There's a political party that comes to power called the "Freedom Party" simmilar to Hitler's Nazi party. They blame the CSA's defeat on the Blacks who supported the Red revolt in the Carolinas in 1915.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
There's a political party that comes to power called the "Freedom Party" simmilar to Hitler's Nazi party. They blame the CSA's defeat on the Blacks who supported the Red revolt in the Carolinas in 1915.
Almost choked on my drink reading that one. The US did not rebuild the Confederacy. There was no Marshall Plan after the civil war, and the South was an economic disaster well into the 20th century.
Depends on what turing point at which the South wins how bad it would be. Very start of the war the South was winning and had a chance to march on Washington hitting an already broken Union army. The Generals didn't feel the city was important enough, and decided to move further North towards New York. I personally always thought that was a bad idea because the South taking the capital after Lincoln promising his early victory would have had major effects on moral, and might have lead to early union surrender. Of course this would have only been a truce of sorts, but it would have gave the South a chance to build up industry and perhaps get help from the outside. Under these circumstances the South could have very well become a powerful contender for the status of 'Top Dog' in North America.
I once dated a girl from Alabama will she didnt talk about this alternative what if scenario I certainly got the impression that she thought that the North had stolen the South's glory and that if the South had one it would have had a glorious future.
I think that is the Romantic view of many in the South.
Hard to say if it is right or wrong. But I still think that neither the Union nor the Confederacy would have been as great as the present US.
You see, I can say nice things about the US too.
I think that is the Romantic view of many in the South.
Hard to say if it is right or wrong. But I still think that neither the Union nor the Confederacy would have been as great as the present US.
You see, I can say nice things about the US too.
Your right, both would have been reduced to regional powers at best for a long time. Then one would finally get the upper hand and knock the other down to all most nothing. Also in case of an early victory the South would have probably got back West Virginia, because the splitting of the state was never truly legal in any sense.
Originally posted by Timothy Ortiz
You my dear man have no idea what you are talking about!
Oh no. Civil War part deux.
Originally posted by Timothy Ortiz
You my dear man have no idea what you are talking about!
After the 1st Bull Run if the South had pursued the Yanks Washington could have been taken.
First of all he says that rather then move on Washington D.C. they moved on New York City instead, not so. Secondly a Confederate march on D.C. after Bull RUn was impossible. THe green troops of the Confederacy were as disorganizied by victory as the Yankees by defeat, perhaps more so. During the battle many soldiers got seperated from the units, and afterward mant wandered off to celebrate, loot, or to get away from the horror of the battlefield. Also 10,000 Federals remained who had hardly fought or not fought at all. Their retreat was somewhat organized. All ready at this time the fortifications outside of D.C were strong and would have been difficult for the Confederates to carry. But to get there they would have to march 30 and cross the bridges over the Potomac or go the long way around, and there were definitly enough troops to hold the bridges in front of D.C.
An early Confederate victory (or northern abandonment of the war, which wasn't unlikely) would have meant that cotton would have remained a powerful, mostly Southern resource. Only as the war dragged on did the British concentrate on growing cotton in Egypt and India.
Could the South have survived a victory? Given the amount of infighting and backbiting among the Southern politicians, one wonders. I can see three broad paths:
For all that some people in the South wanted to industrialize, the fact is that they talked about it a lot but didn't act. Southerners by and large did not own or operate manufacturing plants, railroads, steamships or locomotives, make pig iron, rifles or cannon, endow schools, colleges or libraries. They did SOME of this, but on a tiny per-capita scale compared to the North, England or France.
There isn't any reason to assume that a victorious Confederacy - at least one that secured a relatively early victory - would industrialize. More likely they would go on as they had, expanding agricultural exports, keeping import duties low and buying what they needed in England.
I have to agree with Timothy Ortiz about the after-effects of Manassas (Bull Run). And add this - there was no political will for the South to invade and take Washington. Frankly they might have welcomed Maryland but not really wanted D.C. And they assumed that, having beaten the Northern invaders, the war would shortly be over. Look at the relatively large 'desertion' rates when Lee went into Maryland in the Antietam (Sharpsburg) campaign. Southern soldiers didn't understand why they should invade the North, they left in droves and came back after the army moved back into Virginia.
Could the South have survived a victory? Given the amount of infighting and backbiting among the Southern politicians, one wonders. I can see three broad paths:
1) Confederate war hero has political clout to get slavery abolished, probably by gradual emancipation. Not likely.
2) Confederate 'pay-off' for recognition and support from France is recognition and support of Maximilian in Mexico. South concentrates on expansion in the Caribbean, Mexico and Central America. Attempts to export Southern plantation life to these areas probably fails.
3) Disagreement, disunion and collapse. If South Carolina would secede from the Confederacy during a war, she might secede during peace - and other states might go their own way too. The South becomes little more than an 'Americanized' banana republic.
For all that some people in the South wanted to industrialize, the fact is that they talked about it a lot but didn't act. Southerners by and large did not own or operate manufacturing plants, railroads, steamships or locomotives, make pig iron, rifles or cannon, endow schools, colleges or libraries. They did SOME of this, but on a tiny per-capita scale compared to the North, England or France.
There isn't any reason to assume that a victorious Confederacy - at least one that secured a relatively early victory - would industrialize. More likely they would go on as they had, expanding agricultural exports, keeping import duties low and buying what they needed in England.
I have to agree with Timothy Ortiz about the after-effects of Manassas (Bull Run). And add this - there was no political will for the South to invade and take Washington. Frankly they might have welcomed Maryland but not really wanted D.C. And they assumed that, having beaten the Northern invaders, the war would shortly be over. Look at the relatively large 'desertion' rates when Lee went into Maryland in the Antietam (Sharpsburg) campaign. Southern soldiers didn't understand why they should invade the North, they left in droves and came back after the army moved back into Virginia.
Sir Totalview,
Perhaps, but, you prove my point on the weakness of the southern economy. Also, while I agree there was no 'centralized' effort to 'rebuild' the south, per se, you can not tell me that a tremendous amount of northern investment went into southern industry and agriculture... remember the carpetbaggers? Certainly, this may not have been for the best, but it does indicate some capital flowing into the south. After a successful rebellion, even this trickle would be stopped.
Who's to say plantation life would be incompatible with the Caribbean and Central America? Maybe Anglo slavemasters would be incompatible, but not the plantation system. Especially South America--they're still coping with the products of plantations.
I have to agree with that completely. I don't assume that the CSA would industrialize, only that they would have to.
If they were able to avoid America proper's ire, they might just do what a lot of South America did--comfortable with their economy and centuries old manners, they wouldn't even try to progress--for better and worse. A banana republic might be a very good way to describe it.
But they could not last. The only way to win longterm independence was through industrialization. If they did win their first war, they would have had to fast prepare for a second. That would have meant a revolution.
Simply put, I'm not sure that Southerners moving into those regions would be more successful than the landowners who were already there. No offense meant to anyone, but many of the Caribbean, Central American and South American countries are still poor because the rich landowners didn't invest agricultural profits in infrastructure etc. I'm just saying I don't think outsiders would be successful where local people weren't - I think they'd be more likely to be resented and resisted.
Southern planters didn't invest in the infrastructure of their own states, not doing it in Cuba would not be a break from tradition.
Didn't know they were all that disorganized after the battle, but yes they did wish to by pass Washington and go for the more rich cities to the North (Philadelphia, New York, Baltimore, Boston, ect.) Also it is true that none of the high command felt Washington was worth the effort. Probably due to the fact that during the war of 1812 the British burned it down, and no one seemed to care too much. As for the reinforcements in Washington I thought they where nothing more than newly conscripted men with no experience what so ever.
Since President Davis, Generals Johnson and Beauragaurd were fighting it out in the papers within a month about who's fault it was that Washington wasn't captured I think it can be said that they thought it's capture was important. Certainly nothing I have ever read about the situation following the first Bull Run suggests that the Confederates considered bassing Washington, and I have read a great deal.
I view the Civil War as similar to WW2 in a lot of ways. It was just a matter of time till the CSA lost, and the only thing they could do was prolong that. The CSA had no real possibility of taking DC, especially after Antitem. The CSA had no industrialization, had no healthy influx of immigration. In my view the Civil War is really only comparable to the Crimean War in showing the ultimate efficency of an industrialized nation- dispite the lack of morale, generals, good foot soldiers and having a home field advantage, the CSA lost, dispite the USA having a rather Phyic victory.
The idea of an independant CSA in 1914, without the Turtledove possibilities is perposterus.
The idea of an independant CSA in 1914, without the Turtledove possibilities is perposterus.
Turledove Possiblilities.
GB would not have done it because of thier staunch hatred of slavery, the French.....what reason would the French have for doing it? The Americans where still fairly hostile to the British, and if they ever enterd Canada, Quebec=French again.
Then again, I do not know much about AngloFrank relations at the time.
GB would not have done it because of thier staunch hatred of slavery, the French.....what reason would the French have for doing it? The Americans where still fairly hostile to the British, and if they ever enterd Canada, Quebec=French again.
Then again, I do not know much about AngloFrank relations at the time.
I believe that both nations were ready to recognize the Confederacy right before Gettysburg, but they decided not to because of the Union victory. If the Confederates had won, they would most likely have stepped in.
The most likely turning point that I can see would be just before Antiem. If Lee's plan had not fallen into the hands of McClellan, then likely, the Union would have lost and the Confederacy survived. That is what Turtledove's Great War series supposes.
The victory caused the British and the French to recognize the Confederacy, and provide support against the Union.