The U.S. after a successful Confederate secession?

So you're calling the Germans, Italians, Russians, and Dutch in the 1850s and 1860s powerful countries? This isn't the 1870s. Russia has been raped by England and France in the Crimean War, the Dutch just got screwed over after the Napoleonic Wars, and the Germans and Italians are still trying to unite into their respective countries. They sound REALLY powerful to me, compared to the English and French.

really? these the same Germans who win the Franco-Prussian War?

Are you saying that the Anglo-French will prevent trade and immigration?
 
If they never went into the 7 years war and the America Revolution, they would be fairly peachy in their autarky. Not a world economy, but a relatively comfortable status quo.

Well the OP wasn't asking about the Seven Years' War. He was asking about the Civil War. Much different topic.

The British were basically the best Great Power, but Russia wasn't that much worse off than France to be honest. On a per capita basis maybe, but not as an aggregate

You say that even when it was the French who did most of the work in the Crimean War? They sent the most troops, they were the guys that challenged Russia for control of holy sites in Judea, and other things like that. France was a far more powerful country than Russia could ever dream to be. Among the only reasons they lost Franco-Prussian War was because Prussia kept encircling their huge-ass armies and shit like that with armies of similar size. And you know what, the same thing happened with the Germans and the Russians, just the forces were much larger for the Russians than the French, and they still lost horrifically at Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes.

But I do agree with you that the British are the top dogs in the world.

really? these the same Germans who win the Franco-Prussian War?

Are you saying that the Anglo-French will prevent trade and immigration?

On the subject of the Franco-Prussian War, no, actually, these are far from the same Germans of only one decade later. No North German Confederation, no Austria-Hungary, no Spanish dynastic crisis, nothing! Germany's influence was nothing then because they were nothing!

And I never actually said the English and French would prevent trade and immigration. They would only have preferences for the South in an attempt to keep their alliance with the South as a counterbalance to the still somewhat-powerful North.
 
Well the OP wasn't asking about the Seven Years' War. He was asking about the Civil War. Much different topic.

My point was a country can be fine with only a minimal amount of export as long as they aren't addicted to imported luxuries or... need to buy good.

You say that even when it was the French who did most of the work in the Crimean War? They sent the most troops, they were the guys that challenged Russia for control of holy sites in Judea, and other things like that. France was a far more powerful country than Russia could ever dream to be. Among the only reasons they lost Franco-Prussian War was because Prussia kept encircling their huge-ass armies and shit like that with armies of similar size. And you know what, the same thing happened with the Germans and the Russians, just the forces were much larger for the Russians than the French, and they still lost horrifically at Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes.

There were many times when the Russians could have challenged the Allies and changed the fate of the Crimean War. Being a Great Power doesn't necessarily mean using that power correctly, just having it.

And I never actually said the English and French would prevent trade and immigration. They would only have preferences for the South in an attempt to keep their alliance with the South as a counterbalance to the still somewhat-powerful North.

See the thing is, I don't think the British would actually like the South, you know the slavery thing. It would be their friend that they don't like, but they do deals with.
 
Unless the Arizona territory, Kentucky, or West Virginia is part of the South, metals will be in short supply. California and the West have mineral wealth, Wisconsin with upper Michigan and Minnesota have iron ore a plenty while Pittsburgh has the mills. Steel production will be extraordinary and the US may look to Canada, Africa, South Asia, and the Pacific for additional territories/colonies. All this sets up for a global war in 15-25 years and might force the US into an even worse situation.
 
USA breaks up. The southern states just demonstrated that states can secede and do just fine, even if the federal US government tries to force them back into the union with violence. They can also form their own new federal arrangements. Whenever a group of states have a dispute with the federal government, they do this. The threat alone keeps the federal government weak.

People would also remember that if the first seven seceding states were let go peacefully, the four other states in the upper south remained in the union. So the federal government not only tried and failed to use force to prevent secession, by a portion of the country with little industry and a huge population disadvantage, but they got even more states to secede in the bargain.

Also, for the CSA to actually win, the US army would have to be in much, much worse shape than IOTL and probably the northern states much more divided.
 
If they never went into the 7 years war and the America Revolution, they would be fairly peachy in their autarky. Not a world economy, but a relatively comfortable status quo.

Also even a Rump US is far, far larger than France! If it is a natural resource that isn't a tropical fruit you can find it in the US. It is too damn big for it not to be found. It doesn't need to import a single natural resource as it has it. It also has a well educated populace and a lot of capital. The US will do fine, the CS on the other hand has nothing but cotton and tobacco and has to import virtually everything.
 
So, what we're looking at is a USA that just lost its most major source of cotton to fuel their factories: the South. This unquestionably results in a catastrophic economic depression in the North, and due to the absence of tariffs (most likely, since they hated tariffs) in the South, quite possibly an economic boom down there in contrast.

Southern politicians made similar predictions about what would happen if a civil war impeded Southern cotton exports to the rest of the world. Those proved to be wrong, and I'd be interested to here why you think the situation would be different after the civil war ended.

The Union will likely be alienated by the British and French due to the two country's support of the Confederacy, and when you're alienated by mid-19th century Britain and France, you're pretty much alienated by the whole damn world. Thus, pariah state.

Any alienation would likely be on the American side. The US might (or then again might not) go into full revanchist mode, but Britain and France would probably just shrug and move on to the next colonial adventure.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Actually the British (for some reason I can't understand given that it's the 1800s) absolutely hated slavery.
Basic human decency.


For what it's worth, economically the US has the problem that the main cash crops of the pre-war US were cotton and indigo - both things grown in the South. The North has little in the way of export material by contrast (grain is fungible, like any foodstuff, while southern cotton is as good as it gets.)
The independence of the South is a shock to the system like the US never had in OTL. I have to wonder if the result would be perhaps a little more humility as a nation...

Southern politicians made similar predictions about what would happen if a civil war impeded Southern cotton exports to the rest of the world. Those proved to be wrong, and I'd be interested to here why you think the situation would be different after the civil war ended.
Partly because there absolutely was an economic depression in Britain and France due to the cotton famine. It wasn't a cotton dearth, though, because the North kept capturing cotton and selling it abroad and because of blockade runners.
 
of course the north will trade with the south. the same way the US traded with Britain after the revolution. any talk to the contrary is silly. the two make for natural trade partners. England traded with France during in the midst of the Napoleonic Wars, so it's obvious people can get past animosity if there's a buck involved.
 
USA breaks up. The southern states just demonstrated that states can secede and do just fine, even if the federal US government tries to force them back into the union with violence. They can also form their own new federal arrangements. Whenever a group of states have a dispute with the federal government, they do this. The threat alone keeps the federal government weak.

People would also remember that if the first seven seceding states were let go peacefully, the four other states in the upper south remained in the union. So the federal government not only tried and failed to use force to prevent secession, by a portion of the country with little industry and a huge population disadvantage, but they got even more states to secede in the bargain.

Also, for the CSA to actually win, the US army would have to be in much, much worse shape than IOTL and probably the northern states much more divided.
Any reason why other states would secede?
 
Any reason why other states would secede?
California for example, if all of the gold is going east and there seems to be no benefits back in California that would probably create at least some secessionist sentiment. Although I'd expect any US government to take some measures to counter it e.g. faster building of a trans-continental railway.
 
California for example, if all of the gold is going east and there seems to be no benefits back in California that would probably create at least some secessionist sentiment. Although I'd expect any US government to take some measures to counter it e.g. faster building of a trans-continental railway.
That gold has already pretty much been ran out.
Any other reasons? I don't see New England seceding, or California.
The CSA is more prone to break up, it was pretty unstable.
 
of course the north will trade with the south. the same way the US traded with Britain after the revolution. any talk to the contrary is silly. the two make for natural trade partners. England traded with France during in the midst of the Napoleonic Wars, so it's obvious people can get past animosity if there's a buck involved.
And even of not, there will be plenty of indirect trade via intermediaries. The USA might e.g. ban the importation of slave produced cotton, but that does in no way mean that cotton from the CSA won't get there, it'll simply be transported to e.g. the Bahamas, rebranded there as cotton from somewhere else and then, at a higher price, sold on to the USA.
 
And I never actually said the English and French would prevent trade and immigration. They would only have preferences for the South in an attempt to keep their alliance with the South as a counterbalance to the still somewhat-powerful North.

You see there is only one thing wrong with this statement. France and the United Kingdom weren't allied to the Confederacy.

Now thats not to say that France and Britain would not deal with a slave owning nation - they bought cotton from Brazil who had slaves in the 1860's and 1870's (before Egypt and Turkey tried to enter the UK market). But Brazil was a different kind of slave owning nation - slavery was around half as prevalent as in the Confederacy and there were an order of magnitude more free persons of colour than there were in the confederacy. And Brazil finished with the slave trade by the 1880's as would the Confederacy in an independence scenario.

Anyway - by 1890 cotton formed about 25% by value of US exports. And the Confederacy in 1860 was 30% of the population. Assuming a similar population growth policy for both post a successful Confederate succession then I don't see the US as suffering inordinately in proportion to its population. The Confederacy would be locked into an agri-economy (later a petro-economy) whilst the US expands in its traditional strengths in manufacturing.

Long story short - both do well until an alt-Great Depression where I suspect the Confederacy will suffer worst from civil unrest
 
You see there is only one thing wrong with this statement. France and the United Kingdom weren't allied to the Confederacy.

Now thats not to say that France and Britain would not deal with a slave owning nation - they bought cotton from Brazil who had slaves in the 1860's and 1870's (before Egypt and Turkey tried to enter the UK market). But Brazil was a different kind of slave owning nation - slavery was around half as prevalent as in the Confederacy and there were an order of magnitude more free persons of colour than there were in the confederacy. And Brazil finished with the slave trade by the 1880's as would the Confederacy in an independence scenario.

Anyway - by 1890 cotton formed about 25% by value of US exports. And the Confederacy in 1860 was 30% of the population. Assuming a similar population growth policy for both post a successful Confederate succession then I don't see the US as suffering inordinately in proportion to its population. The Confederacy would be locked into an agri-economy (later a petro-economy) whilst the US expands in its traditional strengths in manufacturing.

Long story short - both do well until an alt-Great Depression where I suspect the Confederacy will suffer worst from civil unrest

Extremely unlikely, many people in the CSA fought and died to preserve slavery. The CSA Constitution protected slavery so much , as one person put it, "The CSA stopped just short of requiring every White Person to own a slave". It is almost politically impossible for them to outlaw slavery a mere quarter century later. They revolted to get away from Abolitionism and now they are embracing it because of Brazil? Absurd. Since when did most Americans know or care what the people of Brazil thought?
 
Extremely unlikely, many people in the CSA fought and died to preserve slavery. The CSA Constitution protected slavery so much , as one person put it, "The CSA stopped just short of requiring every White Person to own a slave". It is almost politically impossible for them to outlaw slavery a mere quarter century later. They revolted to get away from Abolitionism and now they are embracing it because of Brazil? Absurd. Since when did most Americans know or care what the people of Brazil thought?
It doesn't matter what Brazillians think, it matters what the UK papers think. If the CSA persists in retaining slavery then in an era that sees the emergence of organised labour and socialism then they will see embargoes and tariffs raised against their main crops. Also - as Brazil found - slaves are not so cheap when acts of nature strike. They have to be fed - see Grande Seca in Brazil which prompted a mass sale of slaves.
 
I just think the North and South would hate each other so goddamn much they wouldn't even make attempts to trade with each other, as they would attempt to trade with other agricultural/industrial nations to fuel their own economies.

They wouldn't hate each other given time. Modern sensiblity is to despise the south.

There would be some bitterness but both would privately agree not to get sucked into entangling alliances and go about learning to live next to each other. Both sides would be magnanimous much like they were otl.

The South would not be a pariah state. Once they realised they were becoming one, they'd quietly change policies. They want to be respectable after all. After being snubbed a few times they'll learn.

And considering Queen Victoria's a drug dealer, the Czar massacres Jews, and the Belgians make Nathan Bedford Forrest look like Fredrick Douglas getting up to the standards of the day aren't too hard. The Confederacy might have to up their standards but not that much. They blacks can be residents technically free to make the Europeans happy but still effectively slaves. Yes, some abolitionists will complain but most people change the subject. Many might point to the picture of their dead son in Union blue and say "look what that kind of talk led to."

And after a generation, most people in the North will trade with the south, intermarry the way Canadians and the US citizens do and talk on forums about how boneheaded and immoral Lincoln was to try to bring the Confederacy around by force.

Eventually, that will change but not for a generation or two.

Long term, depending on secondary PODs, the Confederacy can become anything from a Pariah state like South Africa to a reasonably respected second line power like Canada or France in whatever alt NATO came about.
 
It doesn't matter what Brazillians think, it matters what the UK papers think. If the CSA persists in retaining slavery then in an era that sees the emergence of organised labour and socialism then they will see embargoes and tariffs raised against their main crops. Also - as Brazil found - slaves are not so cheap when acts of nature strike. They have to be fed - see Grande Seca in Brazil which prompted a mass sale of slaves.

That doesn't matter, the people of Brazil didn't fight and die to stamp out Abolitionism, the CSA did! If necessary the CSA would probably go full North Korea rather than give in. Politicians (Most of whom were big slave-owners anyways) want to be re-elected. This would be prevented by their embracing the very doctrine they left the Union over. It would be seen as complete madness. Hundreds of thousands of Southerners DIED to preserve slavery and now they are going to give it up over mere trade? Nonsense.
 
They wouldn't hate each other given time. Modern sensiblity is to despise the south.

There would be some bitterness but both would privately agree not to get sucked into entangling alliances and go about learning to live next to each other. Both sides would be magnanimous much like they were otl.

The South would not be a pariah state. Once they realised they were becoming one, they'd quietly change policies. They want to be respectable after all. After being snubbed a few times they'll learn.

And considering Queen Victoria's a drug dealer, the Czar massacres Jews, and the Belgians make Nathan Bedford Forrest look like Fredrick Douglas getting up to the standards of the day aren't too hard. The Confederacy might have to up their standards but not that much. They blacks can be residents technically free to make the Europeans happy but still effectively slaves. Yes, some abolitionists will complain but most people change the subject. Many might point to the picture of their dead son in Union blue and say "look what that kind of talk led to."

And after a generation, most people in the North will trade with the south, intermarry the way Canadians and the US citizens do and talk on forums about how boneheaded and immoral Lincoln was to try to bring the Confederacy around by force.

Eventually, that will change but not for a generation or two.

Long term, depending on secondary PODs, the Confederacy can become anything from a Pariah state like South Africa to a reasonably respected second line power like Canada or France in whatever alt NATO came about.

That won't happen, if they were willing to do THAT there would have been no ACW. They probably could have gotten that in 1860 without too much fuss.
 
That won't happen, if they were willing to do THAT there would have been no ACW. They probably could have gotten that in 1860 without too much fuss.
They were willing to issue a law to conscript slaves into the Confederate Army on March 13 1865.

Needs must...............
 
Top