Confederate victory at Gettysburg

History Learner

Well-known member
A timeline idea I've played around with is an 1863/1864 victory for the CSA. They have over a decade to get the debt paid off and rebuild, while E.P. Alexander is able to get Richmond to buy up the British Armstrong guns when the UK begins to sell them off. Meanwhile in the United States, as a consequence of the war, West Point is shut down; there was a movement to do this IOTL due to the high number of ex-cadets that joined the CSA. By 1875, the C.S. Army has the better officer corps (The Citadel and VMI) as well as better trained infantry (Slave Patrol Militia system) and the more modern artillery due to the Armstrongs. The U.S. meanwhile has the larger overall force, in both Army and Navy, and the better small arms due to their larger industrial base.

Anyway, in 1876 the Emperor Maxmillian dies without issue or a designated heir (He never had one IOTL and was likely infertile). The Mexican Liberals have long been defeated but the loss of the Monarchy leaves Mexico unstable and in a power vacuum. The Confederate States thus steps in and annexes the country, due to its ties to local strongmen like Santiago Vidaurri as well as heavy influence on the Mexican military and economy. This emerges as a campaign issue for the upcoming 1876 Election in the U.S. and the incumbent Presidency attempts to use it to his advantage, with this resulting in both nations blundering into a war. The U.S. has the numbers and logistics, so it gradually is able to advance into the CSA steadily but at great cost, due to the quality of the C.S. Army and its advantage in artillery.

Ultimately, between the increased demands of the war on railway traffic and political dissatisfaction at the high casualties being taken for an unpopular cause, the 1877 Railway Strikes spark off and are worse than IOTL. With the collapse in their logistics system, the U.S. Army comes to a halt in its advance and the Confederates are able to encircle and destroy several elements in their own ATL Sedan. Adding to the woes of the American military is the need to divert formations to put down communes in cities like Pittsburgh, Chicago and others. In the end, Washington is forced to sue for peace, ending the war with the Confederate annexation of Mexico recognized. From there on, both the C.S. and the U.S. seek to achieve and maintain good ties, as the cost of war for both is recognized as just not worth it.
 

Buba

A total creep
So, ATL, 19% of the OTL U.S. total. Kennedy says the U.S. output in 1913 was 32% of Global Output. If the Confederacy is 19% of that, it's 6% of Global output, which would put it equal to France in WWI. If the C.S.A achieves a rate double it's OTL growth, which I think is obtainable, that would place it at 9% of Global Manufacturing Output; for reference, Britain is at 13.6%.
Wonderful quotes.
So, around OTL WWI the CSA would be a (slightly) richer France or A-H (at least in GDP - France was a big exporter of capital, something which I do not expect the CSA to be) and comparable in population (slightly smaller?).
As the CSA has to be subtracted from OTL USA's total, that'd then drag the USA down to more or less (albeit on the more side) Germany's level - 60-70M people and c.120% of GDP.
Figures are my asspulls, of course :)

The 1913 figures I am working with are France c.130B USD (whatever USD the author of the tables I have used) on a population of c.35M, Germany 280B on 65M, and USA 500B on 110M.

in the United States, as a consequence of the war, West Point is shut down; there was a movement to do this IOTL due to the high number of ex-cadets that joined the CSA. By 1875, the C.S. Army has the better officer corps (The Citadel and VMI)
West Point shut down? Talk aboutr crazy. Nevertheless I'd expect saner heads to prevail ...
CSA - wouldn't it create its own Service Academies?

BTW - where does the the CSA capital go? IMO a nice central location - and shielded by mountains from Northern Aggression TM - would be the Atlanta-Montgomery area ...
 
Last edited:

stevep

Well-known member
First, it needs to be noted recognition extends much more than just the condition of PoWs on its own; for one, it allows the Confederate Government to seek out and obtain international financial assistance in a way it never achieved historically. Beyond that, though, it was always understood on the part of the British, French, Americans and Confederates that recognition was not a one off and done thing, but rather the starting move in forcing a diplomatic end to the conflict under the auspices of the Europeans. Specifically, during the Intervention Crisis of 1862 the British made to ready the Royal Navy for the Spring of 1863 should the United States respond negatively. Ideally though, it was conceded that such would not be needed; diplomatic and economic pressure alone would collapse the Union war effort should the Europeans force the issue.

As for King Corn, Sarthaka has already pointed out the folly of that.



On the size of the Confederate economy, the 1914 US Census of Manufacturing shows that 9.5% of US manufacturing was in the former Confederate States, including Oklahoma. This was a return to form, as in 1860 the South contained 14% of industry and by 1914 was at 15%. If we go with Paul Kennedy's numbers for 1913 from The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, that places the South IOTL 1914 at about half of France's industrial output. Without the devastation of 1864-1865, tariffs to protect the Confederate industry from its Union counterparts, and the Planters not wiped out, I think it's fair to say the Confederacy could at least have that growth but won't have the war decline.

So, ATL, 19% of the OTL U.S. total. Kennedy says the U.S. output in 1913 was 32% of Global Output. If the Confederacy is 19% of that, it's 6% of Global output, which would put it equal to France in WWI. If the C.S.A achieves a rate double it's OTL growth, which I think is obtainable, that would place it at 9% of Global Manufacturing Output; for reference, Britain is at 13.6%.

global-output-png.358662


As for the matter of industry and slavery, Robert Fogel's Without Consent or Contract and The Economics of Industrial Slavery and the Old South by Robert Starobin are good reads. In reality, the planters had no opposition to industrialization and the overall trends favored it; it was cost competitive with free labor and the rate of return was, in some cases, equal to cotton; overall it was not far behind. Indeed, hundreds of thousands of slaves even in 1860 were involved in Industrial or Proto-Industrial work and the overall proportion could and did show fluctuations. Case in point is the effort made to develop Birmingham as an industrial center in the 1850s by Planters.

HL

Agree with the 1st part that British recognition would be a huge boost for the south even if Lincoln backs down on earlier statements, but not so sure about your assumptions in the 2nd. In this case, with a 1863 recognition and say the war lasts a few months longer before peace is agreed its still going to have been devastating for much of the south with a lot of deaths even assuming that the peace includes the north withdrawing from all 'occupied' territories claimed by the south which is far from certain.

More to the point OTL saw the south as part of a very large protected market and it could have more access to fiscal and other resources. Here its going to be markedly smaller and also going, even without any internal power struggles, to have to maintain markedly greater military forces.

Also where do you get the figure of 14% in 1914 from as you mention the 1914 industrial census stating that it held 9.5% of industrial capacity compared to 14% in 1860 then are suddenly mentioning 14% in 1915? Can you clarify please?

The most likely probability is that both north and south will be weaker then the combined OTL 1914 strength so can't really see the 19% of OTL 1913 US economic output you then expand it too. Probably not greatly weaker, at least unless something goes seriously wrong in either both states but I would be surprised if the south is any larger than OTL 9.5% of the combined total.

Also I wonder what the definition of manufacturing production is? Do recall when I 1st read Kennedy's book that as late as 1800 India and China both had a markedly greater industrial output than Britain - checking up in 1800 Britain had 4.3%, China had 33.3% and India/Pakistan - which I assume is meant to be the Maghul empire - had 19.7%. that suggests to me it included a lot of cottage industry activity rather than what we normally think of as industry nowadays. Even Russia in 1800 had 5.6%, i.e. exceeding Britain's total at this point.

Steve
 

ATP

Well-known member
In few books i read about that,it was 2 options:
1.Union ask for peace,2 states existing
2.Union fight and eventually win thanks to numbers and logistic.

So,ultimatelly it would depend only on Will of american in Union - are they OK with loosing another 500.000 of soldiers,or no?
 

History Learner

Well-known member
HL

Agree with the 1st part that British recognition would be a huge boost for the south even if Lincoln backs down on earlier statements, but not so sure about your assumptions in the 2nd. In this case, with a 1863 recognition and say the war lasts a few months longer before peace is agreed its still going to have been devastating for much of the south with a lot of deaths even assuming that the peace includes the north withdrawing from all 'occupied' territories claimed by the south which is far from certain.

More to the point OTL saw the south as part of a very large protected market and it could have more access to fiscal and other resources. Here its going to be markedly smaller and also going, even without any internal power struggles, to have to maintain markedly greater military forces.

Also where do you get the figure of 14% in 1914 from as you mention the 1914 industrial census stating that it held 9.5% of industrial capacity compared to 14% in 1860 then are suddenly mentioning 14% in 1915? Can you clarify please?

The most likely probability is that both north and south will be weaker then the combined OTL 1914 strength so can't really see the 19% of OTL 1913 US economic output you then expand it too. Probably not greatly weaker, at least unless something goes seriously wrong in either both states but I would be surprised if the south is any larger than OTL 9.5% of the combined total.

Also I wonder what the definition of manufacturing production is? Do recall when I 1st read Kennedy's book that as late as 1800 India and China both had a markedly greater industrial output than Britain - checking up in 1800 Britain had 4.3%, China had 33.3% and India/Pakistan - which I assume is meant to be the Maghul empire - had 19.7%. that suggests to me it included a lot of cottage industry activity rather than what we normally think of as industry nowadays. Even Russia in 1800 had 5.6%, i.e. exceeding Britain's total at this point.

Steve

Most of the death and destruction in the Civil War was after Gettysburg, with Grant's Overland Campaign and Sherman's March to the Sea. Here, Richmond as well as Atlanta have avoided being burned, Georgia and the Carolinas haven't been ravaged and Wilson's Raid into Alabama has never happened. Would a victory in 1861 or 1862 be better? Of course, but that's true for any conflict with any nation given how wars work. Specifically to the idea being a part of the United States at large was a boon for the South, that definitely is wrong:

birmingham-png.379214


This is taken from The Iron and Steel Industry of the Birmingham, Alabama, District by Langdon White (Economic Geography, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Oct., 1928), pp. 349-365). As the description notes, it specifically concerns the profitability of industrial goods from Alabama vs those from Pittsburgh and Chicago, i.e. the main steel centers of both respective sections of the nation. As noted by the map, Birmingham was more competitive than both in the overwhelming majority of the South. For those portions not covered, unlike in the historical 1920s, they would be behind a protective tariff barrier and thus we can safely assume that Birmingham too would have the advantage in such an eventuality. Why I bring this up is because IOTL the South was subjected to Pittsburgh pricing until the 20th Century, which resulted in situations where it was cheaper to import iron from Pittsburg in Alabama than it was to source it from the aforementioned Birmingham. I'd also recommend reading about how this practice resulted in the collapse of the South Carolina iron industry Post-War.

So we have a Confederacy with a large capitalist class in the form of the planters, they have a protective tariff to secure and promote their own industry and they have a political system willing to to engage in State Capitalism to achieve strategic goals. There simply is no valid reason to assume they won't be at least as strong as OTL, but more than likely vastly stronger.

As to your questions, in 1860 the South as a whole had 15% of the nation's industry and as a result of the war they did not reclaim that position again until the 1910s. Since the South as a whole did not secede (Border States), we need to narrow this down to the 11 States of the Confederacy as well as Oklahoma, in which case in the 1910s we find they contained roughly 9.5% of the nation's total, which we can then apply to the global total of the U.S. in 1913/1914. As for the question of cottage industry, that's not relevant; it's an efficiency question which doesn't change the overall output metric. Further, looking at early 19th Century totals and attempting to apply them to early 20th Century stats just isn't applicable on its own for very obvious reasons.
 

stevep

Well-known member
Most of the death and destruction in the Civil War was after Gettysburg, with Grant's Overland Campaign and Sherman's March to the Sea. Here, Richmond as well as Atlanta have avoided being burned, Georgia and the Carolinas haven't been ravaged and Wilson's Raid into Alabama has never happened. Would a victory in 1861 or 1862 be better? Of course, but that's true for any conflict with any nation given how wars work. Specifically to the idea being a part of the United States at large was a boon for the South, that definitely is wrong:

birmingham-png.379214


This is taken from The Iron and Steel Industry of the Birmingham, Alabama, District by Langdon White (Economic Geography, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Oct., 1928), pp. 349-365). As the description notes, it specifically concerns the profitability of industrial goods from Alabama vs those from Pittsburgh and Chicago, i.e. the main steel centers of both respective sections of the nation. As noted by the map, Birmingham was more competitive than both in the overwhelming majority of the South. For those portions not covered, unlike in the historical 1920s, they would be behind a protective tariff barrier and thus we can safely assume that Birmingham too would have the advantage in such an eventuality. Why I bring this up is because IOTL the South was subjected to Pittsburgh pricing until the 20th Century, which resulted in situations where it was cheaper to import iron from Pittsburg in Alabama than it was to source it from the aforementioned Birmingham. I'd also recommend reading about how this practice resulted in the collapse of the South Carolina iron industry Post-War.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1019108?seq=1

The south still has a markedly smaller market and also very likely increased costs. Both to maintain slavery, which is likely to have social and economic costs as well and to maintain a much larger military, which would be necessary given the co-existence with a still markely larger and quite possibly hostile north even without any adventurism by its leaders.

So we have a Confederacy with a large capitalist class in the form of the planters, they have a protective tariff to secure and promote their own industry and they have a political system willing to to engage in State Capitalism to achieve strategic goals. There simply is no valid reason to assume they won't be at least as strong as OTL, but more than likely vastly stronger.

The problem with a large aristocratic bloc dominating the economy and probably much of politics is that even if they are themselves fairly forward looking their short term interests are best served by promoting their own gains rather than the country as a whole. Which could end up with a situation similar to Britain in the late 19thC. True you have a tariff, although there was as much talk of a low tariff as a high one, but the same laissez faire mentality that greatly impeded British industrial development during this period. Would they be willing to invest, either directly or via taxes on improved education for the bulk of the white population, or better housing and social care to maintain an efficient workforce or would they continue to rely largely in black slaves kept ignorant to make them easier to control.

Also its far from clear that the degree of centralisation that the CSA government achieved in the desperation of war would be maintained in peace, especially since with a quick southern victory the incentive for this would be seen as far less. Especially since to do this would require a larger government system that many would probably argue as an unnecessary expense.

As to your questions, in 1860 the South as a whole had 15% of the nation's industry and as a result of the war they did not reclaim that position again until the 1910s. Since the South as a whole did not secede (Border States), we need to narrow this down to the 11 States of the Confederacy as well as Oklahoma, in which case in the 1910s we find they contained roughly 9.5% of the nation's total, which we can then apply to the global total of the U.S. in 1913/1914. As for the question of cottage industry, that's not relevant; it's an efficiency question which doesn't change the overall output metric. Further, looking at early 19th Century totals and attempting to apply them to early 20th Century stats just isn't applicable on its own for very obvious reasons.

So your saying that the south as a whole regained its 15% of the national industrial output by ~1910 but that the actual rebel states were still down at ~9.5%? Thanks for clarifying.

I would say the difference between cottage and factory industry is definitely relevant as the former will decline as the latter takes off and the cottage industry producers are unlikely to provide much of the workforce, let alone the management and investment for the new factories that would ultimately replace them.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1019108?seq=1

The south still has a markedly smaller market and also very likely increased costs. Both to maintain slavery, which is likely to have social and economic costs as well and to maintain a much larger military, which would be necessary given the co-existence with a still markely larger and quite possibly hostile north even without any adventurism by its leaders.

The South has a smaller overall population size in the 1860s than the North, sure, but it is one that in GDP per capita terms is about the same and in overall wealth is too; by 1900 it will basically be France/Britain sized. Likewise, for costs, you need to define those; tariff and cotton export rates aren't effected by that because those are flat levels of taxation. Federal budget in 1860 was $78 Million, while the 1861 Confederate import tariff and export duties on Cotton would raise alone $55 Million. Take in note, that's just two revenue makers that bring the Confederate budget nearly even with that of the entire U.S. Federal Budget in 1860, despite having only a third of the U.S. population in 1860.

Now, let's look at defense matters. IOTL, the Confederacy paid its soldiers $11 per month; they want to keep the best and brightest after the war, so let's say they bump this up to $15 a month. Let's also assume that the Confederate government spends an additional $10 per soldier in order to train and equip him per year. Let's also say the Confederacy is desirous to have a 100,000 man army in order to dissuade the Union from belligerency. So, simple math here:

15*12 = $180 180*100,000 = $18,000,000 in wages
10*100,000 = $1,000,000 in upkeep
Total is $19,000,000 for a 100,000 man army.

The Army figure does not include Naval expenditure, fortification building or officer pay, and is solely in terms of just maintaining an infantry force. I'm planning on looking at more specific data for those things, but for now I believe we could all agree the $28 Million the U.S. spent in 1860 would be sufficient to cover the pay of officers for the 100,000 man force I propose, building a strong system of defenses within the Confederacy (Smaller landmass to defend), and maintain a decent fleet (the U.S. Navy maintained a 89 ship fleet on such a budget). Therefore, we can currently operate under the assumption of the Confederacy paying $47 Million in defense spending.

The problem with a large aristocratic bloc dominating the economy and probably much of politics is that even if they are themselves fairly forward looking their short term interests are best served by promoting their own gains rather than the country as a whole. Which could end up with a situation similar to Britain in the late 19thC. True you have a tariff, although there was as much talk of a low tariff as a high one, but the same laissez faire mentality that greatly impeded British industrial development during this period. Would they be willing to invest, either directly or via taxes on improved education for the bulk of the white population, or better housing and social care to maintain an efficient workforce or would they continue to rely largely in black slaves kept ignorant to make them easier to control.

As has already been pointed out, there was no substantial talk of a lower effort and attempts to lower it beyond the initial tariff rate set at 1856 U.S. levels were firmly rebuffed. Further, again, there is no evidence of a laissez faire mindset, with modern historical research firmly pointing to the opposite; can you point me to any other 19th Century state that had an active State Capitalism system like the Confederacy which paid for, ran and equipped many factories with tens of thousands of workers? Brettle points out this wasn't just a wartime mindset either, but the culmination of Southern thinking and planning in this era.

Further, if you want to talk about being willing to pay for things, see the 5% tax on slave holdings, the cotton export tax and many other things that not even the United States did or would do.

Also its far from clear that the degree of centralisation that the CSA government achieved in the desperation of war would be maintained in peace, especially since with a quick southern victory the incentive for this would be seen as far less. Especially since to do this would require a larger government system that many would probably argue as an unnecessary expense.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, again, the activist and centralized structure was created from the onset and an 1863 victory after Gettysburg has seen in it in operation for two years. Can you please point to any episode in American history where the Federal Government has entered a period of declining power from the adoption of the Constitution onwards?

So your saying that the south as a whole regained its 15% of the national industrial output by ~1910 but that the actual rebel states were still down at ~9.5%? Thanks for clarifying.

The South as a region as a whole-including the former Confederate states-regained its 1860 place in industrial statistics in the 1910s, yes. What needs to be noted is that, given the massive growth in overall American industry from 1870-1910, this meant that in raw terms the South was actually far more industrialized than it had been, just in terms of % it was back to its previous position.

I would say the difference between cottage and factory industry is definitely relevant as the former will decline as the latter takes off and the cottage industry producers are unlikely to provide much of the workforce, let alone the management and investment for the new factories that would ultimately replace them.

Beyond the fact that it has no relevancy to the Confederate industrial base because it was not cottage based, again, that is an efficiency argument. Industrial output stays the same in terms of what is produced and its value regardless; i.e. $150 million in industrial goods is still $150 million regardless of where it came, although you could say a non-cottage production method could produce 50% more given efficiencies gained.
 

stevep

Well-known member
The South has a smaller overall population size in the 1860s than the North, sure, but it is one that in GDP per capita terms is about the same and in overall wealth is too; by 1900 it will basically be France/Britain sized. Likewise, for costs, you need to define those; tariff and cotton export rates aren't effected by that because those are flat levels of taxation. Federal budget in 1860 was $78 Million, while the 1861 Confederate import tariff and export duties on Cotton would raise alone $55 Million. Take in note, that's just two revenue makers that bring the Confederate budget nearly even with that of the entire U.S. Federal Budget in 1860, despite having only a third of the U.S. population in 1860.

Now, let's look at defense matters. IOTL, the Confederacy paid its soldiers $11 per month; they want to keep the best and brightest after the war, so let's say they bump this up to $15 a month. Let's also assume that the Confederate government spends an additional $10 per soldier in order to train and equip him per year. Let's also say the Confederacy is desirous to have a 100,000 man army in order to dissuade the Union from belligerency. So, simple math here:

15*12 = $180 180*100,000 = $18,000,000 in wages
10*100,000 = $1,000,000 in upkeep
Total is $19,000,000 for a 100,000 man army.

The Army figure does not include Naval expenditure, fortification building or officer pay, and is solely in terms of just maintaining an infantry force. I'm planning on looking at more specific data for those things, but for now I believe we could all agree the $28 Million the U.S. spent in 1860 would be sufficient to cover the pay of officers for the 100,000 man force I propose, building a strong system of defenses within the Confederacy (Smaller landmass to defend), and maintain a decent fleet (the U.S. Navy maintained a 89 ship fleet on such a budget). Therefore, we can currently operate under the assumption of the Confederacy paying $47 Million in defense spending.

So your saying that the south after a victory in 1863 will manage to maintain a much larger army post war, let alone issues like infrastructure and coastal/naval forces at a fraction of what extrapolating upwards the pre-war US military would give you.

As has already been pointed out, there was no substantial talk of a lower effort and attempts to lower it beyond the initial tariff rate set at 1856 U.S. levels were firmly rebuffed. Further, again, there is no evidence of a laissez faire mindset, with modern historical research firmly pointing to the opposite; can you point me to any other 19th Century state that had an active State Capitalism system like the Confederacy which paid for, ran and equipped many factories with tens of thousands of workers? Brettle points out this wasn't just a wartime mindset either, but the culmination of Southern thinking and planning in this era.

Further, if you want to talk about being willing to pay for things, see the 5% tax on slave holdings, the cotton export tax and many other things that not even the United States did or would do.

The high tariffs, which kept out/restricted access to cheaper European was one of the most frequent complaints by southern figures prior to the outbreak of the civil war.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, again, the activist and centralized structure was created from the onset and an 1863 victory after Gettysburg has seen in it in operation for two years. Can you please point to any episode in American history where the Federal Government has entered a period of declining power from the adoption of the Constitution onwards?

Until 1945 the US military and the controls the government imposed on its people dwindled drastically. Even post-WWII the US army had declined so much that they were scraping up forces to get anything to S Korea when it was attacked by the north.

The South as a region as a whole-including the former Confederate states-regained its 1860 place in industrial statistics in the 1910s, yes. What needs to be noted is that, given the massive growth in overall American industry from 1870-1910, this meant that in raw terms the South was actually far more industrialized than it had been, just in terms of % it was back to its previous position.

The greater south, which included highly industrialised areas such as W Virginia matched its 1860 GDP performance in ~1910. Notice that even with the great development of Texas, the primary state in the actual rebel ones to see a substantial increase in population, the rebel area itself was still down about 9-10%, rather than 15%. This is again in a unified US giving them access to much greater market and resources and with markedly less military spending proportionally than your suggesting.

Beyond the fact that it has no relevancy to the Confederate industrial base because it was not cottage based, again, that is an efficiency argument. Industrial output stays the same in terms of what is produced and its value regardless; i.e. $150 million in industrial goods is still $150 million regardless of where it came, although you could say a non-cottage production method could produce 50% more given efficiencies gained.

You do know what cottage industry means in this terminology? Piecework supplied by highly trained and fairly well off craftsmen [or women]. There are probably still a lot of US production being done this way even if you classify the slave plantations as industrial. They are clearly different because expanding them mean additional trained workers pretty much in proportion. As such a lot more expensive than increasing the numbers of machines even ignoring the efficiency of concentration of production on larger sites give in terms of obtaining raw materials and supplying/selling finished products
 

Largo

Well-known member
Uh, what tariff?

From the Confederate Constitution:

The Congress shall have power – To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States

The Confederate Constitution literally banned tariffs for the purposes of promoting industrialization. Tariffs could only be used for revenue purposes.
 

Buba

A total creep
The Confederate Constitution literally banned tariffs for the purposes of promoting industrialization. Tariffs could only be used for revenue purposes.
So "promoting industrialization" does not go onto the label.
Same as the already mentioned Constitutional ban on subsidising railroad construction for the betterment of commerce - yet subsidising railroad construction the "better defense of These American States" is OK :)
 

Largo

Well-known member
So "promoting industrialization" does not go onto the label.
Same as the already mentioned Constitutional ban on subsidising railroad construction for the betterment of commerce - yet subsidising railroad construction the "better defense of These American States" is OK :)
This works in a vacuum, but ignores the question why that change to the Confederate Constitution was put in to begin with? Because the planter aristocracy didn't want a protective tariff. What makes you think that they're going to suddenly change their minds on this when a tariff directly threatens their economic interests?

I'll also observe that I'm fairly amused how these posts which claims that the South could have been something resembling a civilized state seems to completely brush aside that teensy-weensy issue of "What the fuck do you do with the slaves."
 

Buba

A total creep
the planter aristocracy didn't want a protective tariff. What makes you think that they're going to suddenly change their minds on this when a tariff directly threatens their economic interests?
Their wishes when dreaming of a country of their own and the realities of having one may very well be quite different :)
If import tariffs are necessary to generate the tax revenue needed to maintain a military which keeps the evul! slave-stealing abolitionists away - then having tariffs simply is in their economic interest.
The Lesser Evil and all that ...
BTW - IMO most of the modifications to the US constitution which produced the CSA version are sensible.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
Uh, what tariff?

From the Confederate Constitution:



The Confederate Constitution literally banned tariffs for the purposes of promoting industrialization. Tariffs could only be used for revenue purposes.

This isn't true at all, they adopted tariffs from the outset. Yes, the exact phrasing was that they could not be protecting in nature but this, according to Majewski, was window dressing:

When the Confederate Congress endorsed Davis’s position on railroads, outraged supporters of states’ rights strongly objected. Their petition against national railroads—inserted into the official record of the Confederate Congress—argued that the railroads in question might well have military value, ‘‘but the same may be said of any other road within our limits, great or small.’’ The constitutional prohibition against national internal improvements, the petition recognized, was essentially worthless if the ‘‘military value’’ argument carried the day. Essentially giving the Confederate government a means of avoiding almost any constitutional restrictions, the ‘‘military value’’ doctrine threatened to become the Confederacy’s version of the ‘‘general welfare’’ clause that had done so much to justify the growth of government in the old Union. The elastic nature of ‘‘military value,’’ however, hardly bothered the vast majority of representatives in the Confederate Congress. The bills for the railroad lines passed overwhelmingly in 1862 and 1863. As political scientist Richard Franklin Bensel has argued, the constitutional limitations on the Confederate central government ‘‘turned out to be little more than cosmetic adornments.’’

With regards to issues in the Confederacy with goods:

In fusing free trade and protectionist impulses, secessionists spoke and wrote in a Hamiltonian idiom of economic modernization and economic nationalism. Just as Hamilton had imagined the United States becoming a world economic power, secessionists envisioned the Confederacy as a vehicle for promoting economic modernization. Confederate duties closely resembled (and sometimes exceeded) the 10 to 15 percent tariff rate proposed by Hamilton in his famous Report on Manufacturers (1791). The similarity in rates reflected shared goals of simultaneously promoting nation building and economic development. Hamilton wanted to make his new nation economically independent while simultaneously encouraging enough international trade to pay for his ambitious fiscal plans. His moderate tariff encouraged domestic manufacturing while generating enough revenue to finance the Revolutionary War debt. Confederates wanted tariffs high enough to penalize northern goods—thus encouraging economic independence—but still low enough to allow for a vibrant trade with Europe.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
So your saying that the south after a victory in 1863 will manage to maintain a much larger army post war, let alone issues like infrastructure and coastal/naval forces at a fraction of what extrapolating upwards the pre-war US military would give you.

Not at a fraction of the cost, no, just that the Confederacy will have more than sufficient money to do all of that easily.

The high tariffs, which kept out/restricted access to cheaper European was one of the most frequent complaints by southern figures prior to the outbreak of the civil war.

And once they were independent, they had no issue with it as Brettle and Majewski point out; the tariff debate was more tied to the sectional issues that no longer exist with an independent Confederacy.

Until 1945 the US military and the controls the government imposed on its people dwindled drastically. Even post-WWII the US army had declined so much that they were scraping up forces to get anything to S Korea when it was attacked by the north.

Military spending =/= powerful central government

That's very much an attempt to use an Apples to Oranges comparison. Can you cite any instance of the Federal Government's central authority being in prolonged decline after the adoption of the Constitution, as I said?

The greater south, which included highly industrialised areas such as W Virginia matched its 1860 GDP performance in ~1910. Notice that even with the great development of Texas, the primary state in the actual rebel ones to see a substantial increase in population, the rebel area itself was still down about 9-10%, rather than 15%. This is again in a unified US giving them access to much greater market and resources and with markedly less military spending proportionally than your suggesting.

Again, no, as has been said to you repeatedly. The South as a region had regained its 15% position from 1860 and the ex-Confederate States had likewise regained their 1860 stature; in terms of percentages, every where in the South was back, statistically, to where it was in 1860. Likewise, continuously repeating that being apart of the U.S. is a benefit is something you have yet to show. On the other hand, I have shown this was of no benefit; please provide sources for your claim if you are going to continue making it.

You do know what cottage industry means in this terminology? Piecework supplied by highly trained and fairly well off craftsmen [or women]. There are probably still a lot of US production being done this way even if you classify the slave plantations as industrial. They are clearly different because expanding them mean additional trained workers pretty much in proportion. As such a lot more expensive than increasing the numbers of machines even ignoring the efficiency of concentration of production on larger sites give in terms of obtaining raw materials and supplying/selling finished products

And again, it has no impact on the discussion because it is an efficiency issue when we are talking about outputs; I am very well familiar with the terminology. $150 million produced by Factories is the same as $150 million by cottage industry; the only difference is the factories are more efficient in capital, inputs and manpower. As it were though, to focus specifically on the Southern situation, they would have an active State Capitalist system paying for industrialization with an effective tariff scheme in effect.
 

stevep

Well-known member
Their wishes when dreaming of a country of their own and the realities of having one may very well be quite different :)
If import tariffs are necessary to generate the tax revenue needed to maintain a military which keeps the evul! slave-stealing abolitionists away - then having tariffs simply is in their economic interest.
The Lesser Evil and all that ...
BTW - IMO most of the modifications to the US constitution which produced the CSA version are sensible.

Possibly although History Learner has suggested they would gather all the cash they needed from a tax on exports of cotton and other means so I wonder if they would want extra government actions to increase the prices of their imports?
 

stevep

Well-known member
Not at a fraction of the cost, no, just that the Confederacy will have more than sufficient money to do all of that easily.

Your talking about an army about 4 times the size of the pre-war union army and also a substantial navy. Those cost, both to build and maintain. Let alone any necessary defensive positions or simply the infrastructure they need.

And once they were independent, they had no issue with it as Brettle and Majewski point out; the tariff debate was more tied to the sectional issues that no longer exist with an independent Confederacy.

That is your opinion but others have different opinions.

Military spending =/= powerful central government

That's very much an attempt to use an Apples to Oranges comparison. Can you cite any instance of the Federal Government's central authority being in prolonged decline after the adoption of the Constitution, as I said?

After the civil war the federal government gave up a lot of wartime power. Ditto after WWII. The same but even more for Britain after WWI.

Again, no, as has been said to you repeatedly. The South as a region had regained its 15% position from 1860 and the ex-Confederate States had likewise regained their 1860 stature; in terms of percentages, every where in the South was back, statistically, to where it was in 1860. Likewise, continuously repeating that being apart of the U.S. is a benefit is something you have yet to show. On the other hand, I have shown this was of no benefit; please provide sources for your claim if you are going to continue making it.

So your now saying that 15% of GDP relates only to the rebel states as opposed to all the former slave owning states as you were saying earlier. Or are you arguing that a south that wins its indepenence will also gain control of W Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland etc?



And again, it has no impact on the discussion because it is an efficiency issue when we are talking about outputs; I am very well familiar with the terminology. $150 million produced by Factories is the same as $150 million by cottage industry; the only difference is the factories are more efficient in capital, inputs and manpower. As it were though, to focus specifically on the Southern situation, they would have an active State Capitalist system paying for industrialization with an effective tariff scheme in effect.

That is exactly my point. Factories generate more income for the inputs and hence provide the basis for more growth. Its noticeable that people working in cottage industry activities generally lost out big time when the factory system becomes active. As such, unless your assuming that cottage industry stays the basic system in the south and consumes more and more of the workforce, there's going to be a economic and social hit for a lot of people if/when the south industrises.

I though, as I said in my reply to Buba you had said the tax on cotton exports would leave them awash with funds? Plus don't forget that import tariffs affects everybody, not just the wealthy factory owners. They would gain from import tariffs but everybody else loses out, at least in the short term. Which is important for the already somewhat marginalised ordinary white citizens.


 

Buba

A total creep
I wonder if they would want extra government actions to increase the prices of their imports?
We will never know :)
Your talking about an army about 4 times the size of the pre-war union army
To put things in perspective - pre-war US Armyx4 is ... drum roll ... 50K men.
Even alongside a non-insignificant navy maintaining such an army (even if 100K and Regulars) - for the 4th most industrialised country in the world, with population pushing 10M - should be easily affordable.
 

Largo

Well-known member
The population was less than 6 million in 1860, unless you're going to claim your future Confederacy is going to arm the slaves. And as I touched on earlier, there is a complete lack of discussion here of "What the fuck are we supposed about the 40% of our population that can't work in factories efficiently and who hate all of us."
 

Buba

A total creep
The population was less than 6 million in 1860, unless you're going to claim your future Confederacy is going to arm the slaves.
I was looking at the economic i.e. financial aspect of maintaining the military, hence I counted the entire population.
6M whites can easily divert 1-2% to the military, i.e. 60-120K. Also - immigration.
"What the fuck are we supposed about the 40% of our population that can't work in factories efficiently and who hate all of us."
IMO this is irrelevant up to the 1890s, i.e. nothing changes in the situation of the slaves and the extant suppression system.
I do not expect any major changes in this area before 1900.
What course does emancipation assume - I've no idea. But it would happen a generation after the "CSA victory at Gettysburg" which is the subject of this thread :)
 

stevep

Well-known member
We will never know :)

To put things in perspective - pre-war US Armyx4 is ... drum roll ... 50K men.
Even alongside a non-insignificant navy maintaining such an army (even if 100K and Regulars) - for the 4th most industrialised country in the world, with population pushing 10M - should be easily affordable.

Bubba

Interesting as that is a lot larger than most figures I've seen. Thought it was ~20-30k and a quick check on Wiki - I know its often unreliable but its a quick check - American Civil War - Wikipedia on the moblisation states that "As the first seven states began organizing a Confederacy in Montgomery, the entire U.S. army numbered 16,000 " which is even lower. Although it may be that this figures relates to those in the union, excluding forces in the south and possible soldiers who refused to serve against a secessionist south?

There were of course far more in the states militia - although were they paid for by the states themselves or by the central government?

The men for a 100k army could well be raised, especially given the domination of the slave plantations were restricting options for poorer southern whites who couldn't get good land themselves. However would there be the willingness to pay for such an expensive force permanently? Especially if you provide decent infrastructure, from accommodation and training up to border fortifications and artillery both of which can be expensive and also rendered quickly obsolete. [Although the latter was probably not too clear at that point]. Add in a navy, which is even more expensive as well?

Its definitely possible, especially if there's continued tension with the north. However its going to be a continued drain on the economy and deeply unpopular with a lot of people. Also is this army going to be volunteer or conscripted? The latter is a lot cheaper as you can skimp on wages but socially and politically a lot more explosive.

The US had a lot of advantages in the late 19thC, given its size, lots of decent land and plentiful resources but the lack of an external threat requiring a decent size army was also an important one.

Would an independent south, especially if it lacked Kentucky, W Virginia, Maryland etc qualify as the 4th most industrialised country in the world in the 1860s? Going back to my Kennedy's Rise and Fall - as a source at hand it gives for 1860 - p149 on my edition - that the US had 7.2% of world manufacturing output, with Britain at 19.9%, France - 7.9%, and Russia just behind at 7.0%. Note that it also gives China at 19.7% and India at 8.6% - hence my querying of figures from this time period and the prominence of cottage industry. If we assume that the south has ~30% of total US production, which might be generous, that's >= 3% of world manufacturing output, which would put it below the Hapsburg Empire -4.2%, and the German states 4.9% - albeit their not yet unified and not far ahead of Japan - 2.6%.

Also in your reply to Largo you mention the idea of immigration. How likely is that since most of the good land was already taken up by the plantations and whites were already moving north or west before the war? OTL IIRC there wasn't a massive increase in the population of any state in the south other than Texas for the rest of the century.

Steve
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top