Looked again and the last page I can see, other than the back cover is page 90. The bit above gives some useful info so thanks for posting that. I notice that its still talking about "inland" taxes - which I suspect excludes tariffs - near the time. However at the bottom it refers to alcohol tax as 25% of federal tax revenue so that could include all revenue?
Hmm, might have something to do with the local Google server system; they're weird like that.
As for your questions, inland taxes are things like the Alcohol excise tax and, as you suspect, excludes tariffs.
More whites being alive would be an issue, although the continued enslavement of the blacks is a counter. One other issue, especially if relations with the north are rocky and slavery doesn't restrict white economic activity too much is that more whites might stay in the region. Its often said that the population of the deep south largely stagnated but that excludes people from the region moving elsewhere in the US which is likely to be less of an issue if relations are poor.
Given the low purchasing power of freedmen, I don't think it'll matter too much. As for the South, I'm not sure where the idea of stagnation comes from. In 1860, there were roughly 5.5 Million Whites and by 1910 there was, depending how you count the South, ~30 Million.
Interesting. I read the 1st ~10 pages of that link. Of course what happened in the crisis of the war isn't a perfect guide but it does mention a fair amount of other interests in state interference, not just in terms of maintaining slavery. There is some conflict mentioned as the talk about a fairly uniformed states of free whites with an agricultural background clashes with others talking of industrialization, which is feared for its perceived social problems by the more agriculturally centred elements.
The war did a lot to change this, such as the construction of the Augusta Powder Works (IIRC the largest or second largest in the world at the time) and it's no subtle wonder that Birmingham began development in 1867-just two years after the war. The Shelby Iron Works, which were burned in April of 1865, were also, for example, entirely new iron plants constructed by the C.S. Government over the course of the war.
When the book talks about state intervention on support for state government intervention in terms of building railways and other transport improvements does it clarify whether it means state as in the wider national state or as in the individual component states i.e. Virginia, Alabama etc?
Before the war, the individual Southern States were spending more on railways then their Northern counterparts; by 1860, the South per capita had the second largest railway network and the second by pure mileage laid down as well. During the War, the C.S. central government did undertake to build and further develop the railways; I don't know which section to which you are referring, but I'm presuming this later tidbit is to that which you refer. If I am mistaken, please do correct me.
What would you see as a quality navy here? Something largely for coastal defence or for projecting power further afield. Britain at the least and probably others will react strongly if the south seeks to re-open the trans-Atlantic slave trade or an invasion of Mexico to start slavery there. The US now has a substantial neighbour it has a lot of differences with and I doubt it would accept naval inferiority. The south would have to get decent balance between its needs and what doesn't cause too much tension with other powers. Plus is this something where a lot of ships are purchased or is it planing to construct its own shipyard and build the bulk of its own ships? The latter will reduce dependence on Europe but would be a hell of a lot costlier, both to set up and maintain.
The C.S. had no interest in re-opening the Slave Trade, so that would not be an issue; nor did the UK have any concerns with a strong C.S. Navy. Case in point: the selling of the C.S.S. Alabama and the Laird Rams Affair in 1863, which nearly brought the UK into war with the U.S. over it. As for what the Confederates would want, coastal defense and power projection in Latin America would be sufficient for their interests and they'd likely buy heavily from the UK. Eventually, their own shipbuilding industry would emerge onto its own to meet their needs, as evidenced by the fact they were able to construct ironclads during the war.
I think you would need more than 10-15 regiments for the last bit. The French - copying from wiki - had
Actually, the French at their height had about 20 regiments:
"Throughout the length of the French intervention in Mexico the troops involved by the French Imperial Army included elements from 6 line infantry regiments, 3 zouave regiments, 4 light infantry battalions, squadrons from 3 cavalry regiments, 6 batteries of artillery, 5 companies of engineers, 1 supply train squadron, colonial troops from Martinique, Algeria and the Foreign Legion, 1 marine regiment, 1 battalion of sailors and 1 battery of naval (marine) artillery."
Further:
"By the fall of 1864 the French army reached the northern border with Texas and was able to benefit from the lucrative trade with the embattled Confederate States in the civil war north of the Rio Grande. Also, in the far south, Bazaine defeated and forced the surrender of 8,000 republican troops under Porfirio Diaz in Oaxaca in early 1865. It was the last major republican force still in the field though it had little to no contact with Juarez himself. The fugitive president was, by that time, living constantly on the run in the northern reaches of Chihuahua just south of the Arizona border."
I'd imagine the situation by the 1870s will be much better, and the introduction of Confederate troops will be partially alleviated by the Imperial Mexican Army being folded into the ranks.
and they did have a fair amount of local support.
I foresee the Confederates would too.
I would have to disagree here. You would have an Anglo and Protestant state seeking to control a deeply Catholic Spanish [largely] speaking one. There were some Latino groups who supported the Texan rebellion, possibly because Mexico itself was so badly ruled but like those in California after its annexation they were largely excluded from power in the new US states and the assorted elites would be aware of this, as well as the can of worms they would open if they supported such an intervention. Add in the idea of extending slavery to Mexico, where it was illegal already and deeply opposed and the threat that would pose to many workers and landowners. Peace and order are values, especially when their lacking but national identity is also an important issue and when a foreign state, which has already created bad feeling by earlier actions - as the CSA will be seen as much a successor to the US as the union will be - comes in, even if a few local strongmen have been bribed into 'encouraging' the intervention. Coupled with probably outside opposition I suspect the south would be onto a very bad loser here.
Steve
Mexican opposition to slavery is over-stated.
To quote Noel Maurer, an economist for GWU and a former employee of the U.S. Federal Government stationed in Mexico:
We have an example of a populated area switching to American rule. New Mexico had a population about as large as Coahuila's and a little more than half of Nuevo León or Chiahuahua. It provides a perfectly valid template for how those territories would have developed under American rule; with one wrinkle that I'll get to later.
We also know what American troops experienced during the occupation. Mexican politicians in the D.F. were horrified at the level of indifference, shading over in many cases -- not least Nuevo León -- outright collaboration.
The wrinkle, which would make Coahuila and Nuevo León different from New Mexico, is that the elites in the northeastern states actively desired American annexation and the extension of slavery. We know this because they asked for it! Santiago Vidaurri wrote a letter to Richmond in 1861 volunteering Coahuila and Nuevo León to the Confederate cause. (Vidaurri annexed Coahuila to N.L. and installed himself as the governor of Tamaulipas.)
These sympathies predated the Civil War. In fact, Vidaurri had been perfectly happy in 1855 to return escaped slaves to Texas. The agreement failed because the Texans wanted to send in their own people to recapture the escapees, not principled opposition; ironically, he made a whole bunch of antislavery proclamations in 1857, only to reverse them and start sending slaves home in 1858. It is hard to believe that Vidaurri or the elites that supported him would have opposed slavery, given their opportunism and their incessant complaints about labor shortages.
More poignantly, Martin Robinson Delany, the biggest proponent of free black emigration to Mexico encouraged them to settle far away from the border; Mexicans in the north were not to be trusted. Moreover, the illegal status of the refugees meant that they were denied the most basic rights and often abused. (Rosalie Schwartz is the best source; I'd also look at Sarah Cornell if you're interested.)
There is a huge amount of fallow land at this time and no organized peasantry -- that's why there were labor shortages with migrants from the south brought up on indentures. So land grabs are not a problem. Moreover, the locals will control the state governments; the techniques that Anglos used in South Texas won't be applicable. Land grabs by slaveowning Anglos aren't the issue, although there will be some anger from smallholders. This could get particularly nasty in Chihuahua; thus our earlier speculation that Chihuahua would have strong Union sympathies. (Not unlike New Mexico.)