What year would victory be best for the Confederacy in the long run?

Best year for victory in long run

  • 1861: Orders 191 aren't lost

    Votes: 30 46.2%
  • 1862: Trent Affaire

    Votes: 21 32.3%
  • 1863: Battle of Vicksburg (Gettysburg won't win a war)

    Votes: 2 3.1%
  • 1864: Cleburne Plan is implemented when first suggested

    Votes: 2 3.1%
  • 1865: Better evacuation of Richmond/ Recolcation further in the South.

    Votes: 2 3.1%
  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 8 12.3%

  • Total voters
    65
  • Poll closed .
Depends on what you mean. If you mean a straight slugging match without concern, then yes the North could overpower the South but that is not the only way for the South to win besides foreign intervention; they merely had to outlast the Northern will to fight and very nearly did so by 1864.

Oh yes, I suspect that a more Fabian strategy on the part of the South, if executed well and with a bit of luck, could have had a reasonable chance of succeeding. But given how overconfident Southern public opinion was going into the war, I'm not sure such a strategy would have been politically feasible.
 
Oh yes, I suspect that a more Fabian strategy on the part of the South, if executed well and with a bit of luck, could have had a reasonable chance of succeeding. But given how overconfident Southern public opinion was going into the war, I'm not sure such a strategy would have been politically feasible.
Yep. People who think they’re worth 10 of those damnyankees don’t fight Fabian campaigns.
 
The Confederacy had the second highest amount of railways per capita and the value of slave holdings alone amounted to somewhere around $3 Billion with sufficient banking industries in New Orleans, for example. I've already explained that the preference for agriculture and alleged disinterest in manufacturing are myths and the wartime experience of the Confederates fostering industry in places like Selma speaks volumes. The low tariff claim and threat of foreign dumping is also a bizarre tact, given the Confederacy almost from its inception adopted the U.S. Tariff Rates of 1856.

The real price of slaves went down 99% over the war. Now a lot of that was in the last few months when people were effectively paying rent as everyone with a brain knew that the South was about to lose and slaves would become worthless. However even if we put the slide to 75% due to changing conditions you are down to $750 million and that is optimistic.

. No one outside the CSA would have accepted slaves as collateral after the war. Slavery is illegal almost everywhere else in the Western World and banking regulations did or would soon forbid it. That means slaves would be costly collateral as they wouldn't be accepted by the cheaper sources for loans. Southern banks charged more for loans than Northern and British ones and they would be the only ones accepting slaves as collateral. The US Tariff Rate in 1856 was very low despite Southern complaints. Most places were much higher.

Also all investment property should be considered a steam of income. Free workers tended to give you a higher stream of income than slaves. That is free labor produced more goods than slave labor. If you could securitize the stream of income of free labor it would be worth more than slave labor and thus the gap of wealth between North and South would be even more extreme.
 
Last edited:
Oh yes, I suspect that a more Fabian strategy on the part of the South, if executed well and with a bit of luck, could have had a reasonable chance of succeeding. But given how overconfident Southern public opinion was going into the war, I'm not sure such a strategy would have been politically feasible.

Not a direct Fabian campaign, just better luck over 1864. Grant nearly got his teeth kicked in four times, while Sherman had three close calls that I'm aware of.

The real price of slaves went down 99% over the war. Now a lot of that was in the last few months when people were effectively paying rent as everyone with a brain knew that the South was about to lose and slaves would become worthless. However even if we put the slide to 75% due to changing conditions you are down to $750 million and that is optimistic.

August, 1863 - MARKET PRICE OF SLAVES
Slaves command a higher price in Kentucky, taking gold as the standard of value, than in any other of the Southern States. In Missouri they are sold at from forty dollars to four hundred, according to age, quality, and especially according to place. In Tennessee they cannot be said to be sold at all. In Maryland the negroes upon an estate were lately sold, and fetched an average price of $18 a head. In the farther States of the Southern Confederacy we frequently see reports of negro sales, and we occasionally see boasts from rebel newspapers as to the high prices the slaves bring, notwithstanding the war and the collapse of Southern industry. We notice in the Savannah Republican of the 5th, a report of a negro sale in that city, at which, we are told, high prices prevailed, and at which two girls of 18 years of age were sold for about $2,500 apiece, two matured boys for about the same price, a man of 45 for $1,850, and at woman of 23, with her child of 5, for $3,950. Twenty-five hundred dollars, then, may be taken as the standard price of first-class slaves in the Confederacy; but when it is remembered that this is in Confederate money, which is worth less than one-twelfth its face in gold, it will be seen that the real price, by this standard, is only about $200. In Kentucky, on the other hand, though there is but little buying or selling of slave stock going on, we understand that negroes are still held at from seven to twelve hundred dollars apiece.

Basically as soon as the war is over, the valuations go up.

No one outside the CSA would have accepted slaves as collateral after the war. Slavery is illegal almost everywhere else in the Western World and banking regulations did or would soon forbid it. That means slaves would be costly collateral as they wouldn't be accepted by the cheaper sources for loans. Southern banks charged more for loans than Northern and British ones and they would be the only ones accepting slaves as collateral.

Except for Brazil, Portugal, the Netherlands (Until 1863), the Ottoman Empire and the Spanish Empire in the Americas, of course. You're also going to have to explain how banking regulations could prevent such loans, nevermind cite that this was the impending case. You're also missing the critical point of potential industrialization in the South, which is that Slave labor would/could be work force for the factories, while profits from Cotton exports would be the source of start up capital. As I've already repeatedly said, the 1870s would've seen great profits for Southern planters.

The US Tariff Rate in 1856 was very low despite Southern complaints. Most places were much higher.

And yet American industry did not collapse.

Also all investment property should be considered a steam of income. Free workers tended to give you a higher stream of income than slaves. That is free labor produced more goods than slave labor. If you could securitize the stream of income of free labor it would be worth more than slave labor and thus the gap of wealth between North and South would be even more extreme.

No. The slave holdings were worth the entirety of the Northern industrial economy, excluding the Pacific Coast wages were not too dissimilar and inequality about the same too, and, finally, no, Slave labor was more efficient than free labor in agriculture and industrial production utilizing slave labor was also highly profitable.
 
Basically as soon as the war is over, the valuations go up.



Except for Brazil, Portugal, the Netherlands (Until 1863), the Ottoman Empire and the Spanish Empire in the Americas, of course. You're also going to have to explain how banking regulations could prevent such loans, nevermind cite that this was the impending case. You're also missing the critical point of potential industrialization in the South, which is that Slave labor would/could be work force for the factories, while profits from Cotton exports would be the source of start up capital. As I've already repeatedly said, the 1870s would've seen great profits for Southern planters.



And yet American industry did not collapse.



No. The slave holdings were worth the entirety of the Northern industrial economy, excluding the Pacific Coast wages were not too dissimilar and inequality about the same too, and, finally, no, Slave labor was more efficient than free labor in agriculture and industrial production utilizing slave labor was also highly profitable.

1) Valuations would not go up overnight, the real world does NOT act like that. If the price of slaves go up at a roaring rate of 17% a year it would take around 9 years to get back to where it started from. Outside that any money being poured into increasing slave prices is NOT being used to rebuild the country. If someone spends $200 to buy a slave that is 200 dollars not being spent on repairing railroads. In any case that is dead loss speculation money. The slaves are already there so you aren't getting more value out of them, you are just paying more for them.

2) Profit from WHAT? The CSA is going to spend its money in the 1870s repairing its railroads, repaying its huge debt , paying for a large army and rebuilding in general . There won't be much left over. The cotton money is going for that, not for building industries or anything else.

It took a generation OTL for the South to recover fully from the ACW. Without all the advantages being part of the most dynamic economy on the planet and the need to build a big military call it two. It wouldn't be until 1900 or so before the South was back to where it was in 1860 in TTL.

3) US Industry was already established, the CSA would be competing against countries with established industries from nearly scratch.

4) Because US Free Labor wasn't counted as "wealth". That is a huge comparison distortion. If you took the profit per worker and divided it by the profit percentage and call that the Free Labor Price you would find Northern Free Workers were worth far more than Southern Slaves and the wealth differential far, far higher.
 
Last edited:
Top