out of fear of a slave uprising. They can’t call in help from the north anymore. Slaves are majority in some states.

This can be handled by moderately trained light troops, which will not be of much help against a heavily armed US Army.

So imagine a nation that probably has a bunch of guns floating around in the consumer market, right to bear arms and people want them there, and a bunch of escaped slaves, freeman, or abolitionist tried something. That radically changes the mindset of the nation. That founding principle is quickly regarded as outdated and a new excuse and system is made).
True, but that doesn't conjure up a well supplied, well armed, well trained large army. The US would have the capacity for all that the CS would not.

If that happens that nation can radically change but a strongman isn’t a radical so he has to justify change to those people mindset. The CSA of 1862 isn’t going to be the CSA in 1882. The CSA is right next to one of largest industrial powers in the world that’s going to lingering over a bit especially with continued business ties. CSA could get rich off natural resources in a similar fashion as Saudi once they discover them all.
The real money is in the processing of all that.
No reason they don’t mechanized. The south is going to be authoritarian in many ways but their methods of doing it could be head of their time.
Except they don't have the money to do this in a meaningful way.

This is why I say their culture is hypocritical because it is outclassed by their pride and emotion. Reactionary European nations are dead set on most things. If the south is getting out done and embarrassed by the north a lot of people could start flip flopping on things and rewording themselves as a excuse to do something that could help them compete.
Not for a long time. It would take decades for the CSA to fundamentally change and decades more before they could compete. You are talking 1900 or so for slavery to be made illegal if it ever is. You talking 1980 or so before "Black Serfdom" is abolished.

Japan modernized because they did not want to get out done by the Europeans and taken over. The south will be similar with the north.
Japan is an island and had the luck that China was in disarray during its rise. The US is just across the border.

The more authoritarian, prideful, and militarized over time(as their own nation they know they have to do more for themselves now).

Which tends to lead to backward, reactionary countries, not military powerhouses.

The US will build up but those are two different systems against each other. The south also still have social mobility in some forms for all whites(people are less likely to leave if they think they have a chance and north will be filled with other immigrants which discourages them from there. Also social mobility is key for industrialization and the south still has that to an extent).
There will be more social mobility in the US as its population does not have to compete with slave labor.

Northern industrialist and capitalist can easily go to the CSA and do business. Same language and they use to be part of the same country. When worker rights, unions, fair wages, safety regulations, and environment laws becomes a issue for them in the north the south might welcome them in. The south will have cheaper labor, less worker rights, less taxes/tariffs, and panders to them heavily.
If the US government doesn't ban that the CSA will get the lowest paying industrial work. The only jobs it will get are those that can be filled by the uneducated or undereducated . The good jobs will remain in the US.

But the south is smart about it and it’s gets little cut for government use. The south has sweatshops that produce cheap and simple but reliable goods.
Cheap and simple, yes. Reliable not so much.
They have raw resources, cheap labor, rural landless and jobless poor, lower taxes, and lack of worker rights. A capitalist who already has money could easily see gains in that.
He also has to rely on backward infrastructure, poorly educated workers, corrupt beurocrats and likely a restrictive government.

Dixieland ain’t far from him and Dixieland is also highly corrupt. They could be pulling Saudi type stuff. Imagine confederates in Chinese ports tricking illiterate Chinese peasants to come over to CSA and work but them and their families get stuck over there in indentured servitude building railroads.
Possible but they have to compete with the USA for that.
Or even border outlaws kidnapping free blacks near the southern border to be sold down south.

Which likely leads to war. Governments don't like having even their second class citizens kidnapped. It infringes on their sovereignty.

The south is creating more eerily modern day issues. How is the north supposed to react to a bunch of independent criminals like this in this time period? The issue with it being in this time period is the CSA still isn’t as easily be on impose by the US like they currently can with Mexico.
Why not? The CSA would be poor and weak.

CSA domestic issues can spill over into the US causing a lot of issues in both nations. Balkanize or divided Americas might be acting more like countries in the post-ww2 era in many regards while European is still stuck in the Victoria era but the Europeans might learn a lot about war before experiencing it themselves in ww1 depending on how things develop in the Western Hemisphere.

If problems from the CSA into the USA it is all the more a reason to conquer it to get it under control.

Your problem is in treating the USA and CSA as near equals. They wouldn't be.
 
Early victory probably leaves average northern with less ill will towards the south since a lot less of them would die in the conflict.

Early victory is going to require that the Confederacy produce at least one general who makes Robert E Lee look like a bumbler. That would make the Union very wary of the Confederates, not blindly trusting.

I see the north building up business and economic ties with the CSA(mostly individual northerner and their businesses. Which might create a lot of third party issues between the two nations). This leads the north to not see the south as a threat because why would a nation that we are trading and doing business with possibly attack us especially one that is considered backwards? But given this is a militarized oligarchy who could very often act on pride and nationalist desires more then reason might sometimes do crazy stuff unexpectedly.

You mean like the Confederates actually did in 1861? Why wouldn't the Union think the Confederacy might do what it had already done?

I see the north expecting their “southern brothers” to act rational especially given their ties but since this is the CSA that might not happen.

The Confederacy did not "act rational" in 1861. They deliberately started a war against the Union, which had over twice the population and about 10 times the industry.

The north might think the only reason the south has a large standing army is to keep itself together against slave revolts or against its own succession movements. They might think the country is too tied up with domestic issues to use its military against them in a war(which is true at least until slavery ends in any prolonged war.

Nobody is stupid enough ignore an army of over half a million men belonging to a nation that recently tried to invade you multiple times. If the Confederacy tries to build a large standing army, the Union would be able to equal it at a cost of 26 cents to Union taxpayers for each dollar a Confederate taxpayer was charged.
 
Last edited:
The Union and the Confederacy would openly trade, but I don't see them "working with each other". That would require a threat to the national survival of both countries, which is unlikely. The Union need do nothing to try to make the Confederacy into a banana republic, they were already doing that in the Deep South - economy based on exports, large impoverished working class, oligarchic leadership, stratified social classes, little industry. The Border States had more industry and more mixed economies than the rest of the Confederacy, but they also suffered the most economic damage from the war. The Confederacy's low tariff policy will put Confederate industry at a disadvantage compared to Union industry. The Confederacy's ruinous inflation during the war impoverished a lot of middle class whites. A lot of small farmers will be forced to sell their land to rich men. If they're lucky they're get to stay on as exploited sharecroppers instead of being kicked off the land and replaced with slaves.

Confederate belief in Manifest Destiny will fuel their desire for expansion as will soil exhaustion. (Cotton and tobacco tended to be hard on the soil.) Considering that every Confederate attempt to annex Union territory ended in failure, I consider Confederate attempts at expansion to be very unlikely to succeed.
I’m only referring to possibly them working together to keep slaves from fleeing north. People in Maryland catch and sell them back to CSA at a higher price(to make sure they do better job at keeping them out next). The north probably doesn’t want a bunch of black slavers fleeing north. Whites can freely go across the borders but more patrols are stationed on both sides to prevent blacks from fleeing north and maybe even freemen from coming(afraid they will try to start a rebellion). The south might industrialize and militarized to prevent itself from becoming a failed state after a major crisis. The CSA will go through economic hardship by state capitalism and regulated free trade(government makes many shady deals with businesses) you could see an industrial boom in the confederacy. The north is still going to outclass the south in many things but if the south can industrialize like this they could lower gap a decent bit which leads to the possibility of them being able to compete on more even footing later due to their more authoritative control over some industries. Populism could lead to this. The CSA isn’t as populated as Russia but they have a enough resources for its population to be self sufficient like the USSR. Self Sufficiency helps weather recession and depressions better which might be a southern response to economic troubles. Free trade can also be helpful if the government is acting like a business instead of a regulator. The south might require one simple regular tribute payment from businesses while they are allowed to act how they see fit in most other stuff. The CSA might give a lot of lean way with companies but that doesn’t mean they aren’t getting anything out of it. Trade can be about how you run it and tailor it towards your situation. Think of the gulf Arab countries and Texas and how they tax their raw resource exports. The CSA might not have many taxes or regulations on companies but they could make good money off severance taxes. Companies can be worked with that what makes them wild cards. Southerners might be the model corrupt businessmen(like boss hog) instead of educated and hard working stereotype associated with Yankee culture. My pod ideas are happening over a 20 to 40 year span if not more.
 
There's no chance of the Confederacy ending slavery in the 19th century. By the 1860's, they were so ideologically committed to slavery and the sub-humanity of blacks that it would take at least two or three generations to get past that. The earliest it would give up slavery would be around 1910-1920.

It might well hold onto various forms of legal slavery until the 1940's or 50's.

Black people in the Confederacy probably would not receive anything like civil right until the 21st century.
 
I’m only referring to possibly them working together to keep slaves from fleeing north.

Why would they do that?

People in Maryland catch and sell them back to CSA at a higher price(to make sure they do better job at keeping them out next). The north probably doesn’t want a bunch of black slavers fleeing north.

Slavers would not be welcome. People fleeing slavery, probably yes.

Whites can freely go across the borders but more patrols are stationed on both sides to prevent blacks from fleeing north and maybe even freemen from coming(afraid they will try to start a rebellion).

That seems entirely speculative.

The south might industrialize and militarized to prevent itself from becoming a failed state after a major crisis. The CSA will go through economic hardship by state capitalism and regulated free trade(government makes many shady deals with businesses) you could see an industrial boom in the confederacy.

Sounds like wishful thinking.

The north is still going to outclass the south in many things but if the south can industrialize like this they could lower gap a decent bit which leads to the possibility of them being able to compete on more even footing later due to their more authoritative control over some industries. Populism could lead to this. The CSA isn’t as populated as Russia but they have a enough resources for its population to be self sufficient like the USSR. Self Sufficiency helps weather recession and depressions better which might be a southern response to economic troubles. Free trade can also be helpful if the government is acting like a business instead of a regulator. The south might require one simple regular tribute payment from businesses while they are allowed to act how they see fit in most other stuff. The CSA might give a lot of lean way with companies but that doesn’t mean they aren’t getting anything out of it. Trade can be about how you run it and tailor it towards your situation. Think of the gulf Arab countries and Texas and how they tax their raw resource exports. The CSA might not have many taxes or regulations on companies but they could make good money off severance taxes. Companies can be worked with that what makes them wild cards. Southerners might be the model corrupt businessmen(like boss hog) instead of educated and hard working stereotype associated with Yankee culture. My pod ideas are happening over a 20 to 40 year span if not more.

Any form of free trade will guarantee that the south does not industrialize. The most likely path to industrialisation will be tariffs and protectionism which will be fought vigorously by the Planter class that dominates the Southern economy. If the Confederacy does manage to industrialize, it's likely that production will be expensive, inefficient, and plagued by short runs and instability. Your suggestions don't make a lot of sense.
 
Some in the north might even support CSA expansion in Latin America indirectly because if they trade with the US freely that is a lot of cheap natural resources that can be traded to them so they might try to encourage people in the north to look the other way to what’s going on in the south and fund those filibusters themselves.

This does not make any sense. Union merchants would rather trade with independent Latin American countries or have the Union annex them than have those countries fall into the hand of the Confederates.

The most successful filibuster was put up against a wall and shot. I don't expect Confederate filibusters to do any better.
 
There's no chance of the Confederacy ending slavery in the 19th century. By the 1860's, they were so ideologically committed to slavery and the sub-humanity of blacks that it would take at least two or three generations to get past that. The earliest it would give up slavery would be around 1910-1920.

It might well hold onto various forms of legal slavery until the 1940's or 50's.

Black people in the Confederacy probably would not receive anything like civil right until the 21st century.
Your dismissing the possibility of a slave revolt which is possible in a unstable CSA. People poor and rich in the south still fear the possibility of a other Haitian type of revolution. Slavery is going to lead the black population being in the 60 percent or more in the Deep South. The south probably puts it down but many people are likely going to start thinking slavery is a outdated way of dealing with the “African Problem/question”. The CSA especially the poor might think continued cattle slavery will leave them too outnumbered by blacks so a gradual end to official slavery is started in the 1880s and ends around 1900. The south thinks about deporting them(not realistic choose) so they go with strict apartheid. Before slavery is ended the black population is sold more evenly across the CSA to lower the amount of areas they hold majority in before they are given serf like status. By the 20s and 30s they become second class citizens?
 
Why would they do that?



Slavers would not be welcome. People fleeing slavery, probably yes.



That seems entirely speculative.



Sounds like wishful thinking.



Any form of free trade will guarantee that the south does not industrialize. The most likely path to industrialisation will be tariffs and protectionism which will be fought vigorously by the Planter class that dominates the Southern economy. If the Confederacy does manage to industrialize, it's likely that production will be expensive, inefficient, and plagued by short runs and instability. Your suggestions don't make a lot of sense.
During this time period the north will be completely against blacks fleeing north. They might not like slavers but they don’t want blacks living up there in large numbers. The north is less racist then the south but still racist. A lot of them didn’t believe in slavery but thought blacks and whites should live apart. The north might honestly demand the south keep control of its slave population if they get too unstable or many flee north.

Also free trade in the south isn’t going to work like most places during that century. They are going to be doing more economic practices that looks like modern China, Mexico, Putin Russia, and Saudi. Their advantage comes from being able to let business interest do whatever they want for the most part with basically legal brides(taxes) to the government to look the other. The system is rooted in corruption by sustainable. The south is willing to do much more unethical stuff to develop itself. That can lead to the nation going through up and downs but development could be rapid. They are constantly playing catch up in some things but actually start make innovations through some unsavory practices. For example, testing on live human subjects is considered unacceptable in some places but in others it is considered acceptable. Everyone can agree testing on humans is wrong but someone who is might make quick gains in his research. The US is developing in a safe, rational, and productive way while the south is developing by trail and error to help them quickly catch. The US has the wealth and resources to do this unlike the CSA. That Sam Houston quote is very important here. The southern population only advantage is willing to put up with more unpleasant conditions. Development can be rapid if cautious is often thrown to the wind. CSA is not small like most banana republics it can do something if developed more over time. The south could be a place a lot of reactionary types of elites or shady businesses go to do as they please. They wouldn’t be considered traitors in the north because they are indirectly developing the CSA not helping them intentionally. It’s just business and opportunity. People go to places where they can exploit and get self gains. This isn’t uncommon. The CSA would be the first example of the modern reactionary states we see now in otl. This is what makes the CSA different from many nations. It’s a odd mix of the old and new world.
 
Southern industrialization could be found on a economy based on exploitation and expansion? Think how exploitation economics developed in the last two centuries? The CSA starts doing what right wing regimes starting doing in the next century a bit earlier. Instead of trying to keep up with the west the CSA is constantly trying to catch up and out do the US. That could be one of the biggest propaganda points of the CSA. That everything in their power must be done to not become “servants to Yankee tyrants” again. The north looks at this humorously at first. They don’t think south could catch up south. But if the south does they could close gap a good bit and catch the north by surprise. If the south pulls off rapid industrialization that mimics interwar regimes(I say mimic not copy. It’s s proto or primitive version of that) they will be the first nation to do so. People are still figuring industrialization out at this time and a lot of economic theories are still being developed and debated so possibilities might be more open then we think. Technology gap could be more US vs USSR relationship in the long run of the CSA develops well enough. US is much more flexible while the south focuses much of its resources at being good at certain things.
 
What I see becoming a issue a few decades after the war is a growing and expanding south(which some northerner industrialist help indirectly built) become even more nationalistic and ignorant. Let’s say in the 1880s you have militants minded people(which militant minded by CSA standards are likely extreme) take a more dominant role in decision making. They start thinking some of the land the north has is “rightfully southern territory”. The north just thinks this is a bunch of ignorant southerners talking nonsense(there will be groups talking like this all the time. So if the south doesn’t actually do or push for it for the first few decades northerner might think the south is just blowing smoke).

During the Civil War, the Confederacy showed that they considered all of the slave states, the major mineral producing territories, and a route to the Pacific to be theirs by right. That wasn't some extreme hyper-militarist position from the 1880s, that was the default "moderate" Confederate position in 1861. Few Union citizens would dismiss new Confederate threats to seize Union territory as "talking nonsense". Only idiots would dismiss those threats as nonsense if the Confederacy had a large standing army.

This is when the north starts to consider the south as a truly separate and hostile foreign element to the nation.

The Confederacy proved they were hostile the day they fired on Ft Sumter and announced their intention to invade and seize the US capitol. If the Confederacy starts building a large standing army, the Union will assume they intend to use it. That means the Union will at a minimum raise a comparable force and improve border fortifications. They might declare that the Monroe Doctrine also applies to Confederate expansion. They might even launch a preemptive attack on the Confederacy. The one thing they won't do is pretend that the Confederacy is no threat if it starts raising a huge standing army.
 
Last edited:
As earlier posters have noted, $2000 is well more than the twice the price of the average slave. Southern industrialists weren't buying those slaves, they were training slaves they already owned or renting slaves from other owners,
But what happens if a rented Slave is killed in an accident? Would there be a lawsuit or would provisions have been agreed upon in the rental contract or maybe an insurance policy. Whatever is agreed on, it would cost more than $20
 
But what happens if a rented Slave is killed in an accident? Would there be a lawsuit or would provisions have been agreed upon in the rental contract or maybe an insurance policy. Whatever is agreed on, it would cost more than $20
Agreed, they might have to learn this firsthand before realizing it but they would quickly figure out its easier to hire cheap white labor over slaves. A slave can be a lot of legal paper work and you don’t want them maimed or killed in dangerous factory work(field is brutal but your less likely to lose limbs and die farming then a factory. If your a slave missing a foot that’s probably not accident. That was likely a punishment. The factory is the other way around). Wage labor is cheaper for a factory and mine given the high amount of risk and high price of slave labor. Romans only worked slaves in mines because they had plenty of slaves to spare. The south does not. If cheap wage labor dies or gets hurt the boss doesn’t lose much. He can either fire him and has one less person to pay. They likely realize that quickly. Railroad work might even be considered too dangerous for slaves. The south might try to use indentured Chinese labor to build rails.
 
But what happens if a rented Slave is killed in an accident? Would there be a lawsuit or would provisions have been agreed upon in the rental contract or maybe an insurance policy. Whatever is agreed on, it would cost more than $20

A slave insurance policy wold be most likely. That was standard procedure in the Antebellum South.
 
Your dismissing the possibility of a slave revolt which is possible in a unstable CSA. People poor and rich in the south still fear the possibility of a other Haitian type of revolution. Slavery is going to lead the black population being in the 60 percent or more in the Deep South. The south probably puts it down but many people are likely going to start thinking slavery is a outdated way of dealing with the “African Problem/question”. The CSA especially the poor might think continued cattle slavery will leave them too outnumbered by blacks so a gradual end to official slavery is started in the 1880s and ends around 1900. The south thinks about deporting them(not realistic choose) so they go with strict apartheid. Before slavery is ended the black population is sold more evenly across the CSA to lower the amount of areas they hold majority in before they are given serf like status. By the 20s and 30s they become second class citizens?

Why would they be sold more evenly? Unless the central government encourages/forces this somehow why would South Carolina planters suddenly sell thier slaves to Virginians?
 
During this time period the north will be completely against blacks fleeing north. They might not like slavers but they don’t want blacks living up there in large numbers. The north is less racist then the south but still racist. A lot of them didn’t believe in slavery but thought blacks and whites should live apart. The north might honestly demand the south keep control of its slave population if they get too unstable or many flee north.
More likely force them into ghettos to do the hardest labor. "Freeing the White Man to do more meaningful jobs." They won't be slaves but they will be doing things like itinerant farm labor, hauling things around, grunt labor in factories etc.

Also free trade in the south isn’t going to work like most places during that century. They are going to be doing more economic practices that looks like modern China, Mexico, Putin Russia, and Saudi. Their advantage comes from being able to let business interest do whatever they want for the most part with basically legal brides(taxes) to the government to look the other.
Most likely it will be more heavily controlled than in the US. That is what happened during the ACW, after all. If it goes heavily into arm production a lot of it will be done under government contract by necessity.

The system is rooted in corruption by sustainable. The south is willing to do much more unethical stuff to develop itself. That can lead to the nation going through up and downs but development could be rapid. They are constantly playing catch up in some things but actually start make innovations through some unsavory practices. For example, testing on live human subjects is considered unacceptable in some places but in others it is considered acceptable. Everyone can agree testing on humans is wrong but someone who is might make quick gains in his research.
Most likely the CSA winds up a "banana republic" with most of the "cost savings" being given up due to kick backs and bribes. Your description of the likely government fits a "banana republic" almost down to the last detail. A highly militarized, autocratic, corrupt government with an uneducated public with heavy military influence. Historically they don't tend to do so well.

The US is developing in a safe, rational, and productive way while the south is developing by trail and error to help them quickly catch.
IOW, they will develop in a blind panic. I think that is quite likely. The results of that aren't probably good.
The US has the wealth and resources to do this unlike the CSA. That Sam Houston quote is very important here. The southern population only advantage is willing to put up with more unpleasant conditions. Development can be rapid if cautious is often thrown to the wind. CSA is not small like most banana republics it can do something if developed more over time. The south could be a place a lot of reactionary types of elites or shady businesses go to do as they please. They wouldn’t be considered traitors in the north because they are indirectly developing the CSA not helping them intentionally. It’s just business and opportunity. People go to places where they can exploit and get self gains. This isn’t uncommon. The CSA would be the first example of the modern reactionary states we see now in otl. This is what makes the CSA different from many nations. It’s a odd mix of the old and new world.

Most likely this results in an intrusive, highly corrupt government with an overly militarized economy based on resource extraction and low-grade industrial production. Most of what it would produce wiould be at least a decade out of date and poor quality for that.
 
Southern industrialization could be found on a economy based on exploitation and expansion? Think how exploitation economics developed in the last two centuries? The CSA starts doing what right wing regimes starting doing in the next century a bit earlier. Instead of trying to keep up with the west the CSA is constantly trying to catch up and out do the US. That could be one of the biggest propaganda points of the CSA. That everything in their power must be done to not become “servants to Yankee tyrants” again. The north looks at this humorously at first. They don’t think south could catch up south. But if the south does they could close gap a good bit and catch the north by surprise. If the south pulls off rapid industrialization that mimics interwar regimes(I say mimic not copy. It’s s proto or primitive version of that) they will be the first nation to do so. People are still figuring industrialization out at this time and a lot of economic theories are still being developed and debated so possibilities might be more open then we think. Technology gap could be more US vs USSR relationship in the long run of the CSA develops well enough. US is much more flexible while the south focuses much of its resources at being good at certain things.

With what money? It will take the CSA at least 30-40 years to get back where it started from. It took the South about a generation to recover OTL, count on 1 1/2 to 2 in TTL. So in TTL the CSA will be about as industrialized as the North was in 1840 around 1890-1900. After that, it starts catching up again.
 
With what money? It will take the CSA at least 30-40 years to get back where it started from. It took the South about a generation to recover OTL, count on 1 1/2 to 2 in TTL. So in TTL the CSA will be about as industrialized as the North was in 1840 around 1890-1900. After that, it starts catching up again.
The south is likely to recover faster then that. I see them getting economic support from European powers. Some of them might rather help build up a stronger CSA to limit US growth. The advantage the CSA might have to start off with is the Europeans see the US as more of a threat to their power and ambitious more so. They might forgive the CSA debts and loans just to spite and deprive the US of everything possible. Europe is still very imperialist. They won’t be looking to take over stuff directly most of the time but they will desire to expand trade and set up puppets. Weaken US helps that. The US losing civil war is going to be seen with imperialist interest in minds in Europe. That could cause a mess of butterflies. It’s also important to consider the CSA is much bigger then any historical banana republic. The bigger a banana republic gets the more like Putin Russia or Saudi it could become(they can start projecting themselves somewhat). Otl CSA isn’t a small country like Panama or Honduras. Texas by itself is larger then most European countries. Once they discover resources within their lands they might not have as much as US in total by they have enough to be self sufficient and sell plenty of surpluses(Americas are very resource rich. They can’t do much divided but enough united together they can corner a lot of raw resource markets or have a good percentage of them. What happens if a war breaks out in Europe and they are desperate for oil or Japan needs oil. They can make money because the south only has expansion goals in the Western Hemisphere. They will likely trade with anyone else willing which can lead to develop. Appalachia has plenty of coal. They have cotton, tobacco, Rice, sugar, wood, fish, and later gulf oil. The south isn’t a average banana republic because it will have a large amount of raw resources not just one or two. That helps give it economic diversity which can be basis of growth.

The issue with confederate economic practices and foreign policy you might end up with situation that are similar to the Russia Federation foreign policies and economics. They will have people acting for them unofficially abroad in a variety of ways to help benefit the country. Some will be supported by the state while others are completely independent. Even in states that stay with the union CSA sympathies and support might stay a constant issue. Supporters might only be a noticeable minority but still a issue. They are very tie to the land and US can’t remove whites from lands like natives(they have legal protections under law. Bypassing that in US might be frown on). The CSA could out politic and be better at propaganda then the US. They intentionally try to cause domestic issues in the US for its own gains and even sometimes bring in others by economic means(not military). Many of the private groups might feel more loyal to the CSA then US because they benefit them more or have heavy economic ties. They are not open about it but many have general ideas they are copperheads. CSA has the advantage is espionage and propaganda(southern accents are good at sugarcoating things). The CSA would ever attack a united union but might push things with them when they are down or distracted by something they might have had involvement. For people who like talking about honor they will be using dirty tactics a lot. CSA might become a rich man paradise where they can exploit people how they want. CSA even gets some immigration by tricking people overseas into indentured servitude or false pretexts while restricting lower class emigration somewhat through different means.

Let’s use Kentucky and West Virginia as examples. After the war the coal and logging industry will start taking off in both CSA and US Appalachia. You will have companies who own mines and land on both sides of the borders. Many southerners will probably come work in these jobs in both Kentucky and West Virginia. Kentucky and West Virginia are more culturally tied to the south. These are last democratic strong holds in the union. Midwest and Northern dominance at federal level might lead to concerns and unintentional disregard for individual needs of the region. Policies could be too tailored towards situations of the core states(this isn’t always intentional. New England and Mid Atlantic people aren’t always thinking how policies they make can impact people in Kentucky and West Virginia who don’t have as much say due to being a smaller voting bloc now. This is why losing the south changes politics in union. Laws that are made at federal level might be good for New York City and Boston but not for people in Appalachia. It could have opposite effect on them without the federal government even thinking or intending that). This can lead to resentment in those areas that are already now not the nicest places in union. The south can abuse this with backroom politics and propaganda. Many southerners have moved into the region and locals themselves share more in common with the south then the north. Coal and logging companies might prefer confederate business practices since they have experienced things both in the union and CSA. They know CSA lets them pocket money and exploit people more often then the union. They have support among the lower and upper classes if conditions in the region are as bad as otl once mining is big. Copperhead media outlets and yellow journalism is used by south supporters to turn locals against the federal government. The north and even educated public knows what the south is doing but since these are technically private groups the south always has denial ability. The north could only use its own money to outdo them at their own tactics but this requires more showman type skills. Southern culture is perfect at playing on public emotions, fears, and feeling. They can bullshit super well. That might be their advantage against the north. They direct resentment over poor social conditions in Kentucky and West Virginia towards the federal government while focusing on how Kentucky and West Virginian are their “oppressed” southern kin. Nationality lines will be very unclear there. Southerners might be better at politicking. With everyone in states like this focused on federal government and their own poor conditions they are blind to the flaws of the south. The south talks about flaws of north but hides all theirs behind romanticism and nationalist propaganda. Their well placed and sugarcoated language makes many less uneducated people believe their propaganda. Appalachia is a great place for partisan activities. The north might have the key military points well defended but the US border will be so large and un monitored in many areas that unconventional units can easily go back and forth unnoticed. The north with all its money and men can’t completely guard that border. That what makes Kentucky harder to defend. Much of it would not be taken by traditional army. Ranger type units and criminals(primitive cartels and bandits) can easily go back and forth undetected. The issue with that is one not all of them are “officially” supported by the CSA. Which could go either way on being true or not(some could just be redneck nationalist trying something with only a small group but still causes a diplomatic incident). Two this could lead to places joining the CSA like Crimea joining Russia. The south will do stuff that heightens tensions greatly but most of the time doesn’t cause a major war mostly proxy ones at worse(proxy wars is something they could get good at since their country is plagued by stuff that are often seen in proxy wars). The image of democracy is going to be important to propaganda even if it isn’t true(think of Roman Empire trying to keep the image of republic). Propaganda is where they might be much stronger then north. Image a political cartoon in this pod from back then in the northern states. The southern capitalist is depicted as a boss hog(bad guy in dukes of Hazard) type characters while the northern capitalist is depicted as the perfect example of Victorian values.

The CSA is using more modern authoritarian type economic and political practices. This takes more just knowing how to do it then raw resources. The US can’t easily purge these elements from within its society due to being a democratic society. Redeemers and people after them(or honestly even ones before war) have already proven them they are good at knowing how to abuse or get around the US democratic systems. They know how to play the game and bend laws towards their motives in a subtle way. The US in this period does not have resources, men, experience, counter intelligence, law enforcement, and other institutions to deal with this effectively(at least early on and for a long time). The only reason the south might first is fear of becoming another Haiti will give them a larger paramilitary/police force even those they over spend on it. Otl US does good at monitoring its border now in current time. Imagine back then with the CSA who is doing a lot of illegal and questionable stuff behind the scenes. The US is going to need a FBI 50 years earlier to help(which they might do). When did modern border control become a thing in US like CIA? US can’t just go into CSA like Mexico during this time period. US superpower status is far from guaranteed now especially with Europeans being more bold in Western Hemisphere after civil war. Lastly if Kentucky and West Virginia causes a lot of issues your average northerners might get sick of dealing with its “hillbilly” population. Your over estimating how much your average northerner cares about that region or its people. It might not be intentional hostility but more passive forgetfulness of the region by the metropolis and bigger regional blocs. Midwest and Appalachia will still function differently and have a different cultures. Union support in region might become increasingly reliant on immigrants in the area more so then the locals. Don’t downplay how blind nationalism and we’ll place propaganda can change things. Kentucky and West Virginia in Confederacy is easier for the north to monitored its borders. River and mountains line up well to prevent southerners from causing as much trouble in the union(more natural borders). The Wild West probably last longer too. Western borders is going to be a nightmare. The issue isn’t traditional armies but your more unconventional and criminal elements.
 
Last edited:
But given the working conditions in attitudes of the time the risk would be high and so would the insurance premiums.
Making it cheaper to use hired help

It is somewhat exaggerated. The accident rates were high but the great majority lived into their 40s or 50s without getting blind, maimed or deaf. If the accident rate was that high immigrants wouldn't have kept coming.

Don't get me wrong, the accident rate was too high, but it was low enough that people kept coming, there wasn't widespread rioting over it. If the factories were death traps people would have stayed in the Old Country and you would have had mass worker riots as they would have nothing to lose.
 
The south is likely to recover faster then that. I see them getting economic support from European powers. Some of them might rather help build up a stronger CSA to limit US growth. The advantage the CSA might have to start off with is the Europeans see the US as more of a threat to their power and ambitious more so. They might forgive the CSA debts and loans just to spite and deprive the US of everything possible.
I can see it now, the British government spending tax dollars to pay off private debt made to slavocrats! The British government didn't lend any money to the CSA and so couldn't forgive any of it. They would have to spend tax money to private British citizens to pay off CSA debt. Not going to happen. Great Britain didn't get so rich by spending money so foolishly.

The US would see it as a hostile act and would do something about it, such as building big naval guns for every port, building a seaworthy navy and massing troops on its northern border. Great Britain can make that threat to Canada go away quickly and cheaply by NOT helping the CSA.

Europe is still very imperialist. They won’t be looking to take over stuff directly most of the time but they will desire to expand trade and set up puppets. Weaken US helps that. The US losing civil war is going to be seen with imperialist interest in minds in Europe. That could cause a mess of butterflies.

Mostly in Latin America. They may well interfere in Latin America but backing the CSA is pushing it. Not only would it piss off the USA it would piss off their own abolitionist populace.

It’s also important to consider the CSA is much bigger then any historical banana republic. The bigger a banana republic gets the more like Putin Russia or Saudi it could become(they can start projecting themselves somewhat).
Russia has a much higher population than CSA would have and Saudi is under US military protection because it is hardly a military power in its own right.

Otl CSA isn’t a small country like Panama or Honduras. Texas by itself is larger then most European countries. Once they discover resources within their lands they might not have as much as US in total by they have enough to be self sufficient and sell plenty of surpluses(Americas are very resource rich. They can’t do much divided but enough united together they can corner a lot of raw resource markets or have a good percentage of them.
Mexico is about the same size and is hardly a technological or military powerhouse.

What happens if a war breaks out in Europe and they are desperate for oil or Japan needs oil. They can make money because the south only has expansion goals in the Western Hemisphere.
The US has PA, CA and likely OK. These are big oil producers in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

They will likely trade with anyone else willing which can lead to develop. Appalachia has plenty of coal. They have cotton, tobacco, Rice, sugar, wood, fish, and later gulf oil. The south isn’t a average banana republic because it will have a large amount of raw resources not just one or two. That helps give it economic diversity which can be basis of growth.
Mexico has a lot of resources, that hasn't helped much.

The issue with confederate economic practices and foreign policy you might end up with situation that are similar to the Russia Federation foreign policies and economics. They will have people acting for them unofficially abroad in a variety of ways to help benefit the country. Some will be supported by the state while others are completely independent.
Russia has a very large population, the CSA wouldn't

Even in states that stay with the union CSA sympathies and support might stay a constant issue. Supporters might only be a noticeable minority but still a issue. They are very tie to the land and US can’t remove whites from lands like natives(they have legal protections under law. Bypassing that in US might be frown on).
Not for long. The US has all sorts of ways to officially or unofficially encourage malcontents to move South. I think most CSA sympathetic border Southerners would move to the CSA within a generation or two or simply change sympathies. Why fight it when you simply can move south?

The CSA could out politic and be better at propaganda then the US. They intentionally try to cause domestic issues in the US for its own gains and even sometimes bring in others by economic means(not military).
The fire-eating slavocrats couldn't out-politic a used teabag.

Many of the private groups might feel more loyal to the CSA then US because they benefit them more or have heavy economic ties. They are not open about it but many have general ideas they are copperheads.
Totally ignoring US nationalism.
CSA has the advantage is espionage and propaganda(southern accents are good at sugarcoating things).
The Black Slaves from the CSA would make far better spies than anything the CSA would have in the USA. There is no way the slave loving Charleston Mercury is going to be better at propaganda than the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune.

The CSA would ever attack a united union but might push things with them when they are down or distracted by something they might have had involvement. For people who like talking about honor they will be using dirty tactics a lot.

Agreed.

CSA even gets some immigration by tricking people overseas into indentured servitude or false pretexts while restricting lower class emigration somewhat through different means.
Being slavocrats the only people they get are idiots.

Let’s use Kentucky and West Virginia as examples. After the war the coal and logging industry will start taking off in both CSA and US Appalachia. You will have companies who own mines and land on both sides of the borders. Many southerners will probably come work in these jobs in both Kentucky and West Virginia.
Assuming open borders, which is one hell of an assumption.

Kentucky and West Virginia are more culturally tied to the south. These are last democratic strong holds in the union.
'
In which case the Democratic Party dissolves with impotence.

Midwest and Northern dominance at federal level might lead to concerns and unintentional disregard for individual needs of the region. Policies could be too tailored towards situations of the core states(this isn’t always intentional. New England and Mid Atlantic people aren’t always thinking how policies they make can impact people in Kentucky and West Virginia who don’t have as much say due to being a smaller voting bloc now.
West Virginia really, really didn't want to be part of Virginia anymore and would worry if the CSA got too strong they might be forced back in again.
 
Last edited:
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top