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.
OK. I don't know a lot about the US Civil War. I will post this before reading the whole thread.
I think that the Confederates would have had a power struggle with their overseas military backers. The absence of promised support [ was it from the French?] was one reason for the South losing. Let's suppose that the French had provided backing in weapons, soldiers etc for the South to win. The French would want something in return right? So I predict this:
The South would have become a part Francophile zone [ e.g like Quebec] and part Confederate. There would still be a hold out area in the North - a bit like the rump of the fallen Roman Empire. So in short you have the US as 3 countries: Confederate Country in part South and part where the Union was, Francophile Land in some eras - Heck let's say Texas - and a Union Rump somewhere with maybe 10% of the land.
I don't think Britain would have got that involved, we had too many fingers in too many pies ( Africa, Australia, India), America was too far away and there were trust issues, ( though the South had undoubted cultural and blood links to the British Isles), the North was beginning to become less Anglo and more industrialised. The British elite definitely was in love with the South but the mill workers, working class actually supported the Union. That's why both the North and South mistook British indecision as an insult. Cant win. Britain should have used its influence to bring the country together.
OK. I don't know a lot about the US Civil War. I will post this before reading the whole thread.
I think that the Confederates would have had a power struggle with their overseas military backers. The absence of promised support [ was it from the French?] was one reason for the South losing. Let's suppose that the French had provided backing in weapons, soldiers etc for the South to win. The French would want something in return right? So I predict this:
The South would have become a part Francophile zone [ e.g like Quebec] and part Confederate. There would still be a hold out area in the North - a bit like the rump of the fallen Roman Empire. So in short you have the US as 3 countries: Confederate Country in part South and part where the Union was, Francophile Land in some eras - Heck let's say Texas - and a Union Rump somewhere with maybe 10% of the land.
Well, what I'm considering this. I'm considering if the South won, with everything else(including lack of support from the French) stayed the same.
If there was a Francophile zone, I suspect it would have been South Louisiana(also known as Cajun country). From what I've read, alot of Cajuns did not want to fight for the Confederacy. I would imagine they would have Francophile sentiments, as they speak French and are of French descent.
I would also imagine there could have been tensions between the English and French-speaking populations in that state over the war.
Let's just assume that instead of the South securing some sort of decisive military victory, that the North simply said the hell with it and just let the South go. Maybe because the war was becoming too costly, or because it became politically unpopular a la Vietnam in the early 1970s............whatever. Let's just say the North sat down with the South and worked out a treaty to allow the CSA to become their own sovereign, independent nation.
Would slavery have continued? Of course, but it wouldn't have lasted to the present day. Switching back to actual history for a moment here, many if not most blacks in the South were barely free for decades after the Civil War. Because most blacks had no job/vocational training (thanks to the dissolution of the Freedmen's Bureau), they simply continued to pick cotton for generations after the Civil War ended and the 13th Amendment was passed. Why? Because they didn't know how to do anything else. Yes, they were compensated, but just barely. Many if not most were sharecroppers (and to be fair, yes there were white sharecroppers but thanks to the racial caste system that was in place in the South until the 1960s, you were still better off being poor and white than poor and black).
Again, sticking with actual history for a moment here - many blacks did not "get off the plantation" until the 1910s and 1920s, or even later than that in some cases. Why? Because that's when agriculture became heavily mechanized to the point to where sharecroppers and large numbers of cotton pickers were simply not needed. The machine did it 10 times faster than any man could. After all, that's what spurred the first Great Migration that lasted from about 1910 until the Great Depression (1930 or so).
So in this alternate universe where the CSA was victorious, I think slavery would've stuck around a good 60-80 years after the end of the Civil War. It would not have ended within 10-20 years of the Civil War like many people on here have predicted. It would've lasted, I think up until about the 1920s or so.
When machines took over field work and slaves no longer had a purpose, southern whites (both rich and poor) would've still had all the hatred for blacks that they had in past generations, but they no longer would've had a use for them. Given that in actual history, the 1910s and 1920s were a time of great racial tension in the U.S. and a revival of the previously dormant KKK and other similar right-wing hate groups, I think what we could've been looking at is a full-scale, Holocaust-style genocide of blacks in the CSA right around the same time that the Nazis were coming to power in Germany.
This means that whatever was left of the USA would've had to make a decision about whether or not to intervene the way we intervened in Germany and liberated the Jews. Of course, one must remember that the only reason we got involved with the war in Europe is because we were attacked by Germany's ally, Japan. If the CSA left the USA alone politically and militarily, would we have had the moral conviction to intervene in a genocide taking place right next door? Especially if storm clouds were already brewing over Europe?
Even more so, what if this genocide took place a few years before Pearl Harbor (assuming Pearl Harbor still happened). Would we have been stretched too thin to fight Japan and/or Germany? I think so. We could've done a couple of things at that point. We could've given up on whatever CSA war we were fighting in order to concentrate on the country that actually attacked us (Japan).
But who's to say Hitler would not have allied himself with a genocidal CSA? He allied himself with Imperial Japan, whose leaders had very similar views of themselves as the Nazis did of the "Aryan race", i.e. Japanese political and military leaders believed that the Japanese were a superior race and used that as justification for conquering Korea, parts of China, etc. So it seems plausible to me that Hitler could've or would've allied himself with a CSA that was hell bent on exterminating its black slaves once they no longer had a use for them in a more industrialized world.
Bottom line - Hitler might've won. Even though in this alternate universe, he is still an enemy of Stalin, the Brits, and what is left of the USA.
Obviously, this is all speculation and food for thought. There are not just one or two, but countless different twists and turns in history that could've played out differently and dramatically altered the course of events even after a hypothetical CSA victory. It's just something to think about, especially nowadays when white liberals in the U.S. say that maybe we should just let the South secede again.
Let's just assume that instead of the South securing some sort of decisive military victory, that the North simply said the hell with it and just let the South go. Maybe because the war was becoming too costly, or because it became politically unpopular a la Vietnam in the early 1970s............whatever. Let's just say the North sat down with the South and worked out a treaty to allow the CSA to become their own sovereign, independent nation.
Would slavery have continued? Of course, but it wouldn't have lasted to the present day. Switching back to actual history for a moment here, many if not most blacks in the South were barely free for decades after the Civil War. Because most blacks had no job/vocational training (thanks to the dissolution of the Freedmen's Bureau), they simply continued to pick cotton for generations after the Civil War ended and the 13th Amendment was passed. Why? Because they didn't know how to do anything else. Yes, they were compensated, but just barely. Many if not most were sharecroppers (and to be fair, yes there were white sharecroppers but thanks to the racial caste system that was in place in the South until the 1960s, you were still better off being poor and white than poor and black).
Again, sticking with actual history for a moment here - many blacks did not "get off the plantation" until the 1910s and 1920s, or even later than that in some cases. Why? Because that's when agriculture became heavily mechanized to the point to where sharecroppers and large numbers of cotton pickers were simply not needed. The machine did it 10 times faster than any man could. After all, that's what spurred the first Great Migration that lasted from about 1910 until the Great Depression (1930 or so).
So in this alternate universe where the CSA was victorious, I think slavery would've stuck around a good 60-80 years after the end of the Civil War. It would not have ended within 10-20 years of the Civil War like many people on here have predicted. It would've lasted, I think up until about the 1920s or so.
When machines took over field work and slaves no longer had a purpose, southern whites (both rich and poor) would've still had all the hatred for blacks that they had in past generations, but they no longer would've had a use for them. Given that in actual history, the 1910s and 1920s were a time of great racial tension in the U.S. and a revival of the previously dormant KKK and other similar right-wing hate groups, I think what we could've been looking at is a full-scale, Holocaust-style genocide of blacks in the CSA right around the same time that the Nazis were coming to power in Germany.
This means that whatever was left of the USA would've had to make a decision about whether or not to intervene the way we intervened in Germany and liberated the Jews. Of course, one must remember that the only reason we got involved with the war in Europe is because we were attacked by Germany's ally, Japan. If the CSA left the USA alone politically and militarily, would we have had the moral conviction to intervene in a genocide taking place right next door? Especially if storm clouds were already brewing over Europe?
Even more so, what if this genocide took place a few years before Pearl Harbor (assuming Pearl Harbor still happened). Would we have been stretched too thin to fight Japan and/or Germany? I think so. We could've done a couple of things at that point. We could've given up on whatever CSA war we were fighting in order to concentrate on the country that actually attacked us (Japan).
But who's to say Hitler would not have allied himself with a genocidal CSA? He allied himself with Imperial Japan, whose leaders had very similar views of themselves as the Nazis did of the "Aryan race", i.e. Japanese political and military leaders believed that the Japanese were a superior race and used that as justification for conquering Korea, parts of China, etc. So it seems plausible to me that Hitler could've or would've allied himself with a CSA that was hell bent on exterminating its black slaves once they no longer had a use for them in a more industrialized world.
Bottom line - Hitler might've won. Even though in this alternate universe, he is still an enemy of Stalin, the Brits, and what is left of the USA.
Obviously, this is all speculation and food for thought. There are not just one or two, but countless different twists and turns in history that could've played out differently and dramatically altered the course of events even after a hypothetical CSA victory. It's just something to think about, especially nowadays when white liberals in the U.S. say that maybe we should just let the South secede again.
I was following the alternative narrative well until you used modern day political dividing words like "right wing" for the early 1900's. If Hitler would have had an allies it would have been those early twentieth century progressives that he modeled himself after. That would have been the Californian Government, New Yorkers and other eastern seaboard elitist that where practicing eugenics. The founder of planned parenthood and the like.
I was following the alternative narrative well until you used modern day political dividing words like "right wing" for the early 1900's. If Hitler would have had an allies it would have been those early twentieth century progressives that he modeled himself after. That would have been the Californian Government, New Yorkers and other eastern seaboard elitist that where practicing eugenics. The founder of planned parenthood and the like.
I am neither liberal nor conservative. If it makes you feel better to use some other word, then whatever.
think that just looking at the economic status or the states that formed the Confederacy is extremely telling.
At the bottom of the per capita income ladder we have Mississippi(50), Arkansas(49), Alabama (45), South Carolina (42), Tennessee (40), Georgia (37), North Carolina (36), Texas (30), at Florida (28). Only Virginia at #5 breaks into the top 25.
So what would the Confederate States look like today without Federal transfers?
Most dependent states on Federal transfers:
Mississippi(49), Alabama (47), Louisiana (43), South Carolina (40), Tennessee (39), Georgia (37),
Florida (32), North Carolina (30), only Virginia (25 $1.27/1.00 in tax) and Texas, (24 $.79/1.00) make it out of the bottom 25.
think that just looking at the economic status or the states that formed the Confederacy is extremely telling.
At the bottom of the per capita income ladder we have Mississippi(50), Arkansas(49), Alabama (45), South Carolina (42), Tennessee (40), Georgia (37), North Carolina (36), Texas (30), at Florida (28). Only Virginia at #5 breaks into the top 25.
So what would the Confederate States look like today without Federal transfers?
Most dependent states on Federal transfers:
Mississippi(49), Alabama (47), Louisiana (43), South Carolina (40), Tennessee (39), Georgia (37),
Florida (32), North Carolina (30), only Virginia (25 $1.27/1.00 in tax) and Texas, (24 $.79/1.00) make it out of the bottom 25.
Just to give you a comparison with other nations:
And Virginia would not be nearly as prosperous as it is today without the explosive growth that has occurred there over over the past several decades thanks to it's proximity to the capital of a strong and prosperous (and united) USA and the growth of it's federal government. This is manifested greatly both in the suburbs of Washington D.C. and the areas benefiting economically from the military bases around the Hampton Roads/Norfolk area. Some of this would have been offset had the CSA capital remained at Richmond, but even at that the benefits would not be nearly
enough to equate with what the have now, particularly if one assumes that the C
SA would have been organized in accordance with a strong state's rights/weak central government philosophy.
I think that an independent CSA would have been a very poverty stricken nation with a small wealthy elite. And, yes, I think the African-American population would have suffered much more than they did. I think the South is clear example of a people who are much better off having had lost a war than they would have been had they won it (although the wealthy elite probably would have benefited immensely from a CSA victory)
Also...many African-Americans were able to flee Southern oppression, and the mechanization of agriculture and subsequent loss of farm jobs by moving to the northern states and California. In the event of a CSA victory this would have entailed crossing an international border.
Last edited by robertbrianbush; 06-27-2015 at 01:30 PM..
I think that an independent CSA would have been a very poverty stricken nation with a small wealthy elite. And, yes, I think the African-American population would have suffered much more than they did. I think the South is clear example of a people who are much better off having had lost a war than they would have been had they won it (although the wealthy elite probably would have benefited immensely from a CSA victory)
Also...many African-Americans were able to flee Southern oppression, and the mechanization of agriculture and subsequent loss of farm jobs by moving to the northern states and California. In the event of a CSA victory this would have entailed crossing an international border.
Added to that an apartheid system that would have lasted at least as long as South Africa's depriving it of further capital investment and international opprobrium... if it lasted into the 20th century which I have my doubts.
There were so many potential crisis facing the Confederate States:
If not a civil war, then there certainly would have been one with either Mexico or the United States over the territories of New Mexico and Arizona, if fact the CSA could have found itself at war with both at the same time.
Then there was the fundamental problem of holding together a nation that never united as one. The CSA was a confederation of states who at the slightest discontent would do as they had done, secede. Without the United States to fight I doubt the CSA would have lasted as a unified nation into the 20th century. Split and re-split until it resembled the Balkans rather an a nation further eroding its economic power.
It would have been the first majority white third world country.
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.
