Confederate Populist Backlash

[leftyhunter]

Well it was still popular, especially in the north as tariffs to support northern manufacturer's were another bugbear the south had with Washington. It simply hadn't gone on long enough to have much impact yet.

Also since the US maintained a very small military there wasn't really the basis for a large armament industry. As such when there was suddenly a huge demand for military firearms both sides were caught very short and highly dependent on imports for the 1st year or so in the north and the duration of the conflict in the south.

Good point about the US having a small military. The US Army in 1860 had an authorized strength of 16k and between

Well it was still popular, especially in the north as tariffs to support northern manufacturer's were another bugbear the south had with Washington. It simply hadn't gone on long enough to have much impact yet.

Also since the US maintained a very small military there wasn't really the basis for a large armament industry. As such when there was suddenly a huge demand for military firearms both sides were caught very short and highly dependent on imports for the 1st year or so in the north and the duration of the conflict in the south.

True enough the US military was very small for a nation of it's size in Western Europe.
The US Army had an authorized strength in 1860 of 16k men and between the low pay and desertions even that number was hard to maintain.
The Confederacy to it's advantage had the Tredger Iron Works which just before the ACW exported cannons to Czarist Russia.
The outrage in the South to tarriff's was a bit selective has there were tarriff's to protect rice growers in South Carolina, Tabacco from Kentucky and North Carolina, and sugar from Louisiana.
Some of our friends said tarriff's from the South were revenue tarriff's vs protective tarriff's in the North. Not so sure about that argument.
Leftyhunter

 

[steve59p]

Good point about the US having a small military. The US Army in 1860 had an authorized strength of 16k and between
True enough the US military was very small for a nation of it's size in Western Europe.
The US Army had an authorized strength in 1860 of 16k men and between the low pay and desertions even that number was hard to maintain.
The Confederacy to it's advantage had the Tredger Iron Works which just before the ACW exported cannons to Czarist Russia.
The outrage in the South to tarriff's was a bit selective has there were tarriff's to protect rice growers in South Carolina, Tabacco from Kentucky and North Carolina, and sugar from Louisiana.
Some of our friends said tarriff's from the South were revenue tarriff's vs protective tarriff's in the North. Not so sure about that argument.
Leftyhunter

Leftyhunter

Thanks for that as I wasn't aware of those tariffs. Sounds like politicians being politicians. with the usual double standard.

Steve

 

[Poorville]

It's a somewhat prevalent opinion that, had the Confederacy survived, it would have turned into a banana republic, dominated by the planters.

While I mostly agree that it would have become a banana republic of some sort, could have actually been anti-planter? Although it may be delayed, Confederate industry will continue to develop, and will make the necessary connections in the political realm. By the 1890s-1900s, I expect you could have a coalition of railroad men, industrialists, and poor white farmers. Resentment of planters could become quite heavy as they supposedly deny poor whites factory jobs. In this case, I expect you could see Confederate emancipation come about not as a humanitarian venture, but to deny planters their use.

I have enjoyed reading this thread, which has generated some great thoughts on the reality of the Confederacy having "survived". Perhaps I might offer a slightly different line of thought. For this to have happened something very special would have been needed to bring the Union and Confederacy to a negotiated settlement. With the benefit of hindsight, this may only have come about with the Confederacy having gained the necessary bargaining power that support from Great Britain or France would have given them.

 

[Poorville]

South Africa which had essentially the same racial polices as the American South and at least up to 1837 had legalized slavery managed to become a sophisticated industrilised nation. It's not rocket science to become an industrilised nation just some hard work.
Leftyhunter

Not sure a comparison with South Africa is very helpful. The Union of South Africa was only formed in 1910 from the four colonies (Cape, Natal, Transvaal and Orange) under the dominion of the British Empire. It became a fully sovereign nation state within the British Empire in 1934. The monarchy only came to an end on 31 May 1961, replaced by a republic following the 1960 referendum, which legitimised the country becoming the Republic of South Africa.

 

[leftyhunter]

And Connecticut provided the submarines as well as other ships that were instrumental in the total war effort.

Not sure a comparison with South Africa is very helpful. The Union of South Africa was only formed in 1910 from the four colonies (Cape, Natal, Transvaal and Orange) under the dominion of the British Empire. It became a fully sovereign nation state within the British Empire in 1934. The monarchy only came to an end on 31 May 1961, replaced by a republic following the 1960 referendum, which legitimised the country becoming the Republic of South Africa.

By 1910 South Africa is self governing and it faced no external threat. South Africa in common with the American South is a majority Protestant nation with an extensive history of slavery even after 1837.
In common with the American South their economy was originally based on agriculture and latter mining. In common with the American South both regions skipped the Industrial Revolution
In common with the American South Africa had de jure segregation.
Leftyhunter

 

[Desert Kid]

By 1910 South Africa is self governing and it faced no external threat. South Africa in common with the American South is a majority Protestant nation with an extensive history of slavery even after 1837.
In common with the American South their economy was originally based on agriculture and latter mining. In common with the American South both regions skipped the Industrial Revolution
In common with the American South Africa had de jure segregation.
Leftyhunter

The only serious difference between the American South and South Africa is that South Africa was always 80-20 or 70-30 Black-White in population for most of it's history, majority black. The South, was roughly 60-40 (70-30 in the Upper South) White-Black as a country with states like South Carolina being majority black, and Mississippi being an almost even 50-50. The Confederacy would be majority white statistically by 60-40.

 

[leftyhunter]

The only serious difference between the American South and South Africa is that South Africa was always 80-20 or 70-30 Black-White in population for most of it's history, majority black. The South, was roughly 60-40 (70-30 in the Upper South) White-Black as a country with states like South Carolina being majority black, and Mississippi being an almost even 50-50. The Confederacy would be majority white statistically by 60-40.

True enough. Also @Poorville ,
Tarriff's was always a political controversy in both the American South and South Africa. Are tarriff's good or bad depends how one butters their bread.
Leftyhunter

 

[Desert Kid]

True enough. Also @Poorville ,
Tarriff's was always a political controversy in both the American South and South Africa. Are tarriff's good or bad depends how one butters their bread.
Leftyhunter

The Confederacy is going to be the big daddy of export and free trade.

 

[leftyhunter]

The Confederacy is going to be the big daddy of export and free trade.

Yes and no. In the Antebellum era Southern politicians were fine with tarriff's on sugar,rice and tabacco. Free trade is a fairly modern idea. The Confederacy did impose tarriff's as early as 1861 per the Confederate Congress.
Leftyhunter

 

[Poorville]

The only serious difference between the American South and South Africa is that South Africa was always 80-20 or 70-30 Black-White in population for most of it's history, majority black. The South, was roughly 60-40 (70-30 in the Upper South) White-Black as a country with states like South Carolina being majority black, and Mississippi being an almost even 50-50. The Confederacy would be majority white statistically by 60-40.

I have no question with these figures. Surely the key difference was that South Africa, in common with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and others, was a Dominion of the British Empire the largest empire in the world in the 19th century. The UK was the first country to industrialise and embrace free trade, which spawned the Industrial Revolution. As the world's largest industrial and financial power and with the world's largest navy it had undisputed control of the seas and therefore international trade routes. The developing South Africa benefitted from that relationship. A Confederate State supported by Britain would have benefitted too, but Britain chose to remain neutral throughout the war.

 

[leftyhunter]

I have no question with these figures. Surely the key difference was that South Africa, in common with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and others, was a Dominion of the British Empire the largest empire in the world in the 19th century. The UK was the first country to industrialise and embrace free trade, which spawned the Industrial Revolution. As the world's largest industrial and financial power and with the world's largest navy it had undisputed control of the seas and therefore international trade routes. The developing South Africa benefitted from that relationship. A Confederate State supported by Britain would have benefitted too, but Britain chose to remain neutral throughout the war.

South Africa didn't have any external threats to it has it had friendly relations with Portuguese Africa.
The US played a major role in South Africa becoming industrilised. My main point is if South Africa could industialize so could an independent Confederate nation.
Leftyhunter

 

[steve59p]

Yes and no. In the Antebellum era Southern politicians were fine with tarriff's on sugar,rice and tabacco. Free trade is a fairly modern idea. The Confederacy did impose tarriff's as early as 1861 per the Confederate Congress.
Leftyhunter

Leftyhunter

I realise now there were tariffs on agricultural products. However most of what I've heard was that the south overall opposed tariffs on industrial imports because they could get many goods much cheaper from Europe than from the north at this point.

Do you think that if it had somehow gained independence from the north it would have introduced its own tariffs on industrial goods or would it have stayed favourable to relying on cheaper imports? Possibly a long war in which a union blockade which causes shortages of weapons and other items might make them more favourable to such tariffs so it might depend on the circumstances.

Steve

 

[leftyhunter]

Leftyhunter

I realise now there were tariffs on agricultural products. However most of what I've heard was that the south overall opposed tariffs on industrial imports because they could get many goods much cheaper from Europe than from the north at this point.

Do you think that if it had somehow gained independence from the north it would have introduced its own tariffs on industrial goods or would it have stayed favourable to relying on cheaper imports? Possibly a long war in which a union blockade which causes shortages of weapons and other items might make them more favourable to such tariffs so it might depend on the circumstances.

Steve

Using South Africa has an example the answer would be yes they would impose tarriff's to insure a viable domestic industry. There was a debate in South Africa that tarriff's should be low so that there be no need to import immigrant labor. That side lost the argument and a number of Russian Jews immigrated to South Africa at the same time period they did to the US and Canada.
No doubt an independent Confederate nation would have the same debate.
One plus for South Africa and the same would apply to an independent Confederacy is these same immigrants where when needed drafted into the army.
Would an independent Confederate nation instead of seeking European immigration to bolsters it's industrial work force instead offer industrial jobs in mass to people of color?
Not sure of that answer.
As far as self sufficency in military production that would have to be answered by PM has it definitely involves modern politics.
Leftyhunter

 

[steve59p]

Using South Africa has an example the answer would be yes they would impose tarriff's to insure a viable domestic industry. There was a debate in South Africa that tarriff's should be low so that there be no need to import immigrant labor. That side lost the argument and a number of Russian Jews immigrated to South Africa at the same time period they did to the US and Canada.
No doubt an independent Confederate nation would have the same debate.
One plus for South Africa and the same would apply to an independent Confederacy is these same immigrants where when needed drafted into the army.
Would an independent Confederate nation instead of seeking European immigration to bolsters it's industrial work force instead offer industrial jobs in mass to people of color?
Not sure of that answer.
As far as self sufficency in military production that would have to be answered by PM has it definitely involves modern politics.
Leftyhunter

Leftyhunter

Interesting. Never thought of this point in terms of tariffs being favoured to encourage migration as normally its an issue of respective costs and the views of assorted internal interests.

Steve

 

[leftyhunter]

Leftyhunter

Interesting. Never thought of this point in terms of tariffs being favoured to encourage migration as normally its an issue of respective costs and the views of assorted internal interests.

Steve

Actually Thomas Jefferson and others were against tarriff's proposed by Alexandra Hamilton because they did not want to create an immigrant proletariat.
Obviously they lost the argument big time. Interestingly enough the US, Brazil and South Africa preferred European immigrants to establish an immigrant proletariat vs just using native people of color. No doubt so would an independent Confederate nation.
Not sure if one reason all three countries favored European immigrants so they could then if need be draft them into the military rather then people of color. Certainly that was the case in two of the three named countries.
Leftyhunter

 

[Rhea Cole]

As has been shown by economists & historians for 100 years, tariffs had nothing to do with secession. Rather than debating a debunked premise, there is a real, demonstrable threat that foredoomed any Southern military victory & secession.

I am not sure how to define what victory by the slave-holding states would have meant. After the Civil War, there were significant migrations of black people from those states. In some counties, black population was reduced to a small percentage of the pre-war peek. If that population had not been allowed to seek economic opportunities elsewhere, the black population of South Carolina would have exceeded 80% by the 1870 census or soon enough. In counties along the Mississippi River, the slave population was already over 80% in 1860. In a victorious South, by 1890, whites would be a small minority in large swaths of the deep south. That was the nightmare scenario that is referred to repeatedly in secession ordinances.

At some point, human nature being what it is, the ever shrinking percentage of whites would reach a critical number, 5 to 15%. Through white flight or a Haitian type uprising, whites would be driven out of many of the states in the deep south. That is when this demographic inevitably gets interesting.

Would the black supermajority rise up in a Haitian-genocide & simply kill off the white minority? Would whites follow the example of surviving whites in Haiti & flee en mass? Would whites in the border states be over run or just flee for their lives? Would some sort of South Africa/Rhodesia race war play out until the remnant of the white population accepts the new reality? In any case, a new country populated almost exclusively by people of African decent would occupy most, if not all, of the former slave-holding states.

Victory by the white slave-holders would have lead to demographic, political, social & perhaps physical extermination within their lifetimes. Secession & the destruction of the institution of slavery it provoked was the only thing that saved the slave-holders from extinction.

 

[leftyhunter]

As has been shown by economists & historians for 100 years, tariffs had nothing to do with secession. Rather than debating a debunked premise, there is a real, demonstrable threat that foredoomed any Southern military victory & secession.

I am not sure how to define what victory by the slave-holding states would have meant. After the Civil War, there were significant migrations of black people from those states. In some counties, black population was reduced to a small percentage of the pre-war peek. If that population had not been allowed to seek economic opportunities elsewhere, the black population of South Carolina would have exceeded 80% by the 1870 census or soon enough. In counties along the Mississippi River, the slave population was already over 80% in 1860. In a victorious South, by 1890, whites would be a small minority in large swaths of the deep south. That was the nightmare scenario that is referred to repeatedly in secession ordinances.

At some point, human nature being what it is, the ever shrinking percentage of whites would reach a critical number, 5 to 15%. Through white flight or a Haitian type uprising, whites would be driven out of many of the states in the deep south. That is when this demographic inevitably gets interesting.

Would the black supermajority rise up in a Haitian-genocide & simply kill off the white minority? Would whites follow the example of surviving whites in Haiti & flee en mass? Would whites in the border states be over run or just flee for their lives? Would some sort of South Africa/Rhodesia race war play out until the remnant of the white population accepts the new reality? In any case, a new country populated almost exclusively by people of African decent would occupy most, if not all, of the former slave-holding states.

Victory by the white slave-holders would have lead to demographic, political, social & perhaps physical extermination within their lifetimes. Secession & the destruction of the institution of slavery it provoked was the only thing that saved the slave-holders from extinction.

Unless the Confederacy Confederacy can expand it's territory. Easier said then although slave owners sure tried to do so over the years.
Leftyhunter

 

[mkyzzzrdet]

No, but I'm becoming much more knowledgeable about confederate apologism.

Yeah - it's good that there are no such things as "northern apologists".

 

[DanSBHawk]

Yeah - it's good that there are no such things as "northern apologists".

How about we just accept history as it is, and stop trying to make excuses?

 

[Rhea Cole]

Unless the Confederacy Confederacy can expand it's territory. Easier said then although slave owners sure tried to do so over the years.
Leftyhunter

You are absolutely correct. It would have been The Grey Eyed Man of Destiny on steroids. Some sort of collusion with the French in Mexico & invasion of Central America would have been almost inevitable. That fur ball is way too tangled for me. Conceivably, an exhausted Texas would be reabsorbed into Mexico after a failed invasion. It just goes on & on.