A Confederate Navy after independence?

[David S Poepoe]

I will concede that I should revise 'credible' to 'capable of inflicting more than minor damage on a great power fleet before dying'.

Now you've pointed out the major goal of Tirpitz's Risk Theory. The CSN doesn't have to achieve parity with the USN but be sufficently capable of doing enough damage to the USN that its overall naval strengh is diminished. Besides, any conflict will be decided primarily on land.

 

[jkay]

But, there has a REASON for changes, from a point of departure, not just because that's how you wish it had gone down or think it would've been cool. IOTL, the West was the most loyal region, arguably; why would that change? IOTL, the Confederates could only build a small fleet compared to Union, and Union had far, far money for the war; why would that change?

Factories make far more money than even cash crop agriculture or oil. Making jeans or gasoline make more money, more reliably than the raw products because they're worth more. And, you're out of your mind if you think wouldn't continue trading with their best and closest customer; plenty even smuggled did during the war. And finance and engineering do even better.

And, OTL, the CSA was almost as against diplomacy as Rumsfeld, more recently, a big problem for getting intervention. And the British PM was liberal and antislave. So, to get an intervention. especially by both Britain and France, you need a reason for that.

Again, I'm not saying OTL's Civil War was unchangeable, just that the burden's on you to justify changes.

And, I learned about the Civil War mostly from Shelby Steele, whom I think did well, though there are more recent series also out.
​

 

[jkay]

frlmerrin,
But, there has a REASON for changes, from a point of departure, not just because that's how you wish it had gone down or think it would've been cool. IOTL, the West was the most loyal region, arguably; why would that change? IOTL, the Confederates could only build a small fleet compared to Union, and Union had far, far money for the war; why would that change?

Factories make far more money than even cash crop agriculture or oil. Making jeans or gasoline make more money, more reliably than the raw products because they're worth more. And, you're out of your mind if you think wouldn't continue trading with their best and closest customer; plenty even smuggled did during the war. And finance and engineering do even better.

And, OTL, the CSA was almost as against diplomacy as Rumsfeld, more recently, a big problem for getting intervention. And the British PM was liberal and antislave. So, to get an intervention. especially by both Britain and France, you need a reason for that.

Again, I'm not saying OTL's Civil War was unchangeable, just that the burden's on you to justify changes.

And, I learned about the Civil War mostly from Shelby Steele, whom I think did well, though there are good more recent series also out.

 

[hairysamarian]

And, I learned about the Civil War mostly from Shelby Steele, whom I think did well, though there are good more recent series also out.

Any chance you mean Shelby Foote?

 

[67th Tigers]

The Confederacy of the 1860's is a fairly rich state, and once a barrier (even a weak one) is up giving some protection of light industry from the northeastern states they will industrialise apace. Majewski has prettymuch destroyed the "American Heritage" idea of a threadbare CSA.

 

[Elfwine]

The Confederacy of the 1860's is a fairly rich state, and once a barrier (even a weak one) is up giving some protection of light industry from the northeastern states they will industrialise apace. Majewski has prettymuch destroyed the "American Heritage" idea of a threadbare CSA.

The Confederacy of the 1860's is a state that couldn't even finance the war without printing massive quantities of paper money (60% of the money it spent on fighting the war OTL) - and just as relevantly, it was only able to cover 8% of the costs by taxation.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/weidenmier.finance.confederacy.us

"Fairly rich"?

And private individuals - the ones whose wealth is tied up in and and slaves? Not them, and I'm not speaking of ideology, just that they've already chosen where to put their money, and most of it isn't available for investment in industry even if they want to invest in industry.

There are some exceptions to "the planter class = the rich", but not enough for rapid growth.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Any chance you mean Shelby Foote?

Didn't Shelby Steele wrote those historical romances set in the Civil War?

 

[Blackfox5]

Any independent CSA will have a fairly weak navy. It lacks the industrial basis for a large navy, and the weak central authority probably won't be able to raise much revenue to pay for one anyway.

Initially, it'd concentrate on a littoral fleet/coast guard, adequate port defenses, and perhaps a national naval academy. The first two are doable even given limited finances and central government authority, but the third depends on the Confederate Congress. It''ll depend whether the old fire eaters are in charge (who will be against any centralizing tendency, and any national academy will arouse their fury), or if moderates/former Whigs get the upper hand. I suspect eventually sanity will prevail, and a national naval academy will be built, albeit perhaps not for several decades.

The real question is what happens at the end of the century when Mahanian thought dominates, and any Confederate pretensions to great power status requires a powerful navy. If so, I think the CSA will be in a similar position to Argentina and Brazil. They'll build smaller vessels themselves, and attempt to purchase dreadnoughts from Britain.

Overall, the CSA navy will be a non-factor in world affairs. They'll be a distinct second to the US in the northern part of the Western Hemisphere (of course, Britain will have its own nearby fleets as well), and perhaps on par with Argentina/Brazil eventually. It'd be many more years before the CSA could be assurred of winning any naval conflict with Spain. It probably doesn't even have a chance to do so until after 1910, and only if war fever over Cuba prompts the CSA to devote significant resources to building a fleet. Lacking a naval tradition, I suspect inexperience will really show in any first battles if there is a war.

In truth, the CSA probably never bids to be a naval power and will be content with a littoral force with minor expeditionary capability in the Caribbean that might cause Spain some worry, but not be an actual challenge.

Few nations actually become naval powers. It requires significant investment since needs of the army tend to be more important. True naval powers tend to be limited to either wealthy island nations, or dominant continental powers. The Confederacy will be neither. Even the second class naval powers of France or Italy would be above what the CSA could do. I think Argentina or Brazil represents best possible "peers".

 

[NothingNow]

There are some exceptions to "the planter class = the rich", but not enough for rapid growth.

And when the greatest concentration of them live in Key West (and in the salvage business) with the rest in the major port cities, and mostly survive off the export/import trade?

 

[67th Tigers]

Any independent CSA will have a fairly weak navy. It lacks the industrial basis for a large navy, and the weak central authority probably won't be able to raise much revenue to pay for one anyway.

Something I never quite understood is this notion that the Confederate central government was "weak", which mainly seems to be neo-libertarian wishful thinking (but they shout the loudest). In actuality the Richmond government was significantly more powerful and centralised than the Washington government . Almost to the point of being a command economy in some areas.

The CSA has a very significant industrial base. In 1861 the most sophisticated iron mills are in Richmond, not in Philadelphia. Ho hum....

 

[zoomar]

My guess is relatively small and largely riverine and coastal. That was the US tradition prior to the Civil War, and I don't see why two separate American federations (even if hostile to each other) would necessraily change this - at least for 30-40 years.

If the CSA seeks naval rearmament in the early Dreadnought era to foster colonialization, counter US power, or whatever, I would imagine something between Brazil and Japan. The CS Navy would rely largely on capital ships built in foreign (let's say British) yards, but have the design and industrial capacity to design and build a few of their own as well. This CSA navy would probably not pretend to be a major world fleet, but be a credible regional force at least equivalent to the fleets of Brazil or Argentina- and probably more intelligently planned. Also, since I do not believe an independent CSA would necessarily remain hostile to the USA and vice versa (in fact I think a rapproachement is far more likely), I wouldn't be shocked to see US shipbuilders being the major supplier of warships to the confederacy in the 20th century.

 

[Faeelin]

Something else to consider: even if relations with the UK are hostile, and somehow discourage British investment, foreign capital was miniscule in this period in America.

The overall level of foreign investment (all foreign nations was miniscule up until the 1890s. Even in railroads, the heaviest sector for European investment, three quarters of all capital still came from Americans. Overall, foreign capital was probably less than 5% of the addition to America's capital stock between 1799 and 1900.

This is from The Political Economy of American Industrialization.

 

[Faeelin]

The CSA has a very significant industrial base. In 1861 the most sophisticated iron mills are in Richmond, not in Philadelphia. Ho hum....

This as accurate as your numbers on British troops in the Napoleonic Wars, serrah?

 

[67th Tigers]

This as accurate as your numbers on British troops in the Napoleonic Wars, serrah?

Did The Hon. J. W. Fortescue ever write about them? Because I quoted his "The County Lieutenancies and the Army 1803-14" in that discussion, and if don't agree with them then take it up with his corpse.

 

[Basileus444]

Something I never quite understood is this notion that the Confederate central government was "weak", which mainly seems to be neo-libertarian wishful thinking (but they shout the loudest). In actuality the Richmond government was significantly more powerful and centralised than the Washington government . Almost to the point of being a command economy in some areas.

The CSA has a very significant industrial base. In 1861 the most sophisticated iron mills are in Richmond, not in Philadelphia. Ho hum....

That seems very doubtful. The Confederate state governments may be very centralized, but not the national government. A nation built on states' rights is ideologically opposed by its very nature to a powerful central government.

As for the Confederate industrial base. Even if the best iron mills are in Virginia, the iron output of Pennsylvania alone beats the entire Confederacy almost 15 to 1 (530,000 tons to 36,000). Enough quantity has a quality of its own. Even if the whole CSA was kept after the civil war, and grew at an industrial rate equal to that of the OTL USA, by 1913 its iron/steel production is just a hair above half of OTL Austria-Hungary. That level means the CSA can't be ignored...too much...but it's a Italy-level power at best.

I'm getting the figures from my earlier post in this thread on the same subject.

Edit: Out of curiosity, I did the following.

In 1860 the CSA produces 36,700 tons of steel. By 1913 I want it to be the same as France (4.6 million tons). That is a growth rate of 12,534% in total, spread over 53 years- an annual growth rate of 236.5%. To be the equal just of France, let alone Russia, the UK, Germany, or the US, the CSA would have to more than double its iron/steel production every year for fifty consecutive years.

Figures taken from Rise and Fall of the Great Powers

Regarding the CSN, I agree with those who view it at best becoming an Argentina or Chile level naval-power. I would expect investment in heavy coast-defense monitors. They're a lot cheaper than battleships, and their 12 or 14in guns would at least make it that the far heavier USN battleline can't shell the coast with impunity.

 

[Elfwine]

And when the greatest concentration of them live in Key West (and in the salvage business) with the rest in the major port cities, and mostly survive off the export/import trade?

I do not see this helping. Might encourage more commerce than one would think if this section grows, but not industry.

That seems very doubtful. The Confederate state governments may be very centralized, but not the national government. A nation built on states' rights is ideologically opposed by its very nature to a powerful central government.

Surprising, I agree with 67th on the government issue - although that centralization in Richmond met fierce opposition by several governors on states rights grounds, and it was more effective at squeezing the poor than impacting the rich or controlling the railroads (for instance) effectively.


Would dearly love to see who says Richmond had the best quality iron mills, and how they determined that though - and why their statement should be taken seriously. Naming someone doesn't give them credentials.

 

[NothingNow]

I do not see this helping. Might encourage more commerce than one would think if this section grows, but not industry.

Yeah, but that class is heavily dependent on Cash crops and the whole Plantation economy, except in New Orleans which lives off the Union trade along the Mississippi.

Meanwhile, Key West is all about the Navy, Wrecking, and a piratical attitude towards everything.

The Eastern Gulf Coast (from Cedar Key to New Orleans) would have a future as the center of shipbuilding for the CSA (just look at the Navy yard in Pensacola,) but not that it means much.

 

[Elfwine]

Yeah, but that class is heavily dependent on Cash crops and the whole Plantation economy, except in New Orleans which lives off the Union trade along the Mississippi.

Meanwhile, Key West is all about the Navy, Wrecking, and a piratical attitude towards everything.

The Eastern Gulf Coast (from Cedar Key to New Orleans) would have a future as the center of shipbuilding for the CSA (just look at the Navy yard in Pensacola,) but not that it means much.

Florida is pretty underdeveloped and undersettled (as of the POD). Wonder if that would change faster than OTL or not?

A (nautical) economy based on wrecking and a piratical attitude is not something likely to lead to the kind of wealth means development means settlement means more development.

 

[NothingNow]

Florida is pretty underdeveloped and undersettled (as of the POD). Wonder if that would change faster than OTL or not?

A (nautical) economy based on wrecking and a piratical attitude is not something likely to lead to the kind of wealth means development means settlement means more development.

We've discussed it before, and well, South Florida would be very empty (in 1860 there were 7,077 people in the southern 6 counties, about mostly in Hillsborough and Monroe, with 2900 of them just in Key West) while the northern part of the state was just very rural by the standards of the day. And without the Cubans coming into Tampa, and Railroad tycoons like Flagler, The East Coast and South Florida (excluding the Keys and Cape Sable) will likely not develop at all.

But Key West? The Island imports everything but fish, water and air. It's also extremely wealthy by any standard at this point. It did drive development of Cape Sable though, which sold vegetables, fruit and charcoal to the Keys, and Fort Cross was there to discourage a semi-overland raid on the Keys.

The Northern Part of the State is fine if you can deal with Malaria and other mosquito borne diseases, like the South Carolina Lowlands, and would probably be an eclectic mix of loggers, smallholders, ranchers plantation magnates, and the occasional person doing Peat mining in the Okeefenokee, and would be well integrated with the rest of the CSA, (by Confederate standards.)

South florida OTOH would be more or less accessible only by sea, since the Carriage roads were terrible, and a storm like Debby would wash them out pretty easily.

 

[Elfwine]

We've discussed it before, and well, South Florida would be very empty (in 1860 there were 7,077 people in the southern 6 counties, about mostly in Hillsborough and Monroe, with 2900 of them just in Key West) while the northern part of the state was just very rural by the standards of the day. And without the Cubans coming into Tampa, and Railroad tycoons like Flagler, The East Coast and South Florida (excluding the Keys and Cape Sable) will likely not develop at all.

But Key West? The Island imports everything but fish, water and air. It's also extremely wealthy by any standard at this point. It did drive development of Cape Sable though, which sold vegetables, fruit and charcoal to the Keys, and Fort Cross was there to discourage a semi-overland raid on the Keys.

The Northern Part of the State is fine if you can deal with Malaria and other mosquito borne diseases, like the South Carolina Lowlands, and would probably be an eclectic mix of loggers, smallholders, ranchers plantation magnates, and the occasional person doing Peat mining in the Okeefenokee, and would be well integrated with the rest of the CSA, (by Confederate standards.)

South florida OTOH would be more or less accessible only by sea, since the Carriage roads were terrible, and a storm like Debby would wash them out pretty easily.

'
Interesting.

So there might be differences, but it won't be an economic powerhouse to help the rest of the CSA along.

Not necessarily that poor either if I'm understanding you right (will read the link in a bit, possibly going to be going out to eat soonish), but not enough to make up for the CSA's disadvantages.