I'm on the second book of the Great War series, Walk In Hell, by Harry Turtledove. We're in the WW1 period in US History right now, and it surprises about how different things could have been if Lee's Battle-plan wrapped cigars had arrived where they were supposed to instead of getting lost.

BTW, how accurate do you think Turtledove has portrayed this? Do you think Communism would have spread through the South like it has in the books?

Turtledove is pulling all this bs straight out of his ass. It just would not have happened the way Turtledove imagined it would. And before WWI socialism was the third largest political party pulling in 5 to 12% of the vote. If we would have lost or Woodrow not have won the election we could be having a two party system between democrats and socialist.

I have read most of the Great War books and found very enjoyable and thought provoking. To Art of War if you liked the Great War Books read How Few Remain. it's about a second war bewtween The C.S.A and the U.S. set in 1880

I started with HFR, then read American Front and am now in Walk in Hell.

I'm reading HFR and am so far enjoying it. I don't think it's all bs, Demetrias. Consider the fact that socialism was never a major party in American politics, and the fact that "socialist" reform regulations did not emerge until TR's presidency.
Of course, I haven't read the Great War series, but remember that as split between reality and the "what if?" scenario gets further and further distant in time, things can become weirder and weirder.
Granted, I do think it a little non-sensical that the CSA would feel the need to gain Pacific ports when it really had no need for them.

?????

I am struggling to follow this, having never seen the books. But if parts of the US were to go socialist, wouldn't those parts have been places like Washington State, Yonkers, West Virginia and Pittsburgh? Seems a little unlikely that the indendent slave-holding South (!) could give way to communal tendencies...

R.III

Originally posted by Richard III
?????

I am struggling to follow this, having never seen the books. But if parts of the US were to go socialist, wouldn't those parts have been places like Washington State, Yonkers, West Virginia and Pittsburgh? Seems a little unlikely that the indendent slave-holding South (!) could give way to communal tendencies...

R.III

If im not mistaken, it's the slaves that become commies in the book. Someone correct me if i'm wrong.

During the war fought between the CSA and The USA the nergos rise up in a communist rebellion aganist the CSA. The Slaves were freed in an earlier book in the 1880's

During the war fought between the CSA and The USA the nergos rise up in a communist rebellion aganist the CSA. The Slaves were freed in an earlier book in the 1880's

sorry bout the double post

Constantine, thanks of ther clafication. I thought that was what had happened.

THe slaves are commies, and the USA, angry with France and Britain, join the Central Powers and are stomping both the Canadians and the CSA. It's really like this:

USA
GERMANY
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY
CHILE
PARAGUAY

VS.

ENGLAND
FRANCE
RUSSIA
JAPAN
CHINA
ARGENTINA

NEUTRALS:
OTTOMAN EMPIRE
ITALY
BRAZIL

Later on, the EMPIRE OF BRAZIL joins with the Central Powers, cutting off the food supply route from Argentina to England.

I think it's a clever job, but entirely unrealistic, i reccomend his Ruled Britannia, it's more realistic and better written.

Originally posted by Constantine
I have read most of the Great War books and found very enjoyable and thought provoking. To Art of War if you liked the Great War Books read How Few Remain. it's about a second war bewtween The C.S.A and the U.S. set in 1880

ow few remain is part of the series

I don't think it is unrealistic. The Socialist thing could definitely have happened. Although he was disenfranchised by his fellow politicians, Lincoln still held much respect with the working class, and it is true that he had socialist leanings. It's also possible that the negros would have risen up, especially with the society that they live in in these books.

I can see that, but the south coming back to whip the North several times after the Civil War?

Originally posted by SKILORD
I can see that, but the south coming back to whip the North several times after the Civil War?

Very true.

I understand why he did it, he is paralelling European history, and the battles between France and Germany, in his alternative post civil war history. I understand that he does such and i have fun finding things that do this, i don't support this though, i would rather he kept us guessing.

It would also be more realistic otherwise.

Though I really enjoyed the series, a few things about the series always seemed a bit too farfetched.

The Confederate State of America:

Now it can be reasonably contended that the CSA with the “Lost Orders” found and European recognition/support could have defeated the Union, but it seems rather odd that in the post “Civil War” era that the CSA could evolve as such a distinct entity, since no doubt the British Empire would have to a certain extent, been pulling the strings of the CSA.

Also, when it came to the CSA I had a hard time believing that they could build up a large standing army, just on the basis that the nation itself was a rather backwards agrarian state with few industries, and much of the focus would have been on industrialization/rural to urban transformation. Instead in my mind, it would have made more sense for the CSA to train a small/professional army (probably under the tutelage of the British Army), as well as a small but modern navy (again probably under the tutelage of the Royal Navy).

Finally, when it comes to the CSA taking territories in the West, that seemed reasonable enough since an independent CSA would no doubt want to expand its trade options/sphere of influence, though it seemed rather odd that the CSA would become involved in the Spanish-Confederate war just on the simple basis that the CSN would probably not at this point be involved in much blue water activity and would be more likely to be centered on sovereignty patrols and ensuring that shipping lanes remained free and clear.

Dominion of Canada:
One thing that really threw me for a loop was the Canadian Blue Ensign being mentioned as being the official flag of Canada. Now even though this is a counterfactual historical piece, there is no reason in my mind why the Canadian Blue Ensign would ever become the national flag, simply due to the fact that the Canadian Red Ensign in prominence alone(and assuming that confederation still happened in 1867). Also, by the time of the North American War, the Union Jack would have no doubt taken a place of prominence in Canada (as Canadians would have been spurred on by imperial loyalty/sentiment following victory during the Boer War). The WW2 style maple leaf roundel on Canadian aircraft also threw things off a bit, since it is unlikely that even if Canada did adopt its own Royal Canadian Flying Corps or something akin to that, that there would be much sentiment to adopt a distinctive Canadian roundel.

The Defense policy of Canada also had me scratching my head a bit, since if the British Empire had effectively helped the CSA win the civil war, they would have no doubt put some significant time and effort into building up a strong/well trained Canadian Army, and would have no doubt pushed to instate a large and modern Royal Canadian Navy. For whatever reason (at least I can’t recall if it was stated in any of the novels) it seems that the Canadian Militia (both permanent and non permanent) along with either the RCN, or the RNCVR or whichever was the Canadian naval component, seemed at best poorly manned and understaffed. It would stand to reason, that the British Empire, would have wanted to withdraw a substantial number of British troops and replace them with colonial regulars, and it just doesn’t make any sense that rather than going with the more reasonable policy of training the dominions to defend themselves, instead they simple let them keep the status quo.

The Confederates dumping slavery and industrializing that quickly seemed ASB. Despite these flaws the 3 Great War books are decent, but the 6 books after these are extremely unimaginative.

However, I really enjoyed How Few Remain.

wow, an 8 year necro! Is this a new record?

The CSA industrialising between 1865-1917 or so isn't that unbelieveable. Look at Japan. Entertaining enough but a bit unrelaistic.

The CSA industrialising between 1865-1917 or so isn't that unbelieveable. Look at Japan. Entertaining enough but a bit unrelaistic.

I was about to object that the CSA lacked any of the industrial resources necessary for 19th century industrialization (chiefly coal and iron)... but so did Japan! But the japanese were lucky enough to win a war against China early on and grab Korea and some of those resources. I don't know where the CSA might do the same thing.

They were allied with Britain in the books, and they presumably traded with the USA as well- France and Germany traded with each other so its not unrealistic. IIRC in the books the CSA sustained the war from 41-44, as opposed to Nazi Germany 39-45. The CSA in Turltedove's books was also larger than the historical CSA with parts of Mexico, Cuba and Oklahoma and Kentucky as well.

There were certain elements of the Timeline 191 books that are not realistically feasible. Had the Confederates maintained any sort of military it would likely be little more than militia, or forces on loan from Britain which would probably have answered to their proper British commanders before any Yankee with a chip on his shoulder. The Confederates could only have achieved independence with foreign aid, and the only country about to give that aid was Britain. It is not exaggerating at all to say that had the Confederacy maintained sovereignty, it would only be so as a sattelite-state of the Empire.

I agree. And then the Confederacy has no reason to industrialize and copy the USA that, which from their perspective, has an inferior and immoral way of life. Especially after winning before 1863 when the Northern industrial preponderance really started to take affect.

Britain would switch the cotton production in its empire to other enterprises so there would be no post-war depression of cotton prices that would crush the Confederate economy. The Confederacy would be doing acceptably as an agricultural appendage of Britain. Of course slavery would be something that the CSA and Britain would argue over but the CSA would keep it going to assert their "independence" from Britain.

I see this scenario happening in any victory for the Confederacy via foreign intervention. Only in a McClellan 1864 campaign victory scenario do I see the Confederacy industrializing and abandoning slavery, and that's because by this time they have gotten some common sense beaten into them for 3 and a half years.

Of course Turtledove sensibly didn't right a story like that. :lol:

The Confederates dumping slavery and industrializing that quickly seemed ASB. Despite these flaws the 3 Great War books are decent, but the 6 books after these are extremely unimaginative.

However, I really enjoyed How Few Remain.

I agree with you that “How Few Remain” was quite well written.

Another thing that I found odd about the series was the Confederacy’s move from using a licensed/variants of British technology, to using German technology.

Confederate Armor:

Mark 1 (Great War) – Rhomboid barrel; 10 man crew; two 50 mm guns, 3 machine guns. (Based on British tanks of WWI.)

To

Mark 2 (Inter-war period) – More traditional tank design, with rotating turret. Crew of 5-6; Estimated 37 mm gun, 3 machine guns.( Resembles the Panzer II of our timeline.)
Mark 3 (Second Great War) – Upgraded version of Mk2. Crew of 5; 50 mm gun, at least 2 machine guns. (Resembles the Panzer III of our timeline.)
Mark 4 (Second Great War) – The Confederate response to the slope-armored US Mark II. It held a crew of 5; mounted a 75 mm cannon, and had at least 2 machine guns. (Based on book description it most likely resembles the Panther tank.)
Mark 5 (Second Great War) – The latest Confederate model, it sported a low hull, superbly sloped and thick armor that increased crew survival rates, and a high-velocity long-range 4.5 or 5-inch (130 mm) gun. While superior to all US barrels, there were too few to stem the tide. (It resembles the German King Tiger tank.)

Well, Turtledove WAS basing off the series off of European history 1914-1945, so that is (sadly) kind of expected...

Though I think How Few Remain is perhaps one of the best Turtledove books, I am disappointed how he chose to base the rest of Timeline-191 off of our own European history. It's rather disappointing because it's a. unrealistic and b. uncreative.

It's unlikely that such a drastic change in history would somehow end up neatly parallelling our own history and uncreative that someone with his history background and writing career would fall back to it.

I agree. And then the Confederacy has no reason to industrialize and copy the USA that, which from their perspective, has an inferior and immoral way of life. Especially after winning before 1863 when the Northern industrial preponderance really started to take affect.

Britain would switch the cotton production in its empire to other enterprises so there would be no post-war depression of cotton prices that would crush the Confederate economy. The Confederacy would be doing acceptably as an agricultural appendage of Britain. Of course slavery would be something that the CSA and Britain would argue over but the CSA would keep it going to assert their "independence" from Britain.

I see this scenario happening in any victory for the Confederacy via foreign intervention. Only in a McClellan 1864 campaign victory scenario do I see the Confederacy industrializing and abandoning slavery, and that's because by this time they have gotten some common sense beaten into them for 3 and a half years.

Of course Turtledove sensibly didn't right a story like that. :lol:

How Turtledove should have wrote his story!!

Sure it's a necro, but its' interesting, so what's the problem?

I've read HT with much enjoyment over the years. "Guns of the South" is my personal favorite.

Worldwar and Colonization, completed with Homeward Bound, was very entertaining. He wrote it after Desert Storm, where one US officer said, "It was War of the Worlds last night, and we were the Martians." HT gave the Aliens in the series the American technical superiority of Desert Storm - but not the smarts - against a WW II era Earth.

Turtledove was an expert in Byzantine History, which probably explains a lot.

I noted in his Great War books that bombers become a threat in a way that never happened during the real Great War, even when Germany sent Gothas over England.

Besides the implausibly industrialized Confederacy, I thought the characters grew progressively less interesting as the series went along. His best characters were the flamboyant warriors like Custer and Teddy Roosevelt in How Few Remain. But as history progresses, his own original heroes are all bureaucrats and have remarkably boring personalities. His two Canadian characters are essentially the same person, but one with a Quebecois accent. Until you get to Jake Feathersone, everyone is a history taker, not a history maker. I lost interest about the middle way through the 3rd sequel and honestly kick myself for not having hung it up sooner.

Though I think How Few Remain is perhaps one of the best Turtledove books, I am disappointed how he chose to base the rest of Timeline-191 off of our own European history. It's rather disappointing because it's a. unrealistic and b. uncreative.

Agreed. I was not at all impressed that the plot of all those books is basically
a re-enactment of OTL with the US and CSA substituted for various European
countries.

OTOH, his short stories show *much* more imagination, and I have thoroughly
enjoyed the ones I have read.

Finally, when it comes to the CSA taking territories in the West, that seemed reasonable enough since an independent CSA would no doubt want to expand its trade options/sphere of influence, though it seemed rather odd that the CSA would become involved in the Spanish-Confederate war just on the simple basis that the CSN would probably not at this point be involved in much blue water activity and would be more likely to be centered on sovereignty patrols and ensuring that shipping lanes remained free and clear.
Overall you made a decent post, but I gotta say, you forgot Cuba. The slavers had been after it since the 1840s, what with the whole filibuster thing. Loads of slaves on the island already, and a plantation economy rather similar to much of the Deep South's. It was still an issue into the 1860s, and played a role in the Republicans' rejection of the so-called "Crittenden Compromise". Lincoln argued that since the Crittenden plan would have applied the Missouri line of 32-30 to future conquests, the southern states would push for "unending war" from the Rio Grande to Tierra del Fuego.
I was about to object that the CSA lacked any of the industrial resources necessary for 19th century industrialization (chiefly coal and iron)... but so did Japan! But the japanese were lucky enough to win a war against China early on and grab Korea and some of those resources. I don't know where the CSA might do the same thing.
Actually, some of the traitor states had iron and coal reserves, albeit nothing like that of the northern states. Tennessee, IIRC, would have been particularly helpful here, and if they had managed to seize and keep Kentucky and Missouri - I don't remember the exact plot of the 191 books, it was awhile ago and they were too crappy to read over again - that would have also helped.

Then again, most of what I've read from actual ACW historians only refers to short-run CSA use of resources in a "win the ACW" context, not in an "industrialize and try to keep pace with the northern states" context. So they may very well have been as badly off as you say. Meh.
Agreed. I was not at all impressed that the plot of all those books is basically
a re-enactment of OTL with the US and CSA substituted for various European
countries.
Yep. As if the 1860s in Europe would happen even remotely the same way as OTL with a surviving CSA. Also, there's no way in hell the UK would align with a CSA over the Federals in the long term. Too much to lose from opposing the Federals, too little to gain from the traitor states themselves. Palmerston may have been eventually forced into proposing mediation; it's virtually impossible to know if Lincoln would've tried to fight off the Brits, because he made contradictory statements in his papers about it when the going got tough in the summer of 1862. But after that, King Corn and American military power make interfering in the Western Hemisphere too costly for a British state that's engaged in New Imperialism and worried about Continental enemies like France and Russia and (potentially) Prussia-Germany. The same reasons for a British strategic withdrawal from the Western Hemisphere exist in any ATL as existed in OTL.

That's the fundamental problem with most of these idiotic Lost Cause alternate histories; they tend to assume the CSA could actually survive past the short term. Even without getting into the traitor states' manifold internal problems, the Confederacy would have been extinguished by external Federal military force within three decades at the outside.

Dachs has said what I would have said, albeit with far more knowledge on the topic and eloquence than I could ever manage. I would add, for the record, that Harry Turtledove, the so-called "master of alternative history" writes absolutely horrendous miscarriages of althistory. I have not come across a single one of his books that is even remotely accurate. Many of the things he claims are easily disprovable with a casual google search.

Now, I could forgive all this if he actually wrote good books. But with the exception of his World War series I've yet to find one. Ironically, that series was Turtledove returning to his sci-fi roots and wasn't really althistorical at all, just set in the past. Writing interesting novels based on althistory is certainly possible; Resurrection Day, which assumes the Cuban Missile Crisis escalating into out-and-out nuclear war between the US and USSR, is an excellent example. Turtledove just doesn't seem to have what it takes to do that.

Overall you made a decent post, but I gotta say, you forgot Cuba. The slavers had been after it since the 1840s, what with the whole filibuster thing. Loads of slaves on the island already, and a plantation economy rather similar to much of the Deep South's. It was still an issue into the 1860s, and played a role in the Republicans' rejection of the so-called "Crittenden Compromise". Lincoln argued that since the Crittenden plan would have applied the Missouri line of 32-30 to future conquests, the southern states would push for "unending war" from the Rio Grande to Tierra del Fuego.


Now in my post I mentioned the Spanish-Confederate War…(the ATL Version of the Spanish-American War), but that having been said, I doubt that the CSA could have been able to defeat the Spanish(who at the time would have been considered a 3rd rate European power at best).

Also, I doubt that the CSA would have been in a position to push as down into Mexico, never the less as far down as Tierra Del Fuego, that to me seems just a little too ASB.

Now in my post I mentioned the Spanish-Confederate War…(the ATL Version of the Spanish-American War), but that having been said, I doubt that the CSA could have been able to defeat the Spanish(who at the time would have been considered a 3rd rate European power at best).
Maybe. The Spanish (sort of) lost the Chincha Islands War around the same time to Chile and Peru; there's no telling what the issue of a war with the Confederacy would've been. The CSA had more than a puncher's chance.
Also, I doubt that the CSA would have been in a position to push as down into Mexico, never the less as far down as Tierra Del Fuego, that to me seems just a little too ASB.
Lincoln's rhetoric. He was saying that if the southern states even did stay in the Union by the "Compromise", that all of Latin and South America was a potential target for filibusters and their ilk, not that the South would've been able to take all that territory by itself.

Maybe. The Spanish (sort of) lost the Chincha Islands War around the same time to Chile and Peru; there's no telling what the issue of a war with the Confederacy would've been. The CSA had more than a puncher's chance.
.

Now I could see a Confederate Navy trained and equipped by the Royal Navy mopping the floor with the Spanish at sea and thereby humiliating them in the eyes of their European brethren but I find it harder to believe that the CS Army would be big enough/logistically prepared to mount an invasion outside of their borders.

You could say the same thing about the US Army in 1898. :p

I can also see a larger, better funded Spanish fleet actually fullfilling American fears in the real war, by sending forth the European fleet, defeating of scattering CSA ships not engaged in Cuba, and shelling a major coastal city or two, forcing the CSA to sue for peace.

Also a possibility.

My point, though, was that of all the things to quibble about in Turtledove's books, a Confederate Cuba, which was a key policy goal of traitor state politicians and possibly within the CSA's military means, is probably not one of them. :p

You know, someone should write alt-history fiction to counter traitor-state wanking and depict a history of the south that was more likely: a dependency of Britain, wracked by internal racial conflict, and militarily defeated in a foolhardy conflict with Spain.

I wrote one where the South loses the ACW faster. can haz cookie?

The South could have also evolved along the lines of a pre-94 South Africa....or perhaps a Rhodesia(if the racial tensions relaxed somewhat).

Ugh, that leads you down the Draka road.

And nobody wants to go down the Draka road.

Ugh, that leads you down the Draka road.

And nobody wants to go down the Draka road.

Though I've not read the Draka series (from what I've seen on Wikipedia), it seems rather unrealistic.

Though, I still believe that the South could have enacted some form of aparteid, since if the nation did survive into the 20th century, that they would not have been able to continue slavery, though a system of segregation would probably still have occurred.

I dunno, slavery isn't necessarily economically unviable. The Nazis employed it, for instance, and prisoners of war and chain gangs are in a form of slavery I suppose.

More importantly, though, I just don't see what's so probable about manumission in a society that exists solely to perpetuate the existence of slavery. Hell, if the Confederacy were going to free its slaves, then why separate from the Union in the first place?

The economy of Nazi Germany was also laughably pathetic and arse-backwards. Slavery is non-viable in an industrial society on a large-scale. At the very least it's non-competitive. Sure you can do things cheaper, but what's the point if your workers can't consume the products you have them create?

Another thing that would probably lead to manumission and the institution of some form of apartheid would be a large stream of illegal immigrants from Mexico (if the Empire of Mexico falls that is), who would quickly become a cheaper labor option for non-slave holders. After all, when you can pay an illegal immigrant at say 3 cents an hour(1880’s factory standard/lower class working standard), compared to having to feed, clothe, shelter and maintain the health of your slaves, cheap labor wins out every time.

I think in the books its international pressure that causes the South to manumit.

Regardless, it's silly. The whole war was fought over keeping the slaves, and it was the only thing that made the traitor states different from everywhere else; what's the point if they're just going to manumit them anyway a few decades down the road? That was the main objection to the use of black troops in the CSA in OTL, and why only two units were formed, and that on the authority of the governor of Virginia, not the confederal government.

Not all blacks were slaves in the CSA????

My theory is the CSA had it survived probably would have freed the slaves eventually, but not because some Northerner told them to. It is inefficient for starters.

Not all blacks were slaves in the CSA????
True. But that's like saying "not all Jews were in concentration camps in Nazi Germany".

Isn't it also true that the CSA was simply choosing regional self-determination, however misguided. They felt under-represented in Washington, only the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 made it officially a war over slavery.

Isn't it also true that the CSA was simply choosing regional self-determination, however misguided. They felt under-represented in Washington, only the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 made it officially a war over slavery.
No, the slavers lost an election and saw their hold on the Presidency, the courts, and the Senate slipping, so they decided to launch a civil war. Because that's what democracy is all about: if you lose an election, you should totally fight people over it. :rolleyes: It wasn't the change to underrepresentation, it was the rectification of overrepresentation, which caused a reactionary counterrevolution (before the Revolution of 1860 even really got started).

That may all be so, but the majority of soldiers in the CSA weren't slavers. They didn't own nor do I see how they directly benefitted from slaves, so for them it wasn't just about defending slavery.

You're absolutely correct. And the slaveholders of the traitor states had worried that the majority of the CSA wouldn't support their war for oppression. Outside of parts of northern Alabama, East Tennessee, and Appalachian North Carolina, though, resistance to secession was surprisingly low - or rather, poorly organized. In the initial stages of the counterrevolution, in the winter of 1860-1, many "upcountry" - poor white - delegates to secessionist conventions ended up coming down on the side of "cooperationism", which was basically half-assing treason by attempting to get the federal government to go along with it instead of ignoring the federals altogether. Not good enough for the fire-eaters. During the intervening months, most of those delegates and the residents of the regions they lived in were bombarded with racialist propaganda about how, even if they didn't hold slaves, their position and stake in southern society - i.e. their position above blacks - was endangered by the Republicans that had just won office in the North. Apparently it worked well enough outside of the Appalachians and north Alabama to bring out the votes and the volunteers.

Copperhead collaborators tried the same thing - playing the race card - in the Northern states during the election of 1864, but strangely it didn't work. I wonder why.

True. But that's like saying "not all Jews were in concentration camps in Nazi Germany".
Of course not. Most of them were in camps in Poland. ;)

So here’s an interesting question:
“Could the CSA have industrialized after independence?” (Realistic Scenarios Only)

So here’s an interesting question:
“Could the CSA have industrialized after independence?” (Realistic Scenarios Only)

Probably not, the slave states' wealth was mostly tied up in the labour intensive plantation system. They also didn't have the level of resources available for exploitation in the North, or the economic system to exploit what they had.

Finally the British Empire would have probably trod into the ground any attempt to industrialise on a major level, probably with the connivance of the Union. The British Empire had a long history of making sure its dependant (both official and economical) territories didn't industrialise past a certain level, due to loss of markets to them.

So here’s an interesting question:
“Could the CSA have industrialized after independence?” (Realistic Scenarios Only)

I think the better question, and one that has been discussed a hundredfold times between this thread and the CSA thread, is would they have been able to industrialize?

So here’s an interesting question:
“Could the CSA have industrialized after independence?” (Realistic Scenarios Only)

That's a critical question. A society deeply committed to states' rights is going to have a hard time accepting the notion of a national industrialization policy--although that is exactly what all the really successful industrializers of the 1800s and early 1900s needed to have for their industrialization to be first rate.

The question is really not would the CSA industrialize, but would any of the individual states undertake it. In 1860, from what I understand, the South's railroads still hadn't fully standardized their railroad gauge sizes. Interstate commerce was a mess. I highly recommend Fred Law Olmstead's travel book in the south. Economically the South was becoming, in the view of many Southerners, increasing more of an economic colony to the North.

The question is really: would any of the states be able put together a coherent policy to move toward factory development enough to compete with the North. Not Texas or the Black Belt states. Maybe Louisiana might and maybe Virginia might, as there was some industrialization in the latter and a strong commercial shipping interest in the former. Tennessee might. But Turtledove's scenario of a highly industrialized steel center in Alabama by 1914 is a pipe dream.

Another question is whether the strong laissez-faire governments in Dixie would have the foresight and the cajones to outlaw slave labor in the industrialized trades. As slaves are economically rewarded for sabotaging capital hardware (it's the only way for a non-wage-earner to get extra time off) only a fool would "employ" slaves in his factory.

But that said, Frederick Douglass described a few slaves working in the skilled trades of ship building in Maryland. But if the labor is unregulated, as seems likely in a victorious CSA, some factory owners would attempt to cut costs by using slave labor in some areas... and the whole society of Dixie would have less industrial might as a result of this policy (or lack of policy).

By the time the need to coordinate industrial policy became too painfully necessary to ignore the problem, after 1900 or so, it might well be too late to have a prayer of catching up. Any politician who tried to foster industry through mild protectionist policies or by other Hamiltonian measures designed to encourage the "useful arts" would immediately be denounced as a scoundrel and promoter of a new Tariff of Abominations.

That's a critical question. A society deeply committed to states' rights is going to have a hard time accepting the notion of a national industrialization policy--although that is exactly what all the really successful industrializers of the 1800s and early 1900s needed to have for their industrialization to be first rate.

The question is really not would the CSA industrialize, but would any of the individual states undertake it. In 1860, from what I understand, the South's railroads still hadn't fully standardized their railroad gauge sizes. Interstate commerce was a mess. I highly recommend Fred Law Olmstead's travel book in the south. Economically the South was becoming, in the view of many Southerners, increasing more of an economic colony to the North.

The question is really: would any of the states be able put together a coherent policy to move toward factory development enough to compete with the North. Not Texas or the Black Belt states. Maybe Louisiana might and maybe Virginia might, as there was some industrialization in the latter and a strong commercial shipping interest in the former. Tennessee might. But Turtledove's scenario of a highly industrialized steel center in Alabama by 1914 is a pipe dream.

Another question is whether the strong laissez-faire governments in Dixie would have the foresight and the cajones to outlaw slave labor in the industrialized trades. As slaves are economically rewarded for sabotaging capital hardware (it's the only way for a non-wage-earner to get extra time off) only a fool would "employ" slaves in his factory.

But that said, Frederick Douglass described a few slaves working in the skilled trades of ship building in Maryland. But if the labor is unregulated, as seems likely in a victorious CSA, some factory owners would attempt to cut costs by using slave labor in some areas... and the whole society of Dixie would have less industrial might as a result of this policy (or lack of policy).

By the time the need to coordinate industrial policy became too painfully necessary to ignore the problem, after 1900 or so, it might well be too late to have a prayer of catching up. Any politician who tried to foster industry through mild protectionist policies or by other Hamiltonian measures designed to encourage the "useful arts" would immediately be denounced as a scoundrel and promoter of a new Tariff of Abominations.

Sounds like the CSA could challenge the Russian Empire for the title of agrarian hellhole.

if you lose an election, you should totally fight people over it. :rolleyes:

But they weren't trying to impose their views on Washington, they just wanted complete autonomy.

But they weren't trying to impose their views on Washington, they just wanted complete autonomy.
What do you call Dred Scott, or the Kansas-Nebraska Act, or even the Crittenden "Compromise"?

What do you call Dred Scott, or the Kansas-Nebraska Act, or even the Crittenden "Compromise"?

Are they relevant after the south declared independence?

Are they relevant after the south declared independence?
The election happened before the traitor states declared independence. And I was talking about the election of 1860.

Look, why don't you read, I dunno, Battle Cry of Freedom or something and save us all a lot of trouble?

The election happened before the traitor states declared independence. And I was talking about the election of 1860.

Look, why don't you read, I dunno, Battle Cry of Freedom or something and save us all a lot of trouble?

Wow. Sorry for discussing world history in the world history forum. But hey, you read a lot of books and clearly know everything so eff me, right?

If you want.

Better than a Canadian.

Are they relevant after the south declared independence?

Without these events, there would never have been a CSA.

Without these events, there would never have been a CSA.

What I meant was any prior attempt to exert slave-holding ideology over Washington becomes irrelevant after secession. They wouldn't need to.

What I meant was any prior attempt to exert slave-holding ideology over Washington becomes irrelevant after secession. They wouldn't need to.
Even if you believe this - and it's debatable, depending on which Confederate diarists you read - it doesn't disprove or really say anything at all about the fact that the war was fought because they lost the 1860 election and launched a counterrevolution.

Even if you believe this - and it's debatable, depending on which Confederate diarists you read - it doesn't disprove or really say anything at all about the fact that the war was fought because they lost the 1860 election and launched a counterrevolution.

Wouldn't a revolution involve a forceful change of government rather than an immediate separation? Isnt the war by definition Washington imposing it's will on Richmond?

Wouldn't a revolution involve a forceful change of government rather than an immediate separation?
The civil war was nothing if not forceful.
Isnt the war by definition Washington imposing it's will on Richmond?
No, except in, say, the anarchist's context of any state organization imposing its will by force, codified by law, on all those who exist in the state. The government continued to enforce the laws in the traitor states and was met with armed resistance. It's like saying that the NYPD is imposing its will on a serial rapist who resisted arrest and was shot; yes, from the rapist's standpoint, that's true, but the rapist presumably made a choice to refuse to abide by the law, and made another choice to resist being taking into custody with armed force. If you have sympathy for the rapist, well, that's your problem.

No, except in, say, the anarchist's context of any state organization imposing its will by force, codified by law, on all those who exist in the state. The government continued to enforce the laws in the traitor states and was met with armed resistance. It's like saying that the NYPD is imposing its will on a serial rapist who resisted arrest and was shot; yes, from the rapist's standpoint, that's true, but the rapist presumably made a choice to refuse to abide by the law, and made another choice to resist being taking into custody with armed force. If you have sympathy for the rapist, well, that's your problem.

Don't you think it's a little unfair to equate the entire population of the south to rapists? They did not want to be a part of the union anymore, it just seems trivial to maintain it when a full half of the country simply wants to leave, even if its for the wrong reasons.

Don't you think it's a little unfair to equate the entire population of the south to rapists? They did not want to be a part of the union anymore, it just seems trivial to maintain it when a full half of the country simply wants to leave, even if its for the wrong reasons.
It's called an analogy. Dachs wasn't equating Southerners to rapists, he was equating the actions of Southern legislators in declaring independence to the actions of a rapist. Both are illegal, and both may be punished through the use of force under law. Not to mention the fact that it was the CSA that started the war by firing upon Federal troops in Federal territory anyway, which is so obviously a case of the CSA attempting to enforce its will on the Federal government it's not even worth discussing.

It's called an analogy. Dachs wasn't equating Southerners to rapists, he was equating the actions of Southern legislators in declaring independence to the actions of a rapist. Both are illegal, and both may be punished through the use of force under law. Not to mention the fact that it was the CSA that started the war by firing upon Federal troops in Federal territory anyway, which is so obviously a case of the CSA attempting to enforce its will on the Federal government it's not even worth discussing.

I do think it's an unfair, sensational analogy meant to agitate. There are ways to discuss this without descending into our own personal vendettas about "traitor states" and "rapists".

Back to the point, would they have fired had the Federal government let them secede peaceably though?

I do think it's an unfair, sensational analogy meant to agitate. There are ways to discuss this without descending into our own personal vendettas about "traitor states" and "rapists".

Back to the point, would they have fired had the Federal government let them secede peaceably though?
They fired before the Federal government did a damn thing to stop them from seceding. So, yeah, they would have fired even if the Federal government had stood aside and taken its hat off for them. The ACW was a case of the CSA attempting to enforce its will on the USA, not vice versa. Also, it was more a case of 'a few wealthy planters and leglislators wanting to leave,' not "half the country."

Dachs was pointing out how your claim that Washington used force to bend Richmond to its will was wrong as it was acting legally. While it technically used force againt the CSA, it was used in the same manner the NYPD would use force against a rapist; essentially, the Federal government in Washington was subduing a criminal. It just happened that this criminal was a renegade government, not an individual.

Don't you think it's a little unfair to equate the entire population of the south to rapists?
You're right. Most of them were not actually rapists, but defending their right to be rapists.

You're right. Most of them were not actually rapists, but defending their right to be rapists.
:lmao:

They fired before the Federal government did a damn thing to stop them from seceding. So, yeah, they would have fired even if the Federal government had stood aside and taken its hat off for them.

Can you give examples?

The ACW was a case of the CSA attempting to enforce its will on the USA, not vice versa. Also, it was more a case of 'a few wealthy planters and leglislators wanting to leave,' not "half the country."

How could the these states vote to secede if not for a majority decision, regardless of the fact that they were mislead by the slave-holding elite? It's still a democratic decision. (though I'll admit I am no expert on the Process of Secession)

Dachs was pointing out how your claim that Washington used force to bend Richmond to its will was wrong as it was acting legally.

How many legal secessions have their been prior to the 20th century? Why is the concept of secession considered so inherently evil by Americans, especially considering that the USA itself is a secessionist state? (not that I want to bring this into a redundant comparison to the AR) I'd say legality has very little relevance when it comes to war. You guys tend to get bogged down in technicalities when it comes to the ACW, I find.

While it technically used force againt the CSA, it was used in the same manner the NYPD would use force against a rapist; essentially, the Federal government in Washington was subduing a criminal. It just happened that this criminal was a renegade government, not an individual.

I'd say it's a stretch to compare a criminal individual to "criminal" government. The only reason the "legality" of secession is brought up is because the north won. Again, I'm not taking the side of "states rights" or other BS, I'm simply coming from the point of view that if a substantial group of people don't want to be part of a country, feel underrepresented (whether wrong or right), they should be allowed to leave and govern themselves.

edit: damn, this was my 4000th

Can you give examples?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter :mischief:

How could the these states vote to secede if not for a majority decision, regardless of the fact that they were mislead by the slave-holding elite? It's still a democratic decision. (though I'll admit I am no expert on the Process of Secession)

Did they vote? I was under the assumption that a vote was not taken for secession.


How many legal secessions have their been prior to the 20th century? Why is the concept of secession considered so inherently evil by Americans, especially considering that the USA itself is a secessionist state? (not that I want to bring this into a redundant comparison to the AR) I'd say legality has very little relevance when it comes to war. You guys tend to get bogged down in technicalities when it comes to the ACW, I find.

Probably because the US Government is bound by the Constitution to put down rebellions.


I'd say it's a stretch to compare a criminal individual to "criminal" government. The only reason the "legality" of secession is brought up is because the north won. Again, I'm not taking the side of "states rights" or other BS, I'm simply coming from the point of view that if a substantial group of people don't want to be part of a country, feel underrepresented (whether wrong or right), they should be allowed to leave and govern themselves.

Now you're misrepresenting the secession. It was a bunch of crybabies upset that they didn't win an election. Would you want parts of the country seceding every time their backed president didn't win? Furthermore, the "people" had no say in it. It wasn't whether or not it's allowed in the constitution, as the CSA didn't even attempt to figure out if it was legal, they just threw a hissy fit and left, and soon afterwards attacking Federal property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter :mischief:



Did they vote? I was under the assumption that a vote was not taken for secession.




Probably because the US Government is bound by the Constitution to put down rebellions.




Now you're misrepresenting the secession. It was a bunch of crybabies upset that they didn't win an election. Would you want parts of the country seceding every time their backed president didn't win? Furthermore, the "people" had no say in it. It wasn't whether or not it's allowed in the constitution, as the CSA didn't even attempt to figure out if it was legal, they just threw a hissy fit and left, and soon afterwards attacking Federal property.
This post is so close to what I was going to say - word for word in places - that it's kind of eerie. The only thing I was planning to do different was to be more of a smartarse. You know, my usual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter :mischief:

Guh.

I meant of the Confederates not giving the Federals a chance to peaceably negotiate secession. I thought that prior to the firing Washington had declared that southern states would not be permitted to secede, in which case the attack on Fort Sumter would be pretty sound.

Did they vote? I was under the assumption that a vote was not taken for secession.

I was under the opposite assumption. If only someone could provide an example to help illuminate my limited knowledge on the process of sucession instead of snide, useless sentences.


Probably because the US Government is bound by the Constitution to put down rebellions.

Fair enough. Kinda backs up the point of view that the North wouldve never allowed a peaceful secession.

Now you're misrepresenting the secession. It was a bunch of crybabies upset that they didn't win an election. Would you want parts of the country seceding every time their backed president didn't win?

Understandable, but I feel like the ideological and cultural divide was a lot wider than a simple disagreement. Its not like were talking tea party vs obama supporters here, I mean, slavery was involved.

There were no official statements declaring the secession illegal or promising to put it down by force before the unprovoked assault on Fort Sumter. I believe Lincoln may have stated that he would under no circumstances relinquish Federal territories which were now enclaves in the CSA.

There most definitely was NOT a vote in the Southern states regarding secession. It was pushed through by the upper classes without even the illusion of democratic process. In fact, the CSA enforced its will upon several areas, notably the present West Virginia, which disagreed with the secession.

The US Constitution - which those Southern States signed and helped draft - also bans the very act of secession. Which kind of backs up the point of view that the CSA was an illegal entity which the Federal government had every right to crush by force after it illegally and undemocratically seceded from the legitimate, democratically-elected government in Washington.

The cultural and ideological divide wasn't too large for slave-holding states like Maryland to remain within the Union by choice. It was a political move by Southern legislators and planters who hated the fact that they no longer held the balance of power in the US since the election of a Republican. An incredibly foolish one at that, seeing as how it was mostly done out of spite in a completely illogical, ill-planned move.

Well, to be fair, the secessionist conventions did have the illusion of democratic process; representatives from all around given states - both poor and slaveholding regions - voted on secession "ordinances". The problem is that most representatives who initially balloted against fire-eating ended up being targeted by propaganda campaigns and in some cases outright coercion. Not to mention the previously-noted examples of West Virginia, East Tennessee, parts of North Alabama, and western North Carolina, where unionist sentiment was squashed directly by armed force in contravention of the so-called spirit of self-determination. If you're looking for an example of people who just wanted to be left alone, Communisto, the CSA isn't it.

Thanks for illuminating the issue for me a little. It's clear I've got some research to do. The ACW was always one of those periods I've always been very interested in but haven't been able to find many decent works on the subject up here, considering I usually pick up books as I browse instead of hunting them down on the net.

Like I said, McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom is basically the gold standard for modern ACW works. It won the Pulitzer Prize for a reason. :p I probably sound like a broken record recommending that book everywhere, but it's truly a transcendent work. Plus, it's available in paperback. :D

Word. I'll definitely be picking it up on my next book raid.

Word. I'll definitely be picking it up on my next book raid.
Entirely off-topic, but I just got the sudden image then of you running into a library to literally raid it for books, all the while crouching in the ridiculous position your avatar is in. :lol:

Funny, there are several photos taken from surveillance footage posted on a cork-board at the Toronto Public Library showing just that.

Funny, there are several photos taken from surveillance footage posted on a cork-board at the Toronto Public Library showing just that.
:lol: :goodjob:

Another book to look at is The Road to Disunion, Vol. 1: Secessionists at Bay, 1776-1854 which traces the history of Southern histrionics over slavery to way back before the chatter supporting King Cotton dominance became quite so neurotic. I haven't read Volume 2 yet, which carries the story out to 1861. But I think I can pretty much guess how the story turns out.

One more thing to consider in the equation over secession is the fact that by fighting the Secesh, the Union was also trying to hold onto the cotton kingdom, which accounted for the vast majority of US exports in the 1800s.

Like I said, McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom is basically the gold standard for modern ACW works. It won the Pulitzer Prize for a reason. :p I probably sound like a broken record recommending that book everywhere, but it's truly a transcendent work. Plus, it's available in paperback. :D

Yes, an excellent work. Turtledove should write Paperbacks of the South (Lee holding McPherson on the cover), where The CSA wins battles after reading about it in a Civil War history sent back in time by George Wallace. It worked in Back to The Future II!

One more thing to consider in the equation over secession is the fact that by fighting the Secesh, the Union was also trying to hold onto the cotton kingdom, which accounted for the vast majority of US exports in the 1800s.
Doesn't make sense in context. In the early 1860s, Corn was King.