The Boll Weevil infestation in an Independent CSA.

[Socrates]

What results? China has suceeded by establishing barriers of entry to goods at first? We suceeeded by out own use of tarrifs that allowed American Industry the breathing room it needed to expand in the 19th century. I am hardly arguing for Autarky.

US industry succeeded despite the tariffs, not thanks to them. China had sluggish growth with tariffs, and then became successful when it opened up the economy under Deng Xiaoping: its particularly warped logic to judge that as a success of the earlier regime. Equally, India still has very high tariffs and has a growth rate a fraction of China's. The rest of the former European colonies had similar experiences in the 1970s: once the commodities boom ended, growth stayed weak until they converted to free trade.

Brad DeLong:

This paper carries a well-known message: America’s high late nineteenth-century tariffs did not accelerate economic growth, or enhance America’s standard of living. It is, nevertheless, a message that needs to be reiterated for two reasons..."

...The second reason for this paper is the growth of a current of thought holding that America’s high late nineteenth-century tariffs were very good thing for growth. That this current is weak in academic economics departments is no reason for ignoring it: academic economists’ “market share” in our society’s knowledge of and debate over the economy and economic policy is much less than it used to be. Today a good journalist like James Fallows plays a larger role in shaping popular, élite, and political visions of economic policy as Robert Solow or Robert Lucas.

i.e. The idea that tariffs were beneficial is popular among journalists and historians but does not have any support among actual economists, who spend time looking at the actual numbers.

Jeffrey Williamson:

Does protection help growth? While theory may be ambiguous, late 20th century evidence certainly is not. This evidence can be found in four kinds of studies.

First, the authors of a large National Bureau of Economic Research project assessed trade and exchange-control regimes in the 1960s and 1970s by making classic partial-equilibrium calculations of deadweight losses (Bhagwati and Krueger 1973-1976). They concluded that the barriers imposed significant costs in all but one case...

Second, analysts have contrasted the growth performance of relatively open with relatively closed economies. The World Bank has conducted such studies for 41 countries going back before the first oil shock. The correlation between trade openness and growth is abundantly clear in these studies (Lindert and Williamson 2001: Table 3)...

Third, there are country event studies, where the focus is on periods when trade policy regimes change dramatically enough to see their effect on growth. For example, Anne Krueger (1983, 1984) looked at trade opening moments in South Korea around 1960, Brazil and Colombia around 1965, and Tunisia around 1970. Growth improved after liberalization in all four cases. More recently, David Dollar and Aart Kraay (2000) examined the reforms and trade liberalizations of 16 countries in the 1980s and 1990s, finding, once again, the positive correlation between freer trade and faster growth...

Fourth, macro-econometric analysis has been used in an attempt to resolve the doubts left by simpler historical correlations revealed by the other three kinds of studies. This macro-econometric literature shows that free trade policies have had a positive effect on growth in the late 20th century, especially with many other relevant influences held constant.

 

[Reggie Bartlett]

It was defacto impossible for individual states to abolish slavery due to the Dred Scott decision. Besides that they wouldn't ban slavery over that, they would merely use them to grow something else.

An individual state was not hindered to give up slavery in the CSA, the only thing it had to do was respect the slave property of other states by the owners that were sojourning with them, as in "visiting", when a Kentucky slaveholder went into Indiana in 1850 did that make Indiana a slave state all of a sudden? Same goes for an independent CSA, if a Tennessee slaveowner goes into a newly freestate Kentucky, his property is respected, but his slave being there doesn't effect state law OUTSIDE of the sojouring right.

The Cotton economy was what the slave economy in the South was dependent on, Tobacco and Sugarcane is going to have a hell of a time taking cotton's place.

Somebody (I think M79) asked for a map:

All of the original seceding states
Kentucky taken in the Heartland Offensive
Indian Territory/Sequoyah

Arizona Territory (south of the 34th Parallel, so the border between TTL's AZ/NM is 30 miles north of OTL Phoenix, and the area around the OTL city of Soccorro, NM. It includes the towns of Tucson, Pinos Altos (modern Silver City, NM), Tubac, Nogales, La Mesilla (modern Las Cruces, NM), Fort Yuma, and Fort Breckinridge and is mainly made up of everything south of the Gila River. This was the pro-Southern region of the New Mexico territory.

Sonora and Chihuahua are purchased by President Longstreet in the 1880's (say 1885-1886) to gain a Pacific coast for the CSA, not too mention these two states are a couple of Northern Mexico's best Cotton growing states, that by this time do have the Boll Weevil within them.

So on the map, all the states in dark green, plus Kentucky, Indian Territory, Arizona territory, and possibly a few counties in West Virginia.

 

[Johnrankins]

An individual state was not hindered to give up slavery in the CSA, the only thing it had to do was respect the slave property of other states by the owners that were sojourning with them, as in "visiting", when a Kentucky slaveholder went into Indiana in 1850 did that make Indiana a slave state all of a sudden? Same goes for an independent CSA, if a Tennessee slaveowner goes into a newly freestate Kentucky, his property is respected, but his slave being there doesn't effect state law OUTSIDE of the sojouring right.

The Cotton economy was what the slave economy in the South was dependent on, Tobacco and Sugarcane is going to have a hell of a time taking cotton's place.

Somebody (I think M79) asked for a map:

All of the original seceding states
Kentucky taken in the Heartland Offensive
Indian Territory/Sequoyah

Arizona Territory (south of the 34th Parallel, so the border between TTL's AZ/NM is 30 miles north of OTL Phoenix, and the area around the OTL city of Soccorro, NM. It includes the towns of Tucson, Pinos Altos (modern Silver City, NM), Tubac, Nogales, La Mesilla (modern Las Cruces, NM), Fort Yuma, and Fort Breckinridge and is mainly made up of everything south of the Gila River. This was the pro-Southern region of the New Mexico territory.

Sonora and Chihuahua are purchased by President Longstreet in the 1880's (say 1885-1886) to gain a Pacific coast for the CSA, not too mention these two states are a couple of Northern Mexico's best Cotton growing states, that by this time do have the Boll Weevil within them.

So on the map, all the states in dark green, plus Kentucky, Indian Territory, Arizona territory, and possibly a few counties in West Virginia.

There is NO WAY in hell the CSA can take or hold AZ. They would have NO MONEY to purchase land in Mexico. This is a CSA Wank!!! There is no way they would give up WV if they win that big.

One reason the Republicans won so big OTL is that many Northerners feared that the Dredd Scott decision DID in effect make them slave states. If you can "sojurn" in a state for years at a time without losing your slaves in them (Scott was in a free state FOR YEARS) how is it a free state?

 

[67th Tigers]

Somebody (I think M79) asked for a map:

This is not a very realistic map for a few reasons.

1. Delaware - it isn't going CSA. Period.
2. The territorial integrity of Virginia (and Tennessee) is not up for negotiation. Period. There can be no West Virginia in any CSA victorious scenario.
3. There is the question of Maryland. It effectively has a pro-Confederate and pro-Union half (East and West respectively).

Arizona and Indian Territory are unquestionably going to the CSA, as per the map. One should note there is no need to "conquer" AZ, it seceded on its' own and in the typical war ends in 1862 scenario is still an established CS territory..

The question is would the CSA gain the six pro-Confederate counties of California? This would give them access to the Pacific and they'd drive the Southern Pacific Railroad through to Los Angeles, probably before any Union effort was completed.

 

[Johnrankins]

This is not a very realistic map for a few reasons.

1. Delaware - it isn't going CSA. Period.
2. The territorial integrity of Virginia (and Tennessee) is not up for negotiation. Period. There can be no West Virginia in any CSA victorious scenario.
3. There is the question of Maryland. It effectively has a pro-Confederate and pro-Union half (East and West respectively).

Arizona and Indian Territory are unquestionably going to the CSA, as per the map. One should note there is no need to "conquer" AZ, it seceded on its' own and in the typical war ends in 1862 scenario is still an established CS territory..

The question is would the CSA gain the six pro-Confederate counties of California? This would give them access to the Pacific and they'd drive the Southern Pacific Railroad through to Los Angeles, probably before any Union effort was completed.

Nonsense, the territory is almost deserted which means whoever sends the most troops wins. The US is going to win that EVERY TIME.

 

[Snake Featherston]

This is not a very realistic map for a few reasons.

1. Delaware - it isn't going CSA. Period.
2. The territorial integrity of Virginia (and Tennessee) is not up for negotiation. Period. There can be no West Virginia in any CSA victorious scenario.
3. There is the question of Maryland. It effectively has a pro-Confederate and pro-Union half (East and West respectively).

Arizona and Indian Territory are unquestionably going to the CSA, as per the map. One should note there is no need to "conquer" AZ, it seceded on its' own and in the typical war ends in 1862 scenario is still an established CS territory..

The question is would the CSA gain the six pro-Confederate counties of California? This would give them access to the Pacific and they'd drive the Southern Pacific Railroad through to Los Angeles, probably before any Union effort was completed.

Actually no it's not. Glorietta Pass was in March, and the typical war ends in 1862 scenario is in the fall for the good reason that it will take until then for the Confederate armies to get their one chance for a joint strategic offensive.

And West Virginia will be ceded to the CSA the day Hell freezes over.

 

[mowque]

This would give them access to the Pacific and they'd drive the Southern Pacific Railroad through to Los Angeles, probably before any Union effort was completed.

Yeah, I really doubt that. I mean, really doubt that. You are a smart guy, don't you know what it took to build the OLD railway?

 

[benjamin]

This is not a very realistic map for a few reasons.

1. Delaware - it isn't going CSA. Period.
2. The territorial integrity of Virginia (and Tennessee) is not up for negotiation. Period. There can be no West Virginia in any CSA victorious scenario.
3. There is the question of Maryland. It effectively has a pro-Confederate and pro-Union half (East and West respectively).

Arizona and Indian Territory are unquestionably going to the CSA, as per the map. One should note there is no need to "conquer" AZ, it seceded on its' own and in the typical war ends in 1862 scenario is still an established CS territory..

The question is would the CSA gain the six pro-Confederate counties of California? This would give them access to the Pacific and they'd drive the Southern Pacific Railroad through to Los Angeles, probably before any Union effort was completed.

1. I agree Delaware is staying put.

2. No. The counter secession of western counties from Virginia was a done deal even before the mid-term elections of 1862. While the new state that emerged following whatever peace treaty that brings Confederate independence would almost certainly have been smaller, it would have happened.

3. A swap of territory with regards to pro-Union western Virginia and the pro-secessionist Chesapeake Bay counties of Maryland is perhaps the most realistic option here. This leaves the status of DC up in the air and perhaps makes Baltimore a border or even "free" city. If this ocurrs it may give rise to a new US state called something like Appalachia or even Transylvania that incorporates portions of Virginia and Maryland.

Here is a map to illustrate how the division of Virginia might go if the Union is less successful. The referendum it illustrates took place on Oct. 24, 1862. So only a peaceful allowance of secession or a complete Confederate Wank right off the back could have prevented the dismemberment of Virginia.

Furthermore, your obsession with a pro-Confederate California is a bit odd, but given that I make modified use of it in my War of the Two Commonwealths TL, I'll let it slide.

Benjamin

 

[Johnrankins]

Actually no it's not. Glorietta Pass was in March, and the typical war ends in 1862 scenario is in the fall for the good reason that it will take until then for the Confederate armies to get their one chance for a joint strategic offensive.

And West Virginia will be ceded to the CSA the day Hell freezes over.

Exactly and the New Mexico Campagin went so bad for the CSA that Canby was promoted to Brig Gen and the Confederacy never made another attempt to gain AZ. Sibley was eventually demoted to directing supply trains and the New Mexico Campagin almost certainly was a part of it.

 

[Reggie Bartlett]

There is NO WAY in hell the CSA can take or hold AZ. They would have NO MONEY to purchase land in Mexico. This is a CSA Wank!!! There is no way they would give up WV if they win that big.

One reason the Republicans won so big OTL is that many Northerners feared that the Dredd Scott decision DID in effect make them slave states. If you can "sojurn" in a state for years at a time without losing your slaves in them (Scott was in a free state FOR YEARS) how is it a free state?

John, do you know where I got that picture? Wikipedia, that is a map of the CSA and it's claimed territories, it was the best I could do! For some reason the site won't let me post the maps I already had made on here.

And did you not read my last post, I said "a few West Virginia counties" (which is plausible) not the whole state. And by sojourn, that literally means "visit", said slaveowners and slaves in a free state are going to have to leave eventually.

Nonsense, the territory is almost deserted which means whoever sends the most troops wins. The US is going to win that EVERY TIME.

Like I said John, the towns of Tucson, Mesilla, Pinos Altos and Tubac would disagree with you.

1. I agree Delaware is staying put.

Yes, Delaware is staying in the Union.

2. No. The counter secession of western counties from Virginia was a done deal even before the mid-term elections of 1862. While the new state that emerged following whatever peace treaty that brings Confederate independence would almost certainly have been smaller, it would have happened.

Exactly, though I think the Union might armtwist some counties into joining the new West Virginia.

3. A swap of territory with regards to pro-Union western Virginia and the pro-secessionist Chesapeake Bay counties of Maryland is perhaps the most realistic option here. This leaves the status of DC up in the air and perhaps makes Baltimore a border or even "free" city. If this ocurrs it may give rise to a new US state called something like Appalachia or even Transylvania that incorporates portions of Virginia and Maryland.

Part of TTL's peace agreement is that the CSA gives up it's claim to Maryland, though the Chesapeake counties of Maryland being part of the CSA and flanking DC from two sides is pretty much going to make the US capitol move somewhere else.

Here is a map to illustrate how the division of Virginia might go if the Union is less successful. The referendum it illustrates took place on Oct. 24, 1862. So only a peaceful allowance of secession or a complete Confederate Wank right off the back could have prevented the dismemberment of Virginia.

The POD is in late September, before Antietam, whatever happens the Maryland Campaign as we know it didn't happen. Lee bloodynoses McClellan in western Maryland (like Fredrick, Maryland or something) and earns the CSA recognition. So this referendum just may be butterflied away.

Furthermore, your obsession with a pro-Confederate California is a bit odd, but given that I make modified use of it in my War of the Two Commonwealths TL, I'll let it slide.

Benjamin

I don't think California is going anywhere outside the Union. So the CSA of TTL is made up of 12 states and 2 territories in 1863. And then of 12-14 states (after aquisition of Sonora and Chihuahua) and 2 territories.

 

[Johnrankins]

John, do you know where I got that picture? Wikipedia, that is a map of the CSA and it's claimed territories, it was the best I could do! For some reason the site won't let me post the maps I already had made on here.

And did you not read my last post, I said "a few West Virginia counties" (which is plausible) not the whole state. And by sojourn, that literally means "visit", said slaveowners and slaves in a free state are going to have to leave eventually.



Like I said John, the towns of Tucson, Mesilla, Pinos Altos and Tubac would disagree with you.



I don't think California is going anywhere outside the Union. So the CSA of TTL is made up of 12 states and 2 territories in 1863. And then of 12-14 states (after aquisition of Sonora and Chihuahua) and 2 territories.

Tucson, Mesilla, Pinos Altos and Tubac were TOWNS while the North had actual real cities. There are very few people living in AZ at the time. The CSA could claim the moon, that doesn't mean it actually GETS IT. When sojurns can last years (which Dred Scott said they could) then it is meaninglesss. If the CSA limited it to some extent than you would have a point. Dred Scott made the term sojurn MEANINGLESS! Also how is the CSA going to be able to afford buying any part of Mexico? Even in the fall of 1862 it is deep in debt. It isn't hopelessly in debt yet but the bondholders would be paid first before any purchase of Mexican land could occur. Taxes in the CSA were low and if they had a hard time raising taxes when there backs were against the wall as in OTL how are they going to raise them in peacetime?

 

[Reggie Bartlett]

Tucson, Mesilla, Pinos Altos and Tubac were TOWNS while the North had actual real cities. There are very few people living in AZ at the time. The CSA could claim the moon, that doesn't mean it actually GETS IT. When sojurns can last years (which Dred Scott said they could) then it is meaninglesss. If the CSA limited it to some extent than you would have a point. Dred Scott made the term sojurn MEANINGLESS!

Tucson was the biggest town outside of Santa Fe, it mattered ALOT, and it was pro-Confederate.

If it's a free state, and the boll weevil starts making free states out of the Confederacy there isn't going to be many places left to go.

Sojourn does NOT mean stay permanently!

 

[Johnrankins]

Tucson was the biggest town outside of Santa Fe, it mattered ALOT, and it was pro-Confederate.

If it's a free state, and the boll weevil starts making free states out of the Confederacy there isn't going to be many places left to go.

Sojourn does NOT mean stay permanently!

Santa Fe wasn't very big either. The southwest had nothing to compare with Chicago, Cincinatti or Boston. They didn't have anything compared to Richmond, Nasheville or New Orleans for that matter. AZ gets overun by the Union everytime. It simply didn't have the population to protect itself. Under the Dredd Scott decision sojurn DID mean stay permanently for all practical purposes. Dredd Scott was up north FOR YEARS and it didn't matter.

 

[benjamin]

The New Mexico - Arizona debate is one left for the eventual peace treaty. A very quick victory might give the Arizona Territory to the Confederacy. But this will probably come as part of a larger deal that gives the Union some concessions such as free and open transit along the entire Mississippi.

The fate of the American Southwest was still pretty open at this time. There was even an effort by the French and their puppet Maximilian to perhaps coax some of the Southwest back into Mexico. Even wackier are some of schemes put forward to Napoleon III that the Confederacy might be willing to accept a European monarch as the price of political recognition. See Lincoln and the Emperors by A.R. Tyrner-Tyrnauer and D.P. Crook's excellent The North, the South and the Powers: 1861 - 1865 for over views of these ill fated ideas.

Of course it may come down to what Britain wants. Is she willing to to fight for the Confederacy? Once she recognizes the Confederacy as an independent nation, she may have no choice (and make no mistake British recognition is critical for the Confederacy). If Britain is in for a pinch she may be in for a pound but once the fighting is over cooler heads will come forth. Men like Cobden will come forward and challenge the British government that got the nation into war in the first place. The peace will most likely end up mild for the Union. Britain has every reason not to further provoke the US and the pro-Union / anti-slavery crowd will be causing quite a ruckus in Parliament.

California will stay Union. Confederate California is a no go. They can't win it on the battlefield, and the UK doesn't want slavery expanded from sea to shining sea. An independent California is possible, but the UK will be wary of having supported "another Texas" that will eventually fill up with Americans and be annexed by the Union. Also, without California more Americans will move into British Columbia where their numbers are already frighteningly high. Logistics and demographic realities work against the UK along the American West Coast in nearly every scenario. And despite what others have said the Union, with Herman Haupt in charge, will have a trans-continental railroad up and running long before the debate over funding is finalized in the Confederate Congress (of course then it will proceed to the courts as some states argue over its constitutionality, but given that there isn't yet a Confederate Supreme Court, because Davis is wary of such a body, it will be delayed even longer by which time the Union will have completed both the central route from St. Louis and the northern route from St. Paul). As the Puget Sound and California fill up with pro-Union immigrants any likelihood of further dismembering the US will die and Britain will have to worry about their own hold on their half of the old Oregon/Columbia Territory.

As for Confederate Arizona...sure some pockets of cotton growing will arise along the rivers and mining (with deplore conditions for those slaves unfortunate enough to end up in the arid south west) will give the illusion that secession was a good idea. But as the Union Army pushes more disgruntled Apaches and Comanches into the less organized regions of the Confederacy, the lack of assistance from a central government adverse to funding internal improvements such as irrigation, interstate roads and railroads will take its toll. The mixed bands of Indians and escaped slaves that constantly raid farms and blow up mines will make the Seminoles look like amateurs. And without an outlet to the Pacific or the Gulf and no railroad yet completed, economic prosperity will lag far behind the boom towns of the Union's Cimarron Territory which lies directly north.

Benjamin

 

[Reggie Bartlett]

The New Mexico - Arizona debate is one left for the eventual peace treaty. A very quick victory might give the Arizona Territory to the Confederacy. But this will probably come as part of a larger deal that gives the Union some concessions such as free and open transit along the entire Mississippi.

The fate of the American Southwest was still pretty open at this time. There was even an effort by the French and their puppet Maximilian to perhaps coax some of the Southwest back into Mexico. Even wackier are some of schemes put forward to Napoleon III that the Confederacy might be willing to accept a European monarch as the price of political recognition. See Lincoln and the Emperors by A.R. Tyrner-Tyrnauer and D.P. Crook's excellent The North, the South and the Powers: 1861 - 1865 for over views of these ill fated ideas.

Of course it may come down to what Britain wants. Is she willing to to fight for the Confederacy? Once she recognizes the Confederacy as an independent nation, she may have no choice (and make no mistake British recognition is critical for the Confederacy). If Britain is in for a pinch she may be in for a pound but once the fighting is over cooler heads will come forth. Men like Cobden will come forward and challenge the British government that got the nation into war in the first place. The peace will most likely end up mild for the Union. Britain has every reason not to further provoke the US and the pro-Union / anti-slavery crowd will be causing quite a ruckus in Parliament.

California will stay Union. Confederate California is a no go. They can't win it on the battlefield, and the UK doesn't want slavery expanded from sea to shining sea. An independent California is possible, but the UK will be wary of having supported "another Texas" that will eventually fill up with Americans and be annexed by the Union. Also, without California more Americans will move into British Columbia where their numbers are already frighteningly high. Logistics and demographic realities work against the UK along the American West Coast in nearly every scenario. And despite what others have said the Union, with Herman Haupt in charge, will have a trans-continental railroad up and running long before the debate over funding is finalized in the Confederate Congress (of course then it will proceed to the courts as some states argue over its constitutionality, but given that there isn't yet a Confederate Supreme Court, because Davis is wary of such a body, it will be delayed even longer by which time the Union will have completed both the central route from St. Louis and the northern route from St. Paul). As the Puget Sound and California fill up with pro-Union immigrants any likelihood of further dismembering the US will die and Britain will have to worry about their own hold on their half of the old Oregon/Columbia Territory.

As for Confederate Arizona...sure some pockets of cotton growing will arise along the rivers and mining (with deplore conditions for those slaves unfortunate enough to end up in the arid south west) will give the illusion that secession was a good idea. But as the Union Army pushes more disgruntled Apaches and Comanches into the less organized regions of the Confederacy, the lack of assistance from a central government adverse to funding internal improvements such as irrigation, interstate roads and railroads will take its toll. The mixed bands of Indians and escaped slaves that constantly raid farms and blow up mines will make the Seminoles look like amateurs. And without an outlet to the Pacific or the Gulf and no railroad yet completed, economic prosperity will lag far behind the boom towns of the Union's Cimarron Territory which lies directly north.

Benjamin

Very good points. I live in one of the cotton farming communities that existed just after the Gadsen purchase. The Gila River & York valleys, San Pedro River, Salt River and Santa Cruz valleys are already big cotton growing areas in OTL, all of these valleys would end up in Confederate Arizona after the peace treaty.

In this region as well, the silver mining districts started popping up in the 1870s. What makes up modern Cochise, Santa Cruz and Pima counties would start popping up into silver mining camps. It wouldn't be too surprising to see towns like Tombstone, Benson, Buford, Total Wreck, Big Bug, Kentucky Camp, Helvetia, Clifton, Charleston, Contention and Bisbee still pop up for whites and blacks in the East to move to, just as the future Confederate-Mexican states start becoming part of Dixie's expanded frontier.

 

[Johnrankins]

The New Mexico - Arizona debate is one left for the eventual peace treaty. A very quick victory might give the Arizona Territory to the Confederacy. But this will probably come as part of a larger deal that gives the Union some concessions such as free and open transit along the entire Mississippi.

The fate of the American Southwest was still pretty open at this time. There was even an effort by the French and their puppet Maximilian to perhaps coax some of the Southwest back into Mexico. Even wackier are some of schemes put forward to Napoleon III that the Confederacy might be willing to accept a European monarch as the price of political recognition. See Lincoln and the Emperors by A.R. Tyrner-Tyrnauer and D.P. Crook's excellent The North, the South and the Powers: 1861 - 1865 for over views of these ill fated ideas.

Of course it may come down to what Britain wants. Is she willing to to fight for the Confederacy? Once she recognizes the Confederacy as an independent nation, she may have no choice (and make no mistake British recognition is critical for the Confederacy). If Britain is in for a pinch she may be in for a pound but once the fighting is over cooler heads will come forth. Men like Cobden will come forward and challenge the British government that got the nation into war in the first place. The peace will most likely end up mild for the Union. Britain has every reason not to further provoke the US and the pro-Union / anti-slavery crowd will be causing quite a ruckus in Parliament.

California will stay Union. Confederate California is a no go. They can't win it on the battlefield, and the UK doesn't want slavery expanded from sea to shining sea. An independent California is possible, but the UK will be wary of having supported "another Texas" that will eventually fill up with Americans and be annexed by the Union. Also, without California more Americans will move into British Columbia where their numbers are already frighteningly high. Logistics and demographic realities work against the UK along the American West Coast in nearly every scenario. And despite what others have said the Union, with Herman Haupt in charge, will have a trans-continental railroad up and running long before the debate over funding is finalized in the Confederate Congress (of course then it will proceed to the courts as some states argue over its constitutionality, but given that there isn't yet a Confederate Supreme Court, because Davis is wary of such a body, it will be delayed even longer by which time the Union will have completed both the central route from St. Louis and the northern route from St. Paul). As the Puget Sound and California fill up with pro-Union immigrants any likelihood of further dismembering the US will die and Britain will have to worry about their own hold on their half of the old Oregon/Columbia Territory.

As for Confederate Arizona...sure some pockets of cotton growing will arise along the rivers and mining (with deplore conditions for those slaves unfortunate enough to end up in the arid south west) will give the illusion that secession was a good idea. But as the Union Army pushes more disgruntled Apaches and Comanches into the less organized regions of the Confederacy, the lack of assistance from a central government adverse to funding internal improvements such as irrigation, interstate roads and railroads will take its toll. The mixed bands of Indians and escaped slaves that constantly raid farms and blow up mines will make the Seminoles look like amateurs. And without an outlet to the Pacific or the Gulf and no railroad yet completed, economic prosperity will lag far behind the boom towns of the Union's Cimarron Territory which lies directly north.

Benjamin

I doubt it. The Union would want to make sure that the CSA has no access to the Pacific and that map make South CA vulnerable. Free travel up and down the Mississippi would be more important to the CSA than the USA. The US can rail everything east if need be. Without free access to the Mississippi the trade is going be shipped through Boston instead of New Orleans.

 

[Johnrankins]

Very good points. I live in one of the cotton farming communities that existed just after the Gadsen purchase. The Gila River & York valleys, San Pedro River, Salt River and Santa Cruz valleys are already big cotton growing areas in OTL, all of these valleys would end up in Confederate Arizona after the peace treaty.

In this region as well, the silver mining districts started popping up in the 1870s. What makes up modern Cochise, Santa Cruz and Pima counties would start popping up into silver mining camps. It wouldn't be too surprising to see towns like Tombstone, Benson, Buford, Total Wreck, Big Bug, Kentucky Camp, Helvetia, Clifton, Charleston, Contention and Bisbee still pop up for whites and blacks in the East to move to, just as the future Confederate-Mexican states start becoming part of Dixie's expanded frontier.

You still haven't explained how on God's green Earth the CSA is going to afford buying ANY land from Mexico. Even in 1862 it is heavily in debt. It isn't hopeless but everyone wants to be paid off first.

 

[Reggie Bartlett]

OTL Boll Weevil infestation:

TTL's CSA circa 1890-1900 in the attachment.

 

[mowque]

Where did you find that OTL Weveill map?

 

[Reggie Bartlett]

Where did you find that OTL Weveill map?

http://www.intimeandplace.org/Great%20Migration/images/bollweevils.html

Cotton growing regions and elevation of OTL Arizona (TTL's western Arizona):

http://ag.arizona.edu/plp/GIS/AEW99/elevations.jpg

I live in the light blue surrounded by the vast dark blue. That my friends is the Gila Valley, it was settled by a few families of Mormons during the Civil War, which would be interesting if they end up in the CSA.