ok let's say these niggas win
slavery stays legal for max 30 years then what?

Serious non-Chud answer: they import or wrtificaly breed ten times the blacks to keep up with industrial output before getting Haiti’d.

>>17842980 (OP)
>ok let's say these niggas win
anti-history proposition. They couldn't have won. Your historiography is retarded hoi4 brainrot

Sooner or later they implode due to falling behind economically or becoming an international pariah due to openly endorsing slavery or slave uprisings and the North invades again and reabsorbs them

send them all to cuba

Short of like, divine miracles there's no way the south wins. Even if they win it likely leaves them badly crippled from the loss of manpower and they wind up voluntarily emancipating slaves for economic reasons.

>>17843036
>voluntarily emancipating slaves for economic reasons

>>17842980 (OP)
I don't think they had a good solution. They were probably doomed on their own. Shame the antagonism existed from the north. Southern cities would be much nicer places today. The south still hasn't recovered from that war in many way.

southern "culture" entirely revolves around buying blacks from jews and these faggots won't shut the fuck up about how proud it makes them

>>17843094
most of the rights that you claim to have were created by southerners

>>17843097
the right to live in a country where entire states will go to war because they can't keep breeding blacks on jewish farms
thanks faggot

>>17843102
actually it was about the rights you claim to have, you probably don't actually have them

>>17842980 (OP)
They would simply be a poorer version of early 19th century America. They would be forever doomed to live in the periphery of the stronger and more industrialized Union. This is assuming they managed to preserve their sovereignty without making any serious gains during the war.

>>17842996
There's lots of things in history that shouldn't have been possible until they occurred.

>>17843097
People from the South of England?

>>17842987
>majority White country becomes Haiti
how?
>>17843011
>falling behind means you implode
When is Canada imploding?
>>17843036
patently untrue, if the Union decides its not worth 400,000 men the South wins.
>they would never
says who?

>>17842980 (OP)
This shit was all a perfidious bong plot to sell more shit and kill of germans and irish, Southerners were traitors
>It is in the highest degree likely that the North will not be able to subdue the south, and it is no doubt certain that if the Southern union is established as an independent state it would afford a valuable and extensive market for British manufactures but the operations of the war have as yet been too indecisive to warrant an acknowledgement of the southern union.
Lord Palmerston
Letter to Sir Austen Henry Layard (20 October 1861)
>As to the American [Civil] War it has manifestly ceased to have any attainable object as far as the Northerns are concerned, except to get rid of some more thousand troublesome Irish and Germans. It must be owned, however, that the Anglo-Saxon race on both sides have shown courage and endurance highly honourable to their stock.
Lord Palmerston
Letter to George Villiers, 4th Earl of Clarendon (20 October 1862), quoted in Jasper Ridley, Lord Palmerston (1970)

>>17844148
>>majority White country becomes Haiti
>how?
Look at the demographics of the modern South, then imagine what they would look like if they continued to breed and import slaves into the late 19th century

>>17843374
Actually yeah, kind of, the intelligentsia of the US revolution were first gen americans from southern england, half of people in the US were first generation immigrants from england at the time

>>17844170
It makes sense given that northern England is mostly a backwater populated by farmers and their sheep

>>17842980 (OP)
the south would never be able to "win" the civil war, only get peace with the north
then just imagine how the north and europeans would kick them around and do everything to undermine their economy
the north would never make a peace in good faith and attempt to reconquer soon anyway
and the whole idea of "they need the souths cotton" fell on its face at the outset of the war
no european nation would recognize the south despite initial hopes and would most certainly stay that way as long as slavery persisted, abolitionist sentiment was way bigger europe
tons of people in the south knew all this and said exactly before the war started, they knew it was an idiotic lose-lose situation
i imagine the north at least retaking New Orleans by 1870 and heavy sanctions for years to come
with no fugitive slaves laws, think of the smuggling of both people and goods that would boom
>then what
it would by our time be the same result but with the south much poorer, less developed, and worse off
the eventually reintegrated south would probably have less representation in the government, territory status for a while
>t. southern born converative raised before you call me a northern tranny

>>17844187
>no european nation would recognize the south despite initial hopes
see
>>>17844157
"the operations of the war have as yet been too indecisive to warrant an acknowledgement of the southern union."

>>17842987
>getting Haiti’d
Not possible. Haitian niggers only won because their island's terrain perfectly suited partisan warfare (mountains + jungle). Plus Napoleon didn't care enough to send more troops there after majority of the botched punitive expedition died due to malaria.
A revolt like this but in flat terrain, or against a country that would actually care enough to suppress it would just fail. Worst case scenario for CSA was becoming South Africa without diamonds.

>>17844187
>only get peace with the north
how is this not a win for a secessionist movement?

>>17844430
I think he means forcing concessions on the north so secession doesn't have to happen. It's a win for the southern planter, because he gets to keep his negroes.
Can is kicked down the road until the real civil war happens in the next generation, as noted a Haiti-style slave revolt which the local whites can't win on their own. North then decides whether to bail out the planters. Probably results in black reservations like for the natives.

>>17844430
>how is this not a win for a secessionist movement?
I don't imagine the north would ever negotiate a peace in good faith or fully recognize the south
the focus would shift to slow strategy of undermining the souths economy and politics
this would be ultimately worse for the south than what happened
they probably would look to completely retake it before 1900; I imagine a slow process of annexation with a place like New Orleans being taken first on some pretext
from what I've read I just don't see the north or the nations of Europe in any way willing to just "go back to the old days" and fully respect an independent south
>>17844455
>forcing concessions on the north so secession doesn't have to happen
i think thats out of the question by '61

>>17844455
>Probably results in black reservations like for the natives.
also a possibility

>>17844183
Northern england especially around the scottish border was a historic wasteland because of all the war and raids. That's where a lot of immigrants came from, including the lowland scots which were more than happy to send people over to the US as indentured servants to reduce overpopulation

Hell the colonization of ulster was probably just an english social project to reduce overpopulation

>>17842996
Let's say France and Britain decided to support them
>>17842980 (OP)
Then it gets abolished

>>17842980 (OP)
>>17844576
>>17844577
now if you're talking "win", like the Confederacy somehow invading the north, taking Washington- they'd have to go further, maybe if they took Philadelphia and were threatening the Ohio valley, you could force the north to peace, that would be a win-
provided the Europeans dont intervene
thats a situation i need to think about further

>>17844595
>France and Britain decided to support them
that would never happen, you have to go back and reverse the french revolution
but ill play
idk its too far fetched- now i have to imagine a scenario where the politics in Europe do a 180, and they go to war with their largest trading partner
we may as well have the chinese sail across and take California

>>17844595
>Let's say France and Britain decided to support them
That's less likely than the Union being slower to build momentum, Lincoln losing the 1864 election and his opponent making peace.

>Hey country that's vehemently anti-slavery lets support a country whose entire purpose for existing is the perpetuation and spread of slavery.

america is a managed egregore with the results already made to meet a predetermined end

whites were enslaved prior extending to Rome, nogs simply used in place to create context in the alchemical drama

because america is a meme, always has been hence the african symbology on the back of the dollar because niggers have always ran the show, system of control simply refined

in short, the white man is defined by his masters

>>17844148
>patently untrue, if the Union decides its not worth 400,000 men the South wins.
The issue is by the point the union might have feasibly given up the South was winning. You pretty much have to change history before New Orleans falls with the South winning on all fronts until 1864. Nobody is going to vote in favour of letting the South win when you've suffered a lot and are on the verge of victory, it's comparable to Germaboos imagining America pulling out of the war if FDR lost the 1944.

>>17842996
So low IQ you should be banned for this post.

>>17844706
nigger if you knew anything about history you would know better than to just throw around insane hypotheticals that require history 100+ years in the past to be different
I've written like 5 paragraphs of shit imagining the most far flung possibilities
entire nations and societal currents aren't going to change on a dime just because you want them to
that being said im still working on my Mexican empire invading the west after the south invents bolt action rifles that they can give everyman scenario
are you the same anon who jist made the thread asking why the Japanese didn't have a coal fired battle fleet in 1943?

>>17842980 (OP)
"Slavery outlawed in 30 years" seems like a meme. While slavery would've fallen out of economic use, there's no reason for them to ban it. Wagons were rendered economically worthless a hundred years ago but they didn't outlaw them the second they were.

More likely slavery would never be outlawed in the CSA as slavery was a point of cultural pride, but slavery would just be house-slaves and other wealth symbols for the old planter class. Slave population would likely plummet but would remain legal.

>>17844165
The Carolinas were majority black by the early 1700s, and they only had one or two minor uprisings. The southerners had a spartan-esque paranoia about Helot uprisings. I think it's unlikely they would lose to that.

>>17842980 (OP)
They'd just be an English speaking country in the cultural sphere of Latin America. No doubt the Union would continue to take measures to cripple the fledgling CSA economically. They would never have the industrial base to rival the US even with their ports. At some point in the 20th century they'd form a stronger bond and nobody would give a shit about old grievances anymore.

>>17844942
You can tell this poster is brown because he thinks Latin countries have the cultural capital to influence Western, Anglo-Saxon men.

>>17844942
People forget one of the main motivations for the war was the break neck industrialization of the south under the oppressive globally historic tariffs of the north

The north was creating it's own greatest enemy by financially oppressing the south which was actually growing dangerously strong because of it

>>17842996
>>17843036
>>17844187
What about the Prussians? Weren't they Nazis? Surely they would helped the south.

>>17842980 (OP)
the aristocratic planter gentry cut off from it's niche of co-dependency with the industrial/merchant capitalist north fails to adapt to the fact slavery isn't popular internationally anymore and either loses it's own war of 1812 or becomes brazil
>haiti
unlikely, the confederacy is a lot larger and more geographically varied, decentralised sabotage, riots and smaller rebellions are guaranteed, constant and debilitating though