Thank you for your reply. I won’t respond with a long-winded post, however. I agree with some points and disagree on others. However, I do side with the position that slavery was a key issue. I’ve seen enough material and viewpoints over decades to come to that conclusion.
Set aside slavery for a moment, I think the Confederacy was going to be an experiment in failure for a number of reasons. Ultimately, I don’t think you can have a dominant situation where a central government and state government are at odds. One side will have to prevail. With the Civil War, of course, it essentially decided that a strong central government would prevail over state government rights. It’s unfortunate a balance couldn’t be struck that didn’t trample on the 10th Amendment, but that’s just how it is.
Similarly, the CSA was doomed to failure because each of the states was wanting to determine which policies were set and how to implement them, and conducting a war from Richmond did indeed require centralized planning (hence, rebuking a key point for the reason of state secession). Let’s assume that the CSA managed to win the war. President Davis was already beleaguered by each of the states challenging his plans and authority. This would’ve persisted during their own Reconstruction era. Presumably, Robert E. Lee would’ve succeeded Davis (1867-73) as there was just the one 6-year term for a President (which isn’t a bad idea). A President Lee, however heralded as the man who bested the North, would’ve similarly found the office to be a difficulty and likely would’ve diminished his stature.
I believe the squabbling over inter-state policies would’ve caused a breakup before long. I think it would’ve made expansion difficult to near impossible, since that, again, would’ve required centralized initiatives and planning to implement. The existing states would’ve felt in competition (that they wouldn’t want) with new states in Cuba, the former Dominican Republic (hopefully they would not have been so stupid as to try to annex Haiti), PR, the individual Mexican and Central American states. Ultimately, this simply would’ve led to outright independence movements for the individual states within the CSA (although, again, perhaps necessarily not a bad thing). You might’ve had, at best, clusters of states entering into semi-unifying alliances, but there’s no way a CSA would’ve made it into the 20th century.
If it had and somehow managed to strike a balance between a modest central government and a modest state government model (which we should aspire to here in the US), having too many residents not able to participate in civic affairs or purposefully (by legal means) kept in a secondary class (as likely Blacks and Native Indians would’ve been) of outright or semi-slavery when they outnumber the (White) citizen class would’ve also proven the eventual downfall unless a way was found to fully assimilate them into the culture. After a time of being “used” to things being a certain way, far too many would’ve opposed that assimilation on the grounds of it being simply an impossible task or that their race prevented them biologically or intellectually being able to do so.
As I cited in my prior post, such a nation would’ve been perpetually under chaos and subject to uprisings, violence, etc. While you might be able to deal with a situation where the “problem population” was under, say, 10%. If it were the opposite and they consisted of above 50%, 70%, maybe even 90%, that is unsustainable. Again, you’re back to the Haitian model. Such an uprising, which would eventually be successful (unless you wanted to do a wholesale slaughter of the problem population) would then lead to a predictable Marxist-Stalinist dictatorship (and in turn, likely would slaughter the ruling class in retaliation).
In any event, it would’ve been a fiasco outcome no matter what. That such a state would’ve existed long enough to involve itself in the world affairs of the 20th century in perhaps avoiding entry into WW1 (let alone WW2) is highly unlikely. As I cited above, the CSA could’ve become its own Soviet Union kept in power by an aggrieved non-White underclass believing they could never share in the kind of prosperity we take for granted today.
Just as an academic exercise, it would be curious to witness such scenarios (so long as no one gets hurt, of course).
This may be true, but I see the question as more of what people have a right to do, and not so much as hinging on whether they would be successful or not.
Many of the British didn't think the Colonies would be successful in their independence, but the Colonies asserted their right to do so even if it turned out to be a mistake.
My point here is that people have a right to do things that might turn out to be mistakes; that it is within their rights to make such mistakes.
Cuba wanted to be independent of the US, and so did the Philippines, and in both cases, I think they turned out worse for having become independent. They still had a right to become so, because this is what their people wanted.
If we had a right to leave the United Kingdom and form a Confederacy, then States had a right to leave the United States and
"to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
One major Civil War writer did an essay in a group of essays I read called “The Confederacy: Died of Democracy”