stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,869 
Likes: 13,254
|
Post by stevep on Jan 16, 2020 16:07:51 GMT
A while since I read it but IIRC they actually purchase some Mexican provinces from Emperor Maximilian rather than take them by force. This gives him resources to use against the rebels and also isolates them somewhat from the US as the provinces give the CSA a line of territory to the Pacific. In terms of expanding slavery the assorted fire-eaters involved in that were thinking of places like the Yucatan peninsula as suitable for slavery but even without external opposition [ involving a white ensign  ] this would be difficult as the locals are likely to oppose it strongly since it would mean displacing them and tearing up a lot of forests to establish plantations that probably would quickly exhaust the soil there. Well could the CSA not do the same buy in the period of 1865 to 1870 when the 2nd French Empire was still in Mexico some of Mexico, thereby getting access to the Pacific coast.
Possibly but the land is largely unsuitable for slavery and also it would be politically sensitive with opposition in Mexico to conceding the land as well as probably other powers.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,117
Likes: 49,506
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 16, 2020 16:09:27 GMT
Well could the CSA not do the same buy in the period of 1865 to 1870 when the 2nd French Empire was still in Mexico some of Mexico, thereby getting access to the Pacific coast. Possibly but the land is largely unsuitable for slavery and also it would be politically sensitive with opposition in Mexico to conceding the land as well as probably other powers.
But it would give the CSA a Pacific Coast and thus means to trade. |
|
dayton3
Chief petty officer
Posts: 118
Likes: 26
|
Post by dayton3 on Jan 17, 2020 4:28:01 GMT
But it was finding alternative sources for cotton even before the Boll Weevil hit the southern US region. Plus the political pressure against slavery was already overwhelming in most of western Europe. A CSA that seeks to keep organised slavery into the 20thC is going to be very, very isolated.
Britain actually became more dependent on Southern cotton; India and Egypt as alternatives is largely a myth:  I thought over years leading up to the American Civil War British textiles stockpiled a substantial amount of cotton in anticipation of a possible supply disruption. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,869
Likes: 13,254
|
Post by stevep on Jan 17, 2020 12:03:39 GMT
Britain actually became more dependent on Southern cotton; India and Egypt as alternatives is largely a myth: I thought over years leading up to the American Civil War British textiles stockpiled a substantial amount of cotton in anticipation of a possible supply disruption.
Not that I'm aware of, plus that would have been very much against the minimal government involvement philosophy that was rooting itself in power at the time. Or for that matter in the interests of an individual textile producer to have a massive reserve. Its generally stated in the early period of the conflict the CSA government deliberately withheld cotton from export in the hope of forcing a cotton drought and hence making European producers intervene to restore it. This didn't work because there were stockpiles of cotton but that seems to have been a part of the natural economic cycle unless some other factor came in. This came back to bite the rebels because later on when there were shortages of cotton the union had by then managed to get a markedly tighter blockade on the south and hence it was unable to export much or use the resulting funds to get imports in.
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Jan 20, 2020 3:40:09 GMT
Britain actually became more dependent on Southern cotton; India and Egypt as alternatives is largely a myth: I thought over years leading up to the American Civil War British textiles stockpiled a substantial amount of cotton in anticipation of a possible supply disruption. They did; by 1861 the world was actually in a cotton glut, which was part of the reasoning behind the Cotton Embargo Richmond did. Anglo-French stocks were becoming low by 1862, which was part of their reasoning for intervention. |
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Jan 20, 2020 3:50:31 GMT
The South would be a major power, both economically and militarily. Without Consent or Contract by Robert Fogel, pg 414-415: Worth noting that by 1910 IOTL, the South (11 States of the CSA and Oklahoma) had almost 25 million people. Assuming reduced mortality rates among White Southerners during the ATL war (OTL, about a third of Southern White Males died), I wouldn't be surprised to see the ATL Confederacy at 30 million or even greater; that puts it equal to France, Italy and just under the UK in terms of population.
Cart and horse. Your assuming that the highly decentalised CSA where the states jealously guarded their powers would allow the central government to raise sizeable amounts of money and use it to fund European sized military forces including a navy to challenge that of Britain as it went on a conquest spree. The federal budget before the civil war was small because at the time it did very little. Custom protection and maintaining minimal forces by land and sea - which much of the former came from the states as well so the figure there wouldn't be that impressive. To achieve the aims your suggesting they would need to buy a very large fleet then man and maintain it and that is an expensive option. Going up against the world's No.1 naval, industrial and economic power would need much more than that and still be very unlikely to succeed. It sounds like Fogel doesn't realise how weak the US and especially the south was compared to the European powers. [Even worse if they try building up and maintaining their own naval/military industry as that's going to cost a lot more and take far longer.
I checked the figures for the 11 states in the 1860 census, see 1860_United_States_Census which summing up gives a total population of ~10.14M people of which 3.4M were slaves. Note this include both what became W Virginia but also Virginia as a whole along with Tennessee, N Carolina and Arkansas which initially opposed secession and only joined the rebels when Lincoln insisted on opposing war by force. If as Fogel is assuming the CSA was accepted without conflict by the union states its likely that at least Virginia and Tennessee would have stayed in the union, quite possibly the other two as well. Assuming that only the 1st two stay loyal that cuts the CSA population to about 7.44M people of which 2.7M would have been slaves. Even without the lack of industry in the south and the concentration of political power in the states this is a pretty low basis for a great power.
Your figures seemed a bit high as as its commonly mentioned on a USCW site that population growth was minimal before 1900 so I checked the 1900_United_States_Census, for comparison. Adding up all now 13 states [including W Virginia and Oklahoma] they totaled 20.67M people - sorry just realised you were talking about a decade later.  For 1910_United_States_Census they total 26.25M by my calculation. Again this is including states that are unlikely to be members of the CSA in a peaceful secession. If we remove Virginia, W Virginia and Tennessee then the figures would be 15.84M in 1900 -with Texas expanding considerably from 0.60M in 1860 to 3.01M in 1900 and similarly 20.79M in 1910. The significant boost over that decade suggests at least some measure from the large scale immigration to the US as a whole which might not occur for a separate CSA for multiple reasons, some of which mentioned below.
Of course this assumes that the south would have a virtually identical population growth to OTL which seems unlikely. I can think of several reasons for it being lower, such as loyalists leaving the break-away states, lower economic growth due to not being part of a larger economy especially with the considerable military establishment your suggesting and probably less immigration to the south. [Its poorer overall, the country is arguably still dominated by the large planters who opposed such migration and there definitely wouldn't be an influx of blacks from the Caribbean with slavery still in place]. Forget totally about trying to import more slaves from Africa as the European powers and the Union will oppose that and the CSA will in no way have the naval strength to project power to such a distance.
Of course if the CSA was to put duty on exports of cotton that supplies a larger economic as well as political incentive for Britain and others to find alternatives.
If the CSA did reach a figure of say 30-35M people in 1910, although that seems dubious and would include how many slaves, they would still be outnumbered by the UK who's UK 1911 census totaled 45.22M. This of course only includes people in the UK on that date so a large number of expats as well as the settled dominions and parts of the empire would increase the difference further. can't find the French figures on a quick look but IIRC they were about 42M at this period, again ignoring expats and imperial citizens - other than possibly in Algeria.
. The whole idea of a weak CS government is Lost Causer "State's Rights" myth making from the Post-War generations, ironically. As for the cotton export tax, prices of Cotton in 1861 rose to about 8.60 pence from 6.25 in 1860, and from there all the way out to 1867 prices were never below 10 pence. Now, using the Pound Sterling to U.S. Dollar conversion table here, we can figure out how much a single British pence was in terms of American pennies: S = 5.31D D = 100p2 240p1 = S 240p1 = 5.31(100p2) 240p1 = 531p2 531p2/240p1 = ~2.2 American Pennies to every British Pence So, using the 1860 base price of cotton, the Confederates could increase the export duty on their cotton to the stipulated 5 cents per pound, and it would still be lower than what the British paid for cotton between 1862-1867. $100 Million is more than sufficient to purchase an excellent fleet and maintain a superb military; to put that into perspective, the U.S. in 1860 was only spending $29 Million. As for the population bit, both the British and French were at 39 Million in 1907. A Confederacy at the 30-35 million range is in the same ballpark and likely with a larger GDP and GDP per capita than France, given France only overcame the Antebellum South in GDP per capita in the 1880s. |
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Jan 20, 2020 3:53:24 GMT
Possibly but the land is largely unsuitable for slavery and also it would be politically sensitive with opposition in Mexico to conceding the land as well as probably other powers.
But it would give the CSA a Pacific Coast and thus means to trade. Much of Mexico was also fertile ground for Cotton:  Also, it needs to be stated Cotton =/= Slavery expansion material. More Corn was being grown in the Slave States Pre-Civil War than Cotton and even more Corn in total than the North! In fact, the Corn crop was actually worth more than the Cotton crop. Likewise, 5% of the total slave population was engaged in industrial or proto-industrial activities, such as mining, and Mexico is rather famous for her silver mines, for just one example.... |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,869
Likes: 13,254
|
Post by stevep on Jan 20, 2020 16:12:23 GMT
Cart and horse. Your assuming that the highly decentalised CSA where the states jealously guarded their powers would allow the central government to raise sizeable amounts of money and use it to fund European sized military forces including a navy to challenge that of Britain as it went on a conquest spree. The federal budget before the civil war was small because at the time it did very little. Custom protection and maintaining minimal forces by land and sea - which much of the former came from the states as well so the figure there wouldn't be that impressive. To achieve the aims your suggesting they would need to buy a very large fleet then man and maintain it and that is an expensive option. Going up against the world's No.1 naval, industrial and economic power would need much more than that and still be very unlikely to succeed. It sounds like Fogel doesn't realise how weak the US and especially the south was compared to the European powers. [Even worse if they try building up and maintaining their own naval/military industry as that's going to cost a lot more and take far longer.
I checked the figures for the 11 states in the 1860 census, see 1860_United_States_Census which summing up gives a total population of ~10.14M people of which 3.4M were slaves. Note this include both what became W Virginia but also Virginia as a whole along with Tennessee, N Carolina and Arkansas which initially opposed secession and only joined the rebels when Lincoln insisted on opposing war by force. If as Fogel is assuming the CSA was accepted without conflict by the union states its likely that at least Virginia and Tennessee would have stayed in the union, quite possibly the other two as well. Assuming that only the 1st two stay loyal that cuts the CSA population to about 7.44M people of which 2.7M would have been slaves. Even without the lack of industry in the south and the concentration of political power in the states this is a pretty low basis for a great power.
Your figures seemed a bit high as as its commonly mentioned on a USCW site that population growth was minimal before 1900 so I checked the 1900_United_States_Census, for comparison. Adding up all now 13 states [including W Virginia and Oklahoma] they totaled 20.67M people - sorry just realised you were talking about a decade later. For 1910_United_States_Census they total 26.25M by my calculation. Again this is including states that are unlikely to be members of the CSA in a peaceful secession. If we remove Virginia, W Virginia and Tennessee then the figures would be 15.84M in 1900 -with Texas expanding considerably from 0.60M in 1860 to 3.01M in 1900 and similarly 20.79M in 1910. The significant boost over that decade suggests at least some measure from the large scale immigration to the US as a whole which might not occur for a separate CSA for multiple reasons, some of which mentioned below.
Of course this assumes that the south would have a virtually identical population growth to OTL which seems unlikely. I can think of several reasons for it being lower, such as loyalists leaving the break-away states, lower economic growth due to not being part of a larger economy especially with the considerable military establishment your suggesting and probably less immigration to the south. [Its poorer overall, the country is arguably still dominated by the large planters who opposed such migration and there definitely wouldn't be an influx of blacks from the Caribbean with slavery still in place]. Forget totally about trying to import more slaves from Africa as the European powers and the Union will oppose that and the CSA will in no way have the naval strength to project power to such a distance.
Of course if the CSA was to put duty on exports of cotton that supplies a larger economic as well as political incentive for Britain and others to find alternatives.
If the CSA did reach a figure of say 30-35M people in 1910, although that seems dubious and would include how many slaves, they would still be outnumbered by the UK who's UK 1911 census totaled 45.22M. This of course only includes people in the UK on that date so a large number of expats as well as the settled dominions and parts of the empire would increase the difference further. can't find the French figures on a quick look but IIRC they were about 42M at this period, again ignoring expats and imperial citizens - other than possibly in Algeria.
. The whole idea of a weak CS government is Lost Causer "State's Rights" myth making from the Post-War generations, ironically. As for the cotton export tax, prices of Cotton in 1861 rose to about 8.60 pence from 6.25 in 1860, and from there all the way out to 1867 prices were never below 10 pence. Now, using the Pound Sterling to U.S. Dollar conversion table here, we can figure out how much a single British pence was in terms of American pennies: S = 5.31D D = 100p2 240p1 = S 240p1 = 5.31(100p2) 240p1 = 531p2 531p2/240p1 = ~2.2 American Pennies to every British Pence So, using the 1860 base price of cotton, the Confederates could increase the export duty on their cotton to the stipulated 5 cents per pound, and it would still be lower than what the British paid for cotton between 1862-1867. $100 Million is more than sufficient to purchase an excellent fleet and maintain a superb military; to put that into perspective, the U.S. in 1860 was only spending $29 Million. As for the population bit, both the British and French were at 39 Million in 1907. A Confederacy at the 30-35 million range is in the same ballpark and likely with a larger GDP and GDP per capita than France, given France only overcame the Antebellum South in GDP per capita in the 1880s.
I'm working on much discussion on a USCW site, USCW, and also some other things I've read about the conflict. Such as a case late in the war where one of the armies defending the south was desperately short of virtually everything including boots for its men. A neigbouring state had a plentiful stockpile but refused to release them to forces based in another state. The CSA may have had very restrictive rules during a war for their survival which they were losing but how long that would have lasted post-war is uncertain.
Are you saying that the CSA would be able to generate $100 million per year? That may be more than 3 times what the US as a whole spent on defence in 1860 but then the US was spending very little. IIRC its army was about 25-35,000 people and its navy was minimal. Its likely to want a larger army simply because it needs to keep an eye on the US let alone assorted imperial expansions schemes. Buying modern warships is expensive and maintaining them, including training the men and keeping them up to date at a period when technology was advancing rapidly. How reliant will the south be on parts, equipment munitions etc from the nations who they bought the ships from which could be cut off in the event of war?
The figures I quoted for Britain were from the 1911 census. Couldn't on a quick search find details of the French census cycle.
Steve
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,869
Likes: 13,254
|
Post by stevep on Jan 20, 2020 16:21:05 GMT
But it would give the CSA a Pacific Coast and thus means to trade. Much of Mexico was also fertile ground for Cotton: Also, it needs to be stated Cotton =/= Slavery expansion material. More Corn was being grown in the Slave States Pre-Civil War than Cotton and even more Corn in total than the North! In fact, the Corn crop was actually worth more than the Cotton crop. Likewise, 5% of the total slave population was engaged in industrial or proto-industrial activities, such as mining, and Mexico is rather famous for her silver mines, for just one example....
That is for the modern era with much greater technology available. True most of this is along the Rio Grande but was the capacity for river management and irrigation practical in the 1860s especially at such a distance from the CSA's centres of power? A lot of that region was under minimal control with assorted Indian tribes, most noticeably the Apaches being very powerful for quite a while.
Yes there were other uses for slaves although generally cotton was the dominant one because it was the most productive. However all systems relied on managing to hold a very reluctant workforce under control and without much in the way education which would limit their productivity in the longer run.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Jan 20, 2020 21:15:53 GMT
The CSA was actually the most centralized authority in North American history until the New Deal Era. The whole idea of a weak CS government is Lost Causer "State's Rights" myth making from the Post-War generations, ironically. As for the cotton export tax, prices of Cotton in 1861 rose to about 8.60 pence from 6.25 in 1860, and from there all the way out to 1867 prices were never below 10 pence. Now, using the Pound Sterling to U.S. Dollar conversion table here, we can figure out how much a single British pence was in terms of American pennies: S = 5.31D D = 100p2 240p1 = S 240p1 = 5.31(100p2) 240p1 = 531p2 531p2/240p1 = ~2.2 American Pennies to every British Pence So, using the 1860 base price of cotton, the Confederates could increase the export duty on their cotton to the stipulated 5 cents per pound, and it would still be lower than what the British paid for cotton between 1862-1867. $100 Million is more than sufficient to purchase an excellent fleet and maintain a superb military; to put that into perspective, the U.S. in 1860 was only spending $29 Million. As for the population bit, both the British and French were at 39 Million in 1907. A Confederacy at the 30-35 million range is in the same ballpark and likely with a larger GDP and GDP per capita than France, given France only overcame the Antebellum South in GDP per capita in the 1880s.
I'm working on much discussion on a USCW site, USCW, and also some other things I've read about the conflict. Such as a case late in the war where one of the armies defending the south was desperately short of virtually everything including boots for its men. A neigbouring state had a plentiful stockpile but refused to release them to forces based in another state. The CSA may have had very restrictive rules during a war for their survival which they were losing but how long that would have lasted post-war is uncertain.
Are you saying that the CSA would be able to generate $100 million per year? That may be more than 3 times what the US as a whole spent on defence in 1860 but then the US was spending very little. IIRC its army was about 25-35,000 people and its navy was minimal. Its likely to want a larger army simply because it needs to keep an eye on the US let alone assorted imperial expansions schemes. Buying modern warships is expensive and maintaining them, including training the men and keeping them up to date at a period when technology was advancing rapidly. How reliant will the south be on parts, equipment munitions etc from the nations who they bought the ships from which could be cut off in the event of war?
The figures I quoted for Britain were from the 1911 census. Couldn't on a quick search find details of the French census cycle.
Steve
Isolated incidents do not distort the overall picture, however. The CSA had a more effective system of conscription and more government agents, allowing it to organize great control over the overall system of management. Indeed, said control allowed it to construct massive steel works in Alabama and construct the second largest railway network per capita in the world. Fun fact: unlike the U.S. Constitution, the C.S. Constitution specifically made secession illegal lol. Now, as for the specific matter of taxation, $100 million would be from the Cotton export alone. Numerous other measures of public taxation exist, such as the 5% tax instituted on Slaves in 1863/1864, which would've generated $150 Million by itself. The Cotton tax on its own would've been sufficient to fund an Army of 100,000 (Would've placed the CSA in the top 5 of the 1860s for standing armies) and keep it well equipped, while likewise supporting a Navy behind only the Anglo-French in size. |
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Jan 20, 2020 21:20:39 GMT
Much of Mexico was also fertile ground for Cotton: Also, it needs to be stated Cotton =/= Slavery expansion material. More Corn was being grown in the Slave States Pre-Civil War than Cotton and even more Corn in total than the North! In fact, the Corn crop was actually worth more than the Cotton crop. Likewise, 5% of the total slave population was engaged in industrial or proto-industrial activities, such as mining, and Mexico is rather famous for her silver mines, for just one example....
That is for the modern era with much greater technology available. True most of this is along the Rio Grande but was the capacity for river management and irrigation practical in the 1860s especially at such a distance from the CSA's centres of power? A lot of that region was under minimal control with assorted Indian tribes, most noticeably the Apaches being very powerful for quite a while.
Yes there were other uses for slaves although generally cotton was the dominant one because it was the most productive. However all systems relied on managing to hold a very reluctant workforce under control and without much in the way education which would limit their productivity in the longer run.
Steve
I see no reason for this to not remain in case of Confederate annexation, particularly given the likely Confederate Pacific railway connection that would come to the region in time. As for Cotton, actually the most productive crop in terms of overall output volume was corn, not cotton:  The Pre-Civil War South's Leading Crop, Corn by Donald L. Kemmerer, Agricultural History, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Oct., 1949), pp. 236-239. Education is also not needed for agricultural production or industrialization; there's a reason the U.S. didn't suffer for illiterate Eastern and Southern Europeans arriving in droves during the Late 19th and Early 20th Century. The same would hold true for the Black population, while White Southerners were only slightly behind the North and equal to the Europeans in this regard. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,117
Likes: 49,506
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 21, 2020 4:40:25 GMT
That is for the modern era with much greater technology available. True most of this is along the Rio Grande but was the capacity for river management and irrigation practical in the 1860s especially at such a distance from the CSA's centres of power? A lot of that region was under minimal control with assorted Indian tribes, most noticeably the Apaches being very powerful for quite a while.
Yes there were other uses for slaves although generally cotton was the dominant one because it was the most productive. However all systems relied on managing to hold a very reluctant workforce under control and without much in the way education which would limit their productivity in the longer run.
Steve
I see no reason for this to not remain in case of Confederate annexation, particularly given the likely Confederate Pacific railway connection that would come to the region in time. As for Cotton, actually the most productive crop in terms of overall output volume was corn, not cotton: The Pre-Civil War South's Leading Crop, Corn by Donald L. Kemmerer, Agricultural History, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Oct., 1949), pp. 236-239. Education is also not needed for agricultural production or industrialization; there's a reason the U.S. didn't suffer for illiterate Eastern and Southern Europeans arriving in droves during the Late 19th and Early 20th Century. The same would hold true for the Black population, while White Southerners were only slightly behind the North and equal to the Europeans in this regard. Cannot see image EwellHolmes. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,869
Likes: 13,254
|
Post by stevep on Jan 21, 2020 15:25:02 GMT
That is for the modern era with much greater technology available. True most of this is along the Rio Grande but was the capacity for river management and irrigation practical in the 1860s especially at such a distance from the CSA's centres of power? A lot of that region was under minimal control with assorted Indian tribes, most noticeably the Apaches being very powerful for quite a while.
Yes there were other uses for slaves although generally cotton was the dominant one because it was the most productive. However all systems relied on managing to hold a very reluctant workforce under control and without much in the way education which would limit their productivity in the longer run.
Steve
I see no reason for this to not remain in case of Confederate annexation, particularly given the likely Confederate Pacific railway connection that would come to the region in time. As for Cotton, actually the most productive crop in terms of overall output volume was corn, not cotton: The Pre-Civil War South's Leading Crop, Corn by Donald L. Kemmerer, Agricultural History, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Oct., 1949), pp. 236-239. Education is also not needed for agricultural production or industrialization; there's a reason the U.S. didn't suffer for illiterate Eastern and Southern Europeans arriving in droves during the Late 19th and Early 20th Century. The same would hold true for the Black population, while White Southerners were only slightly behind the North and equal to the Europeans in this regard.
Actually the book itself, see p14-15 says that cotton was native to the river valleys of the semi-arid borderlands but it wasn't commercially important until the union blockade of the rebel south created a global cotton shortage and turned northern Mexico into a nexus of the global cotton economy. This is presumably not going to happen in TTL, at least not for the moment.
On p25-26 its mentioned that despite major efforts by the Mexican government cotton production failed to take off and while a fair amount was spent on constructing textile plants most of the cotton they used was imported from the US. The book, from a quick skim through gives only comparative information on production rather than detailed figures.
On p27 it mentions the serious cotton shortage generated by the USCW and northern blockade prompted by 'England' a scramble for supplies form Egypt and India and a search for longer term alternatives - which may have been a fact a few decades later in British investment in cotton cultivation in the northern Mexican borderlands. It also suggests that the shortage of cotton and desire for control/influence of an alternative source was a factor in the French attempt to establish a friendly government in Mexico in the early 1860's. Goes on to say that the holdout of the more liberal Juarez government in the north and major revenue generated by smuggling of southern - largely Texan - cotton via the area prompted a considerable build up of funds and experience in trade in the region which again are less likely to occur without a USCW. . It mentions how the money from this was invested in local cotton production, but unfortunately again giving no figures.
There is also mention, p29 that before the war attempts by the provincial governor of Nuevo Leon, Vidaurri encouraged the growth of legal commerce but failed to kick-start a local cotton production industry of any size. Juarez's supporters effectively destroyed much of Vidaurri's work and brought new instabilty into the region while the end of the USCW meant an end to the lucrative cross border trade in cotton. It was only in the 1880's when Diaz secured power and brought stability to the region that things took off but again no figures quoted.
As such it sounds inaccurate to say that N Mexico was a major producer of cotton in the 1860's. It was a centre for transporting Texan cotton around the union blockade but local cotton production only really got organised in any scale some decades later.
One other factor that is mentioned is the high demand for seasonal labour for cotton cultivation, especially but not solely in the picking of the cotton buds. The 1st centre in northern Mexico was around Laguna and it mentions that the population increased about 400% between 1880 and 1910, p31. This caused a lot of social problems because you had a large labour forces dependent on periodic employment. I'm guessing that your expecting the south to not only gain control of the area and then use slaves for this workforce but that presents problems in itself. Apart from the discontent of local populations about being displayed the labour demand is seasonal. In the old south slaves not needed currently on the plantation can be hired out for other uses but in a arid and fairly barren area such as N Mexico there is going to be a lot more difficult.
It took quite a lot of capital to develop the region with the necessity of building railways and developing irrigation systems which again are possible but will take time and be expensive and in this case you won't get local Mexican capital and are less likely to any much from outside the CSA.
As such if the CSA was to get the region in some way and maintain control of it then it could develop a rival cotton cultivation to its existing production but it will be expensive and time consuming.
Corn - by which I assume you mean Indian corn/maize rather than wheat - may be the largest crop by volume but how much export trade goes it provide? I suspect a lot would go to feeding the local population, including all those slaves that the CSA is somehow getting its hands on and relatively little is going for export in this time period. Most of that probably to the US I expect.
You may think education is unimportant for modern technology but I suspect your in a very small minority in that view. Even in the early stages of the Industrial revolution self made men such as Hargraves and Watt while largely self educated depended on a good knowledge of what they will doing and the ability to read and write were very important especially as it enabled them to find out about and incorporate/modify developments elsewhere. A major reason why Britain fell so far behind in the last decades of the 19thC compared to primarily competitors were because general education was under-valued and partly due to squabbles between religions groups widespread education in Britain was delayed by several decades. I remember reading once that it was in the period just after the USCW that the government mandated widespread education and was to benefit greatly from it, as well as from immigration of many well educated people from Europe. [In the latter stages many migrants were poorly educated and they did provide cheap labour, until they [or their children] gained a better level of education.
One other thing with your population projections I forgot to mention earlier. The domination of the economy by large plantations in the old and deep south especially meant that they controlled the vast bulk of the best farming lands as small independent farmers couldn't compete with them. Even before the war they were leaking population as people migrated north and later west because there were limited opportunities for them in the south. This is likely to be a continued issue in an independent CSA while the latter is dominated by slave owning planters.
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Jan 23, 2020 7:13:09 GMT
Northern Mexico was already a global Cotton hub in the 1860s. I see no reason for this to not remain in case of Confederate annexation, particularly given the likely Confederate Pacific railway connection that would come to the region in time. As for Cotton, actually the most productive crop in terms of overall output volume was corn, not cotton: The Pre-Civil War South's Leading Crop, Corn by Donald L. Kemmerer, Agricultural History, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Oct., 1949), pp. 236-239. Education is also not needed for agricultural production or industrialization; there's a reason the U.S. didn't suffer for illiterate Eastern and Southern Europeans arriving in droves during the Late 19th and Early 20th Century. The same would hold true for the Black population, while White Southerners were only slightly behind the North and equal to the Europeans in this regard.
Actually the book itself, see p14-15 says that cotton was native to the river valleys of the semi-arid borderlands but it wasn't commercially important until the union blockade of the rebel south created a global cotton shortage and turned northern Mexico into a nexus of the global cotton economy. This is presumably not going to happen in TTL, at least not for the moment.
On p25-26 its mentioned that despite major efforts by the Mexican government cotton production failed to take off and while a fair amount was spent on constructing textile plants most of the cotton they used was imported from the US. The book, from a quick skim through gives only comparative information on production rather than detailed figures.
On p27 it mentions the serious cotton shortage generated by the USCW and northern blockade prompted by 'England' a scramble for supplies form Egypt and India and a search for longer term alternatives - which may have been a fact a few decades later in British investment in cotton cultivation in the northern Mexican borderlands. It also suggests that the shortage of cotton and desire for control/influence of an alternative source was a factor in the French attempt to establish a friendly government in Mexico in the early 1860's. Goes on to say that the holdout of the more liberal Juarez government in the north and major revenue generated by smuggling of southern - largely Texan - cotton via the area prompted a considerable build up of funds and experience in trade in the region which again are less likely to occur without a USCW. . It mentions how the money from this was invested in local cotton production, but unfortunately again giving no figures.
There is also mention, p29 that before the war attempts by the provincial governor of Nuevo Leon, Vidaurri encouraged the growth of legal commerce but failed to kick-start a local cotton production industry of any size. Juarez's supporters effectively destroyed much of Vidaurri's work and brought new instabilty into the region while the end of the USCW meant an end to the lucrative cross border trade in cotton. It was only in the 1880's when Diaz secured power and brought stability to the region that things took off but again no figures quoted.
As such it sounds inaccurate to say that N Mexico was a major producer of cotton in the 1860's. It was a centre for transporting Texan cotton around the union blockade but local cotton production only really got organised in any scale some decades later.
One other factor that is mentioned is the high demand for seasonal labour for cotton cultivation, especially but not solely in the picking of the cotton buds. The 1st centre in northern Mexico was around Laguna and it mentions that the population increased about 400% between 1880 and 1910, p31. This caused a lot of social problems because you had a large labour forces dependent on periodic employment. I'm guessing that your expecting the south to not only gain control of the area and then use slaves for this workforce but that presents problems in itself. Apart from the discontent of local populations about being displayed the labour demand is seasonal. In the old south slaves not needed currently on the plantation can be hired out for other uses but in a arid and fairly barren area such as N Mexico there is going to be a lot more difficult.
It took quite a lot of capital to develop the region with the necessity of building railways and developing irrigation systems which again are possible but will take time and be expensive and in this case you won't get local Mexican capital and are less likely to any much from outside the CSA.
As such if the CSA was to get the region in some way and maintain control of it then it could develop a rival cotton cultivation to its existing production but it will be expensive and time consuming.
Corn - by which I assume you mean Indian corn/maize rather than wheat - may be the largest crop by volume but how much export trade goes it provide? I suspect a lot would go to feeding the local population, including all those slaves that the CSA is somehow getting its hands on and relatively little is going for export in this time period. Most of that probably to the US I expect.
You may think education is unimportant for modern technology but I suspect your in a very small minority in that view. Even in the early stages of the Industrial revolution self made men such as Hargraves and Watt while largely self educated depended on a good knowledge of what they will doing and the ability to read and write were very important especially as it enabled them to find out about and incorporate/modify developments elsewhere. A major reason why Britain fell so far behind in the last decades of the 19thC compared to primarily competitors were because general education was under-valued and partly due to squabbles between religions groups widespread education in Britain was delayed by several decades. I remember reading once that it was in the period just after the USCW that the government mandated widespread education and was to benefit greatly from it, as well as from immigration of many well educated people from Europe. [In the latter stages many migrants were poorly educated and they did provide cheap labour, until they [or their children] gained a better level of education.
One other thing with your population projections I forgot to mention earlier. The domination of the economy by large plantations in the old and deep south especially meant that they controlled the vast bulk of the best farming lands as small independent farmers couldn't compete with them. Even before the war they were leaking population as people migrated north and later west because there were limited opportunities for them in the south. This is likely to be a continued issue in an independent CSA while the latter is dominated by slave owning planters.
Before we continue, I think it would be beneficial-so as to have a mutual understanding of the specifics of the scenario at hand-to decide when and how the Confederates win their independence. Now, I can propose several different scenarios if you like or would you like to pick it? We could also agree upon a generic sort, such as "Trent War" or "McClellan elected in 1864". |
|
|
|
Post by Middlesex_Toffeeman on Apr 4, 2020 19:26:04 GMT
A surviving South keeps slavery viable on the international stage long enough for the Boll Weevil; Britain grew more dependent on cotton as the 19th Century progressed. Doubt that will happen, it mostly will turn into a much harsher version of the Jim Crow laws. As I said, slavery is 1) incompatible with industrial civilisation 2) likely to make you a pariah state The Southern states had begun to develop factories in the 1860s and (in the event of a victorious Confederacy) I would forsee a move towards emancipation in the Upper South - perhaps Tennesee buys its slaves freedom and industrialises in the 1870s. Unfortunately legal equality for Southern blacks was only achieved in the 60s and equality in practice for blacks (especially in Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia and Alabama) is still not a thing. I can't see abolition of Jim Crow until at least the late 1990s and even then... Likewise, slavery will still be a thing in the Deep South until the early 1900s, as the cotton plantations couldn't function without slave or sharecropper labour, nor could the cane plantations of Louisiana. The kindest thing that could happen to the Confederacy would be for a radical Republican to get elected in the North and declare an embargo, or for the relatively moderate Southern states to secede. An independent Confederacy wouldn't have produced a very nice world - particularly if you were black, mixed (Louisiana being the honourable exception here in giving mixed people some rights) or poor. |
|
] this would be difficult as the locals are likely to oppose it strongly since it would mean displacing them and tearing up a lot of forests to establish plantations that probably would quickly exhaust the soil there.
For 