South secedes and eventually goes bankrupt from trying to sustain a slave-based economy and crawls back to the Union

>South secedes and eventually goes bankrupt from trying to sustain a slave-based economy and crawls back to the Union.

>South secedes and slave uprisings ultimately force them to abolish slavery and shift their economy to something more sustainable.

>South secedes and North doesn't have to spend countless lives and money to bring it back into the Union.

So, why did they have a war in the first place?

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.org/stream/cannibalsallorsll00fitz#page/n5/mode/2up
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Seemed like a good idea at the time.

it's literally impossible to go bankrupt from a slave economy selling cash crops

Your nation will remain a shitty place though.

Like Cash crop prices fluctuate, pests and climate., very small skilled worker base of educated population that isn't small. No other industry and anyone trying to compete with any business with slaves will either fail or barely do well.

Was the civil war one big JUST for the south?

Are we just Meme-ing our favourite suppositions?

God knows the South deserved to lose, but this is fucking stupid. Get your head out your behind.

I'm curious as to what would have happened to the confederacy as it became increasingly clear that their options were industrialize or die. What would they do to their black population when they no longer needed them as slaves?

...

>South secedes and slave uprisings ultimately force them to abolish slavery and shift their economy to something more sustainable.
There was a possibility the South wouldn't join the Union after this or it would set a precedent where States can nullify federal legislation.

The South was fighting for (the short term continuation of) slavery but the North was fighting to preserve the Union. I think this is an important distinction and a more balanced view. The mainstream view of course is that the South was willing to commit "treason" at Sumpter to protect slavery and dragged the North into war, that was certainly the spark, but not how the powderkeg got there in the first place.

depressing, but probably true

I'd say seceding in the first place was the fucking powerderkeg. There was absolutely no chance Lincoln wouldn't declare war.

>South secedes and successfully builds a slavery based industrial economy, eventually conquering most of Latin America.

major extremely dumb assumptions behind most of the posts here:
Industrial slavery can't exist
Southern slavery wasn't economically viable even as it existed-see Time on the Cross
Human beings fight for purely rational reasons
The North wasn't motivated primarily by preserving the power of the American state.

>Industrial slavery can't exist

Why not?

>What would they do to their black population when they no longer needed them as slaves?

Hitler memes aside I think they probably would've replaced slavery with some sort of proto-Apartheid arrangement if they'd won independence, i.e. "whites get paid more and managerial/technical/professional occupations are reserved for whites".

>Industrial slavery can't exist

IIRC Southerners were afraid that slaves working in manufacturing would be more likely to organise and rebel, and that they were best working on plantations

>Southern slavery wasn't economically viable even as it existed-see Time on the Cross

According to Wikipedia, Time on the Cross claimed slavery was economically viable

here's your (You)

> What would they do to their black population when they no longer needed them as slaves?

They'd continue to use them as slaves, as it was vital to the core of their hypothetical country. It's not like slavery is this unheard of thing in the late 19th or even 20th century.

It can, i was saying that assumption is dumb.
could be but IIRC Calhoun was already contemplating the notion decades before the war.
precisely.

More accurate than you'd think. The Confederacy planned to conquer Mexico, colonize it, and turn it into a giant slave plantation, similar to Germany's plans for Eastern Europe

>probably would've replaced slavery with some sort of proto-Apartheid arrangement if they'd won independence,
tfw you realize that happened anyway.

>Southerners were afraid that slaves working in manufacturing would be more likely to organise and rebel
Well they probably would, since they'd be concentrated in larger numbers than usual

I'm replying to a dumb "why'd you have to have a civil war" thread

This fuckers never learn. Hispanics are fucking lunatics. Napoleon shat blood trying to keep Spain and Mexicans are more brutal than the Spanish.

Reason.

Lincoln's Autism

Americans conquered mexico in1846 you know...

I love your books, Mr. Turtledove

Lincoln was the Bernie Sanders of 1861, nobody thought he would actually declare war.

From an economic perspective slavery was still doing fine in the 1860's, which is why the sharecropping that developed after the war was so similar. Hell, the reason industry wasn't developing in the South was because it was always more profitable for investors to just put more money into agriculture than in nascent industry. Obviously it would cause a problem if, say, they had to fight the half of the country that processed the raw material, but that's not something people tend to base their economies around. In all likelihood if it was actually becoming burdensome they'd just abandon it like most things that are obsolete.

>South secedes and eventually goes bankrupt from trying to sustain a slave-based economy and crawls back to the Union.

You mean the north enforcing a complete embargo that the former trade partners (France, and Britain) were unwilling to break, lest things get more complicated. Russia was already supporting the Union, Britain managed to get cotton elsewhere and France couldn't do shit without Britain's help.

>Time on the cross
user that book has been torn apart for years. Try some more contemporary scholarship

I think it is more likely that technology would have just made slavery obsolete and prohibitively expensive to maintain.

Lincoln committed treason by nullifying due process, which he had no authority to do.

The president is allowed to do anything in his power to preserve the Union in a time of crisis. Did you not take US Government in highschool?

Not in 1861. there are/were procedures in place for declaring martial law, but Lincoln did not comply with them. His actions were criminal.

secession was required for industrialization. does no one here understand economics?

you just pulled that out of your ass

Is there any undeniable evidence that the Civil War was not about slavery?

Has the gov't painted the south in a bad light?

no

there IS revisionist tripe, created via bullshit artistry. They typically stick to claiming the North didn't care about slavery (mainly quoting bits of Lincoln's early war letters, out of context), rather than claim the south didn't... mainly because the South had enshrined slavery as a constitutional right, so claiming they didn't care either way is a little difficult (usually its claiming that that was just an extension of preserving a way of life (built on slavery), or via dodging it by claiming slavery was actually good or that the southerners would have gotten rid of it after the war (both bullshit).

>what is: any modern Caribbean nation

Cash crops are shit. Enjoy your soil depletion + tying your entire economy around high margin agricultural products + being bullied by industrial powers who see your cash crops as valuable trade goods for their own economic interests as happened with China.

There is literally no good reason not to diversify your economy. None. Trying to lock yourself into a rapidly outdating anachronism based on deluded neo-feudalism fantasies produced only the expected result in the end.

actually he did, Article 1, Section 9 of the constitution states:

>The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

the civil war was about more than just slavery, but slavery was by far the most important issue

really the best way to put it is that the civil war happened because the southern states wanted to be able to legislate slavery on a state by state basis and not have it abolished at the demand on free states, no matter how large a percentage of the population they were. Tied into this as well was the idea that if a state didn't like the direction the country was going in they could simply break off (or atleast threaten to) and form their own. Which was why the election of Lincoln was the spark for secession, the republican party had in their platform that they were committed to the eventual abolition of slavery as a long term goal.

If you go read South Carolina's declaration of secession (simply because they were the first state to break away) they give two specific reasons for wanting to form their own country.

1. America has elected a president who is committed to eventually ending slavery, this is unacceptable as south carolina will always be a slave state

2. free states are not enforcing the fugitive slave act and the federal government knows about it but is not doing anything to crack down on it

>out of context
Well, the Emancipation Proclamation does only specify "states in rebellion"

Because the south engaged in military action against a federal holding

>slave uprisings

conditions were too good

>eventually goes bankrupt

from all the free labor?

>Cash crops are shit

did you know high margins are a good thing?

probably something akin to Liberia, except better.

>Industrial slavery

what is capitalism

jk tho

>Human beings fight for purely rational reasons

you are retarded and have probably never been in a brawl

>fire warning shots and accept surrender
>CASUS BELLI!!!!!!!

Lincoln was a fag.

Except that Segregation already happened you retard

Apartheid would have been if the CSA had decided to move all the blacks into the Black Belt and give that area independence and aid in order to allow them to develop as a separate nation-state, with the understanding that that state would generally be dominated by the CSA which would become a near-homogenously white ethno-state.

But Apartheid South Africa and the CSA aren't equivalent to each other anyway, all the black slaves more or less spoke English and were Baptist Christians by the time slavery was abolished hence why they were able to live with them to some degree whereas Apartheid was a necessity because South Africa is a dozen different major linguistic groups, religions and cultures nominally under the domination of major industrial cities populated by whites, who in turn were divided into several religious and linguistic groups with the Afrikaners being more numerous but the British being better off economically and more dominant in the government, with Anglicized Afrikaners like Jan Smuts dominating the prime ministership during much of the pre-Apartheid era.

Considering that an independent South wouldn't have had the problem of the North propping up blacks to elect Republican governments and the need for a white supremacist KKK to re-establish power in the hands of the planter class you may have even had semi-Brazilianization of the South with the lower classes being blacker and the upper classes being whiter due to lax laws regarding interracial relationships and interactions.

>Haiti

Because they attacked a Federal Fort.

TIL North Korea has a sound financial basis.

>conditions were too good

Socialism was becoming a thing

>eventually goes bankrupt

The

>take literally no casualties, surrender accepted without issue
>welp better kill off 1 in 5 American men

fuck Lincoln, what a moron.

McClellan was the true king pimp of the Republic.

>Warning shots
>For twelve hours

>just castrate all of the slaves
Why didn't they do this?

They went bankrupt because they genocided all of the whites who knew how to contribute to a functioning economy.

that's the joke

they weren't arabs

I'd laugh, if there weren't lost cause faggots actually defending that shit

the south will rise again

This Southerners had an English heritage in regards to how they treated their slaves. Colonial and American slaves had much better treatment from their masters than slaves in French and Latin American colonies. American slave owners even took their slaves to church to hear the Gospel.

...

Yet prices fluctuate and you have to compete with other nations with bigger output and conditions

It's because of the debt to pay France though and trying to grow out of an economy that was based off one thing solely and nothing else.

Importation of slaves was banned. The south RELIED on natural population growth of slaves. Except for a few of the sugar regions in southern Louisiana, the slave population grew faster than it was worked to death, unlike most Carribbean sugar islands or other slave economies, which relied on constant importation of slaves. Moreover, castration before modern antiseptics had a not insignificant death rate, which would cut into the labor supply even more. A much smaller labor supply may be ok when you're mostly going for a few house slaves, but now when you need a whose-sale agricultural labor force. Finally, although house slaves and domestic servants were certainly common in America most slave labor involved back-breaking agricultural work requiring brute strength and stamina, not palace eunuch jobs, and so that testosterone was actually needed.

The war that decided whether the United or States part of the USA would be emphasized.
If the CSA won its independence then it would only be a regional power but the point was that the south was fighting to be a union of independent states whilst because the north won, it became a Union. (And slavery plays into it)
The CSA would never have go back to the union.
Tbqh the reason racism is still prominent in the south is because equality was forced. The same applies to abortion with roe vs wade. If states resolved it in their own time, we wouldn't have to put up with this debate every fucking election.
CSA should have won.
The USA failed with Lincoln and FDR. Its now the United State.

Your post and pic work ironically well together

Fuck, I lol'd.

Everyone here is only giving economic reasons for secession, but secession was primarily motivated by an actual slaveholding ideology. No one likes to talk about it these days, but people don't like to think of themselves as the bad guys and they had to come up with reasons for why slavery was a good thing. Yes slavery was how they made their money, but it went far beyond that.

Many plantations were not that rich unless you counted the money invested in the black slaves they held ($1,000 to $1,500 for adults and half that for kids, while the average laborer could expect $8-11/month), which makes no sense if your primary goal for putting a system in place is to simply make money. Instead, as Northern States began to abolish slavery and slavery expanded into the Deep South the founders' position on slavery as a justly dying phenomenon had to be reversed in order to justify taking it West. They came up with tons of excuses:
>Slavery is good for the Negro because the Negro is naturally lazy and couldn't survive on his own, so the master benevolently takes care of them like stupid overgrown children, saving society from that burden
>Slavery is good for poor whites who don't have to compete with the Negro for wages (despite the fact that the poor white had to, in reality, compete with a black slave who got paid nothing, certainly cheaper than a poor farmer could do)
>Slavery is good for the republic because it keeps the unintelligent Negro away from the ballot, where he could be tempted by wily politicians and endanger democracy

Etc. etc. All of it was pretty flimsy stuff t-b-h, unsubstantiated and often contradictory. But they very much believed slavery and slaveholding was not just a moral system, it was THE moral system. This shaped their sudden 1861 decision to ultimately risk it all on the off chance that someday the US might abolish slavery because Lincoln closed the territories to slavery and free states would outnumber slave states in the Senate.

They marched into the capital and left it after a few weeks. Try holding the place down for several years.

Because when your child is acting like a little shit its your duty as a parent to slap him back in line.

>south secedes and eventually throws away the outdated farm equipment

see: wealthy, powerholding white plantation owners sought to preserve their political power

Slavely was the form of that power

archive.org/stream/cannibalsallorsll00fitz#page/n5/mode/2up

I've linked this a couple times before, but if anybody is actually interested in what form the 19th century reactionary movement took in the US this is it.

Slavery is a positive good.

19 out of every 20 people would be better off as slaves.

Turtledove was originally gonna turn the United States into a psuedo-theocratic version of the Third Reich (presumably with the Mormons suffering the genocidal fate of the Jews in OTL and blacks in the actual series. But his publisher didn't like it, so he killed off Gordon McSweeney and created the Confederate Jake Featherston to take his place.

>You will never spend your middle school years reading about the Confederacy struggling to resolve it's racial conflict while under the devastating onslaught of Nazified Yankee Puritans, with Southern blacks and whites finally finding the moral strength to do so after discovering the horrors of the United States of America's "Final Solution to the Mormon Question".

Feels bad man.

The first and last one are true though...

t. modern Africa and the Democratic Party

Hello Pot meet ketthe. I'm sure you'll get along.