A Confederate Navy after independence?
- Thread starter Enigmajones
- Start date
frlmerrin
Banned
Elfwine,
This is your fundamental problem right here. This scenario does NOT involve the OTL post-war economy. In even the best (for the USA) independent Confederacy time-line the economy of the USA is in a very poor position indeed compared with that of OTL.
For example, how do you propose the USA raised revenue to pay for its war debt?
Without significant earnings from export tariffs how will the government ballance the budget? In scenarios where the USA loses the west (to independence, the British, French-Mexico, Texas, the Confederacy whatever) the situation is even worse as there is not even specie income.
This is your fundamental problem right here. This scenario does NOT involve the OTL post-war economy. In even the best (for the USA) independent Confederacy time-line the economy of the USA is in a very poor position indeed compared with that of OTL.
For example, how do you propose the USA raised revenue to pay for its war debt?
Without significant earnings from export tariffs how will the government ballance the budget? In scenarios where the USA loses the west (to independence, the British, French-Mexico, Texas, the Confederacy whatever) the situation is even worse as there is not even specie income.
The situation very much does involve the OTL post-war economy, because the vast majority of the US's economic growth and strength was outside "the South" in this period. US production and export of things other than cotton and tobacco (aka the things that would be impacted most by the CSA's existence) soared upward at a truly amazing rate.
So I propose the US pay its expenses the same way it did OTL.because it has most of the OTL sources of revenue.
And the idea of the US losing California and Nevada and Colorado is hooey.
Meanwhile, the CSA has no native source of specie, is underindustralized, overly dependent on a single crop, with a worse transportation network and a smaller internal market, has relied chiefly on paper money to make up for not having money from anywhere else (during the war), and has little it can do about any of those things.
NothingNow
Banned
They'd top out with a few screw frigates, some vessels like the Stonewall (maybe 4,) and a few galleys, and gun-boats, along with some River Ironclads. They'd honestly be hard pressed to fund anymore, and considering the US Navy would never surrender control of the Keys and Dry Tortugas, would probably be unable to match the Union Gulf Squadron without really risking say, Hampton Roads and Newport News.
Could they make an actually safe successor to the Hunley ? 
Or at least torpedo boats ?
What about southern-built ironclads ?
Or at least torpedo boats ?
What about southern-built ironclads ?
frlmerrin
Banned
The US economy in the late 1860s was driven by agricultural exports from the south, specie from the west and a couple of other exports like whale oil and wheat. The revenue from this helped finish the transport, infrastructure which in turn developed domestic heavy industry; coal, iron and steel primarily in the north. Protective tariffs and immigration to the north providing cheap labour are allowing inefficent northern industries to compete with more efficient European (primarily British ones). In other words the south is funding and subsidising northen development. You don't get northern industrial development without southern export revenue generation.
The north does not have much in the way of revenue generation without the south. List five large revenue streams that could support norther development. I can think of three and they get you maybe 20% of what the north used in OTL. Go on have a try, bet you can't do it.
'Hooey' is a very silly word to use when discussing Alternative History where all things are possible. Some things are slightly more probable than others.
An independent California probably involving the good bits of Nevada and lower Oregon is on the cards in any scenario involving a war with Britain or France or both as the means by which the Confederacy gains independence. New Mexico and perhaps Arizona are vulnerable too both to the Confederacy should the British or French attack California and to a more agressive France in Mexico. The Mormons are at least 30% foreign born probably more like 50% there is a modest chance they are revolting. In a war with the British the USA can probably say goodbye to everything north and west of the Columbia. In short the only really 'safe' bit of the USA on the west coast would be upper Oregon because no one else wants it, it would be hard for them to take and the small population is very middle class and pro-Union.
frlmerrin
Banned
This is an interesting one. The USA would surrender the Keys easily enough as they are indefensible especially as the Confederacy could expect to have naval superiority and depending on the scenario the support of one or more of the European powers.
The Dry Tortugas are fortified and could last out against a prolonged siege. The USA might well try to hold on to them and might succeed.
Yeah no, this is just the South wins independence, no direct involvement of the British and French. And by the way foreign born has nothing to do with the United States. If having Foreign born means that you're likely to revolt, then why wouldn't the East Coast have revolted?
In other words, no. The South is not funding and subsiding northern development, which is occurring because northern industry is quite capable of not only finding a market within the US, but producing shiploads of exports.From The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers on the post-war US economy: "Swiftly becoming the world's largest producer of manufactures, the United States began to pour its farm machinery, iron and steel wares, machine tools, electrical equipment, and other products onto the world market."
Cotton isn't even mentioned except as traditionally being a major export - the US's economic growth is shooting upwards in areas that losing the eleven CSA states wouldn't eliminate at all, and in some areas (such as steel production) barely even make a noticeable change.
As for quality: "Technologically, leading American firms like International Harvester, Singer, Du Pont, Bell, Colt, and Standard Oil, were equal to, or often better than, any in the world'; and they enjoyed an enormous domestic market and economies of scale, which their German, British, and Swiss rivals did not."
20% according to what source, I wonder.
All things are not possible, because we are looking at scenarios that could exist, not scenarios that people who know nothing about economics wish would happen.
In short, you have a greatly inflated opinion of what Britain and France could and would do, and the idea of the CSA taking New Mexico and Arizona when its OTL efforts were such miserable failures is not plausible.
NothingNow
Banned
Actually, Key West is extremely defensible (it's economy developed around Wrecking for a reason, and it's got an unfinished, but still very good set of heavily armed and state of the art fortifications at this point) and it's situated at an extremely strategic location, and an important coaling station and fleet base.
I doubt the Royal Navy would consider trying to dislodge the Union Navy from the Gibraltar of the West. It's certainly well outside the CSA's capabilities as well.
Now, Fort Jefferson OTOH exists to control one of the better protected anchorages in the gulf, and the best situated to serve as a foothold in the region. Needless to say, but I very much doubt the US Navy would give up either of them under such circumstances without everything on the Islands being dead.
You have to have a budget before you can bust it.
Any CSA that achieves independence is going to be mired in a financial morass for a very long time. "Bad idea" might be this month's biggest understatement.The USN won't want to give it away, but then again it's not the USN's decision; it's the decision of the US government when they negotiate peace with the Confederates. I doubt a US government bent on peace would let the Dry Tortugas and Key West get in the way; then again, the Confederates might not be willing to go back to war and risk their independence to recover those areas either. So it may come down to who blinks first on the issue.
frlmerrin
Banned
Enigmajones,
This was your first post starting the thread.
This is what you wrote in response to one of my posts.
You will notice that the second post flatly contradicts the first. If I use whatever cliche you want then clearly direct involvement of the British and French is permissible. Can I suggest either more clarity on your part when you pose a question or more consistency on your part when the debate does not go the way you want it to?
No. The foreign born in most of the eastern states is, with a few exceptions less than 20% of population. In California it is more than half.
This was your first post starting the thread.
This is what you wrote in response to one of my posts.
You will notice that the second post flatly contradicts the first. If I use whatever cliche you want then clearly direct involvement of the British and French is permissible. Can I suggest either more clarity on your part when you pose a question or more consistency on your part when the debate does not go the way you want it to?
No. The foreign born in most of the eastern states is, with a few exceptions less than 20% of population. In California it is more than half.
You have to have a budget before you can bust it.
Yeah. Even under the very, very best circumstances, the CSA's "rich" are cash-poor, which makes any substantial taxation actually being achieved difficult - the cotton economy is credit driven, not cash-on-hand based.
Meanwhile, CSA expenses - again, in the very best circumstances - are troubling for a newly independent nation, which has to find a way of making new institutions work smoothly.
I think it's theoretically possible for the CSA to solve this without undue trouble, but only in either a) a computer simulation where we can overrule personalities, or b) something where OTL's circumstances don't arise in 1860 in the first place, which renders the issue moot.
frlmerrin
Banned
It is at the bottom of Florida which means it is beyond the range of most of the 1865 Union fleet. It is part of an island chain which means it is vulnerable to assault by troops in small vessels and it is blockadable. I seem to remember (and I may be wrong) that the fortifications were essentially worthless in 1865. Can anyone supply the state of construction, number and size of guns and troops? It is also vulnerable to green march. In any case it is all academic the USA would end up giving it away in the peace. It is not something the USA is going to want another war over, it is not off their coast but the Confederacy might be willing to go to/continue the war for as it is off their coast. The Dry Tortugas are a little different as they are actually worth having from a USA perspective.
the West. It's certainly well outside the CSA's capabilities as well.
In the event of war with the Union the Royal Navy would take the Keys by storm and besiege Fort Jeferson with a corvette or two and a couple of gunboats. As the place has no water supply it could only hold out a couple of months at most.
Fine, I can take that, but I said Confederate independence, I did not mean the dismantling of the USA via ASB standards of what Britain and France would do. Crippling the United States would be a terrible goal. The British and the French would never do that. Keep the US modest? Yes, but give independence to California? Not likely.
frlmerrin
Banned
Elfwine,
Your list of exports is out of context, they came much later after the northern economy had been subsidised by the south for 30 years.
Farm machinery – Not in the 1860, not in the 1870s
Iron and steel wares – USA still imported iron in the mid-1860s as it could produce enough domestically and much of what it did produce was made with charcoal rather than coke and was of very poor quality. In 1865 the USA produced almost no Bessemer steel. The crucible steel it produced was largely made from Swedish bar iron which had to be imported.
machine tools – No the 1860s are still the age of complete British dominance in this market as are the 1870s.
Electrical equipment – Not until the late 1890s
I don’t know where you think cotton is not being mentioned. If you look at the Statistical abstracts for the period all available on-line you will see in the US ones it is a major export and in the British ones you will see where it is going and how it is being imported back as yarn, cloth and clothes all of which carried an import tariff funding the USA economy in OTL and which is not going to happen in scenarios where the Confederacy is independent.
As for your suggested technological advantages for USA companies.
International Harvester - formed post 1900 irrelevant
Singer - yes in some small machines (NOT machines tools) the US had a technological lead but in the 1860s this is still mostly a domestic company
Du Pont – was a powder company small by international standards in 1860s
Colt – small arms company dwarfed by the manufactories of Birmingham and the Royal Arsenals at this period
Standard Oil – started 1870. In a time-line where the Confederacy owns Texas and Oklahoma oil is not going to be the cash cow it was for the USA in OTL is it.
American technology did not overhaul British technology until 1942-4 long after USA production dwarfed Britain’s.
Well if you had attempted to answered my really rather basic and simple question you might have come to this conclusion your self or at least been in a position to refute it. So where are these northern exports in 1865 then, for the second time of asking.
In OTL the Confederate forces in the west had their flank threatened by the California column in any scenario where Britain invades California this is not the case and the Confederates have a fighting chance. Similarly should the French decide to take Fort Yuma to isolate the Juaristas (somewhat later in time) the Confederate flank is once again secure.
I note once again that you seem to think your prejudice is the arbiter of what is and is not plausible. I suggest reasoned argument is a better tool.
Your list of exports is out of context, they came much later after the northern economy had been subsidised by the south for 30 years.
Farm machinery – Not in the 1860, not in the 1870s
Iron and steel wares – USA still imported iron in the mid-1860s as it could produce enough domestically and much of what it did produce was made with charcoal rather than coke and was of very poor quality. In 1865 the USA produced almost no Bessemer steel. The crucible steel it produced was largely made from Swedish bar iron which had to be imported.
machine tools – No the 1860s are still the age of complete British dominance in this market as are the 1870s.
Electrical equipment – Not until the late 1890s
I don’t know where you think cotton is not being mentioned. If you look at the Statistical abstracts for the period all available on-line you will see in the US ones it is a major export and in the British ones you will see where it is going and how it is being imported back as yarn, cloth and clothes all of which carried an import tariff funding the USA economy in OTL and which is not going to happen in scenarios where the Confederacy is independent.
As for your suggested technological advantages for USA companies.
International Harvester - formed post 1900 irrelevant
Singer - yes in some small machines (NOT machines tools) the US had a technological lead but in the 1860s this is still mostly a domestic company
Du Pont – was a powder company small by international standards in 1860s
Colt – small arms company dwarfed by the manufactories of Birmingham and the Royal Arsenals at this period
Standard Oil – started 1870. In a time-line where the Confederacy owns Texas and Oklahoma oil is not going to be the cash cow it was for the USA in OTL is it.
American technology did not overhaul British technology until 1942-4 long after USA production dwarfed Britain’s.
Well if you had attempted to answered my really rather basic and simple question you might have come to this conclusion your self or at least been in a position to refute it. So where are these northern exports in 1865 then, for the second time of asking.
Your understanding of Alternative History is sorely flawed. There are an infinitude universes each having POD which are different by just a single energy state of a single hydrogen atom. Thus if something is possible (i.e. within physical laws) it has happened in one of the universes. For example, Martian Cephalopods invade the Union and providing the Confederacy with its independence, this is clearly not likely, but possible. What you are saying is that only Alternative Histories that meet your prejudice are acceptable which is rather amusing but completely wrong.
In OTL the Confederate forces in the west had their flank threatened by the California column in any scenario where Britain invades California this is not the case and the Confederates have a fighting chance. Similarly should the French decide to take Fort Yuma to isolate the Juaristas (somewhat later in time) the Confederate flank is once again secure.
I note once again that you seem to think your prejudice is the arbiter of what is and is not plausible. I suggest reasoned argument is a better tool.
frlmerrin
Banned
You said whatever cliche you want you did not discount the disolution of the USA from that. I also note that the disolution of the USA would only occur in some scenarios.
The idea that British and French intervention is ASB or that they could not do the things I suggest should they wish to intervene (for their own reasons not those of the Confederacy) is risible as any number of threads on this board has shown.
Why does it have to be an Anglo-French goal to cripple the USA? It happens as a result of simple economic once the Confederacy becomes independent and things are simply worse if the British or French are involved.
Independence for California is a better than even bet but the precise details are out of scope for this particular thread.
Okay, if you're going to seriously argue that Martian Cephalopods invading the Union is "not likely but possible", then I think that says everything I need to know about the probability of reasoned argument based on any recognizable reality.
Have a nice day.