The U.S. after a successful Confederate secession?

I think the problem is that, rather likely Smoot and Hawley, you do not really grasp the importance of seemingly small external inputs in an economy. When in the 1930s the US manage to own goal about 60% of their export markets amounting to a mere 3.6% of GDP their domestic economy was basically bimated, that is diminished by half.

The Smoot-Hawley Tarriiffs were on imports, not exports. 60% was the highest, not the average rate of tariffs. And they occurred during the Great Depression, which might have had a little bit to do with the massive drop in US trade.

The rest of your post is quite good, though, especially this part.

The main drag on the Northern economy and indeed the Southern one but we are not looking at them here, relative to OTL is likely to be additional Government spending and thus borrowing and taxation on armies and fortifications and quite possibly the Navy. The rump US may well be more heavily armed than the entire OTL US but this will come at a long term economic cost as it transfers money from more productive and self-sustaining pursuits.

The biggest difference of course would be the Inner American Border. This IAB would need policing for tax purposes as it is highly likely to see a lot of traffic and I would greatly doubt either the USA or CSA would wish to give up those juicy tariffs nor would smugglers wish to pay them. In fact from a literary point of view the IAB could really be quite exciting with dashing villains and evil customs men or vice versa depending on an author's biases.

The inner American border would also see heavy policing by the Confederacy to reduce the number of escaped slaves, who only have to make it to the Union, instead of Canada, to be free.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
My argument was not that Confederate offensives tended to fail. My argument is that Confederate offensives virtually always failed.
I'm not sure I see the difference, besides semantics.

You attempted to dismiss this with the old Lost Cause argument that the Union only won because of superior resources:
There's a difference between thinking the Union had a greater population and deeper manpower pools (and got on with mobilizing them for a long war starting in mid-1862) and thinking the Confederacy regularly won battles outnumbered 2:1. The Lost Cause argument, say, would hold that the Union Peninsular Campaign was a failure because One Reb Can Whup Three Yanks, not because the Confederates concentrated superior numbers at the point of decision.


Your argument appears to be that "The Confederacy tended to fail because of structural problems relating to a lack of resources (men, guns, rifles)" with the other factors being largely unimportant. Even if that were true, the Union would still have that advantage in an OTL.
You probably mean an ATL.
My argument was that the Confederacy's main problem was essentially relating to men (especially in the west), and that this could be alleviated in several possible ATLs - whether the effective destruction of the AotP during the Peninsular Campaign forces the Union to bring forces eastwards (reducing Union structural advantages), or the need to defend against the British and protect Washington results in a major drawdown in the west in a Trent war, or secession in the border states brings the manpower of the two sides much closer to even.

You're asking me how the Union could raise the number of troops they raised in actual history? You're demanding evidence that the Union could achieve things they did achieve in actual history?
No, because your claim as stated implies far more troops being raised than "actual history" saw, at least in 1862. I have to guess at the number you're implying are being raised, because it looks like you're suggesting the Union could respond to All Confederate Forces in 1862 (425,000 Present, Livermore) and a British intervention (60,000 Canadian militia, 60,000 British regulars, 30,000 Maritimes militia) by raising "nearly double" that number in 1862, which by my count is approaching a million men Present - a number the Union never managed to raise all at once, as they peaked at 680,000 after years of buildup accompanied by a wide-ranging draft and massive bounties. If they'd raised a million men Present in June 1862 of OTL, they'd have had negative two hundred thousand small arms left (if not an even worse deficit).

How many are you thinking of being raised, for clarity?


Robert E Lee failed every time he took an offensive into Union territory. It is more than an opinion that the Confederacy needs to do better than that to achieve independence.
That depends on how you view an offensive to be successful. It was a war between two countries in which one was completely defeated and so the loser never kept hold of any territory - but that's an unhelpful definition.
The Gettysburg campaign was fought with four objectives, of which Lee accomplished two - bring the war to the North and seriously bloody the Army of the Potomac. Would it count as a success if he'd also burned Harrisburg?


Of course, if the Confederacy is independent they've clearly done better. But it does not make sense to say "they were defeated OTL, they'd have to do better than that ATL, and that's ASB".
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Depending on the theater early in the war? This.

Perhaps, but while the Union did have large numbers of troops away from the decisive theatre in 1862 that's something this very poster has argued with me over - and the ones with authority over it were Lincoln, Halleck and Stanton.


Off topic to the discussion, though, which (good lord we got off topic) was that the Border States should at least be evaluated in any examination of the post-secession Confederate economy, if only to show how much better off the CSA would be with them as opposed to without. Certainly independence with Border States (or with some Border States, Kentucky being the most likely) is a high score for the CSA, but proper evaluation can show how high.
 
Looking at the 1860 Census on agriculture and manufacturing

The Union grew: 82% of wheat, 66% of corn, 90% of rye, 99% of barley, 97% of buckwheat, 94% of Irish potatoes, 81% of flax, 87% of flax seed, almost 100% of hops, 97% of maple sugar
The Union produced: 87% of butter, 99% of cheese, 84% of wool, 88% of maple molasses, 75% of sorghum molasses, 93% of cotton goods, 98% of woolen goods, 100% of worsted goods, 96% of boots and shoes, 100% of rubber goods, 100% of silk manufactures, 100% of linen manufactures, 98% of cordage, 98% of hemp bagging, 71% of paper, 96% of printing equipment, 95% of pig iron, 92% of bar, sheet, and rail iron, 99% of iron wire, 97% of locomotives, 100% of sewing machines, almost 100% of hardware, 100% of steel, 87% of nails and spikes, 94% of agricultural implements
The Union owned: 72% of horses, 62% of oxen, 69% of milch cows, 77% of sheep, 54% of swine
The Union mined: 85% of bituminous coal, 100% of anthracite coal, 100% of iron

The Confederacy grew: 79% of peas and beans, 90% of sweet potatoes, 99% of cotton, 100% of rice, 51% of tobacco, almost 100% of cane sugar
The Confederacy produced: almost 100% of cane molasses, 89% of cotton gins
The Confederacy owned: 71% of miles and asses, 53% of other cattle
 
With an independent Confederacy the US has now lost its protected market in the South as the Confederacy is now free to set its own tariffs on imported manufactures. As this was one of the reasons they claimed to be rebelling over I'd expect these to be set at a much lower rate than the previous US ones, although expecting consistency from the Confederate States except over their 'peculiar institution' may be a bit much.
 
The Union owned: 72% of horses, 62% of oxen, 69% of milch cows, 77% of sheep, 54% of swine
The Confederacy owned: 71% of miles and asses, 53% of other cattle
one book I have notes that northern farmers preferred oxen because they were more efficient and southern plantations preferred mules because they could take more neglect; not surprisingly, slaves didn't take the best care of livestock...
 
Last edited:
With an independent Confederacy the US has now lost its protected market in the South as the Confederacy is now free to set its own tariffs on imported manufactures. As this was one of the reasons they claimed to be rebelling over I'd expect these to be set at a much lower rate than the previous US ones, although expecting consistency from the Confederate States except over their 'peculiar institution' may be a bit much.

How much did that matter? In OTL, the South was economically devastated and didn't really begin the road to economic expansion until World War II. While it is a part of the rather huge internal US market in OTL, were Southern incomes sufficient to be a significant problem if they were gone?
 
Wasn't there a weevil or something that wrecked the cotton crops shortly after the war? If that is what the Confederate economy was largely based on, aren't they fucked?
 
Wasn't there a weevil or something that wrecked the cotton crops shortly after the war? If that is what the Confederate economy was largely based on, aren't they fucked?

later, post 1892
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boll_weevil

A timeline could have the Boll Weevil and Spanish Influenza hit the Confederacy at the same time (because it did in OTL). If the Confederacy still has slavery or perhaps 'contract labor" that is little different, the Spanish Influenza would kill even more people than it did historically due to concentrated populations while at the same time the Boll Weevil is wiping out entire fields.
 
How much did that matter? In OTL, the South was economically devastated and didn't really begin the road to economic expansion until World War II. While it is a part of the rather huge internal US market in OTL, were Southern incomes sufficient to be a significant problem if they were gone?
I'd assume that if the Confederacy has achieved independence then the devastation will be less than OTL & probably that in the North somewhat more in order to convince them to give up.
 
I'd assume that if the Confederacy has achieved independence then the devastation will be less than OTL & probably that in the North somewhat more in order to convince them to give up.

Why would it be somewhat more? Almost all Southern offensives into the North were defeated in OTL plus they have the boll weevil and Spanish influenza hitting them as well the South will be one in worse straits assuming the US made peace cause the Brits and French were coming.
 
Why would it be somewhat more? Almost all Southern offensives into the North were defeated in OTL plus they have the boll weevil and Spanish influenza hitting them as well the South will be one in worse straits assuming the US made peace cause the Brits and French were coming.
If Sherman is matching through Georgia then the South has lost, if he's not then the devastation will be less.
 
In the event that the South breaks away (and stays away) what would the rump United States look like, culturally, economically and politically?

What will happen to West Virginia ? Further more, what about the Indian territories like Oklahoma. Will slavery expand to the "frontier" ? Would Southern Aristoctats buy most of the new land for new platations ? What is with the Union slave states like Maryland ? Would they also defect after a Southern successful succession ?
 
What will happen to West Virginia ? Further more, what about the Indian territories like Oklahoma. Will slavery expand to the "frontier" ? Would Southern Aristoctats buy most of the new land for new platations ? What is with the Union slave states like Maryland ? Would they also defect after a Southern successful succession ?

Remain West Virginia, although it isn't expanded after the war. The IT remain IT until the CS or US wants it , after which it goes to whoever is willing to fight for it the most. If the Indians are able to pit them against each other they might remain independent for some time. Nope, the US won't sell. It stays within the 11 states it started with, if it is lucky. Most likely it will lose Eastern Tennessee , quite likely all of it and it might lose more. They remain Union States, may turn into Free States. In that case the slaveowners are compensated. Not likely, the CSA is a poor, impoverished backwater after the war that would be a drain on any border state that joined.
 
I'm not sure I see the difference, besides semantics.

The difference between "Confederate offensives into Union territory sometimes failed" and "Confederate offensives into Union territory virtually always failed" is more than just semantics. The Confederates had a few successful raids, but when they advanced armies into into Union territory, the Confederates failed. Not sometimes failed; always failed. When the Confederates concentrated superior numbers, their invasions of Union territory always failed. When the Confederates sent their best generals, such as Lee and Longstreet, invasions of Union territory always failed. When the Confederates sent their best generals and concentrated superior numbers, their invasions of Union territory always failed.

There's a difference between thinking the Union had a greater population and deeper manpower pools (and got on with mobilizing them for a long war starting in mid-1862) and thinking the Confederacy regularly won battles outnumbered 2:1. The Lost Cause argument, say, would hold that the Union Peninsular Campaign was a failure because One Reb Can Whup Three Yanks, not because the Confederates concentrated superior numbers at the point of decision.

You said that Confederate offensives failed "largely because of the greater force the Union could concentrate against them". If your theory was correct, then the Confederacy would have a better track record for those offensives where they were able to concentrate greater force against the Union. But even when the Confederates sent their best generals and concentrated superior numbers, their invasions of Union territory always failed.

My argument was that the Confederacy's main problem was essentially relating to men (especially in the west), and that this could be alleviated in several possible ATLs - whether the effective destruction of the AotP during the Peninsular Campaign forces the Union to bring forces eastwards (reducing Union structural advantages), or the need to defend against the British and protect Washington results in a major drawdown in the west in a Trent war, or secession in the border states brings the manpower of the two sides much closer to even.

There will be no Peninsula Campaign in a Trent War setting; it would require McClellan to be insane to even suggest it when the Union is also fighting the British. The Union would have nearly twice the population of British North America and the Confederacy combined. More states joining the Confederacy is possible, but it would require a much less skilled President than Lincoln and the Union would still have roughly twice the population of the Confederacy. In either case, the Union will still usually be able to concentrate force against invasions. And even when the Confederates sent their best generals and concentrated superior numbers, their invasions of Union territory always failed

No, because your claim as stated implies far more troops being raised than "actual history" saw, at least in 1862. I have to guess at the number you're implying are being raised, because it looks like you're suggesting the Union could respond to All Confederate Forces in 1862 (425,000 Present, Livermore) and a British intervention (60,000 Canadian militia, 60,000 British regulars, 30,000 Maritimes militia) by raising "nearly double" that number in 1862, which by my count is approaching a million men Present - a number the Union never managed to raise all at once, as they peaked at 680,000 after years of buildup accompanied by a wide-ranging draft and massive bounties. If they'd raised a million men Present in June 1862 of OTL, they'd have had negative two hundred thousand small arms left (if not an even worse deficit).

Livermore strongly disagrees with your claims that Union forces "peaked at 680,000" or that the Union never managed a number "approaching a million men Present".

Livermore, in Numbers and Losses in the Civil War in America came up with:
* January 1862 Union troops 575,917 Confederate troops 351,418
* March 1862 Union troops 637,126 Confederate troops 401,395
* January 1863 Union troops 918,121 Confederate troops 446,622

Even if you cram 150,000 troops into Canada that still leaves the Union forces outnumbering the combined Confederate, British, and Canadian forces. The Union numbers could go significantly higher if they're willing to suffer the level of privation that the Confederates suffered.

That depends on how you view an offensive to be successful. It was a war between two countries in which one was completely defeated and so the loser never kept hold of any territory - but that's an unhelpful definition.
The Gettysburg campaign was fought with four objectives, of which Lee accomplished two - bring the war to the North and seriously bloody the Army of the Potomac. Would it count as a success if he'd also burned Harrisburg?

Lee's goals were to forage in Union territory, defeat the army of the Potomac, distract enough troops to stop Grant from taking Vickburg, hurt Union morale, encourage the northern peace party, and possibly to gain foreign recognition or even seize control of parts of Maryland. Lee only succeeded in foraging in Union territory and failed on all other points.

Of course, if the Confederacy is independent they've clearly done better. But it does not make sense to say "they were defeated OTL, they'd have to do better than that ATL, and that's ASB".

That's significantly misrepresenting my point. I said "The Confederacy would have to produce at least one general who equals or exceeds Lee just to gain independence. Keeping all of the 11 states that seceded is even more unlikely. The Confederacy gaining any bits of the Union Border states is nigh-ASB." It certainly is possible for the Confederacy to do better and is necessary for Confederate independence, but that requires that the Confederacy produce at least one more general who equals or exceeds Lee in skill. For the Confederacy to keep all of the territory of the 11 seceded states is a higher bar. Only Lee and Bragg managed to regain territory lost to the Union, and even then it tended to be "two steps forward, three steps back". The Confederacy made several attempts to seize and gain control of Union territory - West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, New Mexico, and Colorado. These attempts all failed, and usually failed miserably, even when the Confederates sent their best generals and were able to concentrate forces and were up against Union second stringers like Rosecrans. For the Confederates to seize West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, or New Mexico would require the Confederacy to produce a general that makes Robert E Lee look like Joseph Johnston and can get along with Jefferson Davis. For the Confederate to seize most of them, let alone California, would require the Confederacy producing at least one general who makes Robert E Lee look like Leonidas Polk and can get along with Jefferson Davis. Any Confederate general suddenly performing at the level Khalid ibn al-Walid or Subutai is wildly unlikely - for them to also be able to get along with Jefferson Davis is nigh-ASB.
 
Last edited:
Top