Need help. WI the South were independent. What about the economy of this new country. How would it develop? What I read of McKinley Kantor's article " If the South won the Civil War" and other victorious South scenarios there is not much on the economy. Please help. Also if the Confederate Contitution allows seccession what happens if a state wants to go out? In the above article Texas goes out. Does the South go to get Cuba? How about Florida? Suppose the Underworld groups in the north BUY Florida? What then? What happens to the economy of the developing South. Needs more than help from Europe, it seems to me.
Victorious Confederacy-problems?
- Thread starter edvader
- Start date
David S Poepoe
Banned
I suggest that you read the Confederate Constitution first. Secession is not allowed, but that is a little quirky looking at the who drafted it. If you read Kantor then you know who the South acquires Cuba. It appears that you are suggesting a POD that is before the acquisition of Florida - however border problems with the Seminoles works all the time.
David S Poepoe said:
There is no provision in the Confederate Constitution forbidding secession. The only thing in there that could POSSIBLY be construed to forbid secession is the preamble, which states...
However...the same preamble also recognizes the sovereign and independent character of the States; the inclusion of the word "permanent" does not preclude secession, since it says only that they are forming a "permanent federal government," and if one or more states secede from it, the federal government so created would still exist (just not including the seceded states); and the inclusion of the word "permanent" would hold no more weight than the inclusion of the word "perpetual" did in the Articles of Confederation (said use of the word "perpetual" did not prevent the States from seceding from the Union created under the Articles of Confederation and then joining the new Union created under the Constitution). And there is also this..
Since the right of secession is not specifically denied to the States...which, if you peruse Article IV (The States), you will find it is not...then the action of Sections 5 and 6 of Article VI would guarantee the right of secession to the States.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Yes, surprisingly the Confederate Constitution does not mention the word 'secession' at all. Presumably they wanted to avoid falling apart at the moment of their coming together...
One reason would seem to be that the conscious decision was made to base the Confederate Constitution on the US Constitution, only to make things more explicit AGAINST certain practices. Its quite curious, but in the name of greater freedom, the Confederate Constitution is actually full of additional tenets designed to prevent the federal government doing things.
Grey Wolf
One reason would seem to be that the conscious decision was made to base the Confederate Constitution on the US Constitution, only to make things more explicit AGAINST certain practices. Its quite curious, but in the name of greater freedom, the Confederate Constitution is actually full of additional tenets designed to prevent the federal government doing things.
Grey Wolf
Straha
Banned
way before 1900 the CSA's economy is fucked. The reason the economy is fucked is because of A) the boll weevil B) other sources of cotton(india,egypt,brazil) and C) unwillingness of a world to trade with a reactionary CSA. The CSA's history will be one of a greater resemblence to latin american nations.
The union focuses on industrialism with a major vengeance and becomes a massive industrial power. Basically imagine a union that gets lots of german scientists BEFORE WWI. The union will evolve into a european style country with its parties being divided between the Democrats(capital),Progressive(labor) and Republicans(quasi-libertarian).
The union focuses on industrialism with a major vengeance and becomes a massive industrial power. Basically imagine a union that gets lots of german scientists BEFORE WWI. The union will evolve into a european style country with its parties being divided between the Democrats(capital),Progressive(labor) and Republicans(quasi-libertarian).
Grey Wolf
Donor
Straha said:
Well, these things are certainly a possibility, and even possibly a certainty, but they are just a possibility and not a certainty
I don't see why the Union is going to attract a load of scientists away from Germany ? Germany was powerful and a leading scientific nation at this time, indeed wasn't German close to being the language of some of the sciences ?
Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf said:
Looks like a strong influence from Turtledove stories (the CSA is backed by UK and France, so the USA get cosy with Germany)
What I'd like to know is how is the South capabible of winning? I think it's a pipe dream to be honest. The best chance was probably Lee winning at Gettysburg, but that's probably impossible given the way that battle was fought. Yet even if Lee stayed south after Chancellorsvile, & not go on the offensive, the South was still losing elsewhere.
Vicksburg was taken on 4 July 1863. And when it fell the Confenderacy was cut in two. Furthermore, Florida was basically under occupation by the Union, as was much of Louisiana. Likewise Tennessee was occupied, West Virginia had seceded from Virginia & joined the Union. Then parts of Virginia, North Carolina, Mississippi, & goodness knows where else, were also under occupation. Furthermore, the USN blockaded the entire southern coastline. Does the South think that the Union would just leave?
So what happens to force the Union to give up? Even if several PODs may take place, like Lee not fighting at Gettysburg, Sherman is still going to drive his way to Atlantia. And from there he'll burn his way through Georgia to the sea. From Savannah, Sherman will then turn north & destroy everything in his path. Sure, Lee may stop Grant in northern Virginia, but who is going to stop Sherman destroying the rest of the Confederacy?
Unless such situations can be countered, somehow, something I think is improbable, theer won't be any Confederacy after 1865.
Vicksburg was taken on 4 July 1863. And when it fell the Confenderacy was cut in two. Furthermore, Florida was basically under occupation by the Union, as was much of Louisiana. Likewise Tennessee was occupied, West Virginia had seceded from Virginia & joined the Union. Then parts of Virginia, North Carolina, Mississippi, & goodness knows where else, were also under occupation. Furthermore, the USN blockaded the entire southern coastline. Does the South think that the Union would just leave?
So what happens to force the Union to give up? Even if several PODs may take place, like Lee not fighting at Gettysburg, Sherman is still going to drive his way to Atlantia. And from there he'll burn his way through Georgia to the sea. From Savannah, Sherman will then turn north & destroy everything in his path. Sure, Lee may stop Grant in northern Virginia, but who is going to stop Sherman destroying the rest of the Confederacy?
Unless such situations can be countered, somehow, something I think is improbable, theer won't be any Confederacy after 1865.
Earlier Succession
First, I agree with everybody who states that by the time of the ACW, the South is toast, the only real question was the process and length of reconstruction.
Second, I do not believe that European aid would really have helped the South, the memory of the Crimea and its astounding death toll was pretty recent, and once casualty figures became known fromthe ACW, I suspect that the Europeans would have stayed out.
Third, even if the south had been successful, it would have had no firm economic base. As others have pointed out, the use of slaves was anathema to most European countries, and there would have been tremendous pressure to use materials from other sources.
Frankly, IMHO, the only time at which a separate country is possiblke is in the period 1848-1855, after 1855 it is impossible, the abolutionist forces are just too strong and the South is too weak.
First, I agree with everybody who states that by the time of the ACW, the South is toast, the only real question was the process and length of reconstruction.
Second, I do not believe that European aid would really have helped the South, the memory of the Crimea and its astounding death toll was pretty recent, and once casualty figures became known fromthe ACW, I suspect that the Europeans would have stayed out.
Third, even if the south had been successful, it would have had no firm economic base. As others have pointed out, the use of slaves was anathema to most European countries, and there would have been tremendous pressure to use materials from other sources.
Frankly, IMHO, the only time at which a separate country is possiblke is in the period 1848-1855, after 1855 it is impossible, the abolutionist forces are just too strong and the South is too weak.
DMA said:
I beg to differ. There were plenty of situations where matters could have gone either way. The chances of someone losing important plans to invade the North are slim to none, but it happened. Given that the Lost Order had not been found, Lee would have made short work of McClellan on a battleground of his choosing.
Another way to help the South win is for Braxton Bragg to be a Federal general instead of a Confederate general. The West would have been in much better shape for the South with someone more competent than Bragg rising in to fill the vacuum left by Albert Sidney Johnston's death. It's not as if the Army of the Tennessee (also the Army of the Mississippi) was lacking competent corps commanders (Cleburne immediately comes to mind). A successful Kentucky campaign in 1862 could easily offset Antietam and threaten to give the Peace Democrats control of the House of Representatives.
Some other lesser looked at PODs include:
1) Confederate victory at Pea Ridge. The Confederacy holds onto Missouri a while longer, but could we see Grant vs. Van Dorn sometime soon? That'll cause some major butterflies.
2) Confederate victory at Shiloh. Albert Sidney Johnston doesn't get shot and manages to defeat Grant. The West has a competent commander, so the Union will have twice the headache.
3) Smith destroys Steele in Arkansas. It was somewhat looked at in Dixie Victorious, but in a different light. But the premise is the same. If Smith can enter Little Rock, it's going to cause headaches for the Republican Party in 1864. Whether the troop diversions to stop Smith can detract from other fronts and cause enough butterflies to give the election to McClellan instead of Lincoln is another matter entirely.
Norman said:
Not necessarily. Everything really didn't go the way of the US during the Revolution. The right things just have to happen at the right time.
The reason I say this? You can't take away the Union blockade and the South certainly can't produce enough ships to break it.
And it seems I made some errors on my last post. Don't even bother pointing them out because I know what they are.
Ace Venom said:
Well we will have to disagree then. First off, yes the plans to the Antietam campaign were lost. But what did McCelland do with them? Nothing. In effect, then, the lost plans had little impact upon Lee getting a draw (at best) at Antietam. Furthermore, no one lost any plans at Gettysburg & yet Lee was soundly defeated thanks to his own ego & determined Union troops. And, it goes without saying, Vicksburg was won fairly & squarely after a long hard fought campaign. In fact Vicksburg shows the doggedness that Grant had, which was far greater than any Southern General.
Ace Venom said:
First off, better to have Forrest shot Bragg as he threatened he would. That'd save a lot of Bragg problems. Now the battle of Shiloh is a very interestng battle. Yes Albert Sydney caught Grant with his pants down around his ankles. But the 1st day of the battle continued as planed even after the death of Johnston. Now even if Johnston survived, the Union forces were reinforced overnight, which meant that the South were greatly outnumbered. Furthermore, these reinforcements were fresh. I can't see how the South, hence, at Shiloh can really win, especially with Grant still alive. As Lincoln said of Grant "I can't spare this man. He fights!"
The Kentucky campaign maybe won in 1862, as did Jackson's 1862 Shenandoah campaign, but it was only temporary. Just as the Union eventually closed up the Shenandoah, so too I'd expect the South to be kicked out of Kentucky should it come to that. You see it gets back to my original postition insofar as Lee hogs as much of the men, equipment, & good officers for himself in Virginia as he can. In doing so, the Union has a great advantage everywhere else. Well you can't win wars by ignoring all the other fronts, just so Lee's front is successful.
Ace Venom said:
You see the whole problem here is, all the PODs go the Southern way. Judging by what the OTL was like, I find that the Union suffered enough set-backs already. Any more I find to be impossible. If nothing else, early set-backs just get rid of the incompetent Union officers & give the other officers & the troops valuable lessons in warfare. Soon or later, whether you like it or not, officers like Meade, Grant & Sherman are going to arise & begin having successes. On a similar note, I think you'll find Grant will be successful in the first two PODs regardless. Don't forget Grant already had two major victories before Shiloh. And I've already commented about the likely outcome of a AH Shiloh. Any southern victory in Arkansas is really minor & the state will be cut off anyway from the rest of the Confederacy when Vicksburg falls.
DMA said:
There's a big difference between facing a moron called McClellan and a competent general named Meade.
The problem there is that Johnston was dead. A dead general can make or break a battle for one side. The South lucked out at Chancellorville after Jackson was shot because Lee had practically beaten Hooker anyway.
Lee had a major point, but one of the problems is the big picture. Victories in Kentucky can offset the draw at Antietam, given the severity of the victories. 1862 was an election year and if Kentucky left the Union officially right before the elections, you can count on the Peace Democrats getting into office and becoming a thorn in Lincoln's side. While it may not be enough to force a peace, Kentucky's secession was feared by the Lincoln administration.
Impossible? Definitely not. PODs generally tend to go the way of the direction they are written. When history professors I know have argued that the South could have won the war, I know it's not just people who have not "gotten over it."
Grant, Meade and Sherman were not by all means invincible. They could be beaten. Concerning the Pea Ridge POD, no matter where Van Dorn faces Grant, Grant will wipe the floor with him. But how much of a delay is this? Long enough that Albert Sidney Johnston doesn't have to worry about getting killed at Shiloh? He may well have died later, but that's not the point. A more competent commander for the West winning victories will gain attention of Davis, especially since he went to his grave believing the death of Johnston cost the CSA the war.
I'll agree on the Arkansas point, but only to an extent. The Trans-Mississippi was indeed a minor theater after Vicksburg, but a mosquito bite could turn into a bee sting really quick. How much to you divert? What are the consequences of Smith's movements? What are the consequences of diversion? That's what AH is all about. The Union did indeed have enough troops to do what it needed to do to achieve victory. But just like in history, even the littlest things can affect the outcome of a grand picture. All the Confederacy needed to do in 1864 was survive and drain the Union of enough blood to get McClellan in office instead of Lincoln.
Ace Venom said:
The thing with McClelland was he was a good theorist & organiser. He wasn't a good man on the battlefield. The next thing is, I'd doubt they'd get to Meade until they did. So I'd expect that the list would still include McDowell, Hooker, Burnside, Porter...
Nonetheless, the Union army is learning how to fight for the first two years. Then when they get someone like Meade & Grant, it's then a matter of time before we get to Petersburg's by which it's only a matter of time before the South is defeated.
Ace Venom said:
This can be true, although having a force of 30 000 extra fresh troops joining the second day of battle also helps. Besides the fact that the Union side still had Grant.
I wouldn't say the Southern victory at Chancellorsville was lucky. Lee & Jackson came up with a fantastic plan, although to be fair Hooker losing his nerve ensured Southern success. Note that Lee, after Jackson's death, never had another success like Chancellorsiville ever again.
Ace Venom said:
Yet the same could be said for Jackson's victories in the Shenandoah. And that contributed very little to the big picture, other than the Confederacy had access to food for an extra year or two. But in the end it didn't matter. Likewise I see Kentucky the same way. And this is besides the fact that the majority of Kentuckians didn't want to join either side. Now sure, some went South, but just as many went North, especially after the South made their first attempt to invade the state.
More importantly, Rosecrans, for all his errors etc at Chickamauga, led a good campaign which captured Chattanooga. And don't forget Grant's victories at Belmont, Fort Donelson, & Fort Henry. There is too much going against the South out west at this point. I can't see the South really being a serious threat to Kentucky until after Chickamauga.
Furthermore there'll need a change of command from Bragg to Longstreet. Having said that, Lee would have to recognise the "big picture" as you say, which he can't, & allow Longstreet & his corps to stay out west. But I highly doubt that Lee will go along with the idea. And, last but not least, peace won't take place, especially after Lee's defeat after Gettysburg.
Ace Venom said:
Well there is what's possible & what isn't, regardless of what a professor might say. Furthermore I don't have a side to push as I'm not American. I research the facts & call it the way it is. Sooner or later, one side which has all the luck starts to lose it after a while. Whether it's WW1, WW2, or the USCW, factors (especially luck) change. The South had a chance to win early in the war. But as the war drags on a number of factors change:
The first is the Union generals keep getting fired until they find those who can win.
Next is the South loses good generals through death.
Third is the fact the the Union manpower & industrial strength begins to overtake that of the South. In other words, the Union can suffer several Fredricksburg type disasters & still put 100 000 troops into the field, whilst the South suffer's one (Pickett's Charge) & that significantly weakens them.
Fourth is the USN. The Confederacy is severly weaken by the blockade.
There are several other factors, but these will do for now.
Ace Venom said:
I never said Grant, Meade & Sherman were invicible. I just said they were compedent enough to know how to win. But they suffered losses, sometimes dreadful ones like Cold Harbor. But you miss an imprtant aspect about these three. They fight back! Did Grant & Meade give up after Cold Harbor? No! They fought on, & in doing so, played directly at the weaknesses of the South. Likewise, Sherman even went nuts at one point, but came back. And at Atlanta he suffered a dreadful setback yet still fought on the next day.
Now about Johnston. The Rebels were only victorious on the first day because they gained the all important element of a battle - they gained surprise. This, it is true, was partly to blame on Sherman, Grant, etc. But once the intitiative was lost by the South, because they could push on no further on the first day, they were then in trouble. Johnston could have still been alive & well on the second day & the Rebels would have still been routed. Grant had been able to hold them off. More importantly the Southerners had used up everything to push Grant back some 3 miles. On the second day the Rebels had nothing left. Grant attacked, thanks to Buell's reinforcements, along the entire line & the South didn't last long. It simply came down to sheer numbers, reserves, & above all 30 000 or so fresh reinforcements.
Ace Venom said:
The overall problem about the Trans-Mississippi threatre is twofold. The first is, as I said before, Lee ignoring almost everything outside of Virigina. But even if Lee allowed a division or two to leave Virginia, it still comes down to numbers. The Union was able to have large forces everywhere. Whether it be their amphibious operations in the Carolina's, Florida, Lousiana, & Mississippi, or in Missouri, Arkansas or West Virginia, let alone the main theatres, the Union always had more troops thanks to the greater overall population. This is something the South never had a chance to compete against. Likewise the industrial strength of the Union.
But about Arkansas - I just can't see how a better outcome there, earlier in the war, really effects what happens elsewhere. It certainly won't mean fewer troops avaliable for McCelland. And even if it does mean 15 000 less troops, he'll still get his butt kicked by Lee on the Penisular. And it won't at all effect the overall outcome at Antietam.
Well, we'll just agree to disagree. I'm not trying to push a side, but I'm calling the facts as I believe them. I'm probably one of the few people I know who believe the war could have been lost by the Union in the West because I believe advantages shift in favor of the underdogs enough to force a win for said underdog. That said, it would have taken a lot, but it also took a lot to finally grind down the Southern armies.