The CSA wins...now what?

The problem with saying the South WILL industrialise because it MUST is that the same argument applies to Tanzania. It deliberately and utterly rejected the model of industrial capitalism/wage labor practiced in the North, and will continue to do so until it loses a war (or experiences some similar calamity, I suppose, but war's about the only stimulus that FORCES change on the scale needed). And the problem with that is that there's one nation the CSA is likely to lose a war to, and that adversary is likely to hurt the CSA so badly it can't even recover and learn its lesson.

I'm pretty sure Mexico has no interest in any CSA territory but Texas, New Mexico if the CSA got a generous peace. The idea of Mexico getting it together enough to take and hold Texas is interesting, though...that might let the remainder of the CSA survive and wake up to the need to industrialise. How has Mexico progressed, that it thinks this is a good idea and has the power to do so?

Texas leaving once the oil industry takes off seems likely - they were already primus inter pares by that point, and suddenly they're looking at being the cash cow for the rest of the CSA in perpetuity. Don't expect they'll like that.

Most likely, though...around WWI, when all the veterans of the War of Secession are dead, the CSA declares war on the USA over all the latter day John Browns (despite the profound inadvisability of this that we all see). This may or may not be connected to a European theatre or to Mexico and a German telegram. The USA government may eventually forgive and move on, but it's just too easy and too much fun for a northerner, or a society of northerners, to buy a bunch of revolvers and radios and ship them to slaves in Virginia. Over and over. Whenever they're bored and have some pocket change. The CSA will have to liberalise and industrialise, or else neutralise its neighbor, and it's certain to choose the wrong option.
 
Just a little something this thread inspired.

[...]We have all heard the arguments that the so-called "Progressive Party" has put forth regarding the spread of industry and its place in the Confederate economies. They claim that, should we avoid building factories, we would be left behind by the rest of the world. Such thinking is ignorant of international and interstate trade. We all know that cotton is king, and our crop will continue to provide capital in the foreseeable future, from which we could purchase manufactured goods from other nations; hence, there is not now, and there will not soon be, any need to waste our money building filthy factories on our soil. It is that sort of thinking, that all needs must be accounted for domestically, that leads to the sort of imperialism we freed ourselves from twenty years ago.[...]

-Edward Pierre, candidate for governor of Louisiana, outlining his platform for the Democratic party for the 1884 elections.

EDIT:
I imagine that by the 1880s, some of the confederate states, like Virginia and parts of Georgia, would have already begun industrializing, while states such as Mississippi and Alabama, and to a lesser extent Louisiana, would have resisted the process. Here, Mr. Pierre is arguing that factories are unnecessary and possibly counterproductive in the short- to middle-term. He makes no statement regarding the long-term. He probably won't win this election, though that depends on the rest of his party's platform.
 
Last edited:
For some reason, my mind keeps shorting out as I try to make sense of what he's saying. Is he saying that yes, he is anti-industry?

:eek:
 

Spengler

Banned
For some reason, my mind keeps shorting out as I try to make sense of what he's saying. Is he saying that yes, he is anti-industry?

:eek:
Well many of the ruling class were quite anti industry. It was one of the reasons the place was so backwards.
 
Back to the question of Confederate political parties. What parties are likely to form in the CSA? I read somewhere that the south was made up primarily of democrats, but with opposing views of states rights. The political base of the Confederacy seemed to be split between the Nationalists (who wanted a strong federal government) and the Libertarians (who wanted a weak federal government and more power to the states).

So... might we see a Nationalist Party and an early Libertarian Party?

Thoughts? Other ideas?
 
I've been playing around with the idea of Confederate Civil War that is analogous to the Spanish Civil War, with the left part being the Patriots and the conservative party being the Democrat-Whigs.
 
Anyone who finds alternate history at all fascinating has probably pondered the question: What if the south had won the civil war? While I find it relatively simple to theorize a plausible scenerio in which they could win the war, I find it terribly difficult to imagine any scenerio in which the CSA could have prospered. Some people speculate about railroads, and conquests of Latin America but as imagine these things I wonder such questions as: " How could a nation with little or no industry, and no desire to industrialize, ever survive in an ever industrializing world? How could a country with secession written into its constitution ever stay united long enough to reassemble the resources, especially an army, capable of a conquest of Latin America? Unable to answer these questions I turn to you my peers and ask the question: " So the CSA wins...now what?"

Use the search engine.

Your basic premises are severely lacking in factual accuracy.

I will not comment on the repetition issue.
 
The problem with saying the South WILL industrialise because it MUST is that the same argument applies to Tanzania. It deliberately and utterly rejected the model of industrial capitalism/wage labor practiced in the North, and will continue to do so until it loses a war (or experiences some similar calamity, I suppose, but war's about the only stimulus that FORCES change on the scale needed). And the problem with that is that there's one nation the CSA is likely to lose a war to, and that adversary is likely to hurt the CSA so badly it can't even recover and learn its lesson.

In 1861 the South was the among the top five states in the world in terms of industrialization. Tanzania was a series of semi-subject slave-trading partners to the Sultanate of Oman.

Yeah.
 
In 1861 the South was the among the top five states in the world in terms of industrialization. Tanzania was a series of semi-subject slave-trading partners to the Sultanate of Oman.

Yeah.

An independent Confederacy industrializing is going to have major political and ideological barriers in its path to do so.
 
An independent Confederacy industrializing is going to have major political and ideological barriers in its path to do so.

Sure. It's going to fall in the rankings as states like Germany form and ones like Russia get their act together. But.... so what? It already was industrialized by the standards of the time. States around the world were heavily sponsoring industry for reasons of national security throughout the period. Given the very real concerns of having autonomous sources of heavy industry for defence and for rail to better tie the country together, and that other market forces tended to make industry a more profitable concern as the 19th century continued, I fail to see why the Confederacy would either regress or stagnate in industrial potential.

Of course, if you mean that the CSA will never be as industrialized as the USA, Britain, and France.... Well then we agree completely. I only take issue with blanket statements that the country could not industrialize, when it already had and was in a situation that would tend to favor further movement in that direction.
 
The problem was that the northern banks would not loan the money necessary to industrialise at a reasonable rate.

Considering that the south was building railroads at the same rate as the rest of the country, northern banks obviously had no problem lending to southern businesses. OTOH, the 1860 Census data seems to indicate southern industry was less profitable than industry in the rest of the country, which easily explains why the loans were going elsewhere.

IMHO: An independent CSA (with or without California)

California? The Confederacy had about as much chance of annexing California as the Fenians had of annexing western Canada. :rolleyes:

and will be a fairly prosperous nation, probably more so than the USAin the short-medium term

Because everyone knows a nation with collapsing infrastructure, spiraling inflation, no hard currency, significant foreign debt, no tariffs to protect native industry, and a third or more of its labor force dead, fled, crippled, or in arms against it will do better than its larger, more industrialized neighbor.:rolleyes:

(and US prosperity long term will certainly be harmed with the loss of access to the Tennessee, the major industrial regions around the Great Lakes no longer have a secure route for their goods).

Apparently you’ve never heard of railroads, canals, or the Great Lakes themselves if you think the Midwest no longer had a secure route for their goods.

And if the peacetime Confederacy tries to close the Mississippi to Union goods, it will no longer be peacetime.

As for Latin America, there's no indication of any potential moves there.

I take it you’re unfamiliar with CSA attempts to annex northern Mexico during the ACW. Or the filibusters. Or the Ostend Manifesto. Or the Knights of the Golden Circle.
 
So, the South likely is an ally during its first 20 years of the UK and France.

That’s certainly what the Confederacy would want, but British and French will only support the Confederacy if it’s in their own best interests. If the Confederacy goes to war with anyone, they will not be able to count on British or French support. If the CSA tries to expand into the Caribbean or re-open the international slave trade, there’s a significant chance Britain will declare war on the Confederacy.

I'm not so certain the CSA would want a French puppet state near their borders, so they'd probably very clumsily try to stir up trouble.

The French puppet state would be friendlier to the CSA than Juarist Mexico. Of course the Confederates have just won a war after making an unprovoked attack on a larger, friendly power so I wouldn’t count on common sense to prevail.

French colonial officers were fond of the fait accompli. They’d invade neighboring countries without authorization, counting on the fact the French government would never hand their conquests back to the natives.

The South, once it got a lot of issues taken care of, would have created a more libertarian version of the USA with slavery for the South what industry is to the North.

The Confederacy was reactionary so I’d expect social progress to be significantly slower than in OTL.

Depending on which scenario occurs, the best the CSA can do is keep issues between Gulf Coast states, Atlantic Coast states, and Texas, from becoming the sort of problems it did for the Union before the breakup.

There’s also the specific needs and desires of the Border States and those that depend on trade on the Mississippi. That’s going to take series of skilled and diplomatic CSA presidents to keep the whole thing from spinning apart.

Combine the boll weevil with anything similar to OTLs Great Depression and I’d expect at least some individual Confederate states to go fascist or communist. Some whites will advocate expulsion or extermination of blacks. Some blacks will advocate expulsion or extermination of whites. Unless the majority of the Confederate States go with the same economic and racial ideology, balkanization may be the best you can hope for. If the CSA is really lucky they end up with something as comparatively moderate and unified as 1930s Italy.
 
And what about the territory inbetween California/Oregon and the Eastern Seaboard? Would there be a rush between the two powers to carve up the Midwest?

The Midwest already had more free population and a lot more industry than the Confederacy. And even the Copperheads didn’t want to join the Confederacy.

Confederate attempts to invade the West met with ignominious failure.

And i dont believe that the South would simply allow itself to stagnate.

Not changing was the specific intention of a significant portion of Confederate leadership. They’d fail, but I’d expect social and econmic progress to be slower than in OTL.

With European intervention in the Civil War perhaps, maybe the South would think colonial expansion more viable than the US...maybe a few small colonies in Africa.

They’re far more likely to seek colonies in Central America or the Caribbean. In the Scramble for Africa, the Confederacy is going to have to stand in line behind jonnie-come-latelies like Germany and Italy. Such “prizes” should be nigh worthless to a colonial power and so disease ridden that the main thing they produce is dead Confederates.

And Oil surely would bring an economic renaissance to the CSA in the mid-20th Century.

Did oil bring an economic renaissance to the mid-20th century Middle East? Or did the money mainly line the pockets of those already in charge?
 
Sure. It's going to fall in the rankings as states like Germany form and ones like Russia get their act together. But.... so what? It already was industrialized by the standards of the time. States around the world were heavily sponsoring industry for reasons of national security throughout the period. Given the very real concerns of having autonomous sources of heavy industry for defence and for rail to better tie the country together, and that other market forces tended to make industry a more profitable concern as the 19th century continued, I fail to see why the Confederacy would either regress or stagnate in industrial potential.

That would be Germany that was essentially an empire with an army and Russia which had an extremely uneven industrialization replaced by the monstrously inefficient Soviet successor? Hardly encouraging comparisons, and a bit inaccurate: Imperial Russia had far more control over its population than any Confederacy would.

Of course, if you mean that the CSA will never be as industrialized as the USA, Britain, and France.... Well then we agree completely. I only take issue with blanket statements that the country could not industrialize, when it already had and was in a situation that would tend to favor further movement in that direction.

I think that its industrialization during the later stages of the war reflect more the breakdown of the Confederacy that would be the one that actually *wins* the war. For the Confederacy to ape the USA means that it effectively is in deep shit, most likely the kind that turning into victory is as likely as Germany winning post-Bagration.

That’s certainly what the Confederacy would want, but British and French will only support the Confederacy if it’s in their own best interests. If the Confederacy goes to war with anyone, they will not be able to count on British or French support. If the CSA tries to expand into the Caribbean or re-open the international slave trade, there’s a significant chance Britain will declare war on the Confederacy.

It would be an ally in the short term for France due to wanting something more than just France to prop up Maximilian and for the British a way to squeeze the USA in the balls with any geopolitical issues without the USA countering them. It would be convenience, no more and no less.

The French puppet state would be friendlier to the CSA than Juarist Mexico. Of course the Confederates have just won a war after making an unprovoked attack on a larger, friendly power so I wouldn’t count on common sense to prevail.

French colonial officers were fond of the fait accompli. They’d invade neighboring countries without authorization, counting on the fact the French government would never hand their conquests back to the natives.

Depends on how much either the planters or the military junta consider the Monroe Doctrine a viable idea.

The Confederacy was reactionary so I’d expect social progress to be significantly slower than in OTL.

It was reactionary in wartime despite the war moving to shred the CSA's political institutions. Given time to consolidate in peace I think the surveillance state elements of the Slave South would make it comparable to the USSR in the best case.

There’s also the specific needs and desires of the Border States and those that depend on trade on the Mississippi. That’s going to take series of skilled and diplomatic CSA presidents to keep the whole thing from spinning apart.

Combine the boll weevil with anything similar to OTLs Great Depression and I’d expect at least some individual Confederate states to go fascist or communist. Some whites will advocate expulsion or extermination of blacks. Some blacks will advocate expulsion or extermination of whites. Unless the majority of the Confederate States go with the same economic and racial ideology, balkanization may be the best you can hope for. If the CSA is really lucky they end up with something as comparatively moderate and unified as 1930s Italy.

And if the CSA is starting with the drooling idiots who thought that blackmailing Britain and France via King Cotton was geopolitical wisdom, that may be a short commodity to come by.
 
This thread necro was cute. I had a twenty minute panic attack trying to find what the hell was it I posted before noticing it was from three years ago.
 
Top