If the Confederacy Won

[Conserative Morality]

I can only find a reference to 40,000 slaves, not 400,000.

Mm, might be a typo then. Even so, that would put the slave population at over 50%, a number Rome never reached.

[Rhodisia]

There is no way this is possible. Even if the South held out forever, the North would have kept coming. I don't think truce was ever an option for Grant or Lincoln.

Don't attack Kentucky. Kentucky already had pro-Union sentiments, but had primarily Southern culture. That simple act (or lack of one, rather) could have shortened the front by over 400 miles, economized the use of force, and enabled the South to hold out much, much longer. Divert the troops that would have been used in Kentucky to the Western Front, and link up with pro-Confederate partisans in Texas and Missouri.

[The Rebel Alliances]

There is no way this is possible. Even if the South held out forever, the North would have kept coming. I don't think truce was ever an option for Grant or Lincoln.

It was for the common Yank civilian. Before the war, there were just as many Northerners who were just as happy to let the south go her merry way as those who wanted war. At many parts in the early years, the average northerner was beginning to actually prefer a negotiated peace, as it seemed that Lee was invincible and they were handed defeat after defeat. Not to mention pressure from the British to negotiate.

It was not until Gettysburg and Vicksburg happened that the North actually got behind the war effort as a whole.

Kinda hard to keep morale up when your President is dismissing generals of the largest Army on the planet faster than they can even meet the enemy on the field.

[The Cobalt Sky]

Slavery does not exist because it is economically rational. It exists for far darker reasons that go beyond the short term gains of robbery and plunder. The power that slave regimes give to slave owners is not a means to an end, it is the end in and of itself, and this power over others is intoxicating.

Some men are born to lead the world. The rest, through either chains or wages, are destined to be their slaves. It's an inextricable side effect of liberalism and other toxic ideologies that degrade not just blacks, but everyone.

Are you serious?

[The Rebel Alliances]

Some men are born to lead the world. The rest, through either chains or wages, are destined to be their slaves. It's an inextricable side effect of liberalism and other toxic ideologies that degrade not just blacks, but everyone.

Are you serious?

Dont feed the troll. Please.

[Shnercropolis]

I can only find a reference to 40,000 slaves, not 400,000.

Mm, might be a typo then. Even so, that would put the slave population at over 50%, a number Rome never reached.

Rome itslelf probably had about 3:1 citizens to slaves. Countryside/farming areas would be closer to 1:5 or maybe even 1:10.

This is just rough guesses based on my knowledge of Roman history and culture, so if you find a contradicting source you should probably trust that more.

[The Liberated Territories]

Seriously? This fallacy was already made. There would be more northern soldiers because there would be more northerners. This is a simple conclusion of logic.

All Mexico has to do is start liberating some of these slave camps, and suddenly they can outpopulate and overpower the CSA, unless the CSA decides to sacrifice their main source of income for military purposes.

Slave revolts did not occur even after the issuing of the Emancipation of Proclamation. And the change of proclaimed war goals of from "Restoring the Union" to "Freeing the Slaves" still no major slave revolts.

On the account of population percentage and men who fought in the Mexican War. OK, conceded. Did not think of that.

But, bear in mind, a war between the CSA and Mexico. Is not likely to happen at all, but if it did, it would be after the Civil War, and the Confederates would still possess a far more skilled army and Officer Corps. Mexico defeating the CSA simply does not hold up, on paper or in reality.

The slaves don't have to revolt. Mexico could just seek out these plantations, liberate the slaves, and add them to their numbers by force. Starting with Texas, and going eastward.

Mmm, I'd like a source for these skilled Confederate soldiers. Arguably your claim has some merit, but imo Mexico would likely not institute aggression only twenty years after the A&M war. One of the reasons that Mexico was so easily beaten was due to both Apache raids and having several disease epidemics, should a Mexico attack CSA in the 1880s, for example, they'd probably have much more of a chance. Again, it's subjective based on time and conditions. I doubt a "could Mexico defeat the CSA" could be easily resolved without speculation. This ain't Columbus taking on the Indians anymore.

[Ganos Lao]

Such Rhodesian aspirations, but would the British have been able to accomplish this?

u wot m8?

To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonisation by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible, and promote the best interests of humanity.

[The Cobalt Sky]

Are you serious?

Dont feed the troll. Please.

I didn't mean to. I just can't tell.

[Conserative Morality]

Rome itslelf probably had about 3:1 citizens to slaves. Countryside/farming areas would be closer to 1:5 or maybe even 1:10.

This is just rough guesses based on my knowledge of Roman history and culture, so if you find a contradicting source you should probably trust that more.

As soon as we talking actual citizens, things get blurry. Peregreni, freedmen, etc. Best to keep it to free vs. unfree.

If we're talking latifundia, I'd say at that point we're getting too localized to say anything meaningful.

[Shnercropolis]

Slave revolts did not occur even after the issuing of the Emancipation of Proclamation. And the change of proclaimed war goals of from "Restoring the Union" to "Freeing the Slaves" still no major slave revolts.

On the account of population percentage and men who fought in the Mexican War. OK, conceded. Did not think of that.

But, bear in mind, a war between the CSA and Mexico. Is not likely to happen at all, but if it did, it would be after the Civil War, and the Confederates would still possess a far more skilled army and Officer Corps. Mexico defeating the CSA simply does not hold up, on paper or in reality.

The slaves don't have to revolt. Mexico could just seek out these plantations, liberate the slaves, and add them to their numbers by force. Starting with Texas, and going eastward.

Mmm, I'd like a source for these skilled Confederate soldiers. Arguably your claim has some merit, but imo Mexico would likely not institute aggression only twenty years after the A&M war. One of the reasons that Mexico was so easily beaten was due to both Apache raids and having several disease epidemics, should a Mexico attack CSA in the 1880s, for example, they'd probably have much more of a chance. Again, it's subjective based on time and conditions. I doubt a "could Mexico defeat the CSA" could be easily resolved without speculation. This ain't Columbus taking on the Indians anymore.

Mexico's generals are and always have been far inferior to the US's. Look at their tactics and see that they are basically WW2-era USSR, but with less manpower and resources.

[Shnercropolis]

Rome itslelf probably had about 3:1 citizens to slaves. Countryside/farming areas would be closer to 1:5 or maybe even 1:10.

This is just rough guesses based on my knowledge of Roman history and culture, so if you find a contradicting source you should probably trust that more.

As soon as we talking actual citizens, things get blurry. Peregreni, freedmen, etc. Best to keep it to free vs. unfree.

If we're talking latifundia, I'd say at that point we're getting too localized to say anything meaningful.

I meant free people to slaves, not the legal definition of citizen.

[Conserative Morality]

Mexico's generals are and always have been far inferior to the US's. Look at their tactics and see that they are basically WW2-era USSR, but with less manpower and resources.

WW2-era USSR with less manpower and resources would wipe the floor with 19th century America, I gotta tell you, North or South.

[The Rebel Alliances]

Slave revolts did not occur even after the issuing of the Emancipation of Proclamation. And the change of proclaimed war goals of from "Restoring the Union" to "Freeing the Slaves" still no major slave revolts.

On the account of population percentage and men who fought in the Mexican War. OK, conceded. Did not think of that.

But, bear in mind, a war between the CSA and Mexico. Is not likely to happen at all, but if it did, it would be after the Civil War, and the Confederates would still possess a far more skilled army and Officer Corps. Mexico defeating the CSA simply does not hold up, on paper or in reality.

The slaves don't have to revolt. Mexico could just seek out these plantations, liberate the slaves, and add them to their numbers by force. Starting with Texas, and going eastward.

Mmm, I'd like a source for these skilled Confederate soldiers. Arguably your claim has some merit, but imo Mexico would likely not institute aggression only twenty years after the A&M war. One of the reasons that Mexico was so easily beaten was due to both Apache raids and having several disease epidemics, should a Mexico attack CSA in the 1880s, for example, they'd probably have much more of a chance. Again, it's subjective based on time and conditions. I doubt a "could Mexico defeat the CSA" could be easily resolved without speculation. This ain't Columbus taking on the Indians anymore.

The entire Civil War is not source enough? But, if you are picking the date as twenty years after the fact. Mexico could plausibly, however unlikely defeat the CSA. But a huge amount of things both during the Civil War and interwar years would have to go wrong. And if they did win, I dont think we would be seeing a Mexican Empire. It would be a negotiated peace at best for Mexico.

I am not opposed to the hypothetical of Mexico winning. But, I believe that logically the most likely outcome would be no war at all. And if so a Confederate victory.

However, this has been an entertaining break from my RPs. And I need to return to them. I have posts to make. I only very rarely show up in General. Well, thanks for the discussion, have a nice night and enjoy the thread.

[Shnercropolis]

Mexico's generals are and always have been far inferior to the US's. Look at their tactics and see that they are basically WW2-era USSR, but with less manpower and resources.

WW2-era USSR with less manpower and resources would wipe the floor with 19th century America, I gotta tell you, North or South.

I meant tactics-wise, buffoon.

But yeah, that would be pretty funny. A couple of soldiers frantically firing a gatling gun at a T-34.

[The Rebel Alliances]

Dont feed the troll. Please.

I didn't mean to. I just can't tell.

I honestly just ignore users like him. I never understood why Generalites will debate Trolls. Or, obvious users who have no interest in an open and two way conversation/debate.

Not saying everyone has to be open to change positions, but at the very least be willing to hear and consider the argument. Debating with someone who does not is a waste of energy. Which could be used doing something else, such as making some fine coffee.

[Slave States]

WW2-era USSR with less manpower and resources would wipe the floor with 19th century America, I gotta tell you, North or South.

I meant tactics-wise, buffoon.

But yeah, that would be pretty funny. A couple of soldiers frantically firing a gatling gun at a T-34.

The 3-inch rifled gun used by the union forces should be capable of jamming the turret of a T-34 and destroy a BT-7

[Shnercropolis]

I meant tactics-wise, buffoon.

But yeah, that would be pretty funny. A couple of soldiers frantically firing a gatling gun at a T-34.

A 3-inch rifled gun used by the union forces should be capable of jamming the turret of a T-34 and destroy a BT-7

not really, they're too inaccurate and short-ranged.

[Slave States]

A 3-inch rifled gun used by the union forces should be capable of jamming the turret of a T-34 and destroy a BT-7

not really, they're too inaccurate and short-ranged.

The Union 3-inch rifle was accurate up to almost a mile with a well trained crew, that is far beyond the ranges ww2 anti-tank guns usually engaged tanks. It lacked the penetrative punch needed to defeat tanks but it should have been powerful enough to jam a turret of a T-34 and destory early war light tanks.

[Shnercropolis]

not really, they're too inaccurate and short-ranged.

The Union 3-inch rifle was accurate up to almost a mile with a well trained crew, that is far beyond the ranges ww2 anti-tank guns usually engaged tanks. It lacked the penetrative punch needed to defeat tanks but it should have been powerful enough to jam a turret of a T-34 and destory early war light tanks.

We're taliking about gatling guns, right? I'm talking about gatling guns.

[Slave States]

The Union 3-inch rifle was accurate up to almost a mile with a well trained crew, that is far beyond the ranges ww2 anti-tank guns usually engaged tanks. It lacked the penetrative punch needed to defeat tanks but it should have been powerful enough to jam a turret of a T-34 and destory early war light tanks.

We're taliking about gatling guns, right? I'm talking about gatling guns.

Gatling guns can make T-34 crew laugh themselves to death.

[Shnercropolis]

We're taliking about gatling guns, right? I'm talking about gatling guns.

Gatling guns can make T-34 crew laugh themselves to death.

true, I hadn't considered that possibility.

[The Cobalt Sky]

I didn't mean to. I just can't tell.

I honestly just ignore users like him. I never understood why Generalites will debate Trolls. Or, obvious users who have no interest in an open and two way conversation/debate.

Not saying everyone has to be open to change positions, but at the very least be willing to hear and consider the argument. Debating with someone who does not is a waste of energy. Which could be used doing something else, such as making some fine coffee.

Sometimes I have a hard time distinguishing between trolls and people who actually have no idea what's going on. I don't really debate trolls either but I have a harder time telling if they're real or not...

[Tahar Joblis]

To respond to what's been said.

1. In the event of a Confederate victory, [relatively] normal trade relations could be expected to resume soon enough. We could expect negative economic effects on both South and North in the long term; it is possible that the negative effect on the Confederacy would be less than the actual RL-history negative effects associated with direct damage in Southern territory from the war.

2. The agrarian model based on low-skill labor in the South persisted until sometime after WWII. Share-cropping as practiced in the US South was not actually all that different from serfdom in many ways, and the South was particularly slow to adopt mechanized agriculture - the tractor didn't really replace the mule in the US South until sometime after WWII.

3. A transition out of explicit slavery, if it happened, would probably be towards something like South Africa's apartheid system - only significantly more stable, with blacks as a permanently oppressed minority rather than majority. As slavery became less economically feasible, freed slaves would likely be encouraged - directly and indirectly - to emigrate; and eugenicists would probably have sterilized blacks in large numbers. The result would be a very much more white South. With the Union being not necessarily friendly to black immigrants from the South, this may mean a blacker Mexico and a larger effort to send US blacks to Africa.

4. Further fragmentation of the Union is not unlikely in the wake of a Confederate victory - either directly as a result of it, or as the result of later political disputes. US involvement in WWI and WWII would be considerably more complicated. It is entirely possible this means more or less involvement; and it is also entirely possible that the war between North and South resumes in WWI or, particularly, WWII.

Large-point: Given that WWII also marks roughly when tractors began to really push out mules in the South, and that would be the critical point for the "peculiar institution" of large-scale utilization of agrarian slave labor to become significantly less viable, it's really hard to know whether or not the Confederacy would have actually gotten rid of slavery, or what the long-term outcomes would look like; past WWII, it's extremely difficult to pretend that the history of North America proceeded mostly independent of that of the rest of the world.

We could not too unreasonably assume that the North and South would ally to divvy up Spanish possessions (with the South taking the Caribbean ones and the North taking the Pacific ones), and we could not too unreasonably assume that the American countries would tensely sit out WWI as mostly-neutral powers without it changing much (the turning point of the war had already come when the US joined the fray); but by the time we get to WWII, it gets considerably more complicated, since the US role in that war was absolutely critical - not to mention that the Nazi ideology would align very well with an extremicized South with no appreciable checks on its eugenics efforts, the North would have little control over Texan oil (and possibly not the Panama Canal, if it even exists in this alternate timeline) meaning Japan's hand can't be forced by an oil embargo... etc.

It's hard to be sure the world would look the same. I can imagine two supposedly "neutral" American countries supplying opposite sides of the conflict, but what does the world look like after that?

[United States of Natan]

I have an interesting idea, if anyone is willing to listen.

A referendum was held after the Republic of Texas was annexed into the United States, and it revealed that while the LoNe Star Republic's government (with notable exceptions, like Sam Houston) wanted annexation, the Texans did not. While Texas did allow slavery, it was clear the cotton-driven slave system wouldn't work quite as well and was not as common. After all, Texas is much better suited for ranching and port trading.
Wo when Texas joined the Confederate States of America it did it not out of love of slavery or the like, but because the CSA allowed more freedom for member states, and maybe once the war was over, would have separated yet again to reestablish its own republic.
How likely does this seem?

The South invaded seceding states (West Virginia). The South also invaded the -initially neutral - Kentucky for no particular reason, other than wanting to set things on fire.

And while we're at it, Texas also just so happened to on the way to westward expansion or the - seriously considered - invasion and colonisation of Mexico by the South. Neither would be possible with a seceding Texas.

The idea that the South would let any of its memberstates secede - yet alone that it'd let a state of such strategic importance as Texas secede - is ludicrous in the extreme.

South Carolina actually threatened to secede from the confederacy.