At most the South gets the southern part of MO and Kentucky as the North can ship huge numbers of people to Arizona just to keep a claim on it as the number of people were there was already was insignifigant. Unless the POD comes VERY early it loses KY, MO and probably most if not all of TN.
Results of CSA victory
- Thread starter tom
- Start date
At most the South gets the southern part of MO and Kentucky as the North can ship huge numbers of people to Arizona just to keep a claim on it as the number of people were there was already was insignifigant. Unless the POD comes VERY early it loses KY, MO and probably most if not all of TN.
In 1865...yes, the South is beat up and happy just to have not lost. In 1862...no. If the South win in 1862 they will have just kicked the Union's ass and they'll know it, so will Lincoln. Why else give up? They may split Arizona, if they want it bad enough, but Missouri's not going to be too happy about having their democratically elected officials kicked out by "damn redlegs", Tennessee's not going to switch sides after they win and Kentucky's 50/50.
Last edited:
Who cares about what some people in Missouri think? The Union army controls Missouri by 1862 and Kentucky was already solidly in the Union. Tennesee depends on when the war ends The South was never in good enough shape to launch long term offenses. If it tries to take Missouri or Kentucky it gets its butt kicked, BADLY. The most it can do is raid it.There is no way in Hell it gets any part of the North American continent outside of where its army is squatting. It doesn't have nearly enough manpower to take Arizona.
The country wasn't founded on the idea that women shouldn't have the right to vote or abortion should be illegal.
No less than Alexander Stephans said that slavery was a cornerstone of the Confederacy saying ""Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition."
Nothing Special
I voted "Other" because I'm of the vein that there is significant probability that the Confederate States neither clashes with the US nor collapses nor ascends. It could just trundle along and end up by the 21st Century an angsty Australia or Canada: indisputably at First World status and out on the international stage, but nobody is afraid of it.
I voted "Other" because I'm of the vein that there is significant probability that the Confederate States neither clashes with the US nor collapses nor ascends. It could just trundle along and end up by the 21st Century an angsty Australia or Canada: indisputably at First World status and out on the international stage, but nobody is afraid of it.
The Confederacy abolishes slavery somewhere in the 1880s or the 1890s at the latest as they will be hated and perhaps even boycotted much like the Apartheid regime African-Americans will generally be treated like crap though even without slavery (think segregationist laws well into the 20th century). The CSA might get some internal problems and possibly a recession but black people will still be slaves de facto. By then the CSA will start industrializing and the proletariate will largely consist of black people who are ridiculously underpayed and the occassional impoverished white gambler. War might or might not happen. I ain't gonna make long term predictions because of butterflies.
I actually doubt that the CSA would fall apart. It's Constitution was pretty much like the US Constitution, except that it forbade the (con)federal government from intervening in slavery or setting high protective tariffs. There's really nothing to cause the different states to go their separate ways or rejoin a US that would have ended slavery. Slavery will be a continuing issue, of course, with slaves fleeing into the US and the CSA having something of an image problem internationally, but that won't stop a prosperous trade with Britain, France, and the USA, all of which still need Confederate cotton for their textile industries even if they develop other sources.
Less destruction from the war and new industries to support the war may help trigger a greater role for industry in the CSA. Industrialists might weaken the planter aristocracies' grip on power and make the CSA more friendly to commerce and manufacturing. Slaves will be used in factories more extensively than in OTL. The CSA has a lot of coal and iron ore, plus it will get a big boost from petroleum in Texas.
By the 1910-1915 period, in a best case scenario the CSA is a significant industrial power - not as big as the USA, but more developed than in OTL. The states in the upper south have abolished slavery, those in the lower south still have it. Fewer slaves are used for cotton and other cash crops, more are used in factories and mines, though the more skilled jobs are reserved for free whites. For whites, the average standard of living will be among the highest in the world, possibly better than in the USA and certainly better than the south in OTL. For blacks, well, life sucks, even worse than in OTL, with slavery still in effect in much of the CSA and free blacks subject to very strict laws in the states without slavery.
Less destruction from the war and new industries to support the war may help trigger a greater role for industry in the CSA. Industrialists might weaken the planter aristocracies' grip on power and make the CSA more friendly to commerce and manufacturing. Slaves will be used in factories more extensively than in OTL. The CSA has a lot of coal and iron ore, plus it will get a big boost from petroleum in Texas.
By the 1910-1915 period, in a best case scenario the CSA is a significant industrial power - not as big as the USA, but more developed than in OTL. The states in the upper south have abolished slavery, those in the lower south still have it. Fewer slaves are used for cotton and other cash crops, more are used in factories and mines, though the more skilled jobs are reserved for free whites. For whites, the average standard of living will be among the highest in the world, possibly better than in the USA and certainly better than the south in OTL. For blacks, well, life sucks, even worse than in OTL, with slavery still in effect in much of the CSA and free blacks subject to very strict laws in the states without slavery.
I just don't see how a CSA that remains stuck in the 1850s in terms of its economy, infrastructure, attitudes, culture, lifestyle, etc., could remotely fend off a USA that with every passing year becomes more advanced, more prosperous, adds millions of new citizens, and continues to expand its borders.
Even if the CSA managed to win the war early on, I don't see any way that it can defend its sovereignty against a USA that sees the South as rightfully belonging to the union. Plus, even with its backward ways, the South's assets (rich agricultural lands, rivers, ports, harbors, mineral deposits, etc., is just too valuable to the power class in the North, to simply allow the CSA to remain sovereign for too many years.
Either, the Union regroups and overruns the CSA by the early 1870s, or begins to cherry pick southern states and forces rejoinder into the Union. I just don't see how the CSA could prevent this for too long.
Even if the CSA managed to win the war early on, I don't see any way that it can defend its sovereignty against a USA that sees the South as rightfully belonging to the union. Plus, even with its backward ways, the South's assets (rich agricultural lands, rivers, ports, harbors, mineral deposits, etc., is just too valuable to the power class in the North, to simply allow the CSA to remain sovereign for too many years.
Either, the Union regroups and overruns the CSA by the early 1870s, or begins to cherry pick southern states and forces rejoinder into the Union. I just don't see how the CSA could prevent this for too long.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
All the poll answers are black and white, and I don't think any really hit the mark.
You have to consider how the CSA would develop not being part of the USA - you can't project backward from how the former CSA states developed within the context of the USA. I see:
1. Less industrialization. The CSA was oriented around export crops, namely cotton and tobacco, and will need the income from these sources without access to Federal funding and for a time, Northern capital. European capital will have no interest in supporting industrial concerns. Rail building will be slower, and remember that the South used a different gauge than the North, so that won't be corrected as it was in OTL, and that will make trade oversees more economical in many regards than inter-American trade. Everyone seems to see the South industrializing, but I don't. You need capital, infrastructure, and industrial resources - these are not totally absent, but I don't see much impetus for restructuring the economy, and certainly not a highly centralized government that could accomplish it. No Northern capital for a long time, and no European that would be interested in promoting rival industry, and quite the opposite, pressure to continue development of the cash-crop economy.
2. More Jesus. If you consider how far the South drags the rest of the USA on this issue, imaging what it would be like without the countervailing force of the more secular parts of the country. The South will look a whole lot more conservative than it does in OTL. No abortion, no gays, creationism in the schools, and brain drain to the North.
3. Race issues. It's really hard to project how this will go. There is no chance slavery would still be around, but there is likely to be far less movement of Blacks to northern industrial cities, and thus a higher percentage of the population will be Black - and there will also be less White movement to the South. It could go different ways - without the shock of Reconstruction race relations might progress in a more healthy manner, as slavery dies a "natural" death and ends from within rather than without, or you could see "separate but equal" where Blacks are seriously disadvantaged. I doubt it could be South Africa-like Apartheid, but you never know.
People rarely discuss how the USA would be different in this case, or the Americas in general. The USA would end up being a lot more progressive, and certainly weaker as a power for a long time without the South's export commodities, not to mention manpower resources. The Monroe Doctrine will be a bit hobbled, and other Powers will be able to play both American powers against each other.
I don't think there would ever be reunification, and in the end, the USA will be a superpower, and the CSA a fairly signicant one, but probably more isolationist and insular. The population today of the former CSA states is about 98 million - I think it would be substantially less than that as a lot of that is drift from the North - particularly in Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida, and I suspect the CSA would be way more hostile and restrictive toward Latino immigration (There are around 13M Latinos in former CSA states). But with even half the population, that's still a significant country. Let's call it 70 million.
You might see a country with the economic clout of say Britain, but maybe less as I think the intellectual atmosphere will probably lead to a lot of brain drain.
You have to consider how the CSA would develop not being part of the USA - you can't project backward from how the former CSA states developed within the context of the USA. I see:
1. Less industrialization. The CSA was oriented around export crops, namely cotton and tobacco, and will need the income from these sources without access to Federal funding and for a time, Northern capital. European capital will have no interest in supporting industrial concerns. Rail building will be slower, and remember that the South used a different gauge than the North, so that won't be corrected as it was in OTL, and that will make trade oversees more economical in many regards than inter-American trade. Everyone seems to see the South industrializing, but I don't. You need capital, infrastructure, and industrial resources - these are not totally absent, but I don't see much impetus for restructuring the economy, and certainly not a highly centralized government that could accomplish it. No Northern capital for a long time, and no European that would be interested in promoting rival industry, and quite the opposite, pressure to continue development of the cash-crop economy.
2. More Jesus. If you consider how far the South drags the rest of the USA on this issue, imaging what it would be like without the countervailing force of the more secular parts of the country. The South will look a whole lot more conservative than it does in OTL. No abortion, no gays, creationism in the schools, and brain drain to the North.
3. Race issues. It's really hard to project how this will go. There is no chance slavery would still be around, but there is likely to be far less movement of Blacks to northern industrial cities, and thus a higher percentage of the population will be Black - and there will also be less White movement to the South. It could go different ways - without the shock of Reconstruction race relations might progress in a more healthy manner, as slavery dies a "natural" death and ends from within rather than without, or you could see "separate but equal" where Blacks are seriously disadvantaged. I doubt it could be South Africa-like Apartheid, but you never know.
People rarely discuss how the USA would be different in this case, or the Americas in general. The USA would end up being a lot more progressive, and certainly weaker as a power for a long time without the South's export commodities, not to mention manpower resources. The Monroe Doctrine will be a bit hobbled, and other Powers will be able to play both American powers against each other.
I don't think there would ever be reunification, and in the end, the USA will be a superpower, and the CSA a fairly signicant one, but probably more isolationist and insular. The population today of the former CSA states is about 98 million - I think it would be substantially less than that as a lot of that is drift from the North - particularly in Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida, and I suspect the CSA would be way more hostile and restrictive toward Latino immigration (There are around 13M Latinos in former CSA states). But with even half the population, that's still a significant country. Let's call it 70 million.
You might see a country with the economic clout of say Britain, but maybe less as I think the intellectual atmosphere will probably lead to a lot of brain drain.
Why? They were willing to give their lives to preserve slavery and all of a sudden they are going to give it up?
Your anti-Christian bias got the best of you on this point. First of all Christian fundlementalism (if there was such a thing in the latter half of 19th century America) was not centered anywhere in the South, but was centered in the Northeast, specifically in Boston. In 1860, the most "progressive" idea that was being championed by "stupid" Christian leaders in Boston was - abolition of slavery. Women's sufferage was also a progressive issue that had its base of support within Christian leadership circles throughout the North and Midwest.
The other big social issue that became prominent in the latter decades of the 19th century and then into the 20th century was the temperence movement. Again, the movement was sprearheaded by Christian leaders throughout the country. In fact the first state to ban alcohol wasn't some Southern state but Maine.
The social issues you raised, abortion, gays, creationism were unheard of as issues for political debate or even for general discussion in the 19th century, and only the issue of teaching Darwinianism in schools became an issue of debate in the 1920s.
The fact is, strong Christian ideals helped make the entire country strong, especially the North. At the time of the civil war and for decades thereafter I believe that places in the North were much more staunchly Christian than places in the South.
Why? They were willing to give their lives to preserve slavery and all of a sudden they are going to give it up?
Economics will do it in the long run. That, and their standing in the international community. Slavery is pretty much unacceptable in the industrialized world, and years of condemnation in the press abroad will erode Southern willingness to keep it going. But it will be economics in the end; sooner or later, the international community will start making noises about refusing to deal with a slave-state, and that will be the end of it...
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Why? They were willing to give their lives to preserve slavery and all of a sudden they are going to give it up?
I said there is no chance that slavery would STILL be around, meaning in 2009, not that it wouldn't last longer than it did in OTL. Do you really think there would still be slaves in the South?
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
I'm not being anti-Christian, nor did I equate stupidity with Christianity. I'm being anti-nutty Christian. There's no doubt the Christian ideals played a big part in a lot of important progressive causes, but I'm discussing what would be different today, and in the South, not New England. Do you think being an independent country would butterfly away the more atavistic aspects of Southern social conservatism or do you think without living in the context of the larger USA they would predominate? Christianity is often just a convenient rallying point for ugly and un-Christian "otherism", just as most other religions or ideologies can be. If you'll drop the persecution complex, my point doesn't have much to do with Christianity except insofar as the USA is predominantly Christian - otherwise my point would have been about Islam or Hinduism or Socialism or whatever.
I'm not sure what the point of this thread is if we're only projecting into the 1860s.
Why? They were willing to give their lives to preserve slavery and all of a sudden they are going to give it up?
And what relation does it have with what Pasha said? If blacks do the work (as "industrial slavery" scenarios defend) then there aren't many jobs left for whites. The result is that the CSA would not be appealing to inmigrants (which are white and European in the period we are talking about) and would actually see part of its white population seeking a job at the other side of the northern frontier. As a result the black % of the population grows, the white one decreases, and the low and middle white class left isn't fond either of blacks or the "peculiar institution". As I said in other post, there aren't enough plantations for everybody.
Not for a long time, probably around 1920 or 1930. The Confederate Constittution made it near impossible to ban slavery.
What isn't just how
more sensible it is to hire instead of buying people.
There is also the little matter of slave supply.
Acquiring slaves, even on Africa, got more and more expensive as the time went by, and raising them
to sell just wasn't practical.
The Atlantic Slave Trade ended in 1808 and slavery thrived after that.