What is Before 1900's "Sealion"?

dcharleos

Donor
Also looting National Armories when the rebellion broke out. If those arms were transferred north before or just after the election the war would have been over quick. They also got a lot looting dead bodies. Also about the only thing that increased were munitions production. That is hardly the makings of an industrial juggernaut!


Both true. Also true they were spinning cotton and wool into cloth, that there were armories manufacturing small arms, artillery, and even rolling iron plating for ironclads. They manufactured about 20 ironclads during the war (20x more than they could have in 1860), which is more than Italy did in the same period, if I'm not mistaken. Of course, that's not a 1:1 comparison, as the Italians didn't have a pressing reason to crash manufacture 20 ironclads, and even if they had, they weren't under an embargo and they had a functioning currency with which to do it. Don't want to get bogged down in the weeds; it's just an example.

I think there's an appendix or something in Confederate Industry that has some partial numbers on the textile manufacturing. Check it out if you have the chance.
 
Both true. Also true they were spinning cotton and wool into cloth, that there were armories manufacturing small arms, artillery, and even rolling iron plating for ironclads. They manufactured about 20 ironclads during the war (20x more than they could have in 1860), which is more than Italy did in the same period, if I'm not mistaken. Of course, that's not a 1:1 comparison, as the Italians didn't have a pressing reason to crash manufacture 20 ironclads, and even if they had, they weren't under an embargo and they had a functioning currency with which to do it. Don't want to get bogged down in the weeds; it's just an example.

I think there's an appendix or something in Confederate Industry that has some partial numbers on the textile manufacturing. Check it out if you have the chance.

If the Italians had a pressing need they could easily have come up with more than 20. It is like the statement "The US couldn't match the Spanish Navy until just before the outbreak of the Spanish-American War", technically true but that had more to do with the desire than the capacity. By the time of the Spanish American war the US had a lot bigger economy with a much larger steel and boat building industry. What it didn't have is the need or desire to build one.
 

dcharleos

Donor
If the Italians had a pressing need they could easily have come up with more than 20. It is like the statement "The US couldn't match the Spanish Navy until just before the outbreak of the Spanish-American War", technically true but that had more to do with the desire than the capacity. By the time of the Spanish American war the US had a lot bigger economy with a much larger steel and boat building industry. What it didn't have is the need or desire to build one.

:confused:
Don't want to get bogged down in the weeds; it's just an example.
 
What about a Confederacy simply reconquered 10-20 years after the ACW?

This seems unlikely. Not that the USA couldn't do it, but if it is willing to accept a peace in the 1860s that allowed for CSA independence, I don't know why it would want to fight again a decade or two later.

I could perhaps see the USA try to peacefully reconcile with the CSA though.
 
The point is that the South had a small industrial base. Nowhere near 1/3 of the North. Not with those few major cities.
The South's industrial base was much smaller than the North's, of course. However, it's worth pointing out that its industrial base was larger than the size of its cities would indicate, because what manufacturing it had was much more decentralised than that of the North. For instance, its textile manufacturing was dispersed amongst small towns which had cheap water power, rather than using steam engines and being concentrated in major cities.
 
This seems unlikely. Not that the USA couldn't do it, but if it is willing to accept a peace in the 1860s that allowed for CSA independence, I don't know why it would want to fight again a decade or two later.

I could perhaps see the USA try to peacefully reconcile with the CSA though.

A very unstable CSA makes it look like easy pickings. GB and France cut off trade until the CSA pays back its loans , money it doesn't have. The inflation rate skyrockets. The soldiers want to go home but escaping slaves, some with guns, along with the Union Army guarding the border doesn't allow them to, Poor Whites in the hills revolt en masse but not enough soldiers remain in the army to guard the border, pick up escaping slaves and putting down revolts. It spins out of control and the CSA civil war breaks out and the US marches south to pick up the pieces. This isn't probable but it is certainly possible.
 
The South's industrial base was much smaller than the North's, of course. However, it's worth pointing out that its industrial base was larger than the size of its cities would indicate, because what manufacturing it had was much more decentralised than that of the North. For instance, its textile manufacturing was dispersed amongst small towns which had cheap water power, rather than using steam engines and being concentrated in major cities.

The efficiency of one big steam powered factory is going to be considerably higher than a bunch of small ones powered by water.
 
The efficiency of one big steam powered factory is going to be considerably higher than a bunch of small ones powered by water.
Depends on whether the economies of scale are more useful than the advantages of having very cheap power versus buying the steam engines and paying for the coal. It's certainly possible, but by no means a given.

For instance, Lowell, Massachusetts had more textile spindles than all eleven CSA states, but until the 1860s it used hydro power rather than steam power. In contrast, many British textile manufacturing centres had switched to steam long before 1860.
 
Depends on whether the economies of scale are more useful than the advantages of having very cheap power versus buying the steam engines and paying for the coal. It's certainly possible, but by no means a given.

For instance, Lowell, Massachusetts had more textile spindles than all eleven CSA states, but until the 1860s it used hydro power rather than steam power. In contrast, many British textile manufacturing centres had switched to steam long before 1860.


IIRC Lowell, Mass didn't have their textile spindles in tiny factories but pretty big ones for the time. The power source is less important than size. One 50 people factory is going to be more efficient than 5 10 people workshops a considerable majority of the time.
 
I think this whole argument about the Confederacy is boiling down to people saying either the Confederacy has a 100% chance of not prospering after the civil war or saying that they have a chance.
Way I see it, the Confederacy is likely screwed, but if the stars align and they get incredibly lucky, they could prosper. If I had to guess, I would put their chances at maybe 5%, being generous.

Still, reality is unrealistic so who knows what could have happened if they did get their independence.
 
IIRC Lowell, Mass didn't have their textile spindles in tiny factories but pretty big ones for the time. The power source is less important than size. One 50 people factory is going to be more efficient than 5 10 people workshops a considerable majority of the time.
The only figures I have on hand are that South Carolina textile mills averaged a little over 50 workers per mill. Georgia and North Carolina had larger textile industries than South Carolina or Virginia, so it's possible that Georgia and North Carolina factories were larger than that. This source here suggests that by 1860, Southern textile factories ranged from 30-40 hands to over 100. Either way, these aren't small workshops,

That said, Lowell textile manufacturing was probably more efficient on the whole. My point was not about the relative efficiency of Southern versus Northern manufacturing, but that urban populations can't be taken as a proxy for the level of manufacturing in the South, because it consistently underestimates the level of manufacturing.
 

samcster94

Banned
A very unstable CSA makes it look like easy pickings. GB and France cut off trade until the CSA pays back its loans , money it doesn't have. The inflation rate skyrockets. The soldiers want to go home but escaping slaves, some with guns, along with the Union Army guarding the border doesn't allow them to, Poor Whites in the hills revolt en masse but not enough soldiers remain in the army to guard the border, pick up escaping slaves and putting down revolts. It spins out of control and the CSA civil war breaks out and the US marches south to pick up the pieces. This isn't probable but it is certainly possible.
Well, there is a precedent in real life for a "Confederate Civil War" shortly after independence. Although Ireland(the independent country) got independence after a guerilla war, the hardline faction(De Valera's) started a new conflict months later due to opposition to any form of monarchism(they won it as a dominion in addition to being partitioned, which De Valera also hated) and killed Ireland's first leader Michael Collins. This Confederate Civil War would almost certainly be far worse, and it would likely involve the areas that were "pro-Union" seceding (many of these in real life also had higher Klan activity a decade later).
 
The only figures I have on hand are that South Carolina textile mills averaged a little over 50 workers per mill. Georgia and North Carolina had larger textile industries than South Carolina or Virginia, so it's possible that Georgia and North Carolina factories were larger than that. This source here suggests that by 1860, Southern textile factories ranged from 30-40 hands to over 100. Either way, these aren't small workshops,

That said, Lowell textile manufacturing was probably more efficient on the whole. My point was not about the relative efficiency of Southern versus Northern manufacturing, but that urban populations can't be taken as a proxy for the level of manufacturing in the South, because it consistently underestimates the level of manufacturing.

Probably not by that much. Lowell , Mass was a major textile manufacturer and isn't even on the list. They weren't the only ones. Couple that with the efficiency differences it shouldn't be that far off. Certainly not by a factor of 3.
 
Last edited:
I'd love to see how the Confederacy pays off war debt, considering its insanely decentralized system. If the Confederacy ends up winning, it will pay for its war debts not with taxes, but with tariffs. Tariffs that will strangle its trade-based economy. I can see states seceding from the CSA in 20 years.
 
I'd love to see how the Confederacy pays off war debt, considering its insanely decentralized system.

And unlike the US, which had the same issue but decided to get a new constitution, the Confederacy would never centralize and form a more successful government. It's very probable that the Confederacy sees high inflation, like that experienced by the US after the American Revolution, but it wouldn't have any clear solution in sight.
 
I'd love to see how the Confederacy pays off war debt, considering its insanely decentralized system. If the Confederacy ends up winning, it will pay for its war debts not with taxes, but with tariffs. Tariffs that will strangle its trade-based economy. I can see states seceding from the CSA in 20 years.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...d-times-there-are-not-forgotten-redux.384495/ shows the problems a CSA would have. It winds up losing a war to Mexico and ending up as a virtual colony to the US. It is in much worse shape than OTL South.
 
And unlike the US, which had the same issue but decided to get a new constitution, the Confederacy would never centralize and form a more successful government. It's very probable that the Confederacy sees high inflation, like that experienced by the US after the American Revolution, but it wouldn't have any clear solution in sight.

Considering there were more government workers in Richmond than in DC, that the CSA government had price controls on salt , railroads and alcohol, instituted internal passports, and was perfectly willing to shoot peaceful Germans trying to run to Mexico I would say centralization would no be a problem. ;) "State's Rights" were just an excuse for slavery as it was an excuse for segregation 100 years later. :mad:
 
Last edited:
Considering there were more government workers in Richmond than in DC, that the CSA government had price controls on salt , railroads and alcohol, instituted internal passports, and was perfectly willing to shoot peaceful Germans trying to run to Mexico I would say centralization would no be a problem. ;) "State's Rights" were just an excuse for slavery as it was an excuse for segregation 100 years later. :mad:
Well I wouldn't say it was an excuse, since they needed State's rights to protect both slavery and segregation. Still, you are probably right that the CSA would have some authority to throw around, though I suppose it would depend on what way they win, and who ends up in charge.
 
Top