US and CS National Identities After CS Victory

[Corbell Mark IV]

...

What kind of identity would the North develop? I'm thinking a successful Confederate secession would be something that promotes bitterness and desire for revenge rather than "we're the true heirs of the Revolution and good riddance." It would be massive blow to the image of an ever-growing, ever-improving free nation.

...

Why would losing the South stop growth?

Sure you just took a couple of steps back, but you still have plenty of space to grow to the West. And if the Confederates never get to the West Coast because the USA sucked up all the available land, wouldn't that be a shame...

 

[MerryPrankster]

I can, quite easily. Replace "NO more Viet Nams!" with "No more Richmonds!"

Consider in our timeline: Every time someone fuels up the cargo planes outside Ft. Bragg, there is a howl of "Thousands of body bags." Now, in a CSA Victory TL: Any time some Northern politician starts saber rattling, a huge shout goes up about more blood being spend for a lost cause. (So tempting to say Lost Cause or "Lost Cause." ).

That's not what I was thinking of.

I'm thinking of a new national identity that specifically excludes the South.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Why would losing the South stop growth?

Sure you just took a couple of steps back, but you still have plenty of space to grow to the West. And if the Confederates never get to the West Coast because the USA sucked up all the available land, wouldn't that be a shame...

I meant more of a psychological blow.

 

[Johnrankins]

I meant more of a psychological blow.

More likely it speeds up the land rush. The US will want to make sure it beats the CSA out West and that is a race it will win EVERY TIME. It has both a larger population to settle it and a much larger GDP to pay for it.

 

[SPJ]

More likely it speeds up the land rush. The US will want to make sure it beats the CSA out West and that is a race it will win EVERY TIME. It has both a larger population to settle it and a much larger GDP to pay for it.

How could the CSA expand westward unless it keeps the AZ territory of buys land in Mexico? I don't think it could claim land from the US afte the wars end.

 

[Spengler]

Southerners-- Freedom-Loving men from the counrty, phisiclly tough and ready for war, very colonialistic. Maybe a french-influenced C.S.A..

North-- Unio n of Irish, Jews, and Italians. Dominated by the Anglo-American elite, heavily industrialeised and Progressive or socialist.

First france was a centraslised state by this time, something that the confederates might not want, second their attempts at colonialism would probably just end the confederacy, third Freedom loving? Yeah I'm sure the bans on abolitionist literature, jailing of union supporters, and enslavement of anyone with a drop of african blood suggest freedom.

Also I like how having Irish, Italians and Jews is somehow a bad thing. Its like we have someone from the 1920s posting here.

 

[Johnrankins]

How could the CSA expand westward unless it keeps the AZ territory of buys land in Mexico? I don't think it could claim land from the US afte the wars end.

The point is that it will TRY TO. If the US doesn't settle and defend that territory than the CSA will do so in the long run. Even if that is pure paranoia it is likely to do so just to make sure. The US will encourage people to move to the west even more so than OTL so the CSA doesn't have a ghost of a chance to do so.

 

[Winston Smith]

I agree with the more pluralistic, European politics style and perhaps more centralised ''American Union'' idea for the North, and a agrarian, planter dominated ''Confederacy'' with the added caveat that I predict a vastly restricted franchise in the South.

Someone should do a TL about this.

 

[LHB]

vastly restricted franchise in the South

I could see property requirements playing a starring role in this aspect, assuming the South doesn't decide to hardcode slavery into its political system by requiring ownership of slaves to vote.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

More likely it speeds up the land rush. The US will want to make sure it beats the CSA out West and that is a race it will win EVERY TIME. It has both a larger population to settle it and a much larger GDP to pay for it.

And, I imagine would be far more attractive to immigrants that the CSA.

 

[NothingNow]

Also I like how having Irish, Italians and Jews is somehow a bad thing. Its like we have someone from the 1920s posting here.

Ironically, the CSA liked their jews better than the Union did. They certainly didn't issue expulsion orders or anything.

 

[Johnrankins]

And, I imagine would be far more attractive to immigrants that the CSA.

The North was in OTL even after the 13th admendment.

 

[Johnrankins]

Ironically, the CSA liked their jews better than the Union did. They certainly didn't issue expulsion orders or anything.

Not really, that was Grant's doing not Lincoln's or the Northern government and Lincoln counter-mandated it, something he rarely did with Grant's orders. On the whole the anti-Semitism on both sides were about the same.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Not really, that was Grant's doing not Lincoln's or the Northern government and Lincoln counter-mandated it, something he rarely did with Grant's orders. On the whole the anti-Semitism on both sides were about the same.

The Confederates had Judah P. Benjamin though.

 

[MerryPrankster]

About the immigration issue in general, the North could emphasize the "land of opportunity" stuff, the "golden door," its own (white) ethnic diversity, etc. while the South, which had less foreign immigration, might be more overtly monocultural.

I could also imagine the South, or at least parts of it, being rather anti-German considering the role of German 1848 refugees in the Union.

 

[Johnrankins]

The Confederates had Judah P. Benjamin though.

True, but that in itself is no indication of things.

 

[Snake Featherston]

The Confederates had Judah P. Benjamin though.

And guess what one of the major attacks on Benjamin invariably was in internal CS political catfighting? That he was a Jew.

 

[zoomar]

I am relatively unconvinced that the CSA would push aggresively for westward expansion. The main reason the south sought to keep the western territories open to slavery was to ensure the continued admisison of slave-states into the union so they would not be outnumbered by abolitionist states and politicians in Washington, not because slavery made economic sense outside of the core south. I suspect that the emphasis on westward expansion of like-minded states would largely disappear once the CSA secured its independence - especially if the war ended with the USA in defacto military control of the New Mexico territory and California. Only Indian Territory (Turtledove's Sequoyah) is a likely candidate for addition to the CSA, quite possibly because the USA itself might be happyto give it to the CSA. It is also entirely speclative to presume that an independent CSA would seek to expand thru Mexico, since a conservative and French dominated Mexico is a natural ally.

 

[Johnrankins]

I am relatively unconvinced that the CSA would push aggresively for westward expansion. The main reason the south sought to keep the western territories open to slavery was to ensure the continued admisison of slave-states into the union so they would not be outnumbered by abolitionist states and politicians in Washington, not because slavery made economic sense outside of the core south. I suspect that the emphasis on westward expansion of like-minded states would largely disappear once the CSA secured its independence - especially if the war ended with the USA in defacto military control of the New Mexico territory and California. Only Indian Territory (Turtledove's Sequoyah) is a likely candidate for addition to the CSA, quite possibly because the USA itself might be happyto give it to the CSA. It is also entirely speclative to presume that an independent CSA would seek to expand thru Mexico, since a conservative and French dominated Mexico is a natural ally.

The South wanted to push westward because it thought it could spread slavery westward. There is no reason slaves can't be used for mining (for example) out west. Slaves have been used for that purpose throughout history. The Union would not be happy to give ANY territory to the CSA. The CSA will have pay the butcher's bill for ANY territory it gets.

 

[King Gorilla]

The South wanted to push westward because it thought it could spread slavery westward. There is no reason slaves can't be used for mining (for example) out west. Slaves have been used for that purpose throughout history. The Union would not be happy to give ANY territory to the CSA. The CSA will have pay the butcher's bill for ANY territory it gets.

The problem with mining is the relative danger of the work, and the relative value of a slave as a financial asset.