"CSA Today"

[Hashemite]

CSA wins in 1865. i would ask first how would a victorious CSA be today? When would slavery be abolished? What territories would it have in 2006?, and who would be the President?

 

[Smaug]

Just my opinion, but I think slavery was already becoming unprofitable. The latter Civil War Era of sharecropping put blacks further back than a possible CSA timeline.

I'm not a bigot or slavery friendly person by any stretch, but I can't help but think that the way Imancipation was crammed down the South's throat, it certainly encouraged some of the animosity that lasted till the 1960's.

Many of the citizens of the border states realised that it just wasn't as profitable, and much like communism, took all the benefit out of excelling. Making them work part of your property, and giving them a garden to do with as they would, was far cheaper than feeding, clothing, and assuring that the slaves were in good health.

I honestly think that, "The Imancipation Proclamation" did more harm than good to blacks, in the long run.

It all comes down to economics....Almost all conflicts have.

 

[Evil Opus]

The CSA is conquered in the 1940's by the United States after a fascist CS regime starts WWII. The Germans take over France, and England is given a bloody nose. The US occupation of the CSA continues until 1991, when the original states that formed the Confederacy in 1861 are granted independece. President George W. Bush of the Whig Party was elected in 2004 over Democrat Zell Miller to a six year term. President Bush has been somewhat unpopular ever since Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans.

 

[JimmyJimJam]

The CSA collapses by 1870.

 

[Filo]

I'm arriving in Year 2006 with my Timeline(just in year 1925)
I belive that the south was expanding in caraibean islands and the president may be Pat Buchanan or wors Pat Robertson.
Slavery continue for a lot(If not for economic reasons at least as cultural factor) and was abolished arounth 1890 as for Brasil

 

[DoleScum]

CSA wins in 1865. i would ask first how would a victorious CSA be today? When would slavery be abolished? What territories would it have in 2006?, and who would be the President?

1. Given the fact that the CSA toyed with the idea of partial of phased emancipation during the closing stages of the civil war, mainly in order to gain supprt from Britain and France, slavery could have been removed as an institution quite early during the CSA's history. Although certainly the CSA would have instituted a strong 'apartheid' type political and social system.
Free coloured citizens of the CSA would probably have few political rights, would be totally disenfranchised and would probably be barred from certain professions and from holding substantial amounts of proerty/assets.

2. Economically the CSA would find life very difficult. The Civil War and disruption to the trans-Atlantic cotton trade meant that Europeans were able to locate or produce alternative sources of raw cotton. The CSA would have found it extremely hard to regain the total dominance of supply it had enjoyed prior to the war.
Also the European textiles market was due to go into long-term decline during the 1870s. Meaning the CSA would either have had to switch to agricultural production - something it would need to do in order to avoid dependency on US food supplies, or 'King Tobacco'.
The CSA would also be saddled with a huge amount of government debt. The CSA ran up massive amounts of debt in Europe by dishing out government bonds in Britain and France with ridiculously high rates of interest. Failure to pay these debts could have led to joint Frano-British intervention in the CSA at some point in the future - as happened in Mexico, Egypt and China during the mid-C19th.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

1. Given the fact that the CSA toyed with the idea of partial of phased emancipation during the closing stages of the civil war, mainly in order to gain supprt from Britain and France, slavery could have been removed as an institution quite early during the CSA's history.

Interesting that you'd say this. By the end of 1864 - beginning of 1865, when the emancipation of blacks willing to fight for the CSA began, I think recognition by England or France of the CSA was a hallucinatory pipe dream. I think the emancipation had more to do with the CSA government desperately trying to find more bodies to fill it ranks.

Which brings me to my point: What an Independent CSA would look like would probably have a lot to do, if not mostly to do, with how it won its independence. 1) An early victory in which the North just fumbled around and came to terms before the election. 2) A peace canidate winning the elections, 3) Or some continued years of strife and the CSA eventually winning a guerrilla war sometime between 1865 and 1870.

I think the earlier it wins, the less likely you are to see many social changes in the CSA any time soon, such as aboloshment of slavery (Maybe as late as the early 20th century), or a move away from a culture dominated by the planter aristocracy. Of course slavery would eventually end, and their economy would diversify, but their racial hang ups would remain as strong as ever. (Granted, I'm sure forced emancipation added some measure of hostillity to the newly freed blacks, but the writings of men like R.E. Lee and Jeff Davis, J.E Brown (Governor of Georgia), Ect, provide ample evidence that the maintence of racial caste system was considered a matter of the upmost importance by southern elites, long before the civil war ever brought the prospect of forced emancipation out of the realm of fantasy.

Today, the CSA might look very much like South Africa did during aparteid, at least in form. They'd have a significant black population, but the international pressure on them to reform would be significantly less because blacks wouldn't constitute a majority, and especially not a super majority like they did in South Africa.

A latter victory date probably produces more disruptions in the South's society. A win for McClellan might have brought about an independent South, but McClellan himself might not have been such a roll-over as people imagine. I think a McClellan presidential victory, comming at a time when the Southern's generals already realized that their war-making resources were nearing exhaustion, might have more likely brought about a negotioated re-union rather than the conquest that resulted a year later. Reconstruction would have been tabled, and the Emmancipation proclomation might have ended up being worth about as much as toilet paper indian treaties were written on, but the Southern states, one by one, might have started to vote to rejoin the union - under pressure, but with certain garantees - untill all but a handful had rejoin. The holdouts would have probably 'seen the light' withing a decade or two as well.

Such an outcome would have effected the national culture of the entire United States, probably delaying emmancipation in effect, and worsening race relations slightly, even greater segregation than we have today, blacks just as likely as hispanics to have the lowest of the low paying jobs, migrant workers, maids, ect, (but I think it'd take a while for a person ISOT'ed from our TL to this one a while to pick up on the subtle differences. )


Now if the south won through gureilla war, all bets are off the table. Its old institutions would have probably come through such a conflict shattered, and emancipation in effect if not through proclimation would likely be inevitable. How many blacks chose to fight with the insurgents would effect future race relations, but such a hardfought and vicious campaign - if successful - might be just enough to give the south a truly seperate culture from the rest of the united states, rather than the thin / watery difference that existed between an average southernor and average northerner, mostly due (if not solely due) to the peculiar institution of slavery. But predicting what it'd look like today is hard, because I believe such a south might have eneded up being fertile breeding ground from some of the more radical ideas of early 20th century, for it'd be licking its wounds and trying to recover from the resulting power vaccum.

(State Governments would probably collapse during the struggle, or become mere figurehead unable to control the roviving bands of armed gureillas, each claiming to to rightful heirs to the Army of the Northern Virginian, ect.)


Well, that's at least how I see it.

 

[robertp6165]

...the writings of men like R.E. Lee and Jeff Davis, J.E Brown (Governor of Georgia), Ect, provide ample evidence that the maintence of racial caste system was considered a matter of the upmost importance by southern elites, long before the civil war ever brought the prospect of forced emancipation out of the realm of fantasy.

To what writings do you refer? Robert E. Lee never wrote anything arguing in favor of a "racial caste system." Indeed, in those few instances where he expressed himself on the subject by words or, more importantly, by action, he encouraged acceptance of blacks into society.

Jeff Davis also never, to my knowledge, wrote any such thing. Davis believed, even before the war, that the slaves were going to be freed in the relatively near future, and that they would have to be prepared for citizenship. He educated many of the slaves on his own plantation because of these beliefs.

If you are going to make assertions like this, it would be good to see some examples.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

The bellow, from http://radgeek.com/gt/2005/01/03/robert_e , is a little tougher on the man than I would be, giving him dispensation for the time and place into which he was born, but for R.E.L., this is my basic point.

I’ve spent some time ragging on neo-Confederate mythistory here before; today I’d like to take a bit of time to talk about another of the idiot notions popular with the Stars-and-Bars crowd: the idea that Robert E. Lee opposed slavery, or that he didn’t own any slaves. No he didn’t, and yes he did. Robert E. Lee defended the institution of slavery and personally owned slaves.


Lee cheerleaders love to point out that Lee wrote to his wife, in 1856, that In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil He did write that, but the use of the quotation is dishonest. The quote is cherry-picked from a letter that Lee wrote to his wife on December 27, 1856; the passage from which it was taken actually reads:

In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.
—Robert E. Lee, letter to his wife on slavery (December 27, 1856)
​

Lee, in other words, regarded slavery as an evil—but a necessary evil ordained by God as the white man’s burden. Far from expressing opposition to the institution of slavery, the purpose of his letter was actually to condemn abolitionists; the letter was an approving note on a speech by then-President Franklin Pierce, which praised Pierce’s opposition to interference with Southern slavery, and declared that the time of slavery’s demise must not be sped by political agitation, but rather left to God, with whom two thousand years are but as a Single day. After that reassuring note, Lee goes on to offer an impassioned plea for toleration of the Spiritual liberty to enslave an entire race:

Although the Abolitionist must know this, & must See that he has neither the right or power of operating except by moral means & suasion, & if he means well to the slave, he must not Create angry feelings in the Master; that although he may not approve the mode which it pleases Providence to accomplish its purposes, the result will nevertheless be the same; that the reasons he gives for interference in what he has no Concern, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbors when we disapprove their Conduct; Still I fear he will persevere in his evil Course. Is it not strange that the descendants of those pilgrim fathers who Crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom of opinion, have always proved themselves intolerant of the Spiritual liberty of others?
​

And what did the painful discipline … necessary for their instruction mean? One of the sixty-three slaves that Lee inherited from his father-in-law explains:

My name is Wesley Norris; I was born a slave on the plantation of George Parke Custis; after the death of Mr. Custis, Gen. Lee, who had been made executor of the estate, assumed control of the slaves, in number about seventy; it was the general impression among the slaves of Mr. Custis that on his death they should be forever free; in fact this statement had been made to them by Mr. C. years before; at his death we were informed by Gen. Lee that by the conditions of the will we must remain slaves for five years; I remained with Gen. Lee for about seventeen months, when my sister Mary, a cousin of ours, and I determined to run away, which we did in the year 1859; we had already reached Westminster, in Maryland, on our way to the North, when we were apprehended and thrown into prison, and Gen. Lee notified of our arrest; we remained in prison fifteen days, when we were sent back to Arlington; we were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where, in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable, was called in, who gave us the number of lashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to lay it on well, an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done. After this my cousin and myself were sent to Hanover Court-House jail, my sister being sent to Richmond to an agent to be hired; we remained in jail about a week, when we were sent to Nelson county, where we were hired out by Gen. Lee’s agent to work on the Orange and Alexander railroad; we remained thus employed for about seven months, and were then sent to Alabama, and put to work on what is known as the Northeastern railroad; in January, 1863, we were sent to Richmond, from which place I finally made my escape through the rebel lines to freedom; I have nothing further to say; what I have stated is true in every particular, and I can at any time bring at least a dozen witnesses, both white and black, to substantiate my statements: I am at present employed by the Government; and am at work in the National Cemetary on Arlington Heights, where I can be found by those who desire further particulars; my sister referred to is at present employed by the French Minister at Washington, and will confirm my statement.
—Testimony of Wesley Norris (1866); reprinted in John W. Blassingame (ed.): Slave Testimony: Two Centuries of Letters, Speeches, and Interviews, and Autobiographies Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press (ISBN 0-8071-0273-3). 467-468.
​

Some Lee hagiographers seem to be completely unaware that Lee ever owned slaves, much less treated them like this. Part of that’s just the warping of tidbits they heard elsewhere—it’s true that Lee did not own any slaves during most of the Civil War—and part of it is, frankly, dishonest fudging—Lee’s sixty-three slaves were, in spite of being legally under his control and forced to work on his plantation, not held under his own name, but rather temporarily under his control as an inheritance from his father-in-law, G.W.P. Custis. Other Lee cheerleaders recognize that Lee did own slaves, but give him props for manumitting them. What they leave out of the record is that Custis’s will legally required Lee to emancipate the slaves that passed into his control within five years of Custis’s death. Custis died October 10, 1857 and his will was probated December 7, 1857 (about a year after Lee wrote his letter on slavery); Lee kept the slaves as long as he could, and finally filed the deed of manumission with Court of the City of Richmond on December 29, 1862—five years, two months, and nineteen days after Custis’s death.


Custis actually gave freedom to his slaves without qualification in his will; the matter of the five years was supposed to be time for Custis’s executors to do the legal paperwork for emancipation in such manner as may to [them] seem most expedient and proper. There’s good reason to read the clause as intending for the five years to serve as an upper bound on settling the legal details, not as five more years for driving the slaves for whatever last bits of forced labor could be gotten. Lee, however, did not see it that way, and set the slaves to for his own profit for as long as he could. We have already seen that some of the slaves disagreed with Lee on this point of legal interpretation, and how he treated those who acted on their legal theory by seceding from his plantation.


Of course, Lee never was very big on secession at all. Those who love to haul out the Confederacy — Lee included — as heros for secessionist self-determination tend to neglect comments such as this one:

Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for perpetual union so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution.
—Robert E. Lee, letter, 23 January 1861
​

Secession allowed; anarchy established, and not a government; one sighs—if only.
Robert E. Lee is no hero. He was a defender of slavery and a harsh critic of abolitionism; he was also a slaver who brutally punished those who sought their rightful freedom. There are many reasons to damn the Federal government’s role in the Civil War, but none of them offer any excuse for celebrating vicious men such as Lee.

 

[DoleScum]

Heart of Darkness, good post sir.

Interesting that you'd say this. By the end of 1864 - beginning of 1865, when the emancipation of blacks willing to fight for the CSA began, I think recognition by England or France of the CSA was a hallucinatory pipe dream. I think the emancipation had more to do with the CSA government desperately trying to find more bodies to fill it ranks

Agreed, although the Confederates were aware that the emancipation proclamation European support for the Confederacy rapidly shrank. The passing of a Confederate emancipation law in 64-65 would have had little impact on European opinion because most Europeans believed the Confederates were already screwed and because the 'partial' plan to release slaves for service in the military fell far behind Linocolns promise of immediate freedom.

Which brings me to my point: What an Independent CSA would look like would probably have a lot to do, if not mostly to do, with how it won its independence. 1) An early victory in which the North just fumbled around and came to terms before the election. 2) A peace canidate winning the elections, 3) Or some continued years of strife and the CSA eventually winning a guerrilla war sometime between 1865 and 1870.

An excellent point, and one which I totally agree with.

To me it seems that the only option for a viable Confederate nation would be an early victory, coupled with recognition by Britain and France prior to 1863. This way the Confederates retain the slaves system and have not suffered too much economic damage as a result of the war.
A CSA emerging after 1863 would have been so radically different from the ideal established by secession that it may indeed have foundered and shrunk, with individual states going crawling back to the Union. The interesting point here is how viable would a CSA be in which the government had found it necessary to free and arm large numbers of slaves in order to win independence? I'm imagining that there would be a huge amount of disaffection amongst the Confederate planter classes.

Today, the CSA might look very much like South Africa did during aparteid, at least in form. They'd have a significant black population, but the international pressure on them to reform would be significantly less because blacks wouldn't constitute a majority, and especially not a super majority like they did in South Africa.

The South Africa comparison is interesting but the difference in this TL would be the presence of a strong and prosperous USA just accross the boarder. I'm assuming that even if the US recognised the CSA it would continue to collude in helping slaves to escape, possibly leading to numerous diplomatic rifts and maybe even a complete closing of the CS - US boarder.

 

[Straha]

The Confederacy as it stands today consists of southern virginia, tennessee, florida, cuba, alabama, missisipi, mexico minus baja california, north carolina, arkansas, central america north of panama, louisiana, texas, georgia, south carolina and liberia. The Confederacy also has claims on the moon and mars. Confederate jackboots are in its latin puppet governments or manning bases inside the CSA to watch the slaves and prevent the yankees from getting ideas. The CSA is second only to the Union in terms of international power and influence.

Slavery's end ranged from the early 10 mid 20th century in upper dixie(1940's in virginia) and mexico to never in deep dixie. Only a couple of valley states(central mexico), cuba and virginia DON'T have apartheid of some sort or another. In some cases the apartheid is merely as mild as OTL's jim crow in others its much worse. Pretty much everywhere in the CSA noncitizens(blacks and darker latins) have a curfew of 8 PM every night. THese noncitizens can also be drafted for forced albor projects such as the key west/habana highway or rebuilding new orleans after hurricane katrina.

The CSA handled the demographics issues of the rising black and latin populations by divide and conquer tactics. In fact it divided up the lighter blacks and latins from their darker relatives by making the catagories of mixedz and latin. These new lighter groups got more legal rights and privilages than the rest of the black/latin population enjoys. Race relations with these groups ended up being advanced compared to OTL's race relations in dixie by a large amount leading to extensive intermarrying between whites/mixed and white/latin o latin/mixed. The CSA uses alot of guest workers but citizenship is HARD to get. The Confederacy uses meztizo or black peons/slaves for jobs citizens won't do. Due to the cheap supply of labor, the CSA doesn't use as much labor saving technology. That combined withthe more genteel and relaxed attitude towards life has produced a different application of high tech in the CSA than in the USA.

Current Confederate president is Robert Harris. An election campaign is currently going on and the current frontrunner is Jebediah H. Rodack of the plantation party. The 3 parties in CS politics are the Democrats, One Nation Party and Plantation party. The 3 parties in US politics are the Liberals(semi-libertarians), Country party(vaguely centrist) and the Greens(social democrats). The Union president is Wendell Cohen.

Due to different sociocultural development gay rights are long accepted in both north and south. Gay marriage(in fact if not name) has been legal for nearly 30 years in both the USA(EVERYONE simply gets civil unions with the churches deciding what they'll call "marriage") and CSA(its legal). The reasons it was legalized in the US were because od a d. The Confederate reasons for legalizing are a desire to make gays have to live under the same standards as straights(Confederates are prudish about sex outside of marriage)

 

[The Mists Of Time]

Human nature being what it is, I have always thought that if The Confederacy had won the Civil War they would not have been content to go south of the Potomac River and have two seperate countries. I have always felt if The South had won then Confederate troops would have occupied the North the same way that Federal troops occupied the South in OTL.

The two halves, North and South would have come together as one country and one government again. The North and South needed each other. The South was so agricultural and the North becoming so industrial, I'm not sure long term the two could have really survived as seperate countries. I think they would have had to work closely together and eventually come back together as one country to survive. Where the Capitol would be, how the government would be set up is a good question. The constitutions of both the USA and CSA are nearly word for word duplicates, except the CSA Constitution limits The President to a single 6 year term and allows and promotes slavery.

As to slavery, I feel it would have been phased out, perhaps fairly quickly, either as a concession to The North, because it was already recognized as becomming economically unfeasible, or because of how the rest of the world was viewing slavery and The South because of slavery. Probably for all three reasons.

If that had happened I think Civil Rights would have come much sooner and with much less turmoil. I think part of the problem with Civil Rights in the early 1960's was that it started coming a little less than 100 years after the end of The Civil War and a lot of the feelings about the war were still too close. I think The Federal Government imposing Civil Rights in the early 1960's was psychologically viewed by a number of southern whites at the time as the victorious North imposing itself on an already vanquished South. Those feelings wouldn't have accompanied Civil Rights if The South had won the Civil War.

Beyond that, I don't know what the ATL would have been like, how much it would have been different or how much it would have been like OTL. But after a certain point, I think we might be surprised at how close the ATL would be like OTL.

 

[WFHermans]

Victorious in the sense of the CSA taking over is quite different from existing beyond 1865.

 

[The Mists Of Time]

Victorious in the sense of the CSA taking over is quite different from existing beyond 1865.

I'm assuming the CSA would have had the military capacity to occupy the North after the war. With that in mind let me ask this.

You are the CSA and you've just won the Civil War and are in a position to name all the terms of The North's surrender. Evn though you have the agricultural power to grow food and cotton, The North has the righ industrial capacity. You're aware of the difference that could have made in the war. You are also aware the world is moving from reliance on an agrarian economy to an industrial one.

Are you going to let The North to build up its industry and become a world economic power while agricultural economies like your's shrink from power, or are you going to occupy The North against whom you've won the war and take that industrial might for yourself?

 

[David S Poepoe]

I'm assuming the CSA would have had the military capacity to occupy the North after the war. With that in mind let me ask this.

You are the CSA and you've just won the Civil War and are in a position to name all the terms of The North's surrender. Evn though you have the agricultural power to grow food and cotton, The North has the righ industrial capacity. You're aware of the difference that could have made in the war. You are also aware the world is moving from reliance on an agrarian economy to an industrial one.

Are you going to let The North to build up its industry and become a world economic power while agricultural economies like your's shrink from power, or are you going to occupy The North against whom you've won the war and take that industrial might for yourself?

The South was never in the position to occupy the North in the event of victory. They don't have the manpower - and suggesting so is crazy. What you are missing is that there are inherit limitations in the Confederate Government, small but important ones, that handicap it to a greater extent concerning industrialization.

What you (the CSA) has to do is support the budding industrial base that did start thru out the South. You are going to have to introduce tariffs and protectionalist policies.

 

[WFHermans]

Well this is an alternative history forum, remember?

If the CSA would have won a total victory, they would simply have taken over the USA.

 

[Nicole]

Well this is an alternative history forum, remember?

If the CSA would have won a total victory, they would simply have taken over the USA.

No they wouldn't, that would be foolish- If you read Southern statements, many wanted to be free of the North. The Southerners wanted a democracy, and them controlling said state would be impossible if it included the north.

 

[The Mists Of Time]

Quote: "If you read Southern statements, many wanted to be free of the North."

Especially in certain kinds of situations, people especially politicians often say one thing and then do something else.

If the South had won the Civil War and would have had the ability and capicity to do so, I still think they would have occupied the North. I think it would have been too rich a prize for them to turn down.

However that would have worked out, I still feel that sooner or later, and probably sooner rather than later, South and North would have come back together again as a single nation. I think both sides would have felt it was in their best long term interest to work together as a single nation rather than being split in two. And beyond a certain point after the war, I think we might be surprised at how close the ATL and OTL would be to each other.

 

[Straha]

Both Northern and Southern racism would prevent a reunion. Without dixie the US would be mostly immigrant white ethnic and asian(assuming they grab the phillipines). Dixie would be largely southron cracker white, black slaves and latins. That and the increasing cultural differences would prevent the nations from ever wanting to reunite.

 

[Wendell]

CSA wins in 1865. i would ask first how would a victorious CSA be today? When would slavery be abolished? What territories would it have in 2006?, and who would be the President?

I could see a CSA war over slavery, but assuming that does not happen, the CSA ends up largely as follows:

1865: 11 states, plus most of Indian Territory and pre 1860 New Mexico Territory. Slavery ends in U.S. within a decade. Remainder of NM and IT added to states and territories above them.

1867: Parties form in the new nation: The Demorats and the Whigs; Offers made to Mexico for Northern Sonora. The deal takes the southernmost border of the New Mexico Territory to the Gulf of California; New Mexico is reoranized into wartime Arizona. U.S. bans secession and lobbies to buy HBC with some success. Alaska stays Russian.

1874: Brief border war with U.S. results in Maryland gaining Va. portion of Delmarva. The lower part of the Chesapeake Bay is internationalized. "Saskatchewan" (HBC) Territory divided.

1877: New Columbia (postal code CN) becomes a state. Vancouver will be its capital.

1880: Self-coup in CSA; new constitution and new name adopted; Republic of Dixie is proclaimed with Vicksburg as its capital.

1898: Dixie-Spanish War; Cuba and Puerto Rico ceded to CSA; Spain ends up losing Philippines to Japan, and sells Guam to Germany; U.S. annexes Hawaii as a teritory.

shall I continue?