What really is the future of the CSA?

[EasternRomanEmpire]

When there is a scenario about the Confederacy winning the American Civil War there often is the thread that the CS and US inevitably hate each other,(sometimes the CS does the Golden Circle thing,) the US inevitably joins the CP, the CS always joins the Entente, the CS is always weaker than its Northern counterpart and WW1 is won by the CP. (and sometimes Fascist takeover of the CS.)

However I consider that this thread is not the most likely scenario in a CS victory because:
Most of the industries in the Union were textile based which means that cotton from the South costs more.
Why would the CS and US inevitably hate each other? Can't they peacefully co-exist(although with some tensions between the two)?
The CS would understand that it needs to industrialize and since plantation based economy was on the decline it would be forced to even if the elites wanted to.
If the CS forms the Golden Circle (which is kind of easy at the time since a filibuster can take a Central American nation why wouldn't someone funded by a state be able to?) they would be able to give land to immigrants who would prefer this over having to work into factories, meaning the South would start to surpass the North in white population.
The CS could become quite militarized if there was a fear that the North might invade to conquer the South.

So what really is the most likely future of the CSA? Is the path described above really the most likely or is it the most common because people love this outcome?

 

[Elfwine]

To comment on the thing that struck me the most first:

If the CS forms the Golden Circle (which is kind of easy at the time since a filibuster can take a Central American nation why wouldn't someone funded by a state be able to?) they would be able to give land to immigrants who would prefer this over having to work into factories, meaning the South would start to surpass the North in white population.

There's a lot of very good land in "the north" for people who don't want to work in factories (and given that people moved from farms to the cities for factory jobs...). That and the large population gap between South and North here makes it pretty unlikely that the CSA's white population is even equaling that in the USA anytime soon, even if they somehow form of the Golden Circle.

So what really is the most likely future of the CSA? Is the path described above really the most likely or is it the most common because people love this outcome?

The most likely future of the CSA really depends on how the CSA manages to emerge victorious.

I think it's likely that you see the post-war CSA be more like than unlike the OTL South in regards to either industry or immigration, and very unlikely to succeed ta any significant amount of expansion. Anything related to WWI is really heavily dependent on how things shake out beyond just the CSA existing - there's fifty years for a lot of things to either go like OTL or unlike OTL as far as the US and Britain/France vs. Germany (or if there even is "Britain and France vs. Germany in 1914-1918.").

US-CS relations are probably frosty more than violently hateful, but this does depend on what happens post-war - a successful CSA raises a lot of questions on who seems to be vindicated by the outcome, and what they do with that.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

There's a lot of very good land in "the north" for people who don't want to work in factories (and given that people moved from farms to the cities for factory jobs...). That and the large population gap between South and North here makes it pretty unlikely that the CSA's white population is even equaling that in the USA anytime soon, even if they somehow form of the Golden Circle.

But most immigrants didn't have the option, they went into factories because that was the only option they were offering them, here there are two "American Dreams" and people will go to the state that is able to offer them the most, between going to work in a factory around the Great Lakes and getting a piece of land in the Caribbean what would you choose?

 

[Grand Duchess]

I simply do not think the CSA would survive for very long honestly. The debt they had was huge, their money was worthless, they lost a huge population of healthy young men to the war, and they were very behind in industry. They lacked factories to make goods in, railroads to transport, and depending on the timeline - you could have Atlanta completely burned to the ground.

Also the slave population outnumbered the white, eventually I would not be surprised if an uprising was successful. There would be constant paranoia and fear of another Nat Turner's Rebellion. Not a very healthy way to grow your country.

I also think you would see them having a hard time being recognized as their own independent nation, England was debating but in the end, backed down. I kind of think you could look at the Republic of Texas as a mini example, we know that did not succeed and other than under Lamar, they spent a lot of time trying to become a state because the Republic was collapsing.

Maybe a couple decades if I am being generous, and then we might see another form of Reconstruction to bring the two together, I am unsure. Though I am also an unapologetic hater of the CSA and all they stood for so take my opinion with bias in mind.

 

[Elfwine]

But most immigrants didn't have the option, they went into factories because that was the only option they were offering them, here there are two "American Dreams" and people will go to the state that is able to offer them the most, between going to work in a factory around the Great Lakes and getting a piece of land in the Caribbean what would you choose?

Probably the first, actually. Because a piece of land in the Caribbean as far as being a smallholding farmer sounds like a really, really unappealing option - if it was a choice between that in Oregon or a factory job in Ohio that might be different, but the Caribbean isn't somewhere I'd pick if I wanted "my own land" as a farmer (and I don't, in this scenario, have the money for "a plantation").

Looking at my ancestors - those not already here, that is - they had more options than "starve" or "work in a factory", and it's not that my Ireland (to the best of my knowledge)-by-way-of-England ancestors were exactly either spoiled for choices or rich.

 

[AltoRegnant]

Why would the CS and US inevitably hate each other? Can't they peacefully co-exist(although with some tensions between the two)?

the CSA is an expansionist power (that is almost undeniably true) and is a symbol of the US failing to maintain control of itself. in addition, these sorts of dramatic rivalries usually don't go away- they only really do when there's 3rd party that threatens both of them. who works to force that interaction in the new world? britain's only major presence is in Canada, and their neocolonialism in the Caribbean and latam almost aligns them with the union unless they specifically backed the CSA during the war. germany has tensions with the union in asia and the csa in the Caribbean, but without the whole country, both of those points are weaker for each american republic

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Probably the first, actually. Because a piece of land in the Caribbean as far as being a smallholding farmer sounds like a really, really unappealing option - if it was a choice between that in Oregon or a factory job in Ohio that might be different, but the Caribbean isn't somewhere I'd pick if I wanted "my own land" as a farmer (and I don't, in this scenario, have the money for "a plantation").

It worked for the early US, why can't it work now?

Looking at my ancestors - those not already here, that is - they had more options than "starve" or "work in a factory", and it's not that my Ireland (to the best of my knowledge)-by-way-of-England ancestors were exactly either spoiled for choices or rich.

Depends on when because there were periods where their options were limited to that

 

[Elfwine]

It worked for the early US, why can't it work now?

I point you to my emphasis on "in the Caribbean" here. This is not the same as for early US as far as the appeal of 160 acres (or however many the CSA offers immigrants) of land.

I'd much rather be a farmer in Kentucky or Ohio than in the tropics.

Depends on when because there were periods where their options were limited to that

Except for the many people who it wasn't true at all.

 

[AltoRegnant]

It worked for the early US, why can't it work now?

the caribbean was, at this point, a malaria swamped mess already filled with massive plantations that got massive storms- Florida OTL wasn't a popular settlement for white people until very recently, and the Caribbean has the same problems on a higher level.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

I simply do not think the CSA would survive for very long honestly. The debt they had was huge, their money was worthless, they lost a huge population of healthy young men to the war, and they were very behind in industry. They lacked factories to make goods in, railroads to transport, and depending on the timeline - you could have Atlanta completely burned to the ground.

True, but they still could recover once the embargo imposed by the US goes away.

Also the slave population outnumbered the white, eventually I would not be surprised if an uprising was successful. There would be constant paranoia and fear of another Nat Turner's Rebellion. Not a very healthy way to grow your country.

I also think you would see them having a hard time being recognized as their own independent nation, England was debating but in the end, backed down. I kind of think you could look at the Republic of Texas as a mini example, we know that did not succeed and other than under Lamar, they spent a lot of time trying to become a state because the Republic was collapsing.

In some states the Black population outnumbered the Whites but if I'm not wrong the Black population was 4 million and the white one was 9 million.
Texas isn't really a good example, at the time it was a sparsely populated area with almost no economy or resources while the Confederacy had something to start from.

Maybe a couple decades if I am being generous, and then we might see another form of Reconstruction to bring the two together, I am unsure. Though I am also an unapologetic hater of the CSA and all they stood for so take my opinion with bias in mind.

Why would they decide to re-unite, 600 thousands died on both sides to secure the South's independence and now you just want to give everything up?

Except for the many people who it wasn't true at all.

I'm talking about the Irish famine

the caribbean was, at this point, a malaria swamped mess already filled with massive plantations that got massive storms- Florida OTL wasn't a popular settlement for white people until very recently, and the Caribbean has the same problems on a higher level.

Okay didn't knew that.

 

[HyperMuscularDemon]

Given how un industrializedthe American South was due to slavery, and how much trouble the Confederacy of American States had in dealing with the much more industrialized Union Army in the American Civil War, if the Confederacy of American States wins the American Civil War then it will probably be a rump agricultural state with barely any resources to industrialize. Plus there is the issue of Slavery to consider. Knowing that Britain and practically all of the other European major powers had abolished old fashioned plantation slavery by 1861, any power that gives support to the Confederacy of American States will have the bad reputation of handing aid to a slave regime. Plus, taking into consideration the Confederacy of American States fought directly to preserve American slavery, it is highly unlikely that slavery in the Confederacy of American States would be abolished soon. This likely makes the Confederacy of American States a pariah state that is nearly 100 percent agrarian with virtually no positive future ahead.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Given how un industrializedthe American South was due to slavery, and how much trouble the Confederacy of American States had in dealing with the much more industrialized Union Army in the American Civil War, if the Confederacy of American States wins the American Civil War then it will probably be a rump agricultural state with barely any resources to industrialize. Plus there is the issue of Slavery to consider. Knowing that Britain and practically all of the other European major powers had abolished old fashioned plantation slavery by 1861, any power that gives support to the Confederacy of American States will have the bad reputation of handing aid to a slave regime. Plus, taking into consideration the Confederacy of American States fought directly to preserve American slavery, it is highly unlikely that slavery in the Confederacy of American States would be abolished soon. This likely makes the Confederacy of American States a pariah state that is nearly 100 percent agrarian with virtually no positive future ahead.

Well Britain seriously considered supporting the Confederacy so they clearly didn't hate slavery more than they loved money.
Plantation based economy was on the decline so they will be forced to industrialize, they probably won't arrive at the Union's level very soon but they had 1/9 of the Union's industry before the Confederate war of Independence? so they can still achieve something decent.

 

[Elfwine]

I'm talking about the Irish famine

Not all of which went to the factories.

A lot did, but it's not as simple as "you have to work in the factories if you go to the north".

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Not all of which went to the factories.

A lot did, but it's not as simple as "you have to work in the factories if you go to the north".

I'm not talking only about the US I'm also talking about the situation in Ireland where work factories (was that the name?) were one of the few ways to survive

 

[raharris1973]

Also the slave population outnumbered the white

It simply didn't.

I would not be surprised if an uprising was successful

Have you been setting your expectations based on Tarantino's Django Unchained? It was a Hollywood movie, artfully scripted and directed, not a documentary.

 

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

The problem with industrialization is that it requires transportation infrastructure, and the CSA constitution literally forbids CSA government funding of transportation infrastructure. The centrally located states of Mississippi and Alabama are too broke to fund it themselves.

Industrialization also requires fossil energy and feedstocks, but all the oil is in Texas (who will likely leave the CSA rather than share their oil wealth)

 

[SWS]

This probably has been discussed to death on this forum and elsewhere. A lot of it is wishful-thinking for or against the C.S.A. and frankly-uneducated. I'd refer to @dcharles on the matter, but he unfortunately has been banned. I see no reason why the Confederacy should not be relatively-successful, at least in regard to wealth, improved and rational agriculture, education, armaments, and Whiggish progressivism. It possessed advantages and disadvantages, like any other nation. But the high price of cotton is the biggest impediment against general industrialization, as the "Long Depression" of 1837-1855 demonstrates. When cotton cultivation suffered, factory construction flourished, and vice versa. The Deep South, particularly Georgia, also adopted anti-immigrant sentiments during the former period, as free white labor harmed slave employment in the cities.

 

[ElectedToRead]

As someone who isn't informed enough in the subject I will make a broad speculation.

It's a fair point. The postwar USA is likely to harbour a warhawk lobby for a few decades that would be eager to restore the union.

I suppose in the face of industry rendering traditional agrarian society redundant, slavery becomes less practical since unlike the fields you can't practically police slaves in a factory setting the same way you can on cotton fields. Maybe slavery becomes redundant and becomes gradually replaced by something informally resembling serfdom. Jim Crow is enshrined in law, separate but definitely not equal. In the New CSA blacks probably fare off a lot worse than their OTL counterparts even under global pressure as times move on.

Assuming the CSA survives into the 20th century, is something remotely resembling Apartheid South Africa possible? A state that becomes a social / economic pariah propped up by a fragile white domination of a society propped up by impoverished, uneducated blacks?

 

[Hydra1234]

Most of the industries in the Union were textile based which means that cotton from the South costs more.

Most is a very strong statement. Steel/iron, meat packing, oil refining, and railroading were all surging in size. If anything, the Union's textile manufacturing was deficient given the sheer amount of raw cotton being exported instead of higher-value textiles.

Plus, southern Cotton needs to remain at low enough of a cost to be competitive with the new Egyptian and Indian cotton plantations that developed as King Cotton diplomacy backfired.

Why would the CS and US inevitably hate each other? Can't they peacefully co-exist(although with some tensions between the two)?

Nationalism was inflamed by the war, and people aren't going to forget all that bloodshed easily. Look at how much the French hated the Germans for some 40-odd years for a 6-month war with far fewer casualties and atrocities than the US ACW.

The CS would understand that it needs to industrialize and since plantation based economy was on the decline it would be forced to even if the elites wanted to.

Some industrialization would occur, but Argentina and Republican Brazil are pretty good case studies as to what happens with industrialization with an agrarian political elite and a lucrative agricultural industry, even discounting the issue of slavery. It won't be anywhere near as transformative as the New South industrialization and would mostly be primary processing of agricultural products that doesn't really diversify the economy away from cash crops and still leaves it vulnerable to the likes of the Boll Weevil.

Plantation economies are not obsolescent either and shift to an industrial state is not inevitable. Many colonies and American states ran plantation economies well into the 20th century.

Also, industrialization is often a centralized effort requiring government investment and tariffs, even in the mid-19th century. Davis and Lee had to claw every ounce of central power from the states to even form a government capable of waging war, and with the much less pressing issue of industrialization, I doubt that the states of the Confederacy would surrender their power to a federal government.

If the CS forms the Golden Circle (which is kind of easy at the time since a filibuster can take a Central American nation why wouldn't someone funded by a state be able to?) they would be able to give land to immigrants who would prefer this over having to work into factories, meaning the South would start to surpass the North in white population.

The issue is that immigrants don't want to run jungle plantations; they want to carve out homesteads and do subsistence farming. The tropical climate is horrible for subsistence farming given the diseases and weather present. Slash-and-burn is very labor-intensive and land-intensive too, and the soil is depleted very fast, making only cash crops viable.

Also, while the Confederacy with a core of hardened veterans postwar could easily roll over the Central American nations, the filibusters did technically lose most of the time, and both Cuba and Mexico are demonstrations of what sustained, local resistance (plus some foreign aid) can result in.

The other part of the Golden Circle is that Confederates inadvertently add territories where the Boll Weevil originated from into their empire, making it much easier for the insects to travel across the Gulf of Mexico and hit Confederate plantations earlier, causing widespread economic damage to a nation that hasn't had the time to diversify away.

The CS could become quite militarized if there was a fear that the North might invade to conquer the South.

I agree with this part, and militarization is costly too. If the Confederates are going the Golden Circle Route too, at the very minimum they need a sizable military to police their colonies, not to mention maintaining their racial hierarchy. However, policing the colonies doesn't exactly translate into having an effective land fighting force, and the aforementioned political issues with centralization may mean the military has the deficiencies of a decentralized military like Austria-Hungary or the Articles of Confederation era US faced.

 

[ZakuType]

In some states the Black population outnumbered the Whites but if I'm not wrong the Black population was 4 million and the white one was 9 million.

This is true for Mississippi and South Carolina, whose populations of enslaved persons made up 57% and 55% of their populations, respectively. Louisiana was close with about 47% of the population being enslaved.

However, 9 million was about the total population of the Confederate states according to the 1860 census, with roughly 3.5 million slaves and 5.5 million free white persons. There's also about 130,000ish free people of color, which is about 1.5% to 2% of the total population.