The Confederate States of America {history revised}

[Agrippa]

The relationship between the US and the CS depends on two factors: the length/severity of the war and how the Confederacy decides to establish its economy. The longer the war lasts and the more men that are killed, the worse the prospects for friendly relations. Even if all the territorial disputes are settled in the peace treaty, one side or the other might desire revenge. The Confederacy will also be forced to develop a more industrialized economy the longer the war lasts. The more industrialized the economy of the south, the greater the economic competition between the two nations; in an age of tariffs, that heralds a greater chance for unfriendly relations. If the southern economy remain based on primary goods, raw materials, then the two nations will form an economic symbiosis, with the south sending raw materials north in exchange for manufactured goods. Generally, trade of this nature tends to strengthen the relationships between countries. I believe the most likely alternative is a long war causing discontent in the north, leading the Federals to grant independence in the south. The Confederacy and the Union will most likely engage in combat at some point in the future. The later the date of that conflict, the greater the likelihood of a Union victory; in a truly modern, industrialized war, the south cannot compete.

I've been working on a triology of a civil war alternate history for fun. In it, Davis is smart enough not to attack Fort Sumter and Lincoln never gets the necessary political support to suppress the south. The original seven states of the Confederacy go free, along with parts of North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, and Arkansas (essentially, each one of these states breaks up like Virginia/West Virginia). The Republicans in the north are tarnished and Federal authority in the Union declines. The southern economy remains based on raw materials. Things are good for a time, but then it starts to fail. The Confederacy goes deep into debt, as do many of the planters. The country is saved by the UK and France and it becomes a sort of 'Egypt-lite.'

In 1916, the First World War breaks out when Emperor Franz Joseph dies. Hungary fears the new emperor, Franz Ferdinand, will create a Triple Monarchy and it declares independence. Austria is consumed in chaos and don't do anything for several weeks. Hungary asks for Russian assistance and the Tsar agrees, thinking the Austrians aren't going to get their act together and sends some troops. This galvanizes the Austrians into action and they start mobilizing to suppress the Hungarians and declares war on Russia. Several other minorities then start to rebel. When rebellion sweeps through Bosnia, Serbia declares war on Austria. Germany, seeing that its ally has biten off more than it can chew, declares war on Russia and Serbia. France then declares war on Germany. After Germany initiates an offensive through Belgium, Britain declares war on Germany. The Confederacy, prodded by the British and the French, join the war against Germany, promising a few divisions for the Western Front.

Now, one side effect of the lack of a Civil War is the presence of a much larger American merchant marine. Confederate raiders absolutely thrashed American commerce. The size of the American merchant marine never rebounded after the war while other nations increased their merchant marine until the United States possessed a mere 10% of world's total shipping. In this timeline, the US has about a quarter of the world's total shipping, second only to Britain (with Germany closely behind). So, when the UK announces its blockade of the Central Powers, the US is hit much harder than it was in our timeline. Tensions start to develop between the US and the UK. The President, John Ericson, tries to cool things down, but Congress ties his hands. After a British cruiser sinks a Union freighter trying to run the blockade, Congress declares war on Britain. The rest of the Allies, including the Confederacy, declare war on the US.

The US is completely unprepared for war. Fortunately for them, Canada and the Confederacy has shipped their pre-war army and the first batch of volunteers to France already, meaning no one else in North America is ready for war either. The Union navy is about twice as large as the Confederate navy, but only a third as large as the US navy in our time line. The British, however, aren't in any shape to send much of a squadron to North America. The story follows the captain of a Union light cruiser in a series of naval battles against the Confederacy and the Royal Navy. To make a long story short, the US manages to take a decent chunk of Canada and the Confederacy but, by 1920, Germany is defeated (just in time as Russia collapses into civil war a few months later). The UK, sick of war, makes a deal: the US gives up its gains in Canada and pays reparations and it can keep its territory in the Confederacy (essentially, it now has all of Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri).

After the war, relations between the US and the UK improve. There is a naval treaty that establishes unity in cruiser strength, while US capital strength is set at a 3:5 ratio with that of the Royal Navy (the only US Pacific possessions are Hawaii and Midway so it doesn't need as large a fleet, the cruisers are for commerce protection). Germany gets hit with a treaty a bit lighter than Versailles (the Allies couldn't enforce as harsh a treaty with Russia collapsing) but it is as ticked off as it was in our timeline. It makes agreements with the new states of Eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, the Baltic States, etc) that are afraid of the emerging autocratic Russia (ruled by a general distantly related to the Tsar who talks of expansion). The Confederacy is taken over by a revanchist government backed by lower classes rather than the planters. This government generates a lot of support in the regions taken by the US after the war. It launches purges against the planters, many of whom flee to the US, Canada, and Britain.

World War II breaks out in the early 1940s. Germany takes control of Austria, leading France, Britain, and Italy to declare war. Germany swiftly knocks France out of the war while its Eastern European allies manage to hold the Alps against an Italian offensive. Once France falls and Italy finds German troops ringing the Alps, it signs a treaty, getting peace for some minor reparations. Britain fights an aerial battle with Germany over the Channel and Japan makes preparations to seize British, Dutch, and Spanish colonies in the Far East. The US, still neutral, mobilizes most of its forces in the West and Hawaii, expecting a Japanese attack. The Confederacy sees an opportunity and delcares war and launches a rapid thrust against Washington DC. The city falls in only two weeks and most of the Union gains in WWI are lost. The second and third books of the trilogy follow the son of the captain in the first book, in his battles in the US Navy against the Confederates and the Japanese. The highlights are a battle between a joint USN-RN task force and the bulk of the Confederate Navy, where the USN-RN force blocks a Confederate invasion of Bermuda, and the service the Union Navy in the Far East against Japan and its role epic Battle of the China Sea.

In the war, the US and the Canadians manage to defeat the Confederacy. The US takes some more land and then breaks the Confederacy in two. It installs the planters back in power, who know that if the US Army leaves, they'll be lucky to just lose their land again. In Europe, Russia eventually joins the war, attacking Eastern Europe. Germany fights a defensive battle reminiscent of WWI, which turns into a WWI-like stalemate. Four or five years after the fall of France, the British and the American Army, fresh from victory against the Confederacy, launch an invasion of southern France from bases in Algeria (essentially Free French territory). There is heavy fighting in the Rhone Valley until the US and UK invade northern France and force the Germans to withdraw. Italy then rejoins the war against Germany and Eastern Europe. Germany had endured too much by this point and it largely collapses in the next couple of months. The US and UK manage to seize most of Germany, the Italians get a few key passes in the Alps, and the Russians get all of Eastern Europe, setting the stage for the Cold War. In the Far East, Japan and the USN-RN fight a large battle in the China Sea, which seas both fleets effectively shattered. Still, without the IJN, the UK holds onto Malaya, though the Japanese get bits and pieces of the Dutch East Indies and the Spanish Philippines. The war then petters out, with the Japanese getting a few minor islands in exchange for peace. Japan allies with the US, UK, France, and Italy (Germany a few years later) in its Cold War against the Russian Empire (which directly annexes Eastern Europe). That's where I stop. So far I've deeply outlined the plot and just have to start writing. That was quite a bit of a thread derailment. Sorry, but it's just too long to delete after all that.

Jefferson Davis was a prime example of this attitude, never admitting the fact that he was a traitor to his country.

Jefferson Davis is one of the Confederates who particularly deserves the title of 'traitor'. While serving as Secretary of War under President Buchanan, after the southern states began to secede, he transferred arms and war material to Federal bases in the southern states, so that the future Confederate states could make use of them.

The South was winning the War.

The war was very much a see-saw affair. Remember that just a few months before Antietam, the Union was advancing on the gates of Richmond and the war appeared to be at an end.

Grant the general for the Northern Army released his slaves after was the war was over because he had too.

Grant had one slave; he received it as an inheritance from a relative. In spite of his poor financial condition, he released the slave rather than sell him. His wife owned some slaves in her own name, given to her from her father. She freed them at some unknown point during the war.

 

[Rygel]

Agrippa, now you made me want to read it.

 

[Agrippa]

Agrippa, now you made me want to read it.

If only it made me want to write it! My "fun" reading material for the last couple months has all been WWI naval operations and late 19th century US history. I finally get an outline done, complete with a few graphs of the naval battles in the first book and I just can't get myself to write more than a paragraph or so a day (which leaves me at something like 5,000 words a month after finishing the outline). Hopefully my muse strikes me again soon.

Oh well. At least I'm not writing this as a professional author. A deadline would be a bad thing at this point.

 

[Roman Soldier]

LEt's say that the Union had lost the war and the CSA won. What would the North American Continent be like today? Would slavery exist today? Would would the Union be like? Would the Allies of ended even winning WWI or WWII?

Slavery was becoming less and less economical, therefore it would have eventually disappeared no matter what. Feeding and clothing a slave was expensive, so it was much better to just pay someone 50 cents an hour for labor.

With a Confederate victory, There would be at least two camps- the remainers of the Union and Confederacy. Whenever a state didn't think its federal government was useful to them, they would try to leave just as the Confederacy did.

It's possible that both the Confederacy and the Union would just keep moving West, however in time it's unlikely that there would be two nations going all the way to the Pacific Ocean. There would likely be a nation along the Pacific Rim (certainly California and Oregan would eventually leave just as Confederacy did, just as soon as Washington wasn't giving them what they wanted. If they couldn't defeat the South, how would they even get soldiers all the way over to the Pacific) and in the Mountain Time zone.

These 2 or 4 nations would likely maintain large armies, though in time this hostility would disappear. Each nation exploits it's resources and it able to remain fairly mightly. The North has corn, money, railways, and educational institutions. The South has cotton, oil, and a much larger coastline.

Britian exploits the squablings of these two nations, siding with the Confederacy. Even with British support the Confederacy will never have enough power to conquer the North, however. But the Union knows that it cannot conquer a Confederacy with British armies supporting it. Assuming that British/Confederate alliance lasts, the Confederacy is willing to quickly send troops to Britian's aid during World War I.

It is possible, but unlikely, that Germany will try to get the Union on its side during WWI. Relations between Britian and the Union are likely much better by WWI.

Without a unified USA, the Spanish-American war is never fought. This means that the US has little interest in Pacific Islands, and as Japan expands during the 1930s the USA barely cares. There is no attack on Pearl Harbor, because Hawaii is likely an independent nation or a territory of Britain or France.

There really isn't any way to know how the Union and Confederacy would have responded to World War II Europe.

Also note that immigration to the United States may have been greatly affected by a different outcome.

That's just my off the cuff take on all if it.

 

[OnTheWay]

LEt's say that the Union had lost the war and the CSA won. What would the North American Continent be like today? Would slavery exist today? Would would the Union be like? Would the Allies of ended even winning WWI or WWII?

Even by the time of the Civil War slavery was becoming an outdated economic model. Many machines were being developed that would have made slaves useless, not to mention would work faster, longer, and never got sick or died. Also in an effort to secure European allies the CSA would have gotten rid of slaves. However, in this case I think instead of allowing the blacks to remain here and the the ensuing rights and social issues that followed it is lilely CSA leaders would have opted to send them back to Africa. I think the plan would have mirrored what was done in real history, save on a much larger scale and there probably would have come a point in which leaving was no longer on a volunteer basis.
There would, of course, be issues of land control in the west and what went to the USA and what would have been controlled by the CSA.
If the CSA would have won I don't think there would have been a second world war. The economic and social structure of the CSA would have been much more similar to the Central powers. However, given the loosely confederated nature of the CSA and likely isolationism it is unlikely the CSA would have entered WW1. Thus the US would probably not have entered and the Central powers would have come out on top, thus there never would have been a world war 2.

 

[collegekid4christ]

I dont think that slavery would've existed much longer.

 

[Torah]

LEt's say that the Union had lost the war and the CSA won. What would the North American Continent be like today? Would slavery exist today? Would would the Union be like? Would the Allies of ended even winning WWI or WWII?

There are a lot of “What would” be if. We was conquered and that’s that. Some very good points have been brought up here.

 

[leothelioness]

Agree wholeheartedly. Many pro-Confederacy people today like to say the war wasn't about slavery. It always sounds to me like they're trying to rationalize a war that they started, lost, and never really accepted the responsibility for. Jefferson Davis was a prime example of this attitude, never admitting the fact that he was a traitor to his country. While the past is important for us to remember, and while many in the South have a strong traditional tie to the Confederacy (I'm a Texan, and have always regretted this dark part of my states history), I think 150 years is enough time passed to move on and look to how they can better the future of their own states and this country.

Many of the issues we have today, especially dealing with race, can be traced directly back to the institution of slavery. As much as I disagree with African-Americans who say they are still owed something from the sins of our past, the plight of the black person in poverty in this country had it's foundations in the slave system. That cannot be denied.

Okay. Don't even get me started. I'm a Southerner and I admire Jefferson Davis. He was a good man who was fighting against a tyrannous madman in the form of Abraham Lincoln. How was Davis a traitor?

And the War Between the States(as it was originally known) was only partially about slavery. There were many more issues involved, mainly the issue of states' rights. I refer to the War, like most Southerners, as the War of Northern Aggression b/c that's what it was.

Edited to add: We did NOT start the War. Lincoln declared war on us for ceceding from the Union because we felt our constitutional rights were being infringed upon.

 

[leothelioness]

HOWEVER, from the point of view of the poor southerners, they didn't give a @#%* (excuse my french) about the slaves. What they didn't like, was the "Yankees" comin down and telling them how to live their lives.

We still don't. I don't know if they know, but we don't much like their prescence in the South.

Furthermore, slavery was NOT the original reason for the war. It was brought in later by Lincoln to give justification for an otherwise unjustified war.

Exactly.

And you speak of white supremacy slavery garbage. Where does that put the North? Who gave the South the slaves? The North. I could go on. Also, after "abolishing" slavery in the North, they found another way to subjigate (sp?) the African American's. Indintured Servitude. Furthermore the North always used the Southern states as a testing ground for desegregation policies. When they tried to desegregate the schools up north, there were angry parents in BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS throwing BRICKS at school busses FULL OF BLACK CHILDREN.

True. Some slaves that had moved to the north came back claiming they recieved better treatment in the South. And Martin Luther King, Jr. also said that the racism he saw in places like Michigan was worse than the racism he saw in Mississippi.

Another thing is whites were not the only slave owners in the South. Slaves that were released by their owners went on to purchase other slaves and run their own plantations.

 

[applepowerpc]

There's a British movie out on this subject right now, called "Confederate States of America". It's airing in the more alternative-like movie theaters.

 

[leothelioness]

There's a British movie out on this subject right now, called "Confederate States of America". It's airing in the more alternative-like movie theaters.

Really? Do they depict us in a more positive light than Americans do? I would imagine so since they helped us during the war.

 

[applepowerpc]

I haven't seen the movie. Frankly, the movie doesn't look all that good to me. Looks like dollar theater material.

 

[Pentecostal Boy]

Thank you leothelioness! I seem like the only southerner in here defending our wondeful (and very beautiful) part of the Nation. The North was bull headed *as it tends to be today*. They imposed taxes*which were EXTREMELY unfair* on our exports and imports that majorly hurt the Southern Economy. Since Great Britain was one of our main customers of cotton it became too pricy to trade with them.
The south still finds it horrible how the north views us as such horrible bloody traitors. Because we aren't. I also hate it when I defend the reasons why the south wanted slavery. Now I didn't say that I defender slavery. But the reason why the south needed slaves at that time. So people get rude, sarcastic, and lippy. The Civil War(the War between the states for us southerners ) has left permenant affects on America. Some good... and some... Not so good.

 

[leothelioness]

Thank you leothelioness! I seem like the only southerner in here defending our wondeful (and very beautiful) part of the Nation. The North was bull headed *as it tends to be today*. They imposed taxes*which were EXTREMELY unfair* on our exports and imports that majorly hurt the Southern Economy. Since Great Britain was one of our main customers of cotton it became too pricy to trade with them.
The south still finds it horrible how the north views us as such horrible bloody traitors. Because we aren't. I also hate it when I defend the reasons why the south wanted slavery. Now I didn't say that I defender slavery. But the reason why the south needed slaves at that time. So people get rude, sarcastic, and lippy. The Civil War(the War between the states for us southerners ) has left permenant affects on America. Some good... and some... Not so good.

Yeah. Yankees are just bitter that they don't have it as good as we do down here.

And, the reason they attack us and try to make us look wrong is because they know they were the ones who were wrong, but are too chicken to admit it.

Even though I was born 120+ years after the war was over, I still have an unfavourable view towards the Union. The reason being, my great-great-great-great grandfather was a spy for the Confederacy and his home and all his land was confiscated as punishment for being a so-called "traitor".

He was a traitor to them, but he is a hero to me.

REBEL YELL!!!!!!!!!!

 

[armyman_83]

Yankees like to call us Rebels like King George, as if they wore his crown!

 

[Agrippa]

And the War Between the States(as it was originally known) was only partially about slavery. There were many more issues involved, mainly the issue of states' rights. I refer to the War, like most Southerners, as the War of Northern Aggression b/c that's what it was.

I assume you've never read the Declarations of the Causes of Secession.

Georgia

Mississippi

South Carolina

Texas

Funny how often the issue of slavery pops up considering it is the minor issue you claim it to be.

Edited to add: We did NOT start the War. Lincoln declared war on us for ceceding from the Union because we felt our constitutional rights were being infringed upon.

Who fired on Fort Sumter thus initiating the conflict?

They imposed taxes*which were EXTREMELY unfair* on our exports and imports that majorly hurt the Southern Economy.

The Northern economy had been wrecked by panics earlier in the 1850s and needed import tariffs to rebuild. The Federal government was also heavily in debt (with no income taxes, the only real source of revenue for the government was tariffs). So, the legitimately elected national body of the country exercised its Constitutional authority to levy tariffs. The North came to the South's aid after it demanded the war with Mexico, it seems right that the South reciprocate by helping the economy of the North when it was in need.

 

[applepowerpc]

I don't read anywhere leo saying that slavery was a non-issue. She said it was only partially the issue. That is accurate.

 

[Agrippa]

You're right, I changed it from 'non-issue' to 'minor issue'. When you read the Declarations of the Causes of Secession, you'll see that each one mentions slavery and it is an issue of vastly more importance than anything else in the documents (Georgia mentions tariffs, Texas talks about land disputes, etc).

 

[armyman_83]

Who fired on Fort Sumter thus initiating the conflict?

Yes, the South fired on Ft. Sumter; which is what the North wanted. Lincoln sent troops on ships and supplies to the fort, knowing that the South woundn't let them land more men and supplies.

However, due to an agreement made between the commanding officer of the fort and the Southern forces, the South opened fire before the ships (with men and supplies) could arrive.

Confederate Secretary of War, Walker revoked an order to bombard the fort after recieving word from Anderson(leader of Ft. Sumter) they would be starved out in a few days, but that they would wait for the first shot.

"Do not desire needlessly to bombard Fort Sumter. If Major Anderson will state the time at which he will evacuate...you are authorized thus to avoid the effusion of blood."---Walker

Beauregard informed Anderson of Walker's offer. anderson answered:
"I will evacuate Fort Sumter by noon of the 15 instant...should I not receive prior to that time controlling instructions from my Government, or additional supplies."

Beauregard sent aid to the fort after the barracks caught fire during the bombardment, though Anderson refused to use the southerns fire engine, saying that the fire had burned to a safe amount.

The garrison was allowed to leave the fort with banners flying and playing Yankee Doodle. They were sailed back to union forces (the relief ships with men and munitions) by the Confederate steamer Isabel.

Did Lincoln badger the South into firing the first shot?

Secretary of Navy Gideon Welles wrote: "It was very important that the Rebels strike the first blow in the conflict."

Captian Fox, under Lincoln's orders had assembled a squadron of warships and tugs to reinforce the fort.

Fox: "I simply propose three tugs conyed by light-draft men of war...The first tug to lead in empty to open their fire"

Before Fox could get there the fort was taken.

Lincoln to Fox written on May 1, 1861:
"I sincerely regret that the failure of the attempt to provision Fort Sumter shopuld be the source of annoyance to you...
"You and I both anticipated the cause the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."

 

[applepowerpc]

I do think attempts to minimize the role of slavery in the Civil War's origins are inaccurate. Had secession been the ONLY issue, I wouldn't rule out that the North would just let them, legal or not. Just let them secede, that's better than 300,000 dead.

About the Mexican War, do you have any sources indicating that it was primarily the South who wanted the war? Texas was, of course, their own country at the time, so they had no right to "demand" it of the U.S..