The CSA (Opinions)

[Ajidica]

But then Louis XVI didn't see it coming either.

To be fair to poor Louis, he only wanted to be a clockmaker and be loved by his people.

Random yet interesting OT fact:
Maria Theresa of Austria was getting annoyed that Louis hadn't gotten a kid yet with her daughter and commented that "The locksmith has lost the key to unlock the lock!"
Interpret that statement how you will, rest assured, it is a wonderful example of 18th century lewdness.

As long as the lords had enough power on their own, the South would remain agrarian as long as possible, until the eventual communist uprising.

No, thats the Maoist uprising. To quote the Kim Jong-Il political insults generator, you are a politicaly-ingorant anti-socialst intellectual dwarf.

 

[Cutlass]

That's a strong point, but I think it's biased to say that the South couldn't have evolved its economy over time. It had to do so just to have a chance of fighting during the ACW. Could the South have evolved as efficiently as the North? Probably not without outside assistance, but that would be a possibility if Europe eventually recognized the CSA (say after the ACW ends).

Slavery is not a good model for industrialization beyond its lowest levels. The South had less free whites to work the factories than the North, and I don't think they had near the immigration. The South's model not only ran the huge plantations with slaves, but minimized the opportunities for everything else. They were trying to invent a feudal system. And that also is not a good foundation for industrialization.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The only thing that would have ensured Confederate sovereignty was British support, which would have been lost entirely had the Confederacy remained completely outside of the War.

Well, most likely the CSA would send supplies to the Entente and the USA to the alliance, however, neither side would want to fight each other again after the Thousands of lives that had been lost, and like England with the USA in 76 the union would not care anymore about unification.

Your presumed friendship between the US and CSA is based off historical naivete. The Union would never have supported the British had the British forced the Union to accept Confederate independence. Without American intervention the First World War had very high odds of being a Triple-Alliance victory.

I agree, and then I have no idea what would have happened. The Entente could still have won though.

Ignoring all that, had Japan still ambushed the United States, the Confederacy would have stayed out of it.

MAYBE, but if they did they would be stupid. Do you think that the CSA would have thought "We could be next!" I think they would have.

As Owen Glyndywr said, this "counter-factualism", is a half-hearted attempt to explain away some sort of dream Confederacy that survives to the 21st century and is good pals with the United States. Which could never have conceivably happened.

I think WWII could have brought them together, as both sides would have hated Hitler. And, I agree, they would quite possibly be one country by now.

 

[Ajidica]

Well, most likely the CSA would send supplies to the Entente and the USA to the alliance, however, neither side would want to fight each other again after the Thousands of lives that had been lost, and like England with the USA in 76 the union would not care anymore about unification.

Why? The south was still more conservative and likely would have allied with the Triple Alliance. Remember, the only conservative nation in the Allies was Russia, and they had already expressed their support of the union. (They actualy sent ships.)

MAYBE, but if they did they would be stupid. Do you think that the CSA would have thought "We could be next!" I think they would have.

They also should have realized that agricultural slavery was a dieing system and that they were aborting industrialization. Since they were blind there, I'm assuming they will be equaly blind.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Why? The south was still more conservative and likely would have allied with the Triple Alliance. Remember, the only conservative nation in the Allies was Russia, and they had already expressed their support of the union. (They actualy sent ships.)

Economics. The South was a slave based agrarian economy, that required the importation of virtually all finished goods it made use of.
Britain was an industrialized economy dependent on Cotton Imports, and after the Northern States, was the South's chief customer.
The Union on the other hand, was an economic competitor with Britain, and considered Great Britain to be it's number one security threat until 1905, at least. It felt threatened by Great Britain, while at the same time was a threat to Britains second most important colony, conducting a series of raids on it throughout the 1870s.

 

[Ajidica]

But Britain had Egypt for Cotton, plus public opinion was against the CSA as the CSA still had slaves. I may be putting too much stock in the social/economic differences, but regardless. This has become an futile Alt-history timeline.

 

[sophie]

Well, most likely the CSA would send supplies to the Entente and the USA to the alliance, however, neither side would want to fight each other again after the Thousands of lives that had been lost, and like England with the USA in 76 the union would not care anymore about unification.

Or neither would happen as the CSA wouldn't exist by the time WWI rolls around...

I agree, and then I have no idea what would have happened. The Entente could still have won though.

But so could the Central Powers. That's the point.

MAYBE, but if they did they would be stupid. Do you think that the CSA would have thought "We could be next!" I think they would have.

Why would they be next? Japan attacked the US because they were muscling into Japan's claims to the pacific, and because they were denying them rubber and oil, which Japan needed desperately. If CSA takes the isolationist stance, then none of this would happen to them.

And that's also completely ignoring the fact that the US brought Japan out of isolationism in the first place, something which could be wildly different if the US remained split.

I think WWII could have brought them together, as both sides would have hated Hitler. And, I agree, they would quite possibly be one country by now.

The point both LoE and I are trying to make is that this whole AH is idiotic because you aren't actually selecting a PoD and trying to see what will happen, you're selecting a PoD and outcome, and shaping the history from the PoD to reach the outcome, which simply doesn't happen.

A good example of this is that you have all of these historical events happening the same way AND ON THE SAME DATE as OTL, which means you really aren't making a concerted attempt at AH.

 

[.Shane.]

I think Alt-History is worse than Southern apologetics, but I'm not 100% sure on that.

 

[GoodGame]

How about an Alt-History where the Republicans are Southern Sympathisizers?

 

[.Shane.]

How about an Alt-History where the Republicans are Southern Sympathisizers?

Isn't that present history?

 

[Lord of Elves]

Well, most likely the CSA would send supplies to the Entente and the USA to the alliance, however, neither side would want to fight each other again after the Thousands of lives that had been lost, and like England with the USA in 76 the union would not care anymore about unification.



I agree, and then I have no idea what would have happened. The Entente could still have won though.



MAYBE, but if they did they would be stupid. Do you think that the CSA would have thought "We could be next!" I think they would have.



I think WWII could have brought them together, as both sides would have hated Hitler. And, I agree, they would quite possibly be one country by now.

Yes, Adolf Hitler would conquer Europe/Hirohito would be able to completely ignore Asia and invade America with the explicit purpose of crushing the USA and CSA and with the ability to do so practically.

I'm also a flying unicorn.

 

[GoodGame]

Isn't that present history?

Both! Though aren't modern day Republicans technically Redneck Sympathizers (since Alaska isn't technically South)?

 

[Cutlass]

I think Alt-History is worse than Southern apologetics, but I'm not 100% sure on that.

I think it runs a close second. Not much in America is worse than Southern apologetics. But in inanity of the alt-history in this particular case certainly makes it a close competition.

 

[Lord of Elves]

I think it runs a close second. Not much in America is worse than Southern apologetics. But in inanity of the alt-history in this particular case certainly makes it a close competition.

Well we can all agree that Dommy's "alternate timeline", was a very half-hearted attempt to fulfill this fantasy of a Confederate-Union fellowship in the 21st century.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well we can all agree that Dommy's "alternate timeline", was a very half-hearted attempt to fulfill this fantasy of a Confederate-Union fellowship in the 21st century.

I'm not that good with alternate history, so I agree what I said wouldn't have happened.

However, the CSA and USA being friends is DEFINITELY possible. The US and England did it.

And, if the CSA won the war, the Union wouldn't invade them again. Period. A lot of Americans didn't like the war the first time, and that was with the CSA arguably simply being several states in rebellion. If the CSA was invaded 10 years later, England would DOW the USA, the border states would all join them, leaving DC isolated if it still remained union, and the people would have seen it as an invasion without purpose. And there's the fact that the CSA would have modernized a bit.

I'm curious what you guys think would have happened if the South had won.

 

[Ajidica]

I'm not that good with alternate history, so I agree what I said wouldn't have happened.

However, the CSA and USA being friends is DEFINITELY possible. The US and England did it.

And it took quite a while for the US and UK to become 'friends'. It only really happened after WWII, prior to that we just got along amicably once the War of 1812 and Impressment was over.

And, if the CSA won the war, the Union wouldn't invade them again. Period. A lot of Americans didn't like the war the first time, and that was with the CSA arguably simply being several states in rebellion.

But here the CSA was set up in direct opposition to the USA and had humbled them. Besides, greater industrial power and manpower plus a grudge would make the CSA's position unevniable.

If the CSA was invaded 10 years later, England would DOW the USA, the border states would all join them, leaving DC isolated if it still remained union,

Why would the UK do that? THey were no fans of the CSA (Slavery had been gone since the Napoleonic Wars and most people didn't like it) and didn't want them to be a possible cotton competitor. In all likelihood the border states wouldn't flip, they didn't the first time and wouldn't the second time. They don't want rampaging armies in their lands. They were just fine keeping the devestation in Virginia.

and the people would have seen it as an invasion without purpose.

Thats what Spin Doctors and propoganda is for. The CSA leaders managed to delude an entire populance into conducting a war that was against their best interests and pretending to think that it was legal and noble.

And there's the fact that the CSA would have modernized a bit.

No they wouldn't have. Please read the past 20 odd posts.

I'm curious what you guys think would have happened if the South had won.

It didn't and had no chance to besides a fluke occurance. They lacked the economic strength or manpower to securly hold the border or the western territories.

 

[GhostWriter16]

And it took quite a while for the US and UK to become 'friends'. It only really happened after WWII, prior to that we just got along amicably once the War of 1812 and Impressment was over.

Of course, but you still don't just invade a country for no reason.

But here the CSA was set up in direct opposition to the USA and had humbled them. Besides, greater industrial power and manpower plus a grudge would make the CSA's position unevniable.

The USA wouldn't invade again, period. The war cost enough the first time and there was no way the populace would have been in favor.

Why would the UK do that? THey were no fans of the CSA (Slavery had been gone since the Napoleonic Wars and most people didn't like it) and didn't want them to be a possible cotton competitor.

England needed the South for the cotton trade, and even though they didn't have slavery in England having it in the CSA helped England's economy via cotton trade.

In all likelihood the border states wouldn't flip, they didn't the first time and wouldn't the second time. They don't want rampaging armies in their lands. They were just fine keeping the devestation in Virginia

Well, the Confederacy controlled part of Kentucky (Government in Bowling Green) and part of Missouri (I don't remember where.) Maryland PROBABLY would have stayed in the Union the first time, but not again after Lincoln brutally, illegally, and unethically arrested many of Maryland's people without a trial simply for disagreeing with what he was doing. As I remember saying awhile back "I don't know what the other states should have done but Maryland should have gotten the heck out." If another war had come about they would have. Deleware would probably be dumb and stay again.

Thats what Spin Doctors and propoganda is for. The CSA leaders managed to delude an entire populance into conducting a war that was against their best interests and pretending to think that it was legal and noble.

Opinionated statement is opinionated. Please read the 10th amendment carefully before coming up with conclusions.

No they wouldn't have. Please read the past 20 odd posts.

I still don't buy it. Slavery wasn't going to last THAT much longer either way. In fact, its very possible that, while they still wouldn't have liked the black people very much, they would have set them free and let them go north within 20 years. The Jim Crow laws were a result of Andrew Johnson's stupid policy of harsh reconstruction. (I suppose it was really congress, but Lincoln would have stood up to them. Johnson did not.)

It didn't and had no chance to besides a fluke occurance. They lacked the economic strength or manpower to securly hold the border or the western territories.

Umm... Three words, Robert E. Lee. Period. The Union didn't have a single good general in their ranks except Grant and he was more average. The Union won with sheer resources, if Lee had led the Union like Lincoln asked then the South would have died within a year. Two years if he'd stayed home. Instead it took four.

And, if Robert E. Lee had taken Antietam and Gettysburg, the Union would have been forced to sign over CSA independence. Washington would have been surrounded and part of Pennsylvania, not even a border state, would be in Union hands.

And, to all CSA bashers who live in the USA, remember where we came from and how we got our freedom

 

[madviking]

Of course, but you still don't just invade a country for no reason. The USA wouldn't invade again, period. The war cost enough the first time and there was no way the populace would have been in favor.

It cost the South 100x more. So that's moot.

England needed the South for the cotton trade, and even though they didn't have slavery in England having it in the CSA helped England's economy via cotton trade.

As well already have said, Great Britain had its own sources of cotton.

I still don't buy it. Slavery wasn't going to last THAT much longer either way. In fact, its very possible that, while they still wouldn't have liked the black people very much, they would have set them free and let them go north within 20 years. The Jim Crow laws were a result of Andrew Johnson's stupid policy of harsh reconstruction. (I suppose it was really congress, but Lincoln would have stood up to them. Johnson did not.)

LOL. One of the major reasons of the South's existence was to perpetuate slavery.

Umm... Three words, Robert E. Lee. Period. The Union didn't have a single good general in their ranks except Grant and he was more average. The Union won with sheer resources, if Lee had led the Union like Lincoln asked then the South would have died within a year. Two years if he'd stayed home. Instead it took four.

Two words: Pickett's charge.

And, if Robert E. Lee had taken Antietam and Gettysburg, the Union would have been forced to sign over CSA independence. Washington would have been surrounded and part of Pennsylvania, not even a border state, would be in Union hands.

You DO realize that Antietam and Gettysburg are nowhere near "encircling" DC? If ya really wanted to, just cross the damn Potomac from Alexandria and attack from there.

 

[Ajidica]

Of course, but you still don't just invade a country for no reason.

Why? The CSA did it. They didn't have to attack Federal property.

The USA wouldn't invade again, period. The war cost enough the first time and there was no way the populace would have been in favor.

Whats the point of departure again? IIRC the bloodiest battles occured late in the war.

England needed the South for the cotton trade, and even though they didn't have slavery in England having it in the CSA helped England's economy via cotton trade.

WRONG!!! Great Britain(Is that what they were called at this time? I can't remember) had Egypt for cotton and Egypt was far better for cotton that the South. There was a reason GB didn't aid the south in the first place. A strong cotton producing south was a threat to GBs cotton monopoly.

Well, the Confederacy controlled part of Kentucky (Government in Bowling Green) and part of Missouri (I don't remember where.) Maryland PROBABLY would have stayed in the Union the first time, but not again after Lincoln brutally, illegally, and unethically arrested many of Maryland's people without a trial simply for disagreeing with what he was doing.

IIRC, the constitution allows the president to suspend Habeus Corpus in emergency circumstances. I'm not saying what lincoln did was good though.

As I remember saying awhile back "I don't know what the other states should have done but Maryland should have gotten the heck out." If another war had come about they would have. Deleware would probably be dumb and stay again.

Not likely. Maryland wouldn't have wanted to get devestated like Virginia was. DC is a major target and Maryland is near DC. Let the fighting and devestation commence.

Opinionated statement is opinionated. Please read the 10th amendment carefully before coming up with conclusions.

Ignorant and BS argument is ignorant and full of BS.

If I feel my neighbor might do something that could hurt me, what do I do:
1. Do I ask him to not do that activity?
2. Do I call the cops?
3. Do I call together all of my neighbors to decide on an action?
4. Do I throw a big hissy fit and attack him?
If you chose #4, you made the same decision as the CSA. They had two major legal channels open to them from which they could lawfully seceed, SCOTUS and Congress. They used neither. Just like attacking your neighbor because he might do something is illegal, so was the CSA's secession.

I still don't buy it. Slavery wasn't going to last THAT much longer either way.

Then why become traitors to protect it?

In fact, its very possible that, while they still wouldn't have liked the black people very much, they would have set them free and let them go north within 20 years

.
Bull Crap. The entire southern economy depended on slaves. There was a reason they fought so hard and seceeded illegaly from a legal government. They wanted to protect their right to deprive others of their rights. Please re-read the last 20-odd posts on the southern economy.

The Jim Crow laws were a result of Andrew Johnson's stupid policy of harsh reconstruction. (I suppose it was really congress, but Lincoln would have stood up to them. Johnson did not.)

And Johnson would never have become President if Booth hadn't shot the south in the foot by assasinating Lincoln.

Umm... Three words, Robert E. Lee. Period. The Union didn't have a single good general in their ranks except Grant and he was more average.

The Union generals weren't that bad, they just were poor at fighting an offensive war. We already had Grant by 63 and our other bad generals had been weeded out.

The Union won with sheer resources, if Lee had led the Union like Lincoln asked then the South would have died within a year. Two years if he'd stayed home. Instead it took four.

And when the Union finaly figured out what it was doing, the south had no chance in under a year. Plus don't forget, the South was under a blockade. Even if DC fell the blockade would have remained in place.

And, if Robert E. Lee had taken Antietam and Gettysburg, the Union would have been forced to sign over CSA independence. Washington would have been surrounded and part of Pennsylvania, not even a border state, would be in Union hands

.
BS. If this had happened, then the result would be this. If Lee had seen a way to win the battles he would have taken them. However, I am proud to say the Union held the line at Gettysburg because of the 1st Minnesota.

And, to all CSA bashers who live in the USA, remember where we came from and how we got our freedom

That was different. The colonies lacked any representation in Parliament, they had no voice in the government, and there was no legal means to pursue secession open to them.

Two words: Pickett's charge.

Which the 1st Minnesota stopped

 

[GhostWriter16]

It cost the South 100x more. So that's moot.

Even though this is an exaggeration, still, the border states didn't even like paying what they had to, and even the non-border states didn't like it too much.

As well already have said, Great Britain had its own sources of cotton.

Then why did England support the CSA?

LOL. One of the major reasons of the South's existence was to perpetuate slavery.

I am well aware, however it was a dying initution, if the CSA DID last till today it would not have slavery anymore.

Two words: Pickett's charge.

The South, as I said before, were outnumbered, but Lee was still brilliant and if he had broken through Gettysburg the war would have ended very soon after.

You DO realize that Antietam and Gettysburg are nowhere near "encircling" DC? If ya really wanted to, just cross the damn Potomac from Alexandria and attack from there.

Yes I do, but he wanted to take Maryland and isolate DC, which was much smarter than "Just attacking" like you suggest. And its a good thing Lee was their general and not one of us who are not half as smart as Lee.