"What If The South Had WAITED A Decade To Secede?" Topic

What if they had waited 10 years (until 1871) before breaking away, to build up alliances and sufficient support industry?

Would that have made any difference? How much difference, if any, would 10 years have made?

Would world conditions in 1871 have hurt or helped?

Just curious.

Dan
TMP link

I read once that if the South had seceded in 1851, they could have may a go of it. If they had waited until 1871, the war would have been over in about 6 weeks because the North would have had such an industrialized advantage.

The South was so wedded to cotton and economy based on slave labor that I don't think it is realistic to assume that they would have spent that decade building up their industrial base.

And since Robert E. Lee died in 1870, they would have lost their greatest commander.

The South hated that type of society, converting to it would have destroyed the South just the same.

The real question is
What if the North had just said BLEEP OFF go build your own country. There were prominent people who said let erring sisters leave in peace, of course there could not have been a Bull Run first, after that the North was not going to back down.

Fort Sumter was what stopped the talk of let them go in peace. Bull Run stopped the talk of an easy war.

Maximilian might have had a longer run in Mexico. The Juaristas depended on supply from Union sources after the war, supply which might not have appeared if the South had not been economically devastated.

Many economic analyses say slavery was on the way out anyhow. By 1871 the slavery issue might have been heading toward a simple apartheid system with blacks "free but not equal." Basically serfdom.

As long as we are going all fantasy Mexico embraces Max and His Wife giving the US a headache over the Monroe Doctrine.

My ACW 'what if' is 'what if the South *didn't* fire on Ft. Sumter, and fought a purely defensive war?'

If they had gone in peace I see South Carolina Mississippi
Florida Alabama Georgia Louisiana Texas Arkansas North Carolina and Virginia. No Missouri and a partitioned Tennessee. The Confederate constitution was designed to give majority control to the Cotton South so I can't see any other joining. Arkansas and Virginia would be fighting a civil war and North Carolina possibly as well. The Confederacy would be hemmed in in the West by Union California.

There was ZERO chance the South wouldn't take some aggressive action towards the North. They were completely convinced they were in the right and far superior to anything the North could field. In the East for a while, they were mostly right.

Thanks,

John

The scenario is highly unlikely. The South seceded in 1860-61 because the election of Lincoln and the Republicans terrified them that the North was going to directly attack slavery. There was no way they were going to wait another ten years and 'see what happens'.

So, the scenario has to include no Lincoln, no Republican Party and with that, things start drifting pretty far from reality at that point.

Oh, God then disco would have occured in my teenage years rather than Middle School. God thing them secessionists were beat but good.

Virginia voted initially to NOT succeed (along with sevral other states), so, in the case of a Union that let the South go, Virginia would be part of the Union (and the Confederacy would have been much smaller.

Rob

Not to go all Edgar Rice Burroughs (The Lost Continent) or HG Wells, but what if Lincoln had lost, whatever, and The ACW was delayed, then the Franco-Prussian War turned into an early World War I rather than the romp it was? Then the South secedes and we have a world war? Now THAT could be some fun, with Gaslight, etc.

There an older book that was an interesting take on Alternate history. I believe it was titled What if the South had won the Civil War? I used to play the South all the time. My favorite Generals were all Southern (most still are). However realistically, it would have been a disaster for the USA and the world if they had. Think about The Span Am War (missing bases for the US in the Pacific in WWII). WWI would have been lost. Who knows about WWII? Scary.

Well, the Spanish American War was just a land grab and a way to sell shady newspapers… . I always thought that the strangest thing about the Spanish American War was that we didn't make the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Cuba into states. Then I found out it was mostly because of racism. Go figure.

WWI and WWII I'd be more concerned about winning/losing. And yes I understand that we got the Philippines from the Spanish in same said land grab war.

Here's an interesting historical what if:

The South was able to win its independence, and, after cotton poops out it becomes a second rate Apartheid state like South Africa with no regard for human rights. Tens of thousands of African Americans flee to the North, and relative security. Although cotton has become a bust for the basis of their economy they attract the attention of German fascists because of their exemplary system of racist laws, something like Jim Crow on crystal meth. The Germans begin forming military ties because they see the South as exemplars of the superiority of the White Race and fear the industrial might of the North/California. When WWII breaks out the South attacks the North with both native equipment and Nazi-loaned equipment, and even some SS divisions and "international" units of fascists from Eastern Europe! After the North crushes the Southern attacks the diehards go to Europe and fight in the invasion of Russia!

Tens of thousands of African Americans flee to the North, and relative security.

The sad part of our history (especially in the time period we are talking about) is that racism was very prevalent in the North as well.

Jason
Stafford, VA

Wow, we have Nazis in the eighteenth century, before there was a united Germany. How about because there was a south, we kept the US Navy up to speed. No Nazis, or supplies ever came, because, under the Monroe Doctrine, we blockadesd the South to prevent it becoming a German colony!

Bloomheller22,

Interesting "view" of history. Both current and past based on a flawed doctrine. But it does make a consistent fantasy world.

Gracias,

Glenn

There could never be a Nazi Germany without total defeat in WWI/Great European War. There would likely be no total German Defeat in early 20th Century without the USA on the Allies side. There would have been no USA of comperable power with a CSA Victory in the ACW. Your fantasy timelines need to diverge a lot more ( and quicker) from actual history when you have a CSA win independence! Not a bad alternative history but you must forget about how things DID happen and what was more likely to happen. Its been done well in fiction a few times!! Hitler stays a wallpaper hanger! Goering makes the first solo Atlantic flight and a lot of other funny stuff could happen! Lots of bad stuff too! Someone even postulated a semi independent Lakota Nation in the 20th Century "protected" by Canada/UK, and a vibrant Mormon independent country!

"Tens of thousands of African Americans flee to the North, and relative security. "

During the New York Draft Riots, Northerners cheerfully hanged a black member of the U.S. Navy, burned a black orphanage, and murdered or beat any black that they could find on the streets.

More blacks were killed in NYC that week than in any other single event in US history.

Waiting for secession just makes the South weaker as the world industrializes – also makes secession less relevant as slavery becomes economically non viable

While the Confederates might have avoided attacking Fort Sumter, I can't see how the Lincoln administration would not have tried to find a casus belli to start hostilities – the garrison at Fort Sumter was left there deliberately to demonstrate the authority of the Federal government and to test just how far the Confederates would go

That's a lot like asking, "What if you had decided to wait another 10 years before being born?"

Haha,

Yes, there are many problems with my alternative history. A lot of problems, actually. And clearly racism is not only a Southern American issue in the US, or only a black/white or American issue either. I think a lot of the ire felt by the North, and the tendency to blame the civil war on slavery is not so much based on what happened before the war, which was bad enough, but what happened after the war in the Jim Crowe era. The difference between the North and South after the war wasn't so much the opinions of individual people (although clearly there was always a difference, for instance in the numbers of abolitionists in the North) but rather that one part of the country codified a system of discrimination into law and the other did not. And that system of laws stayed in place and would have stayed in place until today had it not been for the needs of Cold War propaganda, protestors and the Federal government stepping in.

Also, obviously the Irish riots killed and injured a lot of innocent people. But, while condemning violence let's keep things in perspective. The Irish were new immigrants who were treated as second class citizens and forced to live in ghetto areas of major industrialized US cities, many of which were in the North. They were forced into the same slum neighborhoods, or bordering those that freed blacks were already living in. And thus they came into direct competition with them for limited recourses, jobs, space, etc. And ethnic tensions developed. And the same thing happened with every wave of European immigrant: the Irish, the Italians, the Jews, the Armenians, the Greeks, etc, etc, etc. And at least the first three were always portrayed as having black features by white Americans before they were accepted as "white" after a few decades:
Here's the Irish:
link

So I don't think you can point to the Irish riots and say that they were the same as the Jim Crowe South.

But anyways…. wasn't there an alternative history universe where Hitler came to the US and became a science fiction writer? If I recall correctly the German communists won instead of the Nazis and so the US went far-Right and teamed up with Imperial Japan to fight communism.

Also, I'm not calling Southerners pseudo-Nazis or anything, because that's just wrong, also too easy. Pretty much anyone from that generation was racist by today's standards anyway, no matter what race they belonged to, the Nazis were just the ones who built an entire empire on that idea.

They would have lost ten years after they actually did.

<ducks for cover>

Winston Churchill's If Lee Had Not Won At Gettysburg was my first alt.history read and I still enjoy the stuff today.
Although Turtledove's is a bit too deep for me,there is some decent work out there.Tsouras,Resnick,Benford/
Greenburg,even Gingritch.Some excellent points brought up on
this thread,quite refreshing.

Femeng2-

I meant that the South had won in the 1860/70s, then survived until the 1920-30s-40s.

Let's also throw in the Mexicans, who have their country invaded from Texas by a Confederate division with a leavening of SS infantry with some Luftwaffe support….
I think we might have to move this one over to the fantasy boards by this point though. At least to make way for zombies and dinosaurs.

link

What if the war never ends untill the 1870's.

Has no one read The Lost Continent by Burroughs? Do so, if you haven't. The alternate history is that WWI goes on and on and leads Europe to probable barbarism, while a Pan-American Union isolates the Western Hemisphere, until the ship in the book accidentally crosses the ocean and they end up in England, only to meet up with rival Abyssian and Oriental armies warring over the remains of western europe. Neat stuff.

Hi

Isn't the hitler as SF writer "The Iron Dream"?

Rocky

There was ZERO chance the South wouldn't take some aggressive action towards the North. They were completely convinced they were in the right and far superior to anything the North could field. In the East for a while, they were mostly right.

I recall reading that most aggressors in this case do go to war thinking they can win despite overwhelming evidence they can't – they just get into a mindset that ignores unpleasant facts

The main reason Davis had for firing on Sumter was to force the Upper South, especially Virginia, to take sides. So without a shooting war, Virginia, NC, TN, KY, Del, MD and MO remain in the Union.

As some wag said when SC seceded: "South Carolina is too small to be a republic, and to large to be an insane asylum."

Bloomheller, I just read that most territories under US law are unincorporated, meaning they can become independent. Apparently we don't force them to become states if they don't want too, like Puerto Rico. Not sure how racist that is if at all. Why Puerto Rico hasn't declared for independence like some of its citizens want may be more of an economic/benefit question.

I think I meant statehood.

Southern Generals with Mex-Am War experience would have been getting too old to serve in a war in 1871.
The key economic 'war machine' would have placed the South at a major disadvantage. Southern railroads were independently managed and would have remained so. Over none different track gages between major cities along just ONE Alabama line. So each time a different gage was reached, the wheels had to be adjusted. In this way the owner of the track was ensured that he was paid his 'use toll'.
That will remain the same.
The Iron industry was being developed in 1871 but not in 1861.

One difference would have been more action west of the Mississippi. Calif and other States would have been more developed.

Since secession was a reaction to the election of a "Black Republican," it was unlikely to happen in 1871 -- maybe 1868 or 1872. Perhaps upon the election of a real out-and-out Abolitionist. (Lincoln merely opposed the EXTENSION of slavery. He admitted that Congress had no power to effect slavery within the states.)

I was just last month reading "Profiles in Courage", by JFK/Arthur Schlesinger. There is a chapter about the Compromise of 1850 which would probably never have passed except that Daniel Webster, prominent Northern senator & supporter of banking, industry, etc., stepped up, gave an incredible speech backing the Compromise, and committed political suicide in the process. Without the Compromise the South may well have seceded in 1851 instead of '61… and then you DO have a whole new ballgame. Less Northern industry, stronger Southern economy, Lee is 10 years younger…

See, the South could've compromised by saying, "Listen, we won't admit any slave states to the Union, unless you have a free state to admit too. That way we'll keep everything in balance." Well, gosh, I'll be darned, that's what the US had been doing from the getgo.

But, NO, the slaveholder aristocracy got real greedy and they wanted it all, they wanted an Empire for Slavery. Their southern border was too much to handle for their imagination. The Caribbean and central America was primed for takeover and all the filibuster mov'ts in the 1850's were about that.

R.E. Lee himself saw slavery as a wrong. If he had known that the Southern senators and statesmen were more motivated to secede for the extention of slavery, than for the preservation of genuine state's right, I guarantee you he never would've fought for the South. But he was an honorable man, who having made his decision and a committment, followed thru with it for better or worse.

For some great maps and some thoughts on Porto Rico as a potential state see:
link

For your CSA 1851:

Units (Vets) from the 1848 War:

Arkansas USA
* Regiment of Arkansas Mounted Volunteers,
* Independent Companies of Arkansas Mounted Volunteers in the Mexican War: (2 Co.)
California USA
* Battalions of California Volunteers, ( 8 Co.) and Artillery Company.
* Mounted Rifle Volunteers, at San Diego; (2 Co.) Mounted Rifle
Illinois USA
* 1st Regiment of Illinois Volunteers,
* 2nd Regiment of Illinois Volunteers,
* 3rd Regiment of Illinois Volunteers,.
* 4th Begiment of Illinois Volunteers,
* lst Regiment of Illinois Volunteers,
* 2nd Regiment of Illinois Volunteers,
* Independent Companies of Illinois Mounted Volunteers, (4)
Indiana USA
* 1st Regiment of Indiana Volunteers,
* 2nd Regiment of Indiana Volunteers,
* 3rd Regiment of Indiana Volunteers,
* 4th Regiment of Indiana Volunteers,
* 5th Regiment of Indiana Volunteers,
Iowa USA
* Battalion of Iowa "Mormon" Volunteers,
Massachusetts USA
* Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteers,
Michigan USA
* Regiment of Michigan Volunteers,
* Independent Company of Michigan Volunteers,
New Jersey USA
* Battalion of New Jersey Volunteers,(4 companies);
New York USA
* 1st Regiment of New York Volunteers,
* 2nd Regiment of New York Volunteers,
Ohio USA
* 1st Regiment of Ohio Volunteers,
* 2nd Regiment of Ohio Volunteers,
* 3rd Regiment of Ohio Volunteers,
* 4th Regiment of Ohio Volunteers,
* 5th Regiment of Ohio Volunteers,
* Independent Companies of Ohio Volunteers, (3 Co.)
Pennsylvania USA
* 1st Regiment of Pennsylvania Volunteers,
* 2nd Regiment of Pennsylvania Volunteers,
Misc. Volunteers USA
* Battalion of "Sante Fe" Mounted Volunteers,(4 companies);

Kentucky Border
* Regiment of Kentucky Cavalry Volunteers,
* 1st Regiment of Kentucky Volunteers,
* 2nd Regiment of Kentucky Volunteers,
* 3rd Regiment of Kentucky Volunteers,
* 4th Regiment Kentucky Volunteers,
* Independent Company of Kentucky Volunteers;
Maryland and District of Columbia Border
* Battalion of Maryland and District of Columbia Volunteers, (6 companies)
* Regiment of Maryland and District of Columbia Volunteers (8 companies);
* 3 additional Separate Companies were attached to this Regiments
o Tennessee Company of Mounted Volunteers; May 1847 to July 1848.
o Pittsburg Company;
o Independent Company;
Missouri Border
* 1st Regiment of Missouri Mounted Volunteers, (8 companies)
* Battalion of Missouri Volunteers, (3 Light Artillery companies; 2 Infantry companies);
* Battalion of Missouri Mounted Volunteers,(4 companies, first mustered in Price's regiment);
* 9 Companies of Missouri Volunteers,
* Battalion of Missouri Volunteers (5 companies)
* 3rd Regiment of Missouri Mounted Volunteers
* Battalion of Missouri Mounted Volunteers, (5 companies);
* Battalion of Missouri Mounted Volunteers, (5 companies);

Alabama CSA
* Battalion of Alabama Volunteers, for 3 months (4 Co.);
* 3 Independent Companies of Alabama Volunteers,
* Independent Company of Alabama Mounted Volunteers,
* Battalion of Alabama Volunteers,
Florida CSA
* Independent Companies (2)
Georgia CSA
* Regiment of Georgia Volunteers,
* Battalion of Georgia Volunteers,
* Battalion of Georgia Mounted Volunteers,
* Independent Company of Georgia Mounted Men;
Louisiana CSA
* Louisiana Battalion of Volunteer Artillery, for 3 months; (2 companies);
* 2nd Battalion of Louisiana Volunteer Artillery, for 6 months, (3 companies)
* Brigade of Louisiana Volunteers, for 6 months, (6 regiments)
* Independent Company of Louisiana Volunteers,
* Regiment of Louisiana Volunteers,
* Battalion of Louisiana Volunteers, (5 companies);
* Battalion of Louisiana Mounted Volunteers, for 12 months, (5 companies);
Mississippi CSA
* 1st Regiment of Mississippi Rifles, Volunteers
* 2nd Regiment of Mississippi Volunteers,
* 1st Battalion of Mississippi Rifle Volunteers, (5 companies)
North Carolina CSA
* Regiment of North Carolina Volunteers,
South Carolina CSA
* Regiment of South Carolina Volunteers,
Tennessee CSA
* Regiment of Tennessee Mounted Volunteers,
* 1st Regiment of Tennessee Volunteers,
* 2nd Regiment of Tennessee Volunteers, (8 companies)
* 3rd Regiment of Tennessee Volunteers,
* 4th Regiment of Tennessee Volunteers, (9 companies);
* 5th Regiment of Tennessee Volunteers, (11 companies);
Texas CSA
* 1st Regiment of Texas Mounted Rifle Volunteers
* 2nd Regiment of Texas Mounted Volunteers,
* 3rd Regiment of Texas Rifle Volunteers,
* Regiment of Texas Mounted Volunteers, (7 companies)
* Battalion of Texas Mounted (4 companies);
* Regiment of Texas Mounted Volunteers,
* Regiment of Texas Mounted Volunteers,
* Battalion of Texas Mounted Volunteers, (5 companies),
* Independent Companies of Texas Volunteers. (11 Co.)
Virginia CSA
* Regiment of Virginia Volunteers, (14 companies);

Wow… You've been thinking about this for a while, haven't you?

Porto Rico will never be a state. But Puerto Rico might. I do wish they'd make up their minds, one way or the other.

The shame, I never could spell. Maybe they are waiting to be "Liberated" by then next colonial empires?

John Leahy
" However realistically, it would have been a disaster for the USA and the world if they had. Think about The Span Am War (missing bases for the US in the Pacific in WWII). WWI would have been lost. Who knows about WWII? Scary."

But for US Imperialism in seizing the Phillipines, perhaps the US wouldn't have needed bases in the Pacific? But for Us imperialism the US wouldn't have had Pearl Harbour either, or Midway, or Guam. If the US hadn't been a Pacific colonial power the US wouldn't have been as interested in Japan and China, so US involvement in WW2 quite possibly wouldn't have happened.
Why would WW1 have been lost? It was US equipment and "stuff" that helped, the actual impact and involvement of US troops was minimal.

They would have lost ten years after they actually did.

No, they would have lost about 6 years after they did historically. The North had a much bigger economy than the South did (for that matter, does).

The war would have been bloodier and shorter. Not a short victorious war by any stretch of the imagination, but even closer to the prototype for WW1.

Suppose Douglas was elected in 1860 and died shortly thereafter, leaving VP Herschel Johnson (former governor of Georgia) as President. No secession at that time. Gotta do it all over again in '64, '68 and '72. Sooner or later a Republican gets elected, and SC secedes.

More blacks were killed in NYC that week than in any other single event in US history.
The Mass. 54ths attack on the port defenses where most of the regiment died is probably a higher total.

But Puerto Rico might. I do wish they'd make up their minds, one way or the other.

What would be their motivation to change the status quo? They have the best of both worlds right now. There is a better chance that the other US territories would petition to become states than Puerto Rico signing on.

What about McLellan winning the 1864 election?

There's a what if for ya!

What would be their motivation to change the status quo? They have the best of both worlds right now.

Too true. The status quo should be removed from the choices. Either statehood or independence, take your choice.