The South Wins---What Next

You seem to be unaware most of your examples were not state sponsored at all, which was what you suggested. Yes as they are only unfounded speculation, not based on much historical precident at all. And flys in the face of most of our actual foreign policy actions 1865-1900

And I would suggest contrary to the OP, if a foreign power would intervene to guarantee a southern independence, it more then likely would ensure it, or there was little point in intervening. Frankly if the US settled it would be because they knew they couldn't stand up to the foreign power.......rather illogical to give up the war to appease it, then purposely try to provoke it.

archieclement

I suspect that any such intervention to end the war would be to recognise the south. Which means that Lincoln would have to either declare war on such powers or step back from such a move - which I believe he had threatened earlier - and also recognise the ending of the blockade of the south. The latter would be a major blow as it enables the south to import a lot of the materials it was unable to produce themselves. As such and especially if it followed a major defeat at Gettysburg this might cause, within a few months Lincoln to realise the war was lost and be forced to make peace.

However, especially given the distaste for slavery, even without any attempts by the new CSA to expand that institution by force I can't see any power giving any sort of guarantees for the future so if a war broke out some years down the line, unless there was a clear and important interest for a 3rd power to preserve the south independence which I think would be unlikely, I suspect intervention in the south's favour would be unlikely. Note this doesn't include something like a Trent incident where the north doesn't back down. If it does something to threaten the key interests of another power that might lead to war but a new north-south conflict while it might lead to that would almost certainly be viewed as an unrelated issue by the 3rd party.

Steve
 
archieclement

I suspect that any such intervention to end the war would be to recognise the south. Which means that Lincoln would have to either declare war on such powers or step back from such a move - which I believe he had threatened earlier - and also recognise the ending of the blockade of the south. The latter would be a major blow as it enables the south to import a lot of the materials it was unable to produce themselves. As such and especially if it followed a major defeat at Gettysburg this might cause, within a few months Lincoln to realise the war was lost and be forced to make peace.

However, especially given the distaste for slavery, even without any attempts by the new CSA to expand that institution by force I can't see any power giving any sort of guarantees for the future so if a war broke out some years down the line, unless there was a clear and important interest for a 3rd power to preserve the south independence which I think would be unlikely, I suspect intervention in the south's favour would be unlikely. Note this doesn't include something like a Trent incident where the north doesn't back down. If it does something to threaten the key interests of another power that might lead to war but a new north-south conflict while it might lead to that would almost certainly be viewed as an unrelated issue by the 3rd party.

Steve
Would make little sense to try provoke a war when you settled to avoid it.

And the OP was the United States settled for a split and peace, not that it continues a war.....
 
By Cold War I mean 1946 to 1991. An independent Confederate State would get violent pushback for oppressing people of color.
Leftyhunter

leftyhunter

There's likely to be tension but how much would depend on how things develop, especially probably how powerful revanchist feeling was in the north. [See my longer reply to Pat Young above. I suspect it would be less for oppressing black people, especially since that would be all too common in the north - albeit not to the level of slavery. More a case of refusing to accept the earlier defeat and resultant southern secession.

Both sides are likely to maintain markedly higher military forces and spending than the entire US pre-war but that's because they now have a populous and mistrusted neighbour on their immediate borders. The north has a lot more resources but its going to be costlty and probably fairly unpopular because of the resultant tax costs. Also as long as the south is reliant on a defensive stance its probably going to be easier moblising support for such forces and would be helped by defensive forts at key areas. Of course if they start some stupid adventures that could be a totally different issue but then they might not just have the union on their backs then.

Steve
 
Would make little sense to try provoke a war when you settled to avoid it.

True but what a Lincoln government in 1863 might reluctantly decide could be different from what a later government thinks. Especially since sense and politics are often widely separated. :frown:
 
leftyhunter

There's likely to be tension but how much would depend on how things develop, especially probably how powerful revanchist feeling was in the north. [See my longer reply to Pat Young above. I suspect it would be less for oppressing black people, especially since that would be all too common in the north - albeit not to the level of slavery. More a case of refusing to accept the earlier defeat and resultant southern secession.

Both sides are likely to maintain markedly higher military forces and spending than the entire US pre-war but that's because they now have a populous and mistrusted neighbour on their immediate borders. The north has a lot more resources but its going to be costlty and probably fairly unpopular because of the resultant tax costs. Also as long as the south is reliant on a defensive stance its probably going to be easier moblising support for such forces and would be helped by defensive forts at key areas. Of course if they start some stupid adventures that could be a totally different issue but then they might not just have the union on their backs then.

Steve
I am thinking of more modern interventions plus world wide economic sanctions . I can cite modern examples but that might violate Forum rules. I can cite them via PM.
Leftyhunter
 
I am thinking of more modern interventions plus world wide economic sanctions . I can cite modern examples but that might violate Forum rules. I can cite them via PM.
Leftyhunter

If you could please as I'm a little unclear what you mean. I only normally check the site once or twice a day so may not be the quickest in replying.

Steve
 
By Cold War I mean 1946 to 1991. An independent Confederate State would get violent pushback for oppressing people of color.
Leftyhunter

I meant the same thing. I look at an independent Confederacy as I would East Berlin from 1946 to 1991: needed walls to keep the oppressed in. It would have been a total vanguard state to protect that in-egalitarian ideology that would have eventually imploded.
 
I meant the same thing. I look at an independent Confederacy as I would East Berlin from 1946 to 1991: needed walls to keep the oppressed in. It would have been a total vanguard state to protect that in-egalitarian ideology that would have eventually imploded.
I am thinking more in terms of Portuguese Angola, Rhodesia or South Africa.
Not sure how modern we can take this discussion although it can be as a PM with up to five participants of your choice.
Leftyhunter
 
Pat Young

Would agree with most of that but uncertain about the last. There is likely to be a strong revanchist element but I can also see significant counters to it for several reasons.

a) As you say the union/north/US has clearly lost a war, which will be an hell of a shock and the 1st time its clearly happened so there's no way of knowing how it will react. Plus while less bloodier than OTL as it could be nearly two years shorter its still a lot bloodier than anything the US has known before. As such while there will be elements who will argue for hurting the south in any way possible there will be others who want to avoid another costly war, which is a quite possible outcome from any such action and at least some of which will consider the 1861-63 conflict a stupid and unnecessary one.

Also while the defeat is unlikely to kill off American exceptionism its likely to weaken it and cause a degree of introspection, which is likely to involve looking for scapegoats for why the union lost the war. This could include the south for winning battle, European powers for stepping in, probably by recognising the south and breaking the blockade. Its also likely to include assorted internal groups, such as the copperheads/peace Democrats, the radical Republicans for pushing things too far, assorted minority elements including the Irish [especially after the draft riots if they still occur and especially if as is likely Britain is one of the main powers intervening to end the war], the Germans as I have read here some questions were raised about German migrants, the blacks - for 'starting' the entire mess and the British - for the reason mentioned above. This is going to cause a fair amount of internal tension for a while at least.

b) Since it was Lincoln and the Republicans that 'started' and the 'lost' the war there is likely to be issues there, both with some hostility towards the party as a whole and possible splits in the Party over whether to double up or moderate things. Assuming the peace is agreed sometime in the 2nd half of 63 will Lincoln be standing again having gone to war over the issue of succession and then being forced to accept defeat and recognise southern independence? I suspect not but if so which way does the party go?

c) Assuming that the north doesn't maintain control of a string of land along the Lower Mississippi and other enclaves it means the south has control of the outlet of trade via New Orleans which is economically very important for a lot of states and territories. This is likely to include some treaty terms that provides the US with uninterrupted access and possibly with no tariffs. However no one in the hinterland is going to forget this means nothing if the two nations go to war again. Which is something many people in those regions will have a vested interest to avoid.

d) Frankly while a lot of blacks who have escaped slavery will want to help their fellows and a number of northerners will want to help them, either for moral reasons or simply because they want to hurt the south. However how many in the north want a lot of freed slaves moving north and competing with them for jobs. This was an important issue both because of racism and because the blacks were often willing to work for lower wages. A prime reason why one of the prime targets of the draft riots were freed blacks in New York. Similarly Lincoln himself had said he didn't accept the idea of racial equality and that black were inferior. This may have been his belief, as it was for most people at the time or simply he needed to take such a stance to get elected. I'm not sure there will be that much sympathy for blacks going south and engaging in acts of violence there, both because it could mean war and because even if they 'won' how many freed blacks are going to want to flee north?

e) Also since the north has explicitly recognised the south's independence by making peace with it any such support would be a clear act of war. As such the government, as opposed to individual elements in the population has to consider the political and international crisis that could develop unless it makes at least some efforts to prevent such actions. A new John Brown will be a hero to the radical abolitionists and the revanchists but would be a real problem for the government.

Any new war would be markedly harder to win as the south is now an internationally recognised state so attempting to undermine it is going to have diplomatic costs, even more so any attempt to blockade it. Furthermore unless the south is totally incompetent - which its possibly they might be - their likely to have defensive forts and river flotillas to make advances through key choke points a lot more costly. Plus a regular army trained and in position. The north is going to have as well but unless its going to maintain a much larger one, which will cost a lot and increase tensions further attacking the south is likely to be costly, in terms of blood, money and possibly political support for such a war.

I'm not saying those problems are insumountable and that a hard line revancist party/bloc can't come to power and decide on violent confrontation with the south but it could go a number of other ways as well.

One other point for you and others. What happens to the northern slave states? Kentucky and Maryland for instance? IIRC slavery is still legal there and Lincoln was careful to protect the rights of slave owners in those states to avoid unrest. It would seem likely that the north is going to move to ban slavely but they might have to be careful here as it could cause unrest in those states, even if suitable compensation is offered. After all by making peace with the south there is an implicit recognition of the right of a state to secede. Its likely there would be some move to change this, I would guess by a constitutional amendment? This would however take some time and could spook one or more states into seceding while they can claim it was legal. True the north could occupy them beforehand to prevent this but that's likely to cause internal and international concern and is a clear excuse for the south, if it chooses to support them in some way even up to a dow although that is likely to be a bad move by them.

Anyway, as you say this is all speculation and so things could go in all sorts of ways. I suspect that even a crushing victory by Lee at Gettysburg is unlikely to end the conflict, although if it did prompt European recognition of the south things could move fairly decisively from there.

Steve
The fact that so many different issues are unresolved in your thoughtful discussion argues for a prolonged conflict after the armistice.

1. Most Marylanders, Kentuckians and Marylanders sided with the Union, but in each state a significant minority actively supported the Confederacy. Even if Jeff Davis agreed to a settlement giving those states to the US, how likely is it that people from those states in the Confederate armies would peacefully abide losing their homes and slaves?
2. If the war ends before April 1865, if Lincoln is re-elected he does not have the accommodationist Johnson as VP and presumably Lincoln is not assassinated.
3. I would not assume that a peace treaty returns lands captured by the Union to the Confederates. European powers were interested in peace, not the integrity of the borders of the Confederate states. Britain might be willing to risk her treasure and lives to stop the fighting, but it was less likely to care if Nashville was restored to the Confederate state of Tennessee.
4. The British and French were hardly committed to waste a lot of resources on ending the war in 1863 and 1864. Don’t expect them to stay engaged in the late 1860s. By 1870, France had been defeated in Mexico, invaded by Prussia, and had a mass popular uprising in its capital city. You can’t convince me that France was going to pose such a threat to the US that it could force us to halt sub rosa support for insurgencies in the South. The got beaten by Mexican insurgents for crying out loud.

I have a lot more to say on this, but not tonight.
 
The fact that so many different issues are unresolved in your thoughtful discussion argues for a prolonged conflict after the armistice.

1. Most Marylanders, Kentuckians and Marylanders sided with the Union, but in each state a significant minority actively supported the Confederacy. Even if Jeff Davis agreed to a settlement giving those states to the US, how likely is it that people from those states in the Confederate armies would peacefully abide losing their homes and slaves?
2. If the war ends before April 1865, if Lincoln is re-elected he does not have the accommodationist Johnson as VP and presumably Lincoln is not assassinated.
3. I would not assume that a peace treaty returns lands captured by the Union to the Confederates. European powers were interested in peace, not the integrity of the borders of the Confederate states. Britain might be willing to risk her treasure and lives to stop the fighting, but it was less likely to care if Nashville was restored to the Confederate state of Tennessee.
4. The British and French were hardly committed to waste a lot of resources on ending the war in 1863 and 1864. Don’t expect them to stay engaged in the late 1860s. By 1870, France had been defeated in Mexico, invaded by Prussia, and had a mass popular uprising in its capital city. You can’t convince me that France was going to pose such a threat to the US that it could force us to halt sub rosa support for insurgencies in the South. The got beaten by Mexican insurgents for crying out loud.

I have a lot more to say on this, but not tonight.

Pat

My thinking is that the OP [opening post] assumes the war ends in autumn or possibly even late summer 63 because European intervention - even if just recognition of the south would cause a serious crisis for the union. IIRC Lincoln had already declared this would be seen as an act of war by the north but if Britain and France, probably followed by a number of smaller nations does so is he going to declare war on much of Europe. On top of a big defeat at Gettysburg - the initial POD - that would be an insane move. True the union is in a better position than in 62 as its important a lot of war materials already and has started getting home production up but its still dependent on external supplies for a number of materials while replacing a union blockade of the south with an European one of the north would seriously adjust the balance of power against the union even without other military conflicts.

If as I think more likely he doesn't go through with such a dow then he's weakened his position and the lifting of the blockade on the south will boost the latter both materially and morale wise. I think he would come under pressure to either accept the south's independence or resign. I can't see the war going through it its OTL end date in 65. Assuming that the draft riots occur in New York a few days after Gettysburg this would increase such pressure for ending the conflict. Agree that Lincoln wouldn't be assassinated, unless possibly by a disgruntled abolitionist:wink: but I suspect he wouldn't be the Republican candidate in the 64 election, which I would suspect would be post-war.

Similarly while I can see the north claiming some border areas they control and definitely keeping W Virginia it would seem contrary recognising, no matter how reluctantly, the independence of the south and insisting on maintaining control over areas of land, most noticeably along the lower Mississippi which is a thin finger of territory where their deeply unpopular and exposed to continued guerilla or other action as well as spliting the south in two if Vickersberg falls as OTL which still seems likely. No more than Britain would have considered holding New York or the far south after accepting US independence in 1783. I suspect it would be a case of state boundaries being generally accepted, except possibly in a few distinct cases. It makes both political and economic sense to pretty much respect state and economic boundaries. As I've said I would expect that the union gets clear and unimpeded use of the Mississippi for its own trade. Possibly even some restrictions on southern defences along it although I can see the south being very unhappy with this as it would leave them vulnerable.

As I've said elsewhere I can't see any European power allying with the south or seeking to protect it in the longer term. Especially if its leadership carries out plans to expand slavery, which are likely to be stamped on fairly quickly. Britain wants trade and good relations with both powers if possible and the ending of a destructive war that's having an impact on the wider world economy. I doubt the Europeans would use force in 83, other than protecting their ships trading with the south unless Lincoln is foolish enough to declare war, which would totally change the matter.

In terms of the border states that stay in the union and have slavery then it would depend on how many people have slaves as to their likely reaction, along with how skillfully Washington handles a move to end slavery there. Done carefully, with some promise of compensation its likely to go fairly easily, albeit with some slave-owners deciding to move south, along with their slaves. If its a rash reaction to the frustration of defeat it could cause a lot of resentment in those states, going beyond the actual slave owners. [My only real knowledge here is reports of the hostility of much of western Maryland and the Baltimore area to the war and also what I have read pre-war about hostility towards abolition in Kentucky. Which could be given a far too powerful image to the support for slavery there].

Steve
 
I'm not sure why the idea of "weak" finances exist in regards to the Confederacy, given Cotton was to the 19th Century what Oil was to the 20th. To quote from Without Consent or Contract by Robert Fogel, pg 414-415:

If the Confederacy had been allowed to establish itself peacefully, to work out economic and diplomatic policies, and to develop international alliances, it would have emerged as a major international power. Although its population was relatively small, its great wealth would have made it a force to be reckoned with. The Confederacy would probably have used its wealth and military power to establish itself as the dominant nation in Latin America, perhaps annexing Cuba and Puerto Rico, Yucatan, and Nicaragua as well as countering Britain's antislavery pressures on Brazil. Whether the Confederacy would have sought to counter British antislavery policies in Africa or to form alliances with the principal slave-trading nations of the Middle East is more uncertain, but these would have been options.​
The Confederacy could have financed its expansionist, proslavery policies by exploiting the southern monopoly of cotton production. A [five cent] sales tax on cotton not only would have put most of the burden of such policies on foreign consumers, but would have yielded about $100 million annually during the 1860s—50 percent more than the entire federal budget on the eve of the Civil War. With such a revenue the Confederacy could have emerged as one of the world's strongest military powers, maintaining a standing army several times as large as the North's, rapidly developing a major navy, and conducting an aggressive foreign policy. Such revenues would also have permitted it to covertly or overtly finance aristocratic forces in Europe who were vying with democratic ones for power across the Continent.​
According to this, prices of Cotton in 1861 rose to about 8.60 pence from 6.25 in 1860, and from there all the way out to 1867 were never below 10 pence. Now, using the Pound Sterling to U.S. Dollar conversion table here, we can figure out how much a single British pence was in terms of American pennies:

S = 5.31D
D = 100p2
240p1 = S
240p1 = 5.31(100p2)
240p1 = 531p2
531p2/240p1 = ~2.2 American Pennies to every British Pence

So, using the 1860 base price of cotton, the Confederates could increase the export duty on their cotton to the stipulated 5 cents per pound and it would still be lower than what the British paid for cotton between 1862-1867. Further aiding this would be the fact British dependence on Southern Cotton increased over the course of the late 19th Century. To put this in context, $100 Million is equal to $2.8 Billion in Confederate Dollars, using November 1864 exchange rates. All Confederate Debt except the $6 Million Erlanger Loan were denominated in Confederate Dollars.
 
Is this an 1862 "finishes strong" Confederacy with 12 states and a territory?

Or an 1864 "peace through exhaustion" Confederacy with 11 states and a territory?

Either way. Federalist support is cut off to Mexico by President McClellan, as the CSA moves to assist the French pacify Northern Mexico.
 
Is this an 1862 "finishes strong" Confederacy with 12 states and a territory?

Or an 1864 "peace through exhaustion" Confederacy with 11 states and a territory?

Either way. Federalist support is cut off to Mexico by President McClellan, as the CSA moves to assist the French pacify Northern Mexico.

A timeline idea I've played around with is an 1863/1864 victory for the CSA. They have over a decade to get the debt paid off and rebuild, while E.P. Alexander is able to get Richmond to buy up the British Armstrong guns when the UK begins to sell them off. Meanwhile in the United States, as a consequence of the war, West Point is shut down; there was a movement to do this IOTL due to the high number of ex-cadets that joined the CSA. By 1875, the C.S. Army has the better officer corps (The Citadel and VMI) as well as better trained infantry (Slave Patrol Militia system) and the more modern artillery due to the Armstrongs. The U.S. meanwhile has the larger overall force, in both Army and Navy, and the better small arms due to their larger industrial base.

Anyway, in 1876 the Emperor Maxmillian dies without issue or a designated heir (He never had one IOTL and was likely infertile). The Mexican Liberals have long been defeated but the loss of the Monarchy leaves Mexico unstable and in a power vacuum. The Confederate States thus steps in and annexes the country, due to its ties to local strongmen like Santiago Vidaurri as well as heavy influence on the Mexican military and economy. This emerges as a campaign issue for the upcoming 1876 Election in the U.S. and the incumbent Presidency attempts to use it to his advantage, with this resulting in both nations blundering into a war. The U.S. has the numbers and logistics, so it gradually is able to advance into the CSA steadily but at great cost, due to the quality of the C.S. Army and its advantage in artillery.

Ultimately, between the increased demands of the war on railway traffic and political dissatisfaction at the high casualties being taken for an unpopular cause, the 1877 Railway Strikes spark off and are worse than IOTL. With the collapse in their logistics system, the U.S. Army comes to a halt in its advance and the Confederates are able to encircle and destroy several elements in their own ATL Sedan. Adding to the woes of the American military is the need to divert formations to put down communes in cities like Pittsburgh, Chicago and others. In the end, Washington is forced to sue for peace, ending the war with the Confederate annexation of Mexico recognized. From there on, both the C.S. and the U.S. seek to achieve and maintain good ties, as the cost of war for both is recognized as just not worth it.
 
Last edited:
Literature on slavery in the American South suggests firmly otherwise.
So your arguing that slaves were happy to work for their benevolent overlords and never committed sabatoge while enslaved? Also I was responding to @major bill who was speculating on how well slavery would work in an industrial setting and my answer is we already know based on Germanies experience in WWII.
Leftyhunter
 
So your arguing that slaves were happy to work for their benevolent overlords and never committed sabatoge while enslaved? Also I was responding to @major bill who was speculating on how well slavery would work in an industrial setting and my answer is we already know based on Germanies experience in WWII.
Leftyhunter

I don't believe I argued anything of that sort at all? Rather, I said the available literature suggests that the industrial usage of slaves was already quite extensive and was as cost-effective/productive as the usage of free labor in the South. Germany is also not a good comparison at all for several reasons, but beyond that the academic consensus is that slave labor was a boon for their economy. See The Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze, Page 535 in particular but the overall chapter "LABOUR, FOOD AND GENOCIDE" is a definitive read on the subject.
 
I don't believe I argued anything of that sort at all? Rather, I said the available literature suggests that the industrial usage of slaves was already quite extensive and was as cost-effective/productive as the usage of free labor in the South. Germany is also not a good comparison at all for several reasons, but beyond that the academic consensus is that slave labor was a boon for their economy. See The Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze, Page 535 in particular but the overall chapter "LABOUR, FOOD AND GENOCIDE" is a definitive read on the subject.

I've gone on at length for years about how blue-collar and rural whites will eventually move to the Confederacy's industry centers screaming for a piece of the pie. And demand for jobs.
 
Back
Top