What if the Confederacy had won the War?

[MobileBoy]

Calicoboy,
How would Egyptian cotton have ruined the South.After the war with the slaves free and Reconstruction the South still became the world's leading producer of cotton.The South wouldn't have struggled at all in the 19th century without a manufacturing base as they could import from Britain all that they needed.Per capita the average income of Southerners in 1860 was among the highest in the world.

The North would not have become a commercial superpower in my opinion though not a third world nation either.This is what some Northerners at the time thought would happen with an independent Confederacy.
The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing....It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose. No---we MUST NOT "let the South go." ----Union Democrat , Manchester, NH, February 19, 1861
Regards,
Ashley

[matthew mckeon]

The trouble with this thread is that it goes to the Secession is cool or not cool place and slavery was dying, or not dying place. That particular set of horses has been beaten to death.

Instead of thinking like partisans, refighting the politics of the 1850s and 60s, let's think like historians and try to figure out what might have happened.

The history of a long lasting Confederacy would have been depending on how and when it became independent. If Lincoln had said, secession is fine, go ahead, and there was no fighting, there would have been a different CSA, then if independence had been achieved after years of bloody conflict.

A peacefully let go CSA would have been looser and might have broken up into smaller fragments then a CSA united against the North. A CSA without war would have vindicated Southern politicians and fire eaters who would have been its leadership class. Its economy would have stayed based on slaves and cotton. A CSA after a war would have been forced to develop industry to supply a strong standing army, and the military leaders that fought the war would persumably played a more important role in the government.

In short, a CSA born in battle would have shortly looked a lot like a early 20th century European country: industrialized and well armed.

[Calicoboy]

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

Calicoboy,
How would Egyptian cotton have ruined the South.After the war with the slaves free and Reconstruction the South still became the world's leading producer of cotton.The South wouldn't have struggled at all in the 19th century without a manufacturing base as they could import from Britain all that they needed.Per capita the average income of Southerners in 1860 was among the highest in the world.

The North would not have become a commercial superpower in my opinion though not a third world nation either.This is what some Northerners at the time thought would happen with an independent Confederacy.
The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing....It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose. No---we MUST NOT "let the South go." ----Union Democrat , Manchester, NH, February 19, 1861
Regards,
Ashley

The British had huge cloth mills that were being fed by Southern cotton before the war. A combination of an increasingly effective federal blockade and the South's misguided attempt to force England to recognize them by curtailing exports to England caused the mills there to suffer a great shortage of raw material. The British could not close mills or they would face a huge unemployment issue, so to compensate there was a huge effort to start cotton cultivation in Egypt. By the end of the war the British didn't have nearly the need for American cotton. It would have been years before the South could have diversified their agricultural output. A lot of Southern soil was very depleted, too. I still believe that the South would have had a hard time finding a market for as much cotton as they would have needed to sell to stay afloat. Whether it won or lost, the North was a well oiled industrial machine. If the Midwest stayed in the Union (if), the North would have had the benefit of that area's huge agricultural, timber and mining enterprises. I stand by my opinion. Also to say...how can one be so sure that the South could have raised much of anything without slave labour. They could not have put the brakes on a 200 year old system. If they freed the slaves, what would they have done with them? There were millions of them. As for the per capita income you quote. The wealth was held by a small minority of the Southern population. Most of the people were of very modest means. If you include Bill Gates with the working American's income the average looks pretty good.

Calicoboy

[matthew mckeon]

In thinking about slavery, its not just an economic institution, but a social and psychological one. Even after cotton lost its central economic role (at some point), slavery and white supremacy would still be central cultural tenets in a CSA surviving into modern times. Unless there was an unforeseen backlash or event that overthrew slavery or white supremacy. If the CSA evolved into a league of strong states, maybe some states would be more liberal than others, perhaps responsing to influence of foreign nations, which would include the US at this point. Perhaps this would exert a reforming influence on the others in racial matters, and Southern political parties espousing "orthodox" and "reform" racial policies would emerge. Or would Southerners be instinctively disdainful of outside thinking, especially Yankees--especially if the abolition movement remained active in some form.

Remember Hammond's speech about how "no one dares make war on cotton. Cotton is King." Not a prophetic speech. But Hammond was partly right: cotton was king of the South, and no Southerner dared to make war on cotton and the gangs of slaves that harvested it. After cotton was deposed economically, how long before it, and slavery, was deposed culturally and psychologically?

[mobile_96]

Calicoboy-(The British could not close mills or they would face a huge unemployment issue, so to compensate there was a huge effort to start cotton cultivation in Egypt.)
Actually the cultivation was already happening. By 1860, England was already getting approx. 15% of their cotton needs from other sources, with Egypt supplying a good part of it.
(attempt to force England to recognize them by curtailing exports to England caused the mills there to suffer a great shortage of raw material. )
What the south didn't realize was there was actually a surplus of raw cotton in England, and more finished product than they could sell. They were already starting to run a surplus, but the extra large crop of 1960 (or was it 1861) added enormously to the problem. The cotton embargo actually helped English manufacturers1. Curtail production (few mills closed completely, or for very long when actually closed.Many worked several days/wk.), 2. Sell off overstocks of product, and something not mentioned much, 3. Was England actually sold some of their excess cotton to the producers in the Northern states, and at much higher prices than they payed for it.
Chuck in IL.

[Calicoboy]

Originally Posted by mobile_96

Calicoboy-(The British could not close mills or they would face a huge unemployment issue, so to compensate there was a huge effort to start cotton cultivation in Egypt.)
Actually the cultivation was already happening. By 1860, England was already getting approx. 15% of their cotton needs from other sources, with Egypt supplying a good part of it.
(attempt to force England to recognize them by curtailing exports to England caused the mills there to suffer a great shortage of raw material. )
What the south didn't realize was there was actually a surplus of raw cotton in England, and more finished product than they could sell. They were already starting to run a surplus, but the extra large crop of 1960 (or was it 1861) added enormously to the problem. The cotton embargo actually helped English manufacturers1. Curtail production (few mills closed completely, or for very long when actually closed.Many worked several days/wk.), 2. Sell off overstocks of product, and something not mentioned much, 3. Was England actually sold some of their excess cotton to the producers in the Northern states, and at much higher prices than they payed for it.
Chuck in IL.

Thanks for the extra info. I appreciate it. Anyone know how much wool and hemp the North was producing during the war? By the way, I believe this is my 100th post.

Calicoboy

[Admiral_Porter]

There would have been more fighting between the two sections as the confederacy tried to gain more territory for slavery.

I don't think their economy would be too great since they were reluctant to abandon the old ways of agricultural dominance while the rest of the world powers were industrializing.

Plus, having 4 million people out of a population of 9 million in dire poverty as slaves doesn't bode well either. There may have been a popular uprising like that in Russia during 1917. The south's plantation system reminds me of the lords and serfs of a Medieval manor.

[MobileBoy]

Porter,
It would've been much easier to look at Cuba,Mexico, and Central America to expand slavery than in the North.The Confederacy would have been an extremely wealthy nation according to most economist for the rest of the 19th century.Now in the 20th century you're right the Southern economy would have some issues.I'm not sure slavery would've been around in 1917, but its possible.

[olerebel]

Always slavery. At the time of the War for Southern Independence, the steam engine was already in operation. The cotton gin had reduced the need for labor in the winter months. It would have been interesting to see how this would have been resolved without the war. Jeff Davis and had, since the 1840s, systematically been operating his plantation with servants conducting their own courts and punishments. In his words, he was teaching them to be productive members of society.
sherman freed many slaves. Hurricane Katrina freed many people and animals. Instant freedom, without leadership or guidance is not a happy state.
Where does emancipation fit into the Victorious South? In real life, my g-g-grandmother gave her servants 160 acres each after her husband was killed. When Grierson came through, she and her children stayed in one of the servants corn crib.

[olerebel]

On Dec 22, 1860, two days after SC had left the union, the immortal Abe Lincoln wrote to Mr Alexander H. Stephens: "Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears."
The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the states or parts of states that were controlled by the Confederate government. But then, Mrs Lincoln's father was a slave holder, and she recieved income from his estate.