Counter factuals

[wausaubob]

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.



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

Had they won the war, rather than just survive it, they would have added the border states, and Rocky Mountain West, and that is as much as that subject warrants.

 

[matthew mckeon]

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/

That's a very interesting article, and thanks for linking to it. I might have to do some rethinking.

 

[Irishtom29]

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

I don't know that the Tejanos would agree with that. ;-) And I think that by the time of the Texas war of independence the Texians already outnumbered the Tejanos--what happened was a small number of swarthy Catholics swept by a tide of palid Protestants.

 

[damYankee]

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.

Slavery would not have been the grounds for trials.

 

[Jimbo_Poke]

I don't know that the Tejanos would agree with that. ;-) And I think that by the time of the Texas war of independence the Texians already outnumbered the Tejanos--what happened was a small number of swarthy Catholics swept by a tide of PPs (Pale Protestants).

Dang, does that make me a PC. I hate being PC.

Had they won the war, rather than just survive it, they would have added the border states, and Rocky Mountain West, and that is as much as that subject warrants.

I don't see it with the U.S. building a TC railroad amd discovery of Gold (autocorrect to golf?) in CA and CO. Another war and it is one thing to let the southern states go compared to being attacked. Thankfully the question is academic.

 

[Irishtom29]

The rebellion could've succeeded yet the Confederacy still not be as powerful as the United States, as the United States wasn't as powerful as Britain in 1783 after our successful rebellion. Being powerful enough to win a defensive war wouldn't mean the Confederacy would have the power to expand or to threaten the integrity and ambitions of the remaining states of the Union. Indeed, a successful southern rebellion might well have set the United States, no longer encumbered by a parasitic south and it's toxic politics, off on a toot.

 

[wausaubob]

After Lincoln's 2nd inaugural, the issue of who was responsible for the continuation of slavery, was not something that could be laid on the Confederacy. Responsibility for slavery and the slave trade was widespread.
As far as treason goes, that does little to touch the deep seated **** culture, and just makes people angrier, much, much angrier.

 

[steve59p]

Guys

Some quick thoughts.
a) I don't really know enough about how events went after the war OTL but if there had been a harsher reconstruction, or simply trials of some of the leaders your likely to make a lot of the white southerns more embittered. Their not powerful enough to cause serious problems for the union but it could make for a difficult and stressful time for the US for a while.

b) If the south 'won' as a previous posters says it depends on the circumstances. The plantation owners wanted to expand slavery but I see little actual prospects for that even if they win their independence quickly and with minimal damage to their economy. Not only is most of Mexico hostile to slavery and unsuitable for plantation slavery but an attempted military expansion in that direction, even if Mexico is in chaos, is likely to bring US and quite possibly British opposition. Britain would almost certain oppose the expansion of slavery into the Caribbean.

A quick southern victory might see it make gains at northern expense, but only really if the butterflies mean that other areas support the south, say Kentucky or Maryland - which would raise a very awkward question over Washington or possibly southern attempts in New Mexico are more successful. However I doubt they could get any further than that simply because of local opposition and those gains are reliant on events meaning widespread support for the south in them.

If its more a broken back victory, say a negotiated peace in 64 or 65 then I can't see the south even being in any condition to consider expansion overseas. Its more likely to have it attention directed to the north, guarding against a new attack couple with [almost certainly wild and unrealistic] hopes of regaining any CSA lands that the union occupies as a result of the war and doesn't withdraw from when peace is agreed.

One possible good factor in this [broken back victory] scenario is that you could well see strong pressure for political reform to reduce the power of the plantocracy. The ordinary southern whites who have suffered so much to 'win' the war are likely to want more say in governing their country. This is unlikely to help any still enslaved blacks, at least in the short/medium term but social conflict is likely to eventually break the power of the planters and that could bring a lot of social change.

Steve