It (probably) wouldn't take that long. Economic treaties are revised all the time; Mount Vernon's tariff regime is hardly etched in stone.I'm just wondering how long it lasts. In a Cincoverse update from the present day you mention that "The country [CSA] is experiencing a manufacturing renaissance, especially in light metals, electronics and increasingly machine goods." So somewhere along the line things change from 1917, just curious as to how long it takes.
It would be bleak (yet on brand) if it took literally a hundred years for the Cincoverse South to make up the lost ground from 1913 onwards. It makes sense - the Americans basically set half the country on fire and then not only didn't pay to rebuild the place (unlike OTL's post Civil War) they also took back North everything that they didn't burn to a crisp. The right-to-work fueled flight of factories from MI/OH/PA/NY/etc down South either doesn't happen at all or it is slow trickle compared to OTL. (And I would be floored if a Taft-Hartley analogue gets passed in the Cincoverse USA). All those sweet federal dollars that Southern politicians made sure to funnel to their districts obviously aren't a thing either here as opposed to OTL. There's no Texas/Oklahoma revenue to add to the CSA coffers either.
That said, the sans-Texas/OK South without OTL federal dollars will be spectacularly poorer than in our world. Mexico in OTL 1920, after the Revolution had more or less ended, would be a decent comparison.
This will happen more or less immediately.I wonder how long it will take before the Confederacy remnants and/or ideological groups start pulling shit to attempt to ignore the terms of the treaty? I could certainly see an attempt at mass-murder of any blacks they can find before they're allowed any of the "advantages" or "rights" a new constitution would give them.
I could also certainly believe the Confederates or ideological groups fucking around with covertly sabotaging any and all US treaty ports, concessions, or annexed territory. US goes "you're breaking the terms of the treaty!", CS goes "it's not us, it's actually they're just random unsatisfied citizens who are rightfully upset with the state of affairs and that you have 0 proof we are funding, but if you insist we'll crack down on them immediately *does nothing/the bare minimum*"
Actually, what's to stop things like assassinations and the like tearing through the US itself in the first few years by disgruntled Confederates? In all the chaos, people could slip over borders very easily.
The assassination part, hmm, maybe. It's a fair argument.
We did indeed miss "the Barn."Let's face it, if the next update on "Centro" is about someone being appointed the next US Ambassador to Honduras in 1938, it won't be that bad.
Thank you on the FLDS. Trying to figure out what early 20th century america is like with a religious leader telling their followers to derail trains.
The question is if the USA takes Arizona, how will the Confederates deport them there. Are we looking at a situation where the US only gives an entrance visa to a Confederate Negro if they agree to go to former Confederate Arizona.
As a dark note on the FLDS, given the conflicts within the grouping, it wouldn't be *that* bizarre if the FLDS interpreted Brigham Young's words to basically refuse to treat Negros as humans. Not pro-slavery but simply not willing to ever have business with or for that matter talk to. Think running a store and treating negros as if they aren't there when they walk it.
And did we miss the capture in the Barn?
Yeah, a religious sect more or less treated like a heretical cult by the mainstream LDS authorities (even ones who resent polygamy bans born of pragmatism and overbeaing federal authority) but with a huge follower base in a concentrated part of the country I don't know if I've seen explored thoroughly in a TL before. Definitely a big problem, long term.
Definitely. One more reason why abolition is sort of a fait accompli at this point - there is no way to re-enforce slavery upon such a population.I fully expect that as the US draws down a *LOT* of weaponry is going to find itself in Black hands. And functionally, between the treaty ports, control of the Mississippi (and its basin), it will be a long time before that *stops* happening. Imagine a boat owned by an American going up the Tennessee River to Knoxville and arranging to meet local blacks and give them Machine guns and the Confederacy not being able to stop it. Imagine the armed Negros being a larger group and better armed than the Confederate Military.
They gambled and lost, can't feel bad for them, they started the war, and the United States just ended it.
*insert "Fuck Around, Find Out* Chart meme here*Don't get me wrong, I'd piss on their graves before I feel sorry for them.
A Full Kurtz in Honduras or something would be kind of darkly hilarious.
- Arizona could be where the Texans send their freedmen and Kentucky could be where the Easterners send theirs. And there’s always Liberia!
- The Arizona Mormons would have to eventually deal with black people if they end up outnumbered by them.
- Could it be possible to have someone going full Colonel Kurtz in the ruins of Centro? Or someone wanting to be William Walker 2.0?
- I’m personally worried about the generations of Confederates who will be born who will grow up suffering for a war they had no responsibility for. At least the political destabilization is going to end after a relatively short period. But there’s no way that any revanchist movement is going to be in any position to do anything.
And, yeah, life for most Confederates will be very grim for a few decades, white and Black alike.
This was something I thought about and one dark conclusion I came to was that they may speak English, but many Americans will likely not be very happy about large waves of immigrants who as often as not are Black.Given these conditions, and what we know from the EU thread, the CSA sounds like it'll be even more of an economic basketcase than OTL Mexico. I imagine the US border states will be flooded with Confederate migration - it'll be interesting to see how they deal with illegal immigrants who share a language compared to OTL Mexican immigration.
And if anybody has ideas for how to get the CSA to go Full 1994 (if you know Mexican history you know what I'm talking about), I'm all ears! Lol.
Unlikely, for the reasons @DanMcCollum elaborates uponAny chance the Union gets territorial concessions from the Republic of Texas?
Extremely well, since "police constabularies" are not covered in the Treaty (and I gotta keep the LatAm/South Africa analogue going)I wonder how militaristic and well equipped some police forces will be in the Confederacy.
We'll have to cover these considerations for Texas here soon, especially with Lodge and other hard abolitionists ascendant in the USAgreed. One trouble spot at a time. If Texas sees no sign of Abolition (at the very least born-free laws) in another 5 years, then I could see the US exerting more pressure. But at this point, Texas is the only place in the (Western?) world that a child born to slaves will be a slave and that makes *them* the target of all of those anti-abolition groups which got stronger before the GAW. And I doubt that there is any place for a Texas slave owner to sell slaves now. The Brazilians aren't going to take them and the Confederates aren't that stupid. Who are they going to sell them to, the Ottomans?
It'll be delicious, I hopeCan't wait to read Confederate copium going forward.