The CSA in WWI

No.

"We should copy the power we beat!" is a lot harder to sell than "What we're doing works!"

Add in things like a shortage of liquid capital and even if the will is there, the means not so much.
...r.

They are going to have to be buying industrial products, trains, weapons, ect.


The idea that that money should go to a fellow Confederate instead of a " damned Yankee" or some "snotty European" is going to occur to them pretty quickly.
 
Tredegar was fairly typical. Many factories throughout the pre-war South used slaves.

What complicated things was the vagaries of cotton prices versus the limited supply of slaves. When cotton prices were low, more slave labour would be moved into urban and industrial pursuits. When cotton prices rose, the tendency was for some of those slaves (though not all) to be pulled out of urban pursuits and back into cotton agriculture.

For instance, the big expansion of slave labour in industry in the South was in the late 1830s and 1840s, when cotton prices were relatively low. Cotton prices were higher during the 1850s, which affected the supply of slaves to be used in industry. (That was a problem at Tredegar, but it was not limited to there.) While many slaves remained in urban and industrial pursuits, some were pulled out, and more importantly, it was hard to get additional slave labour in those factories. Some factories converted to free labour (white or black).

Cotton prices are going to collapse whenever the ACW is over. In OTL, they didn't recover until 1880 or thereabouts, and then entered a gradual long-term decline thereafter (with some price spikes). That period is when slaves will be moved into whatever factories are being established in the CSA.



If cotton prices are down, then there will be more inclination to rent slaves out, as happened in OTL. Rented slaves were cheaper than hiring an equivalent number of free labourers.


Very interesting.
 
Jared: That issue of renting out slaves poses a problem. How many factories (when renting slaves was no longer economical) were unable to remain in business?

Pre-war Southern industry seems to have been more severely boom and bust than was healthy as far as overall development went. Not to say this was unique to the South, but industrialists seem to have managed to overcome that in the North - but there was never consistent effort at that in the South overall.

Transferring slaves to cotton production when cotton prices are good inevitably means a greater production of cotton, which sooner or later means cotton prices drop, and . . . it sounds like an unpromising cycle. Good for a few individuals, but not necessarily overall economic growth.

They are going to have to be buying industrial products, trains, weapons, ect.

The idea that that money should go to a fellow Confederate instead of a " damned Yankee" or some "snotty European" is going to occur to them pretty quickly.

Not sure "buy Confederate" as opposed to European (specifically British) is necessarily going to be that attractive. Might be more attractive as opposed to "damned Yankees", but I think "a fellow Confederate" is not really meaningful if the individuals who want (say) locomotives can get them at prices they're fine with from other sources.

And given the personalities fighting each other in the Confederate government, I don't see a sustained government campaign to promote that attitude (of buying Confederate). That bickering is going to be a problem until/unless a more cooperate group is in charge.

Not even about fire eaters - just the OTL Davis/Anti-Davis split sort of thing. People busy with personal feuds with each other is not what the CSA needs - but it's what its founding generation is.
 
Jared: That issue of renting out slaves poses a problem. How many factories (when renting slaves was no longer economical) were unable to remain in business?

Some closed, but the more efficiently-run ones usually survived.

Renting slaves was usually done by those factory owners who were either just starting out (and thus did not have the capital to buy large numbers of slaves) or who were in a hurry to expand their workforce, and so used whatever temporary labour was available (rented slaves, free hired labour)

If the factories were successful over time, they would usually (though not always) gradually shift to owning the slaves outright. A cotton boom would make it harder for them to expand their activities, but was less of a problem for them losing their existing workforce, since the slaves were owned outright. At least not having a rented workforce gave them more time to adjust.

So in other words, when cotton prices were low, lots of factories started up. The less efficient ones were squeezed out when cotton prices rose (or just went bust through mismanagement). The more efficient ones adapted, although they had problems expanding their workforce much during cotton boom times. For instance, during the 1850s, while the total number of textile factories was flat or went down in most states, the overall textile production still expanded significantly.

Pre-war Southern industry seems to have been more severely boom and bust than was healthy as far as overall development went. Not to say this was unique to the South, but industrialists seem to have managed to overcome that in the North - but there was never consistent effort at that in the South overall.

Southern industrialists made some efforts to manage boom and bust, but yes, on the whole, they suffered more than the North. The main difference is one beyond their control to adjust: immigration. Factory workers in the North tended to be immigrants or (in some cases) under-employed white women. Free, native-born white males hated factory work in both the North and the South. Since migrants largely avoided the South, this will exacerbate any boom and bust in the South.

Transferring slaves to cotton production when cotton prices are good inevitably means a greater production of cotton, which sooner or later means cotton prices drop, and . . . it sounds like an unpromising cycle. Good for a few individuals, but not necessarily overall economic growth.

The process of transfer was usually a gradual one - a shift over 5-10 years. It rarely involved directly owned slaves (except when the factory went bust, of course). So there was a decent amount of time to adjust. But still, on the whole, as you point out, there will be a more severe boom-bust cycle than in the North.
 
Top