CSA Economy

[Viriato]

I had always been under the impression that cotton was relatively unimportant to the U.S. economy and figured that and independent CSA would be a relatively poor country where cotton was the main export. I decided to do some research looking at old bulletins published by the U.S. Department of Commerce and realised that cotton was actually the single largest U.S. export even in 1913. Worth over $575 million that year alone it account for almost a quarter of U.S. exports abroad

List of Total Leading Exports in 1913
TOTAL $2,484,018,292
Raw Cotton $575,488,090
Iron and Steel $294,435,060
Breadstuffs $203,391,856
Meat and Dairy Products $157,486,469
Fossil Fuels $149,316,409
Copper and Copper Manufactures $144,909,117
Wood and Manufactures $114,777,513
Coal $67,209,514
Tobacco & Tobacco Manufactures $59,693,800
Leather and Leather Manufactures $59,994,68
Cotton Manufactures $55,536,267
Automobiles $35,453,643

In fact, raw cotton was the single largest import from the U.S. for the U.K, Germany, France, Italy and Japan. Based on actual figures from 1913 the CSA would still be the world's largest cotton producer, producing some 61% of the world's total. Of that total 54% was destined for export abroad and another 25% went to Northern States.

World Cotton Production in 1913
CSA 61%
India 17%
Egypt 7%
China 5%
Russia 5%
Brazil 2%

With such a large share of the world's production of raw cotton, most textile manufacturing countries would be heavily dependent on CSA cotton. Below I've shown how reliant different countries were on ex-CSA cotton in 1913.

CSA cotton as % of cotton used in manufacturing of the leading textile producing countries
USA 90%
Great Britain 62%
Germany 61%
France 54%
Austria-Hungary 50%
Italy 64%
Russia 23%
Japan 17%
India 2%

The other thing I was able to discover was that 39% of the textile industry was located in the ex-CSA states by 1913. Mostly in the Carolinas and to a lesser extent Georgia and Alabama. Based on the number of cotton spindles, the CSA would have been the 3rd largest cotton manufacturing country, ranking just ahead of Germany.

World Total 143,398,000
United Kingdom 55,653,000
USA 19,293,000
CSA 12,227,000
Germany 11,186,000
Russia 9,213,000
France 7,400,000
India 6,084,000
Austria-Hungary 4,909,000
Italy 4,600,000
Japan 2,300,000
Spain 2,000,000
Belgium 1,492,000
Switzerland 1,398,000


Finally, I looked up the exports of other leading primary product exporting countries and based on cotton alone the CSA doesn't come out bad at all. Also, keep in mind that the cotton produced outside of the CSA was negligible in 1913 according to the Commerce Department.

Total Exports in 1913
*CSA $771 milllion (cotton exports only)
Argentina $485.5 million
Canada $393.2 million
Australia $382.1 million
Brazil $315.2 million
Cuba $165.2 million
Mexico $149.1 million

*This figure includes cotton from the ex-CSA that was "exported" to Northern States, 90% going to New England alone.

Even compared to some Great Powers that same year it's not so bad:

Total Exports in 1913
Austria-Hungary $555 million
Italy $464.4 million
Japan $276.5 million

In 1859, $161.4 million of cotton was exported already and even at that figure the CSA was still ahead of Mexico in 1913.

So with the figures I've presented it looks like the CSA would be likely to be at least a second rate power at the time of the first world war no? I wanted to get some other people's opinions and see if anyone else was as shocked as I was to see the data above. By the 1940s things would change especially as other countries increase output of cotton, but at least before WWI the country would seem to have some importance at least regionally.

 

[Douglas]

Simply by population, the Confederacy will be a second-rate power along the lines of Italy or Spain. I know of few people who suggest that an independent CSA would be a third-tier power like Mexico or Portugal.

 

[King Gorilla]

Not to diminish the importance of cotton to the US economy, as it was America's leading export for a very very long time. However, the main strength of the American economy was its domestic market. Hence exports made up a relatively small percentage of its GDP. I do agree however, were the south to properly industrialize, textiles would be one of its principle industrial sectors.

Anyway cotton will bring the confederacy a lot of easy money. However the south lacked sufficient industries to meet its domestic needs. Consequently given the presumed absence of tariffs, the CSA will still likely importnat most of its consumer, and capital goods from elsewhere. An over-reliance upon a single crop has the potential to cause very bad things with the emergence of bole weevils and inevitable consequences of soil depletion. One only needs to look at the commodity booms and busts of Latin America to observe the worst case scenario. Either someone other than G.W. Carver discovers nitrogen fixating crop rotation (as he will be deprived of both education and agency in the CSA) , or the soil will soon need to produce/import large quantities of nitrates.

 

[Father Maryland]

Simply by population, the Confederacy will be a second-rate power along the lines of Italy or Spain. I know of few people who suggest that an independent CSA would be a third-tier power like Mexico or Portugal.

I am one of those people. Though I actually think the CSA would have collapsed by the eighties.

 

[Father Maryland]

You really should not use OTL figures to gauge the size of the CSA economy. There were a very large number of factors working against the CSA even existing till 1913. Here are a few of the more major ones.

1) No tariff will ever get enacted as long as the planter elite own the government. As such industry shall not be developed. The South will be dependent on the export of raw cotton which means any dip in price or outbreak of cotton destroying parasite and the CSA economy is completely destroyed.

2) Plantation based economies tend to hinder the development of any industrial efforts.

3) The Antebellum and ACW infrastructure was a huge mess of different gauges and types which totalled a tiny fraction of the US overall rail and canal mileage. The war wrecked this further. This means that post war for the planters to even say ship there product abroad they need to take huge loans from Europe to rebuild there network which they will be extremely unwilling to do.

4) The South will still need to import massive quantities of food stuffs and the like.

5) The population of the South will continue to dwindle as Unionist elements immigrate to the US frontier.

6) Its likely that the enslaved populace will begin revolting or escaping en masse shortly after the war. To say nothing of the Unionists who would be rather unhappy to be under the planters yoke.

7) The confederal system of the CSA nation would mean regional differences will continue to rise to the surface and hinder any attempts at acting as a nation. The CSA military will be tremendously weak which may encourage foreign attack.

8) The confederate economic system was always a huge mess either dependent on the US or the Europeans to act as the middle men in negotiations. They were also unwilling to undertake simple measures like properly backing there currency.

 

[67th Tigers]

You really should not use OTL figures to gauge the size of the CSA economy. There were a very large number of factors working against the CSA even existing till 1913. Here are a few of the more major ones.

1) No tariff will ever get enacted as long as the planter elite own the government. As such industry shall not be developed. The South will be dependent on the export of raw cotton which means any dip in price or outbreak of cotton destroying parasite and the CSA economy is completely destroyed.

No, there was already a large movement towards establishing textile mills on the Eastern Coast. OTL this was suppressed by the Union burning them, and then aggressively suppressing competition from the southern states after 1865.

If the CS continues on their established trajectory then they will heavily industrialise and use their own cotton produce.

2) Plantation based economies tend to hinder the development of any industrial efforts.

No, why would they?

3) The Antebellum and ACW infrastructure was a huge mess of different gauges and types which totalled a tiny fraction of the US overall rail and canal mileage. The war wrecked this further. This means that post war for the planters to even say ship there product abroad they need to take huge loans from Europe to rebuild there network which they will be extremely unwilling to do.

Not really. railways need replacing roughly every decade.

As to the length of track, it doesn't matter. What does matter is the capacity. The US rail network had a capacity of 2 million ton-miles. The CS rail network had a capacity of 1 million ton-miles.

Note that track length is a divisor. The longer the distance the less that can be moved, obviously.

As to canals, I suggest you look at natural navigable water. The CS controls the major river systems.

4) The South will still need to import massive quantities of food stuffs and the like.

Not like they were a major agricultural producer is it that produced a large excess of grain and cattle is it?

5) The population of the South will continue to dwindle as Unionist elements immigrate to the US frontier.

and what about the flow in the opposite direction? From, say, southern Ohio and Illinois southwards.....

6) Its likely that the enslaved populace will begin revolting or escaping en masse shortly after the war. To say nothing of the Unionists who would be rather unhappy to be under the planters yoke.

Only in radical republican propaganda.

7) The confederal system of the CSA nation would mean regional differences will continue to rise to the surface and hinder any attempts at acting as a nation. The CSA military will be tremendously weak which may encourage foreign attack.

Like the US?

8) The confederate economic system was always a huge mess either dependent on the US or the Europeans to act as the middle men in negotiations. They were also unwilling to undertake simple measures like properly backing there currency.

Like the US?

 

[Municipal Engines]

I think that the beginnings of a victorious and independent CSA will be much like the beginnings of the USA. We should look at the attitudes from a different perspective. Here, we are basing our assumptions from the figures and facts of the CSA that lost, rather than the CSA that won. It's like an AH.com thread discussing the economy of an independent 13 colonies if they won the American Rebellion - there would be so many people saying they would collapse due to the difficulties in their political system, military, economy and population (the USA had, in 1790, just under 4 million citizens). They would be basing their opinions and predictions off of the USA that lost their war, not the USA that won. The CSA and the USA have very similar systems.

 

[archaeogeek]

I think that the beginnings of a victorious and independent CSA will be much like the beginnings of the USA. We should look at the attitudes from a different perspective. Here, we are basing our assumptions from the figures and facts of the CSA that lost, rather than the CSA that won. It's like an AH.com thread discussing the economy of an independent 13 colonies if they won the American Rebellion - there would be so many people saying they would collapse due to the difficulties in their political system, military, economy and population (the USA had, in 1790, just under 4 million citizens). They would be basing their opinions and predictions off of the USA that lost their war, not the USA that won. The CSA and the USA have very similar systems.

The CSA that lost had heavily recovered in a matter of years. The economy of the CSA after reconstruction had grown faster than antebellum. A CSA that won would have no reason to want reforms.

 

[King Gorilla]

Only in radical republican propaganda.

Radical Republican propaganda? Really, you honestly believe that the confederacy wouldn't have a discontented population of slaves/blacks?

One only needs to look at OTL to show how utterly delusional that is. While comparatively few slaves, escaped via the underground railroad, much of this was due to the fact that the greater continental united states still recognized the legal institution of slavery. Yet, during the civil war, hundreds of thousands of slaves abandoned their masters, volunteered for the union army, and took to resisting the confederacy with both active and passive means. That alone demonstrates, that Blacks weren't contented participants in the peculiar institution. Nor were Blacks passive in the acceptance of Jim Crow. During the great migration, Millions of the blacks abandoned their friends, family, and roots in order to go north in search of a better life. While racism was present in the north, it was still lesser than the evils their experienced south of the Mason Dixon line.

What would likely happen if the North lost? It would become, a hell of a lot easier for escaped slaves to reach free territory. The north would have little reason to tolerate the presence of slave catchers seeking to return "property" to their masters. There will be paying jobs, in scores of industrial cities, as factory owners look for cheap unskilled labor. In the north they will be allowed to obtain an education, they are able to keep their own earned wages, they will be able to choose their own associates, and their families aren't constantly threatened with sale and dissolution. While racism will be present and common place, it isn't an idea which is codified into the North's national ideals. Even if the South abolished slavery, something nearly impossibly to do constitutionally, Blacks would certainly face an apartheid regime designed to keep them in peonage. I can see little reason, for blacks to want to willingly stay in the confederacy.

 

[Teleology]

Southern Unionists and Mountain Yankees are NOT " Radical Republican propaganda ".

 

[Faeelin]

No, there was already a large movement towards establishing textile mills on the Eastern Coast. OTL this was suppressed by the Union burning them, and then aggressively suppressing competition from the southern states after 1865.

Got a cite for this?

 

[Admiral Matt]

Fascinating stats, Viriato. Thanks!

Of course the other posters are quite correct, we can't project that directly to performance of an independent republic. It fails to account for the damage of the war, the lack of forced emancipation, and decades in the US being lightly abused economically but protected by tariffs.

That said, it's worth pointing out that the CSA was IIRC the fourth or fifth largest industrial power in the world during its brief existence. That's not going to disappear, though it would have continued to fluctuate with cotton prices (slaves were in high demand in industry, but they couldn't afford a great many except when cotton prices dropped). As an independent country that's broken away from a larger neighbor, the CSA will also maintain and expand the military-oriented industry it had during the war.

Given its small population, the limitations of its class system, and the cotton monoculture, the Confederates will lose industrial and economic strength relative to the USA, West and (much of) Central Europe. However, by 1860 the CSA had very, very little in common with Latin America. The American South had been quite unique in its first two hundred years. It would be fallacious to assume it would follow the exact course of any OTL state.

 

[archaeogeek]

Fascinating stats, Viriato. Thanks!

Of course the other posters are quite correct, we can't project that directly to performance of an independent republic. It fails to account for the damage of the war, the lack of forced emancipation, and decades in the US being lightly abused economically but protected by tariffs.

That said, it's worth pointing out that the CSA was IIRC the fourth or fifth largest industrial power in the world during its brief existence. That's not going to disappear, though it would have continued to fluctuate with cotton prices (slaves were in high demand in industry, but they couldn't afford a great many except when cotton prices dropped). As an independent country that's broken away from a larger neighbor, the CSA will also maintain and expand the military-oriented industry it had during the war.

Given its small population, the limitations of its class system, and the cotton monoculture, the Confederates will lose industrial and economic strength relative to the USA, West and (much of) Central Europe. However, by 1860 the CSA had very, very little in common with Latin America. The American South had been quite unique in its first two hundred years. It would be fallacious to assume it would follow the exact course of any OTL state.

Barely 9th actually, and that's using only one industry (iron/steel) and ignoring a lot of others.

 

[Paul Spring]

I generally agree that the idea that an independent CSA is going to become a very poor "banana republic" is pretty groundless. In terms of industry and infrastructure, it was behind much of northern and western Europe and the northern states, but equal or ahead of much of southern and western Europe and the rest of the western hemisphere.

Edit: It certainly would have quite a few social and political problems, though, and it will be heavily reliant on foreign economies, especially the UK and ironically probably also the US.

 

[Arachnid]

While exact comparisons with OTL states are obviously flawed I think a good comparison is Argentina and Brazil.
A independent CSA is in the short term going to do really quite well. Cotton prices will hold up in the short term and while the absence of tariffs will slow industrial development there will still be some industrialisation as people try to move up the supply chain, especially in the textile industry. While there will be problems, slave rebellions they'll be pretty small. Most slaves are held in the Deep South, a long way from the US border, though slave holding in the 50 miles next to border might become more difficult.
All in all the CSA is going to reach 1900 as a reasonably prosperous primary resource producer, just like Argentina and Brazil but probably doing better because of more political stability thanks to inherited US institutions.
With this level of prosperity the CSA is not going to attract that many immigrants, but will attract some and will probably thus having similar demographics to OTL as they will counteract the outflow of Unionist sympathisers.
The problem comes post 1900. After then the two big problems on the horizon is the long slow fall in commodity prices which will make being an export orientated primary producer a much less smart economic strategy and linked to that, the almost certain rise of economic populism in the white working class.
While I think social factors mean blacks will stay either slaves or under "apartheid" on steroids the plantocracy will not be able to exclude the white working poor forever and that could end very badly.
Its impossible to guess where the CSA would be by 2000, anywhere from 1st World multiracial democracy to dirt-poor genocidal fascist hell-hole and everywhere in between.

 

[Typo]

Actually I think the CSA might end up more like: Russia

Theoretically capable of becoming a first-rate power, but with enough social problems to make it also capable of becoming a failed state.

 

[Viriato]

I used 1913 as a benchmark year because it's one of those pivotal years that historians like to use along with 1789, 1815, 1870, 1929 etc. I went digging through the archives of the U.S. Commerce Department as well as the Department of Agriculture and found some more economic info on the ex- CSA states. I thought people may be interested in some of the stats I found.

The figures below are based on average annual production listed from the 1909-1913 period. I've added stats that show the total production of the ex CSA states as a % of the total U.S. output of each product at the time. I've also added separate figures for different CSA scenarios including the possible inclusion of West Virginia, Kentucky, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Kansas that I call the super-CSA just for comparison.

Coal Production (7% of U.S. total)
36,200,000 metric tons (worth $61.3 million)
113,700,000 metric tons if you get Kentucky & West Virginia to join the confederacy ($128.7 million). This would be 22% of the U.S. total at the time.

Even with the original CSA states alone it would be the world's 6th largest coal producer just behind France (41 million mt) and ahead of Belgium (23 million mt). With KY and WV it moves up to 4th place just after Germany.

Pig Iron
2.8 million tons (9.5% of the U.S. total output)
3.1 million tons with KY and WV) (10% of total U.S. output in 1913)

Maize/Corn
630 million bushels (39% of the U.S. total) worth $54 million
741.8 million with KY & WV (46% of the U.S. total)
904.9 million with Kansas, Oklahoma also in a super CSA scenario (56% of the U.S. total)

Wheat
35 million bushels (5% of the U.S. total) worth $33 million
97 million bushels in a super CSA scenario worth $74 million. Without Kansas the CSA would be required to import roughly 55 million bushels of wheat annually.

Potatoes
19 million bushels (6% of the U.S. total), worth $29 million.
56 million bushels in the super CSA (19% of the U.S. total)

Oats
54 million bushels (6% of the U.S. total), worth $32 million.
118 million bushels in the super CSA (12% of the U.S. total)

Wool
18 million pounds (6% of the U.S. total)
49 million pounds in the super CSA (15% of the U.S. total), mostly in NM in AZ.

Poultry Production (1909 figures)
$43 million (21% of the U.S. total)
$62 million in the super CSA (31% of the U.S. total)

Egg Production (1909 figures)
$52 million (17% of the U.S. total)
$81 million in the super CSA, added value mostly in KS (26% of the U.S. total)

Sugar Production (1911-1912 figures)
308,000 tons of cane sugar (36% of total U.S. sugar production). All sugar cane production in continental U.S. was in ex-CSA states, all other states produce beet sugar.

Manufacturing by Capital Invested
Just under $1.8 billion by 1909, which is 10% of U.S. capital invested in industry at the time.
For the super-CSA it would is $2.5 billion or 14% of the U.S. total.

Manufacturing by Gross Value of Product (1909 figures)
$1,804,000,000 or 9% of the U.S. total at the time.
$2,302,000,000 or 11% of the U.S. total at the time for the super CSA.

Leading Manufacturing Cities by value of Products in 1909. Please note I've listed the cities in a super-CSA too.
1. Kansas City, KS $164.1 million
2. Louisville, KY $101.3 million
3. New Orleans, LA $78.8 million
4. Richmond, VA $47.4 million
5. Atlanta, GA $33.0 million
6. Memphis, TN $30.0 million
7. Nashville, TN $29.7 million
8. Dallas, TX $27.0 million
9. Birmingham, AL $24.1 million
10. Durham, NC $23.3 million
11. Houston, TX $23.0 million
12. Winston, NC $16.8 million
13. Chattanooga, TN $16.0 million
14. San Antonio, TX $14.4 million
15. Macon, GA $10.7 million
16. Charlotte, NC 10.5 million
17. Augusta, GA $10.5 million
18. Norfolk, VA $10.3 million
19. Lynchburg, VA $10.2 million
10. Petersburgh, VA $8.9 million

Finally, I wanted to note that I also found a list of British investments in U.S. companies in 1914 at the beginning of the war and was surprised how many railroads, electric companies, oil companies were at least in part owned by British capital especially in the south.

 

[Arachnid]

Looking at those figures the general trend seems to be for the CSA to be about 10-15% of the overall economy in most areas. However while this confirms something we already knew (CSA would be smaller and poorer than USA) the comparison with other nations suggest on a global scale the CSA would rank in the top 10 easily providing it can maintain pace.

 

[archaeogeek]

stats

And what's the population ratio? (also, coal mining isn't much of an indicator).

 

[Arachnid]

Coal isn't but pretty much every indicator apart from Poultry, Sugar and Maize is in the 6%-10% range. Including 10% of manufacturing capital investments.