If the CSA had won the Civil War - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

nonplussed · 11-14-2007, 10:10 AM

What would the world be like today if the South had won the Civil War? Personally, I think that the Confederate States of America would be a third world hell hole. Slavery would -- probably -- be illegal but not until well into the 20th century. Mexico would have long ago erected a fence along the Rio Grande to stem the tide of illegal CFA immigrants.

Meanwhile, the USA would be the progressive nation that it once promised to be. National healthcare, for example, almost certainly would have passed by now. There would have been no need to wait until the 1960s to pass the Civil Rights Act. The economy of the USA, unburdened by the weight of the Confederate states, would flourish. Taxes would certainly be lower since the states of the CFA are net beneficiaries of blue state tax dollars. Culturally, national literacy rates would be much higher and the rates of divorce and out of wedlock births would be much lower in the USA once freed from the weight of Southern social science statistics.

Perhaps most importantly, the USA, without the red states, would not have invaded Iraq and would be admired, not reviled, around the world.

Willravel · 11-14-2007, 10:21 AM

Slavery was the staple of our economy at the time. The textiles up North, also being profitable, would have continued to develop and I suspect that slavery would have made it's way into industry. Ultra low wage workers in factories would have given the US a distinct competitive edge. Eventually there probably would have been a rebellion from the non-whites which have become strong and skilled and the US would be primarily black. The international banks would have had more trouble moving in being run by white people, which the black people of the US would not trust, and the Great Depression wouldn't have happened. This would have primed the US to enter the World Wars quicker with more armament and we would have won sooner. Under president Martin Luther King Jr., the US would have had peace talks with the Soviet Union and avoided everything from Korea to Vietnam to the Mujahadin (meaning no modern day Taliban or al Quaeda).

In other words, I have absolutely no idea and it seems that there's not enough information to guess.

The_Jazz · 11-14-2007, 10:23 AM

Harry Turtledove has a series of about a dozen book positing exactly this question. He's taken it up to the end of WWII which was a purely American affair (with the Kaiser still in power in Germany and an American analogy to Hitler).

However, I don't think that the US would necessarily have been a "more progressive" nation. The Republican party would have been shattered and set the progressive movement of the 1880's back decades awaiting a party to fill the void left by the Republicans. Tax wouldn't necessarily be lower since there would be a hostile nation to the south requiring a military buildup. There certainly would have been periodic arms races akin to what the French and Germans did towards the end of the 1800's.

I think that the CSA would have initially been propped up by the British and French but would then have been forced to industrialize along the same lines it did in the 30's and 40's. They couldn't have survived a sustained assault by the US without it, and in the post-Civil War era, that would have been enough motivation to force the change. Certainly slavery would have remained for a time, but it was unsustainable and eventually would have been abolished. The external pressure from Europe would have increased over time since the CSA would have been the only Western nation with slavery after 1862 (Russia), and I doubt that the British and French could have continued to offer unconditional support into the 1880's given their own domestic issues with the practice.

Interesting topic. I'm curious to see where this goes since it's one of my own little hobbies.

dc_dux · 11-14-2007, 10:26 AM

Strom Thurmond would probably have won the 1948 presidential election on the States Rights Party.......scary thought.

The_Jazz · 11-14-2007, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Slavery was the staple of our economy at the time. The textiles up North, also being profitable, would have continued to develop and I suspect that slavery would have made it's way into industry. Ultra low wage workers in factories would have given the US a distinct competitive edge. Eventually there probably would have been a rebellion from the non-whites which have become strong and skilled and the US would be primarily black. The international banks would have had more trouble moving in being run by white people, which the black people of the US would not trust, and the Great Depression wouldn't have happened. This would have primed the US to enter the World Wars quicker with more armament and we would have won sooner. Under president Martin Luther King Jr., the US would have had peace talks with the Soviet Union and avoided everything from Korea to Vietnam to the Mujahadin (meaning no modern day Taliban or al Quaeda).

In other words, I have absolutely no idea and it seems that there's not enough information to guess.

Wait, so you're positing slavery in the NORTH? That had been outlawed in most of the northern states in the 1820's or earlier. I can't imagine it being reintroduced in a post-war atmosphere.

The South was selling the majority of their goods to Europe anyway, and the Northern textile factories weren't yet geared to take advantage of those goods. Neither the northern nor southern blacks had any capital to begin with, so I fail to see how international banking would have had any impact at all. The Great Depression was not a solely American affair, and it was in part brought on by the post-WWI surpluses. In this world, does WWI even happen? I can make an arguement that it does not, or at least realigns the Entente and Alliance.

And will, you're going to have to explain to me how a black resident/slave/citizen/whatever of the CSA becomes POTUS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Strom Thurmond would probably have won the 1948 presidential election on the States Rights Party.......scary thought.

Assuming that the CSA is reabsorbed and that South Carolinians even have a vote.

Plan9 · 11-14-2007, 10:36 AM

DA SOUF WILL RIZE UH-GAIN! *gag*

CFA Theme Song:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/esl2NNOtHQE&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/esl2NNOtHQE&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Willravel · 11-14-2007, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Wait, so you're positing slavery in the NORTH? That had been outlawed in most of the northern states in the 1820's or earlier. I can't imagine it being reintroduced in a post-war atmosphere.

Slavery had been well established in the South for generations and was all but gone within decades of the end of the Civil War. It was outlawed in the USA, not the CSA. The Confederation would have been happy to allow slavery in the North, out of everything including spite. The North, being beaten and probably having Southern military posted to quell rebellion, would have probably given in to greed eventually. Combining the cheap labor of slavery and the efficiency of industry would have been a clear economic choice for maximized profit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

The South was selling the majority of their goods to Europe anyway, and the Northern textile factories weren't yet geared to take advantage of those goods. Neither the northern nor southern blacks had any capital to begin with, so I fail to see how international banking would have had any impact at all. The Great Depression was not a solely American affair, and it was in part brought on by the post-WWI surpluses. In this world, does WWI even happen? I can make an arguement that it does not, or at least realigns the Entente and Alliance.

The white slave owners obviously would have the capitol, and plenty of it. They would also probably want to have a larger and larger work force as the US expanded West. This would mean millions upon millions of black slaves working in agriculture, manufacturing, and other industries as they developed, gaining the skills to do the jobs. When there would eventually be a rising up to overthrow the fat complacent slave owners, they'd be able to pick up and keep going. That is when the wealth would slide from the white elite to black business and land owners, and slavery would be outlawed. Obviously this is all a big fat guess, but I suspect that this overthrowing would be before 1900, which was right before WW1. This wouldn't really have prevented the causes of WW1, so it would have happened. Immediately following WW1 was the roaring 20s when the bankers pounced. Only I don't think it would have worked in a country that had a predominantly black populace in high positions that didn't trust white people. The 20s would have come and gone and there wouldn't have been a Great Depression. Credit may not have even been able to gain a foothold. WW2? I dunno. I don't think it would have been prevented, considering the causes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

And will, you're going to have to explain to me how a black resident/slave/citizen/whatever of the CSA becomes POTUS.

The CSA would have been overthrown. The backlash would have been reverse racism on a national scale and something that may have lasted over 100 years. White people may have had a glass ceiling in the 70s and 80s and are just now getting back into the swing of things.

ratbastid · 11-14-2007, 11:12 AM

There's a really great indie film called CSA that is a mock BBC (in the film "BBS") documentary about the history of the CSA. It posits that a single change--the South having gained the military support that they had sought from England and France--would have resulted in victory for the confederates.

It goes on to describe the how Jefferson Davis instituted an optional tax intended for northern reconstruction, leveed against all former citizens of the United States, which could be avoided with the ownership of at least one domestic or industrial slave. So slavery becomes deeply entrenched in the economy and life of CSA.

The movie is full of clever alternate-history tricks. Lincoln escapes Washington DC and heads for Canada in the company of Harriet Beecher Stowe. He's captured in blackface in upstate New York. Also, JFK was known to have abolitionist leanings, which is of course why he's assassinated.

One thing few people know about is that the Confederate leaders had plans to conquer Mexico and much of South America, to create a "tropical empire" rich in the sugar and cotton trades. So that probably would have happened.

ottopilot · 11-14-2007, 11:38 AM

Plan9 · 11-14-2007, 11:39 AM

Otto:

Your "location" says it all, bro.

ottopilot · 11-14-2007, 12:23 PM

Willravel · 11-14-2007, 12:50 PM

I loved Superman: Red Sun. I highly reccomend it. Superman's ship lands in the USSR...

Bill O'Rights · 11-14-2007, 12:59 PM

Will...if the CSA had won, there would be 2 seperate countries. Not one. The objective of the South was to gain independence, not conquer the North. The South could easily have won the war, and damn near did, by convincing the Northerners that the price was simply to high, and remove their will to fight. If McClellan had won the 1864 election, or if Lee had defeated Meade at Gettysburg, or if England and France had formally recognized the CSA as an independent country, then South Of The Border would now mean the Mason Dixon Line, and not the Rio Grande. The "North" would have gone on about their business, with no interference from the now formally recognized Confederate States of America.

And slavery was most certainly not "all but gone within decades of the end of the Civil War" in the South. Eli Whitney, and his Cotton Gin, saw to that.

Willravel · 11-14-2007, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Will...if the CSA had won, there would be 2 seperate countries. Not one. The objective of the South was to gain independence, not conquer the North.

Ah, but they were expansionist and as soon as they would have won I'm sure it would have been painfully obvious that the land was free for taking. There is a lot of farmland in what's considered the North, not to mention industry was starting to really show that it could be profitable, representing serious economic benefits. The temptation was too great for a new expansionist country. After the US, it's likely that as ratbastid said they would have moved South to Central and possibly South America. The South was by far agrarian. What does an expansionist agrarian government want? More fertile land.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

The South could easily have won the war, and damn near did, by convincing the Northerners that the price was simply to high, and remove their will to fight. If McClellan had won the 1864 election, or if Lee had defeated Meade at Gettysburg, or if England and France had formally recognized the CSA as an independent country, then South Of The Border would now mean the Mason Dixon Line, and not the Rio Grande. The "North" would have gone on about their business, with no interference from the now formally recognized Confederate States of America.

And slavery was most certainly not "all but gone within decades of the end of the Civil War" in the South. Eli Whitney, and his Cotton Gin, saw to that.

Emancipation Proclamation: Jan. 1, 1863
13th Amendment: Dec. 6, 1865

Segregation and mistreatment continue (even to this day), but once illegal slavery dropped off. I mean Plessy v. Fergusun was in 1887 which addressed the issue of segregation.

The_Jazz · 11-14-2007, 01:30 PM

If the CSA wins the Civil War for any reason (I kind of see the "why" being immaterial at this point), then Britain and France would have rushed to recognize and normalize relations; they were headed in this direction anyway and were one major Southern victory away from it. For that reason, I see a CSA propped up for a few years (5-20) by these two powers.

By the way, there is no Alaska since the Seward Purchase occurred in 1864. That gives Imperial Russia a presence in North America into the 20th Century as well as the Yukon Gold Rush. Perhaps they would have sold it to Britain to become a Canadian province.

With at best British approval of the CSA (and possible British intervention into the war), the US would pin a dart board on Canada and think about Northern Expansion. Remember that the US invaded Canada during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, which was within living memory at the time. If the US takes a northern swipe during the Crimean War, perhaps they walk away with Ontario or Quebec.

Westward expansion becomes another interesting question. Clearly California provides a very valuable western outlet for Asian trade in the 1880's and 90's, and it belongs completely to the US. Would the CSA look to Mexican Terriroty to allow their own westward movement? I don't foresee friendly relations between the USA and CSA, and any CSA movement westward would probably be seen as a threat. Perhaps another war?

Willravel · 11-14-2007, 01:39 PM

It'd be interesting if this caused Russia to keep Alaska and they found oil. Once they started really gaining power, we might have seen Canada/America war not disimilar to the Korean War where the communist North was trying to muck with the weaker South.

The CSA would have mopped the floor with Mexico, thus taking not just Tex/AZ/NM/CA., but probably expanding well into Central America. Being so agrarian, they'd do well with so much farmland and they would have been able to develop the land better than the weaker Mexican economy could at the time, too. The CSA may have become, for all intents and purposes, an agrarian empire (like what US corporations are doing now, only more overtly).

Leto · 11-14-2007, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

If the CSA wins the Civil War for any reason...

By the way, there is no Alaska since the Seward Purchase occurred in 1864. That gives Imperial Russia a presence in North America into the 20th Century as well as the Yukon Gold Rush. Perhaps they would have sold it to Britain to become a Canadian province.

Damn. So close.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

With at best British approval of the CSA (and possible British intervention into the war), the US would pin a dart board on Canada and think about Northern Expansion. Remember that the US invaded Canada during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, which was within living memory at the time. If the US takes a northern swipe during the Crimean War, perhaps they walk away with Ontario or Quebec.

Yikes! I see a drab world with little or no Tim Horton's to speak of.

Bill O'Rights · 11-14-2007, 01:46 PM

Will, the Emancipation Proclomation was a sham. It was never a law, voted upon by Congress. It was merely a presidential order empowered, as Lincoln wrote, by his position as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution. If Bush pulled a stunt like that, you'd be in hysterics. It only freed slaves in "states" that no longer recognized the authority of the U.S. government over them. The proclamation did not free any slaves in the border states (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia). Lincoln used it as a tool to effectively prevent recognition of the CSA by Europe.

The 13th Amendment was ratified on December 18th, 1865. 8 months after Lee surrendered at Appomatox Courthouse. It was only ratified because Lincoln's Emancipation Proclomation commited the U.S. to ending slavery. Prior to that, most northerners couldn't have given a damn. Most northerners fought to preserve the Union, not end slavery. The Irish, a major componant in the Union Army, openly detested freed slaves as they were in competition for the low paying factory jobs that the Irish could get.

The_Jazz · 11-14-2007, 01:48 PM

Will, the Emancipation Proclamation would most likely have never been issued since the South would have already won by the time it was issued. An independent CSA would have never been party to any Constitutional Amendment.

Slavery would have continued to exist until something came along to eliminate it by forcing the issue. Outside pressure surely wouldn't have done it alone. Forced industrialization wouldn't have either since there would have been motives to include at least some slave labor in unskilled positions.

A victorious CSA never could have taken territory outside of the CSA for their own at the end of the war. First of all, any area ceeded to the CSA would have immediately revolted (think West Virginia) and caused a major bogging down of sorely needed resources to hold off an unfriendly USA. Second, the "breadbasket" area wasn't recognized as such until the 1880's when farmers began planting Russian wheat. And I sincerely doubt that the CSA could have mounted a successful invasion of Iowa or the Dakota territory once that particular discovery started to pay off. Geographically, they might have been able to claim portions of Kansas, but that would have been hotly contested by the Unionists imbedded there (remember the Kansas Border Wars?). In all likelyhood, they would have ended up portions of New Mexico and Arizona and had to look south in to Coahuila, Chihuahua and Sonora for extra territory.

Finally, an independent CSA could not have afforded to remain an agrarian nation. They would have needed industry and lots of it. Perhaps that would have been the impetus needed to end slavery, but stagnation as an agricultural economy would have ruined the South in 1875 or 1885 just as surely as it did in 1863-65. They would have needed war materiel to face off against the USA, who most likely would have been looking for an excuse to wipe the new nation off the map.

Bill O'Rights · 11-14-2007, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

In all likelyhood, they would have ended up portions of New Mexico and Arizona...

And Oklahoma. All three of which were contested CSA territories.

The_Jazz · 11-14-2007, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

And Oklahoma. All three of which were contested CSA territories.

Hmm, I'm not so sure that there wouldn't have been a cobbled-together independent "Indian Nation" or somesuch as a buffer zone between the two. It was contested territory for sure, and one or the other would have had to wrench control from the other.

I'd have to check, but I think that in the 1860's Oklahoma was viewed as territory ceeded to the Cherokee et al as a giant reservation. The Oklahoma land grab didn't come until the 1880's, so we wouldn't have any Sooners or Boomers.

The real question in my mind is how this would have changed the face of college football.

Daniel_ · 11-14-2007, 04:21 PM

But don't forget that the British settles for Alaska in exchange for Sevastopol, and with the help of their Indian and Malay troops, mounted a successful invasion of the western seaboard, taking Washington and Oregon in a matter of weeks, and linking up with their CSA allies who attacked from Texas to take California.

Over the next 18 months, the British and the CSA drove the US forces back to the Rockies.

The British Atlantic fleet, with the French in support, took the eastern seaboard as far as Boston by attacking on land down from Ontario, and at sea from over the horizon, using their new Dreadnought class battleships.

The French were paid off with the Alsace.

Austria-Hungary felt threatened by this, and the newly united Prussian Socialist Republic (under it's President for life Karl Marx), took the opportunity to attack Vienna, supported by Bolshevik insurgents from western Russia (itself in the grips of a decade long civil war).

Once the dust had settled, the US had no access to the Pacific, the CSA formed a trading union with the Kingdom of Mexico under Maximilian Bonaparte VIII, and France and Britain were able to come to the aid of their Triple Alliance ally Russia to crush the revolt in the west.

During the 20th Century, Imperial Japan using technology obtained from French and British scientists, took over Manchuria, and British India expanded northward into Afghan territory, starting the Fifth Afghan war, which saw the large scale use of defoliants and poison gasses to quell the natives.

By the start of the 21st Century, the world was divided up into the major power blocks of the Triple Alliance (covering most of Western Europe, almost all of Asia, Australia and NZ and Africa, and North America), faced off against the Japanese (who held half the pacific, Hawaii, much of China, Mongolia, and the Philippines).

Infinite_Loser · 11-14-2007, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I loved Superman: Red Sun. I highly reccomend it. Superman's ship lands in the USSR...

Ironically enough I have that comic book because a friend bought it for me. Ehhh... I didn't really like it.

*Spoiler!!!*

The whole Lex Luther is the ancestor of Superman thing and Krypton is really Earth thing didn't do it for me.

Anyway, there's no reason to believe that slavery would have continued in the South if the CSA had won the Revolutionary War. This is because, at the time, both Britain and France had outlawed slavery and was a major reason why neither entered the war to help the CSA. I'd find it hard to imagine either country offering financial/military support to the South if they continued their slave trade and, seeing as how the North had the the industries that the South lacked, the new nation surely would have been obliterated by a resurgent North. So, one way or another, slavery would have been abolished within five years of the end of the Revolutionary War-- Either because the CSA would have to for their livelihood or because the USA would conquer the CSA.

Willravel · 11-14-2007, 07:49 PM

I loved it. I love how they suddenly throw a paradox at you and it blows your mind. Not only that, but the art was really great.

Plan9 · 11-14-2007, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Biggest threadjack of 2007.

Awesome.

djtestudo · 11-14-2007, 09:20 PM

There is a short book (I believe originally printed in a magazine) by MacKinlay Kantor called If the South Had Won the Civil War that I highly recommend.

Short plot summary: Lee wins at Gettysburg (by directly ordering Ewell's corps to attack Cemetery Hill on the first day, instead of making the order "if practicable" like in real life). Grant falls off a horse during the Vicksburg Campaign (which really happened) and dies (which didn't, obviously), which causes the Union to be defeated there. Lincoln is kidnapped in the confusion and Washington falls. In the peace treaty, Washington becomes the new Confederate capitol.

A couple decades later, Texas declares independence after they invade Oklahoma on their own.

The slaves are freed by the 1880s after a long period of unofficial individual manumission.

The Confederacy fights the Spanish in Cuba in the 1890s and eventually grants the island statehood.

The three nations remain peaceful and essentially act as one internationally until the sixties, when the book ends with talks towards reunification to combat the Soviets (who, like was mentioned in an earlier post, still own Alaska).

I believe that a scenario like that is, if idealistic, as likely as the suggestions of violence that many believe.

Of course, I also believe that the single worst thing that could have happened for the already-defeated South was the assassination of Lincoln, which led directly to Northern military rule and all of the perpetual hatred caused by Radical Republican Reconstruction.

I do think, though, that slavery was on the downswing at that point in American history, and just based on simple economic factors wouldn't have lasted very long (not just slave insurrection, but violence from poor freedmen and whites who would have had their wages artificially lowered by the institution). I think either the two sides eventually come together to act as a united front for threats to North America, or they become entangled in international alliances (Britain and France for the South, likely Germany for the North with the immigration of German and [Anti-British] Irish) and destroy each other by WWII.

This is a very important question in our history, though, so it is good that it is being discussed.

Ustwo · 11-14-2007, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

The South could easily have won the war, and damn near did, by convincing the Northerners that the price was simply to high, and remove their will to fight. If McClellan had won the 1864 election ...

This sounds somehow...familiar....

djtestudo · 11-14-2007, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

This sounds somehow...familiar....

Let's see: Unpopular president accused of trampling over everyone's rights and leading the country in an unpopular war with terrible death tolls...check.

Northeastern candidate running on questionable record as a soldier and with a severely divided party behind him...check.

Yeah, just a little bit.

Infinite_Loser · 11-14-2007, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

There is a short book (I believe originally printed in a magazine) by MacKinlay Kantor called If the South Had Won the Civil War that I highly recommend.

Not the entire thing, but pretty good considering it's free.

Bill O'Rights · 11-15-2007, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

This sounds somehow...familiar....

You bet it does.

I've made the comparison before.

If you study the politics, and the real history, behind all of the whitewashed rhetoric...it's eerily similar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Let's see: Unpopular president accused of trampling over everyone's rights and leading the country in an unpopular war with terrible death tolls...check.

Northeastern candidate running on questionable record as a soldier and with a severely divided party behind him...check.

It goes even deeper than that. But, you're on the right track.

djtestudo · 11-15-2007, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

You bet it does.

I've made the comparison before.

If you study the politics, and the real history, behind all of the whitewashed rhetoric...it's eerily similar.

It goes even deeper than that. But, you're on the right track.

Yeah, I know. I was in a hurry. Just felt like beating everyone over the head with the obvious

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Not the entire thing, but pretty good considering it's free.

Nice find, that's what I have. Looks like it gives the gist.

Ustwo · 11-15-2007, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Yeah, I know. I was in a hurry. Just felt like beating everyone over the head with the obvious

Sometimes people need a good beating.....

...umm with the obvious.

11-14-2007, 10:10 AM	#1 (permalink)
nonplussed Tilted	If the CSA had won the Civil War What would the world be like today if the South had won the Civil War? Personally, I think that the Confederate States of America would be a third world hell hole. Slavery would -- probably -- be illegal but not until well into the 20th century. Mexico would have long ago erected a fence along the Rio Grande to stem the tide of illegal CFA immigrants. Meanwhile, the USA would be the progressive nation that it once promised to be. National healthcare, for example, almost certainly would have passed by now. There would have been no need to wait until the 1960s to pass the Civil Rights Act. The economy of the USA, unburdened by the weight of the Confederate states, would flourish. Taxes would certainly be lower since the states of the CFA are net beneficiaries of blue state tax dollars. Culturally, national literacy rates would be much higher and the rates of divorce and out of wedlock births would be much lower in the USA once freed from the weight of Southern social science statistics. Perhaps most importantly, the USA, without the red states, would not have invaded Iraq and would be admired, not reviled, around the world.

11-14-2007, 10:23 AM	#3 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Harry Turtledove has a series of about a dozen book positing exactly this question. He's taken it up to the end of WWII which was a purely American affair (with the Kaiser still in power in Germany and an American analogy to Hitler). However, I don't think that the US would necessarily have been a "more progressive" nation. The Republican party would have been shattered and set the progressive movement of the 1880's back decades awaiting a party to fill the void left by the Republicans. Tax wouldn't necessarily be lower since there would be a hostile nation to the south requiring a military buildup. There certainly would have been periodic arms races akin to what the French and Germans did towards the end of the 1800's. I think that the CSA would have initially been propped up by the British and French but would then have been forced to industrialize along the same lines it did in the 30's and 40's. They couldn't have survived a sustained assault by the US without it, and in the post-Civil War era, that would have been enough motivation to force the change. Certainly slavery would have remained for a time, but it was unsustainable and eventually would have been abolished. The external pressure from Europe would have increased over time since the CSA would have been the only Western nation with slavery after 1862 (Russia), and I doubt that the British and French could have continued to offer unconditional support into the 1880's given their own domestic issues with the practice. Interesting topic. I'm curious to see where this goes since it's one of my own little hobbies. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

11-14-2007, 10:26 AM	#4 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Strom Thurmond would probably have won the 1948 presidential election on the States Rights Party.......scary thought. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

11-14-2007, 10:36 AM	#6 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	DA SOUF WILL RIZE UH-GAIN! *gag* CFA Theme Song: <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/esl2NNOtHQE&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/esl2NNOtHQE&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

11-14-2007, 11:38 AM	#9 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit Last edited by ottopilot; 12-26-2007 at 08:34 PM.. Reason: spelling -5pts.

11-14-2007, 10:21 AM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Slavery was the staple of our economy at the time. The textiles up North, also being profitable, would have continued to develop and I suspect that slavery would have made it's way into industry. Ultra low wage workers in factories would have given the US a distinct competitive edge. Eventually there probably would have been a rebellion from the non-whites which have become strong and skilled and the US would be primarily black. The international banks would have had more trouble moving in being run by white people, which the black people of the US would not trust, and the Great Depression wouldn't have happened. This would have primed the US to enter the World Wars quicker with more armament and we would have won sooner. Under president Martin Luther King Jr., the US would have had peace talks with the Soviet Union and avoided everything from Korea to Vietnam to the Mujahadin (meaning no modern day Taliban or al Quaeda). In other words, I have absolutely no idea and it seems that there's not enough information to guess.

11-14-2007, 11:12 AM	#8 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	There's a really great indie film called CSA that is a mock BBC (in the film "BBS") documentary about the history of the CSA. It posits that a single change--the South having gained the military support that they had sought from England and France--would have resulted in victory for the confederates. It goes on to describe the how Jefferson Davis instituted an optional tax intended for northern reconstruction, leveed against all former citizens of the United States, which could be avoided with the ownership of at least one domestic or industrial slave. So slavery becomes deeply entrenched in the economy and life of CSA. The movie is full of clever alternate-history tricks. Lincoln escapes Washington DC and heads for Canada in the company of Harriet Beecher Stowe. He's captured in blackface in upstate New York. Also, JFK was known to have abolitionist leanings, which is of course why he's assassinated. One thing few people know about is that the Confederate leaders had plans to conquer Mexico and much of South America, to create a "tropical empire" rich in the sugar and cotton trades. So that probably would have happened.

11-14-2007, 11:39 AM	#10 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Otto: Your "location" says it all, bro. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

11-14-2007, 12:23 PM	#11 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit Last edited by ottopilot; 12-27-2007 at 08:41 AM..

11-14-2007, 12:50 PM	#12 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I loved Superman: Red Sun. I highly reccomend it. Superman's ship lands in the USSR...

11-14-2007, 12:59 PM	#13 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	Will...if the CSA had won, there would be 2 seperate countries. Not one. The objective of the South was to gain independence, not conquer the North. The South could easily have won the war, and damn near did, by convincing the Northerners that the price was simply to high, and remove their will to fight. If McClellan had won the 1864 election, or if Lee had defeated Meade at Gettysburg, or if England and France had formally recognized the CSA as an independent country, then South Of The Border would now mean the Mason Dixon Line, and not the Rio Grande. The "North" would have gone on about their business, with no interference from the now formally recognized Confederate States of America. And slavery was most certainly not "all but gone within decades of the end of the Civil War" in the South. Eli Whitney, and his Cotton Gin, saw to that. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

11-14-2007, 01:30 PM	#15 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	If the CSA wins the Civil War for any reason (I kind of see the "why" being immaterial at this point), then Britain and France would have rushed to recognize and normalize relations; they were headed in this direction anyway and were one major Southern victory away from it. For that reason, I see a CSA propped up for a few years (5-20) by these two powers. By the way, there is no Alaska since the Seward Purchase occurred in 1864. That gives Imperial Russia a presence in North America into the 20th Century as well as the Yukon Gold Rush. Perhaps they would have sold it to Britain to become a Canadian province. With at best British approval of the CSA (and possible British intervention into the war), the US would pin a dart board on Canada and think about Northern Expansion. Remember that the US invaded Canada during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, which was within living memory at the time. If the US takes a northern swipe during the Crimean War, perhaps they walk away with Ontario or Quebec. Westward expansion becomes another interesting question. Clearly California provides a very valuable western outlet for Asian trade in the 1880's and 90's, and it belongs completely to the US. Would the CSA look to Mexican Terriroty to allow their own westward movement? I don't foresee friendly relations between the USA and CSA, and any CSA movement westward would probably be seen as a threat. Perhaps another war? __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

11-14-2007, 01:39 PM	#16 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	It'd be interesting if this caused Russia to keep Alaska and they found oil. Once they started really gaining power, we might have seen Canada/America war not disimilar to the Korean War where the communist North was trying to muck with the weaker South. The CSA would have mopped the floor with Mexico, thus taking not just Tex/AZ/NM/CA., but probably expanding well into Central America. Being so agrarian, they'd do well with so much farmland and they would have been able to develop the land better than the weaker Mexican economy could at the time, too. The CSA may have become, for all intents and purposes, an agrarian empire (like what US corporations are doing now, only more overtly).

11-14-2007, 01:46 PM	#18 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	Will, the Emancipation Proclomation was a sham. It was never a law, voted upon by Congress. It was merely a presidential order empowered, as Lincoln wrote, by his position as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution. If Bush pulled a stunt like that, you'd be in hysterics. It only freed slaves in "states" that no longer recognized the authority of the U.S. government over them. The proclamation did not free any slaves in the border states (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia). Lincoln used it as a tool to effectively prevent recognition of the CSA by Europe. The 13th Amendment was ratified on December 18th, 1865. 8 months after Lee surrendered at Appomatox Courthouse. It was only ratified because Lincoln's Emancipation Proclomation commited the U.S. to ending slavery. Prior to that, most northerners couldn't have given a damn. Most northerners fought to preserve the Union, not end slavery. The Irish, a major componant in the Union Army, openly detested freed slaves as they were in competition for the low paying factory jobs that the Irish could get. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

11-14-2007, 01:48 PM	#19 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Will, the Emancipation Proclamation would most likely have never been issued since the South would have already won by the time it was issued. An independent CSA would have never been party to any Constitutional Amendment. Slavery would have continued to exist until something came along to eliminate it by forcing the issue. Outside pressure surely wouldn't have done it alone. Forced industrialization wouldn't have either since there would have been motives to include at least some slave labor in unskilled positions. A victorious CSA never could have taken territory outside of the CSA for their own at the end of the war. First of all, any area ceeded to the CSA would have immediately revolted (think West Virginia) and caused a major bogging down of sorely needed resources to hold off an unfriendly USA. Second, the "breadbasket" area wasn't recognized as such until the 1880's when farmers began planting Russian wheat. And I sincerely doubt that the CSA could have mounted a successful invasion of Iowa or the Dakota territory once that particular discovery started to pay off. Geographically, they might have been able to claim portions of Kansas, but that would have been hotly contested by the Unionists imbedded there (remember the Kansas Border Wars?). In all likelyhood, they would have ended up portions of New Mexico and Arizona and had to look south in to Coahuila, Chihuahua and Sonora for extra territory. Finally, an independent CSA could not have afforded to remain an agrarian nation. They would have needed industry and lots of it. Perhaps that would have been the impetus needed to end slavery, but stagnation as an agricultural economy would have ruined the South in 1875 or 1885 just as surely as it did in 1863-65. They would have needed war materiel to face off against the USA, who most likely would have been looking for an excuse to wipe the new nation off the map. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

11-14-2007, 04:21 PM	#22 (permalink)
Daniel_ Evil Priest: The Devil Made Me Do It! Location: Southern England	But don't forget that the British settles for Alaska in exchange for Sevastopol, and with the help of their Indian and Malay troops, mounted a successful invasion of the western seaboard, taking Washington and Oregon in a matter of weeks, and linking up with their CSA allies who attacked from Texas to take California. Over the next 18 months, the British and the CSA drove the US forces back to the Rockies. The British Atlantic fleet, with the French in support, took the eastern seaboard as far as Boston by attacking on land down from Ontario, and at sea from over the horizon, using their new Dreadnought class battleships. The French were paid off with the Alsace. Austria-Hungary felt threatened by this, and the newly united Prussian Socialist Republic (under it's President for life Karl Marx), took the opportunity to attack Vienna, supported by Bolshevik insurgents from western Russia (itself in the grips of a decade long civil war). Once the dust had settled, the US had no access to the Pacific, the CSA formed a trading union with the Kingdom of Mexico under Maximilian Bonaparte VIII, and France and Britain were able to come to the aid of their Triple Alliance ally Russia to crush the revolt in the west. During the 20th Century, Imperial Japan using technology obtained from French and British scientists, took over Manchuria, and British India expanded northward into Afghan territory, starting the Fifth Afghan war, which saw the large scale use of defoliants and poison gasses to quell the natives. By the start of the 21st Century, the world was divided up into the major power blocks of the Triple Alliance (covering most of Western Europe, almost all of Asia, Australia and NZ and Africa, and North America), faced off against the Japanese (who held half the pacific, Hawaii, much of China, Mongolia, and the Philippines). __________________ ╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗ Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air, And deep beneath the rolling waves, In labyrinths of Coral Caves, The Echo of a distant time Comes willowing across the sand; And everthing is Green and Submarine ╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

11-14-2007, 07:49 PM	#24 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I loved it. I love how they suddenly throw a paradox at you and it blows your mind. Not only that, but the art was really great.

11-14-2007, 09:20 PM	#26 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	There is a short book (I believe originally printed in a magazine) by MacKinlay Kantor called If the South Had Won the Civil War that I highly recommend. Short plot summary: Lee wins at Gettysburg (by directly ordering Ewell's corps to attack Cemetery Hill on the first day, instead of making the order "if practicable" like in real life). Grant falls off a horse during the Vicksburg Campaign (which really happened) and dies (which didn't, obviously), which causes the Union to be defeated there. Lincoln is kidnapped in the confusion and Washington falls. In the peace treaty, Washington becomes the new Confederate capitol. A couple decades later, Texas declares independence after they invade Oklahoma on their own. The slaves are freed by the 1880s after a long period of unofficial individual manumission. The Confederacy fights the Spanish in Cuba in the 1890s and eventually grants the island statehood. The three nations remain peaceful and essentially act as one internationally until the sixties, when the book ends with talks towards reunification to combat the Soviets (who, like was mentioned in an earlier post, still own Alaska). I believe that a scenario like that is, if idealistic, as likely as the suggestions of violence that many believe. Of course, I also believe that the single worst thing that could have happened for the already-defeated South was the assassination of Lincoln, which led directly to Northern military rule and all of the perpetual hatred caused by Radical Republican Reconstruction. I do think, though, that slavery was on the downswing at that point in American history, and just based on simple economic factors wouldn't have lasted very long (not just slave insurrection, but violence from poor freedmen and whites who would have had their wages artificially lowered by the institution). I think either the two sides eventually come together to act as a united front for threats to North America, or they become entangled in international alliances (Britain and France for the South, likely Germany for the North with the immigration of German and [Anti-British] Irish) and destroy each other by WWII. This is a very important question in our history, though, so it is good that it is being discussed. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun