Strong circumstantial evidence supporting piracy as a cause of the Civil War.

[Solvedit]

Advancements in cannon and steam ships may have prompted mass migrations to the South which culminated in war.

The first steam powered warship was a floating battery built in 1815.

Early paddlewheel warships could not use as much sail or place it as efficiently because of the space the machinery took up.  The paddlewheels meant far fewer cannon could be placed on the sides of a ship.  The paddlewheels would cause drag when sail alone was used.  The paddlewheels were susceptible to battle damage   

There were no global coal supplies so sails were necessary. Coal was probably much more expensive even though mechanization had started to cheapen its extraction.  

Then, in 1835, two different inventors independently discovered the screw propeller which was much more efficient and allowed a much more efficient arrangement of sails and guns.  By the early 1840s, France and England had put propeller driven steam frigates in service.  The major navies of the world rapidly began building steam driven capital ships because they were fully capable oceangoing vessels unlike paddlewheel ships.  

Perhaps cannon had advanced due to the paddlewheel era and the hope of replacing a large broadside with a few bigger cannons, or perhaps it was just the relentless march of technology.  The English developed cannon which could lob an explosive shell further and with more accuracy than before.  

Pirates would often strip everything unneccessary from their vessels in order to lighten them up, even the bulkheads, but navies could now avoid pirate cannon by staying out of range.  The navy ships now had the power to steam upwind or in any direction they wanted, or use a combination of sail and steam.  

The major European powers may have immediately sent naval squadrons out to reduce piracy by destroying the pirates' vessels and perhaps their port facilities. 

The pirates must have supported an economy in their home ports.  Tje people who had provided their food, clothing, housing, ship repair, and so forth were now at risk of starving.  The surviving pirates were also.  There may have been no room where they were from to simply take up farming or something.  

Some of them may have come here and moved on to land which the Southeast tribes had vacated.  It is possible they wanted to create a nation which ran the way they wanted, or maybe they returned to a bit of piracy because they had more coastline and rivers to hide their ships, more ability to false-flag them, and greater access to the shipping of nations whose navies were not so advanced.  Perhaps then the nations of Europe and South America began to goad them into rebelling.  The US had either agreed to take them or had failed to use adequate oversight into who was allowed to move here.  Either way, the European and South American powers may have had the right to hold the USA responsible.  

"Utman" is not a part of Scots dialect English or Gaelic but does mean "Ottoman" in Arabic, suggesting it refers to people from a non-Turkish-speaking part of the Ottoman empire.  Perhaps some of the people from the Barbary States had to leave, especially those who had intermarried with Europeans captured at sea, because they were a part of the piracy economy which had been sharply cut back.

[Freeborn]

Is there any more?

Don't see yet what any of that has to do with The US Civil War and certainly not with ATS crashing.

[putnam6]

Is there any more?

Don't see yet what any of that has to do with The US Civil War and certainly not with ATS crashing.

[BeyondKnowledge]

You are saying the pirates lost their advantage to steam ships and that is what stopped them? I thought most of them went into legitimate business instead of pirating.

On Tortuga (Haiti), the pirates became know as buccaneers. This is because they went into the barbecue business. They raised and smoked meat for the ships that called to port. Buccaneer is a mispronouncing of the French word for barbeque. They found selling food to be more stable and more profitable than attacking ships.

I did some research on pirates after becoming a Dead Pirate last year at their convention. While they don't raid, they do party quite well.

And as already mentioned, what does any of this have to do with the American Civil War?

[Solvedit]

Sorry, I assumed you had my previous posts in mind.  I have added a paragraph in the OP and here, in medium size bold font, which restates the missing information. 

"The pirates must have supported an economy in their home ports.  Tje people who had provided their food, clothing, housing, ship repair, and so forth were now at risk of starving.  The surviving pirates were also.  There may have been no room where they were from to simply take up farming or something.  

Some of them may have come here and moved on to land which the Southeast tribes had vacated.  It is possible they wanted to create a nation which ran the way they wanted, or maybe they returned to a bit of piracy because they had more coastline and rivers to hide their ships, more ability to false-flag them, and greater access to the shipping of nations whose navies were not so advanced.  Perhaps then the nations of Europe and South America began to goad them into rebelling.  The US had either agreed to take them or had failed to use adequate oversight into who was allowed to move here.  Either way, the European and South American powers may have had the right to hold the USA responsible."  

[BeyondKnowledge]

Sorry, I assumed you had my previous posts in mind.  I have added a paragraph in the OP and here, in medium size bold font, which restates the missing information. 

"The pirates must have supported an economy in their home ports.  Tje people who had provided their food, clothing, housing, ship repair, and so forth were now at risk of starving.  The surviving pirates were also.  There may have been no room where they were from to simply take up farming or something.  

Some of them may have come here and moved on to land which the Southeast tribes had vacated.  It is possible they wanted to create a nation which ran the way they wanted, or maybe they returned to a bit of piracy because they had more coastline and rivers to hide their ships, more ability to false-flag them, and greater access to the shipping of nations whose navies were not so advanced.  Perhaps then the nations of Europe and South America began to goad them into rebelling.  The US had either agreed to take them or had failed to use adequate oversight into who was allowed to move here.  Either way, the European and South American powers may have had the right to hold the USA responsible."  

I take exception to your phrasing of "Southeastern tribes had vacated". They were forced off their land by the government and that shows you know little of the history of that area and period.

England and France officially stayed neutral but unofficially France supported the South. How exactly was this holding the Americans responsible for anything?

Again what does any of your reasoning have to do with the American Civil War?

[Solvedit]

 

I take exception to your phrasing of "Southeastern tribes had vacated". They were forced off their land by the government and that shows you know little of the history of that area and period.

You mean you take advantage of my not having stated the whole story in order to slickly imply I don't know it. 

England and France officially stayed neutral but unofficially France supported the South. How exactly was this holding the Americans responsible for anything?

What if the war had ended in 1862 because of lack of weapons?

Again what does any of your reasoning have to do with the American Civil War?

The European and South American nations whose trade was affected may have wanted to goad the South into a war in order to force the North to fight them and then keep an eye on them.

Whether or not France, it is easy to speculate that if some foreign power felt this way, they may have sold weapons to the South so the war would go on.

[BeyondKnowledge]

You seem to think I am attacking you when you gloss over a painful part of the past by your specific choice of words. Had you said "the land the Southeastern tribes had been forced from" that would have been it. I never would have expected the whole story of the Trail of Tears.

Suppose the American Civil War had ended in 1861, it almost did. The first Bull Run or first Manassas was only 30 miles from Washington DC. It could have been taken if they pushed on.

We are not discussing what could have happened, you linked the demise of pirates, navel propulsion and weapons technological development internationally to a mostly land war within one nation.

While I do see the technological discrepancy from North and South as a factor in that war, I do not see the factors you brought up as having anything to do with it.

Please explain it to me.

[Solvedit]

We are not discussing what could have happened, you linked the demise of pirates, navel propulsion and weapons technological development internationally to a mostly land war within one nation.

While I do see the technological discrepancy from North and South as a factor in that war, I do not see the factors you brought up as having anything to do with it.

Please explain it to me.

Suppose the pirates may have moved to the South after propeller-driven steam frigates destroyed their ships and port facilities in the early 1840s because there was no room in their home country to support them by giving them legitimate work.  Their home countries also lost the foreign income they had gotten from piracy. There would have been a famine unless all the people who had been supported by the pirate economy also left.  

Suppose they have returned to piracy because the US has way more coastline to hide in than, say, the Barbary States, and provided they kept their hands off USA shipping, maybe the steam frigates chasing them had to come from much further away and had to quit when they got to within 12 miles of the coast.  

If any of that happened, the nations of South America and Europe may have been offended that the USA wasn't doing enough to prevent people in their borders from practicing piracy, so they may have encouraged the South to rebel in the hopes that the US would have to defeat and occupy them.  

The US was uncommonly generous with the revolutionaries after the war.  If it had been like many revolutions, government officials would have been arrested and jailed or executed and strict control would have been extended over the people.

[BeyondKnowledge]

Suppose the pirates may have moved to the South after propeller-driven steam frigates destroyed their ships and port facilities in the early 1840s because there was no room in their home country to support them by giving them legitimate work.  Their home countries also lost the foreign income they had gotten from piracy. There would have been a famine unless all the people who had been supported by the pirate economy also left.  

Suppose they have returned to piracy because the US has way more coastline to hide in than, say, the Barbary States, and provided they kept their hands off USA shipping, maybe the steam frigates chasing them had to come from much further away and had to quit when they got to within 12 miles of the coast.  

If any of that happened, the nations of South America and Europe may have been offended that the USA wasn't doing enough to prevent people in their borders from practicing piracy, so they may have encouraged the South to rebel in the hopes that the US would have to defeat and occupy them.  

The US was uncommonly generous with the revolutionaries after the war.  If it had been like many revolutions, government officials would have been arrested and jailed or executed and strict control would have been extended over the people.

I think I see your problem. There were never a lage number of pirates historically. What we know of the stories of them occured over a few hundred years. You are thinking they were all ocuring once and therfore had to be tens of the thousands of pirates if you count all the land support traiders, the small nations that supported the practice, etc.. At any given time in the classic era of piracy, there were possibly up to a very few thousand individuals. The famous, known of ones were possibly between 10 and 50 at a time period.

Much like the exploits of the gunslingers, the train robbers, etc... the movies have amplified their very existance. And the books did that before movies. Pirates are exciting so they make good stories.

Dont get me wrong, the shipping nations hated them and persued them, but their take was only a very small percentage of global shipping at the time.

What you are saying is that mybe a couple of hundred pirates that moved into the Southern United States were any influence at all in the cause of the Civil War. I just don't see it.