Interesting alt-hist essay: Confederacy surviving into 20th century?

[Dorothy J Heydt]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2017/04/07/if_the_confederacy_had_won_the_civil_war_would_it_have_survived_into_the.html

The author's conclusion: probably not.

The opinion in our house is that if the Confederacy had achieved
independence, then instead of becoming an economic vassal of the
Union as in OTL, it would've become an economic vassal of Britain.

Which might mean that by the late 20thC it might be a
Commonwealth country.

Also that it would've got rid of slavery well before that, under
pressure from Britain (which had already abolished slavery) and
the rest of the world.

[David Johnston]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2017/04/07/if_the_confederacy_had_won_the_civil_war_would_it_have_survived_into_the.html
The author's conclusion: probably not.
The opinion in our house is that if the Confederacy had achieved
independence, then instead of becoming an economic vassal of the
Union as in OTL, it would've become an economic vassal of Britain.
Which might mean that by the late 20thC it might be a
Commonwealth country.

Bah. Becoming an economic vassal doesn't mean becoming part of the
empire. Canada's an economic vassal to the United States but we still
don't have Puerto Rico's political relationship.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Also that it would've got rid of slavery well before that, under
pressure from Britain (which had already abolished slavery) and
the rest of the world.

I've always figured that the Confederation would have abandoned chattel
slavery as such between the 30s and the 50s and would be about where
South Africa was in the 50s right now.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2017/04/07/if_the_confederacy_had_won_the_civil_war_would_it_have_survived_into_the.html

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
The author's conclusion: probably not.
The opinion in our house is that if the Confederacy had achieved
independence, then instead of becoming an economic vassal of the
Union as in OTL, it would've become an economic vassal of Britain.
Which might mean that by the late 20thC it might be a
Commonwealth country.

Bah. Becoming an economic vassal doesn't mean becoming part of the
empire. Canada's an economic vassal to the United States but we still
don't have Puerto Rico's political relationship.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Also that it would've got rid of slavery well before that, under
pressure from Britain (which had already abolished slavery) and
the rest of the world.

I've always figured that the Confederation would have abandoned chattel
slavery as such between the 30s and the 50s and would be about where
South Africa was in the 50s right now.

I worked up a timeline once where it happened in 1900 (under strong
British pressure) to mark the turn of the century.

I seem to recall a book where the Confederacy settled down into something
like Lebanon's "Confessional" system where the President had to be white,
the Speaker of the House had to be black and maybe somebody else had to
be Indian. I think that worked out for them about as well as it worked
in Lebanon..

[David Johnston]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2017/04/07/if_the_confederacy_had_won_the_civil_war_would_it_have_survived_into_the.html

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
The author's conclusion: probably not.
The opinion in our house is that if the Confederacy had achieved
independence, then instead of becoming an economic vassal of the
Union as in OTL, it would've become an economic vassal of Britain.
Which might mean that by the late 20thC it might be a
Commonwealth country.

Bah. Becoming an economic vassal doesn't mean becoming part of the
empire. Canada's an economic vassal to the United States but we still
don't have Puerto Rico's political relationship.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Also that it would've got rid of slavery well before that, under
pressure from Britain (which had already abolished slavery) and
the rest of the world.

I've always figured that the Confederation would have abandoned chattel
slavery as such between the 30s and the 50s and would be about where
South Africa was in the 50s right now.

I worked up a timeline once where it happened in 1900 (under strong
British pressure) to mark the turn of the century.

Highly improbable. How could their politics change so much in such a
short time?

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2017/04/07/if_the_confederacy_had_won_the_civil_war_would_it_have_survived_into_the.html

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by David Johnston

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
The author's conclusion: probably not.
The opinion in our house is that if the Confederacy had achieved
independence, then instead of becoming an economic vassal of the
Union as in OTL, it would've become an economic vassal of Britain.
Which might mean that by the late 20thC it might be a
Commonwealth country.

Bah. Becoming an economic vassal doesn't mean becoming part of the
empire. Canada's an economic vassal to the United States but we still
don't have Puerto Rico's political relationship.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Also that it would've got rid of slavery well before that, under
pressure from Britain (which had already abolished slavery) and
the rest of the world.

I've always figured that the Confederation would have abandoned chattel
slavery as such between the 30s and the 50s and would be about where
South Africa was in the 50s right now.

I worked up a timeline once where it happened in 1900 (under strong
British pressure) to mark the turn of the century.

Highly improbable. How could their politics change so much in such a
short time?

I doubt I had much of an explanation; I was probably 13 or so.
Maybe threat of a boycott like the English dockworkers refusing to unload
Confederate cotton in our timeline + threats of an actual blockade.

[Kevrob]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2017/04/07/if_the_confederacy_had_won_the_civil_war_would_it_have_survived_into_the.html

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by David Johnston

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
The author's conclusion: probably not.
The opinion in our house is that if the Confederacy had achieved
independence, then instead of becoming an economic vassal of the
Union as in OTL, it would've become an economic vassal of Britain.
Which might mean that by the late 20thC it might be a
Commonwealth country.

Bah. Becoming an economic vassal doesn't mean becoming part of the
empire. Canada's an economic vassal to the United States but we still
don't have Puerto Rico's political relationship.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Also that it would've got rid of slavery well before that, under
pressure from Britain (which had already abolished slavery) and
the rest of the world.

I've always figured that the Confederation would have abandoned chattel
slavery as such between the 30s and the 50s and would be about where
South Africa was in the 50s right now.

I worked up a timeline once where it happened in 1900 (under strong
British pressure) to mark the turn of the century.

Highly improbable. How could their politics change so much in such a
short time?

I doubt I had much of an explanation; I was probably 13 or so.
Maybe threat of a boycott like the English dockworkers refusing to unload
Confederate cotton in our timeline + threats of an actual blockade.
--

Declarations of support for Lincoln and the Union came from the
mill hands of Manchester,hard hit as they were by the effects
of the blocade on cotton exports.

See the New York Times:

EMANCIPATION MEETINGS IN ENGLAND.; THE WORKINGMEN OF MANCHESTER.
Published: January 15, 1863

http://www.nytimes.com/1863/01/15/news/emancipation-meetings-in-england-the-workingmen-of-manchester.html

I expect, as MacKinlay Kantor wrote in his seminal 1960 essay in LOOK,
that the logic of the formation of the CSA would mean that, should Texas
decide to resume its independent status, it would be difficult for Richmond
to stop it.

Kevin R

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

Post by Kevrob
I expect, as MacKinlay Kantor wrote in his seminal 1960 essay in LOOK,
that the logic of the formation of the CSA would mean that, should Texas
decide to resume its independent status, it would be difficult for Richmond
to stop it.

Except that unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Confederate Constitution
explicitly forbade secession -- they didn't want to make the same
mistake the U.S. had.

[Kevrob]

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans

Post by Kevrob
I expect, as MacKinlay Kantor wrote in his seminal 1960 essay in LOOK,
that the logic of the formation of the CSA would mean that, should Texas
decide to resume its independent status, it would be difficult for Richmond
to stop it.

Except that unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Confederate Constitution
explicitly forbade secession -- they didn't want to make the same
mistake the U.S. had.

Have you a cite for the appropriate clause? My understanding is that
the Confederate constitution* was silent on secession, as is the US
Constitution. The theory was that the documents' silence allowed
the "sovereign states" who formed the union, and by extension, the
Confederacy, to freely leave if they wanted.

There was an attempt to amend the Confederate constitution to explicitly
allow peaceful secession, but it went nowhere.

See:

[quote]

Along the same lines it was proposed that the new Constitution
explicitly recognize the right of secession, but the idea was dropped
after others suggested that “its inclusion would discredit the claim
that the right had been inherent under the old government.” Yearns,
supra note 5, at 29; see also Lee, supra note 5, at 101–02 (citing the
relevant portions of the Journal and arguing that the right to secede was
“implied in the specific phraseology of the Preamble,” which in what
seems to me a less than conclusive manner declared that the Constitution
was the work of “the people of the Confederate States, each State acting
in its sovereign and independent character,” Conf. Const. of Mar. 1861,
pmbl., reprinted in Statutes at Large, supra note 5, at 11)

[/quote] - Through the Looking Glass: The Confederate Constitution in
Congress: 1861-1865 by David P. Currie from THE VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW,
September 2004 Volume 90 Issue 5 P 1267, CONTAINED IN FOOTNOTE 39.

pdf OF ARTICLE @

http://www.virginialawreview.org/sites/virginialawreview.org/files/1257.pdf

PAGE 11 of the document.

http://www.virginialawreview.org/volumes/content/through-looking-glass-confederate-constitution-congress-1861-1865

Currie points out how little the CSA constitution was changed from that
of the USA, and in what ways.

The competing theory, re secession and the US Constitution, holds that
the USA has been a "perpetual union" since the Articles of Confederation,
which uses the phrase "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union.."
right at its start.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp

And, since, under US Constitution, Article I, section 10, the rebel
states, who hadn't really left the union, were prohibited from starting
a rival one:

"1. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation;.."**

The facts on the ground circa 1861 said otherwise, and no matter what
the US constitution said, the secessionists could appeal to the "right
of revolution" formulated by Jefferson et al in the Declaration of
Independence.

The preference was to seem to be seen upholding conservative principles,
and asserting a state power to leave the USA gave the rebels that fig leaf.

Kevin R

(Had it drummed into me as a history undergrad:
check the source documents.)

* http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp CSA Constitution

** http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/art1.asp AofC of the USA.

[David Johnston]

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans

Post by Kevrob
I expect, as MacKinlay Kantor wrote in his seminal 1960 essay in LOOK,
that the logic of the formation of the CSA would mean that, should Texas
decide to resume its independent status, it would be difficult for Richmond
to stop it.

Except that unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Confederate Constitution
explicitly forbade secession -- they didn't want to make the same
mistake the U.S. had.

No it didn't. In fact they did make the exact same "mistake" even
though it proposed that they officially acknowledge the right of states
to secede complete with rules for doing it. But the idea was rejected
because it would undermine their own argument that not having been
explicitly forbidden to secede by the American constitution meant they
were allowed to under their own authority.

[Kevrob]

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans

Post by Kevrob
I expect, as MacKinlay Kantor wrote in his seminal 1960 essay in LOOK,
that the logic of the formation of the CSA would mean that, should Texas
decide to resume its independent status, it would be difficult for Richmond
to stop it.

Except that unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Confederate Constitution
explicitly forbade secession -- they didn't want to make the same
mistake the U.S. had.

No it didn't. In fact they did make the exact same "mistake" even
though it proposed that they officially acknowledge the right of states
to secede complete with rules for doing it. But the idea was rejected
because it would undermine their own argument that not having been
explicitly forbidden to secede by the American constitution meant they
were allowed to under their own authority.

Quite right.

Texas in, or Texas out, I'd imagine a Confederacy that was beholden
to foreign investors, notably London's bankers. Building railroads
and other improvements to allow the CSA to get its agricultural
products to external markets, or to such industrial plant that
the Southron Republic would have to build would take capital.
Which states are in would make a difference. Baltimore was a
significant port, and the B&O was among the first commercially
operated steam railroads in the USA. Not being in the same
federation as Ohio might make that line evolve differently.
Kentucky in or out? The US holding both sides of the Ohio
makes for more transportation problems for the Rebs. Tutrtledove
deals with these issues in his "Southern Victory" mega-series,
and he also has the CSA buying parts of Northern Mexico to
allow for a transcontinental railroad to the Pacific.

If Texas leaves, that's probably not possible, and unless
Southern California breaks away from the north, and Missouri
and points west fall into CSA hands, "The South" will remain
the southeast, and an Atlantic power. Whether it could afford,
financially or politically, to float a modern steam-powered Navy,
while keeping on the good side of English creditors makes me
wonder. Britain may have preferred to treat the CSA as a protectorate,
rather than a separate source of naval power. Royal Navy bases itself
on Southern soil, or just makes CSA harbors frequent ports of call.
"To help put down piracy and the slave trade," of course.

Butterflies are doing odd things to the Spanish-American War,
by this point.

This is rapidly becoming territory covered in soc.history.what-if,
which has chewed over the like frequently.

Kevin R

[Don Kuenz]

Post by Kevrob

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans

Post by Kevrob
I expect, as MacKinlay Kantor wrote in his seminal 1960 essay in LOOK,
that the logic of the formation of the CSA would mean that, should Texas
decide to resume its independent status, it would be difficult for Richmond
to stop it.

Except that unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Confederate Constitution
explicitly forbade secession -- they didn't want to make the same
mistake the U.S. had.

No it didn't. In fact they did make the exact same "mistake" even
though it proposed that they officially acknowledge the right of states
to secede complete with rules for doing it. But the idea was rejected
because it would undermine their own argument that not having been
explicitly forbidden to secede by the American constitution meant they
were allowed to under their own authority.

Quite right.
Texas in, or Texas out, I'd imagine a Confederacy that was beholden
to foreign investors, notably London's bankers. Building railroads
and other improvements to allow the CSA to get its agricultural
products to external markets, or to such industrial plant that
the Southron Republic would have to build would take capital.
Which states are in would make a difference. Baltimore was a
significant port, and the B&O was among the first commercially
operated steam railroads in the USA. Not being in the same
federation as Ohio might make that line evolve differently.
Kentucky in or out? The US holding both sides of the Ohio
makes for more transportation problems for the Rebs. Tutrtledove
deals with these issues in his "Southern Victory" mega-series,
and he also has the CSA buying parts of Northern Mexico to
allow for a transcontinental railroad to the Pacific.
If Texas leaves, that's probably not possible, and unless
Southern California breaks away from the north, and Missouri
and points west fall into CSA hands, "The South" will remain
the southeast, and an Atlantic power. Whether it could afford,
financially or politically, to float a modern steam-powered Navy,
while keeping on the good side of English creditors makes me
wonder. Britain may have preferred to treat the CSA as a protectorate,
rather than a separate source of naval power. Royal Navy bases itself
on Southern soil, or just makes CSA harbors frequent ports of call.
"To help put down piracy and the slave trade," of course.
Butterflies are doing odd things to the Spanish-American War,
by this point.
This is rapidly becoming territory covered in soc.history.what-if,
which has chewed over the like frequently.

Pleased to present for your consideration, a reverse butterfly [1] with
no further comment:

For lack of a Civil War, there's no glory for Grant. For lack of glory,
there's no President Grant. For lack of a Grant Administration, there's
no Teapot Dome Scandal. For lack of scandal, Niven's background story
loses some color. For lack of color, Niven's story telling suffers. For
lack of story telling chops, Niven does something else for a living. For
lack of Niven, there's no _Neutron Star_ for me to read.

Note.

1. One big change funnels down to one small change.

Thank you,

--
Don Kuenz KB7RPU

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

Post by Don Kuenz
For lack of a Civil War, there's no glory for Grant. For lack of glory,
there's no President Grant. For lack of a Grant Administration, there's
no Teapot Dome Scandal.

Teapot Dome was Harding's administration, not Grant's. They were both
corrupt and scandal-ridden, but not the same thing.

Post by Don Kuenz
For lack of scandal, Niven's background story
loses some color. For lack of color, Niven's story telling suffers. For
lack of story telling chops, Niven does something else for a living. For
lack of Niven, there's no _Neutron Star_ for me to read.
Note.
1. One big change funnels down to one small change.

[Don Kuenz]

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans

Post by Don Kuenz
For lack of a Civil War, there's no glory for Grant. For lack of glory,
there's no President Grant. For lack of a Grant Administration, there's
no Teapot Dome Scandal.

Teapot Dome was Harding's administration, not Grant's. They were both
corrupt and scandal-ridden, but not the same thing.

Post by Don Kuenz
For lack of scandal, Niven's background story
loses some color. For lack of color, Niven's story telling suffers. For
lack of story telling chops, Niven does something else for a living. For
lack of Niven, there's no _Neutron Star_ for me to read.
Note.
1. One big change funnels down to one small change.

Thank you for clearing that up. Now it's time to get on with the show!
As always, America's lying politicians provide plenty of wiggle room. :)

For lack of a Grant Administration, there's no breach of the 1868 Treaty
of Fort Laramie. For lack of a breach, the 1868 Great Sioux Reservation
remains intact. For lack of mineral rights, the Salt Creek Oil Field is
never developed. For lack of a Salt Creek Oil Field, there's no Teapot
Dome scandal.

Thank you,

--
Don Kuenz KB7RPU

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

Post by Don Kuenz

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans

Post by Don Kuenz
For lack of a Civil War, there's no glory for Grant. For lack of glory,
there's no President Grant. For lack of a Grant Administration, there's
no Teapot Dome Scandal.

Teapot Dome was Harding's administration, not Grant's. They were both
corrupt and scandal-ridden, but not the same thing.

Post by Don Kuenz
For lack of scandal, Niven's background story
loses some color. For lack of color, Niven's story telling suffers. For
lack of story telling chops, Niven does something else for a living. For
lack of Niven, there's no _Neutron Star_ for me to read.
Note.
1. One big change funnels down to one small change.

Thank you for clearing that up. Now it's time to get on with the show!
As always, America's lying politicians provide plenty of wiggle room. :)
For lack of a Grant Administration, there's no breach of the 1868 Treaty
of Fort Laramie. For lack of a breach, the 1868 Great Sioux Reservation
remains intact. For lack of mineral rights, the Salt Creek Oil Field is
never developed. For lack of a Salt Creek Oil Field, there's no Teapot
Dome scandal.

Well, okay, then! That works nicely.

[Don Kuenz]

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans

Post by Don Kuenz

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans

Post by Don Kuenz
For lack of a Civil War, there's no glory for Grant. For lack of glory,
there's no President Grant. For lack of a Grant Administration, there's
no Teapot Dome Scandal.

Teapot Dome was Harding's administration, not Grant's. They were both
corrupt and scandal-ridden, but not the same thing.

Post by Don Kuenz
For lack of scandal, Niven's background story
loses some color. For lack of color, Niven's story telling suffers. For
lack of story telling chops, Niven does something else for a living. For
lack of Niven, there's no _Neutron Star_ for me to read.
Note.
1. One big change funnels down to one small change.

Thank you for clearing that up. Now it's time to get on with the show!
As always, America's lying politicians provide plenty of wiggle room. :)
For lack of a Grant Administration, there's no breach of the 1868 Treaty
of Fort Laramie. For lack of a breach, the 1868 Great Sioux Reservation
remains intact. For lack of mineral rights, the Salt Creek Oil Field is
never developed. For lack of a Salt Creek Oil Field, there's no Teapot
Dome scandal.

Well, okay, then! That works nicely.

Unfortunately, Dorothy didn't need that ... darkness ... from me. So, in
the Spirit of Lent, some atonement for my sin's in order. :)

"Cynicism is intellectual dandyism." - George Meredith

There's even one nice thing for me to say about Grant and Sheridan. (A
professional politician taught me to say at least one nice thing about
my opposition.) Both Grant and Sheridan appear on the obverse of "the
most beautiful monetary designs ever produced by the United States."

Loading Image...

The naked breasts shown on the five dollar silver certificate caused it
to be "banned in Boston." My local newspaper got schooled by me after
they ignorantly wrote stories under the mistaken assumption that women
never ever appeared on American paper currency. Although naked breasts
seem to "rub them the wrong way," ROTFLMA, they reluctantly agreed that
Martha Washington "counts" as a woman on American currency:

Loading Image...

Thank you,

--
Don Kuenz KB7RPU

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Don Kuenz

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans

Post by Don Kuenz

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans

Post by Don Kuenz
For lack of a Civil War, there's no glory for Grant. For lack of glory,
there's no President Grant. For lack of a Grant Administration, there's
no Teapot Dome Scandal.

Teapot Dome was Harding's administration, not Grant's. They were both
corrupt and scandal-ridden, but not the same thing.

Post by Don Kuenz
For lack of scandal, Niven's background story
loses some color. For lack of color, Niven's story telling suffers. For
lack of story telling chops, Niven does something else for a living. For
lack of Niven, there's no _Neutron Star_ for me to read.
Note.
1. One big change funnels down to one small change.

Thank you for clearing that up. Now it's time to get on with the show!
As always, America's lying politicians provide plenty of wiggle room. :)
For lack of a Grant Administration, there's no breach of the 1868 Treaty
of Fort Laramie. For lack of a breach, the 1868 Great Sioux Reservation
remains intact. For lack of mineral rights, the Salt Creek Oil Field is
never developed. For lack of a Salt Creek Oil Field, there's no Teapot
Dome scandal.

Well, okay, then! That works nicely.

Unfortunately, Dorothy didn't need that ... darkness ... from me. So, in
the Spirit of Lent, some atonement for my sin's in order. :)
"Cynicism is intellectual dandyism." - George Meredith
There's even one nice thing for me to say about Grant and Sheridan. (A
professional politician taught me to say at least one nice thing about
my opposition.) Both Grant and Sheridan appear on the obverse of "the
most beautiful monetary designs ever produced by the United States."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US-$5-SC-1896-Fr.270.jpg
The naked breasts shown on the five dollar silver certificate caused it
to be "banned in Boston." My local newspaper got schooled by me after
they ignorantly wrote stories under the mistaken assumption that women
never ever appeared on American paper currency. Although naked breasts
seem to "rub them the wrong way," ROTFLMA, they reluctantly agreed that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_Series#/media/File:US-$1-SC-1896-Fr-224-(3923429).jpg

I find the labelling of piece of paper as "silver" more extraordinary.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Robert Bannister
I find the labelling of piece of paper as "silver" more extraordinary.

It's a piece of paper that comes with a guarantee that you can turn it in for
silver, just as a gold certificate could be turned in for gold. Unlike the
Federal Reserve Notes, that are only ordinary money.

John Savard

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Robert Bannister
I find the labelling of piece of paper as "silver" more extraordinary.

It's a piece of paper that comes with a guarantee that you can turn it in for
silver, just as a gold certificate could be turned in for gold. Unlike the
Federal Reserve Notes, that are only ordinary money.
John Savard

But that used to be the guarantee of all bank notes in the old days. In
fact, I'm pretty sure British banknotes were in theory changeable for
their value in gold till they changed the laws. It was just that I found
the wording "silver dollar(s)" odd. Were ordinary dollars worth less?

[Kevrob]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Robert Bannister
I find the labelling of piece of paper as "silver" more extraordinary.

It's a piece of paper that comes with a guarantee that you can turn it in for
silver, just as a gold certificate could be turned in for gold. Unlike the
Federal Reserve Notes, that are only ordinary money.
John Savard

But that used to be the guarantee of all bank notes in the old days. In
fact, I'm pretty sure British banknotes were in theory changeable for
their value in gold till they changed the laws. It was just that I found
the wording "silver dollar(s)" odd. Were ordinary dollars worth less?

From Revolutionary War era "Continental Dollars...


[quote]

Both state and Continental currency depreciated rapidly, becoming
practically worthless by the end of the war. This depreciation was
caused by the government having to over-print in order to meet the
demands of war.

[/quote]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_American_currency

.....to Civil War era greenbacks

[quote]

They were in two forms: Demand Notes, issued in 1861–1862, and
United States Notes issued in 1862–1865. They were legal tender
by law, but were not backed by gold or silver, only the credibility
of the U.S. government.

[/quote]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenback_(money)

....non-convertible fiat paper "money" had been around for a long while.

Kevin R

[Greg Goss]

Post by Robert Bannister
But that used to be the guarantee of all bank notes in the old days. In
fact, I'm pretty sure British banknotes were in theory changeable for
their value in gold till they changed the laws. It was just that I found
the wording "silver dollar(s)" odd. Were ordinary dollars worth less?

Gold? The very name of the British currency specifies a particular
grade of silver.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Greg Goss
Gold? The very name of the British currency specifies a particular
grade of silver.

True, but it stopped being worth 12 troy ounces of 0.925 fine silver
*long* before they went off the gold standard. Centuries before.

John Savard

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Robert Bannister
But that used to be the guarantee of all bank notes in the old days. In
fact, I'm pretty sure British banknotes were in theory changeable for
their value in gold till they changed the laws. It was just that I found
the wording "silver dollar(s)" odd. Were ordinary dollars worth less?

Gold? The very name of the British currency specifies a particular
grade of silver.

British money was mixed. A pound sterling was silver-based, but a
guinea (a.k.a. a sovereign) was gold. They started out the same, but
by the time they both ceased to actually be convertible (which I
believe was shortly after WW1, but I could be way off on that), a
pound was twenty shillings and a guinea was twenty-one, because people
had more faith in gold than in paper or silver, and had paid extra for
guineas.

(British money prior to 1970 was very old and fairly complex; the
English penny is a direct descendant of the Roman denarius, to the
point it was abbreviated "d." rather than "p" right up until they went
decimal.)

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Robert Bannister
But that used to be the guarantee of all bank notes in the old days. In
fact, I'm pretty sure British banknotes were in theory changeable for
their value in gold till they changed the laws. It was just that I found
the wording "silver dollar(s)" odd. Were ordinary dollars worth less?

Gold? The very name of the British currency specifies a particular
grade of silver.

British money was mixed. A pound sterling was silver-based, but a
guinea (a.k.a. a sovereign) was gold. They started out the same, but
by the time they both ceased to actually be convertible (which I
believe was shortly after WW1, but I could be way off on that), a
pound was twenty shillings and a guinea was twenty-one, because people
had more faith in gold than in paper or silver, and had paid extra for
guineas.
(British money prior to 1970 was very old and fairly complex; the
English penny is a direct descendant of the Roman denarius, to the
point it was abbreviated "d." rather than "p" right up until they went
decimal.)

Somehow I've never seen it, but I've read that in "A Hard Day's Night",
there's a joke involving this. Something like with the crowd The Beatles
draw, a shopkeeper takes down the "Pounds" in his price signs and replaces
it with Guineas (leaving the number the same).

[Peter Trei]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Robert Bannister
But that used to be the guarantee of all bank notes in the old days. In
fact, I'm pretty sure British banknotes were in theory changeable for
their value in gold till they changed the laws. It was just that I found
the wording "silver dollar(s)" odd. Were ordinary dollars worth less?

Gold? The very name of the British currency specifies a particular
grade of silver.

British money was mixed. A pound sterling was silver-based, but a
guinea (a.k.a. a sovereign) was gold. They started out the same, but
by the time they both ceased to actually be convertible (which I
believe was shortly after WW1, but I could be way off on that), a
pound was twenty shillings and a guinea was twenty-one, because people
had more faith in gold than in paper or silver, and had paid extra for
guineas.
(British money prior to 1970 was very old and fairly complex; the
English penny is a direct descendant of the Roman denarius, to the
point it was abbreviated "d." rather than "p" right up until they went
decimal.)

Somehow I've never seen it, but I've read that in "A Hard Day's Night",
there's a joke involving this. Something like with the crowd The Beatles
draw, a shopkeeper takes down the "Pounds" in his price signs and replaces
it with Guineas (leaving the number the same).

Can't recall the lyric, but the old saw was that only lawyers, doctors, and
high-end prostitutes billed in guineas.

pt

[Carl Fink]

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
(British money prior to 1970 was very old and fairly complex; the
English penny is a direct descendant of the Roman denarius, to the
point it was abbreviated "d." rather than "p" right up until they went
decimal.)

Now tell them why "Pound" is abbreviated with stylized "L"!

[Peter Trei]

Post by Carl Fink

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
(British money prior to 1970 was very old and fairly complex; the
English penny is a direct descendant of the Roman denarius, to the
point it was abbreviated "d." rather than "p" right up until they went
decimal.)

Now tell them why "Pound" is abbreviated with stylized "L"!

The same reason 'pounds' as weight is abbreviated 'lbs'.

pt

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 10:16:53 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Carl Fink

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
(British money prior to 1970 was very old and fairly complex; the
English penny is a direct descendant of the Roman denarius, to the
point it was abbreviated "d." rather than "p" right up until they went
decimal.)

Now tell them why "Pound" is abbreviated with stylized "L"!

The same reason 'pounds' as weight is abbreviated 'lbs'.

Yeah, it's straight Latin: librum.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 10:16:53 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Carl Fink

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
(British money prior to 1970 was very old and fairly complex; the
English penny is a direct descendant of the Roman denarius, to the
point it was abbreviated "d." rather than "p" right up until they went
decimal.)

Now tell them why "Pound" is abbreviated with stylized "L"!

The same reason 'pounds' as weight is abbreviated 'lbs'.

Yeah, it's straight Latin: librum.

Isn't that a book? I think you meant "libra". Compare French:
un livre - a book; une livre - a pound.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
(British money prior to 1970 was very old and fairly complex;
the English penny is a direct descendant of the Roman denarius,
to the point it was abbreviated "d." rather than "p" right up
until they went decimal.)

I have a theory that the monetary system was the reason the England
was not successfully invaded for a thousand years or so. Every time
somebody started looting, they ended up being sent home in a rubber
lined boat.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
(British money prior to 1970 was very old and fairly complex;
the English penny is a direct descendant of the Roman denarius,
to the point it was abbreviated "d." rather than "p" right up
until they went decimal.)

I have a theory that the monetary system was the reason the England
was not successfully invaded for a thousand years or so. Every time
somebody started looting, they ended up being sent home in a rubber
lined boat.

That's a refrain in the Alexis Carew books: "The idiots brought back
the farthing!"

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Robert Bannister
But that used to be the guarantee of all bank notes in the old days. In
fact, I'm pretty sure British banknotes were in theory changeable for
their value in gold till they changed the laws. It was just that I found
the wording "silver dollar(s)" odd. Were ordinary dollars worth less?

Gold? The very name of the British currency specifies a particular
grade of silver.

British money was mixed. A pound sterling was silver-based, but a
guinea (a.k.a. a sovereign) was gold. They started out the same, but
by the time they both ceased to actually be convertible (which I
believe was shortly after WW1, but I could be way off on that), a
pound was twenty shillings and a guinea was twenty-one, because people
had more faith in gold than in paper or silver, and had paid extra for
guineas.
(British money prior to 1970 was very old and fairly complex; the
English penny is a direct descendant of the Roman denarius, to the
point it was abbreviated "d." rather than "p" right up until they went
decimal.)

The funny money in Harry Potter may refer to this.
<http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Wizarding_currency>

I think Hagrid says it's for simplicity that
the pounds, shillings, and pence are prime number
multiples of each other's values - one of very
many cases where Hagrid's knowledge and judgement
are wrong; perhaps a deliberate early clue to that,
maybe just another indication that wizards look
at the world turned sideways.

The actual traditional multipliers are 12 and 20,
for pennies in a shilling and shillings in a pound,
with a benefit of splitting into more fractions
than decimals do. But other coins fit oddly in the
value scale; the half-crown (not semi-circular, but
one-sided [not really]) was two and a half shillings.
Like pre-decimal golf clubs (meaning the bag full
of odd-shaped sticks), they tended to be addressed
by their individual names.

[Anthony Frost]

Post by Robert Carnegie
But other coins fit oddly in the
value scale; the half-crown (not semi-circular, but
one-sided [not really]) was two and a half shillings.
Like pre-decimal golf clubs (meaning the bag full
of odd-shaped sticks), they tended to be addressed
by their individual names.

The crown was five shillings, a quarter of a pound, so the half-crown
was an eighth. Traditional fines for offences at the older Universities
look odd until you realise that 6/8 is a third of a pound and 8/4 is
100d.

Anthony

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Robert Bannister
But that used to be the guarantee of all bank notes in the old days. In
fact, I'm pretty sure British banknotes were in theory changeable for
their value in gold till they changed the laws. It was just that I found
the wording "silver dollar(s)" odd. Were ordinary dollars worth less?

Gold? The very name of the British currency specifies a particular
grade of silver.

British money was mixed. A pound sterling was silver-based, but a
guinea (a.k.a. a sovereign) was gold. They started out the same, but
by the time they both ceased to actually be convertible (which I
believe was shortly after WW1, but I could be way off on that), a
pound was twenty shillings and a guinea was twenty-one, because people
had more faith in gold than in paper or silver, and had paid extra for
guineas.
(British money prior to 1970 was very old and fairly complex; the
English penny is a direct descendant of the Roman denarius, to the
point it was abbreviated "d." rather than "p" right up until they went
decimal.)

The funny money in Harry Potter may refer to this.
<http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Wizarding_currency>
I think Hagrid says it's for simplicity that
the pounds, shillings, and pence are prime number
multiples of each other's values - one of very
many cases where Hagrid's knowledge and judgement
are wrong; perhaps a deliberate early clue to that,
maybe just another indication that wizards look
at the world turned sideways.
The actual traditional multipliers are 12 and 20,
for pennies in a shilling and shillings in a pound,
with a benefit of splitting into more fractions
than decimals do.

...or prime numbers; but perhaps you noticed that.

[Kevrob]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Robert Bannister
But that used to be the guarantee of all bank notes in the old days. In
fact, I'm pretty sure British banknotes were in theory changeable for
their value in gold till they changed the laws. It was just that I found
the wording "silver dollar(s)" odd. Were ordinary dollars worth less?

Gold? The very name of the British currency specifies a particular
grade of silver.

British money was mixed. A pound sterling was silver-based, but a
guinea (a.k.a. a sovereign) was gold. They started out the same, but
by the time they both ceased to actually be convertible (which I
believe was shortly after WW1, but I could be way off on that), a
pound was twenty shillings and a guinea was twenty-one, because people
had more faith in gold than in paper or silver, and had paid extra for
guineas.
(British money prior to 1970 was very old and fairly complex; the
English penny is a direct descendant of the Roman denarius, to the
point it was abbreviated "d." rather than "p" right up until they went
decimal.)

The funny money in Harry Potter may refer to this.
<http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Wizarding_currency>
I think Hagrid says it's for simplicity that
the pounds, shillings, and pence are prime number
multiples of each other's values - one of very
many cases where Hagrid's knowledge and judgement
are wrong; perhaps a deliberate early clue to that,
maybe just another indication that wizards look
at the world turned sideways.
The actual traditional multipliers are 12 and 20,
for pennies in a shilling and shillings in a pound,
with a benefit of splitting into more fractions
than decimals do.

...or prime numbers; but perhaps you noticed that.

The US dollar originally circulated alongside the Spanish
"piece of eight." Twenty-five cents is still called "2 bits."
There is also the rhyme we used at the end of sporting events,
like Little League baseball:

"Two bits! Four bits!
Six bits! A dollar!
All for {fill in the blank]
Stand up and holler!"

{Hurrah!, Hurray, Rah Rah, as the spirit takes one}

Each bit was one Spanish real, or $0.125 (12.5 cents)
in the new US dollars.

The name "Bitcoin," based on a different kind of bit,
is a fine pun, if one knows this history.

Kevin R

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_dollar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_(money)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Robert Bannister
But that used to be the guarantee of all bank notes in the old days. In
fact, I'm pretty sure British banknotes were in theory changeable for
their value in gold till they changed the laws. It was just that I found
the wording "silver dollar(s)" odd. Were ordinary dollars worth less?

Gold? The very name of the British currency specifies a particular
grade of silver.

Very true. Same with lira and livre, but most or all of Europe was on a
gold standard by the 19th century to the best of my knowledge.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Don Kuenz

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans

Post by Don Kuenz

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans

Post by Don Kuenz
For lack of a Civil War, there's no glory for Grant. For lack of glory,
there's no President Grant. For lack of a Grant Administration, there's
no Teapot Dome Scandal.

Teapot Dome was Harding's administration, not Grant's. They were both
corrupt and scandal-ridden, but not the same thing.

Post by Don Kuenz
For lack of scandal, Niven's background story
loses some color. For lack of color, Niven's story telling suffers. For
lack of story telling chops, Niven does something else for a living. For
lack of Niven, there's no _Neutron Star_ for me to read.
Note.
1. One big change funnels down to one small change.

Thank you for clearing that up. Now it's time to get on with the show!
As always, America's lying politicians provide plenty of wiggle room. :)
For lack of a Grant Administration, there's no breach of the 1868 Treaty
of Fort Laramie. For lack of a breach, the 1868 Great Sioux Reservation
remains intact. For lack of mineral rights, the Salt Creek Oil Field is
never developed. For lack of a Salt Creek Oil Field, there's no Teapot
Dome scandal.

Well, okay, then! That works nicely.

Unfortunately, Dorothy didn't need that ... darkness ... from me. So, in
the Spirit of Lent, some atonement for my sin's in order. :)
"Cynicism is intellectual dandyism." - George Meredith
There's even one nice thing for me to say about Grant and Sheridan. (A
professional politician taught me to say at least one nice thing about
my opposition.) Both Grant and Sheridan appear on the obverse of "the
most beautiful monetary designs ever produced by the United States."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US-$5-SC-1896-Fr.270.jpg
The naked breasts shown on the five dollar silver certificate caused it
to be "banned in Boston." My local newspaper got schooled by me after
they ignorantly wrote stories under the mistaken assumption that women
never ever appeared on American paper currency. Although naked breasts
seem to "rub them the wrong way," ROTFLMA, they reluctantly agreed that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_Series#/media/File:US-$1-SC-1896-Fr-224-(3923429).jpg

I find the labelling of piece of paper as "silver" more extraordinary.

They were called "Silver Certificates". As in backed by silver reserves.

[Peter Trei]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Don Kuenz

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans

Post by Don Kuenz

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans

Post by Don Kuenz
For lack of a Civil War, there's no glory for Grant. For lack of glory,
there's no President Grant. For lack of a Grant Administration, there's
no Teapot Dome Scandal.

Teapot Dome was Harding's administration, not Grant's. They were both
corrupt and scandal-ridden, but not the same thing.

Post by Don Kuenz
For lack of scandal, Niven's background story
loses some color. For lack of color, Niven's story telling suffers. For
lack of story telling chops, Niven does something else for a living. For
lack of Niven, there's no _Neutron Star_ for me to read.
Note.
1. One big change funnels down to one small change.

Thank you for clearing that up. Now it's time to get on with the show!
As always, America's lying politicians provide plenty of wiggle room. :)
For lack of a Grant Administration, there's no breach of the 1868 Treaty
of Fort Laramie. For lack of a breach, the 1868 Great Sioux Reservation
remains intact. For lack of mineral rights, the Salt Creek Oil Field is
never developed. For lack of a Salt Creek Oil Field, there's no Teapot
Dome scandal.

Well, okay, then! That works nicely.

Unfortunately, Dorothy didn't need that ... darkness ... from me. So, in
the Spirit of Lent, some atonement for my sin's in order. :)
"Cynicism is intellectual dandyism." - George Meredith
There's even one nice thing for me to say about Grant and Sheridan. (A
professional politician taught me to say at least one nice thing about
my opposition.) Both Grant and Sheridan appear on the obverse of "the
most beautiful monetary designs ever produced by the United States."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US-$5-SC-1896-Fr.270.jpg
The naked breasts shown on the five dollar silver certificate caused it
to be "banned in Boston." My local newspaper got schooled by me after
they ignorantly wrote stories under the mistaken assumption that women
never ever appeared on American paper currency. Although naked breasts
seem to "rub them the wrong way," ROTFLMA, they reluctantly agreed that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_Series#/media/File:US-$1-SC-1896-Fr-224-(3923429).jpg

I find the labelling of piece of paper as "silver" more extraordinary.

They were called "Silver Certificates". As in backed by silver reserves.

They used to circulate. I last encountered one in the wild around 1978.

pt

[Kevrob]

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Don Kuenz

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans

Post by Don Kuenz

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans

Post by Don Kuenz
For lack of a Civil War, there's no glory for Grant. For lack of glory,
there's no President Grant. For lack of a Grant Administration, there's
no Teapot Dome Scandal.

Teapot Dome was Harding's administration, not Grant's. They were both
corrupt and scandal-ridden, but not the same thing.

Post by Don Kuenz
For lack of scandal, Niven's background story
loses some color. For lack of color, Niven's story telling suffers. For
lack of story telling chops, Niven does something else for a living. For
lack of Niven, there's no _Neutron Star_ for me to read.
Note.
1. One big change funnels down to one small change.

Thank you for clearing that up. Now it's time to get on with the show!
As always, America's lying politicians provide plenty of wiggle room. :)
For lack of a Grant Administration, there's no breach of the 1868 Treaty
of Fort Laramie. For lack of a breach, the 1868 Great Sioux Reservation
remains intact. For lack of mineral rights, the Salt Creek Oil Field is
never developed. For lack of a Salt Creek Oil Field, there's no Teapot
Dome scandal.

Well, okay, then! That works nicely.

Unfortunately, Dorothy didn't need that ... darkness ... from me. So, in
the Spirit of Lent, some atonement for my sin's in order. :)
"Cynicism is intellectual dandyism." - George Meredith
There's even one nice thing for me to say about Grant and Sheridan. (A
professional politician taught me to say at least one nice thing about
my opposition.) Both Grant and Sheridan appear on the obverse of "the
most beautiful monetary designs ever produced by the United States."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US-$5-SC-1896-Fr.270.jpg
The naked breasts shown on the five dollar silver certificate caused it
to be "banned in Boston." My local newspaper got schooled by me after
they ignorantly wrote stories under the mistaken assumption that women
never ever appeared on American paper currency. Although naked breasts
seem to "rub them the wrong way," ROTFLMA, they reluctantly agreed that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_Series#/media/File:US-$1-SC-1896-Fr-224-(3923429).jpg

I find the labelling of piece of paper as "silver" more extraordinary.

They were called "Silver Certificates". As in backed by silver reserves.

They used to circulate. I last encountered one in the wild around 1978.

That was 10 years after the US Treasury reneged, at Congress' direction,
on the promise to redeem the notes for silver, and 15 years after the
law was passed breaking that promise.

I don't remember any legend on the notes mentioning any power of
the Treasury to recall them, and certainly not to exchange them
for base metal coins at an inflated face value. That was all
ex post facto.

Kevin R

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans

Post by Don Kuenz
For lack of a Civil War, there's no glory for Grant. For lack of glory,
there's no President Grant. For lack of a Grant Administration, there's
no Teapot Dome Scandal.

Teapot Dome was Harding's administration, not Grant's. They were both
corrupt and scandal-ridden, but not the same thing.

Post by Don Kuenz
For lack of scandal, Niven's background story
loses some color. For lack of color, Niven's story telling suffers. For
lack of story telling chops, Niven does something else for a living. For
lack of Niven, there's no _Neutron Star_ for me to read.
Note.
1. One big change funnels down to one small change.

In one of the Amber novels, someone - I think
Merlin (not that one, same name) - makes a remark
about "Who is buried in Grant's tomb", which I
just googled to find the answer. If Grant wasn't
President, that wouldn't have been an unknown-to-me
popular question.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Robert Carnegie
In one of the Amber novels, someone - I think
Merlin (not that one, same name) - makes a remark
about "Who is buried in Grant's tomb", which I
just googled to find the answer. If Grant wasn't
President, that wouldn't have been an unknown-to-me
popular question.

IIRC, "Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?" originated as a meme because it was a
consolation-prize question asked on the game show "You Bet Your Life", hosted
by Groucho Marx.

John Savard

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Robert Carnegie
In one of the Amber novels, someone - I think
Merlin (not that one, same name) - makes a remark
about "Who is buried in Grant's tomb", which I
just googled to find the answer. If Grant wasn't
President, that wouldn't have been an unknown-to-me
popular question.

IIRC, "Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?" originated as a meme because it was a
consolation-prize question asked on the game show "You Bet Your Life", hosted
by Groucho Marx.

Wikipedia agrees, and it seems that more than
one answer was acceptable. That would make it
well-known.

Again it's likely that if Grant had been less
the conquering hero, then Mr Marx would have
asked a different question.

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 14:10:16 -0600, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans

Post by Kevrob
I expect, as MacKinlay Kantor wrote in his seminal 1960 essay in LOOK,
that the logic of the formation of the CSA would mean that, should Texas
decide to resume its independent status, it would be difficult for Richmond
to stop it.

Except that unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Confederate Constitution
explicitly forbade secession -- they didn't want to make the same
mistake the U.S. had.

No it didn't. In fact they did make the exact same "mistake" even
though it proposed that they officially acknowledge the right of states
to secede complete with rules for doing it. But the idea was rejected
because it would undermine their own argument that not having been
explicitly forbidden to secede by the American constitution meant they
were allowed to under their own authority.

Would it? It was very unpleasant because of no clear way. Maybe
with a clear way, it would have worked out better.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Kevrob]

Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 14:10:16 -0600, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans

Post by Kevrob
I expect, as MacKinlay Kantor wrote in his seminal 1960 essay in LOOK,
that the logic of the formation of the CSA would mean that, should Texas
decide to resume its independent status, it would be difficult for Richmond
to stop it.

Except that unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Confederate Constitution
explicitly forbade secession -- they didn't want to make the same
mistake the U.S. had.

No it didn't. In fact they did make the exact same "mistake" even
though it proposed that they officially acknowledge the right of states
to secede complete with rules for doing it. But the idea was rejected
because it would undermine their own argument that not having been
explicitly forbidden to secede by the American constitution meant they
were allowed to under their own authority.

Would it? It was very unpleasant because of no clear way. Maybe
with a clear way, it would have worked out better.

Don't anyone hop in a time machine and take this phraseology with
them to the 1860s, but the Confederate "Founding Fathers" may have
been wise to have included something like.....

Any member state of this confederation shall be free to leave it upon
proper notice sent to the Speaker of the House of Representatives of
the Confederate Congress, and to the President, but no such notice
shall be considered valid without a vote of both Houses of Congress
affirming that such a resolve was ratified by a convention of that
state, assembled according to its laws and constitution.

No member state as of the time of the ratification of this Constitution,
nor any other state joining at a later time, nor any new state created
by the Congress shall exercise its power to leave this Confederacy until
such time as hostilities with the United States of America have ended,
and a treaty of peace concluded and ratified by both powers.

The Congress shall have exclusive power to enact legislation
enforcing this article, and directing the President to negotiate
terms of exit.

.......

Confederate currency wasn't to be redeemable in specie until
after they had "licked the Yankees," so keeping the alliance
together for the duration would make sense.

Kevin R

[Mike Van Pelt]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2017/04/07/if_the_confederacy_had_won_the_civil_war_would_it_have_survived_into_the.html
The author's conclusion: probably not.

Years ago, a friend in my writers group wrote an essay
examining the Confederacy's prospects, if the Ft. Sumter
stupidity hadn't happened, and the separation stuck and was
relatively peacable.

His title was "Frankly, Scarlett, We're Broke", so you can
guess how it went. :)

His points: Abolitionism started in England. The Confederacy's
prospects of any strong alliance there were perhaps not as good
as they might have thought. Sentiment in England on this
matter was pretty strong.

There was an ingrained "Your state's problem is your state's
problem, don't ask for any help from my state" attitude. So,
with the Dred Scott decision and all the escaped slave laws
wiped away in the Union... How long and well defended is that
border, now? The Underground Railroad suddenly doesn't need to
be nearly so long. Slavery would become untenable in the border
states.

The South doesn't have much industry beyond cotton. Social
status of the upper-crusty 1%er type is plantations and slaves;
industrialists (what few there were) were looked down on.
McCormic was a Southerner, but went North with his reaper
before the Civil War because of this.

The South didn't have nearly the rail infrastructure of the North.

The essay didn't consider that slavery was legal in Union states
Missouri and Maryland, but I suspect that wouldn't matter much
or for very long. With their sudden very very minority
position, the 13th Amendment would have happened sooner over
any objections from those states.

He likely had some other points that I've forgotten. It's
been years.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2017/04/07/if_the_confederacy_had_won_the_civil_war_would_it_have_survived_into_the.html
The author's conclusion: probably not.
The opinion in our house is that if the Confederacy had achieved
independence, then instead of becoming an economic vassal of the
Union as in OTL, it would've become an economic vassal of Britain.
Which might mean that by the late 20thC it might be a
Commonwealth country.
Also that it would've got rid of slavery well before that, under
pressure from Britain (which had already abolished slavery) and
the rest of the world.

I think that gives too much credit to Britain,
and the rest of the world. (A number of
srticulate slaves also thought so, about
emancipation.)

As I see it - as a British citizen - Britain
was able and willing to enslave whole countries
for cheap labour and production, after we sort
of gave up enslaving individuals. They probably
wouldn't do that to the Confederates, but they
would happily move the empire's industry to
where there was such cheap labour as actual slaves.

So the South would do quite well. Regrettably.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Robert Carnegie
As I see it - as a British citizen - Britain
was able and willing to enslave whole countries
for cheap labour and production, after we sort
of gave up enslaving individuals. They probably
wouldn't do that to the Confederates, but they
would happily move the empire's industry to
where there was such cheap labour as actual slaves.
So the South would do quite well. Regrettably.

One hardly needs an alternate reality to see that happening.

Moving their industry to a country where some of the people are enslaved?

Well, _our_ industry has moved quite nicely to China, and their labor is badly
exploited under an unfree political system.

John Savard

[Dale Cozort]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Robert Carnegie
As I see it - as a British citizen - Britain
was able and willing to enslave whole countries
for cheap labour and production, after we sort
of gave up enslaving individuals. They probably
wouldn't do that to the Confederates, but they
would happily move the empire's industry to
where there was such cheap labour as actual slaves.
So the South would do quite well. Regrettably.

One hardly needs an alternate reality to see that happening.
Moving their industry to a country where some of the people are enslaved?
Well, _our_ industry has moved quite nicely to China, and their labor is badly
exploited under an unfree political system.
John Savard

Unlurking briefly. A big consideration with a surviving Confederacy is financing. Historically, the Confederacy was financially a burned out wreck even before it was militarily defeated. That goes beyond being choked by the Union blockade. The Confederates financed their war efforts primarily by borrowing large, but insufficient amounts of money and then running the printing presses to fill the gaps. Result: a currency that was headed toward toilet paper status qnd crushing debt. The Confederates could inflate away much of the debt, but doing so would destroy a lot of the capital they would need to rebuild after the war. Southern banks and wealthy individuals who invested in Confederate bonds would lose the bulk of, if not all of their money. Totally unsupportable level of debt.

Confederates might avoid that crushing debt if the union broke up peacefully--if the "let the wayward sisters go" crowd in the north won out, but there were enough flash points and enough hotheads on both sides that I suspect a war was pretty close to inevitable. And in the unlikely event that the north had allowed secession without a war, it's quite possible that the border south states would not have followed the deep south into the Confederacy. Virginia and North Carolina did not initially secede and only joined the Confederacy when war became inevitable. So it's quite possible that you would end up with a much smaller Confederacy and one with even less economic diversity than the historical one.

Either way, the Confederacy would be economically weak and unstable for decades at after the war, at a minimum.

[m***@sky.com]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2017/04/07/if_the_confederacy_had_won_the_civil_war_would_it_have_survived_into_the.html
The author's conclusion: probably not.
The opinion in our house is that if the Confederacy had achieved
independence, then instead of becoming an economic vassal of the
Union as in OTL, it would've become an economic vassal of Britain.
Which might mean that by the late 20thC it might be a
Commonwealth country.
Also that it would've got rid of slavery well before that, under
pressure from Britain (which had already abolished slavery) and
the rest of the world.

I think that gives too much credit to Britain,
and the rest of the world. (A number of
srticulate slaves also thought so, about
emancipation.)
As I see it - as a British citizen - Britain
was able and willing to enslave whole countries
for cheap labour and production, after we sort
of gave up enslaving individuals. They probably
wouldn't do that to the Confederates, but they
would happily move the empire's industry to
where there was such cheap labour as actual slaves.
So the South would do quite well. Regrettably.

A look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce suggests that the anti-slavery campaign was religiously motivated, did not pay a great deal of attention to the direct and indirect costs to Britain of combating slavery, and "In particular, the US had abolished the slave trade in 1808, and Wilberforce lobbied the American government to enforce its own prohibition more strongly" was indeed looking at the states. So I think the anti-slavery campaigners would at least have campaigned against a slave-owning South.

[Stephen Harker]

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2017/04/07/if_the_confederacy_had_won_the_civil_war_would_it_have_survived_into_the.html
The author's conclusion: probably not.
The opinion in our house is that if the Confederacy had achieved
independence, then instead of becoming an economic vassal of the
Union as in OTL, it would've become an economic vassal of Britain.
Which might mean that by the late 20thC it might be a Commonwealth
country.
Also that it would've got rid of slavery well before that, under
pressure from Britain (which had already abolished slavery) and
the rest of the world.

I think that gives too much credit to Britain, and the rest of the
world. (A number of srticulate slaves also thought so, about
emancipation.)
As I see it - as a British citizen - Britain was able and willing to
enslave whole countries for cheap labour and production, after we
sort of gave up enslaving individuals. They probably wouldn't do
that to the Confederates, but they would happily move the empire's
industry to where there was such cheap labour as actual slaves.
So the South would do quite well. Regrettably.

A look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce suggests
that the anti-slavery campaign was religiously motivated, did not pay
a great deal of attention to the direct and indirect costs to Britain
of combating slavery, and "In particular, the US had abolished the
slave trade in 1808, and Wilberforce lobbied the American government
to enforce its own prohibition more strongly" was indeed looking at
the states. So I think the anti-slavery campaigners would at least
have campaigned against a slave-owning South.

According to CJ Bartlett in _Defence and diplomacy: Britain and the
Great Powers 1815-1914_ Palmerston would have welcomed a permanent
break-up of the Union. However, he and his supporters were always aware
that war in support of a slave state would never be countenanced by
powerful groups in Britain.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2017/04/07/if_the_confederacy_had_won_the_civil_war_would_it_have_survived_into_the.html
The author's conclusion: probably not.
The opinion in our house is that if the Confederacy had achieved
independence, then instead of becoming an economic vassal of the
Union as in OTL, it would've become an economic vassal of Britain.
Which might mean that by the late 20thC it might be a
Commonwealth country.
Also that it would've got rid of slavery well before that, under
pressure from Britain (which had already abolished slavery) and
the rest of the world.

I think that gives too much credit to Britain,
and the rest of the world. (A number of
articulate slaves also thought so, about
emancipation.)

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2017/04/07/if_the_confederacy_had_won_the_civil_war_would_it_have_survived_into_the.html
The author's conclusion: probably not.
The opinion in our house is that if the Confederacy had achieved
independence, then instead of becoming an economic vassal of the
Union as in OTL, it would've become an economic vassal of Britain.
Which might mean that by the late 20thC it might be a
Commonwealth country.
Also that it would've got rid of slavery well before that, under
pressure from Britain (which had already abolished slavery) and
the rest of the world.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

I've always had my doubts about the 'vassal of England' part. It _could_ have happened, of course, but IMHO the most likely post Confederate victory scenario is that the Confederacy turns on itself. The centrifugal strains were a problem even _during_ the war, it would have been worse afterward. I suspect Texas would soon have pressed for independence, so might Georgia.

Much would of course depend on the precise nature of the Confederate success.