Confederate/Nazi Alliance

[robertp6165]

Meh, in the south as well. I'll also point out that it was the south, not the north, who sent out filibustering expeditions.

All true. Nobody had clean hands.

Subsidizing railroads! You mean promoting the industrialization of America and improving the domestic market? By god, I'd go to war to prevent that too.

It was not the idea of promoting industrialization and improving the domestic market they opposed. If individual Northern States wanted to subsidize their railroads and other businesses, more power to them. What the South objected to was having the Northern States, through the agency of the federal government, pick the pockets of the Southern States for the purpose of subsidizing railroad and other development in the North. Lincoln and other Northern mercantilists looked at the South as a cash cow, to be squeezed for money to spend on their constituents in the North. The South did not feel like being used that way.

I suspect the fact that the south had seceded and the fact that the US was in a war in 1861 helped.

Actually, the Morrill Tariff was passed on March 2, 1861...before the war started. But certainly the absence of Southern representatives in Congress facilitated the passage of the act. By then, of course, the South was an independent nation, so it didn't matter to them.

No, I knew that. Most history books do nothing of the kind, because publishers know that saying your ancestors were evil doesn't make them sell.

Oh, really? Give me one citation of a major work of history generally available on the marketplace which mentions that Stephens talked about anything but slavery in the speech...I have yet to find one. The only reason I know about it is because I took the time and effort to locate the original text of the speech.

 

[Brilliantlight]

That sir, is an opinion, not a fact. It is true that, in the final months of the war, Jefferson Davis even offered to emancipate the slaves if Britain and France would recognize the Confederacy and intervene on it's behalf.

Because by that time the war was lost and Davis was worried that after the war he would be found guilty of treason and sentenced to hang by his neck until dead!

 

[Trotsky]

Has anybody ever read this?

Common cliches in C.S.A. alt-history

 

[Brilliantlight]

But what the Confederates did in their Constitution...when they fully expected they would not even have to fight a war, and they fully expected to win any war they did have to fight...certainly was not done for the reasons you cite.

Not all Southerners were THAT stupid and realized that war might actually come and they had to cover that possiblity.

 

[Brilliantlight]

Has anybody ever read this?

Common cliches in C.S.A. alt-history

Yes and I agree with a lot of it. If the South won the slaves wouldn't have been freed until AT LEAST 1900 and may have survived as late as 1920 or 1930.

 

[KJM]

Here's something that hasn't been brought up (at least in this thread). Isn't there a good chance that a Confederate victory in the Civil War would butterfly the Nazis away?

 

[robertp6165]

Because by that time the war was lost and Davis was worried that after the war he would be found guilty of treason and sentenced to hang by his neck until dead!

Not true. When Davis was captured, he practically begged to be tried for treason, because he was very sure he would win. He knew he commited no such crime. And the reason he wasn't tried is because the federal government, however reluctantly, came to the same conclusion.

 

[robertp6165]

Not all Southerners were THAT stupid and realized that war might actually come and they had to cover that possiblity.

Once again, an opinion based on...what? Certainly not the records left by the convention which drew up the Confederate Constitution.

 

[Brilliantlight]

Once again, an opinion based on...what? Certainly not the records left by the convention which drew up the Confederate Constitution.

OK, they were all morons who hadn't even thought there might be war. They were totally ignorant about history.

 

[Brilliantlight]

Not true. When Davis was captured, he practically begged to be tried for treason, because he was very sure he would win. He knew he commited no such crime. And the reason he wasn't tried is because the federal government, however reluctantly, came to the same conclusion.

If they tried Davis for treason it would have been in a court martial and I would damn well bet he would have lost and been hanged.

 

[NapoleonXIV]

Germany didn't have slaves, but other than that, I won't argue the point, except to say that they all freed the slaves when it became economically convenient for them to do so. The South simply wanted the same right.



.

And when would that have been? Had the South been permitted to go in peace, or won the war, when and what would have changed to make slavery economically "inconvenient"? Or to turn the question around Why did Slavery work in the South any better than it did in the North? The fact that one sort of labor is in factories and the other agricultural seems to me irrelevant. Factory labor, at that time, was already fairly well split into a series of jobs requiring little talent and often done by children. Agricultural work, particularly the harvesting of commercial crops, requires more than a modicum of thought to be done efficiently. The upshot is that the skill level of both Southern field hands and Northern factory workers was probably very similar if not the same and, that being so, 'wage slavery' should have supplanted real slavery long since by 1860. Why didn't it??

 

[robertp6165]

If they tried Davis for treason it would have been in a court martial and I would damn well bet he would have lost and been hanged.

Well, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase didn't agree with you. He thought Davis would be acquitted, and advised the government not to pursue the case. And Davis was a civilian, who would not have been subject to trial by military tribunal.

 

[robertp6165]

And when would that have been? Had the South been permitted to go in peace, or won the war, when and what would have changed to make slavery economically "inconvenient"?

By the end of the 19th century several factors would have strongly argued in favor of the abandonment of slavery. Intensive cotton cultivation (and cultivation of tobacco, rice, sugar, and other such cash crops) depletes the soil over time. The Confederacy, by seceding, cut themselves off from access to the Western Territories, so they couldn't solve that problem the way it had been traditionally solved...by expanding westward to areas with good soil. Cotton crops would have gotten smaller and smaller, making slavery less and less profitable. The arrival of the boll weevil, which devastated Southern cotton crops, would have also made slavery less profitable. Finally, the arrival of mechanization at the end of the 19th Century would likely have dealt a coup de grace to the institution.

Or to turn the question around Why did Slavery work in the South any better than it did in the North? The fact that one sort of labor is in factories and the other agricultural seems to me irrelevant. Factory labor, at that time, was already fairly well split into a series of jobs requiring little talent and often done by children. Agricultural work, particularly the harvesting of commercial crops, requires more than a modicum of thought to be done efficiently. The upshot is that the skill level of both Southern field hands and Northern factory workers was probably very similar if not the same and, that being so, 'wage slavery' should have supplanted real slavery long since by 1860. Why didn't it??

Slavery is always going to be more suitable for agriculture than it is for industry. It's not really a question of the relative skill of the workers involved. It is an economic issue relating to the cost of labor. The advantage that the Southern plantation owner had over his counterpart, the Northern factory owner, was that the plantation was basically self-sufficient. Plantations not only grew cotton and other cash crops...they grew and raised their own food and livestock, which was used to feed the slaves, and the slaves lived in houses on the plantation itself. A Northern factory owner had to pay wages so his workers could buy their own food and shelter. A Southern plantation owner didn't have to do that. Now the downside is that the Southern plantation owner has to continue to feed, clothe, and house his slaves even when they are too young and too old to work. A Northern factory owner can just say, hasta la vista, baby, and fire them...who cares if the worker and his family starves? He's no longer productive. But plantation owners made the calculation that, overall, their economic costs of labor were lower because they produced on their own plantations the items necessary to support the "non-productive" workers, rather than laying down actual cash money for them.

But that only works while the production of the slaves remains profitable. There are some inevitable expenses that have to be paid for with cash...seed, tools, taxes, clothing (which most plantations did not produce themselves), and so on. Once the inevitable plummet in profitability of large-scale cotton production in the South happens toward the end of the 19th century, and labor saving devices become available, slavery is going to go the way of the dinosaur.

 

[Brilliantlight]

Well, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase didn't agree with you. He thought Davis would be acquitted, and advised the government not to pursue the case. And Davis was a civilian, who would not have been subject to trial by military tribunal.

Davis was the commander in chief of Confederate forces which is a MILITARY title. Davis was guilty of levying war against the United states and giving them aid and comfort to the enemy. There were a hell of a lot more then two witnesses that he done so. That is treason by the definition in the US Constitution.

 

[Brilliantlight]

By the end of the 19th century several factors would have strongly argued in favor of the abandonment of slavery. Intensive cotton cultivation (and cultivation of tobacco, rice, sugar, and other such cash crops) depletes the soil over time. The Confederacy, by seceding, cut themselves off from access to the Western Territories, so they couldn't solve that problem the way it had been traditionally solved...by expanding westward to areas with good soil. Cotton crops would have gotten smaller and smaller, making slavery less and less profitable. The arrival of the boll weevil, which devastated Southern cotton crops, would have also made slavery less profitable. Finally, the arrival of mechanization at the end of the 19th Century would likely have dealt a coup de grace to the institution.



Slavery is always going to be more suitable for agriculture than it is for industry. It's not really a question of the relative skill of the workers involved. It is an economic issue relating to the cost of labor. The advantage that the Southern plantation owner had over his counterpart, the Northern factory owner, was that the plantation was basically self-sufficient. Plantations not only grew cotton and other cash crops...they grew and raised their own food and livestock, which was used to feed the slaves, and the slaves lived in houses on the plantation itself. A Northern factory owner had to pay wages so his workers could buy their own food and shelter. A Southern plantation owner didn't have to do that. Now the downside is that the Southern plantation owner has to continue to feed, clothe, and house his slaves even when they are too young and too old to work. A Northern factory owner can just say, hasta la vista, baby, and fire them...who cares if the worker and his family starves? He's no longer productive. But plantation owners made the calculation that, overall, their economic costs of labor were lower because they produced on their own plantations the items necessary to support the "non-productive" workers, rather than laying down actual cash money for them.

But that only works while the production of the slaves remains profitable. There are some inevitable expenses that have to be paid for with cash...seed, tools, taxes, clothing (which most plantations did not produce themselves), and so on. Once the inevitable plummet in profitability of large-scale cotton production in the South happens toward the end of the 19th century, and labor saving devices become available, slavery is going to go the way of the dinosaur.

Except that since the South would have won a war to PROTECT SLAVERY it would have been politically impossible to do so before 1900 at the very earliest, more likely 1920 or so. It would have been admiting that the Yankees were right.

 

[robertp6165]

Davis was the commander in chief of Confederate forces which is a MILITARY title. Davis was guilty of levying war against the United states and giving them aid and comfort to the enemy. There were a hell of a lot more then two witnesses that he done so. That is treason by the definition in the US Constitution.

Well, it's your opinion against Salmon P. Chase. I think I will go with the Chief Justice.

 

[robertp6165]

Except that since the South would have won a war to PROTECT SLAVERY it would have been politically impossible to do so before 1900 at the very earliest, more likely 1920 or so. It would have been admiting that the Yankees were right.

People can change their opinions quicker than you give them credit for. We fought the Germans and Japanese in World War II, and by the late 1950s they were both considered staunch allies. And, once removed from a situation where they are constantly exposed to carping Yankee abolitionists, they can begin to examine slavery rationally without feeling like they are under siege.

 

[Brilliantlight]

Well, it's your opinion against Salmon P. Chase. I think I will go with the Chief Justice.

The main reason Chase thought the government wouldn't win is that it would have to take place in Virginia. Also Lincoln was in favor of putting the Civil War behind him by giving the South fairly easy treatment before his death. Ironically although the South fought a war about losing an election to Lincoln, few Southerners wanted Lincoln dead at the time he was shot. By the time the case would have been up for trial the country was in a mood to put the past behind them and that is why the South got away with little more then a slap on the wrist. Also Lee helped by advocating Southerners to also put the past behind them. Partly because of that Lee wasn't tried for treason either even though he was even more guilty of treason then Davis.

 

[Brilliantlight]

People can change their opinions quicker than you give them credit for. We fought the Germans and Japanese in World War II, and by the late 1950s they were both considered staunch allies. And, once removed from a situation where they are constantly exposed to carping Yankee abolitionists, they can begin to examine slavery rationally without feeling like they are under siege.

Unless there is some kind of major rivalry with another country outside the US it doesn't really apply. The US considered strong allies by the late 1950s largely due to the fact that they hated the Russians. Also the US was reassured by the fact that the US government basically wrote both the German and Japanese consitutions. This assuming that neither the US or the CSA would break into a large number of hostile countries shortly after the Civil War making Middle Ages Europe look like a haven of peace.

 

[ConfederateFly]

WI would happen if the C.S.A. and Nazis were defeated would the C.S.A. support Communist nations like China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Angola, Cuba, Iraq, or other nations like South Africa, Argentina, and Ethopia?