If the CSA won, how long would they have survived?
until slavery ends in the south on their own terms and they want back in the union
>>18377006They would be on the UN security council after defeating the nazis in WW2.
>>18377123I think slave revolts would be inevitable too, they might even be joined by poor whites depending if certain European ideals came from overseas...
>>18377176>slave revolts would be inevit-ackEasily got crush
>>18377507if you have to constantly put down slave revolts then your state isn't very stable
>>18377946Romans did it for half a millenium
If they could hang on until the turn of the century, the vast oilfields of Texas and Louisiana could be a game changer.
>>18377006Honestly as a Lost Causer I have thought about this a lot but in the end the very fact of the South winning the Civil War just radically changes so much about American and global history, it's hard to say.So much about the Civil War and the decades surrounding it were formative to so many people who would come to dominate the latter half of 19th century American.All I know is I wish it would've happened and I know enough to know it'd be ten times better.
>>18377094It's highly more likely the CSA stays out of the war entirely. WW2 might not even happen. Or, maybe they join the Axis - but I doubt it. Maybe they kinda play out like Francoist spain.
>>18378384The entire nature of the industry would be different too with slave labor existing as well. All the shitty jobs would go to slaves and the skilled work would be funneled to Whites.
>>18378399It doesn't change global history that much, at least not until WW2, but it does change American history so much
>>18378401why invest in training a white who could jump to your competitors the moment they offer him more money, when you could train a slave who you can "pay" by offering him freedom in ten years?
>>18378401Ironically it'd be the other way around. Training and paying high wages for skilled labor isn't economic. Slaves were capital. Training them only cost the training itself, rather than the training + wages + negotiations.In the antebellum South when slaves were rented out for labor outside plantations, it was rarely for menial/hard labor and usually skilled labor---wheelwrights, horse farriers, drivers, blacksmiths etc.
>>18378415You don't just teach slaves a trade like that though, it very rarely happened historically. I doubt that would change.
>>18378267Slavery was outlawed for the majority of Rome's existence.
>>18378399>>18378474Lincoln was the reincarnation of the Biblical Prophet Abraham and he intentionally ended slavery so as to replace it with Epstein's pedophiles as the main industrial production output! The Confederates were doomed to lose just like Hitler and neither of them actually wanted to start any war but the Jews trapped them into it they've always been genocidal psychopaths and Mel Gibson should analyze that idea in his Passion of the Christ sequel movie
>>18378486>>18378492Byzantium wasn't Rome retard because the same Jews that supported President Lincoln the reincarnation of Biblical prophet Abraham also promoted Christianity when Constantine won a similar civil war that prevented Western Europe from conquering the Middle East for many centuries until the Crusades and by that time Mongols had already converted to Islam ensuring that sandniggers will always be powerful enough to destroy the region which is exactly what Israel wanted in order to justify it's genocide of Palestinians
>>18377094>>18378400CSA might joined allied in "WW1" but neutral during "WW2".
>>18378486Oh really? Why hasn’t Rome industrializing yet?
>>18378401A White proletariat would directly undermine the power of the slave owning Planter class, which is why they didn't allow on to exist before Emancipation and wouldn't have allowed one to exist had secession succeeded.
>>18378401>The entire nature of the industry would be different too with slave labor existing as well. All the shitty jobs would go to slaves and the skilled work would be funneled to Whites.Kind of like antebellum railroads in Dixie, with blacks doing grunt labor with some in skilled trades, and whites in higher positions. Cotton mills in the late 1800s, the first major southern industry, had a similar division of labor but it was mostly whites working the looms.
>>18378401wrong, that is not how it workedpoor white emigrant were cheaper and more expendable than black slaves
>>18377006Their only chance is to gobble up Latin America, but there was too much foriegn investment there for it to go smoothly. They would've been picked off and stretched thin by different powers competing for influence. Especially since the Union is too weak to enforce Monroe doctrine effectively in this scenario.
Honestly never thought about it but two American countries is kinda cool nglWish it had happened
>>18378267The Confederacy was no Rome
>>18379166In what way exactly
>>18379196Rome survived millennia and the Confederacy died in less than a decade
>>18377006They would've abolished slavery at some point anyways. The North would be a White ethnostate and the South would be a multicultural hellhole.>Great Migration never would've happened or the Harlem Renaissance>no desegregation or civil rights movement in the north>"Pax" Americana never would have happenedThe world would objectively be a better place.The only way to make it better would be Back to Africa or sterilization in the South
>>18379285Israel probably wouldn't exist because America wouldn't have be able to change the tide of WW1 or 2, so the Palestinians would be better off. The Arab Revolt would probably still have happened, but without the Balfour Declaration
>>18379272Rome could have fallen at numerous key points in its early history and survived only by chance
>>18379289I suppose the major downside is that if WW1 had gone differently, then D'Annunzio, Mussolini and Hitler may have never come to powerOnly real downside
>>18379296And the South MAY have ended up becoming blacker if they ended up bringing back the Trans-Atlantic Trade in which case it would turn into Haiti, but that isn't much different from how the South is today, and the European powers likely would have prevented the import of future slaves anywaysHopefully in this alternative world, no more slaves are imported and /ourgirl/ Margaret Sanger is able to cull the black population and /ourguy/ Marcus Garvey can send the remainder to Liberia
>>18379285Some point is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
>>18379302Didn't a lot of southerners just move to Brazil to try and recreate Antebellum South there?
>>18379319Most confederados didn't have slaves and slavery in Brasil was abolished in 1888 anyways
>>18379310I reckon it would have been before 1900
>>18379330The only way I see the South giving up Slavery without the civil war would be Europe no longer supplying them with slaves. I guess the question is would the CSA try and set up their own slaving companies without european middle men?
>>18379388The European powers would have blocked their slaving vessels like they did with other slavers, not for humanitarian reasons but to prevent economic competition with Indian cotton plantationsAny cooperation with the Confederacy would end with the Civil War unless to weaken the Union
>>18379392Could Europe even afford such a war at that point?
>>18379397Against the Confederacy? 100%, but I don't think it would come to that
>>18377006Probably not long.Cotton was becoming less and less profitable and the war caused the UK to branch out and develop their own cotton agriculture in Egypt and India.Then you have to consider that, moving into the late 19th and 20th century, having slaves would have made the CSA an international pariah state which would cripple their economy.Also you have a country which has firmly set up that if a state no longer wants to be part of the nation, it can just leave.So what's going to stop states which were less dominated by slave agriculture from just voting out and maybe rejoining the USA?Plus, and this could be the biggest reason why a victorious CSA may not last long, it's a country which is half slave positioned right next door to an anti-slavery, angry rival state which has one of the largest weapons industries on the planet.The amount of large scale slave revolts would be massive and unending.
>>18377006Depends on how they win. If it's just a scenario where Kentucky and Missouri flip and the Union gets demoralized enough to accept independence, then the CSA lasts to the present day. They align with Britain, serve as a counterweight to the Monroe doctrine by competing with the US over Central America/the Caribbean, and in a decade or two as US politics switch focus from slavery to immigration (a far bigger threat without the mostly-native-born South) and a new generation grows up people simply accept the status quo. They'll likely acquire a few areas like Cuba, Hispaniola and the south bank of the Rio Grande and carve out a little colonial empire for themselves.If it's through some miracle later in the war, say by some string of miracles after Gettysburg, it'll be a sore spot in US politics for decades and they'll start another war in a decade or so. As the North only progresses further past the South and by attacking during some CSA war against Mexico or other state they get an overwhelming advantage and crush the CSA completely. The timeline then folds mostly into our one.
>>18378410Do you think the US and CSA would work together, for each other's benefit, regarding foreign policy after the Civil War (in this case, if the South had won, of course)?e.g., say the Nips attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7 1941 -- would the South and North work together to fight the Japanese? In hindsight, or whatever you call this, it seems very logical for the North and South to do this -- work together many or most foreign policy issues, but idk. What does /his/ think?
>>18379444The US wouldn't be anti-slavery if the South was independant. No one would think about blacks or their freedumbs at all. Like Canada at the same time
>>18379584The Japanese wouldn't have attacked Pearl Harbour because the ABCD sanctions wouldn't have cut off their critical fuel supply
>>18377176Slave revolts weren't that big, you're just being taught about them too much. In reality they were most often isolated events involving dozen if slaves maximum that were destroyed by civilian posse. The slave is the definition of a mass and masses don't have agency in themselves, as long as the south keeps the yankee nigger lovers out the leadership for such a revolt wouldn't materialise.
>>18379302I imagine if the planters went full retard and took importing slaves too far they might have a French revolution scenario on their hands.>>18379392>not for humanitarian reasonsMeme. Europeans were massive negrophiles, they destroyed slavery despite it being profitable for them just because they thought it was immoral.
>>18377006The lack of a Fugitive Slave Law would lead to persistent border raids from both sides, eventually reigniting the war. The North's superior economy and years of bitterness would allow them to win.
>>18379747The British literally backed the Confederacy against the Union
>>18379589>>18379584Kingdom of Hawaii would allies itself with Japan and Canada against American imperialism
>>18378401That didn't even happen when we did have slavery you idiot.
>>18379753>later the Frenchie joined their Louisianan and Québécois brothers -in-armVGH…!!!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEm9TQX6DY0
>>18377006Not long. Their economy was already fucked due to their obsession with slave run agriculture, the one hope they'd have had would have been cotton sales to Europe, who had just gone full abolitionist a few years earlier. Even if it had worked the structure of a slave based economy concentrates money at the top - creating a vast number of people who aren't slaves but are kept poor as fuck so that the elites can be wealthy. That gap between rich and poor, and the failing economy, would have lead to a white revolution within a generation, even if they could manage to control their large and increasingly hard to control slave population. Best case scenario it has some kind of socialist revolution and becomes a banana republic shithole by the dawn of the 20th century, assuming it didn't just get conquered by the Union states as soon as they could find a few non-retarded generals.
>>18377006Are there any good neutral books on confederates?
>>18380858Nope. They're all either 'LOOK AT THESE EVIL RACIST HICKS!!!!!!' or 'The South Will Rise Again!'.
>>18380863>The South Will Rise Again!'.If they are reliable and backed by sources can I see a few?
>>18380867>If they are reliable and backed by sourcesThat's the rub, isn't it.
>>18377006The Confederate States of America had no chance of winning the American Civil War, but if they did, they would rely heavily on slavery. The speaches of Alexander H. Stevens make it clear that they planned to have an economic system different than the United States. Based on this, I would predict they last another 20 or so years after the civil War but economic collapse causes it to crumble.
>>18379272The Southern states are still around tho.>>18379166True, they are much more advanced.
>>18377176>poor Whites would joinhave revolts by slaves ever consisted of two more racial groups both in similar number?this feels like a socialist fantasy.poor people are often more racist.
