Would the CSA been doomed to economic disaster?

[AltoRegnant]

I didn't say they would take Mexico , I said they would be as wealthy as Mexico.

I know, I was saying that
1) the Confederate elite would want to expand in ways like the golden circle of otl
2) the union would hate that idea
3) seems the best answer is to invest in those targets to help them resist, since militancy isn't always popular or possible

 

[Gabingston]

Oh, they will probably slowly industrialize. I figure if they survive as long as now they might be as wealthy as about Mexico at this time.

I'd guess more along the lines of Argentina (which was very rich in the Late 19th/Early 20th Century, but lost all that wealth after agricultural prices tanked in the 1920s and never really recovered), meaning that they'd be twice as poor as any other British settler colony (South Africa not included, although that would be a good comparison for the immense racial wealth gap that the Confederacy would have).

 

[AnonymousSauce]

I'd guess more along the lines of Argentina (which was very rich in the Late 19th/Early 20th Century, but lost all that wealth after agricultural prices tanked in the 1920s and never really recovered), meaning that they'd be twice as poor as any other British settler colony (South Africa not included, although that would be a good comparison for the immense racial wealth gap that the Confederacy would have).

If it ended up settling into some sort of pattern after universal suffrage became a thing where am Argentine-style peronist/Kirchnerist party was supported by the black population and the remnants of the poor whites and a for lack of a better term neoliberal party was supported by the middle-class and wealthy white population, then I would expect there to be severe racio-political violence on a fairly regular basis as well.

 

[Jürgen]

I don’t see that CSA will be wealthy, they’re heavy dependent on a few cash crop, making them heavy dependent on high global prices. As for industrialization, whether you can use slaves as efficient industrial workers are fundamental irrelevant, as industrialization was heavy dependent on domestic markets, and slavery both remove a large part of the potential domestic consumers and push the wages down for the rest, the result being a weak domestic market. CSA will have their heavy industry producing for the army, the railroads, the navy etc, the problem is their light industry. It will likely mostly be limited to small scale manufacturing.

 

[MuricanTauri1776]

Boil. Weevil.

OTL it destroyed the sharecroppers and rekt the south, even with Yankee aid. TTL, it will DESTROY the King-Cotton Slavery CSA, with no yankee aid coming.

 

[Johnrankins]

Boil. Weevil.

OTL it destroyed the sharecroppers and rekt the south, even with Yankee aid. TTL, it will DESTROY the King-Cotton Slavery CSA, with no yankee aid coming.

It might devastate the economy but it won't kill slavery on its own. Slaves will simply do something else. Until the economy develops enough that it has a massive unskilled labor surplus there will be plenty of jobs slaves can do.

 

[Johnrankins]

I doubt it's ability to stay united. It's a country not only built around slavery but also the idea that individual states can secceed if they feel their rights are being violated, in times of economic hardship government oftens gets more involved than usual and this could probably be percieved by some states as just that, violation of their rights.

That certainly would be a difficulty. On the other hand the South didn't seem particularly interested in "state's rights" outside of the right of a state having the right to be a slave state. Only one side of the war tried to dictate food and salt prices. Only one side required railroads to carry government goods at a loss and required ships to carry government goods. Only one side issued internal passports in "loyal" areas and that side wasn't the Union.

 

[MuricanTauri1776]

It might devastate the economy but it won't kill slavery on its own. Slaves will simply do something else. Until the economy develops enough that it has a massive unskilled labor surplus there will be plenty of jobs slaves can do.

It sunk the South even after slavery. With a 100% cotton south, still unindustralized, the Boil Weevil would have forced it on its knees, in front of a revanchist Union and an Abolitionist World, penniless and desperate. They'd be forced to abolish to get any aid if they were lucky. If not, then we'd get either "Lincoln's Revenge" or "Sherman's Dream".

 

[Johnrankins]

It sunk the South even after slavery. With a 100% cotton south, still unindustralized, the Boil Weevil would have forced it on its knees, in front of a revanchist Union and an Abolitionist World, penniless and desperate. They'd be forced to abolish to get any aid if they were lucky. If not, then we'd get either "Lincoln's Revenge" or "Sherman's Dream".

It wouldn't have been as bad as the war itself. It would have gone through a depression to be sure but it would be nothing compared to the American Civil War. That did massive damage all through the South. It might well be reconquered at this stage, that is possible but it won't give up slavery on its own. The South would have had to move on to other crops but it would either be conquered or be just another impoverished state. Last time I checked Haiti and Somalia are still around and they are far poorer than the CSA would be.

 

[Scott Washburn]

It seems likely that any independent South would find itself in a series of wars with the North over the western territories. That issue was the match that set off the powder keg of slave-vs-free in the 1860 election. When the South seceded it legally lost any and all claim to those territories, but it's highly unlikely they would see things that way. Nor would the North be likely to give the territories up. So border disputes would flash into shooting wars again and again. This would stretch the South's resources to the breaking point and make economic recovery all the less likely.

 

[DG Valdron]

They'd likely evolve as a large latin American state - basically, export oriented, narrow range of agricultural and resource extraction products, hyper-wealthy elite latifundista and conservative landowners, there's not much in the way of a commercial urban class to challenge them, and the middle class will be attenuated and dependent. So overall, Ecuador or Bolivia, but larger.

 

[MuricanTauri1776]

It seems likely that any independent South would find itself in a series of wars with the North over the western territories. That issue was the match that set off the powder keg of slave-vs-free in the 1860 election. When the South seceded it legally lost any and all claim to those territories, but it's highly unlikely they would see things that way. Nor would the North be likely to give the territories up. So border disputes would flash into shooting wars again and again. This would stretch the South's resources to the breaking point and make economic recovery all the less likely.

And the north winning those wars. They take NOVA and TX, OK, maybe south FL. If they don't annex the whole thing. The CSA will be the US's "designated sweatshop", where all the bad jobs go, propped up by the north, who refused reannexation. Banana republic would be Cotton Confederacy ITTL.

 

[MuricanTauri1776]

It wouldn't have been as bad as the war itself. It would have gone through a depression to be sure but it would be nothing compared to the American Civil War. That did massive damage all through the South. It might well be reconquered at this stage, that is possible but it won't give up slavery on its own. The South would have had to move on to other crops but it would either be conquered or be just another impoverished state. Last time I checked Haiti and Somalia are still around and they are far poorer than the CSA would be.

Haiti and Somalia aren't under sanction. The CSA would be, and could not withstand such a shock with both poor blacks and poor whites nibbling at the planter class's heels.

 

[Johnrankins]

Haiti and Somalia aren't under sanction. The CSA would be, and could not withstand such a shock with both poor blacks and poor whites nibbling at the planter class's heels.

So what ? Not being under sanction doesn't make them any richer. It makes them dirt poor while not being under sanction, no more and no less. Even under sanctions the CSA is very likely to be wealthier than Somalia, not that it is saying much.

 

[Johnrankins]

It seems likely that any independent South would find itself in a series of wars with the North over the western territories. That issue was the match that set off the powder keg of slave-vs-free in the 1860 election. When the South seceded it legally lost any and all claim to those territories, but it's highly unlikely they would see things that way. Nor would the North be likely to give the territories up. So border disputes would flash into shooting wars again and again. This would stretch the South's resources to the breaking point and make economic recovery all the less likely.

If the CSA starts a war with the Union cue the conquest of the CSA. The CSA is going to get weaker and weaker compared to the USA over time not stronger. I don't think they have a prayer of keeping up with the Union Army once machine guns become a big thing.

 

[TRH]

It seems likely that any independent South would find itself in a series of wars with the North over the western territories. That issue was the match that set off the powder keg of slave-vs-free in the 1860 election. When the South seceded it legally lost any and all claim to those territories, but it's highly unlikely they would see things that way. Nor would the North be likely to give the territories up. So border disputes would flash into shooting wars again and again. This would stretch the South's resources to the breaking point and make economic recovery all the less likely.

I know the South desired the Western territories, but supposing they won independence, I'm not convinced they'd feel secure enough to start another round over them. It would have been made clear during the war that New Mexico and such were a bridge too far logistically. And of course there's no shortage of internal problems that could distract them further.

 

[Scott Washburn]

If the CSA starts a war with the Union cue the conquest of the CSA. The CSA is going to get weaker and weaker compared to the USA over time not stronger. I don't think they have a prayer of keeping up with the Union Army once machine guns become a big thing.

The South would probably try to avoid open warfare with the North, but they wouldn't be able to stop southerners crossing over into Oklahoma, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona, turning them all into "Bleeding Kansases". The North would send in troops, the southerners would withdraw into friendly territory and then launch raids. The North would send expeditions into CSA territory to root out the raiders and it would escalate from there.

 

[Johnrankins]

The South would probably try to avoid open warfare with the North, but they wouldn't be able to stop southerners crossing over into Oklahoma, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona, turning them all into "Bleeding Kansases". The North would send in troops, the southerners would withdraw into friendly territory and then launch raids. The North would send expeditions into CSA territory to root out the raiders and it would escalate from there.

It doesn't matter how it happens but if it happens. If the Confederate States citizens try to turn US states into "Bleeding Kansas" it doesn't matter if the central or state governments condone it or not. The US will still invade to put a stop to it.

 

[TRH]

The South would probably try to avoid open warfare with the North, but they wouldn't be able to stop southerners crossing over into Oklahoma, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona, turning them all into "Bleeding Kansases". The North would send in troops, the southerners would withdraw into friendly territory and then launch raids. The North would send expeditions into CSA territory to root out the raiders and it would escalate from there.

Those raiders would need confidence they could win, though. Bleeding Kansas failed to secure Kansas as a slave state, so that precedent won't give cause for optimism. And the appearance of a national border between the Southerners and the disputed territories will only make the task harder.

 

[Johnrankins]

Those raiders would need confidence they could win, though. Bleeding Kansas failed to secure Kansas as a slave state, so that precedent won't give cause for optimism. And the appearance of a national border between the Southerners and the disputed territories will only make the task harder.

Also, unless the CSA government is even more inept than I would expect it to be it wouldn't encourage such actions and quite likely discourage it. At least some in Richmond should be able to count noses.