• Hey (name)! This is a general announcement to all of our members that we have a growing Alternate History and Creative Writing section that is increasingly seeing new content. If you haven't taken a look lately, please do so and perhaps leave a comment or reaction if you read something you like! Let's support our writers!
  • For those of you who would like to support the Sietch financially, subscriptions are BACK. Simply click on Account Upgrades and you will be able to upgrade your account!

Confederate victory at Gettysburg

Buba

A total creep
Comrade
Joined
Dec 10, 2020
Reaction score
519
1 - Me wrong - I thought the pre-ACW Army was closer to 12K and not the mighty host of of 16K :)
2 - "4th most industrialised" - I remember this from another thread on the subject, that the CSA would had ranked behind the UK, USA and France, more or less Belgium level (and ahead of Prussia). Asian countries and Russia did not figure in that ranking, hence the method of counting must had been different. Nevertheless - and regardless of how we count "industry", CSA is no lightweight in GDP/economic terms.
3 - immigration - I've seen quotes that Irish and German immigrants were used in the South for jobs where slaves were not economic (i.e. short term, seasonal) or where the risk of losing/crippling a slave was too high. So there was some sort of pre-1860 immigration into the South.
3K blokes a year who then would serve 20 year contracts with the Army - with wastage that'd be half of a 100K army. Not a particularly impressive figure ... if the CSA looks to "fresh off the boat" men (which was common practice during and after ACW - and up to this day - so I'd wager that it had been so befroe as well, thus such a practice not being unknown to the South) to flesh out its military then immigration need not be large.

Assuming that CSA industry grows faster than in OTL - which I firmly believe - then there should be more immigration and/or population growth than in OTL.

Of course, I could be wrong/out of my depth/delusional etc. :)
 
Last edited:

History Learner

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Reaction score
444
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 the Confederacy has almost 2x-3x the budget of the 1860 United States, with only a third of the territory and population to govern. Can you explain, with evidence, why you don't think they can do this?

That is your opinion but others have different opinions.
No, it's from Brettle and Majewski, published modern authors who are experts on the Confederate system of government and their planning. I would also, again, love for you to define who these "others" who have different opinions are.

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.
They did not, and just saying they did is not evidence of such. I asked you to cite something, so let's see 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?
No, I am saying what I have said the whole time and have defined for you repeatedly now. In 1860, the South as a whole had 15% of the nation's industry and roughly 10% of this was in the C.S. States. By the 1910s, the South as a whole was back to 15% and the ex-C.S. States had roughly 10% again.

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.
And as I've already said, it has no relevancy to the matter because the Confederacy was not dependent on cottage industry but even if it was it doesn't have an effect on debating what was originally the point on hand, which was output. $150 million produced by a cottage industry is still $150 million, which can be objectively measured to both OTL and for comparison purposes. If you want to say factories are better, I am in agreement, but really it has no baring on the point at hand.

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.
There was no import tax on cotton, but there was an export tax. No one would lose out on that because it was by the pound.
 
Last edited:

History Learner

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Reaction score
444
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."
Even with OTL growth rates, by 1900 the Confederacy would be well over 20 million. Given they have avoided the massive casualties of 1863-1865, it is likely population growth will be much, much higher; it is not often realized that the death rates among White Southern men during the war were equal to that of France or Germany in WWI. Specifically as to your question of slavery and industrialization, that is a myth. I'd really recommend The Economics of Industrial Slavery in the Old South by Richard Starobin, which refutes most notions about industrialization in the slave system of the South; if you are unable to access JSTOR, I can get you a copy? To quote from it:

Southern industry's most distinctive aspect was its wide and intensive use of slave labor. In the 1850's, for example, 160,000 to 200,000 - about 5 per cent of the total slave population - worked in industry. About four-fifths of these industrial slaves were directly owned by industrial entrepreneurs; the rest were rented by employers from their masters by the month or year. Most were men, but many were women and children. They lived in rural, small- town or plantation settings, where most southern industry was located, not in large cities, where only about 20 per cent of the urban slaves were industrially employed.

Many southern textile mills employed either slave labor or combined both bondsmen and free workers in the same mill, contradicting the myth that southern textile manufacturing was the sole domain of native poor whites. The manufacture of iron was also heavily dependent on slave labor, and southern tobacco factories employed slave labor almost exclusively. Slave labor was crucial to hemp manufacturing, and most secondary manufacturing - shoe factories, tanneries, bakeries, paper-makers, printing establishments, and brickmakers - used bondsmen extensively. Sugar refining, rice milling, and grist-milling together employed about 30,000 slaves. At ports and river towns, slaves operated mammoth cotton presses to recompress cotton bales for overseas shipment.

The southern coal and iron mining industry was greatly dependent upon slave labor, gold was mined throughout the Piedmont and Appalachian regions largely with slaves, and lead mining employed many bondsmen. Salt was produced with slave labor; slaves were used to log the pine, cypress, and live-oak in the swamps and forests from Texas to Virginia; and the turpentine extraction and distillation industry was entirely dependent upon slave labor. Southern internal improvements enterprises were so dependent upon slave labor that virtually all southern railroads, except for a few border-state lines, were built either by slave-employing contractors or by company-owned or hired bondsmen.
Starobin found that slave-using industries were just as cost effective/profitable as free white labor. In the long run, the South would have to turn away from slave based industry but that wouldn't occur-economically at least-until the 20th Century. After all, the U.S. as a whole had no trouble using and exploiting illiterate immigrant laborers on the cheap.
 

Largo

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
334
Starobin found that slave-using industries were just as cost effective/profitable as free white labor. In the long run, the South would have to turn away from slave based industry but that wouldn't occur-economically at least-until the 20th Century. After all, the U.S. as a whole had no trouble using and exploiting illiterate immigrant laborers on the cheap.
No. Not exactly. Starobin finds that slave-using industries were about as efficient as using free white labor in the South. The problem here is that slavery destroys not just the productivity of the slave, but of the free man as well. Work and labor are things for slaves to do, not free men, so white Southerners became lazy and indolent as a result. And if anything, Starobin points out what everyone knows, that Southern industry fell steadily more and more behind the North. This wasn't only due to slavery, but those other factors which inhibited Southern industrialization aren't going to just go away if the South somehow wins its independence.
 

stevep

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Oct 18, 2020
Reaction score
335
And the Confederacy has almost 2x-3x the budget of the 1860 United States, with only a third of the territory and population to govern. Can you explain, with evidence, why you don't think they can do this?
That its smaller does reduce the military demand, which is a lot larger with an unfriendly and more populous state on its northern border. Even without any foreign adventures. That you predict it could have raised a lot more from taxes than OTL is one thing but what if the north responds in kind? The south could find itself in an arms race that it can't win. Furthermore it would carry a much heavier tax burden than it did OTL.


They did not, and just saying they did is not evidence of such. I asked you to cite something, so let's see it.
So the US kept its war time controls including censorship and suppression of habious corpus? That's news to me. Or the control on citizen movement, rations and direction of industry after WWII.

No, I am saying what I have said the whole time and have defined for you repeatedly now. In 1860, the South as a whole had 15% of the nation's industry and roughly 10% of this was in the C.S. States. By the 1910s, the South as a whole was back to 15% and the ex-C.S. States had roughly 10% again.
Which is what I just said. The south as a whole had this 15% figure but the rebel states had about 9-10%. Both in ~1860's and in ~1910.

And as I've already said, it has no relevancy to the matter because the Confederacy was not dependent on cottage industry but even if it was it doesn't have an effect on debating what was originally the point on hand, which was output. $150 million produced by a cottage industry is still $150 million, which can be objectively measured to both OTL and for comparison purposes. If you want to say factories are better, I am in agreement, but really it has no baring on the point at hand.
Industry in this period was largely cottage. There was a lack of large scale factory systems. Since we're talking about the potential for expansion and for supporting the burden of a much larger government that your suggesting the difference IS important.

There was no import tax on cotton, but there was an export tax. No one would lose out on that because it was by the pound.
I never said there was an import tax on cotton. You said there would be tariffs on imports and that would cost, a burden that would be felt by pretty much the entire free population.
 

stevep

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Oct 18, 2020
Reaction score
335
1 - Me wrong - I thought the pre-ACW Army was closer to 12K and not the mighty host of of 16K :)
2 - "4th most industrialised" - I remember this from another thread on the subject, that the CSA would had ranked behind the UK, USA and France, more or less Belgium level (and ahead of Prussia). Asian countries and Russia did not figure in that ranking, hence the method of counting must had been different. Nevertheless - and regardless of how we count "industry", CSA is no lightweight in GDP/economic terms.
3 - immigration - I've seen quotes that Irish and German immigrants were used in the South for jobs where slaves were not economic (i.e. short term, seasonal) or where the risk of losing/crippling a slave was too high. So there was some sort of pre-1860 immigration into the South.
3K blokes a year who then would serve 20 year contracts with the Army - with wastage that'd be half of a 100K army. Not a particularly impressive figure ... if the CSA looks to "fresh off the boat" men (which was common practice during and after ACW - and up to this day - so I'd wager that it had been so befroe as well, thus such a practice not being unknown to the South) to flesh out its military then immigration need not be large.

Assuming that CSA industry grows faster than in OTL - which I firmly believe - then there should be more immigration and/or population growth than in OTL.

Of course, I could be wrong/out of my depth/delusional etc. :)
Buba

1) Ouch that was even weaker.

2) As you say there are different measures of industrialisation so difficult to tell what measure is the more accurate, which would probably depend on what question we ask. Its definitely got some capacity and potential for further development although a lot would depend on its political stability and, assuming a continued domination by the 'plantocracy' how they use their wealth. [In Britain in the 18thC the aristocracy were very active in funding a lot of early canal, railways, industrial activity and trade but by the later 19thC such activity was increasingly seen as 'dirty' and 'not fit for a gentleman' so both they and a lot of the new monied middle class, who's fathers had often made their fortunes from such things avoided such activities. :mad:. Which wasn't the only reason for Britain's economic decline by far but is an example of what can go wrong.]

Just to make clear by stability issues what I'm primarily thinking of is the poorer whites, who have done most of the fighting and dying, are likely to want more say in government and the rich planters and other interests may not want to accept that. Things could get more heated if the latter are pushing for further expansions for slavery, which would mean expensive military actions overseas.

3) Most of what I've read, albeit not heavily was that few settlers went to the old south and that because of the domination of the planters in terms of the best land more people were moving away from the region to go north or west. This could be inaccurate but would the south attract that many settlers? Apart from any moral issues they might have on slavery the sort of work your talking about is the more dangerous or irregular so might not be that attractive. Plus until air conditioning became commonplace it was somewhat less attractive environmentally not to mention greater levels of disease in the south. However I could be wrong.

In terms of the army you might be able to attractive some migrants into such a role, as it means a secure income, especially if their well paid. Also if there's a lot of tension with the union that might mean that less local population move away from the region as OTL. Or might not if tension is less as people could find it attractive to move north/west to cheaper land and where they don't have to compete with slaves.

A lot of the issues with expense in this period are probably more with equipment in this time period, as the 'grunts' are fairly cheap. With manpower the issue might be more social than economic, with people possibly unwilling to take such a long term commitment or being unhappy in going for foreign wars of expansion. However things like artillery, fortifications and especially a navy are expense to maintain. The south as long as cotton remains a wealth source, or possibly a couple of generations down the line oil, has the wealth but will it have the will and what will be the economic costs to a population who are unused to such levels of taxation?

Steve
 

Buba

A total creep
Comrade
Joined
Dec 10, 2020
Reaction score
519
Texas aside - I imagine non-agri immigration.
With the CSA as a separate country I'd imagine that industry expands faster and on larger scale than in OTL. Some goods previously "imported" from the North will be replaced by British imports, some by local product - be it for pricing or patriotic reasons.
In spite of slaves being useable for industry/mining there are limits of their use - e.g. at some illiteracy kicks in. Hence I see British and German immigrants for industry. Here the ban on teaching slaves to read and write (so much for sancticity of property rights, BTW) may very well become a source of friction inside the slave-holding class, with poor whites supporting the ban (see history of South Africa) as literate slaves would squeeze them out of jobs.
Another area - lets us call it "financial services" - I never researched the details, but the North somehow made money on Southern exports. Supposedly New York was hit heavily by the ACW. Here again, with the CSA a country of its own, I'd expect such services - and the people manning such operations - to drift south. Thus another area attracting immigrants.
Hmm - education? Did e.g. Virginians send children to schools/universities in Pennsylvania? Might there be expansion of education services in the South, with inflow of "Yankees" or exiles from the Uppermost South?
 
Last edited:

History Learner

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Reaction score
444
No. Not exactly. Starobin finds that slave-using industries were about as efficient as using free white labor in the South. The problem here is that slavery destroys not just the productivity of the slave, but of the free man as well. Work and labor are things for slaves to do, not free men, so white Southerners became lazy and indolent as a result. And if anything, Starobin points out what everyone knows, that Southern industry fell steadily more and more behind the North. This wasn't only due to slavery, but those other factors which inhibited Southern industrialization aren't going to just go away if the South somehow wins its independence.
That the White population became lazy as a result of Slavery is a myth that was invented by Abolitionists to justify their cause during the contemporary times; no economic research-including Starobin-support that conclusion in the modern age as there is no proof of it. Likewise, Starobin doesn't find that about Southern industrialization; rather, he found a pattern that was tied to cotton prices, in that there was fluctuations in the supply of industrial slave labor dependent upon what the prevailing rate of return on profit was on cotton.

I welcome you to cite from it if you wish to support your claims.
 

History Learner

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Reaction score
444
That its smaller does reduce the military demand, which is a lot larger with an unfriendly and more populous state on its northern border. Even without any foreign adventures. That you predict it could have raised a lot more from taxes than OTL is one thing but what if the north responds in kind? The south could find itself in an arms race that it can't win. Furthermore it would carry a much heavier tax burden than it did OTL.
That the North could construct and maintain a more powerful military if the political will exists to do such is not in doubt, but you are goal post shifting on this because your original question was of the capacity of the South to maintain a strong defensive posture. Likewise specifically on the matter of tax burdens, the vast majority would fall on the upper classes, who would also be having a boom in profit as cotton exports grew in value from 1870 onward; in fact, cotton was the main U.S. export until 1937.

So the US kept its war time controls including censorship and suppression of habious corpus? That's news to me. Or the control on citizen movement, rations and direction of industry after WWII.
Yes, actually. Those powers were never revoked and have been used before and since; WWI was actually a very serious expansion upon those of the Civil War with the Sedition Acts, for example.

Which is what I just said. The south as a whole had this 15% figure but the rebel states had about 9-10%. Both in ~1860's and in ~1910.
Yes, so I am not sure what the argument was about on your end?

Industry in this period was largely cottage. There was a lack of large scale factory systems. Since we're talking about the potential for expansion and for supporting the burden of a much larger government that your suggesting the difference IS important.
Not in the 1860s, no, it was not cottage in the United States. Specifically in terms of expansion, this has no real effect either; $150 million in output from a cottage industry is still a $150 million. The only real issue to doing such upgrades is the capital to fund it, which as I've already pointed out, was there and with a State Capitalist system willing to use it.

I never said there was an import tax on cotton. You said there would be tariffs on imports and that would cost, a burden that would be felt by pretty much the entire free population.
You were talking about imports and brought up cotton, so I assumed you had got it confused. Specifically as it pertains to import tariffs, the Confederacy adopted the rates of 1856 used by the United States. Rates would thus be lower than they would be in the Post-Bellum when the U.S. began to adopt increasingly protective tariffs.
 
Last edited:

stevep

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Oct 18, 2020
Reaction score
335
That the North could construct and maintain a more powerful military if the political will exists to do such is not in doubt, but you are goal post shifting on this because your original question was of the capacity of the South to maintain a strong defensive posture. Likewise specifically on the matter of tax burdens, the vast majority would fall on the upper classes, who would also be having a boom in profit as cotton exports grew in value from 1870 onward; in fact, cotton was the main U.S. export until 1937.
Not goal posting at all. Willpower is as important, if not more so, than material capacity as the former is more often a limitation than the latter.

If there are tariffs on industrial imports then the burden will fall on all the population but the poorer elements of it with less reserves are likely to suffer more. Also if the south follows the north into an OTL equivalent of the gilded age that's going to get even worse.

Yes, actually. Those powers were never revoked and have been used before and since; WWI was actually a very serious expansion upon those of the Civil War with the Sedition Acts, for example.
Ah so not actually revoked but just not used. Interesting.

Yes, so I am not sure what the argument was about on your end?
Because you switched suddenly from 9$ to 15% and I asked for clarification. What your saying we now agree on is something I said "oh you mean..." about two exchanges back and you said no.

Not in the 1860s, no, it was not cottage in the United States. Specifically in terms of expansion, this has no real effect either; $150 million in output from a cottage industry is still a $150 million. The only real issue to doing such upgrades is the capital to fund it, which as I've already pointed out, was there and with a State Capitalist system willing to use it.
On the 1st point I would beg to differ given how rural much of the south was, along with much of the north in this time period. Really industrial growth developed in the 1870-1890 period in the north. Also I disagree that cottage industry was as flexible and easy to upgrade as the factory system.

You were talking about imports and brought up cotton, so I assumed you had got it confused. Specifically as it pertains to import tariffs, the Confederacy adopted the rates of 1856 used by the United States. Rates would thus be lower than they would be in the Post-Bellum when the U.S. began to adopt increasingly protective tariffs.
I was replying to a couple of points and it should have been clear what I was saying. In terms of tariffs there was a lot of opposition to the 1856 tariff in the south when it was passed so whether after the emergency of the war was over the nation goes lower tariff, stays as it is or becomes even more protectionist as the north did would depend on the circumstances.
 

History Learner

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Reaction score
444
Not goal posting at all. Willpower is as important, if not more so, than material capacity as the former is more often a limitation than the latter.
It is a goalpost shift because we weren't talking about Northern willpower but rather the economic ability of the Confederacy to maintain a strong defense. As for the idea of willpower being more important than material capacity, I would think the Civil War even OTL would be an indicator that this is not accurate. You could also ask the Imperial Japanese or Nazi Germany for that one.

If there are tariffs on industrial imports then the burden will fall on all the population but the poorer elements of it with less reserves are likely to suffer more. Also if the south follows the north into an OTL equivalent of the gilded age that's going to get even worse.
And as I stated these rates are below that which were historically forced on them anyway, so it doesn't really seem accurate. Expanding on to the issue of a Gilded Age, you do know that incomes and living standards rose during that time in America:

The rapid expansion of industrialization led to real wage growth of 60% between 1860 and 1890, spread across the ever-increasing labor force.[56] Real wages (adjusting for inflation) rose steadily, with the exact percentage increase depending on the dates and the specific work force. The Census Bureau reported in 1892 that the average annual wage per industrial worker (including men, women, and children) rose from $380 in 1880 to $564 in 1890, a gain of 48%.[1] Economic historian Clarence D. Long estimates that (in terms of constant 1914 dollars), the average annual incomes of all American non-farm employees rose from $375 in 1870 to $395 in 1880, $519 in 1890 and $573 in 1900, a gain of 53% in 30 years.[57]

Ah so not actually revoked but just not used. Interesting.
I noted said powers were specifically used and expanded upon many times thereafter?

Because you switched suddenly from 9$ to 15% and I asked for clarification. What your saying we now agree on is something I said "oh you mean..." about two exchanges back and you said no.
I didn't though:
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.
On the 1st point I would beg to differ given how rural much of the south was, along with much of the north in this time period. Really industrial growth developed in the 1870-1890 period in the north. Also I disagree that cottage industry was as flexible and easy to upgrade as the factory system.
Rural =/= cottage industry

If you have citations to show otherwise, I welcome them but I have no seen any evidence of this by the 1860s. Also never claimed a cottage industry was more easy to upgrade or flexible.

I was replying to a couple of points and it should have been clear what I was saying. In terms of tariffs there was a lot of opposition to the 1856 tariff in the south when it was passed so whether after the emergency of the war was over the nation goes lower tariff, stays as it is or becomes even more protectionist as the north did would depend on the circumstances.
The 1856 rates were passed in 1861, before the conflict had even started so it wasn't an emergency measure. Efforts by its opponents were shut down at every turn in 1861 and 1862 by overwhelming majorities. Modern historians reviewing this and the wider economic policies find they were the logical conclusion of Southern thinking in the 19th Century, rather than a random aberration of wartime.
 

Navarro

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
6,862
From the other thread ...

Setting aside legalistic considerations about federal vs. state power, the institution of slavery in the South itself had been drifting in an increasingly dystopian direction (even for slavery) throughout the 19th century. To my understanding, by 1860 most slaveowners' view of it had evolved from 'it's a necessary evil that should be abolished at some point in the future' to 'actually it's a positive good for the slaves and they should be grateful for it', mirroring the hardening in pro-slavery sentiment across the South just as abolitionism was becoming more popular in the North. Lighter-skinned ('high yellow') to outright seemingly white slaves were already being bought and sold, per Harper's Weekly the Union freed several when they took New Orleans, and Southern thinkers of the late 1850s like James H. Hammond and George Fitzhugh were already calling the Northern lower class 'mudsills' (just as the slaves were the 'mudsill' on which their society & economy was built) & outright suggesting that perhaps poor Southern whites too should share in the 'benefits' of slavery.

Yes, that does sound completely insane and was hardly a mainstream opinion in 1859. But you could say the exact same thing about the idea of slavery-as-a-positive-good in 1800, which Thomas Jefferson (as a slaveholder who nevertheless was one of the subscribers to the 'slavery is a necessary evil' viewpoint, ended American participation in the overseas slave trade & backed the idea of gradual emancipation) would have found abhorrent, among others. Throw in the rising popularity of scientific racism and eugenics from the mid-19th century onward, as well as the aforementioned existence of obviously-white-skinned slaves, and is it really so inconceivable that slavocratic ideology (for that's what the defense of slavery had become by 1860, it wasn't just an economic argument but one about the defining cornerstones of Southern society and racial hierarchy) might trend in an 'expand the category of who's fit to be a slave' direction?
Interesting that the Confederacy was starting to move from slavocracy-as-economy to slavocracy-as-ideology and expanding their definition of "potential slaves" to boot. If anything, this makes a "Red Confederacy" even more likely than I'd assumed, as a populist backlash towards an attempt of the planters to enslave the `"poor whites", who were notably among the prime targets of the late 19th-to-early-20th century eugenics movement.
 
Last edited:

Navarro

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
6,862
It is a goalpost shift because we weren't talking about Northern willpower but rather the economic ability of the Confederacy to maintain a strong defense. As for the idea of willpower being more important than material capacity, I would think the Civil War even OTL would be an indicator that this is not accurate. You could also ask the Imperial Japanese or Nazi Germany for that one.
National willpower is mostly important in prolonged guerilla campaigns where all the insurgents have to do is outlast the enemy until they go home, and the other side is prevented by various factors from bringing all their force to bear on them immediately, or to survive the immediate shock of a sudden defeat or series of them.
 

Circle of Willis

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Dec 20, 2020
Reaction score
515
From the other thread ...



Interesting that the Confederacy was starting to move from slavocracy-as-economy to slavocracy-as-ideology and expanding their definition of "potential slaves" to boot. If anything, this makes a "red Confederacy" even more likely than I'd assumed, as a populist backlash towards an attempt of the planters to enslave the `"poor whites", who were notably among the prime targets of the late 19th-to-early-20th century eugenics movement.
Agreed - the main reasons poor Southern whites had for being invested in slavery was that, though it basically crippled their social mobility and gave the planters an easy and obvious way to render their place at the top of the social ladder unassailable, at least it gave them someone to look down on and ensured the slaves couldn't compete with them for jobs which weren't just menial labor in the fields. Even Fitzhugh, that advocate of enslaving the Southern lower class, knew this before deciding to argue for enslaving them anyway in Cannibals All.
George Fitzhugh - Sociology for the South said:
Educate all Southern whites, employ them, not as cooks, lacqueys, ploughmen, and menials, but as independent freemen should be employed, and let negroes be strictly tied down to such callings as are unbecoming white men, and peace would be established between blacks and whites. The whites would find themselves elevated by the existence of negroes amongst us. Like the Roman citizen, the Southern white man would become a noble and a privileged character, and he would then like negroes and slavery, because his high position would be due to them.
If the planters grow arrogant and unhinged enough to think they can get away with taking even that crumb from the poor whites of their country - and they can certainly easily justify it in the late 19th century, just invoke the one-drop rule and fish for/make up affidavits proving a black ancestor (as they did for the slaves apparently indistinguishable from whites the Union liberated at New Orleans) or fall back on scientific racism claiming poor whites' skull shapes are closer to that of a slave than that of the glorious Anglo-Norman plantocracy or something along these lines - well. Can't imagine any faster way to get the Confederate working class to try to tear down the social order in which they no longer have any investment, and for someone like Theodore Bilbo or James Vardaman to popularize a Dixie-tailored equivalent to Strasserism that lets them ride that populist wave of rage against both the planters and their slaves.
 

stevep

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Oct 18, 2020
Reaction score
335
It is a goalpost shift because we weren't talking about Northern willpower but rather the economic ability of the Confederacy to maintain a strong defense. As for the idea of willpower being more important than material capacity, I would think the Civil War even OTL would be an indicator that this is not accurate. You could also ask the Imperial Japanese or Nazi Germany for that one.
Northern willpower is important because the only way the south can win, other than outside intervention is if its able to sap the will of the north to continue the war. Otherwise the demographic and industrial edge of the north will wear them down as OTL.

Willpower is important because without that you don't fight at all. Such as the western powers in autumn 1938 over the Munich crisis for instance. Materials are important, as I said because without them you can't fight long against a vastly superior material force. At least not without huge balancing factors elsewhere - such as very favourable terrain, high imbalances in troop and leadership quality or as mentioned previously a failure of the opponents willpower.

And as I stated these rates are below that which were historically forced on them anyway, so it doesn't really seem accurate. Expanding on to the issue of a Gilded Age, you do know that incomes and living standards rose during that time in America:

The rapid expansion of industrialization led to real wage growth of 60% between 1860 and 1890, spread across the ever-increasing labor force.[56] Real wages (adjusting for inflation) rose steadily, with the exact percentage increase depending on the dates and the specific work force. The Census Bureau reported in 1892 that the average annual wage per industrial worker (including men, women, and children) rose from $380 in 1880 to $564 in 1890, a gain of 48%.[1] Economic historian Clarence D. Long estimates that (in terms of constant 1914 dollars), the average annual incomes of all American non-farm employees rose from $375 in 1870 to $395 in 1880, $519 in 1890 and $573 in 1900, a gain of 53% in 30 years.[57]

How does that compare with the standard wealth proportions at the time? That is often the important point in terms of the viability of a nation, especially in the industrial age. Guessing that the census date isn't in constant dollars as the Long estimate is given the discrepancy between the two.

Also income and expenditure need to be considered in balance. What do sources say about expenses for the ordinary worker in this period?

To clarify what I mean economists could probably argue that the average income for workers in Britain between ~1970 and ~2020 has increased in comparison to inflation over that period, especially with the right starting points being made say. However living now is a lot more expensive in that things that were luxuries then or didn't exists, such as cars, mobile phones, computers etc are often essentials for many occupations nowadays. Coupled with increasing costs of housing and probably some other expenditures that can easily mean a worsening of working conditions for many people.

Rural =/= cottage industry

If you have citations to show otherwise, I welcome them but I have no seen any evidence of this by the 1860s. Also never claimed a cottage industry was more easy to upgrade or flexible.
But cottage industry is pretty much always rural. ;)

I never claimed you said such. I said that its more resource limited and inflexible by its nature than factory based industry. The latter has more access to funds and hence can more easily use that to increase expansion by adding newer or more modern machines, new power sources etc.



The 1856 rates were passed in 1861, before the conflict had even started so it wasn't an emergency measure. Efforts by its opponents were shut down at every turn in 1861 and 1862 by overwhelming majorities. Modern historians reviewing this and the wider economic policies find they were the logical conclusion of Southern thinking in the 19th Century, rather than a random aberration of wartime.
So those rates were passed before the initial CSA met on 4th Feb 1861, which was the de facto trigger for conflict? If so who passed them?

I don't know how "wider economic policies" decide anything about the state of southern thinking in this period. Is that a term for elements of modern economic thought by some school or another.
 

History Learner

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Reaction score
444
Northern willpower is important because the only way the south can win, other than outside intervention is if its able to sap the will of the north to continue the war. Otherwise the demographic and industrial edge of the north will wear them down as OTL.

Willpower is important because without that you don't fight at all. Such as the western powers in autumn 1938 over the Munich crisis for instance. Materials are important, as I said because without them you can't fight long against a vastly superior material force. At least not without huge balancing factors elsewhere - such as very favourable terrain, high imbalances in troop and leadership quality or as mentioned previously a failure of the opponents willpower.
Okay, again, this wasn't the original point; you can follow the quote chain to see this. What was originally said was this:
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 the Confederacy has almost 2x-3x the budget of the 1860 United States, with only a third of the territory and population to govern. Can you explain, with evidence, why you don't think they can do this?
How does that compare with the standard wealth proportions at the time? That is often the important point in terms of the viability of a nation, especially in the industrial age. Guessing that the census date isn't in constant dollars as the Long estimate is given the discrepancy between the two.

Also income and expenditure need to be considered in balance. What do sources say about expenses for the ordinary worker in this period?

To clarify what I mean economists could probably argue that the average income for workers in Britain between ~1970 and ~2020 has increased in comparison to inflation over that period, especially with the right starting points being made say. However living now is a lot more expensive in that things that were luxuries then or didn't exists, such as cars, mobile phones, computers etc are often essentials for many occupations nowadays. Coupled with increasing costs of housing and probably some other expenditures that can easily mean a worsening of working conditions for many people.
Income gains exceeded cost of living, hence how the quality of live was continuously increasing as cited? If not, and you believe it was essential to the viability of the nation, why didn't the U.S. or the UK collapse in this time period?

But cottage industry is pretty much always rural. ;)

I never claimed you said such. I said that its more resource limited and inflexible by its nature than factory based industry. The latter has more access to funds and hence can more easily use that to increase expansion by adding newer or more modern machines, new power sources etc.
Not necessarily, see Japan until after WWII. Regardless, though, how does this have relevancy to the matter of the Confederacy?

So those rates were passed before the initial CSA met on 4th Feb 1861, which was the de facto trigger for conflict? If so who passed them?

I don't know how "wider economic policies" decide anything about the state of southern thinking in this period. Is that a term for elements of modern economic thought by some school or another.
No historian of note considers February 4th to be the start of the conflict, that is held for the bombardment of Fort Sumter in April of 1861. As for the issue of wider economic policies, that is to completely-if not deliberately-misstate the argument. Southern thinking influenced their enacted economic policies enshrined in their laws, and said thinking and political development was firmly in this direction.
 

stevep

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Oct 18, 2020
Reaction score
335
Okay, again, this wasn't the original point; you can follow the quote chain to see this. What was originally said was this:
OK there was a bit of drift there. Been a while since the 1st post so coming back to it I had forgotten we weren't talking about the original conflict. :oops: However its still a basic issue that to achieve anything you need both means and will.



Income gains exceeded cost of living, hence how the quality of live was continuously increasing as cited? If not, and you believe it was essential to the viability of the nation, why didn't the U.S. or the UK collapse in this time period?
Did that reference say income gains exceeded the cost of living, which is what I was asking. It said that the wages overall in the industrial worker category exceeded inflation but that's a different matter.

I was referring to the longer term viability as such a concentration of power and wealth will ultimately kill the state. The Soviet empire is probably the most famous example here but both the UK and US has lost considerable ground in many areas in recent decades. Late 19thC US had some leeway due to its huge resources and steady inflow of migrants but that concentration couldn't have lasted indefinably.

Not necessarily, see Japan until after WWII. Regardless, though, how does this have relevancy to the matter of the Confederacy?
Going back to my original point, which I keep repeating and you saying doesn't matter. That factory based activity is quicker and easier to expand and adapt to new circumstances than cottage industry.

There was a large degree of contacting out to cottage based industry in Japan but the core of the industrial base was still large companies.

No historian of note considers February 4th to be the start of the conflict, that is held for the bombardment of Fort Sumter in April of 1861. As for the issue of wider economic policies, that is to completely-if not deliberately-misstate the argument. Southern thinking influenced their enacted economic policies enshrined in their laws, and said thinking and political development was firmly in this direction.
It was the decision of the states to secede and then form a union as a rival and challenge to the union that made the war inevitable given the state of opinion in both regions.
 

History Learner

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Reaction score
444
OK there was a bit of drift there. Been a while since the 1st post so coming back to it I had forgotten we weren't talking about the original conflict. :oops: However its still a basic issue that to achieve anything you need both means and will.
Which, in the context of the Confederacy maintaining a strong defense, is there any doubt they would lack the will? They did fight a war of independence to the extent they suffered almost Soviet level casualties.

Did that reference say income gains exceeded the cost of living, which is what I was asking. It said that the wages overall in the industrial worker category exceeded inflation but that's a different matter.
Cost of living is calculated based on inflation, so it's basically one in the same.

I was referring to the longer term viability as such a concentration of power and wealth will ultimately kill the state. The Soviet empire is probably the most famous example here but both the UK and US has lost considerable ground in many areas in recent decades. Late 19thC US had some leeway due to its huge resources and steady inflow of migrants but that concentration couldn't have lasted indefinably.
Given the Middle Class was growing at this time, I don't think it ever really existed in the way you thought it was. In particular, immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe by dirty poor peasants wouldn't help that balance either.

Going back to my original point, which I keep repeating and you saying doesn't matter. That factory based activity is quicker and easier to expand and adapt to new circumstances than cottage industry.

There was a large degree of contacting out to cottage based industry in Japan but the core of the industrial base was still large companies.
I said it doesn't matter in the context of what the original point was, which is that the South didn't have a cottage industry. I actually agreed with you many posts ago on the theory; it's the same issue as the first point, you've lost cite of what you were originally arguing. See here:

And as I've already said, it has no relevancy to the matter because the Confederacy was not dependent on cottage industry but even if it was it doesn't have an effect on debating what was originally the point on hand, which was output. $150 million produced by a cottage industry is still $150 million, which can be objectively measured to both OTL and for comparison purposes. If you want to say factories are better, I am in agreement, but really it has no baring on the point at hand.
It was the decision of the states to secede and then form a union as a rival and challenge to the union that made the war inevitable given the state of opinion in both regions.
Which, again, has no real support as the start of the conflict by mainstream historians nor was a war assured from the get go either. Even then, if you wanted to argue this point, the initial belief of both sides was that the conflict would be over quickly and relatively bloodless.
 

History Learner

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Reaction score
444
None of it would matter the Union already wins on the Western front. The Confederacy is split in two around the same time.
See the Battle of Fort Fizzle in Ohio in 1863, the Detroit Race Riots of 1863, the Charleston Riot in March of 1864 in Illinois, the Fishing Creek Confederacy in Pennsylvania from July to November of 1864, and the occupation of New York City by the Federal Army in the Fall of 1864. You can also view the newspaper reporting in the Summer of 1864 in general, as the Northern public was shocked by the immense casualties taken by Grant and inflation in July of 1864 reached its war-time height. This all had a tangible effect on the war effort: Between July 1863 and December 1864, 161,224 men failed to report to service under the draft. There was also elections in 1863, for the Governor's office in both Ohio and Pennsylvania. Given something like 90 regiments in the AotP were raised from the latter, a Copperhead Democrat in office could seriously impact the Union's ability to recover from such a defeat.

Even assuming such a smashing victory doesn't trigger European intervention, it will seriously erode Northern support for the war and impede their ability to fight it into 1864.
 
Top Bottom