What do you think the Confederacy did wrong?

The strategic and tactical failures of the CSA cannot be separated from the fact that the entire Confederacy was the project of a bunch of Fire-Eater radicals convincing and overwhelming "moderate" slaveowners in several slave states in conventions arranged by and of the pseudo-aristocratic planter elites, triggering just enough secessionist results to snowball the crisis into a life of its own and inhibit the attempted "conditional" secessionist and Southern unionist compromises when the apparatus of state militias and state agencies commanded by said planter elites became the nuclei for nascent rebel organizations and federal arsenals began being looted. The Slavers' War fundamentally shares very little of its structural formation to that of democratic revolutions like that of the American revolution it draped itself in, rather sharing the DNA of a reactionary putsch and counter-coup against democratic forces. With this context, to expect the Confederate problems to be diagnosed with battlefield analysis is like expecting the Whites to have been able to hold Russia for more then two seconds even if they did somehow crush the Bolsheviks under their boot-heel.
 
Okay, perhaps instead of insulting me, we should review whats actually the case?

Warrior's armour consisted of 4.5 inches (114 mm) of wrought iron backed by 18 inches (457 mm) of teak.[11] The iron armour was made up of 3-by-12-foot (0.91 by 3.66 m) plates that interlocked via the tongue and groove method. It was bolted through the teak to the iron hull. The teak consisted of two 9-inch-thick (229 mm) layers laid at right angles to each other; they strengthened the armour by damping the shock waves caused by the impact of shells that would otherwise break the bolts connecting the armour to the hull.[23] Unlike most later ship armour, Warrrior's armour was made via a process of hammering rather than rolling.[24] Based on tests at Shoeburyness in October 1861 when the Warrior was launched, it "was practically invulnerable to the ordnance at the time in use".[25]
The armour covered the middle 213 feet (64.9 m) of the ship and extended 16 feet (4.9 m) above the waterline and 6 feet (1.8 m) below it. The guns on the main deck were protected from raking fire by 4.5-inch transverse bulkheads. The ends of the ship were unprotected, but were subdivided into watertight compartments to minimise flooding. The lack of armour at the stern meant that the steering gear and rudder were vulnerable.[26]

So no, virtually all of the Warrior was armored, unless you're operating under there are gun ports six feet under water? Would make for a very short life expectancy for any ocean going vessel, I would think. Likewise, we here find the top deck was protected by armor as thick as that on the sides, albeit lacking the teak framing behind it.

As for the fortifications in question, their own report find them vulnerable to traditional wood ship bombardment and completely inadequate to deal with an ironclad; indeed, of all the guns listed, all but three are incapable of actually dealing damage to the Warrior or her sisters. When it comes to guns and armor, it very much is just a case of charts and penetrating power because the laws of physics don't suddenly go out the window. As for Monitors, where and why? They were all engaged in the blockade of the South, which means either the USN has already allowed itself to be confined to port or they've been destroyed in battle with the Royal Navy.
It's clear you don't understand what you just read. Unarmored, but subdivided means solid shot will blow holes though the hull, and cause fire, or flooding. Ships steering can be destroyed. Have you ever read an account of an ironclad battle? They didn't just sail though unscathed. Read what happened to the CSS Tennessee at Mobile Bay. Warrior never entered combat, within a few years the British realized this was a gross design fault, and corrected it with later designs.
 
If the U.S. was so strong, why didn't they just take Canada from the Brits? We can use whataboutism as much we like, but that doesn't really allow for the answering of anything beyond derailing the conversation, now does it?
Because the Canadian boundary issue had been settled, it was no cause for war. Your setting up a strawman, the U.S. wasn't thinking a war with Britain would be easy, or desirable. The Interventionists on the Board are arguing it would've been easy as pie for the British to take the Union apart. They clearly didn't think so, which is why they were so leery of trying. Your comment about Whataboutism is kind of silly since AH is all about whataboutism. What we're debating is the plausibility of our positions.
 
Because the Canadian boundary issue had been settled, it was no cause for war. Your setting up a strawman, the U.S. wasn't thinking a war with Britain would be easy, or desirable. The Interventionists on the Board are arguing it would've been easy as pie for the British to take the Union apart. They clearly didn't think so, which is why they were so leery of trying. Your comment about Whataboutism is kind of silly since AH is all about whataboutism. What we're debating is the plausibility of our positions.
Being the inevitable conclusion isn't the same as being being easy.
 
Somehow the topic became a war between Britain and the U.S. during the civil war. Outside of the military debates, I wonder how Ireland and the Irish population reacts. I suppose there is timeline where the rump U.S. and Britain have made up, but I could also see Irish independence remaining a cause celeb in the U.S. for a long while in response and even some further “de-Anglicinization” of the American identity as German and other immigrants enter a country which has just fought Britain for third time in a century. Britain’s stock shoots up in the South, except for its enslaved population were it takes a dramatic hit and looses its “Friend to Freedom” status among abolitionists and other assorted liberals. That could have some knock on effects, whether they are consequential in the long run who knows — but do think it costs Britain more than a a little of it’s soft power across the globe in the coming years.

I know the bloody edge of the Empire is mostly what people focus on these days, but I still think it - like most states - didn’t fight everyone it maybe would of had to if it hadn’t been able to convince some people under its power that it wasn’t so bad; and I think that indeterminate number of people appreciably diminishes in this scenario and the ramifications of that should be considered.

I also suspect the rump US is a lot more liberal in this timeline, and wouldn’t completely rule out some interesting scenarios involving militant socialism further down the line with Britain perhaps playing the role as the chief defender of capitalism.
 
Last edited:
It's clear you don't understand what you just read. Unarmored, but subdivided means solid shot will blow holes though the hull, and cause fire, or flooding. Ships steering can be destroyed. Have you ever read an account of an ironclad battle? They didn't just sail though unscathed. Read what happened to the CSS Tennessee at Mobile Bay. Warrior never entered combat, within a few years the British realized this was a gross design fault, and corrected it with later designs.
Let's see some citations for that. You keep saying I'm wrong on things but are never able to source how or why.
 
Yeah, all this debate over prospects of British and/or French intervention is deviating somewhat from the OP... had to scroll back up to remember what it was all about in the 1st place...
 
Let's see some citations for that. You keep saying I'm wrong on things but are never able to source how or why.
What source do I have to site to explain what the words "Unarmored, but subdivided" mean? I, and other posters posted extensive sources, to support our arguments. In my case you said my post was hard to follow, so I made corrections to clarify it. You then said I provided no sources. Other posters you just ignored, and repeated your claims, stating they were irrefutable facts. You remind me of a friend who when I would debate a point on line he would say "I lost your E-mail, can you send it again?" After the third time I would say to him "I guess you didn't lose my E-mail, you just lost the argument."
 
@History Learner , where did the confederates get their lead? Just to put things in perspective.
Arming the Confederacy: Virginia's Mineral Contributions to the Confederate War Effort

Both Union and Confederate infantry fought almost exclusively with rifles shooting Minié bullets. Estimates are that 90 per cent of the casualties came from such weapons. Fighting men commonly referred to the “hailstorm of lead” tearing into them on battlefields; often they advanced leaning forward as if walking into a driving rain. Prodigious stores of lead were required to conduct such engagements, but the Confederacy had only one large-scale lead mining and smelting facility within its borders— the Wythe County operations deep in the mountains of southwestern Virginia. Just a handful of sporadically active workings were present elsewhere, and no significant domestic lead deposits besides Wythe County existed. It would be the Southwest Virginia mines together with importation that supplied the majority of Confederate lead.
The Wythe County mines opened in the mid-1700s and served as the main source of lead balls for the muskets of the patriot armies during the Revolutionary War. The mines continued to operate into the first half of the 19th century, sending lead shot to markets throughout the Southern states. On March 8, 1860, with war clouds gathering, the Wythe County works were reorganized and incorporated as the Union Lead Mine Company, an ironic name for the foremost Confederate lead provider.​
At the onset of fighting, the Richmond government demanded that the Union mines owners work the facilities to their maximum capacity or give them up for operation by the government. The company directors chose the former and round-the-clock activity commenced. The actual lead bullets were not made at the Wythe County site. Rather, the workmen dug out the ore, processed it in the smelters, cast the molten lead into ingots, and shipped the lead bars by rail to Richmond and Petersburg to be molded into ammunition. Production records are incomplete, but over three million pounds of lead, an estimated one-third of the total consumed by the Confederacy, are known to have come from the Union mines.​
Still, even with this prolific output from Virginia, lead became increasingly scarce as the contest ground on. The government asked citizens for contributions of common household items containing lead, such as pipes, roofing materials, window weights, and eating utensils. In 1863, the city of Mobile ripped up unused lead water mains and shipped them off to the munitions plants. On occasion, officers directed soldiers back onto battlefields after the fighting ceased to scavenge for bullets to be recycled into fresh rounds.​
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Page number please.
Okay, That'll do.

This sort of "give me the page number crap is so far down the "arguing in bad faith rabbit hole" that you need to pump in daylight.

Your ongoing attempts to turn every debate into a Ph.D research project ends. Now.

Kicked for a week.

Do NOT press your luck.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Okay, That'll do.

This sort of "give me the page number crap is so far down the "arguing in bad faith rabbit hole" that you need to pump in daylight.

Your ongoing attempts to turn every debate into a Ph.D research project ends. Now.

Kicked for a week.

Do NOT press your luck.
Update:

Member Tripled down in PM. Also annouced that he was a puppet of a Banned member.
 
Back on topic, could the south have gotten any major concessions from Lincoln had they agreed to reintegration before Fort Sumter?

I know this is probably an enormously unlikely scenario due to the amount of distrust that planter society held for the Republican Party in general and Lincoln in particular.
 
Back on topic, could the south have gotten any major concessions from Lincoln had they agreed to reintegration before Fort Sumter?

I know this is probably an enormously unlikely scenario due to the amount of distrust that planter society held for the Republican Party in general and Lincoln in particular.
Hmmm. Is there anything Lincoln could have realistically offered them that would get them to stand down? Because a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing slavery now and forever seems like it would be the only thing they'd be happy with - and such an amendment is absolutely a non-starter in the North no matter what Lincoln says or does.
 
Hmmm. Is there anything Lincoln could have realistically offered them that would get them to stand down? Because a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing slavery now and forever seems like it would be the only thing they'd be happy with - and such an amendment is absolutely a non-starter in the North no matter what Lincoln says or does.
Therein lies the rub. I can't think of anything that would satisfy the south yet be acceptable to the North. Do you think the south would accept anything less than a constitutional amendment guaranteeing slavery?
 
Therein lies the rub. I can't think of anything that would satisfy the south yet be acceptable to the North. Do you think the south would accept anything less than a constitutional amendment guaranteeing slavery?
I honestly don't think so. Popular sovereignty clearly didn't work in the 1850s so tough to try something like that again anytime soon. I don't think the South would have accepted the government paying them to free their slaves like what happened in Britain. To them slavery was worth the fight.
 
I honestly don't think so. Popular sovereignty clearly didn't work in the 1850s so tough to try something like that again anytime soon. I don't think the South would have accepted the government paying them to free their slaves like what happened in Britain. To them slavery was worth the fight.
Yeah I was pretty sure that was the case but I thought I'd ask anyways. The American Civil War isn't really my area of expertise.
 
Top