TBH a Confederacy that ends up as anything more than a balkanized, dirt poor oligarchic banana republic rump state with all its industry owned by foreign powers seems like a Sealion to me.
Have we ever had a TL where this gets fleshed out?
TBH a Confederacy that ends up as anything more than a balkanized, dirt poor oligarchic banana republic rump state with all its industry owned by foreign powers seems like a Sealion to me.
Also, he probably would die stupidly like falling off his horse or something.Also Alexander's empire stabilizing with it's full territory or near that. That mess was never going to last more than a decade.
In fact, a Confederate government with a government that has direct continuity to the one that revolted against the US will, more likely than not, fail to abolish slavery in all its existence until the 1920s or so.
The more I look at it, a prosperous Confederacy is extremely implausible. The fact was, it was a nation supported by a small elite of slaveocrats that ruled over almost everyone and were the only people allowed to vote. More likely than not, the Confederacy could see a revolution.
Have we ever had a TL where this gets fleshed out?
I agree with all of the parts except the "prosperous" part. The CS in 1860 had a small industrial base compared to the US, yes, but so did everywhere. Compared to Italy, Austria, or France, much less so. There was also a rapid industrialization program during the war that was in many ways successful. Add that to the fact that a victorious CS is a CS whose heartland hasn't been razed by the US Army, and the CS that wins the war is a CS that has 2-3 the industrial base that it had when it went to war--which would make it one of the most industrialized countries in the world. Add in an extremely militaristic worldview, the constant threat from the US, and the need for international trade for their economy to function, and there are the makings of a state that has the means, the will, and the opportunity to be a great power.
The CS in 1860 had a small industrial base compared to the US, yes, but so did everywhere. Compared to Italy, Austria, or France, much less so.
Add that to the fact that a victorious CS is a CS whose heartland hasn't been razed by the US Army,
Add in an extremely militaristic worldview, the constant threat from the US, and the need for international trade for their economy to function, and there are the makings of a state that has the means, the will, and the opportunity to be a great power.
Could be Haiti working as an Cuba to the CSA's Angola. Infiltrating slave camps and organizing revolts in the interior.America, Mexico and who would the third power be? Haiti? That'd actually be a cool timeline if done right.
Not that I know of unfortunately.Have we ever had a TL where this gets fleshed out?
All of those states had inherent disadvantages. France had little coal, and so had to conduct an industrial revolution based on electricity - naturally, it was more haphazard than Britain or Germany. I also don't think France is a good comparison, as it had a much larger industrial base than the Confederacy could ever hope to achieve.
Austria-Hungary didn't really industrialize, and was behind the other European powers. And Italy wasn't the strongest nation at all, and lagged far behind the other nations, including France. So, having industrial similar to those countries really doesn't bode well for the Confederacy.
It would likely lose the areas in which the war was fought on, which further reduces its resources.
As @Johnrankins notes, the Confederacy also had a massive amount of debt, which would restrict its ability to form a large military.
Also, I'm unsure if it could hope to trade with other European powers.
Its only product was cotton
a product which India was producing more and more of, and would probably produce even more than OTL if Britain had to choose between trading with a slaveowning nation and its colony.
Wasn't it true that most of the Confederacy's economy was tied up in exporting cotton bales, to the point that they could barely actually make things out of what they produced?
I seem to remember that their entire economy prioritized cotton and other basic agricultural staples to the point that their industrial infrastructure was a generation behind the Union's, and even their rail network was vastly less developed. How's that going to work? Economies that specialize in one thing end up with problems once an alternative source of that thing is found.
I'm pretty skeptical in general of the idea of a surviving Confederacy, I admit.
I agree with all of the parts except the "prosperous" part. The CS in 1860 had a small industrial base compared to the US, yes, but so did everywhere. Compared to Italy, Austria, or France, much less so. There was also a rapid industrialization program during the war that was in many ways successful. Add that to the fact that a victorious CS is a CS whose heartland hasn't been razed by the US Army, and the CS that wins the war is a CS that has 2-3 the industrial base that it had when it went to war--which would make it one of the most industrialized countries in the world. Add in an extremely militaristic worldview, the constant threat from the US, and the need for international trade for their economy to function, and there are the makings of a state that has the means, the will, and the opportunity to be a great power.
It isn't impossible however for "mainstream" Hinduism to become a prosletyzing religion. The Hare Krishna movement is, and it's roots go all the way to 1600's Gaudiya VaishnavismA lot of pre 1900s Hindu Nationalist wanks fall into this category. There have been a few Hindu nationalists both here and on soc.history.what-if that have come up with Sealionesque scenarios like "What if a superpower Indian Empire colonized Europe instead of the other way around?" Of course, the question is why an Indian Empire pre-1900s would need to colonize Europe in the first place. As far as Indians were concerned, Europe had nothing they needed (too cold, too far away) which couldn't be gotten by freely trading with each other. Nor was Hinduism ever a proselytizing religion. So "saving souls" is out. The only reason left is that it is a revenge fantasy.
It isn't impossible however for "mainstream" Hinduism to become a prosletyzing religion. The Hare Krishna movement is, and it's roots go all the way to 1600's Gaudiya Vaishnavism
A lot of pre 1900s Hindu Nationalist wanks fall into this category. There have been a few Hindu nationalists both here and on soc.history.what-if that have come up with Sealionesque scenarios like "What if a superpower Indian Empire colonized Europe instead of the other way around?" Of course, the question is why an Indian Empire pre-1900s would need to colonize Europe in the first place. As far as Indians were concerned, Europe had nothing they needed (too cold, too far away) which couldn't be gotten by freely trading with each other. Nor was Hinduism ever a proselytizing religion. So "saving souls" is out. The only reason left is that it is a revenge fantasy.
...how are the ties weak? It's founder was a Krishnaist Vaishnavite from India who was both a scholar and ascetic himself after having been trained and taught by another scholar/ascetic... if anything the only unusual thing about the religion is how loud it is.But it's literally a minor New Age cult. It has ties to the Krishnaist Vaishnavism of Chaitanya and co., yes, but those ties are weak, and it's mostly built on modern Orientalism.
The problem with that source is that it's explicitly manufacturing, not modern manufacturing. That's why the full table is (for 1860)The UK's share of world manufacturing output in 1860 was 19.9 percent; that of France, 7.9 percent; the US, 7.2 percent; Russia, 7 percent, the various German states, 4.9 percent; Austria, 4.2 percent, Italy, 2.5 percent.
Well sure it bodes well. Italy, Austria-Hungary, France--these are nations which are/were all industrialized. They weren't impoverished backwaters. They were great powers, not banana republics (which is the comparison I'm targeting). A nation doesn't have to be on the level of the US or the UK to not be a banana republic.
They did before. Spain and Brazil traded with the rest of Europe. Everyone traded with Belgium while they were raping the Congo. The 1800s were not a time noted for enlightened foreign policy.
That's a pretty big simplification. It was the #1 cash crop, but not their only product by any means.
But beyond that, there are other countries in the world that need cotton other than the UK.