Best Possible Confederate Victory? [Archive] - Page 2 - Alternate History Discussion Board

GeorgeUK

April 17th, 2012, 09:29 PM

Well, I've read "Go South, Young Man" on here.

I've also read on the alt history wikia:

"A Confederate Victory" featuring the CSA more or less becoming the USAs "younger brother" around the turn of the century (also, Hitler never shows up, with Stalin being the big bad of WWII as he invades the Northwest)

"A Southron World" rather ASB, probably CSA: Confederate States of America-lite (Jefferson Davis issues an act freeing the slaves in the CSA in 1862, allowing Britain and France to side with the CSA and help it gain independence)

"Two Americas" where, post-Gettysburg, Lee comes up with the idea of training slaves to fight in return for their, and their families', freedom. (The plan works, slavery is eventually abolished as most slaves join the army, and a neutral and isolationist USA doesn't fight the confederacy, but doesn't recognise it until 1947.)

"Greater Dixie" basically TL-191 in reverse, where WWII sees the CSA conquer a fascist USA.

Johnrankins

April 17th, 2012, 09:34 PM

"A Southron World" rather ASB, probably CSA: Confederate States of America-lite (Jefferson Davis issues an act freeing the slaves in the CSA in 1862, allowing Britain and France to side with the CSA and help it gain independence)

.

Pure ASB as not only would it be going against everything Davis and the CSA stood for but Davis couldn't free the slaves even if he wanted to. By the Confederate constitution only states could do that and even with them it could be only de jure not de facto.

67th Tigers

April 17th, 2012, 10:22 PM

All this talk about canal sizes is ridiculous. Even if the UK of 1860 could fit their ships into the canals, they would still be dangerous to the ships and waught with accidents and disasters because of the tight spaces, not to mention being easy prey to Union attacks since the ships could only enter in single file. The UK back then would have had to deploy a huge land force to protect the ships during its passage through the canals. Something that they would not be capable of doing because of logistics. If, by some miracle all the ships make it to the Great Lakes they would only have superiority until the the USA of 1860 becomes fully mobilizes for war against the UK and starts building their own ships RIGHT ON the Great Lakes. Because of logistics, the USA of 1860 would win a naval arms race on the Great Lakes.

The movement of warships by canals is quite normal. So what if there is a land force to one side? Unless they've dug heavy works for siege batteries what will occur is a slaughter of the land forces.

Arms race on the Lakes? The RN starts with more ships (6 "built as warships, but not Commissioned" mail steamers) has a naval yard and the capacity to destroy the only US naval yard. Then has capability to move smaller gunboats and all the engines, armour, guns etc. necessary for a heavy building program via the Rideau. The US is not racing against Canada, it is racing against the mainland UK which outweighs it nearly 10:1 on industrial capacity.

The best the UK of 1860 could hope for is a short war, a "shock and awe" display of military might that cows the USA of 1860 into submission. But if the USA is not cowed and willing to commit to a long war with the UK, there is nothing the UK and Canada could do to stop them from taking Canada and kicking the British out of North America, albeit at a huge cost. The best the UK back then would be able to do would be to hold onto Halifax because it borders the Atlantic Ocean and can be readily supplied by the British navy. That's it.

The USA of 1860 has the men, the industry and the experience to prevail in a long war with the UK over North America

In a war with the UK the US can't produce gunpowder or fertiliser. Sad fact, but a fact all the same. The US is not some isolated island of the blessed in need of nothing from the outside world. The US can't fight, and ultimately can't feed itself.

AStanley

April 18th, 2012, 01:50 AM

This is what I think the best possible confederate victory would be.

172349

Notes:
-The PoD is a peace democrat winning in 1864 because of better Confederate luck against the Union
-Every State which fulfilled Lincolns 10 Percent Plan is kept by the Union
-West Virginia is renamed Virginia (there is both a Union and Confederate Virginia), and gets more Appalachian counties, the Virginia portion of the Delmarva Peninsula, and Northern Virginia (with a border at the Rappahannock River including Fredericksburg) to secure Washington D.C.
-The Mississippi River is occupied by Union forces including the towns and cities along the river.
-Norfolk and its surroundings are occupied by the Union to ensure the Chesapeake is not blocked off to Union warships and Merchant vessels by the Confederacy
-The Sea Islands of North Carolina and Key West in Florida are occupied and used as Naval Bases.

Aftermath:

After securing independence, the Confederacy fails to make many inroads in exporting Cotton as the UK and France have found different sources (France has been dissuaded by the United States in return for not aiding Mexican Rebels against Maximilian). As the Confederate Economy begins to collapse (along with unrest), the United States begins arming Pro-Unionists in the Confederacy. Texas is the first to leave the Confederacy (and rejoins the Union within a few years). After Texan Unionists had seceded from and had defeated the Confederacy, many Confederate State Governments began to question if being independent from the Union is really worth it. Soon States began to secede from the Confederacy (and petitioned to rejoin the Union with Slavery being legalized), and the Confederate Government in Richmond was powerless to stop it. After North Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina had seceded, the Confederate States of America was abolished (in 1869). Eventually over a period a few years, all of the Southern states were readmitted to the Union, with slavery legal, albeit much more unpopular. In the 1870's and early 1880's, the slave trade was abolished in most Southern States. In 1884, following a effort by the World powers to end slavery for good in Africa, the United State signed the 13th Amendment which ended slavery.

Any improvements would be appreciated.

Enigmajones

April 18th, 2012, 02:09 AM

I doubt they would leave Texas if they had Louisiana.

AStanley

April 18th, 2012, 03:10 AM

I doubt they would leave Texas if they had Louisiana.

I assume it would be left with the CSA as not much of Texas was occupied. Plus the Union will probably think long term, and encourage Texas to revolt. ( I have a feeling that if the Union gets Texas, the Confederates will get more land in Virginia and Western Tennessee, and If the Confederacy is split apart rather than consolidated that serves the Union better.)

usertron2020

April 18th, 2012, 03:37 AM

The movement of warships by canals is quite normal. So what if there is a land force to one side? Unless they've dug heavy works for siege batteries what will occur is a slaughter of the land forces.

That's RIVERINE warfare. In canals, you can easily rake the boats bow and stern, leaving them helpless. Assuming the impact of artillery fire alone doesn't cause the boats to run aground (jam up) on the canals.

Arms race on the Lakes? The RN starts with more ships (6 "built as warships, but not Commissioned" mail steamers) has a naval yard and the capacity to destroy (1) the only US naval yard. Then has capability to move smaller gunboats and all the engines, armour, guns etc. necessary for a heavy building program via the Rideau. The US is not racing against Canada, it is racing against the mainland UK which outweighs it nearly 10:1 on industrial capacity.

1) You have a tendency to overuse the word "destroy" whenever you are speaking of the forces of the British Empire regarding when they may engage anyone else. It reminds me of the overwhelming overconfidence of Emperor Palpatine. The reason Palpatine lost and Britain (generally) didn't, was because the British were mature enough to NOT indulge their overconfidence. When they did, the results were predictable. As they would be for anyone.

This is like reading a report by a hyper-francophile/anglophobe basing troops strengths as a reason why the British wouldn't have a chance against Napoleon. Or if you like, insert hyper-Germanophile and Hitler (2) against the UK.

2) I admit the qualities of someone who truly loves Germany really can't do anything but hate Hitler.

In a war with the UK the US can't produce gunpowder or fertiliser. Sad fact, but a fact all the same.(3) The US is not some isolated island of the blessed in need of nothing from the outside world. The US can't fight, and ultimately can't feed itself.

3) Your claims have all been refuted on this thread and many others yet all you do is speak. You give no evidence that you have heard. Reams and reams of highly questionable DATA with no evidence of how your theories could be made to work in any sense of practicality. In particular, the fact that your "Royal Navy Campaign" on the Great Lakes bears a striking resemblance to the Red River Campaign. Yet you have never even mentioned this AFAIK. And again, in your eyes, all American resources, industries, and capabilities are frozen, and the British are instantly mobilized to a degree it took them two years to reach even in WWI.:rolleyes:

You have made (in a negative sense) a major contribution in teaching us all the differences between Revisionism and Negationism.:) Most Negationists are so extreme in their politics that they usually get banned fairly quickly, denying us the chance to see in any real depth their methodologies of presenting opinionated POVs as fact. Which incidently, makes your sig without a doubt the most ironic on the Forum.:p

usertron2020

April 18th, 2012, 08:22 AM

AStanley

Make a smaller map next time.:o

Nice scenario, recognizing military conquests on the ground as a reality the way that most do not. However, I would argue that while North Carolina may make a good target for re-entering the Union, Virginia (Confederate) might take a while longer.

And as for Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi, the only way I see them re-entering the Union is due to the collapse of Slavery de facto, not de jure. Mainly due to the near-complete inability of the Confederate rump state to prevent runaways from flocking to, well, everywhere. Just look at your map. Which of the surviving rump states are in a natural position to keep their slaves on the plantations?

OTL, many slaves just figured to wait things out. Unless Union troops arrived in the area, or at least were a few days walk away. When Sherman did his march, he found himself with a legion of runaways following him. What's to stop the Confederate Rump from suffering slave de-population all along Union held territory as well as the shoreline, where you could see a "boat people" making their way to the Union Navy, or nearby Union Navy offshore islands and fortress installations?

Note, even with the collapse of Slavery as an institution, I would think it would take genuine famine before anyone would dare even SPEAK openly about re-unification with the North. The thing to remember back then, was that the fire-eaters had the guns and the willingness to use them (on their own people, most of all).

I don't see South Carolina returning to the Union on its own. EVER. But if the rest of the rump states do, she may just find herself without a choice.:p

Johnrankins

April 18th, 2012, 04:04 PM

AStanley

April 18th, 2012, 11:15 PM

You must admit it is one of the most realistic maps though. Not the entire original CSA not talking about gaining land in AZ, Cuba and Mexico!:rolleyes:

Thank You!

Also, where does the idea of the CSA getting land from Mexico come from? :confused:

AStanley

Make a smaller map next time.:o

Nice scenario, recognizing military conquests on the ground as a reality the way that most do not. However, I would argue that while North Carolina may make a good target for re-entering the Union, Virginia (Confederate) might take a while longer.

And as for Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi, the only way I see them re-entering the Union is due to the collapse of Slavery de facto, not de jure. Mainly due to the near-complete inability of the Confederate rump state to prevent runaways from flocking to, well, everywhere. Just look at your map. Which of the surviving rump states are in a natural position to keep their slaves on the plantations?

OTL, many slaves just figured to wait things out. Unless Union troops arrived in the area, or at least were a few days walk away. When Sherman did his march, he found himself with a legion of runaways following him. What's to stop the Confederate Rump from suffering slave de-population all along Union held territory as well as the shoreline, where you could see a "boat people" making their way to the Union Navy, or nearby Union Navy offshore islands and fortress installations?

Note, even with the collapse of Slavery as an institution, I would think it would take genuine famine before anyone would dare even SPEAK openly about re-unification with the North. The thing to remember back then, was that the fire-eaters had the guns and the willingness to use them (on their own people, most of all).

I don't see South Carolina returning to the Union on its own. EVER. But if the rest of the rump states do, she may just find herself without a choice.:p

Well, the reason Southern States keep slavery, is because the Union does not want to make moves right now to abolish it, because that only antagonizes the loyal Slave States, and gives them a potential reason to join the CSA or other mischief.

I do agree a lot of slaves would flood to Union areas if they can, however I don't think the reconciled Southern States would necessarily want them to (or maybe they just take the runaway's as slaves)

I do think the CSA in this scenario would experience a famine, and a collapse of the Economy, because they are a Pariah because of Slavery, they don't dominate Cotton anymore, and I suspect the US will be putting economic pressure on the Confederates. Also I'm not sure if there would be a Sherman's March in this scenario, but I think If there was at least a partial successfully march, the Confederates would have also lost much of their infrastructure. In addition, the Confederate States and Government have a pretty substantial amount of Debt, there will be high taxes to pay for this (lest nobody wants to trade with them), and to keep a standing army, and to keep slave revolts down. During the War I think there were Bread riots in various places, and the situation wont get much better for the CSA.

Also South Carolina is smart enough to understand most southern states have changed sides, and there is no way It can withstand the Union, and if it resists It may lose slavery (although by this point, its much more unpopular in the South, and there is not much serious opposition to this scenario's 13th Amendment). A "If you can't beat them, Join them" mentality.

Fiver

April 19th, 2012, 12:04 AM

Planning figures were to arm 100,000 men in "Canada" and about upto 50,000 in the Maritimes.

The plans (as iterated in WO33/11) were:

Looking at your listed forts, Montreal's Citadel appears to have been formidable, though as the plan mentions in need of repair and expansion. Fort Edward, Fort Dalhousie, and Fort Colborne and the numerous unnamed permanent and temporary fortifications proposed in the plan, seem to have been never been built

Fort Malvern seems to be a typo for Fort Malden, which hadn't been used as a fort since 1851 and was an asylum in 1861.. Fort Erie had been destroyed and abandoned in 1814, and wouldn't be rebuilt until 1939. Fort Mississagua had been disarmed since 1856, though troops were still posted there. Burlington Bay had been abandoned since 1815. Massive fortifications were planned for the Toronto Barracks, but never built.

Murney Tower, Shoal Tower, and Cedar Tower were masonry gun towers, obsolete since the development of rifled artillery and not fully armed until 1862. Market Battery had been abandoned since it was replaced by Shoal Tower. Fort Henry was also a masonry fort, and thus obsolete. Fort Patrick seems to a typo for Fort Frederick; built at the same time as the others, it also appears to be a masonry fort.

Just because a plan was made does not mean it will be achieved. In this case, majority of the fortifications (http://www.northamericanforts.com/Canada/canada.html) listed in WO33/11 existed only on paper.

Fiver

April 19th, 2012, 12:09 AM

This is what I think the best possible confederate victory would be.

Nice map and its probably the most realistic CSA victory map posted on the site. The CSA splintering after independence is likely, but the Deep South will probably be the last to go, and it will probably take longer than you posit.

AStanley

April 19th, 2012, 12:28 AM

Nice map and its probably the most realistic CSA victory map posted on the site. The CSA splintering after independence is likely, but the Deep South will probably be the last to go, and it will probably take longer than you posit.

Thank you!

Though I think most of the CSA will be back within 15 years, the Union is so big they can't effectively resist, so while many are unhappy with the idea, the leaders go along with it to preserve their power.

NothingNow

April 19th, 2012, 12:30 AM

Elfwine

April 19th, 2012, 12:36 AM

Thank you!

Though I think most of the CSA will be back within 15 years, the Union is so big they can't effectively resist, so while many are unhappy with the idea, the leaders go along with it to preserve their power.

So the CSA is strong enough to win its independence, but the people who genuinely believed before the war that Southroners could beat Yankees (and this is more than just the elite) are going to feel they can't maintain it?

AStanley

April 19th, 2012, 12:55 AM

So the CSA is strong enough to win its independence, but the people who genuinely believed before the war that Southroners could beat Yankees (and this is more than just the elite) are going to feel they can't maintain it?

The Confederates did not Win, the United States lost ;)

The Confederacy is going to face huge problems, notably economic crisis (Cotton isn't King anymore), famine, Slave revolts, and the costs of sustaining an Army, while the nation is already horribly in debt.

The POD is also in 1864, so a lot of the South is devastated already, plus important cities, notably New Orleans and Norfolk are not in their possession. The Confederates have in addition had to give up 2 territories (Indian Territory, CSA Arizona), and 5 1/2 states they claimed they owned (Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, and half of Virginia). This will be pretty devastating on faith in the Government. Plus Texas later successfully revolts, because Confederate armies have to travel by sea to reach them, which proves to be a Disastrous logistical challenge. The defeat inflicted on them by Texas also proves to hurt Confederate faith in their Government.

In addition this United States is going to be fairly lenient, since the states get to keep slavery, and Its unlikely they would turn down an offer so good, when the other side can just inflict a more severe peace without struggle.

Elfwine

April 19th, 2012, 01:01 AM

The Confederates did not Win, the United States lost ;)

The difference, to the people in question, is minimal.

The Confederacy is going to face huge problems, notably economic crisis (Cotton isn't King anymore), famine, Slave revolts, and the costs of sustaining an Army, while the nation is already horribly in debt.

And what does this have to do with anything? You're assuming being practical suddenly dawns on people who have been ideologues up to this point.

The POD is also in 1864, so a lot of the South is devastated already, plus important cities, notably New Orleans and Norfolk are not in their possession. The Confederates have in addition had to give up 2 territories (Indian Territory, CSA Arizona), and 5 1/2 states they claimed they owned (Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, and half of Virginia). This will be pretty devastating on faith in the Government. Plus Texas later successfully revolts, because Confederate armies have to travel by sea to reach them, which proves to be a Disastrous logistical challenge. The defeat inflicted on them by Texas also proves to hurt Confederate faith in their Government.

Why does Texas decide to revolt? Why does the devastation - after a successful war (for the areas outside Yankee hands) - make them lose faith in the government more than they hate and resent the Yankees?

In addition this United States is going to be fairly lenient, since the states get to keep slavery, and Its unlikely they would turn down an offer so good, when the other side can just inflict a more severe peace without struggle.

So the US is going to scrap the EP?

I'm not really convinced of this scenario. Not to mention that if the Union has given up the war, it's not really in a position to inflict a more severe anything by virtue of the same weak will that kept it from finishing things.

AStanley

April 19th, 2012, 01:16 AM

The difference, to the people in question, is minimal.

And what does this have to do with anything? You're assuming being practical suddenly dawns on people who have been ideologues up to this point.

Why does Texas decide to revolt? Why does the devastation - after a successful war (for the areas outside Yankee hands) - make them lose faith in the government more than they hate and resent the Yankees?

So the US is going to scrap the EP?

I'm not really convinced of this scenario. Not to mention that if the Union has given up the war, it's not really in a position to inflict a more severe anything by virtue of the same weak will that kept it from finishing things.

Fair Enough.

When the cost of living skyrockets, you become more practical.

When Texas seceded 1/4 of voters were opposed to it add in the number of slaves, and that number grows. Also add the people who no longer have access to the markets they used to under the US because of Economic pressure, and other people without food, jobs, etc.. Also, since Texas is separate from the CSA, and would be readily supplied with arms from America, revolting is not hard. Texans also will still be able to keep slavery, but will not be a Pariah, and will be able to trade effectively with other nations (including the US), and It will not be difficult to achieve.

The US may have a weak will at the moment, but it will still focus on the final goal of reclaiming the CSA (a break to regain strength and willpower). Plus, if the US can break up the Confederacy by applying economic pressure and diplomatic means, it saves them a lot of work down the road.

SPJ

April 19th, 2012, 02:10 AM

Astanley what website did you get that map from before you edited it?

usertron2020

April 19th, 2012, 05:58 AM

I assume it would be left with the CSA as not much of Texas was occupied. Plus the Union will probably think long term, and encourage Texas to revolt. ( I have a feeling that if the Union gets Texas, the Confederates will get more land in Virginia and Western Tennessee, and If the Confederacy is split apart rather than consolidated that serves the Union better.)

Much of Northern and Central Texas at this time was still hunted by Native Americans. Indeed, they waged one of the most successful counter-offensives by Natives against Whites in the history of the Old West. By the time of the end of the ACW, they had driven Whites back to mostly their pre-1850 borders. Unfortunately for them, Major General Phil Sheridan showed up with four Union Corps to threaten the Imperial French with, and when Sheridan found himself with nothing to do (as the French were departing Mexico), he turned on the Natives.:eek: OTL the Confederates were only in strength in El Paso, the South, the East, and the South-Center.

There's a lot of territory there for the Union to just march into, once the rails are sufficiently advanced. And the Texas Confederates have no hope of reinforcement from the Rump Confederacy.

Elfwine

April 19th, 2012, 06:10 AM

Fair Enough.

When the cost of living skyrockets, you become more practical.

Which explains why the Confederacy saw so many people who were otherwise pro-Confederate change their minds OTL. :rolleyes:

When Texas seceded 1/4 of voters were opposed to it add in the number of slaves, and that number grows. Also add the people who no longer have access to the markets they used to under the US because of Economic pressure, and other people without food, jobs, etc.. Also, since Texas is separate from the CSA, and would be readily supplied with arms from America, revolting is not hard. Texans also will still be able to keep slavery, but will not be a Pariah, and will be able to trade effectively with other nations (including the US), and It will not be difficult to achieve.

How many of those were opposed to it stayed unionists during the war? As for economic things: Texas got off pretty lightly, they have no reason to feel especially hurt by the war except by the loss of menfolk.

The US may have a weak will at the moment, but it will still focus on the final goal of reclaiming the CSA (a break to regain strength and willpower). Plus, if the US can break up the Confederacy by applying economic pressure and diplomatic means, it saves them a lot of work down the road.

So it has a weak enough will to concede the war, but not so weak as to not be more worried about trying to get on with things. I don't buy this.

Fiver

April 19th, 2012, 01:21 PM

Also, where does the idea of the CSA getting land from Mexico come from? :confused:.

Many southerners were expansionistic. Also, during the ACW they tried to get the northern tier of Mexican states (http://azrebel.tripod.com/page11.html) to join them.

Johnrankins

April 19th, 2012, 01:32 PM

Which explains why the Confederacy saw so many people who were otherwise pro-Confederate change their minds OTL. :rolleyes:

How many of those were opposed to it stayed unionists during the war? As for economic things: Texas got off pretty lightly, they have no reason to feel especially hurt by the war except by the loss of menfolk.

So it has a weak enough will to concede the war, but not so weak as to not be more worried about trying to get on with things. I don't buy this.

Very true, but TX is gone shortly the US decides to invade it. It is entirely cut off from the rest of the CSA. It would take time to mass forces but
if the US can goad the Texans into starting a fight it is gone. TX can't fight the rest of the US by itself and the rest of the CSA can't do much to help it.

Elfwine

April 19th, 2012, 01:40 PM

Very true, but TX is gone shortly the US decides to invade it. It is entirely cut off from the rest of the CSA. It would take time to mass forces but
if the US can goad the Texans into starting a fight it is gone. TX can't fight the rest of the US by itself and the rest of the CSA can't do much to help it.

That I agree to. Especially with Texas bleeding sorely from the war and hard pressed by Indians.

67th Tigers

April 19th, 2012, 04:41 PM

The Confederates did not Win, the United States lost ;)

No difference.

The Confederacy is going to face huge problems, notably economic crisis (Cotton isn't King anymore), famine, Slave revolts, and the costs of sustaining an Army, while the nation is already horribly in debt.

Cotton is the most valuable product of the old US, and cotton manufactures are the largest industrial sector in the rump USA. The CSA now not only exports to the UK and a few others, but to the rump USA who need a million bales a year, about $100 m in 1860 dollars. Together with tobacco, indigo and a few other materials the USA will be bound into trade with the CSA.

In fact the situation for the rump USA is bleaker than implied. Without cotton backing their currency, and possible with the loss of specie income depending on the events on the west coast, the rump USA will struggle to maintain their standard of living.

Famine? The CSA produces a food surplus in peacetime - i.e. when no hostile armies are disrupting transport.

Slave rebellions? Neither more or less likely than under the USA - i.e. rare and minor.

Sustaining an army? It won't be that large.

The POD is also in 1864, so a lot of the South is devastated already, plus important cities, notably New Orleans and Norfolk are not in their possession. The Confederates have in addition had to give up 2 territories (Indian Territory, CSA Arizona), and 5 1/2 states they claimed they owned (Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, and half of Virginia). This will be pretty devastating on faith in the Government. Plus Texas later successfully revolts, because Confederate armies have to travel by sea to reach them, which proves to be a Disastrous logistical challenge. The defeat inflicted on them by Texas also proves to hurt Confederate faith in their Government.

In addition this United States is going to be fairly lenient, since the states get to keep slavery, and Its unlikely they would turn down an offer so good, when the other side can just inflict a more severe peace without struggle.

So what if territory is occupied? It will be returned in the peace settlement. That's what peace settlements do, they remove armies from each others territory....

Elfwine

April 19th, 2012, 04:45 PM

67th Tigers

April 19th, 2012, 05:39 PM

Apparently 67th has decided to ignore the state of the "rump" US during the war, or how much economic prosperity shot upward for the country on the whole (not so much the South) afterwards, OTL.

Cotton was not vital to the US economy. Just the Southern cotton growing states.

Balls. Cotton manufactures were the dominant industry of the north (and still was the largest by a massive margin in 1913), and US prosperity went down as a result of the civil war. The northern states recovered to their 1860 level of consumption in 1873, and then it promptly declined again until into the 1880's as a result of the 1873 long depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873).

The US produced ca. 5.3 million bales of cotton in 1860, and the major consumers were:

Britain: 3.1 million
US: 1.1 million
France: 0.8 million

Cotton manufactures were worth $116 m in 1860, the largest manufacturing sector in the US, significantly greater than iron in all forms. Like the UK, cotton was backbone of industrialisation. No cotton = no industrial revolution.

Zmflavius

April 19th, 2012, 05:44 PM

Balls. Cotton manufactures were the dominant industry of the north (and still was the largest by a massive margin in 1913), and US prosperity went down as a result of the civil war. The northern states recovered to their 1860 level of consumption in 1873, and then it promptly declined again until into the 1880's as a result of the 1873 long depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873).

The US produced ca. 5.3 million bales of cotton in 1860, and the major consumers were:

Britain: 3.1 million
US: 1.1 million
France: 0.8 million

Cotton manufactures were worth $116 m in 1860, the largest manufacturing sector in the US, significantly greater than iron in all forms. Like the UK, cotton was backbone of industrialisation. No cotton = no industrial revolution.

For a start, the US produced 3.8 million bales of cotton in 1860, not 5.3.

Elfwine

April 19th, 2012, 05:51 PM

Balls. Cotton manufactures were the dominant industry of the north (and still was the largest by a massive margin in 1913), and US prosperity went down as a result of the civil war. The northern states recovered to their 1860 level of consumption in 1873, and then it promptly declined again until into the 1880's as a result of the 1873 long depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873).

:rolleyes:

The US produced ca. 5.3 million bales of cotton in 1860, and the major consumers were:

Britain: 3.1 million
US: 1.1 million
France: 0.8 million

Cotton manufactures were worth $116 m in 1860, the largest manufacturing sector in the US, significantly greater than iron in all forms. Like the UK, cotton was backbone of industrialisation. No cotton = no industrial revolution.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3406400266.html

"By 1860, however, there were over 140,000 manufacturing establishments employing more than 1.3 million people to produce just under $2 billion in products."

So even if cotton outweighs any individual other product (which I find doubtful), it certainly does not dominate manufacturing in general.

67th Tigers

April 19th, 2012, 06:06 PM

For a start, the US produced 3.8 million bales of cotton in 1860, not 5.3.

What size bales?

I can answer that for you. You're using modern 500 lb bales, not contemporary 400 lb ones.

Zmflavius

April 19th, 2012, 06:12 PM

What size bales?

I can answer that for you. You're using modern 500 lb bales, not contemporary 400 lb ones.

That still leads to only 4.75 mil bales, not your 5.3 figure.

AStanley

April 20th, 2012, 01:08 AM

No difference.

Cotton is the most valuable product of the old US, and cotton manufactures are the largest industrial sector in the rump USA. The CSA now not only exports to the UK and a few others, but to the rump USA who need a million bales a year, about $100 m in 1860 dollars. Together with tobacco, indigo and a few other materials the USA will be bound into trade with the CSA.

In fact the situation for the rump USA is bleaker than implied. Without cotton backing their currency, and possible with the loss of specie income depending on the events on the west coast, the rump USA will struggle to maintain their standard of living.

Famine? The CSA produces a food surplus in peacetime - i.e. when no hostile armies are disrupting transport.

Slave rebellions? Neither more or less likely than under the USA - i.e. rare and minor.

Sustaining an army? It won't be that large.

So what if territory is occupied? It will be returned in the peace settlement. That's what peace settlements do, they remove armies from each others territory....

Why would Britain trade with the confederacy when their own people are making enough cotton? :confused:. France as explained wont be trading with them, so what nations will trade with the CSA? Plus the states the US annexed are providing cotton for the US, so why would the CSA be so much more favorable to trade with? because of this Northern Industrialists will be able to get cotton cheap from the southern growers because nobody else will buy.

They would need a large army, If they let it get too small, the US would just invade.

The former slave revolts would not have a foreign power supplying them with munitions

The Mississippi River and Norfolk are indefinitely occupied until another deal can be made later (which never materializes in this scenario). Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, Union Virginia, and the CSA territories are never going to be given back to the CSA.

AStanley

April 20th, 2012, 01:14 AM

Astanley what website did you get that map from before you edited it?

I found it here somewhere, but I can't find it anymore.

Which explains why the Confederacy saw so many people who were otherwise pro-Confederate change their minds OTL. :rolleyes:

How many of those were opposed to it stayed unionists during the war? As for economic things: Texas got off pretty lightly, they have no reason to feel especially hurt by the war except by the loss of menfolk.

So it has a weak enough will to concede the war, but not so weak as to not be more worried about trying to get on with things. I don't buy this.

Wars are not always popular with the public, however, I don't think whoever got elected wants to go down as the man who lost the US the South. I think it would be a popular move to get the CSA back without war.

Elfwine

April 20th, 2012, 01:23 AM

Wars are not always popular with the public, however, I don't think whoever got elected wants to go down as the man who lost the US the South. I think it would be a popular move to get the CSA back without war.

Whoever gets elected in a CSA-wins-by-Union-wimping-out will be running as the man willing to lose the South to end the war, though.

AStanley

April 20th, 2012, 01:25 AM

Whoever gets elected in a CSA-wins-by-Union-wimping-out will be running as the man willing to lose the South to end the war, though.

I'm not sure they are willing to lose the south forever, but lose it for a time to allow the Union to get stronger and defeat the south again from a position of strength.

usertron2020

April 20th, 2012, 01:32 AM

I'm not sure they are willing to lose the south forever, but lose it for a time to allow the Union to get stronger and defeat the south again from a position of strength.

Especially if the Republicans stage an electoral comeback in 1868.

Elfwine

April 20th, 2012, 01:32 AM

I'm not sure they are willing to lose the south forever, but lose it for a time to allow the Union to get stronger and defeat the south again from a position of strength.

The problem is that the Union already has a position of strength.

So . . . "lose the South".

And a public and party willing to accept forfeiting is not going to want to continue the war by other means, they want this over and done with.

That's the problem.

67th Tigers

April 20th, 2012, 01:46 AM

Why would Britain trade with the confederacy when their own people are making enough cotton? :confused:. France as explained wont be trading with them, so what nations will trade with the CSA? Plus the states the US annexed are providing cotton for the US, so why would the CSA be so much more favorable to trade with? because of this Northern Industrialists will be able to get cotton cheap from the southern growers because nobody else will buy.

This displays a total lack of understanding of the economics of the time.

The Confederacy would be, like it was whilst still in the Union, the worlds major cotton grower. Cotton ginning is the worlds number 1 manufacture. There simply aren't alternatives to Confederate cotton for the UK or rump US.

People have to buy clothes. Period. Perhaps you think the people of the rump US will go naked rather than trade with the CSA, but I suspect that would not be the case.

They would need a large army, If they let it get too small, the US would just invade.

and the US is going to maintain a large standing army? So, prolonged peacetime taxation and slowed economic growth?

The former slave revolts would not have a foreign power supplying them with munitions

Nor would they this time. The US has no interest in interrupting the cotton supply, and probably getting the **** kicked out of them by Britain for fermenting race war and generally acting like twits.

The Mississippi River and Norfolk are indefinitely occupied until another deal can be made later (which never materializes in this scenario). Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, Union Virginia, and the CSA territories are never going to be given back to the CSA.

There is no peace then. It would be an unacceptable situation. Certainly not what the thread was after, the "best possible Confederate victory" is it?

AStanley

April 20th, 2012, 01:48 AM

Especially if the Republicans stage an electoral comeback in 1868.

That could very well happen.

The problem is that the Union already has a position of strength.

So . . . "lose the South".

And a public and party willing to accept forfeiting is not going to want to continue the war by other means, they want this over and done with.

That's the problem.

Usertron made a very good point, the Republicans could win again in 1868, or maybe even later in 1872. If there is a administration change they might try to retake the south.

Johnrankins

April 20th, 2012, 01:58 AM

Why would Britain trade with the confederacy when their own people are making enough cotton? :confused:. France as explained wont be trading with them, so what nations will trade with the CSA? Plus the states the US annexed are providing cotton for the US, so why would the CSA be so much more favorable to trade with? because of this Northern Industrialists will be able to get cotton cheap from the southern growers because nobody else will buy.

They would need a large army, If they let it get too small, the US would just invade.

The former slave revolts would not have a foreign power supplying them with munitions

The Mississippi River and Norfolk are indefinitely occupied until another deal can be made later (which never materializes in this scenario). Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, Union Virginia, and the CSA territories are never going to be given back to the CSA.

During the war the terms of trade for corn for cotton or salt for cotton were far better for the North than they were before the war. This would have been reduced somewhat after the war but not as much as OTL. The CSA would have to pay back all that debt (OTL it was made void after the war so the South didn't pay dime one back after the war) and the US government subsidized in various ways the reconstruction of the South. In TTL the South wouldn't have those advantages so it would take longer for them to rebound economically. It took at least one generation and likely two for the South to fully recover from the Civil War. In TTL it would probably take at least two and likely three to fully recover.

AStanley

April 20th, 2012, 01:59 AM

This displays a total lack of understanding of the economics of the time.

The Confederacy would be, like it was whilst still in the Union, the worlds major cotton grower. Cotton ginning is the worlds number 1 manufacture. There simply aren't alternatives to Confederate cotton for the UK or rump US.

People have to buy clothes. Period. Perhaps you think the people of the rump US will go naked rather than trade with the CSA, but I suspect that would not be the case.

and the US is going to maintain a large standing army? So, prolonged peacetime taxation and slowed economic growth?

Nor would they this time. The US has no interest in interrupting the cotton supply, and probably getting the **** kicked out of them by Britain for fermenting race war and generally acting like twits.

There is no peace then. It would be an unacceptable situation. Certainly not what the thread was after, the "best possible Confederate victory" is it?

Have you taken into account that they have lost 5 1/2 states, have had many cotton fields devastated, and the UK has increased its production significantly during the war?

The US controls controls control growing areas and can trade with the British if push comes to shove.

The US doesn't have to sustain a large army, just one slightly larger than the confederate army. The Confederates will be hurt economically much more per soldier fielded than the Union will.

As I said, the Union has cotton growing states. Plus why would the UK go to war with the United States? :confused: They wont be trading much at all with the CSA, and are they going to side with a nation trying to get rid of slavery (albeit slowly...) or a nation supporting slavery, solely on the issue of slavery?

This is the best case I can imagine that is realistic. The Best possible Confederate Victory is all claimed area's and break up the rest of America, however there is close to 0 change that can happen.

Elfwine

April 20th, 2012, 02:00 AM

Usertron made a very good point, the Republicans could win again in 1868, or maybe even later in 1872. If there is a administration change they might try to retake the south.

But that wouldn't exactly be the Best Possible Confederate Victory, just a time out in the war.

AStanley

April 20th, 2012, 02:03 AM

But that wouldn't exactly be the Best Possible Confederate Victory, just a time out in the war.

I don't see why the United States would want to give up the south. In this Scenario, the CSA won, or the US lost or whatever. This is not asking for the best case CSA, its just saying the best case they can win the war with.

Fiver

April 20th, 2012, 02:07 AM

The CSA now not only exports to the UK and a few others, but to the rump USA who need a million bales a year, about $100 m in 1860 dollars.

In peacetime cotton was 10 cents (http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/articles/291/cotton-and-the-civil-war) a pound. On average a US Cotton bale weighed 443 pounds (http://books.google.com/books?id=XG5HAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA8-PA4). A million bales would cost about $44 million, not $100 million.

(http://books.google.com/books?id=XG5HAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA8-PA4)Without cotton backing their currency, and possible with the loss of specie income depending on the events on the west coast, the rump USA will struggle to maintain their standard of living.

Cotton never backed the US currency and period California had about as much chance joining the Confederacy as period Wales had of joining the French. There is a very slim chance the CSA might seize part of Arizona Territory, but based on OTL, those mines won't be producing significant ore until a couple decades after the ACW. As during the war, the CSA has virtually no specie, leading to massive inflation.

So what if territory is occupied? It will be returned in the peace settlement. That's what peace settlements do, they remove armies from each others territory....

From the Union point of view the entirety of the Confederacy was Union territory. Withdrawing all Confederate armies from Union territory results in the Union regaining all of the Confederacy. I'm reasonably sure the Confederacy won't agree to that.:D

But peace treaties aren't based on what nations claim belongs to them, they're based on what armies actually hold. If it didn't work that way, Britain would never have become an Empire.

Elfwine

April 20th, 2012, 02:13 AM

I don't see why the United States would want to give up the south. In this Scenario, the CSA won, or the US lost or whatever. This is not asking for the best case CSA, its just saying the best case they can win the war with.

The same reason anyone would want to give up in a civil war.

And while the North may want to take the South back, given a chance, any Northern forfeit will be with the North feeling that defeatist.

AStanley

April 20th, 2012, 02:15 AM

The same reason anyone would want to give up in a civil war.

And while the North may want to take the South back, given a chance, any Northern forfeit will be with the North feeling that defeatist.

In any event, Isn't it likely the CSA falls apart on its own and the Union can just step in and pick up the pieces.

Fiver

April 20th, 2012, 03:21 AM

Cotton manufactures were worth $116 m in 1860, the largest manufacturing sector in the US, significantly greater than iron in all forms.

Total 1860 US manufactures (http://books.google.com/books?id=7IwGAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA614) was about $1886 million. About $116 million was cotton manufactures (6.2% of the total). About $115 million was iron manufactures (6.1% of the total).

Fiver

April 20th, 2012, 04:14 AM

There simply aren't alternatives to Confederate cotton for the UK or rump US.

People have to buy clothes. Period. Perhaps you think the people of the rump US will go naked rather than trade with the CSA, but I suspect that would not be the case.

I know you think the Yankees were stupid, but we can assume most of them have heard of flax and sheep.

US wool (http://books.google.com/books?id=rF0CAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA74) manufactures were about $81 million in 1860, compared to $116 million for cotton. By 1870, US wool manufactures were over $40 million higher than cotton manufactures. There's also plenty of sources for imported cloth, in 1860 the UK exported £4.8 million of linen.

usertron2020

April 20th, 2012, 04:32 AM

I know you think the Yankees were stupid...

This. Fiver, you just summed up his entire philosophy with that one short line.:p

Except that it would have to apply not to just in that time period, but always.:mad:

usertron2020

April 20th, 2012, 04:36 AM

In any event, Isn't it likely the CSA falls apart on its own and the Union can just step in and pick up the pieces.

Yes. Starting with Texas, then working around the edges of the less economically viable Confed states, as well as less enthusiastic ones, like North Carolina. I wonder if the Union would consider a more county-by-county strategy of re-conquest, like in West Virginia/Union Virginia? Makes for a nice argument of "County Self-Determination".:rolleyes:

usertron2020

April 20th, 2012, 04:56 AM

This displays a total lack of understanding of the economics of the time.

The Confederacy would be, like it was whilst still in the Union, the worlds major cotton grower. Cotton ginning is the worlds number 1 manufacture. There simply aren't alternatives to Confederate cotton for the UK (1) or rump US.(2)

1) Google "India" + "Cotton"

2) The USA has cut the Confederacy off from any contact with their "claimed" Confederate Border States, conquered 3 Confederate states, more than half of Virginia, isolated spots of the rest of the South, can easily swallow up Texas at will, and you're calling the South the "Confederacy" and the North the "rump USA"?:rolleyes: Some "rump". Typical.

Cotton =/= specie
Gold and Silver and Copper = specie
California IS NOT a Confederate State, despite your Negationist claims to the contrary. Indeed, the furthest the South ever got West was in the Arizona Territory, where they were stopped cold by a unit of Union California Cavalry. The Californians DID NOT desert to the Confederates.:p

People have to buy clothes. Period. Perhaps you think the people of the rump US will go naked rather than trade with the CSA, but I suspect that would not be the case.

Google the words "Flax" + "Wool":rolleyes: While you're at it, check out how many cotton producing countries there were in the world at the time (include the USA please, as their conquests in the South give them very sizable levels of cotton production).

Nor would they this time. The US has no interest in interrupting the cotton supply, and probably getting the **** kicked out of them by Britain for fermenting race war and generally acting like twits.

So you see the British Empire invading the USA to stop them from attempting to help a people in bondage to free themselves? Of course you do. I always thought of you being SO Anti-American. But the more I read your posts, the more I'm beginning to think its the BRITISH for whom your contempt is truly limitless.:(

With logic like yours, the USA, being so irredeemably greedy, would never have gone to war in the first place.

Wolfpaw

April 20th, 2012, 04:59 AM

Why do people still bother responding to 67th Tigers? The guy clearly lives in an Alt that would make Jubal Early blush.

AStanley

April 20th, 2012, 05:01 AM

Yes. Starting with Texas, then working around the edges of the less economically viable Confed states, as well as less enthusiastic ones, like North Carolina. I wonder of the Union would consider a more county-by-county strategy of re-conquest, like in West Virginia/Union Virginia? Makes for a nice argument of "County Self-Determination".:rolleyes:

County by County :eek: That's going to produce one interesting looking map...

If North Carolina secedes, I wonder if that could be the catalyst for the CSA completely falling apart.

Do you think the United States would step in and help defend North Carolina? or would it have the strength on its own to be alright?

usertron2020

April 20th, 2012, 05:21 AM

County by County :eek: That's going to produce one interesting looking map...(1)

If North Carolina secedes, I wonder if that could be the catalyst for the CSA completely falling apart.

Do you think the United States would step in and help defend North Carolina? or would it have the strength on its own to be alright?

1) I suspect that eventually it would all be worked out equitably. Though if what happened with West Virginia OTL is any indication, more Unionist states like North Carolina MIGHT just wind up with a few more counties within her borders. And at South Carolina's expense.:D OTL, IIRC, emissaries of the North Carolina governor approached General Sherman as he was about to enter the state, with the offer to surrender the state entire, without resistance.

Sherman wasn't empowered to accept the surrender, but he DID order his men to behave themselves within North Carolina, to a degree not seen anywhere outside the Border States or Unionist East Tennessee.:) There were very few "Sherman's Toothpicks" in North Carolina because of this. Anyway, the war WAS almost over.

The governor of North Carolina, upon secession OTL, declared that it was more a recognition of geography than any great desire of his constituents to join the Confederacy. They had one of the lowest, if not THE lowest, White to Slave ratios in the South. The same thing that made South Carolina so fire-eating made their brethren to the north far more reluctant to adopt the Stars and Bars.

The state was Unionist in the Eastern shores and Appalachian West, but in the center, where most of the people and $$$ was, they were Secessionists. North Carolina couldn't hold out in the face of a north-south attack from Virginia (Confederate) and the Rump Deep South. The Union would have some trouble re-enforcing the North Carolinians from the sea and the rail lines from Tennessee, but they could do it.

Assuming the one million man fire-eating slavery-supporting British Army doesn't instantly materialize (Beam us down, Scotty!) and scare everybody away...:p

usertron2020

April 20th, 2012, 05:25 AM

Why do people still bother responding to 67th Tigers?(1) The guy clearly lives in an Alt that would make Jubal Early blush.

You clearly haven't read Jubal Early, then.:rolleyes: That man was so shameless as a "historian" he makes 67th Tigers look like Dolores Kearns Goodwin!:)

1) In answer to your question, for the cheap thrills of shooting fish in a bucket. The fact that the fish in question are so righteously arrogant while at the same time being so factually wrong just makes it all the more satisfying. This guy is so illogical in his thinking as to drive a Vulcan to a nervous breakdown.

Elfwine

April 20th, 2012, 05:27 AM

Why do people still bother responding to 67th Tigers? The guy clearly lives in an Alt that would make Jubal Early blush.

Mostly because I'm too stubborn to let someone spout untruths, but mey excuse is that it needs to be pointed out that they are to those who are less familiar. 67th is very good at looking like the figures are on his side.

usertron2020

April 20th, 2012, 05:39 AM

Mostly because I'm too stubborn to let someone spout untruths, but my excuse is that it needs to be pointed out that they are to those who are less familiar. 67th is very good at looking like the figures are on his side.

Indeed. Early on in my time on the forum I fell for his tactics quite regularly.:o It took others calling him out, then me doing my own research, to take the measure of the man. The straw that broke the camel's back for me was his telling me I was wrong, and that I should refer to two books he recommended to get my facts straight.(1) That is one of his standard tricks, to suggest whole references rather than simply give quotations. Like we are all going to crack out and read another 800 page history every time he says so (which is usually about every three days!).:eek:

1) The trouble was, I already had the two books, had read them, quoted them, and reported them as sources. When I posted this to him, he denied that the references said what I said they did. So I quoted specific pages and passages. His response? None, of course. After that, I knew what I was dealing with. Thank God he teaches Chemistry. I shudder to think what he'd do to young minds were he teaching a curriculum that allowed for opinion.:(

Oops! I just remembered! You know this story Elfwine.:o Oh well, for the edification of our younger members, then.:o

Elfwine

April 20th, 2012, 05:46 AM

usertron2020

April 20th, 2012, 05:59 AM

As someone who suspects they've seen him in a specifically ACW forum (by the name and the fact I've seen all of ONE diehard defender of McClellan in various discussions I've been in, and this one and that one seem to think the same things) . . .

Yeah, he's not surprising. What bewilders me is that its not sufficient for him to point out things like oh, the fact the British Empire does outweigh the US. No, the US has to be a nation incapable of accomplishing squat while the British only let the US live because they were too kind.

Posting it here only as a reminder for some and a telling portrait for others to see. I don't like to mention other websites here, but the site spacebattles.com has a 20 page thread there entitled "War Plan Red/Orange", postulating a 1942 variant. 67th Tigers is all over it, and according to him, and two other posters (An Ancient and "Tigger":rolleyes:;):confused:) the USA not only doesn't stand a chance, but they have huge hoardes of British armor sweeping over the Mid-Western Plains!:eek: Why? How? Answer: Because the British are allowed four years to mobilize and send their entire armed forces to Canada, with no reaction from the USA, and the USA in 1942 still left with its 1938 level of forces and deployments. And Pearl Harbor still happens.:rolleyes: That, pretty much, puts his mindset in a nutshell.

Elfwine

April 20th, 2012, 06:01 AM

It's things like that that make me unable to afford even his less extreme arguments any credibility.

67th Tigers

April 20th, 2012, 12:17 PM

Posting it here only as a reminder for some and a telling portrait for others to see. I don't like to mention other websites here, but the site spacebattles.com has a 20 page thread there entitled "War Plan Red/Orange", postulating a 1942 variant. 67th Tigers is all over it, and according to him, and two other posters (An Ancient and "Tigger":rolleyes:;):confused:) the USA not only doesn't stand a chance, but they have huge hoardes of British armor sweeping over the Mid-Western Plains!:eek: Why? How? Answer: Because the British are allowed four years to mobilize and send their entire armed forces to Canada, with no reaction from the USA, and the USA in 1942 still left with its 1938 level of forces and deployments. And Pearl Harbor still happens.:rolleyes: That, pretty much, puts his mindset in a nutshell.

Strawman.

I don't recognise any of these points from my argument.

67th Tigers

April 20th, 2012, 12:43 PM

I know you think the Yankees were stupid

Au contraire. I assume they were not, which is why I object to some of the poorly thought out thesis driven ideology that appears here from certain quarters.

Mr. Magi

April 20th, 2012, 04:01 PM

Usertron, could you post a link to that very discussion? I want to be able to say that this:

Strawman.

I don't recognise any of these points from my argument.

Is as full of wrong as all the arguments that he makes that muddies and ruins all ACW threads for me.

Au contraire. I assume they were not, which is why I object to some of the poorly thought out thesis driven ideology that appears here from certain quarters.

And stating that the UK would bother to go all out on the US while the US is somehow unable to go above its own current force to counter it isn't poorly thought out?

Anywho, I'd imagine that the US would definitely use NC breaking from the CSA as a casus belli depending on the administration. Because at the very least, NC should be easier to supply from now that TN is in the Union, plus the CSA would be even weaker at that point.

usertron2020

April 20th, 2012, 06:48 PM

Strawman.

I don't recognise any of these points from my argument.

"Point?" and "Strawman". Two of your favorite words when you are left with no defense. And are you now "forgetting" also your bright idea of the Royal Navy sending Heavy Cruisers up the St.Lawrence Seaway to devastate American cities all over the shores of the Great Lakes (granting the RAF Air Supremacy)? As I recall when someone pointed out that doing this in 1942 would be a teeny-tiny bit difficult as the St.Lawrence Seaway would not open until 1959 you responded with your typical erudite silence.

Johnrankins

April 20th, 2012, 07:50 PM

"Point?" and "Strawman". Two of your favorite words when you are left with no defense. And are you now "forgetting" also your bright idea of the Royal Navy sending Heavy Cruisers up a St.Lawrence Seaway to devastate American cities all over the shores of the Great Lakes (granting the RAF Air Supremacy)? As I recall when someone pointed out that doing this in 1942 would be a teeny-tiny bit difficult as the St.Lawrence Seaway would not open until 1959 you responded with your typical erudite silence.

I take it the facts that in 1942 the US had a real navy and airforce, that the Brits were busy fighting Nazi Germany and need a good part of its navy to protect itself and its empire, that it was increasingly dependent on American Lend-Lease, that the logistical problems would be a bitch, that the RN can't win it on its own and the British Army wouldn't suddenly appear on the US border without being noticed all escaped him somehow. Also the fact that if it is fighting GB the US would suddenly find reasons to become pals with Japan.

Fiver

April 20th, 2012, 11:24 PM

Why do people still bother responding to 67th Tigers? The guy clearly lives in an Alt that would make Jubal Early blush.

Obviously, there's no point in trying to convince 67th, no amount of evidence will change his opinions. As noted, 67th is good at looking like the figures are on his side; I reply so other people will know the facts do not support 67th.

Fiver

April 20th, 2012, 11:54 PM

Strawman.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.":D

I don't recognise any of these points from my argument.

Perhaps this (http://forums.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=156926) will refresh your memory.:D

Elfwine

April 21st, 2012, 12:05 AM

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

You are not logged in. Fill in the form at the bottom of this page and try again.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Just to note that the rest of us can't read it without registering first. Then again, do we really want to?

AStanley

April 21st, 2012, 12:25 AM

Anywho, I'd imagine that the US would definitely use NC breaking from the CSA as a casus belli depending on the administration. Because at the very least, NC should be easier to supply from now that TN is in the Union, plus the CSA would be even weaker at that point.

1) I suspect that eventually it would all be worked out equitably. Though if what happened with West Virginia OTL is any indication, more Unionist states like North Carolina MIGHT just wind up with a few more counties within her borders. And at South Carolina's expense.:D OTL, IIRC, emissaries of the North Carolina governor approached General Sherman as he was about to enter the state, with the offer to surrender the state entire, without resistance.

Sherman wasn't empowered to accept the surrender, but he DID order his men to behave themselves within North Carolina, to a degree not seen anywhere outside the Border States or Unionist East Tennessee.:) There were very few "Sherman's Toothpicks" in North Carolina because of this. Anyway, the war WAS almost over.

The governor of North Carolina, upon secession OTL, declared that it was more a recognition of geography than any great desire of his constituents to join the Confederacy. They had one of the lowest, if not THE lowest, White to Slave ratios in the South. The same thing that made South Carolina so fire-eating made their brethren to the north far more reluctant to adopt the Stars and Bars.

The state was Unionist in the Eastern shores and Appalachian West, but in the center, where most of the people and $$$ was, they were Secessionists. North Carolina couldn't hold out in the face of a north-south attack from Virginia (Confederate) and the Rump Deep South. The Union would have some trouble re-enforcing the North Carolinians from the sea and the rail lines from Tennessee, but they could do it.

Assuming the one million man fire-eating slavery-supporting British Army doesn't instantly materialize (Beam us down, Scotty!) and scare everybody away...:p

Does anyone have an idea for a proper POD in this scenario? I think we would have to either make the war so unpopular that Lincoln loses, or have Lincoln die and Hamlin get beaten. All the while we need to find a way to have someone not McClellan win.

Apparently Lincoln was nearly killed at the Battle of Fort Stevens because he wasn't keeping his head down or something. Is it too late of a POD?

usertron2020

April 21st, 2012, 04:56 AM

I take it the facts that in 1942 the US had a real navy and airforce, that the Brits were busy fighting Nazi Germany and need a good part of its navy to protect itself and its empire, that it was increasingly dependent on American Lend-Lease, that the logistical problems would be a bitch, that the RN can't win it on its own and the British Army wouldn't suddenly appear on the US border without being noticed all escaped him somehow. Also the fact that if it is fighting GB the US would suddenly find reasons to become pals with Japan.

Oh no, the Thread was nothing like that. Totally different Time Line. France has conquered Nazi Germany in the mid-thirties due to Hitler's moving into the Rhineland, so Hitler and Europe's WWII is aborted. Politics are thrown out the window otherwise, regarding a War Plan Red/Orange. So you have a four year period of increasing tensions between the US on the one side, and the UK and Japan on the other.

It was when certain people decided that the British and Japanese could engage a WWII level of buildup and mobilization for four long years (1938-1942) and the British strategically redeploy their whole military to Canada in that time frame. Plus the US is frozen at 1938 levels of forces and positions, but they are still nice enough to put their fleet in Pearl Harbor, despite a hostile Royal Navy in Canada and the Caribbean.

That's when the sparks started to fly.:p

usertron2020

April 21st, 2012, 05:01 AM

Just to note that the rest of us can't read it without registering first. Then again, do we really want to?

I specifically became a member of that forum solely so I could read that thread at my leisure. Apparently, when not on AH.com. 67th Tigers can really let his hair down, even by his standards!:D

usertron2020

April 21st, 2012, 05:05 AM

Strawman. Point? What's your argument? So there! Whittle-whittle-whittle...

Fixed it for you.:p

I don't recognise any of these points from my argument.

Based on the standup comedy routine you have going on in there, I don't blame you for a little hysterical amnesia.:D

usertron2020

April 21st, 2012, 05:16 AM

Au contraire. I assume they were not,(1) which is why I object to some of the poorly thought out thesis driven ideology that appears here from certain quarters.(2)

1) Source? I mean really, SOURCE? I'd like to see where you spoke highly of Civil War Americans who were:
a) Not Southerners
b) Not George B. McClellan or one of his supporters
c) Not Copperheads
d) Were critics of McClellan
e) Not containing lots of backhanded compliments
f) Not filled with qualifications

Hey! I know! How about Walt Whitman? Or is he a "hack poet" in your eyes?:rolleyes:

2) You mean you, of course. Since, in regards to American Civil War History, no one else on the Forum outside of soon-to-be banned Neo-Confederates are in as ill-repute regarding their opinions as you are in yours.

usertron2020

April 21st, 2012, 05:40 AM

Usertron, could you post a link (1) to that very discussion? I want to be able to say that this:

Is as full of wrong as all the arguments that he makes that muddies and ruins all ACW threads for me.(2)

And stating that the UK would bother to go all out on the US while the US is somehow unable to go above its own current force to counter it isn't poorly thought out?(3)

1) See Fiver's Post #318 and click "this". And yes, you have to join spacebattles.com to read the thread, but its worth it just for that. Its free, and I've never been on that website for anything else. The comedy of that thread is side-splitting humor and very dark at the same time.

2) Its a very good primer for how he plays his tricks. And the way that other posters shred him, Tigger (sock puppet?), and An Ancient is a lot of fun. Especially when Alamo gets into the debate. But trust me, as an old ex-minister once said of Sir Humphrey Appleby's tricks, don't expect you could ever learn all of them. Just a few hundred.:)

3) Its merely reflective on the idea that the US can't raise its forces because as a nation it is inherently unstable and never should have existed in the first place. Hence, the constant use of the word "DESTROY" whenever he speaks of Union forces going into battle with, well, almost anyone. All of his ACW discussion tends not only to enthusiastic British intervention, but an "inevitable collapse" of the US resulting in a continent with more nations (and presumably more wars) than Europe.

Even raw Canadian Militiamen without any training and who couldn't be expected to know which end of the rifle was up (figuratively speaking) would be shredding Union veterans. By standing safely behind their invincible obsolescent masonry forts while an army led by West Point engineering graduates charge the troops into the guns of those forts (if they have guns) rather than use the same tactics that defeated the defenses of Mexico.

And remember, this is the UK doing what 67th Tigers wants, not what Lord Palmerston, Parliament, or the British people want. Nothing in his analysis of the ACW has been more airy-fairy than the way he dismisses the idea that the British Race would be anything but 100% do-or-die supremely behind a war with the United States of America.

67th Tigers

April 21st, 2012, 04:20 PM

I guess I "won" since we're back to ad hominum attacks (unfortunately as usual).

Bexar asked what the "Best Possible Confederate Victory? (http://alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=5942508#post5942508)" was. By post 3 the neo-radical/ northern nationalist position had been ascerted:

Being allowed to leave (minus Key West and Fort Jefferson, and with the Mississippi being treated like the Dardanelles,) and not having the Union come down and slap their shit.
That's it.

After that it's the usual anti-southern, anti-British "know nothing" chauvanism for the most part, before moving into the final personal attacks. Ho hum. Usual course for an ACW thread these days. I miss the old days when Mike Walsh and a few others engaged in serious open ended debate....

Elfwine

April 21st, 2012, 04:37 PM

It amazes me that of all the people I've discussed the ACW with, 67th is the only one who presents the arguments he does.

And I say this as someone with experience with people who found me calling Confederate soldiers traitors and minding people having a problem with that term to be personally insulting, for instance.

Tegytsgurb

April 21st, 2012, 04:39 PM

Elfwine

April 21st, 2012, 04:42 PM

Tegytsgurb

April 21st, 2012, 05:09 PM

Well, when bring up British intervention as if Britain will (or wants to) win the war for the Confederacy, I think responding to that is no more completely missing the point than the idea of British recognition being avoided by a nose.

This is working on the assumption that the only way the Confederacy can become independent is with British/other intervention. Recognition will do well enough, which is feasible if the South is doing well enough militarily, which has a fair number of early PoDs to achieve - 191 topping the list and anything earlier than that even more plausible.

Elfwine

April 21st, 2012, 05:17 PM

This is working on the assumption that the only way the Confederacy can become independent is with British/other intervention. Recognition will do well enough, which is feasible if the South is doing well enough militarily, which has a fair number of early PoDs to achieve - 191 topping the list and anything earlier than that even more plausible.

I don't think it has a realistic chance even with British recognition.

And my point is that it came up, so how much it would matter consumed the thread, not that it was the only thing.

Johnrankins

April 21st, 2012, 09:54 PM

usertron2020

April 21st, 2012, 10:31 PM

I guess I "won"(1) since we're back to ad hominum (2) attacks (unfortunately as usual).

Bexar asked what the "Best Possible Confederate Victory? (http://alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=5942508#post5942508)" was. By post 3 the neo-radical/ northern nationalist position had been ascerted:

After that it's the usual anti-southern,(3) anti-British (4) "know nothing" chauvanism for the most part, before moving into the final personal attacks. Ho hum.(5) Usual course for an ACW thread these days. I miss the old days when Mike Walsh and a few others engaged in serious open ended debate....(6)

1) Is that what its all about to you? "Winning"? That suggests you have a closed mind. Not exactly a banner headline on this website.

2) "You keep using that phrase. I don't think it means what you think it means. Or if you do, that it doesn't apply to you, no matter what you might say."

3) Anti-Confederate. Not Anti-Southern. The four million slaves and one million white southern Unionists were not Confederates. That's 55% of the population. Unfortunately, the slaves were powerless and the Unionists were mostly scattered.

4) Anti-67th Tigers,:p not Anti-British. After all, the British did the right thing OTL in the American Civil War. They stayed out of it. And in the one provocation that happened, they settled it amicably. Your Trent Affair is an ATL, not history. Remember that!

5) Ho hum, indeed. The first time you admit to a changed opinion will be the first, unless its to make the USA even worse in your eyes.

6) Perhaps it was impenetrable Negationism, and that it was found to be unwelcome here? Engaging in Negationism, and being called out on it, is not an Ad hominum attack.

usertron2020

April 21st, 2012, 10:33 PM

Also recognition with intervention would gain the CSA nothing to speak of. Just because GB recognizes the CSA doesn't mean it will actually DO anything. For it to really help the South GB needs to go to war with the US. Without that it would have little more effect than giving it a figurative pat on the head.

Absolutely true. Why recognition alone would produce Union collapse is generally poorly explained. But it usually involves the British taking the proactive step of breaking the blockade. That is, declaring war.

Elfwine

April 22nd, 2012, 12:07 AM

Absolutely true. Why recognition alone would produce Union collapse is generally poorly explained. But it usually involves the British taking the proactive step of breaking the blockade. That is, declaring war.

That sounds like a waste of British resources. Let's say the British can do it.

Why would they want to?

Looking at the issue of the best possible Confederate victory - I think there are two problems here.

1) The Confederate only has so many good generals to go around.

2) It needs to hold BOTH Tennessee AND Virginia.

Unfortunately for #2, saying "Screw Vicksburg." (which is a nice hypothetical exercise in how that would effect the summer campaigns - there's no way Davis will pick this) just means the AoT has to face all the Union Western armies.

Not good.

M79

April 22nd, 2012, 08:34 PM

I have been known to agree with 67th in the past - maybe 1 in every 10 posts I respond to - and when this happens it's usually because *everyone else* has completely lost sight of the original point of the thread. Like now.

I don't care who first suggested getting Britain involved and so sparked over ten pages of diatribes from everybody, it doesn't matter. If Britain comes over and completely crushes the US, and they pay Britain huge reparations, and give up a few northern-tier states, DMZ the lakes, whatever, none of that makes the Confederacy any stronger except in a relative sense.

The 11 states plus Indian Territory. It "officially" seceded in the summer of 1861, and the North may well decide to let the Confederacy "deal with it".

I think the US may demand Fortress Monroe - they never lost it during the war, and keeping it gives them some control of the Chesapeake entrance, which they will demand what with Maryland still being part of the US.

Politically Kentucky and Missouri are interesting topics, and in fact Missouri had a higher proportion of slave owners than Kentucky (despite everyone saying that if the South gets *one* of the states, it would be Kentucky) - but Militarily neither is really feasible. Barring a PoD in 1861 for Missouri, as their only presence after that was the far southwest.

And everyone talks about the Perryville Campaign as if it was a real chance for the south, but really the only reason Bragg came remotely close to accomplishing anything is because Buell was worse than he was. The total Confederate invasion force - Bragg + Smith - was outnumbered by Buell alone by more than 2 to 1. If Bragg began showing signs of victory, the North had 2 divisions in Nashville, newly organized troops north of the Ohio River (admittedly untrained, but in large numbers), and Grant and Rosecrans' men near Corinth - themselves outnumbering their Confederate counterparts more than 2 to 1 - and with either a rail line or the Tennessee River to get them north quickly.

Louisville was at one point so poorly defended the police were being asked to take up arms and be ready for an invasion from the east. Bragg did not follow up on his victory, I think it is as much faulty intel for both sides as it was numbers or even supplies. Confederate seizure of Louisville endangers the Ohio River as a trade route and I think the Union will have to reclaim the city quickly. Also, Kentucky has lots of pro-Confederate sympathy in most of the state beyond the shores of the Ohio River, as did parts of southern Illinois and Missouri. There is knowing when to support ones opponent and knowing when to keep your mouth shut, with large bands of armed militia and offenses being committed by both sides many Kentuckians were happy to provide services and wait to see who would win the war. Missouri was probably in much the same position.

Best possible Confederate scenario is late 1861 with UK intervention secondary to the Trent affair. CSA keeps its original states, Indian territory, western Virginia minus Wheeling, Arizona, New Mexico, and Kentucky with plebiscites in Missouri (south of the River) and Maryland. Delmarva peninsula goes to the Union as a placator and the Union capital is relocated to either New York City, Philadelphia, or perhaps Boston. Ohio wil become heavily fortified as will Illinois. Independence with UK support convinces Sonora and Chihuahua to leave Mexico and seek membership with the Confederacy, the other three northern states of Mexico are already interested and one would probably have joined Richmond if given the chance. Overall borders - (Potomac River or Mason-Dixon Line) to Ohio River to Missouri River to Western Edge of Missouri to Northern Oklahoma to Colorado River and into the Gulf of Mexico. Mormons have a free reign as they colonize Utah and contemplate independence as does a California with distant communication to the East. CSA slowly industrializes and becomes libertarian but religious while USA goes socialist / class conscious and eventually begins buildup for another war. They eye Canada but will not attack unless the UK is distracted elsewhere.

Johnrankins

April 23rd, 2012, 12:17 AM

Louisville was at one point so poorly defended the police were being asked to take up arms and be ready for an invasion from the east. Bragg did not follow up on his victory, I think it is as much faulty intel for both sides as it was numbers or even supplies. Confederate seizure of Louisville endangers the Ohio River as a trade route and I think the Union will have to reclaim the city quickly. Also, Kentucky has lots of pro-Confederate sympathy in most of the state beyond the shores of the Ohio River, as did parts of southern Illinois and Missouri. There is knowing when to support ones opponent and knowing when to keep your mouth shut, with large bands of armed militia and offenses being committed by both sides many Kentuckians were happy to provide services and wait to see who would win the war. Missouri was probably in much the same position.

Best possible Confederate scenario is late 1861 with UK intervention secondary to the Trent affair. CSA keeps its original states, Indian territory, western Virginia minus Wheeling, Arizona, New Mexico, and Kentucky with plebiscites in Missouri (south of the River) and Maryland. Delmarva peninsula goes to the Union as a placator and the Union capital is relocated to either New York City, Philadelphia, or perhaps Boston. Ohio wil become heavily fortified as will Illinois. Independence with UK support convinces Sonora and Chihuahua to leave Mexico and seek membership with the Confederacy, the other three northern states of Mexico are already interested and one would probably have joined Richmond if given the chance. Overall borders - (Potomac River or Mason-Dixon Line) to Ohio River to Missouri River to Western Edge of Missouri to Northern Oklahoma to Colorado River and into the Gulf of Mexico. Mormons have a free reign as they colonize Utah and contemplate independence as does a California with distant communication to the East. CSA slowly industrializes and becomes libertarian but religious while USA goes socialist / class conscious and eventually begins buildup for another war. They eye Canada but will not attack unless the UK is distracted elsewhere.

The CSA takes AZ/NM the day after Hell freezes over. It had NO capacity to do that. It would take near divine intervention to take MO. It would take divine intervention to get MD. No way in Hell is the CSA going to gain any part of Mexico as the locals would revolt and the CSA doesn't have the manpower to hold it. California has no more chance of going independent than NY. There aren't nearly enough Mormons to hold Utah. This is a complete CSA Wank.

NothingNow

April 23rd, 2012, 12:38 AM

I guess I "won" since we're back to ad hominum attacks (unfortunately as usual).
Oh for fuck's sake That wasn't an ad Hominem attack.

After that it's the usual anti-southern, anti-British "know nothing" chauvanism for the most part, before moving into the final personal attacks. Ho hum. Usual course for an ACW thread these days. I miss the old days when Mike Walsh and a few others engaged in serious open ended debate....
No. That's a honest recognition that frankly, the CSA is not full of diehard slaver supermen, they're numerically outmatched in every category, and that a Shooting war will utterly destroy the old south, and turn it into something very different, through class conflict and the inevitable compromises that need to be made in order to have a chance in hell of "winning" such a war.
Not to mention that really, No-one was going to pull the Confederates out of the fire unless it was on their terms, which are about as favorable to the old south as a Klan Rally is to a Jewish Lesbian Mixed race couple.

usertron2020

April 23rd, 2012, 06:41 AM

Oh for fuck's sake That wasn't an ad Hominem attack.
Point?
Strawman!
Ad hominem attack!
Nationalist attacks!
You hate the British!
I knew I'd forgotten some. These are some his favorites, though.

No. That's a honest recognition that frankly, the CSA is not full of diehard slaver supermen,(1) they're numerically outmatched in every category,(2) and that a Shooting war will utterly destroy the old south, and turn it into something very different, through class conflict and the inevitable compromises that need to be made in order to have a chance in hell of "winning" such a war.(3)
Not to mention that really, No-one was going to pull the Confederates out of the fire unless it was on their terms,(4) which are about as favorable to the old south as a Klan Rally is to a Jewish Lesbian Mixed race couple.(5)

1) Heresy. The forebrain may acknowledge it but the reptile brain never will.

2) Depends on how you play the numbers and use your charts.:rolleyes: Remember Karl Rove claiming a Republican victory in the 2006 off-year congressional elections, despite all the numbers showing a good turnout for the Dems? "Yes, but they don't have MY numbers!" sez Rove. Apparently, he learned nothing, as two years later he was talking up John McCain's chances of winning Ohio and Florida, both of which were vital for McCain to win. As Rove was pointing to various districts within Ohio, explaining of how McCain would win there, Brit Hume had to interrupt him to tell him that Obama had won Ohio. Rove was silent.

3) Which may explain that the only three times in the ACW that 67 likes to talk about in depth is the Trent Affair, McClellan's campaigns, and the Overland Campaign with its effects on the 1864 Election. If its not about the South having a chance for winning the war, he really isn't interested.

4) Which is why he is so airy-fairy about British motivations in interventing in the ACW. Specifically, his imagined gung-ho attitudes taken by the whole of the British Empire in defense of a Slavocracy against the Union. He talks of the British government as if the Will of the People in Britain (beyond the ruling classes) simply didn't matter. He plays up how much the British working class was suffering due to the loss of the Cotton Trade, but ignores the fact that those very same workers (along with the REST of the working classes) were overwhelmingly Pro-Union.

Too many people today split hairs over the precise scheduling of the passage of the 13th Amendment or the timing of the Emancipation Proclamation. But despite what a lot of people were saying in high places, it was well understood by the common man that an allout extended war that destroyed the South meant Abolition. It was the only war to insure there would never be another American Civil War. John Bull in the mills of Manchester knew this as well as any Massachusetts Abolitionist.

5) Which is why even in the last death throes of the Confederacy, when the Confederate Government made their final attempt to make an offer to Lincoln, Old Abe knew he was free to say: "You can have anything you want, provided you return to the Union, and accept the 13th Amendment." (Paraphrasing here). Southern Independence was the one thing he would not grant, and the one thing Davis would never give up. If the Confederates could be that stubborn in February of 1865, imagine what they'd be like to the British!:p

M79

April 23rd, 2012, 11:50 PM

The CSA takes AZ/NM the day after Hell freezes over. It had NO capacity to do that. It would take near divine intervention to take MO. It would take divine intervention to get MD. No way in Hell is the CSA going to gain any part of Mexico as the locals would revolt and the CSA doesn't have the manpower to hold it. California has no more chance of going independent than NY. There aren't nearly enough Mormons to hold Utah. This is a complete CSA Wank.

1. Arizona was in CS hands for some time in 1861, they came close to controlling New Mexico and actually had people in Colorado at one point. Please refer to Henry Sibley and look into his campaign.

2. In late 1861 the Union had to post guards in the state assembly of MD because of the threat it would secede. Governor Hicks suspended the state legislature at one point as well.

3. Mexico is semi-feudal at this point, the governors of the northern provinces were considering their positions and at least two, Sonora and (Nuevo Leon+Coahuila), entertained representatives of the Confederacy with the latter actually considering joining the nation. Give the CS a victory and you might see those states move from Mexico City to Richmond.

4. Mormons in Utah might or might not decide to go independent but if they do they control the major means of communication between the East and West. A guerilla war with people who know the desert could get ugly very quickly, especially with tacit support from Confederate "volunteers"

5. California has minimal links to the East and lots of resources in 1864. Why do they want to stay part of a nation? Again, not saying they leave, but Oregon and California are self-sufficient with lots of mineral wealth.

Johnrankins

April 24th, 2012, 12:36 AM

1. Arizona was in CS hands for some time in 1861, they came close to controlling New Mexico and actually had people in Colorado at one point. Please refer to Henry Sibley and look into his campaign.

2. In late 1861 the Union had to post guards in the state assembly of MD because of the threat it would secede. Governor Hicks suspended the state legislature at one point as well.

3. Mexico is semi-feudal at this point, the governors of the northern :(with the latter actually considering joining the nation. Give the CS a victory and you might see those states move from Mexico City to Richmond.

4. Mormons in Utah might or might not decide to go independent but if they do they control the major means of communication between the East and West. A guerilla war with people who know the desert could get ugly very quickly, especially with tacit support from Confederate "volunteers"

5. California has minimal links to the East and lots of resources in 1864. Why do they want to stay part of a nation? Again, not saying they leave, but Oregon and California are self-sufficient with lots of mineral wealth.

1. For some time means not long, about a year when the Union had bigger things on its plate such as VA and TN. There is NO way the South can hold it in the long run. It has a minimal population so there almost no friendly locals for anyone. He who has the most troops will win that area. That is a contest the Union will win EVERY TIME.

2. Maryland was swarming with Union troops by May 1861. Maryland is basically indefensible for the South

3. Why would the Mexican people (who would greatly outnumber any Confederates at first) be willing to be ruled by slave owning Gringos when they don't have to be? Not only would the Mexican government support any rebellion against the CSA but the US would as well to keep it from falling into CSA hands.

4. Ugly, yes but they can't hold it. There just not enough of them. Considering how unpopular the Mormon religion was in the rest of the US at the time the government could kill every Mormon on sight without having to worry about mass protests.

5. Who are they going to sell those minerals to? The industrial North with its teeming industries or the South with nothing but cotton and tobacco and not much of that a few years into the war. As part of the US they get US military protection and easy trade with the largest economy in the hemisphere.

Elfwine

April 24th, 2012, 12:54 AM

Not to mention (for California) the whole loyalty thing. They believed IN being loyal, that's enough of a link.

Fiver

April 24th, 2012, 03:58 AM

1. Arizona was in CS hands for some time in 1861, they came close to controlling New Mexico and actually had people in Colorado at one point. Please refer to Henry Sibley and look into his campaign.

The CSA occupied parts of Arizona Territory from July 1861 to April 1862. They tried to invade New Mexico from February to April of 1862. They never made it to Colorado.

2. In late 1861 the Union had to post guards in the state assembly of MD because of the threat it would secede. Governor Hicks suspended the state legislature at one point as well.

The Maryland Legislature unanimously rejected secession. Well over twice as many of its citizens served in the Union as served in the Confederate Armies.

3. Mexico is semi-feudal at this point, the governors of the northern provinces were considering their positions and at least two, Sonora and (Nuevo Leon+Coahuila), entertained representatives of the Confederacy with the latter actually considering joining the nation.

One governor in one Mexican state briefly considered joining the CSA. No one else seems to have been interested.

4. Mormons in Utah might or might not decide to go independent but if they do they control the major means of communication between the East and West.

The Mormons made no attempt at secession in OTL. They can do nothing to stop sea communications.

5. California has minimal links to the East and lots of resources in 1864. Why do they want to stay part of a nation?

Only a few dozen Californians joined the CSA military. The vast majority of the population was Unionist.

usertron2020

April 30th, 2012, 01:05 PM

1. Arizona was in CS hands for some time in 1861, they came close to controlling New Mexico and actually had people in Colorado at one point. Please refer to Henry Sibley and look into his campaign.

Check out Canby's campaign against the Confederates in New Mexico. If you think the Southrons came close to victory...:eek:

2. In late 1861 the Union had to post guards in the state assembly of MD because of the threat it would secede. Governor Hicks suspended the state legislature at one point as well.

I think that they were more concerned with security against Pro-Confederate agitators. The Secessionists had proved time and again that they didn't give a damn about democratic rule of the majority any more than they did about the rights of the minority.

3. Mexico is semi-feudal at this point,(1) the governors of the northern provinces were considering their positions and at least two, Sonora and (Nuevo Leon+Coahuila), entertained representatives of the Confederacy with the latter actually considering joining the nation.(2) Give the CS a victory and you might see those states move from Mexico City to Richmond.

1) President of the Republic of Mexico Benito Juarez would be very surprised to learn that.

2) Mexico was a little busy at the time fighting the Imperial French of Napoleon III. Whatever "considerations" may have been made by corrupt Mexican state governors at the time, I'm fairly certain that the Mexican Constitution did not allow for secession. Very certain, since it was written by Benito Juarez himself.:) During the French invasion, the Mexican Congress was forced to disband. But before they did, they bestowed unlimited powers to President Juarez to defend Mexico and its constitution as he saw fit.:cool: If he said a Mexican secession was illegal, it was illegal. Woe be to the health of any governor who betrayed him.

4. Mormons in Utah might or might not decide to go independent but if they do they control the major means of communication between the East and West. A guerilla war with people who know the desert could get ugly very quickly, especially with tacit support from Confederate "volunteers"

Following the farce of "Buchanan's Folly", all the Mormons wanted was to be left alone. After the Mountain Meadows Massacre, they REALLY wanted to be inconspicuous. There is nothing inconspicuous about secession.

5. California has minimal links to the East and lots of resources in 1864. Why do they want to stay part of a nation?(3) Again, not saying they leave, but Oregon and California are self-sufficient with lots of mineral wealth.(4)

3) Well, considering future events like the Boer War, I would suspect the Californians could figure out for themselves that on their own...they wouldn't be ALLOWED to be on their own for long.

4) See 3.

Johnrankins

April 30th, 2012, 09:23 PM

Check out Canby's campaign against the Confederates in New Mexico. If you think the Southrons came close to victory...:eek:

I think that they were more concerned with security against Pro-Confederate agitators. The Secessionists had proved time and again that they didn't give a damn about democratic rule of the majority any more than they did about the rights of the minority.

1) President of the Republic of Mexico Benito Juarez would be very surprised to learn that.

2) Mexico was a little busy at the time fighting the Imperial French of Napoleon III. Whatever "considerations" may have been made by corrupt Mexican state governors at the time, I'm fairly certain that the Mexican Constitution did not allow for secession. Very certain, since it was written by Benito Juarez himself.:) During the French invasion, the Mexican Congress was forced to disband. But before they did, they bestowed unlimited powers to President Juarez to defend Mexico and its constitution as he saw fit.:cool: If he said a Mexican secession was illegal, it was illegal. Woe be to the health of any governor who betrayed him.

Following the farce of "Buchanan's Folly", all the Mormons wanted was to be left alone. After the Mountain Meadows Massacre, they REALLY wanted to be inconspicuous. There is nothing inconspicuous about secession.

3) Well, considering future events like the Boer War, I would suspect the Californians could figure out for themselves that on their own...they wouldn't be ALLOWED to be on their own for long.

4) See 3.

1) Yeah, the CSA pretty much got its butt kicked in NM.
2) Not talking about the Mexican population in the area. Somehow I doubt they would be thrilled by the idea of being ruled by slave owning gringos! Cue bloody rebelion
3) Not talking about getting easy trade with the largest economy in the hemisphere. Californians would be richer by trading with the USA instead of the CSA . Also, as pointed out, they considered themselves Americans not Confederates.

Baconheimer

April 30th, 2012, 10:22 PM

One that does not happen.

RamscoopRaider

April 30th, 2012, 10:50 PM

One where the CSA does better than the USA at the Olympics

M79

April 30th, 2012, 11:54 PM

Johnrankins

May 1st, 2012, 02:35 AM

1. Valverde showed that the Confederates could beat the Union forces in the area in early 1862, yes Canby eventually takes Sibley to task but we're talking "best possible victory". UK intervention with a ceasefire and negotiated settlement at that time gives the CSA at least Arizona IMO and maybe a claim to NM as well.

2. Campeche surrendered to a French fleet in late February 1862, my thought is that a Trent affair-enforced cease fire would be in effect about this time. The French might also be interested enough in what happens in the US to delay their Mexican adventure for a while

3. Why would the governors of CSA States made out of Mexico have to change right away? The local aristocracy would probably transfer over to Confederate loyalties instead of Mexican ones. Governors would come and go between a local elite clique (much as they might in other areas of the country).

4. Juarez was powerful but not suicidal. If the South says it's taking the states of Mexico with a looming war with France on the doorstep and local authorities in the state in question deciding to leave, what can he really do about it? Also I think your overestimating MExican nationalism at this point, remember that barely a generation before two sets of three of their states broke off and tried to go their own way with others trying to do the same on a smaller scale.

5. Utah doesn't have to leave, I'm saying they will seriously wonder about it and that might set the stage for independence later on in the next war or by plebiscite later. BTW, to go around Utah should the CSA control the AZ/NM region would be difficult as the major trails skirt Utah territory. They might not win but they could make life rough for smaller forces moving through the region.

6. California being put in its place or told which way it will go might breed feelings of resentment, see #5

7. Maryland had enough Confederate sympathizers at the start of the war to warrant Union intervention in the state, in early 1862 it could be come an issue for a negotiated settlement

1. Lincoln was neither a weakling nor a fool. The CSA obviously can't hold it and Lincoln won't give it anything he doesn't have to.
2. Because the US would look weak in this scenario the French would speed things up, if anything.
3. I assume they would be the same governors as I don't think they would be willing to give up power. The problem is that they would look like and would be puppets of slave owning gringos. The Mexican populace was neither stupid or cowardly and wouldn't put up with their governor selling them out if they didn't have to.
4. Breaking off on its own is a whole different thing than allowing yourself to be swallowed up by another country. One is a decision YOU make the other is a decision made FOR you.
5. The Mormons were neither stupid or suicidal. Lincoln made it clear that he planned to leave them alone. If they were the ones to start trouble however...
6. California won't have to be told anything or be put in its place. It was heavily pro-Union so why would Lincoln try to push anything?
7. The US Army was sitting on it by Apr 1861. "This is mine because my army is sitting on it" is a pretty good arguement. The CSA could make it an issue but they would get laughed at.

M79

May 1st, 2012, 04:16 AM

1. Lincoln was neither a weakling nor a fool. The CSA obviously can't hold it and Lincoln won't give it anything he doesn't have to.
2. Because the US would look weak in this scenario the French would speed things up, if anything.
3. I assume they would be the same governors as I don't think they would be willing to give up power. The problem is that they would look like and would be puppets of slave owning gringos. The Mexican populace was neither stupid or cowardly and wouldn't put up with their governor selling them out if they didn't have to.
4. Breaking off on its own is a whole different thing than allowing yourself to be swallowed up by another country. One is a decision YOU make the other is a decision made FOR you.
5. The Mormons were neither stupid or suicidal. Lincoln made it clear that he planned to leave them alone. If they were the ones to start trouble however...
6. California won't have to be told anything or be put in its place. It was heavily pro-Union so why would Lincoln try to push anything?
7. The US Army was sitting on it by Apr 1861. "This is mine because my army is sitting on it" is a pretty good arguement. The CSA could make it an issue but they would get laughed at.

a. I am not accusing Lincoln of anything. If the "best possible Confederate victory" is an intervention by the UK post-Trent affair, then the Confederacy is in Arizona Territory. They will *try* to claim New Mexico as well.

b. If there is a prospect of large numbers of British military authority in the area that might not like French plans for Mexico why would they move faster? Besides it might also give the French a chance to establish a friendly supply line from New Orleans or somewhere similar instead of having to cross the Atlantic.

c. Again, we disagree on the strength of Mexican nationalism especially in the northern provinces. I do not think this would be seen as selling out, especially east of Chiahuahua, and if the rest of Mexico looks like it is getting ready to get hammered why stay under the auspices of a dictator with unlimited powers?

d. So given the choice between native dictatorship, imposed monarchy, or joining a representative democracy of your own accord, you assume they will simply stay with the dictatorship? See "C"

e. Assuming the British step in, Lincoln can say what he likes, but what can he deliver? Utah wants to be left alone and to its own devices, but if the South breaks free why would Utah not be able to do the same in a few decades? I also think that if there is a major conference they might approach the British to see what they can negotiate.

f. It's easy to be pro-Union when there are lots of guns around, but without a rail connection California is still isolated with a developing trade network more centered on Oregon and the Pacific. Granted the transcontinental railway is coming but the seperation of the South might inspire the West to dream of its own destiny.

g. Maryland still has lots of pro-Confederate elements in late 1861/early 1862. It might not secede but at the negotiating table it would probably be a bargaining chip to be used in exchange for something else.

Johnrankins

May 1st, 2012, 03:22 PM

a. I am not accusing Lincoln of anything. If the "best possible Confederate victory" is an intervention by the UK post-Trent affair, then the Confederacy is in Arizona Territory. They will *try* to claim New Mexico as well.

b. If there is a prospect of large numbers of British military authority in the area that might not like French plans for Mexico why would they move faster? Besides it might also give the French a chance to establish a friendly supply line from New Orleans or somewhere similar instead of having to cross the Atlantic.

c. Again, we disagree on the strength of Mexican nationalism especially in the northern provinces. I do not think this would be seen as selling out, especially east of Chiahuahua, and if the rest of Mexico looks like it is getting ready to get hammered why stay under the auspices of a dictator with unlimited powers?

d. So given the choice between native dictatorship, imposed monarchy, or joining a representative democracy of your own accord, you assume they will simply stay with the dictatorship? See "C"

e. Assuming the British step in, Lincoln can say what he likes, but what can he deliver? Utah wants to be left alone and to its own devices, but if the South breaks free why would Utah not be able to do the same in a few decades? I also think that if there is a major conference they might approach the British to see what they can negotiate.

f. It's easy to be pro-Union when there are lots of guns around, but without a rail connection California is still isolated with a developing trade network more centered on Oregon and the Pacific. Granted the transcontinental railway is coming but the seperation of the South might inspire the West to dream of its own destiny.

g. Maryland still has lots of pro-Confederate elements in late 1861/early 1862. It might not secede but at the negotiating table it would probably be a bargaining chip to be used in exchange for something else.

a. And quickly kicked back out again. The CSA can't hope to hold it and under no remotely realistic circumstances will GB send actual troops to invade. The most they will do is break the blockade. There was no eagerness in GB to go round #3 against the US. The first time it did so was a strategic loss the second was a strategic stalemate. IOW it lost thousands of lives and millions of pounds to gain NOTHING.

b. Because GB would be unwilling to go to war over it and if they have to worry about what happens if/when the US rebuilds. It might be able and willing to invade Mexico. Having troops on the ground in large numbers prevents that.

c. What else would it look like? You are handing over power to a bunch a slave-owning gringos for money. That sounds like selling out to me and it would sound like it to the Mexicans.

d. They would not be "joining a representative democracy by their own accord" they would be sold out by a bunch of elites and then be ruled over by people who think of them as racial inferiors using local elites as puppets. The most you would get is the local big landowners getting the vote. That doesn't help the average Mexican peon much.

e. The Brits wouldn't care what the Mormons want and would be unwilling to broker a treaty unless asked by the US government which would never happen. If the Mormons secede the US government comes down on them like a ton of bricks. There are very few Mormons and they are very unpopular with the rest of the country. The US government could get away with doing anything it wants to the Mormons.

f. Rails were already being built from California DURING the Civil War. There is nothing anyone can realistically do to prevent rails going from California to hook it up with the rest of the US. It didn't need Union guns around, there weren't many as the vast majority of the Union army was fighting the CSA not garrisoning California.

g. Who cares? The US Army is sitting on it, that is the most important factor in the equation. The US will not have MD used against it as even a bargining chip if US troops are already swarming the state!

Elfwine

May 1st, 2012, 03:59 PM

Johnrankins

May 1st, 2012, 04:23 PM

And the loyal Marylanders aren't going to appreciate the idea of being a bargaining chip either.

Not to mention that there's no reason at all for the West to dream "of its own destiny". Why would Californians loyal to and devoted to the United States suddenly decide "Screw the US."?

Agreed, I also don't understand why the average Mexican would be so willing to go along with being sold out to slave-owning Gringos.

Snake Featherston

May 1st, 2012, 04:29 PM

Agreed, I also don't understand why the average Mexican would be so willing to go along with being sold out to slave-owning Gringos.

A Wizard Did It. ;):p

Fiver

May 1st, 2012, 11:36 PM

a. I am not accusing Lincoln of anything. If the "best possible Confederate victory" is an intervention by the UK post-Trent affair, then the Confederacy is in Arizona Territory. They will *try* to claim New Mexico as well.

b. If there is a prospect of large numbers of British military authority in the area that might not like French plans for Mexico why would they move faster? Besides it might also give the French a chance to establish a friendly supply line from New Orleans or somewhere similar instead of having to cross the Atlantic.

c. Again, we disagree on the strength of Mexican nationalism especially in the northern provinces. I do not think this would be seen as selling out, especially east of Chiahuahua, and if the rest of Mexico looks like it is getting ready to get hammered why stay under the auspices of a dictator with unlimited powers?

d. So given the choice between native dictatorship, imposed monarchy, or joining a representative democracy of your own accord, you assume they will simply stay with the dictatorship? See "C"

e. Assuming the British step in, Lincoln can say what he likes, but what can he deliver? Utah wants to be left alone and to its own devices, but if the South breaks free why would Utah not be able to do the same in a few decades? I also think that if there is a major conference they might approach the British to see what they can negotiate.

f. It's easy to be pro-Union when there are lots of guns around, but without a rail connection California is still isolated with a developing trade network more centered on Oregon and the Pacific. Granted the transcontinental railway is coming but the seperation of the South might inspire the West to dream of its own destiny.

g. Maryland still has lots of pro-Confederate elements in late 1861/early 1862. It might not secede but at the negotiating table it would probably be a bargaining chip to be used in exchange for something else.

a) For the Trent Affair to result in a war between the US and Britain would require gross and persistent stupidity on the part of Lincoln, Palmerston, or both. While that’s technically ‘possible’, it’s also ‘possible’ that a Tunguska event could strike Washington, DC decapitating the Union government. Even if the British are willing to intervene militarily, that will have no real effect on the New Mexico Campaign, the Confederacy will still have to abandon Arizona and west Texas.

b) Unless Maximillan’s troops need raw cotton or tobacco, they won’t be getting supplies from the Confederacy.

c,d) We only disagree on the strength of Mexican nationalism in these states because you ignore actual events. Given the choice between Juarez’ leadership or foreign control, the people of the northern Mexican states fought for Juarez. Yet you think these same people will welcome foreign control so long as it is Confederate.

e, f) Actual events show Utah’s desire to secede existed only in the mind of James Buchanan and that California had less desire to secede than Utah. This did not change after most of the troops and guns were sent eastward. That could change a couple decades after Confederate independence, but by that point Utah and California will be strongly connected to the rest of the Union by rail, the British will no longer be involved, and the Confederacy will probably have fragmented.

g) I have no doubt the Confederacy will claim Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, Indian Territory, and Arizona. This means nothing – the Union claims the entirety of the Confederacy. To get Maryland, the Confederacy will have to successfully drive the Union from the state or offer the Union something the Confederacy controls that the Union wants more than Maryland. There is no chance of this happening. Confederate conquest of Maryland would require Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia being so successful they make the Lost Cause mythology look like slander. Trading away Maryland would force the Union to relocate their capital. A Union negotiator might consider it in return for the Confederacy ceding Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, and Indian Territory; formal CSA renunciation of all claims to Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia and US territories; and the Confederacy paying in cotton for all goods and property of Union citizens seized, impressed, or destroyed by the Confederacy on land or at sea.

Blackfox5

May 2nd, 2012, 12:10 AM

There is a difference between a "best possible Confederate victory scenario" (which implies plausibility) and "wildest fantasies of some Confederate leaders".

The wildest fantasies scenario is where we get all slave states, all border states, southwest territories, and access to the Pacific. I see even more than this has been added to include any place where someone might have had a good word to say about the men in grey. Any version of this is not realistic.

A plausible "best Confederate victory scenario" needs to include the fact that except for some spectacular successes by Lee in 1862-1863, the Confederates pretty much got their hat handed to them throughout the entire war.

Even at the Confederate high point - generally taken to be the time between Chancellorsville to Gettysburg - the Confederates already:

1) Lost West Virginia to the Union
2) Lost almost all of Tennessee to the Union
3) Lost New Orleans to the Union
4) Lost control of the entire Mississippi River to the Union except for Vicksburg which was about to fall
5) Lost northern and eastern Arkansas to the Union, and would soon lose Little Rock
6) Had most of its other ports either occupied or blockaded.

In my view, any "best possible victory" has to include that the Confederates had effectively lost control of the west. The best possible victory was survival of a rump Confederacy that would turn over at least half of the Upper South to the Union, and probably control of the entire Mississippi River as well. That's all you get if Lee pulls a Cannae and annihilates the Army of the Potomac in 1863. That may be enough for the Union to acknowledge the Confederate government; but it's not enough for them to give up what they already won.

Any other scenario is based on giving the Confederates all the breaks for an extended period of time. In a short war, it's possible that a string of good fortune sees an underdog win. After all, nothing is more chancy or risky than war. In a long war though, the law of averages tends to balance out, and the level of victory seems to follow the relative balance of power to the combatants. Since the Union can't be forced out by war weariness earlier than 1863, it is highly improbable the South can achieve its major war aim, which is the recognition of the Confederacy in its borders before First Bull Run.

M79

May 2nd, 2012, 12:32 AM

a) For the Trent Affair to result in a war between the US and Britain would require gross and persistent stupidity on the part of Lincoln, Palmerston, or both. While that’s technically ‘possible’, it’s also ‘possible’ that a Tunguska event could strike Washington, DC decapitating the Union government. Even if the British are willing to intervene militarily, that will have no real effect on the New Mexico Campaign, the Confederacy will still have to abandon Arizona and west Texas.

b) Unless Maximillan’s troops need raw cotton or tobacco, they won’t be getting supplies from the Confederacy.

c,d) We only disagree on the strength of Mexican nationalism in these states because you ignore actual events. Given the choice between Juarez’ leadership or foreign control, the people of the northern Mexican states fought for Juarez. Yet you think these same people will welcome foreign control so long as it is Confederate.

e, f) Actual events show Utah’s desire to secede existed only in the mind of James Buchanan and that California had less desire to secede than Utah. This did not change after most of the troops and guns were sent eastward. That could change a couple decades after Confederate independence, but by that point Utah and California will be strongly connected to the rest of the Union by rail, the British will no longer be involved, and the Confederacy will probably have fragmented.

g) I have no doubt the Confederacy will claim Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, Indian Territory, and Arizona. This means nothing – the Union claims the entirety of the Confederacy. To get Maryland, the Confederacy will have to successfully drive the Union from the state or offer the Union something the Confederacy controls that the Union wants more than Maryland. There is no chance of this happening. Confederate conquest of Maryland would require Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia being so successful they make the Lost Cause mythology look like slander. Trading away Maryland would force the Union to relocate their capital. A Union negotiator might consider it in return for the Confederacy ceding Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, and Indian Territory; formal CSA renunciation of all claims to Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia and US territories; and the Confederacy paying in cotton for all goods and property of Union citizens seized, impressed, or destroyed by the Confederacy on land or at sea.

1. Pride causing politicians to refuse a compromise? Would not be the first time.

2. If France has a role in supporting the CSA against the Union in negotiations what would stop the CSA from selling supplies to the French after the armistice/treaty?

3. I'm not ignoring anything, two of their states looked like they were interested in joining the CSA and at least one more was entertaining CSA representatives.

4. Lincoln gave Young all but written permission to ignore much of the anti-bigamy and other contra-Mormon legislation passed in the days following the Utah War and 1860 elections. Utah was under a military occupation for a while prior to the Civil War and I find it likely that they will at least inquire about taking the Utah Territory independent if the CSA breaks free.

5. Or they might use Maryland as a reason to solidify claims elsewhere. The CSA claims MD and holds at least some of KY, IT, NM, AZ, and MO while holding tacit legal rights to the lowermost Delmarva peninsula. The Union claims every part of the CSA but does not hold the region and most of West Virginia is still in CSA hands. Negotiations will commence, and I think that MO, AZ/NM, and KY will be offered plebiscites, IT goes Confederate while Delmarva and MD stay in the Union.

*Again, we're talking about a subjective "best possible", and while Tunguska wiping out the Union leadership would make for a dark/interesting timeline, I think a Trent intervention is the best chance the CSA has as it stops the fighting before the industrial might of the USA can be brought to bear.

Johnrankins

May 2nd, 2012, 12:49 AM

RamscoopRaider

May 2nd, 2012, 12:52 AM

I will reiterate an earlier statement of mine for comment

The best possible CSA victory is one where it massively humiliates the USA at the Olympics, preferably when hosted in the USA

usertron2020

May 2nd, 2012, 02:20 AM

A lot of people here seem to be ignoring certain facts on the ground regarding Maryland. Yes, there were a lot of Secessionists. But there were plenty of Unionists and "Just-leave-me-alone's" as well. Eastern Maryland (East of the Chesapeake) and Western Maryland (West of Hancock and Williamsport) were quite happy enough staying in the Union. It was, ironically, the cities of Central Maryland (Baltimore, Annapolis, and Washington!:eek:) who had the most trouble with secessionist mobs.:( I think the mobs got more attention because they threatened the capital and its LOCs directly before the army moved in.

M79

May 2nd, 2012, 02:59 AM

1) Neither Lincoln or Palmerston was a fool or hothead. Unless you give a personalty transplant to one or both you won't have a war. It was in no one's interest.
2) Selling what??? Cotton or tobacco? Big deal!
3) Whatever the fantasies of the governors or the CSA the Mexican people would not be willing to be sold out to slave owning Gringos.
4) Which is a good reason for them to stay in. Why rock the boat with Lincoln by seceding as you got it as good as you ever will get?
5) The US would be TOTALLY uninterested in CSA claims. The CSA will get what their army controls, nothing more.

a. Again, we're talking "best possible scenario", and both sides took the idea seriously enough to look into planning.

b. Food, fuel, supplies, etc. It might also be interesting to see if the UK or France get bases in the CSA?

c. Refer to previous posts. Norther Mexico at this point is still semi-feudal and I think the locals are not going to be as irate as you think. We can agree to disagree on this.

d. Small problem: If the CSA breaks loose then these concessions to Utah during the war might look like concessions to prevent independence - why takes crumbs when the cake might be available?

e. If the UK is brokering the peace they *will* hear the CSA claims out. Besides if the CSA keeps what they occupy in very early 1862, they might be able to claim most of what I've stated. USA has minimal army at that point and KY/MD/MO would be open to plebsicite, most of West Virginia would still be under CSA control as well (though Wheeling and Harper's Ferry would probably be shifted in peace negotiations). CSA likely takes KY, probably loses MD, and MO *could* end up divided at the Missouri River (with St Louis and environs as a Union enclave) or stay entirely within the Union.

Johnrankins

May 2nd, 2012, 04:23 AM

a. Again, we're talking "best possible scenario", and both sides took the idea seriously enough to look into planning.

b. Food, fuel, supplies, etc. It might also be interesting to see if the UK or France get bases in the CSA?

c. Refer to previous posts. Norther Mexico at this point is still semi-feudal and I think the locals are not going to be as irate as you think. We can agree to disagree on this.

d. Small problem: If the CSA breaks loose then these concessions to Utah during the war might look like concessions to prevent independence - why takes crumbs when the cake might be available?

e. If the UK is brokering the peace they *will* hear the CSA claims out. Besides if the CSA keeps what they occupy in very early 1862, they might be able to claim most of what I've stated. USA has minimal army at that point and KY/MD/MO would be open to plebsicite, most of West Virginia would still be under CSA control as well (though Wheeling and Harper's Ferry would probably be shifted in peace negotiations). CSA likely takes KY, probably loses MD, and MO *could* end up divided at the Missouri River (with St Louis and environs as a Union enclave) or stay entirely within the Union.

a. You ALWAYS plan for the worst case scenario if you are intelligent. If GB DOES intervene it will not send troops but merely break the blockade.
b. What food? What fuel? The CSA had food riots EVERY winter even 1861 so where is the food coming from? At this point in history almost all of the known fuel sources are in the north including both coal and oil. They weren't developed in the South until later.
c. Semi-fuedal does NOT mean "willing to be sold out"! Mexico and the US had very different cultures and many Mexicans were still upset about the Mexican-American war. Read about how well they welcomed the French when THEY tried to take over. It will be as bad for the CSA .
d. Because they aren't crumbs and you have too much to lose. What do they gain by independence except risking the wrath of the US?
e. The Brits WON'T do any favors for the CSA as the Brits were STRONGLY anti-slavery. Their ONLY interest is cotton in this scenario. They might break the blockade but they won't FORCE the US to do anything. Lincoln would NOT agree to a plebesite under ANY conditions. They will have a vote on secession over Lincoln's dead body! The CSA would get the parts of West Virginia it controls when the war ends nothing more. The US has troops sitting on top of all three states by the Trent Affair and will lose them in no realistic scenario.

SPJ

May 2nd, 2012, 04:31 AM

a. You ALWAYS plan for the worst case scenario if you are intelligent. If GB DOES intervene it will not send troops but merely break the blockade.
b. What food? What fuel? The CSA had food riots EVERY winter even 1861 so where is the food coming from? At this point in history almost all of the known fuel sources are in the north including both coal and oil. They weren't developed in the South until later.
c. Semi-fuedal does NOT mean "willing to be sold out"! Mexico and the US had very different cultures and many Mexicans were still upset about the Mexican-American war. Read about how well they welcomed the French when THEY tried to take over. It will be as bad for the CSA .
d. Because they aren't crumbs and you have too much to lose. What do they gain by independence except risking the wrath of the US?
e. The Brits WON'T do any favors for the CSA as the Brits were STRONGLY anti-slavery. Their ONLY interest is cotton in this scenario. They might break the blockade but they won't FORCE the US to do anything. Lincoln would NOT agree to a plebesite under ANY conditions. They will have a vote on secession over Lincoln's dead body! The CSA would get the parts of West Virginia it controls when the war ends nothing more. The US has troops sitting on top of all three states by the Trent Affair and will lose them in no realistic scenario.
Question, why would Britain only break the union blockade and nothing else? Also what would it take to have them do that and what does that mean for British relations with the USA and CSA if the war ends in a CSA victory or still in a US one?

Johnrankins

May 2nd, 2012, 04:46 AM

Question, why would Britain only break the union blockade and nothing else? Also what would it take to have them do that and what does that mean for British relations with the USA and CSA if the war ends in a CSA victory or still in a US one?

COST of both lives and treasure. The only thing that the UK would be interested in is in the cotton trade. Doing that merely requires breaking the blockade. Sending ground troops would be fantastically expensive and very bloody. The most they could realistically send is about 50,000 troops. The US military potential is such that 50,000 troops would be chewed up and spit out. The US was the #2 industrial economy in the world at the time. Taking on the #2 industrial power on the planet on its home turf when you have to transport supplies thousands of miles is the height of stupidity.

Strategos' Risk

May 2nd, 2012, 06:50 PM

Is this real? I don't know!

http://azrebel.tripod.com/page11.html

Johnrankins

May 2nd, 2012, 08:23 PM

Is this real? I don't know!

http://azrebel.tripod.com/page11.html

Yes and no. They was some talk of it but even if they got the agreement the Mexicans would never have stood still for being sold out to slave holding Gringos. They would have revolted and the CSA simply didn't have the manpower to stop a rebelion.

Fiver

May 2nd, 2012, 11:30 PM

1. Pride causing politicians to refuse a compromise? Would not be the first time.

2. If France has a role in supporting the CSA against the Union in negotiations what would stop the CSA from selling supplies to the French after the armistice/treaty?

3. I'm not ignoring anything, two of their states looked like they were interested in joining the CSA and at least one more was entertaining CSA representatives.

4. Lincoln gave Young all but written permission to ignore much of the anti-bigamy and other contra-Mormon legislation passed in the days following the Utah War and 1860 elections. Utah was under a military occupation for a while prior to the Civil War and I find it likely that they will at least inquire about taking the Utah Territory independent if the CSA breaks free.

5. Or they might use Maryland as a reason to solidify claims elsewhere. The CSA claims MD and holds at least some of KY, IT, NM, AZ, and MO while holding tacit legal rights to the lowermost Delmarva peninsula. The Union claims every part of the CSA but does not hold the region and most of West Virginia is still in CSA hands. Negotiations will commence, and I think that MO, AZ/NM, and KY will be offered plebiscites, IT goes Confederate while Delmarva and MD stay in the Union.

*Again, we're talking about a subjective "best possible", and while Tunguska wiping out the Union leadership would make for a dark/interesting timeline, I think a Trent intervention is the best chance the CSA has as it stops the fighting before the industrial might of the USA can be brought to bear.

1) Are you completely unfamiliar with the character of Lincoln? His interactions with Congress, the Press, his Cabinet, and his generals repeatedly show Lincoln as a man who did not let pride get in the way of the good of the country.

2) The CSA does not have a surplus of grain, vegetables, livestock, clothing, boots, blankets, tents, horses, saddles, tack, wagons, arms, shot, powder, medicine, or tools. In many cases, the CSA don’t have enough for their own people and will have to import. The only ‘supplies’ the CSA has to sell to France are tobacco and cotton.

3) You are flatly and repeatedly ignoring the actual actions of the actual people in the actual Mexican states, who violently resisted foreign control by a non-slaveholding Catholic country. Only one (http://azrebel.tripod.com/page11.html) Mexican suggested joining the Confederacy. That’s it. One man compared to the thousands of Mexicans you repeatedly ignore.

Two more Mexican governors did meet with Confederate diplomats, but joining the Confederacy was never discussed. One governor rejected all Confederate proposals. The other rejected every proposal except trading with the Confederacy, even then he refused to take Confederate currency.

4) Who is this mysterious ‘they’? Give me one man, any man in Utah, who advocated Utah seceding from the Union.

5) The Confederacy has no chance of obtaining Maryland, Kentucky, West Virginia, or Arizona on the battlefield. If they’re extremely lucky, they might successfully seize southern Missouri, but they’ll be lucky to keep all of Tennessee and Arkansas.

The Confederacy will only gain land at the negotiating table if they cede something they control. The CSA cannot offer enough to get Kentucky, or Maryland. The CSA might be able to get the rest of Arkansas if they cede the rest of Tennessee, or vice versa.

There will be no plebiscites. In a fair plebiscite Kentucky and Missouri will stay Union, but after Bleeding Kansas, Union negotiators be idiots to trust the Confederacy in a plebiscite. For that matter most CSA states never held a plebiscite on secession, even though many of them were supposed to, so Confederate negotiators probably won’t want to bring the subject up.

I could understand your thinking a Trent intervention would produce the best victory for the CSA, but that’s not what you’re suggesting. You persist in giving the CSA states that they had no chance of persuading to join them, guaranteeing decades of internal unrest from Union and Mexican nationalists, totally indefensible borders, and two large hostile neighbors with every reason to ally against the Confederacy.