Minority Rights in a Victorious Confederacy?

[DG Valdron]

I agree that there were "white" slaves, however they weren't "white", they were "black" legally (one drop of blood rule).

All it would take to transform a "white" into a "black" would be a stroke of a pen. A sworn affidavit accepted by a Judge, or an act of the legislature, could transform an individual or group of whites into blacks.

The issue is entirely abstract.

Any poor white could be turned into a black slave, literally at whim.

 

[Morty Vicar]

What minority rights? The Confederacy was explicitly anti-rights.

Then, as now, they probably had a strong, if warped, sense of christianity. So there could possibly still be laws against murder extended to black people. Although in practise as in older OTL a white person would probably never be found guilty of murdering a black person, if it even got so far as a courtroom. But in general I can see the south becoming some sort of pseudochristian conservative theocracy, cherrypicking the parts of the bible that suited them, and ignoring parts about helping the poor and sick etc.

 

[EternalCynic]

I remember an idea floating around where, given an obscenely wealthy elite lording over an impoverished peasantry of a different race, the CSA would experience a communist revolution whose "Lenin" is of white, working class origin.

 

[usertron2020]

Then, as now, they probably had a strong, if warped, sense of christianity. So there could possibly still be laws against murder extended to black people. Although in practise as in older OTL a white person would probably never be found guilty of murdering a black person, if it even got so far as a courtroom. But in general I can see the south becoming some sort of pseudochristian conservative theocracy, cherrypicking the parts of the bible that suited them, and ignoring parts about helping the poor and sick etc.

It was illegal for the testimony of a Black man, slave or free, to be taken against the word of a White man.

 

[The Uchronian]

Then, as now, they probably had a strong, if warped, sense of christianity. So there could possibly still be laws against murder extended to black people. Although in practise as in older OTL a white person would probably never be found guilty of murdering a black person, if it even got so far as a courtroom. But in general I can see the south becoming some sort of pseudochristian conservative theocracy, cherrypicking the parts of the bible that suited them, and ignoring parts about helping the poor and sick etc.

Scarily plausible when you think about it. The South, even IOTL, was utterly corrupt to a level that would make even the leaders of Tammany Hall blush. And no doubt it'd likely be made worse in a successful C.S.A. And it was certainly becoming quite hardcore conservative as well, which also isn't likely to change, at least not in the short term.

I remember an idea floating around where, given an obscenely wealthy elite lording over an impoverished peasantry of a different race, the CSA would experience a communist revolution whose "Lenin" is of white, working class origin.

I've seen a few TLs like that. And this idea is surprisingly plausible, TBH, at least with the right PODs. As I've pointed out before, it may be true that many whites didn't really *like* blacks, but would they all be willing to infinitely endure their own abuse by employers, including horrifically bad working conditions, shitty wages, etc., just so they can laugh at slaves? I'm not quite so convinced of that. If things did get bad enough(which isn't at all unlikely), something *would* give. Look at what happened to Russia IOTL, by the way; the food shortages of 1916-17 were only the final spark in a long series of events leading up to the October Revolution; and frankly, the same general thing can be said of the Revolution in France in the 1790s as well.

Some may say that the parallels aren't exact, and that is true. But it still illustrates what can happen when a nation's populace have reached their breaking point.

 

[sloreck]

The question is how "bad" would things have to get for non-elite whites in the CSA before they "rose up"? You'd have a significant number of middle class whites, shop owners, highly skilled craftsmen etc. Furthermore there would be significant numbers of whites who were small farmers, who might or might not own enough property to vote but who would see themselves as relatively independent. The white "proletariat" would have upper level factory jobs, the truly shitty (or dangerous) ones being for slaves and would have the potential for upward mobility to foreman.

The question is what percentage of the white population will be sufficiently alienated to rebel, and even more, will they be sufficiently alienated to make cause with black slaves? I don't think in this CSA you'll see the degree of alienation you saw in pre-WWI Russia - where by 1914 a large percentage of the population was primed to rebel and needed the spark. I don't see the CSA having as narrow an elite, and an almost absent middle class, among the white population - factors that contributed to the Russian Revolution.

 

[usertron2020]

The question is how "bad" would things have to get for non-elite whites in the CSA before they "rose up"? You'd have a significant number of middle class whites, shop owners, highly skilled craftsmen etc. Furthermore there would be significant numbers of whites who were small farmers, who might or might not own enough property to vote but who would see themselves as relatively independent. The white "proletariat" would have upper level factory jobs, the truly shitty (or dangerous) ones being for slaves and would have the potential for upward mobility to foreman.

The question is what percentage of the white population will be sufficiently alienated to rebel, and even more, will they be sufficiently alienated to make cause with black slaves? I don't think in this CSA you'll see the degree of alienation you saw in pre-WWI Russia - where by 1914 a large percentage of the population was primed to rebel and needed the spark. I don't see the CSA having as narrow an elite, and an almost absent middle class, among the white population - factors that contributed to the Russian Revolution.

There's also the possibility that rather than revolting the working poor of the South may elect to simply Go North, along with presumably those Blacks willing to risk the Underground Railroad. A "Double Great Migration"?

 

[Anaxagoras]

It was illegal for the testimony of a Black man, slave or free, to be taken against the word of a White man.

In all states except Louisiana, I believe.

 

[funnyhat]

There's also the possibility that rather than revolting the working poor of the South may elect to simply Go North, along with presumably those Blacks willing to risk the Underground Railroad. A "Double Great Migration"?

I'm not so sure the U.S. would want any "Great Migration" to take place. Northern whites generally were opposed to slavery, but this did not - by any means - mean that they viewed black people as equals.

 

[funnyhat]

Irish-Americans are probably going to run into some hardships as well; contrary to some of the popular myths & beliefs surrounding the South, the Deep South, at least, was very much a W.A.S.P. territory in many parts(with the Appalachian hills and a few other places excepted; the former in particular, still had a largely Scots-Irish population). You may, perhaps, see a few Scots-Irish politicos try to intervene on behalf of these new arrivals, but it's unlikely they'd have much success in the short run, partly because at this point, the majority of the SI Southerners with any real power were very much assimilated into the elite planter culture, and at least many of them, if not most, had at least a little Anglo ancestry in them, and no doubt that many of those who were opposed to such immigration would draw on that.

To clarify, the "Scots-Irish" are not people of mixed Scottish and Irish origin, but rather, they are descended from Irish Protestant settlers (presumably of Scottish ancestry). Hardened from their experience in Ireland, they historically have held pretty strongly anti-Catholic views . . . they would be about the last people I'd expect to advocate on behalf of Irish Catholic immigrants.

 

[The Uchronian]

The question is how "bad" would things have to get for non-elite whites in the CSA before they "rose up"? You'd have a significant number of middle class whites, shop owners, highly skilled craftsmen etc.

I'm not really convinced, TBH. Even in OTL, the South didn't really have much of a middle class to speak of(outside the major cities and a few other places), until about the end of World War II. If anything at all, a surviving C.S.A. would actually likely have an even smaller middle class. I can perhaps see free labor managing to find some niches were slave labor would not be likely to succeed very well overall(such as the manufacture of automobiles and other complex machinery). But I'm afraid that, if anything, many other jobs would likely be filled with as many slaves(including rented ones) as possible. So we'd be looking at an unemployment rate that would definitely be higher to some degree than up North, even in the best of times.

Furthermore there would be significant numbers of whites who were small farmers, who might or might not own enough property to vote but who would see themselves as relatively independent.

That much may be true, I suppose.

The white "proletariat" would have upper level factory jobs, the truly shitty (or dangerous) ones being for slaves and would have the potential for upward mobility to foreman.

Upward mobility, *if* they're lucky.

The question is what percentage of the white population will be sufficiently alienated to rebel, and even more, will they be sufficiently alienated to make cause with black slaves?

It could just be a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my erstwhile ally", as it were.

I don't think in this CSA you'll see the degree of alienation you saw in pre-WWI Russia - where by 1914 a large percentage of the population was primed to rebel and needed the spark. I don't see the CSA having as narrow an elite, and an almost absent middle class, among the white population - factors that contributed to the Russian Revolution.

The elite might not be as narrow, that much could be true, but again, for reasons I've pointed out here, and others, there likely wouldn't be much of a white middle class at all; it might be there, but you'd be hard pressed to find it.

There's also the possibility that rather than revolting the working poor of the South may elect to simply Go North, along with presumably those Blacks willing to risk the Underground Railroad. A "Double Great Migration"?

That is quite possible, TBH.

I'm not so sure the U.S. would want any "Great Migration" to take place. Northern whites generally were opposed to slavery, but this did not - by any means - mean that they viewed black people as equals.

The main problem for the North, perhaps might not be so much prejudice, TBH(though no doubt it'd play some role), as it would worries about the labor market having to deal with so many people coming at one time. To be truthful, I would suspect that many Northerners wouldn't be too happy about an extra 2 or 3 million Englishmen or Scots showing up all at once, either.

 

[funnyhat]

The main problem for the North, perhaps might not be so much prejudice, TBH(though no doubt it'd play some role), as it would worries about the labor market having to deal with so many people coming at one time. To be truthful, I would suspect that many Northerners wouldn't be too happy about an extra 2 or 3 million Englishmen or Scots showing up all at once, either.

Racial prejudice was a huge factor. The North was a very racist place for most of its history. Opposition to slavery almost never had to do with a belief in egalitarianism for all races (John Brown was a rare exception, and he was shunned by "respectable" Northern society). Northerners might have sympathized with the plight of the slaves, but they didn't want to live among them. When African Americans did finally start moving in large numbers in OTL, at the end of World War I, there were massive race riots in Northern cities.

Northerners might not have been thrilled to have a ton of Englishmen move in either, but they'd have taken that any day of the week over an influx of African Americans. In OTL they could do little to stop it, but with an actual border to control, the U.S. almost certainly would have restricted immigration from the Confederacy.

 

[The Uchronian]

Racial prejudice was a huge factor. The North was a very racist place for most of its history. Opposition to slavery almost never had to do with a belief in egalitarianism for all races (John Brown was a rare exception, and he was shunned by "respectable" Northern society). Northerners might have sympathized with the plight of the slaves, but they didn't want to live among them. When African Americans did finally start moving in large numbers in OTL, at the end of World War I, there were massive race riots in Northern cities.

TBH, though, John Brown wasn't so much outright shunned for his (highly advanced for the era, truly) beliefs in egalitarianism(which actually *were* shared by a fair number of the "liberals" of the day, even if by no means a majority of them), but, rather, for the perceived extremism in the solutions he sought out(like what happened at Harper's Ferry).

Northerners might not have been thrilled to have a ton of Englishmen move in either, but they'd have taken that any day of the week over an influx of African Americans. In OTL they could do little to stop it, but with an actual border to control, the U.S. almost certainly would have restricted immigration from the Confederacy.

Well, I doubt that immigration was ever going to be entirely unrestricted anyway, regardless of the era. The most likely scenario is that after a certain yearly quota is reached, they'd be directed to Canada or Liberia, or wherever.

 

[Johnrankins]

I agree that there were "white" slaves, however they weren't "white", they were "black" legally (one drop of blood rule). I was specifically saying that you would not see "legal whites" as chattel slaves - as sharecroppers, always in debt miners or other forms of debt peonage or social oppression sure. You might even see indebted whites becoming indentured for limited time periods.

If you have whites as chattel slaves, with the same status as blacks, you'll inevitably have whites and blacks in close proximity with no "barriers" between them. This will lead to the ultimate nightmare of southern whites, especially southern white men - black men having sex with white women!

Philosophically the slave system, and the racial component of it, was based on the idea that blacks and whites were distinct racially, and that blacks were inherently inferior/subservient and no amount of "civilizing" or education could close the gap between them and whites. If whites can be made permanent chattel slaves (as opposed to temporary indenture or servitude as a criminal punishment) then the bright line between black and white disappears. For the system to be sustainable you cannot have exceptions to the rule that "any white>any black". The any drop of blood rule took this to the extreme to proclaim that even a drop of "black blood" would pollute and render inferior "white blood".

Worse yet, from the plantation owners point of view, if it is too common there is a great chance that Poor Whites will uprise and a lot of them were armed. They may well make common cause with Blacks. After all they would have little to lose.

 

[TFSmith121]

Hey, the Hillbilly Highway was real...

The main problem for the North, perhaps might not be so much prejudice, TBH(though no doubt it'd play some role), as it would worries about the labor market having to deal with so many people coming at one time. To be truthful, I would suspect that many Northerners wouldn't be too happy about an extra 2 or 3 million Englishmen or Scots showing up all at once, either.

Hey, the Hillbilly Highway was real...

Lots of poor whites actually did "come north" during industrialization in the Nineteenth-Twentieth centuries, including big pulses in the teens and 1940s for the war mobilizations. Detroit and Flint were know for it; the Appalachian whites were recruited because they were seen as "not" being likely to organize, at least early on...plus, they were Protestants (more or less...)

It gets overlooked sometime in comparison with the AA Great Migration, but it was very real.

One can see the movement west to California, and then the Southwest generally, in the 1930s and 1940s and afterward, as being part of it, albeit in the different direction.

Best,

 

[The Uchronian]

Worse yet, from the plantation owners point of view, if it is too common there is a great chance that Poor Whites will uprise and a lot of them were armed. They may well make common cause with Blacks. After all they would have little to lose.

I agree, though to be honest, it can be said that some whites would still stick with the system until they either died or things went belly up completely. I dunno about you, but it wouldn't be too hard for me, at least, to imagine some of these people fleeing to South Africa, or some place comparable, just so they didn't have to live with "them Yankees" or "them darkies".

 

[Johnrankins]

I agree, though to be honest, it can be said that some whites would still stick with the system until they either died or things went belly up completely. I dunno about you, but it wouldn't be too hard for me, at least, to imagine some of these people fleeing to South Africa, or some place comparable, just so they didn't have to live with "them Yankees" or "them darkies".

Some, yes but most? It would be far too dangerous for the ruling class. They had it made with the system as is. Why rock the boat and risk losing it all?

 

[eliphas8]

I'm not so sure the U.S. would want any "Great Migration" to take place. Northern whites generally were opposed to slavery, but this did not - by any means - mean that they viewed black people as equals.

Except generally northern abolitionists where in favor of letting them settle nearby, especially if the move allowed the slave to become free. In general they where racists, but in a more paternalistic fashion than your average southerners. Black people aren't necessarily their equals. But they shouldn't be condemned to slavery either. And I think the blacks would for the most part temporarily accept being second class citizens in the north over being the absolute bottom of the social hierarchy in the south.

 

[Emperor Julian]

They'll keep slavery as an institution alive or die trying. When agricultural mechanization happens and slavery is no longer useful, they'll get rid of the African population. They don't need them around anymore, and they'll be a serious risk for revolt.

Except they will still need slaves, just in industry instead of agriculture.

 

[usertron2020]

In all states except Louisiana, I believe.

How much was that in reality versus on paper?

I'm not so sure the U.S. would want any "Great Migration" to take place. Northern whites generally were opposed to slavery, but this did not - by any means - mean that they viewed black people as equals.

There were already plenty of barriers to the Slaves escaping, but not poor Whites. So too barring those leaving, or fleeing, the South isn't going to work in an era (post-ACW to the 1910s) when you had open immigration from not only Europe but Asia!

The main problem for the North, perhaps might not be so much prejudice, TBH(though no doubt it'd play some role), as it would worries about the labor market having to deal with so many people coming at one time. To be truthful, I would suspect that many Northerners wouldn't be too happy about an extra 2 or 3 million Englishmen or Scots showing up all at once, either.

While I loved the rest of your post, I can't disagree more with the emboldened section, especially as immigrants coming down from Canada had a very much open door (no Ellis Island) on immigration. My ancestors came to the Northern USA both as refugees from a shattered South and to flee poverty from the Maritime Provinces and get jobs in the exploding industry to be found in mid-to-late 19th century South-Central Connecticut. Don't be fooled by the "Boom-and-bust" cycle for all things. Plenty of people did just fine even in bad times.

Racial prejudice was a huge factor. The North was a very racist place for most of its history. Opposition to slavery almost never had to do with a belief in egalitarianism for all races (John Brown was a rare exception, and he was shunned by "respectable" Northern society). Northerners might have sympathized with the plight of the slaves, but they didn't want to live among them. When African Americans did finally start moving in large numbers in OTL, at the end of World War I, there were massive race riots in Northern cities.

I disagree. There were many reasons for those race riots. Many were centered on areas of traditional Black settlement (Chicago frex), and the worst (Tulsa, Rosewood frex) were still in the South.

Northerners might not have been thrilled to have a ton of Englishmen move in either, but they'd have taken that any day of the week over an influx of African Americans. In OTL they could do little to stop it, but with an actual border to control, the U.S. almost certainly would have restricted immigration from the Confederacy.

Considering the prospective geographical nature of that non-OTL border and the wonderful success we've had controlling a much more hostile one on the Mexican border (mountains, deserts) populated by Hispanics, lotsa luck trying to stop English-speaking American WASPs Lotsa luck trying to get border guards to enforce said border laws. While hordes of Quebecois refugees might face problems due to language barriers, how are law enforcement personnel in the 19th century-early 20th century going to stop Anglo-Canadians? They can't.

Well, I doubt that immigration was ever going to be entirely unrestricted anyway, regardless of the era. The most likely scenario is that after a certain yearly quota is reached, they'd be directed to Canada or Liberia, or wherever.

Agreed. But then there is a cost factor. No $$$. Pre-ACW the runaways would go on their own to Canada to avoid recapture. NO ONE in a post-CSA Victorious TL in the USA would be favoring re-enslavement or return of runaways to the South, Turtledovian fantasies to the contrary (In Guns of the South he had the North converting en masse to the Copperheads).

Hey, the Hillbilly Highway was real...

Lots of poor whites actually did "come north" during industrialization in the Nineteenth-Twentieth centuries, including big pulses in the teens and 1940s for the war mobilizations. Detroit (1) and Flint were know for it; the Appalachian whites were recruited because they were seen as "not" being likely to organize, at least early on...plus, they were Protestants (more or less...)

Best,

1) Well, the Detroit Race Riots were a direct result of that. Not just refusing to hire unemployed Detroit Black residents, not just transporting in thousands of illiterate untrained Whites from hundreds of miles away to take those jobs, not only said Southern Whites taking their racist attitudes with them and fully expecting to be able to export them to one of the Blackest cities in America, but having the Detroit Blacks being evicted from their homes (renters, IDK about home owners) in the name of "wartime emergencies" to make room for said racist Whites. Small wonder that the rest was infamy.