"If the Civil War Had a Different Ending" Topic

"Some American conservatives appear to revel in discussing what the world might be like if the United States didn't exist—a sentiment today indulged by Dinesh D'Souza's new film "America." Nevertheless, while Americans are justifiably proud of their past, and of their contributions to the world, independence for England's North American colonies was bound to happen sooner or later. And the nation that emerged was likely to draw heavily upon its colonial master's classically liberal political and legal traditions, though possibly expressed differently if the country emerged later with other leaders. Still, this world-without-America speculation can be both thought-provoking and entertaining. In that spirit, as Americans celebrate July 4, they might also consider an independence day that didn't happen and how different America and the world might be if it had.

If the American Civil War had ended other than it did—or if the federal government and the northern states decided to pursue a negotiated separation from the south—residents of the Confederate States of America (CSA) might still be celebrating their Independence Day over one hundred and fifty years later, perhaps on December 24 (the day in 1860 when South Carolina declared its independence) or on February 9 (when, in 1861, the thirteen southern states formed the CSA). It is, of course, impossible to know what the USA, the CSA, and the world would look like after this alternate history—there are too many variables over too much time. But it is an interesting thought experiment nonetheless…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

The one thing this author ignores is the fate of the western territories in a North-South split. While slavery was the root cause of the war, the immediate issue in the 1860 election was whether slavery would be allowed to expand westward. The South said yes, the North said no. But if the South did successfully secede then legally, it would forego all claim on the western territories because those had been acquired by treaty by the United States. The United States would still exist and have a rightful claim to the territories. However it is highly unlikely that the South would see things that way. Before the ink was dry on any treaty signed in the east, there would be fighting going on out west between the rival claimants. Wars large and small between North and South would have been popping up all through the rest of the 19th Century and probably into the 20th. It's doubtful that a great North American power could have arisen under those circumstances.

An interesting "what if" is if the Corwin Amendment had made it into the Constitution as the 13th amendment. Would that have turned secession around? How many generations would that have extended slavery and how would that affect the US?

There is a fair amount of alternative history written on this topic – Roger Ransom who is a prof at U California wrote a book called The Confederate States of America that looked at things like economics and geopolitics – a Confederate victory would have had impacts well beyond the US – for example, on the evolution of the British parlimentary system as well as on places like Mexico. I can't imagine a Confederate government giving Juarez and the Mexican republican forces any support at all – and they would probably have helped Max and his cronies keep Mexico as a French puppet empire

The basic problem is that if slavery had continued and to expand in the south it would have been a powder cage waiting to go off. Since slaves are property the birth rate of slaves would be kept much higher then non slaves. Would the inflow of immigrants to the slave south would not have kept up with the slavery birth rate. At some point a charismatic organization (radical Christian?) would have formed and simply go for a genocide level event (South Africa like?).

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

At a minimum Scott the Indian Territory that later became Oklahoma would likely have been a part of the Confederacy. Slave ownership was common among the nations that made up the bulk of the population there. It was fairly easy for Confederate agents to get them to ally with the Confederacy. It is sometimes forgotten that some nations even had representatives in the Confederate Congress.

Decades ago I read something written by a U.S. Treasury official charged with collecting taxes in the territory that is today's Montana. That is up along the Canadian border where African chattel slavery had not penetrated in the 1860s. Yet this official was complaining about the pro-Confederate sympathizers interfering with his work. Truth? An excuse for inadequately performing his job? Who knows. Still it suggests that the sympathies of those in the western territories at the start of the war should not be assumed.

Alternative histories are interesting thought experiments although they change nothing about our current present reality.

As far as pro-Confederate sympathizers; I hate to say it but to some small slice of the human pie just want to be "better" than someone else. That is something that slavery provided those who were in that thin slice of the pie.

Not a good reason but it also helps to explain why the majority of the southerners without slaves would fight for a system they didn't benefit from.

That being said there was also a big enough slice that didn't feel that way to man the Union armies that eventually freed the entire CSA.

Thanks also!

Amicalement
Armand

some small slice of the human pie just want to be "better" than someone else

I think there is merit in that statement [I have no evidence but think it likely] but I do not think "some small slice" explains why "the majority of southerners without slaves would fight for a system they didn't benefit from".

was also a big enough slice that didn't feel that way to man the Union armies that eventually freed the entire CSA

I doubt that many joined the Union armies to 'free the CSA' (even if this is a euphemism for 'free the slaves') and I am unaware of evidence that would support such a claim: probably more a case of not wanting those states to leave the Union. Also, I strongly doubt that the CSA thought that the Union armies were coming to free them. Indeed, a reading of Jefferson Davis' inaugural speech jeffersondavis.rice.edu/archives/documents/jefferson-davis-first-inaugural-address would indicate that freedom from being part of the USA was the goal as he wanted "enjoyment of the separate existence and independence which we have asserted, and … intend to maintain".

Yes, Jeff Davis said "all we want is to be left alone" … this after the Confederates had grabbed all the Federal property they could reach and fired on Federal troops. I imagine that many a thief has had the same feeling after he has plundered his neighbors … now if the cops would only leave me alone.

There would probably have eventually been a severe slave uprising, funded and fueled by outside sources. Also, there wouldve been strong boycotts against the CSA to end slavery.

Non slave owning whites in the South benefited from the slave economy and also enjoyed having a class of people beneath them. In general, working class people (of all types) feel more secure when they have a group to look down on and are hyper-sensitive to groups looking down on them. What this body fears most is change which threatens their sense of stability in the cosmos.

I think the problem today is that in a sense the CSA DID win the civil war in so much as that mentality never learned its lesson. Now, to be fair, Southerners are no longer the majority adherents to a confederate mentality. That mentality always had some sympathy in other parts of the USA and now seems to have become widespread in the U.S. in places outside of the South.

Minipig, I Have realitives in northern areas with that southern mentality. It is quite interesting how they have created a make believe narriative of their southerness. How they and their community descended from slave owners. They become quite upset when I show the historical truth that the church they attend and use as a basis of their values was actually quite agressive in it's anti-slavery rhetoric in the 1800s. That their town to a man was pro-northern.

Also, the idea that poor whites in the south didn't gain from slavery is a bit of fiction, too. Beyond just feeling superior. The lower class white woman were provided younger slaves to break in for the upper class. In exchange, they had the use of the slaves for a number of years. Then, lower class white men could sexually abuse slave women at a whim. The black women could not legally testify against them. In turn, the owner would recieve new property in any children produced. Of course, the owners knew the white woman would be stricter on these children in which they knew who the father was.

EJNashill – "southern mentality"?

What does this mean? Surely not a slur on all inhabitants of southern states (south of the Mason-Dixon line, Maryland included): if not, what is meant by 'southern mentaliaty'?

"Southern mentality" might more artfully be called "Confederate" or "Lost Cause". The South is not a monolithic entity today and was not during the Civil War as evidenced by the 200,000 white men from southern states who served in the Union army.

I am aware of the 'Lost Cause' argument. I only only asked as the use of 'mentality' and 'southern mentality' seemed to be implying something else and I was curious to know the meaning of that use.

I understand that a lot (I don't have figures on how many) of people from Union States served the CSA (Kentucky certainly had a lot of CSA infantry and cavalry regiments and smaller units).