Smallest possible successful C.S.A.?

[Perkeo]

The weaponry of the time guaranteed that any defensive position was easier to hold than to take. The losses incurred by the Union exceeded those of the Confederacy in almost all campaigns.

With "easier to hold than to take", I refered to the total strategic cost for the respective party rather than the tactical situation. The CSA were outpopulated more than twice, more than four times when you don't count the southern blacks. Thus a battle with 10,000 Union and 5,000 Confederate casualties was a strategic defeat, not a victory, for the CSA.

But the important question is not only what ressources you have, but also what ressources you are willing to sacrifice. The Russians sold Alaska for 7.2 million dollars. The Russian Empire certainly could have spend much more than that sum to quell a hypothetical rebellion, but they would hardly have wanted to, would they?

So a small CSA with some natural bareer to entrench behind would have done a lot better than OTL, despite less ressources.

 

[Falastur]

a question from a curious outsider, if I may? people frequently talk about a republic of Texas which never joins the union as being likely to join the British empire in one form or another. does a small successful csa stand to do the same or will it inevitably fall into the US orbit/would it protect its own economic and political independence fiercely? this is ignoring the idea of international recognition forcing the usa's hand. for argument's sake let's assume a peaceful secession.

sorry if I'm derailing the thread, just curious. ignore me if its more convenient.

 

[Solomaxwell6]

So a small CSA with some natural bareer to entrench behind would have done a lot better than OTL, despite less ressources.

Perhaps, and it would've promptly fallen apart because of a lack of industry. Basically the Confederacy's entire hope for any kind of economic future laid in the upper south—the states that (presumably) aren't going to be seceding in your TL.

Some statistics from the 1860 Census, splitting between white and black*

CSA states by white population (bold is the four upper south states that seceded after the declaration of war)

Virginia 1,047,299
Tennessee 826,722
North Carolina 629,942
Georgia 591,550
Alabama 526,271
Texas 420,891
Louisiana 357,456
Mississippi 353,899
Arkansas 324,143
South Carolina 291,300
Florida 77,747

Total upper south: 2,828,106
Total lower south: 2,620,114
Total: 5,448,220

Check that out. The population of a hypothetical Confederacy would be slightly more than halved if we leave out the upper south (it'd be down to about 48%).

Now look at the numbers for black population (almost entirely slave, leaving out individual states)

Total south: 3,653,868
Percentage black population in south: 40%

Total lower south: 2,349,163
Percentage black population in lower south: 48%

You're getting dangerously close to the 50% mark. It's tough for a society to keep control over such a large proportion of the population. Not impossible, of course, but something that's going to cause a LOT of trouble in the long term. 40% was tough enough to manage. 48% is going to be that much harder.

There's also an issue of quantity vs quality population. It's true, the upper south has the majority of the population, but does that actually matter? Much smaller nations have existed; the fewer people, the less money the nation will have, but the less money the nation will need. But in this case, the upper south not only has a higher quantity, it's also better. Most of the arguments for the Confederacy's long term economic survival rest on the industry of the upper south (particularly Virginia). And the other arguments rely on King Cotton... something that won't be maintained too much longer, as Eastern cotton becomes much more prevalent and cotton prices fall drastically.

That's not to say that a small south couldn't stay functional for a short time. But it's not going to stay free forever. Especially since there's now a precedent for seceding just because you don't like the president (who was elected completely fairly and democratically, with your state having full representation). What's stopping the rest of the US from re-annexing a bit here and a bit there? Imagine the south pitifully applying to Washington for annexation, tail between its legs, Dominican Republic style.


*There's also a "Civilized Indian" section in the census, which I'm ignoring (it's negligible, Texas has the highest Confederate population with a whopping 26). Asians are included in the white population.

 

[Cook]

So a small CSA with some natural bareer to entrench behind would have done a lot better than OTL, despite less ressources.

Alternatively an earlier Civil War would have given the Confederacy a greater chance too. With far less extensive rail networks the Union would have had a much harder time supporting large armies required to invade and occupy the south.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

They all invade Cuba and take over!

 

[Perkeo]

Perhaps, and it would've promptly fallen apart because of a lack of industry. Basically the Confederacy's entire hope for any kind of economic future laid in the upper south—the states that (presumably) aren't going to be seceding in your TL.

Did I say that? I didn't specify any seceding or non-seceding states.

I once read a timeline claiming that a CSA victory required as little as both sides respecting Kentucky's neutrality - and a consistent strategy. They would have had to make sure that no decition is in sight by the presidential election of 1864 - after which they could realistically hope for a new president who is willing to compromise.

There's also an issue of quantity vs quality population. It's true, the upper south has the majority of the population, but does that actually matter? Much smaller nations have existed; the fewer people, the less money the nation will have, but the less money the nation will need. But in this case, the upper south not only has a higher quantity, it's also better. Most of the arguments for the Confederacy's long term economic survival rest on the industry of the upper south (particularly Virginia). And the other arguments rely on King Cotton... something that won't be maintained too much longer, as Eastern cotton becomes much more prevalent and cotton prices fall drastically.

That's not to say that a small south couldn't stay functional for a short time. But it's not going to stay free forever. Especially since there's now a precedent for seceding just because you don't like the president (who was elected completely fairly and democratically, with your state having full representation). What's stopping the rest of the US from re-annexing a bit here and a bit there? Imagine the south pitifully applying to Washington for annexation, tail between its legs, Dominican Republic style.

IMO however small or big the CSA are, their long-term survival is ASB. They are too much behind morally and economically. Note that slavery Europe (not its colonies) had already been abolished for centuries. In 1861, TSARIST RUSSIA abolished serfdom, and by 1890, everything that even closely resembled a civilized country had abolished slavery.