THE CSA IN WORLD HISTORY

[williamlayton]

This should be intersting---brought up by Reliquary in another thread.
If the South had remained the CSA.
Where would they have been in WWI/WWII.
Consider Mexico very hard when you think.
Blessings

[BUGEYE]

would they have been to busy trying to keep the mexicans out to partipate in the WWs?

[Swampman]

The Vatican is the only foreign country that accepted the confederacy.  They would have rejoined the Union in a few years.

[Ga.windbreak]

Lordy Swampman we agree on something!
 
BTW Happy Thanksgiving to all here!

[williamlayton]

Was Mexico enticed to Join Germany in both WW's?
Blessings

[wncchester]

"Was Mexico enticed to Join Germany in both WW's?"
 
I cite the intercepted German "Zimmerman" telegram to say Mexico was indeed so enticed in WWI, as was Argentina in WWII. How that applies to the question of the CSA in world history I don't know.
 
Addressing the thread's question; the CSA would have had a signifcant impact on world history.  It's my opinion is that slavery was much too inefficent to have lived later than the 1880s.  The resulting slave freedom, done as a staged thing, would have avoided the devastation to masses of blacks suddenly 'free' but with no place to go and nothing to eat but for the charity of a near equally desperate southern white society; the North sure didn't help.  The South's economy would not have been smashed so the CSA would have had a much larger - and faster - impact on the world stage than has occured.
 
It's likely the USA and CSA would have been allies in the Spanish-American War and almost certainly in WWI.  They probably would have become one nation again sometime between WWI and WWII.  Either way, the economic power of both sections of the nation would be much stronger today if the CSA had succeeded.   And blacks would almost certainly be much better off.
 
It's rarely considered by historians but the loss of high quality human resources cost both sides horribly from 1861-1865.  On the surface it appears the North's losses were largely compensated for with the flood of skilled European immigrants but think how much better off they would have been if they had not lost so many good men to southern marksmanship!  But, with little work in the deconstructed south to attract new workers those human losses were deeply felt for a very long time.  The South as a whole remained a poverty stricken agricultural region until at least the 1960s.  Since then the South's manufactoring sector has vastly expanded, largely due to our work ethic, relitively modest taxes and largely rational business regulations - except for those mandated at the Federal level of course.  On the other hand, and admittedly from a distance, it appears to some of us that liberal, mostly northern, state politician's insatiable thirst for gov. regimentation of the people has led to excessive taxes and regulations on businesses plus a growing soft work ethic just may have contributed to what's now called the "rust belt" and a massive loss of northern industry.  ??

[williamlayton]

HUMMMM---the parallel was to show that the South was much endebted to England, sought recognition but was denied such. Had the South have won GB would have been on top of SC like white on rice--and here we would go again.
But, I really think you understood the parallel.
If it was as you proclaim, why did the south fight so hard for 100 years to do something you said they would do by 1880?
Blessings

[wncchester]

"If it was as you proclaim, why did the south fight so hard for 100 years to do something you said they would do by 1880?"
 
I haven't a firm clue what you mean.  But, IF you mean 'free' the blacks, I would counter that occured in one fell swoop in the spring of 1865 so your "100 year" question has no logical foundation.  No one was ready for it that early, perhaps the blacks least of all; many of them suffered badly and some died due to a premature freedom with no means of support; I don't know how I could have worded it any more clearly.  And, IF that is what you mean, you also read "the 1880s" wrong; most folks would understand that to cover the full decade, not year one.  (So, was that your reading mistake or a deliberate distortion?)

 
"Was Mexico enticed to Join Germany in both WW's?...But, I really think you understood the parallel."

Color me stupid but I cannot fathom how you asking about Mexico's enticements by Germany in WW1 & 2 has any parallel with the South's "indebtedness" to England in 1861, so, no, I don't get it; do you?
 
Blessings.  ??

[williamlayton]

You are anything BUT stupid.
The US, in an era of expansion, could ill afford a hostile neighbor.
I think the general intelligence of the US was very suspicious of England.
I see it as the same thing in WWII or WWI. Us relations with Mexico--especially in WWI--were tenious, at best.
The US could ill afford--in ether war--another front--same as in the period of expansion.
Blessings