raharris1973
Well-known member
Was it? Or could the age have flowered anyway with continued northern appeasement of the south, preventing the war? Or by letting seceding states ho in peace? Or in a defeated Union forced to concede CSA independence?
Was northern victory in ACW a precondition for Gilded Age capitalism?
- Thread starter raharris1973
- Start date
Val the Moofia Boss
Well-known member
The South "largely contributed to develop the resources of the North", and there was the matter that the American government made a huge amount of money off of taxing Southern ports. By the 19th century, industrialization and modernization had become inevitable, but without the resources of the South, the the onset of modernization in the North would have been delayed.
Buba
A total creep
No South means an US internal market which is 1/3rd smaller.
The US may export to the CS, naturally, but there it'd have to compete against European made wares. In OTL it was a "captive" market, isnide the US tariff zone. And IIRC some local industries were surpressed - either by honest competition, or by cartel agreements.
There is (much?) fewer money in the economy as revenue from Southern exports no longer passes through the US banking system.
My uneducated, first glance opinion is that the US (Da Norff) grows, but at a slightly lesser pace.
The US may export to the CS, naturally, but there it'd have to compete against European made wares. In OTL it was a "captive" market, isnide the US tariff zone. And IIRC some local industries were surpressed - either by honest competition, or by cartel agreements.
There is (much?) fewer money in the economy as revenue from Southern exports no longer passes through the US banking system.
My uneducated, first glance opinion is that the US (Da Norff) grows, but at a slightly lesser pace.
Last edited:
Would agree. Plus it depends on the circumstances. A scenario where the south manages to leave peacefully or after relatively little conflict would mean far less destruction and also bad feeling between the two sides. If there's a long war its also likely that military spending on both sides would be higher - northern revanchists and southern fears feeding on each other. Which would be a considerable economic burden for both, along with possible social consequences. Also if relations are poor the north has to consider, assuming the south consists of the seceding states, that the latter will control the lower Mississippi, which is by a long way the easiest and cheapest way for getting bulk good to and from the upper Mississippi/Missouri and to a lesser degree the Ohio valleys.
The north, barring a total screw up by its leaders is going to emerge as a major economic and industrial power but it could be slightly or significantly slower and in the latter case the gilded age in terms of corruption and wealth disparities might not occur.
There's also another issue to consider here: Specifically the issue of runaway Southern slaves fleeing to the North. That, and the fact that as time will go on, the continuation of slavery in the Confederate States of America will be seen as more and more of a humanitarian problem and even crisis. After all, if European powers claim that slavery in Africa is unacceptable, why is slavery in the Confederacy any more acceptable? If anything, it might look even worse because whites are doing it to blacks rather than blacks doing it to other blacks.
True plus also how long does slavery last in the north? If the seceded states leave without a fight that means at least Kentucky, Virginia and possibly N Carolina will still be in the union, along with relatively small scale slavery in Maryland IIRC. Especially if the north has made promises to encourage them to stay in the union it could be a while before that was changed.
The other issue is do we get the often suggested attempts at southern expansion of slavery into Mexico or parts of the Caribbean and how does the north and Britain react to that. Probably not well I would expect.
The one advantage for the US OTL, while the CW was bloody and costly, was it did settle the issue of slavery. Here a number of questions will still need resolving. Slavery will die in the north although when and under what circumstances I don't know. For the south I think it will go eventually but when and under what path.
Not to mention does the successful secession, by whatever means affect say a constitutional referendum to ban - or strictly regulate any future secession. Plus also the future balance between the states and assorted parts of the central government. If the south win independence after a fight does this prompt a reaction against some of Lincoln's centralising and autocratic measures or possibly there's a counter flow that the failure to prevent secession demonstrates a need for greater central power.
So many cans of worms opening here depending on how things go.
I expect the issue of slavery abolition in the North should not be too difficult since while the US constitutional amendment process was extraordinarily difficult and cumbersome, there were so few remaining slave states in the Union that a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery should successfully pass eventually, IMHO.
Buba
A total creep
Less than ten years previously "European powers" went to war on behalf of slavering Ottomans. Also, Spain, Netherlands, Brazil, Peru - all had slavery into the 70s if not 80s.
So let us not go overboard with European powers being so anti slavery.
History Learner
Well-known member
I would think the first is a yes, simply because the Southern Elites would constitute a differing class to their Northern counterparts; the Civil War showed that they were fundamentally at odds in outlook and thus that class collaboration was overall less likely. Outside of that, the last one I think is also worthy of discussion, as I think a U.S. defeat is likely to provoke an American Labor movement much closer to those of Europe if given the right circumstances.
Brazil abolished slavery in 1888. When was slavery abolished elsewhere?
The ethnic composition of the white American population in the Northern US is different. Much more German, Italian, et cetera ancestry there. So, Yeah, a greater likelihood of support for socialism or at least social democracy there is very plausible in a TL where there's a surviving CSA. Germans and Italians in their home countries often exhibited support for socialism, after all.
History Learner
Well-known member
I think it's also a lot due to the political and economic situation.
What was the relevant distinction between Europe and the US in regards to this?
Buba
A total creep
Here you are:
Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
1882 - Ottoman Turkey ends slavery,
followed by
1908 - Young Turks close slave markets in Constantinople.
Or:
1923 - Hong Kong - Slavery of Mui tsai abolished.
Or:
1854 - Peru - President decrees end of slavery - yet we all know that a few years later Peruvian slavers carried off almost all of Easter Island's population.
Last edited:
Here you are:
Note such juicy entries likeTimeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom - Wikipedia
1882 - Ottoman Turkey ends slavery,
followed by
1908 - Young Turks close slave markets in Constantinople.
Or:
1923 - Hong Kong - Slavery of Mui tsai abolished.
Or:
1854 - Peru - President decrees end of slavery - yet we all know that a few years later Peruvian slavers carried off almost all of Easter Island's population.
So, Peru actually abolished slavery before the start of the ACW.
History Learner
Well-known member
A frontier, heavy immigration and the lack of a consensus based upon military service I would say.
European countries had a draft, the US didn't?
History Learner
Well-known member
With an attached social contract, exemplified best in Germany I think and France to a lesser extent.
What was this social contract? As in, what did this consist of?
1834 here in South Africa - or what was still just the Cape Colony.
Buba
A total creep
Like I pointed out - in theory.
EDIT
@WolfBear - yes, I made a boo-boo and was mistaken in pushing the date to the 70s.
Cape Colony until 1910 ...
BTW - wasn't it the the abolition of slavery which made the cup runneth over and push the Freedom Loving Boers to took to the steppes and flee British Tyranny?
Last edited: