The 2nd President of the CSA

dcharleos

Donor
For comparison (this is only one possible set of figures; other sets may be different but the ratios should be the same) some GDP and pop. figures for 1913 in USD (without colonial empires):
Germany - 280B/65M
A-H - 120B/54M
France - 130B/40M
UK - 230B/45M
Italy - 95B/35M
Russia - 265B/170M

Spain - 40B/20M
Japan - 90B/ no idea

OTL USA - 520B/100M



Depending on what size of its economy and population we ass(pull)ume and comparing with Italy, the CSA is either edging onto Great Power status ... or already there ...


In 1890, the Southern states produced about 20% of the pig iron in the US (this was the year for which I could find the best data--sorry 1913). That's about 2 million tons. That's double the output of Russia and Austria-Hungary, 2.5 times the capacity of Belgium, eight times more than Spain, 14 times more than Italy, equivalent to France, and about 1/2 of Germany and 1/4 of the UK. Without the massive losses in wealth brought on by the complete collapse of currency and abolition IOTL, I don't know why they would realistically be at a level less than this, and I can think of many realistic reasons why they would be ahead of what they were at IOTL.

I strongly suspect that the South around 1910 produced more than 20% of US textiles. I'm not in the mood to go down a statistical research rabbit hole right now, but let's call it 30%. If we extrapolate that (which may or may not be reasonable +/-)*, and say that the South in 1910 represented about 1/4 of the US economy, then we arrive at the figure of 130 billion. There were about 25 million people in the 11 Confederate states including West Virginia and Kentucky. So, you know...that ain't nothing.

*Even if it isn't reasonable to do for OTL, it may very well be reasonable to do for an ATL. An independent CSA is inherently a CSA that enters the peace far less devastated than the Southern states of the former Confederacy did after they lost the war IOTL. For me, that's a given for timelines where the South wins--I basically think it's impossible for the CS to win without significant changes in 1862. By 1863, they were dead even if they didn't know it. I don't consider CS victory as a result of the 1864 election (of the sort where everything stays the same except for Sherman not taking Atlanta) to be within the realm of plausibility.

The data on the Southern capacities comes from The Engineering and Mining Journal, vol. 54 page 54. The data on the European countries comes from

European Historical Statistics, 1750-1970, page 393.
 

dcharleos

Donor
I strongly suspect that the South around 1910 produced more than 20% of US textiles. I'm not in the mood to go down a statistical research rabbit hole right now, but let's call it 30%. If we extrapolate that (which may or may not be reasonable +/-)*, and say that the South in 1910 represented about 1/4 of the US economy, then we arrive at the figure of 130 billion. There were about 25 million people in the 11 Confederate states including West Virginia and Kentucky. So, you know...that ain't nothing.

*Even if it isn't reasonable to do for OTL, it may very well be reasonable to do for an ATL. An independent CSA is inherently a CSA that enters the peace far less devastated than the Southern states of the former Confederacy did after they lost the war IOTL. For me, that's a given for timelines where the South wins--I basically think it's impossible for the CS to win without significant changes in 1862. By 1863, they were dead even if they didn't know it. I don't consider CS victory as a result of the 1864 election (of the sort where everything stays the same except for Sherman not taking Atlanta) to be within the realm of plausibility.

So, for whatever it is worth, I noticed some crazy discrepancies with GDP numbers depending on the source. I'm tired and am sure that I'm missing something obvious here, but here: https://www.measuringworth.com/datasets/usgdp/result.php gives much different numbers than here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)#1750–1990_(Bairoch).

I'm too tired to try to figure out why. I'm sure one of you will do it.
 

samcster94

Banned
I don't know that he could. For one, I think people firmly underestimate how hard that would be. Slavery would be seen as a cornerstone to the Southern way of life and to Southern nationalism, it would be recoginized as THE issue that propelled the march towards independence. Analogous to taxation in the US. Further, slavery was engrained in the CS Constitution as a fundamental right, part of the CS Bill of Rights. In that sense, abolishing slavery in the CSA would be analogous to abolishing gun rights in the US, in the sense that it would be an engrained part of the politcal structure.

For two, I think the CSA would be much farther to the right than people anticipate, and vice versa. For almost all social issues, whether they be women's voting rights or abortion or slavery or segregation or etc, the Southern stands were forced to stamd down by those across the country. But ATL, the Southern states are their own country, and so wouldn't be forced to give up these beliefs. Thus making abolition, IMO, next to impossible.
I've heard what they'd likely be is a cross between Tsarist Russia and Apartheid South Africa(more the latter), and would be one of the most hated countries in the world in Victorian times.
 
Getting rid of slavery, being as it was a bedrock item in the CSA constitution would be a very difficult process. Factory slave labor was much less efficient than free workers, and was limited in the south anyways. An extensive slave labor system in the south, for everything from agricultural workers to street sweepers, and semiskilled industrial workers will inhibit immigration - there is less need for labor (breed more slaves) and also less incentive for people to come to the CSA. Unlike the USA there are not large open areas looking to be farmed, and fewer "entry level" jobs for immigrants who may not speak English or even be literate.
 
Top