| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Southern victory 2.0
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Southern victory 2.0

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
AnchoriticSybarite View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 14 May 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 95
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AnchoriticSybarite Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Southern victory 2.0
    Posted: 30 Nov 2017 at 23:27
Almost every discussion of a Southern victory in the Civil War centers around how it could have happened. Victory at Bull Run followed by a quick march on DC. Victor at Shiloh on the 1st day. Victory at Antietam, Gettysburg, Stones River or Sherman defeated and repelled from Atlanta.

What I want to discuss is accepting a Confederate victory somewhere from middle '63 or '64. What would have been the consequences.

The possibility of N & S reconciling their differences and reuniting seem to rest in the same plane as me winning Mega Millions and Powerball on consecutive days followed by me being signed by the Atlanta Braves, Falcons and Hawks playing for all 3 and winning the MVP in all 3 leagues. The South was reunited at the point of a gun and the North was smart or lucky enough not to impose a draconian peace which every other civil war I'm aware of ended in.

So here are what I consider to be the viable options.

1. A strong and prosperous North and a strong and prosperous South.

2. A strong and prosperous South and a North which suffers further dissolution as the West breaks off and we have 3 nations possibly 4 if California goes its own way.

3. A South which having won begins itself to break up and a North which builds in strength.

4. Lastly North and South both suffer further a long period of weakness and dissolution.

I see no way that the first option can occur. While the North could have gone on to success and prosperity, Mr. Boll Weavil has a date with the South in 1870. Far from being assets, slaves become intolerable burdens. Not only will you have huge emancipations, I would not be surprised to see mass expulsions a blacks from across the South--plantation owners could not afford them and blue collar whites would not tolerate the competition. I can even see a genocide in both North and South. Remember Lincoln's favorite solution to the peculiar problem was exportation back to AFrica.

The second option has a slim margin for success. The one ace in the hole that the South would have had was its control of the mouth of the Mississippi. Midwestern farmers would have needed that access to export their agricultural products. In fact without slavery as the complicating factor, the South and the Midwest had more in common with each other than the North(east). The tariffs collected could have tided the South over until the loss of slavery was overcome. It is even in the realm of possibility of a union of South and Northwest, leaving the North hamstrung with manufacturing without resources

The third option seems most likely. The South was not a monolithic entity. Virginia and North Carolina had little to do with the deep South. Texas and Arkansas and assuming Missouri is included in the final Confederacy are 3 separate islands. And Louisiana with its French heritage was almost a foreign country.   The South's great ambition even before the war was to expand its territory and with it spread slavery was not a viable option. France is not going to allow the South to supplant them in Mexico. And even if they did the South could not prevail in the guerrilla war that would ensue. Neither would acquisition of islands in the Caribbean be looked on with favor by the European powers. Slavery in the far west would not have been a reasonable alternative. The plantation aristocracy was really only suitable in the Deep South belt running from S Carolina to east Texas.

The North would have had no such problems. A massive rail expansion combined with exploiting barge traffic through the Great Lakes and extending canal systems could have compensated for the loss of the Mississippi as an export route. Immigrants would still have flocked to the North allowing it to expand its influence and settle the rest of the West.

The last alternative is also all too possible. An economically stricken South becomes a North American Poland, united in name only. The North breaks up into 2 or even as many as 5 more separate entities, none possessing the synergy that the current US has where when one part of the country falters the other parts make up for.

The worst complication coming out of any of these alternatives has nothing to do with the Confederacy, the Union, or even North America. It has instead to do with the resulting effect on World History. What happens in 1914-18 when there is no US to rescue the Allied Powers from German domination (although unlike rape it is not quite a fate worse than death). But even assuming a German defeat in 1918, there is no way that Hitler could/would have been stopped in the 2nd World War.

Edited by AnchoriticSybarite - 30 Nov 2017 at 23:34
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4306
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Dec 2017 at 11:28
The American Civil War happened due to the greed of the plantation owners, who insisted on using slave labout to enhance their profits. There was no other valid reason.

It was profit that led the south ro rebel while the north had recognised emancipation as being the way to go-regardless of plantation profits.

Slavery, where-ever it existed, was an anachronism and had to be brought to end.

I wonder had the Civil War been more prolonged, would other countries come to the aid of the fledgeling Union?


Tiocfaidh ár lá
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4306
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Dec 2017 at 12:34
Two songs in support of the south have stuck in my mind for many years.

The first, of course is Dixie Land. The second was by Joan Baez-The Night they Took Old Dixie Down.

What a pity that two such memorable and catchy songs will always be reminders of man's inhumanity to man-slavery.
Tiocfaidh ár lá
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2583
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Dec 2017 at 22:33
It is always easier to liberate someone else's slaves.

"We are going to take 9/10s of your net worth, and not compensate you for them."

That is what Southerners heard.  I think that it (slavery) was bound to fail in the long run, sooner than later, and over all it was good in the end, but I am sure that the Southerners looked forward to it, like pulling teeth.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2583
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Dec 2017 at 03:49
But definitely, if the Union was not preserved, The US would have been fractured into more than two pieces.  Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, etc. would have been different, and of course, everything after that.
Back to Top
AnchoriticSybarite View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 14 May 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 95
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AnchoriticSybarite Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Dec 2017 at 10:08
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

It is always easier to liberate someone else's slaves.

"We are going to take 9/10s of your net worth, and not compensate you for them."

That is what Southerners heard.  I think that it (slavery) was bound to fail in the long run, sooner than later, and over all it was good in the end, but I am sure that the Southerners looked forward to it, like pulling teeth.


Two points.

1. I've read a statistic that gave a percentage for the number of Southerners who owned slaves. I don't remember exactly the number but is was in the neighborhood of 60-70%. Such a huge number would seem to explain why the South went to war. But if you look a little closer you notice something different. Of course Wade Hampton and other plantation owners were willing to fight. Loss of their slaves would send them from the barons, dukes and earls of the South to veritable paupers.

If you remove them you are left with people that owned less than 5 or 6 slaves--a maid or two, a cook, a nanny and maybe a coachman/handyman. Their loss would cause their owners to have to work harder but it would not devastate them financially.

2. Given the above we are left with the quandary as to why the overwhelming majority of Southerners who had no stake in maintaining slavery perservered through 4 years of bitter warfare on the one hand and why Northerners would fight for an abstract concept of a nation stake just a strongly on the other.
Back to Top
AnchoriticSybarite View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 14 May 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 95
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AnchoriticSybarite Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Dec 2017 at 10:12
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

But definitely, if the Union was not preserved, The US would have been fractured into more than two pieces.  Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, etc. would have been different, and of course, everything after that.


This is the point I was hoping to see discussed.

As for the Spanish American War, I don't see the South being able even to defeat Spain's navy and the North having no reason to.

Would Teddy Roosevelt have set in motion his grand scheme to build the Panama Canal, leaving the US as a 1 ocean naval "power".

Despite Harry Turtledove's tremendous outpouring of prose, I can't see North or South having any incentive in participating in either world war.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2583
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Dec 2017 at 22:00
Would we have the transcontinental railroad?  Maybe some Indian nations would have made it, to actually becoming nations.
Back to Top
AnchoriticSybarite View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 14 May 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 95
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AnchoriticSybarite Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Dec 2017 at 09:30
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Would we have the transcontinental railroad?  Maybe some Indian nations would have made it, to actually becoming nations.


Two specifics I had not thought about. The RR would probably have taken a little longer to come to fruition.

Not an Indian nation(s), but how about an Indian confederation.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.