FRistory: What If In History ...

4-8-18 | Eagles Field

[Eagles Field]

It’s 1864, The South has won the Civil War. How does this change the pages of history?

[Oratam]

A bellicose Confederate States of america invades Mexico, Cuba and Central America.

Fearing domination by a southern hegemon, the United States conquers Baja California and following the successful purchase of Alaska from Russia, invades British North America.

The stage is set for a showdown over the Ithmus of Panama with both the U.S. and the C.S.A. heavily involved in Colombia.

[DoodleDawg]

When the five border states joined them, Yes. The Northern states would no longer pose a military threat to them.

LOL! Not to mention when time travelers from South Africa brought the AK-47s.

[CodeToad]

Perhaps for the first 10 years after the war, but the industrial revolution was upon the entire continent and human capital was becoming less valuable.

The railroads were the consumers of human capital and were primarily in non-slave territories. I suspect they would have the bigger impact over the next 10 years (1875-1885).

The southern States remained agricultural and needed westward expansion to help grow.

There may have even been a charismatic figure that helped negotiate a new union by about 1885. It only takes a generation to forget prior wars.

[DoodleDawg]

Spike Lee has a movie like this.

Kevin Willmott, not Spike Lee.

[pabianice]

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_5_9/139-7605380-7264341?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=harry+turtledove+southern+victory+series&sprefix=harry+tur%2Caps%2C274&crid=3POMAVWYBCME8

[Purdue77]

The north needs a new source of food and textiles and moves quickly into the west. Along with its greater manufacturing capability, the north blocks the south on the south's western border and prevents it from moving into the west. Texas aligns with the north to prevent Mexico from attacking them. Eventually, the north attacks the south and crushes them this time using more advanced weaponry than single shot rifled muskets. The south's greatly depleted manpower and food production can't prevent the north this time as immigrants from Europe quickly fill the ranks of the northern army.

[GenXteacher]

Had they won the war, they would be the preeminent power in the world, as they most certainly would have snuffed out the Bolshevists after using them to beat Russia. I might concede 50 years but no less.

[GenXteacher]

Arms development would not have remained static, because the South would not have unilaterally disarmed after the war, especially not when it possessed a long border with a treacherous enemy. Mexico, occupied by the French, would have remained so, because there would have been no US to give arms to Juarez. Therefore, no threat to Texas, which would grow rich off of beef, and then oil, becoming the site of the Confederate capital by 1910.

[sparklite2]

That’s an interesting thought. The revolution might have been unnecessary in the long run. British North America would extend down to Mexico, but nothing would have radically differed from what we have today.

Everything that rises must converge.

[Hardastarboard]

Yeah, I had forgotten about the difference in the date of assuming the office from then to now. Lincoln probably wouldn't have ceased the war, and it would have been pointless to quit in March.

I did say I had left out a few details. :-)

[x]

One thing to consider is that when Germany united in 1871, they would have had an eye for gaining influence in the Americas, would they have reached out to the CSA?

Maybe more likely they'd reach out to the USA. Germany was the most widely spoken language after English in the Northern states, and there were many more Germans there than in the South. The US shared a border with Canada, and British influence might have led the UK to favor the South on the theory that my neighbor's neighbor is more of a problem to him than to me. If the US actually were defeated, they might have found a friend in the new Germany.

Of course, if the South were damaged enough but still managed to win, they might be the one's to reach out to Germany. All the more so if the CSA tried to expand to other parts of the hemisphere. But if the US really were humiliated by defeat, Britain might favor the CSA, and the USA would draw closer to Germany.

[x]

The aristocratic plantation society wouldn’t survive, and would probably collapse within a generation; after which the USA/CSA would reunite.

That is what MacKinlay Kantor thought and wrote about in his book published a century after the war. But it a silly and sentimental notion.

How many independent nations willingly give up their independence?

Usually national elites, institutions, and sentiments grow up that give new nations an interest in independence.

Rivalries that arise between nations, especially after bloody wars, may weaken over time, but not to the point that they surrender their sovereignty.

I think this is a good prediction, though I think the USA would have melted into the CSA.

Some troll or other will always say something absurd like that, thinking that it will make him interesting to people.

[x]

Therefore, no threat to Texas, which would grow rich off of beef, and then oil, becoming the site of the Confederate capital by 1910.

The CSA barely stayed together during the Civil War.

I think it would probably be likely that the promise of a Great Plains empire of their own would have led Texas to break away from the Confederacy.

And California might well have broken away from the USA. So in addition to North-South enmity we'd have East-West hostility.

The bright side of that scenario might be that we wouldn't have more wars with Mexico or expansion of the slave system further South, but we might have paid for that with more wars in what was once our own united country.

[jmacusa]

‘’If’ is the middle word in ‘’life’’.

[onedoug]

By Hugh Everett’s “The Many Worlds Interpretation” of quantum mechanics, it probably occurred just so in a branching universe.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

The CSA promptly breaks up into smaller and smaller factions.

Texas decides to rejoin Mexico and ends up freeing it's slaves anyway.

There are numerous slave revolts that are bloodily put down but each one takes a bit more effort. The revolts are supported by the UK who wants to keep a monopoly on Egyptian Cotton.

Some of the former CSA states try to rejoin the Union and are told that they may only if they promise to respect the rights of the other states. They must not push slavery on them in any way. They decline the conditions.

With out have to expend blood and treasure rebuilding the south the Union prospers and eventually Canada joins the Union. They buy Alaska from Russia.

Would war one never happens because when Germany starts to raise it's head the UK, vary flush with funds from the cotton trade, slaps them down so hard China feels it.

Japan continues to be a problems and in the 1950's decide to attack UK and US interests in Asia.

There is a long drawn out war that ends with Japan releasing weponized bubonic plague in Asia. A quarter of the world population dies. Japan is bombed into cinders but the plague continues to spread. There is a mass murder of any Japanese people living abroad and the Japanese as a race are wiped out.

Islam flourishes under the eye of the British Empire who does not realize until too late what a viper they have nursed in their bosom.

Without the motivation of WWII the atomic bomb is never built but chemical and biological weapons are refined to a point undreamed of now.

Eventually the mohammedans release their plague. It gets out of control and wipes out all mammals on the earth.

The End.

[DiogenesLamp]

Perhaps for the first 10 years after the war, but the industrial revolution was upon the entire continent and human capital was becoming less valuable.

Yes, the value of slave labor would have declined to the point where it wasn't economically feasible, but it would have probably been longer than ten years before it got to this point. I've always estimated between 20 and 80 years to fully eliminate slavery, but 10 years of continued economic values is probably as good a guess as any.

The southern States remained agricultural and needed westward expansion to help grow.

If you are talking about slave plantations, it wasn't possible for them to expand to the west. There wasn't enough water to support that sort of farming, and agriculture only works in parts of the west today because of irrigation systems that wouldn't have been available until the 1920s or 1930s.

This is one of the funny things I learned in the last few years. People of the time claimed to be worried about slavery in the territories, but it simply wasn't possible to grow plantation crops in any of them. I couldn't be done, even if they had tried.

[DiogenesLamp]

Some troll or other will always say something absurd like that, thinking that it will make him interesting to people.

Based on the premise that the South maintained it's independence and established trade with Europe, much of the European trade with New York would have been diverted to Southern ports. If the North kept it's high tariffs (which I doubt it would continue to do) much Southern economic traffic would have been carried by the Mississippi, and other trade would been carried overland.

The Border States, upon seeing that the South was gaining prosperity from European Trade, and after having been reassured that the principle of secession was established and accepted, would leave the Union and join the Confederacy. It would become a preference cascade in favor of the South.

You think it's nonsense because you dismiss out of hand anything that goes against what you wish to believe, but if you are being honest, you would have to admit that the border states would have eventually joined the South, if the South was creating the economic activity that was enriching them. (And if there was no risk for them to do so.)

[CodeToad]

The expansion I meant was a market area. The southern States needed larger markets, especially as mechanization was introduced.

[DiogenesLamp]

The expansion I meant was a market area. The southern States needed larger markets, especially as mechanization was introduced.

They had a pretty large market; All of Europe, All of North and South America. Cotton and Tobacco were in demand all over the world.

The numbers i've found indicate that an Independent Southern Nation would have initially pulled at least 200 million dollars per year out of the economy of New York, and as capitalization occurred with this extra money, other industries, such as manufacturing and the production of mechanized products would have moved into the Southern states. Also, with greatly reduced tariffs on European manufactured machine products, many needs would have been filled from European sources.

I've read accounts of Northern newspapers fretting that rail road iron would be delivered through Southern ports at prices greatly lower than what Northern manufacturers would provide. They express alarm at the prospect of it shutting down Northern production because they wouldn't be able to compete.

I found it.

That either revenue from these duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed, the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up. We shall have no money to carry on the government, the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe....allow railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten percent which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York. The Railways would be supplied from the southern ports."

New York Evening Post March 12, 1861