Minority Rights in a Victorious Confederacy?

[TFSmith121]

True; my point was simply that there WAS a mass movement of

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.

True; my point was simply that there WAS a mass movement of "poor" whites to the north (and west) in US history, and that the impact on the south was significant. I would expect net emigration was always OUT of the south until the WW II boom, and the postwar Sunbelt economic development - which was funded, largely, by federal defense and related spending and open shop legislation at the state level.

Best,

 

[funnyhat]

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.

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.

I'm not saying a USA-minus-the-South is going to have zero immigration. It's just going to try to have zero black immigration.

I've studied racial attitudes in the North during the 19th century. With few exceptions, it was not a welcoming place for black migrants. Certainly, life there was preferable to living in bondage, but discrimination was omnipresent. This manifested itself every time black people came in substantial numbers in the next century. Residential covenants sprang up nationwide. If black people could not be prevented from moving north, white Northerners still found ways to keep them as penned in as possible.

Now, if you have a situation where the CSA is independent and there is an actual, legal border that can be defended, yes, I think the USA is going to do what it can to halt black migration. Some will still get through, of course, but not as many as in OTL - and those who make it will probably be harassed about their legal status. White Southerners on the other hand will probably get in without too much difficulty, either through an openly racist immigration policy, or through authorities simply looking the other way.

 

[LHB]

Ya know if the US takes a really cynical approach to the situation and encouraged white migration from an independent CSA you'd be talking a black revolution inside a generation, assuming for whatever reason the Union doesn't invade sooner. A combination of shrinking white population (read: less bodies to carry guns) and a trapped black population would be a bomb waiting to go off.

And even if you have open borders the differences in ease between the movement of free poor whites vs enslaved blacks mean you're probably going to get that trend anyway. It would be entirely possible the Confederate elites would notice and try to find a way to avert it, assuming they don't drink too much of the koolaid.

 

[funnyhat]

Ya know if the US takes a really cynical approach to the situation and encouraged white migration from an independent CSA you'd be talking a black revolution inside a generation, assuming for whatever reason the Union doesn't invade sooner. A combination of shrinking white population (read: less bodies to carry guns) and a trapped black population would be a bomb waiting to go off.

And even if you have open borders the differences in ease between the movement of free poor whites vs enslaved blacks mean you're probably going to get that trend anyway. It would be entirely possible the Confederate elites would notice and try to find a way to avert it, assuming they don't drink too much of the koolaid.

Good point. I imagine the CSA would try to prevent people from leaving the country.

If the USA still goes ahead with its 1920s quotas on immigrants from southern/eastern Europe, would the CSA grit its teeth and permit them to immigrate there?

 

[Johnrankins]

Good point. I imagine the CSA would try to prevent people from leaving the country.

If the USA still goes ahead with its 1920s quotas on immigrants from southern/eastern Europe, would the CSA grit its teeth and permit them to immigrate there?

Very difficult to do now not talking about using 19th century technology. If they do grit their teeth and let in Southern/Eastern Europeans most will spend only a short time in the CSA before smuggling themselves to the USA.

 

[funnyhat]

Very difficult to do now not talking about using 19th century technology. If they do grit their teeth and let in Southern/Eastern Europeans most will spend only a short time in the CSA before smuggling themselves to the USA.

Well, one way to try to prevent it is to use all available means of propaganda to instill in white Southerners a sense that to leave the CSA would be a betrayal of the "Fatherland".

 

[usertron2020]

And even if you have open borders the differences in ease between the movement of free poor whites vs enslaved blacks mean you're probably going to get that trend anyway. It would be entirely possible the Confederate elites would notice and try to find a way to avert it, assuming they don't drink too much of the koolaid.

Slavocrats didn't drink the Kool-aid. They chugged it.

Good point. I imagine the CSA would try to prevent people from leaving the country.

Lotsa luck.

A USA-CSA border is too long and too porous, especially in the West (assuming the border stops in Texas, which is logical), to effectively block any such migrations of runaways. But the problem with runaways was a two-edged one. Letting loose some of the pressure by having its most dynamic members of its slave population "get away", rather than being forced to stay home, and led slave rebellions, ala Nat Turner.

If the USA still goes ahead with its 1920s quotas on immigrants from southern/eastern Europe, would the CSA grit its teeth and permit them to immigrate there?

No. I honestly think they'd be afraid of being enslaved themselves.

Well, one way to try to prevent it is to use all available means of propaganda to instill in white Southerners a sense that to leave the CSA would be a betrayal of the "Fatherland".

I would think that would be too much to get past the people even by the slavers, considering that even the CSA, outside of its slaves, was still a nation of immigrants.

 

[Reggie Bartlett]

Outside of blacks, I feel the CSA's treatment of other minorities won't be quite as severe. Or at least comparable to the US.

You have Hispanics, while not seen as equal to whites, are still seen as above the slaves. They are allowed to serve in the military and hold office in some places.

Indians will be a different matter. The nations in Oklahoma, Eastern Cherokee, Catawba and such will at least be viewed favorably because of their role in fighting for the CSA's independence. A whole territory/state set aside for them may just be Richmond's grace for them, to which they can really do whatever they want out on the plains.

Apaches and Comanches on the other hand, well, I think the CSA in the end will give them no quarter and will treat them much like OTL's US did, granted if another John Baylor shows up with an extermination order.

New Orleans however, will sport immigrants, Creoles, free-Blacks, even black landowners.

 

[LHB]

Slavocrats didn't drink the Kool-aid. They chugged it.

Therein being the problem. The same slavelords who just won a war based on the fried logic of, "One Southron is equal to ten namby-pamby Yankees!" are equally likely to believe that one white is worth a hundred blacks in a fight or something equally absurd. By the time they realize the black population is outpacing the free white population it may be too late for them to stop the inevitable especially since they'd be more likely to use punitive measures when operating under such a framework.

Add in the fact that they'd be encouraging slave population growth to keep up the labor pool due to lack of the slave trade and you've got a demographic situation that's going to implode well before the arrival of the boll weevil. When most of the South ends up with South Carolina or Mississippi levels of population imbalance due to white migration and black population growth things are going to be getting pretty ugly in Dixie.

Indians will be a different matter. The nations in Oklahoma, Eastern Cherokee, Catawba and such will at least be viewed favorably because of their role in fighting for the CSA's independence. A whole territory/state set aside for them may just be Richmond's grace for them, to which they can really do whatever they want out on the plains.

Highly doubtful. Former Confederates were no kinder to the First Nations than any other section of the US, pre and post bellum. If anything the risk of white flight would encourage them to be harsher, faster in the name of grabbing up free land as a safety valve of sorts and expanding the available pool of cash crop lands.

 

[Johnrankins]

Therein being the problem. The same slavelords who just won a war based on the fried logic of, "One Southron is equal to ten namby-pamby Yankees!" are equally likely to believe that one white is worth a hundred blacks in a fight or something equally absurd. By the time they realize the black population is outpacing the free white population it may be too late for them to stop the inevitable especially since they'd be more likely to use punitive measures when operating under such a framework.

Add in the fact that they'd be encouraging slave population growth to keep up the labor pool due to lack of the slave trade and you've got a demographic situation that's going to implode well before the arrival of the boll weevil. When most of the South ends up with South Carolina or Mississippi levels of population imbalance due to white migration and black population growth things are going to be getting pretty ugly in Dixie.



Highly doubtful. Former Confederates were no kinder to the First Nations than any other section of the US, pre and post bellum. If anything the risk of white flight would encourage them to be harsher, faster in the name of grabbing up free land as a safety valve of sorts and expanding the available pool of cash crop lands.

Agreed, they were willing to USE Native Americans as troops but once they want any of their land they will be "Just stupid Injuns" and moved out. Nothing shows that Southerners (or Northerners for that matter) saw Native Americans as more than "Stupid Injuns" to be used when convenient and moved out when they want the land.

 

[usertron2020]

Indians will be a different matter. The nations in Oklahoma, Eastern Cherokee, Catawba and such will at least be viewed favorably because of their role in fighting for the CSA's independence. A whole territory/state set aside for them may just be Richmond's grace for them, to which they can really do whatever they want out on the plains.

For awhile, until settlers start pushing up against their territory. Remember what happened to the OTL Indian Territory?

EDIT: Ninja'd by Johnrankins and LHB

 

[TFSmith121]

Um, no, actually...

New Orleans however, will sport immigrants, Creoles, free-Blacks, even black landowners.

Um, no, actually...the (soon to be) CSA states were ordering free blacks to leave or face re-enslavement as early as 1860 (Arkansas) and the CSA itself was enslaving free blacks they encountered throughout the war; why would they stop afterward?

The entire concept of southern "nationhood" was, foundationally, the use of force in alliance among a racial/ethnic group to maintain white supremacy and mastery; as more than one rebel leader said publicly "If slaves will make good soldiers, our whole theory of slavery is wrong."

Given the above, the (frankly) glib concept a sucessful rebellion would lead to a society (where political power was gained at the point of a gun, don't forget) with any level of liberty and agency for those other than whites is so much libertarian nonsense.

If anything, a sucessful rebellion (never defined or explained, of course) leads pretty quickly to political chaos amoong the Confederate "national" government, leaving several minor republics ruled by warlords that make apartheid-era South Africa look like a welcoming bastion of stability and racial harmony.

President Davis is suceeded by - who, exactly? Stephens? - and the CSA breaks up into (at the least) "southeastern" and "transmississippi" units, when the obvious conflicts inherent in the southern theory of government break out in "peacetime" - amidst slave rebellions that make Nat Turner's look tame.

There's a great quote from AS Johnston's son that I used in BROS:

….on the 10th of September, 1861, General Johnston was entrusted with the defense of that part of the Confederate States which lay west of the Mountains, except the Gulf Coast (Bragg having control of West Florida and Alabama, and Mansfield Lovell of the coast of Mississippi and Louisiana). His command was imperial in extent, and his powers and discretion as large as the theory of the Confederate Government permitted: he lacked nothing except men, munitions, and the means of obtaining them, while he had the right to ask for anything, and the State Executives had the power to withhold everything.

Read the second sentence, and ask yourself if that is a recipe for stability and national consolidation in a state where one-third the human population has the legal status of draft animals...

Best,

 

[usertron2020]

Um, no, actually...the (soon to be) CSA states were ordering free blacks to leave or face re-enslavement as early as 1860 (Arkansas) and the CSA itself was enslaving free blacks they encountered throughout the war; why would they stop afterward?

They wouldn't. $$$

The entire concept of southern "nationhood" was, foundationally, the use of force in alliance among a racial/ethnic group to maintain white supremacy and mastery; as more than one rebel leader said publicly "If slaves will make good soldiers, our whole theory of slavery is wrong."

And the guy who made that quote was, IIRC, the chief Southron proponent for the re-legalization of the Slave Trade (not that it ever really was illegal in practice in the CSA). So you know this was coming from a guy who was no wilting lily on the subject of race relations himself.

Given the above, the (frankly) glib concept a sucessful rebellion would lead to a society (where political power was gained at the point of a gun, don't forget) with any level of liberty and agency for those other than whites is so much libertarian nonsense.

Libertarian Nonsense = Liberal CSA Victory ATL

If anything, a sucessful rebellion (never defined or explained, of course) leads pretty quickly to political chaos amoong the Confederate "national" government, leaving several minor republics ruled by warlords that make apartheid-era South Africa look like a welcoming bastion of stability and racial harmony.

Missouri and the Appalachia Mountains are a good model for this dystopia.

President Davis is suceeded by - who, exactly? Stephens? - and the CSA breaks up into (at the least) "southeastern" and "transmississippi" units, when the obvious conflicts inherent in the southern theory of government break out in "peacetime" - amidst slave rebellions that make Nat Turner's look tame.

Not Stephens, too sick, too unpopular himself. Most likely Texas Senator Louis Wigfall, the closest thing the CSA ever got to a "Leader of the Opposition."

There's a great quote from AS Johnston's son that I used in BROS:

….on the 10th of September, 1861, General Johnston was entrusted with the defense of that part of the Confederate States which lay west of the Mountains, except the Gulf Coast (Bragg having control of West Florida and Alabama, and Mansfield Lovell of the coast of Mississippi and Louisiana). His command was imperial in extent, and his powers and discretion as large as the theory of the Confederate Government permitted: he lacked nothing except men, munitions, and the means of obtaining them, while he had the right to ask for anything, and the State Executives had the power to withhold everything.

How about this?

"If this great Confederate Experiment of ours is doomed to fail,
let its tombstone read: DIED OF A THEORY"

Jefferson Davis​

Read the second sentence, and ask yourself if that is a recipe for stability and national consolidation in a state where one-third the human population has the legal status of draft animals...

Best,

44%, not 33%. Its an important distinction, not just quibbling. Because you add on that percentage to the 11% White Southern Unionists, and you have a solid numerical majority opposing secession. Of course, the Slavers don't count traitors and ungrateful property.

 

[TFSmith121]

Yeah, pretty much clap clap clap

They wouldn't. $$$



And the guy who made that quote was, IIRC, the chief Southron proponent for the re-legalization of the Slave Trade (not that it ever really was illegal in practice in the CSA). So you know this was coming from a guy who was no wilting lily on the subject of race relations himself.



Libertarian Nonsense = Liberal CSA Victory ATL



Missouri and the Appalachia Mountains are a good model for this dystopia.



Not Stephens, too sick, too unpopular himself. Most likely Texas Senator Louis Wigfall, the closest thing the CSA ever got to a "Leader of the Opposition."



How about this?

"If this great Confederate Experiment of ours is doomed to fail,
let its tombstone read: DIED OF A THEORY"​

Jefferson Davis​

44%, not 33%. Its an important distinction, not just quibbling. Because you add on that percentage to the 11% White Southern Unionists, and you have a solid numerical majority opposing secession. Of course, the Slavers don't count traitors and ungrateful property.

Yeah, pretty much clap clap clap....

The ability of the "true southron" to explain away the fact their prodigals were actively spreading 50 percent of their DNA with human beings who had about as much legal recognition and agency as a horse - and then happily sold the progeny of said intercourse, i.e. their children - has always left me wondering why more of them didn't end up getting smothered in their beds by their wives...

And for every example of the Grimkes, there were plenty of belles who were as fierce advocates of slavery as their men.

Slave societies are pathologies writ large.

Best,

 

[usertron2020]

Yeah, pretty much clap clap clap....

The ability of the "true southron" to explain away the fact their prodigals were actively spreading 50 percent of their DNA with human beings who had about as much legal recognition and agency as a horse - and then happily sold the progeny of said intercourse, i.e. their children - has always left me wondering why more of them didn't end up getting smothered in their beds by their wives...

Because by and large the husbands represented the $$$ in the family. Kill the husband, you risk prison and losing everything with your children being taken away from you.

Slavery dehumanizes the Master every bit as much the Slave

And for every example of the Grimkes, there were plenty of belles who were as fierce advocates of slavery as their men.

They'd been raised on the nonsense about slavering rapacious black animal-men looking to brutalize and murder them with their bigger-than-a-horse's equipment. That's why in the ACW Southern women lacked any sense of self-consciousness about DEMANDING that their fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons (maybe not sons quite so much) go off to The War to save THEIR honor, THEIR virtue, from the N----- Threat. You didn't see that much up North.

EDIT: The Southron Women sure changed their tune AFTER their own home areas had been occupied by Union troops for months and years on end. Once the ladies realized that the CSA Army WASN'T coming back, the letters screaming: "COME HOME NOW!" started pouring in to CSA army camps.

Shelby Foote said as much himself about why there was no real social stigma about lack of personal participation in the war up North, while "In the South, Southern Women wouldn't LET their men stay home. Southern Women could be very strange about that back then."

Slave societies are pathologies writ large.

Best,

And that is a pathology still afflicting us today

 

[TFSmith121]

Well yes, but - they were all of a generation removed

Because by and large the husbands represented the $$$ in the family. Kill the husband, you risk prison and losing everything with your children being taken away from you.

Slavery dehumanizes the Master every bit as much the Slave

Well yes, but - they were all of a generation removed from the same Revolutionary War cohort that their husbands and sons were; there's that line in Gone With the Wind where a grandmother or great aunt talks about shooting a Creek from the cabin window and Scarlett or whoever shushes here; a little too "earthy" for a belle.

Of course, given what the Texas frontier was like in the 1850s, there's a whole different "other" to worry about...

Southern Sons by Glover and A Shattered Nation by Rubin are both pretty good recent works that bring a feminist/gender point of view to some of these questions; well worth finding.

Not quite as grognardish as the latest recitation of "Enfield vs. Springfield: Which will win?" but there's hope...

Best,

 

[Essam]

I always imagined that the CSA eventually would become a majority-Black, apartheid minority-ruled piranha state that would eventually, probably through a civil war or revolution, become majority-ruled, that is, an independent, Black, anglophone country. Its all in the demographics. Like it has been stated here, the slavocrats gulped koolaid too much to realise these facts before it would be too late, non?

 

[Rich Rostrom]

So there could possibly still be laws against murder extended to black people.

Not true. Murder was one of the few crimes that could be committed against a slave, and free colored enjoyed the protection of the law.

Although in practice 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.

In 1811, Isham and Lilburne Lewis, nephews of Thoman Jefferson, murdered a slave boy named George. (He had broken a water pitcher that had belonged to their late mother.) They tried to destroy the body, but evidence surfaced as a result of the New Madrid earthquakes. They were arrested and charged with murder.

Lilburne killed himself, and Isham fled the area, never to return. See Slave George.

 

[TFSmith121]

Of course, there's also the Celia case, which pretty much makes clear

Not true. Murder was one of the few crimes that could be committed against a slave, and free colored enjoyed the protection of the law.



In 1811, Isham and Lilburne Lewis, nephews of Thoman Jefferson, murdered a slave boy named George. (He had broken a water pitcher that had belonged to their late mother.) They tried to destroy the body, but evidence surfaced as a result of the New Madrid earthquakes. They were arrested and charged with murder.

Lilburne killed himself, and Isham fled the area, never to return. See Slave George.

Of course, there's also the Celia case (Missouri, 1855), which pretty much makes clear what could be done to an enslaved person...and what they could do in response.

Best,

 

[usertron2020]

I always imagined that the CSA eventually would become a majority-Black, apartheid minority-ruled piranha state that would eventually, probably through a civil war or revolution, become majority-ruled, that is, an independent, Black, anglophone country. Its all in the demographics. Like it has been stated here, the slavocrats gulped koolaid too much to realise these facts before it would be too late, non?

More likely you'll see a Featherstone dystopia first.

Not true. Murder was one of the few crimes that could be committed against a slave, and free colored enjoyed the protection of the law. (0)

0) Examples?

Google Delphine LaLaurie, the Hannibal Lecter of the 19th century. The only reason she wasn't captured was because of the people she was eating. Wiki appears to be too squeamish to go into the ghoulish details, only calling it "torture". Well, yeah, there was that too.

In 1811, Isham and Lilburne Lewis, nephews of Thoman Jefferson, murdered a slave boy named George. (He had broken a water pitcher that had belonged to their late mother.) They tried to destroy the body, but evidence surfaced as a result of the New Madrid earthquakes. They were arrested and charged with murder.

And released on bail for what? A capital crime? Or a small fine? They never heard of remand? You kill a 17 year old White kid for breaking a goddam water pitcher in the early 1800s and you'll be lucky to not be lynched, never mind being remanded!

Lilburne killed himself, and Isham fled the area, never to return. See Slave George.

Wiki says Isham was probably killed in the Battle of New Orleans. Unless he was fighting for the British, I find that very hard to believe (Jackson lost 8 KIA).

Of course, there's also the Celia case (Missouri, 1855), which pretty much makes clear what could be done to an enslaved person (1)...and what they could do in response. (2)

Best,

1) Anything

2) Nothing

But remember, this was in the times of the Roger Taney Supreme Court. And the Celia Case was only two years before the Dred Scott bombshell.