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

Dwight L. Smith"A North American Neutral Indian Zone: Persistence of a British Idea." Northwest Ohio Quarterly 61#2-4 (1989): 46-63.

Did you just copy and paste the citation from wikipedia?

Because on the the wiki page, no where does it refer to keeping America "hemmed in". In fact, it backs up The Gunslinger. The plan was to set up an extra layer of defense for Canada.

Now, I will see if I can find the full article and see if it says anything different.
 

Spengler

Banned
Well that was the goal, The nativestate would be under British protection keeping America at bay. Also the taking of New Orleans would further weaken the USA.
 
Did you just copy and paste the citation from wikipedia?

Because on the the wiki page, no where does it refer to keeping America "hemmed in". In fact, it backs up The Gunslinger. The plan was to set up an extra layer of defense for Canada.

Now, I will see if I can find the full article and see if it says anything different.

I checked, and I haven't found any way to find an online version of the article. It doesn't seem to be available through any of the databases I have access to through my college. That said, none of the other articles I do find seem to say the purpose was to "hem in" the US. There's a gap in the literature about the British plan for an Indian barrier state, but the primary reasons for it were 1) to aid Canadian security by creating a buffer state, and 2) to secure control of the fur trade in the region. The closest anyone comes to saying anything about hemming in the US is one abstract that said a periferal reason was a desire to regain some control over territories that had been ceded in 1783.

Spengler said:
Well that was the goal, The nativestate would be under British protection keeping America at bay. Also the taking of New Orleans would further weaken the USA.

I've never read anything that indicates Britain intended to keep New Orleans. The intention of the campaign was to seize it to, yes, weaken the United States' bargaining position at the peace conference. As were most of the British offenses in the war. Taking territory wasn't necessarily about conquering it to keep it, though it certainly was in some cases, but to gain a better position at the peace negotiations.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
... 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.
Play the ball, not the man.
 
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.
It's unrealistic to compare Nazi-era WW2 industrialised slavery, or even Soviet-era gulag industrialised slavery, to a continuation of a CSA industrialised slavery. The conditions were nothing like each other, other than the bare fact that slavery was involved in each.

Nazi slavery was based on:
(i) imposing slavery on previously free peoples, with resultant high levels of resistance, sabotage etc
(ii) focused on achieving the highest possible production targets, regardless of the effects on the workers
(iii) based on the principle that the workers were expendable and easily replaced if they were worked to death
(iv) had in many cases a secondary aim of reducing the population of targeted ethnic groups.

This is nothing like the CSA, where
(i) the peoples were born into slavery, and the levels of sabotage and resistance were much lower than any Nazi-equivalent
(ii) focused on achieving the highest possible production targets within the limits of keeping the slaves miserable rather than dead
(iii) based on the principle that slaves were a form of mobile capital and anything which reduced their value was a bad thing
(iv) based on the underlying social aim of keeping "black" populations in subjugation, not elimination.

Pre-ACW Southern slaveowners were very good at figuring out how much work they could get out of their slaves without killing them. Seriously. Putting actual figures to it. For instance, in the Black Belt of Alabama, the accepted maxim was that a slaveowner who was getting ten bales of cotton per slave per day was a good manager. A slaveowner who was getting twelve bales of cotton per slave per day was one who was working his slaves to death and eroding his capital.

CSA slaveowners would, no doubt, be precisely as calculating when it came to working out how much production they could get out of factory slaves. And the existing historical evidence of slaves in pre-ACW Southern factories demonstrates that sabotage/resistance was a tolerable problem.

Southern slaveowners were utter bastards, but they were profit-maximising heartless bastards. Nazi slave industrialisation involved Nazis of the school of work-them-to-death-plenty-more-where-they-came-from-bastards, which is an entirely different matter.
 

Spengler

Banned
Still not going to help them industrialize without capital. Also rmind me Jared where are they going to get the money to launch all these invasions and expand slavery this isn't your american draka. This is a backwater. Also I brought up the Nazis because the guy also advocating that the SOuth would be able to go on imperialist adventures with no consequences would also be able to use slavery as brutality would keep the slaves down. Really all it takes is the CSA to piss off America enough to end the entire thing.
 
Still not going to help them industrialize without capital. Also rmind me Jared where are they going to get the money to launch all these invasions and expand slavery this isn't your american draka.
Excuse me? Where have I suggested that the CSA is going to invade anywhere and expand slavery? Don't try to put words into my mouth. All I'm pointing out is that analogies to Nazis are so flawed as to be useless.

As to capital, while I didn't bring that up, the answer is mostly domestic capital, which existed before the ACW. Slaves themselves were a form of capital, after all. I'd also expect some foreign capital - if you think that slavery would stop, say, British investment in the CSA, then check out how much British investment was in slaveowning Brazil.

Also I brought up the Nazis because the guy also advocating that the SOuth would be able to go on imperialist adventures with no consequences would also be able to use slavery as brutality would keep the slaves down.
The only person in this thread I've seen suggesting that the South would go on imperialist adventures to expand slavery is you. The OP did not mention whether the TL-191 expansion of CSA into Cuba, Sonora and Chihuahua happened, but even if it did, that was not military invasions anywhere.
 
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.

I'm going to agree with EnglishCanuck here, mostly because he beat me to one of my things when I find one of these first: the Lost Cause as we know it has no reason to be if the South wins. The South was unapologetically oligarchical and racist at the time; if they had won they would have taken it up to an eleven.

First, the South was experimenting with slave industrialization before the outbreak of the war. There's nothing preventing that from having some impact. Second, well, let's look at late 19th century intellectual history, OTL. There are two huge currents that have wide popularity. The first is various varietals of scientific racism, which was widely and broadly popular across various philosophies of politics and political parties. The second is eugenics. Race theory from really before the war, but really heats up in 1880s; eugenics or "human stock" starts up in the 1880s and catches fire with the rediscovery of Mendel in 1800.

Now its very important to emphasize - just because every got some cold water in the face about both of these things in 1945 doesn't mean they were popular as all shit before. Many US state fairs, if you dig deep in the records, had their "Human Stock" or "Better Families" competitions, complete with blue ribbons. You submitted your genealogy, any diseases or lack there of, your IQ, etc, and they picked the winner. "Better Babies competitions were a thing. Many have wondered in retrospect how exactly one finds a two year olds IQ, but they all thought they could. Point being, people talked, openly and without a trace of shame, about breeding for a better human openly and unashamedly. Conservatives did it, progressives did it - their disagreements was over the proper way of eugenics, not the self-evident desirability of the thing itself.

Now in a CSA victory timeline, even if it's the one kind I think plausible, with the Mississippi and much of the upper South lost, we are dropping into this fervid intellectual climate a state where it is quite permissible to try and breed your fellow human beings like cattle. Into this climate of armchair theorists looking for the superman, we're dropping some newly confident about their oligarchic and racist system Scientific Men Of Our Modern Victorian Era. The CSA will be the mecca for every tinpot racial theorist and would be eugenicist, in a country which described owning human beings as the core element of their system. Remember, the one thing the CSA constitution absolutely barred was abolition. Far from making them international pariahs, slavery will make the CSA the cutting edge of the new science of biology. And may God have mercy on us all...

It's not going to be some kind of Ron Paulite utopia. It's going to be fucking Draka. Right up until a more centralized, more immigrant heavy US that's been able to spend more money on improvements in its plains and mountain West rolls and crushes it.

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.


On of the many horrible aspects of the Southern slave system was that it could maintain a replacement rate. One of Virginia's big business was shipping its surplus South. Because the South were experts of a multi-century system, where they could break someone just enough to get them to work but not enough to cause them to abandon all hope. The South was vile system, and deserved the terrible swift sword.

Also, check your history. Slave trade ban started in the 1840s, patrolled by the US and Royal Navys. There was smuggling, but for a generation antebellum, slavery survived by its own replacement. Again, a vile and horrible system.
 
Excuse me? Where have I suggested that the CSA is going to invade anywhere and expand slavery? Don't try to put words into my mouth. All I'm pointing out is that analogies to Nazis are so flawed as to be useless.

As to capital, while I didn't bring that up, the answer is mostly domestic capital, which existed before the ACW. Slaves themselves were a form of capital, after all. I'd also expect some foreign capital - if you think that slavery would stop, say, British investment in the CSA, then check out how much British investment was in slaveowning Brazil.


The only person in this thread I've seen suggesting that the South would go on imperialist adventures to expand slavery is you. The OP did not mention whether the TL-191 expansion of CSA into Cuba, Sonora and Chihuahua happened, but even if it did, that was not military invasions anywhere.

The bigger problem, Jared is that the CSA is going to be hip deep in debt unless the North just lets them go. They were hip deep in debt in 1862 and it only got worse. By the end of the war the CSA is all but bankrupt and begging for funds. Almost all the capital is going to be used for debt repayment and keeping the military happy.
 
The bigger problem, Jared is that the CSA is going to be hip deep in debt unless the North just lets them go. They were hip deep in debt in 1862 and it only got worse. By the end of the war the CSA is all but bankrupt and begging for funds. Almost all the capital is going to be used for debt repayment and keeping the military happy.

I think this is plausible as well, and I enjoy your timeline. I think they will horrible eugenicists, and also likely horrible, in debt out the ass eugenicists.
 
The bigger problem, Jared is that the CSA is going to be hip deep in debt unless the North just lets them go. They were hip deep in debt in 1862 and it only got worse. By the end of the war the CSA is all but bankrupt and begging for funds. Almost all the capital is going to be used for debt repayment and keeping the military happy.
Almost all of the federal government capital, certainly. The federal government will be using almost all of the revenues it collects from tariffs (passed early in the ACW, but earned virtually nothing during wartime because of the blockade) and agricultural taxes (passed later in the ACW, including on cotton) to pay off debt, keep the military happy, and do not much else, really.

But that says nothing about private capital (and, to a lesser degree, state government capital), of which the South still had plenty, particularly with an 1862 POD (as per the OP) or even with a later POD (assuming that slaves are not freed, since that's where most of the capital is). That is where most of the capital for investment would need to come from anyway, since the Southern attitude to industrialisation for a long time had been "do it if you want, but not with my tax money, thank you". Even if the federal CSA government is near-broke, that doesn't do much to stop foreign investment by loaning to individuals or syndicates, which is how most of the (limited) industrialisation happened post-ACW in OTL.
 
Almost all of the federal government capital, certainly. The federal government will be using almost all of the revenues it collects from tariffs (passed early in the ACW, but earned virtually nothing during wartime because of the blockade) and agricultural taxes (passed later in the ACW, including on cotton) to pay off debt, keep the military happy, and do not much else, really.

But that says nothing about private capital (and, to a lesser degree, state government capital), of which the South still had plenty, particularly with an 1862 POD (as per the OP) or even with a later POD (assuming that slaves are not freed, since that's where most of the capital is). That is where most of the capital for investment would need to come from anyway, since the Southern attitude to industrialisation for a long time had been "do it if you want, but not with my tax money, thank you". Even if the federal CSA government is near-broke, that doesn't do much to stop foreign investment by loaning to individuals or syndicates, which is how most of the (limited) industrialisation happened post-ACW in OTL.

To pay off the debt and military taxes would have to go through the roof. That sucks up most of your capital.
 
To pay off the debt and military taxes would have to go through the roof. That sucks up most of your capital.
Taxes are going to be so sky-high that economic activity grinds to a halt? I'd somewhat dubious on that, though I'd welcome some actual numbers to have a look at. I'm not near hard copy sources at the moment, so can't easily track down the size of post-ACW cotton exports as the best available indicator of how much activity there would be. If you don't have numbers handy, though, I'll see what I can track down.

Addendum: I found a brief source online here regarding U.S. cotton (and other) exports post-ACW. The figures given are for the whole of the USA, but for cotton in practice the large majority of that was from the former CSA, so it's a good approximation.

Between 1866-1875, the average US$ value of cotton exports (total to all countries) was just over $205 million. A 5% tax on that (half of what the CSA passed during the war on agricultural production) would be ~US$10 million per year. That would not be the ony source of tax revenue, of course (tariffs, other agricultural production) but would be a significant one. How big would the federal government's yearly interest bill be?
 
Last edited:
Taxes are going to be so sky-high that economic activity grinds to a halt? I'd somewhat dubious on that, though I'd welcome some actual numbers to have a look at. I'm not near hard copy sources at the moment, so can't easily track down the size of post-ACW cotton exports as the best available indicator of how much activity there would be. If you don't have numbers handy, though, I'll see what I can track down.

Utter halt? Probably not. Slow the economy way down? Yes. Not only is the debt sky high but the railroads are getting worn out, many of the plantations have been looted, a large number of slaves escaped , many of your young men are dead etc. This is true as early as 1862.
 

Spengler

Banned
Excuse me? Where have I suggested that the CSA is going to invade anywhere and expand slavery? Don't try to put words into my mouth. All I'm pointing out is that analogies to Nazis are so flawed as to be useless.

As to capital, while I didn't bring that up, the answer is mostly domestic capital, which existed before the ACW. Slaves themselves were a form of capital, after all. I'd also expect some foreign capital - if you think that slavery would stop, say, British investment in the CSA, then check out how much British investment was in slaveowning Brazil.


The only person in this thread I've seen suggesting that the South would go on imperialist adventures to expand slavery is you. The OP did not mention whether the TL-191 expansion of CSA into Cuba, Sonora and Chihuahua happened, but even if it did, that was not military invasions anywhere.
Yeah slaves are only to be bought in the CSA itself, foreign capital will not be coming in.

Also I brought up the other because Noodles was the one bringing it up.

Also those high taxes are going to cut into capital for industrialization.
 
Yeah slaves are only to be bought in the CSA itself, foreign capital will not be coming in
And you base this on what? As I said, there was substantial British investment (to name only one investing country) in slaveowning Brazil. Why would profit-seeking British (or American, or French) or other investors not be willing to hold their noses and make a lot of money off investing in the CSA, when they were prepared to do so in another slaveowning country (Brazil)?

Also I brought up the other because Noodles was the one bringing it up
In this thread? Where?

Also those high taxes are going to cut into capital for industrialization.
To a degree, certainly. But this is an empirical question of how high the taxes would likely be and the likely effects on the rate of industrialisation. So, got any numbers to go with how much of a difference it would make?
 
Top