Money.
Ships.
Money it doesn't have and ships it doesn't have either.
Which we all know was enough to win them the war. And it's totally not like a bunch of matériel had been diverted to the South pre-Sumter by a treacherous Secretary of War, or a bunch of stuff had been ransacked from Federal armories upon secession.They had a sufficient amount of both to bring in tens of thousands of rifles from Europe, not to mention vast amounts of saltpeter, artillery, and other sorts of supplies.
They had a sufficient amount of both to bring in tens of thousands of rifles from Europe, not to mention vast amounts of saltpeter, artillery, and other sorts of supplies.
They had a sufficient amount of both to bring in tens of thousands of rifles from Europe, not to mention vast amounts of saltpeter, artillery, and other sorts of supplies.
Two things.President Douglas then dies in 1861, leaving former Georgia Governor Herschel Johnson as PotUS; with the national rift over Slavery intensifying, Johnson winds up provoking the Civil War with a northern secession--and this is then defeated.
But not much in the way of either was available to the Confederate government at the start.
Perhaps, but the blockade was virtually nonexistent at that time as well. And any cotton they would have been able to get to England would have been helpful. Certainly, it would have been a much better policy than the self-imposed cotton embargo they implemented IOTL.
1 being infinitely higher than nothing doesn't mean that it would be enough to matter.
The main thing that I think is an issue - let's say they get (just for figurings sake) a hundred thousand bales of cotton.
They need rifles and saltpeter and so on now, not a "hopefully the market won't be glutted" reserve.
It's not about using the cotton to purchase arms directly so much as using the cotton to back up Confederate government bonds.
And inflation did less to kill the Confederacy than losing battles. No amount of good credit is going to make up for not being able to raise armies and find generals capable of holding the Mississippi and Tennessee.
On the contrary, having good credit is critical if you want to raise armies. Not to mention arming and equipping them, and maintaining morale on the home front.
Two things.
First, Stephen Douglas died of typhoid fever which he caught while campaigning for the War Effort and Mr. Lincoln in the border states. In any scenario where he is elected president, this most likely is not the case.'
Second, why would the North seceded when the Republicans stand a solid chance of sweeping the 1864 elections, especially since Douglas' popular sovereignty is going to flop and do nothing but continue bleeding the West.
Hmm...
If Douglas lives the idea of the North Seceding makes no sense, I agree. I was thinking that Douglas' VP (a Southron Governor) becomes President--and decides to openly slavery in spite of what the North wants, though this is a stretch.
If the South gets the Presidency in 1860, and opts to push a radical pro-slavery package because they no longer care about what anyone else wants, wouldn't the North consider secession?
No amount of credit is going to save New Orleans, for instance.
Getting foreign recognition is the easiest way for the South to win
Of course not. But that's not the point I am trying to make. The point I am trying to make is that if the Confederacy had adopted Judah Benjamin's proposal to build up a large supply of cotton in England at the outset of the war it would have greatly aided the Confederacy's overall financial situation and that this would have made a Confederate victory more likely than it was IOTL.
Are you suggesting that the runaway inflation which the Confederacy experienced IOTL had no impact on the course of the war? Because that's pretty absurd, if you ask me.
Are you suggesting that the runaway inflation which the Confederacy experienced IOTL had no impact on the course of the war? Because that's pretty absurd, if you ask me.