Would the CSA have been viable economically over the long haul?

1940LaSalle

I think slavery is the big problem, both in terms of the economic problems it causes and the fact it leaves the state virtually universally detested, at the same time as it has a larger and very likely hostile northern neighbour.

It's possible that the CSA can end slavery before that brings the nation down. Going to be a messy job whether it by virtual slavery via some sort of debt bondage or the expulsion of the black population. [Which might occur if you got the bulk of the population breaking the power of the planter aristocracy, which seems likely one way or another].

The other big thing in the south's potential favour, if it can get through to about 1900 is that one huge resource it has is oil. Could be an early version of the OTL gulf states, generally despised but felt too useful to reject totally.

Steve

I noticed the same problem with with DoD's U.S. as well...........had it not been for peonage and debt-slavery, the institution in that TL wouldn't have lasted much longer than 1880 or so, at least plausibly.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
China was more industrialized in 1900 than it was in 1860. Doesn't mean it was a success story.

True, but the Confederacy was more industrialised in 1861 than China was in 1900.

The Confederacy is not a backwards country by comparison to a European nation (not Britain obviously). It isn't that backwards compared to the northern states, no matter what the romantics of the Lost Cause claim.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
True, but the Confederacy was more industrialised in 1861 than China was in 1900.

The Confederacy is not a backwards country by comparison to a European nation (not Britain obviously). It isn't that backwards compared to the northern states, no matter what the romantics of the Lost Cause claim.

You're confused about what side the Lost Causers are on, I think.
Also didn't we just get over your lying about two sets of economic data?
 
Yes, the CSA will certainly become more industrialised. There is nothing preventing it.

There is everything that prevents it, from legal prohibitions to the cultural trends likely to emerge if an agrarian backwater defeats a rising industrial power to the Slave Power's extreme reluctance to allow any and all competition to cotton slavery.

True, but the Confederacy was more industrialised in 1861 than China was in 1900.

The Confederacy is not a backwards country by comparison to a European nation (not Britain obviously). It isn't that backwards compared to the northern states, no matter what the romantics of the Lost Cause claim.

If we take 1861 Britain as the standard it damned well is a backwater on par with the most rural regions of Imperial Russia. And it very much was a backwater to the North, it's why it failed to make partisan war and war of armies work in a region the size of European Russia when military technology favored the defensive. That in theory should be military skills 101.

You're confused about what side the Lost Causers are on, I think.
Also didn't we just get over your lying about two sets of economic data?

No kidding. The Lost Cause is all about excusing Lee's piss-poor performance as a commander and scapegoating Longstreet the Republican for said shitty generalship so the South felt better about losing.
 
Top