Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

And imposition of late 1850s tariffs were essentially an exercise in the North trying to shoot themselves in the foot as it almost led to European recognition of the Confederacy. Which almost happened due to just that stimulus and would have ended the war almost immediately.

Never would have happened.

Even the British held their nose as they gave only the minimal support to the Confederacy. And that was only to spite the US, as they would have had an uproar if they had tried to openly support a slave nation.'

People tend to forget that the abolition movement was even stronger in most of Europe than it was in the Northern states. And many were protesting even what little support England gave to the Confederacy.

You even had English mill workers refusing to process Southern cotton, they were so opposed to the slave trade. And the most the government would do is recognize it as a belligerent power, never granting the Confederacy official recognition.

And by 1863 any hopes of being recognized were dashed, when the Confederates expelled all foreign diplomats.

Especially with the North shooting themselves in the foot repeatedly at the start of the war, e.g. the Trent Affair where the U.S. took two Confederate delegates from a British ship on the high seas.

I admit that they might have gotten involved, but also do not forget that even then, England was dependent on food exports from the US.

And even if they had attacked the US, I still question recognition unless the Confederates had unquestionably won. Among the general population in England, they overwhelmingly supported the Union.

Going against such strong beliefs had brought down the government in England in the past.

You are right that slavery was abolished by the French revolutionary National Convention in 1794, but it was reinstated by Napoleon I. in 1802; and nobody protested. Hence the capture and death of Toussaint L'Ouverture, the hero of Haiti. The French colonial economy was based on slave labour.

Yet, slave emancipation in the French dominions was finally enforced in 1848. At that time, all European powers had abolished slavery, bowing to public opinion and the pressure of the growing labour movements, although equal rights for former slaves were quite a different matter.

Was that supposed to be 1748? Other wise it would make more sense placed in chronological order with the rest of the items.

They abolished it twice.

The first was in 1794, during the First Republic. Slavery was abolished in all of France. However, in 1802 Napoleon allowed it to return to the colonies, as many of the sugar plantations were considering revolting and turning to England for support. So he allowed it to return, but only in the Caribbean colonies.

Where it was finally abolished for good in 1848 during the Second Republic.

Uh... when precisely did they abolish slavery in all their holdings and not just in Europe? I thought they were one of the last nations with widespread slavery in colonies...

27 April 1848, during the Second Republic.

In fact, much of their later revolts in Africa came about because of slavery. Because they decided to abolish the practice in their African colonies in the late 19 and early 20th centuries, and the locals revolted because they wanted to keep the institution.

Emperor Maximilian was installed by reactionary Mexicans opposed to the liberal reforms of Benito Juarez and Napoleon III of France had troops stationed in Mexico in support.

Timeline error.

Emperor Maximillian was not until 1864. During this time, France was in Mexico trying to force them to repay debts. They were using their military to try and force and resolve an internal civil war.

And it was not that the Confederates supported them in Mexico (they wanted parts of Mexico for themselves). It is just that they had stated they would ignore the Monroe Doctrine, therefore giving France (and other nations) the "Green Light" to restart Colonial Ambitions in the New World.

Actually it came pretty close to happening as the French where willing to join and support the South as the French wanted the access to the cotton and at that period (1861-1862) of the Civil War the South was winning but on September 22, 1862 President Abraham Lincoln issued Proclamation 95 formally known as The Emancipation Proclamation. Now The Emancipation Proclamation was suppose to free all the slaves

OK, I will deal with this out of order.

First of all, the Emancipation Proclamation did NOT free "all the slaves", only those in States in Rebellion. It was not abolished until the 13th Amendment in 1865.

OK, now that is out of the way. In France, the response was similar as England. The higher powers supported the Confederacy, because of their own ambitions. The Confederates supported their expedition into Mexico, and supported their expansion into France, and France wanted a weaker and divided US. But the population (especially the Republicans who still had significant influence despite Napoleon III being in charge) along with the majority of others supported the Union.

Also they were the second largest destination for Union grown food, and the Union was the number 1 destination for French exports, like silk and wine.

Meanwhile, they exported little to the Southern States, and only got a single import from there (which they both had large stockpiles of and were importing from other areas).

But France would not have joined in, because they were already involved in Mexico. In December 1861 France had started landing troops there, and by 1862 were fighting in Mexico, in what was basically a Civil War of their own.

No, there was really no way they were jumping into a second Civil War, on a Continent an ocean away that their population was not supportive of.

But nice and common fantasies for those that believe in the Lost Cause.

as food if the South was one thing they where agricultural.

Actually, in the US the South was an importer of food prior to the Civil War.

What most forget is that their original economy was not actually based on cotton, but on rice. The South (especially South Carolina) used to be a huge food exporter area, but by the early 1800's they started to shift to Cotton. And by the time of the Civil War, a great amount of their agriculture had changed from food to that single crop. It was more profitable for them to grow and sell cotton, and import food from the midwest.

That is why famine was a constant threat for them. So much of their farmland was dedicated to growing something they could not eat that it took a huge toll on them. And why at least for one region, they consider the later boll weevil infestation as a savior now.

If you go around SE Alabama, most of that area was once cotton. But that destroyed the land, and caused great poverty by the turn of the century. Then the boll weevil infestation destroyed that. So they then listened to a certain professor, and changed their main crop to peanuts.

Over half the peanuts in the country are now grown in that one region. And you will actually find monuments and statues to the pest in the region.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boll_Weevil_Monument

As it let them break the cycle, and take up a new way of farming that brought prosperity back to the region. I used to live in Enterprise, and I loved watching how puzzled visitors were that there was a shrine right in the middle of town to the boll weevil.

In fact, if you read the original John Jakes book "North and South" (not the movie), the Main family were not cotton farmers, but rice farmers. And that is the crop that originally brought slaves to the region. "King Cotton" was largely a myth, promoted by those that ran that crop. For most farmers, it was sinking them into poverty as it was hard on the land, and they were putting so much effort into a crop they could not eat.

If the corn farmer has a bad year or the price drops, at least they can eat what they grew. If a glut on cotton meant it was rotting in storage without a buyer, they could not eat it.

The capital of the Confederacy was successfully defended.

Which was symbolic, but really not all that important.

Heck, the original Capitol of the US was held by England during most of the Revolution. As well as following ones, like Baltimore and New York.

Taking a capitol can be a symbolic victory, but that alone does not automatically bring an end to a war.

Taking a capitol can be a symbolic victory, but that alone does not automatically bring an end to a war.

Wouldn't capturing the building housing the government headquarters effectively disable the government?

AJ

Wouldn't capturing the building housing the government headquarters effectively disable the government?

No.

Remember, the Continental Congress escaped and continued on just fine when the British took Philadelphia. And NYC, and Trenton, etc, etc, etc.

When the Union took Richmond, the government had already fled. The war ended (just as the Revolution) because the largest military force of that side had surrendered. But if Lee had not surrendered, I have absolutely no doubt that the Confederate Government would have simply settled in somewhere else and the war would have continued.

However, in a form of government where there is a single governmentally omnipotent head of state (say a Monarchy or Despotism) and you capture that head of state, it can bring it to a swift end. But just taking some buildings? Nope.

The US took Baghdad in early April 2003, but the war continued on for another month. With major battles at Kirkuk and Tikrit. The Ba'ath Party scattered and went into hiding, but the war continued until all military opposition ended.

It would be cumbersome, but Congress could meet in almost any auditorium if they were forced to abandon DC.

Or even a basement built into a resort in West Virginia.

That is why in the last 2 decades, the US changed how it handles such plans. At one time, it was go to a secret bunker and fight on. Today, thanks to things like the National Emergency Airborne Command Post (NEACP) they take to the air and scatter.

Just remember back to 2001. The President took to the air and was transferred to NECAP, the Vice President went to ground in an "undisclosed location". Which was initially the Operations Center of the White House. But over the next several days the VP was shuttled between several locations.

In the modern era, the plan is to actually scatter the leadership of the nation. In general, the top 5 of those the Government would fall to are all safeguarded and moved to different places. That way a following attack would not remove any who are left, and guarantee the government survives.

So, no, loss of a capital doesn't effectively end a war.

Wasn't the discussion about the loss of the capitol, not the loss of the capital?

AJ

Wasn't the discussion about the loss of the capitol, not the loss of the capital?

There is often a lot of capital in the capitol.

I wasn't thinking of your story. Though it is an interesting one. It reminds me of the alternate history after Gettysburg that Newt Gingrich developed across three novels that I've got on Kindle. Anything that I run across that fictionalizes an alternate history of that time is something I'll read. It's always fun to read historical fiction by someone who taught the subject. Yours is pretty good also. Kudos.

If you have not yet, look up his story "1945", one of his best I thought, but sadly the follow was never written.

In short, Hitler was in a plane crash on 8 December 1941. He is not killed, but is hospitalized. Therefore he never makes the 11 December declaration of war.

This ends in 1944 with a split ending of WWII. Germany achieves most of their goals in Europe, and the US is able to throw their entire might at Japan and conquer them also. It starts off a year later, as tensions rise between the two new Superpowers of US and Nazi Europe.

It isn't clear what could have ended the war without invasions to force the other side to surrender.

The South dragging things out and causing enough casualties to Northern troops that the North eventually gave up. There was plenty of unrest in the North over the war (see the Draft Riots) and raising troops was not a trivial task.

The South's problem was the Anaconda Strategy which prevented them from staying defensive and waiting until the North became tired.

The South forced a major battle in Pennsylvania (Gettysburg) as part of an invasion.

It wasn't so much that they forced that battle as much as both sides stumbled onto each other and kept throwing more forces into it. Lee was trying to force a major battle, it's just that Gettysburg isn't where he planned for it to happen.

There is probably no single battle in the War of Northern Aggression that has been gamed out as much as Gettysburg. Terrible Swift Sword was first released by SPI, then later by TSR, as the first regimental level Gettysburg game. There were massive mistakes made by both sides.

The Democrat Party ran McClellan in opposition to Lincoln in the 1864 election and it's likely he would have won. Sympathies were running against the war especially with the reporting of the massive casualties incurred by Grant on the Overland Campaign. And the Democrats still engendered a lot of support for slavery thru the Northern Democrats that blunted a lot of the opposition to the institution by Republicans.

He only won 45% of the vote, and 3 states (Kentucky, New Jersey, Delaware). That was only 21 electoral votes, compared to 212 for the incumbent.

Nope, not even close.

And it must be remembered, the Democratic Ticket was split that election. The Majority of Democrats actually stuck with the President, in what was called the "National Union" ticket.

That year, it was Democrats against National Union. A coalition party, with Republican Abraham Lincoln for President, and Democrat Andrew Johnson as Vice President.

Heck, much of the Union saw the President retained by margins of 20% or higher. Massachusetts saw the Union ticket win by a margin of greater than 40%.

Even Tennessee and Louisiana saw Union victories, and they had been states in rebellion.

Lincoln's deal was preserving the Union at all costs, slavery was a side issue for him. If he could have struck a deal to preserve slavery in exchange for preventing the secession, he would have done it.

His actual plans were to slowly phase it out. Put more effort into the "American Colonization Society", which was actively sending freed slaves to Liberia. He hoped to see by the 1880's most of the blacks sent back to Africa, if needed by buying the slaves and returning them to their "homeland".

Long term plans were to see slavery "sunsetted", through setting a date in the future upon which anybody born after that date would be born a free resident.

So would have Lincoln accepted slavery if the South hadn't seceded? Likely yes. Permanently? Not likely given abolitionist sentiment. We'll never know for sure. You're right in that Lincoln wasn't going to let any state leave the Union. That was, after all, his job, wasn't it?

Odds are, it would have been an issue in the back of his term of office, and compromise solutions would have started to come to the front.

Slavery was already on the way out, world wide. And no matter how much the Confederates wanted to hold onto it, eventually they would have had to abandon it. Either that, or the US would by the end of the century would have been having to put up with embargos and trade restrictions by other markets overseas.

By the 1880's, it would surprise me if nations like England, France, and the Dutch did not prohibit trade with the US unless it gave up slavery. The world was already changing, and it is not hard to see how that would affect the US.

One only looks to have to look to South Africa in the next century to see that. Now I doubt the Lincoln Administration would have had to deal with it much, but the next one or the one after that would have had to. Because otherwise more and more nations would have likely started to boycott US goods, and even US ships from entering their ports.

Actually, it would be pretty surprising.
Most of the colonial powers had no real objection to the use of slaves, other than the fact that controlling the slaves tended to be problematic. Slave revolts tended to be expensive.

Not really. Look no farther than the reaction of the textile mills in England. You had a general strike at most of them, with the workers outright refusing to process the cotton that had come in from the Confederate states.

It was only a matter of time before such public reactions would force a government to change it's stance. Just like with South Africa in more modern times.

And it was not even unique. That had a lot to do with England leaving the slave trade in the first place. Ignoring the demands of the population is something a government takes at their own risk.

That's why Lincoln's election triggered the slave state's secession. Other southern states followed but it was the slave states that were first to bolt. The South knew that if slavery wasn't permitted to expand into new states, it was on the road to extinction. They could see the increase in abolitionists sentiment in the North and knew it wouldn't survive.

Not quite. The seven cotton states bolted first. All the southern states were slave states. Of the 8 slave states in the Union after the 7 cotton states left, 4 seceded later (when Lincoln called up the militia to suppress rebellion. The Confederacy claimed 2 more states -- KY and MO -- without consulting them.

It wasn't that free states joined the Confederacy; it was that some slave sttes stayed in the Union.

There was plenty of northern feelings to let the Confederacy go. That wasn't feelings to surrender to Confederate demands.

Actually, in a lot of the US there were "Pro-Confederate leanings".

Growing up in Idaho, I saw a lot of that in the history of the state. One I even touched on in one of my stories. A great deal of Idaho was actually founded by Southerners. The city of Atlanta was named when the first news of the Battle of Atlanta reached the area (and it was reported that Confederate forces had won). Most of the Snake River Valley was originally settled by people who migrated from the South before the war began.

The Northerners tended to go to Western Oregon or California. The Southerners tended to settle in Wyoming, Idaho, and Eastern Oregon and Washington. Or Nevada, like the Clemmons' Brothers.

In my story set in Pocatello, it is fictionalized. But when they talk about their ancestors, it is based on actual history. A large extended family that migrated there in the first half of the 1800's from the South. The old farms and ranches there are dying, but until 40 years ago almost all of the owners really were 3rd and 4th cousins of each other, descended from the original 8 or 9 families that settled there.

Yes, there were some southerners among the Mormons but they were more the exception than the rule. 19th Century Mormons were predominately northerners or European immigrants.

But also a lot moved there in the 1860's after the end of the Idaho Gold Rush. And yes, I am more than aware that the Mormons had an early and widespread influence, they were not the only ones.

Like Captain John Stanley, CSA. Who after being invalided out left to go West and join the Idaho Gold Rush. Along with 10 others, and wandered through most of the state, ranging from the Donnelly area to Atlanta, all along the Salmon River area, to Boise, Idaho City, and Silver City.

And do not forget the history of the LDS church. Which spent several years in Missouri, and was essentially evicted when the large number of converts alarmed local leaders and forced them to move on.

An area that is today ironically owned by the LDS church, and home not only to a Temple, but a recreated historic district based on the original settlement.

What, Southerners can't be Mormons?

The trouble with that is that Gettysburg is one of those places like the Fulda Gap in Germany and the plains of Megiddo in Israel/Palestine where due to the terrain if there is going to be a battle in the area that is where it will be.

The problem is that Lee did not even want to fight there. The plan was to sweep past that area as part of a large raid into Northern territory, and not to actually engage in any large and protracted battles.

Lee had learned the year before after Battle of Antietam that his biggest advantage was moving around any Union forces, preserving his command and engaging in hit and run tactics.

His intent during that entire campaign was to simply attack any small forces he could find, and to do as much damage as he could before pillaging supply caches he could find and retreating back to Virginia.

His intent during that entire campaign was to simply attack any small forces he could find, and to do as much damage as he could before pillaging supply caches he could find and retreating back to Virginia.

In addition, he wanted to force the Union Army to fall back to DC to defend it, thus disrupting any plans they might have had.

At that time, and somewhat later, British officers could take leave for almost any reason when their regiments weren't needed.
Winston Churchill was an officer of the Army of India when the Boer war broke out. His regiment wasn't involved, and he took leave to go to Africa as a war correspondent to report on the Boer War.

Or he could have been an "unofficial official" observer. That way, the Brits had "plausible deniability" if anything untoward happened. Guess we'll never know for sure.

Actually, that was very common, both in the 1800's and as well as today.

And it was entirely unofficial and on his own. He traveled there on his own money, to create reports largely for his own use.

There are such though that are there in an official capacity. That is why embassies have a "Military Attaché" among the staff. That is such an individual who is doing so in an official capacity for their government.

And people watching battles was common in that era. The Prussians had official and unofficial observers on both sides of that war. And heck, much of the chaos and confusion of Bull Run - Manassas was that thousands of people came to witness the battle. Which only added to the mess when the Union Army ran smack into them during the retreat, turning a withdrawal into a completely unorganized route.

The US even had such observers in many other battlefields after that war. Including the reunification of Japan, the Crimean War, and others. That was frequently how young and hungry Colonels would gain experience when there were no wars of their own to fight. They would watch to see how others did it.

Everything I've read on the Gettysburg Campaign suggests that the Confederate government, as well as Robert E. Lee himself, was looking for a big victory in the north, not just hit-and-run raids.

Agreed, and the type of battle Robert E. Lee was after is what he got at Gettysburg, except it was not the battle of his choosing, nor was the timing, nor was the terrain. From what I read REL was moving further north before turning to come down on Washington from the north after he had his forces merged back together. However, once the fighting started at Gettysburg some of his senior sub-commanders got too heavily engaged instead of quickly withdrawing, and the end result was to suck everyone from both sides into the area for the major conflict.

From what else I've read about Lee's campaigns I gather Gettysburg is the only major engagement he had during the war where he didn't get to choose the battleground and set it up to his advantage. However, I've not done any thorough research on all of his campaigns so that may be a misunderstanding.

From what I read REL was moving further north before turning to come down on Washington from the north after he had his forces merged back together.

That was the intent of the campaign the year before.

At the time of Gettysburg, Lee was still recovering from the Battle of Antietam, which largely wre4cked his army. The intent of that campaign was to swing up into Maryland, and then pull in forces until they converge on DC.

However, Special Order 191 was lost while moving to other commanders, and recovered by the Union forces. Which let them set up the battles of South Mountain, then a few days later Antietam. Which pretty much put an end to that campaign and the season.

That was no longer his plan in 1863. A large number of his troops were recent recruits, his army was still rebuilding after the drubbing of the year before.

Everything I've read on the Gettysburg Campaign suggests that the Confederate government, as well as Robert E. Lee himself, was looking for a big victory in the north, not just hit-and-run raids.

Yes, but on their terms, in their territory.

The hope was to disrupt Union offensive plans, and cause them to chase after them. Then to ambush them after drawing them into a trap in the South.

Like the Japanese in the century to follow, Lee believed in the big battle. However, like with the Japanese the US forces simply refused to play by his rules, so instead forced the big battle in their own back yard, on their terms.

And at that time, the Confederate Army was almost half a million men. In order to trap a Union Army in an ambush, the bait has to be large enough to pull them into the trap.

And as mentioned, most of the Gettysburg Campaign was intended to be raiding Union supply depots and caches.

Had the election been as strong a general rejection of slavery as you imply, Lincoln wouldn't have been the Republican nominee.

Very likely, had the slave states not seceded, Lincoln wouldn't have been the President to preside over the end of slavery in the US.

The Republican Party was more moderate on slavery than several minor parties in previous elections. There position was the rejection of the expansion of slavery. Abolitionists started the campaign quite critical of Republicans. Closer to the election, they decided that of the 4 parties running, the Republicans were by far the best.

I was speaking, however, about slaveholder perceptions. "We can't control slavery in slave states, bt it's too dirty to allow into new territories," did not threaten the economic interests of most slaveholders, and it only distantly and slightly affected those. It was, however, a derogatory comment. They took those votes for Lincoln as agreement with the comments.

"We can't control slavery in slave states, bt it's too dirty to allow into new territories," did not threaten the economic interests of most slaveholders, and it only distantly and slightly affected those. It was, however, a derogatory comment.

Also was the threat of losing members of Congress.

The Missouri Compromise by that time was starting to show cracks. And California stating in no uncertain way that it would not enter as a slave state showed the way the winds were turning.

And when looked at the next states to enter, and the failed Crittenden Compromise, which was tabled in Congress in December 1860.

And it was not real popular by either side. It would have entered Amendments to forbit abolition from ever being legal in the US. But at the same time, expanded what would become Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada as future slave states.

Southerners were not happy, as it would still mean that eventually the free states would outnumber them in Congress. Northerners did not like it as it would eliminate any chance to remove slavery at a future date, and also expanded slavery into new territories (including one where caucasians were a minority).

my old economic history prof could rattle off complete journal references

I would expect most if not all of those references to be on the internet. So knowing the reference topics should allow you to locate the references that support your position.

It is my opinion that many professors have views that are not accurate and they support their views with references to "experts" who form a minority "expert" opinion. For example, Doctor Scott Atlas; who posed as a virus expert, but had no expertise in public health or infectious diseases..

1) your imagining of what "the north" wanted is an anachronism. Before the Civil War (and long after to a decreasing degree) there was not an identity of "the North." There was an identity of "New England." There was an identity of "The Northwest."
2) Consequently, the cotton-mill owners had an influence in the 6 New England states (how far outside Massachusetts, I don't know. Your imagination of either a bill having passed through Congress (or, as you have changed the story, about to be passed through Congress) forbidding the export of cotton runs aground on the 7 cotton states having more senators than the 6 NE states. (They had more Reps, too; I'm not sure how many.)
3) While the New England mills might have had some excess capacity, they certainly couldn't have handled the cotton shipped to Englannd in 1860.

4) Wikipedia isn't 100% reliable. The further it gets from statistical data, the less reliable it gets. The comparison here is between the danger of somebody writing "More than 60% of all exports" or "absolutely none" and a sourcing of "I had a professor once whom I can't remember all that well, but I think he said something like this."
5) If that was one of the causes of secession, one of the leaders of secession would have said so. Unlike slavery, it would have received sympathy in the overseas audience which both sides of the Civil War were trying to influence. Cite one.
6) McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom spends a huge share of its pages on the events leading up to the breach. Your claim doesn't deserve mention.