WI the north lets the south secede?

The 'Mid-landers' are a cultural group that stretches from south-eastern Pennsylvania through to Iowa and beyond to Colorado.

Actually, Woodward's Midlands looks like a gerrymandered monstrosity that doesn't appear to cover the majority of any US state except Iowa and maybe Kansas and loops north through the Dakotas to include parts of Manitoba and Ontario.

Looks like Woodward is retreading Garreau's Nine Nations of North America.
 

Based on Woodward's map he appears to have Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio as mainly Greater Appalachia, with small slices of Midlands and Yankeedom. Woodward puts Wisconsin and Michigan in Yankeedom.

By Midlands, Woodward seems to mean Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Ontario.
 
A peaceful, successful secession on the part of the Deep South leaves five major cultural groups: Yankees (New England, the Great Lakes area), Tidewater (Piedmont Virginia, parts of North Carolina, western peninsular Maryland, southern Delaware), Midlands (as I said before), most of Appalachia (The Appalachians themselves, plus the area around southern Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana, also including Kentucky, Tennessee, Kansas, and other areas surrounding those), and New Netherlands (Northern New Jersey, the area around New York City, western Connecticut, and the Southern Hudson River Valley).

Whereas Woodward's cultural divisions in a 7 state Confederacy, are Deep South, Greater Appalachia, El Norte, New France, and an unnamed section of southern Florida. (Garreau called it The Islands.)

If we assume as deep a cultural divide as you do for the Union, then Florida and Louisiana should be dissolving into two separate states apiece and Texas should be splitting into three,

Of course, in OTL's Confederacy, Deep South, El Norte, New France, The Islands and Tidewater got along fine. The only group engaging in armed resistance against the Confederacy was Greater Appalachia.
 
Actually, Woodward's Midlands looks like a gerrymandered monstrosity that doesn't appear to cover the majority of any US state except Iowa and maybe Kansas and loops north through the Dakotas to include parts of Manitoba and Ontario.

Looks like Woodward is retreading Garreau's Nine Nations of North America.

That is the wierdest looking map I have ever seen. Since when is Ill, Indiana and Ohio part of Appalachia? These states aren't exactly known for their mountainous regions.
 
That is the wierdest looking map I have ever seen. Since when is Ill, Indiana and Ohio part of Appalachia? These states aren't exactly known for their mountainous regions.

That map looks like it was drawn based upon generalized early to mid 19th century migration patterns.
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
Again, very few of these discussion ever seem to mention the impact of the illegal slave trade in a Victorious South. About 15% of the South's slave population arrived in the United States after 1808, when the slave trade was theoritically illegal. All notions of universal (white) honor aside, I think the fact that the fact that the South's black / slave population would be likely to grow from importation as well as natural growth in the immediate aftermath of the a successful rebellion should be addressed. As is the fact that rate racial intermixing / mullato creation (although high through the 18th century) was by most estimates higher pre-emancipation than post-emancipation.

I know, not a sexy topic for most. But, frankly, demographically the victorious south would not be the same south of our TL. It would, inevitably have, a larger mixed race (probably all considered black due to one drop rules) and african population than it does today, for a variety of factors. And did historically after 1861. This should at least be considered, when extrapolating.
 
Again, very few of these discussion ever seem to mention the impact of the illegal slave trade in a Victorious South. About 15% of the South's slave population arrived in the United States after 1808, when the slave trade was theoritically illegal. All notions of universal (white) honor aside, I think the fact that the fact that the South's black / slave population would be likely to grow from importation as well as natural growth in the immediate aftermath of the a successful rebellion should be addressed. As is the fact that rate racial intermixing / mullato creation (although high through the 18th century) was by most estimates higher pre-emancipation than post-emancipation.

I know, not a sexy topic for most. But, frankly, demographically the victorious south would not be the same south of our TL. It would, inevitably have, a larger mixed race (probably all considered black due to one drop rules) and african population than it does today, for a variety of factors. And did historically after 1861. This should at least be considered, when extrapolating.

I'm not sure. On one hand, this is true so far as it goes.

On the other hand, enforcement of the illegality of the slave trade is likely to step up - and blacks who can run away will run away.

But its worth considering how it plays a role.
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
I'm not sure. On one hand, this is true so far as it goes.

On the other hand, enforcement of the illegality of the slave trade is likely to step up - and blacks who can run away will run away.

But its worth considering how it plays a role.

Good point, and my point remains only that the racial / demographic effects of slavery a point which should be considered. Slaves, illegally brought from Africa, were arriving in Cuba as late a 1867. If Spain could defy the 'Mightiest Navy on Earth' and still import slaves to its colonies, I think it is a bit suspect to imagine a victorious CSA, in league with Brazil and other powers, would suddenly be stricken impotent. Especially is Jefferson Davis' vision of using slave labor to enhance / build the Southwest becomes a possibility. As we should all know by now, making something illegal does not make it dissappear, if there is a demand for it.
 
Good point, and my point remains only that the racial / demographic effects of slavery a point which should be considered. Slaves, illegally brought from Africa, were arriving in Cuba as late a 1867. If Spain could defy the 'Mightiest Navy on Earth' and still import slaves to its colonies, I think it is a bit suspect to imagine a victorious CSA, in league with Brazil and other powers, would suddenly be stricken impotent. Especially is Jefferson Davis' vision of using slave labor to enhance / build the Southwest becomes a possibility. As we should all know by now, making something illegal does not make it dissappear, if there is a demand for it.

This is true. But whereas Spain is still a semi-significant power, the Confederacy - whether only the Deep South or the full eleven - isn't.

So its not so much "suddenly stricken impotent" as "exactly what is it going to be able to do about it?"

It bears further discussion, and the whole issue of racial/demographic effects from slavery continuing (and the social system that slavery was part of) is worth a thread or more in its own right even if the slave population isn't increased by...imports, to put it as appropriately (disgustingly, but that is the point) as possible.
 
Top