It's hard to say, both countries would be dramatically different. As a Southerner, I can't even imagine how a modern day Confederacy would work. Naturally slavery would die out regardless due to technology and it not being a popular system to begin with. We'd still be defined by the interactions between each region, kind of like today. But the South would be very much a republic since all states would have a bigger say in federal government, and that's just how the culture down here votes.
I don't know if war ever could have been avoided though. The South fired the first shot and started the war, but Lincoln had it very clear, multiple times, that he would not allow a full succession. What I'd really like to see is how a modern South would be without the suffering a total war campaign against it. A lot of people think we still haven't entirely recovered from it.
>>51480 Part of the reason that the CSA lost was because there entire economy was based on cotton and other agriculture and right about when the civil war started Britain (who had been a big purchaser) seized Egypt with its cotton resources. So there' would be a huge economic deficiency combined with a lack of industrialization and a population that consists of Black slaves and dirt-poor Whites. >>51505 >>51616 >>51606 >implying that South could just kill off all the Blacks effortlessly >implying the Haiti route wouldn't have been taken by Blacks in response
Dixie would have had to undergo huge lengths to industrialize Russia-style. It would be an interesting thing to see. Also there is potential that the two countries would have participated on different sides during World War I if they got involved at all.
>>51759 That would be really interesting to think about. Any sort of involvement on opposite sides of a World War would mean American troops would be tied up in the continent. For sure the US wouldn't be able to put as much involvement into the European and Pacific theaters. Limiting US intervention would majorly affect how the wars ended, even if it just dragged them out longer.
>>52012 Harry turtledove takes weird concepts and plays them serious, One of his book lizard aliens invade during the second world war. They are not wacky but fairly well grounded. The lizards invaded thinking everyone was still knights on horse back and initially had an advantage against the ww2 equipment until it started improving and the aliens start running low on stuff.
Its likely the southern states would have eventually ended slavery because very few white southerners actually owned slaves and it was becoming a drain on the economy similar to the Roman slaves Some of the northern Confederacy states could easily rejoin the union and it probably be only a matter of time before the rest of the south ended the rebellion
>>52299 >Its likely the southern states would have eventually ended slavery because very few white southerners actually owned slaves I was surprised to find out that not a single state in the Confederacy had a population of slave owners in double percentage. The highest was South Carolina at 9%. Nine fucking percent. And even with that small amount of slave owners across the Confederacy, not all of them liked the slave system. But they all didn't want the North deciding it for them. So I doubt the Confederacy would have still had slaves even by the end of the 1800s, had they survived.
>Naturally slavery would die out regardless due to technology and it not being a popular system to begin with.
B-but anon, it's literally in the CSA Constitution's equivalent of the Bill of Rights that no law shall be passed by either the federal government or in the states that would infringe upon the right to own or purchase slaves, and that no legislation could be passed to free them.
They likely would have had their own civil war within 20 years over States' rights, since only ~5-10% of CSA citizens owned slaves
>>51480 The Confederacy probably wouldn't have lasted long (or at least not last long as a slave-dependent nation), considering the contrast between industry-driven and agriculture-driven economies. It either would've broken down and rejoined the US or transition away from a slave-based economy by the early-to-mid 20th century.
>>52458 Well, keep in mind how quickly the CSA constitution was drawn up. I think we would have seen a situation very similar, if not an outright mirror, of the Articles of Confederation being thrown out in favor of the Constitution.
>>51480 The South would look a lot like an archetypical banana republic crossed with Apartheid South Africa. The wealthy aristocracy owning the bulk of the land and means of production, ton of number of dirt poor white subsistence farmers, and a majority population of increasingly agitated slaves and free black people. Not a recipe for long term stability.
The economy was (and in some areas, still is) based on exportation of raw, unprocessed or barely processed materials. Cotton, tobacco, sugarcane, lumber, etc. Expect to see minimal industrialization and an economy that lacks much in the way of a middle class. It's usually cheaper for the elites to use repression versus giving concessions to the populace, so expect the rise of powerful secret police, brutal crackdowns on both slaves and as time goes on increasingly impoverished whites, and a lot of disappearances. The late 19th century anarchist and Marxist movements would absolutely terrify the aristocracy with visions of dirt poor whites and free blacks cooperating against them; I'd bet good money on something like the Paris Commune taking place in New Orleans due to the city's differing culture, attitude towards race, and lack of nearby power centers.
Probably a bloody Spartacist uprising analogue within a few decades of the war's end, and quite likely a Confederate Civil War between states trying to leave and those wanting to keep them in at some point(the CSA constitution was ironically anti-secession and restricted state's rights). Mexico, the Union, and European powers in the Caribbean would definitely be working to fuel subversive elements in the CSA, particularly if the "Golden Circle" conspiracy started rearing it's head.
I completely agree. It honestly makes me really fucking sad that hundreds of thousands of Southerners lost life and limb fighting for their homes when their elites sought only sought to prop up an already obsolete economic system
There would be a boundary, such as a capitalistic south and a socialist north. Reason being the south wanted little central gov't control while the north wanted equal balance, this results in a socialist ideal environment compared to a capitalistic society.
>>52623 Really the only thing that held back the UK and France from throwing in with the CSA was the slavery angle. It was out of vogue in Europe. I can imagine any potential trade deals might have been based on the downsizing of slavery.
>>51662 >>52414 the rich white slave owners co oped the traditional public's opinion of racism and slavery. They made the general white southerner want racism and slaver y because since they weren't rich they still had a higher position in society then "those black men". The rich continued to be super rich and the average white man was okay with their oligarchy because they werent at the bottom they were above blacks. The bigger problem I see is the South being able to stay separate from the union for very long. As the unions population was still growing faster and their economy and technology was growing at a faster rate, eventually there would be a second war and or assimilation.
It wasn't just that, it's that it honestly wasn't worth it for them. France had a shakey empire and had the nascent German Empire on the rise, and the UK was busy in Egypt/India (control of which made the comparatively high tariffs the South imposed on cash crops obsolete)
>>52696 Maybe. I don't think I'd go that far though. A lot of it at the time was to emphasize 'get your damn yankee hands off my property' and such, the point was the South shouldn't be beholden to Northern masters who dictate policy to them. What I meant about the AoC before was that I think it was something made quickly, to fill in the space that was required, and there wasn't as much deliberation and thought put into it as there would be if the South had a good year or so of existence to make a real constitution. I think that even if the South had been around for 2-3 years of peacetime, you'd get a dramatically different nation than the one we did get in history.
Minor industrialization, but the main focus of the economy would be Primary Industries (mostly oil and agriculture).
Assuming the geopolitical landscape would essentially be the same, the Texan oil fields would be exploited, but les refineries would be constructed and more crude would be shipped into the US. Maybe some state like Kansas would be more economically relevant due to having Texan crude shipped in to US refineries.
>>51480 If Jefferson Davis and some others had more say, the southern country might've had a chance. They would've had more say if it wasn't for the escalation. I don't know how long it would have taken them, but they certainly had more of a hold on the reality of the situation, economically, politically, and socially, than many leaders who stepped up later in the game who were better at rallying the troops, for lack of a better concise way of saying it. If Davis had his way, they probably would have reunified at some point.
The breakup between the two would have been better, especially in the North. Plenty of Americans would have longed to regain the South, and it would have been a major position for American nationalists for a long time. In the mean time, the South establishes military alliances with France and the United Kingdom to protect itself from possible Northern aggression in the future.
Skip forward to 1880s-1890s. The CSA is forced to abolish slavery under diplomatic pressure from the rest of the world, including France and Britain who would have threatened to end their alliances and place an embargo, which would have left the CSA extremely vulnerable to a revenge-seeking USA. CSA enters the 20th century as an apartheid state.
Skip forward again to 1914. Tensions run high in Europe to the point where World War I breaks out. normal alliances take place, except the CSA is allied with the British and French, and enters the war on their side.
Germany sees an incredible opportunity here: the ability to gain the two greatest powers in the Americas, Mexico and the United States, to take their side, while also allowing them to regain territory which they continue to claim. After intense diplomacy, the Mexicans and Americans agree to enter the war on the side of the Central Powers.
The CSA, with all their troops overseas, and the victim of a superior American and Mexican combined navy, quickly collapses, surrendering quickly. Britain and France lose the Great War.
>>53893 >CSA enters the 20th century as an apartheid state This is where alt-history makes me kind of lose the plot. Why would we assume that USA and CSA would be in a strict North/South Korea relationship? Even if strained and bitter, I'm sure trade would flow between the two countries and so would immigrants. Post-slavery CSA I think you'd still see the same migration of southern blacks to northern states as in reconstruction.
>>54175 Might I remind you that this is half of 1860 America, not all of 2015 America trying to fight the two most powerful countries on earth while simultaneously putting down a massive rebellion. I really don't think that's true.
>>53946 If they got their shit together they wouldn't have had their tail between their legs. It all depends on where you draw the line in meaning two different countries. I mean, the point at which many succeeded was pretty damned late in the game as far as saving much of the relationship with northern states, but there was a lot that happened before then leading up to the war. If you draw the line further back, the better the outcome for all could have been. That's how hindsight works.
>>54192 Assuming the North wouldn't ban trade with slave countries. Perhaps afterwards they would, but they still would have had rather cold relations. >>54210 It took a long time for the Brits and the Americans to settle their differences, even without war. Alliances form and collapse as nations come and go and new threats arise and fall. However, one thing is for certain, the US Americans would not be so quick to forgive, forget, and normalize their feelings with the southern states.
If the Civil War happened about ten years or so earlier, before the British developed their totally-not-slavery cotton resources in Egypt and India, the South could have won the war. Whites would have formed a two-thirds majority of the population, but in the interim between secession and the eventual abolition of slavery would probably be plagued with disastrous slave revolts encouraged by abolitionists in the North. Now I don't think that either country would emerge in a stable manner. On one hand, the "perpetual union" would have been debased; on the other, there would have been greater unity among the remaining states. The Confederates may later centralize as they too had fewer disagreements among one another, and indeed states like Mississippi and South Carolina may have required direct intervention to handle potentially insurgent slave populations constituting over half of their population. The Confederates may deal with the slave populations in different manners. Abolition would have been a gradual process. There would have been a large emigration from the Confederacy to a labor-hungry Union (and/or Mexico). Early eugenics methods (essentially gelding slaves) could be employed. If an Apartheid state emerged, expect some form of Communist revolt. If the revolt fails, there might be a power grab and the Confederacy may evolve into a fascist state. If it succeeds even marginally, expect an intervention by the Union and possibly reunification afterwards. If the Confederate government remained weak, then states may defect over this or that. Oil discoveries in Texas may stir up a conflict within Texas and between the Union and Confederacy. Whether or not the CSA or USA could drive Spain from the Gulf and Caribbean is up in the air. The relationship between the CSA and Meixco/LatAm is also something which can only be weakly speculated upon. Possibilities, possibilities.
>>54324 Right, but consider that you're talking about trans-Atlantic logistics for an army that would have to stand up against a huge and modern Union army. The Union Navy may not have been able to bring the fight across the Atlantic, but it would have made the US coast and the St Lawrence river a nightmare for any European navy.
>>55238 Under the strictest understanding of "could", I suppose. But if they land and supply these troops in Canada untouched (unlikely), they'd either have to surmount the natural barriers of the Great Lakes or St Lawrence, or they'd have to penetrate the wilderness of the midwest which provides the US with huge strategic depth and very little to lose in the way of strategic positions.
Canadian here. I have a feeling the north would've continued industrializing and remaining economically more prosperous, alongside militarily much stronger. In addition, they may have focused on taking land in Canada to compensate for the loss of natural resources and sheer revenue from taxes in the south.
I think eventually the south would've abolished slavery and either shipped the blacks to Liberia, working with Marcus Garvey, or given them land, educated their smartest and released them as an independent nation-state. The south would've eventually had to industrialize in order to keep up with the rest of north America.
The south may have also militarily turned to Mexico and Cuba for more land gains, but who knows. King Cotton in theory was a genius move, but the problem was Britain had Egypt. Had Britain and the other European powers not relied on Egypt, European intervention was possible.
It's not true that the percentage of slave owners was small. Relatively small at any given time, maybe, but the percentage of white people who had ever owned a slave was much higher. In addition the South practiced primogeniture, so a great many of the men who didn't inherit or buy any slaves would have grown up in a slaveholding family and have a brother who owned slaves. And of course slaveholding was nearly universal among the rich, and not just the top .01% but the normal kind of wealthy person every town in the South had at least one of. Slavery was the essential basis of Southern society, not some marginal thing
Thread replies: 69 Thread images: 4
Thread DB ID: 69241
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.