Confederates as a modern-day North Korea?

[stevep]

Jan 14, 2020 14:59:29 GMT EwellHolmes said:

Jan 14, 2020 10:59:01 GMT lordroel said:

As long as they keep France and the United Kingdom as allies I guess.

A surviving South keeps slavery viable on the international stage long enough for the Boll Weevil; Britain grew more dependent on cotton as the 19th Century progressed. 

  But it was finding alternative sources for cotton even before the Boll Weevil hit the southern US region.  Plus the political pressure against slavery was already overwhelming in most of western Europe.  A CSA that seeks to keep organised slavery into the 20thC is going to be very, very isolated.

[lordroel]

Jan 14, 2020 20:10:20 GMT stevep said:

Jan 14, 2020 14:59:29 GMT EwellHolmes said:

A surviving South keeps slavery viable on the international stage long enough for the Boll Weevil; Britain grew more dependent on cotton as the 19th Century progressed. 

  But it was finding alternative sources for cotton even before the Boll Weevil hit the southern US region.  Plus the political pressure against slavery was already overwhelming in most of western Europe.  A CSA that seeks to keep organised slavery into the 20thC is going to be very, very isolated.

Well the CSA could go into Mexico and invade it after the French withdrawal in 1867, that is if the French do that here, if not, then the French will be gone by 1870, leaving the CSA to go in if they want to expand.

[stevep]

Jan 14, 2020 20:16:10 GMT lordroel said:

Jan 14, 2020 20:10:20 GMT stevep said:

  But it was finding alternative sources for cotton even before the Boll Weevil hit the southern US region.  Plus the political pressure against slavery was already overwhelming in most of western Europe.  A CSA that seeks to keep organised slavery into the 20thC is going to be very, very isolated.

Well the CSA could go into Mexico and invade it after the French withdrawal in 1867, that is if the French do that here, if not, then the French will be gone by 1870, leaving the CSA to go in if they want to expand.

  Mexico was strongly against slavery inside its territory.  That was one of the reasons for the Texan rebellion in the 1830's as the colonists had broken agreements not to import slavery into the area.  Ditto even if the north wasn't willing to oppose this Britain is very likely to, by force if necessary.  Ditto with ideas of some southern groups to conquer areas such as Haiti or Cuba which would provoke British opposition.

[lordroel]

Jan 14, 2020 20:20:02 GMT stevep said:

Jan 14, 2020 20:16:10 GMT lordroel said:

Well the CSA could go into Mexico and invade it after the French withdrawal in 1867, that is if the French do that here, if not, then the French will be gone by 1870, leaving the CSA to go in if they want to expand.

  Mexico was strongly against slavery inside its territory.  That was one of the reasons for the Texan rebellion in the 1830's as the colonists had broken agreements not to import slavery into the area.  Ditto even if the north wasn't willing to oppose this Britain is very likely to, by force if necessary.  Ditto with ideas of some southern groups to conquer areas such as Haiti or Cuba which would provoke British opposition.

But would a Mexico that just suffers 6 years of fighting due the Second French intervention in Mexico being able to stop the CSA.

[stevep]

Jan 14, 2020 20:28:08 GMT lordroel said:

Jan 14, 2020 20:20:02 GMT stevep said:

  Mexico was strongly against slavery inside its territory.  That was one of the reasons for the Texan rebellion in the 1830's as the colonists had broken agreements not to import slavery into the area.  Ditto even if the north wasn't willing to oppose this Britain is very likely to, by force if necessary.  Ditto with ideas of some southern groups to conquer areas such as Haiti or Cuba which would provoke British opposition.

But would a Mexico that just suffers 6 years of fighting due the Second French intervention in Mexico being able to stop the CSA.

  Not in itself possibly but the lands suitable for the sort of plantation slavery are only really in the southern parts of Mexico as opposed to the thinly settled northern regions.  Hence even if no foreign power supports Mexico its going to be a continued burden on the south to support any such occupation zone.  There was a fair bit of unrest in the Yucatan region against the central government in Mexico but I think they would be even less happy about white northerners seeking to take over their lands and import black slaves.

  Also since any slaves would need to be brought to the region by sea that could be said to contravene the rules banning the slave trade which would be another source of tension with the anti-slavery areas.

[EwellHolmes]

Jan 14, 2020 17:29:04 GMT lordroel said:

Jan 14, 2020 14:59:29 GMT EwellHolmes said:

A surviving South keeps slavery viable on the international stage long enough for the Boll Weevil; Britain grew more dependent on cotton as the 19th Century progressed. 

Doubt that will happen, it mostly will turn into a much harsher version of the Jim Crow laws.

A surviving CSA, especially one as a great power, keeps Slavery viable on the international stage via the formation of a bloc with Spain and Brazil; both of those only ended slavery as a result of the U.S. doing it and the 1890 conventions on slavery only occurred because the last major power practicing slavery-Brazil-ended it. 

[EwellHolmes]

Jan 14, 2020 20:10:20 GMT stevep said:

Jan 14, 2020 14:59:29 GMT EwellHolmes said:

A surviving South keeps slavery viable on the international stage long enough for the Boll Weevil; Britain grew more dependent on cotton as the 19th Century progressed. 

  But it was finding alternative sources for cotton even before the Boll Weevil hit the southern US region.  Plus the political pressure against slavery was already overwhelming in most of western Europe.  A CSA that seeks to keep organised slavery into the 20thC is going to be very, very isolated.

Britain actually became more dependent on Southern cotton; India and Egypt as alternatives is largely a myth:

[stevep]

Jan 15, 2020 8:59:07 GMT EwellHolmes said:

Jan 14, 2020 17:29:04 GMT lordroel said:

Doubt that will happen, it mostly will turn into a much harsher version of the Jim Crow laws.

A surviving CSA, especially one as a great power, keeps Slavery viable on the international stage via the formation of a bloc with Spain and Brazil; both of those only ended slavery as a result of the U.S. doing it and the 1890 conventions on slavery only occurred because the last major power practicing slavery-Brazil-ended it. 

  A surviving CSA isn't really a great power.  A large one territoriality but without drastic demographic economic and social changes its likely to never be a serious player.  As would be the case of the declining Spain or a slave holding Brazil.  Even without the potential tensions between the 1st pair of those over the former's designs on the latter's Caribbean possessions.  The leaders of the CSA, especially those addicted to slavery were ardent in their belief the institute would have to expand or die and there's no real capacity for it to expand as other powers, not just targeted regions, would oppose that.

  In terms of your figures on cotton production that is interesting and different from what I had heard before.  Not sure if it would still occur to the same event if the south was a weaker and poorer independent state with a widely reviled maintenance of slavery but even if that wasn't a factor the industry is still going to be drastically affected by the boll weevil, which may hit earlier if an aggressive CSA is seeking to expand territoriality. 

 

[EwellHolmes]

Jan 15, 2020 16:36:02 GMT stevep said:

Jan 15, 2020 8:59:07 GMT EwellHolmes said:

A surviving CSA, especially one as a great power, keeps Slavery viable on the international stage via the formation of a bloc with Spain and Brazil; both of those only ended slavery as a result of the U.S. doing it and the 1890 conventions on slavery only occurred because the last major power practicing slavery-Brazil-ended it. 

  A surviving CSA isn't really a great power.  A large one territoriality but without drastic demographic economic and social changes its likely to never be a serious player.  As would be the case of the declining Spain or a slave holding Brazil.  Even without the potential tensions between the 1st pair of those over the former's designs on the latter's Caribbean possessions.  The leaders of the CSA, especially those addicted to slavery were ardent in their belief the institute would have to expand or die and there's no real capacity for it to expand as other powers, not just targeted regions, would oppose that.

  In terms of your figures on cotton production that is interesting and different from what I had heard before.  Not sure if it would still occur to the same event if the south was a weaker and poorer independent state with a widely reviled maintenance of slavery but even if that wasn't a factor the industry is still going to be drastically affected by the boll weevil, which may hit earlier if an aggressive CSA is seeking to expand territoriality. 

 

The South would be a major power, both economically and militarily. Without Consent or Contract by Robert Fogel, pg 414-415:

If the Confederacy had been allowed to establish itself peacefully, to work out economic and diplomatic policies, and to develop international alliances, it would have emerged as a major international power. Although its population was relatively small, its great wealth would have made it a force to be reckoned with. The Confederacy would probably have used its wealth and military power to establish itself as the dominant nation in Latin America, perhaps annexing Cuba and Puerto Rico, Yucatan, and Nicaragua as well as countering Britain's antislavery pressures on Brazil. Whether the Confederacy would have sought to counter British antislavery policies in Africa or to form alliances with the principal slave-trading nations of the Middle East is more uncertain, but these would have been options.

The Confederacy could have financed its expansionist, proslavery policies by exploiting the southern monopoly of cotton production. A [five cent] sales tax on cotton not only would have put most of the burden of such policies on foreign consumers, but would have yielded about $100 million annually during the 1860s—50 percent more than the entire federal budget on the eve of the Civil War. With such a revenue the Confederacy could have emerged as one of the world's strongest military powers, maintaining a standing army several times as large as the North's, rapidly developing a major navy, and conducting an aggressive foreign policy. Such revenues would also have permitted it to covertly or overtly finance aristocratic forces in Europe who were vying with democratic ones for power across the Continent.

Worth noting that by 1910 IOTL, the South (11 States of the CSA and Oklahoma) had almost 25 million people. Assuming reduced mortality rates among White Southerners during the ATL war (OTL, about a third of Southern White Males died), I wouldn't be surprised to see the ATL Confederacy at 30 million or even greater; that puts it equal to France, Italy and just under the UK in terms of population.

[dayton3]

No. Because even an independent Confederacy would've gotten rid of slavery decades ago

[stevep]

Jan 15, 2020 17:51:50 GMT EwellHolmes said:

Jan 15, 2020 16:36:02 GMT stevep said:

  A surviving CSA isn't really a great power.  A large one territoriality but without drastic demographic economic and social changes its likely to never be a serious player.  As would be the case of the declining Spain or a slave holding Brazil.  Even without the potential tensions between the 1st pair of those over the former's designs on the latter's Caribbean possessions.  The leaders of the CSA, especially those addicted to slavery were ardent in their belief the institute would have to expand or die and there's no real capacity for it to expand as other powers, not just targeted regions, would oppose that.

  In terms of your figures on cotton production that is interesting and different from what I had heard before.  Not sure if it would still occur to the same event if the south was a weaker and poorer independent state with a widely reviled maintenance of slavery but even if that wasn't a factor the industry is still going to be drastically affected by the boll weevil, which may hit earlier if an aggressive CSA is seeking to expand territoriality. 

 

The South would be a major power, both economically and militarily. Without Consent or Contract by Robert Fogel, pg 414-415:

If the Confederacy had been allowed to establish itself peacefully, to work out economic and diplomatic policies, and to develop international alliances, it would have emerged as a major international power. Although its population was relatively small, its great wealth would have made it a force to be reckoned with. The Confederacy would probably have used its wealth and military power to establish itself as the dominant nation in Latin America, perhaps annexing Cuba and Puerto Rico, Yucatan, and Nicaragua as well as countering Britain's antislavery pressures on Brazil. Whether the Confederacy would have sought to counter British antislavery policies in Africa or to form alliances with the principal slave-trading nations of the Middle East is more uncertain, but these would have been options.

The Confederacy could have financed its expansionist, proslavery policies by exploiting the southern monopoly of cotton production. A [five cent] sales tax on cotton not only would have put most of the burden of such policies on foreign consumers, but would have yielded about $100 million annually during the 1860s—50 percent more than the entire federal budget on the eve of the Civil War. With such a revenue the Confederacy could have emerged as one of the world's strongest military powers, maintaining a standing army several times as large as the North's, rapidly developing a major navy, and conducting an aggressive foreign policy. Such revenues would also have permitted it to covertly or overtly finance aristocratic forces in Europe who were vying with democratic ones for power across the Continent.

Worth noting that by 1910 IOTL, the South (11 States of the CSA and Oklahoma) had almost 25 million people. Assuming reduced mortality rates among White Southerners during the ATL war (OTL, about a third of Southern White Males died), I wouldn't be surprised to see the ATL Confederacy at 30 million or even greater; that puts it equal to France, Italy and just under the UK in terms of population.

  Cart and horse.  Your assuming that the highly decentalised CSA where the states jealously guarded their powers would allow the central government to raise sizeable amounts of money and use it to fund European sized military forces including a navy to challenge that of Britain as it went on a conquest spree.  The federal budget before the civil war was small because at the time it did very little.  Custom protection and maintaining minimal forces by land and sea - which much of the former came from the states as well so the figure there wouldn't be that impressive.  To achieve the aims your suggesting they would need to buy a very large fleet then man and maintain it and that is an expensive option.  Going up against the world's No.1 naval, industrial and economic power would need much more than that and still be very unlikely to succeed.  It sounds like Fogel doesn't realise how weak the US and especially the south was compared to the European powers.  [Even worse if they try building up and maintaining their own naval/military industry as that's going to cost a lot more and take far longer.

  I checked the figures for the 11 states in the 1860 census, see 1860_United_States_Census which summing up gives a total population of ~10.14M people of which 3.4M were slaves.  Note this include both what became W Virginia but also Virginia as a whole along with Tennessee, N Carolina and Arkansas which initially opposed secession and only joined the rebels when Lincoln insisted on opposing war by force.  If as Fogel is assuming the CSA was accepted without conflict by the union states its likely that at least Virginia and Tennessee would have stayed in the union, quite possibly the other two as well.  Assuming that only the 1st two stay loyal that cuts the CSA population to about 7.44M people of which 2.7M would have been slaves.  Even without the lack of industry in the south and the concentration of political power in the states this is a pretty low basis for a great power.

  Your figures seemed a bit high as as its commonly mentioned on a USCW site that population growth was minimal before 1900 so I checked the 1900_United_States_Census, for comparison.  Adding up all  now 13 states [including W Virginia and Oklahoma] they totaled 20.67M people - sorry just realised you were talking about a decade later.   For 1910_United_States_Census they total 26.25M by my calculation.  Again this is including states that are unlikely to be members of the CSA in a peaceful secession.  If we remove Virginia, W Virginia and Tennessee then the figures would be 15.84M in 1900 -with Texas expanding considerably from 0.60M in 1860 to 3.01M in 1900 and similarly 20.79M in 1910.  The significant boost over that decade suggests at least some measure from the large scale immigration to the US as a whole which might not occur for a separate CSA for multiple reasons, some of which mentioned below.

  Of course this assumes that the south would have a virtually identical population growth to OTL which seems unlikely.  I can think of several reasons for it being lower, such as loyalists leaving the break-away states, lower economic growth due to not being part of a larger economy especially with the considerable military establishment your suggesting and probably less immigration to the south.  [Its poorer overall, the country is arguably still dominated by the large planters who opposed such migration and there definitely wouldn't be an influx of blacks from the Caribbean with slavery still in place].  Forget totally about trying to import more slaves from Africa as the European powers and the Union will oppose that and the CSA will in no way have the naval strength to project power to such a distance.

  Of course if the CSA was to put duty on exports of cotton that supplies a larger economic as well as political incentive for Britain and others to find alternatives.

  If the CSA did reach a figure of say 30-35M people in 1910, although that seems dubious and would include how many slaves, they would still be outnumbered by the UK who's UK 1911 census totaled 45.22M.  This of course only includes people in the UK on that date so a large number of expats as well as the settled dominions and parts of the empire would increase the difference further.  can't find the French figures on a quick look but IIRC they were about 42M at this period, again ignoring expats and imperial citizens - other than possibly in Algeria.

[dayton3]

Jan 14, 2020 20:16:10 GMT lordroel said:

Jan 14, 2020 20:10:20 GMT stevep said:

  But it was finding alternative sources for cotton even before the Boll Weevil hit the southern US region.  Plus the political pressure against slavery was already overwhelming in most of western Europe.  A CSA that seeks to keep organised slavery into the 20thC is going to be very, very isolated.

Well the CSA could go into Mexico and invade it after the French withdrawal in 1867, that is if the French do that here, if not, then the French will be gone by 1870, leaving the CSA to go in if they want to expand.

That's largely the premise of one of Harry Turtledove's "Guns of the South" alternate history books isn't it?

[lordroel]

Jan 16, 2020 15:34:04 GMT dayton3 said:

Jan 14, 2020 20:16:10 GMT lordroel said:

Well the CSA could go into Mexico and invade it after the French withdrawal in 1867, that is if the French do that here, if not, then the French will be gone by 1870, leaving the CSA to go in if they want to expand.

That's largely the premise of one of Harry Turtledove's "Guns of the South" alternate history books isn't it?

No that is when South Africans from the future help the CSA win the civil War by providing them with a lot of AK-47s.

I think you speak of the Southern Victory series or Timeline-191

[stevep]

Jan 16, 2020 15:35:50 GMT lordroel said:

Jan 16, 2020 15:34:04 GMT dayton3 said:

That's largely the premise of one of Harry Turtledove's "Guns of the South" alternate history books isn't it?

No that is when South Africans from the future help the CSA win the civil War by providing them with a lot of AK-47s.

I think you speak of the Southern Victory series or Timeline-191

  A while since I read it but IIRC they actually purchase some Mexican provinces from Emperor Maximilian rather than take them by force.  This gives him resources to use against the rebels and also isolates them somewhat from the US as the provinces give the CSA a line of territory to the Pacific.

  In terms of expanding slavery the assorted fire-eaters involved in that were thinking of places like the Yucatan peninsula as suitable for slavery but even without external opposition [ involving a white ensign ] this would be difficult as the locals are likely to oppose it strongly since it would mean displacing them and tearing up a lot of forests to establish plantations that probably would quickly exhaust the soil there.

[lordroel]

Jan 16, 2020 15:56:39 GMT stevep said:

Jan 16, 2020 15:35:50 GMT lordroel said:

No that is when South Africans from the future help the CSA win the civil War by providing them with a lot of AK-47s.

I think you speak of the Southern Victory series or Timeline-191

  A while since I read it but IIRC they actually purchase some Mexican provinces from Emperor Maximilian rather than take them by force.  This gives him resources to use against the rebels and also isolates them somewhat from the US as the provinces give the CSA a line of territory to the Pacific.

  In terms of expanding slavery the assorted fire-eaters involved in that were thinking of places like the Yucatan peninsula as suitable for slavery but even without external opposition [ involving a white ensign ] this would be difficult as the locals are likely to oppose it strongly since it would mean displacing them and tearing up a lot of forests to establish plantations that probably would quickly exhaust the soil there.

Well could the CSA not do the same buy in the period of 1865 to 1870 when the 2nd French Empire was still in Mexico some of Mexico, thereby getting access to the Pacific coast.