The U.S. after a successful Confederate secession?

RousseauX

Donor
Like shit, probably.

Alright, this isn't just gonna be a SHITpost. Let's take a deep look into this.

Alright, it would literally look like shit, but first we have to understand what shit looks like. 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. Not trying to go Turtledovey here, but the South would be besties with Britain and France until they tell the South to get rid of slavery; they either continue being friends if the South drops slavery, or they drop the South for the North if they refuse to let it go, and the South likely turns to a new ally: Germany.

This is just the gist of it: North is fucked, South is doing great.
In the immediate aftermath maybe but on the long run the south is the one fucked because they are relying on a single commodity export nation like a modern petro-state, except for it's easier to Egypt or India to produce cotton to out-compete the south than it is for a random country to find oil to outcompete a petrostate, the entire country is going to be highly vulnerable to price shocks on cotton and we know from otl that those economies are not exactly stable.

Actually come to think of it is this even true on the short term? Why would the south not sell cotton to the north? They need $$$ after all.

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.
In the short term maybe but on the long run the lack of tariffs means the south is unlikely to industrialize

So the north will weather a recession and go on to industrialize, while the south is locked into unfavorable patterns of trade, under your scenerio the south remains agrarian and the north industrialized
 
Last edited:
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.

I agree they wouldn't do it immediately. But say by the 1880s a Confederate President is measuring doing that vs the nation's long term prospects if he alienates Britian, France, and the United States.

I think eventually he'd do the less wrong thing.

Silver lining play I'd love to see in a Confederate victory TL--Patrick Cleburne as Military Attache or better yet, Ambassador to the United Kingdom and daring Queen Victoria to lecture him on the treatment of there citizens/subjects.
 
Slavery not only formed the basis of the Southern economic system, and the philosophical basis for its society, and the founding ideology of the nation; the slaves themselves were the highest concentration of economic value in the South by far. Even assuming the diplomatic forces turn against the CSA, with economic pressure included, I find it difficult to imagine two thirds of the Confederate states would agree to abolish what hundreds of thousands so recently died for - a decision that would have to be made by the slave owning political class, who would be liquidating the bulk of their wealth at the same time.
 
One thing I've always wondered is whether or not the South seceding would result in a precedent being set for other states to secede as a political tactic?
 
I agree they wouldn't do it immediately. But say by the 1880s a Confederate President is measuring doing that vs the nation's long term prospects if he alienates Britian, France, and the United States.

I think eventually he'd do the less wrong thing.

Silver lining play I'd love to see in a Confederate victory TL--Patrick Cleburne as Military Attache or better yet, Ambassador to the United Kingdom and daring Queen Victoria to lecture him on the treatment of there citizens/subjects.

1880s IS almost immediately. The vast majority of soldiers who survived fighting the ACW are alive and are in their prime voting years. The soldiers of the ACW need to have died for there to be a realistic chance which makes it the 1900s at the earliest.
 
In the immediate aftermath maybe but on the long run the south is the one fucked because they are relying on a single commodity export nation like a modern petro-state, except for it's easier to Egypt or India to produce cotton to out-compete the south than it is for a random country to find oil to outcompete a petrostate, the entire country is going to be highly vulnerable to price shocks on cotton and we know from otl that those economies are not exactly stable.

Actually come to think of it is this even true on the short term? Why would the south not sell cotton to the north? They need $$$ after all.

In the short term maybe but on the long run the lack of tariffs means the south is unlikely to industrialize

So the north will weather a recession and go on to industrialize, while the south is locked into unfavorable patterns of trade, under your scenerio the south remains agrarian and the north industrialized

Particularly since the North WAS ALREADY industrialized. It was the number 2 or 3 most industrialized nation on the planet.
 
One thing I've always wondered is whether or not the South seceding would result in a precedent being set for other states to secede as a political tactic?

In the South, yes. In the North I would imagine an amendment would be passed outlawing secession, probably backed up by outlawing state militia.
 
the OP is kinda sparse on details... a lot of what happens in the north will depend on just how the CSA gains it's independence... do they do it with help/recognition from the UK and France? Do they do it on their own, winning without outside help? Is it a short war or a long one?
 

Skallagrim

Banned
In the South, yes. In the North I would imagine an amendment would be passed outlawing secession, probably backed up by outlawing state militia.

Turning the militias into something like the national guard is likely. But that amendment... not so much. Because it would implicitly admit that such an amendment was needed. Which would mean that the Southern secession was legal, and that the Northern attempt to reconquer the seceded South was illegal.

A contrived Supreme Court ruling would be far more likely. That's how the issue was closed in OTL after all.
 
Which was passed when Grant was knocking on the door of Richmond and on terms even Lee knew wouldn't interest Blacks.
The point is not that it would interest blacks but that faced with national survival the Confederacy passed a law ARMING SLAVES.

And you continue to say that there is no way in God's Heaven that the Confederacy would compromise on slavery? They had already compromised before the fighting was finished let alone a generation down the line ? If the Confederacy was faced with national bankruptcy then they would find some kind of Jim Crow / Sharecropper compromise.
 
Turning the militias into something like the national guard is likely. But that amendment... not so much. Because it would implicitly admit that such an amendment was needed. Which would mean that the Southern secession was legal, and that the Northern attempt to reconquer the seceded South was illegal.

A contrived Supreme Court ruling would be far more likely. That's how the issue was closed in OTL after all.

That precedent was already set, I think that the public would want an amendment to make sure it never happened again. With that amendment it wouldn't.
 
The point is not that it would interest blacks but that faced with national survival the Confederacy passed a law ARMING SLAVES.

And you continue to say that there is no way in God's Heaven that the Confederacy would compromise on slavery? They had already compromised before the fighting was finished let alone a generation down the line ? If the Confederacy was faced with national bankruptcy then they would find some kind of Jim Crow / Sharecropper compromise.

Except that the law was so toothless it wasn't really a compromise. Many of those who voted for it knew it wasn't going to raise troops but didn't want to be seen going against RE Lee who was for it. National bankruptcy would be extremely unlikely, the would export their cotton to Mexico (Who really needed the money, as always) and it would be traded from there. It would also be smuggled out.
 
the OP is kinda sparse on details... a lot of what happens in the north will depend on just how the CSA gains it's independence... do they do it with help/recognition from the UK and France? Do they do it on their own, winning without outside help? Is it a short war or a long one?

Without outside help the South was screwed. People think "If the South did X they would win" no they wouldn't, the situation was completely helpless from day 1 if outisders did not intervene.
 
Without outside help the South was screwed. People think "If the South did X they would win" no they wouldn't, the situation was completely helpless from day 1 if outisders did not intervene.
I'd think the CSA's only chance of winning alone would be doing something spectacular right at the beginning, something that shatters the northern army and captures DC. How you get that, I dunno...
and the length of the war is important too... in OTL, of course, the north financed the war with silver from NV, spent 4 years doing it and won. If the war is short and the north loses, well, losing sucks, but the north is just bringing in that NV silver online, so they are well funded for the next few years. If they war is long and they still lose, then things will really suck...
 
To put this into perspective, losing the Army of the Potomac in a TPK (not merely a loss) wouldn't even be a permanent setback. It's the loss of 25% of their deployed manpower and more importantly their best men. All it would take is 3 years of licking wounds, recruiting, training and it could be replaced. A TPK on the Army of Tennessee (the CSA one not their Northern counterpart) would be irreplaceable. The British commented DC was turned into a veritable fortress that could withstand the harshest bombardment of siege guns.
 
1880s IS almost immediately. The vast majority of soldiers who survived fighting the ACW are alive and are in their prime voting years. The soldiers of the ACW need to have died for there to be a realistic chance which makes it the 1900s at the earliest.

The majority were, if asked were fighting for Independence and self determination. Admittedly, such need came about [l] because [/I] of slavery and the self determination was for themselves but what means is, the common veteran will be voting for what keep him and his fed and clothed. That may or may not include slavery.

The elites, some of them will have spent 20 years, trying to justify their system to the outside world and moving in said outside world.

As long as they can put an appropriate amount of lipstick on the pig to sell it and keep face, they would do it. They fought for their right to decide what to do with the slaves after all.
 
They were willing to issue a law to conscript slaves into the Confederate Army on March 13 1865.

Needs must...............

There were also some ill-conceived ideas about repealing the Declaration of Independence so that the British would have to take them back. I'm not sure whether that's a sign of the emergence of a Confederate Nationalism independent of slavery (as surely the Confederates were aware that Britain had already outlawed the institution), or a fear of getting hanged by Federal troops, though.

Which does relate to the question of whether any other states secede. New York City's mayor had a scheme to secede and form his own Free City, but support evaporated at the bombardment of Fort Sumter. American Nationalism triumphed over the New Yorkers' contempt for the Albany government (mostly Republican and WASP, compared to the urban Democrats and their Irish base), even if the city resented the draft later on.

The point here is, whether more states try to secede depends on how strong their sense of 'American' identity is post-War, which depends a lot on the details of the war. In general, though, I think it would be much weaker in a failed war. I can see New York City wanting to make another go at it--a lot of draftees pulled out of the city and slaughtered for nothing? That's sure to cause resentment toward the Federals--but they would probably get crushed if the US can focus all its energy on one island. California is another possibility.
 
The majority were, if asked were fighting for Independence and self determination. Admittedly, such need came about [l] because [/I] of slavery and the self determination was for themselves but what means is, the common veteran will be voting for what keep him and his fed and clothed. That may or may not include slavery.

The elites, some of them will have spent 20 years, trying to justify their system to the outside world and moving in said outside world.

As long as they can put an appropriate amount of lipstick on the pig to sell it and keep face, they would do it. They fought for their right to decide what to do with the slaves after all.

Self determination basically meant slavery as the US Federal Government did almost nothing in the 1850's.
 
There were also some ill-conceived ideas about repealing the Declaration of Independence so that the British would have to take them back. I'm not sure whether that's a sign of the emergence of a Confederate Nationalism independent of slavery (as surely the Confederates were aware that Britain had already outlawed the institution), or a fear of getting hanged by Federal troops, though.

Which does relate to the question of whether any other states secede. New York City's mayor had a scheme to secede and form his own Free City, but support evaporated at the bombardment of Fort Sumter. American Nationalism triumphed over the New Yorkers' contempt for the Albany government (mostly Republican and WASP, compared to the urban Democrats and their Irish base), even if the city resented the draft later on.

The point here is, whether more states try to secede depends on how strong their sense of 'American' identity is post-War, which depends a lot on the details of the war. In general, though, I think it would be much weaker in a failed war. I can see New York City wanting to make another go at it--a lot of draftees pulled out of the city and slaughtered for nothing? That's sure to cause resentment toward the Federals--but they would probably get crushed if the US can focus all its energy on one island. California is another possibility.

The NYC Mayor having a hare brained scheme about seceding from the US is hardly a threat. It is put down by New York State Militia.
 
Top