Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting. A nation made of those American states and Canadian provinces on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence would be an industrial, financial and agricultural powerhouse. Sounds good to me.
It is interesting, isn't it? And opens up an entire new area of study. I'm going to have to do some research into the political situation in Canada 1850 through 1900 to get a clearer picture of what was happening there. Since my grandmother was from Quebec, there's a personal interest as well.
As mentioned, cotton was king, and in the 20th century oil was king. Pretty sure Nevada would have ended up in the CSA without the war, so the CSA ends up with all the silver and later gambling revenue from Las Vegas. Then there would be all the revenue from tourism in Florida and perhaps Cuba as well. Now factor in the two different styles of governments, and tell me which one big business would prefer to operate in, the trust busting unionized one or the robber baron paradise of the CSA ? I'm sure southern labor might have eventually demanded higher wages but not like in the north.
And the north would have got what it wanted, to be rid of slavery within it's new borders in the 19th century and a european like socialized democracy in the 20th. Most of the conservative types would gravitate to the south and the liberal types would move north. Less political bickering in both countries and I think it would have worked out well for both sides.
The same prophecy of failure was made about the new U.S.A. after the Revolution, and for a decade or more it looked to come true. But, obviously, it didn't.
Because the did not base their economy on slavery and did not have pretty much complete contempt for education and industrialization. Because X led to something, does not mean Y with a totally different set of values will. The southern leadership then, and now, was woefully unprepared to support a modern economy.
Its why, even with massive subsidies from the rest of the country it remains the least developed part of the country. Their opposition to roads and other internal improvements made it worse.
Nevada and the West other than New Mexico perhaps would not have been part of the south. Slavery had no basis there and the region was primarily loyal to the North where most of the population and value set came from. More importantly, the North (even had it left the states go) would never have let the territories go and it had the preponderance of the military power.
As mentioned, cotton was king, and in the 20th century oil was king. Pretty sure Nevada would have ended up in the CSA without the war, so the CSA ends up with all the silver and later gambling revenue from Las Vegas. Then there would be all the revenue from tourism in Florida and perhaps Cuba as well. Now factor in the two different styles of governments, and tell me which one big business would prefer to operate in, the trust busting unionized one or the robber baron paradise of the CSA ? I'm sure southern labor might have eventually demanded higher wages but not like in the north.
And the north would have got what it wanted, to be rid of slavery within it's new borders in the 19th century and a european like socialized democracy in the 20th. Most of the conservative types would gravitate to the south and the liberal types would move north. Less political bickering in both countries and I think it would have worked out well for both sides.
But the south soon learned that cotton wasn't the end all of commerce during the civil war when Europe pretty much came to the conclusion that they didn't need it (and thus Europe stayed out of the war). England was already obtaining cotton from Egypt and India and, later, synthetic replacements were manufactured.
As for the tourist meccas of Las Vegas and Florida - that's making many assumptions based on the alternative history that is being proposed. Las Vegas came to prominence for gambling tourism based on 1.) The organized crime families of the north, and 2.) WW2. If the CSA was successful, it's fairly safe to assume that Las Vegas would not exist. Same logic can be proposed for Florida. Besides, tourist revenue is beneficial only locally (for the most part) and, for Florida, only replaces the state income tax.
Anyways, the CSA's New Mexico campaign never made it that far north or west so it's safe to assume that if the CSA won the war Nevada would not have been claimed.
Because the did not base their economy on slavery and did not have pretty much complete contempt for education and industrialization. Because X led to something, does not mean Y with a totally different set of values will. The southern leadership then, and now, was woefully unprepared to support a modern economy.
Its why, even with massive subsidies from the rest of the country it remains the least developed part of the country. Their opposition to roads and other internal improvements made it worse.
What opposition to roads and other internal improvements?
At the time of the Civil War, there certainly wasn't contempt for education, as the leadership of the South was very well-educated. And there wasn't contempt for industrialization, either. You might consider who was subsidizing whom at the time of the Civil War. While the industrial economy of the North was gaining traction, in part because of the urban population that is required for industrialization, there is a reason why the Southern states consistently opposed tariffs, and the Northern states supported them, at a time when tariffs were the primary source of income for the federal government, and at a time when the federal government was supporting infrastructure projects in the NORTH.
There wasn't contempt for industrialization, see Birmingham, AL, for example, but there wasn't a population base to support industrialization.
As mentioned, cotton was king, and in the 20th century oil was king. Pretty sure Nevada would have ended up in the CSA without the war, so the CSA ends up with all the silver and later gambling revenue from Las Vegas. Then there would be all the revenue from tourism in Florida and perhaps Cuba as well. Now factor in the two different styles of governments, and tell me which one big business would prefer to operate in, the trust busting unionized one or the robber baron paradise of the CSA ? I'm sure southern labor might have eventually demanded higher wages but not like in the north.
And the north would have got what it wanted, to be rid of slavery within it's new borders in the 19th century and a european like socialized democracy in the 20th. Most of the conservative types would gravitate to the south and the liberal types would move north. Less political bickering in both countries and I think it would have worked out well for both sides.
Actually, at the time of the Civil War, the South was far more liberal culturally and socially, than the North. Poverty after the war changed this, but if the South had won the war, that trend would have been substantially impacted.
Nevada and the West other than New Mexico perhaps would not have been part of the south. Slavery had no basis there and the region was primarily loyal to the North where most of the population and value set came from. More importantly, the North (even had it left the states go) would never have let the territories go and it had the preponderance of the military power.
Yeah, they probably had till about 1870 to make up their minds. I sort of think cowboys and miners fit better into the south, had they chose the north later they might have regretted it. Lincoln put alot of pressure on Nevada to rush them into statehood.
I think there would have been a city like Las Vegas pop up somewhere in the south, if not founded by gangsters from the north, maybe gangsters from the south. The favorable climate of the south would always draw in lots of Yankee dollars, and whatever entertainment venues they desired, I'm sure would have been provided, with some southern hospitality to boot.
My main point about the south becoming a wealthy nation stems from them having oil reserves, and the north having hardly any at all. Perhaps tourism from people visiting the north from the south would be of more importance to the north, than the reverse for the south.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
