If the Confederacy had survived

[swilhelm73]

http://www.al.com/news/mobile/?Apr2001/28-a460821a.html

This guy's work might be of some use in Confederate alternate history for the folks at Paradox...

 

[unmerged(12746)]

Originally posted by swilhelm73
http://www.al.com/news/mobile/?Apr2001/28-a460821a.html

This guy's work might be of some use in Confederate alternate history for the folks at Paradox...

Good article, but it didnt take into account if Slavery was not abolished, it based it on current economic conditions, if I read it correctly( wasnt a long article so I think I did). The Economy of the South hinged on Slavery and not using that as apart of the equation, somehow, not only deflates the numbers (IMHO) but also dosent account for the alternative development that probably would have occured.

Definately a subject to expand upon, nice article Swilhelm.

Odin

 

[crazy canuck]

The whole analysis seems a bit flawed since the economic power of the US is largely based on its domestic market. Break that market roughly in half and I doubt either the Union or the Confederacy would have done as well.

 

[Surgünoglu]

The South always did seem to be an exporter primarily. No doubt they wouldn't beat the North economically, but if they did win the war, they'd certainly develop some type of stability.

I just hope that first, Paradox has events for a surviving Confederacy. It's one of the most formative possibilities in American alternate history. Even if it's hard to win, there's got to be a prize.

Second, you've got to have events for Confederate success or victory in other countries' history, too, because winning the war as the South almost certainly needs European help and/or recognition.

And third, the most important, some of those events must be slave revolts. Since no country in the world had the particular slavery system the South did, it's almost certain that the Confederacy would be a special case here, too. It might take forty years, but slavery would have to be challenged or ended, and the consequences would be severe either way.

It would be interesting because almost certainly, freedom taken is much better than freedom dispensed, slowly, bit by bit over decades.

 

[rcp7]

Interesting but I disagree with the article. The South's economy was not very deversified, based heavily on cotton. It's industrial capibilities were weak too. As for slaves, they were dragging the economy down as it was. If they had been freed without support from another country, the economy would have been strained. If they had not been freed, the economy would have been strained.

 

[crazy canuck]

Had the Confederacy survived the civil war do you think it would have been absorbed into the stronger Union economy over time?

I wonder if a peaceful unification would have occured if military force had failed.

 

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by crazy canuck
I wonder if a peaceful unification would have occured if military force had failed.

Then why is Canada still keeping up that Childish pretence of "national sovereignty"?

 

[unmerged(10945)]

Originally posted by crazy canuck
Had the Confederacy survived the civil war do you think it would have been absorbed into the stronger Union economy over time?

I wonder if a peaceful unification would have occured if military force had failed.

Nope, which brings up my main problem with the article. Had the confederacy survived, I guarantee there would have been at least one major war if not up to 3 or 4 wars break out between the two nations again. This guy seems to believe that the two nations would have co-existed peacefully, which given the animosity between the regions I find unlikely. Such a war(s) would have been an even larger meat grinder than the civil war was, which in turn would have made both economies suffer greatly.

That combined with what you said earlier about the US's domestic market being split in half would have had a devestating impact on any North American economic zone.

 

[crazy canuck]

If there could would not have been peaceful integration then you are right. There is no way the economies would have done as well.

Maybe Canada would have become the dominant nation in North America.

 

[Gwalcmai]

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. If the USA and CSA coexisted in north America, I doubt they would be all chumy. Most likely they would compete, and the smaller markets would have hurt development a bit. And it was possible they ended up in opposite sides of the WWI of that particular future (assuming the war was unavoidable when ACW ended).

If WWI had been fought in America too then the american economy (which, being more fragmented, would already not be as strong as it was in 1914), would have been hurt, with infrastructures destroyed and workers dead everywhere.

Would USA and CSA be world powers nowadays? Very likely. Would they jointly have the same strength as the USA we know? I personally doubt it. But they would likely be teaming up now, after all, if France and Germany did it anyone can... And NAFTA would be much more balanced, Canada and Mexico wouldn't look so much like hangers-on.

 

[unmerged(5605)]

Others have noted this, but the reason why the southern economy is so strong now is the tremendous amount of nothern capital that fled their to escape higher wages and (sadly) unions. If the south was an independent nation, this still *might* have happened, however, even with lower wages in the CSA, it certainly still couldn't compete with Mexico for low-wage work. The south wouldn't be anywhere near as economically powerful as it is now. And the North would likely be more powerful than currently (as there wouldn't be capital fight to the south), though, of course, the Union would still be less of an economic power than it is now.

If the CSA had left, I don't think the two would ever meet again. A union with Canada and the north would be far more likely. In many ways, the North is closer in political and cultural values to Canada in parts than it is the south. This would be even more true without the south in the nation.

 

[Tim O]

Originally posted by Gwalcmai
Yes, I was thinking the same thing. If the USA and CSA coexisted in north America, I doubt they would be all chumy. Most likely they would compete, and the smaller markets would have hurt development a bit. And it was possible they ended up in opposite sides of the WWI of that particular future (assuming the war was unavoidable when ACW ended).

If WWI had been fought in America too then the american economy (which, being more fragmented, would already not be as strong as it was in 1914), would have been hurt, with infrastructures destroyed and workers dead everywhere.

Would USA and CSA be world powers nowadays? Very likely. Would they jointly have the same strength as the USA we know? I personally doubt it. But they would likely be teaming up now, after all, if France and Germany did it anyone can... And NAFTA would be much more balanced, Canada and Mexico wouldn't look so much like hangers-on.

I cannot comprehend how I am allowed to be the first to post this in response to such a thread. Doesn't anyone else have an appreciation for the alternative history classics of Turtledove? The man takes all this into account. The future of slavery. Conflict over Mexican territory, joining conflicting allies in the First World War.

 

[Surgünoglu]

Originally posted by Gwalcmai
If WWI had been fought in America too then the american economy (which, being more fragmented, would already not be as strong as it was in 1914), would have been hurt, with infrastructures destroyed and workers dead everywhere.

Would USA and CSA be world powers nowadays? Very likely.

Well, without an unconditional victor in World War Two, who would rebuild Europe? Post-war history has progressed due to the two main winners of the war: the US and the late USSR. If the Confederacy had survived to World War Two, you can bet safely that America would have been just as torn apart as Europe, especially if Canada and Mexico participated.

With no Marshall Plan, the world would have to nurse its wounds. It would probably mean no containment. Now, I don't know how World War One would have gone, but if Russian history followed ours, the Soviet Union would be pretty tough to beat.

Of course, this is very simplistic alternate history, but I think if the Confederacy won the war, they would(if smart) have industrialized as soon as possible. The only way they'd have peace would be if neither had allies and both were similarly powerful. They might have survived the Concert of Europe years, in a global exhibit of a Mexican standoff, but once world war hit... I don't know who'd be left to re-enact historic battles.

 

[unmerged(10971)]

Originally posted by Timothy Ortiz
I cannot comprehend how I am allowed to be the first to post this in response to such a thread.

I just didn't get to it yet.

 

[crazy canuck]

and we were just waiting for someone to post the nice graphics.

 

[Tim O]

Originally posted by Surgünoglu
Well, without an unconditional victor in World War Two, who would rebuild Europe? Post-war history has progressed due to the two main winners of the war: the US and the late USSR. If the Confederacy had survived to World War Two, you can bet safely that America would have been just as torn apart as Europe, especially if Canada and Mexico participated.

With no Marshall Plan, the world would have to nurse its wounds. It would probably mean no containment. Now, I don't know how World War One would have gone, but if Russian history followed ours, the Soviet Union would be pretty tough to beat.

Of course, this is very simplistic alternate history, but I think if the Confederacy won the war, they would(if smart) have industrialized as soon as possible. The only way they'd have peace would be if neither had allies and both were similarly powerful. They might have survived the Concert of Europe years, in a global exhibit of a Mexican standoff, but once world war hit... I don't know who'd be left to re-enact historic battles.

Dude read the books. The U.S.A. is allied with Germany, the C.S.A. with England. Thus Germany wins in Europe and the U.S.A. in North America. Russia and Canada are thus subjugated respectivly. Fascism arises in the Confedracy and Socialism in United States, ect. Just read them, they are highly plausible.

 

[unmerged(5605)]

Calling the US 'socialist' in the books is a bit of a stretch. I mean, the Socialist party gains control of the government, but it isn't anything resembling Debsian socialism, though the US is a far sight further left-wing than it would have been during this period otherwise.

I can't imagine how screwed-up the US economy will be with hoover in control in '32 though. Damned frightening.

 

[Surgünoglu]

Originally posted by Timothy Ortiz
Dude read the books. The U.S.A. is allied with Germany, the C.S.A. with England. Thus Germany wins in Europe and the U.S.A. in North America. Russia and Canada are thus subjugated respectivly. Fascism arises in the Confedracy and Socialism in United States, ect. Just read them, they are highly plausible.

Fascism in the CSA, huh? I'll have to read the books. You mean like Hitler "we're angry and downtrodden" industrial fascism or a more Mussolini "good ol' boys we jist wanna have a good time" corrupt bully fascism?

Hmm. Never thought the South would be one for fascism. I know the accusation gets thrown around with little thought, but a real fascist state? Never figured. Now I'm very interested.

 

[unmerged(4396)]

Regardless of books, do you really think the CSA would have survived victory? Already pointed out has been the relative weakness of the southern economy, couple this with the titanic destruction and loss of male life in the south. With no industrialized USA to rebuild them, the CSA would be a basket case. Lets also not forget the premise of the CSA's attempt at independence... that state rights take precedence over federal rights. I think the CSA would disintegrate into self-interested blocs within a few years of the end of the war, particularly as the burdens of reconstruction tax the politicians. If I were a Texan, I'd not want my tax money paying to rebuild railroad bridges in Tennessee and Virginia. Some states would flourish, based on their internal policies, while others would flounder. Within 10 years of the southern victory, I suspect some states would be asking to rejoin the Union while others fight it out with their neighbors for scarce resources. New nations, like Texas, would become independent again. Perhaps some states would elect to fight against foreign powers, but other would decline. What if the US waited for this disorganization to reach a critial mass, then started the 2nd Civil War by invading again? "We're ONLY invading Tennessee my dear Virginian ambassador, surely you don't want to sacrifice your men for them?"

 

[unmerged(5662)]

Um, that link is dead... Could someone post a live one, or perhaps cut/paste the article? Or is it gone?