What would have happened if the south had gotten its independence from the union

[TheWildCard]

For this I was specifically thinking of what would have happened in WWII if the U.S. was divided into north and south?

We've had these discussions about the South before but I thought this would add an interesting twist.

[Ben.]

Not what Harry Turtledove would like us to believe.

In the end the two nations would have found they where economically bound together to such a degree that while the CSA might have had a more overtly friendly relationship with France and Britain (earlier entry into WW1?) there would have been little tension, at least after the impact of the war had subsided.

[John Dibble]

For one thing, I don't think the Confederacy would have lasted - it may have stayed independent from the Union, but it would have had to go through major changes and moved towards a federalist government rather than a confederacy. It had many of the same problems that the colonies had under the Articles of Confederation, simply because confederacies are too weak to bind their members into a coherent union in most cases.

[??????????]

For one thing, I don't think the Confederacy would have lasted - it may have stayed independent from the Union, but it would have had to go through major changes and moved towards a federalist government rather than a confederacy. It had many of the same problems that the colonies had under the Articles of Confederation, simply because confederacies are too weak to bind their members into a coherent union in most cases.

Like Canada?

[John Dibble]

For one thing, I don't think the Confederacy would have lasted - it may have stayed independent from the Union, but it would have had to go through major changes and moved towards a federalist government rather than a confederacy. It had many of the same problems that the colonies had under the Articles of Confederation, simply because confederacies are too weak to bind their members into a coherent union in most cases.

Like Canada?

LOL.

I'm not actually that familiar with the powers of the Canadian federal government, so I can't really say.

[??????????]

For one thing, I don't think the Confederacy would have lasted - it may have stayed independent from the Union, but it would have had to go through major changes and moved towards a federalist government rather than a confederacy. It had many of the same problems that the colonies had under the Articles of Confederation, simply because confederacies are too weak to bind their members into a coherent union in most cases.

Like Canada?

LOL.

I'm not actually that familiar with the powers of the Canadian federal government, so I can't really say.

Canada is a form of a confederated government. I agree with most of those here who said the south would have rejoined. I think it would have happened by 1890. Especially since slavery would have gone out of existence by that point with the creation of the automatic reaper.

[Bugs]

International anti-slavery sentiment would have further hastened slavery's downfall, but pride might have been a barrier to re-unification. However I do agree that it would have happened, probably by 1900. 

But in keeping with the intent of this thread, assuming that the south, in some form, would have remained independant until WWII, it probably would have fought alongside the north against both Germany and Japan.  Ethnic, religious and cultural similarities would have brought the two sides into political allegiance, as occured between the US and both Canada and Britain.  This would have been spurred along by WWI, and reunifiction might have happened after WWII.

[Erc]

My question is...

What the heck happens in the north?  You just lost a civil war--what's your reaction?

My opinion...the North develops a huge inferiority complex, and either:

A) withdraws into itself

B) makes up for its problems at home by going on foreign adventures, whether in Latin America or in Canada or in the Pacific.

In my opinion, A) is the more likely option in the short run.  The US will have to do a lot of introspection.  The Republicans will be blamed for losing the war...but the Democrats will be blamed for their Copperheadedness.  Either one party or the other will either have to lose that image--or both collapse.  I think the latter is more likely--in my opinion, some reincarnation of the old Whig / Nativist / Know-Nothing / American party would be extremely likely, and would dominate politics until the 1890's or so.  Eventually, I think it's inevitable that a Teddy Roosevelt-type figure would emerge from the Whigs and start the US on some lovely imperialist adventures--which would inevitably lead to tensions with the CSA [forestalling any of the reunion measures that may have been floating about at this time].

It's quite likely that a Rooseveltian-led conflict may have led into a major worldwide conflict around 1905 or so [WWI should have started in 1905...the world just got extremely lucky...add a belligerent US, and there's no avoiding it].

The US tries to pull off something in the Caribbean...combined with German adventures in the Morocco and Japanese adventures on Manchuria, everything blows up.

In the West:

USA v. Britain, Canada, CSA, Mexico, France, Russia (in Alaska) and officially Spain [although due to pro-German sentiment they let the CSA do most of the fighting]

In the Far East:

Japan, USA, Germany vs. Russia, France, Britain, Spain.

USA, without the base in Hong Kong (I don't even know whether they'd have Hawaii), plus its own problems at home, doesn't do much out in the Pacific.  It's mainly the Japanese [who have pretty much crushed the Russians at this point, after all] and a couple German gunboats vs. the French and the Brits (oh, yeah, and the Spanish in the Philippines).

In Europe:

[UK,] France, Russia v. Germany, Austria, Turkey (who joins early to grab some Turkish spoils).

Schleiffen, who is on the verge of retiring anyway, is quickly
brushed aside, and the Germans invade Russia first [which is on the verge of collapse, after all].  Despite a brief resurgence of nationalist spirit, the Russians were too far gone to put up resistance.  Nicholas II is couped within a few months, and the new Republican government, although reluctant at first, is forced to the table after continued German, Austrian, Turkish, and Japanese drives.

With Russia out of the way, France doesn't stand much of a chance, despite the last-minute rushing of British troops to the continent.

January 1907:

France, Russia, and Spain are out of the war. 

Russia's been forced to give up all its claims in China and a good deal of its Pacific posessions to the Japanese, and Alaska to the US.

Spain gives up the Philippines to the Japanese, and sells its Caribbean possessions to the CSA.

France loses the rest of Lorraine, most of its African colonies, French Indochina, and its Chinese claims.

Belgium and Luxembourg cease to exist.

Mexico is under the control of Benito Juarez, a staunch American ally (the US hasn't pissed off the rest of the Americas yet, so they seem like the good guys).

Canada, left defenseless by the removal of British troops, surrenders to the US.

Which leaves the UK and the CSA vs. the US, Japan, Germany, Austria, and Turkey.

After major naval defeats in the Caribbean and the Mediterranean, the UK realizes the futility of its position, they sign a peace, surrendering Egypt, its claims in China (including Hong Kong), and its Caribbean posessions.

The US is forced, reluctantly, to the table with the CSA, and takes back Kentucky (liberated while the peace talks progressed) and the former Spanish posessions.

WWII is more likely to feature a resurgent France, Russia, or Britain challenging the Germany-Japan-US axis.

Although of course its also very likely that the US could be disgusted by being in bed with the Kaiser and Emperor...and essentially fight a repeat of WWII (although with a democratic Russia this time around, its hard to say what would happen afterwards...or whether a war would even happen).

If the US does realign diplomatically, reunification with the south would likely occur in the '50s, war or no war.

If not...it could take a bit longer--and perhaps by force.

[Bugs]

My question is...

What the heck happens in the north?  You just lost a civil war--what's your reaction?

My opinion...the North develops a huge inferiority complex, and either:

A) withdraws into itself

B) makes up for its problems at home by going on foreign adventures, whether in Latin America or in Canada or in the Pacific.

In my opinion, A) is the more likely option in the short run.  The US will have to do a lot of introspection.  The Republicans will be blamed for losing the war...but the Democrats will be blamed for their Copperheadedness.  Either one party or the other will either have to lose that image--or both collapse.  I think the latter is more likely--in my opinion, some reincarnation of the old Whig / Nativist / Know-Nothing / American party would be extremely likely, and would dominate politics until the 1890's or so.  Eventually, I think it's inevitable that a Teddy Roosevelt-type figure would emerge from the Whigs and start the US on some lovely imperialist adventures--which would inevitably lead to tensions with the CSA [forestalling any of the reunion measures that may have been floating about at this time].

It's quite likely that a Rooseveltian-led conflict may have led into a major worldwide conflict around 1905 or so [WWI should have started in 1905...the world just got extremely lucky...add a belligerent US, and there's no avoiding it].

The US tries to pull off something in the Caribbean...combined with German adventures in the Morocco and Japanese adventures on Manchuria, everything blows up.

In the West:

USA v. Britain, Canada, CSA, Mexico, France, Russia (in Alaska) and officially Spain [although due to pro-German sentiment they let the CSA do most of the fighting]

In the Far East:

Japan, USA, Germany vs. Russia, France, Britain, Spain.

USA, without the base in Hong Kong (I don't even know whether they'd have Hawaii), plus its own problems at home, doesn't do much out in the Pacific.  It's mainly the Japanese [who have pretty much crushed the Russians at this point, after all] and a couple German gunboats vs. the French and the Brits (oh, yeah, and the Spanish in the Philippines).

In Europe:

[UK,] France, Russia v. Germany, Austria, Turkey (who joins early to grab some Turkish spoils).

Schleiffen, who is on the verge of retiring anyway, is quickly
brushed aside, and the Germans invade Russia first [which is on the verge of collapse, after all].  Despite a brief resurgence of nationalist spirit, the Russians were too far gone to put up resistance.  Nicholas II is couped within a few months, and the new Republican government, although reluctant at first, is forced to the table after continued German, Austrian, Turkish, and Japanese drives.

With Russia out of the way, France doesn't stand much of a chance, despite the last-minute rushing of British troops to the continent.

January 1907:

France, Russia, and Spain are out of the war. 

Russia's been forced to give up all its claims in China and a good deal of its Pacific posessions to the Japanese, and Alaska to the US.

Spain gives up the Philippines to the Japanese, and sells its Caribbean possessions to the CSA.

France loses the rest of Lorraine, most of its African colonies, French Indochina, and its Chinese claims.

Belgium and Luxembourg cease to exist.

Mexico is under the control of Benito Juarez, a staunch American ally (the US hasn't pissed off the rest of the Americas yet, so they seem like the good guys).

Canada, left defenseless by the removal of British troops, surrenders to the US.

Which leaves the UK and the CSA vs. the US, Japan, Germany, Austria, and Turkey.

After major naval defeats in the Caribbean and the Mediterranean, the UK realizes the futility of its position, they sign a peace, surrendering Egypt, its claims in China (including Hong Kong), and its Caribbean posessions.

The US is forced, reluctantly, to the table with the CSA, and takes back Kentucky (liberated while the peace talks progressed) and the former Spanish posessions.

WWII is more likely to feature a resurgent France, Russia, or Britain challenging the Germany-Japan-US axis.

Although of course its also very likely that the US could be disgusted by being in bed with the Kaiser and Emperor...and essentially fight a repeat of WWII (although with a democratic Russia this time around, its hard to say what would happen afterwards...or whether a war would even happen).

If the US does realign diplomatically, reunification with the south would likely occur in the '50s, war or no war.

If not...it could take a bit longer--and perhaps by force.

This opens up new methods for dealing with civil rights issues.  We could take care of business likie our "allies" did.  Who needs internment camps Just haul the blacks, Japanese, and Native Americans to death camps like the Nazis did.  Disgusting indeed.  We would never have been "in bed" with the Kaiser and Emperor in the first place.   

[minionofmidas]

The question is: How did the South get its independence from the union?
I'm going to disregard the "military victory" option since that's obviously baloney.
Hmmm...France and/or Britain joining the war on the South's behalf? Leads to a downfall of the French and/or British government, and quite possibly violent revolution, within a couple of months, which the governments in question knew very well, which is why it didn't happen.
That leaves two options:
a) The North just gives up after Bull Run.
Highly unlikely, but might lead to the sort of consequences most of you appear to envisage. (ie, abolution of slavery in the South in the 1890s, close alliance between the two countries, possible reunification)
b) The South does not attack Fort Sumter. The North does not attack the South, but rather tolerates a de-facto-independent Deep Southern Confederacy. The Upper South does not leave the Union.
The Mormons do, though, and straight away.
The CSA would not have been very viable, and radical Northerners would have done everything to create a Slave Revolution. Once Slavery was abolished in the North (this is bound to happen by the late-1870s, might lead to further secessions however), such a Slave Revolution would break out.
Either the South asks for Northern military help in this situation, with the result being reunification, abolution of slavery, and possibly some pretty largescale deportation of Blacks to Liberia, or it doesn't (or help is not granted), in which case the South's further history closely resembles that of Haiti. Though the US wields a lot of defacto power over the South, it is no doubt much weaker politically and economically than in reality.
This means that all the events in the world leading up to WW I and II will have to be modified.

[Bugs]

Southern independance might have come simply because the nourth didn't enter the war in the first place.  Let them have Fort Sumpter.  No Bull Run at all.  Lincoln's 1864 defeat would have been bigger than Hoover's.  Who knows who the Democrats would have nominated.  Not McClellan.  The war gave him his popularity.  Thomas Seymour was McClellan's closest contender at the Dem convention.I don't know anything about him, but I like the name (I'm a Seymour).The further down the road we get, the harder it is to figure a viable scenario.  But I still don't think we would have joined the Central Powers or the Axis.

[??????????]

The question is: How did the South get its independence from the union?
I'm going to disregard the "military victory" option since that's obviously baloney.

Wrong. Their were several occassions in which the south could have won the war militarily. Yes, even past Gettysburg and up into 1864. Washington, DC was being attacked by Confederate forces under Jubal Early in October of 1864 and he came very close to capturing Washington.

[minionofmidas]

The question is: How did the South get its independence from the union?
I'm going to disregard the "military victory" option since that's obviously baloney.

Wrong. Their were several occassions in which the south could have won the war militarily. Yes, even past Gettysburg and up into 1864. Washington, DC was being attacked by Confederate forces under Jubal Early in October of 1864 and he came very close to capturing Washington.

A military victory would mean that the North would lose the ability to fight on.
Now don't tell me you think there is any chance of that.

[DaleC76]

The question is: How did the South get its independence from the union?
I'm going to disregard the "military victory" option since that's obviously baloney.

Wrong. Their were several occassions in which the south could have won the war militarily. Yes, even past Gettysburg and up into 1864. Washington, DC was being attacked by Confederate forces under Jubal Early in October of 1864 and he came very close to capturing Washington.

A military victory would mean that the North would lose the ability to fight on.
Now don't tell me you think there is any chance of that.

A couple of big military victories and maybe the North loses the will to fight on.  That was the CSA's only shot at winning the war.  There was no way they were going to conquer the North.

[minionofmidas]

The question is: How did the South get its independence from the union?
I'm going to disregard the "military victory" option since that's obviously baloney.

Wrong. Their were several occassions in which the south could have won the war militarily. Yes, even past Gettysburg and up into 1864. Washington, DC was being attacked by Confederate forces under Jubal Early in October of 1864 and he came very close to capturing Washington.

A military victory would mean that the North would lose the ability to fight on.
Now don't tell me you think there is any chance of that.

A couple of big military victories and maybe the North loses the will to fight on.  That was the CSA's only shot at winning the war.  There was no way they were going to conquer the North.

Exactly. And the longer the war goes on, the less the chance of that (not just of big military victories - also of the North losing the will to fight on on account of that.)
There was a serious, though not large, chance of that happening right after Bull Run, especially if the CSA had pressed home their advantage right after that, and captured Washington.
After that, the chance was minuscule.

[??????????]

The question is: How did the South get its independence from the union?
I'm going to disregard the "military victory" option since that's obviously baloney.

Wrong. Their were several occassions in which the south could have won the war militarily. Yes, even past Gettysburg and up into 1864. Washington, DC was being attacked by Confederate forces under Jubal Early in October of 1864 and he came very close to capturing Washington.

A military victory would mean that the North would lose the ability to fight on.
Now don't tell me you think there is any chance of that.

A couple of big military victories and maybe the North loses the will to fight on.  That was the CSA's only shot at winning the war.  There was no way they were going to conquer the North.

Exactly. And the longer the war goes on, the less the chance of that (not just of big military victories - also of the North losing the will to fight on on account of that.)
There was a serious, though not large, chance of that happening right after Bull Run, especially if the CSA had pressed home their advantage right after that, and captured Washington.
After that, the chance was minuscule.

The south could not have beat the north in 1861 due to the fact the armies were still to green. They could have beat them in 62,63, and into late 64. The south lost the war not at Gettysburg because the loss there was actually very minimal overall. The south lost the civil war at the Battle of Five Forks in April 1865. When the confederate line collapsed at five forks the entire defence of Richmond collapsed and the long march to Appomattox began. Lincoln was barely re-elected in 1864 and it was fortunate that he was. His use of open cheating and voter fraud won him that election. He admitted Nevada as a state last minute to get 3 extra electoral votes. If Lincoln had been beat by McClellan the north would have sued for peace. And I will say that the south up until 1864 could match the Union head to head militarily. The railroads cost the south the war.

[Erc]

The statement:

"The South could not have won the Civil War."

is logically equivalent to:

"The Communists could not have won the Vietnam War."


The North certainly had the manpower and resources to steamroll or starve the South (if they can outvote you, they outnumber you too).  However, if the North lost the will to fight--which could have easily occurred if the South scored big victories in the East (taking DC / Baltimore / Philly, destroying the Army of the Potomac)--or if the Europeans came in [let's leave them out of it for the moment, though].

It's hard to see how the North could have come back after being:

A) crushed utterly during the Seven Days' Battles (assuming Lee is able to rush up to DC quickly enough)

B) crushed utterly at a non-Antietam Antietam-era battle [ie no lost order]

C) crushed utterly at Gettysburg (or equivalent).


The decisive loss of the Army of the Potomac and DC (not just one or the other--Jubal Early's little '64 raid wouldn't have done much, even if successful) would force the North to the peace table, imo.


Note that the first two take place before the midterm elections--if the South had won there, Copperheads would have taken overwhelming control of Congress (relegating the Republicans to Federalist-esque status)--and making the future continuation of the war impossible.

[Erc]

McClellan would have been sworn in in early March 1865.  No way he's signing a peace deal.  I mean, yes, everyone's still in a deadlock in Petersburg, but you've got Sherman pushing up into North Carolina, Mississippi/Alabama under control except for a few pockets here and there...not to mention Tennessee, Louisiana, and a good deal of Arkansas.

[Bugs]

Population, industry and growing Union military presence in the south gives the north the advantage over the long haul.  The longer the war lasts the less of a chance the south has.  A southern victory at five forks would have bought a little time, but the south was running out of options.  Fortunately Lee was no Hitler.  He knew when his position was hopeless.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

1 Neither nation would ever think of reunification with the other. The two regons in the 1850's were getting more and more different. This would only continue after secession.

2 Slavery would have survived into 2005 in some parts of the confederacy

3 Not necessarily. Remember that the south until recent decades has been a drag on the naitonal economy...

[??????????]

1 Neither nation would ever think of reunification with the other. The two regons in the 1850's were getting more and more different. This would only continue after secession.

2 Slavery would have survived into 2005 in some parts of the confederacy

3 Not necessarily. Remember that the south until recent decades has been a drag on the naitonal economy...

1. Wrong. The would have reunited around WW1 or so.
2. No, of course not. Slavery was already on its way out in 1860. The invention of the combine would have ceased the need for slavery.
3. LOL Elitist

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

1 Neither nation would ever think of reunification with the other. The two regons in the 1850's were getting more and more different. This would only continue after secession.

2 Slavery would have survived into 2005 in some parts of the confederacy

3 Not necessarily. Remember that the south until recent decades has been a drag on the naitonal economy...

1. Wrong. The would have reunited around WW1 or so.
2. No, of course not. Slavery was already on its way out in 1860. The invention of the combine would have ceased the need for slavery.
3. LOL Elitist

1 Again cultural factors would prevent this. The US by 1914 would have also diverged as much as an independent CSA from its 1860 self(but in different ways than OTL). We'd likely see both powers being in a cold war type situation. Think india/pakistan but worse

2 What we' d see is slaves being used for the types of jobs that illegal immigrants do these days. We'd see rental agencies shuffling around slaves like how migrant workers are shuffled around for crops. We'd also see them in jobs like construction work or working on highway maintenence and other manual labor jobs.

3 how is it elitist to state facts? After the end of the ACW until the sunbelt boom the former confederacy was poorer than the rest of the US. Remember that in the 1850's the south had 4/5 of the US's millionaires. Blame sherman for trashing the southern economy. A confederacy that manages to win the ACW would be richer and larger than our south thanks to less war destruction and imperial expansion.

[??????????]

1 Neither nation would ever think of reunification with the other. The two regons in the 1850's were getting more and more different. This would only continue after secession.

2 Slavery would have survived into 2005 in some parts of the confederacy

3 Not necessarily. Remember that the south until recent decades has been a drag on the naitonal economy...

1. Wrong. The would have reunited around WW1 or so.
2. No, of course not. Slavery was already on its way out in 1860. The invention of the combine would have ceased the need for slavery.
3. LOL Elitist

2 What we' d see is slaves being used for the types of jobs that illegal immigrants do these days. We'd see rental agencies shuffling around slaves like how migrant workers are shuffled around for crops. We'd also see them in jobs like construction work or working on highway maintenence and other manual labor jobs.

I doubt this would have happened. Slavery was already on the way out the door as evidenced by the state of Virginia which nearly banned slavery in the late 1850s. It failed of course but the mood and attitude of many was changing. Slavery itself was always on crutches and likely would have collapsed into a system of indentured servants or sharecroppers the later being found much more preferable after the war ended.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Wrong: Salvery was profitable until the very end. Even after the inevitable cotton depression after the 1860's we'd see slaves being used in other forms of agriculture and eventually in factories. This would further entrench the system because I don't see southern slaveholders giving up their slaves willingly.

[Max Power]

States, why do you hate America?