What price victory?

Baggage Handler #2 · #1 08-25-2008, 09:35 PM

I've occasionally considered what would have happened had the CSA succeeded in secession. When I was younger, I assumed it would have lasted to the present day but as I grow I see people & the world differently, and now I'm fairly certain that it wouldn't have been a viable proposition.
In short, the chief problems were:

1) the economic model was flawed. More workers meant more prestige, meaning that labor inefficiency was rewarded. Also, skilled, efficient labor would avoid the area since they could make more money elsewhere.

2) petty jealousies would have ripped them apart. Non cotton states would have eventually pulled away from cotton states and either been independent or re-applied for admission into the union.

3) it supposed that no "low intensity" conflict would have been pursued by the north. Almost certainly there would have been a stop to the fugitive slave act, trade would have all but stopped, and the ever present threat of slave revolts would have found more willing supporters.

Comments, thoughts, suggestions (should this have been a "what if?" My apologies if so.)

ole · #2 08-26-2008, 12:20 AM

An altogether fine, debatable observation in the right forum.

Can't argue with what you've posited -- maybe add a point or two.

I'll suggest that several years would be required for the Confederacy to build up its infrastructure to a point where it could begin to cut away chunks of northern trade. (The free-trade panic in northern newspapers was as much a boogey-man fear as was the loss of slaves in the south.)

Europe needed cereal grains as much as she needed cotton. Most of its customers were in the north and accessible only by northern infrastructure. The preponderance of imports into northern ports illuminates the difficulty the Confederacy would face in turning around that pattern.

With few exceptions, the Confederacy's ports were in no condition to absorb the anticipated leap in traffic. Virtually all imports went into northern ports. The empty ships would then be loaded with northern manufactures and grain, or they'd sail down the coast to pick up cotton. The Confederacy short-sightedly assumed that many of these ships would go to southern ports because of the lower tariffs, and load up with cotton. Cotton is not a year-round commodity. It's harvested, it's shipped, and ships don't come by until the next harvest. (Of course, it's not that simple, but you get the idea.)

For another, the secesh would eventually have to reopen the slave trade, running afoul of the rest of the world.

But these additions would assume a longer life than I'd assign the Confederacy. My guess: Louisiana is out first, perphaps within a year. Mississippis is on its heel's, and Texas is not far behind. The Gulf Squardron guts it out for another year and then rejoins the union.

ole

5fish · #3 08-26-2008, 07:34 PM

The south was ruled by an oligarchy with a romantic view of England and their ruling class. I think must every state would have devolved into deposit states with a ruling class led by a King or some type of Dictator. The whole time trying to emulatie the English class system....I see no hope for the south for its leader had lost touch with really in the years before the war...

I think in the end they would have become third world nation with the United States constantly intervening in their corrupt affairs...

Doom and Gloom.....

timewalker · #4 08-27-2008, 12:31 AM

As to the long-term survival of the Confederacy - two words: boll weevil.

ole · #5 08-27-2008, 01:08 AM

One problem with that, timewalker, the boll weevil was neither predictable nor germaine. Although it did bollix up the "what if," it was not a factor.

ole

timewalker · #6 08-27-2008, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ole

One problem with that, timewalker, the boll weevil was neither predictable nor germaine. Although it did bollix up the "what if," it was not a factor.

ole

Ole, my point was that an economy based on a single crop is doomed if there is a threat to that crop. Ireland's population reduced the population by 20-25% because the sustenance of a majority of the population was tied to a single crop. The Confederacy was reactionary and hide-bound. The boll weevil crossed into Texas in 1892 and reached southeastern Alabama in 1915. It could be argued that Southern Agriculture was more diversified as a result of the Civil War. Without this diversification, you would no doubt have a much higher percentage of land in cotton and the weevil would have spread faster, leading to economic ruin for an economy built, for the most part, on a single crop.

Baggage Handler #2 · #7 08-27-2008, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timewalker

Ole, my point was that an economy based on a single crop is doomed if there is a threat to that crop. Ireland's population reduced the population by 20-25% because the sustenance of a majority of the population was tied to a single crop. The Confederacy was reactionary and hide-bound. The boll weevil crossed into Texas in 1892 and reached southeastern Alabama in 1915. It could be argued that Southern Agriculture was more diversified as a result of the Civil War. Without this diversification, you would no doubt have a much higher percentage of land in cotton and the weevil would have spread faster, leading to economic ruin for an economy built, for the most part, on a single crop.

Not to stray too far, but my understanding is that tobacco, sugar, & rice were also involved.
Impact of the weevil on a CSA would be an interesting topic in its own (dissolution or expansion to Cuba and other points south?).

timewalker · #8 08-27-2008, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baggage Handler #2

Not to stray too far, but my understanding is that tobacco, sugar, & rice were also involved.
Impact of the weevil on a CSA would be an interesting topic in its own (dissolution or expansion to Cuba and other points south?).

Indeed, the South did grow other cash crops, but it is my understanding that cotton was the real money-maker and that a significant portion of the economy was tied up in cotton. Economically, it seems to me, the Confederacy was a house of cards waiting for one, good gust of wind.

gary · #9 08-27-2008, 09:48 AM

If the Confederacy suceeded in seceding, I wonder if it could have expanded or remain united enough to raise a permanent ocean going navy such that it could have expanded?

Invasion of Mexico through Texas is possible and the Mexican-American War would have been studied thoroughly to plan for such an event. Taking Cuba would entail war with Spain, which was a global empire. Most of the other Carribean islands were British possessions and it is highly unlikely that the Confederacy would challenge the British Empire. There was some Confederate thought of South America where many of the South American states under the leadership of Simon Boiviar had recently liberated themselves from Spain. This would require an ocean going navy with huge logistical problems for a fledgling Confederacy.

5fish · #10 08-27-2008, 09:55 AM

I think in time the cash crop of Cotton would have whether because of slavery. Why one may say?

In time India and North Africa would began growing cotton at compatible price. I can picture the anti-slave elements demanding England and other European counties to quit importing cotton form the Confederacy. If the Boll weevil did crush the Confederacy competition and international opinion would have....

Some thoughts...