Confederate Politics after 1862 victory

[Thomas1195]

I think that Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, and Louisiana will be largely pro-industrialization, and I could see Robert E. Lee running as a war hero for industrialization and modernization of the army and winning! Question though, how exactly were the Confederate Congress and the President to be elected under the Constitution? That could drastically change how soon the industrialization occurs

Those regions would be massively wrecked during the Civil War. Such a victory would be similar to France's ww1 victory.

Also, politics wise, the Democrats had much stronger party machinery and organization than the Whigs in the South, so it is unlikely that they would lose power to the modernizers.

 

[History Learner]

Those were still the lower tariffs under the Democrats, under which the European exporters would be able to peneratrate their markets and turn it into a dumping ground. Once the Republican took over, the North raised tariffs to a much higher rate, which means the only way to get access to Northern market is to invest in the North.

Not to mention the North's massive economic reforms under Lincoln during the civil war that were passed thanks to the absence of Southerners in the Congress.

The Tariff of 1857 reduced rates to between 15 and 25%; the historical average for the United States up to this point was 20%. There is no reason at all to assume this would allow for foreign dumping into the CSA with this fact in mind.

Not after a Civil War, during which the more developed border states would have suffered much greater damages compared to either the Deep South or the North.

Said millionaires were in the Deep South, which makes sense given the source of their wealth was Cotton exports. Given this and the aforementioned fact that Cotton exports still comprised 70% of U.S. exports in 1870, there is, again, no reason to assume any real change in this given the lack of emancipation and the likely date of a Confederate victory.

 

[History Learner]

Not without a confederate Civil War. A lot of very powerful Southern interests did not want to see a modernized South. The threat of modernization was one of the big reasons for secession in the first place.
" the only thing all powerful men fear ,is losing power"

The biggest opposition to further industrialization-and I say further because the South was industrialized by the standards of the time-was from Yeoman Farmers who had previously sabotaged an 1850 effort to develop the iron fields of Alabama. Given these were the standard infantrymen in the Confederate Army, the ramification of Civil War casualties means their resistance has been artificially reduced. The Planters were not opposed to industrialization and found it was often price competitive with cotton.

 

[History Learner]

OTL, before the planned and government sponsored industrialisation with New Deal and WW2 programs, which southern regions were industrialised and what they produced ?

In 1914 there was 275,000 establishments in the United States according to the U.S. Census of Manufacturing. The following are the numbers listed for the States that composed the Confederacy as well as Oklahoma:

Virginia - 5,506
North Carolina - 5,507
South Carolina - 1,808
Georgia - 4,639
Florida - 2,518
Tennessee - 4,775
Alabama - 3,242
Mississippi - 2,209
Arkansas - 2,604
Louisana - 2,211
Texas - 5,084
Oklahoma - 2,518

Total: 41,722

41,722/275,000 = 0.15 *100 = 15% of the nation's manufacturing.

To put this into perspective, in 1913 32% of world manufacturing was found in the United States. With 15% of this being Southern, this means that 4.8% of global output was found in the South. This is double that of Italy, larger than Austro-Hungary and roughly comparable to France.

 

[Intosh]

In 1914 there was 275,000 establishments in the United States according to the U.S. Census of Manufacturing.
..................
41,722/275,000 = 0.15 *100 = 15% of the nation's manufacturing.
.................
To put this into perspective, in 1913 32% of world manufacturing was found in the United States. With 15% of this being Southern, this means that 4.8% of global output was found in the South. This is double that of Italy, larger than Austro-Hungary and roughly comparable to France.

I agree with your numbers but not how you used them.

You based your calculation by saying that each establishment are egal in size and production. But you cannot compared a 10 people small establishment with a 1000 workers factory.

Better be the manufacturing production of each state in comparison to the US production.

 

[History Learner]

I agree with your numbers but not how you used,.

You based your calculation by saying that each establishment are egal in size and production. But you cannot compared a 10 people small establishment with a 1000 workers factory.

Better be the manufacturing production of each state in comparison to the US production.

Outside of steel production, I doubt you'll be able to find such figures. Value of output, probably the closest data available to what you're asking for, is at $24.2 Billion in 1914 with $2,290,687,000 being Southern in origin; this is 10% of the total value of output.

 

[Thomas1195]

Said millionaires were in the Deep South, which makes sense given the source of their wealth was Cotton exports. Given this and the aforementioned fact that Cotton exports still comprised 70% of U.S. exports in 1870, there is, again, no reason to assume any real change in this given the lack of emancipation and the likely date of a Confederate victory.

The problem is how much of their millions were slaves and plantations, both of which were hard to convert into financial capital.

The Tariff of 1857 reduced rates to between 15 and 25%; the historical average for the United States up to this point was 20%. There is no reason at all to assume this would allow for foreign dumping into the CSA with this fact in mind.

The European manufacturers during the 1860s-1870s should not really have much problems penetrating CSA market. Britain already dominated world manufacturing and still produced more cheaply and efficiently than rest of the world despite tariffs at that time, whereas other European countries pretty much had the same level of tariffs as the CSA. They would need OTL Gilded Age US tariff rates to actually protect their industries.

Outside of steel production, I doubt you'll be able to find such figures. Value of output, probably the closest data available to what you're asking for, is at $24.2 Billion in 1914 with $2,290,687,000 being Southern in origin; this is 10% of the total value of output.

If you use the Bairoch source that mentioned US share of global manufacturing being 32% by 1914, then France's share was 6% and Russia's share was even higher than France, at 8%.

 

[History Learner]

The problem is how much of their millions were slaves and plantations, both of which were hard to convert into financial capital.

For one, Planters didn't make their money by selling either; they used both in tandem to earn liquid capital by growing Cotton and other crops, in particular corn. Likewise, even to this day real estate-which is what plantations are-is still a major assets class. Southern banks accepted slaves as collateral too.

The European manufacturers during the 1860s-1870s should not really have much problems penetrating CSA market. Britain already dominated world manufacturing and still produced more cheaply and efficiently than rest of the world despite tariffs at that time, whereas other European countries pretty much had the same level of tariffs as the CSA. They would need OTL Gilded Age US tariff rates to actually protect their industries.

One wonders why they failed to do that to the United States between 1815-1860 despite having similar Tariff rates to what the C.S.A would have. Britain didn't suddenly become more competitive in the 1860s, after all, and actually entered a relative decline starting in the 1870s.

If you use the Bairoch source that mentioned US share of global manufacturing being 32% by 1914, then France's share was 6% and Russia's share was even higher than France, at 8%.

Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of Great Powers is my source.

 

[Thomas1195]

Britain didn't suddenly become more competitive in the 1860s, after all, and actually entered a relative decline starting in the 1870s.

I mean that Britain was still the most efficient producer during the 1860s-1870s, although others were catching up.

Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of Great Powers is my source.

Different sources show that France's share of world manufacturing was still around 6% by 1913.

For one, Planters didn't make their money by selling either; they used both in tandem to earn liquid capital by growing Cotton and other crops, in particular corn. Likewise, even to this day real estate-which is what plantations are-is still a major assets class. Southern banks accepted slaves as collateral too.

Still, they were not liquid assets, which mean money stuck into them would not be easily converted into cash. Additionally, Southern banking system was much weaker, with banks being able to issue their own notes and without a national bank/national banking system. Finally, even before the war, industries in the South were always underinvested and usually lost to agriculture/plantation in bidding for capital allocation. In fact, its industries were already a generation behind both Western Europe and the North as early as the 1830s

Anyway, much of US rapid industrial growth and railroad construction during the Gilded Age was driven by foreign capital, most of which would flow to the North rather than the South, especially when CSA currency was borderline worthless.

 

[KaiserWilhelm]

Those were still the lower tariffs under the Democrats, under which the European exporters would be able to peneratrate their markets and turn it into a dumping ground. Once the Republican took over, the North raised tariffs to a much higher rate, which means the only way to get access to Northern market is to invest in the North.

Not to mention the North's massive economic reforms under Lincoln during the civil war that were passed thanks to the absence of Southerners in the Congress.


Not after a Civil War, during which the more developed border states would have suffered much greater damages compared to either the Deep South or the North.

I imagine that in a late 1862 victory scenario, the South could extract an early free trade agreement with the North

 

[KaiserWilhelm]

Those regions would be massively wrecked during the Civil War. Such a victory would be similar to France's ww1 victory.

Also, politics wise, the Democrats had much stronger party machinery and organization than the Whigs in the South, so it is unlikely that they would lose power to the modernizers.

Not during an 1862 victory scenario, honestly.

Perhaps, but there were Southern Democrats who favored improvements.

 

[History Learner]

I mean that Britain was still the most efficient producer during the 1860s-1870s, although others were catching up.

And they failed to penetrate the American market despite the average Tariff being about the same as the CSA would have.

Different sources show that France's share of world manufacturing was still around 6% by 1913.

Okay?

Still, they were not liquid assets, which mean money stuck into them would not be easily converted into cash. Additionally, Southern banking system was much weaker, with banks being able to issue their own notes and without a national bank/national banking system. Finally, even before the war, industries in the South were always underinvested and usually lost to agriculture/plantation in bidding for capital allocation. In fact, its industries were already a generation behind both Western Europe and the North as early as the 1830s

Which ignores that Real Estate, which is essentially what the slave system was, even to this day is not meant to be liquid; you allow it to appreciate in value or, in this specific case, use it to generate further wealth indirectly by growing cotton. That they can't readily sale their plantations in mass isn't a defect nor a hindrance, given the rate of return they could expect every year due to shipping cotton bales to Europe.

Anyway, much of US rapid industrial growth and railroad construction during the Gilded Age was driven by foreign capital, most of which would flow to the North rather than the South, especially when CSA currency was borderline worthless.

Given 70% of U.S. exports were Cotton in that very time frame, there is more than sufficient capital on hand.

 

[Johannes Parisiensis]

Oh, did it? I've found no such bans in Confederate constitution.

Among the powers of the Confederate Congress:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation, in all which cases, such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby, as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof:

And don't forget about the cultural aspects of slavery in the South. Even when slave labour becomes worthless, slavery could still persist for much longer due to cultural reasons.

It happened in Delaware, where they feared having a great number of free Blacks.

 

[Mackus]

Among the powers of the Confederate Congress:

As I suspected, you were wrong.
This isn't ban on internal improvements. (Although term internal improvements is not as general as I initially though, but more specific. You used it in reply to my post where I talked about industrialisation in general, implying you object to notion of general industrialisation of CSA)
Those are just limits on the sort of infrastructure spending Congress can authorize. It doesn't restrict states from such spendings. It doesn't restrict private individuals or corporations from investing their capital in industry or infrastructure.

For all the talk of how South had nothing but slaves and cotton and arrogance, it was still economically better developed than most of Europe. It just looked poor in comparison to the North.

 

[Thomas1195]

I imagine that in a late 1862 victory scenario, the South could extract an early free trade agreement with the North

The Northern industrialists were not really fancy of free trade agreements.

Those are just limits on the sort of infrastructure spending Congress can authorize. It doesn't restrict states from such spendings. It doesn't restrict private individuals or corporations from investing their capital in industry or infrastructure.

Internal improvements in a large country like USA or even CSA would be very inefficient without federal intervention, especially when it comes to roads and railways.

 

[Southern pride]

I found this map of all the Railroads built in the U.S between 1850 and 1860

For all the talk of the South having no railways it seems that Georgia and South Carolina were relatively well connected it also seems like Eastern Virginia isn't doing to bad ether. While the Southern Railroad system is nothing compared to the North's they have some railroads.

 

[KaiserWilhelm]

Was there an amendment process for the CSA constitution to allow the needed internal improvements?

 

[KaiserWilhelm]

Was there an amendment process for the CSA constitution to allow the needed internal improvements?

Bump

 

[Southern pride]

Bump

Same as U.S I believe passed by Congress and then has to be approved by majority of States.

 

[History Learner]

I found this map of all the Railroads built in the U.S between 1850 and 1860

For all the talk of the South having no railways it seems that Georgia and South Carolina were relatively well connected it also seems like Eastern Virginia isn't doing to bad ether. While the Southern Railroad system is nothing compared to the North's they have some railroads.

Second largest per capita in the world.