US Politics with independent CSA

All you need is bird shit or bat shit to get potassium nitrate. It is a common as hell compound, there is a reason countless tons were made worldwide.
Yes, we have had this discussion before, it is one thing gathering and manufacturing enough from local guano sources to give the local militia or the possum hunters of Tenessee (probably the same folks) thirty shots each but you would need a mammoth group of volunteers or employees to do so. To acquire and process enough to equip an army of 250,000 in the field you would probably need four times that many people engaged in collecting, processing and milling. Which is a shedload for a C19th economy. There are reasons why the OTL US didn't go in for import substitution. There really would be a lot of shit on the path to victory!
I honestly don’t see there being any real revanchism in the North. After a few years I don’t think anyone in the US is really going to care about or want the southern states back.
Certainly after the boll weevil they may be viewed as a liability rather than an asset. But that view will likely change from the 1920s on as oil becomes important.
 
Yes, we have had this discussion before, it is one thing gathering and manufacturing enough from local guano sources to give the local militia or the possum hunters of Tenessee (probably the same folks) thirty shots each but you would need a mammoth group of volunteers or employees to do so. To acquire and process enough to equip an army of 250,000 in the field you would probably need four times that many people engaged in collecting, processing and milling. Which is a shedload for a C19th economy. There are reasons why the OTL US didn't go in for import substitution. There really would be a lot of shit on the path to victory!
Certainly after the boll weevil they may be viewed as a liability rather than an asset. But that view will likely change from the 1920s on as oil becomes important.

I mean if you want to be pendantic, its specifically sea bird or bat poop, something which isn't commonly found in great abundance outside a few areas. There were other methods (Joseph Leconte of South Carolina actually went into detail on it for the Confederate government) which were more labor intensive and took more time to mature. But you'd be shit farming for over a year to get anything remotely productive. Though I'm sure any government north or south of the border could provide a great quantity of it in little time :biggrin:

Post war I think a nitrates industry would be a big thing North or South since they both came to an understanding of how crippling losing that resource could be! Though imagine drawing up the budget for that! How do you phrase it nicely?
 
Yes, we have had this discussion before, it is one thing gathering and manufacturing enough from local guano sources to give the local militia or the possum hunters of Tenessee (probably the same folks) thirty shots each but you would need a mammoth group of volunteers or employees to do so. To acquire and process enough to equip an army of 250,000 in the field you would probably need four times that many people engaged in collecting, processing and milling. Which is a shedload for a C19th economy. There are reasons why the OTL US didn't go in for import substitution. There really would be a lot of shit on the path to victory!

Nonsense, there are countless tons of it worldwide. Potassium Nitrate can be mined, even to this day, it is mined. There is a reason countless tons of black powder was made, all of its ingredients are wide spread and dirt cheap. It was imported because it was cheaper. The US is huge, if there is a natural source of raw materials it is virtually certain to be found in the US. There are big deposits in KY and TN among other places. https://sciencing.com/info-8501630-natural-places-saltpeter.html Don't go down this path, it won't work. Potassium nitrate is really common.

For God's sake gunpowder was being made by countless tons in Germany, France, Italy , Turkey and Russia among other places. A lot of it was made before the discovery of America and lot more soon afterwards when the deposits weren't even known about . Where did it come from if it was so rare?
 
Last edited:
Nonsense, there are countless tons of it worldwide. Potassium Nitrate can be mined, even to this day, it is mined. There is a reason countless tons of black powder was made, all of its ingredients are wide spread and dirt cheap. It was imported because it was cheaper. The US is huge, if there is a natural source of raw materials it is virtually certain to be found in the US. There are big deposits in KY and TN among other places. https://sciencing.com/info-8501630-natural-places-saltpeter.html Don't go down this path, it won't work. Potassium nitrate is really common.

For God's sake gunpowder was being made by countless tons in Germany, France, Italy , Turkey and Russia among other places. A lot of it was made before the discovery of America and lot more soon afterwards when the deposits weren't even known about . Where did it come from if it was so rare?

We know the reality is different. Hell, the commentators at the time knew the reality was different. Lincoln was made aware of the sheer difficulties of production by his own navy, and he was made aware that in the Union there was not existing any infrastructure for the mass production of nitrates to make powder. It was bought from Britain specifically because it was cheap and pre-made coming from the Ganges Delta which crawls with the stuff.

It's about a lack of existing industry and infrastructure, which was only solved by the judicious consumption of British product which became the base Du Pont and Dahlgren used to improve American supply historically by 1863. If it wasn't available at all or had to be purchased from more expensive sources it would have been a problem, and this was known and acknowledged at the time. Sure it was available in caves in Kentucky and Tennessee, but was that quantity sufficient to meet the needs of the domestic and military interests by itself? The answer is self evidently no, especially being located in a war zone.
 
We know the reality is different. Hell, the commentators at the time knew the reality was different. Lincoln was made aware of the sheer difficulties of production by his own navy, and he was made aware that in the Union there was not existing any infrastructure for the mass production of nitrates to make powder. It was bought from Britain specifically because it was cheap and pre-made coming from the Ganges Delta which crawls with the stuff.

It's about a lack of existing industry and infrastructure, which was only solved by the judicious consumption of British product which became the base Du Pont and Dahlgren used to improve American supply historically by 1863. If it wasn't available at all or had to be purchased from more expensive sources it would have been a problem, and this was known and acknowledged at the time. Sure it was available in caves in Kentucky and Tennessee, but was that quantity sufficient to meet the needs of the domestic and military interests by itself? The answer is self evidently no, especially being located in a war zone.

Mines can be dug and railroads can be connected up. It can't happen overnight but in a couple of years or so, at most, certainly. It didn't have the infrastructure at the time because it wasn't needed. If it is needed it would be built. The US wasn't some backwater but a modern industrialized nation with tons of experience in both mining and building rails.

If it was so damn expensive gunpowder would have been barely used , if used at all, and everyone would have been using bows and crossbows still. Gunpowder was used because it could be cheaply made, even in the 14th century. ALL the great powers were using black powder, even before the discovery of America. Something that couldn't be done if saltpeter was rare. Basically any limestone cave will have it. Anywhere there are a lot of bats will have it. Anywhere there are a lot of birds wiill have it. It is literally all over the place.
 
the future course of events is going to depend on several things. First, the UK/France juggernaut brokered the peace... but does the CSA have an actual alliance with them? If so, then the US is unlikely to provoke them for quite a while after the ACW. If not, then the temptation for a rematch gets really strong. Second, with this POD, is there still likely to be a WW1 at around the same time? If yes, then the CSA's status as an ally or not is kinda important to the US... if not allied, then the US might be tempted to reconquer them. If yes, then the US is going to have to be careful about Canada if it wants to enter the war. Third, is there anything that will keep the US's hostility to the UK/France alliance going? it's roughly 50 years between the ACW and WW1... that's a long time, generations long. The US might just decide to not bother about any of it, no alliances overseas, not reconquest of the CSA, just sell supplies to the highest bidder.
 
Gunpowder was used because it could be cheaply made, even in the 14th century. ALL the great powers were using black powder, even before the discovery of America. Something that couldn't be done if saltpeter was rare.
Don't forget that in the C14th or even the C18th 7,000 men was a mass army.
 
Don't forget that in the C14th or even the C18th 7,000 men was a mass army.

And the technology in all respects was far, far less developed which is more important. Besides 7,000 men was hardly a mass army in the 18th century . In the Seven Years War there were over a million casualties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years'_War If half the men were killed, which seems unlikely, you had at least 2 million men under arms. In the Napoleonic Wars the French alone had around 3,000,000 men under arms and don't tell me they had most of their saltpeter imported from South America when it had to get past the British Blockade. The Russians had almost a million with little access to overseas trade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Wars
 
Last edited:
Post war I think a nitrates industry would be a big thing North or South since they both came to an understanding of how crippling losing that resource could be! Though imagine drawing up the budget for that! How do you phrase it nicely?
"Payment for excrement will be made in increments."
 
But the Seven Years War wasn't seven years of unceasing conflict, it was a series of short campaigns with treaties, ceasefires, military action moving to different theatres of war. Plus, dead men's muskets and pistols weren't left to rot with them on the field, they were reissued or personally appropriated by the winning side. You would need to ask an expert on the period (I am relying here on a vague memory of a book I read twenty years ago) but I have a notion that the Thirty Year's War and "World War Zero" may have exhausted Europe's guano reserves. There were also rocky islands and mountains and caves across Europe which had been collecting bird and bat shit for thousands of years too you know. And I have no idea where Napoleon sourced his gunpowder. Possibly some expert would be kind enough to comment?
 
But the Seven Years War wasn't seven years of unceasing conflict, it was a series of short campaigns with treaties, ceasefires, military action moving to different theatres of war. Plus, dead men's muskets and pistols weren't left to rot with them on the field, they were reissued or personally appropriated by the winning side. You would need to ask an expert on the period (I am relying here on a vague memory of a book I read twenty years ago) but I have a notion that the Thirty Year's War and "World War Zero" may have exhausted Europe's guano reserves. There were also rocky islands and mountains and caves across Europe which had been collecting bird and bat shit for thousands of years too you know. And I have no idea where Napoleon sourced his gunpowder. Possibly some expert would be kind enough to comment?

So what? There were about 2 million men under arms within 7 years. That takes a lot of gunpowder whether it is constant or not. There were also rocky islands and mountains and caves across the US which had been collecting bird and bat shit for thousands of years too you know. The US is huge. Rocky islands, mountains, and caves aren't exactly rare here either. Face it, potassium nitrate is not rare. It was simply South America was the ceapest source, nothing more than that. It is a common compound that is available worldwide. Gunpowder was cheap enough to issue to MILITIA. This would not be done if it was expensive. It would have been saved for the nobles, if used at all. Synthesizing it today is simply because it is cheaper to do that than to mine it in most areas.
 
Mines can be dug and railroads can be connected up. It can't happen overnight but in a couple of years or so, at most, certainly. It didn't have the infrastructure at the time because it wasn't needed. If it is needed it would be built. The US wasn't some backwater but a modern industrialized nation with tons of experience in both mining and building rails.

If it was so damn expensive gunpowder would have been barely used , if used at all, and everyone would have been using bows and crossbows still. Gunpowder was used because it could be cheaply made, even in the 14th century. ALL the great powers were using black powder, even before the discovery of America. Something that couldn't be done if saltpeter was rare. Basically any limestone cave will have it. Anywhere there are a lot of bats will have it. Anywhere there are a lot of birds wiill have it. It is literally all over the place.

I believe you're missing the salient point. In the case of the nations you mention, they all had pre-existing industries devoted to the exploitation of nitre, using different methods, and they all had large standing armies to boot. The United States, circa 1861, had neither of those things. Even by the time the Union got 400,000 men under arms they had to import (n some cases hundreds of) thousands of tons of salt petre, weapons, iron, steel and lead. I can point to numerous primary sources which point out the Union could not provide enough of these items in 1861-63 itself and so had to rely on foreign imports. The ability to do this in war time would be expensive, time consuming, and would be brutal on the economy, while providing inferior product to what would be available on the market.

Even Du Pont's best work only got 50 tons a month, which was only a quarter of what was needed. Maybe you could triple that with time, but that even relied on importing the basic product from Britain. Refining good product takes time and its not a simple matter of just combining poop and having it blow up either, its a refined chemical process which got better over time, and the Union was distinctly behind the ball compared to its European peers in the refinement department.

The issue comes down to time, and realistically that's a luxury in a foreign intervention scenario. The prospect of getting off foreign dependence was slim, and the people at the time knew it. I'm not sure how much more that can be stressed.
 
I believe you're missing the salient point. In the case of the nations you mention, they all had pre-existing industries devoted to the exploitation of nitre, using different methods, and they all had large standing armies to boot. The United States, circa 1861, had neither of those things. Even by the time the Union got 400,000 men under arms they had to import (n some cases hundreds of) thousands of tons of salt petre, weapons, iron, steel and lead. I can point to numerous primary sources which point out the Union could not provide enough of these items in 1861-63 itself and so had to rely on foreign imports. The ability to do this in war time would be expensive, time consuming, and would be brutal on the economy, while providing inferior product to what would be available on the market.

Even Du Pont's best work only got 50 tons a month, which was only a quarter of what was needed. Maybe you could triple that with time, but that even relied on importing the basic product from Britain. Refining good product takes time and its not a simple matter of just combining poop and having it blow up either, its a refined chemical process which got better over time, and the Union was distinctly behind the ball compared to its European peers in the refinement department.

The issue comes down to time, and realistically that's a luxury in a foreign intervention scenario. The prospect of getting off foreign dependence was slim, and the people at the time knew it. I'm not sure how much more that can be stressed.

The US had a thriving chemical industry, very educated people and access to saltpeter mines in KY and other places. Besides most of this is happening post-war. The CSA gained independence in TTL. The US has YEARS to develop it. After all the next Great War is unlikely to break out just after the ACW. It might happen but the odds are against it.
 
The US had a thriving chemical industry, very educated people and access to saltpeter mines in KY and other places. Besides most of this is happening post-war. The CSA gained independence in TTL. The US has YEARS to develop it. After all the next Great War is unlikely to break out just after the ACW. It might happen but the odds are against it.

I would need to dig but people were looking at domestic US nitrate resources as late as the 1920s and still concluding that they were insufficient with the technology of the time. It is also worth baring in mind that the situation gets worse not better with the arrival of smokeless powders as these degrade in storage as opposed to corned black powder which proving it is kept dry and not eaten by rodents lasts indefinitely or at least several decades.
 
I would need to dig but people were looking at domestic US nitrate resources as late as the 1920s and still concluding that they were insufficient with the technology of the time. It is also worth baring in mind that the situation gets worse not better with the arrival of smokeless powders as these degrade in storage as opposed to corned black powder which proving it is kept dry and not eaten by rodents lasts indefinitely or at least several decades.

I am highly skeptical. If such a study exists it is probably using the same logic as "we are going to run out of oil in 20 years" which has been playing out for at least the last 100 years. That is, it assumes the price won't change, technology won't change and there won't be new discoveries and none of that is true. Potassium Nitrate is simply not rare. It is made up out of 2 very reactive, very common elements and is found in feces.
 
There is also the question of military economics. Yes if the British have taken Boston and New York, Washington and New Orleans and are heading towards your last redoubt in Chicago, money is no object and you will pay whatever it costs to get gunpowder. But in a situation where you are contemplating starting a war of revenge and gunpowder is costing you three dollars a barrel and the British thirty cents a barrel you are likely to run out of cash before they do. Particularly as they are your main source of foreign credit.
 
I am highly skeptical. If such a study exists it is probably using the same logic as "we are going to run out of oil in 20 years" which has been playing out for at least the last 100 years. That is, it assumes the price won't change, technology won't change and there won't be new discoveries and none of that is true. Potassium Nitrate is simply not rare. It is made up out of 2 very reactive, very common elements and is found in feces.

Well for example

https://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/0838/report.pdf

Certain nitrate-bearing areas in what from available evidence seemed to be the most favorable localities have been more or less intensively studied by successive Geological Survey parties. The results of all these investigations have shown that the mode of occurrence and the quantity of nitrate present at each locality do not justify commercial exploitation.


On the other hand once the impact of extraction from air and coal using methods discovered since 1910 were taken into account:

As the United States in 1929, according to Bureau of Mines figures," apparently consumed 431,200 short tons of nitrogen, national independence in this important commodity is evidently well within sight.


So no I do not think the Geological Survey were being overly pessimistic, it is just that you need the right technology because the US really did not have free in the ground (bonded in coal for example is much harder to get at).
 
Well for example

https://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/0838/report.pdf

Certain nitrate-bearing areas in what from available evidence seemed to be the most favorable localities have been more or less intensively studied by successive Geological Survey parties. The results of all these investigations have shown that the mode of occurrence and the quantity of nitrate present at each locality do not justify commercial exploitation.
.

At the price prevailing at the time which included available imports. Price is very important when determining availability and the availability almost always goes up faster than the price. IOW, if the price goes up 20% the availability will go up more than 20% , usually much more.
 
I suspect, without the South in the Union, politics would take a very sharp turn to the left.
Depends on how you define "left". At that time, the biggest issues were the gold standard, the protective tariff, and urban spoils system politics. Party loyalty was far less ideological than identity based. Into the Teddy Roosevelt era, the Republicans were still talking about being the "Union" party.

As for general politics, I think it would quite revanchist. I would see it akin to France after the Franco-Prussian War. Loss in a war in which territory is lost is not easily forgiven or forgotten. As a result, I think a stronger strain of American Nationalism, rather than traditional patriotism, takes root, much earlier than it did on OTL (it would be the Progressives who would usher in American Nationalism, and that took a while).
 
Depends on how you define "left". At that time, the biggest issues were the gold standard, the protective tariff, and urban spoils system politics. Party loyalty was far less ideological than identity based. Into the Teddy Roosevelt era, the Republicans were still talking about being the "Union" party.

As for general politics, I think it would quite revanchist. I would see it akin to France after the Franco-Prussian War. Loss in a war in which territory is lost is not easily forgiven or forgotten. As a result, I think a stronger strain of American Nationalism, rather than traditional patriotism, takes root, much earlier than it did on OTL (it would be the Progressives who would usher in American Nationalism, and that took a while).
American Imperialism kicks into overdrive?
 
Top