amphibulous
Banned
The reference to mint juleps in the last part of the sentence is supposed to subtly hint that it is humorous exaggeration. (The "subtly" is ironic.)
Did the Confederate States Really Have a Chance?
- Thread starter Emperor Norton I
- Start date
The reference to mint juleps in the last part of the sentence is supposed to subtly hint that it is humorous exaggeration. (The "subtly" is ironic.)
It's hard to tell the difference between "exaggerating for humor" and "just plain exaggerating" without body language, tone, or even context.
And the entire last paragraph in any case is a gigantic strawman of Anaxagoras.
Anaxagoras
Banned
Perhaps so, but I would argue instead that it's a self-reinforcing cycle in which the two causes go hand-in-hand. Inflation weakens the Confederate economy, which makes life harder (and eventually all but intolerable) for people on the home front. This, in turn, weakens military morale and increases desertion, which in turn weakens the rebel armies, which in turns leads to more military setbacks, which in turn leads to more and more inflation. . . and eventually Union troops march into Richmond.
So, if you can hold back either of the causes (economic inflation AND military setbacks) through better financial management or more military victories, you improve the Confederate situation in both regards.
Thank you both.
This is like gaming the system to make unmentionable sea mammal possible.
In the real world, butterflying away either economic inflation and more military victories for the Confederacy = Whistling Dixie (mint julips optional).
Again, we see the Western armies generally doing worse despite facing the same issues as the Eastern armies do here.
But I think we can agree that inflation definitely did nothing good for the Confederacy's ability to keep things going smoothly, and things not going smoothly did undermine both civilian and military fronts (and that undermining the former weakened the latter).
It would probably be very much to the good if the CSA isn't confiscating crops and other things, which presumably a sounder currency would help with.
But that's not something I'm entirely certain on, thus the uncertain language as opposed to (correct me if I'm wrong) you presenting that as definite.
Welcome.
Anaxagoras
Banned
Definite in that I am certain inflation played a key role in the defeat of the Confederacy and that better financial management would have made a Confederate victory much more likely. The American Civil War was decided on the bond market as well as the battlefield.
Anaxagoras
Banned
In the real world, butterflying away either economic inflation and more military victories for the Confederacy = Whistling Dixie (mint julips optional).
It's called alternate history for a reason, buddy.
There's a difference between plausible AH and scenarios that fall short of the mark. It shows in most of the better TLs on this site.
Anaxagoras
Banned
Well, I don't think i'm being all that outlandish when I say that if the Confederacy had managed its finances better and therefore kept inflation lower than IOTL, it would have had a better chance at winning the war. To me, this is common sense.
Frankly, those relate to structural issues that had their roots long before the Civil war began. IMO, any real credible attempt to generate a TL which either prolongs the War or grants the C.S.A. existence after the War recognizes that the North was in control of its own destiny, long term, so far as the ACW went.
Either that or conceive of a South that developed in a very different way than OTL with a POD that might need to go back before the ARW.
Flubber
Banned
You're not being outlandish. It's just that you and the others seem to be talking past each other.
You're suggesting, not outlandishly, that a CSA with better finances would have a better chance of winning the war because it could purchase more supplies, arms, and foreign support. That's true, but we need to remember that a better chance is not necessarily a good chance.
The others are taking exception to your suggestions because they either believe that "better" means "good" or believe that you believe "better" means "good".
For those interested in the issue of cotton bonds, let suggest Bulloch's The Secret Service of the Confederate States in Europe". James Bulloch, one of Teddy Roosevelt's maternal uncles, attended Annapolis, served in the USN, and became a merchant captain in 1853. He volunteered his services to the rebels after Sumter and was posted to Britain for the rest of the war where he arranged the purchase of provisions and warships for the rebels commerce raiding efforts. After the war, he remained in his "traitor's exile" in the UK until his death.
Anyway, a large portion of his book deals with the various financial shenanigans Bullocch and other agents undertook as they tried to get as much bang for the rebel's dwindling buck.
Bold underline on why I'm disagreeing with him. I think Anaxagoras is placing too high an importance on inflation killing the Confederacy and on the ability of his suggested changes to make an impact.
Would it be different? Sure. But if I had to choose between "ship cotton to Britain in 1861" and "neither support Bragg enough for him to straighten out the AoT or remove Bragg for the sake of the AoT" in terms of which is going to matter more,I 'm going to vote for the latter.
Flubber
Banned
Yes, that's why I mentioned the possibility that Anaxagoras might believe "better" means "good".
Actually, I agree with you. More money available in Europe for Bulloch and others doesn't necessarily equate more arms in Tennessee for the AoT or the ability to use those arms successfully.
Yeah. It's not entirely clear how much better he has in mind or what he thinks they were to begin with.
Precisely.
The CSA being what it was, Bulloch and others succeeding beyond all dreams still leaves several problems before those arms are in a position to matter.