Victorious CSA in turmoil

The states don't have any revenue to speak of either, and the individuals involved have no interest in developing those things except philanthropy (not something the planter class is known for).

There are individuals who might do so, Washington Duke might still live in the South (namesake of Duke University), Thomas Jefferson was known for some of his donations, etc. There could also be a Confederate equivalent of Rockefeller in Texas depending on how the oil discoveries are handled.

OTL circumstances vs. TTL's are very different, and the likelihood of the discovery occuring on "schedule" approaches zero. This was a random event, in game terms, not one triggered by a specific date.

There were accidental discoveries of oil in Texas well before 1901, it's more of a question of profitability and how much expansion can be done using money from whichever source decides to invest first.

And the CSA taking Kentucky and securing it would be more than somewhat different.

We've been over this repeatedly, I'm happy to leave it at 'we agree to disagree'.

There's a difference between "speculating" and "engaging in wishful thinking". I'm not saying a better outcome than OTL (for the boll weevil) is automatically the latter, but it leans there.

Necessity being the mother of invention means a desperate CSA is going to try all sorts of solutions to get rid of the weevils. DDT might be among them, fire ants might work too. There is some level of talent in the CSA and agricultural research would be a focus for funding. As this is alternate history many things are possible, each of us can advocate for a different argument and we can still both be wrong about it.
 
There are individuals who might do so, Washington Duke might still live in the South (namesake of Duke University), Thomas Jefferson was known for some of his donations, etc. There could also be a Confederate equivalent of Rockefeller in Texas depending on how the oil discoveries are handled.

Relying on individuals can take us any which way. And it's certainly not enough to lead to a massive change to the CSA on the whole.

There were accidental discoveries of oil in Texas well before 1901, it's more of a question of profitability and how much expansion can be done using money from whichever source decides to invest first.
Or of "anyone believing that they'll amount to anything at all". Accidental discoveries =/= automatic oil industry.

Why people think Texas developing oil fields is a safe assumption to take as a given is beyond me.

We've been over this repeatedly, I'm happy to leave it at 'we agree to disagree'.
I'm not. The CSA would need a far more than "by a nose" success to even think about asking for Kentucky. I don't mind agreeing to disagree on things that could go either way like Virginia or Tennessee developing reasonable levels of industry, but Confederate Kentucky happening is not one of those things.

Necessity being the mother of invention means a desperate CSA is going to try all sorts of solutions to get rid of the weevils. DDT might be among them, fire ants might work too. There is some level of talent in the CSA and agricultural research would be a focus for funding. As this is alternate history many things are possible, each of us can advocate for a different argument and we can still both be wrong about it.
And why would an independent CSA handle this better than the OTL South? That's my question.
 
And my point was that it would be the best option the Confederates would have to avoid total bankrupsty and the collapse of the whole economy if not the country itself.

"Not helping much" is better than not helping at all.

OK, that makes sense but it won't save the CSA from 3rd world crappiness which would take an enormous streak of luck.
 
Relying on individuals can take us any which way. And it's certainly not enough to lead to a massive change to the CSA on the whole.

Agreed, there are some staggeringly rich people in Mexico and Argentina but that doesn't make them rich countries.
 
Relying on individuals can take us any which way. And it's certainly not enough to lead to a massive change to the CSA on the whole.

Much of history was determined by a few motivated people looking to make a difference. And yes, individuals can swing things for better or for worse, but if philanthropy can establish universities and education to harness native talent that *can* change the CSA as a whole.

Or of "anyone believing that they'll amount to anything at all". Accidental discoveries =/= automatic oil industry.

Why people think Texas developing oil fields is a safe assumption to take as a given is beyond me.[/QUOTE]

You still did not answer the previous post of telling the board when the first oil drilling in Texas took place. Check out that and why it might make sense economically for Texas to do so very quickly.

I'm not. The CSA would need a far more than "by a nose" success to even think about asking for Kentucky. I don't mind agreeing to disagree on things that could go either way like Virginia or Tennessee developing reasonable levels of industry, but Confederate Kentucky happening is not one of those things.

Why you think Virginia's place in the CSA is negotiable aside from border counties is beyond me. Tennessee would be negotiable in a late 1864 peace, but if given any opportunity before that point I think Kentucky has a chance of answering to Richmond instead of Kentucky. Look at her elections in 1856 and federal choice in 1860 - Kentucky initially wanted to stay out of it. The 1860 election also noted a boycott of many of the pro-Southern voters, only about half of the ballots returned in 1860 as 1856. Its results do not reflect the entirety of popular sentiment in the state.

And why would an independent CSA handle this better than the OTL South? That's my question.

Necessity would force the CSA to pursue more radical options than might be acceptable in OTL. Texas could still develop a petroleum-based industry with something akin to the radical expansion of population seen in the early 20th century but cotton will remain the dominant economic force in the South into that time frame. With a threat to its economy and therefore national security at stake they will be desperate for a solution. DDT is already known, although not widely put into use yet, and fire ants might come up from Brazil earlier than OTL by accident or intention to cause predation of the boll weevil. Again, many possibilities, for better or worse.
 
Who's the new VP?

Johnrankins:

Did you have someone in mind to take Pendleton's place as VPOTUS when he becomes the POTUS? Also just for curiosity's sake who would be next in line after them?
 
Much of history was determined by a few motivated people looking to make a difference. And yes, individuals can swing things for better or for worse, but if philanthropy can establish universities and education to harness native talent that *can* change the CSA as a whole.

There is only so much a few motivated people can do. Particularly if a large nation is flat broke and a large and rich hostile power is right next door.
 
Not really, any suggestions?
I'd imagine that the President Pro Tempore's Lafayette S. Foster and then Benjamin Wade after March 1867 would be next in line in TTL just as in OTL. I don't know of any reasons how they would not be elected President Pro Tempore in TTL do you?

I mainly asked b/c I had the idea of an alternate for your alternate in which Lazarus W. Powell becomes McClellans VP and in July 1867 Powell dies as in OTL leaving the presidency open. Any idea how Wade could have acted as a President in such a situation.
 
Much of history was determined by a few motivated people looking to make a difference. And yes, individuals can swing things for better or for worse, but if philanthropy can establish universities and education to harness native talent that *can* change the CSA as a whole.

Not unless there are a lot of individuals doing it, or doing it on a large scale, neither of which is likely.

You still did not answer the previous post of telling the board when the first oil drilling in Texas took place. Check out that and why it might make sense economically for Texas to do so very quickly.

How does it make more sense to hope that you find oil in sufficient quantities as to be worth the expense?

Why you think Virginia's place in the CSA is negotiable aside from border counties is beyond me. Tennessee would be negotiable in a late 1864 peace, but if given any opportunity before that point I think Kentucky has a chance of answering to Richmond instead of Kentucky. Look at her elections in 1856 and federal choice in 1860 - Kentucky initially wanted to stay out of it. The 1860 election also noted a boycott of many of the pro-Southern voters, only about half of the ballots returned in 1860 as 1856. Its results do not reflect the entirety of popular sentiment in the state.

If you reread my post, you'll note that what I'm arguing is that Virginia and Tennessee developing significant industry is what's being compared to Kentucky joining, not their membership in the CSA.

And there is very, very, very little chance of Kentucky preferring Richmond to Washington. Wanting to stay out of it =/= wanting to join the CSA.

Necessity would force the CSA to pursue more radical options than might be acceptable in OTL. Texas could still develop a petroleum-based industry with something akin to the radical expansion of population seen in the early 20th century but cotton will remain the dominant economic force in the South into that time frame. With a threat to its economy and therefore national security at stake they will be desperate for a solution. DDT is already known, although not widely put into use yet, and fire ants might come up from Brazil earlier than OTL by accident or intention to cause predation of the boll weevil. Again, many possibilities, for better or worse.

Desperation does not mean that the CSA succeeds. Desperate men fail too.

I'm not saying that either of those are impossible, but you're not giving any reason why the CSA is better able to wrestle with the problem, you're just saying it would really really want to succeed here.
 
Desperation does not mean that the CSA succeeds. Desperate men fail too.

I'm not saying that either of those are impossible, but you're not giving any reason why the CSA is better able to wrestle with the problem, you're just saying it would really really want to succeed here.

In many cases they are even more likely to fail as they grasp at straws and don't have the resources that less desperate people have. Considering the financial situation that the CSA is very likely to be in it is less rather than more likely for them to discover any particular invention. After all they have less money to educate people with and less money for R&D.
 
I'd imagine that the President Pro Tempore's Lafayette S. Foster and then Benjamin Wade after March 1867 would be next in line in TTL just as in OTL. I don't know of any reasons how they would not be elected President Pro Tempore in TTL do you?

I mainly asked b/c I had the idea of an alternate for your alternate in which Lazarus W. Powell becomes McClellans VP and in July 1867 Powell dies as in OTL leaving the presidency open. Any idea how Wade could have acted as a President in such a situation.

I think he would push for more civil rights for Blacks in the Free States and abolition of slavery in any Union Slave States that would be left. He would also make sure the Fugative Slave Law was unenforced by the Federal Government.
 
I think he would push for more civil rights for Blacks in the Free States and abolition of slavery in any Union Slave States that would be left. He would also make sure the Fugative Slave Law was unenforced by the Federal Government.
Also how might the 13th Amendment and its passing be different in TTL.
 
Also how might the 13th Amendment and its passing be different in TTL.

Delayed but inevitible IMO, the country was moving in that direction and it would be a bigger and bigger embaressement for the US. Most likely the slaveowners in the border slave states would be compensated to some extent.
 
Delayed but inevitible IMO, the country was moving in that direction and it would be a bigger and bigger embaressement for the US. Most likely the slaveowners in the border slave states would be compensated to some extent.
Alright I was wondering if a Democratic President might change that.
 
Johnrankins

Do you have any ideas for this TL in regards to how the USA's expansion into the west is effected?
 
Johnrankins

Do you have any ideas for this TL in regards to how the USA's expansion into the west is effected?

The Native Americans might well benefit. They will be able to cut a better deal by playing the USA and CSA against each other if they are smart and luck goes their way. They can't stop westward expansion or possibly slow it down much but they may at least get more than baubles for their land and get the US government to make more than absolutely negligible payments.
 
Top