Is the CCP facing a civil war?

Discussion of current events
neverfail
Posts: 7601
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Is the CCP facing a civil war?

Post by neverfail » Sat Nov 06, 2021 2:19 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Sat Nov 06, 2021 11:19 am
Thanks, that's very specific. A few thoughts:

Firstly, I can't let the mention of the president running the country pass without saying the president should neither do that nor be expected to do that.

Regarding insulating the president from the opinions of a fickle public, it occurs to me that it would be interesting to compare the decision making of presidents in their first and second terms since, say, the Truman administration. If there's a measurable difference, then that supports your positions. If not, well, then it certainly wouldn't support locking the country in to a ten year administration.

As for changing the upper house of the legislature such that the people who pay the piper call the tune, In principle, I might agree. A few problems arise in that we have a corporatist system, not a free market, meaning that a lot of people who amass wealth do so through rent seeking rather than actually being productive. By giving those people even more of a say, that's as likely to reinforce a negative feedback loop of corruption as it is to have pro-social aspects.
Be warned, cassowary!

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 2518
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Probably DCA, YYJ, or DOM
Contact:

Re: Is the CCP facing a civil war?

Post by SteveFoerster » Sat Nov 06, 2021 2:42 pm

neverfail wrote:
Sat Nov 06, 2021 2:16 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Fri Nov 05, 2021 9:31 am
neverfail wrote:
Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:40 pm
(Let us imagine that the CSA had managed to get away with its bid to set itself up as a republic of seperate soverignty to the United States and that the rump USA, resigned to the loss, had gone on to respect that soverignty. Within a matter of years I can forsee secession bids by states within the Confederacy for the simple reason that the states of the CSA had no common national identity, no shared "centre of gravity" and sense of common destiny. (CSA disintegration!) Meantime the USA would likely (no gilt edged guarantee here but the weight of probability indicates this outcome) would despite the setback still have remained unified; undergone its legendary westward expansion and still have emerged by the early 20th century as the makings of a World power.)
If you're up for a little light reading, Harry Turtledove wrote an eleven volume "Southern Victory" series of alternate history novels chronicling a world in which the Confederacy won the Civil War, ranging from the 1880's through the end of 1945.
I have read them Steve.
So it would seem! I enjoyed reading your thoughts on the series, although I didn't have anything in particular with which to disagree or add, leaving you with a shorter response than you probably deserve. In particular, given that Americans were reluctant to enter both world wars, it would seem they'd be even less likely to do so when the consequences would clearly hit home.

I like your Argentina analogy. I think you're right that the loss of the CSA would not have stopped the USA from becoming a major economic power. As for Mexico, it raises the question whether the CSA would have really been able to expand to the Pacific or would end a bit short at Yuma, AZ.
neverfail wrote:
Sat Nov 06, 2021 2:16 pm
I know that Turtledove (I have sometimes wondered what the Yiddish surname of this man's immigrant ancestors would have been when they first set foot in the New World :) ) is a writer of entertaining fiction yet I di not entirely agree with his speculation on the flow-on consequences of a successful southern succession in the international arena.
He did use "Turteltaub" as a nom de plume at least once, so perhaps that? All I know is I don't blame his ancestors for the switch. My life would have been easier had my dad's family Anglicised their surname during the first world war like so many other Germans in the U.S. did. Almost everyone spells it wrong, often even when I give it to them one letter at a time.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: https://newworld.ac

neverfail
Posts: 7601
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Is the CCP facing a civil war?

Post by neverfail » Sat Nov 06, 2021 6:11 pm

Steve, we have drifted way off topic but i do not care. I am enjoying this discussion and I enjoyed your reply (above).
SteveFoerster wrote:
Sat Nov 06, 2021 2:42 pm

So it would seem! I enjoyed reading your thoughts on the series, although I didn't have anything in particular with which to disagree or add, leaving you with a shorter response than you probably deserve. In particular, given that Americans were reluctant to enter both world wars, it would seem they'd be even less likely to do so when the consequences would clearly hit home.

I like your Argentina analogy. I think you're right that the loss of the CSA would not have stopped the USA from becoming a major economic power. As for Mexico, it raises the question whether the CSA would have really been able to expand to the Pacific or would end a bit short at Yuma, AZ.
I agree: the extension of the CSA to a port on the Gulf of California would no0t have likely happened: not merely because the french masters of Mexico would not have wanted to divest themselves of recently acquired colonial territory but because the CSA would have had less of an incentive to reach the Pacific than the USA did.

There was simply no market around the Pacific rim for its chief export, cotton.

By contrast the USA, having acquired its Pacific coastline in 1848 - by treaty transfers respectively with Mexico and Britain (from which latter it acquired the territory of its entire Pacific northwest) the USA saw the poteitial of the Pacific basin for trade - especially with regard to gaining a slice of the lucrative China trade.

But on a lesser note it affected even my country.

From 1790 (just two years after the first British settlement was founded) onward, American vessels called in at Australian seaports, in particular Sydney: but these were mainly whaling vessels calling in for reprovisioning. As until mid 19th century visiting American ships originated from the Atlantic side of your continent so Australia remained relatively inaccessable. That changed abruptly from mid-century on.

Our Australian gold rush starting so soon in the wake of the better known California rush attracted many thoudands of American immigrants - mainly ex-Califirnia gold seekers who having not "made their pile" on the California diggings crossed the Pacific in the hope of a second chance. Quite a few settled in Australia permanently: up to an estimated one million of their descendents are still here with us now.

Enterprising American shipping enteprenuers based in San Francisco inagurated regular shipping services to Australia about the same time as the big British shipping firms did the same. Until then British ships arriving in Australia seemed to have been the sailing ship equivalent to tramp steamers. Our gold rush and its aftermath changed everything.

Since then with virtually each and every decade Australian ties with the US but especially with California have blossomed and multiplied.

He did use "Turteltaub" as a nom de plume at least once, so perhaps that? All I know is I don't blame his ancestors for the switch. My life would have been easier had my dad's family Anglicised their surname during the first world war like so many other Germans in the U.S. did. Almost everyone spells it wrong, often even when I give it to them one letter at a time.
I have noticed the Germanic spelling in your surname Steve. We have a pleasant seaside holiday town on the north coast of New South Wales named (close) FORSTER which I am certain is of German origin also. I know that in the 19th century German immigrant settlers settled in the immediate hinterland and pioneered farming communities there (which seems to reflect the enterprise of German settlers in your country during the same period of time?).

The closest Anglo equivalent to Forster or Foerster would appear to be the surname Foster.

More another time. I have been invited out to lunch by a lovely lady and must hurry. :D

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 2518
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Probably DCA, YYJ, or DOM
Contact:

Re: Is the CCP facing a civil war?

Post by SteveFoerster » Sat Nov 06, 2021 7:26 pm

neverfail wrote:
Sat Nov 06, 2021 6:11 pm
Steve, we have drifted way off topic but i do not care. I am enjoying this discussion and I enjoyed your reply (above).
Likewise!
neverfail wrote:
Sat Nov 06, 2021 6:11 pm
I agree: the extension of the CSA to a port on the Gulf of California would no0t have likely happened: not merely because the french masters of Mexico would not have wanted to divest themselves of recently acquired colonial territory but because the CSA would have had less of an incentive to reach the Pacific than the USA did.

There was simply no market around the Pacific rim for its chief export, cotton.
That's a good point. There is the American notion of manifest destiny, although I have no idea whether post-war Confederates would have had the same feeling. And it's not like the USA would have sold them San Diego County, California, which is all the CSA would have needed to connect to the Pacific.
neverfail wrote:
Sat Nov 06, 2021 6:11 pm
By contrast the USA, having acquired its Pacific coastline in 1848 - by treaty transfers respectively with Mexico and Britain (from which latter it acquired the territory of its entire Pacific northwest) the USA saw the poteitial of the Pacific basin for trade - especially with regard to gaining a slice of the lucrative China trade.
To be clear, the USA did not acquire its part of Oregon Territory from the UK; the USA and UK split it in the first place to avoid conflict. (Well, with each other, at least, since no one in that benighted era cared what the Coast Salish thought of the matter.)

There were some Americans in the 1840's who actually wanted to fight the British for the whole territory, which would have included what is now British Columbia. (Hence that name, actually.) That's where the saying "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight!" comes from, as the top latitude of the territory in question was 54 degrees, 40 minutes North.
neverfail wrote:
Sat Nov 06, 2021 6:11 pm
But on a lesser note it affected even my country.
Fascinating! Although not surprising considering Americans going back to the colonial period were smugglers and traders.
neverfail wrote:
Sat Nov 06, 2021 6:11 pm
I have noticed the Germanic spelling in your surname Steve. We have a pleasant seaside holiday town on the north coast of New South Wales named (close) FORSTER which I am certain is of German origin also. I know that in the 19th century German immigrant settlers settled in the immediate hinterland and pioneered farming communities there (which seems to reflect the enterprise of German settlers in your country during the same period of time?).
That's about right. That errant E is to replace a diacritic, apparently in German it's "Förster".
neverfail wrote:
Sat Nov 06, 2021 6:11 pm
The closest Anglo equivalent to Forster or Foerster would appear to be the surname Foster.
"Forester" would have been the most convenient for other Americans to spell. But that's not how the lebkuchen crumbled. ;)
neverfail wrote:
Sat Nov 06, 2021 6:11 pm
More another time. I have been invited out to lunch by a lovely lady and must hurry. :D
Eat, drink, and be merry, and all that!
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: https://newworld.ac

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Is the CCP facing a civil war?

Post by Doc » Sat Nov 06, 2021 11:53 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Sat Nov 06, 2021 7:26 pm
neverfail wrote:
Sat Nov 06, 2021 6:11 pm
Steve, we have drifted way off topic but i do not care. I am enjoying this discussion and I enjoyed your reply (above).
Likewise!
neverfail wrote:
Sat Nov 06, 2021 6:11 pm
I agree: the extension of the CSA to a port on the Gulf of California would no0t have likely happened: not merely because the french masters of Mexico would not have wanted to divest themselves of recently acquired colonial territory but because the CSA would have had less of an incentive to reach the Pacific than the USA did.

There was simply no market around the Pacific rim for its chief export, cotton.
That's a good point. There is the American notion of manifest destiny, although I have no idea whether post-war Confederates would have had the same feeling. And it's not like the USA would have sold them San Diego County, California, which is all the CSA would have needed to connect to the Pacific.
Make no mistake southerners dreamed of a CSA colony in Mexico. Which would near certainly have lead to a second North/South war.

As for the French at the end of the war Union Solders in Texas were told they could keep their weapon and their horse if they went to help the Mexicans fight the French. The French in Mexico were only tolerated in Mexico because of the US civil War. As soon as the civil war was over in the US, the French were over in Mexico.

The Mexican concession of California to the US was only because of the Mexican American war. A war US Grant called an wicked war.
neverfail wrote:
Sat Nov 06, 2021 6:11 pm
By contrast the USA, having acquired its Pacific coastline in 1848 - by treaty transfers respectively with Mexico and Britain (from which latter it acquired the territory of its entire Pacific northwest) the USA saw the poteitial of the Pacific basin for trade - especially with regard to gaining a slice of the lucrative China trade.
To be clear, the USA did not acquire its part of Oregon Territory from the UK; the USA and UK split it in the first place to avoid conflict. (Well, with each other, at least, since no one in that benighted era cared what the Coast Salish thought of the matter.)

There were some Americans in the 1840's who actually wanted to fight the British for the whole territory, which would have included what is now British Columbia. (Hence that name, actually.) That's where the saying "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight!" comes from, as the top latitude of the territory in question was 54 degrees, 40 minutes North.
neverfail wrote:
Sat Nov 06, 2021 6:11 pm
But on a lesser note it affected even my country.
Fascinating! Although not surprising considering Americans going back to the colonial period were smugglers and traders.
neverfail wrote:
Sat Nov 06, 2021 6:11 pm
I have noticed the Germanic spelling in your surname Steve. We have a pleasant seaside holiday town on the north coast of New South Wales named (close) FORSTER which I am certain is of German origin also. I know that in the 19th century German immigrant settlers settled in the immediate hinterland and pioneered farming communities there (which seems to reflect the enterprise of German settlers in your country during the same period of time?).
That's about right. That errant E is to replace a diacritic, apparently in German it's "Förster".
neverfail wrote:
Sat Nov 06, 2021 6:11 pm
The closest Anglo equivalent to Forster or Foerster would appear to be the surname Foster.
"Forester" would have been the most convenient for other Americans to spell. But that's not how the lebkuchen crumbled. ;)
neverfail wrote:
Sat Nov 06, 2021 6:11 pm
More another time. I have been invited out to lunch by a lovely lady and must hurry. :D
Eat, drink, and be merry, and all that!
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

neverfail
Posts: 7601
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Is the CCP facing a civil war?

Post by neverfail » Sun Nov 07, 2021 1:26 am

Doc wrote:
Sat Nov 06, 2021 11:53 pm

Make no mistake southerners dreamed of a CSA colony in Mexico. Which would near certainly have lead to a second North/South war.
Yes, I have heard about that ambition: but having the anbition to do something and possessing the means to do it can be two totally different things - as in this case. With a white population of only 3 million and with a possibly veangeful USA looking for weakness and waiting to pounce (or at least with the CSA fearing that it might): to invade Mexico so soon after winning soverign independence by the skin of its teeth the CSA would have bitten off more than it could chew had it then gone to war against the French over Mexico.

I would count this whire southerner ambition as 'pie-in-the-sky stuff: that would be overruled by the CSA post-independence nede of the CSA to find all of the foreign friends that it could get. Practical diplomacy would have overriden the South's romantically ambitous.
As for the French at the end of the war Union Solders in Texas were told they could keep their weapon and their horse if they went to help the Mexicans fight the French. The French in Mexico were only tolerated in Mexico because of the US civil War. As soon as the civil war was over in the US, the French were over in Mexico.
Yes, while the American cat was away chasing its own tail in a state of civil war the European mice moved in to play. The intervention was origninaly a joint operation by Britain, France and Spain who Mexico owed money to and then defaulted on its interest payments. To restore Mexico to servicing that debt the plan was to install a government headed by Prince Maximillon. The Brits supplied the ships,: the French the soldiers and the Spanish the provisions. Then France's political strongman Napoleon the Third betrayed the truse of his foreign partners by, once hyaving delivered Max to Mexico City to form his government as agreed then set out to garrison other Mexican population centres: making it clear that his ambition was to add Mexico to the French Empire. The Brits and Spanish pulled out of the venture in disgust.

The Northern victory in the civil war then made the French position in Mexico rather untenable. But inagine if the CSa had won? Straight away about half the Mexico-USA border would have been no longer in US hands: and Csa policymakers would likely have found it expedient to form an alliance with the french for the sake of earning the backing of what was then still a rather powerful European country. Conversely, given the spirited opposition of the mexicans against the french attempt to control their country CRA cross-border support might well have proven crucial in consolidating the French grip on Mexico.
The Mexican concession of California to the US was only because of the Mexican American war. A war US Grant called an wicked war.
Well of course! The Mexicans would not have given it away as a gift. And I agree with General-to-be US Grant. It was a disgusting war in quest of a gigantic land grab to appease the southern planters who I believe were at the time the most powerful lobby group in US federal politics.

There were some Americans in the 1840's who actually wanted to fight the British for the whole territory, which would have included what is now British Columbia. (Hence that name, actually.) That's where the saying "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight!" comes from, as the top latitude of the territory in question was 54 degrees, 40 minutes North.
Therer have alwats been "some Americans" prone to suffer from megalomanic delusions of granduer (too big for their boots?) and I would count that "Four Forty or Fight" brigade as the Northern equivalent of those whitte Southerners who at the time dreamed of their country carving out a slave-plantation empire in central America - beginning with annexing southern Mexico.

What Britain wanted to acheive was to establish a permanent international border between what was then known as British North America and the USA along the 49th parallel of latitude from the head of Lake Superior to the pacific coast. For this they were prepared to offer territorial concessions. While the British Empire had long claimed the territory the Brits had done nothing to populate it with settlers and develop it. I believe the only settlement was a Hudson Bay company fur trading post on the Columbia River.

As I see it Doc: if the US won its independence through the 1776-83 War of Independence; its right to be respected through the 1812-15 Anglo-American War then the stunning victory won by US forces during the 1846 invasion of Mexico must have sent out a "message" to the powers of Europe that the US was now a power to be reconned with - and not to be tangled with lightly. I am sure that the Brits at the time got the message.
........................................................................................................................................

Doc, the USA as it was in 1846 would not have been an industrial or military power to match Britain or possibly even France. But to win a war in the Americas it did not need to be. Had war broken out over that disputed Pacific coast territory : despite the difficulty of the US getting troop reinforcemts across the continent to such a remote location the Brits had so little of their own in the area that American victory would have been a foregone conclusion.

Around the entire Pacific basin the only outpost the British Empire possessed wealthy and populous enough to provide support for a British seaborne expeditionary force to preserve the claimed territory for the British Empire would have been the Colony of New South Wales; located on Australia's Pacific coast. And the assistance it could have provided in the 1840's would have still been quite limited.

Alternately, If the war though had spread to the eastern side of the North American continent Great Britain, even as it lost territory on the Pacific coast to the US would likely have been more than a match for the US operating militarily out of Canada's maritimes, Quebec and'/or Ontario: not to mention the clout of the Royal Navy. As likely as not Britain with Canadian allies in support would more likely have wrested border territory from the USA.

But we Americans beat them in the 1812-15 war you say? Yes, but Britain was then fighting with at least one hand fighting behind its back because most of its armed forces needed to be kept closer to home to fight Bonapartist forces on the Continent. But by the 1840's Britain was embroiled in no such war against any European power and consequently would have been able to employ the full force of its military against the United States - to the sorrow of the latter.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Is the CCP facing a civil war?

Post by Doc » Sun Nov 07, 2021 9:24 am

neverfail wrote:
Sun Nov 07, 2021 1:26 am
Doc wrote:
Sat Nov 06, 2021 11:53 pm

Make no mistake southerners dreamed of a CSA colony in Mexico. Which would near certainly have lead to a second North/South war.
Yes, I have heard about that ambition: but having the anbition to do something and possessing the means to do it can be two totally different things - as in this case. With a white population of only 3 million and with a possibly veangeful USA looking for weakness and waiting to pounce (or at least with the CSA fearing that it might): to invade Mexico so soon after winning soverign independence by the skin of its teeth the CSA would have bitten off more than it could chew had it then gone to war against the French over Mexico.
The White population was 27 million, and the Black population was 5 million in the south in 1860

https://www.statista.com/statistics/101 ... and-gender


I would count this whire southerner ambition as 'pie-in-the-sky stuff: that would be overruled by the CSA post-independence nede of the CSA to find all of the foreign friends that it could get. Practical diplomacy would have overriden the South's romantically ambitous.
As for the French at the end of the war Union Solders in Texas were told they could keep their weapon and their horse if they went to help the Mexicans fight the French. The French in Mexico were only tolerated in Mexico because of the US civil War. As soon as the civil war was over in the US, the French were over in Mexico.
Yes, while the American cat was away chasing its own tail in a state of civil war the European mice moved in to play. The intervention was origninaly a joint operation by Britain, France and Spain who Mexico owed money to and then defaulted on its interest payments. To restore Mexico to servicing that debt the plan was to install a government headed by Prince Maximillon. The Brits supplied the ships,: the French the soldiers and the Spanish the provisions. Then France's political strongman Napoleon the Third betrayed the truse of his foreign partners by, once hyaving delivered Max to Mexico City to form his government as agreed then set out to garrison other Mexican population centres: making it clear that his ambition was to add Mexico to the French Empire. The Brits and Spanish pulled out of the venture in disgust.

The Northern victory in the civil war then made the French position in Mexico rather untenable. But inagine if the CSa had won? Straight away about half the Mexico-USA border would have been no longer in US hands: and Csa policymakers would likely have found it expedient to form an alliance with the french for the sake of earning the backing of what was then still a rather powerful European country. Conversely, given the spirited opposition of the mexicans against the french attempt to control their country CRA cross-border support might well have proven crucial in consolidating the French grip on Mexico.
That is an interesting question. IE What countries would have allied with the CSA had it won. Even though English textile mills were heavy users of Southern cotton pre-war I doubt there would have been a great deal of interest there to support the CSA given slavery and Canada's close proximity to the Northern states. England was in danger of losing their north American colony to the US without giving the excuse to the US to invade. The French as you point out would have shared a common border more with the CSA in their would be Mexican colony.
The Mexican concession of California to the US was only because of the Mexican American war. A war US Grant called an wicked war.
Well of course! The Mexicans would not have given it away as a gift. And I agree with General-to-be US Grant. It was a disgusting war in quest of a gigantic land grab to appease the southern planters who I believe were at the time the most powerful lobby group in US federal politics.

There were some Americans in the 1840's who actually wanted to fight the British for the whole territory, which would have included what is now British Columbia. (Hence that name, actually.) That's where the saying "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight!" comes from, as the top latitude of the territory in question was 54 degrees, 40 minutes North.
A clear US right of way to Alaska would have blocked the British from ports in the Eastern Pacific and ended the saying "The Sun never sets on the British empire"



Therer have alwats been "some Americans" prone to suffer from megalomanic delusions of granduer (too big for their boots?) and I would count that "Four Forty or Fight" brigade as the Northern equivalent of those whitte Southerners who at the time dreamed of their country carving out a slave-plantation empire in central America - beginning with annexing southern Mexico.
The North was dead set against slavery. At least the Republicans. Though the northern democrats were not.

What Britain wanted to acheive was to establish a permanent international border between what was then known as British North America and the USA along the 49th parallel of latitude from the head of Lake Superior to the pacific coast. For this they were prepared to offer territorial concessions. While the British Empire had long claimed the territory the Brits had done nothing to populate it with settlers and develop it. I believe the only settlement was a Hudson Bay company fur trading post on the Columbia River.

As I see it Doc: if the US won its independence through the 1776-83 War of Independence; its right to be respected through the 1812-15 Anglo-American War then the stunning victory won by US forces during the 1846 invasion of Mexico must have sent out a "message" to the powers of Europe that the US was now a power to be reconned with - and not to be tangled with lightly. I am sure that the Brits at the time got the message.
........................................................................................................................................

Doc, the USA as it was in 1846 would not have been an industrial or military power to match Britain or possibly even France. But to win a war in the Americas it did not need to be. Had war broken out over that disputed Pacific coast territory : despite the difficulty of the US getting troop reinforcemts across the continent to such a remote location the Brits had so little of their own in the area that American victory would have been a foregone conclusion.

Around the entire Pacific basin the only outpost the British Empire possessed wealthy and populous enough to provide support for a British seaborne expeditionary force to preserve the claimed territory for the British Empire would have been the Colony of New South Wales; located on Australia's Pacific coast. And the assistance it could have provided in the 1840's would have still been quite limited.

Alternately, If the war though had spread to the eastern side of the North American continent Great Britain, even as it lost territory on the Pacific coast to the US would likely have been more than a match for the US operating militarily out of Canada's maritimes, Quebec and'/or Ontario: not to mention the clout of the Royal Navy. As likely as not Britain with Canadian allies in support would more likely have wrested border territory from the USA.

But we Americans beat them in the 1812-15 war you say? Yes, but Britain was then fighting with at least one hand fighting behind its back because most of its armed forces needed to be kept closer to home to fight Bonapartist forces on the Continent. But by the 1840's Britain was embroiled in no such war against any European power and consequently would have been able to employ the full force of its military against the United States - to the sorrow of the latter.
There is little doubt the British would have lost all of Canada in a war with the US. THe British navy was obsolete the moment iron clads showed up. It was several years before Iron clads were deep water war ships. Britain could not win even against the practically no navy American revolutionaries I doubt it could win against an American navy of the opposite side of the Atlantic Against an American army that had just rapidly developed new technology and new fighting methods that changed the very nature of warfare.

But with all alternate histories we can only argue the point, as we will never know for sure.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 2518
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Probably DCA, YYJ, or DOM
Contact:

Re: Is the CCP facing a civil war?

Post by SteveFoerster » Sun Nov 07, 2021 1:33 pm

neverfail wrote:
Sun Nov 07, 2021 1:26 am
But we Americans beat them in the 1812-15 war you say?
The British sacked the USA's capital city, burned down the White House, and left again on their own; and at the end of the war the agreement was for status quo ante. Things were so grim for the Americans that a group of New Englanders talked about seceding from the USA to sue for peace separately. To me that's a British victory, not an American one. Doubly so in that for the British it was simply a minor theatre of a larger war, whereas for the Americans it was an existential contest to which they devoted their full attention.

Fifty years later, however, I agree the matter would be quite different.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: https://newworld.ac

neverfail
Posts: 7601
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Is the CCP facing a civil war?

Post by neverfail » Sun Nov 07, 2021 3:41 pm

Doc wrote:
Sun Nov 07, 2021 9:24 am

The White population was 27 million, and the Black population was 5 million in the south in 1860

https://www.statista.com/statistics/101 ... and-gender
According to my info the total population of the USA was 31,443,321. Also "In 1860, the South had about 8 million whites, compared to about 20 million in the North."

http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h42cw-culture.htm

Those figures are from the 1860 US census.

Add together the 20 million whites living in the north to the 8 million living in The South and you end up with just 3 million blacks; most of whom would have still been slaves living in the South.
That is an interesting question. IE What countries would have allied with the CSA had it won. Even though English textile mills were heavy users of Southern cotton pre-war I doubt there would have been a great deal of interest there to support the CSA given slavery and Canada's close proximity to the Northern states. England was in danger of losing their north American colony to the US without giving the excuse to the US to invade. The French as you point out would have shared a common border more with the CSA in their would be Mexican colony.
Pre-war the main value of the American South to great Britain had been as the world's biggest source of raw cotton. During the War Between the States this supply was cut off by the Union navy blockade of Confederate ports. During the 4 year course of the American conflict England's cotton merchants and mill owners were :lol: not idly standing around pulling their dicks. They actively looked around for alternative sources of raw cotton and found them.

The first such source was India: where growing cotton and hand weaving it into fine fabric had been practiced for centuries. High global prices for cotton brought on by the shortfall from North America caused production to ramp up there. The second source of cotton was the Nile Delta of Egypt: likewise a traditional Old World cotton producing area.

With the end of the conflict and the lifting of the US Navy blockade in 1865 the return of American cotton to the world market caused a glut situation and world prices collapsed. So plantations in the South that had survived the War Between the States and were looking forwards to selling their crop at the high prices trevailing in the 1850's were due to be disappointed. A lot of them found that at prevailing prices they could not make ends meet and went bankrupt.

I see it as highly unlikely therefore that if the South had won and acheived soverignty that Britain would have valued the CSA as an ally anything like as much as Harry Turtledove suggests in his series of alternative history novels on the matter. As a source of an important industrial raw material Britain by then (as you can see) "had other options". However, now that you have mentioned British North America the UK might have formed an alliance of convenience with the CSA for another reason.

It is neither accidental nor a coincidence that the federation of Canada's two keystone provinces, Ontario and Quebec, took place in 1867 - about 18 months after the 1861-65 American conflict came to an end. The US seems to have emerged bruised and battered but strengthened from it. If relations with Britain were as bad as I am led to believe then the getting together of the two most populous colonial outposts the British Empire held in North America (in which British diplomacy was actively involved: left to the locals the union may never have happened) was meant to strengthen the British Empire at one of its weak points. If as a bonus an independent, soverign CSA could have been lined up as an ally it would have taken a lot of the heat off Canada by placing the rump USA in a meat in the sandwich sort of situation.
A clear US right of way to Alaska would have blocked the British from ports in the Eastern Pacific and ended the saying "The Sun never sets on the British empire"
Absolutely true Doc. But with the more than one and one half centuries of historical hindsight we have now does that matter?
There is little doubt the British would have lost all of Canada in a war with the US. THe British navy was obsolete the moment iron clads showed up. It was several years before Iron clads were deep water war ships. Britain could not win even against the practically no navy American revolutionaries I doubt it could win against an American navy of the opposite side of the Atlantic Against an American army that had just rapidly developed new technology and new fighting methods that changed the very nature of warfare.
The invention of ironclads (the world's first were commissioned in France in 1859 - though France and the USA had operated an agreement to share military technologies for many years prior. Among the French technological innovations that both sides employed over the coursemof the 1861-65 conflict were the mini' ball rifled musket bullet and the Napoleon field cannon.

Ironclads did not immediately change the nature of naval warfare. as soon as the USS Monitor sank as soon as it steamed out of the calm waters of Cheasepeake Bay into the rougher waters of the north Atlantic it sank. As for the Confederate improvised ironclad the CSS Virginia it did not exactly cover itself with glory either.

Yes, on the US side they invented the gatling gun and used it a couple of time before the war came to an end. The French military attache' in Washington must have been awake to its potential because 5 years later when the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian war broke out the French army was equipped with approxinately 120 of these: some bought from the original manufacturer in the USA and others replica copies manufactured in France. The French found however that the results were disappointing when these first prototypes of machine guns were used to try and repel German cavalry charges and massed infantry advances. the German side who apparently lacked these weapons still won that war handsomely.
But with all alternate histories we can only argue the point, as we will never know for sure.
Right!

neverfail
Posts: 7601
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Is the CCP facing a civil war?

Post by neverfail » Sun Nov 07, 2021 4:12 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Sun Nov 07, 2021 1:33 pm
neverfail wrote:
Sun Nov 07, 2021 1:26 am
But we Americans beat them in the 1812-15 war you say?
The British sacked the USA's capital city, burned down the White House, and left again on their own; and at the end of the war the agreement was for status quo ante. Things were so grim for the Americans that a group of New Englanders talked about seceding from the USA to sue for peace separately. To me that's a British victory, not an American one. Doubly so in that for the British it was simply a minor theatre of a larger war, whereas for the Americans it was an existential contest to which they devoted their full attention.

Fifty years later, however, I agree the matter would be quite different.
Yep, that was an interesting war because of its miscalculations. President madison inagurated the conflict in June 1812 - the very month when Napoleon Bonaparte launched his ill fated invasion of Russia. As it took weeks in slow sailing ships at the time for news to cross the Atlantic Madison could not have been aware of what Bonaparte was up to.

The British were engaged in land warfare with Bonapartist forces on the Iberian peninsula - mainly to honour an old alliance Britain had with Portugal. It took years but thanks for his serial victories on the battlefield often against the odds the powers in London slowly discovered that they had a military genius par excellence in the form of General Arthur Wellesley: the future Duke of Wellington. No doubt (over the Atlantic) Madison was hoping that the French and their Spanish allies would keep the Limeys busy on the other side of the Atlantic permitting his country to fight and win the war against much diminished British opposition. He would have needed to have been stupid not to have entered that calculation into his reconing.

What followed instead was Napoleon's wintertime retreat from Moscow with attendent loss of his grand armee. His subsequent removal to exile on Elba would have released British military energies for use in the North America war theatre.

(Of course Madison had not been gifted by God with powers of prophecy so he could have not foreseen the destruction of Napoleon's force in the Russian winter snow.)

The following year 1814 with the Bonapartist threat neutered was the year that British military fortunes rebounded and when the Brits were able to win their victories: including the impudent burning down Washington DC.

Come March 1815 Napoleon returned to France but by then it did not matter. A US-UK peace agreement was signed in London Feburary 1815 so now the Brits were free to devote all of their military energies to seeing off this renewed Napoleonic menace.

Post Reply