Why do people foolishly insist that US/CS reunion is possible?

[Straha]

Ok, people US/CS reunion is *not* even remotely likely. I'm serious ASBs, chuck norris and spdier man descending down from the heavans and crowning me god emperor of the galaxy strike me as being much more likely than the prospect of US/CS reunion because of the following reasons.

1 The cultures are still pretty different and somewhat hostile even now wit 140+ years of yankee reeducation and the second reconstruction/civil rights era of 1960 to 1980. Look at how Dixie is the most hardline part of the country when it comes to the culture wars in US politics. Also look at all the people who still wave CS flags.

2 The economic factor. An independent CS would NOT be on the same level fo an independent union. Witihout dixie to hold it back the Union probably has a per capita income above $50,000 by now. Even assuming a low first world dixie like 25,000 that's still a big standard of living gap.

 

[Douglas]

2 The economic factor. An independent CS would NOT be on the same level fo an independent union. Witihout dixie to hold it back the Union probably has a per capita income above $50,000 by now. Even assuming a low first world dixie like 25,000 that's still a big standard of living gap.

This is pretty much a weird and twisted form of Northeastern propaganda right here. No part of the country "holds the rest back". So basically, while I agree with your main statement that a US/CS reunion is extremely unlikely, this reasoning right here makes no sense at all. The United States would be poorer if it was divided, not richer.

 

[Nicole]

It all depends on when the reunification happens... I could see it happening in say, the 1870s or 1880s if the CSA ends up doing horribly and makes some major blunders on the international stage (saying, losing a war with Spain and Britain in an attempt at a Caribbean landgrab) that subsequently hurt it's economy to the extent that they're begging the US for development aid... (But in such a situation, why would the US want them back?)

 

[Nicole]

This is pretty much a weird and twisted form of Northeastern propaganda right here. No part of the country "holds the rest back". So basically, while I agree with your main statement that a US/CS reunion is extremely unlikely, this reasoning right here makes no sense at all. The United States would be poorer if it was divided, not richer.

The Southern states do tend to have a lower GDP per capita... overall, the USA GDP would definately be smaller without the South, but the per capita GDP would likely be larger, assuming economic situations similar to OTL.

 

[Xen]

I don't think its likely the deep south would ever go back to the Union however, I could see the upper south might do so, especially the land locked states such as Arkansas and Tennessee couldnt exactly go independent. Its possible Virginia and North Carolina might try to form their own Republics, but not likely, if they did secede from the Confederacy they might attempt to return to the Union.

 

[Douglas]

The Southern states do tend to have a lower GDP per capita... overall, the USA GDP would definately be smaller without the South, but the per capita GDP would likely be larger, assuming economic situations similar to OTL.

My point is that economic situations are not likely to be similar to OTL. Having such huge swathes of the US simply gone is going to have huge effects over the next 140+ years...trade with the CSA will be taxed more, Southern goods won't make it to the North as efficiently as before, the Mississippi River will not be as useful of a trade corridor, and these effects are discounting any hostility which could lead to money being spent on fortifications and militaries that otherwise would not have been required.

"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts."

 

[Nicole]

My point is that economic situations are not likely to be similar to OTL. Having such huge swathes of the US simply gone is going to have huge effects over the next 140+ years...trade with the CSA will be taxed more, Southern goods won't make it to the North as efficiently as before, the Mississippi River will not be as useful of a trade corridor, and these effects are discounting any hostility which could lead to money being spent on fortifications and militaries that otherwise would not have been required.

"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts."

True... however, it is possible that US/CS reconciliation could result in a free trade agreement, and the Mississippi is less important with such things as the Eire Canal allowing passage through the Great Lakes.
Continued hostility would have the most effects, but I don't know how likely that is... I think the US and CS will end up each other's largest trade partners thanks to pre-existing relations, and with the exception of slavery would have common goals- both would support keeping European powers out of the hemisphere, for example.

 

[MerryPrankster]

If the Confederacy simply melted down due to tensions between the poor whites and the planters and slave uprisings that the weaker CS military and government could not control, I could imagine the individual states crawling back.

MEJ came up with a "What If: No Confederate Nostalgia?" question and I posted this scenario, but everyone else was more interested in arguing about how EEVIL the US/CS is than actually discussing my point.

And Straha fantasizes about genocide of the South/Midwest, so he's very hard to take seriously sometimes.

 

[Max Sinister]

The CSA constitution may forbid secession, but since its central government wasn't exactly strong, and with a union around wishing for revenge, how could they stop states from leaving (and re-joining the US)?

 

[Straha]

I don't see the US as letting in any states who attempt reunify.

 

[Douglas]

MEJ came up with a "What If: No Confederate Nostalgia?" question and I posted this scenario, but everyone else was more interested in arguing about how EEVIL the US/CS is than actually discussing my point.

Could you post a link? I sense a *bump*...

And Straha fantasizes about genocide of the South/Midwest, so he's very hard to take seriously sometimes.

Yeah...seeing as I'm going to school in Texas, now, I'm doing my utmost to combat such ridiculous fantasies.

 

[Douglas]

The CSA constitution may forbid secession, but since its central government wasn't exactly strong, and with a union around wishing for revenge, how could they stop states from leaving (and re-joining the US)?

Would the Union want revenge? For what? In 1865 I could see revenge, but in a scenario where the CSA wins in, say, early 1862 (i.e. uber-Bull Run), what is there to revenge? A couple of skirmishes? I think people would forget rather quickly.

 

[MerryPrankster]

I don't see the US as letting in any states who attempt reunify.

Why not? Even if they're an economic burden (at least temporarily), it'd be a chance to rub the face of whatever's left on the Confederacy in their epic failure.

 

[Douglas]

Why not? Even if they're an economic burden (at least temporarily), it'd be a chance to rub the face of whatever's left on the Confederacy in their epic failure.

I could see the Upper South returning, in very specific circumstances. Not the Deep South.

The historical background for this is really the Reconstruction: the US was willing to fight to keep them in. If one of them voluntarily wanted back in, I don't think any president would say no. ("Oh, you want back in? The Republican Party has a place for you!")

 

[Max Sinister]

The abolitionists might wish for another war to liberate the slaves, and many Northerners might simply dislike uppity Southerners.

 

[Straha]

The US would NOT want to absorb anymore black people so US-CS wars of conquest are out.

 

[Douglas]

The abolitionists might wish for another war to liberate the slaves, and many Northerners might simply dislike uppity Southerners.

Mmmmmm...but I can't think of an OTL war that would've been started by the US in the next 50 years after a successful CSA that fits this category of a war "because we don't like them" (as opposed to the Spanish-American War: "because we can beat them up and take their stuff easily!").

The late 19th century US was as isolationist and as unexcited about war as you could get. The Senate was terrified about signing an alliance with Nicaragua of all places, as they didn't want to get involved with Central American wars...I don't see a war of revenge as particularly likely given the "national personality" of that time.

 

[Douglas]

The US would NOT want to absorb anymore black people so US-CS wars of conquest are out.

That's hardly one of the major reasons why the Union wouldn't want to fight another war with the Confederacy.

 

[JimmyJimJam]

The CSA winning the war at all is ASB, so whats your point?

 

[Homer]

The abolitionists might wish for another war to liberate the slaves, and many Northerners might simply dislike uppity Southerners.

Absolutely true!

1. abolitionists are still against slavery
2. Unionists are still against secession of the South
3. there would be a constant exodus of fled slaves to the North
4. Growing expansionism
5. Problems in the West

So there would be more then enough occasions to fight a new war. And with every passing year, the Union gets stronger thanks to economic development and immigration, whereas the CSA stays pretty much the same, but faces probably greater problems due to economic partition, to competing cotton planters in India and Egypt, to international isolation thanks to slavery...
So on one side, we'll have the US, getting stronger every year and on the other side we have a CSA rather getting weaker every year. And we'll have a lot of occasions to start a war. And internationally, we'll see isolation of the CSA as the "last civilized country to keep slavery".
I'd say we would see a unification of the whole South with the US, thanks to a new war won impressively fast by superior US-Forces who finally enforce the union and eradicate "the shame of secession".