Confederate Industrialization and Imperialism

[Delta Force]

Er, but, but didn't we just go through this very thread, just recently, except you were specific about your POD, which I told you a few problems with?

Were you hoping we'd forgotten?

And, haven't we already recently explained at least five times recently that even if you did figure how to get Confederate survival, which you haven't, their fate would be to not industrialize and lose to whomever they tried to grab?

I suppose I should have clarified in the OP that I decided not to have Pacifica (West coast breakoff) and also that I folded Texas back into the CSA. I have also seen the threads about how the CSA would be unable to seize Cuba from Spain by force and so was wondering about if they would be able to purchase Spanish holdings or perhaps invade independent nations in the Americas or elsewhere. This is not a CSA conquers all timeline, the CSA certainly can bite off more than it can chew and lose a war quite badly if that is most realistic (as long as it does not lose too much territory).

 

[Johnrankins]

I suppose I should have clarified in the OP that I decided not to have Pacifica (West coast breakoff) and also that I folded Texas back into the CSA. I have also seen the threads about how the CSA would be unable to seize Cuba from Spain by force and so was wondering about if they would be able to purchase Spanish holdings or perhaps invade independent nations in the Americas or elsewhere. This is not a CSA conquers all timeline, the CSA certainly can bite off more than it can chew and lose a war quite badly if that is most realistic (as long as it does not lose too much territory).

It was far more likely to take Cuba than Deleware, DC and New Mexico. Those are territories that the CSA will take the day after Hell freezes over while it could get Cuba if it gets very,very lucky.

 

[Snake Featherston]

The CSA would neither industrialize nor be able to engage in imperialism. There'd be industrial areas in the Confederacy, primarily in the Nashville and Richmond regions, and there'd be a major trading port in New Orleans, but in terms of a serious industrial economy or imperialist power games, the CSA has neither the power nor the will. The CSA's closest analogy in this sense is Tsarist Russia: immense potential, no ability to ever tap into the potential, a capital with one of the largest urban working classes in the country, and industrial areas that are very close to any realistic US-CS border, an economy reliant on a massive unfree illiterate labor basis, and the unenviable combination of sheer territorial mass and underdeveloped territory.

Only Imperial Russia had Tsars and ultimately the Bolsheviks who were able to bypass some of these factors (but as 1991 showed only some), the CSA is unlikely to find either and in terms of imperialism, CS imperialism is purely ASB. The CSA might actually give Mexico and Spain moments of military awesomeness.

 

[Nytram01]

The CSA would neither industrialize nor be able to engage in imperialism. There'd be industrial areas in the Confederacy, primarily in the Nashville and Richmond regions, and there'd be a major trading port in New Orleans, but in terms of a serious industrial economy or imperialist power games, the CSA has neither the power nor the will. The CSA's closest analogy in this sense is Tsarist Russia: immense potential, no ability to ever tap into the potential, a capital with one of the largest urban working classes in the country, and industrial areas that are very close to any realistic US-CS border, an economy reliant on a massive unfree illiterate labor basis, and the unenviable combination of sheer territorial mass and underdeveloped territory.

Only Imperial Russia had Tsars and ultimately the Bolsheviks who were able to bypass some of these factors (but as 1991 showed only some), the CSA is unlikely to find either and in terms of imperialism, CS imperialism is purely ASB. The CSA might actually give Mexico and Spain moments of military awesomeness.

So the above assumes that no radicle changes could occur in the domestic economic, social or political climates of the Confederate States from formation in 1861 to the modern day.

Which is one thing I never understand with all these people who want to portray the Confederacy as ultimately doomed. Human nature and evolution is never taken into account.

Its always portrayed as the Confederacy being totally incapable of changing in any way, shape or form from that of the 1861 version unless the CSA collapses or gets re-absorbed by the Union.

As if people want to put the CSA into a vaccum which isolates it from the influence of the rest of the world, or even from major domestic upheavel like slave revolts or the impact any widespread failure of crops would cause.

It's one thing to say that the Confederacy would not be a leading power of the world and would not industrialize meaningfulling in the 1800's, its another thing entirely to say that the Confederacy would not change in any meaningful way from its formation as the old world progresses to the modern one.

And that what's you've implied when you say the Confederacy hadn't the will to change as that leads down the road of the idea that the Confederacy would always exist in a vaccum and nothing would ever happen to force them to change their mindsets.

And I just cannot agree with that kind of mentality. The world has never worked that way. When Japan attempted to exist in a vaccum they were forced out of it by a more modern power and dragged into the modern world. The same would be true of the Confederacy even if you want to ignore the fact that the Confederacy would have been reliant on trade for economic survival in the 1800's and would never be closed off to the rest of the world.

 

[Snake Featherston]

So the above assumes that no radicle changes could occur in the domestic economic, social or political climates of the Confederate States from formation in 1861 to the modern day.

Which is one thing I never understand with all these people who want to portray the Confederacy as ultimately doomed. Human nature and evolution is never taken into account.

Its always portrayed as the Confederacy being totally incapable of changing in any way, shape or form from that of the 1861 version unless the CSA collapses or gets re-absorbed by the Union.

As if people want to put the CSA into a vaccum which isolates it from the influence of the rest of the world, or even from major domestic upheavel like slave revolts or the impact any widespread failure of crops would cause.

It's one thing to say that the Confederacy would not be a leading power of the world and would not industrialize meaningfulling in the 1800's, its another thing entirely to say that the Confederacy would not change in any meaningful way from its formation as the old world progresses to the modern one.

And that what's you've implied when you say the Confederacy hadn't the will to change as that leads down the road of the idea that the Confederacy would always exist in a vaccum and nothing would ever happen to force them to change their mindsets.

And I just cannot agree with that kind of mentality. The world has never worked that way. When Japan attempted to exist in a vaccum they were forced out of it by a more modern power and dragged into the modern world. The same would be true of the Confederacy even if you want to ignore the fact that the Confederacy would have been reliant on trade for economic survival in the 1800's and would never be closed off to the rest of the world.

The comparison with the Imperial Russia is deliberate because there too, you see a lot of efforts to change. None of them succeeded, which is the difference between my argument and a lot of arguments on various AH matters in general. The CSA *might* if it undergoes a completely revolutionary change of ideology try to change, without that if it sticks to its basis in a society whose cornerstone is that the negro is the moral and intellectual inferior of the white man, slavery being the black man's natural and moral positive good, you're unlikely to see this changing without a USSR-style "Oh shit, we're falling behind" instance due to the CSA realizing it is in fact left in the dust.

The CSA is not like other societies, it's deliberately shackled itself on top of already difficult economic and social and political issues. Ideological states do not change without dire and pressing necessities forcing them to do so. The CSA is much more Russia in this regard than it is comparable to other states, Brazil had a War of the Triple Alliance that enabled it to abolish slavery. A modern war with even Mexico will shatter the fragile CS economy. Some things even butterfly effects cannot alter. This is one of them.

It has nothing to do with the CSA being run by bad people, it has everything to do with the CSA being run by stupid-ass bad people.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

If you could get an independent CSA ( don’t see how but lets accept the premise) whatever it may become, it ain’t there yet and is unlikely to survive very long. I tend to think Snake is a bit optimistic in the analogy with Tsarist Russia. As I understand the CS constitution and some of the politics during the war secession was an infectious disease and likely to breed more of it.

At best you are talking about an English (?) speaking version of Mexico with two sizeable, very disgruntled minorities, (African American and Unionist). With at least two very large, very powerful, very hostile powers nearby - the US and the UK (maybe a French Mexico too).

Slavery and slave states are not in any terms acceptable to the UK at this time, slavery by English speakers an embarrassment that needs to be expunged and any attempt to export it by sea is likely to be met with, ovewhelming firepower and righteous retribution. Any default on any debt resisted and corrected by the Powers and any attempt to say seize an escaping slave from a British registered ship likely to result in a Dom Pacifico moment with at least the tacit support of the US if not joint intervention

Overall I can see the CSA going the way of Central America a downtrodden peasantry with subsistence agriculture working for an ignorant latifunda owning grandee class with the lucky parts being either readmitted to the Union or de facto US/UK client states, UK being more likely the further from the US border or Unionist sentiment you get.

 

[67th Tigers]

So basically the CSA is likely to end up as the biggest banana republic economy ever? I guess in this timeline it would end up being called a cotton or petroleum republic then.

Some contend the Confederacy was incapable of industrialising. Nonsense.

The problem was not any opposition to industrialisation, but rather competition from the northeastern states and a free market economy undercutting local manufacturing. The vision of the Confederacy was industrialised and prosperous by cutting away from "Yankee economic domination". See Majewski's recent work (link to review: http://eh.net/book_reviews/modernizing-slave-economy-economic-vision-confederate-nation and another: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=24735 )

 

[Snake Featherston]

Some contend the Confederacy was incapable of industrialising. Nonsense.

The problem was not any opposition to industrialisation, but rather competition from the northeastern states and a free market economy undercutting local manufacturing. The vision of the Confederacy was industrialised and prosperous by cutting away from "Yankee economic domination". See Majewski's recent work (link to review: http://eh.net/book_reviews/modernizing-slave-economy-economic-vision-confederate-nation )

The problem is both opposition to industrialization and the CSA being incapable of it without Russian-style mass loans and foreign investment of a sort that most foreign states of the time wouldn't touch with a 400 and a half foot pole. It will be very difficult to take over Africa arguing against the slave trade and invest in a white country where slavery today, slavery tomorrow, slavery yesterday, slavery forever is the rule of the day. Otherwise you guarantee that at least some people are going to see a hypocrisy so blatant even Realpolitik can't whitewash it.

 

[Johnrankins]

The comparison with the Imperial Russia is deliberate because there too, you see a lot of efforts to change. None of them succeeded, which is the difference between my argument and a lot of arguments on various AH matters in general. The CSA *might* if it undergoes a completely revolutionary change of ideology try to change, without that if it sticks to its basis in a society whose cornerstone is that the negro is the moral and intellectual inferior of the white man, slavery being the black man's natural and moral positive good, you're unlikely to see this changing without a USSR-style "Oh shit, we're falling behind" instance due to the CSA realizing it is in fact left in the dust.

The CSA is not like other societies, it's deliberately shackled itself on top of already difficult economic and social and political issues. Ideological states do not change without dire and pressing necessities forcing them to do so. The CSA is much more Russia in this regard than it is comparable to other states, Brazil had a War of the Triple Alliance that enabled it to abolish slavery. A modern war with even Mexico will shatter the fragile CS economy. Some things even butterfly effects cannot alter. This is one of them.

It has nothing to do with the CSA being run by bad people, it has everything to do with the CSA being run by stupid-ass bad people.

Yeah, if I were to deliberately write a constitution that would make a government unstable I could do little better than the CSA one.

 

[67th Tigers]

The problem is both opposition to industrialization and the CSA being incapable of it without Russian-style mass loans and foreign investment of a sort that most foreign states of the time wouldn't touch with a 400 and a half foot pole. It will be very difficult to take over Africa arguing against the slave trade and invest in a white country where slavery today, slavery tomorrow, slavery yesterday, slavery forever is the rule of the day. Otherwise you guarantee that at least some people are going to see a hypocrisy so blatant even Realpolitik can't whitewash it.

This simply isn't true. No-one objected to trading with the *USA* before 1861 and no-one would object to trading with the CSA after independence for the same reasons.

You sometimes forget the USA was a slave state, and that OTL it remained a slave state de jure until 1866, and de facto (with "slavery by another name") for about another hundred years after that.

 

[Snake Featherston]

This simply isn't true. No-one objected to trading with the *USA* before 1861 and no-one would object to trading with the CSA after independence for the same reasons.

You sometimes forget the USA was a slave state, and that OTL it remained a slave state de jure until 1866, and de facto (with "slavery by another name") for about another hundred years after that.

If I paint giraffe on a hippo and call it a rhinoceros, the hippo is still a hippo. This is the rhetorical equivalent of that.

 

[67th Tigers]

If I paint giraffe on a hippo and call it a rhinoceros, the hippo is still a hippo. This is the rhetorical equivalent of that.

A slave state is still a slave state even if it's name is "The United States of America".

 

[AtriumCarceris]

Don't buy into this "the Confederacy will never industrialise!" idea. It was already "industrialised" and it's now a matter of how fast it's going to go, which is probably "slower than the USA, faster that Spain," as the two extremes.

 

[Johnrankins]

Don't buy into this "the Confederacy will never industrialise!" idea. It was already "industrialised" and it's now a matter of how fast it's going to go, which is probably "slower than the USA, faster that Spain," as the two extremes.

MUCH slower than the US and probably even slower than Spain. Its government and economy would be far less stable.

 

[Johnrankins]

A slave state is still a slave state even if it's name is "The United States of America".

Half of it wasn't which nor was slavery its only reason for existance while ALL the of the CSA are slave states and its constitution was for, by and of the slaveholders. That is a big difference that will only increase over time.

 

[Snake Featherston]

A slave state is still a slave state even if it's name is "The United States of America".

And when the powers recognizing it were themselves slave powers, relying on mass unfree labor, what's the difference between the British Empire and the USA when both were slave states? Aside from the fact that speaking in RP makes everything tickety-boo?

Don't buy into this "the Confederacy will never industrialise!" idea. It was already "industrialised" and it's now a matter of how fast it's going to go, which is probably "slower than the USA, faster that Spain," as the two extremes.

The argument isn't that it won't industrialize, precisely, rather it's that the CSA's inherent ideological and political constraints keep it from industrializing at any rate more clean than Russia, which got subsidized for that and was "lucky" enough Lenin took over to default on all that debt. Otherwise Imperial Russia would have some very unhappy times ahead of it.

 

[67th Tigers]

And when the powers recognizing it were themselves slave powers, relying on mass unfree labor, what's the difference between the British Empire and the USA when both were slave states? Aside from the fact that speaking in RP makes everything tickety-boo?

No-one suggested anything about Britain, and no-one is discussing the morality of slavery. My point still stands; just because the CSA has black slaves will not make that nation an international pariah any more than those same slaves made the USA a pariah. Your argument fails at the slightest inspection.

 

[Snake Featherston]

No-one suggested anything about Britain, and no-one is discussing the morality of slavery. My point still stands; just because the CSA has black slaves will not make that nation an international pariah any more than those same slaves made the USA a pariah. Your argument fails at the slightest inspection.

Given that the USA didn't unambiguously embrace slavery and in fact had a civil war about the institution, I hardly think that the two are comparable. Again painting giraffe on a hippo and calling it a rhino means it's still a hippo.

 

[Reggie Bartlett]

MUCH slower than the US and probably even slower than Spain. Its government and economy would be far less stable.

It's government and economy not stable because of what? A blockade and much of it's territory constantly in enemy hands, it's biggest port city under Union occupation?

Take much of that away, definately slower than the Union, but indeed faster than Spain.

Half of it wasn't which nor was slavery its only reason for existance while ALL the of the CSA are slave states and its constitution was for, by and of the slaveholders. That is a big difference that will only increase over time.

A constitution that still allowed individual states to abolish slavery on their own accord...

 

[Uruk]

Neither Brazil nor the pre-1865 USA were considered pariah states (or even serf Russia) so why would the CSA?