What if the south had simply quit the war in 1863 and resorted to gorilla warfare? (economy, Africa)

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Where the line seems to be drawn is in reference to the power of US financial institutions and its ability to back that power with physical wealth reserves. Basically, the US was not a "rich" country relative to the European powers in terms of the amount of wealth that it possessed and controlled. This is the situation that reversed in the years following the Civil War.

the US was a rapidly growing economy, with major positive ROI investment opportunities. As a result it tended to draw funds from europe, esp the UK. Domestic savings tended, naturally to go into domestic investments - railroads, canals, factories and (yes) plantations. naturally there wasnt liquid wealth sitting around to invest in, say, foreign bonds, the way there was in the UK (or slightly later, France). While in modern times similar developing economies typically had low wage levels, the US - a settler state with a favorable land/labor ratio, had high wage levels.

AFAIK the US was still a net sink for funds in the decades after the civil war, though I suppose the financial sector was more developed.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

In the South the credit system virtually existed solely to allow planters to access the capital needed for the planting season with little actual investment in wealth generation. A planter would take a loan against his future revenue from his cotton production, use that money to plant his crop, harvest it and then use his proceeds to repay the loan with little left over for any investment. In this way, the South's economy was pretty much stagnated as there was little investment in any wealth generating infrastructure. It also meant that Southern banks and individuals did not hold much convertible wealth. That is a stark contrast to the North.

I think thats a bit overdrawn - there were transport infrastructure projects in the south - railroads, canals (not long ones as much as in the north, but ones that made some river connections or rapids bypasses, I think). Maybe port projects. And of course establishing a plantation from scratch - clearing the land, planting the first crop, buying the labor supply, the seed, the tools, etc WAS an investment (as was investment in frontier farms as well) The exhaustation of land which meant this process had to be done repeatedly was certainly a drain on capital. Plus in the south a certain amount of funding was spent on consumption for social prestige - which was rational in a society where prestige was tied to political influence, which in turn protected ones property - not so different from 18th c England or France.

The borrowing against the crop was also done in the north for decades after the civil war - its an inevitable part of the cash flow dynamics of farming, and is going to occur in any market economy that has substantial commercial agriculture.

[Boompa]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

I'm familiar with the fact that that many of the Confederate allies from The Nations territory switched from the rebel to the federal side, but that was more a product of long standing internal tribal disputes than it was a matter of support for states rights or federalism.

I'm not familiar with the idea that most of the Federal cavalry in the west was composed of former rebels. Could you provide some detail on this?

Confederate POW' s especially in the Camp outside Chicago were allowed to join the Union Cavalry and were guaranteed not to be sent to fight the Confederacy. By the end of the war many Cavalry Units in the West were Union Officers with Southern Troopers. This allowed the Union to reoccupy areas of the west it had withdrawn from

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by Boompa

Confederate POW' s especially in the Camp outside Chicago were allowed to join the Union Cavalry and were guaranteed not to be sent to fight the Confederacy. By the end of the war many Cavalry Units in the West were Union Officers with Southern Troopers. This allowed the Union to reoccupy areas of the west it had withdrawn from

Oh, you meant the west as in the remaining frontier west. I was thinking you meant the western theater of the war, with the majority of Sherman and Thomas' cavalry being composed of former rebels....and that would have been the sort of thing I couldn't understand why I had never heard of it.

[PullMyFinger]

The honor code of the South would not have allowed such a thing. They were not great people, but they did have a code when it came to war and they were very good soldiers. No way they would have resorted to ambushes and hit and run tactics. They preferred to die in a straight up fight, win or lose.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by PullMyFinger

The honor code of the South would not have allowed such a thing. They were not great people, but they did have a code when it came to war and they were very good soldiers. No way they would have resorted to ambushes and hit and run tactics. They preferred to die in a straight up fight, win or lose.

as someone who lives near the "mosby historic area" I find that extremely silly.

are you perhaps being ironic?

[Boompa]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Oh, you meant the west as in the remaining frontier west. I was thinking you meant the western theater of the war, with the majority of Sherman and Thomas' cavalry being composed of former rebels....and that would have been the sort of thing I couldn't understand why I had never heard of it.

Yes out in Indian Territory, I don't think many Union Officers would have taken a unit of southern turncoats to fight the Confederate Army. They would have deserted again

[nightbird47]

Originally Posted by Boompa

Confederate POW' s especially in the Camp outside Chicago were allowed to join the Union Cavalry and were guaranteed not to be sent to fight the Confederacy. By the end of the war many Cavalry Units in the West were Union Officers with Southern Troopers. This allowed the Union to reoccupy areas of the west it had withdrawn from

POW's were treated horribly by both sides in the civil war and its not at all hard to see why southern pows in that camp would have opted for the union army over a prisoner of war camp. If the south had offered liveable conditions in exchange for work, I wonder how many of their prisoners would have made that choice, at least out of desperation.

In a civil war, since there are often connections to both sides, loyalties are both harder and softer at the same time.

[j_k_k]

Originally Posted by PullMyFinger

The honor code of the South would not have allowed such a thing. They were not great people, but they did have a code when it came to war and they were very good soldiers. No way they would have resorted to ambushes and hit and run tactics. They preferred to die in a straight up fight, win or lose.

Good thing Quantrill and Mosby and Forrest weren't fighting on the Confederate side, then, or it would have stained their knightly image.

Oh, wait. Oops.

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

I think thats a bit overdrawn - there were transport infrastructure projects in the south - railroads, canals (not long ones as much as in the north, but ones that made some river connections or rapids bypasses, I think). Maybe port projects. And of course establishing a plantation from scratch - clearing the land, planting the first crop, buying the labor supply, the seed, the tools, etc WAS an investment (as was investment in frontier farms as well) The exhaustation of land which meant this process had to be done repeatedly was certainly a drain on capital. Plus in the south a certain amount of funding was spent on consumption for social prestige - which was rational in a society where prestige was tied to political influence, which in turn protected ones property - not so different from 18th c England or France.

The borrowing against the crop was also done in the north for decades after the civil war - its an inevitable part of the cash flow dynamics of farming, and is going to occur in any market economy that has substantial commercial agriculture.

While borrowing against future crops is an incredibly common practice, the point was to illustrate a divergence in the economic development and consequently the wealth concentration in the North. The South was "poor" in that it was ultimately a one trick pony. When the capital was invested in the cotton and then the cotton couldn't be sold, there was no more capital to invest, which is ultimately a more complex way of restating your earlier point. The North did not have this problem.