Results of CSA victory

What if CSA won?

  • CSA eventually re-united with USA

    Votes: 65 31.6%
  • CSA becomes Third World Nation

    Votes: 57 27.7%
  • CSA becomes superpower

    Votes: 20 9.7%
  • North America becomes balkanized warring states

    Votes: 26 12.6%
  • Other (please describe)

    Votes: 38 18.4%

  • Total voters
    206
why? Would the results of the war in America make all that much difference when it came to the tribal wars of Europe?
Not merely the results of the war, but the results plus 50 years would butterfly all sorts of things: world leaders, for one, the balance of power in alliances, emigration patterns, the process of German unification as Markham points out, not to mention having a WWI kind of implies a WWII, which is totally unlikely (because basically WWI would have to go exactly as OTL).
That's not to say a relatively bloody, large scale war wouldn't occur in roughly the same time period for somewhat similar reasons, possibly even between similar alliances. But it would not really be The Great War/WWI of OTL.
 
Not merely the results of the war, but the results plus 50 years would butterfly all sorts of things: world leaders, for one, the balance of power in alliances, emigration patterns, the process of German unification as Markham points out, not to mention having a WWI kind of implies a WWII, which is totally unlikely (because basically WWI would have to go exactly as OTL).
That's not to say a relatively bloody, large scale war wouldn't occur in roughly the same time period for somewhat similar reasons, possibly even between similar alliances. But it would not really be The Great War/WWI of OTL.
okay, you can make a good case that there wouldn't be a WW1 exactly like OTL's. But it's hard to imagine that there wouldn't be a major European war sometime in there... there were just too many things that had to be settled (the French/German wrangling over Alsace/Lorraine, the mess that was Austria-Hungary, etc.). And having a WW1 doesn't mean that there will automatically be a WW2... the latter happened mainly because of the political settlement of the first...
 
A likely development would be French-controlled Mexico selling the border provinces to the CSA, much as in (argh) Turtledove's series, as this provides Maximillian with some cash, cuts off access for the US to send aid to Juarez, reduces the area Juarez can control or retreat to, gives the CSA a vested interest in Maximillian surviving, etc.

Since Austria-Hungary had written off Maximillian I doubt relations between Paris and Vienna would change much and since Paris is already wasting a rather substantial military force in Mexico it isn't hard to imagine the French being reluctant to waste even more men in support of Austria when Austria so obviously can't bother to provide modest aid to France in support of the reigning monarch's own brother.

Following the events of 1866 matters proceed much as OTL as it is no secret that Bismark desperately wanted to provoke France AND had a deadline in terms of treaty ties to the south German states. Barring a miracle there WILL be a Franco-Prussian War around 1869. France loses, the new 3rd Republic(or whatever) pulls out of the Mexican quagmire, now looking even worse for the French troops in Mexico while the Prussians are in Paris.

One possibility will be Mexico's new government showing hostility if the CSA did acquire some territory from Maximillian. With Spain already hostile to the CSA this gives the US a leg up on alliance building and, through Madrid, gives a tie to Europe. The CSA won't have any choice but to find an ally or two if they can. This could be the argument that forces a gradual end to slavery through in Richmond.


Another point is that if Germany replaces Austria-Hungary with Russia in a conflict remotely similar to WWI then the British and French will lose. Russia is not only vastly more powerful than Austria-Hungary but hasn't managed to enrage practically every nation in the Balkans plus Italy.

Lastly I see absolutely zero chance of London ever being able to accept Europe being dominated by another power so once that becomes a possibility London's freedom of movement is crippled.
 
okay, you can make a good case that there wouldn't be a WW1 exactly like OTL's. But it's hard to imagine that there wouldn't be a major European war sometime in there... there were just too many things that had to be settled (the French/German wrangling over Alsace/Lorraine, the mess that was Austria-Hungary, etc.). And having a WW1 doesn't mean that there will automatically be a WW2... the latter happened mainly because of the political settlement of the first...

Well yeah, a conflict somewhere in the early 1900s is of course likely even with the CSA victory and 50 years divergence from OTL. But I think the line of thinking that goes "well, the CSA wins, then blah blah blah happens, then when WWI rolls around..." discounts the butterfly effect a bit too much. The point of AH is that history isn't a bunch of points on a timeline that must always occur, regardless of what you change in the past.

Oh and if a conflict did happen, people could at least call it The Great War or something totally different. Calling it WWI, at least from my point of view, means that in your mind WWII is inevitable.
 
I say that the US will probably fight until the CSA is reunited. Thus, a war in the 1880s, a variation of WW1 and WW2 and so on, until the CSA is back in the US. Now, if they can hold off the US...
 
Any nation with a founding idea that any state can leave at any time for any reason is unlikely to last 50 years, let alone 150. Any political or economic crisis risks losing states or fragmenting. Any election or policy risks the same.

Best case, I see the CSA ending up like modern Italy, a regional power that had dreams of being a great power, but no chance of being a superpower. Second best case, it ends up like modern Egypt, independant and unified after some time as a client state of a major power. Worst case, it becomes like the Balkans, poor even when they aren't fighting each other. And the worst case is the most likely.

[FONT=&quot]The USA would probably go on to be a major power, though it might be confined to being a regional power, and there's a very slender chance of it reaching superpower status.[/FONT]
 
Assuming a military victory before or at Gettysburg without some sort of radical change, I figure the CSA takes their core 11 states with kentucky and modern Oklahoma.

I don't see the Union being remotely willing to hand back territory they already control, let alone hand over sections that never seceded.

They begin a crash industrialization program focusing on northern Alabama, northern GA, and perhaps eastern TN later on. Rail transportation and steel manufacturing become immediate priorities and South Carolina becomes a world leader in textile manufacturing within 20 years.

The Confederacy has laws against funding internal improvements.

There is no Thanksgiving there, slavery persists into the first decade of the 20th or last decade of the 19th century under threat from British sanctions.

It took over 60 years of British pressure to get Brazil to end slavery. It's a far larger part of the Confederate economy. And if the CSA was willing to fight to keep the "foreign" Yankees from telling them what to do, then why would they be less hostile to the British?

A beaten US will ally with Germany and,

1) Germany is not a unified state until 1871.
2) In a world where the USA breaks in two, Germany may never be a unified state.
3) Germany has no reason to ally with the US.
4) The US has no reason to ally with Germany.
5) If the US wants allies against Britain, a far more likely choice is Russia, who already has conflicts with Britain and was the European power which most supported the Union during OTL's ACW.

In the long run I see the CSA aligning with London and the USA with Germany with the likely conflict predicted by Turtledove for World War I.

If the CSA ends slavery due to the threat of British sanctions, why would they ally with Britain?

In OTL, the US nearly went to war with Germany in Samoa in 1889, and was willing to when Germany attempted to interfere in Venezuela in 1902. Why would they ally with Gemany in WWI?

Confederate interests will turn to Pacific access at some point, and a land connection via Mexico would not be out of the question.

That depends on whether the CSA isolationists or the expansionists win out and whether or not the CSA splits over the issue. If it comes to war OTL's CSA had a worse record on offense than OTL's USA.

The CSA will build a strong Navy and the USA will likely have one that is at least its equal, but where the CSA goes from there depends on how the rest of the orld unfolds.

Building a stong navy would be an expensive and probably divisive policy for the CSA. The USA (with more industry and not having to start from scratch) had a clear advantage and would view the buildup of a Confederate Navy with more alarm than OTL's Britain viewed the buildup of the German Navy in the years leading to WWI.

Should the CSA win a WWI scenario I think they would claim WV (if they don't take it initially), NM, AZ, and at least two of the three MD, MO, or KS. If the UA wins I tihnk they'd take KY, OK, and maybe western TX or parts of northern VA.

If the CSA survives to WWI, then I'd expect them to lose. If they didn't already control them after TTL's ACW and hadn't already recaptured them in another war before 1914, the USA would take Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Louisiana at a minimum.
 
Honestly, Turtledove got it pretty good until he brought in fascism. Regardless of how "undemocratic" the South may seem, the South would not resort to a complete lack of Democracy. It simply wouldn't be allowed to happen. The worst that could happen is a reintroduction of slavery after it's already been banned.

I may have to revise my opinion of Turtledove slightly upwards. When asked, US WWII veterans typically said the European people most like their own culture was Germany. And the twin problems of the Depression and the boll weevil will fall more heavily on the Confederacy than they would on OTL's south. The temptation for the Confederate state governments, if not their national government, to seek the panacea of an extreme position, left or right, would be strong.
 
It was only 13 years from the time the 18th Amendment was enacted until the 21st Amendment abolished it. Even if there was absolutely no discussion of abolishing slavery until 1888 (the year Brazil did), that would still make it plausible to be abolished by 1901 that's a far cry from 1920.

Wait, you're using Prohibition as a comparison? Not any actual history of emancipation?
In OTL, it took Britain 57 years from the formation of the first Abolitionist group to the ending of slavery in the last parts of the British Empire. It took the USA 90 years. France ended slavery 65 years after the first offical edict about emancipation. Brazil ended slavery after 62 years of pressure from the British.


In all of those cases, slavery was a much smaller part of their economic system and personal wealth than it was for the CSA. And unlike the other countries mentioned, the central government of the CSA was constitutionally forbidden from ordering emancipation. And there were no Abolitionist groups in the south.


So if the Confederacy is as susceptable to external pressure as Brazil (which is wildly optimistic), the CSA should end slavery by 1927. If they follow the US model of internal agitation, then that makes 1955 the end of Confederate slavery (assuming the near ASB of a Confederate Abolitioninst group forming in 1865). Of course, OTL's Brazil had their government overthrown for ending slavery and OTL's USA faced an armed rebellion over the possibility that they might someday end slavery.
 
I voted third world status. They would be an international pariah, keeping slavery for so long (longer than Brazil, e.g.). They have a constitution that prohibits federal funding for internal improvements. ...

I could certainly see them being bottom tier 1st world, but that wasn't an option on the poll. Top tier 3rd world is possible, especially if a strongman takes over at some point. 2nd world (communist) seems less likely.

I find it difficult to see them rejoining the Union. They just had a big war to separate, and their cultural identity is largely defined as being NOT Yankees. If individual states break away from the CSA, especially border ones like MO or TN (assuming either is in the CSA to start), then those states would now have an identity of NOT CSA, and might well rejoin the Union.
 
I had another thought - if the CSA breaks off, the Northwest might too. A *USA smaller and more focused on their rebels means less threat for BNA, so BNA never unites into Canada, but stays multiple countries.

Then, later, a union of English-speaking peoples (of North America, probably) might happen with a reformed CSA joining with the rump US and parts of OTL Canada... (no doubt with Winston S Churchill as PM/SecGen/President, whatever:)).
 
I consider every item in the poll plausible - except for the CSA becoming a superpower.

It is my opinion the CSA was founded specifically to preserve institutions (such as slavery) which supported the continuation of southern plantation aristocracy and the inherent class and caste distinctions this fostered. I believe this was almost a "religious" attitude, and the CSA would be slow to adapt to a world in which confederate cotton no longer was king. Couple this with a revolution based on establishing a weak central government, and I think the CSA would be unlikely to survive into the 20th century as a unified nation. I think this result would be almost inevitable regardless of the PoD and whether or not Southron independence was acheived locally, or with European intervention. I suspect the CSA would begin to fission as long as the unifying enemy (the USA) was no longer aggressive toward it, and some states (especially those along the border or those with low slave populations) would almost immediately regret leaving the USA and seek ways of being readmittied. Some, like Texas or even Virginia, might want to go it alone. Presumably, a central government founded on the principle of secession and states' rights would not fight to prevent states from leaving the Confederacy. The remaining "deep south" states (The Carolinas, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana) where the slavocracy was stongest, might limp along into the 20th century as a backwater confederacy, its independence preseved only because the USA wouldn't want them back, but also wouldn't want them to fall completely into chaos.
 
Last edited:
Barring a revolution, we are looking at an anglophone Banana Republic.

The philosophy of States Rights was strong enough to cause succession movements within the decade against a central government with any power at all. Moreover the elitism and monopoly on power held by the planter aristocracy will drag things down. If the PoD is after the use of Colored Troops (i.e. 54th Mass.), we can expect a fair bit of "property" being invited north.

No navy, they will be lucky to get the Sea Islands back.

HTG
 
The US splinters, losing an enlarged Utah as the Mormon theocracy of Deseret while the West Coast splits off into Pacific America.

Texas surprises many by separating from the CSA.

Finally Quebec is able to break away after 1905 when the British are desperate to shore up ties with France.


By the late 1930s, of course, the merciless German Empire has crushed Europe beneath its heel and, in the aftermath of the successful invasion and conquest of Great Britain(Operation Sea Petrel) we witness the economically and militarily backwards USA, CSA, Texas, Pacific America, Deseret, Quebec and British Canada* frantically trying to organize a continental defensive and economic pact.

In the face of invasion in 1943 by the vast horde of war dirigibles and transport dirigibles by Germany and its allies, Tsarist Russia, Japan and, of course, the Ottoman Empire....

*Newfoundland and British colonies in the Caribean/Latin America are hastily rounded up by the North American nations.
 
Personally, I think that the CSA just MIGHT engage in future wars against the United States.

Whether or not this actually happens, I could see Slavery in the South only surviving until the 1890's at the latest as the Western world was moving in the direction towards Anti-Slavery.

Of course, the CSA would likely install numerous anti-Black laws to keep their Blacks in line which would last until at least the 1960's, maybe longer.

In regards to its status, given its general territory, population and resources, it would probably be as strong as present-day Great Britain or France, a major power but not THE power of the world. It would be a developed nation though with Conservative values and in control of Cuba and Puerto Rico as Protectorate territories.

Regarding diplomatic relations, it might have good relations with the British and French. As for relations with the U.S, there'd likely be tension for a while after the Civil War at the very least. Eventually though, things MAY cool down and the two Americas would become allies like the Americans and British did in OTL if given common enemies like Germany or Russia.
 
I am going to quote myself from another post and add a sort of end note to it,

The POD can be the south winning the civil war, it works better if it is late during the war, but matters little.
After winning the war the south begins its reconstruction. Due to the fact that most of the agricultural fields were destroyed during the war most of the reconstruction takes place within major cities, causing major migration of poor white farmers into the cities. This does not necessarily mean major industrial growth only urban growth. Within time no later than the 1890s the slaves are freed. Like in OTL some become sharecroppers and others move into the cities. Cities then develop similarly as in OTL where blacks move downtown and whites move towards the suburbs, but nevertheless there is some mixing going on. The importance of New Orleans the largest city in the CSA is important as unlike the rest it begins already as a center for liberalism.
The CSA snatching Cuba and Puerto Rico from Spain will also work on its path towards liberalism, and would give it more diversity later on. Like in OTL there could be a Puerto Rican diaspora were most live outside Puerto Rico in this case within the CSA.
Having a wide range of ethnicities in one country usually creates cultural hybridization, even if it is not necessarily racial. Even in OTL the most hybridized culture comes from the south. Ultimately hybridization create something spectacular around the early 1900s ... Jazz or a similar music genre injected with some Cuban rumbas or both as separate genres. The music will be enjoyed by everyone bringing aspects of black culture into white culture.
Follow this with movies the CSA develops its own movie industry, most likely based in New Orleans. Movies can have several effects but because we are going for the liberal end we can say the early Confederate Filmmakers are liberal artsy people who question some traditional values and bring it to the big screen. Think of early French and German cinema of OTL. European culture is also coming in, most importantly French modernism, and French fashion. Flappers (or similar fashion) in the 1920 followed by the beginnings of the sexual revolution. Because every action has an equal and opposite reaction, the CSA's conservatism creates an even stronger liberation movement. Women gain the right to vote in the late 20s followed by blacks in the 30s or 40s (although they will remain in "segregation")
With the discovery of major oil fields the CSA, primarily the west flourishes and grows economically at an unprecedented rate.
At this time there is also some migration from Mexico into the CSA primarily into Texas. There is also some European in the east migration though to a lesser extent.
I will assume that the CSA, like the USA of OTL, saw little fighting in WWI expect supply its allies and maybe and intervention at the end nothing like TL 191. However as the late 40s approach the CSA is entangled in a second major conflict. Causing a backlash in the liberal revolution in the 1950s nevertheless helped by further industrializing parts of the CSA. New Orleans, Richmond, Atlanta, Birmingham and Havana (largest city in the Caribbean) are by now major metropolis. Black populations have also flourished and benefit from the expanding sources of jobs. As more whites move into the cities blacks who have made a small fortunes can invest in the countryside. Creating a constant flow and movement of both whites and blacks into the cities and out of the cities. (If blacks live in the countryside and downtown the whites in the suburbs are in the middle of the whole).
In the 50s the CSA flourishes economically though it becomes increasingly more conservative. However by the late 50s with the invention of television the liberal media is able to access every home. At the same time a new radical genre of music arrives and we see the birth of rock and roll infused with some latin sounds from Cuba and Mexican immigrants further closing the cultural divide. Like Jazz CSA music is enjoyed world wide.
We also see the rise of the Civil Rights movement, a Martin Luther King equivalent will eventually happen. His assassination, if there is one, will become an outrage and the liberal media will make sure everyone is to blame. If there is no assassination he will continue to speak firing up the movement.
In the 60s we see something never seen before a European band brings European pop culture into the CSA. They are a sensation. Although it is clear they were influenced by Confederate music but have simply adapted it and made it their own, they speak to the Confederate youth, white black and hispanic alike, with an power never seen before and a message of peace and equality. The young generation tunes into their message and begins to experiment.
Throughout its history the use of drugs, primarily tobacco and caffeine, has been enjoyed through out the CSA. Some states had gone dry at the beginning of the century but it did not last long and only created a tradition of moonshine and smuggling, helping the liberal cause in the end. In the 60s and 70s we see a major increase in the use of marihuana. Hemp is now a major industry in the CSA, although its psychoactive use remains illegal, there has been large investment in its industrial growth to avoid importing lumber from the USA. Along with marihuana other drugs hallucinogens and cocaine begin to be used. Unfortunately this creates a major problem of drug trafficking, and the CSA is a major grower of most drugs due to its reliable weather. There is a major struggle to keep the drug use down but the youth seems not to care and rebels against it.
The CSAs national and historical identity appears to help very little. Historically, although conservative, they have seen themselves as rebels. They rebelled against England they rebelled against the USA, they helped Cuba rebel against Spain and thus allowed it to join. The new generation only seems themselves as the new necessary rebellion. A Liberal party grows in the CSA with the slogan "We Need a New Revolution!" this rings truth in the youth's minds. As part of the revolution the remaining segregation laws across the CSA are abolished, and the sexual revolution returns. In particular the efforts of a young and eccentric Texan help this effort when he creates a magazine that brings the pinup into the mainstream. The publication had existed for a decade now but after it is censored by the government the bold CEO sends his case to the supreme-court, arguing censorship limits the freedom of speech. The media turns towards his case and makes almost a big of a fuss about it. In 1968 the censorship laws across the CSA break apart. As part of this the production code on most of its cinema and television disappear and for the first time filmmakers tune their work for the excitement of the senses breaking most of the established taboos and shocking its audiences.
By the late 70s the storm has calmed down, an internal drug war sponsored by the conservative forces stopped most of the illegal trade within the CSA, and a rating system had been established as an alternative to censorship. However the damage was done and the CSA had become an increasingly liberal society. The youth that saw the 60s storms had children and the 80s ushered a new era of prosperity a boom. By now white was no longer the majority only the largest minority as more hispanic population immigrated northwards form South America into Cuba and Florida and from Cuba and Puerto Rico into the rest of the CSA. The boom of the 80s economy ended with the growing liberal party being elected into office with a majority on both houses for the first time.
Deciding not to ignore the truth, the psychoactive use of hemp is legalized sometime in the 90s. The CSA enjoys a bright and liberal future.
The End

For those wondering what happens with the USA. Well use Newton's law again, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Unable to cope with CSA's success it becomes a military dictatorship suffers from coup after coup until it rebuilds itself in the 30s - 50s although broken and isolationist as it had always been before the CSA.

Although this is an exaggeration, my point is that it is very hard to predict the development of culture. Here in AH.com it seems we tend to focus on military and political developments but cultural ones are just as important they all affect each other. I think it is very plausible for the CSA to become liberal, it is just about how one generation reacts to the previous and having the music, and food (something i did not mention above) that the south has enjoyed through its history are definitely a push towards liberalism.

Alright through all this time although I am saying that the south is flourishing it never reaches the uber-economically powerful state that the US is today. It is more like a medium sized nation economically something along the lines of Italy or Spain today. This is mostly due in terms of population; by 2009 my estimates is that it would have around 120 million people. And the fact that a significant number of its population mostly (around 10-15 million) would still live in agricultural poverty. Racism evolves to become something around the lines of Latin American racism based more on class than on race and there is still a lack of political correctness.

Anyway Im thinking of trying to write a TL based on CS cultural developments basically a more detailed version of the above. Let me know if you guys might be interested.

Oh and the first non white president is a Cuban plantation owner in the mid 80s (a conservative who wins many liberal states by being Cuban) and the first black president would happen in the 2010s.
 

The Sandman

Banned
We really have to figure out when the CSA gets its victory here.

It seems that 1862 is the most likely; 1861 would basically just mean that the North chose not to fight, and any later than 1862 and the war in the West probably destroys the Confederacy regardless of what happens in the East.

The problem here is that, assuming that we're talking late 1862, the CSA still isn't in a great bargaining position. The fact is that by that point the US has taken New Orleans, it's taken New Berne and the holdings on the North Carolina coast, Sibley's expedition into New Mexico has been routed, the invasions of Kentucky and Missouri have failed, West Virginia is effectively gone, and the western 2/3rds of Tennessee (including the state capital) are already under Union control. And don't forget that the bit of Tennessee the CSA still has is also the bit with the heaviest degree of Unionist sentiment.

I think we have to assume that the US keeps Tennessee. I don't see the Confederacy being able to eject them from the region; there are too many Union troops and the Confederate leadership was as outmatched in the West as the Union generals were in the East. Furthermore, the US may actually be able to take Arkansas, or at least bring enough of it back under control that it can be traded for border adjustments elsewhere. And Northern Virginia out to Fairfax probably also stays in the Union; I just don't see the US as being willing to put Washington on the border and I don't see the Confederacy winning so decisively as to force the US to take any peace it can get.

Also, given what most of the South's cash crops do to the land you grow them on, the South basically needs to expand after the war in order to open up new land for their agriculture. Otherwise, it probably starts to choke to death in the next 10 to 20 years due to soil depletion, where it hadn't started to do that by the 1860s.

I don't see why a CSA that emancipates its slaves wouldn't just come up with sharecropping as the alternative. It keeps the blacks as virtual serfs on the plantations, and has the advantage that you can also extend it to poor whites.

Assuming Cuba still rebels against Spain, and that the CSA doesn't find some way to just grab it, it might well petition the US for protection from the CSA; given the likely racial attitudes in the South, and the fact that Confederate filibusters may have been doing their best to win hearts and minds throughout the region for several decades by that point, the US would look like the better alternative.

And I think the US might still end up with some imperialist impulses in the late 1800s, given that imperialism was just what you did if you wanted to be seen as a power. It's just that those impulses would probably be directed, first and foremost, at the wayward states to the south.

Also, somebody else probably buys Alaska if the US doesn't. Britain seems most likely, although if you delay it a few years you might have Germany try to purchase it as well. And the Philippines probably go to either Germany or Japan; they would both be interesting in colonial expansion at Spain's expense, although they might be a bit more willing to try purchasing it first.
 
Just recently noticed this. I would suspect that unless the CSA has full out ASB backing that it would get dragged back kicking and screaming a more militant Union by the latest of 1900 though I would suspect the date as more likely around 1880. I frankly can not see how a United States that would be feeling humalited by the victory of the CSA being willing to give up plans of revenge at least for a century. The very second that the Union military feels that it has a good shot at crushing the Confedrates, they're going to take it.
 
Just recently noticed this. I would suspect that unless the CSA has full out ASB backing that it would get dragged back kicking and screaming a more militant Union by the latest of 1900 though I would suspect the date as more likely around 1880. I frankly can not see how a United States that would be feeling humalited by the victory of the CSA being willing to give up plans of revenge at least for a century. The very second that the Union military feels that it has a good shot at crushing the Confedrates, they're going to take it.

Mmm, I'm not so sure. Up until the 1950s the Confederacy will probably be able to compete passably on the level of OTL Brazil or Poland in industry, and they have solid incentives to modernize. They won't be getting nuclear weapons (a poor educational system and the 900lb gorilla up north will see to that), but they can probably make outright reconquest too expensive to be viable. By the time the USA has nuclear arms, they'll be thoroughly Finlandized, with all that implies, and probably with US bases on their soil to keep them in line.

We may look back on the Confederacy as an evil that needs stomping (which it was), but the US Army in 1880 or 1900 is likely to think, at most, about slicing off border states or bits of border states to keep the remnant in line. I think in 1900 the Union would win, but they'd probably just take some juicy chunks of Texas, Arkansas and Tennessee and grab Virginia. An indemnity is laid down, everyone goes home, and Unioners breathe a sigh of relief that they didn't absorb too many more blacks.

This is one of those WIs that really needs its going-in assumptions nailed down before it can be usefully discussed. I think it's clear, and vastly more interesting, that a surviving CSA would be top-tier third world - expensive to conquer, but easily pushed around.
 
Last edited:
Top