What is Before 1900's "Sealion"?

[Saphroneth]

If anything, the Confederacy will resemble Tsarist Russia - it has the resources, but a political system that is sorely outdated, with power concentrated among a small elite.

I'm not so sure about that. Power's not much more concentrated than it was in the contemporary US, and their political systems are essentially the same in operation.

And like Russia, the only way that the Confederacy could modernize is through revolution.

Really? It modernized even over the course of the OTL Civil War, and for that matter Russia progressed in ways that didn't involve revolution - Russia of 1910 was very different to Russia of 1860.

Just about every nation in the world had banned slavery by this point, and while indentured labour was still a thing in the Caribbean, it wasn't exactly the same thing as slavery.

Though that didn't exactly kill off bilateral US diplomacy in the years leading up to 1865. It would definitely have an effect on national diplomacy, but individual trading would be a more woolly subject.

It had other products, yes, but cotton was, by far, what it produced. There's a reason "King Cotton" was used to justify courting European powers, and that was because the country produced cotton overwhelmingly.

That and it was essentially a monopoly - they controlled almost the entire supply. But your statement is also true of the US of 1860 - cotton was by far the single most important 1860-US cash crop as well, and the CS states collectively controlled 70% of 1860-US exports by dollar value. (As well as cotton there were things like indigo, tobacco and rice).

And most of them would look to other nations to trade with - British India being one such nation.

Indian cotton was heavily substandard for years - "Surat" actually became slang for "substandard" as a result - and there was hardly anything there at all in the first place, thus the cotton famine. Between investing in massive plantations which will turn a loss and just buying CS-produced cotton, most will do the latter because it is much cheaper.
Also, British India isn't a nation by my understanding of the definition.

 

[dcharles]

The UK's share of world manufacturing output in 1860 was 19.9 percent; that of France, 7.9 percent; the US, 7.2 percent; Russia, 7 percent, the various German states, 4.9 percent; Austria, 4.2 percent, Italy, 2.5 percent.
(Source is Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, Random House, 1987; Vintage Books, 1989)

Since the North had over 90% of the Heavy Industry at the start of the ACW, in some areas even greater, a Confederacy even with 2-3 times the industrial base it started with would still be somewhere below the level of Italy!?

That's a great book, and I have a an extremely well worn, coverless paperback copy myself.

Even so, I don't think multiplying .11 by 7.2 and then multiplying that by two or three arrives at an accurate estimate of manufacturing capability. I'm hard pressed to think of a nation that was able to retool its economy so completely as the CS did prior to WW1. The South went from being able to provide virtually none of its munitions to being able to arm 1 million men. It was an incredible feat, and it was one that was repeated over multiple parts of their manufacturing sector. And it's not like these factories or the newly skilled workers are going anywhere. With the rapid decline in the price of cotton following the war, Southerners would have invested in manufacturing just as they had in the 1840s after the crash of 1837 (the spike in cotton prices was the only thing that abated that trend). Since the price of slaves and cotton were closely correlated, the price of slaves would fall as well, providing a very cheap source of labor for newly forming industries.

I'm moving right now and don't have all my books at arm's length, so I can't go into huge detail, mostly just point you to sources, but here are some more: The Old South's Modern Worlds, edited by Barnes, Schoen, and Towns, and Confederate Industry, by Harold Wilson.

 

[Saphroneth]

The South went from being able to provide virtually none of its munitions to being able to arm 1 million men.

Well, a lot of that (like the US until at least 1863) was imports from Europe, though the South did one-up the North by finding domestic iron that could be used to produce iron of the same (rollable) quality as the Marshall and Mills iron the Union imported.

 

[Dupplin Muir]

I wouldn't put too much weight on Kennedy's percentages: the figures for the US includes such things as grinding grain into flour, and mashing apples to make cider, as 'manufacturing' - and counting agricultural produce like this is why China features so highly. In terms of bashing metal, the British proportion of world manufacturing is nearer to 50%.

 

[dcharles]

I never said I agreed with you - I really don't.

I never said I agreed with you, or that you agreed with me, but thanks for the clarification.

If anything, the Confederacy will resemble Tsarist Russia - it has the resources, but a political system that is sorely outdated, with power concentrated among a small elite.

No more than anywhere else.

The Confederacy even had slavery - a dated and obsolete practice just about everywhere else. Yes, the Confederacy had democracy for the slaveocrats, but even Russia had informal representation for the elite in its royal court.

This is not a great comparison. This is the age of the monarchy--inequality, aristocracy, and elitism are the rule and not the exception.

And like Russia, the only way that the Confederacy could modernize is through revolution. And even then, modernization could easily falter.

The only way? I agree that's a way, but the "only way" is a clear simplification.

Horrific colonialism is one thing, but slavery is another. Just about every nation in the world had banned slavery by this point, and while indentured labour was still a thing in the Caribbean, it wasn't exactly the same thing as slavery. Slavery was the number one reason why Britain and France could never ally itself with the Confederacy, and most of Europe certainly looked upon it negatively.

Negative opinion isn't the same thing as an embargo. Brazil, Spain, and the US prior to 1860 all traded with the rest of the world.

And the rest is just going around in circles. I pointed out some really good scholarship dealing with just this subject, which is one I'm not unfamiliar with--read it or don't read it, that's up to you.

 

[missouribob]

Why is industrialisation more plausible specifically under the Song Dynasty, and when is this plausible?

The short end of it is that the Song Empire met many of the pre-conditions (or seemingly did from the historical record we have) for at least the first stage of the industrial revolution. From wikipedia, "This transition included going from hand production methods to machines, new chemical manufacturing and iron production processes, improved efficiency of water power, the increasing use of steam power, the development of machine tools and the rise of the factory system. "

From what I've seen of the historcial record the Song Empire had machines in place of hand production methods, chemical manufacturing, advanced iron production processes to include mass production of iron and steel, improved water power and they had a few factories although I don't know if they had a factory system. They weren't far off compared to every other polity. I'd describe them as proto-industrial in fact.

 

[Saphroneth]

From what I've seen of the historcial record the Song Empire had machines in place of hand production methods, chemical manufacturing, advanced iron production processes to include mass production of iron and steel, improved water power and they had a few factories although I don't know if they had a factory system. They weren't far off compared to every other polity. I'd describe them as proto-industrial in fact.

Yes - they hadn't hit Steam Engine Time (that time when suddenly everyone seems to be inventing steam engines) but it appears as though many of the remaining hurdles were social instead of technical.

 

[missouribob]

Yes - they hadn't hit Steam Engine Time (that time when suddenly everyone seems to be inventing steam engines) but it appears as though many of the remaining hurdles were social instead of technical.

Right. As much as I love the Song Empire (and I will carry the torch for them any day of the week) it is still NEAR ASB for them to industrialize with all those criteria met. I've raised doubts before on this subject that they would: A. Invent a steam engine. B. Stop the Jurchen conquest of the Northern Song. C. Make the necessary political/economic/social reforms to integrate industrialization AND reform their military. D. Invest enough capital into continuing industrialization once farm productivity skyrockets and peasants start flooding into the cities lowering the cost of labor compared to capital.

If the Song Empire managed to move from proto-industrialism to the first stage they are likely to stall there. In fact the biggest change to such a timeline would likely be: A. Butterflying the Mongols. B. The potential spread of the steam engine/factory system. But even then considering that many of the Song's industrial techniques didn't spread in OTL it isn't guaranteed that industrialism would either.

 

[Pragmatic Progressive]

Right. As much as I love the Song Empire (and I will carry the torch for them any day of the week) it is still NEAR ASB for them to industrialize with all those criteria met. I've raised doubts before on this subject that they would: A. Invent a steam engine. B. Stop the Jurchen conquest of the Northern Song. C. Make the necessary political/economic/social reforms to integrate industrialization AND reform their military. D. Invest enough capital into continuing industrialization once farm productivity skyrockets and peasants start flooding into the cities lowering the cost of labor compared to capital.

If the Song Empire managed to move from proto-industrialism to the first stage they are likely to stall there. In fact the biggest change to such a timeline would likely be: A. Butterflying the Mongols. B. The potential spread of the steam engine/factory system. But even then considering that many of the Song's industrial techniques didn't spread in OTL it isn't guaranteed that industrialism would either.

If the Song did reach industrialisation, why would that be destroyed by the Mongols? And wasn't Genghis Khan (or somebody else) very important in uniting the Mongol tribes?

Also, what would happen if the Song industrialised but it didn't spread? Industrialised China... colonising? Becoming an Asian hyperpower?

 

[missouribob]

If the Song did reach industrialisation, why would that be destroyed by the Mongols? And wasn't Genghis Khan (or somebody else) very important in uniting the Mongol tribes?

No I said that the Mongols being important is likely butterflied away. Such an ATL would never even speak of the Mongols.

Also, what would happen if the Song industrialised but it didn't spread? Industrialised China... colonising? Becoming an Asian hyperpower?

Assuming that the Song reforms its military to survive and can survive the peasant migrations to the cities I don't think it is likely that industrialisation takes off. Too much labor, to much unrest and even less institutional incentives to invest in capital assets than England during its industrialization. When faced which such problems it is likely the Song elite remain conservative and don't embrace machines. But let's assume that we pass all those hurdles, we are now looking at a "Song Empire" in name only. Such a regime would be completely foreign to the entity that existed in OTL with the same name. Also the butterflies from tens of millions of people urbanizing and the political and social changes that that would bring by itself are hard to say.

Basically it is a blank slate. If you wanted to write such a timeline and wanted them to go steam punk isolationist socialist you'd be about as right as the guy saying they colonize California.

 

[samcster94]

It isn't impossible however for "mainstream" Hinduism to become a prosletyzing religion. The Hare Krishna movement is, and it's roots go all the way to 1600's Gaudiya Vaishnavism

Christianity itself evolved from Judaism, which allows converts but does not actively seek them.

 

[Saphroneth]

The problem the Song had was an equity trap, iirc. Early machines were not worth the investment because there was always skilled labour to do the same job.


Sad as it seems, you might need to hit the Song with a whacking great epidemic to chance the labour value enough, and that is basically a transformative event anyway.

 

[missouribob]

The problem the Song had was an equity trap, iirc. Early machines were not worth the investment because there was always skilled labour to do the same job.


Sad as it seems, you might need to hit the Song with a whacking great epidemic to chance the labour value enough, and that is basically a transformative event anyway.

Right and from what I've read on previous threads even ONE pandemic might not be enough. Also such a pandemic would increase the chance of foreign invasion thus decreasing the chance of industrialization once again.

 

[samcster94]

The problem the Song had was an equity trap, iirc. Early machines were not worth the investment because there was always skilled labour to do the same job.


Sad as it seems, you might need to hit the Song with a whacking great epidemic to chance the labour value enough, and that is basically a transformative event anyway.

Song China had some of the ingredients, but it lacked the right incentives and had plenty of resources. The odds of a different Western European country(the Dutch seem the most obvious) industrializing before the British are much higher and simpler than a Song China.

 

[Saphroneth]

Right and from what I've read on previous threads even ONE pandemic might not be enough. Also such a pandemic would increase the chance of foreign invasion thus decreasing the chance of industrialization once again.

Yes, though if the disease pulse hits the whole continent it might work.

It's not impossible, but it's a heck of a lot harder than people assume - they kind of imagine 1760s Britain, without noticing the modern financial system that made Britain work.

 

[missouribob]

Song China had some of the ingredients, but it lacked the right incentives and had plenty of resources. The odds of a different Western European country(the Dutch seem the most obvious) industrializing before the British are much higher and simpler than a Song China.

Right and I should clarify. When I said Non-Song Empire I didn't mean to exclude the French, Americans, Dutch during the 1700s/1800s. Rather I'm tired of seeing threads about the Greeks or Romans running around with trains.

 

[samcster94]

Right and I should clarify. When I said Non-Song Empire I didn't mean to exclude the French, Americans, Dutch during the 1700s/1800s. Rather I'm tired of seeing threads about the Greeks or Romans running around with trains.

That is obviously ridiculous as they had slaves for manual labor anyway. The idea of industrialization was alien to them much as wheels and writing were to the Incas.

 

[TheYoungPretender]

The Song (And the Ching) hit a resource trap. Heck, if we're looking at Yellow River valley in China, not only as the prerequisites for industrialization there, in some ways, they are better than Europe. For all the arch discussions of the "social" lack of China, Manchu China had better land transfer laws and policies than most of the Europe at the time.

A weakness I've seen was bulk transport, specifically, of food and fuel. Because of this, economic expansion, and the flow of peasants to the towns this could produces would choke off the conditions for that expansion as food and fuel prices rose to meet demand. There's been some fairly persuasive work that the hidden advantage of the European economies was the development of large and seaworthy sailing vessels - food and fueled could be brought over long distances to the zone of industrialization, and thus the choking off effect of high prices for subsistence is avoided. While riverine transport can do some of this in China, it couldn't do it enough, or keep food prices in the developing cities low enough.

 

[Johnrankins]

The problem with that source is that it's explicitly manufacturing, not modern manufacturing. That's why the full table is (for 1860)


UK: 19.9%
France: 7.9%
Russia: 7.0%
German states: 4.9%
Austrian Empire: 4.2%
Italy: 2.5%
Rest of europe: 6.8%

USA and CSA combined: 7.2% (other work shows about a third is in the 11 CS states, and about a half in the 13 claimed CS states)
Japan: 2.6%

China: 19.7%
British India: 8.6%
Rest of the (third) world: 36.6%

China and the UK are equal in manufacturing power by this measure, despite China being unable to produce anything like the same modern machinery as the UK. The difference is that China has hundreds of millions of people and an artisan crafts population. (This is also why India has more manufacturing power than the 1860 US despite not having a single iron foundry)

In terms of heavy industry at the time the UK had roughly as much manufacturing power as the rest of the world, combined, including British colonies; the CSA plus border states has about a third of the heavy manufacturing power of the old US - 15% in the core CSA chiefly in Virginia (specifically Richmond) with some in Tennessee, IIRC, and 17% in the border states.

If the CSA got everything they felt they had ironclad claims to (i.e. Kentucky, Maryland, plus the eleven "official" CS states) they'd have nearly half the manufacturing of the old US - they'd be relatively lacking in their heavy industry segment as a fraction of their economy, but they'd actually be if anything richer per capita in production terms simply because of all the resource-generating operations in the south (a farm making cotton or indigo being a much more significant wealth-generator for the landlords than a farm growing grain).
Their problem is the Dutch Disease, not being a poor country per se...

They would be lucky to hold on to what they had not talking about adding two more. For one thing they didn't have "ironclad claims" to those two or even any other. They were a bunch of traitors rebelling against the lawful government. They had claims to whatever their armies could take and hold, nothing more.

Your numbers are VERY doubtful IMO. In 1860 the North had 9 out of 10 of the biggest cities in the US. 7 out of 10 even if you count Union Slave states. 9 out of the next 10 even if you count Union slave states. So at best the South had 4 out of 20 of the biggest cities in country with the biggest coming in number which is Baltimore which is in a Union Slave State. https://www.biggestuscities.com/1860 You aren't going to have a third the industrial production with that!

 

[Johnrankins]

Well, a lot of that (like the US until at least 1863) was imports from Europe, though the South did one-up the North by finding domestic iron that could be used to produce iron of the same (rollable) quality as the Marshall and Mills iron the Union imported.

Also looting National Armories when the rebellion broke out. If those arms were transferred north before or just after the election the war would have been over quick. They also got a lot looting dead bodies. Also about the only thing that increased were munitions production. That is hardly the makings of an industrial juggernaut!