Thread 17898751

What if Confederate States of America won the Civil War in the US. How history would under this circumstances and how you feel about it?

imagine brazil but english speaking

Unironically they most likely become communist at some point in the 20th century. They were planning on annexing parts of Mexico and the Caribbean as well as importing more slaves from Africa, a mostly rural country with a small racial aristocracy is one of the best breeding grounds for communist insurgencies possible. Hell, since the confederate government would most likely side with the European ultranationalists the United States would probably keep out of their affairs as to not appear hypocritical.

what a bland, unoriginal question

>>17898802
>the confederate government would most likely side with the European ultranationalists
No

>>17898751 (OP)
>How history would under this circumstances and how you feel about it?

>>17898802
>They were planning on annexing parts of Mexico and the Caribbean as well as importing more slaves from Africa

Bruh, this was never going to happen. Just attempting to annex Mexico put have put the Confederacy at risk of another war with the United States it could ill-afford. If anything, Washington would have doubled down on the Monroe Doctrine to ensure the Confederacy would gain little to no influence over Latin America.

>>17898814
>not posting the full-sized version

Slavery would still be legal in the South for a little while, and especially prominent in states such as Carolina and Alabama. However, abolition would still be inevitable, and eventually slavery would be outlawed. The Confederacy and the Union would become economic competitors. The Civil War probably wouldn't be the only war they'd fight against each other.

>>17898751 (OP)
Secession would probably be seen as less politically incorrect than it is today
can't imagine anyone from Georgia being against secession when their state seceded twice

>>17898802
>Cuba
LMFAO
Those retards could never

>>17898802
I'll give you a pass for this absolutely batshit insane take because OPs question is already so generic and tired anyways

>>17899007
The entire point of althist is doing fun stuff that could somewhat reasonably happen, obviously the most realistic scenarios are always "the confederacy is economically outcompeted and eventually subsumed into the union regardless" or whatever but that doesn't make for s fun story. Communism in North America is rarely done well, but this is probably one of the more likely ways it could've happened.

>>17898751 (OP)
I guess the main question I'd have is how the South would prevent slaves from fleeing northwards. The Fugitive Slave act meant slaves had to be returned, at least on paper. Now the free states in the North have no obligation to respect Southern property laws. Once the slaves reach free soil, they're free.

So you have a hostile power to the north, and millions of slaves know they simply need to get to the Union instead of Canada, which is far easier logistically for the underground railroad. It'd be interesting if there was an armed slave rebellion. Would the slave states be willing to deplete their own garrisons and send them over? Like would Virginia be willing to deploy soldiers to suppress a slave revolt in Georgia? We saw in the Civil War a lot of CSA soldiers and states were hesitant or outright resistant to sending their troops out of state. If Virginia legislators saw blacks slaughtering Georgians, they'd rather keep their armies at home to suppress any possible revolt there than send out their best weapon.

Agricultural economy means drought or a severe weather incident can fuck over their income. Might even lead to famine in the worst case, which would ferment possible armed slave revolts.

They abolish slavery sometime around the early 20th century as the North outcompetes them economically, however, they remain independent, being completely taken over by warlording early 20th century Socialist and Anarchist movements lead by people who fled the industrial and overly capitalist Gilded Age Northern states (think people like Sacco and Vanzetti or Leon Czolgosz) in an attempt to create a socialist utopia by applying the Southern anti-federalist principles and taking it up to 11. They spend the first half of the 20th century as a violent shithole, but join the North against the Axis powers during the second world war and eventually coming under the power of an actually competent statesman where they end up a regional power and even have a small space program by the end of the 20th century

>>17899143
>They abolish slavery
This probably would have happened in the 1870s.

>>17899149
It's possible, but you also need to keep in mind that Slave owners basically controlled Southern Politics, as they were the ones who owned most of the Souths wealth and land and had the strongest need to protect their interests. I think by the early 20th century, when most slave owners from the Civil War era are dead or retired and their children inherit their Plantations that their political influence will likely have waned significantly, leading way to a Southern abolitionist movement

>>17898802
How?

If the CSA had somehow hung on after 1900 and didn’t fragment into smaller entities, they’d be the beneficiary of the massive oil fields in Texas and Louisiana and the potential for a modern economy. Southern Baptist Saudi Arabia? Huey Long as a Hugo Chavez populist caudillo?

Depends on how the vast numbers of small white farmers end up being handled. The South had a pretty solid handle on its black population and kept them largely under control even under the extreme duress of the war, so the main threat to their stability would be poor whites as the country transitioned to a modern economy. The oil industry might be one pressure valve. Honestly the boring answer is that they'd probably be a slightly dysfunctional second world country that neither succeeds nor fails hard enough to validate anyone's strong feelings about them.

>>17898987
Why? irl the Americans took it pretty easily, a lot easier than it was for the Union to defeat the South

>>17899007
I mean, if the Russian Revolution never happened and the Romanovs stayed in power, the idea of an althist where Russia went communist would sound insane

>>17898802
Kino

>>17898814
Ironically enough I think one or two things would happen:
>USA and CSA become mortal enemies and fight at least one more war, until one conquered the other completely
>USA and CSA call it one-and-done and never fight again, and perhaps even eventually become friendly, resulting in a pic related type situation where both the Union and Confederate flags storm the beaches of Normandy together one fateful day
It's not like either side liked negros anyway, so what really is there for them to mutually hate?

>>17899652
The USA in 1898 =/= what ever the CSA would look like during a Confederate-Spanish war
The CSA would be forced to keep most of it's army stateside in order to cope with a possible slave revolt or an attack from the North.

Honestly, the Confederacy would probably still dissolve and join back up with the Union. Their victory would just be used as ammunition to humiliate Lincoln and those that supported him, resulting in the next president either being someone whose entire campaign is built around destroying the South or someone whose entire campaign is built around negotiating peace. So either the Confederacy gets defeated and re-absorbed, or they make a deal from a position of power to come back with special privileges.

Well let's look at this in a realistic way. For the South to succeed, the war has to be ended by '63. The only way thats happening is, firstly, the South needs to win big in the East, either by successfully winning Kentucky and raising a second large western army to compete with union numbers or Bragg has to be competent enough at Shiloh and use Forrests advice to push Grant and his useless subordinate Sherman into the Tennessee river. After that, ending the year with the mauling at Fredericksburg in the east or a bullet in Lincoln would demoralize the North into pursuing peace. Afterwards we see an improvement in relations as Texas becomes a gateway for westward migration and the two nations work together to put down native insurgency. There may arise issues during the California gold rush over territory disputes depending on how the west is divided up, but otherwise relations, especially in trade, continue to improve rapidly. By the late 1870s, the South will see its cotton monopoly disappear as its ships are turned away from English ports (as the English laborers were staunchly abolitionist and the empire turned to its Asian colonies for textile materials) and the end of slavery in Brazil rings the death knell for western slavery. This leads to a organized abolition and allows the south to modernize while maintaining the estates of the wealthy planter class who invest in technology to replace their workforce with machines that require far less upkeep and resources. Before too long this virgining, modernizing south begins to flourish around the 1910s, and history, in general, stays on track. I definitely see both nations rallying during ww1 and ww2, or the US following isolationism while the CS joins both frays early in support of their old British allies and for the sake of their own martial prowess

The Upper South (VA, NC, TN) and Texas would eventually get tired of dealing with the Lower South (AL, MS, SC, GA) and leave them behind, either to rejoin the Union or go their own way.

>>17899526
>Southern Baptist Saudi Arabia? Huey Long as a Hugo Chavez populist caudillo?

Presumably would have economically diversified by the time oil took off in the 1920s-1930s (cotton would have gone bust by the 1900s at the latest). Saudi Arabia suffers from the problem of both being a literal non-country prior to the rise of oil and being populated by the absolute laziest of Arabs. Venezuela had an almost entirely agrarian economy prior to the discover of oil. Neither nation had an opportunity to diversify.