Replies

We had a lot of trade with Mexico did we? Enough to justify a rail link? Of course not, and our transcontinental railroads all ran east-west, not north south for that very reason. *Our* railroad ran east-west, Kemo Sabe? You mean the Yankee railroads expanded westward. See the development of the Texas railroad system oof the later IXX Century for a probable prototype of where an independent Dixie's rail net likely would have evolved, with a Texarkana-Little Rock-Memphis mainline spine route also connecting the Texas Gulf Ports to the Mississippi and the rest of the southern rail infrastructure, with a direct line to New Orleans another probable certainty by the XX Century.

There wasn't enough trade with Mexico and there sure weren't many Mexican railroads to tie in to. No railroads ran the length of Mexico to tranship goods from Central America so you were back to ships for that transportation as well.

And much of the South was 5-foot gauge, and the Central American ICRA routes that came later were 3-foot narrow gauge [as that of FEGUA in Guatamela still largely is.] But development comes with time, and ton-miles pay for route upgrades and expansion.

Trade with those regions, such as it was, would have remained pretty much undisturbed. As for the 'southern produced light industrial goods', well there weren't any.

They'd have developed, but likely not on the far reaches of the Dixie States, but in its heartland. The transportation network would have been necessary for delivery of both raw materials to and finished output from such industry as it grew, or it wouldn't have grown. But speculation on what might industry might have evolved in Dixie had the war been a southern victory, or more likely, a stalemate based on the suppression of such industry by Northern industrial interests after the war is specious. It is interesting though, to note where the Wright Brothers first flights took place, and to wonder if that might have become a southern aviation center to rival the present-day aviation centers at Ft Rucker, Alabama, Cape Canaveral, Florida and Houston, Texas.

"War of Northern Dominance", eh? That's a new one. Never heard Jeff Davis's War called that before. But, I digress.

Because you know the terms applied by the Yankee victors. It seems likely that a different outcome would have left the conflict known by differing names, North and South. But *War of Yankee Agression* is heard pretty commonly in the South today, sometimes tongue-in-cheek- and sometimes not.

I don't think that a southern victory would have prevented WWI, it probably meant that the North and South probably would have fought on opposite sides. A southern victory would have left hard feelings and an armed border between the two countries. If the confederacy cozied up to Great Britain then it's possible that the U.S. would have looked for allies among the other European powers, Germany or Russia. Squabbles between the European powers, like the Franco-Prussian War could have spilled over into North America. Instead of preventing WWI, a southern victory might have brought it about sooner.

Could be; the possibilities are near-infinite. But it's to be hoped that had such a thing occurred, Lincoln might have survived. Defeated in war, his political future would have been dim, but he might have reemerged as a political figure hoping to bring about reconciliation, if he were not impeached, at least in a few of the border states. And the Union would have regained the loss of a few ~~colonies~~, er, states with the addition of those in the west choosing to go with the industrial north and those east-west links you mentioned- why, they might not have even have lost any stars from the flag at all.

As for the later wars and events, Churchill is a likely better historian than I; [though I have to wonder if he was familiar with Cleburne's letter] and so his account that is the one that matters, not your speculation nor mine:

IF LEE HAD NOT WON THE BATTLE OF GETTYSBURG

Winston Churchill Journal: Finest Hour 103

"If Lee after his triumphal entry into Washington had merely been the soldier, his achievements would have ended on the battlefield. It was his august declaration... that opened the high roads along which we are now marching so prosperously."

by Winston S. Churchill

THE quaint conceit of imagining what would have happened if some important or unimportant event had settled itself differently has become so fashionable that I am encouraged to enter upon an absurd speculation. What would have happened if Lee had not won the Battle of Gettysburg?

Once a great victory is won it dominates not only the future but the past. All the chains of consequence clink out as if they never could stop. The hopes that were shattered, the passions that were quelled, the sacrifices that were ineffectual are all swept out of the land of reality. Still it may amuse an idle hour, and perhaps serve as a corrective to undue complacency, if at this moment in the twentieth century‹so rich in assurance and prosperity, so calm and buoyant‹we meditate for a spell upon the debt we owe to those Confederate soldiers who by a deathless feat of arms broke the Union front at Gettysburg and laid open a fair future to the world.

It always amuses historians and philosophers to pick out the tiny things, the sharp agate points, on which the ponderous balance of destiny turns; and certainly the details of the famous Confederate victory of Gettysburg furnish a fertile theme. There can be at this date no conceivable doubt that Pickett's charge would have been defeated if Stuart with his encircling cavalry had not arrived in the rear of the Union position at the supreme moment. Stuart might have been arrested in his decisive swoop if any one of twenty commonplace incidents had occurred. If, for instance, General Meade had organized his lines of communication with posts for defence against raids,or if he had used his cavalry to scout upon his flanks, he would have received a timely warning. If General Warren had only thought of sending a battalion to hold Little Round Top the rapid advance of the masses of Confederate cavalry must have been detected. If only President Davis's letter to General Lee, captured by Captain Dahlgren, revealing the Confederacy plans had reached Meade a few hours earlier, he might have escaped Lee's clutches.

Anything, we repeat, might have prevented Lee's magnificent combinations from synchronizing and, if so, Pickett's repulse was sure. Gettysburg would have been a great Northern victory. It might have well been a final victory. Lee might, indeed, have made a successful retreat from the field. The Confederacy, with its skilful generals and fierce armies, might have another year, or even two, but once defeated decisively at Gettysburg, its doom was inevitable. The fall of Vicksburg, which happened only two days after Lee's immortal triumph, would in itself by opening the Mississippi to the river fleets of the Union, have cut the Secessionist States almost in half. Without wishing to dogmatize, we feel we are on solid ground in saying that the Southern States could not have survived the loss of a great battle in Pennsylvania and the almost simultaneous bursting open of the Mississippi.

However, all went well. Once again by the narrowest of margins the compulsive pinch of military genius and soldierly valor produced a perfect result. The panic which engulfed the whole left of Meade's massive army has never been made a reproach against the Yankee troops. Everyone knows they were stout fellows. But defeat is defeat, and rout is ruin. Three days only were required after the cannon at Gettysburg had ceased to thunder before General Lee fixed his headquarters in Washington. We need not here dwell upon the ludicrous features of the hurried flight to New York of all the politicians, place hunters, contractors, sentimentalists and their retinues, which was so successfully accomplished. It is more agreeable to remember how Lincoln, 'greatly falling with a falling State,' preserved the poise and dignity of a nation. Never did his rugged yet sublime common sense render a finer service to his countrymen. He was never greater than in the hour of fatal defeat.

But, of course, there is no doubt whatever that the mere military victory which Lee gained at Gettysburg would not by itself have altered the history of the world. The loss of Washington would not have affected the immense numerical preponderance of the Union States. The advanced situation of their capital and its fall would have exposed them to a grave injury, would no doubt have considerably prolonged the war; but standing by itself this military episode, dazzling though it may be, could not have prevented the ultimate victory of the North. It is in the political sphere that we have to look to find the explanation of the triumphs begun upon the battlefield.

Curiously enough, Lee furnishes an almost unique example of a regular and professional soldier who achieved the highest excellence both as a general and as a statesman. His ascendancy throughout the Confederate States on the morrow of his Gettysburg victory threw Jefferson Davis and his civil government irresistibly, indeed almost unconsciously, into the shade. The beloved and victorious commander, arriving in the capital of his mighty antagonists, found there the title deeds which enabled him to pronounce the grand decrees of peace. Thus it happened that the guns of Gettysburg fired virtually the last shots in the American Civil War.

The movement of events then shifted to the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. England - the name by which the British Empire was then commonly described - had been riven morally in twain by the drama of the American struggle. We have always admired the steadfastness with which the Lancashire cotton operatives, though starved of cotton by the Northern blockade [our most prosperous county reduced to penury, almost become dependent upon the charity of the rest of England] nevertheless adhered to the Northern cause. The British working classes on the whole judged the quarrel through the eyes of Disraeli and rested solidly upon the side of the abolition of slavery. Indeed, all Mr. Gladstone's democratic flair and noble eloquence would have failed, even upon the then restricted franchise, to carry England into the Confederate camp as a measure of policy. If Lee after his triumphal entry into Washington had merely been the soldier, his achievements would have ended on the battlefield. It was his august declaration that the victorious Confederacy would pursue no policy towards the African negroes, which was not in harmony with the moral conceptions of Western Europe, that opened the high roads along which we are now marching so prosperously.

But even this famous gesture might have failed if it had not been caught up and implemented by the practical genius and trained parliamentary aptitudes of Gladstone. There is practically no doubt at this stage that the basic principle upon which the colour question in the Southern States of America has been so happily settled owed its origin mainly to Gladstonian ingenuity and to the long statecraft of Britain in dealing with alien and more primitive populations. There was not only the need to declare the new fundamental relationship between master and servant, but the creation for the liberated slaves of institutions suited to their own cultural development and capable of affording them a different yet honourable status in a commonwealth, destined eventually to become almost world-wide.

Let us only think what would have happened supposing the liberation of the slaves had been followed by some idiotic assertion of racial equality, and even by attempts to graft white democratic institutions upon the simple, docile, gifted African race belonging to a much earlier chapter in human history. We might have seen the whole of the Southern States invaded by gangs of carpet-bagging politicians exploiting the ignorant and untutored coloured vote against the white inhabitants and bringing the time-honoured forms of parliamentary government into unmerited disrepute. We might have seen the sorry farce of black legislatures attempting to govern their former masters. Upon the rebound from this there must inevitably have been a strong reassertion of local white supremacy. By one device or another the franchises accorded to the negroes would have been taken from them. The constitutional principles of the Republic would have been proclaimed, only to be evaded or subverted; and many a warm-hearted philanthropist would have found his sojourn in the South no better than 'A Fool's Errand'.

But we must return to our main theme and to the procession of tremendous events which followed the Northern defeat at Gettysburg and the surrender of Washington. Lee's declaration abolishing slavery coupled as it was with inflexible resolve to secede from the American Union, opened the way for British intervention.

Within a month the formal treaty of alliance between the British Empire and the Confederacy had been signed. The terms of this alliance, being both offensive and defensive, revolutionized the military and naval situation. The Northern blockade could not be maintained even for a day in the face of the immense naval power of Britain. The opening of the Southern ports released the pent-up cotton, restored the finances and replenished the arsenals of the Confederacy. The Northern forces at New Orleans were themselves immediately cut off and forced to capitulate. There could be no doubt of the power of the new allies to clear the Mississippi of Northern vessels throughout the whole of its course through the Confederate States. The prospect of a considerable British army embarking for Canada threatened the Union with a new military front.

But none of these formidable events in the sphere of arms and material force would have daunted the resolution of President Lincoln, or weakened the fidelity of the Northern States and armies. It was Lee's declaration abolishing slavery which by a single master-stroke gained the Confederacy an all-powerful ally and spread a moral paralysis far and wide through the ranks of their enemies. The North were waging war against Secession, but as the struggle had proceeded, the moral issue of slavery had first sustained and then dominated the political quarrel. Now that the moral issue was withdrawn, now that the noble cause which inspired the Union armies and the Governments behind them was gained, there was nothing left but a war of reconquest to be waged under circumstances infinitely more difficult and anxious than those which had already led to so much disappointment defeat. Here was the South victorious, reinvigorated, reinforced, offering of her own free will to make a more complete abolition of the servile status the American continent than even Lincoln had himself seen fit to demand. Was the war to continue against what soon must be heavy odds merely to assert the domination of one set of English-speaking people over another; was blood to flow indefinitely in an ever-broadening stream to gratify national pride or martial revenge ?

It was this deprivation of the moral issue which undermined the obduracy of the Northern States. Lincoln no longer rejected the Southern appeal for independence. "If," he declared in his famous speech in Madison Square Gardens in New York, "our brothers in the South are willing faithfully to cleanse this continent of negro slavery, and if they will dwell beside us in neighbourly goodwill as an independent but friendly nation, it would not be right to prolong the slaughter on the question of sovereignty alone."

Thus peace came more swiftly than war had come. The Treaty of Harper's Ferry, which was signed between the Union and Confederate States on 6 September 1863, embodied the two, fundamental propositions: that the South was independent, and the slaves were free. If the spirit of old John Brown had revisited the battle-scarred township which had been the scene of his life and death, it would have seen his cause victorious, but at a cost to the United States terrible indeed.

Apart from the loss of blood and treasure, the American Union was riven in twain. Henceforth there would be two Americas in the same northern continent. One of them would have renewed in a modern and embattled form its old ties of kinship and affiliation with the Mother Country across the ocean. It was evident, though peace might be signed and soldiers furl their flags, profound antagonisms, social, economic and military, underlay the life of the English-speaking world. Still slavery was abolished. As John Bright said, "At last after the smoke of the battlefield has cleared away, the horrid shape which had cast its shadow over the whole continent, had vanished and was gone for ever."

At this date when all seems so simple and clear, one has hardly the patience to chronicle the bitter and lamentable developments which occupied the two succeeding generations. But we may turn aside in our speculation to note how strangely the careers of Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli would have been altered if Lee had not won the Battle of Gettysburg.....

======

TO ENJOY THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE, AND THE SPLENDID PAINTING THAT ACCOMPANIES IT, join the Churchill Center and Societies now and receive FINEST HOUR #103. Just download a membership application on the Home Page of this website.------

Reprinted by permission from The Great Republic: A History of America, by Sir Winston Churchill, edited and arranged by Winston S. Churchill, soon to be published by Random House. The essay first appeared in Scribner's Magazine, December, 1930; it was first published in book form in If it had Happened Otherwise, edited by J. C. Squire (London: Longmans Green 1931), and reprinted in The Collected Essays of Sir Winston Churchill, Vol. IV "Churchill at Large"
(London: Library of Imperial History, 1976).