MUH TARIFFS

[Del Tachi]

I am the 37 percent. 

[Del Tachi]

Even in a peaceful secession, the Confederacy would be a 3rd world country from day one.

Ummm...not even close.

If you took the states that seceded and imagine them asa new country, it would be the world's 4th largest economy with a nominal GDP of 4.86 trillion per year.  That makes it larger than the "First world" countries of Germany, France, the UK and Canada.  With a population of 101 million people (which would make it the world's 12th most populous country, and bump the U.S. down to the number 4 spot) it would have a GDP/capita of $48,118 per year.  This puts the CSA in the 7th spot with a higher GDP/capita than Switzerland, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Sweden, Kuwait and Denmark to name a few.  Also with an annual GDP growth rate of 3.2% per year, I'd say that a modern-day CSA would be doing quite well by international standards.

Hardly a Third World country in my book.  Wouldn't you agree?

I am the 37 percent.  

I can't tell if this post is serious or not.  I find that quite worrying.

If we're getting a second Civil War in 2014, then its obviously not being fought over slavery or Jim Crow.

Why would I want the South - one of the best and most unique cultural regions in the entire world - to be in a country where its historically been marginalized?  The South of the 21st Century is nothing to be afraid or ashamed of, and its independence is probably a blessing in disguise for both the USA and the new CSA.    

  

[Del Tachi]

Even in a peaceful secession, the Confederacy would be a 3rd world country from day one.

Ummm...not even close.

If you took the states that seceded and imagine them asa new country, it would be the world's 4th largest economy with a nominal GDP of 4.86 trillion per year.  That makes it larger than the "First world" countries of Germany, France, the UK and Canada.  With a population of 101 million people (which would make it the world's 12th most populous country, and bump the U.S. down to the number 4 spot) it would have a GDP/capita of $48,118 per year.  This puts the CSA in the 7th spot with a higher GDP/capita than Switzerland, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Sweden, Kuwait and Denmark to name a few.

Hardly a Third World country in my book.  Wouldn't you agree?

   

Assuming it gained independence in the Ciil War, it has an economy heavily based off agriculture, a vast segment of the society enslaved and treated pretty badly as well as a lot of poor whites.  The CSA is going to need to get its act together and start industrializing.  The US, meanwhile, will probably want the place back. The US can support a large standing army, and, with its immigration polciies, will continue growing.  The CS needs a large standing army, but if you spend all the money on that, you can't industrialize.  Without foreign gaurruntees to its defense, or assistance in industrializing, it will eventually economically collapse.  Likely, that will lead to full on slave revolts, or a revolution by the lower class white, wanting to not be poor as dirt.  Then, in a civil war, they will have to fend off the US.  It's survival just doesn't seem likely.

You missed the point.

If the 11 states of the Confederacy decided to secede again today, they would immediately be a major player on the international stage both politically and economically.

And even in an alternate universe where the South does win its independence back in the 1860s, there's no reason to believe that it wouldn't have eventually industrialized and modernized in a way that would make into a world player.  The United States was itself vastly agrarian economy for most of its early history as well, after all.  European powers would have had a vested interest in seeing the CSA succeed, as it means a weaker United States, and would have supported it financially and militarily until it was able to stand on its on.

Also, with a notably less Anglo population due to the South having seceded, the United States probably doesn't come to the Allies aid during WWI and the CSA takes on the role as Western Europe's premier American ally.     

[Del Tachi]

The South would have much ethnic stronger ties to Great Britain than the U.S., that's for sure, and that could translate into some, well, interesting things.

And everything you said could just as easily be applied to the U.S. after the Revolutionary War:  no Navy, small army, uncentralized economy and government.  And its not like the U.S. had to maintain a huge military on the Canadian border from the git-go because they feared the UK re-invading.  In fact, if we imagine the POD being a Confederate victory at Sharpsburg (Antietam) then its quite imaginable that the South could win quite decisively.    

[Del Tachi]

I'm not sure as to why the south would have to live in fear of northern revanchism in a hypothetical scenario where the CSA survived. First and foremost, I'm not really sure as to what incentives the US would have to invade the CS; whereas during the civil war it was a question of maintaining the credibility of the United States, should the US lose that war, that credibility will be out of the window anyway. Without that incentive, what incentives remain. To fight another bloody war (with the possible threat of foreign intervention, given that the Uk would certainly have recognised a victorious Confederacy), leading to further deaths and disruption, in exchange for what, governance of a large, rebellious tract of land (probably wracked by prolonged guerilla warfare), which would by then have an even more entrenched sense of its own nationality. Furthermore, there would probably be a very influential peace lobby in Union politics post-war, since a defeat (especially one in the early days of the war, a more likely scenario) would severely discredit the war lobby. I can imagine a situation developing that would be similar to the one between Britain and the Republic of Ireland; the British government fought hard to keep Ireland under control, but when we realised the game was up, independence came for the south and though hostility persisted, this never boiled over into actual war. Why? Because there was no clear cut incentive to do so, and I can imagine the same happening in the case of a Confederate victory.

Yeah, for sure.  I've always been under the impression that a Confederate victory in the 1860s would have to be achieved rather quickly, as the United States' industrial capabilities made it a heavy favorite in the case of a long war.  A Confederate victory at Sharpsburg is probably enough to flip the table because it 1) prompts pro-Southern elements in MD and DE to become more vocal, 2) leaves Lincoln with no capital to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, and 3) the war is now being fought on Union soil.  This is more than enough to make the war deeply unpopular and wreck Lincoln and the Republicans' credibility.  Industrial elements in the northern cities call for concession, and Lincoln eventually caves.  He's booted form office in 1864, and Copperheads are swept into Congress.   

[Del Tachi]

Libertarians do not actually care about freedom or well-being, only preventing state intervention in any matter. #GOPswagg obviously reaffirms his position as one of the worst posters on the forum.

I shall wear your disdain as a badge of honor, and if this isn't the pot calling the kettle black...

Even though, in this case it ceases to be relevant as I'm probably one of the most anti-libertarian posters on the Forum.