Civil War History - "What if..." DiscussionsWhat if they had attacked instead of digging in...? What if he was in charge of the army instead...? Did you ever have a "What if..." question, and you weren't sure where to post it? Here's the place to ask these speculative questions!
What if the Confederacy had been formed by the Southern colonies in 1787?
I just would appreciate any insight into this subject because I have never read anything about it.That would be an interesting what if book.Fueling my curiosity is the fact that had they known the future I have know doubt the Southern founding fathers would have done just that.Then if war still occurs in 1861 how might the war have gone differently.
I think that if the Southern Colonies split away in 1787, two nations would have been formed. These nations would have been hostile during the period of expansion. War might have erupted over issues such as Missisippi River access and the expansion into the Louisiana purchase areas. That land purchase by one side would have blocked the other side. War would have erupted by 1810. All lands west of the Mississippi probably would have been taken by Spain, succeeded by Mexico. The US would have not reached their full potential.
__________________ F. S. Powers
Union Ancersor: Pvt Arnuah Norton, 60th Ohio. (G-G-G Grandfather) Died at Salisbury NC, November 3, 1864
Confederate Ancestors: Captain Thomas A. Morrow, 29th Texas Cavalry (G-G-G- Uncle) and 2LT George W. Morrow, 31st Texas Cavalry (G-G-G Grandfather). Both survived the war
Thanks for your post.The Loiusiana Purchase territory would surely cause problems.If the Southern colonies made the purchase they would have to sell some of it to the Northern states so as not to box them in.Considering the crops the south grew maybe they would've sold the Northern parts of the purchase.There would have been issues to be worked out about controlling or sharing the Mississippi River as well.Whatever Spain took I think we could retake it from Mexico down the line somewhere.I'm not convinced that either would have been as strong as both were individually in 1861.If Britain didn't reconquer the Southern colonies then I think the Confederacy would have been a lot stronger in 1861.I think the economy would still exhibit little manufacturing.It would in my opinion be based on slave labor as it was.Militarily I think the South would have been much better equipped to produce its war supplies including ships.I think that Britain would be very closely connected with the Confederacy economically.Since I believe Southern interest played a part in the Mexocan War I still see it happening.I also still see a Mexican defeat.The Confederacy would then incorporate all of the territory America won from that war.Texas would have been annexed to the CSA previously.The CSA may have taken even more of Mexico's territory and probably would have.By 1861 Cuba would also probably be in Confederate hands.I still think if the Union existed it could beat the CSA in a war.I just don't see them outright invading like they did though.I also think though this is purely a guess that Britain wouldn't have stayed out of the conflict.A more powerful CSA with Britain's help would I believe have won this alternate War of Northern Aggression.I don't think the Northern populace would have supported a take over of the Confederacy in this different reality.Slavery could be brought up by all the abolitionist in the North, but I don't see large numbers of Union men willing to die for that cause.Nor would the Union government have considered sacrificing all of those lives and war expenses for the abolition of slavery.Just my opinion.Anybody got one give it a shot.
A very interesting question, MobileBoy. I think you are right in that an independent Southern nationhood could conceivably have developed in 1787. I think though it becomes a question of time till war develops, as it did historically with Britain in 1812 and potentially in this scenario much sooner with the rise of French Republicanism and the advent of Napoleon. I also think the British would much sooner than 1812 have implemented a divide and conquer scheme to regain control of its lost colonies. I believe separate nationhoods would have all come down to what Virginia would do. If Virginia wanted a separate Southern entity, it would have happened, if not, then the lower Southern States were much to weak to do anything otherwise. Fortunately Virginia was blessed with the most clearsighted and forward thinking men in the Union of States. I believe they understood clearly the dangers still manifest in Benjamin Franklin's earlier dictum of 'We must all hang together, or we shall certainly all hang separately.' As separate nations, I think we should have been easy pickings to the European powers, as war would have soon engulfed us whether or no. What a different and disastrous history this all could have been. Just my take, ed
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
-Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC.
Last edited by ewc; 09-16-2005 at 12:30 AM.
Reason: **##** typing!!
I agree with the premise that, for the Southern States to form a confederacy, the time to do it would have been before the constitution was ratified. At the time, however, there was considerable empire grabbin by European countries, and there was a definite danger that England would want her colonies back. There was a need for a united front to prevent getting swallowed up.
But that's only the practicality. The founding fathers, many of them planters and slaveholders, had this grossly silly idea of creating a republic of free men where no one man was better than any other, and they created this document where all agreed how this could work.
It is doubtful that either the north or the south could alone swing the Louisiana Purchase. France, or Spain or England would have it. Both halves of the country would have stopped at the Mississippi with neither side capable of challenging the owners.
I get the idea that Jefferson wasn't particularly after the Mississippi, but it put a very nice icing on the cake. He wanted the land into which the country could expand. Although it wasn't called that then, it was the earliest official recognition of manifest destiny.
To keep all the colonies together, the framers allowed for "persons held to service." This allowed the colonies to form that "more perfect union." and expand west.
Ole- True, not likely either side could have been able to swing a Louisiana Purchase like Jefferson had been able to do. Unless they had allied with France, which would have made the new province very vulnerable to British menace and takeover. And right again, unable to take over the western lands, American expansion would have ended at the Mississippi, except for illegal emigration, similar to that done to treaty Indian lands, but now the Indians have a Big Brother. Any way i see it, war is a constant threat if not existing for these fledgling Northern and Southern nationettes.
As to Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase, he wanted to stretch America from coast to coast primarily for economic reasons. First off, he wanted the port of New Orleans to transact the commerce of the great interior rivers. The Europeans had an idea of its worth, but not an intimate understanding like the Americans had, and so Jefferson could lay his hands on this jewel. Also, he believed rivers could be used to move trade between the coasts and thus America would be in the perfect position to control trade with the Orient and thus be the most powerful mercantile nation on the Earth, supplanting the English and the Dutch, who would have to go the long way around. This was possibly the major reason for sending the Lewis and Clark Expedition to the Pacific. Jefferson's original intention was to leave the lands of the West with the Indian tribes and deal with them by treaty and peaceful commerce. Here was Jefferson's single great failure of reading his countrymen.
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
Ole you and EWC both have very reasonable ideas.I read once where Jefferson just offered to buy New Orleans at first and then the rest of the purchase fell into his lap.There's no doubt that he was a big proponent of Western expansion.I've always found the multi-talented Jefferson to be the most interesting of the Founding Fathers.The other Southern colonies certainly would have followed Virginia's lead.There were signs of sectional animosity even then so maybe fear of annihilation is why the colonies united in the first place.I'm really not threatened by Spain but maybe I'm wrong on that point.Britain could have retaken the South probably but I'm not sure its population would have stood for it.They would have dominated the Southern market anyway so in a sense the Southern colonies would have been like British colonies without the expenses.There probably would have been no war of 1812 because the infant Confederacy probably wouldn't have went to war over impressment.There was basically all Southerners at New Orleans so we probably still win that battle anyway(I wonder if it would still take place after the war ended).
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
What if the Confederacy had been formed by the Southern colonies in 1787? 
Linear Mode
