(04-20-2020 12:40 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Who friggin knows?

The US would be two Nations more or less at each others throats. The South would not have seen anywhere near the immigration from the old world as a slave owning country. There likely would have been a net migration of Whites out of the South, making it ripe eventually for a South Africa type situation, majority Black rising up to take over. The South's borders would look different, as Kentucky would be in the North. Industrialization might have only barely been much in the South.

If the White government held on, the SEC would never be anything since it would not have black athletes. Basketball and Football may not even have made it's way into the South. Cross border play would be unlikely.

Then you have to ask what would have been the impact of no Mexican American War? How would WWI have resolved? Would the North have joined, would the South have sided with the Kaiser? Obviously Europe would be different after that War.

The Mexican American War was in the 1840s...that's when Texas seceded, won its independence, and ultimately joined the USA a few years later. Of course, they sided with the Confederacy later. I don't think Mexico has a significantly different role here in the event the South wins.

If you're referring to the Spanish American War then that's a big unknown. The events leading to US involvement centered on Cuba's desire for independence from Spain. How would politics in the region play out differently had there remained a divided USA? Hard to say. The motivations for the US being involved in the first place likely had something to do with the desire to acquire more territory as the inciting event...the sinking of the USS Maine...was probably a setup.

Outside of that, even Brazil ended slavery in 1888 so it's unlikely the Confederacy would have supported slavery indefinitely...economically or socially. About 5% of the total number of Africans shipped across the Atlantic ended up in the United States although you can probably add a couple of percentage points to account for the individuals that would have been shipped within the Western Hemisphere. Whereas about 40% ended up in Brazil...

With that said, racial suppression would have obviously extended for a longer period of time. All in all, I think if you want a model on how racial politics would have affected society then examining Brazil's history in the last couple of centuries would gives us some fairly reliable clues.

In my other post, I mentioned link between the Confederacy and the UK. My theory would be they would have linked arms to a significant degree if for no more reason than their destinies would be intertwined in a very different way. But no, I don't think the Confederacy would have sided with the Central Powers in WWI. As the UK went, I think the Confederacy would go.

(04-20-2020 02:51 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(04-20-2020 02:30 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-20-2020 10:29 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Some schools would be named entirely different. A school like Clemson (founded 1889), for example, is probably named after John Wilkes Booth, who'd be a confederate legend.

So we'd be talking about the John Wilkes Booth Tigers winning CSA national championship.

Booth would only be a legend in a scenario where the Confederacy lost. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been motivated to kill Lincoln. This version of history plays out with Booth never becoming anything more than a stage actor and his memory fades. No one would have ever heard of him outside of theater goers of the period.

I think we can also assume that had the Confederacy won, it would have been with the aid of Great Britain.

Now, we have to map out a political landscape where not only are the North and South divided, but also one in which the Confederacy has strong ties to the UK. Given the cultural ties between the two entities that stretch back even further into the Colonial era, I'm going to make the prediction that football as we know it doesn't really take off in the South.

Economically and socially, there ends up being a greater affinity for rugby and soccer.

Indeed...actually, it's almost kind of surprising we don't have a Robert E. Lee University or Thomas J. Jackson University anyway given the plethora of high schools.

I think we can definitely expect there to be Lee, Jackson, Davis, and such universities in this alternate universe. But it's impossible to predict; the economies and populations of the states would be very different. Without building an entire timeline of political changes, we also can't know if there would be as much of a comprehensive public university system, whether the private schools might be more dominant and perhaps have some state support in lieu of more public universities, etc. etc. etc.

Yeah, I think you're correct. The public university system would be more limited from the get-go. Now how all that changes as the 20th century unfolds would be somewhat debatable. Do we end up with something similar to the GI Bill after WWII? There's a lot of factors.

Even beyond that...is there another war?

The UK is likely linked with the Confederacy which means the Union has Canada on one side and the Confederacy on the other. Does Washington seek greater ties with European powers? Like Spain for example?

Perhaps even European history plays out differently as the alliances might be a bit more complicated.

Since you selected the Civil War, it’s the old border states that need to have a new history. At a minimum, UMD and WVU would not have been welcomed in the Southern Conference (UMD would also not have been a founding member of the ACC). There is a much greater chance that an all-sports Eastern Conference would have been formed in the 1950s or 1960s...it would take over in athletic prominence as the Ivy League de-emphasizes sports. UMD, Rutgers, BC, Syracuse, PSU, Pitt, WVU and ND are the original counterbalance to the B10. The Catholic / private / Big East doesn’t get formed until the mid-1980s...Syracuse versus Georgetown basketball rivalry never happens.

(04-20-2020 03:10 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-20-2020 02:51 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(04-20-2020 02:30 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-20-2020 10:29 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Some schools would be named entirely different. A school like Clemson (founded 1889), for example, is probably named after John Wilkes Booth, who'd be a confederate legend.

So we'd be talking about the John Wilkes Booth Tigers winning CSA national championship.

Booth would only be a legend in a scenario where the Confederacy lost. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been motivated to kill Lincoln. This version of history plays out with Booth never becoming anything more than a stage actor and his memory fades. No one would have ever heard of him outside of theater goers of the period.

I think we can also assume that had the Confederacy won, it would have been with the aid of Great Britain.

Now, we have to map out a political landscape where not only are the North and South divided, but also one in which the Confederacy has strong ties to the UK. Given the cultural ties between the two entities that stretch back even further into the Colonial era, I'm going to make the prediction that football as we know it doesn't really take off in the South.

Economically and socially, there ends up being a greater affinity for rugby and soccer.

Indeed...actually, it's almost kind of surprising we don't have a Robert E. Lee University or Thomas J. Jackson University anyway given the plethora of high schools.

I think we can definitely expect there to be Lee, Jackson, Davis, and such universities in this alternate universe. But it's impossible to predict; the economies and populations of the states would be very different. Without building an entire timeline of political changes, we also can't know if there would be as much of a comprehensive public university system, whether the private schools might be more dominant and perhaps have some state support in lieu of more public universities, etc. etc. etc.

Yeah, I think you're correct. The public university system would be more limited from the get-go. Now how all that changes as the 20th century unfolds would be somewhat debatable. Do we end up with something similar to the GI Bill after WWII? There's a lot of factors.

Even beyond that...is there another war?

The UK is likely linked with the Confederacy which means the Union has Canada on one side and the Confederacy on the other. Does Washington seek greater ties with European powers? Like Spain for example?

Perhaps even European history plays out differently as the alliances might be a bit more complicated.

Slaves were a 1/4 of the South's total population. The African population of South Africa was around 70-75%+ of the population. So comparing the CSA to Apartheid South Africa in terms of the likelihood of a black majority government is nonsensical.

As to the other events, it's very difficult to say. You don't know how the CSA's internal politics develop. Do the states begin to lose power to the central government? Who is elected president after Davis? And subsequently to that person? What are their foreign policies? When does slavery end (1888 like Brazil?)?

Is there a movement in the North to reconquer the South as the population and economic figures tilt even more towards the North? How does that affect the South's foreign policy? Historically, the British were quickly cozying up to the US with the rise of Germany (and a colony hungry Italy as well). With the growth of cotton in Egypt and India, the British have less need of the CSA, and the USA would still be a great rising industrial power. On the other hand, the British need not further antagonize the USA by remaining close with the CSA.

I'm not sure I see the Confederates getting involved in European politics once the British and French begin to abandon them. But that depends on whether there is a threat from the North: if there is not, then isolationism and perhaps focus on expansion in the Caribbean. If there is, then they would have to ally with Germany and the Triple Alliance...there's no real option.

While Spain is a dying power, I could see the Confederacy warming up to Spain to access Cuba and Puerto Rico, which were about all that really remained in Spanish hands at that point. But I don't see an alliance; Spain is irrelevant in European politics, as are two other great colonial powers, the Dutch and the Portuguese. They simply don't have the population (Dutch and Portuguese) or the level of industrialization needed (Spain and Portugal) to be relevant. Most likely, all of those countries and the CSA continue to chart an independent course trying to stay out of a major European war. Remember: Spain and the Netherlands remained out of WW1, while Portugal joined based on their centuries-old alliance with England. And in WW2, Portugal and Spain were both fascist but remained out of the war, while the Netherlands, of course, were invaded despite not being part of the British-French-Belgian alliance.

All that to be said, the Confederates can choose Germany or nobody. And that depends on what is happening in the North. If the North has no desire to reconquer the South, then nobody. If they are threatening, then Germany. But that's even assuming that Germany found value in that relationship; the Germans did not consider the US to be a major power really and greatly underestimated the country, but I doubt they were dumb enough to commit themselves to a fight in America.

I doubt anyone would have given a crap about the CSA by 1900. The South would be way behind industrially and would be viewed as an irrelevant minor power like Spain. Heck, it'd probably be considered even more of a backwater given that it doesn't offer any strategic benefits and holds no colonies.

(04-20-2020 01:53 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(04-20-2020 10:08 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Since we are all bored out of our minds, what would conference alignment looked like had the South won the Civil War and there was an NCAA (USA) and an NCAA (CSA).

I’m still tweaking with my own ideas but will post eventually. Here are your guidelines:

No international membership (CSA and USA only conferences)

Border States Delaware, Maryland, WVU, Kentucky, and Missouri should be considered USA

Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma are CSA.

Give a history of each of your conferences. Who founded them, who came and left, what is their current membership today?

I’ll dole out some rep points for good ideas.

It's debatable that the border states would have remained in the Union if the South wins. Probably depends on the victory conditions.

If the South crushes the North by destroying the Army of the Potomac (had a few more things gone right for the South in the Seven Days on the Peninsula, not impossible) and capturing Washington, they'd have been in a strong position to recognize the secessionist governments and take those states with them.

If the victory is simply that Lincoln is defeated in 1864, and McClellan negotiates a peace treaty, then the border states stay, as the CSA is in no position to dictate seizing additional territory. Under those conditions, even Oklahoma, Arizona, and New Mexico might remain Union. You also have the Union in control of several very pro-Unionist areas within states that seceded, chiefly east Tennessee and to a lesser degree northwest Arkansas. Could see some border realignment there.

If the Army of the Potomac was destroyed, then I still think that the border states stay with the North.

Any of the border states could have joined the CSA, but they all chose not to. Their legislatures were pro-Union.

All the border states had many times more soldiers in the USA army than the CSA army.

Even if you just look at the 1860 election, Delaware & Missouri were definitely staying. Delaware cast 23% of its votes for Lincoln. Missouri actually voted for the Northern Democrat Stephen A. Douglas in 1860.

Kentucky seems like a Southern state because it has a long indefensible border with Tennessee. But I think that every city over 2,000 people in Kentucky except Lexington, Frankfurt, and Hopkinsville were on the Ohio River.

89,000 - Louisville (on the Ohio River)
16,000 - Covington (on the Ohio River)
10,000 - Newport (on the Ohio River)
9,300 - Lexington - Bluegrass
4,900 - Danville - Bluegrass
4,500 - Paducah (on the Ohio River)
3,700 - Frankfurt - Bluegrass
3,500 - Maysville (on the Ohio River)
2-3,000 - Henderson (on the Ohio River) (couldn't find 1860 census for Hendersen)
2,300 - Owensboro (on the Ohio River)
2,200 - Hopkinsville - on the Tennessee border, and the only city harder for the USA to defend than the CSA
2,000 - Bowling Green (on the Ohio River)

(04-20-2020 03:43 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(04-20-2020 01:53 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(04-20-2020 10:08 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Since we are all bored out of our minds, what would conference alignment looked like had the South won the Civil War and there was an NCAA (USA) and an NCAA (CSA).

I’m still tweaking with my own ideas but will post eventually. Here are your guidelines:

No international membership (CSA and USA only conferences)

Border States Delaware, Maryland, WVU, Kentucky, and Missouri should be considered USA

Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma are CSA.

Give a history of each of your conferences. Who founded them, who came and left, what is their current membership today?

I’ll dole out some rep points for good ideas.

It's debatable that the border states would have remained in the Union if the South wins. Probably depends on the victory conditions.

If the South crushes the North by destroying the Army of the Potomac (had a few more things gone right for the South in the Seven Days on the Peninsula, not impossible) and capturing Washington, they'd have been in a strong position to recognize the secessionist governments and take those states with them.

If the victory is simply that Lincoln is defeated in 1864, and McClellan negotiates a peace treaty, then the border states stay, as the CSA is in no position to dictate seizing additional territory. Under those conditions, even Oklahoma, Arizona, and New Mexico might remain Union. You also have the Union in control of several very pro-Unionist areas within states that seceded, chiefly east Tennessee and to a lesser degree northwest Arkansas. Could see some border realignment there.

If the Army of the Potomac was destroyed, then I still think that the border states stay with the North.

Any of the border states could have joined the CSA, but they all chose not to. Their legislatures were pro-Union.

All the border states had many times more soldiers in the USA army than the CSA army.

Even if you just look at the 1860 election, Delaware & Missouri were definitely staying. Delaware cast 23% of its votes for Lincoln. Missouri actually voted for the Northern Democrat Stephen A. Douglas in 1860.

Kentucky seems like a Southern state because it has a long indefensible border with Tennessee. But I think that every city over 2,000 people in Kentucky except Lexington, Frankfurt, and Hopkinsville were on the Ohio River.

89,000 - Louisville (on the Ohio River)
16,000 - Covington (on the Ohio River)
10,000 - Newport (on the Ohio River)
9,300 - Lexington - Bluegrass
4,900 - Danville - Bluegrass
4,500 - Paducah (on the Ohio River)
3,700 - Frankfurt - Bluegrass
3,500 - Maysville (on the Ohio River)
2-3,000 - Henderson (on the Ohio River) (couldn't find 1860 census for Hendersen)
2,300 - Owensboro (on the Ohio River)
2,200 - Hopkinsville - on the Tennessee border, and the only city harder for the USA to defend than the CSA
2,000 - Bowling Green (on the Ohio River)

I'm not sure the states get that option if the CSA has conquered DC and destroyed the North's main army, especially if that happens in 1862 before the North has armed so much more manpower. Newt Gingrich, of all people, actually wrote a trilogy of books about the South destroying the Army of the Potomac at Gettysburg and the fallout. It's worth reading to get a full understanding of the North's material and manpower advantage. I think the ending is a bit contrived, but the overall outcome is realistic.

On the border states, assuming the Confederates are dictating terms, only Delaware did not have a pro-Confederate government in exile/puppet government if memory serves. Kentucky especially was given to support both sides with a pro-Southern governor and a pro-Union legislature. Missouri had big pockets of Southern support, and Baltimore was a pro-Confederate city. Lincoln had to take extraordinary measures to keep Maryland safely in the union camp.

And since we're on the topic of Booth...can we all agree Mary Surratt is one of the most ridiculous court-ordered hangings in American history? She had no knowledge of the murder plot, at most she might have overheard a kidnap plot (which was never proven), yet she gets publicly executed. Absolute bonkers.

She should get a university and college football team named after her in the confederacy solely for that.

Now my stab at the South:

The SoCon still ends up being the mother of both the SEC and ACC, albeit within the Confederacy the SEC is probably more aptly named the Central Athletic Conference.

CAC founders are:

Tenn, Vandy, Sewanee, UGA, GT, UF, Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, Miss St (aka Jefferson Davis U), LSU, and Tulane

Sewanee, Tulane, and GT all drop out

ACC founders are:

UVA, UNC, Duke, NC St, WF, Clemson, and S Car

S Car still drops out

CAC adds S Car for 10 members
ACC adds GT, FSU, Miami, and VT (aka Robert E. Lee U) for 10 members

I also see either the SoCon existing as a 2nd tier league or the following being independents:

Richmond, VMI (CMI), William & Mary, Furman, the Citadel (aka CSNA)

There’s also the SWC (or as they say in the CSA, the Western Conference) that by the 1920’s stabilizes with the following:

Ark, Okla, Okla St, SMU, TCU, Texas, Baylor, TAMU, Rice (9)

TTU becomes member 10 in the 1950s
Houston, Arizona, and Arizona St bring membership up to 13 in the 1970s

I also think you get another conference forming in there with members like:

Tulsa, UNT, Memphis, USM, and Tulane that gels with some newcomers like ECU, UAB, UCF, and USF

the remnants of the Border Conference that once included the AZ Schools and TTU (NMSU, UNM, UTEP, W Texas) end up with Ark St, LA Tech, and ULL.

(04-20-2020 10:08 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Since we are all bored out of our minds, what would conference alignment looked like had the South won the Civil War and there was an NCAA (USA) and an NCAA (CSA).

I’m still tweaking with my own ideas but will post eventually. Here are your guidelines:

No international membership (CSA and USA only conferences)

Border States Delaware, Maryland, WVU, Kentucky, and Missouri should be considered USA

Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma are CSA.

Give a history of each of your conferences. Who founded them, who came and left, what is their current membership today?

I’ll dole out some rep points for good ideas.

Can we look at Oklahoma would be two states. The Native Americans were fighting on both sides. The Cherokees were on both sides. Delaware tribe were moved onto Cherokee reservations. They almost lost their culture and name after Cherokee kept blocking them from being recognized. Yes, Cherokees were blocking other tribes from being recognized. What can we call North Oklahoma as? North Oklahoma USA and Oklahoma for the south. This would put Oklahoma State, NE Oklahoma State, NW Oklahoma State, Panhandle State and Tulsa in the state of North Oklahoma.

My big point was, with the South a separate country, and Blacks performing the low end labor. Migration of Whites would have been net negative. Carry that out for 50 years, with all immigration going to the North, combined with higher birth rate and continued slave importing or at least breeding for a few more decades, and you could well be looking at a African-American majority in the South.

English Parliament was shifting anti-Slavery at that time, and I don't think the CSA would have had many allies. The Brazil model is probably a good one for what the South would look like. It also would likely be a rogue state of sorts, not at all a liberal democracy.

The South African model, I meant apartheid.

In the long run, even if the South had managed to dictate terms, I very much doubt they would have the upper hand for long. The industrial power of the north would have turned it into a commodity state like Russia today. Also white migration from north to south would not have happened. Instead of similar life styles, you'd have very divergent situations. I suspect the North and Mexico might well have formed an anti-CSA alliance.

Nothing would look like it does today.

Would Cuba, Puerto Rico, Haiti, Dominican Republic and US Virgin Islands become part of Florida, and CSA bought the British Virgin Islands, Jamaica, Bermuda and the Bahamas from the European countries to be part of Florida? University of Havana would have kept football and may have seen them in bowl games today.

All of us black people in this thread as soon as we read "....South won the Civil War"

(04-20-2020 01:25 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-20-2020 10:08 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Since we are all bored out of our minds, what would conference alignment looked like had the South won the Civil War and there was an NCAA (USA) and an NCAA (CSA).

Civil War? Do you mean the War of Northern Aggression or perhaps you might have heard it referred to as; The War for Southern Economic Independence or The War between the States....but that conflict should never be referred to as the Civil War, which is an annual football contest between Oregon and Oregon State.

You mean The Late Unpleasantness, as the folks in Charleston like to call it.

(04-20-2020 05:03 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Now my stab at the South:

The SoCon still ends up being the mother of both the SEC and ACC, albeit within the Confederacy the SEC is probably more aptly named the Central Athletic Conference.

CAC founders are:

Tenn, Vandy, Sewanee, UGA, GT, UF, Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, Miss St (aka Jefferson Davis U), LSU, and Tulane

Sewanee, Tulane, and GT all drop out

ACC founders are:

UVA, UNC, Duke, NC St, WF, Clemson, and S Car

S Car still drops out

CAC adds S Car for 10 members
ACC adds GT, FSU, Miami, and VT (aka Robert E. Lee U) for 10 members

I also see either the SoCon existing as a 2nd tier league or the following being independents:

Richmond, VMI (CMI), William & Mary, Furman, the Citadel (aka CSNA)

There’s also the SWC (or as they say in the CSA, the Western Conference) that by the 1920’s stabilizes with the following:

Ark, Okla, Okla St, SMU, TCU, Texas, Baylor, TAMU, Rice (9)

TTU becomes member 10 in the 1950s
Houston, Arizona, and Arizona St bring membership up to 13 in the 1970s

I also think you get another conference forming in there with members like:

Tulsa, UNT, Memphis, USM, and Tulane that gels with some newcomers like ECU, UAB, UCF, and USF

the remnants of the Border Conference that once included the AZ Schools and TTU (NMSU, UNM, UTEP, W Texas) end up with Ark St, LA Tech, and ULL.

UF does not exist in its present form since it didn't exist until the early 1900's since there was no land grant, while the future Florida State University and their heroic students that saved Tallahassee from Union invasion becomes the flagship school and joins what is now the SEC.instead of UF. UF or something similar eventually starts but is located in Ocala and becomes more like UCF or USF.

Thank God for General William Tecumseh Sherman, and General Ulysses S Grant....... (Both Ohio men)

(04-20-2020 05:19 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Would Cuba, Puerto Rico, Haiti, Dominican Republic and US Virgin Islands become part of Florida, and CSA bought the British Virgin Islands, Jamaica, Bermuda and the Bahamas from the European countries to be part of Florida? University of Havana would have kept football and may have seen them in bowl games today.

What kind of weed do you smoke???

(04-20-2020 05:19 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Would Cuba, Puerto Rico, Haiti, Dominican Republic and US Virgin Islands become part of Florida, and CSA bought the British Virgin Islands, Jamaica, Bermuda and the Bahamas from the European countries to be part of Florida? University of Havana would have kept football and may have seen them in bowl games today.

CSA college football on its own is a heck of an alternate reality, but could you imagine that scenario with DavidSt running confederate realignment?

(04-20-2020 03:43 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(04-20-2020 03:10 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-20-2020 02:51 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(04-20-2020 02:30 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-20-2020 10:29 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Some schools would be named entirely different. A school like Clemson (founded 1889), for example, is probably named after John Wilkes Booth, who'd be a confederate legend.

So we'd be talking about the John Wilkes Booth Tigers winning CSA national championship.

Booth would only be a legend in a scenario where the Confederacy lost. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been motivated to kill Lincoln. This version of history plays out with Booth never becoming anything more than a stage actor and his memory fades. No one would have ever heard of him outside of theater goers of the period.

I think we can also assume that had the Confederacy won, it would have been with the aid of Great Britain.

Now, we have to map out a political landscape where not only are the North and South divided, but also one in which the Confederacy has strong ties to the UK. Given the cultural ties between the two entities that stretch back even further into the Colonial era, I'm going to make the prediction that football as we know it doesn't really take off in the South.

Economically and socially, there ends up being a greater affinity for rugby and soccer.

Indeed...actually, it's almost kind of surprising we don't have a Robert E. Lee University or Thomas J. Jackson University anyway given the plethora of high schools.

I think we can definitely expect there to be Lee, Jackson, Davis, and such universities in this alternate universe. But it's impossible to predict; the economies and populations of the states would be very different. Without building an entire timeline of political changes, we also can't know if there would be as much of a comprehensive public university system, whether the private schools might be more dominant and perhaps have some state support in lieu of more public universities, etc. etc. etc.

Yeah, I think you're correct. The public university system would be more limited from the get-go. Now how all that changes as the 20th century unfolds would be somewhat debatable. Do we end up with something similar to the GI Bill after WWII? There's a lot of factors.

Even beyond that...is there another war?

The UK is likely linked with the Confederacy which means the Union has Canada on one side and the Confederacy on the other. Does Washington seek greater ties with European powers? Like Spain for example?

Perhaps even European history plays out differently as the alliances might be a bit more complicated.

Slaves were a 1/4 of the South's total population. The African population of South Africa was around 70-75%+ of the population. So comparing the CSA to Apartheid South Africa in terms of the likelihood of a black majority government is nonsensical.

As to the other events, it's very difficult to say. You don't know how the CSA's internal politics develop. Do the states begin to lose power to the central government? Who is elected president after Davis? And subsequently to that person? What are their foreign policies? When does slavery end (1888 like Brazil?)?

Is there a movement in the North to reconquer the South as the population and economic figures tilt even more towards the North? How does that affect the South's foreign policy? Historically, the British were quickly cozying up to the US with the rise of Germany (and a colony hungry Italy as well). With the growth of cotton in Egypt and India, the British have less need of the CSA, and the USA would still be a great rising industrial power. On the other hand, the British need not further antagonize the USA by remaining close with the CSA.

I'm not sure I see the Confederates getting involved in European politics once the British and French begin to abandon them. But that depends on whether there is a threat from the North: if there is not, then isolationism and perhaps focus on expansion in the Caribbean. If there is, then they would have to ally with Germany and the Triple Alliance...there's no real option.

While Spain is a dying power, I could see the Confederacy warming up to Spain to access Cuba and Puerto Rico, which were about all that really remained in Spanish hands at that point. But I don't see an alliance; Spain is irrelevant in European politics, as are two other great colonial powers, the Dutch and the Portuguese. They simply don't have the population (Dutch and Portuguese) or the level of industrialization needed (Spain and Portugal) to be relevant. Most likely, all of those countries and the CSA continue to chart an independent course trying to stay out of a major European war. Remember: Spain and the Netherlands remained out of WW1, while Portugal joined based on their centuries-old alliance with England. And in WW2, Portugal and Spain were both fascist but remained out of the war, while the Netherlands, of course, were invaded despite not being part of the British-French-Belgian alliance.

All that to be said, the Confederates can choose Germany or nobody. And that depends on what is happening in the North. If the North has no desire to reconquer the South, then nobody. If they are threatening, then Germany. But that's even assuming that Germany found value in that relationship; the Germans did not consider the US to be a major power really and greatly underestimated the country, but I doubt they were dumb enough to commit themselves to a fight in America.

I doubt anyone would have given a crap about the CSA by 1900. The South would be way behind industrially and would be viewed as an irrelevant minor power like Spain. Heck, it'd probably be considered even more of a backwater given that it doesn't offer any strategic benefits and holds no colonies.

I see where you're coming from, but if we're hypothesizing a Confederate victory then I don't see how it happens without involvement from the UK. If Great Britain doesn't get involved in favor of the South then nothing changes. Mano y mano, the Confederacy can't outlast the Union.

Given that potentiality, the CSA would owe a life-debt so to speak to the British. In a very similar manner to how the US owed its existence to the French after the Revolutionary War. The reliance would probably be more stark, however, as obviously there's much more to fear from the Union states directly to your North as opposed to another army coming from across the Atlantic in subsequent years. Not to mention, the French Revolution kind of cut into whatever financial relationship the French and the US had. In other words, the Confederacy has every motivation to do and be almost whatever the British want them to be.

Even during the Revolutionary War, the people in the South were a little late in rallying to the cause. After nearly a century, their descendants probably welcome the British with open arms. Now to the question of what does that offer the UK? We have to consider why they would have been interested in getting involved in the first place.

Well, there's the cotton in the short term, but friendly access to major Confederate ports would be of significant value. Britain still has a presence in North America one way or the other with Canada, but it's mostly a wilderness and is the same to this day. Their holdings in the Caribbean are less significant at that point. And the opportunity to weaken the US as a whole was present so we can't discount that.

Whoever is elected after Davis, one thing is sure, they would have the national interests at heart and be free from the direct influence of Washington. An alliance with Spain makes sense in order to have a greater Caribbean presence, but we also have to consider the discovery of oil in Texas in 1901. The world economy as a whole was changing during that era so I think it's hard to say exactly how things play out.

I think there's a good chance neither USA nor the CSA become an economic power anything resembling what they were in the early 20th century.

Moving out of the realm of CFB, 20th Century foreign policy for a divided CSA and USA. If Britain recognizes the CSA and then brokers the treaty then you can count on the USA to stay neutral (if not quietly pro-German) in both World Wars.

The CSA probably enters both wars in the British side. Britain wins the First one. The 2nd one, without US industrial support, could have ended ugly.

(04-21-2020 02:31 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-20-2020 03:43 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(04-20-2020 03:10 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-20-2020 02:51 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(04-20-2020 02:30 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Booth would only be a legend in a scenario where the Confederacy lost. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been motivated to kill Lincoln. This version of history plays out with Booth never becoming anything more than a stage actor and his memory fades. No one would have ever heard of him outside of theater goers of the period.

I think we can also assume that had the Confederacy won, it would have been with the aid of Great Britain.

Now, we have to map out a political landscape where not only are the North and South divided, but also one in which the Confederacy has strong ties to the UK. Given the cultural ties between the two entities that stretch back even further into the Colonial era, I'm going to make the prediction that football as we know it doesn't really take off in the South.

Economically and socially, there ends up being a greater affinity for rugby and soccer.

Indeed...actually, it's almost kind of surprising we don't have a Robert E. Lee University or Thomas J. Jackson University anyway given the plethora of high schools.

I think we can definitely expect there to be Lee, Jackson, Davis, and such universities in this alternate universe. But it's impossible to predict; the economies and populations of the states would be very different. Without building an entire timeline of political changes, we also can't know if there would be as much of a comprehensive public university system, whether the private schools might be more dominant and perhaps have some state support in lieu of more public universities, etc. etc. etc.

Yeah, I think you're correct. The public university system would be more limited from the get-go. Now how all that changes as the 20th century unfolds would be somewhat debatable. Do we end up with something similar to the GI Bill after WWII? There's a lot of factors.

Even beyond that...is there another war?

The UK is likely linked with the Confederacy which means the Union has Canada on one side and the Confederacy on the other. Does Washington seek greater ties with European powers? Like Spain for example?

Perhaps even European history plays out differently as the alliances might be a bit more complicated.

Slaves were a 1/4 of the South's total population. The African population of South Africa was around 70-75%+ of the population. So comparing the CSA to Apartheid South Africa in terms of the likelihood of a black majority government is nonsensical.

As to the other events, it's very difficult to say. You don't know how the CSA's internal politics develop. Do the states begin to lose power to the central government? Who is elected president after Davis? And subsequently to that person? What are their foreign policies? When does slavery end (1888 like Brazil?)?

Is there a movement in the North to reconquer the South as the population and economic figures tilt even more towards the North? How does that affect the South's foreign policy? Historically, the British were quickly cozying up to the US with the rise of Germany (and a colony hungry Italy as well). With the growth of cotton in Egypt and India, the British have less need of the CSA, and the USA would still be a great rising industrial power. On the other hand, the British need not further antagonize the USA by remaining close with the CSA.

I'm not sure I see the Confederates getting involved in European politics once the British and French begin to abandon them. But that depends on whether there is a threat from the North: if there is not, then isolationism and perhaps focus on expansion in the Caribbean. If there is, then they would have to ally with Germany and the Triple Alliance...there's no real option.

While Spain is a dying power, I could see the Confederacy warming up to Spain to access Cuba and Puerto Rico, which were about all that really remained in Spanish hands at that point. But I don't see an alliance; Spain is irrelevant in European politics, as are two other great colonial powers, the Dutch and the Portuguese. They simply don't have the population (Dutch and Portuguese) or the level of industrialization needed (Spain and Portugal) to be relevant. Most likely, all of those countries and the CSA continue to chart an independent course trying to stay out of a major European war. Remember: Spain and the Netherlands remained out of WW1, while Portugal joined based on their centuries-old alliance with England. And in WW2, Portugal and Spain were both fascist but remained out of the war, while the Netherlands, of course, were invaded despite not being part of the British-French-Belgian alliance.

All that to be said, the Confederates can choose Germany or nobody. And that depends on what is happening in the North. If the North has no desire to reconquer the South, then nobody. If they are threatening, then Germany. But that's even assuming that Germany found value in that relationship; the Germans did not consider the US to be a major power really and greatly underestimated the country, but I doubt they were dumb enough to commit themselves to a fight in America.

I doubt anyone would have given a crap about the CSA by 1900. The South would be way behind industrially and would be viewed as an irrelevant minor power like Spain. Heck, it'd probably be considered even more of a backwater given that it doesn't offer any strategic benefits and holds no colonies.

I see where you're coming from, but if we're hypothesizing a Confederate victory then I don't see how it happens without involvement from the UK. If Great Britain doesn't get involved in favor of the South then nothing changes. Mano y mano, the Confederacy can't outlast the Union.

Given that potentiality, the CSA would owe a life-debt so to speak to the British. In a very similar manner to how the US owed its existence to the French after the Revolutionary War. The reliance would probably be more stark, however, as obviously there's much more to fear from the Union states directly to your North as opposed to another army coming from across the Atlantic in subsequent years. Not to mention, the French Revolution kind of cut into whatever financial relationship the French and the US had. In other words, the Confederacy has every motivation to do and be almost whatever the British want them to be.

Even during the Revolutionary War, the people in the South were a little late in rallying to the cause. After nearly a century, their descendants probably welcome the British with open arms. Now to the question of what does that offer the UK? We have to consider why they would have been interested in getting involved in the first place.

Well, there's the cotton in the short term, but friendly access to major Confederate ports would be of significant value. Britain still has a presence in North America one way or the other with Canada, but it's mostly a wilderness and is the same to this day. Their holdings in the Caribbean are less significant at that point. And the opportunity to weaken the US as a whole was present so we can't discount that.

Whoever is elected after Davis, one thing is sure, they would have the national interests at heart and be free from the direct influence of Washington. An alliance with Spain makes sense in order to have a greater Caribbean presence, but we also have to consider the discovery of oil in Texas in 1901. The world economy as a whole was changing during that era so I think it's hard to say exactly how things play out.

I think there's a good chance neither USA nor the CSA become an economic power anything resembling what they were in the early 20th century.

I understand the sentiments about Britain being the tipping point, but I don't think there's a realistic case for it. It's interesting to think about redcoats on the field at Gettysburg and the Royal Navy clearing the blockade, but it was never very likely.

Even if Britain intervenes militarily, that doesn't necessarily result in a Confederate victory. Keep in mind that the professional British Army was quite small and deployed around the world. They weren't going to be landing 100,000 troops to reinforce Lee. The North could have easily invaded Canada and swept aside the few British regiments there. We're a long way from 1812. And the USN grew quite large very quickly and would have been a decent match for what the RN could have deployed, plus British shipping would have been subjected to American privateers as in the previous wars. I rather doubt that Britain can change the course of the war unless it's also France intervening and they both are able to land significant number of troops that allows Lee to capture Washington and then march into the north.

More realistically, the Confederates had two opportunities to win the war:

- First, was prior to Antietam. Whether it had been a decisive victory at First Manassas -- say following up by marching on Washington -- that results in the Union deciding it's not worth the effort. Or landing a decisive defeat on McClellan on the peninsula. Had a few more things gone right for the Confederates during that campaign, it's very possible the Army of the Potomac or a large part of it could have been captured. Also, had Albert Sidney Johnston not died at Shiloh, the Confederates probably destroy Grant there, and we think of Grant today much as we think of John Pope - a failed commander whipped in his largest battle. Certainly a Confederate victory at Shiloh allows them to consider retaking Nashville and/or Memphis.

- The second opportunity is to have McClellan win the 1864 election. You'd need some combination of:
1. Lee destroying the Army of the Potomac at Chancellorsville and being able to march freely through the North. The capture of DC at this point would have taken a long, sustained siege given all the forts protecting it. I doubt the Confederates could have taken it by assault. And just looking at how long the Confederates held out at Richmond, you can assume the Union would do much better. And while Lee could have won a victory at Gettysburg, it was unlikely he was going to force the surrender of large elements of the Army of the Potomac, so Chancellorsville was really his last chance to land a truly decisive victory with Hooker's back to the river.

2. Bragg to have fully destroyed Rosecrans at Chickamauga and recaptured Nashville, possibly taking the war into Kentucky. What if George Thomas had stayed loyal to his home state instead of the Union? Could have been a game changer.

3. The Confederates to have held Vicksburg. If that happens, Grant probably isn't put in command in Tennessee, nor in overall command later, and neither is Sherman.

4. Johnston to successfully defend Atlanta and prevent its capture prior to the election. Couple that lack of success with Grant's butcher bill in the Overland Campaign, and maybe you get a McClellan win where he negotiates peace.

To your post-war point about Britain's relationship with the Confederates. I do think the CSA would have been a British client state in many ways, but I don't think Britain ultimately cares a whole lot. It needs a better relationship with the USA, which would still have become an industrial power, and Britain continuing to get itself dragged into the American conflict doesn't serve Britain in any way. They don't need the CSA for cotton, and the CSA can't afford to buy a lot of British manufactures. So while I'm sure there's a cultural affinity, I doubt Britain sacrifices her own best interest for that of the CSA vis-a-vis the USA.