CSA victory 1864: what happens to the freed slaves?

[Hobelhouse]

CSA victory after Gettysburg: what happens to the freed slaves?

Suppose the common POD of a Confederate win at Gettysburg, followed by French and British armtwisting ensures the CSA's independence.

What I haven't seen on this site is any discussion as to what happens next. Sherman is sitting in TN. The Union has much of the Mississippi Valley under their control. In both places the slave system has completely broken down. The logical thing for the South to do would be to accept the loss and move on as best they can, but since they just fought an enormously costly war for the preservation of slavery I really doubt they'd do the logical thing, instead they'll probably try to clap them back in chains. Unfortunately for them:

1) The areas where the blacks are freed are mostly majority black.
2) There are now plenty of blacks who know how to fight.
3) They no longer have the rest of the USA o back them up, instead he USA loathes them.

I see it as quite possible that after the Union troops withdraw, a massive black revolt begins immediately (especially if the Union happens to "forget" some of their gear). Now, my question for the board is, does it have any chance of success? The Eastern revolt will probably be crushed first, they don't have the numbers. The revolt centered on the Miss. Valley would likely be a much tougher customer. Do they have a chance of establishing an independent Blake republic? And how would the Union take advantage of the chaos? If the revolt is a runaway success I can see Arkansas and Tennessee re-applying to the union in exchange for the protection of the US military. Thoughts?

 

[robertp6165]

Suppose the common POD of a Confederate win at Gettysburg, followed by French and British armtwisting ensures the CSA's independence....Sherman is sitting in Atlanta.

Given that Gettysburg happened in July 1863 and Sherman didn't get to Atlanta until over a year later in OTL, why is Sherman sitting in Atlanta in your POD? The scenario you describe should have brought peace before Sherman even left Chattanooga.

Providing a reason for this inconsistency might help us to answer the rest of the questions posed by your POD.

 

[Douglas]

With the disclaimer that these are my initial musings on the thread, a couple of thoughts:

1. Wouldn't Union-freed blacks follow the Union armies home? No matter how many arms the US accidentally leaves behind, which I can't imagine would be very many, it seems easier for freed slaves to follow Sherman et al. north to freedom.

2. I can't imagine that the Union would actively support the slaves in the South. If the Union is giving up despite having troops in Atlanta and near Richmond, it's because the North is exhausted of war. A distinct attitude for the very near future of "cut and run" would seem to be the most plausible.

3. Why would the slaves not peaceably return to their masters when they had it much better than blacks in the North?

4. I propose a vague series of events as to my idea of the plausible result. The initial CS actions after victory are a bit of a stretch, but they're my "maximum" effort to end the North's enthusiasm for war.

1863:

East: Complete Confederate victory at Gettysburg. Meade's army is shattered and withdraws in poor order to Philadelphia. Meade is relieved and replaced by [somebody not Grant who is cautious]. Lee marches to Pittsburgh and wastes the coal mines there, then withdraws back south of the Potomac.

West: Chattanooga's complex night-time Union maneuvers fail, resulting in a bloody and inconclusive battle. Bragg's rebels withdraw, but only after inflicting heavy casualties on the Union troops there. Longstreet's corps surrounds and destroys Burnside's Army of Ohio at Knoxville, giving the Confederacy control over Eastern Tennessee.

Political, North: The political position of the Copperheads is improved by the defeat at Gettysburg. The New York City draft riots are slightly worse, but a good handling of the situation by moderate pro-Peace Democrat NY Governor Horatio Seymour improves his standing in the Democratic party.

1864:

East: The new Union commander (who isn't Grant) manages to cautiously do just about nothing. As the election draws nearer, Lincoln is probably able to push them into an attack which ends up as a bloody, inconclusive draw, followed by a return back across the Rapidan.

West: Grant and Sherman blast their way to Atlanta from Chattanooga despite taking horrific casualties against Johnston's army using Grant's traditional modus operandi. Atlanta doesn't fall until the week before the election.

North, Political: Horatio Seymour beats Lincoln in a very tight race; the fall of Atlanta gives Lincoln a fighting chance, but Seymour's victory in New York gives him the election.

Early 1865: Seymour is in favor of a negotiated settlement. An truce of sorts is set up everywhere, and it is during this time that freed slaves start moving as fast as they can to the North. Negotiations begin in (Washington?).

Late 1865: A final settlement is hammered out: Confederacy to consist of states with northern border of VA - TN - AR, WV recognized as having broken away, plebiscites in KY and MO result in victories for the North (maybe fleeing ex-slaves helped out). The Union armies in Atlanta and northern Virginia withdraw back to the North, with huge columns of ex-slaves trailing along.

1866: The Confederate armies return home and crush the few slave rebellions that occur. There's still slavery, but a large number of the slaves are now gone for good. Riots in Northern cities against blacks result in strict anti-"Negro" legislation being passed by predominantly Democratic state legislatures.

1867 onward: ???

 

[Hobelhouse]

Given that Gettysburg happened in July 1863 and Sherman didn't get to Atlanta until over a year later in OTL, why is Sherman sitting in Atlanta in your POD? The scenario you describe should have brought peace before Sherman even left Chattanooga.

Providing a reason for this inconsistency might help us to answer the rest of the questions posed by your POD.

The answer is I'm an idiot and I got the dates wrong. Let me edit my post...

 

[Douglas]

The answer is I'm an idiot and I got the dates wrong. Let me edit my post...

It's not implausible...it just takes some creativity!

The idea of Lincoln negotiating in 1863 still seems "meh".

 

[Hobelhouse]

It's not implausible...it just takes some creativity!

The idea of Lincoln negotiating in 1863 still seems "meh".

Well, my real intention in making this thread was to explore what an actual CSA victory based on Turtledove's POD might look like, instead of convergent handwaving.

 

[Hobelhouse]

Now, while some freed slaves might follow the troops north, we ARE talking about several million people here. I don't think here's either the infrastructure nor the logistics to support them. I mean, where do they go? How do they support themselves? It's not like movement will be easy with the Union Army using most of the rail system. I think at best maybe 10% or so of the black population could get out this way. Certainly the Union itself isn't going to want to provide for millions of homeless nonwhite refugees.

 

[Douglas]

Well, my real intention in making this thread was to explore what an actual CSA victory based on Turtledove's POD might look like, instead of convergent handwaving.

Well, if you're referring to TL-191, the POD is Antietam, which is a much different situation than in 1863 or 1864.

Now, while some freed slaves might follow the troops north, we ARE talking about several million people here. I don't think here's either the infrastructure nor the logistics to support them. I mean, where do they go? How do they support themselves? It's not like movement will be easy with the Union Army using most of the rail system. I think at best maybe 10% or so of the black population could get out this way. Certainly the Union itself isn't going to want to provide for millions of homeless nonwhite refugees.

I'm curious as to how many slaves were freed by 1863 or 1864. I know that the Union isn't going to want to provide for millions of homeless blacks, but even a Copperhead-dominated USG is going to suffer some disapproval if there's a mass re-enslavement.

 

[NKVD]

Late 1865: A final settlement is hammered out: Confederacy to consist of states with northern border of VA - TN - AR, WV recognized as having broken away, plebiscites in KY and MO result in victories for the North (maybe fleeing ex-slaves helped out). The Union armies in Atlanta and northern Virginia withdraw back to the North, with huge columns of ex-slaves trailing along.

I'd imagine that Missouri and Kentucky would vote to join the Confederacy. One had a pro-secession governor and an anti-secession legislature, and the other had the exact opposite. Lincoln apparently disbanded the legislature of one, and the governor of the other - I'm not sure exactly. I don't think they'd be too happy about that. Plus the fact that they'd be two slave states in a mostly free nation.

 

[Douglas]

I'd imagine that Missouri and Kentucky would vote to join the Confederacy. One had a pro-secession governor and an anti-secession legislature, and the other had the exact opposite. Lincoln apparently disbanded the legislature of one, and the governor of the other - I'm not sure exactly. I don't think they'd be too happy about that. Plus the fact that they'd be two slave states in a mostly free nation.

That's very debatable. St. Louis was completely dominated by anti-secessionists, and the entire eastern half of Kentucky was anti-secession as well. I would expect both to remain in the North if it came to a vote, especially in 1864 or 1865; economic considerations would come into play strongly here, as no one in their right mind could argue that it would economically advantageous to either state to join the Confederacy, as would military considerations: a plebiscite held under the watchful eye of Northern soldiers would likely result in a decision in favor of remaining in the Union.

 

[archaeogeek]

I'd imagine that Missouri and Kentucky would vote to join the Confederacy. One had a pro-secession governor and an anti-secession legislature, and the other had the exact opposite. Lincoln apparently disbanded the legislature of one, and the governor of the other - I'm not sure exactly. I don't think they'd be too happy about that. Plus the fact that they'd be two slave states in a mostly free nation.

After 1861 it's too late, the CSA had acted too fast, moved troops in, and popular opinion in the state was that the confederates were invaders.

 

[67th Tigers]

Lets not overstate matters. Most of the black population of the CSA will not automatically rebel. Especially if those unkindly dispossessed to the CSA escape north with the fleeing Union armies.

I fear the Union would make good on their plans to forcibly export their black population to a colony in this case.

 

[archaeogeek]

Lets not overstate matters. Most of the black population of the CSA will not automatically rebel. Especially if those unkindly dispossessed to the CSA escape north with the fleeing Union armies.

I fear the Union would make good on their plans to forcibly export their black population to a colony in this case.

You just basically made your entire opinion on slavery, the ACW and everything involved therein worthless.

 

[DuQuense]

Remembre the Upper/Middle Class blacks in the north, did not want any Southern Blacks to be Allowed to move North

 

[Anaxagoras]

Lets not overstate matters. Most of the black population of the CSA will not automatically rebel. Especially if those unkindly dispossessed to the CSA escape north with the fleeing Union armies.

Put yourself in the shoes of a man in, say, the 21st U.S.C.T., formed in South Carolina in the summer of 1863. You've spent your life enslaved, then you were given the chance to fight against those who had enslaved you and your family and friends, given weapons and training, and proved yourself a warrior on the battlefield.

Many of these men are not going to go happily north when the war is over. They will keep fighting to free their loved ones who remain in bondage.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

CSA would have to deal with free blacks anyway. Also by allying with Britain, there would be high pressure for some kind of abolition plan, which probably would be long term, but it would happen.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

Since the current PoD/end of the war seems a little murky, I think I'll toss in a somewhat broad answer.

With an 1862 victory, the slave system is still more-or-less intact except for Kentucky, where it is a bit battered but still easily salvageable.

With an 1863 victory, slavery is in poor shape in much of the western Confederacy, but still functional enough to be salvaged after the first couple uprisings have been forcibly suppressed.

By 1864, the slave system is simply too broken to be fixed without massive expenditures on the government's part and a large, probably military, effort.

Also, if foreign intervention was key to securing Confederate independence, then forcibly re-imposing slavery is going to be much more politically and diplomatically problematic for the Confederacy. Ignoring the existence of slavery is a lot easier than ignoring a brutal campaign to re-enslave millions of freedmen.

IMO, if the Confederacy won in 1864, it might well have been forced to accept the de facto dissolution of slavery, simply because there's no practical way for a battered and war-weary CSA to restore things to the pre-war status quo.

 

[AtriumCarceris]

Put yourself in the shoes of a man in, say, the 21st U.S.C.T., formed in South Carolina in the summer of 1863. You've spent your life enslaved, then you were given the chance to fight against those who had enslaved you and your family and friends, given weapons and training, and proved yourself a warrior on the battlefield.

Many of these men are not going to go happily north when the war is over. They will keep fighting to free their loved ones who remain in bondage.

This is a simplified view of the matter. This is true for some people, and surely many felt this way, but one has to consider that a slave has other considerations. For one, good or bad, the South is the home they have always known. And it can be difficult to leave home, even if you want to. Your destination might be far away. Your family or friends might have difficulty going with you, and likely you wouldn't want to leave them with the slave owner. While you may want to fight for their freedom, imagine the difficulty your family and friends would face if you died? What does it matter, they might say, the promise of possible freedom in the future, when right now you're dead? Wouldn't some potential warriors consider that if they are caught fighting, their loved ones might suffer for it?

Etc etc.

 

[67th Tigers]

Put yourself in the shoes of a man in, say, the 21st U.S.C.T., formed in South Carolina in the summer of 1863. You've spent your life enslaved, then you were given the chance to fight against those who had enslaved you and your family and friends, given weapons and training, and proved yourself a warrior on the battlefield.

Many of these men are not going to go happily north when the war is over. They will keep fighting to free their loved ones who remain in bondage.

A bad example.

The 21st USCT (ex-3rd/4th SC) was a regiment formed by impressment. The soldiers were kipnapped from their homes and forced to fight for the Union, often unwillingly.

A better example would be the 33rd and 34th USCT (once 1st and 2nd SC), who generally were escaped slaves of the type commonly imagined.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

67th Tigers, way to miss the point completely.

The question was whether they would quietly return to slavery or resist using their arms and training.