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.
In 1861 the population of Union States and territories was about 22 million, the CSA 9.5 million of whom 3.5 million were slaves giving a white population of about 5.5-6 million (there were about 130K free blacks). The white population of the Union was roughly 4x that of the south. Following an CS victory expect that immigration to the USA will substantially outpace that to the CSA and some of the slaves will have escaped to the USA during the war - we'll assume pro-Union folks in the CSA and pro-CSA folks moving south will balance each other out. This leaves the USA roughly 5x more populous in free population going in to the future, and the CSA has 30-40% of the population slaves who need to be very carefully controlled to avoid revolt and escape. Other than cotton and tobacco, and the not yet discovered oil in Texas, almost all of the industry, especially heavy industry is in the USA as are the major universities. How the CSA becomes a major military threat to the USA, one on one, is difficult to imagine. If it is CSA + UK + France in a formal military alliance that is another story.
 
In 1861 the population of Union States and territories was about 22 million, the CSA 9.5 million of whom 3.5 million were slaves giving a white population of about 5.5-6 million (there were about 130K free blacks). The white population of the Union was roughly 4x that of the south. Following an CS victory expect that immigration to the USA will substantially outpace that to the CSA and some of the slaves will have escaped to the USA during the war - we'll assume pro-Union folks in the CSA and pro-CSA folks moving south will balance each other out. This leaves the USA roughly 5x more populous in free population going in to the future, and the CSA has 30-40% of the population slaves who need to be very carefully controlled to avoid revolt and escape. Other than cotton and tobacco, and the not yet discovered oil in Texas, almost all of the industry, especially heavy industry is in the USA as are the major universities. How the CSA becomes a major military threat to the USA, one on one, is difficult to imagine. If it is CSA + UK + France in a formal military alliance that is another story.
Would the CSA have a much higher birth rate especially the more you get into the 1900s?
 
@Modern Imperialism : The white population of the CSA might have a higher birth rate than the USA, but not so much higher that there would be a significant shift in the relative sizes. Whatever higher birth rate, and this is not for certain, would be more than offset by the significant differential in immigration. IF the CSA acquires new territories in Central America or the Caribbean that will change the relative numbers, however what percentage of the "brown" population will be accepted as white - based on the pre-existing elites, skin color, both???
 
In an 1870s Cotton Mill, an Iron Worker made $12.72 a week, that's $661.44 annual

A skilled Slave cost $2000, and you have to spend some money for housing, food and clothing each week

If the skilled Slave dies in an industrial accident , the Slaver is out $2000. The Northern Mill owner had his worker die the same way, he'd give the Widow a $20 Double Eagle, and get the next Swede, German or Irishman off the Boat that had a similar skillset

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,
 
The CSA isn’t going to be stagnant at least in technology when they can just copy the north who is next to them.

Industrial espionage does not provide investment capital, infrastructure, machinery, or skilled workers. An independent Confederacy would have less of all of these things than OTL's postbellum South.

If the war ends early and fast the north will just consider the south lost but not an actual threat to their states.

The only way the war ends early and fast is if the Confederates produce at least one general who makes Robert E Lee looking like a bumbling incompetent, which guarantees the Union will see the Confederacy as a credible threat. If the Confederates attempt to maintain a large standing army, the Union, unless it is composed entirely of ASB-induced idiots, will also raise a standing army and easily be able to make it both larger and better equipped than the Confederate army.

Don’t underestimate how egotistical nations can be in this century. That is one reason France lost the Franco-Prussian war completely. CSA is going to be heavily influenced my romanticism.

Many Confederates thought one Johny Reb could whip three Billy Yanks. Successful independence would only feed Confederate overconfidence based on their assumed racial superiority to the "mongrel" Yankees. In the Franco-Prussian War, France had the professional army compared to Prussia's short-term conscripts. They were sure they were superior to the German clerks and shopkeepers and unconcerned that the Germans outnumbered then over 2-to-1. Leadership in the Prussian army had more to do with merit, as opposed to birth or patronage. The Prussians were also notably better at logistics. And using the same advantages that OTL's Union had over OTL's Confederacy, the Prussians beat the French.

If the US was a republic based on enlightenment ideas then the CSA will probably be more like the conservative monarchs in Europe but in the form of a republic. That “state rights” stuff isn’t going to last. At least in a democratic form it won’t. Your going to have states run by aristocratic or oligarchy elite. The voting franchise is going to be heavily restricted even among whites. Voting going to be tied to wealth and military service(lower class option at social mobility). The difference between the US and CSA will be how democratic each is.

Most Confederates only believed in States Rights when it helped the institution of slavery. The exceptions were considered obstructionists, if not traitors to OTL's Confederacy. In the end, most Confederate leaders wanted an oligarchic republic, and most Unoin leaders wanted a democratic republic.

New England and the mid Atlantic states will dominate the US even more then otl. Many there will be against expansion of the army. They might support navy expansion but not the army. Militarism isn’t as prevalent in northern culture.

Militarism was more common in southern culture, but you have provided no reason why the New England and mid-Atlantic states would be more influential than in OTL, nor why they would ignore the clear and present danger of a large standing Confederate army.

The north will think it is unable to invade the south but they probably think the south can’t invade them either. Your average northerner would likely not think of the CSA is a threat until they do something like taking DC or march deep into their lands.

OTL's Confederacy marched though Pennsylvania. They tried to forcibly annex Kentucky, Missouri, New Mexico, and Colorado. The only way the Union would think the Confederacy can't invade them would be if ASBs erased the events of the actual war from every citizen in the Union's memory.
 
Last edited:
Industrial espionage does not provide investment capital, infrastructure, machinery, or skilled workers. An independent Confederacy would have less of all of these things than OTL's postbellum South.



The only way the war ends early and fast is if the Confederates produce at least one general who makes Robert E Lee looking like a bumbling incompetent, which guarantees the Union will see the Confederacy as a credible threat. If the Confederates attempt to maintain a large standing army, the Union, unless it is composed entirely of ASB-induced idiots, will also raise a standing army and easily be able to make it both larger and better equipped than the Confederate army.



Many Confederates thought one Johny Reb could whip three Billy Yanks. Successful independence would only feed Confederate overconfidence based on their assumed racial superiority to the "mongrel" Yankees. In the Franco-Prussian War, France had the professional army compared to Prussia's short-term conscripts. They were sure they were superior to the German clerks and shopkeepers and unconcerned that the Germans outnumbered then over 2-to-1. Leadership in the Prussian army had more to do with merit, as opposed to birth or patronage. The Prussians were also notably better at logistics. And using the same advantages that OTL's Union had over OTL's Confederacy, the Prussians beat the French.



Most Confederates only believed in States Rights when it helped the institution of slavery. The exceptions were considered obstructionists, if not traitors to OTL's Confederacy. In the end, most Confederate leaders wanted an oligarchic republic, and most Unoin leaders wanted a democratic republic.



Militarism was more common in southern culture, but you have provided no reason why the New England and mid-Atlantic states would be more influential than in OTOL, nor why they would ignore the clear and present danger of a large standing Confederate army.



OTL's Confederacy marched though Pennsylvania. They tried to forcibly annex Kentucky, Missouri, New Mexico, and Colorado. The only way the Union would think the Confederacy can't invade them would be if ASBs erased the events of the actual war from every citizen on the Union's memory.
The mid-Atlantic and New England would have more influence because they are now a much more powerful voting bloc. The rest of the country isn’t nearly as populated yet. I feel like that could create resentment in places especially out west. The republic was founded on balance between different people. That kind of goes out the window without the south. I’m saying northern culture was a bougie or bourgeoisie one. They valued hard work in entrepreneur and wasn’t a honor culture like the south. In the south kids are often learning how to use a gun over reading. The north is the opposite. Their elites are spending their whole life focused towards be businessmen while in the south they want them to be like soldiers and generals. I’m trying to say the north might think they can control the south through indirect means like trade or navy but disregarding the importance of the army. Furthermore, if the war ends early they might not invade PA. The north could lose big if unrest is stirred up enough in some places. The average New Yorker in this time period doesn’t have the knowledge we do and could careless about the south or even the Midwest. In a democracy you have a lot of dumb people voting. They will often vote based more on emotion then reason depending on the context. I believe the American union is similar to the Soviet one. If one leaves others will try and follow them unless your willing to use the force to keep them.
 
Yankee culture is pragmatic in many ways but they can often be blinded by their own ignorance. The stereotype of Americans thinking with their pockets is very true then and even now. Yankee culture created this stereotype. They often think everyone thinks about money first. People here are often shocked or taken back when people don’t think that way. If you look at American policy they often try to control things by economic and indirect means. The people supporting more direct and military action are usually people in the south. For example southerners often want to bomb the Middle East and be done with it while northerners are often for supplying rebels and economic sanctions. This mindset is one reason reconstruction went poorly. They often don’t understand people who don’t think with a bourgeois mindset. Extreme fanaticism either it be to nationalism or religion is alien to many Americans. The US is willing to talk to anyone willing to do business with them. When people refuse that they see those people as stupid and alien. You literally had some industrialist in the north at the beginning of the war arguing for letting the south go because they thought their free trade policy would turn it into a giant banana republic. Their opposition argument was business related too often times. Other industrialist thought the lost of the south would hurt imports to the factories if the CSA has tariffs against the US. Many of them didn’t care about morality issues of slavery(religious evangelicals, Germans, and quakers were the ones more against it for moral reasons. Many others cared less about morality part). They were more worried about economic impact of things. I’m not sure this mindset would change until the north got roughed up a good bit by someone but if the CSA does do that they probably “waken the sleeping giant” like Japan did in otl. A lot of stuff in America history has happened because people here often underestimate how crazy some countries and people can be. Not to get too much into the modern era but I believe the government knew about Pearl Harbor and 911 beforehand but shrugged it off thinking they were not stupid enough to try that. People in the US won’t believe something can happen until it finally does.
 
The mid-Atlantic and New England would have more influence because they are now a much more powerful voting bloc.

NE in OTL had no real difficulty in raising troops, it was the most Abolishinst area of the country with the possible exception of Kansas.

The rest of the country isn’t nearly as populated yet. I feel like that could create resentment in places especially out west. The republic was founded on balance between different people. That kind of goes out the window without the south.
Without the South there is no slavery question as in the pre-Civil War or even any "Negro Question" like there was during Reconstruction.

I’m saying northern culture was a bougie or bourgeoisie one. They valued hard work in entrepreneur and wasn’t a honor culture like the south. In the south kids are often learning how to use a gun over reading. The north is the opposite. Their elites are spending their whole life focused towards be businessmen while in the south they want them to be like soldiers and generals.
The average Union solider lived in the country, not the city. Urban population didn't pass rural population until the 1890's even in the North.

I’m trying to say the north might think they can control the south through indirect means like trade or navy but disregarding the importance of the army. Furthermore, if the war ends early they might not invade PA. The north could lose big if unrest is stirred up enough in some places. The average New Yorker in this time period doesn’t have the knowledge we do and could careless about the south or even the Midwest.

People in the past weren't THAT stupid or uninformed. The average New Yorker knew full well what was happening in Kentucky or Ohio. This is the era of the telegraph and the newspaper. People were well read. There were literally thousands of newspapers up north and most people could read. Hell, that was true even in the South.

In a democracy you have a lot of dumb people voting. They will often vote based more on emotion then reason depending on the context. I believe the American union is similar to the Soviet one. If one leaves others will try and follow them unless your willing to use the force to keep them.
Why? Outside the slave states, not a single state left. My guess is if the South won there would have been a big push for Federalization. I would expect state militias to be outlawed.
 
Yankee culture is pragmatic in many ways but they can often be blinded by their own ignorance. The stereotype of Americans thinking with their pockets is very true then and even now. Yankee culture created this stereotype. They often think everyone thinks about money first. People here are often shocked or taken back when people don’t think that way. If you look at American policy they often try to control things by economic and indirect means. The people supporting more direct and military action are usually people in the south. For example southerners often want to bomb the Middle East and be done with it while northerners are often for supplying rebels and economic sanctions. This mindset is one reason reconstruction went poorly.

On the contrary it went very well by the standards of the time. Chattel slavery was outlawed. Southerners acknowledged Federal law. Southerners paid Federal taxes without rebelling. Southerners were lining up to join the war against Spain a little more than a generation later and joined later wars with no higher rates of desertion than Northern troops. Considering what the North actually wanted at the time, things went swimingly.

They often don’t understand people who don’t think with a bourgeois mindset. Extreme fanaticism either it be to nationalism or religion is alien to many Americans. The US is willing to talk to anyone willing to do business with them. When people refuse that they see those people as stupid and alien. You literally had some industrialist in the north at the beginning of the war arguing for letting the south go because they thought their free trade policy would turn it into a giant banana republic. Their opposition argument was business related too often times. Other industrialist thought the lost of the south would hurt imports to the factories if the CSA has tariffs against the US. Many of them didn’t care about morality issues of slavery(religious evangelicals, Germans, and quakers were the ones more against it for moral reasons. Many others cared less about morality part). They were more worried about economic impact of things.
Yet they didn't control policy. Also, not wanting to force the states back in is not the same as not wanting to repel invasion.

I’m not sure this mindset would change until the north got roughed up a good bit by someone but if the CSA does do that they probably “waken the sleeping giant” like Japan did in otl. A lot of stuff in America history has happened because people here often underestimate how crazy some countries and people can be. Not to get too much into the modern era but I believe the government knew about Pearl Harbor and 911 beforehand but shrugged it off thinking they were not stupid enough to try that. People in the US won’t believe something can happen until it finally does.

They may have had a clue something was up (particularly with WW2) , but not exactly what. FDR was worried about an attack by Japan was likely, but he thought it would be against the Brits and Dutch with some sabotage of US bases likely. The reason the planes were bunched up at Pearl Harbor was because they got a message from Washington warning about possible sabotage. If that is the worry, bunching up the planes makes sense. You can keep an eye on them easier if they are all in one place.
 
Just FYI, the state of Wisconsin, which for those unfamiliar with US geography is north of Illinois and bounded by Lake Michigan on the east, Lake Superior on the north (mostly), and the Mississippi River for most of the western border sent the highest proportion of its adult male population in to the Union military of any state in the north. As the crow flies Wisconsin is >800 miles from New York City, well away from the "Mid-Atlantic States".
 
Just FYI, the state of Wisconsin, which for those unfamiliar with US geography is north of Illinois and bounded by Lake Michigan on the east, Lake Superior on the north (mostly), and the Mississippi River for most of the western border sent the highest proportion of its adult male population in to the Union military of any state in the north. As the crow flies Wisconsin is >800 miles from New York City, well away from the "Mid-Atlantic States".

My home state! :)
 
On the contrary it went very well by the standards of the time. Chattel slavery was outlawed. Southerners acknowledged Federal law. Southerners paid Federal taxes without rebelling. Southerners were lining up to join the war against Spain a little more than a generation later and joined later wars with no higher rates of desertion than Northern troops. Considering what the North actually wanted at the time, things went swimingly.


Yet they didn't control policy. Also, not wanting to force the states back in is not the same as not wanting to repel invasion.



They may have had a clue something was up (particularly with WW2) , but not exactly what. FDR was worried about an attack by Japan was likely, but he thought it would be against the Brits and Dutch with some sabotage of US bases likely. The reason the planes were bunched up at Pearl Harbor was because they got a message from Washington warning about possible sabotage. If that is the worry, bunching up the planes makes sense. You can keep an eye on them easier if they are all in one place.
I’m saying reconstruction wasn’t successful at changing the culture or improving things in the region like they said it would. From a political and economic standpoint yes it was success. From a moral and ideology standpoint it was a failure. The north benefited greatly from it. Southerners and blacks not so much. Much the the region stayed second world like until the 40s. Appalachia was like the second world until very recently. The south is kind of has a banana republic type relationship with the north until the 40s to 60s. Also my point about troops is not their willingness to fight during a actual war but prepare during peacetime. People in New England and Mid-Athletic would not want to have conscription imposed on them. They would riot if the union tried to make 2 to 5 years of military or civic duty mandatory. The south would do that. They will not invest that much time into that. Yankees will not want a good portion of their young lives to be stuck doing military service. The south might impose mandatory service for 2 to 5. People who do more years get more benefits and pay. Many poor whites could voluntarily stay in the military for up to 8 years. They will have high voluntary numbers because many people would see it as the only way of moving up in the world. Some still do this. People in the south will be more willing to serve for much longer periods of time. They probably get a lot of action too during peacetime acting as a national guard and police force too. Who do you think they will need to put down possible slave revolts, partisans and bandits in Appalachia, Native Americans and outlaws out west, and that only increases with expansion. Blacks might be used as a excuse to keep a massive standing military/police force even after slavery ends. Their society would become more Spartan like. That is a lot of experience. They will be more mobilized and prepared to start off with. That’s kind of bad if the US has to mobilize while the CSA basically already are and are even adding more. The CSA technology might not be that good but a lot of major cities aren’t far from the border. It’s hard to mobilize if some of your major cities get captured right away. Do you think Yankees are willing to commit that much to the military? If let’s say 10 percent of white southerners are a full time paramilitary type force while under 1 percent of the north population is currently military ready at the start of the war how does that close the gap at the start? They will build up a large navy and a very well equipped and trained army but the CSA could have a much larger portion of their population committed to military life while the voluntary/draft based north has a much lower percentage on that. That might lessen number gaps in the early war between the two. The north would have to make sure it’s standing army isn’t overwhelmed by confederates early in the war. If they do that they win. If their lines break the Confederates could take DC and maybe Philadelphia. West Virginia could hold. The mountains make it were numbers are less of a factor. Kentucky gets overwhelmed but the River actually stops any further advancement(Kentucky south state line isn’t defendable at all especially when technology improves). Maybe parts of Missouri and plains too. The confederates have to depend on winning early every time. Maryland and Delaware would be pushing it but given the chance I could see them doing it. They have to overwhelm and blitz as much as possible early on to win. This just needs to be successful once to improve CSA chances in the long run. The north might think they did all in their power to prepare but they didn’t think they needed to go to the extremes the CSA did. This isn’t a liberal republic. This is Putin Russia in the 1800s at best and proto-fascism state at worse. If they take Kentucky and West in the 1800 century that is more defensible borders and coal later on. CSA might be backwards but they could still have more Calvary ready to start a war. Even in the 1800 century Calvary units could likely go through the Great Plains pretty quickly and capture rails and cutting the US in half. Geography might hurt them here if the CSA is a militarized state with men ready on all fronts to some degree while the US has a lot of land that would be impossible to guard without investing a lot of manpower and resources. A lot of borders are literally straight lines between the two. Slavery does free up and likely encourage many whites to join the military. The north just had to hold out until their reserves come in to reinforce them. The war could start out with the confederates out numbering them 12 to 1 or more but the war could end with the union outnumbering them 20 to 1 if not more. But even with outdated weapons they are probably still very efficient soldiers given the system described. If they are successful at expansion they are going to become the Russia of the Western Hemisphere. They will be seen as this aggressive nation but backwards nation who many dislike but some work with. They depend heavily on raw resources which given the amount they have they could get some useful friends. I do think a divided America might be seen as weaken or a easier target by European powers. They might be getting more involved in the Americas with the US being more divided. This is still the age of imperialism. They probably won’t be trying to take over stuff directly like the rest of the world but they might try to create allies, business, and even puppets more so then otl. I could see Germany and Britain playing people within the Western Hemisphere in this situation.

Edit: It is also important to consider states like this can more easily survive in this era especially within the Americas(abundance of natural resources. Market demand will win some allies). International cooperation of post-ww2 isn’t here yet. States like this would be slowly isolated and pressured into collapse in most situations post-ww2. Any regime can survive a long time when they always have a good number of nations to trade with. They might use their raw resources to get enough weapons stockpiled and ready especially with Europeans willing to feed into conflict. The CSA still have a lot of valuable raw resources.
 
Last edited:
It wasn't chattel slave labor though, it was people earmarked for death that they viewed being any productivity out of as lagniappe.
Actually the extent of Nazi slavery was far wider than most people realize. it wasn't just concentration camp victims working to death in large factories. There were others from France and Italy and other countries which were imported for all sorts of tasks ranging from farm hands to domestic servants. Half a million young women were brought in as domestic servants. Anyone who wanted one could go to their local Nazi party official and put in a request. There wasn't a village or town in Germany that didn't have slaves in it.
 
I’m saying reconstruction wasn’t successful at changing the culture or improving things in the region like they said it would. From a political and economic standpoint yes it was success. From a moral and ideology standpoint it was a failure. The north benefited greatly from it. Southerners and blacks not so much. Much the region stayed second world like until the 40s. Appalachia was like the second world until very recently. The south is kind of has a banana republic type relationship with the north until the 40s to 60s.
White Southerners did fine. Poor Whites were basically in the same shape after the war as before it when the war damage was repaired. The region was backward compared to the North BEFORE the war broke out. The average White Southerner wasn't a "Lord of 300 slaves" plantation owner who sipped mint juleps all day as if life in the South was all "Gone with the Wind."

The average Southerner was some nearly broke hardscrabble farmer less wealthy than his Northern competitior. Outside of cotton and tobacco virtually everything was grown more efficiently up North due to not using slave labor.

The North rebuilt the South's railroads, put in place something resembling a real public education system that South for the first time in its history, replaced the worthless greybacks with gold currency, canceled most Southern debt and encouraged investors to invest in the South. The South wasn't poor because of "Northern Oppression" but because it was always poor as compared to the North.

Also my point about troops is not their willingness to fight during a actual war but prepare during peacetime. People in New England and Mid-Athletic would not want to have conscription imposed on them. They would riot if the union tried to make 2 to 5 years of military or civic duty mandatory. The south would do that. They will not invest that much time into that. Yankees will not want a good portion of their young lives to be stuck doing military service.

No reason to assume they would riot or cause any severe problems if it did so. With a direct threat to the country right across the border, it would have no problem instituting a draft. US attitudes in the 19th century largely reflected the fact that there wasn't a peer competitor within 3,000 miles. A CSA would change that fact and thus the attitude.

The south might impose mandatory service for 2 to 5. People who do more years get more benefits and pay. Many poor whites could voluntarily stay in the military for up to 8 years. They will have high voluntary numbers because many people would see it as the only way of moving up in the world. Some still do this. People in the south will be more willing to serve for much longer periods of time. They probably get a lot of action too during peacetime acting as a national guard and police force too. Who do you think they will need to put down possible slave revolts, partisans and bandits in Appalachia, Native Americans and outlaws out west, and that only increases with expansion. Blacks might be used as a excuse to keep a massive standing military/police force even after slavery ends.
It might well be easier to raise an army but with a much smaller population, it needs a much higher percentage of its population to not cause a fuss. If the White population of the CSA is 1/4 of that of the USA it would have to put at least 4X the percentage of its men in uniform than the USA. With Blacks included you are likely talking 5X.

All things equal the US should be able to have a 1/2 million in uniform as easily as the South having 100,000. I agree that that the South is probably more militant and could have an easier time raising a certain percentage of its population for the army, but 5X easier? That seems excessive. Also putting that many men in uniform will likely widen the technological and economic gap. Putting 5X the percentage of your population in uniform costs money. That is a big reason why I assumed the CSA would be so backward in armaments. They couldn't afford better.

Their society would become more Spartan like. That is a lot of experience. They will be more mobilized and prepared to start off with. That’s kind of bad if the US has to mobilize while the CSA basically already are and are even adding more. The CSA technology might not be that good but a lot of major cities aren’t far from the border. It’s hard to mobilize if some of your major cities get captured right away. Do you think Yankees are willing to commit that much to the military? If let’s say 10 percent of white southerners are a full time paramilitary type force while under 1 percent of the north population is currently military ready at the start of the war how does that close the gap at the start?
Why would the gap be that big? Do Northerners hate their country all of a sudden? If they maintain even 2 percent of their population as soldiers it will have equal numbers.

BTW, 10% is around full mobilization. Is the CSA able and willing to pay for that? It is going to be hip deep in debt and paying it off while being fully mobilized is impossible.

They will build up a large navy and a very well equipped and trained army but the CSA could have a much larger portion of their population committed to military life while the voluntary/draft based north has a much lower percentage on that. That might lessen number gaps in the early war between the two. The north would have to make sure it’s standing army isn’t overwhelmed by confederates early in the war. If they do that they win.
So basically it is a sure thing for the US. Glad we agree.

If their lines break the Confederates could take DC and maybe Philadelphia. West Virginia could hold. The mountains make it were numbers are less of a factor. Kentucky gets overwhelmed but the River actually stops any further advancement(Kentucky south state line isn’t defendable at all especially when technology improves). Maybe parts of Missouri and plains too. The confederates have to depend on winning early every time. Maryland and Delaware would be pushing it but given the chance I could see them doing it.
How? Black magic? How, exactly are they going to pull this off? They didn't come close to pulling it off OTL. The only way for them to come close to pulling this off is if the US Government is run entirely by half-wits.

They have to overwhelm and blitz as much as possible early on to win. This just needs to be successful once to improve CSA chances in the long run. The north might think they did all in their power to prepare but they didn’t think they needed to go to the extremes the CSA did.
They don't have to go to the extremes the CSA does, 1/5 as extreme will suffice. Considering the tech and economic differential it is likely even less than that.

This isn’t a liberal republic. This is Putin Russia in the 1800s at best and proto-fascism state at worse. If they take Kentucky and West in the 1800 century that is more defensible borders and coal later on. CSA might be backwards but they could still have more Calvary ready to start a war.
Maybe, but it is doubtful. After all feeding horses cost money. Taking KY, even temporarily, is very remote. The border states are very likely fortified, at least in the most strategic places.

Even in the 1800 century Calvary units could likely go through the Great Plains pretty quickly and capture rails and cutting the US in half.
While the US Army sits on its hands the entire time I suppose.

Geography might hurt them here if the CSA is a militarized state with men ready on all fronts to some degree while the US has a lot of land that would be impossible to guard without investing a lot of manpower and resources. A lot of borders are literally straight lines between the two.
It doesn't have to guard the entire border, just the strategic areas. If Confederate Cavalry wants to take a ride in the deserts of New Mexico, let them. They can't get near anything important before they have to ride back for needed supplies. Logistics is something you are routinely ignoring. It is something that the CSA was extremely bad at.

Slavery does free up and likely encourage many whites to join the military. The north just had to hold out until their reserves come in to reinforce them. The war could start out with the confederates out numbering them 12 to 1 or more but the war could end with the union outnumbering them 20 to 1 if not more.
Neither is at all likely.
But even with outdated weapons they are probably still very efficient soldiers given the system described. If they are successful at expansion they are going to become the Russia of the Western Hemisphere.
Russia has the manpower to pull that off the CSA doesn't.

They will be seen as this aggressive nation but backwards nation who many dislike but some work with. They depend heavily on raw resources which given the amount they have they could get some useful friends.
To trade with, yes. To back them in a war, no.

I do think a divided America might be seen as weaken or a easier target by European powers. They might be getting more involved in the Americas with the US being more divided. This is still the age of imperialism. They probably won’t be trying to take over stuff directly like the rest of the world but they might try to create allies, business, and even puppets more so then otl. I could see Germany and Britain playing people within the Western Hemisphere in this situation.
None of which greatly effect US power.

Edit: It is also important to consider states like this can more easily survive in this era especially within the Americas(abundance of natural resources. Market demand will win some allies). International cooperation of post-ww2 isn’t here yet. States like this would be slowly isolated and pressured into collapse in most situations post-ww2. Any regime can survive a long time when they always have a good number of nations to trade with. They might use their raw resources to get enough weapons stockpiled and ready especially with Europeans willing to feed into conflict. The CSA still have a lot of valuable raw resources.

The CSA surviving is possible, a CSA gaining territory is near ASB.
 
White Southerners did fine. Poor Whites were basically in the same shape after the war as before it when the war damage was repaired. The region was backward compared to the North BEFORE the war broke out. The average White Southerner wasn't a "Lord of 300 slaves" plantation owner who sipped mint juleps all day as if life in the South was all "Gone with the Wind."

The average Southerner was some nearly broke hardscrabble farmer less wealthy than his Northern competitior. Outside of cotton and tobacco virtually everything was grown more efficiently up North due to not using slave labor.

The North rebuilt the South's railroads, put in place something resembling a real public education system that South for the first time in its history, replaced the worthless greybacks with gold currency, canceled most Southern debt and encouraged investors to invest in the South. The South wasn't poor because of "Northern Oppression" but because it was always poor as compared to the North.



No reason to assume they would riot or cause any severe problems if it did so. With a direct threat to the country right across the border, it would have no problem instituting a draft. US attitudes in the 19th century largely reflected the fact that there wasn't a peer competitor within 3,000 miles. A CSA would change that fact and thus the attitude.


It might well be easier to raise an army but with a much smaller population, it needs a much higher percentage of its population to not cause a fuss. If the White population of the CSA is 1/4 of that of the USA it would have to put at least 4X the percentage of its men in uniform than the USA. With Blacks included you are likely talking 5X.

All things equal the US should be able to have a 1/2 million in uniform as easily as the South having 100,000. I agree that that the South is probably more militant and could have an easier time raising a certain percentage of its population for the army, but 5X easier? That seems excessive. Also putting that many men in uniform will likely widen the technological and economic gap. Putting 5X the percentage of your population in uniform costs money. That is a big reason why I assumed the CSA would be so backward in armaments. They couldn't afford better.


Why would the gap be that big? Do Northerners hate their country all of a sudden? If they maintain even 2 percent of their population as soldiers it will have equal numbers.

BTW, 10% is around full mobilization. Is the CSA able and willing to pay for that? It is going to be hip deep in debt and paying it off while being fully mobilized is impossible.


So basically it is a sure thing for the US. Glad we agree.


How? Black magic? How, exactly are they going to pull this off? They didn't come close to pulling it off OTL. The only way for them to come close to pulling this off is if the US Government is run entirely by half-wits.


They don't have to go to the extremes the CSA does, 1/5 as extreme will suffice. Considering the tech and economic differential it is likely even less than that.


Maybe, but it is doubtful. After all feeding horses cost money. Taking KY, even temporarily, is very remote. The border states are very likely fortified, at least in the most strategic places.


While the US Army sits on its hands the entire time I suppose.


It doesn't have to guard the entire border, just the strategic areas. If Confederate Cavalry wants to take a ride in the deserts of New Mexico, let them. They can't get near anything important before they have to ride back for needed supplies. Logistics is something you are routinely ignoring. It is something that the CSA was extremely bad at.


Neither is at all likely.

Russia has the manpower to pull that off the CSA doesn't.


To trade with, yes. To back them in a war, no.


None of which greatly effect US power.



The CSA surviving is possible, a CSA gaining territory is near ASB.
I understand the majority of whites were near broke. I’m saying reconstruction failed because it really didn’t change things that much from before the war. It was just a water down and more mechanized version of the pre war south. I’m saying they didn’t do enough to greatly change the society and to benefit the people. I’m not saying the south was innocent during reconstruction and didn’t do its own things. I’m trying to say the north cared more about how it benefited them over actually improving the lives of the people in the region. Also many places were greatly damaged by the war. The north only repaired stuff they thought would be a good investment. Many rural areas were left to rebuild on their own.

The CSA military and government will likely overlap a lot. When the military becomes a normal part of life and society sustaining it is a lot easier. If your police force, safety workers, and most public sector jobs are tied to the military it becomes more part of the economy. That is jobs and money being created. Industrial Complexes are intended to be self sustaining. The military becomes its own industry within the CSA. Imagine if your police, firefighters, and public workers can be easily converted to military use these men are shipped to the front to start the war while reserves fill in for the duties at home and take time to train and prepare before being shipped off. If these people can be quickly organized into military units invasion is a lot harder(CSA will use as many men as possible if invaded). It also helps make up for logistics a bit. A small well trained brigade of troops can quickly move through the more harsh areas and capture stuff or cause issues for union troops. That is a massive border to protect. Ranger type units can do well especially if they find local help(Mormons or natives Americans). Out west will be more small units and not the full army. Experience, planning, and technology would make difference there more so then numbers. Also mechanization and modernizing of agriculture/raw resources practices is still possible. Factories might not be big but railroad construction and becoming more effective at extracting resources is probably something the CSA would do. Railroad are vital to the military and trade of raw resources. The south will want to improve where they are strong at. Soldiers could be regular public workers too. They will help in building railroads, ports, and forts(full time housing for some and basically a military camp or town). Imagine a militarized version of the new deal or even a semi corporatist state. The south will aim for being self sufficient. They aren’t going to depend on slaves to do all labor especially more skilled ones(smarter slaves would be considered more dangerous). They might try to put them in mines and more industrial jobs at some point but quickly figure out that isn’t good idea. Chance of death and injury are too high in these jobs. It is cheaper to pay poor whites pennies to do it or maybe Chinese too if they still come to the region and are allowed to come. Older or “damaged” slaves could be sold to the mines. This could also become a common form of punishment for runaways. After slavery blacks are probably under a South African type apartheid system. Blacks will be allowed to be in the military but as “civic servants”. Basically they do all the grunt work and very few are given guns(some will have guns especially some of the mix ones but they are mostly used to police other blacks). Although over time I do think the CSA could become more focused on class over race which opens up many interesting possibilities. The south did have some free blacks(often mixed) especially in Louisiana. The south has no problem at restructuring its beliefs and system when seen fit(look at history and you can clearly see they do it all the time). They aren’t as much of racial purist as people think or even as much as they depicted themselves(they are hypocrites but this might actually help them. They aren’t Nazis about race. Look at Jefferson relationship with slaves. This is why I think something like the Brazilian concept of whitening could eventually happen which makes thing between the north and south much more interesting). I would even say they aren’t as die hard about race as many Europeans. What they say and actually do will often be different. The ironic nature of slavery lasting longer is the possibility of more racial mixing. Not all mix kids will be resentful towards whites or treated terribly. They definitely aren’t equal(could change much later) but their fathers will often treat them much better then his other slaves even if they don’t acknowledge them openly or he hides them(many twisted interracial relationships). People are often going to side with what they think benefits them the most(some mix race people did worry that the end of slavery would have them lumped more with blacks which they did not want). Some rather be treated as a pampered pet over laboring in the field. Mixed race people often argued not for full equality but for them to be treated better then blacks because they claimed their mix background put them above blacks. The south has to figure out how to eventually integrate half their population.
 
Actually leading up to the civil war the south was "regressing" in terms of "rights" for free blacks. Laws against literacy were becoming widespread and harsher. Several states mandated that freed/manumitted blacks leave the state within a relatively short period of time. The census of 1860 showed that out of a total population of 9 million-9.5 million over 3 million were slaves and only approximately 132,000 were free blacks. When the CSA was against the wall and finally considered allowing blacks to serve as soldiers, only a few companies were in training by the end of the war and freedom for the slave soldiers was not a guarantee, and their owners were to be compensated if the slave was killed, maimed, or freed. Having just fought and won a war of rebellion with the core principle being racial superiority and chattel slavery "forever", the place of free blacks is likely to be quite limited and they are a tiny fraction of the black population. Yes the southerners aren't Nazis, the racial concepts behind that sort of thinking had not been advanced by 1860. However any sort of improvement for free blacks is not happening for a long time if ever. Don't forget that apartheid in South Africa only ended because the whites were greatly outnumbered and the international community put tremendous pressure on South Africa.
 
Although over time I do think the CSA could become more focused on class over race which opens up many interesting possibilities.
Why? In reality, the exact reverse happened - class solidarity was shattered repeatedly and purposefully along racial lines.
They aren’t as much of racial purist as people think or even as much as they depicted themselves(they are hypocrites but this might actually help them. They aren’t Nazis about race. Look at Jefferson relationship with slaves.
There are a lot of mangled and burnt corpses that would argue very much to the contrary, on top of miscegenation laws and blood quantum laws. Nazis also raped their captives. It’s not a sign of favorability towards race mixing.
 
I understand the majority of whites were near broke. I’m saying reconstruction failed because it really didn’t change things that much from before the war. It was just a water down and more mechanized version of the pre war south. I’m saying they didn’t do enough to greatly change the society and to benefit the people. I’m not saying the south was innocent during reconstruction and didn’t do its own things. I’m trying to say the north cared more about how it benefited them over actually improving the lives of the people in the region. Also many places were greatly damaged by the war. The north only repaired stuff they thought would be a good investment. Many rural areas were left to rebuild on their own.
True, but they were still better off then if you had an independent CSA which had to pay for everything itself.

The CSA military and government will likely overlap a lot. When the military becomes a normal part of life and society sustaining it is a lot easier. If your police force, safety workers, and most public sector jobs are tied to the military it becomes more part of the economy. That is jobs and money being created. Industrial Complexes are intended to be self sustaining. The military becomes its own industry within the CSA.

To a certain degree that is true. However, as the USSR showed, that tends to hamper economic and technological development. So much is going into the military that everything outside the military suffers. Eventually, that affects the military itself as its economy is too backward to keep up.

Imagine if your police, firefighters, and public workers can be easily converted to military use these men are shipped to the front to start the war while reserves fill in for the duties at home and take time to train and prepare before being shipped off. If these people can be quickly organized into military units invasion is a lot harder(CSA will use as many men as possible if invaded). It also helps make up for logistics a bit. A small well trained brigade of troops can quickly move through the more harsh areas and capture stuff or cause issues for union troops.
Not enough, not only was the CSA logistics lousy during the 1860's, war was becoming more and more industrialized as time went on. What are they going to do when every company in the US Army has 1895 colt/browning machine guns? They are going to have to have at least Gatlings to remotely compete and they fire off ammo at a much quicker rate than 1865 rifled muskets which they difficulty enough supplying OTL. How are they going to compete with United State railroads, which were the most extensive in the world at the time? They speed up troop deployment greatly.

That is a massive border to protect. Ranger type units can do well especially if they find local help(Mormons or natives Americans). Out west will be more small units and not the full army. Experience, planning, and technology would make difference there more so then numbers.
This, at most, allows for raiding. The United States is perfectly capable of counter-raiding. While your army is out in New Mexico hacking cacti, the US Army is in Mississippi burning down plantations.

To take territory you have to have boots on the ground and they have to hold the territory not just race off hither and yon. Experience may give South the advantage but the Indian Wars out West makes that uncertain. Planning will be equal, maybe less. The US would have a better education system after all and tech would be a big US advantage.

Also mechanization and modernizing of agriculture/raw resources practices is still possible. Factories might not be big but railroad construction and becoming more effective at extracting resources is probably something the CSA would do. Railroad are vital to the military and trade of raw resources.
Something that will happen in the US better and faster.

The south will want to improve where they are strong at. Soldiers could be regular public workers too. They will help in building railroads, ports, and forts(full time housing for some and basically a military camp or town). Imagine a militarized version of the new deal or even a semi corporatist state.
The USSR did this, they even used troops to pick crops. It didn't help.

The south will aim for being self sufficient. They aren’t going to depend on slaves to do all labor especially more skilled ones(smarter slaves would be considered more dangerous). They might try to put them in mines and more industrial jobs at some point but quickly figure out that isn’t good idea. Chance of death and injury are too high in these jobs. It is cheaper to pay poor whites pennies to do it or maybe Chinese too if they still come to the region and are allowed to come.
The price of slaves is likely to crash post boll weevil and that is unlikely to be butterflied away. After that into the factories and mines they go.

. After slavery blacks are probably under a South African type apartheid system. Blacks will be allowed to be in the military but as “civic servants”. Basically they do all the grunt work and very few are given guns(some will have guns especially some of the mix ones but they are mostly used to police other blacks).
Less "civic servants" and more serf drudges. "Civic servants" implies "paper pushers".There won't be any of them.

Although over time I do think the CSA could become more focused on class over race which opens up many interesting possibilities. The south did have some free blacks(often mixed) especially in Louisiana. The south has no problem at restructuring its beliefs and system when seen fit(look at history and you can clearly see they do it all the time). They aren’t as much of racial purist as people think or even as much as they depicted themselves(they are hypocrites but this might actually help them. They aren’t Nazis about race.

Two things, the South winning the war would be seen by many Southerners as God's Will. That "They are under the Curse of Ham and fit only for slavery" by divine decree. Second a strong stabilizing influence was the idea that "The lowliest White was better than a nigger."That allowed Poor Whites to look down on someone and not look as hard at their own crappy situation.



Paragraphs are your friend. You tend to write in walls of text. That makes it less readable.
 
Actually leading up to the civil war the south was "regressing" in terms of "rights" for free blacks. Laws against literacy were becoming widespread and harsher. Several states mandated that freed/manumitted blacks leave the state within a relatively short period of time. The census of 1860 showed that out of a total population of 9 million-9.5 million over 3 million were slaves and only approximately 132,000 were free blacks. When the CSA was against the wall and finally considered allowing blacks to serve as soldiers, only a few companies were in training by the end of the war and freedom for the slave soldiers was not a guarantee, and their owners were to be compensated if the slave was killed, maimed, or freed. Having just fought and won a war of rebellion with the core principle being racial superiority and chattel slavery "forever", the place of free blacks is likely to be quite limited and they are a tiny fraction of the black population. Yes the southerners aren't Nazis, the racial concepts behind that sort of thinking had not been advanced by 1860. However any sort of improvement for free blacks is not happening for a long time if ever. Don't forget that apartheid in South Africa only ended because the whites were greatly outnumbered and the international community put tremendous pressure on South Africa.
I agree that the CSA would be a oligarchy republic I think the only aspect of “states rights” that would survive is confederation aspect of it. Regional laws and varieties might vary greatly. Economics and the military will likely be more centralized but state individual policies could be different. For example Natives Americans are given statehood and fully equality in Oklahoma for supporting the south but not in Texas or to certain tribes the CSA sees as “unfit” for citizenship. The five civilized tribes also have deep ties with the southeast too. Many states in the Deep South could restrict free blacks rights and force them to leave but they need somewhere like Louisiana to be sent too so laws regarding free blacks are much more liberal there(by there standards). This adds to regional identity of Louisiana too. The francophone culture is likely much stronger in the CSA(a southern Quebec but instead of being conservative element within the CSA it is the most liberal one at least by their standards. I also see Cajuns being more willing to invest in industrialization. Maybe New Orleans becomes the top industrial city in the south but matching let’s say otl Pittsburgh at most by northern standards?

Maybe if they took northern Mexico they don’t allow mix race people from region to go to places like Mississippi or certain states that don’t want them but in the Mexican states they have the caste system reintroduce. Hispanic landowner who are considered “white enough” run those states. They tolerate slavery in the region in exchange they keep their traditional privileges. That same method would work well in the Yucatán who white ruling minority actually previously ask to join the US after the Mexican American war due to fear of the natives taking over but told no.

National identities are not as strong in Latin America like it is currently. If the CSA is willing to pander to local elites heavily they might have no problem joining the confederacy. Taking areas in this way can actually leave you with more troops after the war. The issue with US is sometimes federalization can hinders expansion. If you invade a country during a civil war or revolution(likely in the region) and help one side in it they might accept you officially ruling them if you helped them from losing complete power. They let the local elites basically run the place themselves with maybe a few tolerable concessions on their part. Latin America and the CSA will be very similar in many regards. Could the CSA be structured like this? A confederation of conservative local elites who help each other out(the south is still the dominant force in it)? Think of how Russian Empire expanded east.

I would also like to point out attacks against blacks got worse after the civil war because many whites were resentful towards blacks over all the stuff that just happens. They were near pogroms against blacks after union soldiers left. This does not demean the cruelty of slavery but slave masters aren’t going to allow a angry mob to slaughter slaves they paid for. The slavery system in the south had economic and psychological elements to. The average master wants to avoid abusing his slaves physical(there are exceptions but this isn’t the norm. Also the more beat up a slave is the less useful they are and their value goes down). They rather break them mentally. Masters make sure to demonstrate to slaves the punishment for disobedience. A person can’t know freedom without truly experiencing it especially when previous culture ties are destroyed(it’s easier to impose on slaves and their descendants when they originally come from overseas). They aren’t going to risk torture especially if obedience can sometimes give them benefits. I mean absolutely no offense by this but they saw blacks like humans see Apes in Planet of the Apes(I’m pretty sure that movie originally had some very offensive undertones given the time period it came out). They saw blacks as people who needed to be controlled because they could not be “trusted” with freedom. That is more of the mindset before the war and if they win. They aren’t angry at black people if they win the war they just are worried/scared about them. They will make sure they “stay in their place” but the aren’t lynching and killing them like the KKK. Killing someone’s slave is illegal. Black population might actually grow a decent bit bigger. But this is where the hypocrisy and culture part comes into play. Whites are going to be interacting with blacks on a regular basis more so then otl with lessen hostilities. It is import to consider that most of the black people here cultural roots from Africa were nearly completely destroyed. Masters wanted to get rid of it as much as possible(varying degrees of success). This means being slaves have made them much more culturally similar to white southerners then any African group. White southerners ironically share more in common with black Americans then they do Yankees. If they are interacting in a variety of ways daily with less bad blood(more so in minds of the whites) this means some whites will become more sympathetic towards blacks. They aren’t all heartless racist(racism can come in varying degree). People don’t see animals as equal but killing one without reason is seen as cruel and people often love them greatly. People must think in their mindsets not ours(even if it is twisted). Humans often act on ignorance and biases but people like this often act on emotions more often then well thought out reason. Blacks and whites can find familiarity with each other over time especially since CSA might empathize it’s “American” identity over being European(think how some Slavs view Europe). It would still be a repressive society but a society that down the road cares more about national identity over biological ones. Chattel slavery in the South created a very weird and unique personal relationship between white southerners and blacks that I think whites in South Africa lacked. I think slavery ain’t going past 1900 at latest but before that they might try to “soft image” of slavery by propaganda and laws before that comes(failed attempt to end international criticism. It only buys them a little more time with official slavery). It fits into the “southern hospitality” image they would like to brag about. Think of it like countries enforcing animal protection laws. It’s demeaning but I guess less bad then before. It like people bragging about Saudi just giving women the right to drive cars but in a 1800s century context. People often are full on monsters or full on pacifist. Many can be a odd middle ground.

For example read this quote by Thomas Jefferson “but whatever be their degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the person or property of others. On this subject they are gaining daily in the opinions of nations, and hopeful advances are making towards their re-establishment on an equal footing with the other colors of the human family.” They won’t be enlightened by modern standards or by other countries of the time but they will still adept and take slow steps.
 
Question, are some factoring even physically possible in New Orleans in the 1870s given the working conditions and no air conditioning? Humidity can get to 115. Wouldn’t a human die in a factory when it’s that hot back then quickly? I’m talking about heavy type industries?
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top