If the south won the war....

[Dave Howery]

"due to the author"

gosh, am I a neo-Confederate or merely an apologist for them? I get confused sometimes...

 

[wkwillis]

IR: A popular neo-Confederate theme is that many thousands of blacks voluntarily fought for the Confederacy. What do you make of that?

Simpson: From a light-hearted point of view, if there were all these black Confederate soldiers, given that we don't see them show up [in historical records] as prisoners or killed or wounded, they must have been the best troops the Confederacy ever had, because they were never killed, wounded or captured. So an entire army of black Confederates would have been invincible.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=465

So, how do we get the south to win by recruiting an entire army of invincible black soldiers?

We devalue cotton. The northern mortgage owners who really owned the slaves try to sell them way, way, way, south to Brazil. The southern plantation owners then allow their slaves to take up arms and defend the institution of American Slavery as definitely preferable to the institution of deporting ten percent of the population of the country someplace where they won't be upholding property values by keeping white sharecroppers hungry and competitive for jobs.

 

[Othniel]

If the South won the war...

Union

The West becomes more open for a few years. They loosen immgration laws, and continue the homesteading of the west. Border states like Kentucky, Ohio, Missouri see more germans than ever migrate there.

Oregon and California, brightest gems of the bunch, start to shine even more with promise. You see a flood of settlers reaching their shores, with Nebraska, Dakota, and Washington getting a huge boast in territorial population. That results in the creation of more states. Utah is again hit with a wave of migration and if the mormons react federal troops will be called in do deal with them yet again. The new divide is between the nephite Westerns and the Northreners. The CSA will do their best to upset the poltics in theese areas.

There is also a restuturing of the armed forces.

 

[Othniel]

I'm making two assumptions: first, the south wins fairly early in the war, partly with the help of Britain and France (not militarily, but heavy-handed diplomacy). Exactly how isn't important, so long as it happens.
second, the CSA includes only the 11 seceeding states: VA, NC, SC, GA, AL, FL, MS, TX, LA, TN, AK); they gain no territory in the west (Sibley's expedition had no real chance of success) and do not get KY.

Right, with no territory to the west they lack mines, and places to deal with Indian problems. Their own forced migrations would go where?

Let's look at:
economics: the south is going to have a hard time at first; they have very little capital for investment, and will be totally dependent on foreign investment. Will anyone be willing to do so? Also, the south had a problem with the plantation system, in that the big planters practically ran the banking system, and weren't big on investments for industry and such things.
slavery: while this would continue for a while, it would have to end, if only because of international condemnation. But it's likely that blacks will have no political or economic power, being merely low paid labor in the most menial jobs. Thus, immigration will likely still be low, as they won't want to compete with what is still practically slave labor.

Is Brazil, Portugal or the Netherlands willing? Tennesse and Virgina would probablely start the Industrialzation process, followed by Georgia and the Carolinas. They have the raw materials to drive the industries.

international relations: HT assumes that the US will hold a grudge against Britain and France clear up to WW1... is this likely? After all, it's several generations later, and these two nations are important trading partners. Will the US go so far as to ally with Germany in WW1, ala HT, or will they simply stand aside and happily sell supplies to both sides. The CSA will naturally have warm feelings towards both countries, but would they go so far as to intervene in WW1? I'd think the US would get angry enough about it to insist that both American nations stay neutral in the 'European squabble'... and I think the CSA would do just that rather than have open warfare on their own border. Then there's Mexico... I don't think Maximillian will be able to stay in power with or without US disapproval. Mexico would be a Vietnam scenario to Napoleon, a running wound with no end in sight, and he'd give up on it sooner or later.

Mexico is intresting, but I don't think the US is that revancistic in its policy. France giving the Statue of Liberty to the CAS would be an odd twist though.

Stability: Would the CSA be able to stay together? A nation founded on secession seems rather unlikely to be a happy one, and the states found various reasons to squabble even in the depths of the war. And the US? A lot of us have wondered if there would be further secessions, with New England mentioned a lot. But is this the proper time frame for this? NE was indeed secession grumpy a lot in the early 19th century, but wasn't this mostly over with by 1860? Were there any other real threats of secession in what would be left of the US? If so, would the nation hang together at all, or break up into squabbling pockets?

See the rest of the thread for that anwser.

Finally, what would be the affects on the 20th century of having a split America? Would the US ever become a superpower in this scenario, or would it be totally consumed with it's problems in N. America?

Good question, and that depends on how they handle the post war trauma.

 

[wkwillis]

The south isn't short of capital after they confiscate the northern mortgage owner's wealth. They then have exports of cotton without those exports being used to pay the interest on the loans.
The British don't have any money to loan to the south, anyway, because after the south defaults on the mortgages owed to the north, the north also defaults on the loans owed to the British. The southern loans are then assigned to the British. The south is hardly likely to pay them just because the ownership has changed.
So how does the Confederacy get cotton to market with the British navy blockading their exports, except by land to the north? Does the north import the factories of Manchester and the workers to man them?

 

[Othniel]

If the South won the war...

Union

The West becomes more open for a few years. They loosen immgration laws, and continue the homesteading of the west. Border states like Kentucky, Ohio, Missouri see more germans than ever migrate there.

Oregon and California, brightest gems of the bunch, start to shine even more with promise. You see a flood of settlers reaching their shores, with Nebraska, Dakota, and Washington getting a huge boast in territorial population. That results in the creation of more states. Utah is again hit with a wave of migration and if the mormons react federal troops will be called in do deal with them yet again. The new divide is between the nephite Westerns and the Northreners. The CSA will do their best to upset the poltics in theese areas.

There is also a restuturing of the armed forces.

Union Continued
Economically I believe the Union is able to compensate for the South with the west. I'm also going to say that this ups the Dust Bowl by a number of years. The next major drought could easily cause that to happen. But without the deadweight of the reconsturtion the US has more capital early on, with this going into communcations and into railroads. The millitary rebuilds and adapts as time continues. Could I get a list of important people up to the turn of the century?

 

[Brilliantlight]

Union Continued
Economically I believe the Union is able to compensate for the South with the west. I'm also going to say that this ups the Dust Bowl by a number of years. The next major drought could easily cause that to happen. But without the deadweight of the reconsturtion the US has more capital early on, with this going into communcations and into railroads. The millitary rebuilds and adapts as time continues. Could I get a list of important people up to the turn of the century?

Why in God's name would it? Why would the Union hand over land to its enemy? You might as well think France would hand over land to England in the early 19th century.

 

[Brilliantlight]

The south isn't short of capital after they confiscate the northern mortgage owner's wealth. They then have exports of cotton without those exports being used to pay the interest on the loans.
The British don't have any money to loan to the south, anyway, because after the south defaults on the mortgages owed to the north, the north also defaults on the loans owed to the British. The southern loans are then assigned to the British. The south is hardly likely to pay them just because the ownership has changed.
So how does the Confederacy get cotton to market with the British navy blockading their exports, except by land to the north? Does the north import the factories of Manchester and the workers to man them?

Cotton isn't going to do it. GB isn't going to import cotton in the late 19th century when Eygpt and India are supplying particularly if the South still has slavery and it would until at least 1900.

 

[Othniel]

Why in God's name would it? Why would the Union hand over land to its enemy? You might as well think France would hand over land to England in the early 19th century.

You miss understand. I meant for the lack of agriculture. They are compensating for the LACK of the SOUTH'S agricultural community with the resources found further west. They aren't paying the South for war damages. Jeeze, that would be downright stupid, and against the Divine Manifest.

 

[wkwillis]

I think that Othniel means that the Union is able to compensate for losing the south by extending it's movement to the west.
We could grow plenty of cotton in Arizona and California, no question. Just irrigate the Salton Sea from the Colorado. So, yeah, we could compensate for losing the south. Build a railroad down the Owen's Valley to the Salton Sea and then to the coast around Los Angeles, or maybe buy Baja from Mexico and put your port there. You'd have to dredge the delta for a port, but it could be done.

 

[Othniel]

Other things to consider:

How does this effect European poltics? I don't believe the US or the CS are going to willingly get involved in European Poltics, unless it involves the Western Hemisphere. I could see the Republic of Sierra Madre come into play as a CSA allie, with Mexico as a US allie. If the south is friendly with Britian, might we see the stronger Union as an allie of spain? Does central american split between the two forming a cold war enviroment in N. America? Or is it subtle? Do they play the imperists by backing goverments and rebellions against each other? What of Columbia and Nicargua? Places to build canals and move armies...

Relations with the Far East, will the US have a chance to get in on the market?

 

[Faeelin]

Other things to consider:

How does this effect European poltics? I don't believe the US or the CS are going to willingly get involved in European Poltics, unless it involves the Western Hemisphere. I could see the Republic of Sierra Madre come into play as a CSA allie, with Mexico as a US allie. If the south is friendly with Britian, might we see the stronger Union as an allie of spain? Does central american split between the two forming a cold war enviroment in N. America? Or is it subtle? Do they play the imperists by backing goverments and rebellions against each other? What of Columbia and Nicargua? Places to build canals and move armies...

Relations with the Far East, will the US have a chance to get in on the market?

Austria might win the 1866 war; partof the reason for the Prussian victory was their use of railroads to transport troops, which was inspired by th ACW.

 

[Faeelin]

Humm.

Assume for a moment that the CSA gets its independence, but Europe stays on track.

By the 1890's, The CSA is in a bind. The North is pulling ahead economically (in the sense that a car can pull ahead of a horse and buggy), France and Britain hate it for maintaining slavery, the Republic of Mexico is an American ally....

Anywho. The CSA needs an ally that understands the White Man's Burden. A nation which also feels like it's surrounded by enemies. A nation that wouldn't let a little thing like slavery stop it from trading with a friendly nation that provides resources needed for a growing industry.

The German-Confederate Accords are signed sometime in the 1890's.

 

[Othniel]

Which works more to my style of thought on this manner. Alliances are always changing. Their probably very friendly with Beligium as well. With Mexico as an ally of the US, they probably get Brazil on their side. North America has a powder keg of its own, Latin America. If the second war of Northern agression is fought I don't think Europe will have MUCH (note I didn't anything) to do with it. US-Mexico-GB vs. CSA-Germany-Brazil in the new world prehaps? 1897?

 

[Brilliantlight]

Is Brazil, Portugal or the Netherlands willing? Tennesse and Virgina would probablely start the Industrialzation process, followed by Georgia and the Carolinas. They have the raw materials to drive the industries.

The only one of the three mentioned that might have money to invest is the Netherlands. Brazil and Portugal together have squat and it matters little if they invest in the Confederacy or not. Without a rich nation like France or England the South is going to be chronically short of cash. As long as the South keeps slavery (2 generations is optimistic considering they were willing to fight and die to preserve slavery.) England and France will not invest that heavily in the Confederacy.

 

[Kurt_Steiner]

Austria might win the 1866 war; partof the reason for the Prussian victory was their use of railroads to transport troops, which was inspired by th ACW.

Why? If the CSA wins, the mobility of his forces from a theatre of war to other should be still happening, I guess. So, I don't see any good reason for a Prussian defeat.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

The role of railroads in the ACW was vital, and clear to all observers. It is highly doubtful that the outcome of the war going otherwise would convince the Prussian General Staff that railroads weren't worth it.

A more likely attitude would be 'the American railroads were not built with military movements in mind, ours must be'.

Additionally, the German government would be insane to form an alliance with the CSA. Of what possible use is an ally which:

1) Can offer no support.

2) Will drain massive resources before the war begins and be an entirely separate player after it starts.

3) Guarantees the enmity of a MUCH more powerful player in the world.

In Turtledove's book, the idea of a US/German alliance altering the world is valid. Simply removing all American and Canadian aid and troops, plus sucking in a powerful British contingent, would have been fatal to the Allies.

The idea of a CSA/German alliance makes perfect sense, to London or Paris.

 

[Dave Howery]

HT assumes that the US will have an eternal grudge against France and Britain for their support of the CSA... and it was valid in his TL, where the Brits actually took part in the 2nd Mexican War (not sure if the French did). But in my scenario here, the Brits and French don't actually take part, they just use some heavy handed diplomacy, which combined with some quick and early victories by the CSA, bring about the CSA's independence. My question is, will the US still hold an eternal grudge against the two after several generations have passed? I'd think not, as the two were pretty important trading partners. Still, I don't think the US would support either side in WW1, but watch rather gleefully as France and Britain got their comeuppance... and they would be damn sure that the CSA didn't interfere either... I don't think an actual war in N. America would occur, just some bitter words exchanged...

 

[Brilliantlight]

HT assumes that the US will have an eternal grudge against France and Britain for their support of the CSA... and it was valid in his TL, where the Brits actually took part in the 2nd Mexican War (not sure if the French did). But in my scenario here, the Brits and French don't actually take part, they just use some heavy handed diplomacy, which combined with some quick and early victories by the CSA, bring about the CSA's independence. My question is, will the US still hold an eternal grudge against the two after several generations have passed? I'd think not, as the two were pretty important trading partners. Still, I don't think the US would support either side in WW1, but watch rather gleefully as France and Britain got their comeuppance... and they would be damn sure that the CSA didn't interfere either... I don't think an actual war in N. America would occur, just some bitter words exchanged...

Maybe not forever but for a long, long time. Also US support of Prussia earlier (If only to pay back the French) would make Germany that much stronger by the time WWI comes around.

 

[zoomar]

I have expressed my pessimism regarding an independent confederacy elsehere. but will restate my opinion here. My views are based on the following presumptions:

(1) The idea of the CSA was based first and foremost on the continuation of plantation society and the institution of human slavery which made this possible. An independent CSA would not easily give up slavery or other mechanisms which radically limit the power and rights of its black population.

(2) By having waged a successful war argued on the basis of states rights, the CSA would remain much more decentralized than the USA and be very liable to later secessionist movements

(3) Power in the CSA was held by socially and economically conservative aristocratic plantation owners who would resist the democratizing and levelling forces which changed the USA in the latter half of the century.


I see these three factors creating a new republic which holds onto an archaic institution (slavery) long after its economic reason d'etre has ended which retards the widespread industrializatoin of the nation. A nation which simultaneously has a less powerful central government vis-a-vis the states, but one which is more broadly conservative and antidemocratic (in the modern one-person equals one vote sense) than the USA. I see a nation, which is even more isolationist than the USA and which tries, against all logic, to protect itself from the rising trends of egalitarianism (racial, social, and sexual) and socialism by hiding its head in the sand and turning inward to preserve its core values.

A country which is weak, perhaps smaller as states such as Texas leave, and which by 1900 or so is dependent on the industrialized - and more socialist/egalitarian than OTL - USA (who doesn't want it back) for its continued independence and internal stability A decentralized and quasi-democratic imperial china, if you will.