FRistory: What If In History ...

4-8-18 | Eagles Field

[Eagles Field]

It’s 1864, The South has won the Civil War. How does this change the pages of history?

[Purdue77]

South still has little to no indigenous manufacturing capability and needs help feeding themselves. The French attempt to provide manufactured goods and weapons only to be stymied by the English and Spanish who provide weapons and support to Juarez thus allowing Mexico to overthrow the French. The French, still rebuilding after the Napoleonic wars and loss of Mexico, has no stomach to compete with the English and the Spanish. The Mexicans move toward Texas who ask the North for support in exchange for not aligning with the South. The North, opening the west to new settlers, provide a new source of income for Texas beef. Texas asks for admittance into the North as a state. The US announces a naval blockade of CSA ports and a new war ensues leading to the capitulation of the CSA.

Later on, a Serbian nationalist shoots the Archduke Ferdinand and no one cares. WWI never happens and Hitler dies a disgraced Austrian painter having never written Mein Kampf. The bolsheviks never overthrow the Tsars and Lenin dies in jail. No one develops the atomic bomb and Japan conquers all of Asia by 1945.

This is fun.

[CodeToad]

Very interesting take on imports. It certainly adds to why Lincoln didn’t want a union split since he was a leading railroad attorney. He entered the presidential campaign late. I felt he was put up to it for a reason.

I’ve always said the war was about railroad interests. They needed a unified nation.

[DiogenesLamp]

Very interesting take on imports. It certainly adds to why Lincoln didn’t want a union split since he was a leading railroad attorney. He entered the presidential campaign late. I felt he was put up to it for a reason.

He was also assisted by the railroads in obtaining the nomination. They shipped in thousands of his supporters (paid supporters, in other words "astroturf") to Chicago during the convention, and they physically blocked and intimidated the delegates into voting for Lincoln.

Lincoln's bribery to various candidates and delegates (offering them jobs in his Administration) eventually did the rest.

I’ve always said the war was about railroad interests. They needed a unified nation.

And Federal subsidies and land grants. Yes, the Lincoln and subsequent era was a good time to be owning RailRoad stock.

[x]

Based on the premise that the South maintained it's independence and established trade with Europe, much of the European trade with New York would have been diverted to Southern ports. If the North kept it's high tariffs (which I doubt it would continue to do) much Southern economic traffic would have been carried by the Mississippi, and other trade would been carried overland.

So the Confederacy would become a market for European exports. At least until cotton prices slumped and racial violence erupted. That doesn't mean the CSA would have become a great industrial power anymore than the West Indies or Argentina or Brazil did at that time. Low tariffs meant they'd become a dumping ground for British exports, not an industrial powerhouse.

The Border States, upon seeing that the South was gaining prosperity from European Trade, and after having been reassured that the principle of secession was established and accepted, would leave the Union and join the Confederacy. It would become a preference cascade in favor of the South.

I don't think anybody would dispute that if the Confederacy had won a decisive battlefield victory and won their independence there would have been much outcry in the Border states for secession and joining the Confederacy. That Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa and other Middlewestern states would have joined the slave states is far less likely. Even less likely would have been the Confederacy "absorbing" the United States. Before air conditioning (and modern medicine and accurate weather forecasting) the economic advantages would have been with the Northern states.

You think it's nonsense because you dismiss out of hand anything that goes against what you wish to believe, but if you are being honest, you would have to admit that the border states would have eventually joined the South, if the South was creating the economic activity that was enriching them.

What happens when the entry of new producers into the market makes cotton prices tumble? What happens when slave rebellions break out and spread? A hurricane or yellow fever epidemic would also have an effect.

I never denied the possibility that the Border States might have gone with the Confederacy if history had been different. But it's insulting to Middle Westerners to think that they'd sell out their heritage to throw in with the CSA even in the very unlikely event that the Confederacy did become a major economic power (which wasn't going to happen).

[DiogenesLamp]

So the Confederacy would become a market for European exports. At least until cotton prices slumped and racial violence erupted.

Why were cotton prices going to slump, and what sort of racial violence was there going to be?

I don't think anybody would dispute that if the Confederacy had won a decisive battlefield victory and won their independence there would have been much outcry in the Border states for secession and joining the Confederacy.

Thank you. I commend your honesty on this point.

That Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa and other Middlewestern states would have joined the slave states is far less likely.

It would depend on where the money and influence was. I envision the South providing most of the goods and services to the territories, and that would eventually bring the territories into their political orbit. Over time, the South would overtake the North in land controlled, and if things remained stable, and the economics continued to prosper, the North would be blocked from any Westward expansion.

Things would look sort of like this.

Before air conditioning (and modern medicine and accurate weather forecasting) the economic advantages would have been with the Northern states.

Maybe. They certainly had the higher population and the manufacturing base, but with the loss of so much European trade to the North, and the gain of so much European trade with the South, some population would migrate to the South for jobs, and they would bring skills and industry.

To predict how big this migration would be is difficult, but the early reports of what was happening in Charleston right after secession indicate that it might have been quite substantial. I don't think the South would have ever achieved population parity with the north, but instead of being 1/4th of the North's population, they might have achieved 1/2 of it.

What happens when the entry of new producers into the market makes cotton prices tumble?

If you are referring to the Foreign producers that filled a need caused by America's civil war, I would point out that they wouldn't have likely happened but for the disruption of the normal shipments of cotton into Europe.

An established market monopoly could have easily kept undercutting any start ups and drove them out of business. The US blockade caused those startups to be protected and to thrive, but had that not happened, they wouldn't likely have been able to get those industries going.

[x]

Why were cotton prices going to slump, and what sort of racial violence was there going to be?

Cotton prices were going to slump because of all the other countries and colonies getting into cotton production. China, India, Egypt, Brazil, Mexico, Central Asia, Turkey all got into the act. Additionally, the idea that Cotton was King encouraged overplanting in the American South.

There would be slave revolts because emancipation didn't come. There would also be runaways, patrols to catch them, and abolitionists active in the border areas. Violence between rich and poor whites wouldn't have been out of the question either, but slave uprisings and brutal repression were definitely in the cards for the CSA at some point.

I envision the South providing most of the goods and services to the territories, and that would eventually bring the territories into their political orbit.

Of course you do. But really, what services? What services that couldn't be supplied locally? And the goods would mostly be imported British or European products. Northerners were capable of producing their own and providing employment for their neighbors.

Over time, the South would overtake the North in land controlled, and if things remained stable, and the economics continued to prosper, the North would be blocked from any Westward expansion.

Things would look sort of like this.

Sure, because everything looks like 2004 if you squint hard enough. What you are forgetting is the political and economic role of the Great Lakes states, particularly Ohio, in the years after the Civil War.

Your obsession with New York has blinded you to just how important the Midwest was in the late 19th century. Those states are sometimes dismissed now, but they had real power in the post-Civil War US and they didn't want to lose it by become the tail on some Confederate jackass.

Your own logic is that they were feeble pawns who'd throw in with the powerful Confederacy. That's not at all realistic, but states like Ohio and Illinois had significant clout in the US. If leaving the union would only make them weak sisters to cotton power, why would they possibly go?

They certainly had the higher population and the manufacturing base, but with the loss of so much European trade to the North, and the gain of so much European trade with the South, some population would migrate to the South for jobs, and they would bring skills and industry.

Doing what, loading and unloading ships? The North was interested in developing industry. The South preferred agriculture, leisure, and politics. All that European trade would overwhelm attempts to develop Southern industry, unless the CSA erected trade barriers to foreign dumping.

If you are referring to the Foreign producers that filled a need caused by America's civil war, I would point out that they wouldn't have likely happened but for the disruption of the normal shipments of cotton into Europe.

An established market monopoly could have easily kept undercutting any start ups and drove them out of business. The US blockade caused those startups to be protected and to thrive, but had that not happened, they wouldn't likely have been able to get those industries going.

British workers didn't want slave-picked cotton. The British public was also becoming hostile.

Your idea that Indians, Chinese, Egyptians, Brazilians and others wouldn't try to get into cotton if it was so profitable is naïve -- maybe insulting. It's like saying that we were so good at making cars and radios that the Japanese would never think of getting into the automotive or electronic business.

The idea that Southerners had some kind of a monopoly that would keep other countries and peoples out is just naïve. Look, your whole shtick is that Southerners lost out to New York in economic power. What makes you think they could outwit or outplay London or entire continents in other parts of the world? You think Britain was going to back up the Confederacy in everything, but what if CSA interests conflicted with those of Britain's own colonies?

[DoodleDawg]

I've read accounts of Northern newspapers fretting that rail road iron would be delivered through Southern ports at prices greatly lower than what Northern manufacturers would provide.

Delivered from who? And to what purpose? Demand for new railroads in the South was nowhere near as great as it was in the North. Most Southern railroads were built to get cotton to the ports for export and those lines were already established.

[DoodleDawg]

I’ve always said the war was about railroad interests. They needed a unified nation.

Why?

[DoodleDawg]

I don't think anybody would dispute that if the Confederacy had won a decisive battlefield victory and won their independence there would have been much outcry in the Border states for secession and joining the Confederacy.

Doubtful. In most border south states the forces for secession were in the minority. They were non-existent in Delaware and well less than half the population in Missouri and Kentucky, and about 50/50 in Maryland. Attempts to take those states into the Confederacy would likely have resulted in civil wars within their own borders.

[CodeToad]

Lincoln was a railroad attorney. Economics dictated unified States lowered costs, increased prosperity, kept the States from bickering about railroads, and a war would disrupt the union and railroad business. A war happened anyway, but at least they could keep the union intact. The railroads had their lobbyists in DC and need all States to fall under that lobbying influence.

[x]

Attempts to take those states into the Confederacy would likely have resulted in civil wars within their own borders.

Probably. But a really crushing Confederate victory that ended the war -- assuming such a thing was possible -- would really have encouraged secessionist forces and they'd try to secure as much territory as they could.

If the war just fizzled out with a stalemate and the election of McClellan people might just want to get back to life as usual, but some amazing -- improbable, impossible -- rebel triumph would really have gotten secessionist juices flowing.

That brings up the question of whether the Civil War would really have ended with a Confederate victory. The USA and CSA might have made peace, but with militias and partisans and guerrillas fighting in Kentucky and Missouri and Maryland (and in West Virginia and East Tennessee as well), wouldn't the two nations be drawn back into war?

[DiogenesLamp]

Doubtful. In most border south states the forces for secession were in the minority. They were non-existent in Delaware and well less than half the population in Missouri and Kentucky, and about 50/50 in Maryland. Attempts to take those states into the Confederacy would likely have resulted in civil wars within their own borders.

I say it all depends on the money. If no money, goods or services flow across the borders of the border states, then why would they join the Confederacy? What would be the draw?

But if on the other hand, the Confederacy started being the source of goods, services, and jobs, in other words, substantial economic activity, then people would go where the money was.

This arc of change would be seriously affected by the conditions at it's beginning. With no war at all, the South's economic sphere of influence is a virtual guarantee, but if you are trying to pick up the arc in 1864, after the South's primary trade was irrevocably damaged by the blockade, and after so much of their blood and treasure was expended in the war, then it becomes a lot more iffy. In fact, it becomes a lot less likely.

At that point, the South was never likely going to be the economic and political threat it would have been in 1861 if it had been left alone.

[DiogenesLamp]

There must have been some reason why that New York newspaper was worried about it. Do you think those people were stupid or something?

I've read other articles from Northern newspapers in which they lament the impossibility of controlling the flow of goods across the borders between the Union and the Confederacy. Perhaps they thought that the railroad steel would end up in Union states, simply because of it's lower cost?

The US can't even control it's borders now. I imagine it was just as much of a problem back then. Perhaps even worse.

[DiogenesLamp]

By the end of the war, so much blood had been shed that it had become a personal hate for some people. Others were just tired of the killing.

There never should have been any killing, but when wealth is involved, the Plutocrats don't care about death.

[DiogenesLamp]

Cotton prices were going to slump because of all the other countries and colonies getting into cotton production. China, India, Egypt, Brazil, Mexico, Central Asia, Turkey all got into the act.

As a consequence of the blockade. If there had been no blockade, none of those markets would have developed at the pace they did.

There would be slave revolts because emancipation didn't come.

Four score and seven years, and suddenly it would happen? I rather doubt it. After John Brown, the Southerners were a lot more vigilant about the possibility.

Violence between rich and poor whites wouldn't have been out of the question either, but slave uprisings and brutal repression were definitely in the cards for the CSA at some point.

I don't see it. Maybe it would happen, but it doesn't look obvious to me.

And the goods would mostly be imported British or European products. Northerners were capable of producing their own and providing employment for their neighbors.

That assumes the static conditions extant before the war. With 200 million in trade disappearing from New York, (plus the federal subsidies for manufacturing) the Northern supply system would have been affected.

You are not contemplating the consequences of a serious transfer in capital from one region to another.

What you are forgetting is the political and economic role of the Great Lakes states, particularly Ohio, in the years after the Civil War.

You keep looking at things going the same way they happened, rather than considering how they might have went had this thing gone the other way. The Great lakes were a valuable resource for economic activity, but in our timeline, they didn't have competition from the South or Europe. In the other time line, they would have had such competition.

Your obsession with New York has blinded you to just how important the Midwest was in the late 19th century.

Where was the steel going? Where was the Coal going? Where was the Timber going? Where were the Cattle going? Who was paying for it?

Your own logic is that they were feeble pawns who'd throw in with the powerful Confederacy. That's not at all realistic, but states like Ohio and Illinois had significant clout in the US.

They did as things happened in our timeline. It is not so clear they would have had as much clout in a timeline in which the South was taking the bulk of European trade away from the North East. I also didn't suggest that they would immediately join the Confederacy. I think you keep reading that into the conversation even though I did not say it. The border states would quickly join, probably within a decade. If Illinois and Ohio joined at all, it would be several decades later, and then only if it was in their best economic interest to do so. Probably by that time, slavery would be obviously on the wane.

Doing what, loading and unloading ships? The North was interested in developing industry. The South preferred agriculture, leisure, and politics.

It was not a single entity. It had people that preferred agriculture, but some people did not. Manufacturing industries would have moved to the South to take advantage of the economic opportunities there, and then there would have been people in the south who preferred manufacturing and industry.

All that European trade would overwhelm attempts to develop Southern industry, unless the CSA erected trade barriers to foreign dumping.

Which they might have done eventually. Everyone tends to respond when it is their fingers getting burned.

British workers didn't want slave-picked cotton. The British public was also becoming hostile.

That is a deus ex machina argument.

Your idea that Indians, Chinese, Egyptians, Brazilians and others wouldn't try to get into cotton if it was so profitable is naïve -- maybe insulting. It's like saying that we were so good at making cars and radios that the Japanese would never think of getting into the automotive or electronic business.

You are giving me the impression that you don't even read what I write. I didn't say anything like this. What I said was that the Southerners had an established industry that was effectively a monopoly at that time. If they had startups that tried to compete with them, they could keep dropping their prices until the start ups couldn't compete. They could control the market at that point in history, and those start up cotton producers would never have been able to get on their feet without the Union blockade protecting them from the cut throat competition the South could have unleashed upon them.

Look, your whole shtick is that Southerners lost out to New York in economic power.

Not so much a schtick. Who do you think is running the deep state now? Why do you think the media people are either located in New York, or follow New York's lead on national stories? Who loans all that borrowed government money? Who profits from the government running debts and deficits?

What agency just raided Trump's lawyers office? What branch was that?

[DoodleDawg]

There must have been some reason why that New York newspaper was worried about it. Do you think those people were stupid or something?

They're newspaper editorials expressing the political leanings of their publishers. No different than all the recent editorials concerning Trump and Russia and collusion and all the rest that have been in the New York Times and Washington Post and the like? Are they all stupid or something too?

But back to my original question. Who would be shipping this massive amount of railroad iron the the Southern states and what was it supposed to be used for? Where was the demand coming from?

[DoodleDawg]

I say it all depends on the money. If no money, goods or services flow across the borders of the border states, then why would they join the Confederacy? What would be the draw?

Why would the flow of money, goods, or services - such as it was - stop? The Confederacy could still import slaves from those states if they wanted to. What other other trade was there? Manufactured goods? Why should that end? Services? Why should that end? The demand was there because of the inability of the Confederacy to supply it on its own.

But if on the other hand, the Confederacy started being the source of goods, services, and jobs, in other words, substantial economic activity, then people would go where the money was.

Again, what kind of goods, services, and jobs are you talking about?

With no war at all, the South's economic sphere of influence is a virtual guarantee...

Nonsense.

[DiogenesLamp]

Just thought I would acquaint you two with this comment.

Christopher Delarosa • 19 minutes ago

There is an oligarchy in this country that controls both political parties and the main stream media. The blizzard of hyperbole, misinformation, and distraction blowing through Washington right now is a calculated attempt to bring down a president – a president who is not a member of the oligarchy and is not controlled by the oligarchy. And more than that, it’s an attempt to ensure that we never again have the ability to disrupt the oligarchy’s permanent supremacy by inserting a chief executive who refuses to follow the script set forth for him/her. This is also a coup against us. It’s a coordinated campaign by the oligarchy’s allies in the bureaucracy and media to once and for all ensure their perpetual rule over us.

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/293709/#respond

[x]

I say it all depends on the money. If no money, goods or services flow across the borders of the border states, then why would they join the Confederacy? What would be the draw?

Spoken like a true Marxist.

If China is booming, would you become Chinese or advocate that your state join with China?

Shocks and panics have a lot more to do with political changes than the prosperity of a neighboring nation.

But if on the other hand, the Confederacy started being the source of goods, services, and jobs, in other words, substantial economic activity, then people would go where the money was.

By letting in cheap British goods? Why is that so attractive when you can produce your own goods and provide jobs for your neighbors?

With no war at all, the South's economic sphere of influence is a virtual guarantee, but if you are trying to pick up the arc in 1864, after the South's primary trade was irrevocably damaged by the blockade, and after so much of their blood and treasure was expended in the war, then it becomes a lot more iffy. In fact, it becomes a lot less likely.

At least the second part of that is true. The first part -- not so much.

[x]

As a consequence of the blockade. If there had been no blockade, none of those markets would have developed at the pace they did.

What are you on about? Our topic is "It’s 1864, The South has won the Civil War. How does this change the pages of history?" So obviously, there was a blockade. It had been going on for three years. British cotton manufacturers had been looking for and using other sources of cotton for some time.

Other countries were developing their own sources. Given the state of the South in 1864, it would take some time before prewar levels of production were reattained and the cities and infrastructure restored. That would give new producers plenty of time to increase their own production.

After John Brown, the Southerners were a lot more vigilant about the possibility.

Paranoid is more like it. They were vigilant enough about escaped slaves and uprisings before Brown.

But after some thousands of Black men had fought in the US Army and thousands of African-Americans had enjoyed a taste of freedom, it would be much harder to keep a lid on things. There would be reason enough for the Confederacy to fear border violence, slave uprisings, even revolutions.

And the questions of whether, when, and how to abolish slavery would divide White Southerners. MacKinlay Kantor had Lee become president and push through emancipation. That's possible, but it's also possible that he would have dithered, waiting until God did away with slavery in His Own good time.

Moreover, Lee might not have had much time to do much, since his health wasn't good and his time on earth may not have been long. It's unlikely that anyone else could have made emancipation a reality after the war. It's certainly possible that conflict among Whites over abolition and its aftermath would become quite heated indeed. possibly violent.

With 200 million in trade disappearing from New York, (plus the federal subsidies for manufacturing) the Northern supply system would have been affected.

I don't see how the tariff -- if that's what you mean by "federal subsidies for manufacturing" -- would have been affected. And do you really think $200 million dollars would be wrapped up in a nice bow and dropped off at the slavers' mansions.

Planters would still have to pay insurance, shipping, and finance charges, most likely to brokers and merchants in London or Paris or New York. They'd still be buying things from foreign manufacturers.

The weakness of your argument is that you don't distinguish between profits and money that was spent on necessary goods and services. It's not like somebody would be dumping heaps of money on Charleston or New Orleans wharves.

Where was the steel going? Where was the Coal going? Where was the Timber going? Where were the Cattle going? Who was paying for it?

Iron and coal were going to Pittsburgh to make the steel. The steel was used to make railroad track all across the country, and trains and machinery, as well as (some decades later) skyscrapers. The timber was going to build houses throughout the country. The cattle were shipped to Chicago for processing and the meat was sent all over the world.

The Midwest was one of the great manufacturing regions of the world. That's in our timeline, but even if things had been different, I don't see 19th century Mississippi or Arkansas being as industrially productive as Ohio or Illinois. Look, if you just fought and won a war to keep Cotton King, your people are more likely to go into farming or war or politics than into the industries that so many of your leaders rejected with disdain before the war.

Manufacturing industries would have moved to the South to take advantage of the economic opportunities there, and then there would have been people in the south who preferred manufacturing and industry.

You've been saying over and over again that Southerners were going to indignantly pull out all their business from New York. That wouldn't actually have happened, but if that does reflect where public passions were at the time, Northerners weren't going to flock southward to start up factories. Nor I think were hoards of Englishmen.

Some Southerners and immigrants from abroad would start up factories, but they'd always face some hostility from agricultural and political interests, not to mention from working people, White or Black.

That is a deus ex machina argument.

That is a non-sequitur. Or something. A know-nothing one-line dodge of an important argument. British workers and consumers did not want to support slavery. To the degree that British mill owners were sensitive to public opinion they would put pressure on the CSA for abolition and continue to use other sources of cotton in their factories.

You are giving me the impression that you don't even read what I write.

I give your stuff more consideration than it actually deserves. Part of that is pointing out possible conclusions one could draw from your arguments.

What I said was that the Southerners had an established industry that was effectively a monopoly at that time. If they had startups that tried to compete with them, they could keep dropping their prices until the start ups couldn't compete.

Controlling the price of a crop like cotton or corn or wheat is quite hard to do, especially if, like plantation owners before the Civil War, one got into the habit of relying on other people to do all the math and bargaining.

Producers aren't easily corralled by would-be monopolists, and what you're suggesting -- some association or agency powerful enough to dictate the price of a commodity -- goes well beyond what you are forever complaining about when you rant about New York merchants.

A country that puts its energies into manipulating the prices of raw materials would be less likely to develop industries than one that put its energies into industrialization.

They could control the market at that point in history, and those start up cotton producers would never have been able to get on their feet without the Union blockade protecting them from the cut throat competition the South could have unleashed upon them.

Stick to the topic. In this thread, the war happened. The blockade happened. A lot of slaves ran off and a lot of things got broken. There was a lot for the Confederacy to overcome. You lose.