Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

How could the South have won the Civil War?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Guest View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: How could the South have won the Civil War?
    Posted: 22-Nov-2009 at 08:57
For class I have to write a counter factual essay where the Confederacy from the American Civil War manages to secure independence. In what ways could they have done so? I was thinking of revolving my essay around the battle of Gettysburg, but then I learned of Vicksburg (which happened days later) and how that later paved the way for the Confederacy being cut into two, so I don't know if Gettysburg would have the same effect with another Union army ravaging the Confederacy in the West. Were there any close calls in the West campaign that could have halted the Union advance? In general, how do you think the Confederacy could have come away victorious in the war. By victorious I don't mean like conquer the North, just that they manage to become independent, for example through the North's inability to reconquer the South or through international recognition.

Thanks for all help.
Back to Top
Donasin View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 13-Dec-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 108
  Quote Donasin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Nov-2009 at 21:22
European intervention.
Back to Top
TheGreatSimba View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 22-Nov-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1152
  Quote TheGreatSimba Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Nov-2009 at 00:03
I dont believe there is anything the South could have done to win the war. The North was more idustrialized and had more man power. It was an uneven fight from the start. If the South had done a blitzkreig campaign of the North they may have had a chance, catching the North by surprise and unprepared. But as the war progressed, it was inevitable that the South would lose.
 
European intervention would have greatly helped but it was enver a serious option for the South. As much as they tried to get France and Britain on their side, it was never going to happen:
 
1. Britain had, by that time, banned slavery. They could not enter the war without political problems at home.
2. Neither France nor Britain wanted to engage in a war against the United States on the continent, they had other problems.


Edited by TheGreatSimba - 23-Nov-2009 at 00:04
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Nov-2009 at 17:43
Perhaps none of you have ever perused this path before? But, the entire sucession movement, was predicated upon the 10th Ammendment to the Constituion, as well as the belief that the North would not really object!

Yes, they expected some reprecussions, but without the hard headedness of President Lincoln, the South might well have suceeded within the first 90 days or so! After all, it was "legal!", and therefore expected of any state which felt it was being denied certain benefits which should be shared with every one of the "voluntary members" who joined first the "Confederation" and only later the "Statehood!"

I will give 10-1 odds that every Southern state, as well as the others who voted to join into a Union believed that they always had the right to remove themselves from that same union!

It is just like "Ripley's!" "Believe it or NOT!"

PS; If the North had done the "correct" and "Consitutional" thing, the the 13 Southern States, in there more correct "Confederation" would first have had to deal with "slavery" which was ending its run in Southern agriculture at any even! It was the inventions of Eli Whitney that signaled the end of slavery in any event, and many Southerners recognized it!

As a matter of fact, even "freed slaves" were allowed in some places to also have "slaves", as were Native Americans", etc.! What is less well known is that certain parts of the South were exempt from the "Proclo-mation(s)" of Lincoln! IE, certain counties or parrishs, were not involved in worrying about freeing the slaves, they were immune, since their owners / managers all lived in the NORTH, and some of them were high ranking Generals in the Army of the North!

OH yes! The South also looked to certain allies in Europe for support!

But, it seems, that Europe was already involved in massive unrest, mostly centered upon Italy and the Papacy! Thus one can read the note-book of certain European historians, who never even mentioned the "Great war in America!"

Edited by opuslola - 01-Dec-2009 at 19:12
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2009 at 07:43
Even had the south won the war, I do not think that they would have won in the long term. As Opuslola mentioned, mechanization was ending large scale plantation slavery in the U.S. south.

My guess is that following either a Confederate military victory or a successful political session, the following would have happened:
-Lincoln (a very skilled diplomat) starts a carrot and stick economic approach towards the south. 
-Northeren economic power, transportation and population ensures that most, if not all new states join the Union
-1880 Slavery collapses. North Carolina and Texas (who joined the Confederacy out of regional obligation rather than true belief) rejoin the Union.
-1882 Union offers to modify the constitution to affirm the rights of uhmm..."distinct states", Louisiana (had a large nueteral population in the war) re joins Union to free trade through New Orleans
-1884 The rest of the Confederacy rejoins as "distinct states" Confederate military units retain heritage and distinct status in the national army. Mississippi and South Carolina are the last to sign.


Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2009 at 08:22
I rather see the Confederacy making a move to the South, attacking Mexico and other central American nations and annexing them! Posssibly attacking and taking most if not all of South America, where slavery was still a going concern. But, eventually slavery would have died a slow death and manumission would have occured in part to the mixing of race and culture that would have occured, but an "empire" of sorts would have remained.

Such a course might well have forced the North to annex Canada?

But, it is all useless speculation!
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2009 at 14:04
Originally posted by opuslola

I rather see the Confederacy making a move to the South, attacking Mexico and other central American nations and annexing them! Posssibly attacking and taking most if not all of South America, where slavery was still a going concern

But, it is all useless speculation!


Though I agree that it is speculation, the speculation is based on historical fact. Some Confederates did dream of founding a slave empire that would include parts of the Carribean and Latin America. After the U.S. civil war, some Confederates did resettle in Brazil.

But....
I think any dreams of empire would come to a quick end. France and Great Britain were not going to allow any of their possessions to be incorperated into the hypothetical empire. Brazil was a wealthy and powerful nation in 1870.  They may have been interested in a slavery friendly empire, except that the capital would be Sao Paulo, not Richmond and the imperial language to be Portuguese, not English. Who knows, Creole culture based, French speaking, and Catholic Louisiana may have made a natural starting point for Brazillian expansion into North America Wink.

Edited by Cryptic - 24-Nov-2009 at 14:08
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2009 at 16:41
Dear Cryptic, I really doubt that anyone in Brazil could organize an attack upon any part of the CSA? If they had "empire" on their minds, they would have started within S. America! I really doubt they could have survived a blockade of their few ports by CSA ships? Which, due to the exegencies of war, had made all "American ships", the superior of those in Europe.

A good try though!
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2009 at 18:42
Originally posted by opuslola

Dear Cryptic, I really doubt that anyone in Brazil could organize an attack upon any part of the CSA? If they had "empire" on their minds, they would have started within S. America! I really doubt they could have survived a blockade of their few ports by CSA ships? Which, due to the exegencies of war, had made all "American ships", the superior of those in Europe.

A good try though!


You are right, that was a little "tongue in cheek". Brazil could no more attack and occupy the CSA than the CSA could attack and occupy Brazil.

As for blockades, Brazil had access to the same ships and technology as the confederacy. I do not think that confederate naval technology was superior to what could be purchased in Europe and then finished in Brazil (CSA naval ships relied on either European or perhaps Union armaments).

For reference, Brazil in the 1870s was on its way to becoming a regional power that could have  matched the Confederate States.  At one point, they ordered the most powerful dreadnaught in the world. Brazil, however, later faltered.  

Edited by Cryptic - 24-Nov-2009 at 18:47
Back to Top
TheGreatSimba View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 22-Nov-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1152
  Quote TheGreatSimba Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2009 at 21:07
I dont think slavery would ever have died on its own in the South. Remember, the motive for slavery was not only the need for laborers, but White racial superiority. In fact, Blacks were taught that the only way they could go to heaven was if they were slaves in some parts of the south.

The CSA would have remained a slave nation, I just cannot see slavery dying out on its own in the South, Whites would not have allowed it. Slaves would simply be taken off cotton farms and placed into factories (which would have given southern companies a huge advantage because they would not have to pay any wages).

With regards to CSA expansion: impossible. The Confederacy was not an industrialized power. They barely had industry, or railroads, or the ability to make their own armaments (as mentioned earlier, they relied on European and Northern armaments).

Its a safe bet that they probably couldnt even conquer Mexico. I agree with Cryptic that if the South by some miracle managed to win (which I maintain is simply impossible due to the conditions of the time), they would have eventually merged back into the union.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2009 at 06:51
There also exists the possibility that the South would have enforced the reverse migration of the slaves back to Africa? As a seperate nation the CSA would have kept its connections to Europe and European technology, since the CSA would still have its great tobacco and cotton crops to export. It was Northern politicians which kept manufacturing down in the South afterall! Northern poiticians and the anti-slavery crowd would continue to trade with the CSA for the same reasons as the various states traded before the sucession!

It is easy to be believe that the slaves whould also continue their underground migration to the Northern states, and maybe it would have even been encouraged by CSA leaders? You must remember the CSA Army and Navy managed to battle the USA toe to toe for over two years in any event, and that the entire conquest took four years!

As a warrior society it created its own place in history and there is no reason to believe that its great generals whould have had success on foreign fronts if it had become economically necessary.

I could even imagine the USA fortifying its borders with the CSA in an attempt to spoil the chances of escaped slaves over running the borders in their flight to the North? Much like the situation the USA lives with today with the influx of Mexican and Central American emmigrants.
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
TheGreatSimba View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 22-Nov-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1152
  Quote TheGreatSimba Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2009 at 09:07
Originally posted by opuslola

There also exists the possibility that the South would have enforced the reverse migration of the slaves back to Africa?


Yes, if the slave population got too high, they probably would have forced some to go back to Africa.

Originally posted by opuslola


 As a seperate nation the CSA would have kept its connections to Europe and European technology, since the CSA would still have its great tobacco and cotton crops to export. It was Northern politicians which kept manufacturing down in the South afterall! Northern poiticians and the anti-slavery crowd would continue to trade with the CSA for the same reasons as the various states traded before the sucession!


True, although I'm not sure if the north would have traded directly with the south for quite some time. Due to the Norths superior navy, even if the north lost on land, they probably would have still blockaded the south, preventing it from trading with the rest of the world.

Originally posted by opuslola


It is easy to be believe that the slaves whould also continue their underground migration to the Northern states, and maybe it would have even been encouraged by CSA leaders?


Why would the CSA encourage it?

Originally posted by opuslola


 You must remember the CSA Army and Navy managed to battle the USA toe to toe for over two years in any event, and that the entire conquest took four years!


Thats not true, the CSA's navy was always on the defensive at it barely had a navy. The south was blockaded by the north for the entire war and never managed to break the blockade, the north had complete naval superiority throughout the war.

And the CSA's army, after Gettysburg, was on the defensive the whole time. By the end of the war, the Southern army was not only lacking in soldiers, but also in supplies, such as guns, shoes, etc... some soldiers were even barefoot.

The CSA's army crumbled after the first couple years because the south was not industrialized enough to maintain a large army and sustain a long war, which is why the south was hoping for a quick victory.

Originally posted by opuslola


As a warrior society it created its own place in history and there is no reason to believe that its great generals whould have had success on foreign fronts if it had become economically necessary.


The south was not a warrior society, and it only had one great general, Robert E. Lee.

But sure, if the south ever managed to gain independence (which I think is impossible), and if it ever was to become industrialized and wealthy, (which again, i think would have been impossible because of the northern blockade), then yea, the possibilities of what it could do would be endless.

Originally posted by opuslola


I could even imagine the USA fortifying its borders with the CSA in an attempt to spoil the chances of escaped slaves over running the borders in their flight to the North? Much like the situation the USA lives with today with the influx of Mexican and Central American emmigrants.


why would the north want to do that? the north let slaves escape into it for many years without fortifying its borders to prevent such a thing.
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Nov-2009 at 06:08
Originally posted by TheGreatSimba

I dont think slavery would ever have died on its own in the South. Remember, the motive for slavery was not only the need for laborers, but White racial superiority. In fact, Blacks were taught that the only way they could go to heaven was if they were slaves in some parts of the south.

Though I wont deny that slavery had a large component of racial superiority as a basis, the pre war south was a more complex society.

In Coastal areas, especially Louisiana but including coastal Alabama, Mississippi. Georgia, and South Carolina, slavery was developing a class / race based (Brazillian or Roman style) system. All of these areas had black or creole slave owners.  So did some interior cities such as Richmond, Virginia. Likewise, there were hundreds of thousands free blacks in the south.

The economics of mechanization was going to end plantation slavery in the south by the 1880s regardless of the wishes of white southerners.   
Originally posted by TheGreatSimba


why would the north want to do that? the north let slaves escape into it for many years without fortifying its borders to prevent such a thing.

Because in many ways, the North at the time was just as racist as the south. The North was very willing to allow abolitionist activists to shelter runaway slaves. I think, however, that this willingness depended on two things:
A. The number of black immigrants (escaped slaves) was small, preferably very small
B. That the arriving black immigrants be mostly educated, semi educated or skilled in trades. (Most escaped slaves were probably either house slaves or trade employed slaves rather than field hands).

Had the trickle of black immigrants moved towards mass migration, the north's tolerance would have decreased proportionally. Riots occurred in the north following the Emancipation Proclamation
Originally posted by TheGreatSimba


The south was not a warrior society, and it only had one great general, Robert E. Lee.

It was a militarized society that placed a lot of cultural emphasis on individual combativeness. Also like WWI and WWII Germany, the South funneled a disproportionate percentage of its leadership talent towards military pursuits.

That did not make either the CSA or Germany invincible, but it did make both difficult to beat.  On average, the Germans and the CSA got visibly more "bang for their buck" out of their respective militarys than their opponents did.

Originally posted by TheGreatSimba

Due to the Norths superior navy, even if the north lost on land, they probably would have still blockaded the south, preventing it from trading with the rest of the world.

If the south won on land, Great Britain and France would have recognized Confederate independence. That would make a naval blockade far more risky. My guess is that Lincoln would have ignored the foreign trade and instead concentrated on domestic trade / political "carrot and stick" approaches to attempt to divide The Confederacy. The Confederacy was not a unified monolith.


Edited by Cryptic - 26-Nov-2009 at 07:21
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Nov-2009 at 18:20
If I had more accrately phrased my above responses better, maybe I should have mentioned that, in my opinion, as well as that of others,the South made a great gamble upon their sucession? That is, especially after the victory of the Southern Army at the first Battle of Bull Run, fought within the view of thousands of Northern supporters, that the Union would soon view this seperation as both legal and final! It seems that the President and a few supporters, made this act impossible, and thus the war proceeded!

I really believe that Southern suporters actually knew that the war would only be successful if the bluff suceeded!

But, the power of a few, seems to have fortified the might and will of most Northerners to make sure the "anti-insurrectionists" movement would be crushed!

As, we have witnessed it so was!
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
TheGreatSimba View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 22-Nov-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1152
  Quote TheGreatSimba Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Nov-2009 at 19:14
Originally posted by Cryptic


Though I wont deny that slavery had a large component of racial superiority as a basis, the pre war south was a more complex society.

In Coastal areas, especially Louisiana but including coastal Alabama, Mississippi. Georgia, and South Carolina, slavery was developing a class / race based (Brazillian or Roman style) system. All of these areas had black or creole slave owners.  So did some interior cities such as Richmond, Virginia. Likewise, there were hundreds of thousands free blacks in the south.

The economics of mechanization was going to end plantation slavery in the south by the 1880s regardless of the wishes of white southerners.


What I was trying to say was that regardless of plantation slavery or not, slavery would have still existed in the South. It was more racially motivated than economically. Instaed of using slaves in the plantation, they would simply have used slaves in factories and other industries.

Free labor is free labor, whether on a plantation or in a factory.

Originally posted by Cryptic



Because in many ways, the North at the time was just as racist as the south. The North was very willing to allow abolitionist activists to shelter runaway slaves. I think, however, that this willingness depended on two things:
A. The number of black immigrants (escaped slaves) was small, preferably very small
B. That the arriving black immigrants be mostly educated, semi educated or skilled in trades. (Most escaped slaves were probably either house slaves or trade employed slaves rather than field hands).

Had the trickle of black immigrants moved towards mass migration, the north's tolerance would have decreased proportionally. Riots occurred in the north following the Emancipation Proclamation


Again, the point I was trying to make was that the last thing the north would do was to deny slaves access to the north. had the north lost the war, they would have tried everything to create problems for the south, including encouraging slave revolts and escapes.

Also, I doubt that enough slaves would have been able to escape and make it to the north for there to be a "mass migration". If anything, the numbers of escaped slaves to the north wouldnt change much, and maybe might even decrease due to heavy southern military presence in border areas.

Originally posted by Cryptic


It was a militarized society that placed a lot of cultural emphasis on individual combativeness. Also like WWI and WWII Germany, the South funneled a disproportionate percentage of its leadership talent towards military pursuits.

That did not make either the CSA or Germany invincible, but it did make both difficult to beat.  On average, the Germans and the CSA got visibly more "bang for their buck" out of their respective militarys than their opponents did.


Chivalry is different from being  a war society. The south put a lot of emphasis on honor, but it was far from a warrior society.

Originally posted by Cryptic


If the south won on land, Great Britain and France would have recognized Confederate independence. That would make a naval blockade far more risky. My guess is that Lincoln would have ignored the foreign trade and instead concentrated on domestic trade / political "carrot and stick" approaches to attempt to divide The Confederacy. The Confederacy was not a unified monolith.


Yes, true, if the South had won on land Britain and France would surely have recognized the South (although this may have caused some problems at home for Britain, due to its anti-slavery stance), but neither of those nations would have risked a war with the north.

For the entirety of the war the South was blockaded and neither nation did anything, even though they were reliant on southern cotton.
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Nov-2009 at 16:04
Originally posted by opuslola


I really believe that Southern suporters actually knew that the war would only be successful if the bluff suceeded!

But, the power of a few, seems to have fortified the might and will of most Northerners to make sure the "anti-insurrectionists" movement would be crushed!

As, we have witnessed it so was!

I disagree. Though the CSA preferred a  single "shock and awe victory" followed by recognition, the CSA realistically believed that they would win a war. In previous generations, they would have won as they were a large nation with a capable military fighting on the defensive.

The U.S. Civil War, however, was one of the first industrialized wars. This brought many new factors into play that the CSA could not cope with.  The CSA did not anticipate these factors and neither did many Unionists (until the factors started to impact the war and the Union then capitalized on them)
Originally posted by TheGreatSimba


Chivalry is different from being  a war society. The south put a lot of emphasis on honor, but it was far from a warrior society.

I prefer the term "militarized society" to warrior society.

The south was a recent frontier and a higher proportion of young men were proficient in weapons than in the north. As an honor based society, Southeren men tended to be more personally combative than Northerners.  The same honor based society exposed a higher percentage of young men to previous violence which lessened the shock of war.

Fearing slave revolts, the South maintained numerous militias. These militias were easy to convert into military units when the war came. The North completely lacked these militias (except in Kansas or perhaps Minnesota). These factors and the fact that leadership talent in the south was funneled into the military due to both cultural expectations and limited advancement opportunities in other areas created a militarized society.
Originally posted by TheGreatSimba


Yes, true, if the South had won on land Britain and France would surely have recognized the South (although this may have caused some problems at home for Britain, due to its anti-slavery stance), but neither of those nations would have risked a war with the north.

For the entirety of the war the South was blockaded and neither nation did anything, even though they were reliant on southern cotton.

Once France and Great Britain recognized CSA, a naval blockade would involve enforcement actions against French and British ships engaging in what they believed to be legitimate trade with a recognized nation. 

Following a hypothetical CSA victory, Union society would not be prepared for another war. The Royal Navy especially was not to be taken lightly. Lincoln would not risk fighting France and Great Britain as he did not need to fight that war. Enough domestic "carrots and sticks" could be applied to Confederacy to eventually accomplish Union goals without risking another war.
Originally posted by TheGreatSimba


Again, the point I was trying to make was that the last thing the north would do was to deny slaves access to the north. had the north lost the war, they would have tried everything to create problems for the south, including encouraging slave revolts and escapes.

Also, I doubt that enough slaves would have been able to escape and make it to the north for there to be a "mass migration". If anything, the numbers of escaped slaves to the north wouldnt change much, and maybe might even decrease due to heavy southern military presence in border areas.

A good point and well taken
Originally posted by TheGreatSimba


What I was trying to say was that regardless of plantation slavery or not, slavery would have still existed in the South. It was more racially motivated than economically. Instaed of using slaves in the plantation, they would simply have used slaves in factories and other industries.

Free labor is free labor, whether on a plantation or in a factory.

A collapsed plantation system would lead to a large number of excess slaves. Limited southern industry could not absorb this number. Using large numbers of slaves in increasingly skilled labor would be problematic and more importantly, would also compete with whites seeking the same employment.

Slavery would end by the 1880s and would simply be replaced by the share cropper / segregation system. 
Back to Top
TheGreatSimba View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 22-Nov-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1152
  Quote TheGreatSimba Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Nov-2009 at 12:52
Originally posted by Cryptic


I prefer the term "militarized society" to warrior society.

The south was a recent frontier and a higher proportion of young men were proficient in weapons than in the north. As an honor based society, Southeren men tended to be more personally combative than Northerners.  The same honor based society exposed a higher percentage of young men to previous violence which lessened the shock of war.


I disagree. The South was no more a recent frontier than the North was. Remember that the Western expansion of the United States happened at the same rate in both the Northern half of the country as well as the Southern half. The South was not a recent frontier, it was as old as the North.

Originally posted by Cryptic


Fearing slave revolts, the South maintained numerous militias. These militias were easy to convert into military units when the war came. The North completely lacked these militias (except in Kansas or perhaps Minnesota). These factors and the fact that leadership talent in the south was funneled into the military due to both cultural expectations and limited advancement opportunities in other areas created a militarized society.


Good point.

Originally posted by Cryptic


Once France and Great Britain recognized CSA, a naval blockade would involve enforcement actions against French and British ships engaging in what they believed to be legitimate trade with a recognized nation. 

Following a hypothetical CSA victory, Union society would not be prepared for another war. The Royal Navy especially was not to be taken lightly. Lincoln would not risk fighting France and Great Britain as he did not need to fight that war. Enough domestic "carrots and sticks" could be applied to Confederacy to eventually accomplish Union goals without risking another war.


Ok, you make a good point, because, after all this discussion is based on what would have happened at the CSA won the war. And if we are trying to say that the CSA defeated the Union on land, then you are right, the North would not be willing to risk another war with a European power.
 
Originally posted by Cryptic


A collapsed plantation system would lead to a large number of excess slaves. Limited southern industry could not absorb this number. Using large numbers of slaves in increasingly skilled labor would be problematic and more importantly, would also compete with whites seeking the same employment.

Slavery would end by the 1880s and would simply be replaced by the share cropper / segregation system. 


Well, I am assuming that if the South won the war, they would have industrialized, as all wealthy nations were industrializing or beginning to industrialize at the time.

On what are you basing your assumption that the South would not industrialize at a rapid enough rate to employ large amounts of slaves?

Regarding the White population being out of jobs; well, as the South had an agricultural economy, the whites seemed to do pretty well with slaves doing their farming for them didnt they? So they'd probably find a way to do well with slaves doing their factory work to.
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Nov-2009 at 12:51
Originally posted by TheGreatSimba


On what are you basing your assumption that the South would not industrialize at a rapid enough rate to employ large amounts of slaves?
Industrialization was not uniform. For example, Spain, Italy (especially in the south) and Greece remained mostly agrarian long after Britain, France and Germany industrialized.
 
My guess is that a victorious CSA would not rapidly industrialize for the following reasons:
- The Union's "sticks" would include hindering any industrialization projects (no technology transfers, loans, pressure on Europeans to refuse assistance etc)
-CSA had missed a generation of industrialization and as a result, they were already far behind. By 1860, there were only two steel rolling mills in the south and the south lacked the ability to even overhaul locomotives, let alone manufacture them etc.
-Conservative religion: Conservative religion tends to reject social change as it brings alterations to the divinely ordered society. This is true in Catholic Spain, Confucian China and the Islamic Middle East. Industrialization brings a tremendous amount of social change and I think CSA culture would have rejected most of it.    
 
 
Originally posted by TheGreatSimba


Regarding the White population being out of jobs; well, as the South had an agricultural economy, the whites seemed to do pretty well with slaves doing their farming for them didnt they? So they'd probably find a way to do well with slaves doing their factory work to.
 
That is because plantation agriculture in the face of rising mechanization could only be done by slaves. Paying wages of anykind made the system uneconomical. Thus black slaves used in plantation agriculture were not truly competing with whites.
 
With factories, it was economically feasible to pay wages. Thus slaves would be a direct competiton to whites. Granted, the plantation owners would favor transfering slavery into factories, but the slave system needed the tacit support of non slave holding whites (the vast majority of CSA whites).  Whites, especially those existing on near subsistance agriculture, would want factory jobs  and the associated wages.  
 


Edited by Cryptic - 30-Nov-2009 at 12:58
Back to Top
TheGreatSimba View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 22-Nov-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1152
  Quote TheGreatSimba Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Nov-2009 at 17:07
Good points!
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Dec-2009 at 19:38
There are really no "good points" in the above response! Most white and oriental persons residing within the Southern States, never really had any political power at all!

Power really resided in the "Upper Classes", and a whole lot of them, were really "Northerners" or "English" or "Dutch?"

Most all of you can never really understand the life that I actually lived from 1946 to 1963 in the South! That is, unless one really lived during those times, or if one shared a view totally different than the one I lived, it would not make any difference to either of us! Thus, my view, from that of an only child that had both of my parents having to work, and the other view point of a "Black or Negro, or African American American, or "Colured man or women", who served, with either pay and Southern "Social Security" (Meaning those persons who served White families), were given a life time place to live and a lifetime supply of food and clothing, made availabe by those children who knew that it was their duty to take care of some woman (usually) whom had so much enabled their lives, that they felt the obligations to treat these people or at least this woman to a retired life without worry! This act was indeed done by my immediate family!

But, so many of you will tend to disregard my above information as "racist!", or worse, then I will tend to stop my views now!

I apologize for any offense made, it was not intended!
Regards,

Edited by opuslola - 02-Dec-2009 at 08:29
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.