Why do people assume the Confederacy will liberalize post-war?
- Thread starter Band in China
- Start date
I think the only plausible pathway for an independent Confederacy involve circumstances where the union lets the South leave.
Beyond that, if the Confederacy decides to not limit its wrongs to its domestic affairs but decides to do things with obvious negative consequences outside the Confederacy like getting into the opium trade for export, of course there will be deeply negative consequences.
As far as I know, Brazil was the 4th largest place for immigration. While it received less than places like the USA, Argentina and Canada, it was much higher than the rest. The rest had prohibited slavery. What matters most for immigration is the economy, imigrates want a better life. So for the economy of countries to be attractive to imigrates, they have to have a lack of labor. The migration went to the economic heart of the American continent. Which is also the most European-friendly area with temperatures that are similar to northern and southern Europe.
And will northern Americans want these people? I don't want to sound like an asshole, but it's not like black people are popular in the north. There is a huge difference between being against slavery and treating black people well. A fear of a black wave over the white Protestant nation is easy to conjure.
Last edited:
Another thing, the loss against the confederation could weaken the USA as an institution. The idea that with the loss to the Confederates only the South will suffer is too simplistic. We may very well see the end of the idea of usa. Or greater centralization of the country.
I expect Black people would not be welcome, the Great Migration also only happened after restrictions on external immigration had been established and the Northern capitalist ended up going after Black southerners. In a world without this recruitment pool, you will likely see greater recruitment among rural Northern and Midwestern population like it was seen in Europe, but likely also more industry outside the major cities.
I don’t think USA as such will suffer, it will or course change. Washington won’t stay the capital, it will likely be moved inland, they can place it in the middle between West and East Coast or midway the major population centers on the coast and in the Midwest. Outside that there won’t be the solid South so that means other electoral coalitions. If industrial workers end up recruited among the rural population and more rural industry are established, you will likely see stronger worker-farmer coalitions. I could easily see a political landscape dominated by a liberal right and a labor left, it’s also not impossible that PR system being established and the presidency and Senate are weakened.
One question, what was the impact of cotton production on the rise of the industrial north. Was it a fundamental factor or just an extra?
This would be different and in some ways very unique for the USA.
The South, under the planter regime, did turn to textile manufacturing during the agricultural and railroading "Long Depression" c. 1837-1853, especially in Georgia, the "Empire State" of the South, which possessed an abundance of water-power. In summary:
"When agriculture suffered, mill building flourished. When agricultural profits rose, Georgia’s textile industry floundered. Georgians rationally pursued profits in both agriculture and industry but were mindful of market forces and the history of risks in each area. Nonetheless, despite the setbacks of the late antebellum period, the industrial facilities and expertise developed by Georgians before the war contributed to the Confederacy’s logistical ability to fight a truly modern war for four years against the industrial behemoth of the North."
-- M. Gagnon, "Antebellum Industrialization", New Georgia Encyclopedia
How can this tendency be developed once new agricultural depressions occur? Especially within the financially-independent Confederacy?
"Take Georgia, one of the most progressive and enterprising States of the South. In 1860 the value of agricultural lands returned for taxation was $157,000,000. In 1866 it was $105,000,000, a loss of 33 per cent. In 1886 the farmers of Georgia owned 72 per cent. of the wealth of the State; in 1888 they owned only 24 per cent.; yet during that time the population increased 60 per cent. In a recent address made by Hon. L.F. Livingston, of that State, he said that during the past ten years the property in the towns and cities of that State had increased in value $60,000,000, while in the agricultural districts it had decreased $50,000,000..."
-- Agricultural Depression. Its Causes--the Remedy. Speech of L. L. Polk, President of the National Farmers' Alliance and Industrial Union, before the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. April 22, 1890
Nonetheless, the progress of Confederate economy in 1865-1880 compared to OTL is most intriguing. As R. Taylor noted, shortly before the 1880s industrial boom: "Bank stocks, bonds, all personal property, all accumulated wealth, had disappeared. Thousands of houses, farm-buildings, work-animals, flocks and herds, had been wantonly burned, killed, or carried off..." The Cotton-States subsequently suffered financial and economic spoliation and governmental corruption, as well as the hostile acts of the Radical Congress and electoral grinding of the "outrage mill", harming outside investment and speculation. Southern public and private debt from the 1870s was massive, far greater than it had been in 1865.
"Capital had long since fled from the South, and was diverted in other directions. Money could only be had at enormous rates of interest (75 per cent to 80 per cent). The North and West were enjoying the greatest financial prosperity in their history. All capital was being used in booming and building up the Northwest into new States and increasing their material wealth. This was being done to its utmost limit, and there was no money to help the South. The great Western railroads were being built, backed by enormous grants of public lands by Congress, and these roads were planting immigrants (500,000 foreign) and citizens from other States in the West. Immigration had even gone westward from the people of the South who had despaired of better days (primarily to Texas). There was no immigration southward (aside from Virginia). The increase in population was only the natural one. There were but few banks, and Southern men had few friends among the great financiers anywhere. The South, in its looted and prostrated condition, offered no invitation to capital which promised even prospective returns. Northern capital strictly avoided the South in those gloomy days. To all appearances, the South was paralyzed. Her great wealth, as shown by the census of 1850 and 1860, which had been the accumulation from the earliest days, in slave property and material investments in all possible directions, had been swept away..."
-- Confederate Military History, Volume XII, Part XII
I think the instinct to overproduce cotton will continue, ultimately depreciating its global market price, although the growth of British spindleage is slowing compared to America and the Continent. All-in-all, morally and commercially, England is not like to be the consumer she was prior to secession, although some men think rapid Southern rail development is dependent on British capital as it was c. 1856-1861, even though Howell Cobb's "direct trade" group was fostering Continental connections, at least for the Georgian planter.
"When agriculture suffered, mill building flourished. When agricultural profits rose, Georgia’s textile industry floundered. Georgians rationally pursued profits in both agriculture and industry but were mindful of market forces and the history of risks in each area. Nonetheless, despite the setbacks of the late antebellum period, the industrial facilities and expertise developed by Georgians before the war contributed to the Confederacy’s logistical ability to fight a truly modern war for four years against the industrial behemoth of the North."
-- M. Gagnon, "Antebellum Industrialization", New Georgia Encyclopedia
How can this tendency be developed once new agricultural depressions occur? Especially within the financially-independent Confederacy?
"Take Georgia, one of the most progressive and enterprising States of the South. In 1860 the value of agricultural lands returned for taxation was $157,000,000. In 1866 it was $105,000,000, a loss of 33 per cent. In 1886 the farmers of Georgia owned 72 per cent. of the wealth of the State; in 1888 they owned only 24 per cent.; yet during that time the population increased 60 per cent. In a recent address made by Hon. L.F. Livingston, of that State, he said that during the past ten years the property in the towns and cities of that State had increased in value $60,000,000, while in the agricultural districts it had decreased $50,000,000..."
-- Agricultural Depression. Its Causes--the Remedy. Speech of L. L. Polk, President of the National Farmers' Alliance and Industrial Union, before the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. April 22, 1890
Nonetheless, the progress of Confederate economy in 1865-1880 compared to OTL is most intriguing. As R. Taylor noted, shortly before the 1880s industrial boom: "Bank stocks, bonds, all personal property, all accumulated wealth, had disappeared. Thousands of houses, farm-buildings, work-animals, flocks and herds, had been wantonly burned, killed, or carried off..." The Cotton-States subsequently suffered financial and economic spoliation and governmental corruption, as well as the hostile acts of the Radical Congress and electoral grinding of the "outrage mill", harming outside investment and speculation. Southern public and private debt from the 1870s was massive, far greater than it had been in 1865.
"Capital had long since fled from the South, and was diverted in other directions. Money could only be had at enormous rates of interest (75 per cent to 80 per cent). The North and West were enjoying the greatest financial prosperity in their history. All capital was being used in booming and building up the Northwest into new States and increasing their material wealth. This was being done to its utmost limit, and there was no money to help the South. The great Western railroads were being built, backed by enormous grants of public lands by Congress, and these roads were planting immigrants (500,000 foreign) and citizens from other States in the West. Immigration had even gone westward from the people of the South who had despaired of better days (primarily to Texas). There was no immigration southward (aside from Virginia). The increase in population was only the natural one. There were but few banks, and Southern men had few friends among the great financiers anywhere. The South, in its looted and prostrated condition, offered no invitation to capital which promised even prospective returns. Northern capital strictly avoided the South in those gloomy days. To all appearances, the South was paralyzed. Her great wealth, as shown by the census of 1850 and 1860, which had been the accumulation from the earliest days, in slave property and material investments in all possible directions, had been swept away..."
-- Confederate Military History, Volume XII, Part XII
I think the instinct to overproduce cotton will continue, ultimately depreciating its global market price, although the growth of British spindleage is slowing compared to America and the Continent. All-in-all, morally and commercially, England is not like to be the consumer she was prior to secession, although some men think rapid Southern rail development is dependent on British capital as it was c. 1856-1861, even though Howell Cobb's "direct trade" group was fostering Continental connections, at least for the Georgian planter.
The problem with this thinking is that the CSA can only realistically win the war if the USA decides that it is not worth fighting anymore. This would probably be due to Lincoln losing re-election in 1864.
If the American public has decided, via the 1864 election, that it wants a negotiated peace with the CSA, why would it change its mind later?
I think it is more likely that the USA in a post-war scenario would simply move on and decide that the south and its 40 % slave population is not its problem to deal with.
Last edited:
By the 1910s they're getting pissed off about illegal immigration and opium smuggling?
Maybe - there could certainly be tensions between the two nations. But would Americans actually want to conquer the CSA? If you are concerned with illegal immigration, you probably do not want to conquer the the source country.
Thing is, I don't think that there's any reasonable case that Lincoln losing the election in 1864 somehow saves the Confederacy. By 1864, the Confederacy is doomed. It literally has a bare month or two's survival after the new President, McClellan is inaugurated. In a McClellan victory, the Confederacy is crushed, either before he takes office, or right after. There's no reasonable alternative.
And even if the Union says 'okey doke' we'll allow you to exist.... Well, by 1864, Texas and Louisiana are lost. The Mississippi basin is lost. What's left of the Confederacy is bisected into two coastal lumps, in both of which most of the individual surviving Confederate states have lost a lot of territory. So what are we looking at? A generous union allowing this rump, gutted Confederacy to survive? A Super-Generous Union handing back the territories it already occupies in each of the surviving component Confederate states.... the way it didn't in West Virginia? A Super-Duper Generous Union handily repealing the Emancipation Proclamation, and cheerfully repatriating hundreds of thousands of freed slaves back into slavery? A SUPER-DUPER-INSANELY-GENEROUS Union handing back the Mississippi? Texas? Louisiana? Some territories? And literally gutting its geo-strategic position in the continent... all for... reasons? Well if its for.... reasons... why not have the Union voluntarily embrace massive taxation to pay reparations to the Confederacy as well, they'll need it.
The only way you get the Confederacy surviving after an 1864 Election is if the POD is actually 1860 or 1861, and the Confederacy is in dramatically, perhaps incredibly better shape, and the Union is startlingly weaker by 1864. And frankly, the Confederacy did incredibly well, its hard to see how they could be sufficiently better.
Last edited:
One observation - I think the discussion get a little confused.
Industrialization and Liberalization are two different things.
Hypothetically, the Confederacy could industrialize without liberalizing.
If could also liberalize without industrializing.
It could neither Industrialize nor liberalize.
Conceivably it could industrialize AND liberalize.
I have my views as to which outcomes are likeliest. But they are distinct outcomes.
Industrialization and Liberalization are two different things.
Hypothetically, the Confederacy could industrialize without liberalizing.
If could also liberalize without industrializing.
It could neither Industrialize nor liberalize.
Conceivably it could industrialize AND liberalize.
I have my views as to which outcomes are likeliest. But they are distinct outcomes.
The CSA can't industrialize very well without petroleum resources (scarce to nonexistent east of the Mississippi) and publicly-funded infrastructure (explicitly forbidden by their Constitution).
If i can remember it right, theoretically, there's nothing stopping the individual state governments from funding such enterprises themselves, but whether they'd want to do so is another story...
[ Drive through rural Mississippi, a century and a half later, and judge for yourself the state's willingness to fund things. ]
Well yes, I don't mean to suggest that the POD is the 1864 election itself, but that the path to CSA independence is to somehow keep the war a stalemate until the election and have Lincoln lose. It is a difficult path for them.
If it’s me you ask, I mean liberal in the context of individual and economic liberties, meaning few restrictions on industry, and strong liberal social rights for the individual, but likely also attack on people‘s right to organize collective (unions), fundamentally I mean Libertarian light.
I disagree, I don’t see the existing social model as viable for industrialization, it either have to liberalize to create a strong middle class those consumption can fuel the industrialization or it have to turn into a state capitalist system, where the state force industrialization through in a top down manners as we saw in USSR, China, other Communist states and many Arab nationalists states. I don’t see a state capitalist state accept the strong planter class and the easiest way to break them is to free their slaves. As for the creation of a strong middle class it also demand the freeing of the slaves, as a large part of the population working at very low wages will push the wages down for all and keep any large middle class from being established, access to cheap labor will also keep the CSA as a rather unskilled economy as there’s less need for labor saving devices.
We can again use Apartheid South Africa as rough model, 10% having high income country living standards, 10% having middle income country living standards and 80% having low income country living standards (this is simplified, the two first group will likely be bigger, and CSA will have a small elite which will have Gulf state citizen living standards). Of course CSA will be in a better and worse position with more White people (better for the regime) as many White people will belong to the last group too (worse for the regime), resulting in White people having less interest in upholding the systems.
You don’t really need petroleum to industrialize in fact, there seem to be a negative correlation between industrialization and having large amount of oil and gas. Coal and hydro power have a positive correlation.