I think Texas would have little interest in rejoining USA in this case. This hypothetical Texas rebel because its economy has shifted to oil and cattle, it has a BOP surplus and a foreign protector. There's little reason to rejoin USA, neither for the elite or the common people who either descend from people fighting USA or European immigrants. This is not the thinly populated Texas of the 1840ties which was an economic basket case.
Political evolution of the CSA?
- Thread starter DUWANG
- Start date
I think Texas would have little interest in rejoining USA in this case. This hypothetical Texas rebel because its economy has shifted to oil and cattle, it has a BOP surplus and a foreign protector. There's little reason to rejoin USA, neither for the elite or the common people who either descend from people fighting USA or European immigrants. This is not the thinly populated Texas of the 1840ties which was an economic basket case.
Brunaburh
Banned
The problem with a lot of the "what if the confederacy had won" scenarios is that they assume a rUS that is equally as powerful as OTL and follows the same tendencies as OTL. I don't think a defeated north is inevitably democratic, we might find further schism (there will definitely be attempts) and a Latin Americanisation of the North America. Caudillos and pseudo-democracy are both probabilities.
Texas rejoining the US is very unlikely, the US offers a ruling caste much less than independence does in this situation, especially as it will be independence as a client of the UK or France.
Texas rejoining the US is very unlikely, the US offers a ruling caste much less than independence does in this situation, especially as it will be independence as a client of the UK or France.
When talking about the political evolution of the Confederacy, I think a lot of people forget that the CSA had it's own constitution, and while parts of it were inspired or outright copied the United States Constitution, other parts of the CSA's Constitution technically gave it's Federal government MORE POWER than the US Federal Government had in that era.
I could see an early crisis in the CSA's history being a huge fight between the Governers and one of Jefferson Davis's successors over power, because while the CSA constitution said one thing, what happened on the ground was quite different and a CSA President trying to assert their authority would see pushback from those who had acquired de facto power.
Here is a handy website that posts the USA and the CSA Constitutions side by side with legal commentary about what it all means. CSA and USA Constitutions compared
I could see an early crisis in the CSA's history being a huge fight between the Governers and one of Jefferson Davis's successors over power, because while the CSA constitution said one thing, what happened on the ground was quite different and a CSA President trying to assert their authority would see pushback from those who had acquired de facto power.
Here is a handy website that posts the USA and the CSA Constitutions side by side with legal commentary about what it all means. CSA and USA Constitutions compared
There weren't significant differences in cultures, interests and policy preference between the non-Southern areas themselves than between the South and the North, so another schism at worst is extremely unlikely. At least, there was no hot potato issue like slavery.
As for whether it is powerful, note that American North had already been industrializing well before 1861, plus all key policies that enabled OTL America's economic acceleration during the 1870s-1900s were already passed within Lincoln's first term.
As for the assumption that the US would be a democracy, it is because democracy and civilian control of the military were already a fact in America by then, and IOTL there were no advocates for the other ways.
Texas returning to the US - I don't think it would happen, but the US would have lots of investments in its oil industry. Plus, IOTL Texas oil industry did not emerge until the 1890s and there is no guarantee that it would emerge earlier under Confederate rule.
Last edited:
Brunaburh
Banned
Significant cultural differences are not necessary for countries to split, as we can see from the history of Latin America. What is necessary is local elites with differing interests, that is highly plausible on a continental scale.
It would be interesting to see how many Texans end up settling or trying to settle in Oklahoma and New Mexico. The Natives, the Yankees, old Spaniards of Santa Fe etc would have memories of what happened the last time Texas went crazy (though it required the American army or masses of American volunteers to win the two Texan wars) as well as how they might revive claims to Greer County, up to the Rio Grande River, or maybe even the slice of land in Louisiana from before the Spanish and Americans reorganized their border from going along a watershed to having the steepled steps of Mexico at its territorial height.
Hmmm, I wonder if retirees and vacationers still go to Florida or the South during the winter (long before the Civil War) and retirement(long after) or if they head to California or any American possessions in the Caribbean. The Danish Virgin Islands will be a prime target for the Americans to by in order to secure ports to the Caribbean and Pacific for their whalers and merchant vessels. I also wonder what the status of New Orleans will be and if Americans get free use of the Mississippi or if they either have to pay or just end up using their own railroads and canals.
It’s important to understand that USA without the South will be a completely other beast then in OTL. OTL Democratic coalition doesn’t work without the South, so the Democrats have to establish another coalition to fight the Republicans. OTL Republican WASP-German coalition is really hard to beat, so the Democrats will likely have to either shift to a greater focus on class or go the way of the liberal party in the UK. There’s a good chance that a American Labor party will arise and out compete the Democrats, but it will likely be little like OTL socialist movement in USA, I expect New York will play a much smaller role and there will be a greater focus on Great Lake region, with Chicago being the center of the movement.
I have already mentioned both cultures and interests though. Both the Midwest and the Northeast favoured Republican/Northern policies - while the Plains and the Pacific were simply unable to secede on their own.
I agree that a whiter US would almost certainly have a class-based political evolution in the long run.
Might some CSA states turn into authoritarian enclaves, little military dictatorships ruled by caudillos using the military glory they got from the Civil War to present themselves as anchor of stability against inefficient governors?
Or they can make a larger use of the State militias, if the CSA doesn't engage in foreign adventures.
IN such a ccontest, the North will always win since the CSA will never be able to give more to the slaves than the Union.
Other parts further weakened the Federal government, such as by restricting funding on internal infrastructure or by allowing States to remove Federal civil servants working in their jurisdictions.
Depends on what time periods and whether or not Confederate soldiers get pensions and if the State or Confederate governments are responsible for the payments. I expect a lot of colonels and generals who do not keep their titles and positions (I feel some would, so that the planters and First Families have people in fancy uniforms to show off at major events) would eventually end up as Governors and Senators, and in other positions of power. Many of them were from the ‘right families’ anyways, even if that would matter mostly to the aristocracy, and not the actual veterans who would focus on who got victories and who had the highest death toll. People die in wars. I read that, however, in the case of people like General Grant the common soldiers were more accepting about dieing in battle when they were constantly moving forward, their suffering and labor having an actual effect on things. So I suppose it also matters in just how long the war went on for and if the common people see the war as glorious or terrible.