If the South had Won ...

[Toro]

... the Civil War, what do you think would have happened?

Would there be two countries today? Would there have been a reunion later? How do you think the history of the United States would have evolved?

 

[Luissa]

that they would have been screwed for awhile but probably recovered. They grew the cotton but didn't have any way to process it. SOme of the slaves would have left but I don't think many because they would have had to start paying them better to stick around.
I also think the north would have gone after them again and the fighting would have continued for years.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's difficult to say. They could possibly have come to the conclusion that being a part of the Union was better than independence and tried to rejoin, perhaps the remaining U.S. states would have decided to join the Confederacy, or perhaps they would have come together again and formed something entirely new.

I personally think the two would likely have remained separate, because there is obviously a disconnect between northern and southern political philosophy. However, I think the two would be allies and trade partners now.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

They grew the cotton but didn't have any way to process it.

What?

The Cotton Gin was used primarily in the South. The processed, baled cotton was then sold to textile mills in Europe and the North, for weaving into cloth.

After you gin the cotton and make the bales, the "processing" is over, that's the final product you sell.

As to what the world would be like today had the South won? There is really no way to speculate about that. The North's illegal invasion sort of made the point moot. I have little doubt however, that the North would have continued a naval blockade, and continued invasions.

 

[Luissa]

the way the system was set up then, neither one could have survived without the other.
Not saying they couldn't have developed the industries to be able to survive but it would have taken years and they would have realized probably quickly that they needed each other.

 

[Luissa]

They grew the cotton but didn't have any way to process it.

What?

The Cotton Gin was used primarily in the South. The processed, baled cotton was then sold to textile mills in Europe and the North, for weaving into cloth.

After you gin the cotton and make the bales, the "processing" is over, that's the final product you sell.

As to what the world would be like today had the South won? There is really no way to speculate about that. The North's illegal invasion sort of made the point moot. I have little doubt however, that the North would have continued a naval blockade, and continued invasions.

sorry I wasn't clear, you pretty much said what I meant.
They had to weave into cloth in order to sale it and most of the cotton goods being shipped out of the US were being shipped out of the north who was controlling the prices.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

They grew the cotton but didn't have any way to process it.

What?

The Cotton Gin was used primarily in the South. The processed, baled cotton was then sold to textile mills in Europe and the North, for weaving into cloth.

After you gin the cotton and make the bales, the "processing" is over, that's the final product you sell.

As to what the world would be like today had the South won? There is really no way to speculate about that. The North's illegal invasion sort of made the point moot. I have little doubt however, that the North would have continued a naval blockade, and continued invasions.

sorry I wasn't clear, you pretty much said what I meant.
They had to weave into cloth in order to sale it and most of the cotton goods being shipped out of the US were being shipped out of the north who was controlling the prices.

No,

They had to harvest, clean and BALE it to sell it TO the textile manufacturers. And Europe was by far the biggest market. The cotton gin revolutionized cotton production.

You are confusing textile processing with cotton processing. Those are two entirely different things.

It's the same as comparing wheat production to making flour or bread.

See?

 

[Luissa]

What?

The Cotton Gin was used primarily in the South. The processed, baled cotton was then sold to textile mills in Europe and the North, for weaving into cloth.

After you gin the cotton and make the bales, the "processing" is over, that's the final product you sell.

As to what the world would be like today had the South won? There is really no way to speculate about that. The North's illegal invasion sort of made the point moot. I have little doubt however, that the North would have continued a naval blockade, and continued invasions.

sorry I wasn't clear, you pretty much said what I meant.
They had to weave into cloth in order to sale it and most of the cotton goods being shipped out of the US were being shipped out of the north who was controlling the prices.

No,

They had to harvest, clean and BALE it to sell it TO the textile manufacturers. And Europe was by far the biggest market. The cotton gin revolutionized cotton production.

You are confusing textile processing with cotton processing. Those are two entirely different things.

It's the same as comparing wheat production to making flour or bread.

See?

but the north was making it impossible for them to trade with Europe and what is good is wheat if are not making it into bread. Do you sit around and eat wheat with your dinner?

 

[Toro]

It's difficult to say. They could possibly have come to the conclusion that being a part of the Union was better than independence and tried to rejoin, perhaps the remaining U.S. states would have decided to join the Confederacy, or perhaps they would have come together again and formed something entirely new.

I personally think the two would likely have remained separate, because there is obviously a disconnect between northern and southern political philosophy. However, I think the two would be allies and trade partners now.

It is almost certain then that the United States would be a diminished global power. Correct?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

sorry I wasn't clear, you pretty much said what I meant.
They had to weave into cloth in order to sale it and most of the cotton goods being shipped out of the US were being shipped out of the north who was controlling the prices.

No,

They had to harvest, clean and BALE it to sell it TO the textile manufacturers. And Europe was by far the biggest market. The cotton gin revolutionized cotton production.

You are confusing textile processing with cotton processing. Those are two entirely different things.

It's the same as comparing wheat production to making flour or bread.

See?

but the north was making it impossible for them to trade with Europe and what is good is wheat if are not making it into bread. Do you sit around and eat wheat with your dinner?

Wheat, and cotton, and tobacco are raw commodities. They are sold as such. Neither requires any additional processing to be sold to those who would use this RAW MATERIAL to make other things, which they then sell. So your statement earlier that the south could not process the cotton is completely invalid. They did process it. But they didn't make sheets, gowns or blankets out of it.

Just man up, say "yeah, you're right" or my personal favorite, "I stand corrected" and move on.

Now,

The Union blockade, had it continued, would not have been tolerated by the British or the French. Tobacco and cotton were in great demand by those two world powers, and had the war gone on much longer they were ready to commit navel forces to stop the blockade. The French had already donated some fast, "blockade buster" ships to the south, trying to keep the trade routes going.

However, the Anaconda Plan was by far the most effective maneuver of the war, probably shortened it drastically.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's difficult to say. They could possibly have come to the conclusion that being a part of the Union was better than independence and tried to rejoin, perhaps the remaining U.S. states would have decided to join the Confederacy, or perhaps they would have come together again and formed something entirely new.

I personally think the two would likely have remained separate, because there is obviously a disconnect between northern and southern political philosophy. However, I think the two would be allies and trade partners now.

It is almost certain then that the United States would be a diminished global power. Correct?

It would have a smaller military so I would certainly say we wouldn't be able to act as the world police at all.

 

[Luissa]

but would have britian been able to do anything? I could be wrong on my dates but weren't they starting to get more involved in the Opium trade in China along with the Opium Wars?

 

[Luissa]

It's difficult to say. They could possibly have come to the conclusion that being a part of the Union was better than independence and tried to rejoin, perhaps the remaining U.S. states would have decided to join the Confederacy, or perhaps they would have come together again and formed something entirely new.

I personally think the two would likely have remained separate, because there is obviously a disconnect between northern and southern political philosophy. However, I think the two would be allies and trade partners now.

It is almost certain then that the United States would be a diminished global power. Correct?

It would have a smaller military so I would certainly say we wouldn't be able to act as the world police at all.

how do you think they would have controlled the west?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

but would have britian been able to do anything? I could be wrong on my dates but weren't they starting to get more involved in the Opium trade in China along with the Opium Wars?

They had by far the largest and most dominant navy on the planet. Followed closely by the French. Had Anaconda not worked so swiftly, the Brits and the French would have gotten involved, to protect their interests.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It is almost certain then that the United States would be a diminished global power. Correct?

It would have a smaller military so I would certainly say we wouldn't be able to act as the world police at all.

how do you think they would have controlled the west?

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[Luissa]

It would have a smaller military so I would certainly say we wouldn't be able to act as the world police at all.

how do you think they would have controlled the west?

I'm not sure what you mean.

If the south would have won, would the Missouri compromise stay in effect? and if didn't you do you think would have controlled most of the west?

 

[Luissa]

but would have britian been able to do anything? I could be wrong on my dates but weren't they starting to get more involved in the Opium trade in China along with the Opium Wars?

They had by far the largest and most dominant navy on the planet. Followed closely by the French. Had Anaconda not worked so swiftly, the Brits and the French would have gotten involved, to protect their interests.

most likely and maybe China would have benefited from that. Britian was kind of leaving us alone to go after other interests.

 

[Luissa]

I do have to say being from washington, we don't have the stigma of what side we chose.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

but would have britian been able to do anything? I could be wrong on my dates but weren't they starting to get more involved in the Opium trade in China along with the Opium Wars?

They had by far the largest and most dominant navy on the planet. Followed closely by the French. Had Anaconda not worked so swiftly, the Brits and the French would have gotten involved, to protect their interests.

most likely and maybe China would have benefited from that. Britian was kind of leaving us alone to go after other interests.

The biggest problem the south had, trade wise besides the blockade, was that Britain didn't yet have a cotton shortage. So they were in no real hurry to help out. The French, that was a different story entirely but neither country ever officially recognized the CSA and neither did a whole lot to help out, overtly.

The US had threatened war with any country who recognized the CSA.

For their part, the south began an embargo, to try to "starve" Britain and France of cotton and tobacco. But the REAL shortage in Europe was for corn, which the north had and the south for the most part didn't. Thus it is said that "King Corn" defeated "King Cotton" in the civil war.

However, had it gone on another couple of years or so, France and Britain would have been compelled to help out.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

how do you think they would have controlled the west?

I'm not sure what you mean.

If the south would have won, would the Missouri compromise stay in effect? and if didn't you do you think would have controlled most of the west?

Interesting question, I've never given it much thought.

I don't see how the Missouri Compromise could have stayed in effect or why it would have needed to. Prominent Confederates Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee believed that slavery was on its way out in the Confederacy just based on the fact that their economy was evolving and slave labor was becoming less economical. That being said, any territory wanting to join the Confederacy would likely have ended up as a slave state, whereas any territory wanting to join the Union would probably have ended up as a free state.

As to who would have controlled the west, I would speculate that the Union would have continued to grow whereas the Confederacy would likely have remained between the states already in it and maybe a few others. Or it might be likely that we'd actually have different states, as the Confederacy may have claimed parts of some states as we know them today while the Union claimed other parts of the states. All in all, however, I think the Union would have grown more than the Confederacy.