Views on the South and Civil War if CSA won, but later lost

[Historyman 14]

All right. Taking notes and elements from Timeline-191 and more, the South won the Civil War (With aid from the UK and French.) and stay independent. However, when WW1 rolls around (for the sake of argument, most everything else in the world happen OTL more or less) the USA allies with Germany and the CSA allies with the Entente. In the war, the Central Powers are victories. Germany and it's European allies win over the Allies in Europe, while the South falls and is forced to rejoin the Union.

Now, after all that, what would the US views and thoughts be about the Civil War and Confederate States, then and now?

(I know good bits of this is a bit ASB, and please correct me on anything you see fit.)

 

[thekingsguard]

They would be much less forgiving of the South compared to OTL - any trace of Southern nationalism would be stomped out, and reframing a battle between loyal Americans and traitorous slavers as a "battle of brothers" would be a nonstarter here.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

None of this modern Lost Cause crap. The reason (IMO) that some of the more awful aspects of the Confederacy have been papered over OTL is because the Confederacy did not last very long and the brutally racist/oligarchal system it stood for did not have the chance to show its full potential for human suffering.

Had the Confederacy gone on it would have looked like some hellish version of Sparta meets Apartheid South Africa, ending in an inevitable bloody death when the status quo is upended by some political/military cataclysm in either the late 19th or early 20th century. My best bet is that the CSA has a 50 year shelf life, tops.

We really need a TL which can show just how bad a CSA would have been as an independent nation.

 

[GohanLSSJ2]

None of this modern Lost Cause crap. The reason (IMO) that some of the more awful aspects of the Confederacy have been papered over OTL is because the Confederacy did not last very long and the brutally racist/oligarchal system it stood for did not have the chance to show its full potential for human suffering.

Had the Confederacy gone on it would have looked like some hellish version of Sparta meets Apartheid South Africa, ending in an inevitable bloody death when the status quo is upended by some political/military cataclysm in either the late 19th or early 20th century. My best bet is that the CSA has a 50 year shelf life, tops.

We really need a TL which can show just how bad a CSA would have been as an independent nation.

And I intend to show that... Once I get there at least.

 

[Roland Traveler]

None of this modern Lost Cause crap. The reason (IMO) that some of the more awful aspects of the Confederacy have been papered over OTL is because the Confederacy did not last very long and the brutally racist/oligarchal system it stood for did not have the chance to show its full potential for human suffering.

Had the Confederacy gone on it would have looked like some hellish version of Sparta meets Apartheid South Africa, ending in an inevitable bloody death when the status quo is upended by some political/military cataclysm in either the late 19th or early 20th century. My best bet is that the CSA has a 50 year shelf life, tops.

We really need a TL which can show just how bad a CSA would have been as an independent nation.

Already is one, Land of Cotton, where the CSA turns into a backwater that looses to Mexico a decade later.

 

[dandan_noodles]

I find that quite a stretch; slavery is incredibly potent economically, and even before secession, the south was the fourth largest economy on earth. Far more nightmarish for the fusion of modern technology and ancient slavery to produce an economic powerhouse.

 

[Spengler]

Either as a backwater. Or as a great example of why the British empire was a hypocritical hellhole and the Germans the USA were justified in its dismantling.

 

[HammerofWar]

Economic powerhouse? I don't think so.

 

[dandan_noodles]

80% of U.S. exports in 1860 were the products of slave labor; I mentioned already that the South by itself would have been the 4th wealthiest economy on the planet then. Slavery was not some vestige of a bygone age that southerners were just too stupid to realize they had to get rid of; it was the engine of the world industrial economy in the 19th century. Slavery's advantages for all forms of low skill high labor work are obvious, but it provides economic advantages over free labor even in skilled work, and the practice of renting out slaves allows it to mimic the economics of free labor to an extent.

 

[sahaidak]

I find that quite a stretch; slavery is incredibly potent economically, and even before secession, the south was the fourth largest economy on earth. Far more nightmarish for the fusion of modern technology and ancient slavery to produce an economic powerhouse.

It was the fourth richest per capita, not the fourth largest overall (large poor countries still had world's largest economies in 1860). As for the fusion of slavery and industrial technology, it can be done (hell, it was done in Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union), and it even was done on a small scale in the American South (like in sugar factories of Louisiana), but I am not sure the South was ready to embark on a wide-ranging industrialization drive while staying a slave society (in the Nazi and Soviet cases, they had a lot of industrial growth done beforehand under free-labour conditions, and only introduced slavery to already existing industrial economies).

 

[dandan_noodles]

Well, in the 19th century, use of slaves for industrial purposes was becoming widespread in Virginia, and they understood themselves to be the trailblazers for the rest of the slave economy; when they have independence from the north, I think the incentive to develop slave industry will be that much stronger. The data would indicate that industrial slavery was quite profitable in the south, so I don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine the Confederacy with economic weight disproportionate to its population.

 

[Spengler]

Yes slavery in a industrial economy is so effective that the nazis won ww2. No wait they produced substandard industrial rpoducts and weapons because as it turns out having a people working against their will in rather poor conditions will not ensure good work. Now if uyou bring up Rome, Romans unlike the south did not practice chattel slavery at the rate the south did. Also the world would be appaled. I can imagine the south falling to northern armies and slavery revolts. Reallyitwould be hilarious to see a economist who suggested this nightmare in their 80s getting torn apart by slaves. Maybe bayoneeted a few thousand times.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Yes slavery in a industrial economy is so effective that the nazis won ww2. No wait they produced substandard industrial rpoducts and weapons because as it turns out having a people working against their will in rather poor conditions will not ensure good work. Now if uyou bring up Rome, Romans unlike the south did not practice chattel slavery at the rate the south did. Also the world would be appaled. I can imagine the south falling to northern armies and slavery revolts. Reallyitwould be hilarious to see a economist who suggested this nightmare in their 80s getting torn apart by slaves. Maybe bayoneeted a few thousand times.

And how exactly is the South going to replace dead slaves? I mean, slaves have no reason to reproduce themselves, since this means to send their children into slavery. Yes, I'll bring Rome up: After their great conquests, the Romans didn't get great number of new slaves from outside the empire any more, and slavery slowly became a minor economical factor. The CSA will experience the same, just like Brazil did in the 19th century: The British, even if they help the CSA to become independant, will continue to prevent slave trade (hell, the US navy will be pleased to do so too, just to ruin southern economy, and maybe the CSN will even be force to join in). Without a constant influx of new slaves, the numbers of enslaved persons will decline and, after slavery becomes totally insignificant (maybe around 1900), and after the CSA became an internationally isolated country because of the slavery issue, the South will follow Brazil's example and free the slaves with something like the Lei Aurea.

 

[Spengler]

Oh Iknow that, they'll probably have increasingly lighter skinned slaves as more masters rape their slaves. At least until the place is properly eliminated through communist revolution and invasion. It would be a nice way to start the twentieth slavery watching the slavers and their supporters exterminated.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Oh Iknow that, they'll probably have increasingly lighter skinned slaves as more masters rape their slaves. At least until the place is properly eliminated through communist revolution and invasion. It would be a nice way to start the twentieth slavery watching the slavers and their supporters exterminated.

I don't believe in really dystopic CSA scenarios. I mean, Lee isn't going to abolish slavery then tacking DC (besides, I don't think Lee would take DC; rather a French or British general), and the CSA aren't going to abolish slavery in their first decades.
But finally, slavery will disappear for ovious reasons (especially international pressure), and the South will turn in something akin to Apartheid South Africa for 100 years. Quite dystopic, but nothing genocidal.

Also, I don't see a communist revolution happen in the south. The blacks are much too indoctrinated by the church to attempt anything close to communism.

 

[dandan_noodles]

Yes slavery in a industrial economy is so effective that the nazis won ww2. No wait they produced substandard industrial rpoducts and weapons because as it turns out having a people working against their will in rather poor conditions will not ensure good work. Now if uyou bring up Rome, Romans unlike the south did not practice chattel slavery at the rate the south did. Also the world would be appaled. I can imagine the south falling to northern armies and slavery revolts. Reallyitwould be hilarious to see a economist who suggested this nightmare in their 80s getting torn apart by slaves. Maybe bayoneeted a few thousand times.

The only reason the Nazis lasted as long as they did was from their massive use of slave labor; even then, they could have made even better use of their stock of prisoners by focusing on less complex armaments.

The fact is that there wasn't a massive slave population decline after the end of slave importation, since it turns out they still wanted to have families, because they're humans like that, and because the slaveowners are able to deny them that agency. Furthermore, ever since independence, there hadn't been a general slave revolt, because the South had gotten good at preventing that from happening.

 

[Spengler]

I don't believe in really dystopic CSA scenarios. I mean, Lee isn't going to abolish slavery then tacking DC (besides, I don't think Lee would take DC; rather a French or British general), and the CSA aren't going to abolish slavery in their first decades.
But finally, slavery will disappear for ovious reasons (especially international pressure), and the South will turn in something akin to Apartheid South Africa for 100 years. Quite dystopic, but nothing genocidal.

Also, I don't see a communist revolution happen in the south. The blacks are much too indoctrinated by the church to attempt anything close to communism.

Russians were also to indoctrinated to go to communism. Communism doesn't require secularism it requires a horrible system be in place and people looking for an alternative that will allow them to turn the table on their oppressors. Also considering how long it took the RSA to get rid of apartheid the CSA will have slavery well into the 20th century if it lives that long.

The only reason the Nazis lasted as long as they did was from their massive use of slave labor; even then, they could have made even better use of their stock of prisoners by focusing on less complex armaments.

The fact is that there wasn't a massive slave population decline after the end of slave importation, since it turns out they still wanted to have families, because they're humans like that, and because the slaveowners are able to deny them that agency. Furthermore, ever since independence, there hadn't been a general slave revolt, because the South had gotten good at preventing that from happening.

Actually the only reason theyhasn't was that they didn't have a nation that wanted to destroy them on their border that was stronger to them. Which they will in this dystopia you are proposing. I will say though the extermination of slave owners will actually helpthe later history in this timeline.

 

[dandan_noodles]

... Are you taking the piss? The Soviet Union was far more dedicated to wiping out the Nazis (who never could have held out without the Armaments Miracle, powered by slave labor) than the north was to the South; remember, OTL, 44% of the Northern population wanted peace in 1864. They are not singularly dedicated to wiping out the south, and the loss of the war would probably be the death knell of the Republican coalition. Furthermore, once normal relations are restored, there's going to be massive cross border trade between the U.S and C.S.; to this day, the U.S.'s number one trade partner is Canada, after all.

 

[Spengler]

No I am not, the North would not forgive the south for what it had done. Or do you think revanchism and irredentism didn't exist in the 19th century. Sorry if me not agreeing with you means I am drunk. Also they were not dedicated to wiping oout the south yep thats why they didn't fight the civil war. Oh wait they did.

 

[dandan_noodles]

You not understanding basic history is what's making me question your soundness. The fact is that many northerners were prepared to accept southern independence, and the nature of the American party system and international economy makes it unlikely that a party dedicated to a war of revenge would remain viable for long.