The CSA wins: what next in the USA?

[oudi14]

Besides the usual 'What if the South won?' threads, which pop up from time to time, usually at the hands of eager newbies, the most common storyline is about how long slavery would last in a victorious CSA. There is one making the rounds now. I don't want to discuss that aspect very much; it has been done to death, anyway. What I am interested in, is what would have happened to the very strong and active abolitionist movement in the north, if their aims had been thwarted by a southern victory? And how long before slavery would be outlawed in the border states which didn't secede? My answer to the last question is, not immediately, because to free border state slaves would piss off many good folks in those states, and might make them want to 'jump ship' and join their victorious brethren further south. So you might well be stuck with the status quo until perhaps, say 1870, no matter the screams and shrieks coming from Garrison, et al.
So as for the actual timeline; lets say that for whatever reason, Antietam is a decisive confederate victory, and soon after, Britain and France recognize the CSA. [ASB police, control yourselves]
And Lincoln has to ask for terms. This means that he never makes the emancipation proclamation. All parts of the CSA which the union had occupied are evacuated by union forces, but no border state joins the CSA, even though many in Kentucky want to very badly. What is life like in the union in the years ahead? For sure it butterflies away Grant's presidency, in this TL, he's known for winning Shiloh, but not much else.

 

[Anaxagoras]

In your scenario, there will be a lot of anger and resentment towards the abolitionists in many sectors of the North (and they were not especially popular, anyway). They will be blamed for bringing on the war through their extremism and unwillingness to compromise.

 

[profxyz]

I'd think the first thing to think of what would happen to the populations in the Northern states that supported slavery. Would population exchange occur, or would pro-Confederacy groups in border states or even in places like Little Egypt in Illinois wage some sort of guerrilla campaign to free themselves from Northern tyranny? I'd expect the latter more than the former.

And given that, I don't think the North would have been able to abolish slavery in the event of an independent CSA. It would simply inflame some pretty restive areas and no president after Lincoln (who I presume would have to resign or something) would dare risk another split in the Union. For the same reason I'd expect normal trade ties to resume pretty quickly with the South.

No doubt the North will be politically much weaker due to a CSA victory, especially with the border states still in the Union. The fact that the border states can defect to the CSA if displeased would probably give them disproportionate power in the US Congress, Presidents having to bow to some of their demands for fear of losing those territories. But this in turn could well inflame the more staunchly abolitionist areas, and so you might see a resurgence of New England separatism.

One way to unite the country would be to expand more aggressively, so you might see a more McKinley-style imperialism in the USA and perhaps much more intervention under the Monroe Doctrine. Annexation of Haiti or the Dominican Republic, perhaps?

 

[Anaxagoras]

I'd think the first thing to think of what would happen to the populations in the Northern states that supported slavery. Would population exchange occur, or would pro-Confederacy groups in border states or even in places like Little Egypt in Illinois wage some sort of guerrilla campaign to free themselves from Northern tyranny? I'd expect the latter more than the former.

They didn't do that during the war, so why should they do so after it?

 

[TFSmith121]

The dismal science and the liklihood of a surviving "CSA"

Since the Civil War, the Southern US has always been poor.


Given the collapse of Southern cotton's place in the world market due to what historically began being produced in India, Egypt, etc., that's not going to change.


The other staple plantation crops before thre war - tobacco and rice - are not uniquely situated; both were grown elsewhere in the world in the Nineteenth Century, quite successfully.


In terms of climate and capital, the southern US was not particularly well suited to wheats and cereals, which were the cash crops for much of the Midewest, Great Plains, and points west in the Nineteenth Century; while beef, outside of Texas, is not going to be a big export, and that industry will depend on the development of refrigeration for railways and (for export) shipping. The same holds true for fresh fruits and vegetables as commodities.


The southern US is not particularly well-provided with mineral resources that can be extracted economically in the Nineteenth Century, other than oil in Texas, and the development of that industry depends on capital and technology from elsewhere; in addition, Pennsylvania, the Midwest, the Plains, and the Far West. And markets have to develop for POL, as well.

Spindletop didn't occur until 1901, and for very real economic and market reasons.


So they question is - along with how a CSA even survives as an independent nation, which no one ever can provide convincingly - what in the world is such a "nation" going to live off economically in the Nineteenth Century?


Again, Margaret Mictchell called it - the only commodities the South had in abundance were "cotton, and slaves, and arrogance..."


Best

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

Since the Civil War, the Southern US has always been poor.


Given the collapse of Southern cotton's place in the world market due to what historically began being produced in India, Egypt, etc., that's not going to change.


The other staple plantation crops before thre war - tobacco and rice - are not uniquely situated; both were grown elsewhere in the world in the Nineteenth Century, quite successfully.


In terms of climate and capital, the southern US was not particularly well suited to wheats and cereals, which were the cash crops for much of the Midewest, Great Plains, and points west in the Nineteenth Century; while beef, outside of Texas, is not going to be a big export, and that industry will depend on the development of refrigeration for railways and (for export) shipping. The same holds true for fresh fruits and vegetables as commodities.


The southern US is not particularly well-provided with mineral resources that can be extracted economically in the Nineteenth Century, other than oil in Texas, and the development of that industry depends on capital and technology from elsewhere; in addition, Pennsylvania, the Midwest, the Plains, and the Far West. And markets have to develop for POL, as well.

Spindletop didn't occur until 1901, and for very real economic and market reasons.


So they question is - along with how a CSA even survives as an independent nation, which no one ever can provide convincingly - what in the world is such a "nation" going to live off economically in the Nineteenth Century?


Again, Margaret Mictchell called it - the only commodities the South had in abundance were "cotton, and slaves, and arrogance..."


Best

Yes, the South has been poor.

But, Why?

Was it because of the loss of wealth from the Civil War?

Was it because the trade policy was designed to favor Northern Industrialists?


I actually DON'T, pretend to know that answers to that.

But, if these two factors were problems for the South, then an ATL victorious South would be wealthier.

The Boll Weevil is still coming of course.


The North, if the border in the Texas border, still has plenty of room to grow. I don't see a need for increased imperialism.

Though taking steps to make sure the South doesn't get a Pacific Coast, would make some sense, in a sore loser type of way.

This could lead to some interesting rivalry, especially when talk of a Canal gets started.

 

[TFSmith121]

Because their cash crops before 1861 were not after 1865

Cotton, rice, tobacco, even sugarcane and indigo were all being produced elsewhere, often in territories that - even with announced "free trade" policies by the European powers - had political, economic, and geographic ties to the European markets.

Foreign investment in the US was essentially wide open in the Gilded Age, yet the money from London, Paris, etc almost invariably went into the North, Midwest, and points west. US capital did the same.

Interestingly enough, European emigrants did as well.

Having 33 percent of the post-1865 population locked into what amounted to helot status, often slavery by another name, did not do wonders for productivity; having a "planter aristocracy" remain in charge of local politics for much the second half of the Nineteenth Century didn't help either. There is a reason political movements like Fusion came into being, even though they ultimately failed in the face of Jim Crow and white supremacy.

The few "new South" cities that did arise - Atlanta and Birmingham being the most obvious - did so because of almost unique circumstances. The Twentieth Century "Sunbelt" boom came from vastly different economic, political, and technological drivers, most notably massive amounts of direct Federal investment and the post-1900 oil boom in Texas and the Gulf Coast.

Take a look at any modern social and/or economic history of the southern US that focuses on the post-1865 period. The reasons why the south has always lagged are not difficult to discern; those reasons would be even more in play in a CSA that has somehow survived as a nation state.

Best,

 

[David S Poepoe]

Since the Civil War, the Southern US has always been poor.

Given the collapse of Southern cotton's place in the world market due to what historically began being produced in India, Egypt, etc., that's not going to change.

The other staple plantation crops before thre war - tobacco and rice - are not uniquely situated; both were grown elsewhere in the world in the Nineteenth Century, quite successfully.

In terms of climate and capital, the southern US was not particularly well suited to wheats and cereals, which were the cash crops for much of the Midewest, Great Plains, and points west in the Nineteenth Century; while beef, outside of Texas, is not going to be a big export, and that industry will depend on the development of refrigeration for railways and (for export) shipping. The same holds true for fresh fruits and vegetables as commodities.


The southern US is not particularly well-provided with mineral resources that can be extracted economically in the Nineteenth Century, other than oil in Texas, and the development of that industry depends on capital and technology from elsewhere; in addition, Pennsylvania, the Midwest, the Plains, and the Far West. And markets have to develop for POL, as well.

Spindletop didn't occur until 1901, and for very real economic and market reasons.

So they question is - along with how a CSA even survives as an independent nation, which no one ever can provide convincingly - what in the world is such a "nation" going to live off economically in the Nineteenth Century?

Again, Margaret Mictchell called it - the only commodities the South had in abundance were "cotton, and slaves, and arrogance..."

Best

Fine and dandy, but the OP is what is next in the USA.

 

[cubefreak123]

What I'm wondering is if the CSA will be approaching the USA to get many of the raw materials and other necessities it needs to keep its economy going (as TFSmith has pointed out). The US could decide to put themselves into a position to force the CSA into economic dependence and then, once the CSA is basically helpless and sinking in debt, move in to take it back peacefully.

"Oh hey about that debt you owe? How about instead of defaulting and facing economic collapse you hand us Tennessee and we forgive some of that?"

Honestly, the US could force the CSA into the same status as Haiti was after they beat out the French.

 

[profxyz]

They didn't do that during the war, so why should they do so after it?

Well if an independent CSA proves itself to be able to win independence through arms it would prove that it has the military capabilities to defend its interests and the Union does not; that knowledge and the security that comes with it was entirely lacking during the actual Civil War.

Well economic dependence works both ways. Just as the CSA will big consumer of US raw materials, the US will also be a big consumer of Southern money. Trade will undoubtedly make for some really vocal constituencies that fear losing business. Now I don't think trade alone will prevent war between the USA and CSA, but given the extremely weak position of the USA in the event of a CSA partial victory, I don't think the US is in much position to start making demands.

A quickly independent CSA would not have changed cotton markets too much, I suspect. Egypt, especially, only began growing cotton when the lengthy Civil War depleted stocks and pushed prices up. It was a big investment and it bankrupted the khedive, so an 1862 resolution of the ACW probably would have stopped that plan. But in any case, agricultural countries are not doomed to economic and political failure and the CSA, especially, will probably engage in some state-led industrialization (probably financed by Northern capitalists) in order to catch up to the USA.

 

[frlmerrin]

Cotton, rice, tobacco, even sugarcane and indigo were all being produced elsewhere, often in territories that - even with announced "free trade" policies by the European powers - had political, economic, and geographic ties to the European markets.

Sauce for the goose - sauce for the gander.

Which products of the USA in this period were not 'all being produced elsewhere'?

Is this not just another logical fallacy and exercise in rhetoric?

Bestest,

 

[othyrsyde]

Settlement of the western states would have been different. Many southerners left for the future western states after the ACW. Now I'm sure many southerners would end up out there to escape what is almost certain to be a horrid economy and political situation after the war, but probably not as many. More direct European immigration would make up the difference of course, and probably leave different cultural echoes in the regions than OTL (different accents and food).

Also you would not have a great migration of African Americans to the north and California. Certainly many would escape to the US, but again due to them being foreign residents now and the probable resentment against abolitionists and African Americans in general in the Union, they would be easily deported back to the south. This might even effect the Union population of Blacks, as they could be targeted and deported to south if seen as 'trouble makers' by the government . IMO, I see a larger population of African Americans moving west (to found their own communities or join Native tribes), to Canada, and Liberia to escape this discrimination.

The idea of even more aggressive expansion and destruction of the plains tribes could easily occur too in some tragic attempt for the Union to make up for losing the war. So more outright genocide there. The only bright spot I could see is the possibility some of the tribes along the western border between the US and CSA end up serving as proxy forces in regulating each others frontier for a time.

 

[UncleDynamite]

Sauce for the goose - sauce for the gander.

Which products of the USA in this period were not 'all being produced elsewhere'?

Is this not just another logical fallacy and exercise in rhetoric?

Bestest,

The point is that a CSA would be a pariah state and other nations would have no reason to trade with it. I doubt the US would be willing to, and most European countries had shifted their source of cotton to Egypt, India, and the Caribbean by this time.

While the US did not produce anything unique its large size and industrial base allowed quantities unheard of anywhere else in the world. For example: 10 years after the civil war, cheap American grain(produced in the Great Plains and Midwest) began to flood the market in Europe. In 1910, the US produced more steel than Germany and Britain combined.

These are advantages that the CSA would not have. The CSA was small, undeveloped, and right next door to a pissed-off neighbor. Also consider, even with a formal peace, the US Navy(in 1865, the largest in the world) would be on the high seas making things hell for them.

 

[frlmerrin]

The point is that a CSA would be a pariah state and other nations would have no reason to trade with it. I doubt the US would be willing to, and most European countries had shifted their source of cotton to Egypt, India, and the Caribbean by this time.

While the US did not produce anything unique its large size and industrial base allowed quantities unheard of anywhere else in the world. For example: 10 years after the civil war, cheap American grain(produced in the Great Plains and Midwest) began to flood the market in Europe. In 1910, the US produced more steel than Germany and Britain combined.

These are advantages that the CSA would not have. The CSA was small, undeveloped, and right next door to a pissed-off neighbor. Also consider, even with a formal peace, the US Navy(in 1865, the largest in the world) would be on the high seas making things hell for them.

The points you make, whatever their merit are not the point being made in the quote which I addressed in my quote. You have answered an argument of your own construction not the argument being made.

 

[UncleDynamite]

The points you make, whatever their merit are not the point being made in the quote which I addressed in my quote. You have answered an argument of your own construction not the argument being made.

It's exactly the point. What reason would a vengeful US or a disgusted Europe have to trade with the South?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Given the collapse of Southern cotton's place in the world market due to what historically began being produced in India, Egypt, etc., that's not going to change.

Was cotton production in Egypt, India, ect... increasing because of the ACW and associated blockade of the Confederacy? Or, were there other reasons. Assuming higher quality Confederacy cotton is still in demand then they Southern leaders might uncomfortablly find themselves in bondage to English mill owners and London bankers. This would not be unlike pre Revolution colonial planters who were mortaged to their last acre and slave to London banks.

Alternately the British abolitionist movement may interfere with investment in the Confederacy, the last major slave holding nation. Leaving them more free and less wealthy.

 

[UncleDynamite]

Was cotton production in Egypt, India, ect... increasing because of the ACW and associated blockade of the Confederacy? Or, were there other reasons. Assuming higher quality Confederacy cotton is still in demand then they Southern leaders might uncomfortablly find themselves in bondage to English mill owners and London bankers. This would not be unlike pre Revolution colonial planters who were mortaged to their last acre and slave to London banks.

Alternately the British abolitionist movement may interfere with investment in the Confederacy, the last major slave holding nation. Leaving them more free and less wealthy.

The war and the blockade were the main cause of the shift in cotton, but I doubt we'd see a shift back if the South wins(OTL the British continued to expand cotton production in India, albeit at a slower pace) due to the abolitionist spirit in Britain being strong and the US still having a huge navy that could severely disrupt trade, even after a "peace".

 

[Anaxagoras]

The OP is asking about the postwar situation in the Union, but all anyone is talking about is the Confederacy.

 

[othyrsyde]

The OP is asking about the postwar situation in the Union, but all anyone is talking about is the Confederacy.

I even posted something about the OP and it was completely ignored by the age old cotton debate.

But it seems another cycle of ACW threads is about to surface again, and this is about the only topic on the subject never really considered beyond a superficial level. Sad.

 

[eliphas8]

I would expect the abolitionists to for the most part shift goals from trying to actively illegalize slavery in the US to creating as effective an underground railroad as possible alongside an electoral campaign to strangle the confederate economy, and possibly even advocating of reclaiming sections of states which voted heavily unionist in the original secession votes.