Confederate States of America

[Malvoleo]

Contrarian view: the world would be better.

 

Let's face it, the USA is effectively several countries at present- as follows:

1. New England (original 13 States)

2. The rest of the East Coast.

3. California.

4. The rest of the mainland 49 States.

 

And a 2012 CSA would be a strong world power nowadays, as a counterweight to the northern-State USA. Remember too that the UK favoured the South, whilst France favoured the North.

Finally, no- it was nothing to do with slavery. Both USA and CSA had slave-owners and abolitionists. Instead, it concerned States' Rights [good] v. Federal Rights [bad].

 

France favoured the South, though like Britain was hesitant to get involved despite an initial desire to do so.

 

As to the question originally asked, how can we know? What I can say is the confederacy would have had major troubles. Even in war the various Confederate States didnt cooperate (especially north carolina and to a lesser degree Georgia). I hate to think what it would have liked without war to foster a sense of unity....

[Harleyman]

I agree that there's not much point in the thread topic; but it exists, so maybe either comment on it or don't post?

 

Here's what it is.

 

Assumption to the CSA winning: Abe Lincoln was a wimp. After the setbacks to the north and Ulysses Grant never replacing McClellan, Lincoln made peace with Jefferson Davis and the CSA came into being.

 

Slavery despite strong resistance from the CSA powers that be came to an end. There was no question of that.

 

Being largely agricultural and therefore with a somewhat poor economic base the south would have not have developed anywhere near as fast as the prosperous north.

 

My guess is that sooner or later the CSA and the United States would have settled their differences and formed a union again probably around the end of the 19th or in the beginning years of the 20th century.

 

There was a plan by the Confederates to annex Mexico as a southern state but conquering a country like Mexico is far easier said than done and the Confederate army was in no position with it's archaic weaponry and unlimitless manpower resources to carry out such a horrendous task

 

Despite their differences the Yankee northerners and their Anglo-Saxon southern cousins would have maintained a deep distrust of the two major European powers when it came to possible political meddling in their affairs so economic development in the south would have been provided by the North and not necessarily from Britain or France.

 

 

 

So there's my two cents worth

[callippo]

What would a modern CSA's extent comprise?

 

same as before. It would be a formidable unit, Massive Texas and Florida, backwaters then but powerhouses now, were in the rebel conspiracy after all. The 11 confederate states were, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Lousiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Tennessee. Nothing to be sneezed at.

[Malvoleo]

[/b]

 

Here's what it is.

 

Assumption to the CSA winning: Abe Lincoln was a wimp. After the setbacks to the north and Ulysses Grant never replacing McClellenad Lincoln made peace with Jefferson Davis and the CSA came into being.

 

 

Far more likely is that McClellan (the Democrat Candidate) wins the 1864 Presidential Election which he fought on the basis of negotiating towards Peace. (Btw It was looking good for him before the fall of Atlanta)

[Harleyman]

same as before. It would be a formidable unit, Massive Texas and Florida, backwaters then but powerhouses now, were in the rebel conspiracy after all. The 11 confederate states were, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Lousiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Tennessee. Nothing to be sneezed at.

 

Sheer size has nothing to do with economic development. Its the natural resources that the territory has that count. Aside from Texas and its oil which anyway would not have been of any benefit until the age of the motor car arrived around 1908 what resources essential to economic development did the rest of those Confederate States have?

 

Why do you think that even after Reconstruction began in 1865/6 that the southern states remained relatively poor compared to those of the north right up until WW2 started and then even beyond that.

[Harleyman]

Far more likely is that McClellan (the Democrat Candidate) wins the 1864 Presidential Election which he fought on the basis of negotiating towards Peace. (Btw It was looking good for him before the fall of Atlanta)

 

Such are the fates of mankind decided by the winners of elections.

 

Just imagine if Roosevelt had not been President in the WW2 years and an isolationist President taking office in 1940

[callippo]

you just misunderstood what I was trying to say. If you took the same 11 Confederate states of 1864 and compare them to those same states, today in 2012, they would be in a better position compared to the northern states in a civil war, than they were back then.

[Sierra]

I find this discussion interesting. Carry on, gents.

[Harleyman]

you just misunderstood what I was trying to say. If you took the same 11 Confederate states of 1864 and compare them to those same states, today in 2012, they would be in a better position compared to the northern states in a civil war, than they were back then.

 

Well they werent were they? Essentially they were a loose connection of states ruled over by the owners of cotton and tobacco plantations whose economy relied on slave labour.

 

Even their weaponry was originally manufactured in the industrial north and by 1865 was obsolete compared to what the Northern Armies were equipped with

 

You cant argue with facts so why try to imagine those states as they would have been today?

[callippo]

you simply haven't understood the point I was trying to make and which you have continued to ignore. Those same 11 1864 Confederate states, would now, in 2012 be in a considerably more advantageous position, were they to undergo a civil war, with the 20 Union states they fought in the 1860s.