(Editor’s Note: With all of the ongoing debates about the Civil War, we ask this question: What would the South look like today had the CSA successfully seceded from the Union to form their own country? And, the response needed to address the issues of slavery, segregation, per capita wealth, etc.)

Mike Crane, 3rd-Vice-Chairman of the Southern Party of Georgia, offered his analysis of this “what-if” issue:

An interesting question but a question for which there is no definitive answer. But it is possible to present some facts and possible outcome based upon those facts. There are two scenarios to frame the response in:

1) The Secession of the Confederate States had been allowed to occur without invasion.

2) The Confederate States had been successful in repealing the invasion.

Scenario #1: Secession is allowed to occur without invasion:

The future possibility of secession was always recognized by Our Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson’s comments on the subject provide some insight into the first scenario. In his mind the most likely source was East vs. West (established Colonies that became States vs. frontier territories that became States) as he viewed "economic" issues as the dividing factor. His view was basically that the split should be peaceful and that ultimately the two bodies would rejoin after working out their differences:

"The experiment of separation would soon prove to both that they had mutually miscalculated their best interests."

The economic issues were paramount in the causes of Confederate Secession and are almost totally ignored in today's educational system. Two of the issues in the Republican campaign of 1860 were increasing tariffs and immigration into the territories. As you may be aware, tariffs were the major source of federal government income. The Southern States were paying in excess of 60% of the tariffs and close to 75% of the expenditures were being made to the benefit of northern industry.

A study of the northern newspaper editorials during the end of 1860 and early 1861 show a steadily increasing and hostile reaction to the potential of losing the tariffs and possibility of losing Southern shipping. Note that the economic struggle between the northern industrial base and the Southern agricultural base had already resulted in two close calls with secession: the Northern States over the War of 1812 and South Carolina in the tariff crisis of 1830.

The slavery aspect (and I do not discount the fact that this was used to increase the emotional level on both sides) was more tied to the territories. The power struggle was over the balance in Congress. The Republican platform and campaign called for ending slavery in the territories and increased immigration in order to force the future States to align with the north, thus continuing the power shift in Congress.

Under this scenario, based upon the secession being allowed peacefully, I believe that Thomas Jefferson was correct. The economic losses on both sides would have soon turned the public against the fire-eaters in the South and the radical Republicans in the north, compromises would have been worked out and the tear would have been mended.

It is a documented fact that shortly after Secession, the Confederate States sent a diplomatic envoy to Washington, authorized to negotiate a treaty to make the secession peaceful and begin negotiations on establishing Trade Policies. So, the process that Thomas Jefferson predicted was initiated, but the Lincoln Administration refused to meet with the envoy so the effort ended.

After Secession, the now heavily Republican dominated Congress passed the Morrill Tariff (more than doubled the tariff), The Homestead Act making land available at discounted prices to immigrants and The Pacific Railway Act funding a railroad with a northern route. Thus demonstrating the Radical Republican obsession with these economic issues.

Also, the Republican Congress issued the first version of the 13th Amendment for ratification, which basically prohibited Congress from ever interfering with slavery if the Southern States would return and pay the Morrill Tariff (40%). So they obviously considered the tariff more important.

So to consider a potential outcome where Confederate Secession was allowed peacefully, you have to pick up at the period where the diplomatic envoy was in Washington and assume negotiations were at least initiated. While such negotiations were in process or if they proven even moderately successful it is doubtful that the revolutionary (in that time period) legislation would have been passed in Congress. About the only Constitutional modification that could have served as a basis for the reunification would have been to require a 2/3 (66%) vote to pass economic bills (taxation and disbursement). This was actually proposed by Col. Mason in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. It was not added and he refused to sign the document, predicting civil war within a 100 years.

Scenario #2: the South won its independence on the battlefield.

After a period of saber rattling, the two bodies would have resumed most of the same economic ties that existed prior to the war. But the lingering resentment of the conflict would have prevented the joining of the two bodies. Assuming the Radical Republicans lost power in the U.S. due to their failed war effort, the U.S. Constitution would be more intact today and the U.S. government would be much closer in form to the founding principles.

The Confederate Constitution would have proven to be the better basis for government over time. Just the line item veto and ability to remove "federal judges" would have prevented many of the abuses that have happened under the U.S. Constitution during the last century and continuing today.

The North would have moved into the West faster, and possibly taken action against Canada (as many in the English press feared). Ultimately the more rapid expansion into the west would have made the north the much larger of the two. The South would have moved toward the South, possibly absorbing Cuba, Jamaica, etc.

Specifically on the list of issues:

1) Slavery – In both scenarios there is no reason to believe that it would have not ended in the same relative timeframe as Brazil. Slavery was initiated in this country (by the English) to provide labor and even in the 1860’s the institution was becoming economically unfeasible. This parallels the situation in Brazil, and slavery officially ended in 1888 as the slave population had been virtually 100% emancipated and absorbed into Brazil’s society. It should be noted that in the discussion of the second scenario, the future leadership of both Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee have to be taken into account. Both were committed to ending slavery via gradual or phased emancipation.


2) Segregation – In both scenarios, segregation would have been more severe in the north, but ended sooner. At the time of the war, several northern States already had Jim Crow type laws on the books. In the South, Jim Crow would never have happened as that was a direct reaction to Reconstruction.


3) Per capita wealth - Would probably be lower today in both the North & South. But on the other hand there would be considerably less national debt. When we gauge our wealth and prosperity today I do not believe that we properly account for the vast national debt.

4) Government – In either scenario it is likely that all Americans would have a government more in line with the principles established by Our Founding Fathers. The one single event that has eroded the original form of government more than anything else is the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment broke the back of the only check on the central portion of our government, the States. Remember the term checks & balances? The three branches are the balances, the States were the check.

Today all Americans have an out-of-control central government that has departed from the Founders concept of "limited government.”