The South Wins---What Next

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
I don't believe I argued anything of that sort at all? Rather, I said the available literature suggests that the industrial usage of slaves was already quite extensive and was as cost-effective/productive as the usage of free labor in the South. Germany is also not a good comparison at all for several reasons, but beyond that the academic consensus is that slave labor was a boon for their economy. See The Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze, Page 535 in particular but the overall chapter "LABOUR, FOOD AND GENOCIDE" is a definitive read on the subject.
I will see if I can Google that page number. My history professor at Cal State Northridge made a particular point that slaves on the plantation did a fair amount of sabatoge. As industry becomes more complex a hostile work force is not substainible.
Interestingly enough two other nations with a history of harsh slavery similar to the US ; Brazil and South Africa imported European immigrants to work in industry rather then use former slaves. That might not be a coincidence.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
I don't believe I argued anything of that sort at all? Rather, I said the available literature suggests that the industrial usage of slaves was already quite extensive and was as cost-effective/productive as the usage of free labor in the South. Germany is also not a good comparison at all for several reasons, but beyond that the academic consensus is that slave labor was a boon for their economy. See The Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze, Page 535 in particular but the overall chapter "LABOUR, FOOD AND GENOCIDE" is a definitive read on the subject.
Not sure about slave labor being a boon to the German economy because of extensive sabatoge by enslaved workers.
Leftyhunter
 

Generic Username

Corporal
Joined
May 12, 2019
Location
Yes
I will see if I can Google that page number. My history professor at Cal State Northridge made a particular point that slaves on the plantation did a fair amount of sabatoge. As industry becomes more complex a hostile work force is not substainible.
Interestingly enough two other nations with a history of harsh slavery similar to the US ; Brazil and South Africa imported European immigrants to work in industry rather then use former slaves. That might not be a coincidence.
Leftyhunter

Eventually, yes, slavery and industrial employment just aren't compatible due to the basic education requirements required; literate slaves are a danger, after all. The U.S. historically hit this point about Post-WWII, with basic literacy, mathematical skills and the like (Think High School education in general) being needed. Before then, they could and did import masses of illiterate Europeans for unskilled labor.

As for Brazil and South Africa, importing skilled labors is always a good move but there was also a racial element to this. Even then, South Africa's Black population boomed during Apartheid largely due to mass immigration for labor.
 

Generic Username

Corporal
Joined
May 12, 2019
Location
Yes
Not sure about slave labor being a boon to the German economy because of extensive sabatoge by enslaved workers.
Leftyhunter

Undoubtedly sabotage did occur, but overall on per cost basis it was more profitable/beneficial. Tooze outlines how this basically allowed Germany to stay in the game, so to speak, given their widespread labor shortage; women were needed for the fields, men for the army, so slave labor/workers were needed for the factors.
 
Last edited:

Generic Username

Corporal
Joined
May 12, 2019
Location
Yes
I've gone on at length for years about how blue-collar and rural whites will eventually move to the Confederacy's industry centers screaming for a piece of the pie. And demand for jobs.

My personal thinking is the opposite. Once the Planters begin converting from cash crops to industry, they'll move their slaves to the burgeoning cities while Whites will take the now "abandoned" land as yeoman. You could see a dual society system emerge; self-sufficient White farmers creating food for the cities and cash crops (Cotton, Tobacco, Sugar, etc) for export/hard currency in the rural areas, while Black industrial workers largely populate the cities. In the long run, I'd imagine both sides are fairly well off, as I doubt the CSA would de-industrialize.

This could also lead to the populist revolt you expect, if the Planters attempt to make the expanded yeoman sharecroppers instead of selling the land outright. White Sharecroppers would thus have an economic grievance to cause them to align with the Slaves, as they'd have the common interest in breaking the power of the planters.
 
Last edited:

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Undoubtedly sabotage did occur, but overall on per cost basis it was more profitable/beneficial. Tooze outlines how this basically allowed Germany to stay in the game, so to speak, given their widespread labor shortage; women were needed for the fields, men for the army, so slave labor/workers were needed for the factors.
I have some books by U Boat commanders and they stated that sabatoge by coerced but not enslaved French worked cost the Kriegsmarine U-boats.
The Tiger Tank was beset with problems due to sabatoge. There were other problems as well with V2 Production.
All in all slave labor doesn't work well in modern Industry.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Eventually, yes, slavery and industrial employment just aren't compatible due to the basic education requirements required; literate slaves are a danger, after all. The U.S. historically hit this point about Post-WWII, with basic literacy, mathematical skills and the like (Think High School education in general) being needed. Before then, they could and did import masses of illiterate Europeans for unskilled labor.

As for Brazil and South Africa, importing skilled labors is always a good move but there was also a racial element to this. Even then, South Africa's Black population boomed during Apartheid largely due to mass immigration for labor.
Definitely a racial element has European labor could and was drafted in to the South African Defense Force. The black population boomed not the least because of modern medicine and hygiene.
Leftyhunter
 

Generic Username

Corporal
Joined
May 12, 2019
Location
Yes
I have some books by U Boat commanders and they stated that sabatoge by coerced but not enslaved French worked cost the Kriegsmarine U-boats.
The Tiger Tank was beset with problems due to sabatoge. There were other problems as well with V2 Production.
All in all slave labor doesn't work well in modern Industry.
Leftyhunter

Individual examples, sure; you could probably even find an overall pattern if you torture the data/cherry pick enough. The wider picture, however, is what is more important. In both laborer, semi-skilled and skilled industrial work, they averaged 40-60% of the productivity of German workers in the same field, but given the inputs were less (obvious since they were slave labor), they were more profitable.

Even then, ignoring the matter of inputs and just looking at productivity shows the issue here. If given the choice between, say, 10 German workers and 10 slave workers, obviously you'd want the Germans. If you only have 5 German workers but can supplement them with 10 Slave laborers, then obviously you're going to do that since you have no alternative and that gets you to about the same output as the 10 Germans.
 
Last edited:

Generic Username

Corporal
Joined
May 12, 2019
Location
Yes
Definitely a racial element has European labor could and was drafted in to the South African Defense Force. The black population boomed not the least because of modern medicine and hygiene.
Leftyhunter

True of the White population as well and the world in general over the course of the 20th Century, but in particular during the last two decades of Apartheid, they had a relatively liberal immigration/visa-worker program. That's actually how AIDs slipped into South Africa, incidentally.
 

steve59p

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 21, 2016
I'm not sure why the idea of "weak" finances exist in regards to the Confederacy, given Cotton was to the 19th Century what Oil was to the 20th. To quote from Without Consent or Contract by Robert Fogel, pg 414-415:

If the Confederacy had been allowed to establish itself peacefully, to work out economic and diplomatic policies, and to develop international alliances, it would have emerged as a major international power. Although its population was relatively small, its great wealth would have made it a force to be reckoned with. The Confederacy would probably have used its wealth and military power to establish itself as the dominant nation in Latin America, perhaps annexing Cuba and Puerto Rico, Yucatan, and Nicaragua as well as countering Britain's antislavery pressures on Brazil. Whether the Confederacy would have sought to counter British antislavery policies in Africa or to form alliances with the principal slave-trading nations of the Middle East is more uncertain, but these would have been options.​
The Confederacy could have financed its expansionist, proslavery policies by exploiting the southern monopoly of cotton production. A [five cent] sales tax on cotton not only would have put most of the burden of such policies on foreign consumers, but would have yielded about $100 million annually during the 1860s—50 percent more than the entire federal budget on the eve of the Civil War. With such a revenue the Confederacy could have emerged as one of the world's strongest military powers, maintaining a standing army several times as large as the North's, rapidly developing a major navy, and conducting an aggressive foreign policy. Such revenues would also have permitted it to covertly or overtly finance aristocratic forces in Europe who were vying with democratic ones for power across the Continent.​
According to this, prices of Cotton in 1861 rose to about 8.60 pence from 6.25 in 1860, and from there all the way out to 1867 were never below 10 pence. Now, using the Pound Sterling to U.S. Dollar conversion table here, we can figure out how much a single British pence was in terms of American pennies:

S = 5.31D
D = 100p2
240p1 = S
240p1 = 5.31(100p2)
240p1 = 531p2
531p2/240p1 = ~2.2 American Pennies to every British Pence

So, using the 1860 base price of cotton, the Confederates could increase the export duty on their cotton to the stipulated 5 cents per pound and it would still be lower than what the British paid for cotton between 1862-1867. Further aiding this would be the fact British dependence on Southern Cotton increased over the course of the late 19th Century. To put this in context, $100 Million is equal to $2.8 Billion in Confederate Dollars, using November 1864 exchange rates. All Confederate Debt except the $6 Million Erlanger Loan were denominated in Confederate Dollars.

Generic Username

What was the federal budget in ~1860 spent on? Given attitudes at the time, not just in the US, I suspect a large amount of that was on the military. Since the US had a very small military in this period that makes it seem a lot less impressive. Its definitely not going to be making a challenge to the RN because it couldn't afford it nor have the technological base to maintain, let alone build large ocean going warships.

Trying to impose itself on large parts of Latin America is unlikely. This would be opposed by both the UK and the rump US who are going to have greater resources - at least unless the US goes totally to pot after the CW which is possible but unlikely. Also the UK and [to a lesser degree the US as it industrialises] since they have large urban areas and a big industrial base are decent markets for the primary products that are the main exports of most of Latin America. [OTL the US reduced much of the potential advantage here because it was so protectionist but its still going to have a bigger urban and industrial base than an independent south.]

Also if there's attempts to expand slavery, it will be opposed, not just by locals in places where the institution is disliked and illegal such as Mexico but also by Britain. Probably also the US in such a scenario, if only to get back at the south.

Yes the CSA has a considerable wealth producing potential because of its cotton production but it needs to be careful how it uses it. Definitely can fund a substantial defensive force but professional full time units, which would be needed for colonial expansion are a lot more expensive, let alone a regular large blue water navy.

Steve
 

Generic Username

Corporal
Joined
May 12, 2019
Location
Yes
Generic Username

What was the federal budget in ~1860 spent on? Given attitudes at the time, not just in the US, I suspect a large amount of that was on the military. Since the US had a very small military in this period that makes it seem a lot less impressive. Its definitely not going to be making a challenge to the RN because it couldn't afford it nor have the technological base to maintain, let alone build large ocean going warships.

Trying to impose itself on large parts of Latin America is unlikely. This would be opposed by both the UK and the rump US who are going to have greater resources - at least unless the US goes totally to pot after the CW which is possible but unlikely. Also the UK and [to a lesser degree the US as it industrialises] since they have large urban areas and a big industrial base are decent markets for the primary products that are the main exports of most of Latin America. [OTL the US reduced much of the potential advantage here because it was so protectionist but its still going to have a bigger urban and industrial base than an independent south.]

Also if there's attempts to expand slavery, it will be opposed, not just by locals in places where the institution is disliked and illegal such as Mexico but also by Britain. Probably also the US in such a scenario, if only to get back at the south.

Yes the CSA has a considerable wealth producing potential because of its cotton production but it needs to be careful how it uses it. Definitely can fund a substantial defensive force but professional full time units, which would be needed for colonial expansion are a lot more expensive, let alone a regular large blue water navy.

Steve

The 1860 Federal Budget is available online, which shows $78 Million in total spending of which $29 Million was defense. Take in note, just this one tax measure (the five cent per pound duty on Cotton) would be sufficient to rake in $100 Million-nearly 25% more than the entire U.S. budget in 1860-while the C.S. population is only a third of the 1860 U.S. population. As for what the Europeans will feel and what will occur slavery wise, I'd point out the UK didn't intervene against Spain in Santo Domingo in the 1860s. Britain, in general, only went picking fights when it concerned their national interest and Mexico doesn't.
 

steve59p

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 21, 2016
The 1860 Federal Budget is available online, which shows $78 Million in total spending of which $29 Million was defense. Take in note, just this one tax measure (the five cent per pound duty on Cotton) would be sufficient to rake in $100 Million-nearly 25% more than the entire U.S. budget in 1860-while the C.S. population is only a third of the 1860 U.S. population. As for what the Europeans will feel and what will occur slavery wise, I'd point out the UK didn't intervene against Spain in Santo Domingo in the 1860s. Britain, in general, only went picking fights when it concerned their national interest and Mexico doesn't.

Generic Username

Thanks for the info. Checking up, prior to the conflict starting the exchange rate was about $5 to £1. So that would be about £20 million pounds. After a search I found, see 1860 UK spending, - which seems to be a similar site but for the UK - that in 1860 totaled £68.6 million of which the two largest elements were interest, £28.7M and defence £26.2M.

As such that tax would go a good way towards matching Britain IF it was all spent on defence. However setting up costs for a defence industry are likely to be sizeable for the CSA, at least until established, especially in areas such as the navy and artillery. The CSA could minimise this by purchasing such items from aboard but that would make them vulnerable to problems if they found themselves in another conflict which cut them off from such suppliers.

In terms of Santo Domingo I didn't know about that affair but it seems that at the time the ruling dictator of Dominican Republic invited the Spanish in to rule it again because he didn't think the country could survive as an independent state. Which resulted in a costly war with for which casualty figures differ depending on which wiki site you look at. The main one Dominican_Restoration_War, which gives a figure for the Spanish garrison of 51,000 plus 12,000 local auxillaries. Whereas a slightly broader one, Spanish_occupation_of_the_Dominican_Republic, says that the Spanish garrison was ~21,000, later reinforced by 6,000 more, which by Mar 64 had lost 1,000 men to guerillas and another 9,000 to fever.

The 1st of those links says "Lastly, despite explicit statements to the contrary, rumors spread that Spain would re-institute slavery and ship black Dominicans to Cuba and Puerto Rico.[4] " As such it sounds like slavery was not involved in the issue, other than by fears, justified or otherwise that it might be applied.

Steve
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
...#3...Everyone tends to forget that the burning issue for the first half century of the US was NOT slavery but the National Bank...

There's nothing to forget. To go by accounts and even newspapers of the time not many folks cared a lot about "National Bank or not." Most just dismissed that issue as the high politics of politicians and business magnates. Half or more of the people of the South certainly saw slavery as the more burning issue -- black slaves mostly but to include their (primariiy white) owners. And by 1850 as many people in the North certainly saw slavery as a more burning issue than National Bank or not.

How to confirm that? "National Bank or not" was not the issue that ignited the Civil War.
 
Last edited:

Generic Username

Corporal
Joined
May 12, 2019
Location
Yes
Generic Username

Thanks for the info. Checking up, prior to the conflict starting the exchange rate was about $5 to £1. So that would be about £20 million pounds. After a search I found, see 1860 UK spending, - which seems to be a similar site but for the UK - that in 1860 totaled £68.6 million of which the two largest elements were interest, £28.7M and defence £26.2M.

As such that tax would go a good way towards matching Britain IF it was all spent on defence. However setting up costs for a defence industry are likely to be sizeable for the CSA, at least until established, especially in areas such as the navy and artillery. The CSA could minimise this by purchasing such items from aboard but that would make them vulnerable to problems if they found themselves in another conflict which cut them off from such suppliers.

As I said, it's just one tax measure and other methods of revenue raising exist. The alcohol excise tax and the same for the tax on tobacco, for example, formed about 90% of inland tax income for the U.S. Federal Government after the Civil War till the ratification of the income tax. Total federal income from this tax was $56 Million dollars in 1870, meaning that the South was included in this. Now, unfortunately, that book doesn't go into detail about where most of the purchases were coming from but we can plausibly assume 30% of it came from the South (1860 Census had the 11 States of the Confederacy at about 29% of the population, so assume 1% growth by 1870). So, from that, we get another $16,800,000 in income.

In 1860, non-defense spending in the U.S. was $49 Million. Assuming one third of that was spent for the South, that comes out to $14.7 Million dollars. So, with just the cotton export duty, the alcohol and tobacco excise taxes, the C.S. would be able to meet all of its spending needs, pay off its debts and become a major military power should it so desire.

In terms of Santo Domingo I didn't know about that affair but it seems that at the time the ruling dictator of Dominican Republic invited the Spanish in to rule it again because he didn't think the country could survive as an independent state. Which resulted in a costly war with for which casualty figures differ depending on which wiki site you look at. The main one Dominican_Restoration_War, which gives a figure for the Spanish garrison of 51,000 plus 12,000 local auxillaries. Whereas a slightly broader one, Spanish_occupation_of_the_Dominican_Republic, says that the Spanish garrison was ~21,000, later reinforced by 6,000 more, which by Mar 64 had lost 1,000 men to guerillas and another 9,000 to fever.

The 1st of those links says "Lastly, despite explicit statements to the contrary, rumors spread that Spain would re-institute slavery and ship black Dominicans to Cuba and Puerto Rico.[4] " As such it sounds like slavery was not involved in the issue, other than by fears, justified or otherwise that it might be applied.

Steve

Same situation as Santo Domingo here as I am proposing; several Mexican strongmen, such as Santiago Vidaurri, were already in favor of Confederate annexation. Post-War, as French support wanes due to the rise of Prussia and with many ex-Confederate Officers available, I'd imagine they'd come to dominate the Imperial Military too. Given the extensive colonization schemes the Confederates had in mind and their links with the C.S.A at large, I wouldn't be surprised if they also came to dominate Mexico economically.
 

steve59p

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 21, 2016
As I said, it's just one tax measure and other methods of revenue raising exist. The alcohol excise tax and the same for the tax on tobacco, for example, formed about 90% of inland tax income for the U.S. Federal Government after the Civil War till the ratification of the income tax. Total federal income from this tax was $56 Million dollars in 1870, meaning that the South was included in this. Now, unfortunately, that book doesn't go into detail about where most of the purchases were coming from but we can plausibly assume 30% of it came from the South (1860 Census had the 11 States of the Confederacy at about 29% of the population, so assume 1% growth by 1870). So, from that, we get another $16,800,000 in income.

Unfortunately that links to an entire book, only part of which is available on-line. I tried looking for the section on alcohol taxes in the US but there was no access to this at all.

I think the bulk of the US federal revenue came from tariffs on imports - which I suspect is outside the reference to "inland tax income"? On the other hand since, from what I've read the south was bitterly opposed to tariffs so that may not be a viable source for them.

In an independent CSA, with slavery surviving I wonder if the calculation of $16.8M may be a little high as slaves have very little spending power. However probably somewhere in the region of $12-15M would seem acceptable. Assuming again those would be supported by the south?

In 1860, non-defense spending in the U.S. was $49 Million. Assuming one third of that was spent for the South, that comes out to $14.7 Million dollars. So, with just the cotton export duty, the alcohol and tobacco excise taxes, the C.S. would be able to meet all of its spending needs, pay off its debts and become a major military power should it so desire.

Again a third would be a bit high as the south's population was ~29% and given the continuation of slavery spending power would be less. Also since tobacco was a major product in the south would there be support for taxes on that? Or possibly a lot of consumption may be by indirect means, people working in or related to the industry getting it at source and hence seeking to bypass taxation.

Plus I get the general impression that the south was opposed to a strong and active central government so there could be less spending on that in an independent CSA - at least unless they realise certain infrastructure projects are very important, probably including river control schemes and railways.

Of course this could mean more funds for the military although the possibility of sparking an arms race with the union would have to be considered as well.

Same situation as Santo Domingo here as I am proposing; several Mexican strongmen, such as Santiago Vidaurri, were already in favor of Confederate annexation. Post-War, as French support wanes due to the rise of Prussia and with many ex-Confederate Officers available, I'd imagine they'd come to dominate the Imperial Military too. Given the extensive colonization schemes the Confederates had in mind and their links with the C.S.A at large, I wouldn't be surprised if they also came to dominate Mexico economically.

However the Domitian Republic had a pretty fragmented history by this point and had only recently escaped a period of control by neighbouring Haiti. Mexico has a much stronger national identity and mistrust of their northern neighbour in part due to recent events. Also there is a clear cultural difference between Mexico and either US or CSA on the basis of language, religion and with the CSA slavery. As such I can't see prolonged support for annexation by the CSA in Mexico and any transfer of territory by a regime in Mexico is likely to be bitterly resented.
 

Generic Username

Corporal
Joined
May 12, 2019
Location
Yes
Unfortunately that links to an entire book, only part of which is available on-line. I tried looking for the section on alcohol taxes in the US but there was no access to this at all.

I think the bulk of the US federal revenue came from tariffs on imports - which I suspect is outside the reference to "inland tax income"? On the other hand since, from what I've read the south was bitterly opposed to tariffs so that may not be a viable source for them.

In an independent CSA, with slavery surviving I wonder if the calculation of $16.8M may be a little high as slaves have very little spending power. However probably somewhere in the region of $12-15M would seem acceptable. Assuming again those would be supported by the south?

It's from Page 108 if you'd like to check it for yourself; I'm including a screenshot if not to save you time.

alcohol taxes.PNG


Again a third would be a bit high as the south's population was ~29% and given the continuation of slavery spending power would be less. Also since tobacco was a major product in the south would there be support for taxes on that? Or possibly a lot of consumption may be by indirect means, people working in or related to the industry getting it at source and hence seeking to bypass taxation.

I did 30% instead of 29%, on the basis of the 1860 census but by 1870 the Southern population as a whole grew so just 1% bigger seems reasonable. Whatever the reduced spending power from continued enslavement, I'd imagine more Southern Whites being alive combined with an overall much better economic position-the planters have retained their slaves-make up for that.

Plus I get the general impression that the south was opposed to a strong and active central government so there could be less spending on that in an independent CSA - at least unless they realise certain infrastructure projects are very important, probably including river control schemes and railways.

Actually, this is a common misconception. The C.S. Government was actually the most centralized in North American history until the New Deal and actually had more Government agents.

Unlike the U.S. Government, it also passed taxes on not only cotton exports, but also on slave holdings themselves and adopted the exact same Tariff Rates the U.S. had Pre-War under the terms of the 1856 Tariff Bill. Much is made of the C.S. Constitution forbidding internal improvements but it had the loophole of actions being necessary for the National Defense being permissible; as a result, the Davis Administration was able to fund many railroad expansion/improvement projects. Even ignoring that, Pre-War the Southern states were, on an individual basis, routinely outspending the North on internal improvements at a massive rate.

Of course this could mean more funds for the military although the possibility of sparking an arms race with the union would have to be considered as well.

I'd rather doubt the C.S. Government is going to shoot for total military supremacy, personally. They'll make sure they have a good indirect reserve system, in terms of training and equipment, via the slave patrol system, a good officer corps via maintaining VMI and The Citadel, and, finally, they're going to want to build a quality Navy based off their Civil War experience. The U.S. at this time showed no interest in wanting to counter the Royal Navy nor did the 1873 Virginius Affair shake it out out of the doldrums of the Post-Civil War, so I doubt any of these will provoke a response from the Americans. I'd expect the standing C.S. Army to be sufficient to meet any present security needs, much like the U.S. but not too much more; fighting the Apache in Texas, guarding strategic points, etc. Later, if they annex Mexico as proposed, then yeah, they'll need probably 10-15 regiments to garrison it for a time.

However the Domitian Republic had a pretty fragmented history by this point and had only recently escaped a period of control by neighbouring Haiti. Mexico has a much stronger national identity and mistrust of their northern neighbour in part due to recent events. Also there is a clear cultural difference between Mexico and either US or CSA on the basis of language, religion and with the CSA slavery. As such I can't see prolonged support for annexation by the CSA in Mexico and any transfer of territory by a regime in Mexico is likely to be bitterly resented.

I don't see much issue of it, with the factors the C.S. was bringing to play. If the local strongmen, with much less resources to play with it could do it, the C.S. with its much larger population and industrial base could too. I also wouldn't be surprised if greater support could be expected, as the C.S. brings something everyone could enjoy; the local elites would retain their positions and probably become wealthier over it, the Conservatives would have religion protected and the remaining Liberals would be under a Republican regime. For the average Mexican, trade and the security provided by Richmond would be very welcome. I've read of Mexican towns begging the French to stay and garrison them as their (the French) adventure there began to end, as the French garrisons were able to deter bandits and maintain law and order.
 
Last edited:

steve59p

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 21, 2016
It's from Page 108 if you'd like to check it for yourself; I'm including a screenshot if not to save you time.

View attachment 358095

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?

I did 30% instead of 29%, on the basis of the 1860 census but by 1870 the Southern population as a whole grew so just 1% bigger seems reasonable. Whatever the reduced spending power from continued enslavement, I'd imagine more Southern Whites being alive combined with an overall much better economic position-the planters have retained their slaves-make up for that.

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.

Actually, this is a common misconception. The C.S. Government was actually the most centralized in North American history until the New Deal and actually had more Government agents.

Unlike the U.S. Government, it also passed taxes on not only cotton exports, but also on slave holdings themselves and adopted the exact same Tariff Rates the U.S. had Pre-War under the terms of the 1856 Tariff Bill. Much is made of the C.S. Constitution forbidding internal improvements but it had the loophole of actions being necessary for the National Defense being permissible; as a result, the Davis Administration was able to fund many railroad expansion/improvement projects. Even ignoring that, Pre-War the Southern states were, on an individual basis, routinely outspending the North on internal improvements at a massive rate.

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.

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?

I'd rather doubt the C.S. Government is going to shoot for total military supremacy, personally. They'll make sure they have a good indirect reserve system, in terms of training and equipment, via the slave patrol system, a good officer corps via maintaining VMI and The Citadel, and, finally, they're going to want to build a quality Navy based off their Civil War experience. The U.S. at this time showed no interest in wanting to counter the Royal Navy nor did the 1873 Virginius Affair shake it out out of the doldrums of the Post-Civil War, so I doubt any of these will provoke a response from the Americans. I'd expect the standing C.S. Army to be sufficient to meet any present security needs, much like the U.S. but not too much more; fighting the Apache in Texas, guarding strategic points, etc. Later, if they annex Mexico as proposed, then yeah, they'll need probably 10-15 regiments to garrison it for a time.

The thing is both sides of the former union will have some distrust of the other and hence are likely to respond to moves by the other they see as potentially threatening. Coupled with hot heats on both sides potentially seeking to raise tensions, even if primary for personal political benefits I can't see either side having a military as small as the cominbed state had in 1860 but there will be some interaction. This will be heighten if either does something the other considers as threatening their interests, which I think would definitely be an invasion/annexation of Mexico. Let alone the reaction from Mexico or the rest of the world.

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.

I think you would need more than 10-15 regiments for the last bit. The French - copying from wiki - had
At its peak in 1863, the French expeditionary force counted 38,493 men[5] (which represented 16.25% of the French army).[26] 6,654[6] French died, including 4,830 from disease.[6] Among these losses, 1,918 of the deaths were from the regiment of the French Foreign Legion.[27]:267

and they did have a fair amount of local support.

I don't see much issue of it, with the factors the C.S. was bringing to play. If the local strongmen, with much less resources to play with it could do it, the C.S. with its much larger population and industrial base could too. I also wouldn't be surprised if greater support could be expected, as the C.S. brings something everyone could enjoy; the local elites would retain their positions and probably become wealthier over it, the Conservatives would have religion protected and the remaining Liberals would be under a Republican regime. For the average Mexican, trade and the security provided by Richmond would be very welcome. I've read of Mexican towns begging the French to stay and garrison them as their (the French) adventure there began to end, as the French garrisons were able to deter bandits and maintain law and order.

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
 

Generic Username

Corporal
Joined
May 12, 2019
Location
Yes
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.)​
 
Last edited:

steve59p

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 21, 2016
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.

Yes basically that was my question, thanks for clarifying.

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.

That doesn't fit with the figures I have. Literally on the back on a sheet of paper, as I had to look then up for a similar discussion on another site but US census figures for 1860 for 11 states gave a population of 10.13M of which 3.5M were slaves. This includes W Virginia as part of Virginia at this date. For 1900 and including W Virginia for consistency and Oklahoma as that's often considered an addition to the CSA they were 20.67M of which 4.83M were black. Since the poster I was replying to had quoted figures for 1910, which I didn't notice then 26.25M of which 5.46M were black.

True if there is a shorter war then less people will die. But also if no northern victory and slavery continues slave plantations dominate the agricultural areas, especially in the deep south so there is less land for suprlus population and it appears that a fair number of poorer whites were heading north [or west] prior to the war looking for land of their own. As such this might continue although that might depend on relations with the north. OTL the breaking up of the plantations lead to widespread share-cropping which gave an opportunity for many whites to have land, albeit often in fairly small plots


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 I was asking was what you mean by state. I.e. the national state [the CSA] or the member states [i.e. Virginia, Alabama etc]. Thanks for clarifying. With most of the peacetime investment being by individual states do you know how much co-operation was there with neighbours to ensure say common track size, connections linking up correctly etc?

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 have heard otherwise and that the trade was still going on pre-war. In fact that one reason Palmerston was interesting in the south winning was that he thought that an independent south would have greater problems in bypassing the anti-slave patrols off W Africa. The problem was that the US refused to allow any other nation to check US flagged ships for slaves so on seeing what was very often a slaver ship all local RN commanders could do was locate one of the few US ships on anti-slavery patrol and try and get them over to check it.

The Alabama and the rams were seagoing ships but not massively powerful. Similarly a force of coastal and riverine ironclads are unlikely to worry the RN although the union might well respond to such moves. A small force of seagoing ships like the Alabama would depend on what they were used for. If it was for seeking to expand slavery that could be a different matter.

The south did build a number of ironclads although even more than the north their resources were limited. They had problems with getting decent armour - using torn up rail tracks in some cases and also in getting reliable engines - while as mentioned in another threat decent fuel was also an issue. This is going to be less of a problem when it independent and has access to foreign purchases but building and maintaining sea going ships is going to be a long task before they can do it reliably.

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.

Even that figure is significantly larger than what your suggesting for the CSA and they are probably better equipped in terms of artillery and other such support units. They failed to control much of the country and were taking continued losses. This was without any support from external allies and its noticed that when the USCW finished and the union started supplying the resistance Napoleon gave up on his adventure. That its consumed about a quarter of the regular French army shows how big a commitment it was to a nation which had a markedly larger population and industrial base than the CSA, albeit that the latter is a lot closer.

Not sure why any remaining members of the Imperial army would be willing to fight with the south. At least with Mexico and Maximilian there was the plan to have a local empire, with his proposed heir being the descendant of the earlier Mexican emperor.

I foresee the Confederates would too.

Some of the conservative elements who supported the French might support a CSA invasion but then again they might not. Especially if they fear being pushed out of power as their compatriates had been in Texas and California or losing land to would be plantation onwers from the CSA. The bulk of the popualation will be opposed even more than they were to the French.

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.)​

Your talking about the elites and also in the NW where labour was short. Is this land suitable for plantation slavery? Especially of cotton, which consumes a lot of water? Most of what I've read of southern interest was in the more fertile southern regions such as the Yucatan and neighbouring areas. Here there is no labour shortages and plenty of people to be displaced by slaves.

Also even in the NW are the local elites going to trust promises that they will continue to control those regions? Are they going to have their language and religion respected - which to them pretty much means a monopoly. Are the Anglos going to be willing to bring in slaves and sell them to the locals rather than seek to operate any such lands themselves?

I think there are a lot of issues with what your proposing.

Steve
 

Generic Username

Corporal
Joined
May 12, 2019
Location
Yes
That doesn't fit with the figures I have. Literally on the back on a sheet of paper, as I had to look then up for a similar discussion on another site but US census figures for 1860 for 11 states gave a population of 10.13M of which 3.5M were slaves. This includes W Virginia as part of Virginia at this date. For 1900 and including W Virginia for consistency and Oklahoma as that's often considered an addition to the CSA they were 20.67M of which 4.83M were black. Since the poster I was replying to had quoted figures for 1910, which I didn't notice then 26.25M of which 5.46M were black.

Excluding Missouri, Kentucky and the claimed Arizona Territory gives a figure of 9.1 Million of which 3.5 Million are slaves. As for the total of Whites, you are correct; I did the 26 million and forgot to differentiate the population. Still, ~20 Million Whites is quadruple the amount in 1860, and this despite one third of Southern White Males dying.

True if there is a shorter war then less people will die. But also if no northern victory and slavery continues slave plantations dominate the agricultural areas, especially in the deep south so there is less land for suprlus population and it appears that a fair number of poorer whites were heading north [or west] prior to the war looking for land of their own. As such this might continue although that might depend on relations with the north. OTL the breaking up of the plantations lead to widespread share-cropping which gave an opportunity for many whites to have land, albeit often in fairly small plots

Actually, most Southerners were yeomans both before and after the war. Personally my thinking is that the Planters will gradually sell off their land holdings between 1880-1910, allowing the Southern Whites to take over the agriculture at large while said Planters move their slave holdings into industry. Any "surplus" Whites will likely go into Southern Industry, which I expect will find its initial boom starting around 1880 or 1890, as cotton begins to decline in profitability vis-a-vis industry.

What I was asking was what you mean by state. I.e. the national state [the CSA] or the member states [i.e. Virginia, Alabama etc]. Thanks for clarifying. With most of the peacetime investment being by individual states do you know how much co-operation was there with neighbours to ensure say common track size, connections linking up correctly etc?

Different track sizes were an issue that wasn't corrected until 1886.

I have heard otherwise and that the trade was still going on pre-war. In fact that one reason Palmerston was interesting in the south winning was that he thought that an independent south would have greater problems in bypassing the anti-slave patrols off W Africa. The problem was that the US refused to allow any other nation to check US flagged ships for slaves so on seeing what was very often a slaver ship all local RN commanders could do was locate one of the few US ships on anti-slavery patrol and try and get them over to check it.

Louisana at the State level talked about such in the 1850s, but that is largely the gist of it; the Upper South was ardently opposed to such, as was the Confederate Government. If you have any sources to share on the matter, I'm open to hearing such. Now Latin America and the Caribbean is a different story, with rampant slave importation still ongoing, so I'm assuming you might be confusing that with the C.S.

The Alabama and the rams were seagoing ships but not massively powerful. Similarly a force of coastal and riverine ironclads are unlikely to worry the RN although the union might well respond to such moves. A small force of seagoing ships like the Alabama would depend on what they were used for. If it was for seeking to expand slavery that could be a different matter.

The south did build a number of ironclads although even more than the north their resources were limited. They had problems with getting decent armour - using torn up rail tracks in some cases and also in getting reliable engines - while as mentioned in another threat decent fuel was also an issue. This is going to be less of a problem when it independent and has access to foreign purchases but building and maintaining sea going ships is going to be a long task before they can do it reliably.

The Laird Rams were equal to anything of the Royal Navy, which is why the U.S. threatened war with the UK over the matter; it would've allowed the Confederates to endanger the blockade at large by giving them powerful, ocean going ironclads.

Even that figure is significantly larger than what your suggesting for the CSA and they are probably better equipped in terms of artillery and other such support units. They failed to control much of the country and were taking continued losses. This was without any support from external allies and its noticed that when the USCW finished and the union started supplying the resistance Napoleon gave up on his adventure. That its consumed about a quarter of the regular French army shows how big a commitment it was to a nation which had a markedly larger population and industrial base than the CSA, albeit that the latter is a lot closer.

I said 10-15 regiments versus the 20 the French used, which was 16% of their overall Army at the height, not 25%. Given the French were fighting a conventional conflict against standing forces until 1865, and by then had reduced the rebels to a small section of the Northwest borderlands-meaning the ability of the Liberals to resist had largely been wiped out. With this reduced threat, I'd say 10 to 15 regiments is more than sufficient to police the country; they have less enemies to fight.

As for the United States, they supplied the rebels via Texas, as Arizona/New Mexico/Southern California didn't have railway links until the ~1880s. Given Texas is Confederate here, there is no ability to move massive supplies or troops-IOTL Sheridan brought 50,000 men into Texas to threaten the French-to endanger Mexico. For comparison sake, see the limitations on troop numbers and supplies that beset both the Union and Confederate campaigns in Arizona in 1862.

Not sure why any remaining members of the Imperial army would be willing to fight with the south. At least with Mexico and Maximilian there was the plan to have a local empire, with his proposed heir being the descendant of the earlier Mexican emperor.

Maximilian never formally designated him such and the available evidence suggests that was never his plan. Given the officer corps would likely be largely Confederate the C.S. Government would continue to offer the same pay and advantages, why would the Imperial Army not be folded into the C.S. Army?

Some of the conservative elements who supported the French might support a CSA invasion but then again they might not. Especially if they fear being pushed out of power as their compatriates had been in Texas and California or losing land to would be plantation onwers from the CSA. The bulk of the popualation will be opposed even more than they were to the French.

The existing local elite in Northern Mexico, as cited, have no issue with slavery and the Confederate plans for the rest of Mexico hold that slavery would not expand there. The Conservative elite would thus maintain their positions while the Church would find the lack of Anti-Clericalism to be sufficient to make accord with the C.S. Government, same as Catholics in Louisana did and particularly given the Pope at this time seems to have had mildly Pro-Confederate leanings.

Your talking about the elites and also in the NW where labour was short. Is this land suitable for plantation slavery? Especially of cotton, which consumes a lot of water? Most of what I've read of southern interest was in the more fertile southern regions such as the Yucatan and neighbouring areas. Here there is no labour shortages and plenty of people to be displaced by slaves.

Cotton isn't suitable in the Yucatan, but it was grown in contemporary times and to this day in Northern Mexico. Do you have any sources you can provide for me to read?

Also even in the NW are the local elites going to trust promises that they will continue to control those regions? Are they going to have their language and religion respected - which to them pretty much means a monopoly. Are the Anglos going to be willing to bring in slaves and sell them to the locals rather than seek to operate any such lands themselves?

I think there are a lot of issues with what your proposing.

Steve

Yes, I don't foresee those becoming issues; there were, after all, even Black slave holders in the South at this time.
 
Top