THE BLACK AND THE GRAY

[robertp6165]

These two paragraphs contradict each other. You say yourself that there was an impasse. After Sherman took Atlanta it looked pretty likely that Lincoln would win. So unless the debate started before then it is unlikely to relevent.

That's what I said. It DID start before Lincoln's re-election.

A competent shot is not going to be good enough against veterans who have done so for years unless you don't care if they take massive casualties.

A bullet doesn't care if it's fired by a veteran who can hit a 12" square target or a new recruit who can hit a 12" square target. The difference between veterans and "fresh fish" was not the effectiveness of their fire, which could be relatively quickly and easily taught. The difference between "fresh fish" and veterans was in how they protected themselves from enemy fire. Veterans knew to dig in; they knew how to advance in short rushes with some men advancing while others provided covering fire; they knew enough to lay down on the field and refuse to advance when their officers gave them orders to make suicidal attacks. Union units made up of "fresh fish" would "put their meat in the grinder" and get chewed up while veterans refused to do so. Since in the Confederate army there won't be any units made up of "fresh fish," a black soldier's life expectency there is probably better than it would be in a Union colored unit.

Probably not much help for black soldiers who will be likely ignored by their white counterparts, many of whom dropped out of the army them moment you let in black troops.

There is no evidence that there was any increase in desertion by white troops when the black recruitment bill was passed. Indeed, the evidence we have (in the form of letters sent in by individual soldiers, regiments, or even whole Divisions of Confederate troops to newspapers during the debate which lead up to the passage of the bill) indicates that there was little if any unwillingness to fight next to black soldiers.

They didn't have much choice did they?

Sure they did. They could run away.

Lee would have tried to keep the agreement I think. Jeff Davis is another matter , he was considered a cold,unfeeling man concerned only in small matters even by most Southerners after the war. I don't know if Lee could have had it kept single handed though. Even his prestige would have went only so far.

Well, that just goes to show you don't really know much about Jeff Davis.

 

[Brilliantlight]

Sure they did. They could run away.

With thousands of armed troops around them to prevent just that.

 

[robertp6165]

Robert, I find a lot of what you hjave to say very interesting

I fight against historical inevitabilities and 'of course it was's most of my life, and find you have some very insightful things to say here

Grey Wolf

Well, thank you, Grey. It takes someone with an open mind to say that, and I appreciate that.

 

[robertp6165]

Aw... so much for the smaller nations of North America. Is Oklahoma ever going to try to rebel? Will there eventually be an independent Nova Africanus after the British Empire falls?

I would say yes and yes.

 

[Brilliantlight]

A bullet doesn't care if it's fired by a veteran who can hit a 12" square target or a new recruit who can hit a 12" square target.

True, but a new recruit is far less likely to hit a 12" target and a veteran can hit a target much smaller and farther away then a new recruit.

 

[Brilliantlight]

There is no evidence that there was any increase in desertion by white troops when the black recruitment bill was passed. Indeed, the evidence we have (in the form of letters sent in by individual soldiers, regiments, or even whole Divisions of Confederate troops to newspapers during the debate which lead up to the passage of the bill) indicates that there was little if any unwillingness to fight next to black soldiers.

By the time the bill pass there was very little army left to desert. Most of them were dead, severely injured or deserted already by that time.

 

[robertp6165]

Also it was even more common for slave owners to rape their slaves so it would have been not much different for them.

Where do you get your history from, MANDINGO? It is very obvious that you haven't even read the timeline, and are just knee-jerking with your personal opinions about the likelihood of the point of departure. If you have anything constructive to contribute, I will be delighted to hear it. But I won't hold my breath.

 

[Straha]

I see the CSA in 90% of all CSA ATLS as stagnating in a racist hell and becoming an english speaking version of south africa.

 

[Brilliantlight]

Where do you get your history from, MANDINGO? It is very obvious that you haven't even read the timeline, and are just knee-jerking with your personal opinions about the likelihood of the point of departure. If you have anything constructive to contribute, I will be delighted to hear it. But I won't hold my breath.

It was very, very common as many Southern wives were complaining about their husbands fooling around with black women. Attractive black women sometimes cost more then black men who do heavy labor much better. Why do you think that was?

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Are there any that don't, and at the same time do not match the U.S. at great power status?

It would be interesting to see a CSA that, once it overcomes the racial tensions, becomes a regular nation. You know, like how nowadays Spain or Brazil or Costa Rica is. Just a first-world nation, secondary power, a bit in the background of international affairs.

 

[robertp6165]

I see the CSA in 90% of all CSA ATLS as stagnating in a racist hell and becoming an english speaking version of south africa.

That is no doubt how 90% of AH writers portray it, at least.

 

[robertp6165]

Are there any that don't, and at the same time do not match the U.S. at great power status?

It would be interesting to see a CSA that, once it overcomes the racial tensions, becomes a regular nation. You know, like how nowadays Spain or Brazil or Costa Rica is. Just a first-world nation, secondary power, a bit in the background of international affairs.

That's how the CSA is in my timeline. It is strong enough to defend itself, but does not seek to become a threat to anyone else, and is not trying to match the USA as a great power.

 

[Straha]

well actually my CSA ATLS have it be a second world nation thats recovering from the effects of a dark racial past...

 

[Strategos' Risk]

1. I’ve begun a timeline before about a CSA victory, and Kaiser Wilhelm III told me that having the South make a “deal†with the European powers where they would eventually emancipate slaves afterwards would be impossible. Slavery was firmly ingrained into the southern way of life, and anyone who even suggested freeing slaves would probably be run out of town or tarred and feathers. I understand that in your history that there is some respect for blacks due to their service in the war, but would that be enough? The ideal of Ivanhoe and plantation mansions was pretty much in the culture, right?
2. One of your characterizations of Lincoln puts him in the same category of supremacists and haters. This article talks about the book you cited:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa082800a.htm
3Also, I acknowledge that most northerners were probably as racist if not more as the southerners. But would they really forcibly evict blacks to Liberia? I’ve never really bought Turtledove’s idea of “we a-gonna persecute you for generations just because we lost your war†mentality. Sure, the Republicans were probably not as nice as history paints them as, but they were far from racist. At worst, blacks would just become a slightly maligned minority, and escaped slaves would be kept out with extreme prejudice.
4. Were there that many abolitionists to kill in New York?
5. Was the southern industrialization program “boosted†up at all? I didn’t think that they would get so strong so quickly.
6. Seeing as how Seward in OTL said that God’s higher laws were above the Constitution and outlawed slavery, I doubt that he would be for deporting blacks forcefully.
7. The Confederate Constitution is obviously stronger than the Articles of Confederation, but was it really powerful enough so that states can refuse to amend the pro-slavery clause, yet be subject to the opinion of the majority?
8. If there were “large Confederate forces on the Texas-Mexico borderâ€, how could Texas be continuously raided?
9. I noticed that your timeline had several of the clichés on Stephen Abbott’s (apparently now offline) list of Civil War implausibilities in AH. Now that I think about it, a lot of the examples he mentioned weren’t complete, and could happen under different circumstances. Want to create a new list?

 

[robertp6165]

1. I’ve begun a timeline before about a CSA victory...

I will be interested to read it when you are finished.

...Kaiser Wilhelm III told me that having the South make a “deal†with the European powers where they would eventually emancipate slaves afterwards would be impossible. Slavery was firmly ingrained into the southern way of life, and anyone who even suggested freeing slaves would probably be run out of town or tarred and feathers.

It was not impossible. The Confederate government actually did dispatch the Kenner Mission to make such a deal with the European powers in early 1865, in the aftermath of the failure of the Hampton Roads Peace Conference. Obviously they did not consider it impossible.

I understand that in your history that there is some respect for blacks due to their service in the war, but would that be enough? The ideal of Ivanhoe and plantation mansions was pretty much in the culture, right?

That's a stereotype. As I never tire of saying, history is a lot more complex than the version taught in most schools. Yes, that culture existed for a small number of very affluent Southerners. But the vast majority of Southerners had no part in that culture. These represent the rank and file veterans who will have served side by side with blacks in battle, and who will be the voting public after the war.

2. One of your characterizations of Lincoln puts him in the same category of supremacists and haters. This article talks about the book you cited:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa082800a.htm

I never actually have read that book...I cited a different book in the notes for the timeline. But reading the synopsis at the link you cited, it sounds similar to the book I did cite.

3Also, I acknowledge that most northerners were probably as racist if not more as the southerners. But would they really forcibly evict blacks to Liberia? I’ve never really bought Turtledove’s idea of “we a-gonna persecute you for generations just because we lost your war†mentality. Sure, the Republicans were probably not as nice as history paints them as, but they were far from racist. At worst, blacks would just become a slightly maligned minority, and escaped slaves would be kept out with extreme prejudice.

Actually, most of the Republicans were quite racist. Their whole opposition to the expansion of slavery into the territories, for example...as you can check for yourself by reading Republican campaign tracts from the period...was for the purpose of preserving the territories as the homes of "free white men." Not "free men" of all colors, but FREE WHITE MEN specifically.

4. Were there that many abolitionists to kill in New York?

The July 1865 riots were not just in New York, but in cities and towns across the North. Reverend Milton Wright, for example, was caught and strung up in Dayton, Ohio.

5. Was the southern industrialization program “boosted†up at all? I didn’t think that they would get so strong so quickly.

Well, with good management, I believe it would have been possible for them to industrialize along the lines I describe in the timeline. They have the makings for a very competitive textile industry because of locally produced cotton, they have the makings of a steel industry in Alabama, and others.

6. Seeing as how Seward in OTL said that God’s higher laws were above the Constitution and outlawed slavery, I doubt that he would be for deporting blacks forcefully.

Seward said he wanted slavery ended. He didn't say he wanted to live with them after they were freed. And Seward was a political opportunist. With the huge anti-black resentment in the North after the war, it seems plausible to me that he and the rest of the Republicans would back deportation. Lincoln certainly did, so that current of thought was definitely present among the Republicans.

7. The Confederate Constitution is obviously stronger than the Articles of Confederation, but was it really powerful enough so that states can refuse to amend the pro-slavery clause, yet be subject to the opinion of the majority?

It was as powerful as the U.S. Constitution was prior to the war, and there was never a case where a state refused to be bound by a Constitutional amendment in OTL.

And by the time the Confederacy amended it's Constitution to outlaw slavery, every Confederate State had already abolished slavery, or was in the process of doing so. So it wouldn't be an issue anyway in my timeline.

8. If there were “large Confederate forces on the Texas-Mexico borderâ€, how could Texas be continuously raided?

Texas has a BIG border. There is no way, short of stationing the entire Confederate army there, that Mexican raids could be prevented. And also, President Cleburne refused to violate Mexican sovereignty by sending Confederate troops across the border in pursuit of raiding bandits, ordering Confederate troops to maintain a strictly defensive posture. This is what really pissed Texas off.

9. I noticed that your timeline had several of the clichés on Stephen Abbott’s (apparently now offline) list of Civil War implausibilities in AH. Now that I think about it, a lot of the examples he mentioned weren’t complete, and could happen under different circumstances. Want to create a new list?

I don't think I ever saw such a list on Stephen Abbott's site. I know Ian Montgomerie (our esteemed moderator) has a essay on this website which discusses implausibilities of ACW timelines. Its a good essay, but I don't agree with all the points on his list, however.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

I will be interested to read it when you are finished.

Sorry. I never got around to actually setting it up... I was mostly concerned about the possibilities.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=2955

 

[Strategos' Risk]

1. I would suggest that the Germans wouldn't be so eager to sell out the Austro-Hungarians, who were somewhat related to them culturally and ethnically (historically?).

2. Why didn't Mexico join the Great War, even informally? A few raids could keep the Texans busy on the southern front. Or is the Alamo Line protecting them?

3. What happened to your old info, with the specific troop sizes and uniforms for each side?

 

[Straha]

south carolina was hopeless so I don't see it abolishing slavery before 1920. The depression is probably the final grasp for slavery in the CSA.

 

[Faeelin]

It was not impossible. The Confederate government actually did dispatch the Kenner Mission to make such a deal with the European powers in early 1865, in the aftermath of the failure of the Hampton Roads Peace Conference. Obviously they did not consider it impossible.

You mean 1865, when the vast majority of the South was in Northern hands?

This is a bit like in 1945 the Nazis offering to give up Poland, and therefore concluding that the Nazis would have given up Poland in November of 1940.

Texas has a BIG border. There is no way, short of stationing the entire Confederate army there, that Mexican raids could be prevented. And also, President Cleburne refused to violate Mexican sovereignty by sending Confederate troops across the border in pursuit of raiding bandits, ordering Confederate troops to maintain a strictly defensive posture. This is what really pissed Texas off.

And yet despite this big border, the Texans construct massive fortifications along a border with Oklahoma. I find this unlikely.

By 1864, the south was doomed. Atlanta, the Missississippi, the border states, all had fallen.

 

[Admiral Matt]

Great work as always, Robert. Your timeline just keeps getting interesting. Everything seems pretty much alright, plausibility-wise. On the other hand, I've picked at every TL of yours I have ever read to date. I see no reason to stop now.

I think the British are acting just a little bit out of character in this timeline - cooperating with the dismemberment of smaller nations by aggressive neighbors pretty much across the board. Still, since they were drawn into the war in the first place by an alliance system and they couldn't very well have made Germany give anything back it's pretty reasonable. Especially since they've reacted by distancing themselves from the Germans.

I guess the nation-eating Texans are my main problem. The irony of Texas going from barren Mexican province to owner of Mexico is not lost on me, but I have my doubts about how realistic the annexation of Mexico is. Still, the real surprise is that no one seemed to care they did it!

On a related subject, I think we can expect Texas to experience some rather extreme ethnic issues in the future. Yeah.

It seems reasonable that the militarists in Pr-Germany would have been validated by the Great War, so I certainly don't think it unreasonable that certain members of the German government would be looking at the Hapsburg Empire with hungry eyes. I just don't think it would be national policy.

And since it's been mentioned - the elimination of blacks. I've never thought the deportation to Liberia was unreasonable, if the government wanted it done, it could be. Half of them might drop dead on arrival, but that's beside the point. I will bring up my long-standing objection to the sheer scale of the race-riots, however. Their happening is fine, but the numbers killed really stretches believability. The "riots" are also notable for their amazing precision, able to find and kill every famous black person in the country.

Thus concludes the futile rant.

Anywho, I noticed Liberia got nothing in the peace deal. Was that intentional?