How long could the Confederacy have lasted?

[The Sandman]

One topic that I feel doesn't seem to get enough coverage in Southern Victory timelines is that the very nature of the Confederacy ensured that it would disintegrate within a relatively short time after it came into existence. After all, in a country created via the principle of secession and which OTL had major problems due to conflict between state and federal governments, how could the secession of states from the CSA have been prevented?

I personally figure that Texas would have been the most likely to secede, and the first to do so, but any other thoughts on this topic would be greatly appreciated.

 

[wkwillis]

The Confederacy would have increased poll taxes to disenfranchise the poor white 80% of their population and prevent them from voting for succession and emancipation. This would have resulted in their immigration to the US until the white population of the Confederacy was no longer numerous enough to subjugate the black population, followed by a race war in the Confederacy.

 

[Thande]

Your first paragraph could also describe the USA, which seems to have lasted pretty well up to now...

 

[The Sandman]

Yes, but it helps that the one attempt at secession in OTL resulted in the decimation of the area that attempted to secede. In a world where the CSA won, there would be a concrete example of a successful secession.

(The Conch Republic doesn't count)

 

[Count Dearborn]

Maybe until WWII, when the two countries reunify in the wake of the victory of the Allies. (Taken from an essay in The Book of Lists II.)

 

[PJ Norris]

Personally I don't see why the CSA (apart from Texas and WV) would tear itself apart. It either has to agree with the US for reunification or one by one fall back into Union ranks. I don't know why everyone thinks that it'll collapse into several nations, USSR style.
The pure nationalism of the CSA after it's victory would keep it alive for several decades. Besides, if Richmond didn't mess around with taxes or do anything stupid why would they secede? Over slavery, again? Eventually (post 1900) the slavery issue would be confronted and abolished, economic and British pressure would destroy it. If the capitol left the states largely alone to their self sufficiency thing (which would disappear after 1918) the CSA would be largely intact. Except for Texas, a couple of threats like South Carolina post ACW, we could expect a largely uneventful history. For as we all know, no man is an island and must be part of something. Secession would be glorified, boasted, yes but would remain a patriotic thing in the past like the US's Declaration of Independance and the like.

I hate to do this cos I know I'll get some backlash but I'll compare the CSA with the original 13 states after 1783. I'm studying it just now and I'm getting the perception that things were pretty rocky eg. bickering, possible military coup, interstate fighting, etc. Yet it stayed apart. Confederations are lose things gentlemen, yes, but it dosen't mean they're disasters waiting to happen.

 

[Brilliantlight]

Personally I don't see why the CSA (apart from Texas and WV) would tear itself apart. It either has to agree with the US for reunification or one by one fall back into Union ranks. I don't know why everyone thinks that it'll collapse into several nations, USSR style.
The pure nationalism of the CSA after it's victory would keep it alive for several decades. Besides, if Richmond didn't mess around with taxes or do anything stupid why would they secede? Over slavery, again? Eventually (post 1900) the slavery issue would be confronted and abolished, economic and British pressure would destroy it. If the capitol left the states largely alone to their self sufficiency thing (which would disappear after 1918) the CSA would be largely intact. Except for Texas, a couple of threats like South Carolina post ACW, we could expect a largely uneventful history. For as we all know, no man is an island and must be part of something. Secession would be glorified, boasted, yes but would remain a patriotic thing in the past like the US's Declaration of Independance and the like.

I hate to do this cos I know I'll get some backlash but I'll compare the CSA with the original 13 states after 1783. I'm studying it just now and I'm getting the perception that things were pretty rocky eg. bickering, possible military coup, interstate fighting, etc. Yet it stayed apart. Confederations are lose things gentlemen, yes, but it dosen't mean they're disasters waiting to happen.

Yes it does. The CSA was far too large to remain a confederacy, it would either have to federalize or fall apart. When the central government can do NOTHING why send it taxes? It couldn't even spend money for internal improvements for crying out loud. Any government stupid enough not to know that you need to put money into infrastructure is too stupid to last.

 

[Dave Howery]

it would last 23 years, 8 months, and 17 days. I base this on absolutely nothing..

 

[Earling]

Its probably not going to survive if it maintains the system it had in war forever.

Fortunately, Change is almost always inevitable with every form of government ever produced, so it is difficult to say.

 

[DMA]

I'd give the Confederacy no more than 10 years. Once the war is over, the force that keeps everyone unified isn't there any more. Soon, you'll find, that differences will appear all over the place. And once it's discovered life is harder in the CSA, some of the moderate states may think about rejoining the USA. Similarly, a state like Texis will probably leave too. Then there's always the problem of areas under USA occupation. So kiss goodbye to states like Tennessee as well.

The CSA will probably shrink to Virginia, North & South Carolina, Georgia & Florida.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

And what happens when moderates led by Lee(?) or due to economic problems and British pressure manage to narrowly win an election based on abolishing slavery?

In The Guns of the South when Lee wins with six of the twelve states in the CSA(Kentucky joined), there is open discussion of it.

A truly interesting question: What if this had happened and Lee, Davis, etc, waged bloody war to put down a secessionist state or two? What would history have to say about them?

 

[robertp6165]

One topic that I feel doesn't seem to get enough coverage in Southern Victory timelines is that the very nature of the Confederacy ensured that it would disintegrate within a relatively short time after it came into existence. After all, in a country created via the principle of secession and which OTL had major problems due to conflict between state and federal governments, how could the secession of states from the CSA have been prevented?

First, the situation you describe..."a country created via the principle of secession and which OTL had major problems due to conflict between state and federal governments"...equally applied to the American colonies during the American War of Independence. The United States itself was created via the principle of secession...that's what the Declaration of Independence is, you know...a declaration of secession. And the Continental Congress had all kinds of problems with State governments during the Revolutionary War. Yet, the Union which arose out of that conflict...of which the Confederacy was a virtual carbon copy...survived for 80 years without secession, despite the existence of an EXTREMELY divisive debate of slavery and other divisive issues such as tariffs, use of federal funds to subsidize northern business interests, rivalries over the route for a transcontinental railroad, etc.

In the Confederacy, the slavery debate will never be bitterly divisive as it was in the Union, because the framers of the Confederate Constitution wisely removed that issue from the realm of national action and placed it firmly in the hands of the States. The problem with the original Union was that the Constitution made it possible for one section of the country to take control of the national government and then pass laws which imfringed on the rights of the another section of the country. And so the Republican Party arose, which many in both North and South saw as a vehicle for Northern abolitionist interests to take control of the government and force the abolition of slavery, or, at the very least, the restriction of slavery from the Territories (this may not have been the case in reality...but that is how it was perceived). That sort of thing would have been impossible under the Confederate Constitution. The Confederates also incorporated protections within their document to prevent States which free their slaves from interfering with slaves held by citizens of States which have not freed them, which would have acted to prevent conflicts between States from arising.

And it is hard to see other conflicts arising between the States of the Confederacy which would be severe enough to have them thinking of secession. Especially when they will have a great incentive to remain united in the face of what will likely be at best ambivalent relations with a powerful, and quite possibly resentful, neighbor to the North.

I personally figure that Texas would have been the most likely to secede, and the first to do so, but any other thoughts on this topic would be greatly appreciated.

I agree that, of all the Confederate States, Texas would have been the most likely to secede, as it's interests would diverge the most from those of the rest of the Confederacy.

 

[robertp6165]

And what happens when moderates led by Lee(?) or due to economic problems and British pressure manage to narrowly win an election based on abolishing slavery?

In The Guns of the South when Lee wins with six of the twelve states in the CSA(Kentucky joined), there is open discussion of it.

A truly interesting question: What if this had happened and Lee, Davis, etc, waged bloody war to put down a secessionist state or two? What would history have to say about them?

THE GUNS OF THE SOUTH, as much as I love that book, completely missed the point on that issue. There is no way that Lee could have introduced his emanicipation bill into the Confederate Congress as he did in the book, because the Confederate national government did not have the authority under the Confederate Constitution to pass ANY legislation impairing the right to own slaves.

Furthermore, the Confederate Constitution did not allow amendments to the Constitution to originate in the Congress. Instead, they had to come as a result of calls from the State level.

ARTICLE V. Section I. (I) Upon the demand of any three States, legally assembled in their several conventions, the Congress shall summon a convention of all the States, to take into consideration such amendments to the Constitution as the said States shall concur in suggesting at the time when the said demand is made; and should any of the proposed amendments to the Constitution be agreed on by the said convention~voting by States~and the same be ratified by the Legislatures of two- thirds of the several States, or by conventions in two-thirds thereof~as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the general convention~they shall thenceforward form a part of this Constitution.

The whole idea of emancipation coming down from the national level in the Confederacy just doesn't fly. So there is no reason why any of the States would have seceded over the issue.

This is a case where Harry Turtledove needed to do some more research before he started writing.

 

[robertp6165]

Yes it does. The CSA was far too large to remain a confederacy, it would either have to federalize or fall apart.

The Confederacy was as "federalized" as the pre-war Union, which lasted 80 years despite bitterly divisive sectional conflicts. Given the unlikelihood of such bitterly divisive conflicts, and the need to unity in the face of the Northern threat, it would not have been likely to fall apart.

When the central government can do NOTHING why send it taxes? It couldn't even spend money for internal improvements for crying out loud. Any government stupid enough not to know that you need to put money into infrastructure is too stupid to last.

Not true. Prior to the War between the States, government subsidies for infrastructure came from the STATES for the most part. There was no need for national subsidies. The Confederates felt that if the people of South Carolina want to improve Charleston Harbor, or if the people of Georgia want to build railroads, let them pay for it.

But it is not true that the Confederate government could not "do anything." It could do everything the United States government could do, with a few specific exceptions, such as internal improvements.

 

[Historico]

I agree that, of all the Confederate States, Texas would have been the most likely to secede, as it's interests would diverge the most from those of the rest of the Confederacy.

But, Why under what circumstances would Texas Likley succeed...I mean Texas had it's taste of independence for 11 years before deciding it wanted to be annexed into the union. Why would it want to go back to those dark years...I mean what's to stop Mexico from Invading Texas again if if decided to secede from the Confederacy. With it, Texas has certain allies to protect it's intrests.

The Confederacy could capatilize on the Texas Cattle Drives and Oil at the turn of the century to help repay it's war debts. So what I say is this, Texas although most likely is the State to secede from the Confederacy but I doubt It would like it for long.

 

[Brilliantlight]

The Confederacy was as "federalized" as the pre-war Union, which lasted 80 years despite bitterly divisive sectional conflicts. Given the unlikelihood of such bitterly divisive conflicts, and the need to unity in the face of the Northern threat, it would not have been likely to fall apart.




Not true. Prior to the War between the States, government subsidies for infrastructure came from the STATES for the most part. There was no need for national subsidies. The Confederates felt that if the people of South Carolina want to improve Charleston Harbor, or if the people of Georgia want to build railroads, let them pay for it.

But it is not true that the Confederate government could not "do anything." It could do everything the United States government could do, with a few specific exceptions, such as internal improvements.

1) The Federal government was allowed to do internal improvements, collect taxes, etc. The Confederate government couldn't do ANY internal improvements and had weak tax collection powers.

2)What about roads BETWEEN states, along with telegraph lines, canals along rivers that go between states etc. The Confederate government was the only one in history as far as I know stupid enough to ban its own government from doing internal improvements.

3) Like what? It had very little power and states ignored the central government at will even in military matters. The governor of Georgia for example meddled with the Confederate army units from Georgia IIRC.

 

[Brilliantlight]

THE GUNS OF THE SOUTH, as much as I love that book, completely missed the point on that issue. There is no way that Lee could have introduced his emanicipation bill into the Confederate Congress as he did in the book, because the Confederate national government did not have the authority under the Confederate Constitution to pass ANY legislation impairing the right to own slaves.

Furthermore, the Confederate Constitution did not allow amendments to the Constitution to originate in the Congress. Instead, they had to come as a result of calls from the State level.



The whole idea of emancipation coming down from the national level in the Confederacy just doesn't fly. So there is no reason why any of the States would have seceded over the issue.

This is a case where Harry Turtledove needed to do some more research before he started writing.

IOW the chances of slavery being banned anywhere down south becore 1900 at the earliest was near zero.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Interesting. So when the British and the other Europeans began squeezing the CSA hard, it would have been impossible for the CSA to do anything to appease them? We could well see the CSA suffer economic collapse in the 1880s as South Carolina single-handedly blocked a solution to the crisis.

How about this idea? With the CSA successful, Napoleon III is able to establish his rule in Mexico for a time. Later, around 1880, Maximillian, in an effort to gain popular support of his own, joins in a plot with the US to partition key portions of the CSA.

Say, Tennessee, Arkansas, and post-war gains to US, and Texas to Mexico.

 

[Faeelin]

Rob's also ignoring how the Confederate Constitution forbid abolition in any state.

 

[wkwillis]

The Confederacy would have increased poll taxes to disenfranchise the poor white 80% of their population and prevent them from voting for succession and emancipation. This would have resulted in their immigration to the US until the white population of the Confederacy was no longer numerous enough to subjugate the black population, followed by a race war in the Confederacy.

Then again, without a war to increase the power of the governments of the Confederate states they might just continue on. Then as the slaves in the border states escaped to the north, the individual states would vote to join the north as they shifted to free labor and the increased economic power of the higher wages.
Assuming that the Confederate establishment would let them...
That's an alternate history.