Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Logistically, it would have been impossible. What does a steamship require? Coal. Provisions. Ammunition. Facilities for repair and refit. What was available? Canada, Bermuda and the Bahamas. Where were Bermuda and the Bahamas to get coal? Provisions? Ammunition? Facilities? The requisite necessities for operating even a single British warship were simply not available for anything outside of an occasional raid.
Ole,
When HMS Warrior was launched in 1860, she was the longest warship, and second longest ship, in the world. To put this into perspective, the Warrior at 420 feet could only use 3 drydocks in the entire world: those at Portsmouth, Liverpool and Southampton in England. When Warrior and Black Prince sailed to Bermuda in 1869, they towed the famous Bermuda Floating Dock out with them to allow large capital ships to be repaired there in the future.
Also, the Warrior was designed to use sail for most long movements. A full load of coal would only allow her to steam some 1500 miles at 6-8 knots. The world's first major warship without masts was launched in 1871, the HMSDevastation (this follows the disastrous sinking of the controversial HMS Captain, a turreted ocean-going warship with masts, leaving 18 survivors of about 500 on-board, in 1870.)
At this point in time, the nations of the world were just beginning to adopt to the need for coaling stations to support commerce and naval power. The next 50 years would see a world-wide drive to set them up, which fed the wave of colonialism in Africa among other things. By 1904, this network would allow even the Russian Baltic fleet to sail around Europe, Africa, and Asia without British of french support to meet their end at the hands of the Japanese fleet. But in 1861-65, ocean-going warships still required sails to travel long distances.
How many nations fielded an army of 500,000 during the 19th century?...or any century?...
...Not many.....
The Confederacy won its fair share of battles against a country 3-4 times its size...and held its capital (Richmond) for four years within cannon-earshot of the enemy capital.
Wonder if the runners at Bull Run (1st or 2nd, take your pick) thought they were running from a nation?
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
The confederacy 'never' established, in fact, that it was able to maintain its existence.
According to Lincoln and the Government of the United States of America, no such entity as a confederate states of america, Ever existed. Technically, the War was more about establishing the viability of the USA, rather than the csa.
How many nations fielded an army of 500,000 during the 19th century?...or any century?...Not many.....
Well. At least one too many.
Quote:
The Confederacy won its fair share of battles against a country 3-4 times its size...and held its capital (Richmond) for four years within cannon-earshot of the enemy capital.
Maybe McDowell, McClellan, Burnside and Hooker had more to do with that than Lee.
Quote:
Wonder if the runners at Bull Run (1st or 2nd, take your pick) thought they were running from a nation?
Not a nation. Simple fear. They were all men, after all, subject to panic and an occasional will to survive. Had some runners on your side too, didn't you? But, I guess, they were running from a real nation.
I will agree that the south had a slim chance to be a nation. As for "viable." I can't agree. The odds were too large against it. During secession and during the formulation its Constitution, there were already forces at work to tear it apart: not the least of which, for which I will apologize in advance, was the issue of reopening the slave trade. And the critical lack of industry, ports, infrastructure, sustainable agriculture and sectional differences and interests.
Sound like another thread? Who wants to start it--or should I?
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Nah. I was just going to open a thread called: Was the Confederacy a Viable Nation. Seems that has been taken already. If we just got back on point, this one will do quite nicely.
If we accept that culturally the south had become different from the north, it remains that the decision to secede and form a separate nation simply overlooked the lessons history teaches. Nations not separated by natural borders do not often survive as a nation. The founders knew that. The intention of the Constitution recognized that. From the Atlantic to as far west as was possible, this was to be one nation.
Differing interests always lead to contention and sometimes conflict. At this point in history, the Potomac and Ohio and Appalachians no longer constituted a natural barrier. When Switzerland and France and Italy and the German States became states, the Alps, Rhine, Danube and (need I mention) the English Channel were, in fact, barriers to trade and armies. There were no equivalent barriers when our nation was formed. The Founders intended and agreed that the colonies and territories were to be a nation.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Under your analysis, Canada would've been absorbed. The only reason the South isn't viable is because the North beats it, but, if left to its own devices, it clearly had the ability to act as a nation; compare the Confederacy with the Republic of Texas which in its short history has obvious more serious difficulties but still manages to stave off Mexican incursions.
The viability of the confederacy was always in question.
Legally the confederacy never existed for it was never recognized by any other nations of the world and our nation(U.S.A.) always referred to the war as a rebellion.
The confederacy was unstable with its member states threatening to pull out periodically . If you read about the scholars "what if had the south won" from the late 19th century almost all had the confederacy breaking up into mini-nations.
They had a foe in Pres. Lincoln. Who was determined to hold the union together.
Under your analysis, Canada would've been absorbed.
There a few wing-nuts who wanted Canada as part of the nation. However, it was the property of someone else--cooler heads prevailed.
Quote:
The only reason the South isn't viable is because the North beats it, but, if left to its own devices, it clearly had the ability to act as a nation; compare the Confederacy with the Republic of Texas which in its short history has obvious more serious difficulties but still manages to stave off Mexican incursions.
No state quite compares with Texas which did, in fact, join the Union to take advantage of being a member of the US.
The Confederacy had a chance to be viable, but I see far more evidence that it would and could not have been. There were precious few demonstrations of nationalism in its Congress. That which might have helped its nationhood was discarded with secession. It was unprepared for international trade, and it was unprepared for cooperative independence.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
