What if the Confederate States of America survived?

I don't see that happening - Italy was unified in 1861, while the German unification had already been set well in motion and it was, to be honest, really unlikely to be affected by a civil war in a second-rate isolationist power in another continent.

If the Union, with its advantages in manpower and industry, fails to prevent Confederate independence, that will affect the thinking of groups seeking to gain or maintain independence, as well as the thinking of groups seeking to annex territory or prevent secession. Separatists will be more likely to attempt independence and to fight longer for it. Those seeking to annex them or maintain control will be more likely to decide the cost exceeds the benefits. These tradeoffs on cost versus benefit affected OTL's Italian and German unification and in a world with Confederate independence the cost is likely to be higher, or at least believed to be higher.

Italy was unified in 1861 - sort of. Nice and Savoy had been ceded to France - it wasn't worth the cost to make them part of Italy. Venetia didn't become part of Italy until 1866 in OTL, after a war with Austria. Rome wasn't added until 1870. Trentino, Friuli, and Dalmatia didn't become part of Italy until after World War I. And the Italian speaking part of Switzerland was never annexed - the estimated cost exceeded the benefits. In an ATL where the cost of annexation seen as higher than in OTL; Venetia, Rome, Trentino, Friuli, and Dalmatia may not become part of Italy as soon as in OTL and might not become part of Italy at all.

German unification took place between 1864 and 1871, and even then Austria, South Tyrol, Lichtenstein, and the German speaking parts of Switzerland and Luxemburg were not added to the German Empire. Even during the Great War, some German states, such as Bavaria, attempted to negotiate a separate peace. In an ATL where the cost of annexation seen as higher than in OTL, German unification could be delayed, less states might join or stay, and there might be more than one German state.
 
France and Mexico, given the former's role in the latter, is obvious before you even factor in economic ties. Brazil, meanwhile, took steps IOTL to aid the Confederacy following disagreements with the Union from 1864 on, and that they share a similar system would also be a boon for ties.

What steps did Brazil take to aid the Confederacy in OTL?

Economic ties do not guarantee alliances, strong economic ties didn't stop the Confederacy from trying to secede from the Union. The Confederacy had few economic ties with Mexico, and even fewer with France. Plus you are ignoring my central point - Mexico and France would only ally with the Confederacy if it was to their advantage, and so far you have mentioned no advantage that Mexico or France would gain from this alliance.

In 1860, the South held about 14% of U.S. industry, and would not regain this number until about 1910. Here, not only does it avoid most of the damage of OTL, but also has its own domestic class of capitalists, a large labor force, and a protective tariff wall for its industry.

An independent Confederacy would have less of a tariff wall than OTL's postbellum south. The Confederacy did have its own domestic class of capitalists, but they had far less working capitol than was invested by northerners in OTL's postbelium south. In OTL, roughly 1/7 the the Confederacy's black labor force and 1/10 of the Confederacy's white labor force served in the Union army, few who whom would voluntarily return to an independent Confederacy. Lastly, you provide no explanation for how an independent Confederacy would suffer significantly less damage than in OTL.

Your claims that an an independent Confederacy could have "50% of the U.S.'s production capabilities by 1900 or 1910" and "surpass the Union sometime in the 20th Century" are still contradicted by the US Census of Manufacturing. It's like postulating a world where Mexico had more industry than Germany or the Netherlands had more industry than France.

Your logic makes literally no sense, when you consider the fact that the vast majority of those incidents were resolved peacefully and amicably, while economic ties and relations grew all the closer. The Great Rapprochement was also a thing you conveniently left out.

I recounted a series of actual events, showing that while Britain and the US did become friends, it took an extended period of time and there were a lot of bumps along the road. How does a recounting of actual history make no sense? I did not mention the Great Rapprochement by name, but I clearly showed that Britain and the US did eventually become allies.
 
Mexico yes. Mixture of economic and geographical reasons.

That would give Mexico and the Confederacy economic ties, but does not explain why they would ally. Alliances occur to prevent or prosecute wars. What common foe would these two nations have to defend against or to attack? Mexico and the Confederacy are more likely to go to war with each other over border disagreements or the Confederate quest for lebenschraum than to ally.
 
France and Mexico would most likely support the Confederacy by strategic necessity (especially if Napoleon II's empire is still kicking) and if Max has been installed on the Mexican throne, then the Confederacy is the only "friendly" power likely to act as a buffer to US interference so even if Max didn't like the Confederates on a personal level, he would hold his nose and work with them if it meant his survival.

How would a Mexico-Confederacy alliance be a strategic necessity for either party? In an independent Confederacy timeline, the Union would probably be too war weary to be thinking of attacking either. Plus Confederate leadership, having defeated the 'mongrel' Yankees would be unlikely want or believe they need the aid of a non-white country to maintain their independence.

British relations would be complicated. The Confederacy would probably be seen as a reasonable buffer/impediment to American influence in North America, but out and out allying with them would be poorly thought out in the immediate post-war environment. They'd happily do business with North and South, but I can't see them straight up allying with one or another absent some sort of pressing reason to do so in the 19th century.

OTL's United States wasn't important enough for any European power to ally with in the late Victorian era, so it would take some very unusual circumstances for any European power want to ally with either the Union or the Confederacy.
 
What steps did Brazil take to aid the Confederacy in OTL?

They granted belligerent rights to the Confederacy, allowing Confederate privateers to use their ports and sold supplies to them. In the aftermath of the Bahia Incident, they forced the Federals to return the Confederate vessel Florida to the CSN (Although it was sunk in an "accident" before such could happen).

Economic ties do not guarantee alliances, strong economic ties didn't stop the Confederacy from trying to secede from the Union. The Confederacy had few economic ties with Mexico, and even fewer with France.

Indeed such does not promise ties, but we know for a fact such a desire did exist by the interest of the French to intervene in favor of the Confederates and their reliance on Southern cotton supplies. As far as economic ties go with Mexico, they were extremely important for the Northern provinces, which made quite a bit of money off trade with the South.

Plus you are ignoring my central point - Mexico and France would only ally with the Confederacy if it was to their advantage, and so far you have mentioned no advantage that Mexico or France would gain from this alliance.

I ignored no such thing, as I directly said it should be obvious; a surviving Confederacy serves as a useful buffer for the French efforts in Mexico, and the dual threat of a French-Confederate alliance will preclude American actions against Imperial Mexico.

An independent Confederacy would have less of a tariff wall than OTL's postbellum south.

The Confederates adopted the tariff rates of 1858 in 1861 and strengthened it in some ways with other fees.

The Confederacy did have its own domestic class of capitalists, but they had far less working capitol than was invested by northerners in OTL's postbelium south.

The value of the Plantation system was worth more than all the factories and railroads in the North, meaning they'd have plenty of capital to fund industrialization.

In OTL, roughly 1/7 the the Confederacy's black labor force and 1/10 of the Confederacy's white labor force served in the Union army, few who whom would voluntarily return to an independent Confederacy.

More than made up for by a reduction of casualties.

Lastly, you provide no explanation for how an independent Confederacy would suffer significantly less damage than in OTL.

If the war ends in 1862, for example, it should be quite clear the newly independent Confederacy would've avoided the damage inflicted over the course of the rest war. That there would be no damage to Richmond, destruction of Selma, or burning of Atlanta should be obvious, for just a few examples.

Your claims that an an independent Confederacy could have "50% of the U.S.'s production capabilities by 1900 or 1910" and "surpass the Union sometime in the 20th Century" are still contradicted by the US Census of Manufacturing. It's like postulating a world where Mexico had more industry than Germany or the Netherlands had more industry than France.

Comparing the census of manufacturing from IOTL, where the South was subjected to four years of warfare, had its capital class destroyed, a third of its working age men killed outright, lacked a protective tariff to stimulate its domestic industries, and finally had unfair shipment rates forced onto it, is simply a nonstarter. As I mentioned before, in 1860 the South had about 14% of the nation's industry and would only regain this position again by about 1910; presuming this rate of growth ATL, with no extensive damage to the South, would mean the Confederacy would have roughly a third of the U.S. total by 1910/1915. 30/70 = ~43% of ATL North/USA. Given the ATL Confederacy would definitely have a better growth rate, it's not at all implausible to imagine they'd reach 50% if not higher. Long term, they'd definitely do so, as OTL showed with regards to industrial development in the South since the 1960s; go look up all the car plants that have come to the South since the 70s or how the South is dominating in domestic textile manufacturoring nowadays.

I recounted a series of actual events, showing that while Britain and the US did become friends, it took an extended period of time and there were a lot of bumps along the road. How does a recounting of actual history make no sense? I did not mention the Great Rapprochement by name, but I clearly showed that Britain and the US did eventually become allies.

You answered your original question with this; it's more likely for the United States and Confederacy to peacefully resolve issues and become important economic partners than to become long term enemies.
 
Last edited:
I'm not fully sure Mexico would do that. Confederate interests are going to clash with that, so what would end up happening is friction between the two. Also, that's not assuming the US would not change their stance, and see Mexico better as an ally to keep the CS in check. At least, not sure if the Second Empire holds, but if it goes like OTL and Juarez is back in power, he'd definitely not side with the CS over the US.

The Second Mexican Empire would have a very vested interest in that. Maximillian would need a local ally, and the CSA would be the closest one at hand, otherwise the possibility that the US (like OTL) would turn its ire on him is very real. Juarez would not support the Confederacy (due to adventurous warlords in the North like Vidaurri), but a French backed Mexico would all but be guaranteed to use it as a buffer.

It is virtually impossible for Prussia to lose the Austrian Prussian war, unless Austria gets multiple Great Powers into the war against Prussia. Prussia's Guns were 10x better than Austria's

At the strategic level there were blunders leading up to Sadowa the Austrians could have exploited (my sources aren't in front of me, but Moltke apparently made a nearly fatal error leading up to the battle that he only corrected at the last minute, IIRC the Prussian army was out of position to support itself and it was something of a fluke Benedek wasn't able to take advantage of that). During Sadowa itself there was apparently an opportunity for the Austrians to counter attack, but it went unexploited, and as mentioned the King and Chancellor came under artillery fire at one point.

How would a Mexico-Confederacy alliance be a strategic necessity for either party? In an independent Confederacy timeline, the Union would probably be too war weary to be thinking of attacking either. Plus Confederate leadership, having defeated the 'mongrel' Yankees would be unlikely want or believe they need the aid of a non-white country to maintain their independence.

French backed Mexico = Confederate/Mexican ties. Even if the Second French Empire falls, the Mexican Empire would need a local ally to fall back on, and that would be the Confederacy.

OTL's United States wasn't important enough for any European power to ally with in the late Victorian era, so it would take some very unusual circumstances for any European power want to ally with either the Union or the Confederacy.

Using the Confederates as a check on Union interference in European powers mucking about in the new world means that you'd see friendly relations with at least France, perhaps an emerging Germany, or even briefly Spain.
 
Top