The South Wins---What Next

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
The Confederacy would need to have connected Vicksburg to Houston as an immediate goal after the war.
The southern states relied on steamboats and steamships because they required less capital and less labor. For cotton water transport was sufficient. The problem was they did not have the population density to sustain mail and passenger revenue. There were powerful reasons why the Baltimore and Louisville railroads survived the war with adequate revenue. Similarly, the northern railroads began to buy their way into the south after the US Civil War.
In an independent Confederacy, they would have soon become completely dependent on British and French investors. They were not financially independent, just like the rest of the US, so their political independence would have always had that weakness.
 

Generic Username

Corporal
Joined
May 12, 2019
Location
Yes
The southern states relied on steamboats and steamships because they required less capital and less labor. For cotton water transport was sufficient. The problem was they did not have the population density to sustain mail and passenger revenue. There were powerful reasons why the Baltimore and Louisville railroads survived the war with adequate revenue. Similarly, the northern railroads began to buy their way into the south after the US Civil War.
In an independent Confederacy, they would have soon become completely dependent on British and French investors. They were not financially independent, just like the rest of the US, so their political independence would have always had that weakness.
Or they would continue their Antebellum and wartime practice of state funding that saw the railways increased 4x in size during the 1850s. Northern interests buying in was a result of the war’s outcome, not the natural state of being.
 

CanadianCanuck

Sergeant
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Or they would continue their Antebellum and wartime practice of state funding that saw the railways increased 4x in size during the 1850s. Northern interests buying in was a result of the war’s outcome, not the natural state of being.

Would be interesting to speculate on which lines would be expanded/upgraded.
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
Fun to think about. However the Prussians fought Napoleon and the French in 1814. As Prussia unified Germany, Germany fought France again in 187-71. Then the two fought again in 1914.
In the US, prior to the end of the 19th century, there had been two wars with Britain. There had been both an insurgency and an imperialist war with Mexico. There had been a long war to suppress the native indigenous people. Then to cap it off, the US got into a war with the remains of the Spanish empire for territory. The US ended up fighting for territory it did not even want as permanent possessions.
The point being, there would have been another war, and in the second war, the two combatants would not have been starting from scratch.
In the second war there would have been better telegraph and telephone communication. There would have been bigger and more accurate artillery and the first laminated iron/steel armored ships. Dynamite would have been available for mining and demolition. More advanced rifles would have been available, either magazine rifles or breech loading single shot weapons.
And railroad logistics would have been much better at organizing and supplying even larger armies with even cleaner camps.
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
As early as 1863 the US was benefiting from renewed international immigration. Continued immigration would have accelerated once the US formally abolished slavery. The US benefited from immigration from the south, of both whites trying to get away from the war, and blacks seeking freedom.
The war was about control of the west and by July of 1862 the US had control of Missouri, which connected Nebraska and Kansas to the rest of the US. Colorado, Utah and Nevada were connected to the rest of the US by telegraph wire in 1861. Railroads were sure to follow.
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
When the US did renew the war, it was going to be clearly a war to abolish slavery. The probability of the Confederacy getting any European support under those circumstances was extremely small.
 

Generic Username

Corporal
Joined
May 12, 2019
Location
Yes
Would be interesting to speculate on which lines would be expanded/upgraded.
Charleston to Vicksburg, and from there deep into Texas; this was presented in the 1850s as the Southern route for the then proposed Trans-Continental Railway. If the Confederates expand into Northern Mexico, they'd likely extend it to Guaymas for a Pacific port. Alabama would see many, linking Birmingham to Mobile in order to make its steel industry more efficient and effective. Efforts were underway in 1864 too to link Virginia and North Carolina better via Danville IIRC.
 

steve59p

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 21, 2016
Fun to think about. However the Prussians fought Napoleon and the French in 1814. As Prussia unified Germany, Germany fought France again in 187-71. Then the two fought again in 1914.
In the US, prior to the end of the 19th century, there had been two wars with Britain. There had been both an insurgency and an imperialist war with Mexico. There had been a long war to suppress the native indigenous people. Then to cap it off, the US got into a war with the remains of the Spanish empire for territory. The US ended up fighting for territory it did not even want as permanent possessions.
The point being, there would have been another war, and in the second war, the two combatants would not have been starting from scratch.
In the second war there would have been better telegraph and telephone communication. There would have been bigger and more accurate artillery and the first laminated iron/steel armored ships. Dynamite would have been available for mining and demolition. More advanced rifles would have been available, either magazine rifles or breech loading single shot weapons.
And railroad logistics would have been much better at organizing and supplying even larger armies with even cleaner camps.

I suspect it would depend on what happened in both countries after the war. You are going to have a strong revanchist camp but especially if the war has been bloody and unsuccessful there will be a lot of people saying "not again". Especially given the loss of resources and need to pay off war debts will concentrate minds while big military establishments are expensive. Even if slavery means that there is minimal political support for the CSA elsewhere once the US has formally accepted its independence then a new attack without a clear Casus belli will have political costs, both internally and internationally. Furthermore if the intent is the conquest and annexation of the CSA then this will be unpopular with those who have to do the actual fighting and also it will mean accepting into the union several million black 'citizens' which is unlikely to be popular either.

The north, barring serious internal problems and further division, which is pretty unlikely, will develop fairly rapidly and exceed the south massively in population, wealth and industrial power. However conquering a united and fairly stable CSA, as opposed to say a CSA that is falling apart from internal division is likely to be bloody costly. As such if the south had won its independence there may be a further conflict but a move to annex the south, with all the issues that could bring is far from certain.
 

steve59p

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 21, 2016
Charleston to Vicksburg, and from there deep into Texas; this was presented in the 1850s as the Southern route for the then proposed Trans-Continental Railway. If the Confederates expand into Northern Mexico, they'd likely extend it to Guaymas for a Pacific port. Alabama would see many, linking Birmingham to Mobile in order to make its steel industry more efficient and effective. Efforts were underway in 1864 too to link Virginia and North Carolina better via Danville IIRC.

This is assuming that the south has Vicksburg and associated areas. Unless its a fairly early victory the north could decide to hold onto at least some of the rebel areas it has occupied and the south is likely to have little power to change this.

Ditto with the assumption that an independent CSA. especially one weakened by a long war of independence, will have the capacity and will to seek to expand into N Mexico, especially since this is likely to face opposition from several sources, not just the union. If it doesn't get a large chunk of N Mexico to give access to the Pacific then a rail link to western Texas, still thinly populated and of little economic value is going to be of little commercial profit.
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
This is assuming that the south has Vicksburg and associated areas. Unless its a fairly early victory the north could decide to hold onto at least some of the rebel areas it has occupied and the south is likely to have little power to change this.

Ditto with the assumption that an independent CSA. especially one weakened by a long war of independence, will have the capacity and will to seek to expand into N Mexico, especially since this is likely to face opposition from several sources, not just the union. If it doesn't get a large chunk of N Mexico to give access to the Pacific then a rail link to western Texas, still thinly populated and of little economic value is going to be of little commercial profit.
The western railroads were built at great expense and outside of CA, generated inadequate income. Building the railroads was beyond the capacity of the federal government and the private builders were corrupt. As two disunited countries, railroad development was going to slow down and the railroads might have been following settlement instead of leading it.
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
I suspect it would depend on what happened in both countries after the war. You are going to have a strong revanchist camp but especially if the war has been bloody and unsuccessful there will be a lot of people saying "not again". Especially given the loss of resources and need to pay off war debts will concentrate minds while big military establishments are expensive. Even if slavery means that there is minimal political support for the CSA elsewhere once the US has formally accepted its independence then a new attack without a clear Casus belli will have political costs, both internally and internationally. Furthermore if the intent is the conquest and annexation of the CSA then this will be unpopular with those who have to do the actual fighting and also it will mean accepting into the union several million black 'citizens' which is unlikely to be popular either.

The north, barring serious internal problems and further division, which is pretty unlikely, will develop fairly rapidly and exceed the south massively in population, wealth and industrial power. However conquering a united and fairly stable CSA, as opposed to say a CSA that is falling apart from internal division is likely to be bloody costly. As such if the south had won its independence there may be a further conflict but a move to annex the south, with all the issues that could bring is far from certain.
Most Confederate victory scenarios ignore that the US was in full control of the far west by July 1862, including a telegraph line connected in Utah, which line reached Sacramento.
Most of the scenarios ignore that both Grant's and Rosecran's armies were undefeated and that the US navy was expanding. A scenario has to contrive a way to get Grant, Sherman, MacPherson and Banks out of the picture. Otherwise the Midwest is victorious and expanding and any defeat in the east does not affect the Midwest.
Bu June and July of 1862 the US had full control of Missouri. They had control of Mississippi except the portion between Vicksburg and New Orleans.
After that the US has a naval power equal to Great Britain, a population unifying as in Germany, and the fastest growing railroad network in the world.
The actual Civil War demonstrates that the political will to eliminate the Confederacy was substantial. I think that will was going to reassert itself and that any armistice would be just the two sides plotting.
Military preparations are expensive, but had the Confederacy survived the two antagonists would have been fortifying and engaging in naval arms race.
The Confederacy did not even have the industrial capacity of Poland. The people creating these scenarios have to involve imagination to conjecture how the Confederacy was going to compete with an emerging industrialized nation.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Most Confederate victory scenarios ignore that the US was in full control of the far west by July 1862, including a telegraph line connected in Utah, which line reached Sacramento.
Most of the scenarios ignore that both Grant's and Rosecran's armies were undefeated and that the US navy was expanding. A scenario has to contrive a way to get Grant, Sherman, MacPherson and Banks out of the picture. Otherwise the Midwest is victorious and expanding and any defeat in the east does not affect the Midwest.
Bu June and July of 1862 the US had full control of Missouri. They had control of Mississippi except the portion between Vicksburg and New Orleans.
After that the US has a naval power equal to Great Britain, a population unifying as in Germany, and the fastest growing railroad network in the world.
The actual Civil War demonstrates that the political will to eliminate the Confederacy was substantial. I think that will was going to reassert itself and that any armistice would be just the two sides plotting.
Military preparations are expensive, but had the Confederacy survived the two antagonists would have been fortifying and engaging in naval arms race.
The Confederacy did not even have the industrial capacity of Poland. The people creating these scenarios have to involve imagination to conjecture how the Confederacy was going to compete with an emerging industrialized nation.
hmmmmm just curious where was China or Japan ranked worldwide in industry in 1865? As a side note they are no 1 and 3 today......

Seriously US was not rivaling GB in naval strength in 1865....most naval historians I've seen dont put the US surpassing GB until WWII......in CW the inflated numbers are putting a gun on a civilian vessel to chase unarmed ships and riverine vessels incapable of high seas......GB ships were actually purpose built ocean going warships that would have easily brushed aside improvised blockaders

Today the US leads the world actually not in industry, but in agriculture.......hard to see it having done so minus southern half of the country. In 2019 the US produced 513.74 million metric tons.......over twice no 2 China's 230 million metric tons.....he have always been an agrarian power internationally as much or more so as a industrial one.......even if our agrarian strength is often overlooked. But there is weight to "WE feed the world.".....its been our constant, even as our industry has waned.
 
Last edited:

Generic Username

Corporal
Joined
May 12, 2019
Location
Yes
This is assuming that the south has Vicksburg and associated areas. Unless its a fairly early victory the north could decide to hold onto at least some of the rebel areas it has occupied and the south is likely to have little power to change this.

Ditto with the assumption that an independent CSA. especially one weakened by a long war of independence, will have the capacity and will to seek to mexico and into N Mexico, especially since this is likely to face opposition from several sources, not just the union. If it doesn't get a large chunk of N Mexico to give access to the Pacific then a rail link to western Texas, still thinly populated and of little economic value is going to be of little commercial profit.
The most likely timeframe of Confederate victory is in 1861-1863, during which the Confederacy holds Vicksburg and thus has no reason to surrender it. After that, Confederate battlefield success still can construct a scenario against such a peace, given the failure of the Red River and Camden Expeditions in 1864; historically Richard Taylor very nearly did recapture New Orleans in 1863 and could possibly do so in 1864 if the missed opportunity of the Red River was avoided. Diplomacy also opens routes, in that the C.S.A. can maintain a cotton embargo on the North which would be economically devastating to the point many would consider the validity of holding onto an economically untenable and indefensible Mississippi River.

With regards to the railways into Texas, in actuality the vast majority of Southern railways were run at a loss; this was the cause of the massive state funding cited earlier. I see no reason such wouldn't occur after the war as that already has its origins in the Pre-War period. With regards to Mexico, France is eventually going to pullout and the UK would not have much reason to intervene; they didn't against the Spanish in Santo Domino nor against Imperial Brazil vis-a-vis Paraguay among other Wars of Conquest in the Americas.

In all honesty, however, I expect any Confederate expansion to largely be done via diplomacy rather than conquest, given the Northern Mexican provinces historically were open to such. For a good read on the subject, I'd suggest Mexican Projects of the Confederates by J. Fred Rippy, The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Apr., 1919, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Apr., 1919), pp. 291-317; It's available on JSTOR if you have access to that. Beyond giving early coverage to the Vidaurri offer, which R. Curtis Taylor would return to in detail decades later with Santiago Vidaurri and the Confederacy (The Americas, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Jul., 1969), pp. 66-76), Rippy also covers other fascinating adventures, in particular overtures to Terrazas of Chihuahua and Pesqueira of Sonora, fellow strongmen in the same vein as Vidaurri. Further, planning was afoot at least as early 1863 for many Confederates to settle into Mexico.
 
Last edited:

steve59p

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 21, 2016
hmmmmm just curious where was China or Japan ranked worldwide in industry in 1865? As a side note they are no 1 and 3 today......

Seriously US was not rivaling GB in naval strength in 1865....most naval historians I've seen dont put the US surpassing GB until WWII......in CW the inflated numbers are putting a gun on a civilian vessel to chase unarmed ships and riverine vessels incapable of high seas......GB ships were actually purpose built ocean going warships that would have easily brushed aside improvised blockaders

Today the US leads the world actually not in industry, but in agriculture.......hard to see it having done so minus southern half of the country. In 2019 the US produced 513.74 million metric tons.......over twice no 2 China's 230 million metric tons.....he have always been an agrarian power internationally as much or more so as a industrial one.......even if our agrarian strength is often overlooked. But there is weight to "WE feed the world.".....its been our constant, even as our industry has waned.

Your definitely accurate on the navy. In terms of agriculture provided the union doesn't go totally to pot it will develop as OTL as a major if not the major exporter of grain of various forms and other farming items. It simply has too much good land and until recently a pretty low population in comparison. Losing the south would hurt such development but its only about 30-40% of the modern US, albeit with a fair bit of very good land. What might be more of a problem would be restricted access to the Mississippi, which would markedly hinder development of much of the interior. However this is probably unlikely as outside open war it would be hugely risky for the south to significantly block such access. Although they might gain some income by tariffs or other charges on good passing through their territory.
 

steve59p

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 21, 2016
The most likely timeframe of Confederate victory is in 1861-1863, during which the Confederacy holds Vicksburg and thus has no reason to surrender it. After that, Confederate battlefield success still can construct a scenario against such a peace, given the failure of the Red River and Camden Expeditions in 1864; historically Richard Taylor very nearly did recapture New Orleans in 1863 and could possibly do so in 1864 if the missed opportunity of the Red River was avoided. Diplomacy also opens routes, in that the C.S.A. can maintain a cotton embargo on the North which would be economically devastating to the point many would consider the validity of holding onto an economically untenable and indefensible Mississippi River.

With regards to the railways into Texas, in actuality the vast majority of Southern railways were run at a loss; this was the cause of the massive state funding cited earlier. I see no reason such wouldn't occur after the war as that already has its origins in the Pre-War period. With regards to Mexico, France is eventually going to pullout and the UK would not have much reason to intervene; they didn't against the Spanish in Santo Domino nor against Imperial Brazil vis-a-vis Paraguay among other Wars of Conquest in the Americas.

In all honesty, however, I expect any Confederate expansion to largely be done via diplomacy rather than conquest, given the Northern Mexican provinces historically were open to such. For a good read on the subject, I'd suggest Mexican Projects of the Confederates by J. Fred Rippy, The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Apr., 1919, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Apr., 1919), pp. 291-317; It's available on JSTOR if you have access to that. Beyond giving early coverage to the Vidaurri offer, which R. Curtis Taylor would return to in detail decades later with Santiago Vidaurri and the Confederacy (The Americas, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Jul., 1969), pp. 66-76), Rippy also covers other fascinating adventures, in particular overtures to Terrazas of Chihuahua and Pesqueira of Sonora, fellow strongmen in the same vein as Vidaurri. Further, planning was afoot at least as early 1863 for many Confederates to settle into Mexico.

That seems rather unlikely as the north didn't face a noticeable problem during the war and it would also be difficult for the southern authorities to so fully control the export of cotton. Once its on a merchant ship the south has little/no say on where it ends up.

France will pull out sooner or later and probably sooner, but there is at least some chance that this will be with a united Mexican empire which for political reasons would be very adverse to selling territory. Britain might well react if its a matter of slavery being expanded - which would also be a red flag to many Mexicans - while the union is also likely to oppose such a move as it would seem to strengthen the south.
 

Generic Username

Corporal
Joined
May 12, 2019
Location
Yes
That seems rather unlikely as the north didn't face a noticeable problem during the war and it would also be difficult for the southern authorities to so fully control the export of cotton. Once its on a merchant ship the south has little/no say on where it ends up.

France will pull out sooner or later and probably sooner, but there is at least some chance that this will be with a united Mexican empire which for political reasons would be very adverse to selling territory. Britain might well react if its a matter of slavery being expanded - which would also be a red flag to many Mexicans - while the union is also likely to oppose such a move as it would seem to strengthen the south.
Actually they did have a serious problem during the war; there was an entire illicit trade, even:

Gen. Ulysses S. Grant took command of the Department of Tennessee on Oct. 25, 1862, and immediately started planning to capture Vicksburg, Miss., the principal remaining Confederate stronghold on the Mississippi River. In doing so, he came face to face with the dangerous consequences of a surprising fact of the Civil War: the semi-illicit trade in cotton between North and South. Northern merchants paid well, and often in gold, for the Southern crop; the Confederates then used that gold to buy new weapons, sometimes from clandestine suppliers in Northern or occupied cities like Cincinnati and Memphis. Grant soon found himself confronting rebel troops sustained by such trade, including cavalry armed with modern breech-loading carbines.​
It’s well known that British textile manufacturers relied heavily on Southern cotton for their raw materials, but the New England mills ranked second. Consequently, by the autumn of 1862 Northern “cotton speculators” were regularly infiltrating front lines seeking to acquire feedstock needed in Britain and New England. The year before Lincoln’s election, the South accounted for 70 percent of American exports, the great majority of it cotton.​
The war, and the federal blockade of Southern ports, sharply curtailed those exports. This wasn’t just a problem for the textile industry: President Lincoln could scarcely hope for a favorable trade balance without cotton. Given that gold was the international settlements standard, the situation could strain the Treasury thereby eroding America’s international status and inviting foreign recognition of the Confederacy. At the same time, Lincoln, Seward and others believed that Europeans might intervene if their textiles industries were overly deprived of the commodity. And so the decision was made to quietly allow intersectional trade in cotton.​
As for measures the C.S.A. can take, there are many, given it would be impossible to hide any large scale trade for long. This is also another point in terms of what others have pointed out earlier in the thread, in terms of the loss of the Confederacy changing the economic picture of North America. With regards to Mexico, the Mexican Empire lacked much of a basis without foreign support and had little ability to project power against the Northern Mexican strongmen. Vidaurri, for example, wasn't ousted until late 1863/early 1864 via French arms. With a peaceful annexation, there isn't much a basis for any outside intervention.
 

steve59p

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 21, 2016
Actually they did have a serious problem during the war; there was an entire illicit trade, even:

Gen. Ulysses S. Grant took command of the Department of Tennessee on Oct. 25, 1862, and immediately started planning to capture Vicksburg, Miss., the principal remaining Confederate stronghold on the Mississippi River. In doing so, he came face to face with the dangerous consequences of a surprising fact of the Civil War: the semi-illicit trade in cotton between North and South. Northern merchants paid well, and often in gold, for the Southern crop; the Confederates then used that gold to buy new weapons, sometimes from clandestine suppliers in Northern or occupied cities like Cincinnati and Memphis. Grant soon found himself confronting rebel troops sustained by such trade, including cavalry armed with modern breech-loading carbines.​
It’s well known that British textile manufacturers relied heavily on Southern cotton for their raw materials, but the New England mills ranked second. Consequently, by the autumn of 1862 Northern “cotton speculators” were regularly infiltrating front lines seeking to acquire feedstock needed in Britain and New England. The year before Lincoln’s election, the South accounted for 70 percent of American exports, the great majority of it cotton.​
The war, and the federal blockade of Southern ports, sharply curtailed those exports. This wasn’t just a problem for the textile industry: President Lincoln could scarcely hope for a favorable trade balance without cotton. Given that gold was the international settlements standard, the situation could strain the Treasury thereby eroding America’s international status and inviting foreign recognition of the Confederacy. At the same time, Lincoln, Seward and others believed that Europeans might intervene if their textiles industries were overly deprived of the commodity. And so the decision was made to quietly allow intersectional trade in cotton.​
As for measures the C.S.A. can take, there are many, given it would be impossible to hide any large scale trade for long. This is also another point in terms of what others have pointed out earlier in the thread, in terms of the loss of the Confederacy changing the economic picture of North America. With regards to Mexico, the Mexican Empire lacked much of a basis without foreign support and had little ability to project power against the Northern Mexican strongmen. Vidaurri, for example, wasn't ousted until late 1863/early 1864 via French arms. With a peaceful annexation, there isn't much a basis for any outside intervention.

Interesting. There is a long history of such activity, including in the 1812 conflict when the New Englanders, who were opposed to the war not only refused to commit forces to the attacks on Canada but also continued to trade fairly heavily. Wasn't aware of it happening in the civil war but it makes sense. It would be one problem for any southern attempt to embago exports to the north after the war as smugglers would seek ways around it to make money so such actions are at least as much issuesfor the south as for the north.

Not sure if you mean another city or added the occupied by error as Cincinnati wasn't 'occupied' by either side. Even the more partisan rebels never considered claiming Ohio. :wink:

As you say the French removed Vidaurri in 1863 and while local strongmen may be bribe-able its not certain that the occupants of the region would be agreeable and Mexico would have a clear case against such a seizeure of its national territory. An attempt to do that could well be a means to secure unity under the emperor in Mexico, especially given his offers of reforms and amnesties. A south strained by the war, even a short one, could have problems supporting expansion, especially if France continued to support Mexico in such a case, as the south would have to rely on land transport for its forces while trying to rebuild and keeping an eye on the north.

Also assuming a short war then the north is also far less damaged and has built up much less war debt so other than dealing with the complications of an independent south its economic position is still good. It has wheat and other agricultural/minerial exports as well as some industrial ones and will continue to attract foreign investment for its internal development as well as settlers. Not as rapidly as OTL very likely but especially with a short war it probably won't make a massive difference to the US economy depending on how military levels are maintained between the two nations.
 

Generic Username

Corporal
Joined
May 12, 2019
Location
Yes
Interesting. There is a long history of such activity, including in the 1812 conflict when the New Englanders, who were opposed to the war not only refused to commit forces to the attacks on Canada but also continued to trade fairly heavily. Wasn't aware of it happening in the civil war but it makes sense. It would be one problem for any southern attempt to embago exports to the north after the war as smugglers would seek ways around it to make money so such actions are at least as much issuesfor the south as for the north.

Not sure if you mean another city or added the occupied by error as Cincinnati wasn't 'occupied' by either side. Even the more partisan rebels never considered claiming Ohio. :wink:

As you say the French removed Vidaurri in 1863 and while local strongmen may be bribe-able its not certain that the occupants of the region would be agreeable and Mexico would have a clear case against such a seizeure of its national territory. An attempt to do that could well be a means to secure unity under the emperor in Mexico, especially given his offers of reforms and amnesties. A south strained by the war, even a short one, could have problems supporting expansion, especially if France continued to support Mexico in such a case, as the south would have to rely on land transport for its forces while trying to rebuild and keeping an eye on the north.

Also assuming a short war then the north is also far less damaged and has built up much less war debt so other than dealing with the complications of an independent south its economic position is still good. It has wheat and other agricultural/minerial exports as well as some industrial ones and will continue to attract foreign investment for its internal development as well as settlers. Not as rapidly as OTL very likely but especially with a short war it probably won't make a massive difference to the US economy depending on how military levels are maintained between the two nations.
Minor smuggling might occur but to move millions of bales of cotton is completely impossible; it would require massive shipping and railway usage that would be impossible to hide. Customs offices and officials to prevent such would exist, and the Confederacy was actually the most centralized government in North American history up until the New Deal era. They thus have the institutions and expertise needed to prevent such law breaking and quite effectively so.

The statement was "...clandestine suppliers in Northern or occupied cities like Cincinnati and Memphis." meaning that Cincinnati was a Northern city and Memphis was occupied, hence the order of the sentence.

The occupants of Northern Mexico were not opposed, as I pointed out to you earlier in this thread. I have no doubt the U.S. would remain a major power, however, I do not think it would be overwhelming against the C.S.A. There is a reason, after all, New Jersey contemplated secession historically:

Writing in 1861 after he left office, Price urged New Jerseyans to recognize their economic self-interest: "If we…remain with the North, separated from those who have, heretofore, consumed our manufactured articles and given employment to a large portion of our labor, …our commerce will cease, European competition will be invited to southern markets, our people be compelled to seek employment elsewhere, our state becoming depopulated and impoverished….Whereas to join our destiny with the South will be to continue our trade and intercourse--our prosperity, progress, and happiness--uninterrupted and, perhaps, in an augmented degree. Who is he that would advise New Jersey to pursue the path of desolation when one of prosperity is open before her…".​
Indeed, review the paper excerpts already posted; the reason the North fought was because it realized the loss of the South would deal onto it a major economic blow. Besides directly purchasing Northern goods, consider that Cotton was 70% of U.S. exports and the lack of such would create a trade imbalance much like that which exists today.
 

steve59p

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 21, 2016
Minor smuggling might occur but to move millions of bales of cotton is completely impossible; it would require massive shipping and railway usage that would be impossible to hide. Customs offices and officials to prevent such would exist, and the Confederacy was actually the most centralized government in North American history up until the New Deal era. They thus have the institutions and expertise needed to prevent such law breaking and quite effectively so.

The statement was "...clandestine suppliers in Northern or occupied cities like Cincinnati and Memphis." meaning that Cincinnati was a Northern city and Memphis was occupied, hence the order of the sentence.

The occupants of Northern Mexico were not opposed, as I pointed out to you earlier in this thread. I have no doubt the U.S. would remain a major power, however, I do not think it would be overwhelming against the C.S.A. There is a reason, after all, New Jersey contemplated secession historically:

Writing in 1861 after he left office, Price urged New Jerseyans to recognize their economic self-interest: "If we…remain with the North, separated from those who have, heretofore, consumed our manufactured articles and given employment to a large portion of our labor, …our commerce will cease, European competition will be invited to southern markets, our people be compelled to seek employment elsewhere, our state becoming depopulated and impoverished….Whereas to join our destiny with the South will be to continue our trade and intercourse--our prosperity, progress, and happiness--uninterrupted and, perhaps, in an augmented degree. Who is he that would advise New Jersey to pursue the path of desolation when one of prosperity is open before her…".​
Indeed, review the paper excerpts already posted; the reason the North fought was because it realized the loss of the South would deal onto it a major economic blow. Besides directly purchasing Northern goods, consider that Cotton was 70% of U.S. exports and the lack of such would create a trade imbalance much like that which exists today.

GU

So actually the smuggling you mentioned earlier was minor in impact. As I said however this would be more of a problem for the south than the north. [Especially if due to corruption it might end up as less than minor].

The statement could be read that way as well true.

Some strongmen may have occasionally displayed what could be said as interest in leaving Mexico. IIRC the person you mentioned before reversed their position within a short period of time. However the viewpoint of the bulk of the population, especially with the poor treatment of the Mexicans in the US and the threat seen by slavery, is probably likely to be less friendly.

You mentioned one comment by a pro-southern former governor but comnents in papers often relate more to personal desires and beliefs rather than actual hard facts. For instance a bit further down it mentions. Also that link also mentions that while divided on the issue of the secession of the other states New Jersey fully supported the war.

When Fort Sumter was attacked in April 1861, however, the wave of patriotism in support of the Union and against the South led to an early demonstration of the state's willingness to go to war. Enlistments in the New Jersey regiments were three times the level of the state's quota, overwhelming the federal government's resources to supply sufficient numbers of uniforms and weapons for the volunteers. Over the course of the War, the state provided 40 infantry regiments, 5 artillery batteries, and 3 cavalry regiments for the Union, with 5,754 men from New Jersey losing their lives, comprised of 2,578 killed in action or mortally wounded and the rest from diseases, accidents or other causes.

Also a bit above this of the large crowds that welcomed Lincoln even before this. Similarly the presence of a large pro-abolition movement in the state and of a sizeable number of blacks, either freed under the states emancipation policy passed in 1804 or who had settled there having escaped from the south.
 
Top