Civil War Thread

I don't understand how people are allowed to profit off writing books about the civil war.

 

I haven't read the book in 10 years or so and I don't remember all the details, but I'm pretty sure he had the Republic of Texas breaking off in the mid 1870s, annexing Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona and I believe capturing a tiny strip of California straight to the Pacific.

He had the US essentially keeping the northern plains states out to the ocean. California (mostly) stays in the Union, and as you speculate, the purchase of Alaska is never made: it remains Russian territory into the 1960s.

The looming threat of Soviet America is presented as the big impetus for the reunification of the three nations in 1964, which gives the book a happy-happy joy-joy ending.

The book is kind of frustrating because in many ways its premise is that in the long run, it doesn't really make much difference at all; essentially the outcomes of both world wars are unchanged. A few skimpy pages describe how troops from the USA, CSA and Texas team up as old buddies in both world wars. It's extremely hard to believe everything would have gone so smoothly.

Kantor had Maryland flipping to the Confederacy and Washington becoming the new national capital, the District of Dixie. Columbus, Ohio, becomes the new Columbia, capital of the U.S.

 

There were three things that could have won the war for the South, and likely all three needed to happen. First, the South needed to end the war quickly. The industrialization of the North meant the Union just needed to wait out the Southerners to eventual victory. But if the Confederates after tasting blood at Mananas Junction had pushed the issue all the way to DC, things could have possible ended after a year or two, with of course the western edge of the war needing to be dealt with as well. Second, as you note, the will of the North would need to erode to keep fighting. And it nearly did. The draft was not popular. The wealthy paying the poor to take their draft spots included led to anti-draft riots. Then the population of men in some towns nearly getting wiped out hurt moral. If that caught fire a little more, it may have become so politically unpopular to keep fighting the North might have sued for peace. Finally if the South could have convinced England, France and/or Spain to come to their rescue, the Union would have been toast. One of the biggest strokes of brilliance by Lincoln was to blockade the Southern ports so help from Europe could not come.

 

(As I recall) Once Richmond fell, which was the site of the Confederacy's only munitions plant. The Rebels were on defensive and losing ground each day. Defeat was pretty much inevitable.

 

It's certainly a good question to ask in the Civil War alternate history stories, what subsequent tech and transportation milestones would have been different.

A USA reeling from defeat in the Civil War probably doesn't complete the transcontinental railroad in 1869. If it takes much longer, do the West Coast states break off? The Pacific States of America?

A divided and depleted USA probably can't get the Panama Canal built for many years, maybe until after WWI. That changes things.

The later development of railroad, auto and air transportation probably all change dramatically.

 

Ain't that fresh?

 

Yes, as indicated by the ongoing economic dominance of the Nazis and the Soviets.

 

They're overdue.

 

At what point do you think the Confederates would look at their economic problems and say, "Currently we pay a significant percentage of our workforce essentially zero in wages. The solution to our economic problems should be to pay these people more." ??

Especially since the people paying the zero wages would be voters and the people working for the zero wages would not.

Uh uh, ain't gonna happen.

 

Yeah ... no. You're lost on this one @Starman.

 

We know now in enlightened hindsight that the Soviet bloc had huge productivity problems because of lack of incentivization for coerced labor, but this was not even considered as a serious factor within the USSR until the final death throes of the regime. The general attitude was, "the workers will improve productivity-- or else."

That would be the same attitude in a slave-state CSA in 1880, in 1900, in 1930, in 1960, in 1990 and in 2017.

Why the hell would you feed the mule more oats to pull the plow when you can just hit it harder with the whip?

Oats cost money.

 

In free market societies employers must offer competitive wages and conditions to workers, or else they quit and get other jobs. In forced labor societies, the workers take what they're given, or else.

Why would the employer class give that up?