Getting desperate for a plausible CSA victory scenario

[Johnrankins]

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.

Nitrates aren't so rare you can't get them at any price. It was simply that GB had a cheap source. It isn't like potassium, nitrogen or oxygen are rare. All you need is manure or urine which aren't exactly hard to find. It is a relatively expensive method but certainly can be done, even with 19th century chemistry.

Trade by itself won't do it. If the South, which had a pitiful economy as compared to the North, could survive four years with very little trade a much more self relying North could do so easier.

 

[Saphroneth]

Nitrates aren't so rare you can't get them at any price. It was simply that GB had a cheap source. It isn't like potassium, nitrogen or oxygen are rare. All you need is manure or urine which aren't exactly hard to find. It is a relatively expensive method but certainly can be done, even with 19th century chemistry.

Trade by itself won't do it. If the South, which had a pitiful economy as compared to the North, could survive four years with very little trade a much more self relying North could do so easier.

...
So, the British aren't selling, no-one else is selling for any sort of good price because they're not producing much of a surplus either, and the Union is having to produce most of theirs internally.
This is not a recipe for having as much nitrate and hence gunpowder as you want. It is a recipe for having to make tradeoffs. This will impair the Union war effort.

If it (less Union trade, more CSA trade, more CSA supplies and less Union supplies) means that the OTL timeline of slowly crushing the Confederacy is delayed by a year or so, then Lee can still launch campaigns of a similar scale to the Gettysburg campaign in 1864.
That is what I meant. That kind of campaign, in an election year, resulting in a perception that the war is no longer worth the pain.

 

[robcraufurd]

Need I go on about how much superior the Union economy was compared to the Confederate one?

No thanks, I've had that tune played to me so many times I hear it in my sleep. What you're overlooking is that smjb came to us asking for our help with a problem, and posting about how wonderful the North's economy was doesn't help to solve that problem unless you're then going to make a suggestion as to how to break that wonderful economy. I mean,

The South was in debt to the tune of 1000% of tax revenues while the North easily paid its debts.

might be related to this

customs duties contributed 56% of US Government revenue for the year to 30 June 1859

and this

The Northern economy was booming during the war while the South's collapsed.

might not be the same if

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.

And this

The South had near hyperinflation virtually the entire war while the North had reasonable inflation.

might be affected by this

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,

and this

The North could provide itself food, ammunition and clothing, the South only ammunition.

might be missing the fact that giving your soldiers rations, uniforms and full ammunition pouches is pretty pointless if they don't have guns:

here are the headline figures for what Britain sent to the US:
1st of May, 1861, to the 31st of December, 1862: Muskets, 41,500; rifles, 341,000; gun-flints, 26,500; percussion-caps, 49,982,000; swords, 2,250.
1st of January to the 17th of March, 1863: 23,870 gun-barrels, 30,802 rifles, 3,105,800 percussion caps. These figures should be increased by between one-third and a half to account for items shipped to the Northern States as "hardware" and not declared properly at Customs.

I know it feels good to shut stuff down, but maybe it's time to try something a little out of the comfort zone.

 

[Blue Max]

Well, here are a few different ideas that might work:

1) The USA winds up stuck with Mexico. Not as hard as it looks--Mexico's government collapsed shortly after their defeat in the war against the United States. If the United States winds up having to police Mexico while tensions over slavery explode, a seceding Mexico could completely overtax the United States.

2) Get Fremont to win in 1856. Fremont is not Abraham Lincoln, and indeed, most of his life seems to be a serious of massive failures. That said, the 1856 Presidential Race would require an earlier political fracture for Fremont to prevail against Buchanan--but Buchanan himself could be butterflied. It might be possible, for example, to out him as gay.

3) Lincoln Dies Early. The Confederacy would surely benefit from someone besides $5 in the White House. Hannibal Hamlin would not quit the war, but he's not likely to be the great coalition builder that Lincoln was, and it may very well be that he loses the Border States and the Democrats turn against the war instead of turning awkwardly with McClellan as their nominee.

I don't see most of the "Classical" PoDs of the Confederacy winning one more battle as likely to lead to a surviving Confederacy. I wrote up a long answer about the a narrow Confederate Victory: Here

I really don't think the Confederacy can win its independence after something like 1862 without being beaten up badly enough to get reannexed in the future.

 

[Johnrankins]

...
So, the British aren't selling, no-one else is selling for any sort of good price because they're not producing much of a surplus either, and the Union is having to produce most of theirs internally.
This is not a recipe for having as much nitrate and hence gunpowder as you want. It is a recipe for having to make tradeoffs. This will impair the Union war effort.

If it (less Union trade, more CSA trade, more CSA supplies and less Union supplies) means that the OTL timeline of slowly crushing the Confederacy is delayed by a year or so, then Lee can still launch campaigns of a similar scale to the Gettysburg campaign in 1864.
That is what I meant. That kind of campaign, in an election year, resulting in a perception that the war is no longer worth the pain.

Of course there are tradeoffs, there always are. You would have to pull some manpower from some other part of the economy to turn horse and cow manure into saltpeter. I never said it would be FREE but that it wouldn't be crippling.

The Gettysburg campaign was a disaster and had no real chance of being anything other than a disaster. You want to hand Lincoln a crushing victory just before the election? Fine by me.

 

[Saphroneth]

Of course there are tradeoffs, there always are. You would have to pull some manpower from some other part of the economy to turn horse and cow manure into saltpeter. I never said it would be FREE but that it wouldn't be crippling.

The Gettysburg campaign was a disaster and had no real chance of being anything other than a disaster. You want to hand Lincoln a crushing victory just before the election? Fine by me.

The point of calling out the Gettysburg campaign was to point out that in 1863 the CSA was still able to launch major attacks into the Union. It's perception that matters - three years of war and the South is still seemingly largely intact? That's not going to help, given OTL the election took place during the last gasps.

As for the saltpeter issue - they were doing that local-nitre-production thing OTL. It takes between one and two entire years for a nitre bed to start producing in the climates of the North.

The tradeoffs I mean aren't manpower related but gunpowder related. Does the Union take fewer offensives? Skimp on supplying forts? Send less for musketry practice (i.e. none at all)? Send out ships with a half load?

This is a general degradation in capability across-the-board. OTL the Union was in need of powder due to a voracious appetite for the stuff, TTL it will not be able to fulfill all the OTL requirements that got filled.

 

[Johnrankins]

No thanks, I've had that tune played to me so many times I hear it in my sleep. What you're overlooking is that smjb came to us asking for our help with a problem, and posting about how wonderful the North's economy was doesn't help to solve that problem unless you're then going to make a suggestion as to how to break that wonderful economy. I mean,

might be related to this

and this

might not be the same if

And this

might be affected by this

and this

might be missing the fact that giving your soldiers rations, uniforms and full ammunition pouches is pretty pointless if they don't have guns:

I know it feels good to shut stuff down, but maybe it's time to try something a little out of the comfort zone.

Not importing guns for GB slows things down a bit but does not stop it. The US was perfectly able to produce guns. Production would be stepped up. You seem to be unable to grasp the fact that the US had a thriving manufacturing sector while the CSA had virtually nothing but tobacco, cotton, rice and sugar. It couldn't even FEED itself.

Also the numbers only work if the UK for some odd reason almost instantly bans all trade with the US and prevents everyone else from doing the same otherwise the US imports guns from them. Despite what Tiger67th thought GB was NOT all powerful and other European countries would resist any trade bans with the US. Is GB going to fight all Europe or cease to be a trading nation? What would they do if Austria or Russia or Prussia tell them to screw off? Will British merchants be happy in losing trade to Russian and Prussian merchants? The various European countries would highly resent being told what to do by a meddling GB.

 

[robcraufurd]

1) The USA winds up stuck with Mexico.

Yes, and ends up with more potential slave territory than it really knows what to do with. You then have even higher stakes over slavery in the territories, a sizeable portion of the South looking to clip pieces off Mexico, a sizeable portion of the North looking to admit Canada as a free states to redress the balance, overstretched government finances in administering a relatively poor territory, problems of religion and race (how are the Free States which excluded free blacks going to react to the prospect of Mexicans taking their jobs?).

The Gettysburg campaign was a disaster and had no real chance of being anything other than a disaster. You want to hand Lincoln a crushing victory just before the election? Fine by me.

Anybody else like Tina Fey?

The first rule of improvisation is AGREE. Always agree and SAY YES. When you’re improvising, this means you are required to agree with whatever your partner has created. So if we’re improvising and I say, “Freeze, I have a gun,” and you say, “That’s not a gun. It’s your finger. You’re pointing your finger at me,” our improvised scene has ground to a halt. But if I say, “Freeze, I have a gun!” and you say, “The gun I gave you for Christmas! You bastard!” then we have started a scene because we have AGREED that my finger is in fact a Christmas gun.
Now, obviously in real life you’re not always going to agree with everything everyone says. But the Rule of Agreement reminds you to “respect what your partner has created” and to at least start from an open-minded place. Start with a YES and see where that takes you.

 

[Saphroneth]

...question?

If the CSA couldn't feed itself, and they were blockaded, what were they eating for four years?

Anyway.
As far as I'm aware the economic arguments aren't "this will win the war by itself". They're "this is another way to put pressure on the Union, and often pressure on the critical path to their victory".

If the US has to build another year's worth of rifle-muskets before it can take the war south, and if it has to stockpile more nitre from home production, and if it has to build more steam engines itself rather than importing... while the CSA has to do less of all of those... then the Union is in a worse position each year than OTL.
Surely that's unarguable.


With that considered, the other component to the thesis is simpler. It is - the Union is not necessarily going to prosecute the war through to ultimate victory, if after some years it does not seem to have made significant progress".

 

[robcraufurd]

Not importing guns for GB slows things down a bit but does not stop it.

"a bit"? 57% of the regiments New York put in the field in 1862 were armed with Enfields. They were 37% of the weapons Maine gave its troops in the same year, 37.5% for New Jersey, 38.7% for Massachusetts, 30% for Wisconsin, 50% for Iowa, and 27% for Ohio. I bet you wouldn't call that "a bit" if it was coming off your salary. And these are just Enfields- remember what the Treaty of Paris, which all the major European powers had signed up to, said about shipping weapons through a blockade:
Enemy goods on a neutral flagged ship are not liable to seizure, with the exception of contraband of war.

The US was perfectly able to produce guns. Production would be stepped up.

It didn't seem "perfectly able" when Indiana tried to buy guns:
"the Governor, on the 27th of April [1861], authorised Calvin Fletcher Sr., of Indianapolis, ‘to proceed to the manufactories of arms in the Eastern States’... with characteristic energy and care, he prosecuted it in all directions that promised a favourable result. Some small quantities of our arms were procured, but the aggregate was too slight to make any special record of it necessary... several other agents, directly or indirectly in connection with other objects, made like ineffectual efforts to increase the State’s armament."

And things hadn't improved over a year later:
"Not a gun more could be purchased if all the Governors were in the market and the price doubled.” (P.H. Watson, assistant secretary of war, to OP Morton governor of Indiana, September 5, 1862)

As it happens, the US stepped up capacity as fast as it reasonably could under the circumstances. But even the most innovative American gunmakers found themselves calling on British resources:
“the 20,000 spoken of must be Colt’s contract, the most of which is for gun barrels, locks, and gun mountings, to be put together in the United States.” (FH Morse to William H Seward, 19 July 1861)

These things take time, and will taken even more if the biggest industrial power in the world suddenly isn't keen on selling you anything remotely resembling machinery that can be used to assemble weaponry.

Also the numbers only work if the UK for some odd reason almost instantly bans all trade with the US and prevents everyone else from doing the same otherwise the US imports guns from them.

Or, you know, if they launch a blockade preventing military supplies from going to the Union.

 

[Johnrankins]

...question?

If the CSA couldn't feed itself, and they were blockaded, what were they eating for four years?

Anyway.
As far as I'm aware the economic arguments aren't "this will win the war by itself". They're "this is another way to put pressure on the Union, and often pressure on the critical path to their victory".

If the US has to build another year's worth of rifle-muskets before it can take the war south, and if it has to stockpile more nitre from home production, and if it has to build more steam engines itself rather than importing... while the CSA has to do less of all of those... then the Union is in a worse position each year than OTL.
Surely that's unarguable.


With that considered, the other component to the thesis is simpler. It is - the Union is not necessarily going to prosecute the war through to ultimate victory, if after some years it does not seem to have made significant progress".

They were starving in large part. There were food riots every winter and in the later battles some of the battles seem to have been lost because confederate soldiers were dropping by the wayside or surrendering to the Yanks for lack of food.

The problem is such heavy handed tactics is likely to make the US more stubborn and it will simply import from other places at a somewhat higher price and make its own. GB had no way of forcing Austria, Prussia, Russia and Spain to forgo US trade without large costs to itself. They were far too powerful to just to go along because GB tells them to. All these countries, among others, would tell GB to get lost, out of national pride if nothing else.

You are also seem to think that this would happen instantly and the US can't buy elsewhere and that is unlikely to the extreme , particularly the latter. The latter is near ASB as the other great powers can't remain great powers if they allow themselves to be pushed around.

 

[Johnrankins]

"a bit"? 57% of the regiments New York put in the field in 1862 were armed with Enfields. They were 37% of the weapons Maine gave its troops in the same year, 37.5% for New Jersey, 38.7% for Massachusetts, 30% for Wisconsin, 50% for Iowa, and 27% for Ohio. I bet you wouldn't call that "a bit" if it was coming off your salary. And these are just Enfields- remember what the Treaty of Paris, which all the major European powers had signed up to, said about shipping weapons through a blockade:
Enemy goods on a neutral flagged ship are not liable to seizure, with the exception of contraband of war.


It didn't seem "perfectly able" when Indiana tried to buy guns:
"the Governor, on the 27th of April [1861], authorised Calvin Fletcher Sr., of Indianapolis, ‘to proceed to the manufactories of arms in the Eastern States’... with characteristic energy and care, he prosecuted it in all directions that promised a favourable result. Some small quantities of our arms were procured, but the aggregate was too slight to make any special record of it necessary... several other agents, directly or indirectly in connection with other objects, made like ineffectual efforts to increase the State’s armament."

And things hadn't improved over a year later:
"Not a gun more could be purchased if all the Governors were in the market and the price doubled.” (P.H. Watson, assistant secretary of war, to OP Morton governor of Indiana, September 5, 1862)

As it happens, the US stepped up capacity as fast as it reasonably could under the circumstances. But even the most innovative American gunmakers found themselves calling on British resources:
“the 20,000 spoken of must be Colt’s contract, the most of which is for gun barrels, locks, and gun mountings, to be put together in the United States.” (FH Morse to William H Seward, 19 July 1861)

These things take time, and will taken even more if the biggest industrial power in the world suddenly isn't keen on selling you anything remotely resembling machinery that can be used to assemble weaponry.

Or, you know, if they launch a blockade preventing military supplies from going to the Union.

Import from Mexico, unless you are somehow going to prevent that too. There would also be imports the long way around via CA unless you prevent that as well. Also GB was unable to prevent smuggling either during the War of 1812 or the ARW when the US was much weaker.

 

[robcraufurd]

Import from Mexico, unless you are somehow going to prevent that too.

Isn't the Confederacy in the way?

There would also be imports the long way around via CA unless you prevent that as well.

Isn't the rest of the continent in the way?

Also GB was unable to prevent smuggling either during the War of 1812 or the ARW when the US was much weaker.

Didn't the US economy implode in the War of 1812?

British economic warfare had deprived the US government of the means of continuing the war into 1815. Dramatically lower customs receipts, a major source of government income, created budget deficits which forced the government to depend increasingly on public credit. The curtailing of American coastal trade meant that goods had to proceed to and from markets by land, taking more time and at greater expense. In Arthur's view, the result of all this was unemployment and currency inflation which created popular hardships and discontent with the war. The US Navy's few unblockaded frigates were unable to lift the British blockade and to prevent British amphibious landings. The number of American merchant ship owners willing to risk voyages declined sharply meaning there were far fewer vessels engaged in foreign trade. Most of this is no doubt true, and the year of 1814 was a dismal time from an economic point of view for most Americans.(source)

 

[Johnrankins]

Isn't the Confederacy in the way?


Isn't the rest of the continent in the way?


Didn't the US economy implode in the War of 1812?

British economic warfare had deprived the US government of the means of continuing the war into 1815. Dramatically lower customs receipts, a major source of government income, created budget deficits which forced the government to depend increasingly on public credit. The curtailing of American coastal trade meant that goods had to proceed to and from markets by land, taking more time and at greater expense. In Arthur's view, the result of all this was unemployment and currency inflation which created popular hardships and discontent with the war. The US Navy's few unblockaded frigates were unable to lift the British blockade and to prevent British amphibious landings. The number of American merchant ship owners willing to risk voyages declined sharply meaning there were far fewer vessels engaged in foreign trade. Most of this is no doubt true, and the year of 1814 was a dismal time from an economic point of view for most Americans.(source)

1) No, the states of NM, AZ and CA were not part of the CSA.

2) Sail around the cape. It was done all the time before the Panama Canal. That was how things usually got imported into California.

3) The economy was much different in 1812. The canals and railroads made the US far less dependent on overseas trade.

 

[The Gunslinger]

Nothing is being imported from California in bulk numbers. San Francisco is the major major port at the time and even then, it would take months of travelling inland via wagon train to get your goods anywhere. It would be hideously expensive, consume a huge amount of manpower and be open to raids from the Pacific coast until the Mississippi.

 

[Johnrankins]

Nothing is being imported from California in bulk numbers. San Francisco is the major major port at the time and even then, it would take months of travelling inland via wagon train to get your goods anywhere. It would be hideously expensive, consume a huge amount of manpower and be open to raids from the Pacific coast until the Mississippi.

I admit it would be expensive but doable. It might hold things up six months to a year but I think the North would be even more stubborn as outsiders would butting into its business. It would be like if I threatened to fire you, if I were your boss, because you are raising your children in some other way than I want them raised. You would almost certainly quit and be even more determined to raise your kids your way.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Not importing guns for GB slows things down a bit but does not stop it. The US was perfectly able to produce guns. Production would be stepped up. You seem to be unable to grasp the fact that the US had a thriving manufacturing sector while the CSA had virtually nothing but tobacco, cotton, rice and sugar. It couldn't even FEED itself.

Also the numbers only work if the UK for some odd reason almost instantly bans all trade with the US and prevents everyone else from doing the same otherwise the US imports guns from them. Despite what Tiger67th thought GB was NOT all powerful and other European countries would resist any trade bans with the US. Is GB going to fight all Europe or cease to be a trading nation? What would they do if Austria or Russia or Prussia tell them to screw off? Will British merchants be happy in losing trade to Russian and Prussian merchants? The various European countries would highly resent being told what to do by a meddling GB.

Are we assuming Britain is imposing a blockade here or just that they shut off all trade with the US?

In the blockade situation you'd see Russia, Prussia, and Austria respect that blockade. They wouldn't doubt Britain's ability to enforce it (the memories of 1812 and the might of the British navy still being fresh) and most European merchants would have more to lose than gain in attempting to circumvent it. Oh sure some would try, but not in great enough numbers to make up for matters.

In a 'Britain shuts off trade with the US' well yes then other people will still trade with the US. Britain would just decline to do so, but I don't see that as being very plausible. The other problem with shutting off British trade though is this still deprives them of nitre and weapons, which were top quality weapons. The guns from nations like Austria and Belgium were widely considered inferior and disliked.

The problem with shutting the nitre valve is that the US does not have a large enough domestic nitre industry to make up the short fall in under a year. Nitre beds take time to establish and require 6-12 months to mature (depending on the climate, in regions like Pennsylvania and Virginia its closer to 8, but the further north you go its 12) and don't reach their full production capacity until at least a year in use. Even then these early beds are going to very wildly in the quality of the powder they produce. The only other way to provide enough nitre is to fleece it from other sectors of the economy like iron production, mining, construction, and railways. That's obviously not a good thing. This intterupts the Union's operational tempo in 1862 and 63, and most likely creates some discontent at home since the loss of trade will hurt people.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Import from Mexico, unless you are somehow going to prevent that too. There would also be imports the long way around via CA unless you prevent that as well. Also GB was unable to prevent smuggling either during the War of 1812 or the ARW when the US was much weaker.

Small problem with importing things through Mexico from 1861-1867 I'd say. That's not even counting Mexico's total lack of railroads.

3) The economy was much different in 1812. The canals and railroads made the US far less dependent on overseas trade.

Well internal trade can't suck up all the volume lost is the problem. Sectors of the economy are going to suffer, particularly in the MidWest where they were dependent on the Mississippi and the railroads to carry their goods south and east to market. With both those routes interdicted you see quite a bit of economic hardship coming their way.

I admit it would be expensive but doable. It might hold things up six months to a year but I think the North would be even more stubborn as outsiders would butting into its business. It would be like if I threatened to fire you, if I were your boss, because you are raising your children in some other way than I want them raised. You would almost certainly quit and be even more determined to raise your kids your way.

The issue with shipping items overland to California is that they can't be shipped in appreciable bulk, and there's no mass transport system to safely send them over the continent at this point. They would be moving slowly, be subject to banditry, hostile Native tribes, disease, and all the other afflictions of a transcontinental march.

These supplies won't even make a dent in the bucket for import needs.

Then in a war scenario San Francisco is simply blockaded and the whole issue becomes moot.

 

[Practical Lobster]

One thing that has to be kept in mind that for every bit that Britain is committing to the American Civil War, it has to keep in mind it's potentially greater interests in the Taiping Rebellion, where it actually is actively committed IOTL.

I simply can't see England committing to a long-term blockade without a seriously good reason. Anglo-American relations would have to be shot beyond all repair to the point that a puppet CSA becomes desirable.

Military victory for the CSA by itself has already been shown to be pointless.

I agree with whoever said that their best bet is simply not to go to war. Call up local militias, yes. Begin preparing for it, but don't strike the first blow. Try to make it a legal issue. Stall for time. If you're de-facto independent long enough, it'll slowly become a reality. A negotiated end to the war before it begins is probably the Confederacy's best hope.

 

[alexcoppo]

I agree with whoever said that their best bet is simply not to go to war. Call up local militias, yes. Begin preparing for it, but don't strike the first blow. Try to make it a legal issue. Stall for time. If you're de-facto independent long enough, it'll slowly become a reality.

I had proposed something of this kind but (surprise ) I was shot down.

Fort Sumnter is siezed by Georgia militia on Dec 21st, Major Anderson is bottled in Fort Moultrie and has to give up. The remaining Federal forts are isolated or easily containable. No shot is fired. Days become weeks, weeks become months. Along the new border, people start to get accustomed to the new situation (and even profit for it, in the case of smugglers).

What happens? if the first move is on the northern side, they will look the aggressor not only for the southerners but also to a significant part of the northerners so I do not see an enthusiastic support to the war which would slow terribly things right from the beginning. In case of a northern first move, I think that a more extensive second wave of secessions might happen (Kentucky e.g.?) which might end the thing almost at start.