Getting desperate for a plausible CSA victory scenario

[robcraufurd]

Union bans wheat exports to Europe until Europe stops buying cotton from CSA.

Actually, some form of updated Embargo Act as a protest against British and French "support" for the Confederacy would be quite a good step. It would infuriate Europe and bankrupt a lot of farmers and merchants dependent on exports, which would increase domestic discontent prior to the 1864 election. It's certainly a step I can see Seward taking, under the right set of circumstances.

Would the rest of the Republican Party nomenklatura have accepted to go down without a fight?

Some of them won't, but if Lincoln as commander-in-chief orders the army to suspend hostilities there's not an awful lot they can do about it. Other than having him assassinated and replaced, of course, but I doubt they'd go that far. By this stage I doubt Lincoln has any further political aspirations, so the worst they can threaten him with is boycotting his law firm.

 

[NamelesStatistic]

By the way for all those people saying Britain wont have the shipping to be able to blockade the Union coast, i would like to point out that just 50 years prior in the War of 1812, they blockaded the entire US coast while also blockading France, operating a large fleet in the Mediterranean, as well as fleets in the Baltic Sea and the Far East. For an overview of the British Blockade and the counterattacks by Privateers i recommend this short video by PBS (clip at bottom of the page).

http://www.pbs.org/wned/war-of-1812/essays/british-perspective/

Obviously the Union Navy is a lot stronger in 1862 then 1812, but it still isn't anywhere near the size of the RN and unlike in 1812 the RN isn't simultaneously involved in a global naval conflict with the second largest Navy in the world (France), which meant that they could only devote a mere 7% of their Naval force to the American theater. Add to that the fact that the Union coast is only a fraction the size of the total American coast blockaded in 1812 and you have a situation where the UK will be able to bring an overwhelming concentration of naval force the US coast and have the reserve shipping to sustain a long term blockade pretty easily. Add to that the French, still the second most powerful Navy will be aiding in the blockade, and you can see just how much trouble the Union is in at sea.

 

[alexcoppo]

Recently, reasoning about TFSmith121 timeline, I realized that Britain does not need to military blockade the US.

I found here some very interesting data to support my idea.

Once the shit has hit the fan, all British Empire cease to trade with the US and accept their ships in their harbours. The same for the French Empire. Spain, Portugal and italian states are discretely "advised" by the british to "restrain" commerce with the US. This leaves the Union with a 50% loss of the potential business, without a single british ship leaving harbour.

 

[Johnrankins]

Recently, reasoning about TFSmith121 timeline, I realized that Britain does not need to military blockade the US.

I found here some very interesting data to support my idea.

Once the shit has hit the fan, all British Empire cease to trade with the US and accept their ships in their harbours. The same for the French Empire. Spain, Portugal and italian states are discretely "advised" by the british to "restrain" commerce with the US. This leaves the Union with a 50% loss of the potential business, without a single british ship leaving harbour.

The problem is that the UK is heavily invested in the US by this time, mostly in the north. With those kinds of actions the US is likely to start seizing British property or at least freezing the assets . It may well suspend debt payments to the UK until such trade is resumed. After all it is a clearly hostile act. In any case the London exchange would almost instantly crash. Even in 1860 the US isn't Zanzibar. Also if British trade was profitable for the US it was also profitable for the British. Do you think that British merchants would be thrilled with the idea of losing a good portion of its customer base?

 

[Saphroneth]

The problem is that the UK is heavily invested in the US by this time, mostly in the north. With those kinds of actions the US is likely to start seizing British property or at least freezing the assets . It may well suspend debt payments to the UK until such trade is resumed. After all it is a clearly hostile act. In any case the London exchange would almost instantly crash. Even in 1860 the US isn't Zanzibar.

I don't think anyone's arguing the US would simply collapse.
The arguments being made are simply, I think, that there are many ways that a hostile Britain can cause pain to the Union.
They can do it by a close blockade, by a distant blockade, by simply refusing trade - each of these three things affects US trade and their monetary balance. All three would not be effective together as the sum of their parts because there's overlap, but it all means that put together the British can largely neuter US trade.
The British would of course suffer from retaliatory measures. But it's hardly going to make the job of the US easier in defeating their southern doppelganger, and that's the requirement for the thread - find a way to stack enough trouble on the US that it either loses the capacity or the will (probably the will) to prosecute the war to a conclusion.

 

[robcraufurd]

Once the shit has hit the fan, all British Empire cease to trade with the US and accept their ships in their harbours. The same for the French Empire. Spain, Portugal and italian states are discretely "advised" by the british to "restrain" commerce with the US. This leaves the Union with a 50% loss of the potential business, without a single british ship leaving harbour.

Unfortunately, this isn't really how it works. Since the early 19th century, the British have been increasingly convinced that free trade is a positive good in itself and concerned to restrict the role of government in impeding it. The hope is that if all nations are able to trade freely with one another that war will become pointless. This commitment is an extremely tenacious one- in 1906 the Liberals win an overwhelming landslide at the election in support of free trade, despite the fact that all major industrialised nations are enforcing prohibitive protective tariffs (which is part of the reason your article almost made my monocle drop out, until I read it properly). As such, the likelihood of them imposing an embargo like the one you describe is pretty remote. The blockade, affecting primarily military goods to choke off the Union's ability to make war, would be both morally acceptable and equally efficacious.

EDIT: Frank Trentmann's Free Trade Nation is really good for the extent to which the doctrine was a secular religion, as well as the ground campaign of the 1906 election, if that kind of thing floats the boat of any lurkers.

 

[Saphroneth]

Unfortunately, this isn't really how it works. Since the early 19th century, the British have been increasingly convinced that free trade is a positive good in itself and concerned to restrict the role of government in impeding it. The hope is that if all nations are able to trade freely with one another that war will become pointless. This commitment is an extremely tenacious one- in 1906 the Liberals win an overwhelming landslide at the election in support of free trade, despite the fact that all major industrialised nations are enforcing prohibitive protective tariffs (which is part of the reason your article almost made my monocle drop out, until I read it properly). As such, the likelihood of them imposing an embargo like the one you describe is pretty remote. The blockade, affecting primarily military goods to choke off the Union's ability to make war, would be both morally acceptable and equally efficacious.

...I forgot about the free trade thing (if I knew in the first place). Thanks.

 

[Johnrankins]

I don't think anyone's arguing the US would simply collapse.
The arguments being made are simply, I think, that there are many ways that a hostile Britain can cause pain to the Union.
They can do it by a close blockade, by a distant blockade, by simply refusing trade - each of these three things affects US trade and their monetary balance. All three would not be effective together as the sum of their parts because there's overlap, but it all means that put together the British can largely neuter US trade.
The British would of course suffer from retaliatory measures. But it's hardly going to make the job of the US easier in defeating their southern doppelganger, and that's the requirement for the thread - find a way to stack enough trouble on the US that it either loses the capacity or the will (probably the will) to prosecute the war to a conclusion.

The problem there is that foreign trade was a small percentage of US GDP at the time. IIRC about 8% while GB was far more dependent on it. Just cutting off trade may well just strengthen the will of the US at it would be very unhappy of outsiders interfering in its affairs, while trade is, again, a small percentage of its GDP. If it does work GB should expect payback in the next European war.

 

[King of the Uzbeks]

Better luck by the Confederates in 1863-34, have Lee stomp around in Pennsylvania instead of Gettysburg then fall back, or something that makes the Union war weary. Hold out Vicksburg longer. Have Grant stall sooner have Sherman stall before Atlanta. Basically get a Democrat in the White House in March of 1865. If you keep McCellen you can have him bungle a bit before the Peace Democrats hijack his Presidency, but if you have a bad enough 1863 you could have a Peace Democrat heading the Ticket.

 

[Saphroneth]

The problem there is that foreign trade was a small percentage of US GDP at the time. IIRC about 8% while GB was far more dependent on it. Just cutting off trade may well just strengthen the will of the US at it would be very unhappy of outsiders interfering in its affairs, while trade is, again, a small percentage of its GDP. If it does work GB should expect payback in the next European war.

It may be a small percentage of GDP, but those percentages and especially the imports are - I'd guess - mostly quite important.
For example, machine tools and parts for things like steam engines. Or nitrates.
(After all, the CSA did commerce raiding and the USA did a blockade, and both are generally viewed as quite important to the OTL ACW.)

In any case, that doesn't matter to the thread beyond the damage it does to the USA. The objective is a victorious CSA, not a Britain which is better off.

 

[Johnrankins]

It may be a small percentage of GDP, but those percentages and especially the imports are - I'd guess - mostly quite important.
For example, machine tools and parts for things like steam engines. Or nitrates.
(After all, the CSA did commerce raiding and the USA did a blockade, and both are generally viewed as quite important to the OTL ACW.)

In any case, that doesn't matter to the thread beyond the damage it does to the USA. The objective is a victorious CSA, not a Britain which is better off.

The US was perfectly capable of making steam engines. It made its own railroad engines during the ACW along with steamships. Nitrates are not exactly rare and the US was perfectly capable of making it. Even in 1860 the US was larger than all Europe.

 

[Saphroneth]

The US was perfectly capable of making steam engines. It made its own railroad engines during the ACW along with steamships. Nitrates are not exactly rare and the US was perfectly capable of making it. Even in 1860 the US was larger than all Europe.

If it has to fall back on domestic production it is harmed by this. In both cases, but especially nitrates - OTL most of the Union's nitrate supply was purchased from abroad. If it has to rely on domestic production:

1) It will take many months for them to start producing. Most of the better sources were in the CSA, and the climate's warmer there to.
2) It will be required to curtail operations until it has enough nitrates to support them.
3) That nitrate is instead available to the CSA, thus making their own shortages much less acute.

This is not a case of finding a silver bullet.
It's more like the German oil situation in WW2 - the Germans had domestic oil production and were still able to keep war machines running right up until the end of the war, but they had to prioritize more ruthlessly to make use of their relatively small local production.

All these things that make things harder for the USA do not make it impossible for it to win. They just shift the odds, make it costlier to win the war and so on.
And if enough of them stack up, then a CSA victory becomes possible.

 

[robcraufurd]

The problem there is that foreign trade was a small percentage of US GDP at the time. IIRC about 8% while GB was far more dependent on it.

But you need to take into account patterns of trade. American imports from Great Britain accounted for 37% of the value of total imports in the year ending 30 June 1859, while exports to Britain amounted to 49% of total exports. In Britain, for the year ending 31 December 1859, imports from the US amounted to 19% of the value of total imports and exports to the US were 17% of total exports. So if Britain is far more dependent on foreign trade overall, but the US is more dependent on British trade, then under most circumstances the US gets hit worst by the interruption of trade between the two countries. And when you consider that customs duties contributed 56% of US Government revenue for the year to 30 June 1859 and 37% of British government revenue for the year to 31 March 1859, then the US gets hit even worse.

Of course, avoiding these sort of tit-for-tat spats was exactly why the British were pushing for freer trade in the first place. They also got extremely upset with the US imposition of the Morrill tariff, which looked like payback despite the UK not doing anything.

The US was perfectly capable of making steam engines. It made its own railroad engines during the ACW along with steamships.

It's also perfectly capable of making guns, as the UK was in 1914. That doesn't mean the UK wouldn't be harmed by a drop in trade with the US in 1914, and it doesn't mean the Union wouldn't be harmed by a drop in trade with the UK in 1861.

 

[Johnrankins]

But you need to take into account patterns of trade. American imports from Great Britain accounted for 37% of the value of total imports in the year ending 30 June 1859, while exports to Britain amounted to 49% of total exports. In Britain, for the year ending 31 December 1859, imports from the US amounted to 19% of the value of total imports and exports to the US were 17% of total exports. So if Britain is far more dependent on foreign trade overall, but the US is more dependent on British trade, then under most circumstances the US gets hit worst by the interruption of trade between the two countries. And when you consider that customs duties contributed 56% of US Government revenue for the year to 30 June 1859 and 37% of British government revenue for the year to 31 March 1859, then the US gets hit even worse.

Of course, avoiding these sort of tit-for-tat spats was exactly why the British were pushing for freer trade in the first place. They also got extremely upset with the US imposition of the Morrill tariff, which looked like payback despite the UK not doing anything.


It's also perfectly capable of making guns, as the UK was in 1914. That doesn't mean the UK wouldn't be harmed by a drop in trade with the US in 1914, and it doesn't mean the Union wouldn't be harmed by a drop in trade with the UK in 1861.

The point is neither would knockout blows or even close to it. The US would simply step up steam engine production. Would it cost money? Yes. Would it take some time? Yes However, it would be offset at least in part, by an increased amount of stubbornness due to outside interference.

Taxes would have to be shifted around a bit but if you are counting on a cutoff of trade doing much you need a far more trade dependent US.

 

[Johnrankins]

If it has to fall back on domestic production it is harmed by this. In both cases, but especially nitrates - OTL most of the Union's nitrate supply was purchased from abroad. If it has to rely on domestic production:

1) It will take many months for them to start producing. Most of the better sources were in the CSA, and the climate's warmer there to.
2) It will be required to curtail operations until it has enough nitrates to support them.
3) That nitrate is instead available to the CSA, thus making their own shortages much less acute.

This is not a case of finding a silver bullet.
It's more like the German oil situation in WW2 - the Germans had domestic oil production and were still able to keep war machines running right up until the end of the war, but they had to prioritize more ruthlessly to make use of their relatively small local production.

All these things that make things harder for the USA do not make it impossible for it to win. They just shift the odds, make it costlier to win the war and so on.
And if enough of them stack up, then a CSA victory becomes possible.

Of course it would take months. So what? Is the CSA going somewhere? Nitrates aren't gold or platinum. It is pretty common stuff. GB was merely a cheaper source.

In fact any future setbacks can then be blamed on the interfering Brits. The problem is that is more likely to make people more stubborn as outsiders are interfering in their affairs.

 

[robcraufurd]

The point is neither would knockout blows or even close to it.

Taxes would have to be shifted around a bit but if you are counting on a cutoff of trade doing much you need a far more trade dependent US.

Considering that the threat of war over the Trent affair (not an actual war, just the threat) caused a bank run that ended specie payments in c.20 states and left the government unable to pay its soldiers, I'm not sure the US needs to be that much more dependent on trade for it to be a knockout blow. It's kind of odd that the Union advocates insist on the inexorable force of economic realities when it comes to the Confederacy, and then fall back on Union stubbornness when the same logic is applied in a very tentative way to the North.

 

[Saphroneth]

Of course it would take months. So what? Is the CSA going somewhere? Nitrates aren't gold or platinum. It is pretty common stuff. GB was merely a cheaper source.

In fact any future setbacks can then be blamed on the interfering Brits. The problem is that is more likely to make people more stubborn as outsiders are interfering in their affairs.

Sorry, are you saying that the Union would prosecute any war no matter how hard it was? That no consequence on Earth would possibly result in the Union giving up, or even agreeing to negotiate?
If the economy was in the toilet to the same extent as OTL War of 1812, say?



Anyway - Nitrates.
They're not gold or platinum, no. They're more like oil, or iron ore - they can be sourced from many places but at this time OTL the British could outproduce anyone else on volume. The Union is simply unable to produce the same amount of nitrates as they could source from the UK, not when OTL they were expanding production PDQ as it was to reduce that foreign dependence and they were still sourcing from the Brits.
Add on the demands of, say, another theatre of war to the north... it all adds up.

And in terms of many extra months on the war...
The thing most likely to lead to an ultimate CSA survival would be that the war is not clearly close to a victory during the 1864 election.
If the election happens not long after some major Confederate high water mark-type event, with CSA forces still able to operate in Pennsylvania or Maryland (which requires an extension of not much more than a year, quite doable with the Nitrate problem among a few other pressures or even French regulars fighting alongside the CSA) then it will look like a long, grinding, pointless war.
At that point it's "more of this or a peace with honour".

 

[Johnrankins]

Considering that the threat of war over the Trent affair (not an actual war, just the threat) caused a bank run that ended specie payments in c.20 states and left the government unable to pay its soldiers, I'm not sure the US needs to be that much more dependent on trade for it to be a knockout blow. It's kind of odd that the Union advocates insist on the inexorable force of economic realities when it comes to the Confederacy, and then fall back on Union stubbornness when the same logic is applied in a very tentative way to the North.

The big difference is the North didn't have its farms, plantations, houses and factories (what little the South had) burned and the South did nor was it nearly totally dependent on trade with the other half of the country for most of its needed goods. The South had cotton and tobacco and very little else. The US could easily feed itself and increased food exports during the war, the South had food riots every winter. The North could make its own railroad equipment. The ramshackle Southern rails survived only by cannibalizing itself. The North could provide itself food, ammunition and clothing, the South only ammunition. The South never was able to retake a city after the North captured it and ran into disaster every time it tried invading the North, The Northern economy was booming during the war while the South's collapsed. The South was in debt to the tune of 1000% of tax revenues while the North easily paid its debts. The South had near hyperinflation virtually the entire war while the North had reasonable inflation. Need I go on about how much superior the Union economy was compared to the Confederate one?

 

[Johnrankins]

Sorry, are you saying that the Union would prosecute any war no matter how hard it was? That no consequence on Earth would possibly result in the Union giving up, or even agreeing to negotiate?
If the economy was in the toilet to the same extent as OTL War of 1812, say?



Anyway - Nitrates.
They're not gold or platinum, no. They're more like oil, or iron ore - they can be sourced from many places but at this time OTL the British could outproduce anyone else on volume. The Union is simply unable to produce the same amount of nitrates as they could source from the UK, not when OTL they were expanding production PDQ as it was to reduce that foreign dependence and they were still sourcing from the Brits.
Add on the demands of, say, another theatre of war to the north... it all adds up.

And in terms of many extra months on the war...
The thing most likely to lead to an ultimate CSA survival would be that the war is not clearly close to a victory during the 1864 election.
If the election happens not long after some major Confederate high water mark-type event, with CSA forces still able to operate in Pennsylvania or Maryland (which requires an extension of not much more than a year, quite doable with the Nitrate problem among a few other pressures or even French regulars fighting alongside the CSA) then it will look like a long, grinding, pointless war.
At that point it's "more of this or a peace with honour".

No, but a mere lack of overseas trade won't do it. It was already too big and had too many resources. Railroads greatly changed the economy of the US. Before the building of rails it was considerably cheaper to trade with the UK than internally. The canals and railroads changed that. The US was far less dependent on overseas trade in 1860 vs 1812.

Another theater of war is more likely to do it. Trade by itself will not. The US could survive without trade but a war in Canada might make it too costly. The price of nitrates going way up will hardly make the US economy collapse.

The chances of the CSA army lasting long in either Pennsylvania or Maryland is virtually nil. There is a reason why every invasion the South attempted ended in disaster and that is it didn't have nearly good enough logistics to carry it out.

 

[Saphroneth]

No, but a mere lack of overseas trade won't do it. It was already too big and had too many resources. Railroads greatly changed the economy of the US. Before the building of rails it was considerably cheaper to trade with the UK than internally. The canals and railroads changed that. The US was far less dependent on overseas trade in 1860 vs 1812.

Another theater of war is more likely to do it. Trade by itself will not. The US could survive without trade but a war in Canada might make it too costly. The price of nitrates going way up will hardly make the US economy collapse.

The chances of the CSA army lasting long in either Pennsylvania or Maryland is virtually nil. There is a reason why every invasion the South attempted ended in disaster and that is it didn't have nearly good enough logistics to carry it out.

See, again you're going on about the price of Nitrates going up.
It's not a question of price going up. It's a question of not being able to get enough at any price.