Take the South, Please

[Yogi]

The Americian Civil War has been the most devistating war in Americian history. Over 500,000 men were killed, massive amounts of property and infrastrucuture was destroyed, all so that we could keep the Bible Belt in America and give it a say in our political system.

. . .

What if, instead of fighting an extremely costly war, Abraham Lincon had told the Confederates to leave and never come back. Would the United States of America, the real one, be better or worse off?

[Invictus ChiKen]

LOL well it would be shitty for me as I'm in South Carolina.

I'm not sure on alot of history here but I believe that America minus it's backwoods inbreed intolerant hick Mecca would probably be even more advanced open and liberal than it is now. Where as the South would be Christian version of the middle east

[Ender]

Worse. As in, I think we'd be speaking German now and there would be no Jerry Sienfeld worse. I seriously question the ability to win WW2 if America was completely out of the picture because it had halved its resources, manpower, infastructure, etc. Britain was on the ropes there, and that was with lend lease helping them. Japan would not have had to deal with America restricting supplies (thus necesitating Pearl Harbor) and wcould have been dominating the Pacific. Russia vs Germany I don't know enough about but only fighting on one front after wiping out England changes things drasitcally. I think the Allies would have lost.

I now await one of our history afficandos to agree or school my ignorant ass.

[SirNitram]

Well, Ender, that's only possible if the South survives. Which, by everything I've read, is a physical impossibility. It'll collapse in upon itself inside months, maybe years. The trick, of course, is keeping the North alive without it and politically stable after the secession. If you can acheive that, you just re-absorb the destitute and collapsed nation and potentially avoid the jackassed stupidity of, instead of executing the folks who started the damn thing for treason, giving them political power.

[Darth Raptor]

If you allow the South to succeed, succession becomes a legitimate state perogative as per the Constitution (there was a real debate about that back then). And if the South succeeds, there's nothing holding the North together either.

Worse. As in, I think we'd be speaking German now and there would be no Jerry Sienfeld worse. I seriously question the ability to win WW2 if America was completely out of the picture because it had halved its resources, manpower, infastructure, etc. Britain was on the ropes there, and that was with lend lease helping them. Japan would not have had to deal with America restricting supplies (thus necesitating Pearl Harbor) and wcould have been dominating the Pacific. Russia vs Germany I don't know enough about but only fighting on one front after wiping out England changes things drasitcally. I think the Allies would have lost.

There's no real reason to assume that WWII will even happen. One of the largest factors that led to WWII was the circumstances by which WWI ended. The US was instrumental in Germany's defeat during WWI, and this world's geopolitical map starts diverging from ours in the 1870s, not the 1930s.

[CmdrWilkens]

What if, instead of fighting an extremely costly war, Abraham Lincon had told the Confederates to leave and never come back. Would the United States of America, the real one, be better or worse off?

First off he likely would have been impeached. The Republican party held virtually all the power amongst the states that remained on the Union side (not even getting into the fact that he STILL will need to supress the secessionist tendencies of Maryland). Now there is a chance he can get off the hook if Va, Tennessee and a couple of the late seceeding states don't go with the rest of the South (here I'm assuming that Lincoln surrenders Fort Sumter rather than precipitate a conflict). Still even if he survives what will be, at the least, an internal party revolt against abandoning the south the US will suffer for years from the perception that the states are individually sovreign and only delegate powers to the federal government. So much of what we take for granted today in terms of national standards and unity of law comes from the right of the federal government to superseed the states. Without the Civil War (and subsequently actions such as the passage of the 14th amendment) you will have a serious fault line in the basic concept of federalism. Therefore we have both the South (which already adopted a constitution much like the articles of confederation) and the North (which will have federal power questioned) precariously tipped to fall into a confused morass much like what happened in America prior to the constitution.

Now the SOuth has virtually no chance to remain independent of the north in the long run. both are bound to come into comflict at some point about the western territories and they will have to fight, with both suffering from slightly unstable systems (and with cotton still less dominant than southerners thought) the recipe is for a very long and serious Civil War which merely takes place later, has greater cost and gives us a United States which is very different in character from what we know of it today. Given the years lost in the process it certianly means the US will not go about fighting with Spain to end the 20th century and thus obtaining colonial possesion in the Pacific (which might lessen tensions with Japaan as Britain would be their only true rival there in another thirty to fifty years). If the US DOES get into the race for Pacific territories they're going to be at a disadvantage and probably will come into WWI earlier in an attempt to gobble up some of the German territories (unless the aforementioned Civil War/War of Reconquest significantly changes the American character). All of this could have interesting ramifications in as much as an early US entry might prompt an early end to WWI, fewer upheavals in Europe, the possible continuance of the Ottoman Empire into the middle 20th century and generally a continuation of the 19th century political environment possible past 1945 which is a year with no special meaning anymore).

Anyway that's a possible result but the flip side is that both North and South could collapse from the resultant chaos in and around the aforementioned Civil War and remain little more than a local player who never affects the world stage.

[Zor]

By what i seen, If the Confederate States actually managed somehow to sucseed and stay intact, it would become a Backwards, Poor nation with a large split between the classes. If unsettled, the South could collapse into a Communist Revolution.

Zor

[Pablo Sanchez]

I seriously question the ability to win WW2 if America was completely out of the picture because it had halved its resources, manpower, infastructure, etc.

Saying that the USA would be halving it's strength is a gross overestimation. If Lincoln had acquiesced to secession, the CSA would not have been as large--Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee only seceded in response to Lincoln calling for troops to suppress the rebellion. This would have led to a Confederacy consisting of only the trans-Mississippi and Deep South. The native natural resources of this area essentially consist of cotton, beef, and other agricultural products which can be got from other sources within the Union. Almost all of the USA's industry and it's infrastructure network were in the North as well, and the population of this putative Confederacy would have been about five million (counting slaves), leaving the USA with a comfortable 26 million citizens.

By far the most important effects of such a decision would be political. Lincoln would instantly lose all credibility and the government would fall, US prestige on the world stage would plummet, and there would be a huge backlash. On the positive side (or you might consider it negative if you're an assclown), this reduced CSA would have even less long term viability than a full 11-state version, if such a thing is possible.

[Elfdart]

There's something all of you are leaving out: The predatory, belligerent dickhead mentality of a large percentage of Southerners (more so among leaders) guarantees there would be a fight sooner or later anyway. The slave states did not just want to keep slavery in Dixie. They wanted to expand it everywhere they could because the very existence of free states or countries gives slaves ideas... like running away.

If Lincoln had let the South go in 1861, it wouldn't have been long before they tried putsches in border states that remained loyal to the Union (like they tried during the war). They would have also done in the Caribbean what they did in the Southwest and tried to do in Kansas: insinuate a large number of armed, pro-slavery "settlers" into a region and take it over. They would have almost certainly gone after California and the Pacific.

There also would have been much more European meddling in the Americas as (for example) France would not only get moral support from Jefferson Davis (as in actual history), but most likely military support as well. Other European countries would also be emboldened to meddle in the hemisphere because the US would be in no position to do much about it.

[Civil War Man]

To basically expand on what people said: Allowing a precedent of secession enables the USA to become Europe Mk. II, with all the fun of an array of tinpot dictators waging war on each other for a few decades or centuries.

Assuming that (somehow) the Confederacy and Union manage to hold their respective grounds and not turn into a 19th century version of many South American or African nations, I've heard speculation of an American front during World War I.

[SyntaxVorlon]

Another major change to history would be a huge setback to the Civil Rights movement. The Civil Rights movement was based in large part on the willingness on the part of many whites in power to fight for the rights of blacks and other colored peoples, and the Civil war was a focal point for the tradition of protecting and promoting civil rights. If the US hadn't gone to war, then why should senators care, it's not something anyone had died over.

[CJvR]

Worse.

There is an excelent chance that the war would simply have been fought later with a Confederacy that had had time to reorganize itself and probably gained international recognition. There is also the posibility that you would end up with a Balkanized Confederacy and a Confederate Union, especially if the border states remain in the Union, with a feeble central goverment unable to exercice much of the power that would still probably be building in the expanding northern industrial cities.

[Guardsman Bass]

Much worse, especially since the South would turn into an impoverished garrison state, to prevent their slave population from rebelling or fleeing to the North. A real question, though, would be if the new Confederacy got international recognition. If they didn't, it would probably be dead in a few years from internal dissent.

[wolveraptor]

States in the North would constantly use the threat of secession to guarantee almost complete independence from federal rule.

"What? Federal taxes? Why, I'm outraged. We'll secede, damn you!"
"Okay okay, you can ban it. Just don't secede! Pleaseohpleaseohplease!"

As such, blacks remain in slavery, the North is jeopordized (unless they quickly pass a law banning secession) and the South just dies. Then someone from Europe comes and kicks ass all over the place and pwns us. The end.

[Pax Britannia]

someone from Europe comes and kicks ass all over the place and pwns us. The end.

I like this part

[Tolya]

If the south would survive, so would the slavery system they used, perhaps the most cruel and evil slavery method in the history of humankind. Southern economy relied heavily on involuntary servitude, they needed it to keep their economy balanced.

[Adrian Laguna]

South can't survive. Slavery is generally reviled in Europe. The South needs to sell its cotton to Europe in order to survive. The British can get cotton from Egypt and South-East Asia(?). By the time of the American Civil War, the South was no longer the King of Cotton. The Brits and other Europeans can start getting their cotton from somewhere else if they don't want to trade with dirty slave holders. The complete collapse of the Confederacy follows.

Also, if we are talking about the puny original Confederacy. No Virginia means no industry, less military expertise, and less population for the army.

[Yogi]

States in the North would constantly use the threat of secession to guarantee almost complete independence from federal rule.

"What? Federal taxes? Why, I'm outraged. We'll secede, damn you!"
"Okay okay, you can ban it. Just don't secede! Pleaseohpleaseohplease!"

As such, blacks remain in slavery, the North is jeopordized (unless they quickly pass a law banning secession) and the South just dies. Then someone from Europe comes and kicks ass all over the place and pwns us. The end.

Wouldn't the South shrivling up discourage other states from leaving?

"Oh yeah, we'll just secede if we don't get our way!"
"Go ahead and try. By the way, have you been to Alabama recently? I hear they've almost re-invented fire."

[wolveraptor]

The southern states would be in a situation particular to them: they have almost no industry, and without the north, they'd be flung into the stone age in a short while, especially since their entire economy relies on the Yankees. It was almost mercantilistic (I made this word up). The South sold cotton to the north, whose huge textile factories made it into sweaters and such. The South wouldn't have the resources nor the ability to set up such a system either.

On the other hand, if a northern state suddenly secedes, economic collapse is less likely.

At least, that's what the politicians would rationalize.

All of this is subjective. I don't know whether the North would be drawn closer together by seeing a huge chunk of the US leaving, or whether they would submerge into disunity.

[Aeolus]

If the North let the South leave without a fight then chances are they would still trade with them. If they did then in the short run nothing would change after all before the civil war the federal goverment was more of a suggestion than reality anyways. The south was also alot more industrialised before the war than after..but still nothing like the North was. It would probably turn into another Mexico in the long run. Slavery however is the crux there. Sooner or later it would have to abandon it or be forced to.

[RedImperator]

The CSA would be a third world basket case that could make Mexico look like Sweden. An agrarian economy built on a single soil-depleting cash crop that can be grown cheaper elsewhere, an economic system that keeps 1/3 of the population enslaved and most of the rest desparately poor, no industry, no natural resources except lumber, pigshit, and some nasty black goo in Texas nobody will have any use for for decades, no liquid capital, a giant and unfriendly neighbor with a 2000 mile border, and international pariah status. There's a recipe for success if I've ever heard one.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Worse. As in, I think we'd be speaking German now and there would be no Jerry Sienfeld worse. I seriously question the ability to win WW2 if America was completely out of the picture because it had halved its resources, manpower, infastructure, etc. Britain was on the ropes there, and that was with lend lease helping them. Japan would not have had to deal with America restricting supplies (thus necesitating Pearl Harbor) and wcould have been dominating the Pacific. Russia vs Germany I don't know enough about but only fighting on one front after wiping out England changes things drasitcally. I think the Allies would have lost.

I now await one of our history afficandos to agree or school my ignorant ass.

Your ignorant ass is schooled. In 1941, the former Confederate States had only 13% of the economic and industrial power of the USA at that time. The USA could still go into WWII at 87% of its historical capabilities industrially and economically, though the draft would have to be proportionately rather larger (no greater than on European lines, though) to muster the size of Army.

[LordShaithis]

This is more a request for information than a direct statement upon the conclusions reached thus far, but I seem to recall hearing that Britain was mulling over helping the Confederacy. And that the Emancipation Proclamation was, in part, meant to make the war explicitly about slavery so as to render it politically impossible for the Empire to interfere.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Worse. As in, I think we'd be speaking German now and there would be no Jerry Sienfeld worse. I seriously question the ability to win WW2 if America was completely out of the picture because it had halved its resources, manpower, infastructure, etc. Britain was on the ropes there, and that was with lend lease helping them. Japan would not have had to deal with America restricting supplies (thus necesitating Pearl Harbor) and wcould have been dominating the Pacific. Russia vs Germany I don't know enough about but only fighting on one front after wiping out England changes things drasitcally. I think the Allies would have lost.

I now await one of our history afficandos to agree or school my ignorant ass.

The Confederacy will economically collapse, fragment, and inevitably crawl back to the Union. The U.S. will still get into WW2, and even not, Germany can't win because the Soviet Union obliterates them.

However, WW1 is a better counterfactual. Seemingly the U.S. in this timeline would be economically retarded and more worried about this hemisphere than @. Its quite possible we would've remained nonengaged in WW1, and Germany would've won.

[SirNitram]

This is more a request for information than a direct statement upon the conclusions reached thus far, but I seem to recall hearing that Britain was mulling over helping the Confederacy. And that the Emancipation Proclamation was, in part, meant to make the war explicitly about slavery so as to render it politically impossible for the Empire to interfere.

It was already politically ridiculous for the Empire to interfere; whatever Americans were discussing as the reasons for the war, there was a strong sentiment in England that it was about nothing more than propping up slavery.

Which the Empire had just spent ridiculous amounts of money removing from the Empire and Europe. Seriously, they had literally just finished bribing most of the Continent with cold, hard cash to stop the trade.

England basically went in and profiteered from the war, knowing the Confeds would sell cheap to anyone with cash. The movement to support the South never gained political acceptance.