Sap please explain to us why the south wold use black soldiers.
Well, it depends how you define soldier. The South certainly OTL used black (slaves, usually) in their supply chain, for which the North used enlisted men.
If you're talking about my ASB or parody stories, OTOH, they are ASB/parody.
And the USA will not. Because why? Sap. Seems like all to often you have this beleif that the USA would never notice a huge threat on their border as though the USA has its head in a sand hole. Also of course why would the CSA use black soldiers when the reason for them allowing slave owners with more then 20 slaves to say behind was to prevent the slaves from escaping of commiting violence? I am asking you some simple questions based on history.
Well, I didn't actually say the US wouldn't have such a ship; they probably would, though the James is shallow enough to make it hard for the Union to do the equivalent. I'm just noting that the CSA will be trying to ensure it has a vessel able to sail up the Potomac, and that (since any realistic Confederacy will have Norfolk) that means the US will be faced with either heavily fortifying the Potomac, permanently keeping battleships garrisoned in Washington DC, or moving their capital. It's basically trying to illustrate
why the US has to be concerned, because in OTL they sort of blithely assumed they were fine until events pointed out that you need a coastal defence system.
The Endicott program (which was a single coastal fortification set) cost a lot of money; continuously updated defences would cost a lot more, probably several times as much since you need new weapons for each generation of improvement in guns and armour (e.g. a new weapon to match the capabilities of a ship which can either resist your old forts or shell them from outside their effective range).
You also seem to think I've said the Confederacy would use black soldiers. I'm not sure why you think I strongly hold that opinion - though it's
a matter of record that they did in some cases, on a scale not a million miles from the US using black soldiers in the American Revolutionary War. (one state, Louisiana for the CSA and Rhode Island for the US, was much more enthusiastic about it than was generally the case, though in the CSA case they forced through a blanket ban and the 1st LA Native Guard was disbanded.)
Those 1st LA NG are actually an interesting case as they were
volunteers - enthusiastic enough to provide their own weapons, at least, so the stumbling block really is CSA attitudes rather than black ones. Funny world, eh?
Having looked, the one TF is talking about is the bit where I have
Cetswayo and a Zulu Impi joining in at Gettysburg; what's not mentioned is that on the same page I have the British joining in at Gettysburg on the Union side in a separate piece. In both cases I'm trying to illustrate something of the tactical shortcomings taking place at Gettysburg, rather than say I actually think it would happen.
I'd have thought the fact it was in a "oneshot ASB scenarios" thread would illustrate that, well, it's an ASB scenario.
I simply refuse to countenance the idea that it is completely forbidden to write
anything in any forum in which the CSA are viewed as anything much more than targets. After all, it is quite possible for me to hold the opinion that the CSA were morally reprehensible as a state while also writing a situation in which they happen to win, especially on the forum of this site which is reserved for
magic.