Would there be a sectional and political divide between the Upper South and the Deep South in an independent Confederacy?

In the same way that the North and South was divided between agricultural and industrial economies, slave vs free.

As decades go by, the Upper South will be more industrialized while the Deep South holds fast to its institution of slavery.

Would this result in a Southern Civil War?
 
The industrialization of the upper south would likely incorporate slavery, as was the antebellum trend.

The real economic/political divides would likely be King Cotton vs every other economic activity (yes, there were planters trying to diversify the Southern economy the camphine industry being a prominent example of such) and the matter of what the Confederacy was meant to be (muh states' rights to do anything other than abolish slavery) vs what it became under the exigencies of the ACW (one of the most top-heavy, centralized and interventionist states in North American history). The latter issue is more likely to give cause for civil conflict than the former, but there could be overlap between the camps.
 
The South wasn't as sectional in that regards as the Union as a whole was pre-Civil War. Just because the Upper South tended to have less prominent slave cultures doesn't mean it was necessarily more industrialized. There was plenty of industrialization in places like Atlanta, Columbus, Milledgeville, Charleston, and New Orleans in the Antebellum period, and depending on your definition of the Deep South, Chattanooga, Memphis, and other towns were also home to nascent industrial sectors. Indeed, outside of Richmond and Nashville, the Deep South was arguably more industrialized than the Upper South, especially compared to the Confederate controlled portions of the Upper South. You have to remember too that in the 1860s into the 1880s much of Middle Tennessee, Appalachia, and the Piedmont region in the Carolinas/Virginia were predominantly rural, with economies geared towards subsistence farming and not much else. The subsistence-plantation divide was arguably more important in the South than industrial vs, agricultural, and it was this divide that in part fostered such strong Unionist movements in parts of Appalachia and other regions.

I think also, assuming OTL trends mostly hold true, the both halves of the South will continue to industrialize as places like Birmingham, Roanoke, the Tri-Cities, etc. get more established, and the distinction will become focused more on the Upper South's predominance on subsistence farming compared to the prominence of plantation-style agriculture in the Deep South. I also think that the centralization vs. states' rights debate is likely to become paramount in the immediate years after independence, but it's not guaranteed to lead to Civil War. The US had similar, and arguably more heated, debates over the Articles of Confederation and whether or not to adopt the Constitution without plunging into civil war, so it's not without precedent that the South could overcome such debates without violence.
 
There was plenty of agriculture in the north. Don't forget the north included the midwest.

Yeah, it'd be more precise, instead of agricultural and industrial, to say that staple crops were grown for local consumption just about everywhere, that commerce and industry were a much bigger part of the economy in the North (especially the Northeast), that the North's rural areas were economically dominated by yeoman agriculture growing staple crops for export, and that the South's rural areas were economically dominated by plantation agriculture growing luxury cash crops (cotton throughout the Deep South; tobacco mostly in the Middle South; and rice, indigo, and sugar in specific regions of South Carolina, Louisiana, and maybe one or two other places).

The South wasn't as sectional in that regards as the Union as a whole was pre-Civil War.

True, although there was a three-way divide between the Deep South, the Middle South (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas), and the Border South (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and the counties that would OTL become West Virginia). The Border South, where the culture economy was most like the neighboring Northern state and where slavery was much less deeply rooted than the rest of the South, was probably the most distinct subsection.

In an independent Confederacy, most or all of the Border South would likely remain with the Union. There would likely be political divides running more-or-less along the Middle/Deep South divide, especially in an early Confederate victory scenario where antebellum political alignments survive mostly intact (with most of the Middle South leaning Whig/Oppositionist or Know-Nothing and most of the Deep South leaning Democratic). But these splits would be a lot milder and more fluid than the North/South sectional split, much more like modern Red and Blue states than antebellum Slave and Free states.
 
The industrialization of the upper south would likely incorporate slavery, as was the antebellum trend.

The replacement of free labor with slave labor in the factories of the northern South did occur a little bit before the war and big time during the Civil War. Tredegar Iron Works went from 90% free labor to 50% during the war due to the free labor being conscripted.

Soldiers returning from the war were going to demand their jobs back and that was going to cause real problems as the industrialists started to become addicted to slave labor. In a long war where the South has to rely on large numbers of newly freed slaves to win, I would imagine something would be worked out where they would replace the slaves in some positions as well.

There was going to be a conflict between sources of labor as the northern South industrialized over time regardless.
 
Last edited:
The replacement of free labor with slave labor in the factories of the northern South did occur a little bit before the war and big time during the Civil War. Tredegar Iron Works went from 90% free labor to 50% during the war due to the free labor being conscripted.

Soldiers returning from the war were going to demand their jobs back and that was going to cause real problems as the industrialists started to become addicted to slave labor. In a long war where the South has to rely on large numbers of newly freed slaves to win, I would imagine something would be worked out where they would replace the slaves in some positions as well.

There was going to be a conflict between sources of labor as the northern South industrialized over time regardless.
A conflict sure, probably not a particularly big one though. Cheap immigrant labour in OTL's USA didn't produce a civil war.
 
I know, but OP asked about likelihood of it causing a confederate Civil War.

No if the northern South moved away from slavery the pressure on the Cotton states would grow, but the real question is the international pressure. Does Paris and London pressure Richmond over it or Charleston?
 
I think it depends on the effects of the Civil War between North and South. If it’s an 1862 win situation, the antebellum political divides are likely to remain. If, on the other hand, the war drags on into 1864 or later and there was the same massive centralization as IOTL’s Confederacy, I think you would see very different trends
 
I think it depends on the effects of the Civil War between North and South. If it’s an 1862 win situation, the antebellum political divides are likely to remain. If, on the other hand, the war drags on into 1864 or later and there was the same massive centralization as IOTL’s Confederacy, I think you would see very different trends
I was wondering the effects of a de-centralized South on politics. Seems to me, states being allowed to go their own way is going to cause issues in the long run, as they start to head in different directions. Was the confederate gov't as envisioned to begin with strong enough to keep the states corralled? Does the confederacy find it more and more necessary to centralize?

Seems to me that each state is its own section, and there will be political differences. Whether those differences are enough to cause deep divides is debatable. I suppose much would depend on how the confederate gov't handles the situation. If the hand is mis-played, trouble could ensue.
 
There would be differences but not as much as one would think. For starters fighting a war of independence would see mass unity across the population in the same way our civil war lead to greater unity in the US. Plus lets face it as much as those states might want greater autonomy unless the US falls apart they would stay close together as the US is a looming threat that might conquer them if they seem weak.
 
How much pressure did they put on Spain, Portugal, Liberia, or Brazil?
Well the did actively disrupt the Atlantic slave trade and act against the nations supplying slaves, without actively fighting slave nations. I imagine public pressure would mean very little trade with the CSA from Britain and France and obviously the USA, whilst in realpolitik terms a divided north America suits the European powers, so a sort of stalemate.

I can see the CSA becoming a large scale producer of cheap goods made by slaves in factories as well as luxury crops. Quite the dichotomy.

They would probably trade with other slave nations and try to create a bloc, as the growing pro emancipation atmosphere globally would threaten those nations.

Politically, I imagine the government has the military but no federal institutions other than tax, but in reality it's an oligarchy of state governors so the states rights issue is fairly moot.

It would be reliant on good relations with southern American nations and have a cripplingly large military to man the northern border. Its factories would rely on slaves and the poorest of the free and produce bulk low quality goods. Planters would keep their areas reliant on their plantations but cities would industrialise. As it becomes impossible to buy new slaves they introduce policies to encourage slaves to breed and buy in slaves from Brazil etc. Its an economically sluggish highly militarized isolationist and starkly stratified nation.
 
Well the did actively disrupt the Atlantic slave trade and act against the nations supplying slaves, without actively fighting slave nations. I imagine public pressure would mean very little trade with the CSA from Britain and France and obviously the USA, whilst in realpolitik terms a divided north America suits the European powers, so a sort of stalemate.

Oh they would trade with them for quite awhile. But you have to understand how well connected the South was to London and Paris. There was a continual flow of elites back and forth both places. Lee himself was fairly sure Britain would never side with the South in an independence venture as long as slavery existed there because of one of those Lords who came to Virginia and said as much to him.

The British’s anti slavery debate influenced the VA one in the 1830s. Interestingly in the VA anti slavery debate there was a pretty big conviction the Union was heading for a break up over any number of issues and the emancipationist side argued that ending slavery in VA would make it harder for Boston to mobilize an army of freedmen against them.
 
Last edited:
The replacement of free labor with slave labor in the factories of the northern South did occur a little bit before the war and big time during the Civil War. Tredegar Iron Works went from 90% free labor to 50% during the war due to the free labor being conscripted.

Soldiers returning from the war were going to demand their jobs back and that was going to cause real problems as the industrialists started to become addicted to slave labor. In a long war where the South has to rely on large numbers of newly freed slaves to win, I would imagine something would be worked out where they would replace the slaves in some positions as well.

There was going to be a conflict between sources of labor as the northern South industrialized over time regardless.
History has shown that oppressed proletariat are easier to corral into an effective uprising than rural peasantry. Mainly because there's so many in one place.
 
History has shown that oppressed proletariat are easier to corral into an effective uprising than rural peasantry. Mainly because there's so many in one place.
But an oppressed proletariat can meet, gather, get drunk, go to rallies, listen to talks, debate and covertly get their hands on basic weapons. Slaves cannot, at least not easily.

That said, slave revolts could occur, especially if the factories do something stupid like housing all the slaves in one big barrack with too few guards. But it is much harder for slave revolts to spread beyond one place, as slave owners can more effectively isolate slaves from outside events and influences than can ruling classes over the proletariat.

So I suspect you'd get slave revolts in a few places but no doubt the southern states will be swarming with militias and reservists and plain old racist mobs. Unlike in a class based struggle, ordinary soldiers indoctrinated into a racist ideology wouldn't have moral qualms firing on striking or rioting slaves.

No doubt factories will employ armed guards and overseers. There would probably be factory towns with slave dormitories and the owners grand house; imagine an evil bournville.
 
Top