US State Capitalist after CSA wins ACW

After losing the ACW the US government wants to federalize everything as much as possible including the economy making secession economic suicide. The way it does so is to intervene more in the economy but it is still capitalist in the sense it nationalizes little of the economy but uses tax breaks and subsidies to encourage interstate commerce. Ideas I have: 1) spread out military bases as much as possible to the various states. 2) Encourage railroads to build into virtually every small town in the US. 3) Encourage big city newspapers to buy up smaller ones across state lines 4) Encourage factory owners to build factories in more than one state
Any other ideas?
 
What about encouraging telegraph and telephone wires being spread out? When radio is invented do you think the government would encourage that?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
How and why does the US "lose" the civil war?

After losing the ACW the US government wants to federalize everything as much as possible including the economy making secession economic suicide. The way it does so is to intervene more in the economy but it is still capitalist in the sense it nationalizes little of the economy but uses tax breaks and subsidies to encourage interstate commerce. Ideas I have: 1) spread out military bases as much as possible to the various states. 2) Encourage railroads to build into virtually every small town in the US. 3) Encourage big city newspapers to buy up smaller ones across state lines 4) Encourage factory owners to build factories in more than one state
Any other ideas?

How and why does the US "lose" the civil war?

Best,
 
How and why does the US "lose" the civil war?

Best,

Very difficult, I know. In this TL the CSA is somewhat luckier and Sherman doesn't take Atlanta until after the election. Little Mac gets killed after the election and Pendleton takes over and makes peace. A long shot I admit but only a real long shot will do it.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
REALLY long shot, actually...

Very difficult, I know. In this TL the CSA is somewhat luckier and Sherman doesn't take Atlanta until after the election. Little Mac gets killed after the election and Pendleton takes over and makes peace. A long shot I admit but only a real long shot will do it.

I just don't see it; even with a stalemate in North Georgia, the writing is on the wall for the rebellion, and - as it is - the US has already liberated West Virginia, Tennessee, much of Virginia, parts of the coastal Carolinas and Georgia and Florida, parts of the Gulf Coast from Alabama to Lousiana, and much of the interior of Lousiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas, along with (in 1861-62) securing Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and the Indian and New Mexico territories. See below:

http://www.history.army.mil/html/bookshelves/resmat/civil_war/Maps/1CW-1861-1865.pdf

I mean, what's left to make peace with?

The reality on the ground is another reason why I think the whole "rebels get a political win through a Fabian strategy in 1864" concept is unrealistic; the rebellion was defeated militarily in 1862-1863 - the last two years of the war was (to be blunt about it) mopping up...

The rebels had to be beaten down to secure the peace (not unlike the Axis in 1945) but the realities were clear.

On edit: if you want a tradition of intervention in the US economy by the federal government beginning in the Nineteenth Century and moving beyond the (historical) range as a matter of policy that is accepted by both major parties, there are ways to get there that do not require a rebel victory in the Civil War...

Prolonged European - read French - intervention in the Western Hemisphere after 1865 could lay the groundwork for it; the Russians not selling Alaska, the British being stupidly provocative in BNA and not coming to terms over the Alabama Claims, the Spanish continuing to fight on Hispaniola or actually sending an expeditionary force against Chile and Peru ...

The Spanish actually doing something really stupid like trying to intervene in Mexico alongside the French could lead to active US hostilities in the late 1860s against Spain, which is close enough to the Civil War that the naval issues exposed by the Virginius affair have yet to arise; as it was, the federal government was pretty deeply involved in the economy from 1861-65, and certainly was involved in parts of it - the transcontinental railroad and the Homestead and Land Colleges acts in the 1860s, the impetus toward a modern iron and steel and shipbuilding industry that started in the early 1880s; there was a lot going on, even when it tends to get submerged by the Gilded Age frame.

Best,
 
Last edited:
I just don't see it; even with a stalemate in North Georgia, the writing is on the wall for the rebellion, and - as it is - the US has already liberated West Virginia, Tennessee, much of Virginia, parts of the coastal Carolinas and Georgia and Florida, parts of the Gulf Coast from Alabama to Lousiana, and much of the interior of Lousiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas, along with (in 1861-62) securing Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and the Indian and New Mexico territories. See below:

http://www.history.army.mil/html/bookshelves/resmat/civil_war/Maps/1CW-1861-1865.pdf

I mean, what's left to make peace with?

The reality on the ground is another reason why I think the whole "rebels get a political win through a Fabian strategy in 1864" concept is unrealistic; the rebellion was defeated militarily in 1862-1863 - the last two years of the war was (to be blunt about it) mopping up...

The rebels had to be beaten down to secure the peace (not unlike the Axis in 1945) but the realities were clear.

Best,

Stop being a buzzkill, dude. Just go along with it. How the CSA wins isn't very relevant. You can make up your reason.
 
I just don't see it; even with a stalemate in North Georgia, the writing is on the wall for the rebellion, and - as it is - the US has already liberated West Virginia, Tennessee, much of Virginia, parts of the coastal Carolinas and Georgia and Florida, parts of the Gulf Coast from Alabama to Lousiana, and much of the interior of Lousiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas, along with (in 1861-62) securing Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and the Indian and New Mexico territories. See below:

http://www.history.army.mil/html/bookshelves/resmat/civil_war/Maps/1CW-1861-1865.pdf

I mean, what's left to make peace with?

The reality on the ground is another reason why I think the whole "rebels get a political win through a Fabian strategy in 1864" concept is unrealistic; the rebellion was defeated militarily in 1862-1863 - the last two years of the war was (to be blunt about it) mopping up...

The rebels had to be beaten down to secure the peace (not unlike the Axis in 1945) but the realities were clear.

On edit: if you want a tradition of intervention in the US economy by the federal government beginning in the Nineteenth Century and moving beyond the (historical) range as a matter of policy that is accepted by both major parties, there are ways to get there that do not require a rebel victory in the Civil War...

Prolonged European - read French - intervention in the Western Hemisphere after 1865 could lay the groundwork for it; the Russians not selling Alaska, the British being stupidly provocative in BNA and not coming to terms over the Alabama Claims, the Spanish continuing to fight on Hispaniola or actually sending an expeditionary force against Chile and Peru ...

The Spanish actually doing something really stupid like trying to intervene in Mexico alongside the French could lead to active US hostilities in the late 1860s against Spain, which is close enough to the Civil War that the naval issues exposed by the Virginius affair have yet to arise; as it was, the federal government was pretty deeply involved in the economy from 1861-65, and certainly was involved in parts of it - the transcontinental railroad and the Homestead and Land Colleges acts in the 1860s, the impetus toward a modern iron and steel and shipbuilding industry that started in the early 1880s; there was a lot going on, even when it tends to get submerged by the Gilded Age frame.

Best,

I agree with you that the South actually winning is probably around lottery odds but people do beat the lottery from time to time. Everything just lines up right for the South. Maybe Grant dies in Virginia as well. Most likely from falling off a horse or something as he wasn't even close (nor should have been) to the front lines at that late date.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Well, it makes a difference in terms of the "state intervention in the economy"

Stop being a buzzkill, dude. Just go along with it. How the CSA wins isn't very relevant. You can make up your reason.

Well, it makes a difference in terms of the "state intervention in the economy" end state - "dude"...:rolleyes:

If it doesn't matter, take it to ASB.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Grant dies in Virginia in 1864 means:

I agree with you that the South actually winning is probably around lottery odds but people do beat the lottery from time to time. Everything just lines up right for the South. Maybe Grant dies in Virginia as well. Most likely from falling off a horse or something as he wasn't even close (nor should have been) to the front lines at that late date.

Hello, General-in-Chief William T. Sherman.

Are you looking for an independent CSA or simply a US where state intervention in the economy is policy?

The later does not depend on the former, and the former is pretty close to ASB, certainly by 1864.

Best,
 
Hello, General-in-Chief William T. Sherman.

Are you looking for an independent CSA or simply a US where state intervention in the economy is policy?

The later does not depend on the former, and the former is pretty close to ASB, certainly by 1864.

Best,

Close to impossible, maybe. but possible. Having a failed artist\corporal from a lower middle class family who takes over an obscure party and later becomes absolute dictator of Germany and then launches a war against the largest empire in the world along with the largest country in the world and the largest economy in the world is pretty close to ASB but it happened.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yeah, but that's Germany in 1914-41...

Close to impossible, maybe. but possible. Having a failed artist\corporal from a lower middle class family who takes over an obscure party and later becomes absolute dictator of Germany and then launches a war against the largest empire in the world along with the largest country in the world and the largest economy in the world is pretty close to ASB but it happened.

Say what you want about the US, but the tradition of democratic self government, federalism, is astronomically different than the German and Austrian empires...

And the economic and demographic disparities between the loyal and rebel states in the 1860s are astronomically different then, say, what led to the collapse of said empires (or those of the Russians and Turks) in 1918.

Nice chart (thanks, NPS):

npscw_facts-01.jpg


Again, are you looking for an independent CSA or simply a US where state intervention in the economy is standard and long-lasting policy?

The later does not depend on the former, certainly.

Best,
 
Say what you want about the US, but the tradition of democratic self government, federalism, is astronomically different than the German and Austrian empires...

True enough, but even so the odds against it was so astronomical that if it didn't happen and you saw it in a movie you would think that the script writer was insanely anti-German. The rise of Nazi Germany would almost certainly be considered ASB in a universe where there was no Nazi Germany.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Well, possibly, but:

True enough, but even so the odds against it was so astronomical that if it didn't happen and you saw it in a movie you would think that the script writer was insanely anti-German. The rise of Nazi Germany would almost certainly be considered ASB in a universe where there was no Nazi Germany.

The Hohenzollerns were not exactly shrinking violets, and Wilhelmine Germany in 1914-18 certainly seems bloody-minded enough to give Nazi Germany a run for its money; god knows they weren't exactly gentle when it came to a different set of rules on the eastern front, unrestricted submarine warfare, aerial bombardment of cities, or some of the other concepts that the Nazis took to new heights...

The line between Ludendorff as military dictator and Hitler as military dictator seems fairly direct ... and "frightfulness" when it came to occupied territory was not exactly a new idea for the Germans in 1939.

Anyway, this is a long way from your preferred POD - do you want US federal intervention in the economy as policy in the Nineteenth Century, or a rebel victory, or?

What sort of stage are you trying to set for your story?

Best,
 
You know, if the Union loses DESPITE the massive industrial edge, especially if that edge were blunted, you might get that response.

Let's suppose that factory workers generally join the New York conscription riots, or ittl, resistance not riots. Cronyism gives a massive locomative deal to a company that cant fill it. Some financier corners the copper market, and the Union cant produce telegraph wire fast enough. Meanwhile, the CSA, despite having dismal industry in general, pours even more effort into a couple of showcase super modern and productive factories. Say one for iron, and one for boots.

The Union difficulties are really just a bump in the road, but Union morale plummets and CSA morale skyrockets. Just long enough for Lincoln to lose reelection. The Democrat new president calls an armistice to get the CSA to talk about terms to reenter the Union - and talks drag on for a few months. It becomes clear that any terms the CSA will accept are totally unacceptable to the Union side, and theyve been bargaining mostly in bad faith, hoping to get some breathing room. However, theres no proof of bad faith, and such accusations sound, even to many in the North, as political manœuvring.

The president tries to get the war started again, but the North is weary, doesnt have great morale, and injudicious slips suggest to the Peace party that the president's ego is more important to him than the state of the country. (Not true, but he's very tired and frustrated, and isnt careful with his words.)

So the South, miraculously wins their freedom at the negotiating table, Jeff Davis having succumbed to a stroke ranting about not giving up an inch of southern soil, and is replaced by someone who siezes the first Union offer before they regain sanity.

5 years later, it's clear that the industrial edge the North had ALMOST sufficed, even carrying the war into someone elses back yard. The people of the Union cry out 'never again', and proceed crank up the Union's industrial capacity massively. In 1887, the Union issues an ultimatum to the csa to (???get rid of slavery, maybe?), and when it's rejected, attacks on multiple fronts and slices through the Southron armies like a hot knife through butter.

One squadron of US battleships 'gets lost' and takes Cuba 'by mistake'. Which expands the war to include Spain (not a problem to the bulked up US), and France (which is). The CSA is quickly crushed, but the war in the Caribbean takes longer. The US gets to keep Spanish possessions in the Caribbean, but only wins half of St Martin from the French.

Scared at how close they came to losing against France, the US again calls for massive increases in industry to be able to take on ANYONE next time.



Hows that? Really low probability, but each of the steps are barely possible.
 
You know, if the Union loses DESPITE the massive industrial edge, especially if that edge were blunted, you might get that response.

Let's suppose that factory workers generally join the New York conscription riots, or ittl, resistance not riots. Cronyism gives a massive locomative deal to a company that cant fill it. Some financier corners the copper market, and the Union cant produce telegraph wire fast enough. Meanwhile, the CSA, despite having dismal industry in general, pours even more effort into a couple of showcase super modern and productive factories. Say one for iron, and one for boots.

The Union difficulties are really just a bump in the road, but Union morale plummets and CSA morale skyrockets. Just long enough for Lincoln to lose reelection. The Democrat new president calls an armistice to get the CSA to talk about terms to reenter the Union - and talks drag on for a few months. It becomes clear that any terms the CSA will accept are totally unacceptable to the Union side, and theyve been bargaining mostly in bad faith, hoping to get some breathing room. However, theres no proof of bad faith, and such accusations sound, even to many in the North, as political manœuvring.

The president tries to get the war started again, but the North is weary, doesnt have great morale, and injudicious slips suggest to the Peace party that the president's ego is more important to him than the state of the country. (Not true, but he's very tired and frustrated, and isnt careful with his words.)

So the South, miraculously wins their freedom at the negotiating table, Jeff Davis having succumbed to a stroke ranting about not giving up an inch of southern soil, and is replaced by someone who siezes the first Union offer before they regain sanity.

5 years later, it's clear that the industrial edge the North had ALMOST sufficed, even carrying the war into someone elses back yard. The people of the Union cry out 'never again', and proceed crank up the Union's industrial capacity massively. In 1887, the Union issues an ultimatum to the csa to (???get rid of slavery, maybe?), and when it's rejected, attacks on multiple fronts and slices through the Southron armies like a hot knife through butter.

One squadron of US battleships 'gets lost' and takes Cuba 'by mistake'. Which expands the war to include Spain (not a problem to the bulked up US), and France (which is). The CSA is quickly crushed, but the war in the Caribbean takes longer. The US gets to keep Spanish possessions in the Caribbean, but only wins half of St Martin from the French.

Scared at how close they came to losing against France, the US again calls for massive increases in industry to be able to take on ANYONE next time.



Hows that? Really low probability, but each of the steps are barely possible.

That works, like I said we are talking lottery odds here but lottery odds sometimes happen. It isn't like I said Lee would go north and seize New York City which WOULD take ASBs to do. i think the CSA surviving long even if it wins in 1865 is like winning the lottery twice.
 
Well, it makes a difference in terms of the "state intervention in the economy" end state - "dude"...:rolleyes:

If it doesn't matter, take it to ASB.

Then talk about it.
The impact will be different depending on how soon the south wins. If they win fast the North might assume they won because of military might and will focus on that. If they win late (maybe Lincoln loses the election or whatever other reason) they will notice they were able to sustain themselves during the war, and act in order to make all states so dependent on the central government trying to secede would collapse them economically.
If you're gonna come to the thread just to say "the south can't win, end of discussion" maybe you shouldn't post at all.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Lots of ifs ....

Then talk about it.
The impact will be different depending on how soon the south wins. If they win fast the North might assume they won because of military might and will focus on that. If they win late (maybe Lincoln loses the election or whatever other reason) they will notice they were able to sustain themselves during the war, and act in order to make all states so dependent on the central government trying to secede would collapse them economically.
If you're gonna come to the thread just to say "the south can't win, end of discussion" maybe you shouldn't post at all.

and the OP has yet to answer the question I posed, so really, it's off there in the great state of Handwavia...

Best,
 
and the OP has yet to answer the question I posed, so really, it's off there in the great state of Handwavia...

Best,

I did answer it, you simply didn't like the answer. Of course it takes a lot of ifs. What part of "lottery odds" don't you understand? I agree that the odds are millions to one against but millions to one longshots sometimes happen. In any case do you think that the government would encourage the spread of radio when it is invented? I think even a short term existence of a peaceful CSA would have some effect.
 
Top