Hypothetical southern victory

[Nate]

In a hypothetical case, let's say that the CSA successfully left the union, and the war ended. The details of how that happened aren't the focus on this question.

But if the south did hypothetically leave the union, do you think that they would have continued to hold slaves as industrialization hit the western world? Or do you think that a shift in the economy, as well as more media that would have turned world opinion against the CSA, would have undone slavery?

I believe that during the Gilded Age the Southern USA received few immigrants, and it wasn't really until the New Deal and even the 1950s to a degree that the south industrialized like the north. But if those same states had formed a slave-holding nation do you think they would have continued to hold slaves, even possibly to today?

 

[kevikens]

Slavery would have ended in the CSA for the same reason it ended in most other parts of the civilized world, mechanization. It probably would have morphed into peonage for a while, but chattel slavery was not likely to survive much into the 20th century. What your question also poses is how the history of the entire Western World would have been different if the CSA had established its independence. Central America a CSA protectorate? Sphere of Influence. No American entrance into WW I? A USA unable to take on Japan and Germany in WW II (it was closer than you think even with a united America). Marxism triumphant world wide? Who knows what lay in the cards if secession had been triumphant.

 

[Karen Lips]

I think the South would have eventually rejoined the Union.

 

[NedBaldwin]

But if the south did hypothetically leave the union, do you think that they would have continued to hold slaves as industrialization hit the western world?

Yes. Industrialization was underway at the time of the war.

Or do you think that a shift in the economy, as well as more media that would have turned world opinion against the CSA, would have undone slavery?

I dont think foreign opinion would undo the CSA

But if those same states had formed a slave-holding nation do you think they would have continued to hold slaves, even possibly to today?

Seems doubtful that they would have continued to today -- a lot of years, a lot of changes.

 

[huskerblitz]

I believe that during the Gilded Age the Southern USA received few immigrants, and it wasn't really until the New Deal and even the 1950s to a degree that the south industrialized like the north.

If the Southern Confederacy would have survived I think they would have been forced to mechanize earlier just to survive. We can see it today in Latin America, Africa and other places where countries that do not or cannot diversify their economies struggle to provide the simplest of means for its people. I'm sure that some would have wanted the Confederacy to remain a Jeffersonian state where agriculture ruled the day, but in reality they wouldn't have been able to and survive. So I do think slavery would have eventually ended at some point and perhaps a peonage system would have taken over, but they would have been doomed if they failed to mechanize sooner than what they did.

 

[huskerblitz]

I think the South would have eventually rejoined the Union.

I think that may have been likely. Even with independence there would have been a rush to secure more western territory which would have probably led to more armed altercations between the two countries.

 

[IcarusPhoenix]

You are assuming there would have still been a CSA. With their inept and disorganized governing philosophy, post-war economic hardship exacerbated by a completely unviable economic model, and complete lack of a unifying ideal after the war, the Confederacy would very likely have collapsed within a year, its member States variously going to war with each other, begging readmittance to the United States (which also might have had difficulty surviving a Confederate victory), generally turning into corrupt banana republics, or trying their hands at rampant expansionism. Frankly, the existence of slavery at that point may have been a comparatively minor concern.

 

[Karen Lips]

I think that may have been likely. Even with independence there would have been a rush to secure more western territory which would have probably led to more armed altercations between the two countries.

I think there would have been a rejoining of the Union without any altercations. I think the South would have probably realized that it would be best to rejoin the Union.

 

[Nothingfaced]

I think the CSA would have, after securing peace with the USA, invaded Cuba and Mexico, and potentially Haiti/Dominican Republic. Perhaps Confederate forces might have even occupied the Bahamas and surrounding islands off the coast of Confederate Florida.

The Knights of the Golden Circle wanted a circular Tropical slave-holding empire, and I think that's what would have occurred. The Spanish would have been defeated in Cuba fairly rapidly, assuming General Lee, even in ailing health, would have directed military operations there.

President Davis's 6 year term, once ended in 1867, would have most likely seen the election of someone like James Longstreet or Patrick Cleburne, and perhaps the Southern capital would have moved back to Montgomery, AL, after peace was secured with the USA.

I do not think the Confederates had any interest in re-joining the USA after securing independence.

 

[Nothingfaced]

NOTE: Patrick Cleburne died in 1864; this is assuming the Confederates achieved independence earlier in 1862 or 1863.

 

[jgoodguy]

The problem with hypotheticals is that you have to game every step from a to b. For example what kind of peace; how much of the CSA was left unoccupied to be free? How likely would it be that the Union would give Kentucky and Missouri to the CSA just because they had stars on the flag. How likely would it be that the Union would give occupied areas where unionists were like East Tennessee, North Alabama, Georgia, West Virginia back to the CSA. How much in debt would the CSA be. Would cotton prices hold up or crash.

So before you get to WWI, you have to figure out what year the erring Sisters were let go. It is unlikely that Lincoln will agree with a peace with CSA independence. The election of 1864 is the first opportunity for a peace party. . So March 1865 is the first opportunity for say President McCellan to agree to an armistice and there is not much of the CSA left.

In the real time line, President Davis screwed up by insisting that CSA Independence be the precondition for talks which meant the CSA had to win militarily. This meant that an armistice for any reason that might have led to peace was impossible because mere talks would not do.

There is simply too many variables to speculate.
+

 

[huskerblitz]

There is simply too many variables to speculate.

And yet we do it anyway.

 

[jgoodguy]

And yet we do it anyway.

True.

 

[IcarusPhoenix]

And yet we do it anyway.

Well, yes. It's like a collective tick; we just can't help ourselves.

 

[JeffBrooks]

I think the CSA would have, after securing peace with the USA, invaded Cuba and Mexico, and potentially Haiti/Dominican Republic. Perhaps Confederate forces might have even occupied the Bahamas and surrounding islands off the coast of Confederate Florida.

After having just gone through a brutal war with the Yankees and being in unimaginable debt, I doubt the Confederacy would have wanted to jump right into a war with Spain, France AND the British Empire.

 

[Elennsar]

There is simply too many variables to speculate.

Let's see for discussion's sake unless someone has a better idea that the Confederacy is able to make peace with a peace democrat (not McClellan) after superior performances in 1863 to OTL, such that the Federal armies are unable to launch the campaign against Atlanta in 1864, and for discussion's sake Grant is not available for his historical OTL role in 1864 (killed/incapacitated for field duty/death by illness/never given that promotion).

Where we do go from here to address the territory the Confederacy gets in that peace?


On the slavery question: Given that slavery has become a far more than economics issue, it would take extreme internal or external pressure for it to be ended entirely. It might not be as dominant in this timeline's 1950 as it was a hundred years ago, but Russian serfdom had to be ended by the tsar ordering it ended. Slavery is no less entrenched and Russian serfs are more comparable to Southern slaves than to free labor.

On the expansion question: The Confederacy does not have the ability to project power into Cuba to threaten Spain's territory there even if France and Britain are not opposed in any form.

 

[jgoodguy]

Let's see for discussion's sake unless someone has a better idea that the Confederacy is able to make peace with a peace democrat (not McClellan) after superior performances in 1863 to OTL, such that the Federal armies are unable to launch the campaign against Atlanta in 1864, and for discussion's sake Grant is not available for his historical OTL role in 1864 (killed/incapacitated for field duty/death by illness/never given that promotion).

Where we do go from here to address the territory the Confederacy gets?


On the slavery question: Given that slavery has become a far more than economics issue, it would take extreme internal or external pressure for it to be ended entirely. It might not be as dominant in this timeline's 1950 as it was a hundred years ago, but Russian serfdom had to be ended by the tsar ordering it ended. Slavery is no less entrenched and Russian serfs are more comparable to Southern slaves than to free labor.

One possibility is that cotton prices collapsed due to stagnant demand and over production lots of plantations are foreclosed on(actually happened except without slavery in the post war South). Now slave prices collapse and are foreclosed on. Banks fail and now there are slaves owned by no one. What happens?

 

[Elennsar]

One possibility is that cotton prices collapsed due to stagnant demand and over production lots of plantations are foreclosed on(actually happened except without slavery in the post war South). Now slave prices collapse and are foreclosed on. Banks fail and now there are slaves owned by no one. What happens?

A tremendous amount of social turmoil. No one is prepared for this, materially or emotionally. A lot of people are going to react based on how the idea of this (large numbers of free blacks) has been presented as one of the signs of the Antichrist's return.

Vigilantism is going to skyrocket - whether well intended or as an excuse. And that's not even getting into how the formerly rich handle poverty, or how the government is - like all governments have always been - expected to somehow do something.

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

In a hypothetical case, let's say that the CSA successfully left the union, and the war ended. The details of how that happened aren't the focus on this question.

But if the south did hypothetically leave the union, do you think that they would have continued to hold slaves as industrialization hit the western world? Or do you think that a shift in the economy, as well as more media that would have turned world opinion against the CSA, would have undone slavery?

I believe that during the Gilded Age the Southern USA received few immigrants, and it wasn't really until the New Deal and even the 1950s to a degree that the south industrialized like the north. But if those same states had formed a slave-holding nation do you think they would have continued to hold slaves, even possibly to today?

IMHO . . "What if" discussions are only interesting for a few minutes.
That's why I've never understood the Fantasy Football thing.

Anyway . . . I know many people love this stuff, so . . . sorry to have interrupted.

Carry on.

 

[IcarusPhoenix]

Vigilantism is going to skyrocket...

Strictly speaking, wasn't the entire Confederacy an act of vigilantism?