Counter factuals

[matthew mckeon]

Counter factuals, "what ifs" are, IMO, mostly a waste of time. But I might be wrong about that, so I'm going to propose a couple to discuss. I also want to open it up for others as well, but I don't want the thread to fall apart, so if people are interested let's chew on these for a bit before going in a different direction.

 

[matthew mckeon]

I want to avoid, at first, the chestnuts like, what is Lincoln hadn't been assassinated, or Stonewall Jackson had been at Gettysburg, stuff that revolves around one person.

1. What if the United States had actually pursued a harsh Reconstruction, imprisonment, or exile for Confederate leadership, and basically the same sort of sweeping social and political changes that the Allies imposed on Germany after WWII, or the reforms instituted by MacArthur on Japan. This is not to equate the Confederacy with either of those two entities, which is a gross distortion of history, but to give an idea of the sweep I'm thinking about.

 

[matthew mckeon]

What if the Confederacy had won its independence. What would its foreign policy have been towards Cuba, Mexico, and Central America? Some had proposed plans of annexation and spreading slavery. Were they possible and/or feasible?

 

[wausaubob]

I want to avoid, at first, the chestnuts like, what is Lincoln hadn't been assassinated, or Stonewall Jackson had been at Gettysburg, stuff that revolves around one person.

1. What if the United States had actually pursued a harsh Reconstruction, imprisonment, or exile for Confederate leadership, and basically the same sort of sweeping social and political changes that the Allies imposed on Germany after WWII, or the reforms instituted by MacArthur on Japan. This is not to equate the Confederacy with either of those two entities, which is a gross distortion of history, but to give an idea of the sweep I'm thinking about.

It would not have made any difference. The issue that was contested was ****, and that was not a minority view in the South. Neither eliminating the leadership, suppressing Lost Cause ideology, or even land reform would have changed the acceptance of ****.
In order for there to be change, a national identity had to be constructed, and that was the Super Power identity that emerged after World War II. The physical and cultural separation of the South, had to be reduced by technical change.
The issues creating conflict could not have been controlled by a different reconstruction policy.

 

[wausaubob]

What if the Confederacy had won its independence. What would its foreign policy have been towards Cuba, Mexico, and Central America? Some had proposed plans of annexation and spreading slavery. Were they possible and/or feasible?

This is the larger question. Was the war necessary? Could two expansionist countries with substantial military capabilities have co-existed in the middle of the continent of North America? I don't think so. One country of the other had to conquer and control. If the Confederacy had prevailed, it would have conquered most of the west and New England would have been left as a rump nation.
If the Confederacy had won, their problem would not have been Mexico or Spain, their problem would have been that Great Britain was willing to fight to suppress the international slave trade.

 

[jgoodguy]

I want to avoid, at first, the chestnuts like, what is Lincoln hadn't been assassinated, or Stonewall Jackson had been at Gettysburg, stuff that revolves around one person.

1. What if the United States had actually pursued a harsh Reconstruction, imprisonment, or exile for Confederate leadership, and basically the same sort of sweeping social and political changes that the Allies imposed on Germany after WWII, or the reforms instituted by MacArthur on Japan. This is not to equate the Confederacy with either of those two entities, which is a gross distortion of history, but to give an idea of the sweep I'm thinking about.

If prosperity was part of the package, then the US would have been a very different place. Less racism, no Jim Crow, no Lost Cause and more than likely the Civil War would be a area of study for specialists.

Prosperity is the key, however. The average Southerner must feel better off under reconstruction than under the Slave Holder's governance. If the whites are doing well, then they will not be so inclined to resent others.

 

[jgoodguy]

What if the Confederacy had won its independence. What would its foreign policy have been towards Cuba, Mexico, and Central America? Some had proposed plans of annexation and spreading slavery. Were they possible and/or feasible?

In any independent CSA counterfactual, the basis for its independence needs to be specified. A poor rump CSA burdened by war debt and in disarray is different from a wealthy one with much territory.

 

[damYankee]

I want to avoid, at first, the chestnuts like, what is Lincoln hadn't been assassinated, or Stonewall Jackson had been at Gettysburg, stuff that revolves around one person.

1. What if the United States had actually pursued a harsh Reconstruction, imprisonment, or exile for Confederate leadership, and basically the same sort of sweeping social and political changes that the Allies imposed on Germany after WWII, or the reforms instituted by MacArthur on Japan. This is not to equate the Confederacy with either of those two entities, which is a gross distortion of history, but to give an idea of the sweep I'm thinking about.

I believe there should have been trials for the leaders of the secession movement and the leadership of the Confederacy itself, not so much for the lower ranking officers.
The treatment of the Loyalist after the American Revolution would have been the template for implementing the cleansing.
By not holding any individuals responsible, we held everyone responsible.
You bring up the comparison of the Allied treatment of the defeated after WWII. The trials and hearing held in the aftermath of that debacle had a liberating affect on the citizenry of the Axis nations, it let the common person forgive themselves for acts they may have carried out as part of their perceived duty.
Who knows how that kind of reset would have changed the relationship of the Southern survivors of the Civil War, with the rest of the nation. As it stood, it more like going through an ugly divorce only to be dragged back into the family home with no address of the issues that lead to the division.
Resentment fostered and made itself physical in the form of KKK and Jim Crow and over a century of discontent.

 

[jgoodguy]

Who knows how that kind of reset would have changed the relationship of the Southern survivors of the Civil War, with the rest of the nation. As it stood, it more like going through an ugly divorce only to be dragged back into the family home with no address of the issues that lead to the division.

With slavery outlawed and the former slave owners exiled or politically neutered, it would much easier for a reset.

 

[wausaubob]

If prosperity was part of the package, then the US would have been a very different place. Less racism, no Jim Crow, no Lost Cause and more than likely the Civil War would be a area of study for specialists.

Prosperity is the key, however. The average Southerner must feel better off under reconstruction than under the Slave Holder's governance. If the whites are doing well, then they will not be so inclined to resent others.

There is no political solution to the population loss in Alabama and North Carolina, and the physical destruction of Mississippi, So. Carolina and Virginia. As noted there has to be economic solution, and the United States has its own debts and lost population to deal with.
The type of federal power necessary to regulate the labor contracts in the cotton industry and to physically reconstruct Virginia and a few other places was beyond the capability of the 19th century United States.
But prosperity is the key. A good deal of population and energy and Southern identity flowed to Texas. Reconstruction was a successful indigenous effort in Texas.

 

[wausaubob]

One type of independent Confederacy has actually won the war, and has additional territorial gains.
Another type of independent Confederacy has simply outlasted the United States, and both nations are very vulnerable to European influence, therefore undermining the purpose of the original revolution.

 

[damYankee]

I want to avoid, at first, the chestnuts like, what is Lincoln hadn't been assassinated, or Stonewall Jackson had been at Gettysburg, stuff that revolves around one person.

1. What if the United States had actually pursued a harsh Reconstruction, imprisonment, or exile for Confederate leadership, and basically the same sort of sweeping social and political changes that the Allies imposed on Germany after WWII, or the reforms instituted by MacArthur on Japan. This is not to equate the Confederacy with either of those two entities, which is a gross distortion of history, but to give an idea of the sweep I'm thinking about.

Sorry, double post

 

[wausaubob]

It would not have helped. Responsibility for slavery was widespread.
Litigating the issue of secession which had been settled by war, would not have helped.
The deeper issue of **** was not a belief of a limited political group.
Trying a set of political leaders would not have helped produce the change in sentiment that was necessary.

 

[Rebforever]

 

[suzenatale]

What if the Confederacy had won its independence. What would its foreign policy have been towards Cuba, Mexico, and Central America? Some had proposed plans of annexation and spreading slavery. Were they possible and/or feasible?

Well we will sion have a TV show for that

 

[rebelatsea]

May I add a completely new (so far as I am aware) perspective to this thread.

Napoleon Buonaparte before Waterloo seriously contemplated abandoning France to it's fate and going to South America to attempt to create a United States of the South. After Waterloo, in exile he continued this dream, supported clandestinely by politicians and members of the Royal families of both Britain and France (for obvious reasons ) and attracted the attention not only of people in South America looking for independence, but of British and American adventurers including Lord Cochrane, who actually sent an emissary from the newly independent Chile to St Helena. The scheme was only thwarted by Napoleon's failing health.
If in 1860 -61 there was such a Southern Union, up to the border of Mexico or maybe even including Mexico, How would / could that that have influenced events, assuming the Northern and Southern States parted company.

 

[huskerblitz]

Counter factuals, "what ifs" are, IMO, mostly a waste of time. But I might be wrong about that, so I'm going to propose a couple to discuss. I also want to open it up for others as well, but I don't want the thread to fall apart, so if people are interested let's chew on these for a bit before going in a different direction.

I'm actually a bit surprised you consider them a waste of time, given your profession. Do you never ask your students "What do you think would happen if..."? I believe counterfactual arguments have their place. To do so correctly, one must acknowledge and take into consideration minute details of an event. It engages the imagination while forcing one to consider the actual events for the 'what-if' part to become plausible. I have often found it to be a better springboard to conversations within the classroom than mere factual study.

Here's an article that discusses it. Hopefully it will give you more to consider about the topic.
http://historycooperative.org/what-if-history-is-there-any-validity-to-counterfactualism/

 

[Irishtom29]

Had the Confederacy expanded into Mexico, Central America and Cuba the ****s would've been submerged in a tide of swarthy Catholics, a white Fundy or Calvinist nightmare I would think.

 

[matthew mckeon]

If the CSA went with the expansionist elements to spread slavery(because its shut out of most of the West), its going to have to build a navy. It was also going to have to pay for a war. William Walker was able to gain control of Nicaragua for a period of time with just a few filibusters, but came to grief. Could the Confederacy done better? Or with slender naval resources and a smaller population, would they be defeated, and even end up handing back part of Texas.

 

[Jimbo_Poke]

This is the larger question. Was the war necessary? Could two expansionist countries with substantial military capabilities have co-existed in the middle of the continent of North America? I don't think so. One country of the other had to conquer and control. If the Confederacy had prevailed, it would have conquered most of the west and New England would have been left as a rump nation.
If the Confederacy had won, their problem would not have been Mexico or Spain, their problem would have been that Great Britain was willing to fight to suppress the international slave trade.

Conquered the west? Do you mean New Mexico Arizona or West as in Pennsylvania all the way to the Coast? If the latter, I have a hard time seeing it happen. Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota had no desire to be part of the CSA and would have fought hard. Only way I see the CSA even remotely having a chance is if the U.S.A. splits again dividing the power of the north. Keep in mind the industrial and population power of the north was just ramping up and even then the rebelling states was never able to project power into the North for any sort of extended time.

Had the Confederacy expanded into Mexico, Central America and Cuba the ****s would've been submerged in a tide of swarthy Catholics, a white Fundy or Calvinist nightmare I would think.

I get your point, but they seemed to do well enough together in Texas.