Independent CSA turns into a military dictatorship late 1800s, most likely general to be dictator?
- Thread starter RousseauX
- Start date
British government statistics show that on average for the period 1859-1873, the British sold 70c of goods to the US for every $1 of goods they bought from them. The only three years that the British sold more to the United States than they bought from them were 1863-5, and the balance of payments peaked in 1865 at $1.16 to $1.
In reality, the US is far more dependent on British trade than Britain is dependent on the US. In 1862-3, US total exports of $306m included $121m (39.5%) to Britain, and her total imports of $253m included $113m (44.7%) from Britain. However, this includes imports only from mainland Britain: when we add imports from British colonies, including the West Indies and British North America, Britain actually controlled $147m (58%) of Union imports.
By contrast, according to the British statistics, the United States represented £19m of £121m exports (15.9%) and £28m of £160m imports (17.3%) for 1862.* In 1863, the relative importance of the US dwindled: £20m of £142m exports (13.9%) and £20m of £164m imports (11.9%). What this shows is that access to the British market is far more important to the United States, in terms both of exports and imports, than access to the US market is for Britain.
I think the representatives of the slave states still in the Union might consider the preservation of slavery a tiny bit more important than 'keeping good ties with the United Kingdom'. Not least because they now have an alternative country to join which will be more than happy to help preserve their slaves.
To say something more pertinent to the main premise of the thread, isn't the problem with having a Confederate military dictatorship that the US regular army was tiny and the Confederate regular army is likely to be even smaller? Any coup would need at least the acquiescence of the Virginia state militia in order to succeed, which means your proposed dictator needs links to the existing Virginia civilian politicians who would control it.
But Slavery has nothing to offer long term. The North does not own slaves. All Union States has banned slavery before the Civil War besides the Border States. It would only be a formality if nothing else.
I think a bigger question if the coup fails, or the South breaks up in the face of it. Or the CSA has it own civil war.
Last edited:
Even as late as 1864, I'd still say the CSA had a chance. The Northern public was tiring of the war, and the Lincoln administration was on the ropes. Have Sherman suffer a defeat in Georgia and Grant and Meade stay locked with Lee at Petersburg, and I think McClellan could do it.
The slave states do- over half a million of them in 1860.
The slave states don't think that. Or, at least, that's what Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland told Lincoln in 1862:
'The right to hold slaves is a right appertaining to all the States of this union. They have the right to cherish or abolish the institution, as their tastes or their interests may prompt, and no one is authorized to question the right, or limit its enjoyment. And no one has more clearly affirmed that right than you have. Your inaugural address does you great honor in this respect, and inspired the country with confidence in your fairness and respect for the law. Our States are in the enjoyment of that right. We do not feel called on to defend the institution, or to affirm it is one which ought to be cherished; perhaps, it we were to make the attempt, we might find that we may differ even among ourselves. It is enough for our purpose to know that it is a right; and, so knowing, we do not see why we should now be expected to yield it. We had continued our full share to relieve the country at this terrible crisis; we had done as much as had been required of others, in like circumstances; and we did not see why sacrifices should be expected of us from which others, no more loyal, were exempt... Confine yourself to your constitutional authority; confine your subordinates within the same limits; conduct this war solely for the purpose of restoring the Constitution to its legitimate authority; concede to each State and its loyal citizens their just rights, and we are wedded to you by indissoluble ties.'
The problem that people have in assuming that the Confederacy will act just like a typical South American state is that military and political power are both far more diffuse in the Confederacy. Whoever can muster enough gubernatorial support to have the prospect of successfully staging a coup probably has the political influence to organise a successful presidential run for the exact same candidate. Once your military candidate is elected, you just amend the constitution to reduce popular influence or, as is more likely, ride roughshod over it. If Southern elites could get turnout at presidential elections down to 32% in 1900-16, they could do the same here. An oligarchy, rather than a dictatorship, but with more or less the same effect.
RousseauX
Donor
I think any Confederate Junta will have to end up fighting the state government for control of the country, I don't see a dictatorship whose premise is that it's going to replace the corrupt and inefficient civilian government to bring about national salvation after an economic collapse could tolerate state governments keeping the national government from taxing them to build railroads or something.
What's more, I think the general in Richmond wins this fight.
The most useful constituency for a junta are poor whites, who are unlikely to greatly respect a constitution more or less written to preserve plantocracy, nor would they have cared greatly state's rights ideology when the guy sitting in Richmond is promising them jobs and bread while the plantocrats sitting in state governments are trying to preserve the status quo. And keep in mind the late 19th century is the point when mass politics really emerged on the scene in Europe and the US. I do not see state governments controlled by rich land owners capable of fighting back against a political/electoral revolt by poor whites backed by the central government in Richmond.
So a confederate dictator is probably going to be a populist that's explicitly about breaking the power of the plantocracy through centralization, there will be amendments to the constitution to that effect. I actually suspect if said dictator decides to keep having elections, he'd want the turnout to be high because poor whites vote for him at higher rates than richer whites.
One could actually see this dictator being farsighted enough to forcibly industrialize the country, with African-american slaves confiscated from plantocrats playing the role that gulag prisoners played in the USSR. After the collapse of the cotton industry I think an industrialization program is the natural way forward because it creates jobs for poor whites.
Last edited:
Albert Pike was the Grand Commander of the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. I would love to see him become dictator of the Confederacy, leveraging the Freemasons into becoming some kind of secretly mandatory organization for political power in the CSA. The Grand Commander of the Freemasons just happens to also be the Secretary of War and top general in the Army every time. And every single general just happens to be a Freemason.
It's a fun idea, however implausible. The worst part is Pike is from Massachusetts, so he's basically ineligible.
It's a fun idea, however implausible. The worst part is Pike is from Massachusetts, so he's basically ineligible.
History Learner
Banned
Obviously the answer is a former soldier named Featherston.
In all seriousness, putting aside the unlikelyhood of this scenario (Yes, I'm going to be That Guy), I think you're more likely to see a coalition of Generals than any singular commander assuming power. It wasn't until late in the War you got the sort of strategic commander in the form of Lee who could command all of the Confederacy's forces and have their loyalty to conduct such an undertaking.
So, how would a Confederate military dictatorship be organized? Would it be a one-man dictatorship or would it be a "council of generals"-type of arrangement? Also, would they rule directly or through a puppet civilian government?
Military dictator you say? Military dictators often make epic master plans that generally go nowhere, so ......Why not P G T Beauregard?
RousseauX
Donor
initially it might have being a junta: a group of general officers who rule
but in just about every case in the history of the world I can think of usually what happens is one general within that junta end up commanding supreme power by one way or the other.
I imagine the dictator would probably claim that he's the legitimate president and have some sort of an election (sham or not) to back him up on that claim sooner or later. This isn't all that weird: if you read cold war era history lots of military dictators allowed relatively free elections during times when they knew they were popular enough to win.
Creating a long lasting confederate dictatorship seems difficult because of the history of constitutionalism in America, how could a dictator claim to be patriotic to the confederacy while taking away all states rights and democratic institutions.
A more likely event would be a temporary. "Emergency" that necessitates a military intervention until an election or Supreme Court ruling could legitimise their actions.
For instance an anti slavery party gaining traction might cause a coup but it would probably last as long as it took to destroy the party, and restore the reactionary order.
It goes without saying that the franchise will be heavily restricted and the government will most likely be aristocratic planters linked to the military and who have no reason to limit the army, why would this coup take place?
A more likely event would be a temporary. "Emergency" that necessitates a military intervention until an election or Supreme Court ruling could legitimise their actions.
For instance an anti slavery party gaining traction might cause a coup but it would probably last as long as it took to destroy the party, and restore the reactionary order.
It goes without saying that the franchise will be heavily restricted and the government will most likely be aristocratic planters linked to the military and who have no reason to limit the army, why would this coup take place?
RousseauX
Donor
The coup takes place because the economy collapses and the civilian central government does not respond to it effectively: coups occurred under such circumstances all the time in history.
Even if you assume the military is controlled by the planer elite, it's entirely possible the set of planter elites in the army disagrees with the set of planter elites in congress and the former thinks the latter should be kicked out of power.
Also the rank and file of the army and many of the junior officers are poor whites, in the event of an economic collapse this is the class which a popular strongman can use to remake the country.
Said dictator would probably be a class traitor eventually
Constitutionalism would be far weaker in this scenario. For one, the Confederate constitution would only be 20-30 years old.
The other factor is that I suspect the strength of constitutionalism is probably a lot weaker among poor, uneducated whites than the planter elite. They would be less educated in the first place which means they are far less likely to understand the niceties of constitutional legal restraints.
"State's rights" or "the Supreme Court" sounds a lot less important without food in your stomach and there's a man on the white horse telling you that those institutions are preventing you from getting a job.
A successful coup could fundamentally remake the country into some different from what the Confederacy was in 1863. You can see examples of this during the 20th century in leaders like Peron, Nasser and Park Chung Hee.
Last edited:
B-29_Bomber
Banned
Not really. Once the KKK began doing terrorist acts, Forrest was the first to disavow them. To Forrest all the KKK was was an excuse for men to get together, get drunk, and complain about those "Damnyankees" and freedmen at the local pub.
if we are talking about the late 19th century which you specified in the title then the militarys upper echelons and officer corp would definitely be controlled by the planter elite, and lets be honest its this group that would call the shots on all potential coups.
It would be inevitable that this group would put pressure on the government and potentially become somewhat of a state within a state.
However i just doubt that after a single generation after fighting a brutal war of independance for the sake of states autonomy and against the "tyranny" of lincoln, the army would be willing and able to overthrow it all and replace it with a highly centralised permanent military dictatorship all over an economic recession.
it just seems out of character to be honest.
Would the military stepping in to prevent fire-eaters from starting a war over the border states be more plausible?
Nope, too hated in the army. Bragg would either result in a civil war, or him lasting just a week or so before getting counter-couped.
Breckinridge would be a more realistic choice, having been senator, vice president and presidential candidate before the war.
But control of the franchise is in the hands of state authorities, not the central government. Any constitutional amendment needs eight of the eleven states to support it, and the states control who gets to vote for that amendment. You've cited the cases of South American dictatorships: did any of them have federal constitutions like the Confederacy?
The mechanics for this coup seem almost impossible. The moment that the general starts moving regular troops off the frontier towards Richmond, it's going to be clear what's happening. As a result, the president and Congress will flee and call on the state militia to suppress the insurrection. The general simply doesn't have time to persuade enough politically powerless and unorganised 'poor whites' to rise up in their support before the existing elites can reverse the coup with the aid of state militia. What's more likely than this very centralised anti-political move is that you get radical, locally-organised movements campaigning for their states to do more to alleviate the situation and standing candidates for election: a grassroots rather than a top-down phenomenon fits the Confederacy much better.
But they also had 80+ years of constitutionalism under the US, plus several centuries of constitutionalism under the British, on which to build. Was a US dictator particularly likely c.1800?
They'd be a class traitor immediately, by the sounds of things, if they're both deposing the 'planter elites in Congress' and 'fighting the state government for control of the country'. There really aren't any elites for them left to be fighting by that stage. I can't see any Confederate generals- most of whom, let's not forget, chose state over country in 1861- going against their states, their class and their country in the way you suggest.
That's assuming that the prohibition against Congress appropriating money 'for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce' lasts until the late 1800s, of course. It would be much easier to get around it by the states funding railways, Congress making donations for 'essential military railroads', or constitutional amendment when the proviso proves to be impractical.
Yeah I think cataclysmic events would very much do the job.
A massive slave rebellion and the central government lacks the ability to suppress it.
A political crisis and an unwinnable war on the horizon could do it aswell.
However these coups are not exactly sustainable and would probably last as long as it took to restore order and bring in a new civilian government that would legitimise their actions.
During a time of relative peace to have a military dictator assert control over the entire country long term seems ridiculous.