Conference smurf::civil_war

Read MacKinlay Kantor's book _If the South Had Won the Civil WAR_
published in 1960 as part of the runup for the Centennial.

-d

    
    Any details?

    Yeah, what a world that would be....our blacks would probably be
    poor, uneducated, living in third-world conditions, and mostly
    lacking any ambition or hope for the future.  Death by gun-shot
    would probably be common.  Sure glad those mean old biggots didn't
    win the woah.
    
    
    

    re .2
    
    Grant fell from his horse before Vicksburg, stiking his head and dying.
    Lee took Cemetery Hill on the first day at Gettysburg.  Being more con-
    centrated than the AoP, the ANV destroyed the AoP piecemeal on its way
    to Washington D.C.  The Union surrenders.  Texas eventually secedes 
    from the Confederacy in conflict over the Oklahoma Territory.  In the
    1960's, due to the threat of nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union,
    the presidents of the United States, Confederate States, and the
    Republic of Texas hold conferences with the aim of reunification in
    mind.  This is where the book ends.
    
    Ziff

    I am not knowledgeable about the Civil War but I have a friend who
    believes that if the Confederacy had won, England would have come back
    into North America.  He speculates that England would;ve retaken her
    former colonies.  He bases this on the idea that England was supplying
    the South with arms and material.  The British wanted to see America
    breakup.

    I believe this is a purely opinionated approach to what might have
    been. You ask 100 people what would have happened had the South won the
    war and you would get 100 different answers.
    
    However, it must be clearly understood that the CSA had no territorial
    ambitions and, hence, if the Union army had been defeated it would have
    simply meant that hostilities would have ceased, boundaries would be
    set and 2 nations would emerge from 1.
    
    Given that premise I would propose that England would NOT have come
    back to the colonies to imperialize the South - rather they would have
    become a prime trading partner with the new CSA trading technology,
    finished goods and cash for raw material.
    
    The North would have grown to the west with the resultant problems with
    Indian nations occuring nevertheless. However, considering that neither
    Johnson, Grant, Hayes or Harrison would have been elected president,
    perhaps Indian policy would have been different.
    
    The South would most likely have become a loyal trading partner with
    the USA in the same manner as Great Britain. After the bitterness died
    down, the similarities would far outweigh the differences and a
    closeness would have occurred.
    
    As far as slavery and the resultant effect on blacks in the CSA is
    concerned, that's a tough one. I agree with Wess' position, somewhat,
    but I am still inclined to believe that the black was considered, to
    put it kindly, a second class human prior to the war by many
    southerners and would have taken years to attain the social standing
    they so desired. However, as Wess suggested, much of the hatred pointed
    to the blacks after the war was due to reconstruction policies. The
    black was the easiest target to pinpoint since the Yanks more or less
    let them fend for themselves.
    
    How anyone can condemn the South as a segregationist region is beyond
    me. Up until the '40's the US military still treated black men and
    women differently. Black nurses were not allowed to treat white
    patients in New York City or Boston in the 1930's. Would this have been
    commonplace had the CSA won? Who's to know? The final analysis clearly
    indicates that the black man has suffered a tremendous amount in
    America - from the time the first slave was taken from the shores of
    Africa to today where selective segregation occurs in every state in
    the nation.
    
    Rich
    

Re: 43.5

In actual fact Great Britain was not supplying the South with any
significant amount of anything.  Sure, blockade runners got in and
out, but that was *not* official British support.  Not even close.

Great Britain sedulously avoided doing anything that would smack of
recognition for the South; it was said that the Confederates were
demanding a respect they had not yet earned.

The Confederate States had an emissary (James Slidell) in London until
the middle of 1863, and he was universally snubbed by diplomats and
politicians; he was finally withdrawn to avoid further worldwide
embarrassment after Gettysburg.  He went to Paris, where there were
other emissaries who were similarly unsuccessful, only having convinced
the Emperor to suggest a moderated peace conference -- which idea
he later repudiated when the British refused to entertain the notion.

Great Britain would not have tried to reclaim the Northern states had
the Confederacy won.  The Confederates would have demanded reparations,
but they would not have emasculated the Union; Davis said time and
again that all the South wanted was to be left alone.  The British were in no
position militarily to embark on such a war of conquest, especially
having just witnessed the bloodiest war in all history.  Consider that
by the time the British could have brought any force to bear, the US
military would be fully mobilized, well trained, and superbly
equipped.  The Gatling gun had been demonstrated successfully before
war's end, and the US Army after Ripley's departure as chief of Ordnance
in 1863 wasn't slow to recognize the value of new weapons.  (The US was,
after the war, the first government in the world to adopt a machine gun;
it was Gatling's.)

-d

               <<< Note 43.6 by RDOVAX::BRAKE "A Question of Balance" >>>
    
    <<  How anyone can condemn the South as a segregationist region is 
    <<  beyond me.
    
    I can condemn the South for segregation.  I can equally condemn the
    North for the same thing.  I can also condemn the South for promoting
    slavery.  I can applaud the North for abolishing it.

    I think Cantor offered a pretty reasonable approach.  The bitterness
    created by that god-awful, protracted war can not be overestimated.
    Without the horrors of  '64 and '65 - not to mention reconstruction
    - the sense of common blood could have recovered and flourished.
    
    re:  .8   ...condemnation...
    
    You are right about the actions of both regions being condemnable.
    When I first read Brake's note, though, I thought about how the
    South is generally singled out as the only villian.  I don't mean
    to put words in his mouth, but I interpreted 43.6 as meaning, "...can
    condemn [only] the South...."
    
    Having said that, I must call you on committing that very error.
     You said you could condemn the South for promoting slavery and
    the praise the North for aboloishing it.  Well, the North was an
    equal partner in slavery for many, many years; I don't think they
    can be left *ANY* list of "promoters of slavery."  As for whether
    they were unique in abolishing it...  well, since the Confederacy
    died aborning on the bayonets of the U.S. Army, we'll never know,
    will we?
    
    Wess

    Wess brings up a very good point.  Both sides are equally to blame for
    slavery.  The institution could not have survived if not for the large
    textile industry in the north (especially here in New England)
    demanding a never ending supply of cotton, and investing money and
    political pull to make the south economically subservient to those 
    interests
    
    Ziff	

    The times we well on the way to mechanical farming -- even had social
    pressure been insufficient to put it out of business, slavery could not
    have survived another 40 years because steam-powered traction engines
    and other more efficient devices were in use before the turn of the
    century.  You can't feed a dozen slaves on what it costs to run a
    traction engine, but the engine can do the work of 20 or 30.
    
    The American auto makers are seeing the same thing today.  People are
    getting damned tired of large, inefficient, cheaply made cars, and so
    they're buying Japanese cars.  And the Americans are responding --
    today's Fords, Chevys and Plymouths are tons better than the same
    brands 10 years ago.  Economic pressure, while favoring slavery in the
    years leading up to the war, was about to take a turn.
    
    -d

    Despite the intention of the South to do any expanding Southward,
    logic would seem to indicate the West would be part of reparations;
    somehow I can't see a victorious Confederacy leaving all that
    potential farmland to the U.S.
    
    						Don

There are a ton of possibilities and this moves away from the assumptions given
in that book or mentioned here (I've never read the book, so I'm just reacting
to what is said here. The Confederacy could've "won" if the North had stopped
attacking (say war weary public forces armistice late 1863 perhaps) but was
still stronger than the South militarily. I guess I'm saying is the CSA
could've gained independence without completely crushing the USA.

The United States might've been able to say "fine, you are free, but you can't
expand past Texas". If US was able to back this up with force (maybe a big if.
Is the US population willing to fight over territory?), then the CSA would have
to fight to expand. My assumption is based on the fact that the USA would
still have a stronger and much less damaged manufacturing potential.

Now how do the territories react to the independance of the CSA? Which country
would they join? Or would they join at all, or form a third country.

And what about the future? What if other regions of the USA (or CSA) decide to
split? Would either country be willing to fight the next attempt at secession?
I feel that it is a very *big* assumption to think that if the CSA made it that
there would be no futrue attempts.

Furthermore, if the CSA gained independence I question if the bitterness and
hard feelings on both sides (I don't believe for a second that the South
was the helpless victim of Northern imperialism :-) ) would subside in
any reasonable time. There is a common heritage, and that might help mitigate
the pain, but not enough (along this train of thought that is). I mean,
look at the bitterness that survives today.

So, if they don't like each other in the 1860's will they try to cooperate 
when needed? The Spanish American War? Would it have happened? Say there
was a conflict. Who takes what sides over Cuba? What about WWI? The October
Revolution?

I guess I wonder why there appears to be an assumption that the USA and CSA
would have a relationship much like USA-Canada? Why not more like
Serbs-Croations? France-Germany? NH-Mass?

Anyways, this is intersting stuff.

    re: .12
    
    >expanding Southward
    
    Do you mean Central/South America? I think the South would have
    expanded there; large populations with a heritage of plantation-type
    living, no real experience with democracy.
    
    Ken

    I'm not sure where I heard this from but didn't Jefferson Davis
    envision a empire that expanded into Latin America?  So I think there
    might have been inklings of expansionism among members of the
    Confederate government.

    RE: .9
    
    I too believe that the author of .8 was making the point that the South
    was being singled out as the ONLY side that practiced segregation, and
    I agree that it is an unfair assessment.
    
    I also agree that the North was an equal partner in slavery for many
    years.  I do not agree however, that the Confederacy can be cast in an 
    equal light with the Union once the Union had decided that slavery was 
    wrong.  If slavery is wrong, and one side declares it as such, then 
    the motives behind such a declaration whether noble or suspect, do not 
    diminish the fact that slavery is wrong.  This being the case, the 
    Confederacy was "wrong" on the issue of slavery, and therefore I 
    condemn them, and not the Union, on that single issue.
    
    Now there are an assortment of other issues that comprise the
    "seamless" position of the Confederacy during that period, and in fact,
    a few moments ago, I praised note 37.20 (authored by Wess which 
    includes many of those issues), as being an outstanding assessment of 
    what that Southern position was.
    
    And recognizing that this note concerns what would have happened if the
    South won, I would like to contribute an additional thought.  Although
    I share Shelby Foote's belief that the South never had a chance to
    win the Civil War through military means, I fully believe that lasting 
    secession was not only possible, but highly probable if the South had 
    chosen to delete slavery from their agenda of "beefs" with the North.
    
    Up until the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, the South was
    highly motivated by their "cause" and their military successes were a 
    result of fighting for this cause, possibly as much, or more so, than
    the fact that the North's military was being led by abject buffoons.
    I believe that this was also borne out by the fact that there were many
    Southern sympathizers in the North who felt that the South's cause had
    a lot of merit, including politicians, newspapers, and public
    sentiment, a combination that absolutely skewered Lincoln's image on
    BOTH sides, and nearly cost him re-election.
    
    Once Lincoln made up his mind to announce the Emancipation
    Proclamation, the merit of the Southern cause was deeply diminished to
    the point where slavery became so abhorrent that the remainder of the
    Southern agenda, much of it highly valid and reasonable, was
    discounted.  This was borne out by the almost instantaneous withdrawal
    of support by Great Britain and France.  A by-product effect of this
    announcement was that now the Union had a cause, in fact, a cause that
    was arguably more motivating than that of the Confederacy.
     
    Consequently, the Union began to experience more military success,
    possibly as much a result of this, as was purging the Union military
    leadership of incompetents.  Ultimately, it also led to Lincoln's
    almost miraculous re-election.
    
    On this single issue, Lincoln was clearly the intellectual superior of 
    Jefferson Davis who was not able to adapt to this new development, and 
    in fact, by the end of the war became a scapegoat in the eyes of many 
    Southerners for the resulting defeat.  Had Davis, and the leadership 
    of the Confederacy, been willing to reverse their position on the
    slavery issue, it is very conceivable that the North would have sued
    for peace, since:
    
    a)  the remainder of Lincoln's agenda was not particularly strong, and 
    he likely would have been replaced if he continued his efforts to 
    preserve the Union,  
    
    b)  one of the strongest political forces in the North (the
    abolitionists) would no longer have their sacred cause to promote, and 
    
    c) the North was just as tired of the bloodshed as their Southern 
    brothers and sisters, and the aforementioned Southern sympathizers in
    the North might have become the new leading political force, filling 
    the void created by the departure of the abolitionists.     
    
    Without question in my mind, Davis and the Confederate leadership had
    the intellectual ability to do so, but just were unable to do so, 
    primarily due to the Southern psyche that is so well described in 
    note 37.20.  In other words, their position was so totally in 
    opposition to that of the Union, that their failure to concede even
    one plank led to the destruction of the entire platform.
    
    
    Paul
    The result of all of this is that the South could have successfully
    seceded, and by doing so, would, in effect, have won.

>    win the Civil War through military means, I fully believe that lasting 
>    secession was not only possible, but highly probable if the South had 
>    chosen to delete slavery from their agenda of "beefs" with the North.
    
>   Had Davis, and the leadership of the Confederacy, been willing to 
>   reverse their position on the slavery issue, it is very conceivable 
>   that the North would have sued for peace, since:
    
>   In other words, their position was so totally in opposition to that of 
>   the Union, that their failure to concede even one plank led to the 
>   destruction of the entire platform.
    
From a philosophical standpoint, wouldn't conceding the issue of 
slavery to the U.S. have been in direct contrast to the principle of 
States' Rights?  As I've come to understand it, the driving force 
behind the whole war was over the States' "right" to determine their own 
legislative (and moral, since slavery was a moral issue) destiny.  
The South chose, then, to secede instead of allowing a centralized 
Federal body to make those decisions for their collective states.

I can agree with the arguments made - agreeing to abolish slavery might 
very well have ended the war sooner since slavery was the main issue 
for much of the North (instead of secession).  This might also have 
allowed the CSA to remain a separate entity.  I wonder, though, if Davis 
could've talked the CSA into dropping slavery as an issue even if he 
wanted to.  Doing so would have meant sacrificing or at the very least 
compromising the ideals he and the South were fighting for and 
embracing those against which they were fighting, namely a centralized 
Federal government attempting to enforce legislation or morality or 
whatever on the individual states.  

Scott 

    I think it's stretching things a bit to consider slavery as the
    "main issue for much of the North" (this was covered somewhere else
    in here, but my memory's failing me).  From what I've read and heard,
    the "man-in-the-street" of the North didn't care a whole lot about
    slavery, and in fact, had it been thought of as a war against slavery
    in the first place, the North would have had a much harder time
    recruiting troops.
    
    I do agree with .17 though, in that it would surely have been 
    impossible to convince the Southern Leaders to "give up" slavery as
    an issue.  Say what you want, I believe it _was_ the issue.  States'
    Rights was just a convenient euphemism to hide behind.  I think it
    (State's Rights) was sold to the masses to "popularize" the war, and
    secession in general.  IMHO.
    
    Mark

It is also clear that by constantly attacking existing compromises on the
westward expansion of slavery, the South contributed to the uncompromising
attitudes of many northern politicians concerning abolition.  This attitude
in turn helped convinced the South that the only way to maintain their "rights"
was to leave.  Perhaps, if the southern leaders in Congress had not worked so
hard to add new slave states in areas where this was prevented by the Missouri
Compromise, we wouldn't even have had a CW.

Dick

    re: southward expansion
    
    The C.S. had designs on Cuba and maybe on Mexico.  The ever-increasing
    land hunger of the plantation system would have pushed them into
    some pretty serious conquests.  I think there would have eventually
    been a war between the U.S. and the C.S. over possession of the
    SW territories - Arizona, N.M., Colo., Utah.  It would have been
    a simple territorial war, though, and not the philosohical and moral
    morass that actually occured.
    
    re:  slavery and abolotion as motives
    
    Had the North been fighting even primarily for abolition, or the
    South been fighting primarily for slavery, I would agree instantly
    that the North was right.  This just isn't the case, however.  Slavery
    was a part of the issue of state's rights.  Even the Empancipation
    Proclamation admitted the existence of slavery.  It said that if
    the South would cease its rebellion, it could keep its slaves. 
    It specificallly said that slaves in the parts of the country,
    including the United States, that were under Federal control were
    to continue as if the EP had never been issued.  The Emancipaion
    Proclamation *DID NOT* end or even condem slavery in the United
    States.  It was  shallow and cold-blooded piece of political chicanery,
    intended to do precisely what it did:  to confuse the world as to
    just what was going on.  It worked beautifully; Lincoln was a masterful
    politician, and I agree [surprise!] that Davis was no match for
    him intellectually.  Ironically, Davis had much the more difficult
    job.
    
    I also agree that the South never stood a snowball's chance in hell
    of winning a protracted military conflict.  Their only hope was
    in either wearing down the North's resolve or in bringing world
    opinion against Lincoln and forcing him to negotiate a settlement.
    
    Wess
    
    PS.  Just so you don't think I've gone plumb soft in the head, Davis
    was one heck of a lot smarter than he is generally given credit
    for being.

    re: .20
    
    Mexico, now there's a thought! Many of the CS generals had fought
    (victoriously) in the Mexican War (as U.S. soldiers); what did they
    think of that area when they came back? They can't have thought it
    would put up too much resistance.
    
    Ken

    I saw a game put out by the Avalon-Hill company that presents the
    scenario of the South winning the Civil War and a rematch is fought later
    during the 1930's.  Avalon-Hill is a well known publisher of war games
    and combat simulations.  Has anyone seen or played this game
    before?

This sounds like a game call DIXIE that was published in S&T magazine by
SPI (not Avalon Hill), although Avalon Hill might have reissued it. I have
the game, but have never played it. I believe it assumed that both North and
South had remained within the geographical limits of the continental U.S.,
within the general border along the Mason-Dixon line.

						Rod

            <<< SWECSC::DISK$PELLE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]HISTORY.NOTE;2 >>>
                              -< Alea Jacta Est! >-
================================================================================
Note 55.51                     American Civil War                      51 of 450
KLO::JOYCE                                           57 lines  10-FEB-1989 18:04
                        -< What if the South had won? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    I get a monthly magazine "History Today" which is basically
    history by professionals written for amateurs like myself. They
    did an article recently on Confederate war strategy. This led
    to an interesting letter on what would have happened if the
    South had won - "winning" being that the Confederacy stayed in
    existence and the US conceded its right to co-exist in North
    America.  
    
    The letter-writer mentioned that Winston Churchill believed
    that if this happened both North and South would have joined
    a re-constituted Greater British Empire, or a British-oriented
    North American Federation.
    
    An alternative scenario was put forward by a science-fiction
    writer (whose name escapes me) in a novel. Here, the 
    Confederacy and British North America (backed by Britain)
    confine the Union to 25 states. The writer did not say if
    the Pacific coast would be part of the Union, but the 
    suggestion seemed to be that it would not. Presumably this
    would have been devided between the Confederacy and British
    North America.
    
    I do not find either of these entirely plausible. However,
    I do believe that the Confederacy could only have existed
    successfully if its borders were guaranteed by a European
    power - France or Britain, or both. Thus the Monroe doctrine
    would have been set at nought, and European powers would
    have had greater say in the development of North America.
    Churchill was probably really trying to say this, though
    his fully realised scenario is wildly implausible.
    
    Worse case, North America would have been "Europeanized" 
    (i.e split into competing and often warring states) as
    if the South seceded, the Pacific may have at a later date
    leading to at least three countries where there is now the 
    USA. This would have had quite enormous effect on the
    history of western civilization - for example the power
    of the USA to intervene (for the good I believe) in both 
    world wars would have been greatly reduced, as it probably
    would have been checkmated by another power in the region.
    
    Economically, also the USA as a giant economic area has 
    always been the engine pulling the western economies along
    - had this market splintered into competing economic zones
    the industrial development of the west would have been
    greatly retarded.
    
    My personal opinion is that the Confederacy would have
    expanded South into the Gulf, probably annexing Cuba and
    more of Mexico. If so, it might exist today as another
    South Africa with an apartheid system for whites,
    hispanics and blacks. 
    
    That's my personal speculation. Any others?
    
    Toby
    

    
    Just to add to the note:
    
    - Southern Expansionism. The radical secessionists were VERY
      expansionist. In the 1850's there were regular calls for the
      annexation of Cuba or Nicaragua with a view to adding them as
      slave states. There was wide support in the south for filibustering
      in the Gulf - read McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom", in particular
      the chapter "An Empire for Slavery".
    
    - Would the South have become an "apartheid-type" state? Yes, I think
      so. Modern racism and segregation in Western countries really grew
      up in the 1890's, fuelled by populism and half-baked
      "Social-Darwinist" theories that branded blacks as losers in the
      battle of evolution. In fact the early "Redeemer" governments that
      took over in 1876 after Reconstruction were relatively paternalistic 
      towards blacks, just like most slaveowners had been, it was at a later 
      stage that the blacks were deprived of some of the benefits won during 
      the 1860's - though slavery was not re-introduced. It was during and
      after the Spanish-American war when southerners began to rejoin
      the US army in large numbers that black units were changed from
      combat to labour, and segregation in the armed forces took strong
      hold until President Trueman abolished it. 
    
      Looking at the subsequent history of desegregation,
      which was largely imposed on the South, it is difficult to imagine
      an integrated Confederacy happening without a major upheaval like
      the one that has gripped South Africa - the upheaval that DID take
      place was of earthquake proportions !!!!
    
      Toby

    Kind of makes you wonder if a successful CSA would eventually have
    had their own civil war, and what it would be called.
    
    						Don

    re: .24
    
    >Confederacy and British North America (backed by Britain)
    >confine the Union to 25 states. The writer did not say if
    
    When you say 'British North America', would that be what is now Canada?
    
    I remember reading somewhere that had the Confederacy won, Texas
    would've gone back to being a separate republic.  Can anyone confirm
    this?
    
    

    re: .27   Republic of Texas
    
    That's a good bet, I think.  Texas was far removed from the 
    Confederate national government, and Texans have always thought
    of themselves as a breed apart.  The CS constitution allowed
    secession, so the process would have been peaceful.  It is
    likely, in my opinion, that a very strong social and political
    tie would have formed between the USA, the CSA, and the RT.
    
    Canada might have tried to extend its boundaries to the southwest,
    but I doubt it.  I'm no expert on Canadian history, but I can't
    think of a motive for them to have done so.
    
    NOw here's a variation on that theme:  if Texas had seceeded from
    the Confederacy, and if the U.S. and C.S were hassling over possesion
    of the western territories, Mexico, and not Canada, might have come
    up and tried to retake some old ground.  At that point, the Mexican
    (ie, French) government was far more aggressive than was the Canadian.
    
    
     Wess

    RE .27:
    
    You may well have read the idea about Texas seceeding - it was
    postulated in Kantor's book, "If The South Had Won The Civil War".
    
    RE .28:
    
    Canada might well have tried to move south along the Pacific coast if
    there had been a weakened USA.  They were worried a bit about American
    expansion into _their_ territory (so they built their transcontinental
    railroad through some of the roughest mountains in North America as an
    "anchor" for the boundary), so they might have pushed for a bigger
    buffer.
    
    Wes also raises, indirectly, another point: would the CSA have lasted? 
    How long would the "tidewater" states, "the Gulf Squadron", and the
    states like Tennessee, Missouri, and Arkansas have felt they had enough
    commonality to overcome their differences?  Economic development would
    not have moved at a uniform pace, and sooner or later the old
    "North/South" stresses would have appeared in the CSA, with secession
    an easy "remedy".  Remember that Georgia did a lot of things that were
    harmful to the Confederate war effort _during_ the war - would they
    have put up with "meddling" from Richmond after it was over?
    
    MikeR
    

    re: .29
    
    >Wes also raises, indirectly, another point: would the CSA have lasted? 
    >How long would the "tidewater" states, "the Gulf Squadron", and the
    >states like Tennessee, Missouri, and Arkansas have felt they had enough
    >commonality to overcome their differences?  Economic development would
    >not have moved at a uniform pace, and sooner or later the old
    >"North/South" stresses would have appeared in the CSA, with secession
    >an easy "remedy".  Remember that Georgia did a lot of things that were
    >harmful to the Confederate war effort _during_ the war - would they
    >have put up with "meddling" from Richmond after it was over?
    
    If this had happened, I can imagine the map of North America would look
    more like that of South or Central America.  It would be made up of
    several little countries.  I remember learning in high school when we were
    studying the history of Latin America that some great Latin American
    leader wanting to unite all the Latin American states into sort of a
    United States of South America.  I think it might have been Simon
    Bolivar but I can't remember for sure it was a long time ago.  As you
    can guess he was unsuccessful.
    

    
    Re: Canada
    
    I think some of the previous notes forget that Canada in the 1860's
    was very much British North America - I read somewhere that the
    British reinforced their garrison there during the war, to guard
    against any fall-out from the Civil War.
    
    People also forget that in the early days the South's survival 
    depended to a large degree on British recognition - suppose
    Britain had recognised the Confederacy, and used its navy to
    break the blockade? Suppose French troops had joined the 
    Confedeate army in Virginia and Tennessee? The Monroe doctrine
    would be in pieces, and forever ....
    
    It is not hard to imagine the North, having been confronted
    by British/ French support for the South, allying with the
    Bismarck's emerging Prussian state .....
    
    ... how different could the 20th have been in that event ....
    
    Toby

Re: .31

The North might have allied with the Prussians, but maybe not.  It is
clear that beginning sometime in 1863 the North was the most advanced
state in the world militarily and technologically.  All IMHO, of course.

The strategies and tactics of Grant, which became those under which the
Union's war was conducted early in 1864, were unconventional enough that
the Europeans, who had were still mired in their "gentleman's war"
style, would have fared very poorly against the burgeoning Union armies,
especially on American ground against troops who had faced rifled arms
for years.  Given that the Gatling gun, the Henry and Spencer rifles,
and the technology to make them were coming of age, the Union, even had
it had no other advantage, would have shown greatly superior firepower.

The British navy was indeed superior to the Union's -- in number of sail
and in weight of metal thrown.  But how long that advantage would have
served against the developed ironclads of the Union navy is anyone's
guess, and mine is that the British would have been served short shrift
befiore they could gear their technology and production up to meet those
of the already booming Union.

I am convinced that the war would have been far longer, far more widely
spread, and far bloodier, but I do think the result would still have
been a Union victory.  The difference, in the end, would likely have
been to place the US in the position of victor in the first world war.

-dick

    
    I beg to differ with the previous note .... no matter how powerful 
    the North was, I do not think it could have withstood the leading
    naval and military powers at that time AND defeated the Confederacy
    as well.
    
    Defeating the South was such an arduous and closely-run affair that
    the outcome could have turned either way.
    
    The British could quite easily have gobbled up the US's merchant
    fleet ... the North would have had to built a fleet of ocean-going
    warships to stop them, which would have detracted significantly
    from their war effort on land. It is likely that it would be the 
    North's commerce that would suffer, while the South's would prosper.
    
    It is true that probably European troops would maybe not have been as 
    effective as American, but 10 or 20 thousand extra troops, (disciplined
    professionals with experience in the Crimea, Algeria and Mexico) on the 
    Southern side would have made an enormous difference to Robert E. 
    Lee in his battles!
    
    While the US was obviously a growing power, it was still not regarded
    as a world power by the other countries, for example, the British
    representative in Washington, Lord Lyons, did not have full ambassador
    status. And I do not think that the North had yet outstripped Britain
    as an industrial power. In fact, Germany was the first nation to do
    that.
    
    Toby
    
    

Re: .33

The problem with your line of reasoning, as I see it, is Parkinson's
Law.  As people will always do everywhere, the North put forth the
minimum effort required to defeat the South.  Had other enemies
presented themselves, Lincoln would have had the most unbelievably
powerful call to arms at his disposal, namely defense of the very
existence of the Union -- this is the same thing that carried the
Confederacy on for so long.  But the Union, by and large, was fighting
for an idea, not for existence, and did not rise to the ultimate need.

Look today at Israel.  The Israeli people know that if they lose a war
with a major Arab state they will likely be dispossessed of their
nation.  So they simply do not allow that eventuality to happen.  I am
convinced that the Union had the resources to rise and protect itself
against that kind of threat.  Fer gosh sakes, the 13 colonies managed
to defeat Britain when Britian was the greatest land and naval power in
the entire Western world!

Look at the USA in WWII.  From being the most backward militarily of
all the major combatants, it emerged form the war literally decades
ahead of all the others.  (The USSR built an A-bomb in 1951 as a result
of superb espionage, not because they had developed the technology on
their own.)  This kind of ingenuity cannot be bought just by having a
solid manufacturing base.  The benefits of ingenious technology were
already being felt -- the Gatling gun, revolvers, Spencer and Henry
rifles, the Parrott and Dahlgren guns, balloon observation, monitors,
the near advent of true submersibles (John Ericsson's boats), effective
grenades and land mines.  Project the rate of Union invention during
the war for another five years...

Bear in mind as well that Britain was still recovering from the Crimean
War and was dealing with *severe* labour unrest internally.  France was
no longer a significant naval power and was in fact actively engaged in
securing Mexico for itself.  I think it would have been ineffably
horrible, maybe 2 or 3 million lives lost, but I really believe that
the Union would finally have come out as top dog.  I will, however,
pose this as a question to my son, who is a historian specializing in
military history.

-dick

My son, a historian specializing in military history, says that in his
opinion the ONLY reason that the South lost was that they could not keep
their armies supplied properly.  He says that had Britan and France
taken arms on the side of teh Confederacy, the Union would have lost
bigtime.

I suppose I'm at liberty to disagree with him, but I do think now that
I need to revisit the issue.

-dick

    That's an interesting point.  The issue of supply, that is.
    It would seem (to me, at least) that difficulty with supply
    and logistics would have made the British and the French
    themselves ineffective.
    
    After all, they would have had to maintain a transatlantic
    supply line through all seasons and we're not talking about
    twentieth century comforts either.  The Union would have had 
    access to resupplying and refueling a steel and steam fleet
    in days, not weeks.
    
    Just a thought...
    
     2
    R

    RE .35 & previous:
    
    I agree with Toby (and your son ;^} ).  Even in the example you cite of
    the Revolutionary War, America was only able to win because Britain was
    fighting other, bigger enemies elsewhere, and because the French fleet
    was able to briefly deny England command of the sea.
    
    In the Civil War, the appearance of the Royal Navy on the side of the
    Confederacy would have destroyed the blockade, and would have probably
    prevented such strategic and morale-building victories as the capture
    of New Orleans.  True, the US was beginning to build ironclads, but
    they were by no means deep-water warships, and England was already
    experimenting.  The so-called Laird Rams, with all their design flaws,
    caused the US to exert significant diplomatic pressure in order to keep
    England from delivering them to the Confederacy - I think the British
    would not have lagged far behind any naval effort the US could have
    made.
    
    I'll have to check, but I think the French commissioned an armored
    frigate, the Gloire, in 1858 (a regular broadside sail/steam ship with
    armor plate), so the US did not exactly have a monopoly on armored
    ships.
    
    Another factor is timing.  Much of the innovation you speak of came
    into significant battlefield use in late 1862 or 1863.  If the British
    and French had intervened earlier, they would have faced a US Army
    which was plagued by marginally competent commanders and armed about
    the same as they were.
    
    MikeR
    

    RE .36:
    
    The British had excellent sites for bases in the Bahamas and Nova
    Scotia. (Nassau was a major port for blockade runners with England
    neutral.)  Remember that until late 1863 or so, the Union "blockade"
    was pretty porous, even _without_ a major navy to contend with.  It was
    the gradual capture of Confederate ports, plus the eventual building of
    a fleet of small gunboats, that finally sealed the Southern coast. 
    With the Royal Navy in the picture, the US would have needed to
    maintain fairly large squadrons at any points they wanted to blockade,
    and it _still_ might have been pretty easy for a troop or supply convoy
    to force its way in.  The British had learned about convoys during the
    Napoleonic Wars, and I suspect they would have had little trouble
    supplying their own and Confederate armies.
    
    MikeR
    

RE: .34

>But the Union, by and large, was fighting for an idea, not for existence, and
>did not rise to the ultimate need. ...Fer gosh sakes, the 13 colonies managed
>to defeat Britain when Britian was the greatest land and naval power in the
>entire Western world! 

I heard an interview with an author (who's name escapes me) who has written a 
book critical of Robert E. Lee.  His arguement was similar to the points you 
make.  The basis of his arguement was that Lee lost the war because: 
	1. He fought agressively against the North instead of trying to
	   create a long protracted war.  His compared it to the American
	   Revolution where the colonies dragged out the war.
	2. That he incurred too many casualties relative to his opponent.

I don't necessarily buy his arguement due to the superior numbers and strategic 
advantages of the North.  However due to Northern incompetance the extended war 
scenario would seem plausible by the middle of the war.

Larry

    Being no expert on naval matters, especially where the ACW is
    concerned, I'll pose this more as a question than as an argument.
    From my readings on the various fleets of the world during that period
    I notice that while the other powers in question also had some
    iron-clads (Britain and France), they were armed with 9" guns.  The
    US ocean-going fleet, while mainly built for coastal defense, was
    almost entirely armed with 15" guns.  Could this have made the
    difference in a major naval engagement?
    
    Ziff

Weight of metal was often the deciding factor in naval engagements.
But the size of a ship's guns can be more than offset by the number
of guns on an enemy ship.  The difference in engagements between two
ironclads would come down to whether a 9-inch gun was sufficient to
batter a ship's armor into uselessness.

The skill of the respective commanders would figure into things, and
there is no doubt in my mind that British captains were superior to
any others on earth at that time.  I don't think it would have taken
most captains very long to learn that you don't just sit there and
batter at each other -- tactics become important.  Very important.

One other factor is that of luck.  There are many records of a ship's
losing a battle because her fires were swamped or her boiler holed by
a stray shot that came in through a gunport or a stack or some other
fortuitous opening.  Also, most ironclads were clad only above the
waterline.  In heavy seas, it could -- and did -- happen that a ship
heeled at just the wrong moment and took a shot below the waterline.

I think it would have been interesting, to say the least.

-dick

    I think I was suffering a bit of dain bramage in my last entry. 
    Instead of 15" guns it should read 13" guns.  Sorry about the 
    confusion...
    
    Ziff

Another thought on what might've happened...

Suppose the CSA gained independence from the Union.  That in itself 
would have set a precedent that a state, or group or states, or group 
of people, if dissattisfied with the current ruling body, has a right 
to secede from that governement, right?  At that point, what would keep 
Farmer Brown from seceding from Georgia because he didn't like paying 
state taxes and creating "The great state of Brown"?   

Someone mentioned earlier the map of the US and CSA today would look 
like central America.  I think it would be much more complex, with 
thousands of little "State of Johnson" mini-states existing from people 
seceding, and seceding again, and so on.  Eventually, with no federal 
army providing any type of protection, Mexico or Britain or the Union 
would've tried to annex the south again.

Scott

    re: .43
    
    So?
    
    Seriously, the purpose of governments is to serve their Human
    constituents.  Humans do NOT exist to serve governments.  If a
    government does not serve the needs of its constitutents, then it ought
    to be abandoned or overthrown.  Secession is an option.
    
    However, people in government like to govern.  They need constituents
    in order to govern.  If a government knows that it can lose its reason
    for existing if it does not meet the needs of its constituents, it
    will, if it is reasonable, meet those needs.  If a government is denied
    the arbitrary use of force to *MAKE* people do what it wants, it must,
    if it is to survive, get them to do what it wants *VOLUNTARILY*.  That
    means it must serve their needs.  If a government is serving the
    people's needs, there is little chance they will secede or rebel.  Read
    the Declaration of Independence and see what Jefferson said about
    governments being overthrown for "light and transient reasons."
    
    The number of states in a region has nothing whatsoever to do  with the
    moral validity of the governments of those states.  To say that Lincoln
    was justified in initiating the slaughter of 600,000 Humans in order to 
    keep up the acreage under control of the Federal government is giving 
    tyranny a pretty easy path.
    
    The fundamental unit of morality is the individual Human Being, not a
    government. 
    
    Now before anyone jumps on this, it is true that the Confederate
    constitution did not recognize the liberty or validity of the slaves. 
    However, the Confederacy at least paid lip service to Jefferson's
    ideals, and would, sooner or later, have had to deal with the
    contradiction.  The Union, on the other hand, threw out all ideals
    altogether and just said, "Might makes right."
    
    The primary difference between the Union and Confederate causes was
    this:  The Confederacy stood for a government that would allow slavery
    of a select group of people, but in contradiction of some of its basic
    premises.  The Union stood for a government that could enslave *ALL*
    people, and *IN DIRECT ACCORDANCE* with its basic premises.
    
    I prefer the former, thank you.
    
    
    Wess

Wess,

My point was that had the South "won" the war, it could've eventually 
splintered into a number of seperate states, given the precedent that 
secession was legal under that government's constitution.  Without a 
Federal government to "provide for the common defense" as the (US) 
Constitution reads, someone (Mexico, France, England, Iceland, 
Antartica, whomever ;^)) could've eventually come in to conquer all the 
little fiefdoms created by multiple secessions.

Scott

RE .44:

Wes, your line of argument has some flaws - you are glossing over a
fundamental issue of cooperative endeavor.

You said:
    
   >Seriously, the purpose of governments is to serve their Human
   >constituents.  Humans do NOT exist to serve governments.

I agree entirely.

   >If a government does not serve the needs of its constitutents, then 
   >it ought to be abandoned or overthrown.  Secession is an option.

Here is where the first problem arises.  In this statement, and in the
paragraph that followed, you leave out a fundamental set of questions:
_Which_ needs of _which_ constituents?  What does a government do when
meeting a vital need of many constituents causes inconvenience to a few -
leaving them, in effect, with an unmet "need"?  And what constitutes a
"need", anyway?  Is it anything that any single individual _feels_ they
"need"?  (I hope you don't say yes; anyone who has ever raised children
knows that humans can feel strongly that they "need" something which
is actually harmful to them.  Even your own example of Omaha Beach shows
that what "feels right" to a person can, in _fact_, be wrong.)

_No_ government, _no_ organization, _no_ association of people for
cooperative endeavor can _ever_ act at all times in ways that please
or satisfy _all_ of the people involved.  I'll bet there has never
been an action of any government that was _unanimously_ approved by
its constituents.  So, one fundamental problem of government, or indeed
of any association of people from a family on up, is how to provide
some kind of "proper" balance between the needs and desires of each
member, the needs and desires of other members, and the needs and
desires of the group as a whole - when _all_ of those _may_ be _different_
in some particular situation.

There is an obvious corrolary here.  For any cooperative effort to be 
possible, there will be _some_ times when _some_ people will have to
make _some_ sacrifice for the benefit of others.  The trick, from
a perspective that values the individual (there are philosophies that
do not, but I don't subscribe to those), is to make sure that it is
not always the _same_ people who are asked to sacrifice.  When you
start to make all the demands on one particular part of a constituency,
you are heading down the path of tyranny.
    
   >However, people in government like to govern.  They need constituents
   >in order to govern.  If a government knows that it can lose its reason
   >for existing if it does not meet the needs of its constituents, it
   >will, if it is reasonable, meet those needs.

And, as discussed above, the _constituents_ will, if _they_ are reasonable,
recognize that their _particular_ needs cannot always be met.  My desire
to have lots of open space around my house might conflict with another's
need for a place to live - so _I_ cannot dictate what is done with a
neighbor's land, though in a properly functioning government I have some
process available to influence decisions which affect me.

   >If a government is denied the arbitrary use of force to *MAKE* people 
   >do what it wants, it must, if it is to survive, get them to do what it 
   >wants *VOLUNTARILY*.

A second fundamental problem surfaces here.  I think our difference turns
on the word "arbitrary".  I would agree that government, or the commander
of an infantry company, or the president of a company, should be denied
the "arbitrary" use of force.  But if we are to have a rule of laws and
not of individual strength, then the governing authority _must_ be able,
if needed, to use some level of force to _compell_ obedience to its
decisions.  That compulsion might be subtle or direct, might be a threat
of punishment or a promise of reward, but it _cannot_ be subject to the
self-ish veto of each and every member of the constituency - if it is,
then you have, in effect, no "law" and no "crime", because each person
always can do anything they want (or are able to do) to others.

Now, I would definitely say that the use of force needs to be controlled.
As you have pointed out quite well, and as history shows, it is easy for
the governors to feel that any exercise of force to get the governed to
do what they want is okay.  Again, the trick for a system that wants to
value the individual is to find the mechanisms and balance which will
try to keep most (you will never achieve _all_, people being what they
are) uses of force within "just" limits.  But there _will_ be times
and situations when soldiers must obey an order not because they agree
with it, or like it, or see how it will benefit them, but simply because
it _is_ an _order_ from an authority they have covenanted to obey.  If
one volunteers to enter an association, then one agrees to abide by the
rules of that association, and not "take my bat & ball and go home" when
the umpire makes a call you don't like.

There is certainly room for discussion about _what_ mechanisms should be
used, and what appropriate responses are when they break down, and even
about whether particular historical situations represent "opression" of
some group of people.  But just because someone feels opressed does not
mean that they _are_, and the fact that an action taken by a government
is disadvantageous to a group does not mean that mechanisms have not 
functioned properly; we need to look at a factual historical context to
evaluate whether a particular action was "meeting the needs" of the
constituency as a whole.

   >That means it must serve their needs.

Yes, but _real_ needs, not necessarily _felt_ needs.

   >If a government is [ perceived as] serving the people's needs, there 
   >is little chance they will secede or rebel.  Read the Declaration of 
   >Independence and see what Jefferson said about governments being 
   >overthrown for "light and transient reasons."
    
Brackets are mine.  It is possible for an authority to be serving the needs
of a constituency without the constituency perceiving it so.  I know of
no six month old child who can see the "need" for a DPT shot.  I realize
we are talking about adults (at least in theory - I know of lots of
childish behavior by biological adults ;^}), but even reasonable people
can be blind, at the time, to the need for a particular action.

What usually tips the scale here is pattern.  If I _never_ seem to get _my_
needs met by an authority, and if some other group or person always seems
to get preference, then you are correct: I will tend to rebell.  (But my
perception may not, in fact, be correct.  That's where an outside
evaluation is needed.)

   >The fundamental unit of morality is the individual Human Being, not a
   >government.

Absolutely!  A "government" is not even an entity; it is a group of
individual human beings chosen (somehow) to act in a particular capacity
in relation to other human beings.  As you said at the beginning, the
people who make up a government are _supposed_ to be acting as "agents",
or servants, of their constituency, and not for themselves.  But as
Edmund Burke (I think) said, a representative owes the people not only
his energy but his judgment, and he betrays both them and himself if he
sacrifices it to their opinion!  Those agents will make mistakes, true.
They will not always act as they should.  They will certainly displease
_some_ of their constituents in any action they take.

Because of that basic problem of government, what you talk about as secession
- the withdrawal of a territorially defined section of a voluntary
governmental association from the other portions, on the decision of
_some_ of the people in that geographic entity, is not a viable or valid
option.  It is not viable because such a principle is fatal, ultimately,
to cooperative endeavor.  It is not valid because it imposes exactly the
same arbitrary force on those residents who do not agree with separation
as _it_ claims to be suffering from the rest of the group - i.e., "we got
out-voted".

To be clear, though, this is NOT talking about the "legitimacy" or
"propriety" of rebelling (i.e. instituting a violent process aimed at
altering a government); I am only talking about the notion of "peaceful
secession".  Whether the South had a "right" to rebell is another
question.  I assert that they did not have a right, given the nature
of government, to secede as States.

MikeR


Side issue:

   >The number of states in a region has nothing whatsoever to do  with the
   >moral validity of the governments of those states.

Okay.

   >To say that Lincoln was justified in initiating the slaughter of 600,000 
   >Humans in order to keep up the acreage under control of the Federal 
   >government is giving tyranny a pretty easy path.

Initiating?  Wes, you aren't sounding like a historian.  Lincoln did not
cause South Carolina to secede, or formulate the Dred Scott decision, or
publish _The Liberator_, or do any of a myriad of things that combined to
produce armed conflict.  Nor did he "plan" to get 600,000 people killed,
or have the war last until 1865.  You could better lay the casualty list
and the length of the war at McClellan's door than Lincoln's, but that's
not valid historically either.  If the Confederacy had simply ignored
Fort Sumter, there might have been no fighting (not likely, but possible),
but they didn't "initiate the slaughter of 600,000 Humans" either.

Don't forget - most of that "territory" you are talking about was acquired
_by_ the United States Government, divided into entities by that same
government, and then those entities were allowed, by the rules and
authorization of that government, to exercise jurisdiction over their
particular pieces of United States land.  Only Georgia, the Carolinas,
and Virginia "got" their land from some other government.  The mouth
of the Mississippi was more important, in 1860, to the people of Ohio,
Indiana, and Illinois than it was to the government of the State of
Louisiana - and it wasn't up to that small piece of the national
constituency to decide that the rest of the country could do without
it.
    
   >The Union, on the other hand, threw out all ideals altogether and 
   >just said, "Might makes right."
    
Unsupported by the facts.  The soldiers who went to war to preserve the
Union were _not_ throwing out all ideals, and did not all think that
"might makes right".  It may be that none of them thought so.

    re: .45	Scott
    
    The Confederate constitution did, in fact, provide for the common
    defense.
    
    I'll certainly agree that a confederation has more dificulty in
    developing the military unity or punch than does a federal government,
    but dificulty does not mandate failure.
    
    re: .46	MikeR
    
    Whew!  You put some work into that, Amigo!  I'm sorry that I don't have
    time to really get into answering your note, but I'll try to get some
    high spots.
    
    First:  You are correct in that no government [that I know of] has ever
    pleased all its people all the time.  That is why, (A) the best
    government is the least government, and (B) a government should
    concentrate on protecting its citizens from the initiation of force by
    others, rather than on deciding against whom the government, itself,
    will initiate force.
    
    Second:  Some folks will disagree with other folks over who is getting
    the elevator and who is getting the shaft.  That's why one function of
    a legitimate government is a system of courts that operate on a body of
    written law.  Additionally, refer to "First," above:  The fewer actions
    a government takes - eg, as a smaller government - the less chance it
    will hurt someone.
    
    Third:   Yes, it is possible in a classically liberal society that
    anyone with an axe to grind can try to start a rebellion.  It's called
    freedom.  If said person can get enough support to cause trouble, the
    government darned well ought to look into the matter.  There will
    always be conflict between those who think folks ought to be free and
    those who think folks ought to be controlled by someone else.  You
    state this point very well.  However, you think it a vice of a
    classically liberal system, and I think it a virtue.
    
    Fourth:   The Federal government made no effort to negotiate with the
    Southern states for compensation for forts and other Federal
    properties.  Whether the Confederacy would have made some agreemen to
    pay for that property is something we'll never know.  South Carolina
    could NOT ignore Ft. Sumpter because the *ONLY* thing anyone could gain
    from possession of the fort was control over Charleston harbor.  The
    Federal government could have had utterly no use for that fort unless
    it intended to control that harbor.  Lincoln tried to reenforce Sumpter
    with armed ships, and that was AFTER Slemmer fired on the Florida
    militia at Pensacola.  Lincoln never once tried to work out a peaceful
    settlement that would have granted the South's independence.  His
    first and consistent recourse was to armed force.
    
    Lincoln had a wonderful chance to make a statement on Human liberties
    and individual rights, but instead, he chose to "provide for the common
    defense," [to tie this back to Scott's .45]  by calling up troops and
    sending them against their countrymen with deadly intent.
    
    Yes, I said a statment on Human liberties.  We are today a good deal
    less free than were our ancestors  who rebelled against the Crown in
    '75.  (Whew!  Did I show my national-centrism there, or what?!  I
    apologize to my honored correspondents in this file whose ancestors
    were on the side of the Crown in that fracas, or who had no stake in
    it.  Rather than delete the sentence, I think I'll leave it and the
    point it makes.)  The War Between the States - and the politics of
    Lincoln - have destroyed the principles of small government - of the
    theory that the individual Human Being is more important than the
    government.  Mike, look at your own remarks in .46.  How many times did
    you say that sometimes individuals have to be sacrificed for the good
    of the government, or of their neighbors?  That is Abraham Lincoln
    talking.  I say that if a nation is to run on such principles, then the
    sacrifical lambs have every right to shoot back, and on their own
    terms.  That would lead to even worse rebellion than would liberalism,
    and a far more serious anarchy.
    
    Human liberties?  Considering how strong the abolition movement had 
    always been in the South, what would have happened had Lincoln let 
    the South go, and then refused to deal with them in shape, way, or 
    fashion until they emancipated the slaves?
    
    Especially if tens of thousands of the South's most intelligent and
    respected leaders weren't mouldering in soldier's graves...
    
    
    Wess
    

    re: .47
    
    One little nit: the less government, the less it will hurt people.
    True. On the other hand, the less government, the more people will hurt
    people. There has to be some balance that is not at either extreme.
    
    Ken

    >        <<< Note 43.7 by SMURF::CALIPH::binder "As magnificent as that" >>>
>                            -< Invalid speculation >-
    
>again that all the South wanted was to be left alone.  The British were in no
>position militarily to embark on such a war of conquest, especially
>having just witnessed the bloodiest war in all history.  Consider that
    
    What war was Britain involved in at the time?

    Re: .48
    
    From a science fiction story:  "The more control, the more that
    requires control.  This is the road to chaos."
    
    But anarchy doesn't work.  Where's the median point?  Arguably, the
    Confederate ideal was some ways better than the Federal reality either
    then or now.
    
    -dick

    Re: .49
    
    In my .7, I was discussing "what if the Confederacy had won?"  Meaning
    that the ACW would have been over.  And I also said Great Britain had
    "witnessed" the bloodiest war in all history, not that they had fought
    (or were fighting) it.  The ACW was the bloodiest single war in history
    up until that time, having killed over 600,000 soldiers (200,000 in
    battle, the rest from disease and other causes, many of which were as a
    result of wounds received) and wounded an additional 500,000.  Add
    civilian casualties to that, and you don't get any comparison from any
    earlier war.
    
    My intent was to indicate that if the British took cognizance of how
    awful "modern" warfare had become when fought on American terms, the
    British would clearly have thought twice about attempting to reconquer
    the USA.  I pointed out further that with the advent of new weapons of
    mass descruction such as the Gatling gun, the full horror potential was
    visible...
    
    -dick

    re: .50
    
    In some ways, the Confederate ideal may have been better; the
    Confederate 'nation' might have, had it been allowed to live,
    provided more freedom, and less hassle, for its citizens, than
    the northern nation - ours.
    
    On the other hand, if we take note of the key word 'citizen', and
    realize that slaves were excluded from citizenship, one may start to
    question the idyllic view some people have of the Confederate
    nation.
    
    Specifically, I question whether, in the absence of a strong central
    government with COERCIVE powers, the slaves would ever have been freed.
    Voluntarily. Without bloodshed.
    
    If freed in some technical sense, would they ever have been granted
    full citizenship? To assume that white southerners, in the absence of
    any coercion, would have simply 'seen the light', is assuming a lot.
    
    In other words, it was the greater freedom in the South that permitted
    slavery. This is a clear example of the absence of governmental
    'injury' permitting greater 'injury' by person to person.
    
    In sum, I would draw the line to enclose more governmental power than
    the Southern example.
    
    Ken

    The last few contain some valid questions.  I'd like to offer a few
    short [yes, short, even for me!  ;-)  ] comments.
    
    First, I do not advocate anarchy.  The amount of government necessary
    to protect its citizens from domestic assault (viz. a police force) and
    foreign assault (viz. a military) is one measure of the minimum
    acceptable amount.  Let me *VERY QUICKLY* add, though, that the modern
    liberal approach to protection - a policeman in every pocket - is not
    what I'd consider the minimum.  I don't want to get into gun control
    issues here, but in my opinion, if the people are allowed liberal use
    of self-defense - and any violence MUST be investigated by the police -
    the need for government protection will be dramatically reduced from
    what we have today.
    
    re:  emancipation in an independent Confederacy
    
    This is all speculation, of course, but I'd offer the following facts:
    1.	Far more anti-slavery societies originated in the South than in the
    North.
    
    2.	Virginia had already banned the importation of slaves into its
    territory.  This set the stage for further discussion of the subject.
    
    3.	The Confederacy would have been quite dependent on the goodwill and
    respect of the international community.  Foreign pressure to emancipate
    would have been enormous.
    
    4.	The Confederacy still at least *CLAIMED* to respect Human rights. 
    Their definition Human needed some work, but the philosophic groundwork
    for true equality was there.  Obviously, there was also a lot of
    groundwork for the opposite extreme, too.  I don't mean to paint a
    moonlight and magnolias picture of the South; there was a very
    deep-seated racism in Southern society.  However,
    
    5.	The South had more universities per capita than did the North, and
    had always prized liberal education above almost anythign else.
    
    I guess here's a synopsis of my theory:
    	The South had a good potential for abolishing slavery on its own.
    	Had Southerners handled the problem on their own terms, they would
    	not have been as resentful and vengeful as was the historical case.
        The South would have been forced by economic reality to take
    	drastic action in reforming its institutions and way of life.  With 
    	the help of leaders like those who would not have been slaughtered
    	in a war that didn't happen, and without the hatred generated by that
    	war, I *MUST* believe that liberty and equality under the law would 
    	have been forthcoming for all residents of the South.  It might
    	have taken a few more years - I think 10 to 15 at the most - but
    	the long-term gains would have been much greater and at a vastly
    	lower cost.
    
    Yup.  It's just a dream.  But I think it has more substance that some
    dreams that have proven true.
    
    
    Wess
    

    RE .47:
    
    I'm thinking about that.  But, Wes, would you mind pointing out where I
    said people might have to sacrifice for the good of the _government_? 
    Neighbors, yes; the good of the whole constituency, yes; but I don't
    _think_ I said the government - even using that term to mean the good
    of people who comprise the government.  Yes, politicians have often
    _asked_ for such sacrifice, but it is not one I was advocating.
    
    Note also that I did NOT say _how_ the "sacrificial lambs" _should_ be
    chosen.  They might always volunteer, as thousands of young men did in
    1861 to serve a greater cause than their own self-interest (and they
    wore blue and gray uniforms).  I was merely stating a fact which it
    seemed to me you were giving too little weight - that no body of people
    will coexist and cooperate without _some_body having to make _some_
    sacrifices, and the ones who "get the shaft instead of the elevator"
    might not agree with what's being done, so it is untenable to say that
    government should not displease constituents.
    
    MikeR
    

    RE .53:
    
    I would feel more comfortable with your projection of a Confederacy
    emancipating its slaves if it were not for the historical pattern of
    Southern attitude development prior to the war.  It seems to me that
    "the South" (using the term for convenience, with full awareness that
    what I will say does not apply to every Southerner) painted itself into
    a corner over the decades before the war _precisely_ by refusing to
    acknowledge that slavery was, eventually, doomed, and therefore failing
    to look for a way out.
    
    I say that, because I think _if_ there had been enough vision in the
    South and its leaders to recognize where things were going (England had
    abolished the slave trade _and_ slavery long before the 1850 - 1860
    tension-building decade), they could have done this:
    
    
    	Instead of repeatedly and loudly insisting that the North not only
    leave slavery alone, but admit its right to expand, the South starts
    advocating that, yes, slavery should end because of its debilitating
    effects.  But is it fair for all the economic and social burden to fall
    on one section, when Northern industry has benefitted from the system? 
    And do you want thousands of freed Negros heading into Northern cities
    to compete for jobs?  (a real fear for many in the North)  And do you
    _really_ want racial equality?  (almost nobody did)  After all, the
    argument could have run, these poor, ignorant Negros (common view)
    _need_ guidance and protection.  So, why not compensate slave owners
    who free their slaves, and let all of us in Washington (or in each
    State) design a social structure to help educate and care for these
    freed slaves until (i.e. probably something very like a share-cropping
    moderately segregated social order, leaving the Whites "on top")?
    
    	If the Southern politicians had done something like that, they
    would have spiked the guns of the abolitionists (at least all those
    except the radical few who saw slaveowners as evil), gotten a _lot_ of
    support from the moderate elements in the North, and placated the
    free-soil Northwest.  The polarization that produced a successful
    Republican party would not have occurred.  Remember, the vast majority
    of Northerners, even in 1860, were not anxious to abolish slavery where
    it _was_; many _were_ anxious to keep it contained.  If the South had
    stopped pushing for expansion, and proposed a plan for abolition, the
    war would not have happened because secession would not have happened.
    
    	I am NOT, by the way, saying that such a course would have been
    "better" or "worse".  It might have left us with an equally bad racial
    situation today.  (Or might not.)  I present the scenario to show what
    "the South" _might_ have done, if their attitude had been as
    enlightened as Wes' proposed might-have-been seems to require.  It
    seems to me that such a course of events did _not_ happen because
    public opinion in the South, and those who spoke for the South in the
    1850s, had hardened into a dependence on continued slavery that no
    "foreign" pressure, aside from conquest, would have changed, and that
    no domestic pressure would have been allowed to change.
    
    
    Have at it, folks!
    :^)
    
    MikeR
    

    As states, the South did take the attitude you describe, Mike, but
    individual slave holders/users were actually moving towards a different
    view.  Many had discovered paying non-negro workers was, in the
    long run, more profitable than using their own slaves, especially
    in manufacturing tasks.  The influx of cheap Irish (& etc.) labor
    into the South were pushing owned slaves back to field and domestic
    work.  Moreover, Southern manufacturers and planters who rented
    help (slaves were also rented out, usually for a season or a year)
    stopped mixing work gangs, finding that the "white" laborers would
    notice the slaves doing as little as possible and they would begin
    emulating them.
    
    It seems to me if they'd been left alone they'd have phased out
    slavery on their own.
    
    							Don
    
    P.S.  Not a few slaveowners/slaves had a racket where a slave would
          be hired out by a farmer, and after a few days the slave would
          take off for the hills (or the swamps) for the duration of the
          lease.  (This usually happened if the slave felt overworked
          or mistreated.)  Groups of them would survive by stealing from 
          the local farmers (cattle, etc.) and were often fed by the 
          farmer's slaves.  The renter wouldn't notify the owner for fear 
          of incurring monetary damages for "losing" the slave.  At the 
          end of the term the slave would return home (most well-treated 
          ones didn't run away) and would be rented out again.
    
          Another misconception, while I'm on the subject, is how poorly
          clothed (read mistreated) the average Southern slave has been 
          depicted.  While each slave was usually issued a basic wardrobe, 
          many would hire themselves out on their own time or make money 
          selling a portion of their issued rations or food stolen from 
          their owners.  (Eggs were in big demand).  [Say, is that where 
          the expression "Black Market" comes from?]  On Sundays & holidays 
          the slaves dressed very well, even better than a lot of free 
          white Southerners, while on normal work days they looked 
          rather ratty.  (Hardly any of them spent their money on work 
          clothes.  After all, that was their owner's responsibility.)
                                 

    re: .last few
    
    The last several replies seem to indicate that slavery would've died
    out on its own.  Why wouldn't a form of apartheid ensued if the South
    had been left alone?  What is different about the Confederacy that
    would not have allowed a form of apartheid to take place as it did in
    South Africa?
    
    Actually if you look at the South before the Civil Rights movement in
    the sixties', there was a form of apartheid that existed and it was
    called segregation.

    re: .55 (I think - by Mike R.)
    
    Your analogy to the South painting itself into a corner is perfect. The
    radicals in both the North and the South did that.  The only reason the
    South was able to defend slavery or promote its expansion was because
    they had the North to help them survive.  Had the territories gone with 
    the Union, the Confederacy could not have even contemplated getting
    slavery or the Southern lifestyle established there.  Had the U.S.
    refused to trade with the C.S. until something were done slavery, the
    attitudes of Southern leaders - described accurately by Mike - would
    have been FORCED to change.  The ultimate consequence of their refusing
    to change would have been the collapse of the C.S. and its probably
    re-annexation by the U.S..
    
    In the event of Southern change, the problem would have been solved. 
    In the event of Southern collapse, the problem would have been solved. 
    I didn't mean to paint Southern leaders as enlightened, liberal
    visionaries, but they were survival-oriented and ultimately realistic. 
    
    re: .57	Apartheid
    
    I don't know that such a system would not have developed.  There
    probably would have been a pretty dramatic difference between economic
    classes, at best.  However, as you pointed out, there was something a
    lot like apartheid in the South, anyway, and was greatly exacerbated by
    the agonies of the War and Reconstruction.  Your question is certainly
    valid;  I wish I could give a definite answer in my favor.  ;-)
    
    One thing that I think points away from apartheid is that Southern
    Blacks, even slaves, were not strangers to entrepeneural undertakings.
    Talk about survivors!  In the face of such ability, combined with the
    very liberal bent of a surprising number of Southerners, perhaps it
    would have been hard to justify apartheid.
    
    In any case, didn't we have virtual apartheid, anyway?
    
    
    Wess

    RE .56:
    
    I'm not sure my point was clear.  I realize that the kinds of things
    you describe, and the anti-slavery feelings Wes talked about, existed
    in the South.  It seems, though, that by 1860 they were not very
    _influential_ in a political sense.  I'm not even sure anti-slavery
    sentiment was very vocal in the South.  Did Southern papers publish
    anti-slavery articles?  So, I was suggesting that it would have taken a
    _long_ time for such sentiments to influence political behavior if the
    South had been left to itself; look at all the trouble people ran into
    with the idea of giving slaves their freedom if they would fight for
    the Confederacy - and _that_ was a life-or-death issue.
    
    RE .58:
    
    Gotta watch this agreeing about things, Wes! 8^}
    
    I agree that the North and South were tightly linked economically.  It
    is even plausible that a boycott of the type you suggest would have
    been effective.
    
    But.
    
    The two sections could not even stop trading _during the war_!  That
    reinforces your linkage point, but I think it also says that a boycott
    against "slave-produced" goods would not have happened, at least before
    sometime in the mid-20th Century.  If the North could not even keep
    people from trading with an "enemy", when such trade directly helped
    (in many cases) the Confederate war effort, why would they suddenly
    decide to stop doing business with a friendly nation because of some
    internal practices of that nation?  Remember, the idea of either
    government-directed economic policy for private industry, or of massive
    public pressure to influence business, did not really germinate for
    many decades after the Civil War.
    
    Look at Britain.  She had abolished the slave trade, and then slavery,
    and was politically unwilling to enter a war that seemed to be
    supporting slavery (or old friend the Emancipation Proclamation was a
    big factor here), but had shown no sign of telling industry to boycott
    "slave" cotton - in fact, the South hoped that the demand for cotton by
    British industry would bring England in on their side.
    
    So, while I think you are right about the _power_ of an "anti-slavery"
    economic weapon, and while it might have gotten used in the late 20th
    Century, I don't see any sign that it would have been _tried_ by the
    North against a separate Confederate States in the 19th.
    
    In general, I don't see any evidence that a sufficiently powerful force
    or set of forces would have been applied to the Southern "power base"
    (meaning the leaders and those who influenced them) to cause them to
    make any sudden (meaning within half a century) change in their
    attitude towards slavery.  That's why I created the scenario I did -
    because many of those people were _smart_ politicians, and I think they
    would have tried a strategy something like the one I presented if there
    had been even a glimmering of their accepting the idea that slavery
    could end within a couple of decades.
    
    Note that when Lincoln tried to get slaveowners who were still within
    the Union in 1862 to accept compensated emancipation - at a time when
    the handwriting on the wall was getting pretty clear - he got _no_
    positive response from them.  I simply don't see what would have
    happened to cause the massive change in such blindness/stubbornness
    that your postulated "quick elimination" of slavery would require.
    
    MikeR

    RE. .52
    
    The slaves that lived in the north were not citizens according to 
    the Constituion of the US until amemdments were made after the 
    war.  They could not vote and they could not own property.
    
    
    
                                 Marshall

re .60

What was the status of free blacks? 

	Were blacks who had bought their freedom legally citizens?

	Were blacks born free in the north legally citizens?

						-**Ted**-

re .47    
>    Fourth:   The Federal government made no effort to negotiate with the
>    Southern states for compensation for forts and other Federal
>    properties.  Whether the Confederacy would have made some agreemen to
>    pay for that property is something we'll never know.  South Carolina
	...
>    militia at Pensacola.  Lincoln never once tried to work out a peaceful
>    settlement that would have granted the South's independence.  His
>    first and consistent recourse was to armed force.
    
	The U.S. Constitution does not have an article in it providing
	for secession. One might think that after the trouble they'd just
	had getting independence from England, they would have considered
	the advantages of such, and the fact that it doesn't exist shows
	that the Founding Fathers planned on a permanent union.

	Remember also that only 5 of the C.S.A. states were independent
	entities that can be said to have joined up voluntarily. The
	others were creations of the U.S. government and thus reasonably
	subject to its authority.
 
	Thus, to me, the appropriate avenue for secession would have been
	to pass a constitutional amendment authorizing such and the terms
	thereof. The advantage would be that if the necessary 2/3 majority
	could be obtained, the union people would be clearly outnumbered
	and give up. Alternately, a simple majority of Congress could
	approve a measure allowing it if the president was sympathetic,
	but once the secessionists left the remaining Congress might vote
	strongly pro-Union (as actually happened).

	Wess suggests above that the U.S. might have asked for compensation
	for Federal properties in the South, another approach might have
	been to parcel out both Federal assets and debts among the two
	governments, sort of like a no-fault divorce. Anyone know if there
	was a national debt in 1861, amazingly there were periods in our
	history when there wasn't?

	In New Hampshire, there are a number of cooperative school districts
	in which towns joined voluntarily to combine resources for education.
	A typical secession clause states that all property of the district
	stays with the remaining towns (even facilities located in the
	seceding ones), but indebtedness is distributed to seceding
	towns in the proportion they normally contribute. In actual practice,
	they may be able to negotiate a better deal, but the sttitude seems 
	to be that the existing entity should continue unless the seceder 
	is willing to sweeten the deal. If the South had offered a large
	sum towards Federal properties, it might have made the difference
	in terms of the undecided. Expecting the North to suggest a sum
	after the South seceded is like a burglar expecting a homeowner to
	put a value on what was taken - expect it to be high and to include
	jail time! He might let that antique vase go a lot cheaper if you
	offer to buy it in advance.

	The N.H. legislature just recently refused to let the Weirs Beach
	area secede from Laconia and form their own town, on the grounds
	that it might be beneficial to Weirs Beach but not to Laconia as
	a whole. The (remaining) Congress decided that it was in the nation's
	best interest (greatest good for the greatest number) to remain as
	one country, and they successfully forced the South to conform.

	I think that in 1860 it was asking too much of the midwestern states
	to allow a foreign country to control their access to the outside
	via the Mississippi. Twenty years later, railroads were taking over
	from steamboats and this might have been less significant.

    re .62
    
    Not only doesn't the U.S. constitution deal with the issue
    of secession, but I understand that the Confederate
    Constitution didn't either.  (I'm sure someone will correct
    me if this is incorrect - I believe I read it in the first
    book of Catton's trilogy.)
    
    This seems strange to me, in that, being that it was one
    of the issues at hand, you'd think their document would
    have certainly addressed it.  Two things come to mind:
    
       1. Maybe they sort of assumed it was implicitly OK.
       2. Maybe it's kind of like divorce: its possibility is
          not the kind of thing many people want to think about
          when just starting out.
    
    Has anyone done any reading on the Confederate convention
    at which they drew up the constitution that might shed some
    light on this?
    
    ----
    
    With regard to an amendment on secession: I think it would
    have been exceedingly difficult to pass.  First, you need
    2/3 of both houses of congress, and then it has to be
    ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures.
    
        Jay
    

    RE .63:
    
    My memory was that the Confederate Constitution _did_ talk about the
    right to secession, though I'm not sure any specific process was
    spelled out.  I'll try to check a source over the weekend, unless
    someone knows for sure sooner!  :^)
    
    MikeR
    

    Mike,
    
       Here's what Bruce Catton (_The_Coming_Fury_, beginning from
    the bottom of page 209, Pocket Book Edition) has to say about
    secession & the Confederate Constitution:
    
       "The new constitution was slightly odd in just one respect:
       it said nothing whatever about the right of secession.  The
       states were recognized as sovereign powers, but whether any
       one of them could leave the Confederacy as simply as it had
       entered was left unmentioned; the right to secede may have
       been an article of Southern faith from the cradle upward,
       but it was not provided for in the Confederacy's basic
       charter."
    
       Catton has a few more pages of interesting comments on
    the Confederate constitution in this book.
    
       Jay

    RE .65:
    
    Thanks for correcting my memory!
    
    

    reply .0
    
    There is a science fiction what-if by Ward Moore called "Bring the
    Jubilee". In this version of history Lee wins at Gettysburg and the
    Union Army is destroyed in detail. Shortly thereafter a surrender
    occurs at Reading PA (The reversed counterpart of Appamotox).
    
    The result is an impovershed Union whose growth is stunted and becomes
    a punching bag for the emerging German Union and Great Britain. 
    
    The Confederacy expands south taking over Mexico and acheiving hegomony
    in the rest of Central and South America.  The capitol of annexed
    Mexico is renamed Leesburg. The Confederacy exceeds the Union not only
    in economic growth but in intellectual and academic acheivment.
    
    The protagonist in this story is an historian who notes with some
    sadness that an every growing freedom and expansion of the spirit that
    was ongoing before the War for Southron Independence (sic) was somehow
    stunted and the growth of liberal (in the classical sense) government
    world wide was stunted and brought to a halt. This lead to the growth
    of autocratic states the world wide.
    
    My own speculation is that if the war had been short, say ending by
    middle 1863 with a Confederate Victory, the Confederacy would have
    expanded south, the Union west and the relationship between Union and
    Confederacy would be similar to that of the U.S. to Canada. The fact
    the a state of war existed between the U.S. and Canada (the war of
    1812) did not prevent a peaceful relationship from evolving and being
    finalized in the treaty of 1854 recognizing 48 north as the boundry. If
    the U.S. and Canada could have a 3000 mile fortification free boundry I
    don't see why a similar boundry could not have evolved between the
    U.S.A and the C.S.A.
    
    The result might have been a three nation split of North America, all
    the nations English speaking (except for P.Q. of course).
    
    It is hard to say what the effect on European politics would have been
    given that the U.S. would not have been as powerful a nations if the
    C.S.A. had acheived her independence.
    
    This is one of the "whatifs" that haunt a fair amount of my waking
    hours.