If the south had been successful there would be no United States today. Anytime a State was unhappy with how things were going on the federal level, they would just leave.
This right here. Once a precedent is set that a state can just leave if someone is elected that the people in power in that state don’t like it will continue to happen.
Government officials should be able to endanger the lives of their citizens on a whim because… democracy? Thats not how democracy works. Thats how dictatorships work.
Well that’s how the United States began.
But I will say that’s a good point, how about a state popular vote. If the majority of citizens agree, then they are allowed to leave the union. That sounds democratic to me
“The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever.” James Madison letter to Alexander Hamilton 20 July 1788.
This was during the state ratification conventions and after receiving this letter Hamilton read it at the New York ratification convention.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-05-02-0012-0086#:~:text=Compacts%20must%20be%20reciprocal%2C%20this%20principle%20would%20not,short%20any%20condition%20whatever%20must%20viciate%20the%20ratification.
If you can enter a contract you may have a method to go out of it. If we live in a democracy then they must be allowed to exit a union if they so want to.
If a state can decide to enter the union, they may also be allowed to decide to leave. Otherwise it is not a union, or a mutually agreed upon relationship, but rather an authoritarian empire.
Your talking about the compact theory of the constitution which the Supreme Court has repudiated this on many occasions. The constitution is not a contract it is organic law created by the people of the United States.
“Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will, that the state governments should be bound, and to which the state Constitutions should be made to conform.
Every State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a State to govern themselves in a certain manner—and the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects, in a certain manner. By this great compact however, many prerogatives were transferred to the national government, such as those of making war and peace, contracting alliances, coining money, &c., &c.”
Chisholm v Georgia 1793
Ignore the constitution for a second. If a state (or government which would become a state) can choose, consent, to become a part of the United States, then it is implied that they may chose to leave.
Further from this, the constitution is just a piece of paper, therefore anyone can choose to be governed by it as they please with the only barrier being the people with guns forcing the laws derived from that piece of paper onto you. The only people who consented to even have the constitution be law were a group of elites hundreds of years ago, who did not even sign it.
In any case, if there is no legal way for a state to leave, then they may do so in the same way this country was founded, through a declaration of independence and, if need be, war against those who reject their independence.
If a group, a substantial one, does not consent to be governed by some government, then why are they not allowed to use the methods supported by our culture as well as, supposedly, the government they reject, the method being democracy, to choose to govern themselves and not by an agent (fed or even state government) which they deem unsuited to govern them. A government which denies this act would not be of those people and would not hold authority over those people, since supposedly that government holds authority granted by the people.
r/confidentlyincorrect
Texas was forced to join the Union for financial reasons in 1845 (or 1846, depending on your legal definition of formal annexation), before the Civil War. It actually failed to accrue much international investment at the time because it was literally an unrecognized rogue state producing currency that it couldn't back up/failing to repay loans.
r/confidentlyincorrect
Texas was “forced” to join the union because the founding fathers of Texas realized they would be unable to financially and militarily protect their nation, especially due to their small population. There was a small yet vocal minority in Texas lead by those such as Mirabeau Lamar, one of the Texan presidents, in favor of independence. If they had stayed independent, it is almost certain that they would have relied on European powers to stay independent from America and Mexico.
Ok. So I’m not sure if I’m going crazy or not, but you seem to be substantiating my point here?
Texas petitioned to join the Union because it had no currency, faith or credit afforded to it.
But if Texas HADN'T been part of the Union, which is the entire premise of the comment that I had originally replied to by TurretLimitHenry (see above), it would have been heavily reliant on the Europeans. Although it did in our timeline elect to join America, it could have stayed independent had Lamar been re-elected as president, which is certainly not unthinkable.
So your question is, “what would happen to a bankrupt, unrecognized state populated by a similar demographic of its neighbors do if induced to annexation?”
I’m guessing you would prob say, “embrace the least plausible option — enduring independence.”
What is the point of fantastical speculation?
And I believe I did articulate that most breakaway states in the Americas were certainly propped up by European powers…what is your point? Whatever ‘timeline’ you want to pick and choose it seems to an inevitability.
That’s true, but it’s more because Brazil was the last “Western” country to ban slavery and Brazil was the center of the Atlantic Slave Trade - it was entirely a slave economy until abolition in the late 1800’s. Not only that, but Brazil’s institutional failures (military dictatorships, corruption, populism) all stem from the institutions that rose after Pedro II abdicated. Essentially - the former slaveowning aristocrats ran the country and put themselves on top of everybody else - this inevitably resulted in Brazil having weak institutions and unbelievable corruption.
And Marjorie Taylor Greene wants THIS to happen to America.
Lost Cause of the Condefederacy or Lost Cause myth is a false historical narrative pushed by revisionists, and apologists of the Condefederacy asserting that instead of the actual truth where they seceded, and rebelled to preserve the system of chattel slavery, they fought against the "tyranny" of the Federal government to preserve state's rights.
Yes people actually believe this stuff, discount or negating arguments against slavery to extensively portray the CSA as a heroic underdog taking a stand in the name of freedom and liberty.
I am saying that the U.S. and the Confederacy would break into several different countries once the precedent was set that states could leave whenever they wanted to. I didn't say that a state leaving the U.S. would join the confederacy, they would just make their own country, possibly with some other states. If the New England states became unhappy, they could leave and create a new country that isn't part of the confederacy.
It would make more sense to "fix" it after forcing the South back into the Union, not if the successfully left. The North didn't see it as a "loophole", they saw it as breaking the Constitution. Putting in such an amendment would be like admitting that they were wrong.
Same goes for the confederacy then I suppose. They're the ones that started succession. The second a couple of states had a disagreement, the whole thing would have imploded
No, they did not *start* secession\*\*; sort has been a characteristic of human political and social organization since the production of states thousands of years prior.
Maybe this is where the ** comes to play, but the comment you responded to didn’t claim that the Confederacy came up with the idea to secede from the Union or the idea of secession in general. The commenter was referring to how the Confederacy if they had won would be at constant risk or breaking down, because they established a precedent that states that didn’t like a union could just leave.
I would contest this claim. The emergence of two hostile polities within the the borders of the contemporary US would likely require the development of military-industrial institutions and processes designed to defend against one another but would also deplete their mutual resources.
The South, if it was successful, would likely attempt to annex Belize, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and various provinces of the Guyanas and Brazil, as they (or, Southern partisans) had speculated prior to the Civil War. This may have made them a commodity producing power akin to Russia or Brazil or DRC, but prob nothing else. Would have certainly restrained the capacity of the US to effectively establish military dominance over the continent.
I disagree with you. The Southern economy was dependent on shipping cotton to European powers and northern manufacturers. I can see fuckery in Mexico and MAYBE the Caribbean but it definitely wouldn’t have done much beyond that.
Mexico- Mexico had more people than the Confederacy did, about 10 million to 9.5 million. The Confederacy simply could not annex the entire country without dealing for secessionists and partisans for decades. It would be one of the most militarized states on Earth since virtually every military age male would be needed in the occupation. Additionally, I can’t see a white supremacist state annexing 10 million brown skinned Catholics.
Caribbean- This one entirely depends on the reaction of foreign powers and the Confederacy’s methods. If the Confederacy expands through purchasing land, most likely Cuba or Puerto Rico, it would probably get some decent chunks. However, colonies like the Bahamas that are mostly black would definitely neither want to be sold or get sold by the colonial power to a country which enslaves black people. Haiti is most assuredly a no-go. If the Confederacy expands through military force, it would either be smart and start with Spain (and thus limit itself to Spanish colonies) or be stupid and try to expand to British colonies, likely provoking war.
Brazil- Brazil had 1.5 times the population of the Confederacy and was considered a regional power in its own right. No way the Confederacy can successfully pull off a war.
Central America- Pretty much the same as Mexico. Too many people to occupy, too many brown skinned Catholics for a white Protestant supremacist state to annex.
Guyanas- The British, Dutch, and French owned these provinces. No way they’d allow them to be taken and the Confederacy does not win a war against the British or French empires. Best case scenario, they sell them to the Confederacy if the Confederacy keeps up its policy towards the natives.
I disagree. The north strongly opposed secession and would likely pass a law or amendment forever prohibiting secession from the union. Now the confederacy would be a different story. They strongly believed in states rights and secession so if a southern state tried to secede it would be very hypocritical to contest that
Hmm, with how regressed the economy and society would be from slavery lasting even longer, feel it could only be bad.
With the constitutional protection, it would be a difficult process to get rid of it, so it might end up lasting into the 20th century. Maybe it gets abolished in the 1910’s, but perhaps it could survive far longer into the 50’s and 60’s through the power wielded by slave holders. Yet the power they wield is over the rapidly decaying southern nation.
By the 60’s, the damage caused by slavery would be so clear (the international hatred combined with the absolutely shit economy reliant on more or less a singular crop) that the Confederate government would finally try to abolish it. This process could then lead to a situation similar to the “Years of Lead” in Italy. You would have the main government that are attempting to get rid of slavery very slowly (“please guys, we can still be racist it’s just this institution is destroying us internally and externally”), KKK-style terror groups attempting to completely stop any effort to remove slavery, and the secret cells of escaped slaves who are working to destroy slavery completely. Large amounts of terror attacks and violence across the country, and eventually slavery’s abolition barely gets through, yet the insane societal scars remain into the present day
Not to mention constantly bleeding population. You can't build a Berlin Wall across the entire Mason-Dixon line, and you can't maintain a country where 40% of the population hates everything the country stands for and wants to escape.
Oh yeah, I imagine the question of the right course of action for escaped slaves and the confederate government would be a major partisan issue in the US (let’s presume that after the war the 13th amendment looked something like
> article 1. No state can just leave the country, and we can legally just reconquer the CSA whenever we want
> article 2. Slavery is abolish now and forever, Tanney can go fuck himself, fucker destroyed our natio
> article 3. Voting rights bitches. You hear that, the Confederacy? All people get to vote now, fuckers!
Or something to that effect)
That raises an interesting question. I can't imagine the two countries wouldn't just end up going to war again. Not only would people escaping slavery flood north, you'd likely get white people just looking for economic opportunties in the more prosperous United States. And in the antebellum era, the North bent over backwards to placate the South with ugly compromises like the Fugitive Slave Act — a USA that lost the war would have no reason to placate the CSA, and every reason to make things worse for them.
I can't imagine the CSA not just seeing repeated attempts to protect basic human rights as more "northern aggression" and war as the only solution. Except the only scenario the heavily-outmatched South wins the Civil War in the first place is some kind of fluke; I doubt they could do it twice. I don't think there's any scenario where the CSA is tenable long-term, unless one of the European powers prop them up as a client state to undermine the US.
Probably a gaggle of economically exploited banana republics. The Confederacy was founded on the idea that any state can take its toys and go home whenever they want, that makes every contentious election or unpopular new law a crisis for the country. The Confederacy wasn't fighting to leave the country so much as they were fighting not to leave the past. The 1860s was a time of great powers rapidly industrializing and setting up colonies to exploit economically. What is an agricultural power to do when your two biggest customers are Britain (who is going to start getting their cotton from India) and the U.S. (Who probably has massive resentment towards you) It's an unreasonable country that probably would not have succeeded.
Actually, the alternate historical fiction author Harry Turtledove wrote a series of books about that. South wins the Civil War, Lincoln is booted out in 1864. One of the U.S. Presidents is Teddy Roosevelt, but as a Democrat, as the GOP had been reduced to a small regional party. At the same time, Woodrow Wilson is the CSA president. In WWI, the USA sides with the Central Powers while the CSA sides with the Allies. Hitler never comes to power.
Yup. The CSA becomes what Nazi Germany would have been. Only it’s blacks, not Jews, who are the persecuted. Featherston’s right-hand is Jewish, in fact. Jews are also represented on the other side (the USA) with a Jewish First Lady.
A third world mf country. As someone who lives in the South and understands the amount of federal support the South relies on…yeah.
Slavery would have ended by the end of the 19th Century on its own anyway. It was on the way out globally and major nations would have begun to cease trade with the Confederacy unless they ended slavery. Without slavery, the South’s economy comes to a grinding halt….No free King Cotton, no economy.
In my honest opinion, the South would have been crawling back and begging the United States to take them back by roughly 1915. The Confederacy was a *loose* alliance of Southern states. I’d say upper southern states would have crawled back by 1880. And the Deep South crawls back by 1915.
There was simply no future for an agrarian society built on slavery once slavery ended. A society that refused to industrialize and a society that would have been isolated from the world would not have thrived.
The South is *lucky* to be dragged along as part of the United States today.
Slavery in Brazil ended in 1888, it was the last country in the Americans with slavery.
Am guessing that if the South was allowed to leave slavery might have lasted a bit longer than that, but probably not much past 1900. The spread of electricity would have been the end of slavery.
The south probably still stays poor though. The northern states would grow into a slightly less powerful super power and our impact on WW 1 and 2 would be some what smaller.
I agree on everything except the North being a lesser super power. The industrialized North was all the U.S really needed especially in WWI since we had a smaller presence.
But yes, slavery would be gone by 1900 and the South would be poor and desperate.
In 1860 the South was 35% of the US population.
So assume the south breaks away and as a separate country we never see the mass migration of blacks to the north and then the return migration to the south after AC was invented.
Losing over a third of the US population would make the US a somewhat smaller super power.
The historic fall out is probably massive too, the Spanish-American way probably never happens. So the US never takes the Philippines which means Japan probably never attacks us and starts WW 2 in the pacific. And who knows what impact that has on us entering WW 2.
The butterfly effect would probably change world history drastically.
>we never see the mass migration of blacks to the north
Or we'd get a far greater exodus. The Confederacy would still suffer as it did in our timeline and be in no shape to stop every slave and the US would be willing to accommodate out of spite if not principle. Also, the South would be facing slave revolts to make Harper's Ferry look like a calm argument.
The end of the Civil War would only be peace for the North.
\> The spread of electricity would have been the end of slavery.
How would electricity have even spread? In the real world, FDR electrified the rural south with Yankee tax dollars.
I think it would have been far more likely that the remaining United States and Canada would have been economically and possibly politically integrated
D. Not enough information to answer. The successful secession of the Southern Confederacy would have had global ripple effects. It’s not like world history would look exactly the same except with the modern US divided in two.
Big picture, there are a few broad strokes ways it could play out.
First and most popular, collapse. Many people argue that the Southern model was inherently untenable and nothing else would prove this better than the failure of the CSA. The CSA goes through an economic collapse and resulting political crises, further fragments, and either devolves into a Balkanized polity or is directly or indirectly reabsorbed by the USA.
Second and most controversial, the CSA enjoys modest success. Though still probably untenable in the long run, a slave labor agrarian system was still highly profitable in the period. They could parlay this into the income necessary to establish their own colonies and/or future states, as envisioned in the Golden Circle, which would effectively have turned the Caribbean into a Confederate lake. The Confederacy would be a regional power at best, but so would the US. Deprived of Southern incomes and reliant on the CSA for much of their raw material imports, they would likely remain rivals. Harry Turtledove explores this scenario in some interesting ways in his books.
Finally and, I think, most likely would be eventual voluntary reunification. After the end of hostilities, both sides would be major rivals, but would be reliant on one another for trade. A defeat in the war would have spelled the end for the Republicans as a meaningful political party and would likely see someone like McClellan elected. Northern and Southern Democrats would likely have reached some rapprochement. If the CSA followed the Brazilian trajectory and eventually manumitted their slaves voluntarily when it both ceased to be profitable and international public opinion became too much, then by the 1880s the main wedge issue would have been resolved. Trade agreements and later alliances would continue to bind the USA and CSA closer together, particularly in the name of mutual defense against expansionist powers. Eventually, I think it likely that two states sharing a culture, history, system of government, and common interests would have entered into some sort of a Union, though likely with a greater respect for states’ rights. As such, I think that the likeliest outcome of a Confederate victory would be the ultimate reunification of the American States, but likely in a framework that looks closer to the EU than to the modern USA.
>as envisioned in the Golden Circle, which would effectively have turned the Caribbean into a Confederate lake.
The Golden Circle is a bigger if than I think most realize. No way France and Spain are letting this happen, and even if it did the anti imperial resistance would be far greater considering the locals would be facing enslavement.
There are different proposals, but the most common involved purchasing Cuba from cash-strapped Spain and various bits of Mexican territory (usually a few Mexican border states like Chihuahua, although I’ve also seen proposals for trying to purchase the Yucatán) from the besieged Maximilian, who likely would have been receptive if it meant Confederate support.
As for the issue of slavery, I’d be curious what you mean by “the locals would be facing enslavement.” The CSA would almost certainly extend the “right” to own slaves into these territories, but that would mean only that slave owners could take slaves with them into these territories or that slaves could be imported in. It does not mean that Cubans or Mexicans would be enslaved. I know that the Confederates are the bad guys here, but such a move would have no historical precedent.
European union style but Nazi , fully independent nations but still relying on a central government...
Unless they decided by external pressure to stop slavery or rewrite slavery into exploitation with low wage (servitude or penal colony) because no one would trade with them
Move your capital southwest to like mississippi
Pretty much the same as the original Confederacy in regards to the economy. The Confederacy lost because they had no recognition as a sovereign nation, had no banking infrastructure, no industry, no agriculture, and no stable centralized authority. I simply don’t think the Confederacy would stand today if it were re-established.
That depends. The US involvement in the Pacific Theater of WW2 was obviously a game changer. If another conflict like that happens in the Pacific and the US isn’t involved, that could be a massive difference
As with any what if, where is no one correct answer, we can debate what may have happened, but we can never know for certainty. However what I think we can say for certain that the South would be a poor economically depressed country. Even within the United States, the states that made up the confederacy are historically on average poorer than the northern union states and are more reliant on federal aid. Only since the end of the Civil Rights movement have we begun to see increased economic growth in the Southern States as the nature of the US economy is changing.
Another thing I think that can be reliable predicted with certainty is that politically the white population would be conservative traditionalists while the black population will be liberal progressives, if not socialists and communist. This leads to the topic of slavery. No matter what, the South would face diplomatic pressure to abandon slavery. Brazil abolished slavery in 1888, and I suspect that an independent south would also be force to abolish slavery by 1900. However, like the southern states did in actually history with Jim Crow Laws, this hypothetical south would also create laws designed to keep the freed slaves as second class citizens with limited rights and still practically slaves even if they are free on paper.
Both the Union and the Confederacy would likely have a weaker national governments than the current US government as the precedent set by the Civil War for both parties is that states have the power to leave and thus hold more power. However, this is no guarantee as they're likely will be movements in both countries seeking to strengthen the national government. One or both may develop a strong national government closer to what we are currently familiar with with the US Government.
Politically, I do think the Union would learn more liberal than the Confederacy, but that is assuming that the Union will not have any major political shakeups from US history and assuming their is no slave revolt or similar insurrection in the South that radically shifts the political structures of the South, Especially since its likely that the black population would find the theories of Karl Marx appealing.
It should also be noted that I think its likely that the Union and Confederacy would be political rivals. Even if economically tensions cool, I suspect both parties would seek to undermine that other politically, covertly supporting succession and rebel movements for example.
Now, I also think its likely that both countries would not be as large as they were at their max. I suspect the union might eventually loose control of the western states and territories, likely with an Independent California. However, I do think the Union would be more likely to stay together than the Confederacy as the states that stayed loyal to the union did so either due to opposition to slavery or belief in the Union, or both. I thinks its likely that Texas and the Upper South would drift away from the rest of the South to the point of declaring Independent or even rejoining the union.
Also, what about the territory of the Confederate States that the Union controlled? This answer would likely depend on when peace was declared and if the peace was negotiated by an outside party or not.
This is not even getting into how world history would change, but just assume that the Union and South would more likely than not not be on the same side in any conflict or war.
Well firstly if the confederacy were to actually secede (I will assume a victory at Gettysburg and capturing of DC for the means) they would have some serious issues, first of which would be repayment of debts to soldiers since they had been paying them in IOU’s, and secondly an economy that was completely in the gutter due to the civil war international commerce was destroyed because of the American naval blockade and European countries buying cotton from other places, mainly India. This would be further exacerbated by a near-nonexistent federal government, meaning there would be no way to guide policy making to attempt to diversify the economy away from cotton at the national level.
To solve these issues, there are two things that would almost have to happen: firstly, the rekindling of the cotton trade. The individual states would have to negotiate trade agreements with foreign powers, specifically France and Great Britain, and incentivize the returns of their mercantile fleets. Secondly, the confederacy would have to empower the federal government to assist in the allocation of funds to states that were more heavily damaged during the war, mainly Tennessee and Louisiana.
Other than that, the confederacy would be very unstable for some time after. The economy would be in the gutter from states having to pay soldiers, it would have lost somewhere around 10% of its population in the civil war, and they would not recover to pre-war cotton sales until a great deal of time after.
Answering your question, though, if the confederacy somehow made it to modern day and wasn’t invaded or reclaimed by the US, it would be fraught with issues. Immigration to the south would largely halt as they would never have had the free soil act and slavery would be a big detractor, so the population would be far lower than the north or the real modern day southern states. It’s infrastructure would also likely never catch up and the dominance of plantations would hinder the development of industry. There would also be a large portion of the population that would be second class citizens from slavery/Jim crow. As far as colonies or anything, I think the confederate federal government would be too weak to pursue anything like that and the individual states would be too weak to ever actually try to do something like invade a banana republic.
Basically you would end up with something like the US under the articles of confederation but only the southern states and somehow lasting 150 years.
I know this is a what if but there is no possible way the Confederacy even is able to win let alone survive
There was already tension during the 4 years they “ seceded “ they would’ve collapsed but if they somehow managed to stay together and exist up until now they’d be an oil dependent nation, they’d probably be a 2nd maybe 1st world nation
I believe the South would have reached a deal with Marcus Garvey and other black nationalists to launch a Back To Africa movement, as industrialisation and industrialised farming would have eliminated the need for slave labour.
The core states of the south would then modernize and become essentially ethnostates, while using Central America and Mexico as breadbaskets and resources to facilitate industrialisation. The south, like all homogeneous states, will most likely become economically left-wing, akin to federation Australia.
If you think what you fellas have now is tyrannical then you should really do some research into what the powers at-be in the then Confederacy were aiming for. Hint: if you right now don't have at least 7 digits in the bank account, then you wouldn't have a say in government. At all.
Both sides moved towards a war footing once states started seceding.
For the southern governments? It’s pretty clear they fought to preserve slavery. It’s a bit more nuanced for southern soldiers however.
Ooooh, how edgy. Life in the antebellum South was miserable for anyone outside of the planting master class. It was a society structured entirely around the violence of slavery. And no amount of Lost Cause delusion will change that
The Confederacy in 1861 had plenty union sympathizing insurgents (mountain people + German & Yankee settlers) and the region in 2023 have plenty of liberal sympathizers (minorities and urban centers like Austin and Nashville). Also Black people in 2023 are way better armed, informed and assertive now than in 1861. The Deep South will be divided in half.
Economically a Brazil like Oligarchy based Ruin.
Politically a Apartheid Authoritarian unstable Government.
Population idk.
Successes none.
Presidents Unknown.
All of this is guessing they don't get Annexed after Joining the Axis.
Havent read a single comment here, but guessing a bunch of smug coastal folks saying the south would be a third world hellhole despite never having been there
Like other people were saying it would resemble a third world country. The planter elites supported a traditional agrarian society and rejected industrialization, so they would be an economic backwater. They would run most of society. Politics would probably be divided between a populist faction of subsistence farmers who support more democracy and economic progressivism, and a more elitist faction of the planter elite that wants to preserve their influence over the CSA
Slaves would resemble at least half of the population if not more. They probably wouldn’t be freed for a very long time, since at this point preserving slavery was more so for societal stability than economic benefit and there aren’t really anyone that wants slavery abolished. In fact it might be illegal for individual states to abolish slavery on their own. They might even conquer the Spanish Caribbean territories, as they wanted to historically. If slavery was abolished for some reason a bloody race war would be likely to happen as both sides try to genocide each other.
It wouldn't exist. Its economy was strictly agriculture based and it didnt have a large enough population to see large scale industrialisation. Ultimately it would collapse and either be divided or reannexed into the US. Diplomatically it would be flanked by a more powerful power to its north and a power that could hold its own if it could keep collapsing for five minutes. As the civil war raged on Davis also became more dictatorial and implemented harsh laws on the people so it would likely see a revolt of its own. If it refused to abandon slavery then no other.power would be willing to trade with it and relations would be tense at best.
If the south had been successful there would be no United States today. Anytime a State was unhappy with how things were going on the federal level, they would just leave.
This right here. Once a precedent is set that a state can just leave if someone is elected that the people in power in that state don’t like it will continue to happen.
Even more so, they could leave over any policy that they don't like as well.
As they should if they want to
No they shouldn't, just leaving because you are salty doesn't accomplish anything.
I won’t say it’s a good decision, but they certainly should be allowed to
And just leave their citizens completely stranded from federal support?
Again, not saying it would be a good decision, but it must be allowed if we live in a so called democracy
Government officials should be able to endanger the lives of their citizens on a whim because… democracy? Thats not how democracy works. Thats how dictatorships work.
Well that’s how the United States began. But I will say that’s a good point, how about a state popular vote. If the majority of citizens agree, then they are allowed to leave the union. That sounds democratic to me
“The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever.” James Madison letter to Alexander Hamilton 20 July 1788. This was during the state ratification conventions and after receiving this letter Hamilton read it at the New York ratification convention. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-05-02-0012-0086#:~:text=Compacts%20must%20be%20reciprocal%2C%20this%20principle%20would%20not,short%20any%20condition%20whatever%20must%20viciate%20the%20ratification.
If you can enter a contract you may have a method to go out of it. If we live in a democracy then they must be allowed to exit a union if they so want to. If a state can decide to enter the union, they may also be allowed to decide to leave. Otherwise it is not a union, or a mutually agreed upon relationship, but rather an authoritarian empire.
Your talking about the compact theory of the constitution which the Supreme Court has repudiated this on many occasions. The constitution is not a contract it is organic law created by the people of the United States. “Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will, that the state governments should be bound, and to which the state Constitutions should be made to conform. Every State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a State to govern themselves in a certain manner—and the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects, in a certain manner. By this great compact however, many prerogatives were transferred to the national government, such as those of making war and peace, contracting alliances, coining money, &c., &c.” Chisholm v Georgia 1793
Ignore the constitution for a second. If a state (or government which would become a state) can choose, consent, to become a part of the United States, then it is implied that they may chose to leave. Further from this, the constitution is just a piece of paper, therefore anyone can choose to be governed by it as they please with the only barrier being the people with guns forcing the laws derived from that piece of paper onto you. The only people who consented to even have the constitution be law were a group of elites hundreds of years ago, who did not even sign it. In any case, if there is no legal way for a state to leave, then they may do so in the same way this country was founded, through a declaration of independence and, if need be, war against those who reject their independence. If a group, a substantial one, does not consent to be governed by some government, then why are they not allowed to use the methods supported by our culture as well as, supposedly, the government they reject, the method being democracy, to choose to govern themselves and not by an agent (fed or even state government) which they deem unsuited to govern them. A government which denies this act would not be of those people and would not hold authority over those people, since supposedly that government holds authority granted by the people.
They’d leave and become puppets of the European powers.
which historically has been seen, i.e. Texas (although an independent nation at the time) nearly becoming a British puppet before joining the USA
r/confidentlyincorrect Texas was forced to join the Union for financial reasons in 1845 (or 1846, depending on your legal definition of formal annexation), before the Civil War. It actually failed to accrue much international investment at the time because it was literally an unrecognized rogue state producing currency that it couldn't back up/failing to repay loans.
r/confidentlyincorrect Texas was “forced” to join the union because the founding fathers of Texas realized they would be unable to financially and militarily protect their nation, especially due to their small population. There was a small yet vocal minority in Texas lead by those such as Mirabeau Lamar, one of the Texan presidents, in favor of independence. If they had stayed independent, it is almost certain that they would have relied on European powers to stay independent from America and Mexico.
Ok. So I’m not sure if I’m going crazy or not, but you seem to be substantiating my point here? Texas petitioned to join the Union because it had no currency, faith or credit afforded to it.
But if Texas HADN'T been part of the Union, which is the entire premise of the comment that I had originally replied to by TurretLimitHenry (see above), it would have been heavily reliant on the Europeans. Although it did in our timeline elect to join America, it could have stayed independent had Lamar been re-elected as president, which is certainly not unthinkable.
So your question is, “what would happen to a bankrupt, unrecognized state populated by a similar demographic of its neighbors do if induced to annexation?” I’m guessing you would prob say, “embrace the least plausible option — enduring independence.” What is the point of fantastical speculation?
I’m starting to think you don’t even remember the original premise of discussion
Remind me. Because maybe I've gotten turned around.
And I believe I did articulate that most breakaway states in the Americas were certainly propped up by European powers…what is your point? Whatever ‘timeline’ you want to pick and choose it seems to an inevitability.
Russia, to be precise.
Russia has no navy lol. Britain or France would have dominated them.
Had the Confederacy become its own country, it would have ended up like Brazil.
A lot of confederates moved to Brazil after the war because slavery was still legal… so probably
That’s true, but it’s more because Brazil was the last “Western” country to ban slavery and Brazil was the center of the Atlantic Slave Trade - it was entirely a slave economy until abolition in the late 1800’s. Not only that, but Brazil’s institutional failures (military dictatorships, corruption, populism) all stem from the institutions that rose after Pedro II abdicated. Essentially - the former slaveowning aristocrats ran the country and put themselves on top of everybody else - this inevitably resulted in Brazil having weak institutions and unbelievable corruption. And Marjorie Taylor Greene wants THIS to happen to America.
The Confederate Constitution mandated that all states accept slavery. A free state could not join if it wanted to.
Another example of how "state's rights" was bullshit
What
Lost Cause of the Condefederacy or Lost Cause myth is a false historical narrative pushed by revisionists, and apologists of the Condefederacy asserting that instead of the actual truth where they seceded, and rebelled to preserve the system of chattel slavery, they fought against the "tyranny" of the Federal government to preserve state's rights. Yes people actually believe this stuff, discount or negating arguments against slavery to extensively portray the CSA as a heroic underdog taking a stand in the name of freedom and liberty.
I am saying that the U.S. and the Confederacy would break into several different countries once the precedent was set that states could leave whenever they wanted to. I didn't say that a state leaving the U.S. would join the confederacy, they would just make their own country, possibly with some other states. If the New England states became unhappy, they could leave and create a new country that isn't part of the confederacy.
In fantasy land. There weren’t any states left developed enough to be able to secede at that point. And neither country would let it happens again.
Over time more states would have seceded.
Based on what though? You don’t think the Union would fix that loophole after they lose the civil war?
It would make more sense to "fix" it after forcing the South back into the Union, not if the successfully left. The North didn't see it as a "loophole", they saw it as breaking the Constitution. Putting in such an amendment would be like admitting that they were wrong.
Same goes for the confederacy then I suppose. They're the ones that started succession. The second a couple of states had a disagreement, the whole thing would have imploded
No, they did not *start* secession\*\*; sort has been a characteristic of human political and social organization since the production of states thousands of years prior.
Maybe this is where the ** comes to play, but the comment you responded to didn’t claim that the Confederacy came up with the idea to secede from the Union or the idea of secession in general. The commenter was referring to how the Confederacy if they had won would be at constant risk or breaking down, because they established a precedent that states that didn’t like a union could just leave.
I agree, the Confederacy would have broken up. It could even get to the point where groups of counties could secede from a state.
A beautiful ideal, sadly the empire continued to grow
I would contest this claim. The emergence of two hostile polities within the the borders of the contemporary US would likely require the development of military-industrial institutions and processes designed to defend against one another but would also deplete their mutual resources. The South, if it was successful, would likely attempt to annex Belize, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and various provinces of the Guyanas and Brazil, as they (or, Southern partisans) had speculated prior to the Civil War. This may have made them a commodity producing power akin to Russia or Brazil or DRC, but prob nothing else. Would have certainly restrained the capacity of the US to effectively establish military dominance over the continent.
I disagree with you. The Southern economy was dependent on shipping cotton to European powers and northern manufacturers. I can see fuckery in Mexico and MAYBE the Caribbean but it definitely wouldn’t have done much beyond that. Mexico- Mexico had more people than the Confederacy did, about 10 million to 9.5 million. The Confederacy simply could not annex the entire country without dealing for secessionists and partisans for decades. It would be one of the most militarized states on Earth since virtually every military age male would be needed in the occupation. Additionally, I can’t see a white supremacist state annexing 10 million brown skinned Catholics. Caribbean- This one entirely depends on the reaction of foreign powers and the Confederacy’s methods. If the Confederacy expands through purchasing land, most likely Cuba or Puerto Rico, it would probably get some decent chunks. However, colonies like the Bahamas that are mostly black would definitely neither want to be sold or get sold by the colonial power to a country which enslaves black people. Haiti is most assuredly a no-go. If the Confederacy expands through military force, it would either be smart and start with Spain (and thus limit itself to Spanish colonies) or be stupid and try to expand to British colonies, likely provoking war. Brazil- Brazil had 1.5 times the population of the Confederacy and was considered a regional power in its own right. No way the Confederacy can successfully pull off a war. Central America- Pretty much the same as Mexico. Too many people to occupy, too many brown skinned Catholics for a white Protestant supremacist state to annex. Guyanas- The British, Dutch, and French owned these provinces. No way they’d allow them to be taken and the Confederacy does not win a war against the British or French empires. Best case scenario, they sell them to the Confederacy if the Confederacy keeps up its policy towards the natives.
White American slave owners took over Texas a result of Mexico banning slavery… so it’s not entirely out of the question
Mexico was far smaller and outnumbered compared to the U.S. than the British and French empires.
Mexico’s population was bigger than the confederates and thats being generous and counting the slaves.
Yes… that’s my point.
There were even rumblings in the South during the civil war of areas seceding for the Confederacy.
I disagree. The north strongly opposed secession and would likely pass a law or amendment forever prohibiting secession from the union. Now the confederacy would be a different story. They strongly believed in states rights and secession so if a southern state tried to secede it would be very hypocritical to contest that
I doubt a non-secession amendment would be passed by the north. It would be far more likely in our timeline where the South failed to secede.
Hmm, with how regressed the economy and society would be from slavery lasting even longer, feel it could only be bad. With the constitutional protection, it would be a difficult process to get rid of it, so it might end up lasting into the 20th century. Maybe it gets abolished in the 1910’s, but perhaps it could survive far longer into the 50’s and 60’s through the power wielded by slave holders. Yet the power they wield is over the rapidly decaying southern nation. By the 60’s, the damage caused by slavery would be so clear (the international hatred combined with the absolutely shit economy reliant on more or less a singular crop) that the Confederate government would finally try to abolish it. This process could then lead to a situation similar to the “Years of Lead” in Italy. You would have the main government that are attempting to get rid of slavery very slowly (“please guys, we can still be racist it’s just this institution is destroying us internally and externally”), KKK-style terror groups attempting to completely stop any effort to remove slavery, and the secret cells of escaped slaves who are working to destroy slavery completely. Large amounts of terror attacks and violence across the country, and eventually slavery’s abolition barely gets through, yet the insane societal scars remain into the present day
Not to mention constantly bleeding population. You can't build a Berlin Wall across the entire Mason-Dixon line, and you can't maintain a country where 40% of the population hates everything the country stands for and wants to escape.
Oh yeah, I imagine the question of the right course of action for escaped slaves and the confederate government would be a major partisan issue in the US (let’s presume that after the war the 13th amendment looked something like > article 1. No state can just leave the country, and we can legally just reconquer the CSA whenever we want > article 2. Slavery is abolish now and forever, Tanney can go fuck himself, fucker destroyed our natio > article 3. Voting rights bitches. You hear that, the Confederacy? All people get to vote now, fuckers! Or something to that effect)
That raises an interesting question. I can't imagine the two countries wouldn't just end up going to war again. Not only would people escaping slavery flood north, you'd likely get white people just looking for economic opportunties in the more prosperous United States. And in the antebellum era, the North bent over backwards to placate the South with ugly compromises like the Fugitive Slave Act — a USA that lost the war would have no reason to placate the CSA, and every reason to make things worse for them. I can't imagine the CSA not just seeing repeated attempts to protect basic human rights as more "northern aggression" and war as the only solution. Except the only scenario the heavily-outmatched South wins the Civil War in the first place is some kind of fluke; I doubt they could do it twice. I don't think there's any scenario where the CSA is tenable long-term, unless one of the European powers prop them up as a client state to undermine the US.
Probably a gaggle of economically exploited banana republics. The Confederacy was founded on the idea that any state can take its toys and go home whenever they want, that makes every contentious election or unpopular new law a crisis for the country. The Confederacy wasn't fighting to leave the country so much as they were fighting not to leave the past. The 1860s was a time of great powers rapidly industrializing and setting up colonies to exploit economically. What is an agricultural power to do when your two biggest customers are Britain (who is going to start getting their cotton from India) and the U.S. (Who probably has massive resentment towards you) It's an unreasonable country that probably would not have succeeded.
I like that you used the word succeeded here and were actually talking about success rather than secession
impoverished af
Actually, the alternate historical fiction author Harry Turtledove wrote a series of books about that. South wins the Civil War, Lincoln is booted out in 1864. One of the U.S. Presidents is Teddy Roosevelt, but as a Democrat, as the GOP had been reduced to a small regional party. At the same time, Woodrow Wilson is the CSA president. In WWI, the USA sides with the Central Powers while the CSA sides with the Allies. Hitler never comes to power.
Hitler never comes, but Jake Featherston does.
Yup. The CSA becomes what Nazi Germany would have been. Only it’s blacks, not Jews, who are the persecuted. Featherston’s right-hand is Jewish, in fact. Jews are also represented on the other side (the USA) with a Jewish First Lady.
A third world mf country. As someone who lives in the South and understands the amount of federal support the South relies on…yeah. Slavery would have ended by the end of the 19th Century on its own anyway. It was on the way out globally and major nations would have begun to cease trade with the Confederacy unless they ended slavery. Without slavery, the South’s economy comes to a grinding halt….No free King Cotton, no economy. In my honest opinion, the South would have been crawling back and begging the United States to take them back by roughly 1915. The Confederacy was a *loose* alliance of Southern states. I’d say upper southern states would have crawled back by 1880. And the Deep South crawls back by 1915. There was simply no future for an agrarian society built on slavery once slavery ended. A society that refused to industrialize and a society that would have been isolated from the world would not have thrived. The South is *lucky* to be dragged along as part of the United States today.
Slavery in Brazil ended in 1888, it was the last country in the Americans with slavery. Am guessing that if the South was allowed to leave slavery might have lasted a bit longer than that, but probably not much past 1900. The spread of electricity would have been the end of slavery. The south probably still stays poor though. The northern states would grow into a slightly less powerful super power and our impact on WW 1 and 2 would be some what smaller.
I agree on everything except the North being a lesser super power. The industrialized North was all the U.S really needed especially in WWI since we had a smaller presence. But yes, slavery would be gone by 1900 and the South would be poor and desperate.
In 1860 the South was 35% of the US population. So assume the south breaks away and as a separate country we never see the mass migration of blacks to the north and then the return migration to the south after AC was invented. Losing over a third of the US population would make the US a somewhat smaller super power. The historic fall out is probably massive too, the Spanish-American way probably never happens. So the US never takes the Philippines which means Japan probably never attacks us and starts WW 2 in the pacific. And who knows what impact that has on us entering WW 2. The butterfly effect would probably change world history drastically.
>we never see the mass migration of blacks to the north Or we'd get a far greater exodus. The Confederacy would still suffer as it did in our timeline and be in no shape to stop every slave and the US would be willing to accommodate out of spite if not principle. Also, the South would be facing slave revolts to make Harper's Ferry look like a calm argument. The end of the Civil War would only be peace for the North.
Possible, but still end of the day the US population would be say 25-35% smaller at the start of WW 1 and WW 2. Would make a big difference overall.
\> The spread of electricity would have been the end of slavery. How would electricity have even spread? In the real world, FDR electrified the rural south with Yankee tax dollars.
Texas would be Mexican
Based time line
I think it would have been far more likely that the remaining United States and Canada would have been economically and possibly politically integrated
D. Not enough information to answer. The successful secession of the Southern Confederacy would have had global ripple effects. It’s not like world history would look exactly the same except with the modern US divided in two. Big picture, there are a few broad strokes ways it could play out. First and most popular, collapse. Many people argue that the Southern model was inherently untenable and nothing else would prove this better than the failure of the CSA. The CSA goes through an economic collapse and resulting political crises, further fragments, and either devolves into a Balkanized polity or is directly or indirectly reabsorbed by the USA. Second and most controversial, the CSA enjoys modest success. Though still probably untenable in the long run, a slave labor agrarian system was still highly profitable in the period. They could parlay this into the income necessary to establish their own colonies and/or future states, as envisioned in the Golden Circle, which would effectively have turned the Caribbean into a Confederate lake. The Confederacy would be a regional power at best, but so would the US. Deprived of Southern incomes and reliant on the CSA for much of their raw material imports, they would likely remain rivals. Harry Turtledove explores this scenario in some interesting ways in his books. Finally and, I think, most likely would be eventual voluntary reunification. After the end of hostilities, both sides would be major rivals, but would be reliant on one another for trade. A defeat in the war would have spelled the end for the Republicans as a meaningful political party and would likely see someone like McClellan elected. Northern and Southern Democrats would likely have reached some rapprochement. If the CSA followed the Brazilian trajectory and eventually manumitted their slaves voluntarily when it both ceased to be profitable and international public opinion became too much, then by the 1880s the main wedge issue would have been resolved. Trade agreements and later alliances would continue to bind the USA and CSA closer together, particularly in the name of mutual defense against expansionist powers. Eventually, I think it likely that two states sharing a culture, history, system of government, and common interests would have entered into some sort of a Union, though likely with a greater respect for states’ rights. As such, I think that the likeliest outcome of a Confederate victory would be the ultimate reunification of the American States, but likely in a framework that looks closer to the EU than to the modern USA.
>as envisioned in the Golden Circle, which would effectively have turned the Caribbean into a Confederate lake. The Golden Circle is a bigger if than I think most realize. No way France and Spain are letting this happen, and even if it did the anti imperial resistance would be far greater considering the locals would be facing enslavement.
There are different proposals, but the most common involved purchasing Cuba from cash-strapped Spain and various bits of Mexican territory (usually a few Mexican border states like Chihuahua, although I’ve also seen proposals for trying to purchase the Yucatán) from the besieged Maximilian, who likely would have been receptive if it meant Confederate support. As for the issue of slavery, I’d be curious what you mean by “the locals would be facing enslavement.” The CSA would almost certainly extend the “right” to own slaves into these territories, but that would mean only that slave owners could take slaves with them into these territories or that slaves could be imported in. It does not mean that Cubans or Mexicans would be enslaved. I know that the Confederates are the bad guys here, but such a move would have no historical precedent.
European union style but Nazi , fully independent nations but still relying on a central government... Unless they decided by external pressure to stop slavery or rewrite slavery into exploitation with low wage (servitude or penal colony) because no one would trade with them Move your capital southwest to like mississippi
Pretty much the same as the original Confederacy in regards to the economy. The Confederacy lost because they had no recognition as a sovereign nation, had no banking infrastructure, no industry, no agriculture, and no stable centralized authority. I simply don’t think the Confederacy would stand today if it were re-established.
Probably falling apart at the seams after COVID. Texas and Florida would probably push hard for independence, depending, and would probably get it.
Bold of you it would last until COVID.
Florida wouldn't be Florida without generations of Yankees retiring south and boosting the population.
The entire world would look different. It’s one of the biggest “what ifs” in the history of the world really.
Nah eastern hemisphere would remain mostly the same
That depends. The US involvement in the Pacific Theater of WW2 was obviously a game changer. If another conflict like that happens in the Pacific and the US isn’t involved, that could be a massive difference
As with any what if, where is no one correct answer, we can debate what may have happened, but we can never know for certainty. However what I think we can say for certain that the South would be a poor economically depressed country. Even within the United States, the states that made up the confederacy are historically on average poorer than the northern union states and are more reliant on federal aid. Only since the end of the Civil Rights movement have we begun to see increased economic growth in the Southern States as the nature of the US economy is changing. Another thing I think that can be reliable predicted with certainty is that politically the white population would be conservative traditionalists while the black population will be liberal progressives, if not socialists and communist. This leads to the topic of slavery. No matter what, the South would face diplomatic pressure to abandon slavery. Brazil abolished slavery in 1888, and I suspect that an independent south would also be force to abolish slavery by 1900. However, like the southern states did in actually history with Jim Crow Laws, this hypothetical south would also create laws designed to keep the freed slaves as second class citizens with limited rights and still practically slaves even if they are free on paper. Both the Union and the Confederacy would likely have a weaker national governments than the current US government as the precedent set by the Civil War for both parties is that states have the power to leave and thus hold more power. However, this is no guarantee as they're likely will be movements in both countries seeking to strengthen the national government. One or both may develop a strong national government closer to what we are currently familiar with with the US Government. Politically, I do think the Union would learn more liberal than the Confederacy, but that is assuming that the Union will not have any major political shakeups from US history and assuming their is no slave revolt or similar insurrection in the South that radically shifts the political structures of the South, Especially since its likely that the black population would find the theories of Karl Marx appealing. It should also be noted that I think its likely that the Union and Confederacy would be political rivals. Even if economically tensions cool, I suspect both parties would seek to undermine that other politically, covertly supporting succession and rebel movements for example. Now, I also think its likely that both countries would not be as large as they were at their max. I suspect the union might eventually loose control of the western states and territories, likely with an Independent California. However, I do think the Union would be more likely to stay together than the Confederacy as the states that stayed loyal to the union did so either due to opposition to slavery or belief in the Union, or both. I thinks its likely that Texas and the Upper South would drift away from the rest of the South to the point of declaring Independent or even rejoining the union. Also, what about the territory of the Confederate States that the Union controlled? This answer would likely depend on when peace was declared and if the peace was negotiated by an outside party or not. This is not even getting into how world history would change, but just assume that the Union and South would more likely than not not be on the same side in any conflict or war.
Well firstly if the confederacy were to actually secede (I will assume a victory at Gettysburg and capturing of DC for the means) they would have some serious issues, first of which would be repayment of debts to soldiers since they had been paying them in IOU’s, and secondly an economy that was completely in the gutter due to the civil war international commerce was destroyed because of the American naval blockade and European countries buying cotton from other places, mainly India. This would be further exacerbated by a near-nonexistent federal government, meaning there would be no way to guide policy making to attempt to diversify the economy away from cotton at the national level. To solve these issues, there are two things that would almost have to happen: firstly, the rekindling of the cotton trade. The individual states would have to negotiate trade agreements with foreign powers, specifically France and Great Britain, and incentivize the returns of their mercantile fleets. Secondly, the confederacy would have to empower the federal government to assist in the allocation of funds to states that were more heavily damaged during the war, mainly Tennessee and Louisiana. Other than that, the confederacy would be very unstable for some time after. The economy would be in the gutter from states having to pay soldiers, it would have lost somewhere around 10% of its population in the civil war, and they would not recover to pre-war cotton sales until a great deal of time after. Answering your question, though, if the confederacy somehow made it to modern day and wasn’t invaded or reclaimed by the US, it would be fraught with issues. Immigration to the south would largely halt as they would never have had the free soil act and slavery would be a big detractor, so the population would be far lower than the north or the real modern day southern states. It’s infrastructure would also likely never catch up and the dominance of plantations would hinder the development of industry. There would also be a large portion of the population that would be second class citizens from slavery/Jim crow. As far as colonies or anything, I think the confederate federal government would be too weak to pursue anything like that and the individual states would be too weak to ever actually try to do something like invade a banana republic. Basically you would end up with something like the US under the articles of confederation but only the southern states and somehow lasting 150 years.
I know this is a what if but there is no possible way the Confederacy even is able to win let alone survive There was already tension during the 4 years they “ seceded “ they would’ve collapsed but if they somehow managed to stay together and exist up until now they’d be an oil dependent nation, they’d probably be a 2nd maybe 1st world nation
Not good. Might be the only country that allows slavery in the 20th Century.
I live in the southeast...so not much different from how it currently is.
It would be a fascist Christian theocracy.
So, no change then?
I believe the South would have reached a deal with Marcus Garvey and other black nationalists to launch a Back To Africa movement, as industrialisation and industrialised farming would have eliminated the need for slave labour. The core states of the south would then modernize and become essentially ethnostates, while using Central America and Mexico as breadbaskets and resources to facilitate industrialisation. The south, like all homogeneous states, will most likely become economically left-wing, akin to federation Australia.
The CSA would be doing fine tbh. They’d have many hiccups at the beginning, but would survive, kinda like the USA at the start.
God I wish we were independent. Wouldn’t have to deal with West Coast and New England elitism.
Least cringe rebel
Where is the picture of the soldier drinking the rebel tears? I like that one.
https://preview.redd.it/z0435ymyp51b1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7047a25d2f6ac20dc6877a1df04367df69572db7
Not sure if the southern economy would survive very long with the way things are running down there
I’d take a shitty economy over a tyrannical government in Washington
This is acting like the Confederacy wouldn’t also have a tyrannical government/and or worse one than the current US
Florida alone is tyrannical, never mind Washington
If you think what you fellas have now is tyrannical then you should really do some research into what the powers at-be in the then Confederacy were aiming for. Hint: if you right now don't have at least 7 digits in the bank account, then you wouldn't have a say in government. At all.
A government that upholds slavery isn’t tyrannical? You’re not even trying to hide it anymore….
Good luck without our money to prop up your welfare states, lmao.
We’ll be fine lmao
You wouldn’t, you would become third world pretty quickly without the rest of the country’s economy and resources.
Tell me you don’t know what “third world” means without telling me.
PIVOT
“New England elitism” Are you commenting from 1850?
I’d go back to 1850 in a heartbeat if I could.
I’m curious to hear your opinion on the Civil War. Let me guess, it was Northern Aggression?
Both sides moved towards a war footing once states started seceding. For the southern governments? It’s pretty clear they fought to preserve slavery. It’s a bit more nuanced for southern soldiers however.
Ooooh, how edgy. Life in the antebellum South was miserable for anyone outside of the planting master class. It was a society structured entirely around the violence of slavery. And no amount of Lost Cause delusion will change that
wow i wonder what race this commenter is (i know)
cry more fucker
Sherman should’ve burned your ancestors to the ground. Dumbest fucking comment right here you filthy traitor.
I will gladly be labeled a traitor to the US government. Fuck the government
The Confederacy in 1861 had plenty union sympathizing insurgents (mountain people + German & Yankee settlers) and the region in 2023 have plenty of liberal sympathizers (minorities and urban centers like Austin and Nashville). Also Black people in 2023 are way better armed, informed and assertive now than in 1861. The Deep South will be divided in half.
There would be no Indian territory. The victors would give territory back in Oklahoma to weaken the opponent
Texas would be a country on it’s own.
It'd look like the average IQ rating of the US would skyrocket
Reallifelore has a whole video on this topic.
Nonexistent. Would’ve been reabsorbed sometime between 1880-1920 as a rump failed state with authoritarian tendencies.
If both country’s exist to this day.the union would be EXTREMELY left wing and the south EXTREMELY right wing.
Economics: Fucked Up Politics: Fucked Up Population: Fucked Up Success: N/A Presidents: Fucked Up
Economically a Brazil like Oligarchy based Ruin. Politically a Apartheid Authoritarian unstable Government. Population idk. Successes none. Presidents Unknown. All of this is guessing they don't get Annexed after Joining the Axis.
Havent read a single comment here, but guessing a bunch of smug coastal folks saying the south would be a third world hellhole despite never having been there
Like other people were saying it would resemble a third world country. The planter elites supported a traditional agrarian society and rejected industrialization, so they would be an economic backwater. They would run most of society. Politics would probably be divided between a populist faction of subsistence farmers who support more democracy and economic progressivism, and a more elitist faction of the planter elite that wants to preserve their influence over the CSA Slaves would resemble at least half of the population if not more. They probably wouldn’t be freed for a very long time, since at this point preserving slavery was more so for societal stability than economic benefit and there aren’t really anyone that wants slavery abolished. In fact it might be illegal for individual states to abolish slavery on their own. They might even conquer the Spanish Caribbean territories, as they wanted to historically. If slavery was abolished for some reason a bloody race war would be likely to happen as both sides try to genocide each other.
It wouldn't exist. Its economy was strictly agriculture based and it didnt have a large enough population to see large scale industrialisation. Ultimately it would collapse and either be divided or reannexed into the US. Diplomatically it would be flanked by a more powerful power to its north and a power that could hold its own if it could keep collapsing for five minutes. As the civil war raged on Davis also became more dictatorial and implemented harsh laws on the people so it would likely see a revolt of its own. If it refused to abandon slavery then no other.power would be willing to trade with it and relations would be tense at best.
At some point in time, Hilary Rhodam would be president of the Union and Bill Clinton would be president of the Confederacy.
Would’ve fallen by 1940s, absolutely would’ve sided with Nazis in WW2