Could the CSA have successfully annexed the USA, or at least, become a world power in its own right?

>Could the CSA have successfully annexed the USA
Not a chance. The population of the USA as well as its industrial base was so overwhelming the CSA could never have won an offensive war, only a defensive one at best.
>or at least, become a world power in its own right?
No. Slave based extraction economies are never successful long term. The CSA would be about as successful as South American shitholes.

delete this.

Imagine a Confederate-controlled Caribbean...

Attached: 1468959625666.jpg (523x409, 41K)

But they could've also reformed their economy (eventually) and considering in the Civil War, there's little mentioned independence movements of California and even a proposed 'Midwestern Confederacy' I'd say the USA's national unity would be shaken, to the point where it may see some additional losses.

Annexing the USA was the exact opposite of what they were trying to do you idiot.

It would be a nigger shithole so the same as today.

>But they could've also reformed their economy (eventually)
They would not. They may have eventually dropped slavery, but like SA countries showed the transition from extraction economy to manufacturing economy just doesn't happen quickly enough in a country controlled by a small, wealthy plantation elite.
>I'd say the USA's national unity would be shaken, to the point where it may see some additional losses.
None of that would make the CSA a world power nor make them capable of taking over the USA.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Walker_(filibuster)

>Could the CSA have successfully annexed the USA

No, and that was never the plan. Confederate soldiers nearly threw a riot when they were ordered to invade Maryland in 1862 because they thought of it as an act of aggression.

>or at least, become a world power in its own right?

Maybe, but it would take a radical change in leadership and at least a century to even come close to catching up to the United States in terms of industrial capacity.

Maybe the South could've caught up enough by the 1940s to be considered one of the "Big Four" (or in this case, Big Five) Allied Powers of WWII and save pregnant Anne Frank. But even then, that's a stretch.

t. Southerner

Attached: 1515631645356.jpg (2048x1511, 2.44M)

>Tehehe what a subversive and ingenious farce! We will surely ruse those poor southerners *wheeze wheeze* by point out how racist *wheeze wheeze* society would have been if they won
>Boy! are we not so progressive and liberal my fellows!? Surely those darn dixieites must be spinning looking at our big northern brains.

Typical uneducated buffoonish Yanks. Why the hell would the South want to conquer the north? The CSA was about the Southern nation. It was only ever the North that wanted to conquer the south.

I don't know much about the American CW, and i want to ask why did the CSA chose Richmond as its Capital? Isn't it too close to Washington D.C.?

The original capital was Montgomery, Alabama. They moved it around a bunch in the first few months as new states joined.

Richmond was probably chosen because Virginia was literally the industrial heart of the Confederacy. It had the most factories, largest ports, and most mileage of railroads of any Southern state. Not to mention the Confederacy's greatest generals were Virginian.

Attached: Alexander_Gardner_-_1865_-_Tredegar_(Detail_of_iron_works).jpg (2904x2204, 2.32M)

Their economy was in the shitter halfway through the war. If they "won" then it was only a matter of time before they became a failed state anyway.

They weren't even able to win what we all acknowledge was a defensive war.

Given 150 years of peace the South still hasn't managed to compete with the North in basically anything. They don't even lead in agriculture anymore, despite being closer to the sources of dirt-cheap migrant labor. That place is held by the Upper MW and possibly California; correct me if I'm wrong. I think it is fair to say that even if they rigged the rules in their favor they would find themselves once again in the economic jaws of the North, if the North did not outright rebel.

Wasn't DC a southern city? Any chance of a victorious CSA taking DC with it and thus using it for ceremonial uses?

At the time the Confederates didn't. Under different circumstances though a reverse unionist faction could've formed, especially in states like Tennessee and Virginia. People interested in reuniting the nation but under the Confederate government. Probably justify it as liberating tyrannical lands and restoring the Founding Fathers' vision for the nation or something.

Honestly if you want a CSA: Confederate States of America scenario you'd be better off having the North secede and the South bring them back in.

The CSA would have been a bizarre country when you think about it. Basically an agrarian slave-based economy at a time when slave-powered agriculture is becoming obsolete. After fighting a war mostly to preserve the institution (inb4 dixieboo replies), the South would have been unwilling to give up the institution even as it became impractical and international opinion turned against them. Brazil gave up slavery in 1881 following international pressure, I'd say the CSA would have kept it even longer (probably not into the 20th century though). ~40% of the population would either be slaves or second class citizens and the potential for slave rebellions as consciousness of their situation grows due to international pressure and a free republic to the north would be great. Mix that with a completely backwards economy and you have probably a collossal failure. I'm not of the opinion that Southerners need to be ashamed of the Confederacy, but I don't really see any way it could have worked unless they abolished slavery and began some industrialisation within a couple decades.

DC existed and still exists outside of regional division. It's like Brasilia in Brazil.

So even in case of a CSA victory that allowed them their independence, they would have been stuck with a massive slave population and 2 bordering countries with every possible incentive to support an eventual slave uprising in addition to a dysfunctional economy that was 2 decades away from collapsing at best

sounds like the recipe for success to me

It really depends on when in the war a theoretical CSA victory happens. The longer the war went on the wearier of slavery southerners got which is why the focus began to change towards a southern nationalism that funny enough didn't take root until after the war already ended. The CSA also wanted to be accepted badly by Britain and France so ending slavery would've had more appeal to get on their good side. The actual economy probably would've stayed mostly agrarian though with some push to start slowly adding industry into the larger cities and it likely would have lagged behind the north in that regard. It would've also focused on befriending Mexico and Brazil more than it would have the north so you might've seen a friendship blossom between the three.

The CSA got along with Emperor Maximilian of Mexico and he wanted an alliance with the CSA but France blocked him on that. If the CSA won they might've intervened to keep him in power against the republicans in Mexico.

no, the uprising would be massive
plus the whole point of secession was to get away from northern voters

Attached: confederate empire.png (4972x2517, 840K)

Not in a million years. It had no industry whatsoever (and didn't really have the capacity to industrialize) and if they kept up the whole slavery thing they'd be shunned by the international community. If they tried to be their own country they'd end up poor as shit

wouldn't that have given the USA the perfect excuse to also join the war in full in the hopes of reannexing the confederates?

Beautiful...

>Confederate Empire

Attached: KGC.jpg (800x509, 90K)

Probably since the north favored the republicans while the south favored the imperialists. Same story with Brazil and it's monarchy for the most part. The south liked Pedro II more than the north.

>confederates supported monarchies

Could we have seen a Confederate Kang?

>The CSA having the power projection to intervene in Mexico after the Civil War
Hahahahahahahaha

>The CSA befriending the republican government of Mexico.
>Britain recognizingThe CSA at all.

Admit it, you separatist fags; your shitty "nation" would have failed one way or another.

The Knights of the Golden Circle considered making Emperor Maximilian the leader of an empire that stretched from Virginia down to northern South America but by the time the CSA was around I don't think there were any monarchist talks.

My ancestors were southern unionists so your insults don't mean anything to me. The point of the thread is what would the CSA have done in a theoretical victory. Emperor Maximilian wasn't overthrown until two years after the Civil War and the CSA would've intervened on his behalf against Juarez even if it was just a small force led by a wild card like Forrest. As for the British they were considering aiding the CSA until the loss at Gettysburg. If the Confederates won that battle British intervention on behalf of the south wouldn't have been impossible. As for whether the CSA would've collapsed or not would've been largely dependent on who became Davis's successor and if that person could get the aristocrats to accept at least some reforms.

Only been that way since after the civil war.
>what was the American Revolution
>what is guerilla warfare and why did Edward Pollard advocated for it right after?
Proven false decades ago. Slavery was very economically viable.

No way they could have successfully annexed the USA. Maybe they could retain their independence for a while, but I reckon that, even if they won the Civil War, they'd be invaded again by the US later on.
And it would be completely impossible for them to become a world power with the USA breathing down its neck. Even if the US wouldn't attack it, the CSA would have to undergo serious reforms to become a world power, though the US realistically wouldn't have tolerated competition that close to home.

>The point of the thread is what would the CSA have done in a theoretical victory.
Collapse, nothing more, nothing less.

>Emperor Maximilian wasn't overthrown until two years after the Civil War and the CSA would've intervened on his behalf against Juarez even if it was just a small force led by a wild card like Forrest.
The second greatest military machine in the world couldn't pacify Mexico, but obviously a bunch of american traitors would be able to.

>If the Confederates won that battle British intervention on behalf of the south wouldn't have been impossible.
Why would the british risk their skin/credibility for a nation that still supports slavery (and that has nothing of value to offer them)? Keep dreaming.

>what is guerilla warfare and why did Edward Pollard advocated for it right after?
Because he didn't give a fuck about reality or southerners' quality of life?

>what was the American Revolution
>what was French and Spanish substantial support
kys, lad.

I take it you've never been to Mexico.

But as for the main question, probably not. Slavery was in its way out and the CSA lacked the massive industrial capability of the US. I think it's likely the CSA would have been forced back into the US by the early 20th century.

>Only been that way since after the civil war.
Nope.

>"Contrary to depictions off the slave South as a prosperous economy devastated by war and abolition, these essays locate the root of postebellum regional backwardness firmly in the antebellum era. That era was indeed prosperous for the slaveowners. But if we evaluate regional performance using a consistent measuring rod appropriate for a free society, such as the value of non-slave wealth per capita, we find levels in the South just over a third those of in the free states."

>"From this perspective, the post-War North-South disparity of roughly two-to-one in per capita income, a persistent feature of the U.S. economy between the Civil War and World War II, was basically consistent with prewar patterns."

Gavin Wright - Slavery and American Economic Development

See also
www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/CT1970p1-07.pdf

>Table 4
>Median Income by Region for 1840 and 1860 (in 1860 prices).

>National Average: $96 (1840) $128 (1860)
>North [in general]: $109 (1840) $141 (1860)
>Northeast: $129 (1840) 181 ($1860)
>South [in general]: $74 (1840) $103 (1860)
>South Atlantic $66 (1840) $84 (1860)
>East South Central $69 (1840) $89 (1860)
>West South Central $151 (1840) $184 (1860)

Attached: southerners.jpg (3060x2340, 2.41M)

>I take it you've never been to Mexico.
You can literally just calculate the HDI of, say, Arkansas with publicly available data. It's less than that of Mexico.

Attached: hdicalculation.png (550x413, 152K)

Cletus BTFO

Attached: f57fqmI.png (1221x764, 30K)

>substantial support
lmao
>what is cost of living differences
>relying on income numbers alone
>source straight up says post-war disparity which actually backs up my point
Entire argument falls apart just like that. Just look at how California is going to the shitter desipte its high cost of living while the relatively cheap South is prospering.
I was also referring to crime when responding to so you missed the point.
Slavery was economically viable, the entire south relied on it. The slave ownership estimates only account for acutal and not overseers or those serving on slave patrols or those who rented slaves. And lmfao at using the Census as a source, the same people who say whites are giong to become a minority in the near future even though it's been debunked.
Read pic related, completely disprives all the old myths (rooted in lost cause revisionism) about slavery not being economically beneficial

Attached: 705406._UY630_SR1200,630_.jpg (1200x630, 82K)

>Collapse, nothing more, nothing less.
Maybe, maybe not. Not that you're giving any legitimate arguments as to why not. Even the more stubborn Confederates were slowly starting to admit that reforms would be needed and the CSA couldn't operate the way originally envisioned at the start of secession.

>The second greatest military machine in the world couldn't pacify Mexico
France basically abandoned Maximilian to his fate and didn't really try to stop the republicans. In fact the union were the ones trying to pressure France into abandoning Maximilian plus they were arming Juarez. In a CSA victory Napoleon III might've been more willing to send more aid since he wouldn't have seen a stronger French sphere of influence in the new world as pointless. Would this have saved Maximilian? Maybe, maybe not. It is known however a major reason for French withdrawal was France seeking to improve relations with the US. That incentive might've been less enticing with a southern victory.

>British
The British had plenty to gain from a CSA victory even with their desire for southern cotton gone. Northern industry needed cheap agricultural products from the south for it's growth. If the CSA was independent that'd put a huge dent in the speed of growth the northern states were experiencing. This would continue to guarantee British domination in the markets by weakening a potential trade rival. Britain didn't exactly care much for a strong US and a surviving CSA could've played a role in hindering that.

Income? Seriously? Just look at the high income high cost of living liberal shitholes we have today and tell me that's reflected in their overall living standards compared elsewhere with lower income. Southerners had high life expectancy than yanks.
Was going to post this book. Here's the bit on life expectancy.
U.S. White – 40
England and Wales, 1838-1856 – 40
Holland, 1850-1860 – 36
France, 1854-58 – 36
U.S. Slave – 36
Italy, 1885 – 35
Austria, 1875 – 31
Chile, 1920 – 31
Manchester, England, 1831 – 24
New York, Boston, and Philadelphia, 1830 – 24

>Just look at the high income high cost of living liberal shitholes we have today and tell me that's reflected in their overall living standards compared elsewhere with lower income
It is. Every single state with a high HDI and high life expectancy in the U.S. is a blue state. Except Utah and Colorado.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_life_expectancy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_American_Human_Development_Index

M8 income is about the worst metric you can use. Lol at trying to push long discredited narratives.
>The new economic history originated in 1958 with The Economics of Slavery in the Antebellum South by American economists Alfred H. Conrad and John R. Meyer, which caused a firestorm of controversy with its claim, based on statistical data, that slavery, being economically efficient and highly profitable for slaves owners, would not have ended in the absence of the U.S. Civil War.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliometrics#cite_ref-8

>>source straight up says post-war disparity which actually backs up my point
It mentions the "post-war disparity" as a myth specifically to say that the 'disparity' was exactly the same pre-war. Are you even literate?
>Just look at how California is going to the shitter desipte its high cost of living while the relatively cheap South is prospering
The South is a million times shittier than California by every objective metric, what are you talking about?
>And lmfao at using the Census as a source
if government data can't be used what can, southernpride.com?

Attached: usstatescomparison.jpg (3800x1508, 952K)

First link:
Breaks it down by race, shows niggers in Cali not having as high of life expectancy as other states. Cali also has more Asians and illegal spics who shouldn't count. Solid blue states are in decline too as seen by a lot of people leaving.
newgeography.com/content/003584-california-a-world-hurt
Second link:
Those states listed in the top five are not solid blue states, Mass has a Republican governor right now for example. It shows California having had a decline.

Read: or this

>Cali also has more Asians and illegal spics who shouldn't count
Why shouldn't Asians count other than you being an inbred? You don't get to exclude 15-20% of the population of California because you don't like them.
>Those states listed in the top five are not solid blue states, Mass has a Republican governor
That's a retarded metric. By this logic West Virginia, Montana, and aren't red states.
>Solid blue states are in decline too as seen by a lot of people leaving
Literally the opposite, the people moving out of blue states are mostly below the poverty line while the ones coming in are upper middle class.
sacbee.com/news/state/california/article136478098.html

>The South is a million times shittier than California by every objective metric, what are you talking about?
California has by far the most impoverished people of any state.
And the South is the fasting growing region of the country.
forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2013/01/31/how-the-south-will-rise-to-power-again/#1c375b535b86

>lmao
?

>Even the more stubborn Confederates were slowly starting to admit that reforms would be needed and the CSA couldn't operate the way originally envisioned at the start of secession.
Means jack shit; the ones you have to convince are the members of the elite, and they sure as hell aren't going to change; hell, their idiocy contributed to the CSA defeat.

>France basically abandoned Maximilian to his fate and didn't really try to stop the republicans.
Those first years were a prank i suppose?

>In fact the union were the ones trying to pressure France into abandoning Maximilian plus they were arming Juarez. In a CSA victory Napoleon III might've been more willing to send more aid since he wouldn't have seen a stronger French sphere of influence in the new world as pointless.
The Union won't stop supporting the republican government, that's for sure. The French were already highly committed to the war (it was costing them a shitton of money) and Maximilian (that poor idealist) wasn't even willing to become a complete french puppet.

If the CSA tries to intervene, the Emperor is going to lose all (and i mean all) of his mexican supporters (conservatives may hate the liberal Indian dwarf, but they hate americans way way more).

Also, France eventually has to face the new European power (Prussia); their troops can't stay forever in Mexico.

>The British had plenty to gain from a CSA victory even with their desire for southern cotton gone.
The British have little to gain from an expansionist power with dreams of Caribbean and American Conquests

>Northern industry needed cheap agricultural products from the south for it's growth. If the CSA was independent that'd put a huge dent in the speed of growth the northern states were experiencing.
And vice versa; a trade war would completely collapse (whatever remains of) the CSA economy.

>and
*Louisiana

>South is prospering
Well not really. South isn't a homogenous region, so you have part that are prospering such as DFW, Austin, Atlanta metro and Nashville, but this is literally all because of transplants from the north who bring money with them. Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, those are as shitty as ever.

I didn't say Asians don't count I said illegal spics don't count.
>That's a retarded metric. By this logic West Virginia, Montana, and aren't red states.
They're not, they're purple
>Literally the opposite, the people moving out of blue states are mostly below the poverty line while the ones coming in are upper middle class.
lol yeah after being impoverished by shit taxes and ineffective spending. Rich people are statistitically insignificant since they're the few who can afford to live there.

>California has by far the most impoverished people of any state.
Because California has the most people of any state period. And also among the highest incomes, life expectancy, and HDI.
>And the South is the fasting growing region of the country.
By which you mean the blue islands in the south are the fastest growing region of the country. The parts of the south gaining are places like Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta, full of blacks and Hispanics and Democrats, not Beewood, Bumblefuck, Nowhere.

Nigger infested places don't count as places the same way niggers don't count as people.

West Virginia, Kentucky, and Arkansas all have lower black populations than the national average and are the poorest parts of the South besides Mississippi. Meanwhile the richest parts of the south, if they're counted, are northern Virginia and Maryland, both of which are around 40% black.

And yet the shit state can't fix any problems so people are exodusing out of there.
>And also among the highest incomes, life expectancy, and HDI.
Already disproven just like how the North wasn't that great.
>By which you mean the blue islands in the south are the fastest growing region of the country
Nope
washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/12/23/red-states-keep-growing-faster-than-blue-states/?utm_term=.1403630eccd1
see:

>he again uses income as the sole metric
>northern Virginia and Maryland, both of which are around 40% black.
What makse you think the niggers there are wealthy like whites? lol retard

West Virginia is not southern.
t. West Virginian

Very unlikely, only a perfect storm of random events could weaken the Unionists enough for the Confederacy to overcome them.

Without new england america would have never prospered as a nation

Wait, Israel is a territory but Long Island is the jewish reservation?

>government data
Fucking shill

Early on sure. But since the early 19th century New York and Philadelphia were already much more important than New England, and then the industrial base shifted to the Midwest.

Bumfuck, sister-raping, redneck IQ everyone. You mom fuckers really are the most retarded shitfucks in the nation.

You can look up the GDP of Arkansas, it's much higher than Mexicos.

If the south is a million times shittier than California, why are so many Californians moving to Texas and North Carolina and not the opposite?

Attached: ct.png (1073x244, 9K)

>If the south is a million times shittier than California, why are so many Californians moving to Texas and North Carolina and not the opposite?
Because these places are finally livable thanks to modern insulation and air conditioning, so liberals in pricey areas can take their liberal values and move to states with dirt cheap property values. It's literally a mass migration infusing fresh liberal blood into exhausted conservative shithole states and turning them into actually nice places to live

North Carolina is already considered a swing state, and Donald Trump won Texas by a smaller margin than Mitt Romney or George W. Bush.

>what was the american revolution
i dont remember george washington and the contintental army taking London

>poor country in huge debt to foreign european powers trying to annex territory from same european powers
because that worked out so well for saddam right?

it was the only easy part of their "country" that they could somewhat defend considering that they had no naval supremacy

>dixieboos unironically think they deserve to be on the same level as apartheid south africa and rhodesia
fucking disgraceful to compare your kike mutt empire to them

Attached: 1516473700457.jpg (960x720, 125K)

>my ancestors

Attached: 1518571015026.jpg (988x1052, 197K)

>Fastest growing
africa is the fastest growing continent by your definition but its obviously not the best

Everything of relevance in the CSA was in northern Virginia, including almost literally all of its industry.

Obviously different when grown is driven my donestic migration and relocating business not malthusean population grown.

see
You're literally being bred out of your own states and all you can do is cheer like the good little cuck you are

Euro holdings in the Caribbean were worthless in fact were actually detriments to imperial budgets by the 19th century. If you read "The English in the West Indies" you'll find that the general mood in the colonies was that they should be given to America / sold to America because the empires didn't care about them anymore and didn't want to develop them. Many local Europeans were keen on the idea and some Americans Froude talks to were also open to it. It could have happened

Yeah the CSA had an actual chance of surviving. Apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia had 0.

>i have no argument so i'll just scream N-NIGGERS that always works on /pol/

>It is. Every single state with a high HDI and high life expectancy in the U.S. is a blue state. Except Utah and Colorado.
And Puerto Rico i above most of them lol

>FUCKING INBREDS CAN"T COMPETE
>WHY SHOULDN"T I COMPARE YOUR IMPOVERISHED BLACKS TO MY IMPORTED H!B ASIANS
I'm from CA and just lol

South produced Washington, Jefferson, Poe, Madison, etc
le ebin based rhoedesia has produced nothing of note

>It's literally a mass migration infusing fresh liberal blood into exhausted conservative shithole states and turning them into actually nice places to live
The liberal places are so nice that they're leaving kek
>North Carolina is already considered a swing state, and Donald Trump won Texas by a smaller margin than Mitt Romney or George W. Bush.
What does that have to do with your brainlet bourgeois "elites?" It has more to do with importing foreign serfs

>West Virginia, Kentucky, and Arkansas all have lower black populations than the national average
And iq averages above the national average, and therefore more potential than the average. This has more to do with economic circumstances than anything,
>Virginia and MA
What is your point? They're better developed states, that has nothing to do with the black population.California has a better economy than WV, yet genetically we are undoubtedly inferior, as IQ tests have proven.

Would have never happened. Being of Anglo heritage, Americans at the time were very obsessed with racial purity; Americans recoiled at the idea of annexing Cuba during the Spanish-American War because it would have introduced a huge population of Negros to the country. They would have most likely felt the same way if any of the European powers wanted to sell their islands to the US.