Question about the viability of the Confederacy if they had achieved independence.

Also I think there is a very good chance Von Bismarck would still have been Chancellor, he was already the political leader of Prussia, and our War had very little, to no impact on Prussia, or any of the German States.
He wasn't yet Chancellor as of 1862, and if there's a negotiated peace in the latter half of 1862 (especially one involving British intervention from, say, the Trent affair) he's actually a prime choice for a neutral mediator - but it would get him out of Prussia at a point when he actually got the Chancellor position (and incidentally would probably result in Wilhelm abdicating his throne in favour of his much more liberal heir, Frederick Wilhelm).

Since the Trent is probably the easiest counterfactual with which to get the CSA independent, it's worth considering!
 
He wasn't yet Chancellor as of 1862, and if there's a negotiated peace in the latter half of 1862 (especially one involving British intervention from, say, the Trent affair) he's actually a prime choice for a neutral mediator - but it would get him out of Prussia at a point when he actually got the Chancellor position (and incidentally would probably result in Wilhelm abdicating his throne in favour of his much more liberal heir, Frederick Wilhelm).

Since the Trent is probably the easiest counterfactual with which to get the CSA independent, it's worth considering!

If the Trent Affair had been the catalyst of Confederate Independence your theory could very well indeed have been the result, Von Bismarck was rising star, and such an event could have been something he would have been dragged into.

Also I'd like to commend you on pointing our Frederick Wilhelm's distaste of Von Bismarck, most folks tend to miss that.

I myself don't see the Trent Affair as being a super big possibility of resulting in Confederate Independence, Prince Albert's last work was preventing Britain from joining the war, and if he was out of the picture Britain would have been dragged into it, in short, in such a timeframe you are without a doubt on the mark, but I think there is another scenario that had much more potential to bring about Confederate Independence.

I avoided my personal theory on "how" out of a desire to focus on the aftermath, and that was probably a misstep on my part. I think the most likely scenario for a Confederate win would have been the election of 1864. If Jefferson Davis had left Johnson in command at Atlanta, Lincoln would have stood a better chance at losing the election, and if he had the War would have still been over in 1865, and my personal scenario would have come into play with Von Bismarck where he wanted to be.

I like this discussion, I hope I ain't "hijacking" anything though.
 
I myself don't see the Trent Affair as being a super big possibility of resulting in Confederate Independence, Prince Albert's last work was preventing Britain from joining the war, and if he was out of the picture Britain would have been dragged into it, in short, in such a timeframe you are without a doubt on the mark, but I think there is another scenario that had much more potential to bring about Confederate Independence.
The reason why I think the Trent has the possibility to (easily) bring about Confederate independence is that the British sent an ultimatum and there was a serious (three-day-long) discussion about whether or not to accept it on the part of the Union cabinet. It is not a major ask to get that one to result differently and thus trigger British intervention, and British intervention is basically a death knell to the idea of the Union winning the war - it's so crippling it astonishes me.

I avoided my personal theory on "how" out of a desire to focus on the aftermath, and that was probably a misstep on my part. I think the most likely scenario for a Confederate win would have been the election of 1864.
This, on the other hand, I don't agree with - and the reason is that a President McClellan would have been in favour of continuing the war or a negotiated reabsorbtion. He was most certainly not in favour of Confederate independence.
That being said, if you can contrive him to win the election and then get assassinated then the VP the DNC picked would go for it!
 
I don't view British intervention as the most possible, Britain had just finished the Crimean War, and Indian Mutiny, both of which were expensive and the British public was war weary, the last thing they needed was an American War, which is why cooler heads prevailed. It is indeed true that Palmerston said he wouldn't stand for what the US Navy had did, which is why Prince Albert stepped up to the plate one last time and toned down Palmerston's letter to the US Government.

McClellan ran on a Democratic Party peace platform, I think he would have sued for peace on a mutual beneficiary terms that very election was on whether to continue the War, and if Johnson had been left in command at Atlanta, and the catastrophic siege for Sherman ensued, it would have stimulated the peace platform, and at that stage the CSA had no real interest in re-absorption, thus precluding anything short of CS Independence in negotiations. But at the end of the day, either of us could be right, or wrong, its all a "what if" that we shouldn't get upset over lol.
 
I don't view British intervention as the most possible, Britain had just finished the Crimean War, and Indian Mutiny, both of which were expensive and the British public was war weary, the last thing they needed was an American War, which is why cooler heads prevailed.
"Just" is the wrong word. The Crimean War ended in 1856 and the Indian Mutiny (comparatively cheap) ended in 1858. The British exchequer was actually very healthy at the time (they had so much money they reduced taxes because it was getting "corrupting"!) and war weariness had faded some time previously. There were actually mass demonstrations of support for going to war if the demands were not met, and none against.

It is indeed true that Palmerston said he wouldn't stand for what the US Navy had did, which is why Prince Albert stepped up to the plate one last time and toned down Palmerston's letter to the US Government.
Regardless of that, the ultimatum was sent and it was an ultimatum (as in, it outlined requirements and if the requirements were not met it would be war - the "toning down" was in making it an ultimatum which the US could meet!). As I say the decision was in US hands at that point and they had a serious and prolonged debate about it; there's also circumstantial evidence that the British had actually issued conditional war orders.


McClellan ran on a Democratic Party peace platform, I think he would have sued for peace on a mutual beneficiary terms
False. He repudiated the peace platform with his acceptance letter - one reason the Democratic signalling was so confused in that election!
 
"Just" is the wrong word. The Crimean War ended in 1856 and the Indian Mutiny (comparatively cheap) ended in 1858. The British exchequer was actually very healthy at the time (they had so much money they reduced taxes because it was getting "corrupting"!) and war weariness had faded some time previously. There were actually mass demonstrations of support for going to war if the demands were not met, and none against.


Regardless of that, the ultimatum was sent and it was an ultimatum (as in, it outlined requirements and if the requirements were not met it would be war - the "toning down" was in making it an ultimatum which the US could meet!). As I say the decision was in US hands at that point and they had a serious and prolonged debate about it; there's also circumstantial evidence that the British had actually issued conditional war orders.



False. He repudiated the peace platform with his acceptance letter - one reason the Democratic signalling was so confused in that election!

I think we are getting a little off course, (and a little too heated), for educated debate as this is fast turning into an argument. I have presented my reasoning, and tried to be as concise as I can, and I now see that neither of us is going to change the others mind for a variety of reasons on both sides. But until this seemingly to me, got too heated I've enjoyed this debate, I have in no way tried to belittle you or Her Majesty's government, and don't wish to see such an outcome here. I believe the Confederacy was capable of winning on its own late in the War, I've never been a believer in the "Lost Cause", and don't think the UK would have intervened militarily for reasons already stated.

It is true that demonstrations for war took place in Britain, but after 9/11 there were demonstrations for War in America against Afghanistan. And yet within two years there were demonstrations against war in New York City itself regarding Afghanistan. The point I'm trying to make is that demonstrations are a temporary thing that always evaporates when the anger has worn off, which can happen overnight, except where the French Revolution is concerned, and rarely is of any consequence.

Saphroneth I will, in the interest of preventing an all out argument which I see coming due to the emotion your putting into this, concede this debate.
It was entertaining while it lasted.
 
Saphroneth I will, in the interest of preventing an all out argument which I see coming due to the emotion your putting into this, concede this debate.
My apologies if I've been emotional - I hadn't noticed, but it's quite possible. I'm afraid that if anything is my "specialist subject" in matters of history it's the Trent Affair and the consequences of it, as a result of research over a number of years.

I believe the Confederacy was capable of winning on its own late in the War, I've never been a believer in the "Lost Cause", and don't think the UK would have intervened militarily for reasons already stated.
For what it's worth, the reason I think the British would have intervened in the event of Trent not being resolved is that they have several strong drivers towards intervention and no really strong factor against.

1) Honour. The British felt that the Trent had been a strike against the honour of the British flag, and there was genuine outrage about it both generally and in the specific details. (Slidell's daughter came in for particular attention.)
2) International trade. The Union's endorsement of the actions of Wilkes had essentially been seen as a claim that the US could board any ship in the world and take off anything or anyone on board as contraband - a position the British felt not only wrong but dangerously wrong.
3) Morality. The British saw themselves at the time as the most free country in the world, and refugees from many countries (including America) had come to Britain to place themselves under her protection - a protection abrogated by Wilkes' actions.
4) International relations. The British were sent messages of support from just about every European Great Power, and backing down would have shown them to be weak.
5) Fear of US intentions. It was believed by some at the time that the US plan was actually to invade Canada, using Trent as a pretext, and that this would be used as an excuse to get out of a war (the Civil war) they were losing.

As against this, there's really no strong driver towards peace. Cost isn't a factor, Crimea was quite cheap, and nor would enlistment be - the British Army at the time was all-volunteer and prided itself on not needing any kind of compulsory service.

The decision to go to war had actually been made, which was why the ultimatum was sent. All the pro-con calculation had already happened!
 
You are quite correct in the dis-honorable conduct on the part of Wilkes regarding the Trent having profound impact on the British Government's standing, but Prince Albert's toning down of the missive sent to Lincoln is what drove the US Government to concede to the demands of the British Government. Another factor is that the last thing Lincoln and his government wanted was a war with Britain they could ill afford to wage, and I think even if Prince Albert were out of the picture and the original strongly worded demands were sent, Lincoln would have caved eventually as Wilkes had been acting without orders, and provoked Britain without the government's consent, and had placed the already weak positioned US Government in a worse position.

I'm sorry if I mis-judged your tone, all the exclamation points led me to my previous conclusion.
 
You are quite correct in the dis-honorable conduct on the part of Wilkes regarding the Trent having profound impact on the British Government's standing, but Prince Albert's toning down of the missive sent to Lincoln is what drove the US Government to concede to the demands of the British Government.
Though, as I noted, the decision was at that point in US hands - not UK.

Another factor is that the last thing Lincoln and his government wanted was a war with Britain they could ill afford to wage, and I think even if Prince Albert were out of the picture and the original strongly worded demands were sent, Lincoln would have caved eventually as Wilkes had been acting without orders, and provoked Britain without the government's consent, and had placed the already weak positioned US Government in a worse position.
Ah, here's the interesting thing. See, the one who it took three days of argument to convince was Lincoln, who was pushing for arbitation (which the British would have viewed as a rejection). As for "eventually", the reply to the ultimatum was just in time - the expiry time on it was only one week - and during November especially there was a rush of both public and governmental support for Wilkes' actions. (He got voted the Thanks of Congress, which rather made it awkward to claim he was a rogue agent.)
 
Even today you'll find that the President, and Congress rarely agree on anything, back then as now, Congress is gonna flock to the hero and congratulate him, and the President is gonna view it all differently. When I referred to Wilkes, as "a rogue agent", I should have been more clear, to Lincoln, he was a rogue, but not to Congress, which was filled with anti-British sentiment. If I remember correctly, accounts say Lincoln was privately displeased by Wilkes' actions because of the difficult position it placed him and the government in, while publicly he had no choice but to go along with Congress.

In the end regarding the Trent Affair, cooler heads prevailed, and I think that was inevitable, which is why I think the Election of 1864 would have been the decisive factor after 1862. Don't get me wrong, the Trent Affair had the real potential to blow up, and if it had, it would have had the potential to ignite a World War, but therein is why I think cooler heads were destined to prevail.
 
RCA

I wouldn't say Europe was ripe for a world war from that period onwards. Could quite possibly have been avoided in 1914 up until the FF assassination. In the 1860's even presuming, as is probably likely, Bismarck still gains power and directs Prussia through three wars to create the German empire, the creation of the OTL alliances and instability that developed in the run up to the war may well have been avoided. You might still have a problem that with the German empire established by a number of quick, victorious war the powers in general and Germany in particular think that future such conflicts could be as simple. However this could mean there's either a short or long war say in the 1890's between a couple of powers without the alliances being established. Mind you, change one factor and even the OTL 1914 conflict would have been a lot shorter and less bloody. [I.e. no Haber Process being developed means the war is probably over within a year at most.]

In terms of events inside the two components of the former US a lot would depend on how the south won independence and how much damage both nations suffered. A long war will weaken both in the short run and also build up resentment in the north and a clear sense of national identity in the south. Also a longer war is more likely to lead to pressure for social change in the south. The war effort might have been lead by the plantocracy but the bulk of the dying was done by the ordinary small farmer and tradesmen is going to lead to those later wanting an increasing say in government. This could be another factor in causing tension inside the south.

In the north a long war is likely to mean there are a lot that want revenge/forced reunification. On the other hand there will be others that want to avoid another bloody war, plus the long and costly occupation that would probably be required. Not to mention that a war, unless very quickly successful, will mean serious problems for the central states as use of the Mississippi will be lost.

Also as I understand it a lot of the free soil movement in the north opposing the expansion of slavery because they feared the economic competition that might result. While there was a measure of moral repugnance against slavery I get the impression this was a smaller factor. As such you could have a lot of northerners arguing that the blacks are the south's problem now as long as they don't try and come north and compete with us. This might be a factor in terms of a new war if the north has the stated aim of reunification and ending slavery. [This also raises the question of what happens in the northern slave states? Is the institution ended there, as OTL or is the Washington government feeling too weak to risk conflict over the issue and it stays, albeit probably in a minor and declining status?

Basically I think depending on whether a revanchist or neutralist bloc is in power if/when conflict starts in the south the north may either intervene or stay out, albeit possibly some groups seeking to interfere for various interests.

Not sure if France would feel like intervening in a southern civil war as early as 1873 if it occurs then. Its seen a crushing defeat and internal turmoil and is still paying off a large reparation bill as well as probably fearful of another attack from Germany. Expanding colonial territories in N or W Africa or SE Asia is one thing but interfering in a major conflict across the Atlantic, especially if the north has started raising large forces is a much bigger issue. Especially since the messy intervention in Mexico has presumably ended in failure, either because of the costs of maintaining Maximillian's regime has proved too high or their forced to withdraw when war with Prussia comes. [Although alternatively there might be no war with Prussia if France is still embroiled in Mexico come 1870. :wink: ]
 
steve59p

I suppose a little clarification is need on my part. The reason I say a World War would be possible is because of the tensions that permeated Europe in 1914, existed to some degree, for example in 1860 some in Britain were suspicious of France, (they were a minority), and Britain was very suspicious of Russia regarding India, the Austrian Empire was suspicious of Prussia, Russia, and France, and vise versa. Everyone in Europe had their own designs on other countries, and if Britain had interfered in our own CW, those "suspicions", and "designs" could have erupted into another European war, and with war in North America, Europe, India, and Southeast Asia, such an event could have been called a World War, not on the scale of the 1914-1918, but a World War nonetheless. I would call it comparable to a mixture of the American Revolution and WW1, not identical, but a cross between.

On the subject of US and CS relations, a long term war to create a mutual hatred similar to pre WW2 France and Germany was completely unneeded, for that had already happened culminating in the South's War for Independence, and one section successfully seceding from the Union would have driven the US to keep the fight alive politically not just to eventually reabsorb the now-independent CSA, but also to prevent any other states from breaking off from the Union.

As for the Confederate populace I think a honeymoon period after the conclusion of the war, and the economic, and political divisions of the CSA would have disappeared, until a great national calamity, like the Depression of 1873. Such a calamity coupled with State's Rights, the planter class's control, and States like Virginia and Georgia asserting themselves above others, (which was a major problem in reality), would have created a true civil war, and the USA would have undoubtedly invaded to re-absorb the CSA. An invasion of the CSA by the USA in such a time period would have galvanized the Confederacy into straightening their act up and re-uniting to meet the mutual threat.

Now France after the Franco-Prussian War was deeply in debt, but immediately afterward began a program of rearmament anyway, and was looking for ways to show they were still a force to be reckoned with, thus why I can see a CS Civil War with a US invasion beckoning to them. Plus in classic European practice, they would have made it clear to the CSA that it was indebted to them, which would result in a binding, basically permanent alliance, that would favor France, thus transferring the debt from the Franco-Prussian War and the hypothetical CS Civil War to the CSA, which would preclude any and all territorial ambitions the CSA, and leave them, plus the USA through their defeat, third rate powers until Spindiltop.

As for the French Intervention, I can't see France being involved there past 1866-1868, because in reality it was clear to even Napoleon III that it wasn't going to succeed, and after just finishing its own War of Independence, the CSA wouldn't have been in a position to help them. In reality France saw the writing on the wall in 1866-1867, and just used Seward's threats as excuse to leave with their honor intact, to some degree, plus the French populace was already fed up with it and ready to overthrow Napoleon, even before Prussia came knocking, and Mexico had become an albatross for the Imperial French Government.

But you have some great points, in the end this is all a "what if", after all
 
steve59p

I suppose a little clarification is need on my part. The reason I say a World War would be possible is because of the tensions that permeated Europe in 1914, existed to some degree, for example in 1860 some in Britain were suspicious of France, (they were a minority), and Britain was very suspicious of Russia regarding India, the Austrian Empire was suspicious of Prussia, Russia, and France, and vise versa. Everyone in Europe had their own designs on other countries, and if Britain had interfered in our own CW, those "suspicions", and "designs" could have erupted into another European war, and with war in North America, Europe, India, and Southeast Asia, such an event could have been called a World War, not on the scale of the 1914-1918, but a World War nonetheless. I would call it comparable to a mixture of the American Revolution and WW1, not identical, but a cross between.

On the subject of US and CS relations, a long term war to create a mutual hatred similar to pre WW2 France and Germany was completely unneeded, for that had already happened culminating in the South's War for Independence, and one section successfully seceding from the Union would have driven the US to keep the fight alive politically not just to eventually reabsorb the now-independent CSA, but also to prevent any other states from breaking off from the Union.

As for the Confederate populace I think a honeymoon period after the conclusion of the war, and the economic, and political divisions of the CSA would have disappeared, until a great national calamity, like the Depression of 1873. Such a calamity coupled with State's Rights, the planter class's control, and States like Virginia and Georgia asserting themselves above others, (which was a major problem in reality), would have created a true civil war, and the USA would have undoubtedly invaded to re-absorb the CSA. An invasion of the CSA by the USA in such a time period would have galvanized the Confederacy into straightening their act up and re-uniting to meet the mutual threat.

Now France after the Franco-Prussian War was deeply in debt, but immediately afterward began a program of rearmament anyway, and was looking for ways to show they were still a force to be reckoned with, thus why I can see a CS Civil War with a US invasion beckoning to them. Plus in classic European practice, they would have made it clear to the CSA that it was indebted to them, which would result in a binding, basically permanent alliance, that would favor France, thus transferring the debt from the Franco-Prussian War and the hypothetical CS Civil War to the CSA, which would preclude any and all territorial ambitions the CSA, and leave them, plus the USA through their defeat, third rate powers until Spindiltop.

As for the French Intervention, I can't see France being involved there past 1866-1868, because in reality it was clear to even Napoleon III that it wasn't going to succeed, and after just finishing its own War of Independence, the CSA wouldn't have been in a position to help them. In reality France saw the writing on the wall in 1866-1867, and just used Seward's threats as excuse to leave with their honor intact, to some degree, plus the French populace was already fed up with it and ready to overthrow Napoleon, even before Prussia came knocking, and Mexico had become an albatross for the Imperial French Government.

But you have some great points, in the end this is all a "what if", after all

OK thanks. On the 1st point I had mis-read you:redface: as I thought you were predicting a global war in ~1914 with a N American dimension. Took much like Turttledove's dubious books in that setting. :smile:

You know more about the south in this period than me. Do you think my idea that there would be a strong pressure, especially after a long and bloody war, for political reform that would reduce the power of the plantocracy? This seems to have been the case after a number of major and prolonged wars, including both world wars, at least in the democracies. or do you think this could be withstood, at least initially? In which case I would suspect that they would be building up pressure for a later explosion, possibly in the southern CW you expect.

Possibly your right about French involvement in such a war in counter to a northern invasion. Must admit I still have my doubts, especially after the mess in Mexico. Although if the north had disarmed as rapidly as it did after 1865 OTL it could well be an option.
 
Just a thought really but apart from the preservation of slavery what would the future hold for the Confederacy, I imagine that both Britain and France, in fact most of Europe would have been more than happy to trade with the confederacy. I know that Britain portrayed themselves as having a dislike for slavery and the very idea of a slave owning nation appeared to stand against British values but seriously, trade is trade and the British government really only abolished slavery because of a slave revolt, don’t kid yourselves that slavery was abolished by the British out of human compassion. I’m pretty sure that the British would have eventually settled on a nice trade deal with the Confederacy along with the French and others. The way I see things, is that the Confederacy could have flourished providing that they held themselves together, people/States making money through profitable trade deals would in my humble opinion always win the day.
 
steve59p,

Following the CW, or War of Southern Independence, I don't see there being any call for reform anywhere politically, which is why I'm fairly certain the Confederacy would have sunk into a civil war by 1873-1874. After such an event I can see a lot of reform taking place, but it'd be too late for the Confederacy as far as thriving goes, that is till 1900.

Just a thought really but apart from the preservation of slavery what would the future hold for the Confederacy, I imagine that both Britain and France, in fact most of Europe would have been more than happy to trade with the confederacy. I know that Britain portrayed themselves as having a dislike for slavery and the very idea of a slave owning nation appeared to stand against British values but seriously, trade is trade and the British government really only abolished slavery because of a slave revolt, don’t kid yourselves that slavery was abolished by the British out of human compassion. I’m pretty sure that the British would have eventually settled on a nice trade deal with the Confederacy along with the French and others. The way I see things, is that the Confederacy could have flourished providing that they held themselves together, people/States making money through profitable trade deals would in my humble opinion always win the day.

I'd say your correct, UK and France would have happy to trade with an independent CSA, after all, the Confederacy's aversion to industry was very profitable to both before the CW, and would be more so afterward with the US Government's tariff's on imported goods were no longer a factor. As far as the Confederacy's survival, I think its possible, at least till the WW1 era, (which I feel was inevitable), and I think the CSA could've held itself together, but the problem is future wars with the United States would have been as inevitable, especially after Spindiltop, and such wars would have undoubtedly taken a toll on both, and wouldn't end till one was destroyed. In such a scenario, I see either the CSA and USA never becoming global powers, and while I think the USA becoming a "world player" with intervening in other nations affairs, it would have been limited to the America's, and been focused not only on economics, but also surrounding the CSA, which after a CS Civil War I can't see the CSA being anything but an isolationist state politically and militarily, they'd be a good player economically, but when WW1 would start, there's no doubt in my mind the USA would have taken advantage of the CSA's principal trading partners fighting that mess in Europe, and launched an invasion of the CSA, after which its too hard for me to tell if the CSA would survive. On another note without the South's Conservative influence there is a distinct possibility that the United States would have abandoned the US Constitution for a more Socialist document, which I shudder at what could have resulted, whatever it would be, it wouldn't be good for anyone, so really its probably for the best the Confederacy lost the Civil War.

Addressing the "plantocracy", in some ways it could be the very root of a CS Civil War, and I'm sure their power over the CSA would have been broken permanently afterward. In reality most were fire-eaters that drove the South to secession, but it was the rise of men such as Jefferson Davis who broke their power over the Confederate government before 1861 was out, but they maintained a straggle hold over State Governments, which probably resulted in the Confederacy's downfall more than any Yankee General. In a scenario where the South won the War, they're would be a reckoning with that class, which the inevitable CS Civil War would be too good a stage for the players of both sides of the equation not to try to defeat the other. As far as slavery goes, it was the elephant in the room nobody in the South wanted to deal with, (still holds true with many to this day), and economically it was a burden in the actual CW, but I'm sure some form of compensated emancipation would have occurred by 1890, as by then it would have a nightmare economically when competing with more industrious competitors, and considering how Britain had started getting cotton from India and Egypt by 1863, slavery might have ended quicker, and been an issue in a CS Civil War, which I have no doubt the Confederate Government would have won. But these are just my thoughts.
 
I would agree with you Rusk County, now lets us say that if the CSA say ends the war in 1862 (be it a no Lost Order 191 and a super-Perryville) with the least amount damage to their society then there would be a honeymoon period for a while but there is one factor so overlooked that could lead to the downfall of slavery: "contraband" for starters they were already fleeing to Union lines starting with Fort Monroe and contraband camps were already being set up and their antebellum counterparts the fugitives had fled in the hundreds of thousands. Even if the Confederates do win they would not been able to stop the continuing numbers of "contraband" fleeing either to the North (although they certainly didn't exactly have a warm welcome towards them) or Canada (a popular alternative) or Mexico be it by land, river, or sea and over time it would be increasingly difficult to stop them coupled with perhaps the Panic of 1873 would bring about slavery's demise since now it wouldn't be economically viable to even sustain the institution when your main source of labor is already escaping and when prices and the products you're selling (cotton, tobacco, rice etc.) are becoming less and less in worth.
 
I would agree with you Rusk County, now lets us say that if the CSA say ends the war in 1862 (be it a no Lost Order 191 and a super-Perryville) with the least amount damage to their society then there would be a honeymoon period for a while but there is one factor so overlooked that could lead to the downfall of slavery: "contraband" for starters they were already fleeing to Union lines starting with Fort Monroe and contraband camps were already being set up and their antebellum counterparts the fugitives had fled in the hundreds of thousands. Even if the Confederates do win they would not been able to stop the continuing numbers of "contraband" fleeing either to the North (although they certainly didn't exactly have a warm welcome towards them) or Canada (a popular alternative) or Mexico be it by land, river, or sea and over time it would be increasingly difficult to stop them coupled with perhaps the Panic of 1873 would bring about slavery's demise since now it wouldn't be economically viable to even sustain the institution when your main source of labor is already escaping and when prices and the products you're selling (cotton, tobacco, rice etc.) are becoming less and less in worth.
Personally, I see a financial panic in the early 1860s. England had a years worth of cotton in warehouses, demand for cotton was leveling out, the big increases in prices in the past and more and more cotton coming on the market as new plantations come online. If so, the prices of slaves collapse, the value of slaves and land mortgaged falls rapidly, banks become unwilling both to lend on slaves and land and unwilling to take the slave collateral back because it has to be fed and housed but is a declining asset. At which point all sort of bad things happens.
 
Personally, I see a financial panic in the early 1860s. England had a years worth of cotton in warehouses, demand for cotton was leveling out, the big increases in prices in the past and more and more cotton coming on the market as new plantations come online. If so, the prices of slaves collapse, the value of slaves and land mortgaged falls rapidly, banks become unwilling both to lend on slaves and land and unwilling to take the slave collateral back because it has to be fed and housed but is a declining asset. At which point all sort of bad things happens.
Could be the same situation in a Panic of 1873 CSA.

Especially important to note that in OTL there was a bit of industry in the Confederacy in cities such as Richmond, Atlanta, Augusta, Savannah, Macon, Columbus (GA.), Selma, Shelby, Fayetteville, Kensanville, Nashville, New Orleans, Columbia etc, primarily towards producing guns, gunpowder, swords/sabers, and and people like Josiah Gorgas, Alexander Lawton, Joseph Reid Anderson, Isaac St. Munroe, and George Washington Rains who were key figures were running around so when the planters realize their way of life is unsustainable perhaps they would turn to these people to keep up with modern trends.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I see a financial panic in the early 1860s. England had a years worth of cotton in warehouses, demand for cotton was leveling out, the big increases in prices in the past and more and more cotton coming on the market as new plantations come online. If so, the prices of slaves collapse, the value of slaves and land mortgaged falls rapidly, banks become unwilling both to lend on slaves and land and unwilling to take the slave collateral back because it has to be fed and housed but is a declining asset. At which point all sort of bad things happens.
In a potentially independent CSA an economic downturn is inevitable. A slight softness in the price of cotton causes a lot of marginal farms with poor transportation outlets to not be able to pay their bills. Loans from northern banks have become international loans, and become unenforceable and not renewable. European bankers are very unlikely to take the place of US bankers.
The result is a country with a lot of land, a lot of poor people, and not much capital.
A sharp drop in the price of slave labor produces a humanitarian crisis and a demand for an expansionist war. These are not cheerful prospects.
The CSA economy is simply not diverse enough to survive a downturn in the world textile market. Nor does it appear, without evidence, that the land owning elite will pay the taxes necessary to support a national army and a national navy.
The process of fracturing was starting even in the actual Civil War.
 
Back
Top