Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 49

Thread: Suppose this happened after the US civil war ended. Northernize the South!

  1. #16
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    12,802
    gunnut,

    A 10-year delay in the Civil War would have the body count skyrocket due to more advanced weaponry accessible by the south. The industrial might of the north would win in the end. The only difference was body count.
    depends on the situation, political will, and generals involved. it's true that having such immense material advantages is a huge thumb on the scale, but it wasn't inevitable that the North would win until after july 1863 IMO. the logistics, industrial advantage of the North only means something once you have a military leadership that can use it, and a political leadership that can persuade people that the war is worth fighting for.

    for instance if McClellan had not picked up the Lost Orders in late 1862 he probably wouldn't have pulled off the stalemate he got at Antietam. at that point even a tactical defeat would have led the British to recognize the Confederacy, and thus end the war.

    in an 1870s scenario the heavy thumb on the scale for the North isn't as heavy anymore.
    Last edited by astralis; 30 Jul 13, at 21:36.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  2. #17
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    It may be the what if in a what if,but there was little thrill to free the slaves by force of arms.There is no preservation of the Union if the North attacks first.
    Also,in the 70's and 80's there is no more France,but Germany,as the main power in Europe.So in effect,only Britain can intervene in America,but they have even less incentive without the French.
    I don't think the war could have been put off 10 years with the South undergoing its own industrial revolution. Northern aggression would have been about freeing the salves for the same reason it was in real history in the Midwest- black slaves work cheaper than free whites and economically disadvantage whites. For the industrial North, the thought of legions of black slave factory workers would scare the hell out of both the industrialist and the free white urban workers.


    Also,if the war starts later,many of the Generals that rose to power during the actual war may not have the chance.So the likes of Longstreet,Emory Upton,Forrest,Jackson may play an even bigger role.In terms of lessons learned,it's quite likely they'll notice the new wars in Europe and give up the old school tactics much earlier.Asty has a point,imo.
    I think he is ignoring the political implications of a rapidly industrializing south as a slave region. Its one thing to grow cotton or tobacco with slaves, its quite another to grow corn (look at bleeding Kansas) let alone manufacture goods...

    Regarding the migrants,who's the dumb one to volunteer to die for the industrialist,when there are ranches all over the West and the Sioux gold?
    Look how many stepped off the boat and into uniform in real history. Immigrants have always been ready to fight and die for their adoptive mother country. Even after the slaughter of WWI, when the US joined the war in 1917 all sorts immigrants joined up to go face life in the trenches.

  3. #18
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    12,802
    z,

    I don't think the war could have been put off 10 years with the South undergoing its own industrial revolution. Northern aggression would have been about freeing the salves for the same reason it was in real history in the Midwest- black slaves work cheaper than free whites and economically disadvantage whites. For the industrial North, the thought of legions of black slave factory workers would scare the hell out of both the industrialist and the free white urban workers.
    you keep on talking about northern aggression. in actuality, it was the South which was being the aggressor from the 1830s on, because they KNEW that northern power was growing too strong for them. look at all of the Civil War memoirs; almost NO ONE in the North, aside from some hardcore abolitionists, fought the war to free the slaves. there was considerable bitterness when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, and that was one of the reasons why he had to wait until the North eked out a kinda-sorta victory to issue it. (the other being for foreign policy reasons, but he knew that he couldn't do so until he had won at least a small victory, lest it look like a desperate attempt to cause a slave revolt.)

    moreover, the whole meme that "black slaves work cheaper than free whites and economically disadvantage whites" is not true, or else the South should have been an industrial powerhouse early on. in reality, the factories required SKILLED workers and a literate managerial class, both of which were in perpetual short supply in the South.

    what i'm talking about for the South was not a fullscale Industrial Revolution-- her economy was simply too agrarian, even by 1860s standards, for that. (the North itself wouldn't undergo its second Industrial Revolution until the 1880s.) i'm speaking of things such as rail nets and limited expansion of mines and factories such as Tredegar Iron Works. it would have been akin to what was already going on in the 1850s, albeit at a faster pace. the North would have certainly grown faster than the South, but even these basic additions to the South would have been of immense value.
    Last edited by astralis; 30 Jul 13, at 23:46.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  4. #19
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    12,802
    mihais,

    Also,in the 70's and 80's there is no more France,but Germany,as the main power in Europe.So in effect,only Britain can intervene in America,but they have even less incentive without the French.
    no, the French were still plenty active even while they were getting their butts kicked by Germany. any intervention in the US would have been by the French Navy working in concert with the British; a naval blockade. but even worse than a military intervention is the British cutting off loans; the US economy was highly reliant on European investment and capital until roughly the 1890s.

    Also,if the war starts later,many of the Generals that rose to power during the actual war may not have the chance.So the likes of Longstreet,Emory Upton,Forrest,Jackson may play an even bigger role.In terms of lessons learned,it's quite likely they'll notice the new wars in Europe and give up the old school tactics much earlier.Asty has a point,imo.
    a lot of the "old school" tactics was simply because the amateur armies of the ACW couldn't do anything else. it took until 1863/1864 that there were veterans whom could reliably do fire and manuever tactics.

    that'd probably still be true in 1870s. this is why i say breechloaders and 1870s technology highly favor the defense; teaching people how to use breechloaders is considerably easier than teaching them how to use a muzzle-loader. for example, you no longer need to stand/kneel to load a rifle...which is understandably hard to do when you're getting shot at. instead, you can do so from prone positions, which instantly makes vulnerable areas a LOT smaller.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  5. #20
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,367
    Quote Originally Posted by Crocodylus View Post
    The US government not only has Union troops occupying the post-Confederate South during Reconstruction, but a massive social and economic program is undertaken to subvert the culture of the antebellum South and make Southerners think like their Northern counterparts.
    What would life be like without Grits, Ice Tea and Port Rinds?
    Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?

  6. #21
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,340
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    z,



    you keep on talking about northern aggression. in actuality, it was the South which was being the aggressor from the 1830s on, because they KNEW that northern power was growing too strong for them. look at all of the Civil War memoirs; almost NO ONE in the North, aside from some hardcore abolitionists, fought the war to free the slaves. there was considerable bitterness when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, and that was one of the reasons why he had to wait until the North eked out a kinda-sorta victory to issue it. (the other being for foreign policy reasons, but he knew that he couldn't do so until he had won at least a small victory, lest it look like a desperate attempt to cause a slave revolt.)

    moreover, the whole meme that "black slaves work cheaper than free whites and economically disadvantage whites" is not true, or else the South should have been an industrial powerhouse early on. in reality, the factories required SKILLED workers and a literate managerial class, both of which were in perpetual short supply in the South.
    I was operating under the assumption of a generalized industrial revolution in the south. Yes you need managers which if literacy is require dare in short supply, but skilled workers are not. Almost all the skilled trades in the South were done by blacks- smithing in particular as just one example. Often overlooked is the story of the urban slave in the South.

    With assumption I was working under, northern industrialist and urban workers would want the war to end the economic threat to them. Slavery would just be a cover issue. Something similar happened with the free soil movement.

    what i'm talking about for the South was not a fullscale Industrial Revolution-- her economy was simply too agrarian, even by 1860s standards, for that. (the North itself wouldn't undergo its second Industrial Revolution until the 1880s.) i'm speaking of things such as rail nets and limited expansion of mines and factories such as Tredegar Iron Works. it would have been akin to what was already going on in the 1850s, albeit at a faster pace. the North would have certainly grown faster than the South, but even these basic additions to the South would have been of immense value.
    My apologies.

    However, have you looked at census data? The US population went from 31 million to 38 million between immigration and natural increase, almost all of that went North not South. In 1860 the South (free and slave) had 11.1 million souls compared to the North's 19.7 million. In 1870 the South had only increased to 12.3 while the North had climbed to 25.3 million souls.

  7. #22
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,775
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    gunnut,



    depends on the situation, political will, and generals involved. it's true that having such immense material advantages is a huge thumb on the scale, but it wasn't inevitable that the North would win until after july 1863 IMO. the logistics, industrial advantage of the North only means something once you have a military leadership that can use it, and a political leadership that can persuade people that the war is worth fighting for.
    I think the northerners would be even more for freeing the slaves by force of arms in the 1870s than 1861.

    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    for instance if McClellan had not picked up the Lost Orders in late 1862 he probably wouldn't have pulled off the stalemate he got at Antietam. at that point even a tactical defeat would have led the British to recognize the Confederacy, and thus end the war.

    in an 1870s scenario the heavy thumb on the scale for the North isn't as heavy anymore.
    Hence the body count being higher. Basically the north would feel even more betrayed with the general high body count, thus more determined to finish the fight. Most repeating arms into the hands of both armies would have devastating consequences.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  8. #23
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    12,802
    z,

    However, have you looked at census data? The US population went from 31 million to 38 million between immigration and natural increase, almost all of that went North not South. In 1860 the South (free and slave) had 11.1 million souls compared to the North's 19.7 million. In 1870 the South had only increased to 12.3 while the North had climbed to 25.3 million souls.
    it's hard to use census data when doing this type of counterfactual. i agree that the North would still have had more immigrants/natural increase, but given our history-- where 1/3-1/4 of white Southern men became casualties, a good portion of Southern cities being burned down courtesy of Sherman, the end of trade due to the blockade, and the entire region being on the brink of starvation due to the destruction of rail and farms-- it's a surprise that the South increased at all, honestly.

    probably a bit better to look at the difference between the 1850 census and the 1860 census, then project southern growth from there.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  9. #24
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Most probably, the war would be shortened extremely fast. There's no way in hell the South could have kept up with munitions productions vs munition expenditures at the rate being envisioned. And the log train? Neither side had the log tail to keep up with the kind of war being envisioned but the North would have been better at it, then the South.

  10. #25
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    12,802
    col yu,

    There's no way in hell the South could have kept up with munitions productions vs munition expenditures at the rate being envisioned. And the log train? Neither side had the log tail to keep up with the kind of war being envisioned but the North would have been better at it, then the South.
    regarding munitions productions, even in 1860 the Southern economy, by itself, was roughly on par with Italy. by 1870 the Southern economy would have been within reaching distance of a France-sized economy. in terms of actually USING the economy, the south would have mobilized more resources, because the South always knew a fight would be a fight to the death for them.

    so frankly if the French could fight a war with breechloaders and a kinda-sorta equivalent of a Gatling, and support it on a fairly crappy rail net, i don't think the South would have had an issue with doing the same.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  11. #26
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    We were having munition production problems all through WWI. In the kind of war being envisioned, no one actually knew the production requirements because no one has ever gone through such a requirement before. France and Italy were not fighting to the death wars which means there would be lulls between battles as both sides build up the munitions needed and this is where the South will begin to fail. The North can produce more and faster meaning that the North can recover from a battle faster.

  12. #27
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    12,802
    all true. OTOH the north would certainly take significantly more casualties as the breechloader favors the defense. plus, if the north is on the tactical offensive they'd also require significantly more munitions anyway-- fire and manuever will require significantly more ammo to be expended in suppression of enemy fire.

    so once again it goes into the whole, 'will northern willpower run out before the South runs out of bullets'. obviously in our case that wasn't true, but in 1862 it was a lot closer of a toss up.

    i do see what you're getting at, though. i agree the South would have a smaller time window before Northern industry would overwhelm them. however, while that window is open i still believe they would have a better shot of making the North tire of their losses. imagine the Battle of Fredericksburg if Lee was blasting apart the Northern assault with breechloaders and not muzzleloaders.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  13. #28
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    i do see what you're getting at, though. i agree the South would have a smaller time window before Northern industry would overwhelm them. however, while that window is open i still believe they would have a better shot of making the North tire of their losses. imagine the Battle of Fredericksburg if Lee was blasting apart the Northern assault with breechloaders and not muzzleloaders.
    It's not any single battle and this is where Grant has it over Lee. It's the next battle after that. Lee could win Fredericksburg hands down and still won't have bullets left for the next Union surge. The North had replacement armies. Lee did not.

  14. #29
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    It's not any single battle and this is where Grant has it over Lee. It's the next battle after that. Lee could win Fredericksburg hands down and still won't have bullets left for the next Union surge. The North had replacement armies. Lee did not.
    Would the North be able to tell South is out of ammo? Would they be willing to risk another wooping?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  15. #30
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Grant did.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Civil War in South Africa?
    By cyppok in forum Sub-Saharan Africa
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 18 Feb 13,, 16:43
  2. Civil War in South Africa?
    By cyppok in forum What-if discussions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 21 Sep 12,, 10:54
  3. What would the world be like if the South had won the Civil War?
    By svs in forum Ancient, Medieval & Early Modern Ages
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 27 Jun 08,, 16:07
  4. what happened to south asian political forum
    By raj in forum WAB Information Center
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 19 Mar 07,, 17:18

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •