Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Hanny
Member
Posts: 817
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Post by Hanny » 13 Dec 2018 10:14

T. A. Gardner wrote:
20 Feb 2011 01:36
One thing the Confederacy should have done immediately is dump cotton on the world market to the maximum extent possible to gain cash for the war. Historically, they tried to withhold cotton under the belief that a shortage would bring European nations into the war, particularly Britain. Instead, Britain simply shifted their purchases to Egypt and India shutting the Confederates out of the market.

If the Confederates did dump cotton it would have gained them more immediate cash and arms from Europe before the US could effectively blockade their efforts. This would have given the Confederacy a much better initial position in terms of equipment than they originally had. It would also have driven cotton prices down resulting in a major problem later in the market when their supply dried up. This likely would have had more effect on Europe than their original choice would have. It certainly would have allowed Britain to horde cotton and possibly kept Egypt and India out of the market later for that reason.
When CSA cabinet met in early 61, sending 200000 bales for warehousing in UK to sell when and as needed was the alternative to the embargo, cabinet went with embargo instead, and blockade running. During the conflict blockade running far exceeded Uk imports from Egypt. UK had a stock of 1000000 bales from the bumper export of year before so cotton price was low at 10cents a pound UK, controlled India and India and owned the cotton industry there so that wont wash. So CSA government bought 400,000 bales from its citizens to sell in Europe as soon as possible, and later as and when through blockade running.

Cabinet had acquired species and bullion ( c 1.25 million) when the states seceded, its was this that backed the CSA economy in 61, ( it payed for the cotton it bought from its citizens with primisary note that were payed at end of war, another advantage) thereafter domestic bonds and international bonds backed on cotton futures. Sending such a quantity of cotton for warehousing would have required vast amounts of bullion/species as well as considerable tonnage of merchant marine, CS had very little of that, pre war foreign flagged merchants carried the majority of international trade, and the majority of US flagged ships were Northern owned. So cabinet discarded that on practical grounds of it being to expensive if feasible and not feasible on logistical grounds as there were not enough ships in the southern states to effect it. Those that were were used to run cotton to Europe for war material. Heres what they achieved:

London Economist, in relation to the British trade for the first three months of this year:

"Our commerce with the South and with the North is now for the first time divided in the official tables. It appears that all our direct exports are to the North. The figures are:

Exports to Northern States.........£3,922,133
Exports to Southern States.............174,563

Showing a startling contrast in the amount we actually sell to the two belligerents. The contrast is nearly as remarkable in what we buy, only it is reversed!

Imports into Great Britain from Northern ports........£4,697,868
Imports into Great Britain from Southern ports.........6,136,186..."

So for the first three months the CSA tried to increase its income by sending as much cotton as possible ( c 100,000 bales), increasing the finances of the confederacy. Then, later, they could purchase the war material they needed, having placed the orders for manufacture while in Uk and backed them with the means to pay for them.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Post by South » 13 Dec 2018 11:08

Good morning David, Carl, Hanny and all,

I missed this in 2010...although more probably my failing memory is more involved.

Just read the A. Mahan material and took note of:

124 THE AMERICAN REBELLION
The plan which should have...
"War, in all its forms, is in reality, a conflict of military forces...".

No ! In reality - in real reality it's a conflict of the political establishments. Unrestricted submarine warfare, not using nuclear ordnance during Korean War, during the Vietnam War,..Gen Patton not reaching Berlin, rules of engagement,...

The US Civil War had a specific political environment. Colonial America developed into a "federal" system of government. Slavery was compounded by massive economic changes. These changes were regional. The best agricultural lands were in the American southern areas. America's northern areas were in extensive demand for cotton, a product of the southern states. This product required labor...mechanization had not yet occurred...and more agricultural land. Thus, the Me
xican War and the acquisition of Texas and some other areas.

This war, in 1846, became a partisan issue in the US-a place with regional rivalries concurrent with a deep division over slavery.

Note that during the US Civil War, 4 slaves states were in the Union. Note that in 1861, the US Army recruited soldiers from 44 counties of Virginia, later, in 1863, to become a separate state. Note that on southern succession, the US held several important military facilities withing the rebellious states (eg Ft Jefferson, Dry Tortuga's, Florida (near Key West, fort controls route Europe-New Orleans) . Most Whigs, both in the north and the south opposed the Mexican War. Most Democrats supported it. These Democrats pushed the "Manifest Destiny" flavor of the southern area expansion fully aware of the faster growing northern states. A major matter involving all of this was US Treasury revenue. It came from a tariff system that was...not fair...nicest thing I can say in a few words...to the southern states (although both confronting political blocs were not involved in institutions eleemosynary).

The US Government won the conflict and destroyed the Confederacy. The 39th Congress met in 1865. Both chambers of Congress were controlled by northern Republicans. No Senators or members of the House of Representatives were present because the rebellious states had not been readmited into the union. The US President was Andrew Johnson, a Tennessee Democrat who had joined Lincolns Republican ticket to inject some gesture of unity into the peace.

Omitting much; ... ... ... If/when the southern states were readmitted to the union, the southern delegations, when combined with their political allies of the northern delegations, would be STRONGER than they had been prior to the US Civil War. I do not know how to say in British English, "a real mess".

......

In re the military matters of the US Civil War, a favorite of mine is:

STRANGLING THE CONFEDERACY-Coastal Operations in the American Civil War by Kevin Dougherty, 2010, ISBN: 978-1-935149-24-8
A brief excerpt: "...by attacking New Bern, North Carolina. New Bern was not just a port, but one with important rail lines stretching first to Goldsboro, and from there to Richmond."

Addendum; Some "asides":

Warfare costs big money. The Lincoln administration got some secret loans from Russia. The cost of Alaska when the US purchased it secretly incorporated repayment of the loans.

Had those Northern Whigs even took a vacation to Corpus Christi, Padre Island, Texas, they'd just might move there !

Compare the rotgut rye whiskies of the north to the smooth sour mash bourbon whiskies of the south---and they put sufficient alcohol into the product !...

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

still in recovery mode from a large snow storm. I was ready in re supplies, etc. Recovery not complete because of my aging process. It slows everything down !

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 1771
Joined: 03 Sep 2003 18:15
Location: Canada

Re: Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Post by maltesefalcon » 13 Dec 2018 14:57

South wrote:
13 Dec 2018 11:08

Addendum; Some "asides":

Warfare costs big money. The Lincoln administration got some secret loans from Russia. The cost of Alaska when the US purchased it secretly incorporated repayment of the loans
Perhaps Russian interference in 1864 election? Was Cohen in on this one too?

Hanny
Member
Posts: 817
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Post by Hanny » 13 Dec 2018 16:00

Russia was crippled with debt from Crimean war, so wanted to sell in 1859. US ( not Republican government) in 1859 offerd 5 million and was rejected as too low. In Russia 1861 it borrowed 15k to pay for freeing the serfs, from the Rothchilds at 5%, so its debt problem got no better, post war in 67 both sides agreed to 7.2 million. Cost per day of the WBTS for the North in 1861 was 1.5 million, by 1865 3.5 million, so i dont think any secret loan was made and if it was it made no difference.

When lincoln took office he inherited a public forcast debt of 22 million by end of the financial year, and had 500k on deposit, so it borrowed 18 million at 6% over 20 years. Then the war came, a short inexpensive war lincoln understood was going to happen, and Chase told Lincoln it would cost 320 million and borrowed again, 33 banks lent 8 million each at 4% giving 264 million on hand. All this before a shot was fired in anger.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Post by South » 13 Dec 2018 19:58

Good afternoon Maltesefalcon and Hanny,

Maltese; Funny, but let's avoid the current events !

Hanny; Real good info.
There was a secret loan. I posted the source references here at AHF a couple of years ago. Besides the secret loan from Russia, some secret funds were used to prepare "planted" news articles in the domestic US press that were in favor of some Lincoln administration events.

Yes, Russia was in substantial debt from the Crimean War. Also, Russian Alaska was next to British Columbia, ... believe still a British Crown Colony... Russia sought this win-win situation by selling Alaska - and got it. The US won also. Both baked salmon and gold does wonders for population development.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 1771
Joined: 03 Sep 2003 18:15
Location: Canada

Re: Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Post by maltesefalcon » 13 Dec 2018 23:58

The South was woefully equipped to fight a major war vs the Federals.

For one, although they had an experienced core group of senior officers, they were short on materiel.
They also had to assemble some key manufacturers, especially in terms of small arms, artillery and ammunition sourcing.

In the meantime they were forced to buy same from European countries. That reduced their cash flow and was soon subject to intervention by the much stronger US Navy. This same naval weakness allowed the North to quickly dominate major rivers and some key ports including New Orleans by 1862. I believe that New Orleans was the largest populated city of the Confederacy at the time so its loss was keenly felt.

Despite better growing conditions the South struggled to feed both its troops and the public at large. This was in part due to the shortage of farm workers, many of whom were now in the army. Both sides had this problem, but the North had more people, so could field more troops while keeping the economy running. Not only that the South had a far inferior rail network. Lack of redundacy made each line a vital link and the North made great efforts to disrupt this important means of transport.

I could go on but in summing up I would conclude it was in the Souths best interest to avoid immediate war if possible. If cooler heads had prevailed, war may have erupted a couple years down the road but the emerging nation would have been better prepared.

User avatar
Robert Rojas
Member
Posts: 2573
Joined: 19 Nov 2002 04:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.

RE: Alternative Stategies For The War Between The States.

Post by Robert Rojas » 14 Dec 2018 04:20

Greetings to both brother South and the community as a whole. Howdy Bob! Well sir, in reference to your posting of Thursday - December 13, 2018 - 10:58am, old yours truly was more than a bit surprised that you somehow overlooked the financial contribution of both the State of California and the State of Nevada (admitted into the Union on October 31, 1864) into the treasury of the United States of America. As I understand it, the monumental extraction of GOLD and SILVER from their respective states certainly had an impact upon the Union's ability to prosecute its war against the Confederacy. I would also dare say that this source of economic sustenance also impacted the United States of America's ability to procure the territory of Alaska from Imperial Russia, but then again, maybe it's all FAKE NEWS! Well, that's my initial two Yankee cents worth into the nefarious machinations of Nineteenth Century finance and diplomacy - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day over in your corner of the Old Dominion that is the Commonwealth of Virginia and I'm not just whistling Dixie!


Best Regards From The Peoples Republic of CORRUPT-O-FORNIA!
Uncle Bob :idea: :) :wink: 8-) :thumbsup:
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Post by South » 14 Dec 2018 07:54

Good morning Uncle Bob,

Actually, didn't overlook California........I held off and also current tense......because I've got some info not yet "documented" to my satisfaction. California was admitted to the Union as a free state...although...I'm working on this now...there is some evidence and hints that there was a slave market in San Francisco. Yes, of course, California contributed much and got Alaska as a suburb. Didn't Kitty Marcus (nee) and her dearly betrothed Wyatt Earp do some gold mining "up there" ?

Did neglect Nevada (Apologies to Myer Lansky & Co.) of 1864 statehood that followed West Virginia of 1863. Idaho Territory carve-up also involved for more US Senators to fill the hotels and restaurants of Washington, D.C.

Isn't the nefarious mechanisms of 19th century finance and diplomacy the same as the 18th, 20th and 21st ? We need Bernard Madoff and Armand Hammer to explain. Lincoln's railroad financing arrangements allowed for some off-book allocations.

.......

Love that word nearby here: "Chutzpah" !

I am now in the mood for some baked salmon.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

First in piece
First in war
Last in knowledge of homonyms

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Post by South » 14 Dec 2018 08:09

Good morning Maltesefalcon,

Concur with above.

Must, however, ask to add something maybe even more important than the shortages of AA&E - arms, ammunition and equipment.

"They", the newly formed CSA, had an inferior, if not obsolete, form of government: a confederacy. From running wars to running welfare programs, a central government was best. It still is. The locals know best about the local situation, whether it's enemy forces approaching the tavern or aid to unwed teenage mothers not in the labor market. The locals cannot calibrate their situation to the big picture.


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

User avatar
Robert Rojas
Member
Posts: 2573
Joined: 19 Nov 2002 04:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.

RE:Alternative Strategies For The War Betwen The States.

Post by Robert Rojas » 14 Dec 2018 09:17

Greetings to both brother South and the community as a whole. Howdy Bob! Well sir, in respect to your posting of Thursday - December 13, 2018 - 11:09pm, old yours truly is wondering if you have recently taken leave of your senses! What happened to your historical roots!? I never thought I would ever see the day when a Virginian would come down clearly on the side of centralized government. What you are suggesting is tantamount to heresy! I am reminded of that great line of dialogue in the film COOL HAND LUKE: "WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE"! I certainly hope that none of your fellow brethren from below the Mason Dixon Line are not perusing this thread! This is the sort of thing that Yankees like old Uncle Bob would espouse. As you know, my historical roots have their origins in the State of Illinois - THE LAND OF LINCOLN. Enough said! Well, that's my latest two Yankee cents worth on this sojourn down Antebellum lane - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic way over in your corner of the Old Dominion that is the Commonwealth of Virginia.


Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :) :P :lol: :wink: 8-) :thumbsup:
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee

Hanny
Member
Posts: 817
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Post by Hanny » 14 Dec 2018 10:37

South wrote:
13 Dec 2018 19:58

Hanny; Real good info.
There was a secret loan. I posted the source references here at AHF a couple of years ago. Besides the secret loan from Russia, some secret funds were used to prepare "planted" news articles in the domestic US press that were in favor of some Lincoln administration events.

Yes, Russia was in substantial debt from the Crimean War. Also, Russian Alaska was next to British Columbia, ... believe still a British Crown Colony... Russia sought this win-win situation by selling Alaska - and got it. The US won also. Both baked salmon and gold does wonders for population development.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA
Hi Bob good luck with the weather, no snow here on isle of wight in Uk, but its a comming. :x

Would love to see the source as on the face of it it has many problems to overcome, like no Republicans being involved in the pre war negoitiations, Lincoln not being elected as leader till negoitiations were over, dead when they were conducted, so how could he or his party have possible been predicted to benifit? any covert deal made in 59 not coming to fruition till 67, along with inflation currency devaluation ment effectvly US payed less in 67 than they offered in 59. Newpapers at that time were mouthpieces for the party they followed and ran articles for that party for the people who wanted to read that line, for free. Gold not being discovered till after the purchase and so on. Methinks you fallen for a fake Russian history of the events so would love to see the source, ive already checked the Smithsonian/office of the Historian and USA edu for it and come up with zilch.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Post by South » 14 Dec 2018 18:15

Good afternoon Hanny,


Twenty minutes ago I transmitted a reply to you and my screen said site cannot be reached.

Am trying again.

I cannot find my book published in 1927. I do have a photocopy just found:

======================

It has recently been disclosed that only $1,400,000 of the amount paid to Russia was for the acquisition of Alaska. The remaining $5,800,000 was to reimburse Russia for the expense to which she put in sending a fleet to New York during the Civil War as a demonstration of friendship for the north. See Muzzey, Vol. II.p.47, note.

A Congressional investigation later disclosed the fact that Robert J. Walker, former Secretary of the Treasury, had received $26,000 from the Russian embassy to aid in the adoption of the treaty, and that $5,000 of this sum had been paid to a brother of a Washington newspaper editor who paper 'had rendered valuable service' in supporting the treaty.

============

To be continued.....

~ Bob

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Post by South » 14 Dec 2018 18:42

The part the second:

Good afternoon again Hanny,

Re my above post, all in the dashed section is from a photocopy of my 1927 book I cannot find. Submitted: FWIW - for what it's worth.

Per your post, the overall matter is less the personalities holding high governmental offices. Look at the trends. Not sure where the year 1859 comes into play. The Compromise of 1850 usually serves as the initial benchmark for the time line. The civil war in Kansas was the most important issue during the presidential election of 1856. Although Democrat James Buchanan won, it was clear that the Republican party was the power of the future.

Again, less the personalities, Lincoln had been a railroad attorney. Look at the RR industry's efforts more so than Abe......although he did leave his personal persona and become a major highlight of US history...much like "Napoleon" is also an era of history.

Efforts were made to suppress any insurrection well prior to Lincoln's administration. These efforts were well under way during all/many of the political compromises on slavery.

You're not portraying the US press as it operated. There were indeed newspapers with strong editorial positions on the era's national politics. There were also manipulations of the news articles. Not too much is new under the Sun.

Smithsonian ?! for history ?! It's an entertainment center. I get their pulp magazine......good for reading but not to rely on. Some months ago they had an article on Lt Col (General during US Civil War) Custer on assignment going into the Dakotas. The magazine's article said Custer personally paid for the 2 mining engineers accompanying his troops. ROFL

My comment on gold and a tie-in to Alaska was superfluous. Was joking. Gold was discovered in California in 1848 but don't believe the Russians worked ore mines or panning. Fur bearing marine mammals were probably...well, worth the fur's weight in gold...if I may borrow some expressions. They didn't know about the petroleum either - nor care.

My other post's reference to the real cost of Alaska is only 1 reference and much of this is probably still matters of state secrets. It's just not important to me to delve into this. Hopefully someone else will.

.......

It's really not the weather. Ten years ago we could handle adverse weather. The aging process does wonders for changing routines. Here our snow is nearly gone but heavy rain and flooding are forecast. I'll be staying in....... fully aware my satellite link to this new-fangled telegraph key will be lost until "nice" weather returns to this place.


Think safety as the priority !

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

Hanny
Member
Posts: 817
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Post by Hanny » 14 Dec 2018 19:32

South wrote:
14 Dec 2018 18:15

It has recently been disclosed that only $1,400,000 of the amount paid to Russia was for the acquisition of Alaska. The remaining $5,800,000 was to reimburse Russia for the expense to which she put in sending a fleet to New York during the Civil War as a demonstration of friendship for the north. See Muzzey, Vol. II.p.47, note.

~ Bob
Hi Bob

Treaty and amount of sale was agreed in 67, ( just flicked through my only bio of seward, the treaty was 7 million, and Russia kept the ice contract to supply SF, Seward wanted that as well so upped it to 7.2 million) years after the fleet had appeared in NY and SF Harbour before returning so as not to be icebound. Ill scan in some of it as its kinda intresting.

If Russia billed the cost of that mission as part of the cost, means Russia was selling Alaska for 1.4 million, at 0.002 cents acre while already having rejected 5 million as to low. Or Alaska cost 7.2 and they threw in something they did for free years earlier. It makes no sense as no one was paying for that as Russia did it without asking and part of its own anti UK dont intervene in this affair, policy.

Does 5.8 make economic sense?, no and here is why.
5.8 million to send 6 ships to NY and 6 to SF, both mission lasted 7 months and they returned so not to be icebound from home ports.
12*7/5800000=$69047 per ship per month.


WBTS laste 48 months, USA spent 567 million on its Navy,(including everything from pay to new ship to food and munition) it started with 43 ships and ended with 671. last year of war with 671 in operation it therfore would have cost $2,223,865,776 just to run the navy, using that Russian costing.

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/l ... -2004.html
In 1860 its 43 ship cost $35628252 to run, but Congress only gave it 10 million.

Yep getting old sucks, 58 this year and wearing out, surgery this year for on r wrist for carpal tunnel, l elbow for same nerve problem, and waiting for shoulder op for torn rotator cap.

1859 is important as its when the sale is first offered and rejected.
So any bribe in 67 cannot be connected to lincoln, nor could it have been so in 59.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Hanny
Member
Posts: 817
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: Alternative Strategies for the US Civil War

Post by Hanny » 14 Dec 2018 20:29

South wrote:
14 Dec 2018 18:15


A Congressional investigation later disclosed the fact that Robert J. Walker, former Secretary of the Treasury, had received $26,000 from the Russian embassy to aid in the adoption of the treaty, and that $5,000 of this sum had been paid to a brother of a Washington newspaper editor who paper 'had rendered valuable service' in supporting the treaty.
https://www.archives.gov/publications/p ... aska-check
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Return to “What if”