Well they'd have to abolish slavery at some point, not out of sympathies to the negro, but out of basic economics and the gradual effects of industrialization.
Moreover, the CSA constitution provided the individual states with a right to fuck off whenever they want, so there would be a further atomization of that country down the line over minor differences, probably with a great deal of states re-joining the union.
It'd be too frail to handle the wars of the 20th century, however it would be hella fun to see Europe 2.0. Maybe nasa would be the pope and declare which state isn't giving enough taxpayer money to the space projects, and they'd get invaded. I'd love to kill some police from Ohio, personally.
Best reason is abundance of resources as well as keeping respect on an international scale. Nobody respects a government that lets half of its nation with half of its resources and people fuck off. Keeping the Union was really the only way that America would be able to stand up as the industrial, militaristic, and economic power that it became years following the war.
Looking back on it all we've kicked some ass together since then, even after the war. Sat on top of the world in place of all of those old world powers. They'll be writing about us in the books long after this great big thing finally falls. I'm pretty proud.
>>516005 >Moreover, the CSA constitution provided the individual states with a right to fuck off whenever they want,
Cite? I've read the Confederate constitution and never seen anything about this. The preamble refers to states as "sovereign and independent," but that's not a specifically articulated right to secession, and the same preamble says that the constitution is intended to create a "permanent federal government."
Actually, an amendment was proposed to the CSA constitution in 1863 that would have codified a means of peaceful secession from the CSA, on the condition that the seceding state "be entitled to its pro rata share of property and be liable for its pro rata share of public debt to be determined by negotiation," but the amendment never made it out of committee.
I mean, maybe a surviving CSA would have been more susceptible to secession because of the precedent set, but they didn't make any legal basis for secession as far as I'm aware.
A modern Confederacy would, broadly, fall into four possible timescales:
A: Gains independence, keeps slavery. Slaves revolt. Congratulations, you get to be Haiti writ large.
B: Gains independence, tries to maintain slavery. Becomes like apartheid South Africa or Rhodesia - an unstable and increasingly authoritarian state beset with white flight and eventually majority rule.
C: Gains independence, manages to keep slavery around indefinitely: International pariah, tiny economy compared to industrial might of the North, permanently fighting slave revolt. eventually will collapse.
D: Gains a few decades before the North's explosive population and economic growth lead to a massive disparity between the two, and the North fabricates a casus belli and annexes it, probably with the consent of the slave population.
>>515978 The Civil War wasn't where the Union fucked up, it was during Reconstruction. The punitive measures Lincoln specifically didn't want ingrained "southern pride" so deep that it's still there 150 years later.
Incorrect, the punitive measures were not nearly punitive enough. Had expropriation of the landed classes and the settlement of former plantations by their free slaves been done, then the position of African-Americans would have been considerably better.
It's closer to the truth to say that Reconstruction was petty where it should have been lenient and lenient where it should have been punitive.
I'm not so sure. Brazil only put in a ban on slave trading under British pressure in 1831, and even then it was merely 'para Ingles ver'. Brazil abolished in the 1880s, but Brazilian slavery was qualitatively different from Southern slavery and the abolition there was more in response to an educated mulatto population. Also, only 15% of Brazilians were slaves, compared to a near-majority for the South.
Slavery was so vital to the Southern social system that they'd probably have tried to keep at it even if it had become unprofitable.
>>517870 I'm sure they wouldn't want to do it, both for economic reasons, and out of stubbornness, but the (rump) US and Britain (+Canada) would quickly work themselves into paroxysms of righteous concern for the slaves. Unlike Brazil or the Middle East slavery in the Confederacy would be much more in their face, due to geographic and cultural proximity.
Once alternative sources of cotton come on line the Confederacy would have zero leverage. If they don't want to become a total pariah state (probably as early as the 1870s, assuming a peaceful secession) they'd have no choice but to give up slavery, and eventually apartheid.
>>516030 >their territory Why do Yankees always have such a dimwitted view of how the relationship between the federal government and the states work? If you want to live in the United Provinces of Greater Washington DC than in the United States of America be my guest but please leave everybody else out of it, you micromanaging headcases.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.