What is Before 1900's "Sealion"?

dcharleos

Donor
In fact, a Confederate government with a government that has direct continuity to the one that revolted against the US will, more likely than not, fail to abolish slavery in all its existence until the 1920s or so.

The more I look at it, a prosperous Confederacy is extremely implausible. The fact was, it was a nation supported by a small elite of slaveocrats that ruled over almost everyone and were the only people allowed to vote. More likely than not, the Confederacy could see a revolution.

I agree with all of the parts except the "prosperous" part. The CS in 1860 had a small industrial base compared to the US, yes, but so did everywhere. Compared to Italy, Austria, or France, much less so. There was also a rapid industrialization program during the war that was in many ways successful. Add that to the fact that a victorious CS is a CS whose heartland hasn't been razed by the US Army, and the CS that wins the war is a CS that has 2-3 the industrial base that it had when it went to war--which would make it one of the most industrialized countries in the world. Add in an extremely militaristic worldview, the constant threat from the US, and the need for international trade for their economy to function, and there are the makings of a state that has the means, the will, and the opportunity to be a great power.
 
I agree with all of the parts except the "prosperous" part. The CS in 1860 had a small industrial base compared to the US, yes, but so did everywhere. Compared to Italy, Austria, or France, much less so. There was also a rapid industrialization program during the war that was in many ways successful. Add that to the fact that a victorious CS is a CS whose heartland hasn't been razed by the US Army, and the CS that wins the war is a CS that has 2-3 the industrial base that it had when it went to war--which would make it one of the most industrialized countries in the world. Add in an extremely militaristic worldview, the constant threat from the US, and the need for international trade for their economy to function, and there are the makings of a state that has the means, the will, and the opportunity to be a great power.

And in debt to its eyeballs. A highly indebted, single product, militaristic state with a Great Power menacing its doorstep and with few if any allies is unlikely to become prosperous in any sense of the word.
 
The CS in 1860 had a small industrial base compared to the US, yes, but so did everywhere. Compared to Italy, Austria, or France, much less so.

All of those states had inherent disadvantages. France had little coal, and so had to conduct an industrial revolution based on electricity - naturally, it was more haphazard than Britain or Germany. I also don't think France is a good comparison, as it had a much larger industrial base than the Confederacy could ever hope to achieve. Austria-Hungary didn't really industrialize, and was behind the other European powers. And Italy wasn't the strongest nation at all, and lagged far behind the other nations, including France. So, having industrial similar to those countries really doesn't bode well for the Confederacy.

Add that to the fact that a victorious CS is a CS whose heartland hasn't been razed by the US Army,

It would likely lose the areas in which the war was fought on, which further reduces its resources.

Add in an extremely militaristic worldview, the constant threat from the US, and the need for international trade for their economy to function, and there are the makings of a state that has the means, the will, and the opportunity to be a great power.

As @Johnrankins notes, the Confederacy also had a massive amount of debt, which would restrict its ability to form a large military. Also, I'm unsure if it could hope to trade with other European powers. Its only product was cotton - a product which India was producing more and more of, and would probably produce even more than OTL if Britain had to choose between trading with a slaveowning nation and its colony.
 
Just search for "CSA" in my posts (posts by SaveAtlacamani) - I do think that most of my CSA timelines are more or less plausible...
 

dcharleos

Donor
All of those states had inherent disadvantages. France had little coal, and so had to conduct an industrial revolution based on electricity - naturally, it was more haphazard than Britain or Germany. I also don't think France is a good comparison, as it had a much larger industrial base than the Confederacy could ever hope to achieve.

Why is that a reasonable assumption? The CS has massive coal reserves, oil reserves, and enough iron to create a heavy industrial base. They've got cotton, they've got timber. They've got a labor force that can and will eagerly take those jobs. Compared to nations like Russia (which eventually industrialized), Italy, Japan, and A-H, the labor force is educated *enough* to work at those jobs productively.

Austria-Hungary didn't really industrialize, and was behind the other European powers. And Italy wasn't the strongest nation at all, and lagged far behind the other nations, including France. So, having industrial similar to those countries really doesn't bode well for the Confederacy.

Well sure it bodes well. Italy, Austria-Hungary, France--these are nations which are/were all industrialized. They weren't impoverished backwaters. They were great powers, not banana republics (which is the comparison I'm targeting). A nation doesn't have to be on the level of the US or the UK to not be a banana republic.

It would likely lose the areas in which the war was fought on, which further reduces its resources.

I don't follow. A victorious CS would lose Richmond? Selma? Macon? Atlanta? New Orleans, Nashville, and Norfolk? A victorious CS is not a CS that loses any of those cities or sees those areas burned and destroyed. If those things happen, they lose. A Confederate victory (a low-probability event, maybe 15% chance) is predicated on those things not happening. A victorious CS is likely to keep the territorial integrity of 11-12 states. Otherwise, they can't win.


As @Johnrankins notes, the Confederacy also had a massive amount of debt, which would restrict its ability to form a large military.

And yet, they did form a large military. While it can't continue indefinitely, of course, its a speedbump, not a wall. But in any event, the CS has a golden opportunity to forge a strong relationship with a great power immediately after the war--the Mexican Empire needs assistance and fast. The CS and the French Empire can negotiate whatever terms they wish in order to make that happen, including debt relief.

Also, I'm unsure if it could hope to trade with other European powers.

They did before. Spain and Brazil traded with the rest of Europe. Everyone traded with Belgium while they were raping the Congo. The 1800s were not a time noted for enlightened foreign policy.

Its only product was cotton

That's a pretty big simplification. It was the #1 cash crop, but not their only product by any means.

a product which India was producing more and more of, and would probably produce even more than OTL if Britain had to choose between trading with a slaveowning nation and its colony.

Which is another reason for the CS to start weaving their own cotton. But beyond that, there are other countries in the world that need cotton other than the UK.
 
The CSA can't hope be a prosperous, industrial power with an economy based on plantation slavery, and abolishing it defeat the point of the CSA to begin with.
 
Wasn't it true that most of the Confederacy's economy was tied up in exporting cotton bales, to the point that they could barely actually make things out of what they produced?

I seem to remember that their entire economy prioritized cotton and other basic agricultural staples to the point that their industrial infrastructure was a generation behind the Union's, and even their rail network was vastly less developed. How's that going to work? Economies that specialize in one thing end up with problems once an alternative source of that thing is found.

I'm pretty skeptical in general of the idea of a surviving Confederacy, I admit.
 

dcharleos

Donor
Wasn't it true that most of the Confederacy's economy was tied up in exporting cotton bales, to the point that they could barely actually make things out of what they produced?

I seem to remember that their entire economy prioritized cotton and other basic agricultural staples to the point that their industrial infrastructure was a generation behind the Union's, and even their rail network was vastly less developed. How's that going to work? Economies that specialize in one thing end up with problems once an alternative source of that thing is found.

I'm pretty skeptical in general of the idea of a surviving Confederacy, I admit.

The answer is yes and no. You look at the CS compared to the UK or the US, and it seems underdeveloped. That part is true. Compared to France, Italy, Russia, etc., it comes out as comparable or even ahead. They did prioritize agriculture, but so did everyone in the 1860s. The US was a primarily agricultural nation back then--the UK might not have been, but that would have been about it wrt to large nations.

Fact is, they took some huge steps toward industrialization in the war. Lee's Army had plenty of ammo and rifles at Appomatox. That's not to say they weren't hungry and ill-clothed, but just an example of what they were able to accomplish in a very short period of time.

There's actually a lot of good literature and research about this. See Emory Thomas' The Confederacy as a Revolutionary Experience, The Confederate Nation by the same, and Modernizing a Slave Economy by John Majewski. Also, Slave Impressment in the Upper South and Confederate Political Economy. All available on Amazon.
 
I agree with all of the parts except the "prosperous" part. The CS in 1860 had a small industrial base compared to the US, yes, but so did everywhere. Compared to Italy, Austria, or France, much less so. There was also a rapid industrialization program during the war that was in many ways successful. Add that to the fact that a victorious CS is a CS whose heartland hasn't been razed by the US Army, and the CS that wins the war is a CS that has 2-3 the industrial base that it had when it went to war--which would make it one of the most industrialized countries in the world. Add in an extremely militaristic worldview, the constant threat from the US, and the need for international trade for their economy to function, and there are the makings of a state that has the means, the will, and the opportunity to be a great power.

The UK's share of world manufacturing output in 1860 was 19.9 percent; that of France, 7.9 percent; the US, 7.2 percent; Russia, 7 percent, the various German states, 4.9 percent; Austria, 4.2 percent, Italy, 2.5 percent.
(Source is Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, Random House, 1987; Vintage Books, 1989)

Since the North had over 90% of the Heavy Industry at the start of the ACW, in some areas even greater, a Confederacy even with 2-3 times the industrial base it started with would still be somewhere below the level of Italy!?
 
A lot of pre 1900s Hindu Nationalist wanks fall into this category. There have been a few Hindu nationalists both here and on soc.history.what-if that have come up with Sealionesque scenarios like "What if a superpower Indian Empire colonized Europe instead of the other way around?" Of course, the question is why an Indian Empire pre-1900s would need to colonize Europe in the first place. As far as Indians were concerned, Europe had nothing they needed (too cold, too far away) which couldn't be gotten by freely trading with each other. Nor was Hinduism ever a proselytizing religion. So "saving souls" is out. The only reason left is that it is a revenge fantasy.
It isn't impossible however for "mainstream" Hinduism to become a prosletyzing religion. The Hare Krishna movement is, and it's roots go all the way to 1600's Gaudiya Vaishnavism
 
An Italian republic with few naval experience constructing a fleet in 100 days and decisively beating the major maritime power of the period.
A powerful empire with an army of well over 400,000 men, with a centralized administration and a culture modern in many aspects falling within some decades to what can be described as the third world of this time.
Arabian tribes, which had barely played a role before, conquering the two major powers of the time after having united around a religious leader opposing the dominant polytheism of the time.
A country fighting against the united forces of Europe for 20 years and winning most of the time while struggling with revolutions ans coups from within.

All these things actually happened.
 
It isn't impossible however for "mainstream" Hinduism to become a prosletyzing religion. The Hare Krishna movement is, and it's roots go all the way to 1600's Gaudiya Vaishnavism

But it's literally a minor New Age cult. It has ties to the Krishnaist Vaishnavism of Chaitanya and co., yes, but those ties are weak, and it's mostly built on modern Orientalism.
 
A lot of pre 1900s Hindu Nationalist wanks fall into this category. There have been a few Hindu nationalists both here and on soc.history.what-if that have come up with Sealionesque scenarios like "What if a superpower Indian Empire colonized Europe instead of the other way around?" Of course, the question is why an Indian Empire pre-1900s would need to colonize Europe in the first place. As far as Indians were concerned, Europe had nothing they needed (too cold, too far away) which couldn't be gotten by freely trading with each other. Nor was Hinduism ever a proselytizing religion. So "saving souls" is out. The only reason left is that it is a revenge fantasy.

I agree with that. That said, an expansion of Hinduism into South Arabia and the Swahili city-states thanks to trade links is possible as that's what happened with all of Southeast Asia save for Vietnam. Such a religion would be wiped out, however, as Christianity becomes the main religion of trade in both places, but you could get something very interesting pop up. Interesting Hindu-wanks like that really haven't existed, as far as I can see.
 
But it's literally a minor New Age cult. It has ties to the Krishnaist Vaishnavism of Chaitanya and co., yes, but those ties are weak, and it's mostly built on modern Orientalism.
...how are the ties weak? It's founder was a Krishnaist Vaishnavite from India who was both a scholar and ascetic himself after having been trained and taught by another scholar/ascetic... if anything the only unusual thing about the religion is how loud it is.

But more on topic, it still shows the potential is there. The amount of new age religions which didn't last or get many members is telling, whilst the Hare Krishna religion has 1 million people worldwide.
Perhaps less on topic, but my point was that there is potential within Hinduism for a prosletyising movement.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The UK's share of world manufacturing output in 1860 was 19.9 percent; that of France, 7.9 percent; the US, 7.2 percent; Russia, 7 percent, the various German states, 4.9 percent; Austria, 4.2 percent, Italy, 2.5 percent.
The problem with that source is that it's explicitly manufacturing, not modern manufacturing. That's why the full table is (for 1860)


UK: 19.9%
France: 7.9%
Russia: 7.0%
German states: 4.9%
Austrian Empire: 4.2%
Italy: 2.5%
Rest of europe: 6.8%

USA and CSA combined: 7.2% (other work shows about a third is in the 11 CS states, and about a half in the 13 claimed CS states)
Japan: 2.6%

China: 19.7%
British India: 8.6%
Rest of the (third) world: 36.6%

China and the UK are equal in manufacturing power by this measure, despite China being unable to produce anything like the same modern machinery as the UK. The difference is that China has hundreds of millions of people and an artisan crafts population. (This is also why India has more manufacturing power than the 1860 US despite not having a single iron foundry)

In terms of heavy industry at the time the UK had roughly as much manufacturing power as the rest of the world, combined, including British colonies; the CSA plus border states has about a third of the heavy manufacturing power of the old US - 15% in the core CSA chiefly in Virginia (specifically Richmond) with some in Tennessee, IIRC, and 17% in the border states.

If the CSA got everything they felt they had ironclad claims to (i.e. Kentucky, Maryland, plus the eleven "official" CS states) they'd have nearly half the manufacturing of the old US - they'd be relatively lacking in their heavy industry segment as a fraction of their economy, but they'd actually be if anything richer per capita in production terms simply because of all the resource-generating operations in the south (a farm making cotton or indigo being a much more significant wealth-generator for the landlords than a farm growing grain).
Their problem is the Dutch Disease, not being a poor country per se...
 
Last edited:
Well sure it bodes well. Italy, Austria-Hungary, France--these are nations which are/were all industrialized. They weren't impoverished backwaters. They were great powers, not banana republics (which is the comparison I'm targeting). A nation doesn't have to be on the level of the US or the UK to not be a banana republic.

I never said I agreed with you - I really don't. If anything, the Confederacy will resemble Tsarist Russia - it has the resources, but a political system that is sorely outdated, with power concentrated among a small elite. The Confederacy even had slavery - a dated and obsolete practice just about everywhere else. Yes, the Confederacy had democracy for the slaveocrats, but even Russia had informal representation for the elite in its royal court.

And like Russia, the only way that the Confederacy could modernize is through revolution. And even then, modernization could easily falter.

They did before. Spain and Brazil traded with the rest of Europe. Everyone traded with Belgium while they were raping the Congo. The 1800s were not a time noted for enlightened foreign policy.

Horrific colonialism is one thing, but slavery is another. Just about every nation in the world had banned slavery by this point, and while indentured labour was still a thing in the Caribbean, it wasn't exactly the same thing as slavery. Slavery was the number one reason why Britain and France could never ally itself with the Confederacy, and most of Europe certainly looked upon it negatively. This OTL attitude would certainly expand into the foreign policy of the European powers.

That's a pretty big simplification. It was the #1 cash crop, but not their only product by any means.

It had other products, yes, but cotton was, by far, what it produced. There's a reason "King Cotton" was used to justify courting European powers, and that was because the country produced cotton overwhelmingly.

But beyond that, there are other countries in the world that need cotton other than the UK.

And most of them would look to other nations to trade with - British India being one such nation. The US would obviously continue to trade with its next-door neighbour with reluctance, and British North America (no matter which form it takes) would do so as well, but not many others would do so, because of reasons I have explained above.
 
Top