WI The confederates were recognised by foreign governments?

I've always found it more than slightly ironic that other countries traded with the US up until 1861 though it was a slave state, and continued trading with it after 1865 when it was still a de facto slave state (and remained so up until 1945-6), but somehow people believe that no-one would trade with the Confederacy between 1861 and 1865 simply because it was a slave state.

As a reference I direct your attention to Slavery by Another Name by Douglas Blackmon, which describes the system put in place in the Southern states after the Civil War, where black people were arrested on trumped-up charges, convicted by all-white judges and juries, and then sold to mines, factories and farms. In many ways the victims of this system were worse off than they had been before the war, because if someone actually owns a slave they have an interest in keeping that slave fit to work, whereas in the later system it didn't matter if the black person died: you could always arrest another one... The treatment meted out to those unfortunate enough to be ensnared in this institution included the time-honoured American pastime of 'water-boarding'.

Besides the large numbers of people actually caught up in this new form of slavery, many more were so intimidated that they signed onerous labour contracts, which again reduced them effectively to slaves.
 
somehow people believe that no-one would trade with the Confederacy between 1861 and 1865 simply because it was a slave state.
The British traded with a lot of people they didn't particularly like, and wouldn't have made an exception for the Confederacy (free trade in itself being a good thing). The Union blockade is what would have stopped most people trading with the Confederacy between 1861 and 1865. Britain breaking that blockade is a de facto alliance with the Confederacy- something very different to a trading relationship.

On a slight tangent, I should note that people in Britain do see Confederate slavery as something qualitatively different to what had come before. Even after Lincoln's government has disavowed any intention to free the slaves and started sacking abolitionist generals, the Confederacy still comes off worse by comparison. It's "a Confederation of slaveholding States, the corner-stone of whose constitution is not merely the lawfulness but the expediency of slavery, and the thinly-veiled object of whose policy is the wide extension of slave territory and the speedy revival of the slave trade" (Illustrated London News, 11 Jan 1862). Many people argue that a Confederate victory will speed abolition because the North will voluntarily free its slaves and the South will be more readily forced to do so.

Besides the large numbers of people actually caught up in this new form of slavery, many more were so intimidated that they signed onerous labour contracts, which again reduced them effectively to slaves.
Much the same as the systems of indentured labour in the West Indies, or- to a lesser extent- the master and servant laws which made employee contract breach a criminal offence in the UK until 1875. However, it still isn't people being bought and sold, and- rightly or wrongly- Victorian Britain didn't get as worked up about it as they did about slavery.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
I might be wrong, but I believe that France was prepared to follow Britain's lead in this particular issue.

True in general, but there were a few occasions when a Trent Affair-style incident could have blown up between France and the United States. Ben Butler treated the French consul in New Orleans rather roughly and nearly fired on a French warship, IIRC. Besides, there always the possibility that Napoleon III could simply change his mind.
 
so, do we have a general consensus that recognition of the CSA probably won't lead to war or the breaking of the blockade? Because I can't imagine that the USA is going to deliberately add the UK and/or France to it's list of enemies while it is still tangling with the CSA. In which case, it seems like the CSA will have more funds available, but there's nothing that going to significantly affect the war.

Until you wonder just why the UK and/or France are recognizing the CSA. Wouldn't that require the rebels to win a battle that they lost in OTL or something?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
so, do we have a general consensus that recognition of the CSA probably won't lead to war or the breaking of the blockade?

I believe that there was a reasonable chance that diplomatic recognition would have lead to a declaration of war by the United States, but than this chance was perhaps less than even. And it certainly does increase the chance of a diplomatic break between the Union and the European states later on.

In which case, it seems like the CSA will have more funds available, but there's nothing that going to significantly affect the war.

I think I am alone on this, but I think that this would have lead to a lower level of inflation than was the case IOTL and that this might have had a significant impact on the outcome of the war. But then, I am one of those few people who sees the defeat of the Confederacy as being as much a financial phenomena and a military one.

Until you wonder just why the UK and/or France are recognizing the CSA. Wouldn't that require the rebels to win a battle that they lost in OTL or something?

Not necessarily. More adroit diplomacy by the Confederacy, the Union handling the Trent Affair more cumbersomely, Napoleon III simply changing his mind, or any other number of things.
 
I believe that there was a reasonable chance that diplomatic recognition would have lead to a declaration of war by the United States,

I really doubt that. Unless the UK goes so far as to send the RN to break the blockade, the USA is not going to add the juggernaut of the UK to it's list of enemies...
 
I believe that there was a reasonable chance that diplomatic recognition would have lead to a declaration of war by the United States, but than this chance was perhaps less than even.

Considerably less than even, to threaten it is one thing to actually do so another.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
I really doubt that. Unless the UK goes so far as to send the RN to break the blockade, the USA is not going to add the juggernaut of the UK to it's list of enemies...

Considerably less than even, to threaten it is one thing to actually do so another.

But if Britain and France recognize the Confederacy and the Union does nothing about it, does that not imply a de facto acceptance? Maybe not in a legal sense, but in the eyes of worldwide public opinion? The United States would suffer a massive loss of respect, more nations would be encouraged to recognize the Confederacy, Confederate bonds would rise in value, Union greenbacks would decrease in value, the peace party in the North would be strengthened, and there would be a whole host of other negative consequences.

Now, would the negative value of all these things added up be equal to the negative value of facing the Royal Navy? Very likely not. But to think that the British and French recognition without intervention would have no impact on the course of the war is, I think, a flawed assumption.
 
But if Britain and France recognize the Confederacy and the Union does nothing about it, does that not imply a de facto acceptance? Maybe not in a legal sense, but in the eyes of worldwide public opinion? The United States would suffer a massive loss of respect, more nations would be encouraged to recognize the Confederacy, Confederate bonds would rise in value, Union greenbacks would decrease in value, the peace party in the North would be strengthened, and there would be a whole host of other negative consequences.

Now, would the negative value of all these things added up be equal to the negative value of facing the Royal Navy? Very likely not. But to think that the British and French recognition without intervention would have no impact on the course of the war is, I think, a flawed assumption.

Minor ones, the CSA was fighting way over its league. It might win one or two more battles but in the end nothing much changes except that the US will be upset at the UK for quite a while. It could effect things if a WWI type war breaks out. You could see the US more friendly with Russia and/or Prussia. Probably not an out and out alliance but UK would have to take that fact into consideration when conducting foreign policy.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Minor ones, the CSA was fighting way over its league. It might win one or two more battles but in the end nothing much changes

You're thinking only in military terms. A war is a political, diplomatic, and financial conflict as well as a military one. To think that these different aspects of war are not intertwined, or are intertwined in only "minor" ways, is incorrect.
 
You're thinking only in military terms. A war is a political, diplomatic, and financial conflict as well as a military one. To think that these different aspects of war are not intertwined, or are intertwined in only "minor" ways, is incorrect.

Yes, they are related but you're not going to beat Joe Fraisier in his prime by working out a few months, punching a bag and sparring in the gym, unless you are spectacularly good at fighting you are going to get badly whipped no matter what you do. The CSA was in almost as bad a situation.
 
And the Confederacy's economic condition is so bad that recognition won't help and the Union's so good that recognition won't significantly hurt.

Depending on the circumstances OF recognition - but if the war is going no better for the CSA than OTL, recognizing it is just an empty insult.

I dislike appearing to minimize the economic side of war, but the CSA was not defeated by bond issues, it was defeated on the battlefield - where one army and one army alone of the CSA was a consistent exception to steady and persistent list of defeats.

That's not something any amount of money the CSA would get can magically fix.

Meanwhile, in terms of Union morale - why is Union morale going to crumble because of this? Did British morale crumble in the American Revolution because of France's recognition?

Frankly, the economic argument would make more sense if the CSA was equally (un)successful everywhere, instead of the ANV being consistently successful and the AoT consistently a failure - despite facing the same economic issues (in terms of the CSA's state). That's something I've yet to see satisfactorily addressed by the "the CSA's defeat was in large part a financial phenomenon" argument.
 
Last edited:

Anaxagoras

Banned
Did British morale crumble in the American Revolution because of France's recognition?

Actually, check how the value of British government bonds declined from 1777 to 1781 and you can see the steady erosion that took place in British government finances, largely due to French involvement in the war. Needless to say, this contributed powerfully to the crumbling of the British willingness to continue the war.

Frankly, the economic argument would make more sense if the CSA was equally (un)successful everywhere, instead of the ANV being consistently successful and the AoT consistently a failure - despite facing the same economic issues (in terms of the CSA's state). That's something I've yet to see satisfactorily addressed by the "the CSA's defeat was in large part a financial phenomenon" argument.

Why would you assume that because I think finance played a major role in the defeat of the Confederacy I therefore think that all Confederate armies and generals were of precisely the same quality?
 
Actually, check how the value of British government bonds declined from 1777 to 1781 and you can see the steady erosion that took place in British government finances, largely due to French involvement in the war. Needless to say, this contributed powerfully to the crumbling of the British willingness to continue the war.

"French involvement" is not the same as merely French recognition, however. Being tired of a prolonged and costly war is not the same as losing hope just because someone issues what amounts to a diplomatic barb.

Why would you assume that because I think finance played a major role in the defeat of the Confederacy I therefore think that all Confederate armies and generals were of precisely the same quality?
I am not assuming any such thing. I am pointing out that somehow one army - and only one army - was an exception to the rule that Confederate armies generally lost, whereas if finance was playing a major role it would hurt the ANV as badly as the. . . how to put this . . .
um . . .

Forgive me Larry. - loser armies.

Take the American Revolution. The fact Continental currency was probably worth more as a substitute for toilet paper was detrimental in every theater. There's no example of one area seemingly shrugging off its effects.

Whereas in the ACW, we see the ANV as one of the most effective armies of the war. And while it certainly had a dispropitiate number of good officers, and the benefits of Virginia's pre-existing infrastructure, it was also facing the largest and best equipped Union army (if not necessarily the best lead). If economics were as large a factor as the battlefield, there's no particularly good reason why it would be holding a line similar to 1863 in 1864 as opposed to the AoT holding northern Georgia - having been driven out of Tennessee entirely.
 
Last edited:

Anaxagoras

Banned
I am not assuming any such thing. I am pointing out that somehow one army - and only one army - was an exception to the rule that Confederate armies generally lost, whereas if finance was playing a major role it would hurt the ANV as badly as the. . . how to put this . . .
um . . .

Forgive me Larry. - loser armies.

Our opinions are not mutually exclusive. Inflation ate away at the morale of the Confederacy by making life difficulty and eventually all but impossible for Southern civilians. This, in turn, undermined the war effort by encouraging desertion by soldiers who wanted to return home to take care of their families and by other, more indirect ways.

The AoNV was more resistant to the negative impact of inflation than was the AoT largely because of the inspirational leadership of Lee. Men stayed true to the colors because they believed in Lee and didn't want to disappoint him. Bragg and Hood, needless to say, didn't inspire that kind of leadership.

Take the American Revolution. The fact Continental currency was probably worth more as a substitute for toilet paper was detrimental in every theater. There's no example of one area seemingly shrugging off its effects.

If the Revolution had failed, historians would rightly be saying that inflation was a major cause of the defeat.

Whereas in the ACW, we see the ANV as one of the most effective armies of the war. And while it certainly had a dispropitiate number of good officers, and the benefits of Virginia's pre-existing infrastructure, it was also facing the largest and best equipped Union army (if not necessarily the best lead). If economics were as large a factor as the battlefield, there's no particularly good reason why it would be holding a line similar to 1863 in 1864 as opposed to the AoT holding northern Georgia - having been driven out of Tennessee entirely.

There were many factors for Confederate success in the East vis-a-vis the West, including favorable geography and superior generalship. Inflation badly hurt the Confederate cause in both theaters. Pointing out that the AoNV did better than the AoT does nothing to disprove this.
 
Our opinions are not mutually exclusive. Inflation ate away at the morale of the Confederacy by making life difficulty and eventually all but impossible for Southern civilians. This, in turn, undermined the war effort by encouraging desertion by soldiers who wanted to return home to take care of their families and by other, more indirect ways.

The AoNV was more resistant to the negative impact of inflation than was the AoT largely because of the inspirational leadership of Lee. Men stayed true to the colors because they believed in Lee and didn't want to disappoint him. Bragg and Hood, needless to say, didn't inspire that kind of leadership.

But it might be worth noting that even if you had inflation at only the levels the US had - quite a feat for the CSA to achieve - all those sons, brothers, fathers, etc. would be manpower away from the farms and so forth, so the overall state of the Confederate economy as measured by inflation wouldn't represent how much the poor farmer's wife and daughters and sisters were in worse circumstances than similar folks in the Union which isn't taking away so much (percentage wise) manpower.

Also, by this argument, the AoT should have a much higher desertion rate than the ANV.

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/ArticlePrintable.jsp?id=h-3764

But (Figures from Two Great Rebel Armies, which I heartily recommend to anyone who cares anything about Confederate military questions)

103-134 units serving with the ANV, never more than 3 assigned to the Army of Tennessee. So the overwhelming majority of Virginia deserters would be from the army lead by Lee, or detachments from the same.

38-65 units from North Carolina (out of <70 regiments - but we have to recognize that artillery was dispersed in the field and not at forts) in the ANV, "never more than 9" with the AoT.

About the same percentage of both major armies (if about half as again as many "units" - independent companies, battalions, artillery batteries, infantry and cavalry regiments - in absolute terms) was from Georgia and Florida.

Not clear about Mississippi (more "Western" units in the AoT, but I have no specific numbers for Mississippi), and Arkansas was overwhelming in one of the armies other than the ANV.

So what I'm trying to say here is that it doesn't seem that being under Lee's command vs. under Bragg's command was a more important factor in discouraging deserters than the influence of what lead men to desert in the first place - for example, look at the Shenandoah Valley.

If the Revolution had failed, historians would rightly be saying that inflation was a major cause of the defeat.
And that does not mean that it was one for the CSA where it was consistently losing on the battlefield from the beginning of the war just about everywhere except Virginia and Texas. Meaning well before inflation has hit levels of significant damage to the economy, we see significant defeats in the West. To repeat (for the reader) an earlier issue: How does lower inflation save New Orleans?

There were many factors for Confederate success in the East vis-a-vis the West, including favorable geography and superior generalship. Inflation badly hurt the Confederate cause in both theaters. Pointing out that the AoNV did better than the AoT does nothing to disprove this.
"the Confederate cause" in the East is seeing a situation looking like a stalemate even in late 1864. "the Confederate cause" in the West is seeing a situation looking like its past time for surrender by the beginning of 1864.

So I would strongly disagree that the Confederate cause was "badly hurt" in both theaters when one theater has been all but lost and the other hasn't changed significantly except for casualties between the fall of Norfolk and Overland Campaign.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Figures from Two Great Rebel Armies, which I heartily recommend to anyone who cares anything about Confederate military questions)

It is good. It's been many years since I read it, but I may pick it up again.

"the Confederate cause" in the East is seeing a situation looking like a stalemate even in late 1864. "the Confederate cause" in the West is seeing a situation looking like its past time for surrender by the beginning of 1864.

So I would strongly disagree that the Confederate cause was "badly hurt" in both theaters when one theater has been all but lost and the other hasn't changed significantly except for casualties between the fall of Norfolk and Overland Campaign.

This argument still doesn't make much sense to me. I don't argue that Lee was a better general than Bragg or Hood. But this doesn't provide evidence that inflation wasn't a major factor in the Confederacy's defeat, any more than it argues that the Union blockade or Lincoln's leadership skills was a major factor in the Confederacy's defeat.
 
This argument still doesn't make much sense to me. I don't argue that Lee was a better general than Bragg or Hood. But this doesn't provide evidence that inflation wasn't a major factor in the Confederacy's defeat, any more than it argues that the Union blockade or Lincoln's leadership skills was a major factor in the Confederacy's defeat.

Except that if inflation was "a major cause" in the Confederacy's defeat, we would see both of the two major rebel armies broken by it.

As noted,
So what I'm trying to say here is that it doesn't seem that being under Lee's command vs. under Bragg's command was a more important factor in discouraging deserters than the influence of what lead men to desert in the first place - for example, look at the Shenandoah Valley.
Inflation seems to have played very little role in men from the Shenandoah Valley deserting because their homes were in danger or men from North Carolina deserting because they really weren't that concerned about the Confederacy. And it really wouldn't matter more to California widows (for want of a better way to express it) that inflation is at its 1862 level vs. 1864 level - the men are away from the farm and that's what's needed.

Obviously inflation hurt the Confederacy, but inflation did not cause New Orleans to fall. Inflation did not cause Norfolk to fall. Inflation did not cause the Army of Tennessee to be given the leftovers or railroads to be overworked and underrepaired. Inflation did not stop the ANV from staying nearly as well armed as the AotP.

And as Lee commanded the vast majority of North Carolina or Virginia soldiers in the field, I don't think the "leadership held desertion in check" is wholly accurate.

I just don't see how the circumstances that ate away at the Confederacy sees inflation as one of the top factors.

http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/ConfederateInflation.asp

It's telling that it only gets totally ridiculous when the war is lost.
 
Last edited:
Top