If the Confederacy Won

[Atlanticatia]

It'd probably be a really terrible place with a legacy of institutional racism x100 and a dead economy. (without the North's resources, educational institutions, money, etc how would the South have progressed from being an agricultural economy?)

[Laerod]

The Union didn't secede.

I just pointed out why you can't. The only real charge you can level is that the Union wanted to preserve the Union, and whatever is worth criticizing there pales in comparison to the ownership and forced servitude of human beings.

... if that be your logic, that the Union never seceded from England, then we cant say the confederacy did either.

Ah, you were referring to the Thirteen Colonies. "The Union" is mostly associated with the Civil War as a name for the US.

[Saiwania]

South Carolina actually threatened to secede from the confederacy.

It sounds about right, so South Carolina which was the first to secede, was the first to want to leave the confederacy as soon as the going got rough?

[Empire of Vlissingen]

It would be coservatie and libertarian.
It would elect people like Ronald Reagan a lot.

It would ended slavery and give them equal rights. How ever that is debateble.

[Lingang]

It would be horrible. And slavery would probably be outlawed much later, making for a more socially backwards present day. No thanks.

[Empire of Vlissingen]

It would be horrible. And slavery would probably be outlawed much later, making for a more socially backwards present day. No thanks.

That is not true.
They would have lower taxes, a better economy and they might have had social security.

[Laerod]

It would be horrible. And slavery would probably be outlawed much later, making for a more socially backwards present day. No thanks.

That is not true.
They would have lower taxes, a better economy and they might have had social security.

Provide evidence for your claims please.

[Republic of Coldwater]

It'd probably be a really terrible place with a legacy of institutional racism x100 and a dead economy. (without the North's resources, educational institutions, money, etc how would the South have progressed from being an agricultural economy?)

The south was already industrializing by the time of the War of Secession. Harper's Ferry already had weapons factories, and so did Richmond and other Upper South States. It would've eventually came to the lower south in time.

[Republic of Coldwater]

It would be horrible. And slavery would probably be outlawed much later, making for a more socially backwards present day. No thanks.

It would've ended slavery earlier than Brazil as the upper south was already industrializing by the late 1850s, and even today places like Brazil have equal rights for blacks.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

It would be horrible. And slavery would probably be outlawed much later, making for a more socially backwards present day. No thanks.

It would've ended slavery earlier than Brazil as the upper south was already industrializing by the late 1850s, and even today places like Brazil have equal rights for blacks.

You did read the posts regarding how there was little chance that the advent of industrialization would have ended slavery, right?

[Republic of Coldwater]

It would've ended slavery earlier than Brazil as the upper south was already industrializing by the late 1850s, and even today places like Brazil have equal rights for blacks.

You did read the posts regarding how there was little chance that the advent of industrialization would have ended slavery, right?

Yet England, the first nation to industrialize was the heart of abolitionist thought, and that anything north of the Mason-Dixon Line had ended slavery, and also were far more industrialized than the south.

Abolition would taken over the Confederacy regardless if industrialization played a part, as even more agrarian nations like Brazil ended it by the late 1800s.

[Laerod]

It would be horrible. And slavery would probably be outlawed much later, making for a more socially backwards present day. No thanks.

It would've ended slavery earlier than Brazil as the upper south was already industrializing by the late 1850s, and even today places like Brazil have equal rights for blacks.

Places like Brazil had a monarch pushing for abolition. The South had neither a monarch, nor did it in any shape or form tolerate pushing for abolition.

[Republic of Coldwater]

It would've ended slavery earlier than Brazil as the upper south was already industrializing by the late 1850s, and even today places like Brazil have equal rights for blacks.

Places like Brazil had a monarch pushing for abolition. The South had neither a monarch, nor did it in any shape or form tolerate pushing for abolition.

The main reason behind Brazilian abolition were slave rebellions, and slaves were already rebelling before the war, and it is likely that mechanization would naturally result in voluntary manumission and a realization of the cost of slavery, as now, you didn't need to spend the modern equivalent of hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single slave (and you would've needed a lot to pick cotton or to run a factory), when you could simply hire one for a lower price, not feed and house him, and let him do the work once only possible by dozens of slaves. Furthermore, international pressure would pressure the CSA into abolition, and if they don't, they could see massive diplomatic repercussions, and the leaders of the CSA weren't retarded by any measure.

[Laerod]

You did read the posts regarding how there was little chance that the advent of industrialization would have ended slavery, right?

Yet England, the first nation to industrialize was the heart of abolitionist thought, and that anything north of the Mason-Dixon Line had ended slavery, and also were far more industrialized than the south.

The North was Abolitionist long before industrialization. You're completely bungling the causality, if there even was one to begin with.

Abolition would taken over the Confederacy regardless if industrialization played a part, as even more agrarian nations like Brazil ended it by the late 1800s.

Why? The South was founded on the principle of racist slavery and even before that abolitionists were routinely killed or driven out of business. Support for slavery was a thing regardless of how much economic or moral sense it made. It even had a church that split from its predecessor solely because some people refused to accept their interpretation that slavery was ordained by God (see Southern Baptism).

The South was utterly different from all the examples where slavery ended, so stop abusing Brazil as an example of what would have happened.

[Laerod]

Places like Brazil had a monarch pushing for abolition. The South had neither a monarch, nor did it in any shape or form tolerate pushing for abolition.

The main reason behind Brazilian abolition were slave rebellions, and slaves were already rebelling before the war,

Nonsense.

and it is likely that mechanization would naturally result in voluntary manumission and a realization of the cost of slavery, as now, you didn't need to spend the modern equivalent of hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single slave (and you would've needed a lot to pick cotton or to run a factory), when you could simply hire one for a lower price, not feed and house him, and let him do the work once only possible by dozens of slaves.

If the plantation owners were economically rational actors they would have abandoned slavery a long time ago.

Furthermore, international pressure would pressure the CSA into abolition, and if they don't, they could see massive diplomatic repercussions, and the leaders of the CSA weren't retarded by any measure.

They most certainly were, seeing as they went to war over the issue of slavery with an entity far more populous and industrialized. And that's giving the leaders of the CSA even a shred of credit, which is largely irrelevant seeing as the whole wank-fantasy of states' rights would have resulted in CSA leadership bowing to whichever irrational state government that didn't want to end slavery simply because it made economic sense not to piss off the British Empire.

[Socialist Tera]

I imagine it would end up like South Africa. The big question, what would World War 1 and World War 2 be like if the CSA existed? Would the CSA join the triple Entente and the USA join the triple alliance?

[Republic of Coldwater]

Yet England, the first nation to industrialize was the heart of abolitionist thought, and that anything north of the Mason-Dixon Line had ended slavery, and also were far more industrialized than the south.

The North was Abolitionist long before industrialization. You're completely bungling the causality, if there even was one to begin with.

Abolition would taken over the Confederacy regardless if industrialization played a part, as even more agrarian nations like Brazil ended it by the late 1800s.

Why? The South was founded on the principle of racist slavery and even before that abolitionists were routinely killed or driven out of business. Support for slavery was a thing regardless of how much economic or moral sense it made. It even had a church that split from its predecessor solely because some people refused to accept their interpretation that slavery was ordained by God (see Southern Baptism).

The South was utterly different from all the examples where slavery ended, so stop abusing Brazil as an example of what would have happened.

The south wasn't founded on the principle of slavery, when Lincoln never made slavery the main goal of the war, as he really wanted to preserve the Union. In the Hampton Roads Peace Conference of 1865, Lincoln stated that the point of emancipation was to get more slaves to join the Union, and that if the Confederacy rejoined the Union, they could've blocked the 13th Amendment and maintained slavery, and if 11 southern states did rejoin, it would be very easy for the south to end abolition.

With mechanization, the efficiency of one man largely improves. With mechanization, one person can do the work of what once needed a dozen people. This would effectively phase out slaves, which would have costed, in modern terms tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars (usually those who can do the most work would've costed a few hundred thousand dollars in today's terms). Instead, hiring one for a fraction of the cost of hiring a slave and not paying for the food, water, clothing and shelter of the slave would be far more profitable and efficient, which would've been the main reason for the abolition of slavery.

[Republic of Coldwater]

The main reason behind Brazilian abolition were slave rebellions, and slaves were already rebelling before the war,

Nonsense.

and it is likely that mechanization would naturally result in voluntary manumission and a realization of the cost of slavery, as now, you didn't need to spend the modern equivalent of hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single slave (and you would've needed a lot to pick cotton or to run a factory), when you could simply hire one for a lower price, not feed and house him, and let him do the work once only possible by dozens of slaves.

If the plantation owners were economically rational actors they would have abandoned slavery a long time ago.

Furthermore, international pressure would pressure the CSA into abolition, and if they don't, they could see massive diplomatic repercussions, and the leaders of the CSA weren't retarded by any measure.

They most certainly were, seeing as they went to war over the issue of slavery with an entity far more populous and industrialized. And that's giving the leaders of the CSA even a shred of credit, which is largely irrelevant seeing as the whole wank-fantasy of states' rights would have resulted in CSA leadership bowing to whichever irrational state government that didn't want to end slavery simply because it made economic sense not to piss off the British Empire.

They would love profit regardless of how economically rational they are, and when mechanization comes later on in the 19th Century, they will quickly realize how hiring a person to operate a single machine would be more efficient and more cost effective than paying the equivalent of millions of dollars for slaves, and also feeding them, clothing them, and sheltering them.

Some states would've abolished slavery earlier than others. Virginia and Tennessee would've more easily abolished slavery than Mississippi and Alabama, and states rights means that even if a state outlaws slavery, the rest of the Confederacy wouldn't mind it as the state chose to do so, and they would respect that right.

[Nazi Flower Power]

It would be horrible. And slavery would probably be outlawed much later, making for a more socially backwards present day. No thanks.

That is not true.
They would have lower taxes, a better economy and they might have had social security.

The North had a better economy before the Civil War and the North has always had a better economy since the Civil War. What makes you think Confederate independence would change that?

[Nazi Flower Power]

states rights means that even if a state outlaws slavery, the rest of the Confederacy wouldn't mind it as the state chose to do so, and they would respect that right.

Not familiar with the Confederate Constitution, are we?

[Augarundus]

Slavery would certainly have ended, but the timeframe is questionable: it is possible that the practice would have continued for several decades longer. Nonetheless, I have confidence that:

(a) Economic and social pressures would have ensured the eventual end (downward prices of cotton production, inefficiency of slavery, slave revolts, poor white farmer rebellions, etc.)

(b) Liberal social ideals would continue their monotonous, unending march forward

Such that the southern gentry elite would eventually need or decide to abolish the 'peculiar institution'.

Now, larger questions:
1) How would civil rights have faired in Southern America without Union intervention?
2) What would geopolitics look like?

As per 1, we see a decidedly grimmer South: without Northern intervention, oppression of blacks occurs not only more heavily, but also more directly, as the state is less impeded by constitutional restrictions in its ability to enforce legislated racial oppression. Social progress would continue as it has historically, but at a far slower pace.

Yet, as per 2, I think we see an unarguably better word: one that perhaps even warrants the sacrifice of increased racial bigotry. Without the Confederate States, the Union finds itself in a weaker position than it has historically been: deprived of its agricultural base and challenged with three powerful competitors (Britain to the north, Mexico to the southwest, and CSA to the south). The Union is no longer able to assert its regional hegemony as aggressively as it has historically done, so it cannot intervene globally to the same extent that the American empire is used to. This means no Spanish-American war... more importantly, no (decisive) American intervention in World War I, meaning no German surrender/desperate strategy, meaning no collapse of the Russian Empire/Bolshevik Revolution, meaning no Treaty of Versailles, meaning no Nazi Germany, no Soviet Union, no Maoist China. The British and French colonial Empires do not collapse, Germany comes to dominate Central Europe in an economic union, and Eurasia is united in free trade. North America is tenser than was historically the case, but millions of lives have been spared holocausts, world wars, and communist revolutions. The atom bomb was not invented, and a Congress of Vienna reasserts the conducts and norms of a more civilized era. The Atlantic powers lead the way in forwarding a bold, united vision of a liberal future, and science, progress, and cosmopolitanism rule the day.

In other words, all the calamitous, unintended failures of US foreign policy do not come to be, and balance and order are maintained in Europe, as they had been for a century before.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Yet, as per 2, I think we see an unarguably better word: one that perhaps even warrants the sacrifice of increased racial bigotry. Without the Confederate States, the Union finds itself in a weaker position than it has historically been: deprived of its agricultural base

America's agricultural base is mostly in Union states, specifically the Midwest and California.

and challenged with three powerful competitors (Britain to the north, Mexico to the southwest, and CSA to the south). The Union is no longer able to assert its regional hegemony as aggressively as it has historically done, so it cannot intervene globally to the same extent that the American empire is used to. This means no Spanish-American war... more importantly, no (decisive) American intervention in World War I, meaning no German surrender/desperate strategy, meaning no collapse of the Russian Empire/Bolshevik Revolution, meaning no Treaty of Versailles, meaning no Nazi Germany, no Soviet Union, no Maoist China. The British and French colonial Empires do not collapse, Germany comes to dominate Central Europe in an economic union, and Eurasia is united in free trade. North America is tenser than was historically the case, but millions of lives have been spared holocausts, world wars, and communist revolutions. The atom bomb was not invented, and a Congress of Vienna reasserts the conducts and norms of a more civilized era. The Atlantic powers lead the way in forwarding a bold, united vision of a liberal future, and science, progress, and cosmopolitanism rule the day.

In other words, all the calamitous, unintended failures of US foreign policy do not come to be, and balance and order are maintained in Europe, as they had been for a century before.

That's just your fantasy. You have no way to know that all that would actually happen, and TBH, some of it doesn't sound very likely.

[Augarundus]

Yet, as per 2, I think we see an unarguably better word: one that perhaps even warrants the sacrifice of increased racial bigotry. Without the Confederate States, the Union finds itself in a weaker position than it has historically been: deprived of its agricultural base

America's agricultural base is mostly in Union states, specifically the Midwest and California.

This is true today, but most cash crops during the 19th century were grown in the American South. Cotton and tobacco were huge sources of income for the 19th century United States, and the US, iirc, produced over 70% of the world's cotton. It is no exaggeration to say that, in the CSA, "cotton was king". Without the southern states, the US would lose a huge source of income.

That's just your fantasy. You have no way to know that all that would actually happen, and TBH, some of it doesn't sound very likely.

Yeah, I'll admit that this is my most optimistic scenario. If the South seceded, the US wouldn't be powerful enough to have the freedom to make such severe foreign policy mistakes (entrance into World War I), but this doesn't mean that other nations would act the way I've predicted... I'm sure Britain and Germany would have had their own screw-ups, so yes, my fantasy probably would not have occurred.

I still think that:
1) US intervention into the first world war was a catastrophic mistake that enabled some of the worst tragedies of the 20th century (Nazi Germany, communist Russia and China)
2) That intervention would not have been possible if the US was so weakened by the successful secession of the CSA.

Other crises and errors that I have not imagined would probably have taken place in this scenario - I have just envisioned the best possible scenario without the US errors. Nonetheless, I think avoiding this error would have been a great opportunity.

[Memell]

*Had Won

[Republic of Coldwater]

Slavery would certainly have ended, but the timeframe is questionable: it is possible that the practice would have continued for several decades longer. Nonetheless, I have confidence that:

(a) Economic and social pressures would have ensured the eventual end (downward prices of cotton production, inefficiency of slavery, slave revolts, poor white farmer rebellions, etc.)

(b) Liberal social ideals would continue their monotonous, unending march forward

Such that the southern gentry elite would eventually need or decide to abolish the 'peculiar institution'.

Now, larger questions:
1) How would civil rights have faired in Southern America without Union intervention?
2) What would geopolitics look like?

As per 1, we see a decidedly grimmer South: without Northern intervention, oppression of blacks occurs not only more heavily, but also more directly, as the state is less impeded by constitutional restrictions in its ability to enforce legislated racial oppression. Social progress would continue as it has historically, but at a far slower pace.

Yet, as per 2, I think we see an unarguably better word: one that perhaps even warrants the sacrifice of increased racial bigotry. Without the Confederate States, the Union finds itself in a weaker position than it has historically been: deprived of its agricultural base and challenged with three powerful competitors (Britain to the north, Mexico to the southwest, and CSA to the south). The Union is no longer able to assert its regional hegemony as aggressively as it has historically done, so it cannot intervene globally to the same extent that the American empire is used to. This means no Spanish-American war... more importantly, no (decisive) American intervention in World War I, meaning no German surrender/desperate strategy, meaning no collapse of the Russian Empire/Bolshevik Revolution, meaning no Treaty of Versailles, meaning no Nazi Germany, no Soviet Union, no Maoist China. The British and French colonial Empires do not collapse, Germany comes to dominate Central Europe in an economic union, and Eurasia is united in free trade. North America is tenser than was historically the case, but millions of lives have been spared holocausts, world wars, and communist revolutions. The atom bomb was not invented, and a Congress of Vienna reasserts the conducts and norms of a more civilized era. The Atlantic powers lead the way in forwarding a bold, united vision of a liberal future, and science, progress, and cosmopolitanism rule the day.

In other words, all the calamitous, unintended failures of US foreign policy do not come to be, and balance and order are maintained in Europe, as they had been for a century before.

Isn't it possible that a more gradual abolition of slavery would result in less oppression of blacks? If the south won, the people would be happier, and wouldn't need to find a scapegoat for the suffering, which in the case of the south, were blacks, resulting in the lynch mobs and other forms of discrimination. Slower and more gradualistic abolition throughout the later decades of the 19th Century and perhaps some level of compensation for the manumission of slaves would've made the people happier with black people being freed, and they wouldn't go around oppressing blacks and lynching them.