Well for one thing, West Virginia wouldn’t exist and instead the Appalachia would be supported by subsides of being part of a much larger and more prosperous state.
But to note, the Civil War had roots in the very nature of the nation as an discordant post-colonial state. After all, most (all?) countries didn’t devolve into a 50/50 civil war just to change policy on enslavement, indentured servitude or serfdom.
I’d go as far as to say the Civil War was the birth of modern America because it strengthened nationalist feelings, and empowered the federal government.
Brazil did it successfully in the late '70s or thereabouts. They didn't pay for people's slaves. There was a difference in the ideology of manumission before the law was passed. In short, it seems to have been more like New Orleans, where there was a distinct class of free men of color, and a (low-)middle-class free black person was nothing out of the ordinary. In the Deep South, black meant slave.
Could the US have done the same as Brazil. I don't think it was possible (except in a few special places like Appalachia and New Orleans and maybe the Eastern border states). The animosity over the issue had been building for 50+ years and was accompanied by a strong cultural divide and a slew of other issues that divided the US. And there was no regular tradition of manumission: black meant slave in the most of the South.
Maybe another 10 years would have made it possible, but I don't see where those 10 years could have come from.
I should add that victory at Gettysburg wouldn't have won anything but footwear for the rebels. Grant took Vicksburg and control of the Mississippi during Gettysburg, and in doing so fulfilled the Anaconda Plan. Grant and the Navy, historically a Northern/Midatlantic institution, effectively cut the South off from the outside world (except for the lucky blockade-runner and the small population of the Southern West. And the European powers had seen the writing on the wall like a year before. The CSA's slow death by privation was almost guaranteed. Even an Austerlitz-level victory at Gettysburg wouldn't have save the CSA. Washington was a fortress and there were of course Union reserves in the East and the possibility of transferring troops from other fronts. In my opinion, the CSA's two best chances for a negotiated victory were, one, a march on Washington right after the 1st Bull Run and two, a defensive or Fabian strategy maybe even coupled with asymmetric raids into the North until the 1864 elections and the defeat of Lincoln.
Victory was never possible given the low industrial capacity and population of the south.
40% of the confederacy was enslaved, at some point they would have just run out of soldiers. Best they could have gotten was some kind of negotiated settlement, but union victory was inevitable the longer the war went on.
Problem with this alternate history is that the largest union corps (6th) was not engaged at Gettysburg and so would be a very strong rearguard. Lee was on a raid and being in Pennsylvania north of the army of the Potomac would have been a risk. Food and horse feed, yeah, but it has to be sent south for the raid to be effective. And ammo has to come north. See https://www.amazon.ca/How-North-Won-Military-History/dp/0252...
The question I always ask is: if the south had gained independence, how long would it have taken for them to abolish slavery? The 1920’s was the heyday of the klan; I don’t think it would have happened then. It might have happened in the 1960’s, but remember, it was federal troops from the north that allowed black people to vote. Without northern pressure, I don’t think that would have been possible. Perhaps by the early 2000’s opinions would have shifted enough. But I think there’s a chance slavery would still exist today in the south had the south won the war, especially if their entire economy was still built around it.
One could imagine PR campaigns putting a smiley face on slavery with images of happy workers, smiling with arms crossed, or laughing together with lens flare. One could imagine them emphasizing that slaves at least had health care, unlike the northern poor, or Fox News running some story involving a northern family that went back to slavery because of northern poverty. Or maybe we would just not think about it.
12 comments
[ 0.32 ms ] story [ 52.1 ms ] threadWhat technology advances would have happened without the burning of half the nation, the 750,000 dead, the countless wounded, and the numerous rapes?
https://gettysburgcompiler.org/2015/10/05/finally-speaking-u...
With the economic savings a nice check could have been cut to the Freedmen, and the country could have started the healing process.
But to note, the Civil War had roots in the very nature of the nation as an discordant post-colonial state. After all, most (all?) countries didn’t devolve into a 50/50 civil war just to change policy on enslavement, indentured servitude or serfdom.
I’d go as far as to say the Civil War was the birth of modern America because it strengthened nationalist feelings, and empowered the federal government.
Could the US have done the same as Brazil. I don't think it was possible (except in a few special places like Appalachia and New Orleans and maybe the Eastern border states). The animosity over the issue had been building for 50+ years and was accompanied by a strong cultural divide and a slew of other issues that divided the US. And there was no regular tradition of manumission: black meant slave in the most of the South.
Maybe another 10 years would have made it possible, but I don't see where those 10 years could have come from.
I should add that victory at Gettysburg wouldn't have won anything but footwear for the rebels. Grant took Vicksburg and control of the Mississippi during Gettysburg, and in doing so fulfilled the Anaconda Plan. Grant and the Navy, historically a Northern/Midatlantic institution, effectively cut the South off from the outside world (except for the lucky blockade-runner and the small population of the Southern West. And the European powers had seen the writing on the wall like a year before. The CSA's slow death by privation was almost guaranteed. Even an Austerlitz-level victory at Gettysburg wouldn't have save the CSA. Washington was a fortress and there were of course Union reserves in the East and the possibility of transferring troops from other fronts. In my opinion, the CSA's two best chances for a negotiated victory were, one, a march on Washington right after the 1st Bull Run and two, a defensive or Fabian strategy maybe even coupled with asymmetric raids into the North until the 1864 elections and the defeat of Lincoln.
40% of the confederacy was enslaved, at some point they would have just run out of soldiers. Best they could have gotten was some kind of negotiated settlement, but union victory was inevitable the longer the war went on.
One could imagine PR campaigns putting a smiley face on slavery with images of happy workers, smiling with arms crossed, or laughing together with lens flare. One could imagine them emphasizing that slaves at least had health care, unlike the northern poor, or Fox News running some story involving a northern family that went back to slavery because of northern poverty. Or maybe we would just not think about it.