Did Southern racism unintentionally create a world superpower?

[Byker]

Of all the what-if Civil War scenarios I've encountered over the years,
here's one that I never considered:

Small wonder that "Black Pigeon Speaks" is frequently booted off YouTube,
only to back up and running within weeks...

[SolomonW]

Post by Byker
Of all the what-if Civil War scenarios I've encountered over the years,
http://youtu.be/T14SXY0m5ZE
Small wonder that "Black Pigeon Speaks" is frequently booted off YouTube,
only to back up and running within weeks...

I would agree that the South was losing steadily militarily after
Gettysburg, which this POD would accept.

However, I would argue that Grant
was a better general then Lee. That the Northern generals that formed under
Grant, Sherman and Sheridan were better than what the South had, the South
was not just overwhelmed but out generaled too.



In 1864, the Confederates had about 250,000. The North had almost
600,000. That another 100,000 black troops even assuming that the Blacks
would join the South in large numbers are not likely to make much of a
difference.

Next if the South lose 100,000 workers where are they going to get
replacement workers?



Finally, the Souths problems were not just human resources but also
equipment, food, etc. They were struggling to keep the army they had on the
field.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by SolomonW

Post by Byker
Of all the what-if Civil War scenarios I've encountered over the years,
http://youtu.be/T14SXY0m5ZE
Small wonder that "Black Pigeon Speaks" is frequently booted off YouTube,
only to back up and running within weeks...

I would agree that the South was losing steadily militarily after
Gettysburg, which this POD would accept.
However, I would argue that Grant
was a better general then Lee. That the Northern generals that formed under
Grant, Sherman and Sheridan were better than what the South had, the South
was not just overwhelmed but out generaled too.
In 1864, the Confederates had about 250,000. The North had almost
600,000. That another 100,000 black troops even assuming that the Blacks
would join the South in large numbers are not likely to make much of a
difference.
Next if the South lose 100,000 workers where are they going to get
replacement workers?
Finally, the Souths problems were not just human resources but also
equipment, food, etc. They were struggling to keep the army they had on the
field.

And failing. Adding almost 50% to the army to have to feed and support
would just make it worse.

The CSA's only hope by 1864 was to demoralize the USA over the blood
shed and with the North starting to hit its stride with victories that
is very unlikely IMO.

I'm not sure that 'Black Pigeon Speaks' is even correct about an America
that signed an armistice with the CSA would never become a superpower.
It would hurt, some, but it would still have the majority of the
population and industry as well as the "Western Frontier" to expand into
and develop and wouldn't have to spend resources and capital rebuilding
the south.

[The Horny Goat]

On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 10:49:52 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by SolomonW
In 1864, the Confederates had about 250,000. The North had almost
600,000. That another 100,000 black troops even assuming that the Blacks
would join the South in large numbers are not likely to make much of a
difference.
Next if the South lose 100,000 workers where are they going to get
replacement workers?
Finally, the Souths problems were not just human resources but also
equipment, food, etc. They were struggling to keep the army they had on the
field.

And failing. Adding almost 50% to the army to have to feed and support
would just make it worse.
The CSA's only hope by 1864 was to demoralize the USA over the blood
shed and with the North starting to hit its stride with victories that
is very unlikely IMO.
I'm not sure that 'Black Pigeon Speaks' is even correct about an America
that signed an armistice with the CSA would never become a superpower.
It would hurt, some, but it would still have the majority of the
population and industry as well as the "Western Frontier" to expand into
and develop and wouldn't have to spend resources and capital rebuilding
the south.

so in a scenario like this where there's an armistice by some miracle
after Gettysberg (presumably as a result of McClellan denying Lincoln
a second term - still a long shot in my book) do Canada or Mexico
retain their independence? (Presumably Canada could only join the USA,
Mexico could be acquired by either or both could retain their
independence)

That basically leaves 6 scenarios:
- Canada and Mexico BOTH retian independence
- Canada -> USA, Mexico independent
- Mexico -> USA, Canada independent
- Mexico -> CSA, Canada Independent
- both Canada and Mexico -> USA
- Canada -> USA, Mexico -> CSA

AND what happens to Alaska?
- US gains it in 1867 or thereabous
- Russia keeps it

I would argue a British / Canadian acquisition of Alaska is largely
ruled out by the naval resstrictions upon Russia that were imposed by
the Crimean wawr treaty - these restrictions were retained - I'm going
from memory here - until 1875-1880. I would think a Russia living
under those naval rules would be unlikely to want to sell anything to
either the UK or Canada (who like in our TL was seen at least until
WW1 as strictly a shill for Whitehall)

I see no chance at all of Japan acquiring Alaska in any scenario.

also think a United States that acquired Mexico, Canada AND Alaska
would inevitably eventually face a hostile alliance including (but not
limited to) Britain, Prussia/Germany, Russia no later than 1900 as
such an *United States would scare the **** out of a lot of countries.
On the other hand a United States like that is likely far LESS likely
to go to war with Spain as their greater power would produce a more
subservient Spain - possibly selling overseas posessions.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 10:49:52 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by SolomonW
In 1864, the Confederates had about 250,000. The North had almost
600,000. That another 100,000 black troops even assuming that the Blacks
would join the South in large numbers are not likely to make much of a
difference.
Next if the South lose 100,000 workers where are they going to get
replacement workers?
Finally, the Souths problems were not just human resources but also
equipment, food, etc. They were struggling to keep the army they had on the
field.

And failing. Adding almost 50% to the army to have to feed and support
would just make it worse.
The CSA's only hope by 1864 was to demoralize the USA over the blood
shed and with the North starting to hit its stride with victories that
is very unlikely IMO.
I'm not sure that 'Black Pigeon Speaks' is even correct about an America
that signed an armistice with the CSA would never become a superpower.
It would hurt, some, but it would still have the majority of the
population and industry as well as the "Western Frontier" to expand into
and develop and wouldn't have to spend resources and capital rebuilding
the south.

so in a scenario like this where there's an armistice by some miracle
after Gettysberg (presumably as a result of McClellan denying Lincoln
a second term - still a long shot in my book) do Canada or Mexico
retain their independence? (Presumably Canada could only join the USA,
Mexico could be acquired by either or both could retain their
independence)
- Canada and Mexico BOTH retian independence
- Canada -> USA, Mexico independent
- Mexico -> USA, Canada independent
- Mexico -> CSA, Canada Independent
- both Canada and Mexico -> USA
- Canada -> USA, Mexico -> CSA
AND what happens to Alaska?
- US gains it in 1867 or thereabous
- Russia keeps it
I would argue a British / Canadian acquisition of Alaska is largely
ruled out by the naval resstrictions upon Russia that were imposed by
the Crimean wawr treaty - these restrictions were retained - I'm going
from memory here - until 1875-1880. I would think a Russia living
under those naval rules would be unlikely to want to sell anything to
either the UK or Canada (who like in our TL was seen at least until
WW1 as strictly a shill for Whitehall)
I see no chance at all of Japan acquiring Alaska in any scenario.
also think a United States that acquired Mexico, Canada AND Alaska
would inevitably eventually face a hostile alliance including (but not
limited to) Britain, Prussia/Germany, Russia no later than 1900 as
such an *United States would scare the **** out of a lot of countries.
On the other hand a United States like that is likely far LESS likely
to go to war with Spain as their greater power would produce a more
subservient Spain - possibly selling overseas posessions.

I think both Canada and Mexico would retain their independence.

Canada being annexed by the USA seems to me to have been more likely as
a result of the "54 40 or fight" dispute of the 1840s going bad. Once
the border was agreed upon at 49 degrees I think annexation of Canada by
the USA was effectively "off the table". I'm not saying its impossible,
just unlikely enough to be discounted.

As far as Mexico is concerned, from various "CSA wins the Civil War"
ATLs that have been discussed, the CSA would have been interested in
taking at least part of Mexico. But I think the USA would have
considered it in its own interest to prevent that. And US Army forces
in New Mexico, Arizona and California would have given them the military
stick to make diplomacy likely to work. And if it didn't, USA _and_
Mexico forces against CSA forces would have been even worse for the CSA
than the American Civil War was.

As for the Alaska Purchase, I have no idea. It could go either way, it
all depends on how the USA reacts in the immediate aftermath of a lost
Civil War. The US could be demoralized enough to not be interested or
could be feeling a need to over-compensate. I agree that there's no
chance Russia will willingly hand Alaska over to Canada or the UK (even
discounting that the UK had turned down an offer to sell it to them in
the late 1850s) and I can't see anyone else being in a position to be
considered. If the sale does take place, it may not be in 1867.

Considering how sparsely "settled" Alaska was I'm wondering what would
happen if Russia just walks away from it without officially turning it
over to anyone else. It was sold because the Tsar felt it was
indefensible, so what if he doesn't try to defend it? Could it have
just sat there, terra incognito until the 1890's? Presumably gold would
have still be discovered there at some point. What happens then?

[SolomonW]

Post by Dimensional Traveler
I'm not sure that 'Black Pigeon Speaks' is even correct about an America
that signed an armistice with the CSA would never become a superpower.
It would hurt, some, but it would still have the majority of the
population and industry as well as the "Western Frontier" to expand into
and develop and wouldn't have to spend resources and capital rebuilding
the south.

It would set a precedent, if others wanted to leave the union.

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by SolomonW

Post by Byker
Of all the what-if Civil War scenarios I've encountered over the years,
http://youtu.be/T14SXY0m5ZE
Small wonder that "Black Pigeon Speaks" is frequently booted off YouTube,
only to back up and running within weeks...

I would agree that the South was losing steadily militarily after
Gettysburg, which this POD would accept.
However, I would argue that Grant
was a better general then Lee. That the Northern generals that formed under
Grant, Sherman and Sheridan were better than what the South had, the South
was not just overwhelmed but out generaled too.
In 1864, the Confederates had about 250,000. The North had almost
600,000. That another 100,000 black troops even assuming that the Blacks
would join the South in large numbers are not likely to make much of a
difference.
Next if the South lose 100,000 workers where are they going to get
replacement workers?
Finally, the Souths problems were not just human resources but also
equipment, food, etc. They were struggling to keep the army they had on the
field.

And failing. Adding almost 50% to the army to have to feed and support
would just make it worse.
The CSA's only hope by 1864 was to demoralize the USA over the blood
shed and with the North starting to hit its stride with victories that
is very unlikely IMO.
I'm not sure that 'Black Pigeon Speaks' is even correct about an America
that signed an armistice with the CSA would never become a superpower.
It would hurt, some, but it would still have the majority of the
population and industry as well as the "Western Frontier" to expand into
and develop and wouldn't have to spend resources and capital rebuilding
the south.

But, depending on how the end of the war went, there would be
increased spending on the military to keep an eye on Those People.

Also, much of The Wild West(c) {Specifically the Cattle Drives of
Legend and Lore} took place over what would now be an international
border.

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by SolomonW
Finally, the Souths problems were not just human resources but also
equipment, food, etc. They were struggling to keep the army they had on the
field.

Infrastructure. Most of the South's railroads were laid out with
the intent of cotton to the port. Moving men and materials to "the
front" was an idea yet to come.

[SolomonW]

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by SolomonW
Finally, the Souths problems were not just human resources but also
equipment, food, etc. They were struggling to keep the army they had on the
field.

Infrastructure. Most of the South's railroads were laid out with
the intent of cotton to the port.

And ports are not much use if little is coming in through them.

Post by pyotr filipivich
Moving men and materials to "the
front" was an idea yet to come.

It was going to be a short war.

[Byker]

Post by SolomonW

Post by pyotr filipivich
Infrastructure. Most of the South's railroads were laid out with
the intent of cotton to the port.

And ports are not much use if little is coming in through them.

Post by pyotr filipivich
Moving men and materials to "the
front" was an idea yet to come.

It was going to be a short war.

About as short as U.S. involvement in WWII, with twice the number of dead
(both sides)...

[The Horny Goat]

Post by SolomonW

Post by pyotr filipivich
Infrastructure. Most of the South's railroads were laid out with
the intent of cotton to the port.

And ports are not much use if little is coming in through them.

Isn't that the whole >point< of a naval blockade? To render a port
useless by depriving it of trade?

This was essentially the entire point of French strategy against the
UK during the Napoleonic wars.

Post by SolomonW

Post by pyotr filipivich
Moving men and materials to "the
front" was an idea yet to come.

It was going to be a short war.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by SolomonW

Post by pyotr filipivich
Infrastructure. Most of the South's railroads were laid out with
the intent of cotton to the port.

And ports are not much use if little is coming in through them.

Isn't that the whole >point< of a naval blockade? To render a port
useless by depriving it of trade?
This was essentially the entire point of French strategy against the
UK during the Napoleonic wars.

And the UK strategy against France IIRC. :)

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by SolomonW

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by SolomonW
Finally, the Souths problems were not just human resources but also
equipment, food, etc. They were struggling to keep the army they had on the
field.

Infrastructure. Most of the South's railroads were laid out with
the intent of cotton to the port.

And ports are not much use if little is coming in through them.

Post by pyotr filipivich
Moving men and materials to "the
front" was an idea yet to come.

It was going to be a short war.

Aren't they all?

[Byker]

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by SolomonW
It was going to be a short war.

Aren't they all?

Sometimes: https://tinyurl.com/y4xwhmsz

[SolomonW]

Post by Byker

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by SolomonW
It was going to be a short war.

Aren't they all?

Sometimes: https://tinyurl.com/y4xwhmsz

Most but not all wars are the result of miscalculations. Someone has
underestimated the cost.

[Byker]

Post by SolomonW
Most but not all wars are the result of miscalculations. Someone has
underestimated the cost.

Unfortunately there aren't enough crystal balls to go around.

[SolomonW]

Post by Byker

Post by SolomonW
Most but not all wars are the result of miscalculations. Someone has
underestimated the cost.

Unfortunately there aren't enough crystal balls to go around.

An Australian historian Geoffrey Blainey, who I like very much wrote a book
on this subject and his theory is that the causes of war and peace are the
result of calculations based on the political elites’ expectations of the
proposed conflict costs and benefits and what happens too often is someone
has miscalculated.

He also makes a claim that it is a decision with all sides making the
decision, e.g. Hitler attacks Poland, Polish elite decides to defend Poland
unlike the Czechoslovakian elite, and then the allies elite decide to
declare war.




I have read somewhere that those that decided to go war were right about
2/3 of the time from their perspective, e.g. Stalin was right to take on
 Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in 1940 but Finland was a mistake.


Thoughts on this?

[The Horny Goat]

Post by SolomonW
I have read somewhere that those that decided to go war were right about
2/3 of the time from their perspective, e.g. Stalin was right to take on
 Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in 1940 but Finland was a mistake.
Thoughts on this?

The primary reason Stalin thought the Baltic states were ripe for the
picking is that it took place during the German invasion of France
when both Germany, France and Britain were fully engaged in the west.

Unlike Finland, any resistance was token. Finland was not attacked
until after the Polish campaign when they threw the primary attacking
units of the Red Army against the Finns expected a quick Finnish
collapse.....

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by SolomonW

Post by Byker

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by SolomonW
It was going to be a short war.

Aren't they all?

Sometimes: https://tinyurl.com/y4xwhmsz

Most but not all wars are the result of miscalculations. Someone has
underestimated the cost.

As we said in Old Days "You're analysis is politically correct
comrade, but you have overlooked several objective realities."
I would say that few planned on a "long" war - having the war over
by Christmas seems to be a trope. "If one Confederate Soldier can
whip 10 Yankees, how many can three confederate soldiers?"
Imperial Japan expected the US to cave quickly, being merchants
lacking the Marital Spirit of Japan. And totally ignoring the
Objective realities that Japan was barely able to handle its military
needs as it was.

[Byker]

Imperial Japan expected the US to cave quickly, being merchants lacking
the Marital Spirit of Japan. And totally ignoring the Objective realities
that Japan was barely able to handle its military needs as it was.

And people are forever saying, "If Hirohito was against the war, then why
didn't he step in and stop it?"

Because he couldn't. The Emperor was little more than a figurehead. Japan
was a constitutional monarchy, and though many scholars have come to believe
he played an active role in the war effort, Hirohito insisted until the day
he died that any effort on his part to interfere would've resulted in a
coup...

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Byker

Imperial Japan expected the US to cave quickly, being merchants lacking
the Marital Spirit of Japan. And totally ignoring the Objective realities
that Japan was barely able to handle its military needs as it was.

And people are forever saying, "If Hirohito was against the war, then why
didn't he step in and stop it?"
Because he couldn't. The Emperor was little more than a figurehead. Japan
was a constitutional monarchy, and though many scholars have come to believe
he played an active role in the war effort, Hirohito insisted until the day
he died that any effort on his part to interfere would've resulted in a
coup...

Its worth noting that when he did "interfere" in August 1945, when his
cabinet was dead-locked about continuing to fight or surrendering IIRC,
there WAS an attempted coup.

[Byker]

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Its worth noting that when he did "interfere" in August 1945, when his
cabinet was dead-locked about continuing to fight or surrendering IIRC,
there WAS an attempted coup.

That it failed was Divine intervention...

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Byker

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Its worth noting that when he did "interfere" in August 1945, when his
cabinet was dead-locked about continuing to fight or surrendering
IIRC, there WAS an attempted coup.

That it failed was Divine intervention...

From what I remember reading about it, Divine Comedy might be more
accurate.