posted
This is an exercise in alternative history.
I frequently here states rights advocates and southerns maintain that things would be different (meaning better) if the Confederacy had won the war. I have to agree with different since the US as we know it wouldn't exist but I think that better would be hard to defend.
I'll post my fictional scenario here in a bit but first I'd like to see what other people think the most likely course of history would have been had the south succeeded in seceding from the Union.
What would the world look like today if the South had won the civil war?
What do you see as a potential historical time line given that scenario?
How many different countries would we have in what is now US?
How would this have influenced the development of the western half of the US?
What would have happened in Canada?
How long would slavery have endured and what sequence of events would have brought about its abolition (assuming you don't think it would have continued until the present)?
How would this have influenced the events and movements of the twentieth century including the world wars, communism, facism, the dissolution of the British Empire and so on?
Would there have been a civil rights movement? Would it have succeeded?
posted
What I want to know is whether Nazis and Hitler would still be our most prominent cultural boogiemen. Would it change Godwin's Law?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: It depends a lot on at what point one says the war would have been lost.
Then pick your point and go from there. The only thing that I would stipulate is the that by "win the war" I mean that the South successfully seceded from the United States.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, well I think the only way for the South to have won the war is if at the first sign of real armed resistance, the Congress decided to let them go.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some say that the South ultimately seceded from the Union and that it finally lost the war with the Civil Rights movement. Others have said that the South lost the war, but won the power struggle since most Presidents (especially recently) have come from the South. I guess it depends on what "won" or "lost" means.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want to see what the world MIGHT have looked like, watch CSA: The Confederate State of America. It's a fake documentary from the point of view of the British of America and how things proceeded after the North lost and was subsequently invaded by the South.
It presupposes that everything is different when the British are brought into the war on the side of the South, and Gettysburg was a smashing success for them.
Personally I think the movie is probably right in a lot of respects. Canada never would have been conquered, they would have stayed independent. Britain was an essential trade partner for the South, and invading Canada would have made them an enemy for certain, to say nothing of the fact that British military assistance would have been necessary to conquer and to hold the north for years to come, at least until the south could rebuild northern manufacturing.
If you want to assume that the south won in 1865, I think the south would have had to conquer the north in much the way that the north really conquered the south, they wouldn't have just broken off as a separate state, and for at least one very good reason: We'd be at this again in 10 years. It was sort of like, forgive me, but like not just winning THIS battle, but winning all the future battles that would have taken place unless they did. In that victory they would have needed the period of reonstruction, and given the skilled labor and factories were in the north, it might've taken a bit longer. I think by the 1890's you have a new generation of Americans who grew up under the new world order, and then America goes shopping for countries.
It's hard to say what would have happened with Japan, Russia and Germany. I think it's likely we would have come to the aid of France and Britain still, Germany would've been beaten back, but I'm not as sure about Japan. It's really hard to nail down how Confederate policies would extrapolate over a hundred years. Somewhere in there we'd have annexed the rest of America, like usual, and gotten Alaska, but we also would've taken all of Mexico, and would have it by the end of the century. The northeast would I think become a sort of bastion of whatever was left of "free" thinking. The west would all be slave states, and unless, like in the documentary, the south came up with a clever way to force the north get get slaves as well, they would be the only free states (in the northeast). Given the CSA's drive for more state's rights, there's no way they'd force slavery on them through legislation, not right away anyways.
It's hard to say how long slavery would have lasted. I think the Northeast would've held out against it, and spent the next hundred years railing against it, and I think that plus international pressure would have gotten rid of it, sloooowly, phased out over time and heavily financed by taxes agaisnt the northeast and heavy tariffs against foreign countries. But I think it would have ended. The question is where that would have left African Americans, and for that matter any non-white in the country. I don't even think they would have automatically gotten citizenship, let alone the right to vote. That many millions all of a sudden voting would have been a huge threat to the party in power. I think they would have been a disenfranchised second class citizen for awhile, even if it took a constitutional amendment to do it. Maybe by today we'd have gotten them the vote, and equality, but the civil rights movement by the 60's? I'd be surprised.
I think the Caribbean and Mexico would have been conquered. I'm not as sure about Central America (but probably) or South America (probably not).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: It depends a lot on at what point one says the war would have been lost.
Then pick your point and go from there. The only thing that I would stipulate is the that by "win the war" I mean that the South successfully seceded from the United States.
A few weeks ago I was pondering what it would have been like if the south had seceded and the federal govt had just said "Okay." Basically "winning" without the civil war happening. All I really came up with was state's rights within the remaining USA would be a lot stronger if the overall doctrine was that membership was in the United part was truly optional.
Either the federal govt would have had to let many more things be decided on a state level or more states would have left. The USA would have either shrunk to just a few states which may or may not even have shared borders, or its functions would have diminished to be more like the United Nations in terms of actual authority. Either way, I doubt we'd have a lot of things like the national highway system, and I think it would have had a weird effect on our involvement in World War 1 & 2. That would have depended on which states had alliances with which European Nations, and I really don't know enough history to even guess at that.
That sounds like more hand-waving and fast-talking from you stinking carpetbaggers -- I won't hear it!
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think by the 1890's you have a new generation of Americans who grew up under the new world order, and then America goes shopping for countries.
It's hard to say what would have happened with Japan, Russia and Germany. I think it's likely we would have come to the aid of France and Britain still, Germany would've been beaten back, but I'm not as sure about Japan.
Before that, the Spanish American War would have never happened. Spain would have had a much larger stake in World War II if they retained control of the Philippines into the 20th Century. (Speaking of which, there are some entertaining discrepancies between "Spanish American War" [en.wikipedia.org] and "Guerra Hispano-Estadounidense" [es.wikipedia.org]).
posted
I have a hard time believing that a victory based on British support would have upheld slavery as a system in the long run. In the Gettysburg Victory scenario, the Emancipation Proclamation has been out for nearly a year already.
But I guess the main question is what happens with Manifest Destiny and the suppression of Native Americans. As one may recall from the Utah War and the Mountain Meadows Massacre, the Mormons were more closely aligned with the Native Americans than with the U.S. in that time period.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am saying the confederacy won after Sherman's march through the South. We will say Confederate fighting desire still held up, and they fought a battle of attrition until the people in the North opposed the war enough to vote on ending it.
quote:How would this have influenced the development of the western half of the US?
I think the territories that now include: Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Nevada would still have joined the union in a manner similar to how they did in reality. Most of those territories saw large scale settlement by Mormons who were very pro constitution and pro union. I also think California would ultimately have stuck with the Union. Arizona is hard to tell, it was taken by the confederacy and retaken by the union courtesy of California Union volunteers. It's doubtful that the Confederacy would have had the man power in the wake of Sherman's march through the south to take it back. Mormons also settled Arizona, but pro confederacy and anti African American sentiment still held strong there after the civil war. It's quite possible that in the wake of a deal between the North and the South, Arizona would be promised to the Union while Oklahoma and New Mexico are ceded to the South. I think it would be very difficult to cap Southern expansion at Texas. But a division between North and South, starting at California and Arizona and extending through Oklahoma and Texas into the South seems quite possible.
I think the boundaries of Arizona, New Mexico, and even Colorado would be quite different, as they would reflect an effort on the part of the South Western Confederate states to push North and the Union trying to buffer them back.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know that the French and British were really starting to consider recognizing the South as an independant nation, and I believe would have used force to back this up.
If, say, Lee's Lost Order wasn't lost, and Lee had won that next battle in 1862, Britain and France might very well have done what they had intended to do, and with their power, the South would have probably succeeded in seceding.
I'd imagine that Britain and Frace would be considered friends by the South, whereas in the North there'd be at least some resentment against them.
Slavery might not last forever due to political and economic reasons. It'd probably end eventually, though I truly doubt if the South would have become magically tolerant of their black population. The North wasn't too keen on them either in that age, so racial prejudice wouldn't have ended anytime soon, even after slavery ended (later than it did in real life.)
When World War 1 occured, I don't know what would have happened. From that point on, and even before then, we head into fiction. Too many variables to ever know for sure.
But the United States would not be the same. It would harbor resentment. And if this C.S.A. didn't get taken back into the fold within a generation, well... we'd probably have two Americas on this continent, not one, to this very day.
And they might be friendly. But maybe not.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of my good friends is a Civil War scholar (I've never seen so many civil war books and movies--he's got his own library). He also thinks that slavery was well on it's way out--and often quoted Robert E. Lee:
quote:So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that Slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to have this object attained.
I don't know if that was the sentiment of most of the south, but I definitely don't think slavery would have lasted a century, like j_k suggests.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... to say nothing of the fact that British military assistance would have been necessary to conquer and to hold the north for years to come...
At this juncture, I'm less certain that Britain would want to help the Confederates up to the point of helping an occupation. A weak and disorderly CSA is much preferable to Britain than a strong CSA that can someday pose a threat to BNA.
In the best case scenario (from the British POV) I suspect that they would want to covertly work towards a Balkanization of the States. Falling that, a weak CSA is good too.
(sorry if this sounds aggressive, I don't mean to reply to your answers in two threads, its just that they're interesting )
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: One of my good friends is a Civil War scholar (I've never seen so many civil war books and movies--he's got his own library). He also thinks that slavery was well on it's way out--and often quoted Robert E. Lee:
quote:So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that Slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to have this object attained.
I don't know if that was the sentiment of most of the south, but I definitely don't think slavery would have lasted a century, like j_k suggests.
I don't know why people think slavery would have left along with agriculture in the wake of the industrial revolution. Many Northerners practically practiced slavery in their factories with European immigrants. Why wouldn't the South, now able to throw off Northern regulations on slavery start hoarding more Africans and putting them to work back in the fields and eventually the factories?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB: An interesting point. Or for a slightly different view, at least the existence of slaves (albeit illegal) in China link shows that slavery may not necessarily be completely uneconomical to continue till much later than when it actually ended.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: 1861–1862: An Independent South
In our reality, before the Battle of Antietam, Federal troops accidentally recovered a copy of Special Order 191 (used as wrapping around a number of cigars), which spelled out in detail Lee's plan for the invasion of Maryland. Using this intelligence, Federal forces, under George B. McClellan, moved north and forced the battle at Antietam, ending the invasion.
In this alternate timeline, Lee's orders are recovered by trailing Confederate troops before they were allowed to fall into Union hands. The resulting Confederate advance catches McClellan and the U.S. by surprise. Instead of fighting at Antietam, General Lee forces McClellan into a battle on the banks of the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania and destroys the Army of the Potomac in the Battle of Camp Hill on October 1, 1862.
After the decisive Confederate victory, Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia move northward to occupy Philadelphia. As a direct result, the Confederate States of America earn diplomatic recognition from the UK and France. Both European nations then force mediation on the United States; this action results in full independence for the Confederate States. In less than two years, the War of Secession had ended.
While considering the mediation offer, Abraham Lincoln mentions to the British ambassador Richard Lyons that he has in his desk drawer a proclamation that would have freed slaves in the rebellious Confederacy. Lincoln has discussed the proclamation's viability with his cabinet, but after the U.S. defeat at Camp Hill, he decided against issuing it. He was warned by Lyons that if the proclamation were issued, he would have been perceived as acting in desperation, since the U.S. was about to officially concede defeat and that issuing such an order would amount to nothing more than an attempt to raise insurrection inside what was now another country, and doing so would be seen as a directly hostile act.
1914: Declaration and Invasion
The Empire's Crown Prince Franz Ferdinand and his wife are killed by a terrorist bomb while touring the town of Sarajevo in June 1914. The Austrian government quickly learn that a Serb group was responsible, and accuse the government of nearby Serbia of colluding with the terrorists. Tsar Nicholas II of Russia backs Serbia, while Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany backs Austria-Hungary. The major powers of each system mobilize their militaries, effectively signifying their intent to go to war. In August 1914, the Great War begins, initially pitting Great Britain, France, and Russia against Germany and Austria-Hungary (this is exactly how the real-life World War I started, except that in reality Franz Ferdinand survived the bomb attack and was killed by an assassin's bullet).
Across the Atlantic, Democratic President Theodore Roosevelt orders the U.S. military to mobilize in late July, following Germany's lead. In response, Confederate President Woodrow Wilson orders the C.S. military to do the same, and fighting soon breaks out on their common border and the high seas.
The United States officially brings the war to North America when Roosevelt declares war on the Confederate States in early August 1914. Confederate President Wilson responds in kind, although he had hoped to avoid a war. Wilson's speech, given in a tightly-packed public square of Richmond, Virginia decorated with statues of southern war heroes George Washington and Albert Sidney Johnston, becomes particularly famous.
Hoping to emulate General Lee, the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia launches a massive invasion of Maryland and Pennsylvania in August, targeting the northern de facto capital of Philadelphia. The ANV quickly overruns the de jure capital of Washington, D.C. and pushes on through Maryland.
The U.S. Army takes a different approach, and orders the US First Army under Lieutenant General George Custer and the US Second Army under Major General John Pershing to cross the Ohio River and invade Kentucky. Although Confederate resistance is high, especially from river gunboats modeled after the original USS Monitor, the U.S. succeeds in establishing a bridgehead on the southern bank. U.S forces also invade western Virginia, aiming for the rail junction Big Lick, Virginia.
A separate U.S. invasion of Sonora, intended to capture the Confederacy's sole Pacific port of Guaymas, soon becomes bogged down. A young army captain named Irving Morrell is wounded in this venture, and spends much of the next six months in Tucson, New Mexico recuperating.
The U.S. also launches attacks on the British Dominion of Canada, specifically in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. Perhaps the most successful maneuver during these early stages of war is the U.S. Navy's capture of the British base at Pearl Harbor in the Sandwich Islands (Hawaii) in a surprise attack.
This is the most plausible alternative history scenario for a Southern victory in the civil war.
It is impossible for the CSA without foreign aid to have won on its own power assuming political wills being equal. The economic power of New York state(Vermont?) Was at the time had more economic power then the entireity of the Confederacy, the Union had what 23 million people to the Confederacy's 7 million people, and even then 3 million of that were slave's? The north had more railways, more industries, more shipyards could produce more guns and the butter for them the only thing they lacked were creative Generals. Lee, Stuart, Jackson were innovative brilliant tacticians, Grant's and Sherman only really had persistence, they had alot of resources and knew how to use them but they weren't brilliant with them if you know what I mean neh? ~Source Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy.
posted
The problem to me with a victorious South is that the South was living with a failing economic system. It wasn't only carpetbaggers that made them dependent on the North for decades after the Civil War, and from which we still see remnants in places like LA and MS today.
Cotton, and the whole "One Crop/Cash Crop" ideal that was the source of so many of the "Souths" major families was ultimately unprofitable. England with its Wool centered industry (one of the major economic reason behind everything from the Irish Potato famine to the London poor that Dickens wrote so much about) were very much at odds.
As important as it was for the local Souther plantation owner to keep his workers (of any color) poor, unlettered, and indebted to him, it was in Britian's interest to keep The South poor, unlettered--especially in economics, and indebted to it.
I picture a present day South very much like a present day Caribean. Parts of it in ignorance, parts of it blossoming to tourism, and a history of violence and political instability in many areas.
After all, how England and other nations dealt with the Carribean is a good template to see how they would have dealt with rural South.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
FYI, Blayne, posting 36 screens of a quote from another website, especially wikipedia, is not really considered a constructive discussion technique.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have a hard time believing that a victory based on British support would have upheld slavery as a system in the long run. In the Gettysburg Victory scenario, the Emancipation Proclamation has been out for nearly a year already.
I think it could have continued in a more politically correct form. As intended, the EP had the potential to do a lot of damage to the south's economy, without having the same effect on the slave-owning border states. If the South won the war, I'd expect them to treat it the same way the founders would have reacted to any British proclamations made after July 4.
One of the reasons why the CSA lost the war was because they trailed the North in terms of industrial capacity. At some point they would have to catch up. I don't think that the use of slavery (or some other form of servitude) would have been out of the question. As BlackBlade said, it certainly wasn't in the north. [edit: As much as the EP discouraged the European powers from involving themselves (for fear of the appearance of supporting a slaveholding nation), I think the necessity of southern goods could have swayed them with time. Works for us in 2008, anyway.]
In any case, citizenship and voting rights should logically follow emancipation. Even a Southern defeat -- and the new interpretation of states' rights that followed -- did not force the South into compliance with the 14th and 15th Amendments. I'm not sure a Southern victory would have upheld those ideals.
posted
You know, looking at that from the bottom, I was pretty darn sure that that would be a Blayne post. There was that hard to mistake signature of fanboyism, laziness, and utter lack of respect for other people.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: FYI, Blayne, posting 36 screens of a quote from another website, especially wikipedia, is not really considered a constructive discussion technique.
No joke. Post an excerpt and a link, Blayne, not the whole freaking thing.
posted
I just don't see any scenario in which the South actually subjugates the North. They were fighting for the right to secede, they were not out to conquer anyone.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have problems seeing the South and the North in the 19th century living on the same continent as separate nations. The drive towards western expansion, along with the adversarial economic situation and the runaway slave issue would have kept tensions between them high. Assuming that the Southern states weren't fighting amonst themselves, it wouldn't have taken all that much for them to start up with the North again.
Southern succession would have just put the war off a decade or two and possibly turned it from a war of reconciliation on the North's part to one of conquest.
If they were able to conquer the North, it would have been different. I don't really know what would have happened in that case.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by pooka: FYI, Blayne, posting 36 screens of a quote from another website, especially wikipedia, is not really considered a constructive discussion technique.
No joke. Post an excerpt and a link, Blayne, not the whole freaking thing.
Whistled.
I am perfectly within the parameters of the TOS, I posted the whole thing because the whole thing is worth reading if one is not willing to invest in the Harry Turtledove novels and read them (an understandable sentiment as his writing isnt that good) but his interpretation of what would happen is indeed the most plausible.
The South was fighting for its right to seceed and form its own nation, there is no way that a nation a fraction of the economic size of its enemy could have possibly successfully invaded and subjugated the North. It is possible certain border states may have changed hands, Kentucky and New Mexico are possibilities but the entire north? Absurd.
Britain and France however had considerable political sympathy for the CSA's plight and willingly traded arms and ships to them for their cotton. Only domestic disapproval of slavery prevented them from outright aiding them from the beginning, had the South won the battle of Antiem and smashed McClellen while it is apparant that Southern victory, overall would still be impossible in a battle of economic and manpower attrition it would give them undoubtably enough international prestige and the spotlight to convince the British and French to aid them.
At this time while the USA had considerable economic power it was in power projection terms regional at best and could do nothing to prevent economic and political ruin if England and France choose to militarily intervene, thus President Lincoln would be forced to recognize their independence if pressured to do so.
Only McClellens lucky victory, in conjunction with the Emancipation made CSA sympathy in Europe evaporate. To announce the proclamation in the midst of defeat would have been seen as a sign of weakness and desparation.
The United States seeking aid against a possible coalition of French, British and Reb, would turn to the emerging power of Germany to balance them off, and without American guns, butter and men in WWI, and infact without the full Canadian effort as well in WWI (As Canadians would be defending their own homeland from American invasion) the British and French would be doomed to lose WWI.
Instead of the Holocaust targeting Jews it would end up targeting blacks, a Southern victory would not make the world a better place only more confusing as the battle lines drawn would not be in clear cut ideological battles, but merely closer resembling 18th european politics brought forth to the modern stage. We would merely trade one oppressor for another, one holocaust for another, one world for another. Some people would be happy, some undoubtably would not, but a better world? No. That's just naive.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: FYI, Blayne, posting 36 screens of a quote from another website, especially wikipedia, is not really considered a constructive discussion technique.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I am perfectly within the parameters of the TOS
Remember how you were lecturing me the other day about what constitutes acceptable behavior on Hatrack? It's not about the TOS.
posted
Well, the south never should have let themselves become so dependent on something that required other industries to make viable, but, if the North hadn't had the ability to so utterly dominate them at sea, in that, if they had never blockaded CSA ports, then the south may very well have won the war. Blockade runners still made it through with supplies and such, but if they had been able to carry on their economy business as usual, they would have been flush with cash and their ability to wage war wouldn't have been nearly so absolute. The economic side of the war was crucial.
And the Proclamation might as well have been Lincoln's take out order for the day. If the CSA had won, the document would've been recyclable.
Blayne, they certainly could've invaded the north. I know this because THEY DID invade the north! It just didn't work. If they had won Gettysburg, the Army of the Potomac would've had to pull back, and Washington DC would've been in serious trouble. Pittsburg would have fallen, and Baltimore and Philly would've been in trouble too, and if Philly had fallen, the Union would've lost a major manufacturing center, also a shipbuilding area at the time.
It wouldn't have been just about winning and then going home, that never could have happened. If that had been the case, they would have seceded and Fort Sumter never would have been fired upon. But they KNEW it would come down to fighting. And they knew that even if they had won and the Union let them become their own nation, it would never mean a lasting peace. And I can see it now. If they had settled into a peace, it would've almost been like the Lusitania and WWI. A US ship is out in the sea patrolling and a CSA ship comes by. They stop it, ostensibly to search for slaves, because the north is anti-slavery and they're patrolling for slavers, but the ship refuses, and it's sunk. It's the kind of thing that set off wars more than once in that 100 year period. It'd be a powder keg, and it would have led to Civil War II in the 80's, like Squick said.
It was all or nothing.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And the Proclamation might as well have been Lincoln's take out order for the day. If the CSA had won, the document would've been recyclable.
The real significance of the Proclamation was that England had already outlawed slavery in its colonies. Making race officially the issue of the war forced England to back off its support for the south. Even if the south had ultimately won, the Emancipation proclamation would have continued to influence the south's relationship with its primary trade partner -- England.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
They invaded the north but they did not intend to subjugate the north it would have been impossible the ability to win battles does not constitute victory, you should know this better then anyone considering your fiasco's in Vietnam and Iraq. The south could have won enough foreign support from Britian and France that with the international system that existed then the North would have been forced to recognize their indepence or risk war with Britain and France, the north had over 20 MILLION people the South had they pursued conquest would have been grinded down and crushed as they would have ran out of soldiers.
The South if they had foreign support would have won their independence, there would be more wars yes, but it would be decades before the combined industrial might of Germany and the USA would be enough to reverse a Union defeat at the battle of Antiem.
The sheer productive capability of the North especially considering that New York state was more productive then the entirty of the Confederacy makes it clear that if the war had dragged on without foreign assistence even with extra Confederate victories Grant and Sherman would have still grinded the Confederacy to a pulp, they were outgunned 10-1, and out maned 3-1 and had to fight on a border as long as the US-Canadian border is it was an impossibility for the South to win without foreign support and even then they could not have subjugated the north.
Harry Turtledove's take is the best researched, most thoughout and by far possesses the greatest amount of feasibility, and plausibility of any other scenario thought up.
IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, as a matter of courtesy, I'd appreciate it if you could cut that down to a reasonable size. People who wish to read the rest can follow the link -- and you're welcome to encourage them to do so. (And my guess would be that those who wouldn't follow the link won't read the "Wall of text hits YOU for 999 points of damage," either.)
I would ask, though, that you wait until a time when posting is a little slower -- late night tends to be best, and if you're not up that late I can go ahead and shorten the post for you. Excessively long posts like that can cause the forum to falter, and editing or deleting such posts can make things much worse and start causing the double- and triple-posting problems.
quote:but his interpretation of what would happen is indeed the most plausible...
I don't think so. A lot of his "history" is meant to directly parallel/contrast real history, to evoke comparisons between the alternate and the actual. WWI happened in Turtledove not because it was the most plausible option but because he needed WWI to happen; WWII, and all the atomic weapon stuff, happened for the same reason (and I suspect the terrorism elements appeared in those later books to the same end). I'm not slighting him for that; it makes for more compelling reading and a more recognizable history. But would you say that Harrison, for example, was actually the "most plausible" president in Card's alternate American history? Or that it was "most plausible" that he would be killed by magic a day or two into his term?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I can't guarantee it, but I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that if the South had won Gettysburg, the British would've offered the South a lot more than just tacit approval. And actually, they WERE giving real support. The CSA sent them ships, and English ports turned them into warships. They tried to do it by secret, especially since American ships were lurking outside of a lot of those ports waiting to blow them up. The French did it too. I bet that sort of under the radar support would've turned into something more, maybe even naval support, which is what they needed the most, if Gettysburg had been won. Much as they liked the division between the two sides, I think Britain would have been happier at the time with the CSA in charge. They were far more isolationist than the Union philosophically. Not supporting the CSA outright was their way of playing both sides so that if the south lost, they could still maintain ties with the north. But if they really thought the south could win, they'd be there. There were military attaches from Britain helping with the southern forces, much in the same way the French helped the Americans in the 1770's.
Blayne, I think some of your comparisons are way off. The Civil War was absolutely nothing like Vietnam or Iraq. People still fight in firing lines. 250,000 in Iraq, a couple hundred thousand in Vietnam. What's your point? France had millions of people and the Germans mostly managed to subdue them. It all depends on the tactics you're willing to use and the fact that the invaded country doesn't have an OCEAN between you and it. The south was inches away from the north, they could have brought thousands more to bear, and the average person back then wouldn't have done the sorts of things you're suggesting. Besides, Sherman burned his way to Atlanta to subdue the south, you don't think if the south got the military upperhand they would've done the same thing? The north had IMMENSE advantages going into the war, and yet until July of 63' they still got the smack down laid on them. What's your excuse for that?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Lyrhawn your not listening, I made the parrallel that winning 100 battles will not win you the war, winning a war requires breaking the enemy's will to continue fighting ala Clauswitz. Some Greek guy fought the romans won many battles many crushing victories but he kept losing men and elephants, "Phyric Victories", he could win the battles but ultimately he lost the war.
Iraq the USA won the conventional struggle, they wiped the floor with the Iraqi army in record times but once that was over and the insurgency began you can't win, you do not have the political will to win you as a people do not want to win because winning doesnt mean anything in Iraq, your not fighting for your national existence.
In Vietnam the US army won literally every single engagement with the NVA and the Vietcong above the company level but you still have a decade of bloodshed could not force the North to capitulate, you could not force the two sides to make amends you did not as a nation or a people want to win a worthless war in a place of the world least important to american interests with a disappromatiate amount of effort.
The south even if it could win nearly every pitched battle of important it would grind itself to pieces then, it would run out of manpower within 6-8 years of first firing on that fort had it aimed high for conquest, an impossibility.
The South would have aimed for its independence, to legitimize its nation-hood and right to self determination.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Also the South had Brilliant Generals the North fought lacklustrely, Grant and Sherman could do what they could not because they were brilliant but because they were capable enough officers to make use of their suporior resources to grind the confederacy to the bone.
Read Paul Kennedy's work, the North's advantages don't make themselves well known in the beginning of the war because duh, they were not geared up to it. By 63' they were getting geared up, were out producing the South in everything 5-20 to one, were making more money then the south to finance the war and could count upon plentiful immigration to fill up new factories, build new railroads, and fill the ranks, then came the 300,000 additional negro troops with the emancipation.
The South could not win a long drawn out struggle the longer they fought even victoriously the more they sealed their fate.
IP: Logged |
posted
It's neither here nor there, but, you're conflating military with political victories when you're talking about Iraq. Besides, Iraq is absolultey not even CLOSE to a Pyhrric Victory (you can come up with Pyhrric btw, but you call him "some Greek guy (neither here nor there but he was ruler of Illyria, and then Macedonia later)" instead of Pyhrrus?). We've lost 3,000 out of more than 250,000. Compared to previous wars, that's incredibly impressive. And Vietnam arguably could have been won if we'd put all the resources at our disposal into the war, but we didn't. It was half hearted, and we got out when the political will went away.
But you're comparing apples to oranges anyway in talking about the Civil War. Besides, many Confederate victories in the Civil War were stunning successes for the south. In Fredericksburg they slaughtered the north. They won both Bull Runs by good margins, and the list goes on.
And what, the south WAS geared up for war? That's a thin excuse, they weren't on equal footing, they only had what they had on hand, and the north had reinforcements and more stuff in coming in on a frequent basis. And yet a desperate and determined army, much like what you're talking about, managed to beat The Man.
I don't think you're using accurate comparisons, I don't think you're right about some of those numbers (or allusions to numbers) and even your use of Pyhrric Victory seems to be way off.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Source: The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, by Paul Kennedy, I roughly recall some of those numbers they are not exact but I remember these 2 facts:
1) There was a huge economic disparity between the two nations.
2) New York was economically outeconomiking the entire confederacy.
quote: The Confederate States had very little industry compared to the northern US states. The 1860 US census shows that the states that joined the Confederacy produced less than 10% the total value of all US manufactured goods. The main Southern products were flour and corn meal, lumber, manufactured tobacco, cotton goods, and naval stores. The CSA started out with a particular disadvantage in the production of war materials, with only 3% of US firearm production and 1% of gunpowder production. To redress this imbalance, a mining bureau was established in April 1862 to enhance the collection of raw materials needed for the war.
And on transportation:
quote: The rail network was built for short hauls, not the long-distance movement of soldiers or goods, which was its role in the war. Some idea of the severe internal logistics problems the Confederacy faced can be seen by tracing Jefferson Davis's journey from Mississippi to neighboring Alabama when he was chosen president in early 1861. From his plantation on the river, he took a steamboat down the Mississippi to Vicksburg, boarded a train to Jackson, Mississippi, where he took another train north to Grand Junction, Tennessee, then a third train east to Chattanooga, Tennessee, and a fourth train south to Atlanta, Georgia. Another train took Davis south to the Alabama border, where a final train took him west to Montgomery, his temporary national capital. (In May 1861, the Confederate government abandoned Montgomery before the sickly season began and relocated to Richmond, Virginia.) As the war proceeded, the Federals seized the Mississippi, burned trestles and railroad bridges, and tore up track; the frail Confederate railroad system faltered and virtually collapsed for want of repairs and replacement parts.
The south wasn't geared up either, it tried to but my point remains is that economic and manpower dsparities were so great that a Southern total war victory are indisputedly impossible.
Lets look at a recreatable and yet fun example: I play a RTS grand strategy game Victoria: An Empire Under the Sun a game that spans 1836-1936 on a real time Day:Month:Year time stamp and via event triggers covers the Civil war.
The civil war happened, I saved, got my friend in and from there we fought each other, in the end he my friend as CSA crashed but by then the victor was apparent.
I had over 10 times his total economic score as the north granted he didnt have Texas but then again, what maybe would have lifted his score by a slim margin? He started off with about 52 infantry divisions, I had 30, we fought all along the front he pushed me out of the District of Columbia took washington, and was pushing into Kentucky, West Virginia, and was making moderate gains and Kansas, during this time I trained up new waves of soldiers, build a steady supply of guns and munitions, constructed more ships then he could, and started to grind my way south.
I pushed him out of Kentucky, into Tennasse, my troops held him out of texas and began marching into that state north of Texas, oklahoma? I never looked, and began marching into Missipi.
From kentucky I invaded southwards having a massive battle in WV, I was repulsed multiple times by like Kursk I had massive reserves of manpower and equipment my friend had nothing left to spare for the Army of North Virginia and after 3-4 attempts lated I broke through and in conjunction with the Tenasse army sacked atlanta and pushed towards the coast, at the same time I had liberated washington and began marching south to richmond threatening it. 3-4 armies converging on the atlantic coast and he was scrapping the bottum of the barrel for troops and guns. Then he crashed but I am certain he couldnt turn that around.
The south could win SOME victories, fairly important ones at that, and its possible they could have smashed mcclellen at antiem, but how long can they keep smashing armies with the economic disparity so wide? This is the 1860's there are no mechanized armies, the roads and rail networks are fairly primitive there is no way for the SOuth to have blitzed the north, British and French political support can only go so far, only so far.
posted
Blayne: Harry Turtledove is indeed an awesome writer of alternate history, but please before you submit another post on this forum ANYWHERE shrink that wall of text down to at the least one screen size and provide a link for the rest of the text.
It makes navigating this thread a nightmare, and whereas once I might have been enticed by the sample text to keep reading, now I just see a mass of text and think, "I don't have time to read this."
I would be much obliged if you could do that sooner rather then later.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why wouldn't the South, now able to throw off Northern regulations on slavery start hoarding more Africans and putting them to work back in the fields and eventually the factories?
Because not everyone in the South agreed with slavery--there were plenty that wanted to abolish it before the war, and like I said, some scholars think it was on the way out, anyway.
I don't like how people paint the south as the obvious "bad guys" in the civil war. Both sides had their vices, and many of the South's reasons for secession were valid. Not abolishing slavery before the war was the biggest mistake the Confederacy made.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
