|
You had the Depression of the 1870s. This Depression is what killed Reconstruction for many of the changes adopted during Reconstruction would be taken to their logical conclusion in the 1870s leading to the General Strike of 1877. As a result of the Strike of 1877, the North turned against Civil Rights (Leading to the Civil Rights Cases of the 1880s).
Now, if the South had left in 1861, the Depression still would have happened and I believe something like the General Strike of 1877 would also have happened. Two hot stops during 1861 would be the beginning and end points for the General Strike in 1877, i.e. Baltimore and St Louis.
If the South would have left, both would have been in the CSA, but the rest of the Strike was in NORTHERN CITIES i.e. Pittsburgh etc. The General Strike was put down by Regular Army Troops, if the South had left no expansion of the Army would have occurred in 1861, therefore less troops available in 1877. This is reenforced by the Strike Starting in Baltimore but being its most extensive in Pittsburgh (Through St Louis would be run by a Worker's Committee).
The First Question is how would the South handle Baltimore and St Louis (If both or either was in the CSA)? Would these Cities than asked to re-enter the US? The Country was in a Depression, would the US have been able to take over both cities given the Revolts throughout the Country? Would this have started a War?
If the US and CSA avoided war during the 1870s, the 1880s brought economic collapse to the South in the form of the Boll Weevil. This lead to segregation in the 1890s (The South was fairly integrated after 1965 till about 1890 than the Jim Crow Laws really started to be implemented). In many ways the South Never recovered from the Boll Weevil, the small farmers that made up most of the South prior to 1880 lost their land and became tenant farmers do to the Boll Weevil. Slavery would have boomed as more and more land ended up in the hands of Plantation owners.
The Populist movement came out of the Mid-west farmers, but the South participated in the Movement. In an Independent CSA, the movement would have lead to a more anti-Northern Attitude since the Railroad were till controlled out of New York or London. With a need for new tax revenues, the temptation to tax Midwest River Traffic shipping out of New Orleans would have been to much. Shifting the Dispute among the Midwest farmers from Thieving Railroad owners to hatred of the South for raising the cost of shipping out of New Orleans. Like the problems around the Depression of 1870s, could have lead to War. The South wanting to Tax the shipments for the tax would not affect any Southern Interests, while the North wanting the tax stopped for it increases their costs. All you need for a nice bloody war.
In the 1880s through WWI, every Western Country had a Socialist Movement. In the South it was suppressed but I can see it develop among the Black Slaves and poor Whites. I do not see it taking over the Southern Government, but increase suppression would have been needed leading to a Dictatorship of one party rule (aka The Union of South Africa from 1900 till Mandela became its President). This would lead to an underground Communist Movement much like the ANC was in the 1950s-1990s. I foresee this developing earlier given the better education of Northern Blacks, i.e. starting in 1890s (as another Depression set in) till WWI.
WWI is interesting, I foresee the South Taking Cuba in the 1890s as an additional Slave state (As part of the deal, Spain would have kept its ties to Cuba but the Southern Army would have been used to suppress the Cuban Independence Movement). The South would have wanted more, but its general backwardness would have prevented it from going beyond Cuba. I foresee the Panama Canal being built for it cut the cost of transportation between New York and the West Coast, but as the World heads to WWI, things tend to change.
Come WWI, Theodore Roosevelt would have won his third term and wanting to go to War to support England and France. The South would be out of the Picture except to provide Food and Cotton. The North to keep its industry busy would have supported the Southern Suppression of its Slaves even as it gets messy down south (i.e. Mass suppression via mass executions). The North’s fear of Communists would have been enough not only for the North to Support the South but even provide the South Aid to suppress the Communist Revolts of the Slaves.
I foresee the North going to War in 1917, could the New York Banks afford a German Victory? In 1915 William Jennings Bryan resigned his position as Secretary of State under Wilson for Wilson’s refusal to rein in the Banks and their loans to France and England. These loans would lead to the US going to War to make sure France and England won the war. Despite Bryan’s resignation, Wilson left the Banks go, and we went to war in 1917 more to protect the Banks than any other reason.
The North did not need the South in 1917 to defeat Germany, and given the existence of Slaves in the South, the South could not provide the Troops anyway. Thus WWI would have seen US Troops in Europe But not Southern Troops. Roosevelt would have a better hand in 1919 (If he did not die in that year as he did) but I see something like the Versailles Treaty coming out of WWI even of the South was a separate Country from the North.
The Great Depression would have hit the South hard, and the North would have demanded that the South provide free access through New Orleans AND accept increase tariffs on imports from the South to the North. Unlike FDR’s new Deal with its TVA and other programs for the South, I fore see a South kept down, with the North demanding and getting money from the South when the South is least able to give up such wealth. With the South nothing but a Satellite of the North (Without any real input to HOW the North spends the North’s Money) the South continue down hill. The South do not even get the Military Bases placed in the South during WWII. The North builds the bases in the North.
The South’s only strong card come WWII, is Texas Oil. A minor Military need in WWI (Cars were Not that while developed in WWI), oil by 1940 was a MAJOR military need. The North would need Texas Oil to defeat Hitler but the South would be so weak that it would give the North the Oil. Hitler would try to have the South deny to Oil to the North and to England, but if the South would make any such move, both the US and England would invade Texas and Louisiana and just take over the Oil Fields “for the Duration”. This would be made easier with the North adopting a policy of Freedom and Free lands for the Poor Whites and Black Slaves.
The South seeing its dilemma, give the Oil to the North OR see its land taken from them and given to its slaves, the one party dictatorship would act like South Africa after WWII, Scream “Commie, Commie, Commie” (Hoping to slow the Northern takeover a little bit) and than giving the Oil to the North. The Lost of the oil would be preferred to the North taking over Texas and Louisiana and converting the large plantations to small farms. Remember we are talking of a South that has had no input from the North since 1861, a much poorer south in 1940 than it was. Even today the South gets more money from the US Treasury than the South provides the US Treasury. Without representation in the Congress of the US that wealth transfer would NOT have occurred and the South would NOT be as rich in 1940 as it was do to losing the Civil War.
The cost of keeping the slaves in slavery would also have drained the South of wealth, but the large plantation owners would have wanted to keep their slaves to keep their costs down. This is what happened in the Roman Empire, the Roman Elites preferred to keep their large estates based on slave and later serf labor than give land to their peasants. Land to the peasants would have produced more crops, and thus wealth, but that wealth would not be in the control of the Roman Elites. This the Roman Elites preferred to keep their large estates for they wanted control over the wealth, even if it meant less wealth for the country as a whole.
Just like the Roman Empire the South after 1860 would have become a rule of an elite for that elite. If this meant slavery would survive, slavery would have survived. Without the push from the North to abolish slavery, slavery would have survived till the invention of the Automatic Cotton Gin in the 1960s. Only than could the large Plantation do without a large number of Cotton Pickers.
Progress in the South since 1860 has been as an offshoot from progress in the North. With the South being an independent country I do not see any progress on the rural front till the Automatic Cotton picker is introduced. The Large Plantation owners can only get wealth from Cotton and that required Cotton Pickers. The cheapest cotton pickers prior to the introduction of the Automatic Cotton Picker were slaves. Unless the Slaves revolted and installed a Communist Government I do not see the Southern elites do anything as to slavery or any other improvements
not tied in with the expansion of their wealth.
In simple terms the South would be independent to this day, united, but poorer than it is today, and nothing but a satellite of the US (Much like Canada is, through Canada did not have slavery and thus is not as poor as the South would have been.) As to the US, it still would be a world Power, including Nuclear weapons. The US would still be the Sole Super Power for the South would have supported the US just like Canada did during the Cold War. They may be some minor disputes (for example the Canadians not turning over US Draft Dodgers during Vietnam) but nothing serious (i.e. the threat of a US Invasion would keep the South in Line, just like the fact the US could take over Canada at any time has kept Canada a close US Ally).
The Biggest disputes would be over shipments out of New Orleans. Compared to New Orleans, Montreal and Quebec are minor Ports. Thus the South would have to be careful not to increase the cost of shipments out of New Orleans excessively. On this the South would be disadvantageous for the negotiations would be on a a Country by Country instead of inside Congress. In such negotiations the South as the weaker and poorer country would have to accept what the US wanted. In reality the South’s position is enhanced in Congress, than as an Independent Country but at the costs of having additional inputs from outside the South. You gain some you lose some, the South lost its ability to rule itself in 1865, but it retained the ability to influence what goes on in Washington more than it would have had it been an independent Nation.
To sum up the debate, look at Canada, while it did not have the Slave culture of the South and as such accepted industrialization, Canada’s influence in Washington is way less than the American South. Think about this, from a purely economic point of view both the American South and Canada has about the same connections with the rest of the US, but the input from the South is greater FOR THE SOUTH IS IN UNION WITH THE NORTH WHILE CANADA IS OUTSIDE THAT UNION. This greater input leads to greater influence from the South on the rest of the US, way more than Canada influences the Rest of the US.
It has been beneficial to both the North and the South to be one country since 1865, the South had input into how the North spent its taxes, the South received benefits from those taxes out of proportion to the taxes the South actually paid. At the Same time the North had free access through New Orleans and control over transportation through the South (and direct access to Texas Oil). The North did not have to worry about revolts in the South, nor a large Army in the South (The south would have had to field a large army just to keep the Slaves in line, an army that could also threaten the North). Remember you can not take just the Good, you have to take the bad, but as a whole the South as part of the US has been a blessing not a curse.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(459 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
