• Hey (name)! This is a general announcement to all of our members that we have a growing Alternate History and Creative Writing section that is increasingly seeing new content. If you haven't taken a look lately, please do so and perhaps leave a comment or reaction if you read something you like! Let's support our writers!
  • For those of you who would like to support the Sietch financially, subscriptions are BACK. Simply click on Account Upgrades and you will be able to upgrade your account!

Confederate victory at Gettysburg

stevep

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Oct 18, 2020
Reaction score
334
Which, in the context of the Confederacy maintaining a strong defense, is there any doubt they would lack the will? They did fight a war of independence to the extent they suffered almost Soviet level casualties.
But they still lost since they were so heavily outmatched. As stated the issue is less the southern will to resist as is the northern will to fight until victory.


I said it doesn't matter in the context of what the original point was, which is that the South didn't have a cottage industry. I actually agreed with you many posts ago on the theory; it's the same issue as the first point, you've lost cite of what you were originally arguing. See here:
I think that ~1860 there was probably still a fair amount of cottage industry in the UK, although it was a declining factor. Very much doubt that the vast majority of manufacturing in the union states let alone the rebel ones were in large factory units.

Which is actually different from your initial point where you argued that there were no differences in industrial factories or cottage production in terms of their capacity to expand output, modernise equipment and methods etc.



Which, again, has no real support as the start of the conflict by mainstream historians nor was a war assured from the get go either. Even then, if you wanted to argue this point, the initial belief of both sides was that the conflict would be over quickly and relatively bloodless.
Which can be an argument for "lets just keep with what we're used to. Then when the wars over/or conflict is averted we can consider what we actually need."
 

History Learner

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Reaction score
444
But they still lost since they were so heavily outmatched. As stated the issue is less the southern will to resist as is the northern will to fight until victory.
Okay, which is again not the point at hand, and was previously stated. Again, you seem to have lost cite of what you are even arguing:
That the North could construct and maintain a more powerful military if the political will exists to do such is not in doubt, but you are goal post shifting on this because your original question was of the capacity of the South to maintain a strong defensive posture. Likewise specifically on the matter of tax burdens, the vast majority would fall on the upper classes, who would also be having a boom in profit as cotton exports grew in value from 1870 onward; in fact, cotton was the main U.S. export until 1937.
Your original point of disagreement with me was whether, in peace time, the CSA could afford an effective military.

I think that ~1860 there was probably still a fair amount of cottage industry in the UK, although it was a declining factor. Very much doubt that the vast majority of manufacturing in the union states let alone the rebel ones were in large factory units.
Okay, then the onus is on you to prove such, not just claim it.

Which is actually different from your initial point where you argued that there were no differences in industrial factories or cottage production in terms of their capacity to expand output, modernise equipment and methods etc.
Except I never once argued that and have now, twice, shown you where I said the complete opposite. If you feel otherwise, cite me where I said it. We have a quote function, so it would be every easy for you to do such and score some points here.

Which can be an argument for "lets just keep with what we're used to. Then when the wars over/or conflict is averted we can consider what we actually need."
And as I've cited from multiple authors and books, they wanted a tariff sufficient to encourage the development of domestic industry while low enough not to discourage trade. If you feel otherwise, the onus is on you to provide the citations for your argument, not just make the claims because that does nothing to advance the conversation.
 
Last edited:

stevep

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Oct 18, 2020
Reaction score
334
Your original point of disagreement with me was whether, in peace time, the CSA could afford an effective military.
Which is still a matter of considerable doubt despite your assumptions. Like the north they have the material capacity for a substantially larger forces that the US maintained prior to WWI, or even WWII - at least in terms of land power. With probable mutual hostility between the two nations some increase is likely. Whether its as large an increase in spending as your assuming and last for any length of time given the economic costs and also the probable social tensions that are likely to result post-war. Especially with your plans for the planters going on a conquest spree.

Except I never once argued that and have now, twice, shown you where I said the complete opposite. If you feel otherwise, cite me where I said it. We have a quote function, so it would be every easy for you to do such and score some points here.
Not interesting in points scoring but on post #47 you said exactly that.

Industrial output stays the same in terms of what is produced and its value regardless; i.e. $150 million in industrial goods is still $150 million regardless of where it came, although you could say a non-cottage production method could produce 50% more given efficiencies gained.


And as I've cited from multiple authors and books, they wanted a tariff sufficient to encourage the development of domestic industry while low enough not to discourage trade. If you feel otherwise, the onus is on you to provide the citations for your argument, not just make the claims because that does nothing to advance the conversation.

On this issue it could be that we're talking slightly past each other in that the south maintained the low tariff from 1857, about 15% while there was opposition to the Republican position for a higher tariff to protect industry which came into power from early 1861 in part aided by the absence of a number of southern delegates since they had left Congress when their states withdraw. I was referring to the high tariff policy that the US followed during and after the war and had attempted to pursue earlier. Had believed that that had continued into the 1850's but actually Democrat domination during most of that period have seem tariffs reduced markedly.

As such in that way you were correct that the south stuck to the lower tariffs that were in place during the 1840's & 50's. However I was thinking of the tariffs produced by the north from 1961 onward, which were to protect industry, which the south - and many in the west - opposed. Its noticeable that the lower tariff actually boosted government income during the period as imports increased. I was thinking that the sort of higher tariffs which caused tension earlier and then from the civil war afterwards. Partly mislead by your insistence that the proposed southern tariff was designed to protect its industries which seems not to have been the intent but instead also you also said to raise revenue.
 

History Learner

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Reaction score
444
Which is still a matter of considerable doubt despite your assumptions. Like the north they have the material capacity for a substantially larger forces that the US maintained prior to WWI, or even WWII - at least in terms of land power. With probable mutual hostility between the two nations some increase is likely. Whether its as large an increase in spending as your assuming and last for any length of time given the economic costs and also the probable social tensions that are likely to result post-war. Especially with your plans for the planters going on a conquest spree.
Okay, then articulate where your disagreements are because as it is, you are only making unfalsifiable arguments that do nothing to advance the conversation. If you feel the math I have used previously to show expected Confederate income sources is wrong, please show us and me what you disagree with there. If we are going to assume that, for some reason, the Confederacy is the one to drop self defense spending and the Union magically does not, why?

Not interesting in points scoring but on post #47 you said exactly that.
Except that's not at all what you claimed I said? This is what you stated I claimed:

Which is actually different from your initial point where you argued that there were no differences in industrial factories or cottage production in terms of their capacity to expand output, modernise equipment and methods etc.
$150 million in hypothetical goods produced by either system is still a $150 million in raw terms; that statement does not even comment on the issue of expanding capacity, modernizing equipment, etc. I even directly stated this several times to you:

And as I've already said, it has no relevancy to the matter because the Confederacy was not dependent on cottage industry but even if it was it doesn't have an effect on debating what was originally the point on hand, which was output. $150 million produced by a cottage industry is still $150 million, which can be objectively measured to both OTL and for comparison purposes. If you want to say factories are better, I am in agreement, but really it has no baring on the point at hand.
On this issue it could be that we're talking slightly past each other in that the south maintained the low tariff from 1857, about 15% while there was opposition to the Republican position for a higher tariff to protect industry which came into power from early 1861 in part aided by the absence of a number of southern delegates since they had left Congress when their states withdraw. I was referring to the high tariff policy that the US followed during and after the war and had attempted to pursue earlier. Had believed that that had continued into the 1850's but actually Democrat domination during most of that period have seem tariffs reduced markedly.

As such in that way you were correct that the south stuck to the lower tariffs that were in place during the 1840's & 50's. However I was thinking of the tariffs produced by the north from 1961 onward, which were to protect industry, which the south - and many in the west - opposed. Its noticeable that the lower tariff actually boosted government income during the period as imports increased. I was thinking that the sort of higher tariffs which caused tension earlier and then from the civil war afterwards. Partly mislead by your insistence that the proposed southern tariff was designed to protect its industries which seems not to have been the intent but instead also you also said to raise revenue.
Steve, as I have repeatedly said to you with ample citations, the intent was to foster and protect Southern industry while also encouraging a lively trade with Europe. If you feel otherwise, as always, the onus is on you at this point to provide something in contention. To quote Majewski again:
In fusing free trade and protectionist impulses, secessionists spoke and wrote in a Hamiltonian idiom of economic modernization and economic nationalism. Just as Hamilton had imagined the United States becoming a world economic power, secessionists envisioned the Confederacy as a vehicle for promoting economic modernization. Confederate duties closely resembled (and sometimes exceeded) the 10 to 15 percent tariff rate proposed by Hamilton in his famous Report on Manufacturers (1791). The similarity in rates reflected shared goals of simultaneously promoting nation building and economic development. Hamilton wanted to make his new nation economically independent while simultaneously encouraging enough international trade to pay for his ambitious fiscal plans. His moderate tariff encouraged domestic manufacturing while generating enough revenue to finance the Revolutionary War debt. Confederates wanted tariffs high enough to penalize northern goods—thus encouraging economic independence—but still low enough to allow for a vibrant trade with Europe.
 
Top Bottom