The American Civil war

You are an American arn't you? Hmm it sounds like an Asian goes to Canada looking for oriential spices. I meant no offend. Good Luck to you.

I can only recall my "American History" classes so long ago, but it seems that since its foundation there was an internal conflict between abolitionist northern states and slavist southern states, between two economical focuses: industrial capitalism and "colonial plantationism". This issue reflected in all the processes of the USA, from power balance (trying to keep both types of states balanced or to break the balance in favor of either was a major issue in the early US and its expansion to the West) to political structure (more federal, more confederal).

Eventually slavism was untenable, both economically and socio-politically. Also the duality of the nation threatened its national union. When the southern states dared to separate, war was unavoidable and the South had no chances, being economically and politically much weaker than the North.

What would have happened had the South triumphed? As I say, that was near impossible but, anyhow, it would have caused a balcanization in the USA as a whole. Geographically, the remaining Union would have been clearly divided in badly connected regions: the NE and the Pacific coast. Particularly California would have surely ended in a separate state, while the status of Oregon Territory (NW) was also uncertain.

This was, according to Wikipedia, the territory claimed by the Confederacy:


Even if they had only managed to get a stalemate, that gave each one what they held intially, renouncing to Kentucky, Missouri and West Virginia, the Confederation would have been a major geographical handicap for the USA:



It's geography would have troubled the Union a lot: first of all the most strategic mouth of the Mississippi would be in Confederate hands, second, the Union would be less geographically continuous: California, the NW and even the vast region of the Mid-West, from West Virginia to the Rocky Mountains, would be sort of separated from the "central" NE.

In the South also, extra-sized Texas could easily find itself a little out of the picture inside the Confederation and maybe sought for independence annexing New Mexico/Arizona and Oklahoma in the way.

The result could well have been, as I said above, a Balcanization of North America.

In the long run, slavery would have been abolished in the South no doubt, but we could find ourselves in the midst of the 20th century facing a Racist system in what would be left of the Confederation, with ties to a possibly more succesful Nazi Germany and other white racists regimes such as South Africa.

Of course that would have been dealt with along the 20th century somehow, because after all it's not mainly politics but economy and technology which drive history but some things may have been rather diferent. I just think of a succesful Japan able to conquer Hawaii to a much less powerful independent California, or simply a completely diferent history for the Spanish-American war and the subsequent hemispheric imperialism of the USA.

Btw, I think that some whites in the South still long for "Dixie" in a strange pseudo-romantic way, but most people feel proudly "American", even the nostalgic of the Confederation.

Just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by TinTin You are an American arn't you? Hmm it sounds like an Asian goes to Canada looking for oriential spices. I meant no offend. Good Luck to you.

Very American but I am confused about the statement but I still laughed. By the way I like the helicopters!!
Best to you!
the sly American-

Originally posted by Mosquito Well, i always liked general Lee and the soughtern cavalry. Those guys surelly knew what  the horses and sabers are for.

I think you bring up the romance and nostalgia that Maju alluded to.  Some of the civil war "re-enactors" sometimes carry that to extremes and forget that in some respects the ACW was the first large scale war of the industrial age.  Just some info:

Almost universal use of rifled musketry that made three centuries of linear tactics obsolete.  The hitting power of gunfire was much more effective at much longer range.

Extensive use of railroads and telegraphy in communication and supply.  This made the swift movement, and reaction to movement, of troops more citical than ever. It also made large scale operations of armies over wide spread areas more feasible.

Due to the increase in size of forces engaged in some restricted geographical areas, stalemate developed leading to both horrendous casualties and trench warfare (especially at Cold Harbor, the Wilderness and Petersburg).  This was a foretaste of the much worse conditions of WWI.

The Union mobilized almost 2,000,000 soldiers.  At the end of the war, the U.S. army was about 1,100,000.  The Confederacy had far fewer, and the numbers are questionable, but it is estimated that about 700,000 served in the CSA.

Military dead were 618,000.....Two percent of the population.

As Shelby Foote commented, it was "a horrible national catastrophe.  How could such a thing have happened?  A war between the states."

Hardly conceivable now, but that war decided what kind of a nation we would be.

 

What about the Crimean War? They were almost simultaneous and this "colonial" conflict was also one of the first modern wars. How would you compare them? 

Originally posted by Maju What about the Crimean War? They were almost simultaneous and this "colonial" conflict was also one of the first modern wars. How would you compare them?

I really do not know much about the Crimean war except my great great Yia Yia (grandmother) served with Florence Nightingale as a nurse during that war. She was from Corinth, Greece. I saw an article recently that the tortoise they used as a mascot during that war died this year.

I was thinking that there were other wars that were even more parallel with the US Civil War, these were the Austro-Prussian War (1866) and the war of Italian unification (1859-61). In contrast with the Nordaerican war, these were rather quick campaigns but at least the Austro-Prussian war (which also saw Italy involved in Veneto), seems to be totally comparable technologically to the USA-CSA struggle.

Also, on Tobodai's comments, I agree that the CSA was heading for the Third World... but I also think that such independence would have costed dearly to the USA as a whole, causing surely further divisions, apart of the geostrategical issues already commented: mouth of Mississippi, access to the Caribbean, reduced territorial continuity. In general it would have handicapped the role of the USA as a great power and maybe even its historical continuity.

Not that such a thing would necessarily be bad for the citizens of some states or regions: I guess New England or California or others woudl well have found a confortable place in the world on their own. But modern history could have been changed substantially without a Nordamerican great power:

• 1898: Would Spain have defeated the CSA in Cuba? Would the CSA have dared to intervene at all? Would Cuba had got to wait several decades more to achieve independence? Which would have been the history of Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico?
  
• After 1898: Who, if anyone, would have built the Panama Canal. Would Panama still be a province of Colombia? How would it all affected the Caribbean and Latin American history?
• WWII: Would maybe the Nazis and Japan have won the war? Else, would have the USSR become the only and supreme world power wihout its North American nemesis?
  
• Post WWII: Would have Israel ever existed at all? Would the UK and France been able of balancing the power of the USSR? Would this have lead to a stronger EU?
  

Well Maju, without an massive American power would there even by Nazis and a WW2 like scenario.  Without a massive American world power I think WW1 would ahve ended as a complete stalemate for both sides, thus the 20th century would look very different. 

But size and geographic access for America arent that important.  I dont think the loss of the south would handicap America much at all, indeed the US could still have fought against Spain in an attempt to surround the CSA with client states.  The Northeast really had everything a power could want, industry, banking systems, population, a strong navy etc.  As it was cotton production was already being moved to Egypt so the only thing the south really had to offer was tobacco revenues.

I dont think in an era of steamships and a massive British empire that losing the gulf coast region would handicap US intrerests.  Perhaps instead of outright annexations American power would instead by purely a profit making financial exercise, which could have been a much better thing.

Originally posted by AlbinoAlien The resnetment is very open within the deeper south. just the name of Sherman will get some people fired up. people still hang there confederate flags outside there houses, and rascisim is still abroad in the very deep parts of the south.

The Confederate Flag hangings sounds like my local rednecks here in Western Pennsylvania. There are Confederate flags in about 10 houses. Pretty surprising for a northern state.

Not at all, overall size hardly matters, if you use that logic that no European nation should have been a powerful colonizer because of theri small size.  Russia would ahve owned them all....obviously this did not happen.  The northeast of the US has everything Britain has, and thus has the capacity to build a powerful nation.  Coal, iron, farms, industry, huge cities, naval tradition and strong navy.  Urbanized poulation, public schools, high literacy rate etc.  I agree the Mississippi is important but its loss would severly harm the nation either.  Im sure both countries would ahve kept trade open throughout it anyway, since they both would benefit.

Plus the north would no longer have to subsidize the failed reconstruction of the south, or blow lots of cash on reconquering it.  Also the US merchant marine which was second most powerful in the world pre war took a huge hit from Confederate commerce raiders and fell siginificantly, impacting the financial well being of the US.

And your right, the US impact directly on WW1 was marginal at best...BUT the threat of a massive American army that would eventually enter action played a bigger role than anything (aside from Ludendorff being a moron who cant run a country) in making Germany lose.  Without the US Germany would have lost but only marginally, but with the threat of millions of mobilizing American troops Germany lost fare more than marginally and had to give up more than just their overseas empire.