WI: Confederates win, but collapse?

[TheYoungPretender]

My thought is that Georgia would be one of the first ones to go, the governor of Georgia never seemed so keen about either side, and if the CSA won, would probably break off pretty quick. Not to mention, assuming that Sherman never came through, Atlanta is a decent capitol and Savannah is an excellent port, so Georgia would have the infastructure. Georgia would then go and colonize, since the soil in the actual state was getting worn out at the time.

There's a logistics problem here: Any newly independent CSA would be one of the smaller fish in the hemisphere, and any secession from the CSA would create a nation that was a small fish indeed. There'd be very few places to colonize that would be worth the effort that couldn't resist quite strongly. Especially when you consider that any major colonization effort requires military effort to pacify the natives. Any [plausible CSA independence scenario] requires a CSA that utilizes every bit of military force it has to the utmost. Sending a large chunk of that off to conquer [preferred colony here] is less that can be used to keep your own Unionists and enslaved down, while providing enough force to keep the North out.

Plus, any independent CSA is going to be a client of at least one if not two European powers. It's easy enough to see how any colonization effort by the CSA would be viewed as Monroe Doctrine issue, as the CSA acting as the catspaw of whichever paymaster got it independence.

 

[thekingsguard]

The USA quickly makes a point of carving them up and conquering them back into the Union, either by the pen or the sword.

 

[ArKhan]

Before or after the inevitable slave revolution?

 

[Mikestone8]

Before or after the inevitable slave revolution?

Why should such a "revolution" achieve any more than Nat Turner's effort?

After all. Blacks had little success in "taking over" during Reconstruction, when the South had been crushingly defeated. Why does it do better against a victorious South?

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Why should such a "revolution" achieve any more than Nat Turner's effort?

After all. Blacks had little success in "taking over" during Reconstruction, when the South had been crushingly defeated. Why does it do better against a victorious outh?

This is kinda true. A slave revolution on the scale it would take to topple the Confederacy would take time to build and coordinate. Otherwise it's just one local situation where the slaves rise up and end up crushed by the militia who have precisely zero qualms about slaughtering black people including women and children.

A massive slave revolt is not going to be able to topple the Confederacy. The entire system was built on keeping slaves unable to organize and be educated in order to keep them in submission and it worked horrifically well. You'd need an internal problem that prevented a state government from coming down hard on the slave revolt to give it any chance of success.

 

[TheYoungPretender]

Why should such a "revolution" achieve any more than Nat Turner's effort?

After all. Blacks had little success in "taking over" during Reconstruction, when the South had been crushingly defeated. Why does it do better against a victorious South?

Different social conditions? OTL, there is discussion of extending slavery to some poor whites before the Civil War. In addition, in an ATL South the number of people, and the legal acceptability, of sending weapons South would be a good deal greater.

In an independent CSA where OTL trends continued, you have a broken color line when it comes to slavery. A lot of those poor whites can't look at the enslaved as "at least we're better off them them" - it becomes more of a "that's us after one poor harvest." Certain ideas are bound to crop up them.

 

[Mikestone8]

Different social conditions? OTL, there is discussion of extending slavery to some poor whites before the Civil War. In addition, in an ATL South the number of people, and the legal acceptability, of sending weapons South would be a good deal greater.

In an independent CSA where OTL trends continued, you have a broken color line when it comes to slavery. A lot of those poor whites can't look at the enslaved as "at least we're better off them them" - it becomes more of a "that's us after one poor harvest." Certain ideas are bound to crop up them.

That wouldn't be a slave revolution, it would be a poor-white revolution - not too different from what happened OTL in the 1890s and early 1900s.

 

[Anaxagoras]

OTL, there is discussion of extending slavery to some poor whites before the Civil War.

Not any serious discussion. The only person I know who ever suggested this was George Fitzhugh and nobody in the South took it seriously.

 

[Dave Howery]

It does kinda depend on just how the CSA got it's independence. If it is the usual "Britain and France take their side" POD, then the USA might not dare to try and reconquer the south... unless those pieces of the former CSA have no further ties to Europe. If the CSA gained independence on their own, then yes, the USA will quickly take advantage of it.

 

[walmart]

Different social conditions? OTL, there is discussion of extending slavery to some poor whites before the Civil War. In addition, in an ATL South the number of people, and the legal acceptability, of sending weapons South would be a good deal greater.

In an independent CSA where OTL trends continued, you have a broken color line when it comes to slavery. A lot of those poor whites can't look at the enslaved as "at least we're better off them them" - it becomes more of a "that's us after one poor harvest." Certain ideas are bound to crop up them.

If the south expanded slaverly to white people then almost every white nation declare war on them

 

[TFSmith121]

Ahem ... define "white"...

Not any serious discussion. The only person I know who ever suggested this was George Fitzhugh and nobody in the South took it seriously.

Ahem ... define "white"...

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/the-young-white-faces-of-slavery/?_r=0

If an enslaved male with a skill is worth $2,000 (1860 value), how long will it be before the "one drop rule" becomes grounds for denouncing one's neighbor?

http://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php

Likewise, given that several of the eventually rebel states had or were close to essentially outlawing the legal status of free people of color (Arkansas did so in 1860, for example), upon penalty of emigration or re-enslavement, how long until there's a legal regime of (essentially) court orders for enslavement?

Any "independent" confederacy would make the Jim Crow South or apartheid South Africa look like paradise in comparison.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

You might think that...

If the south expanded slaverly to white people then almost every white nation declare war on them

You might think that...

Check the NYT link above.

Best,

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

... OTL, there is discussion of extending slavery to some poor whites before the Civil War. ....

Not any serious discussion. The only person I know who ever suggested this was George Fitzhugh and nobody in the South took it seriously.

There was a footnote approaching this in Indiana history. When the first state constitution was being written the territorial governor William Harrison supported a proposal for allowing 'Lifetime Indentured Servitude'. This as a way of getting around the prohibition of slavery in the Northwest Territory Ordnance. Harrison & his supporters were southerners, Virginians mostly, whos vision for the Indiana territory was a sort of a east coast plantation redux.

The indentured servitude text never made it past the gate, but had it somehow it does point towards this:

... A lot of those poor whites can't look at the enslaved as "at least we're better off them them" - it becomes more of a "that's us after one poor harvest." Certain ideas are bound to crop up them.

After all what do those poor trash do with their liberty anyway? Better to have them under the patronage of quality persons who can properly supervise them.

 

[Alt History Buff]

In my view Mexico would try and get back Texas.Maybe France could try and take back Louisiana and other Mississippi valley states on historic backgrounds.
I'm pretty sure the northern CSA would be taken over by the US.
I'm not sure whether Spain had the ressorces to try and take Florida.

1865 was way, way too late for France and Spain (whom has already lost its Empire) to try to retake any land in the US.

I don't think it is remotely possible for Mexico to retake Texas. Texas won independence in the 1830's on its own. The population had grown significantly by then and Texas would no doubt get plenty of help from other states (Both US and Confederate).

 

[wcv215]

Because they have the possibility and a claim : they did fight uselessly OTL in Mexico. Thye might as well do so in Louisiana.

What possible claim do they have? Life is not Victoria, France did not retain a core on Louisiania or whatever.

 

[DG Valdron]

1865 was way, way too late for France and Spain (whom has already lost its Empire) to try to retake any land in the US.

I don't think it is remotely possible for Mexico to retake Texas. Texas won independence in the 1830's on its own. The population had grown significantly by then and Texas would no doubt get plenty of help from other states (Both US and Confederate).

Spain's out of the question, of course. France is a long shot. The 2nd Empire was active in Mexico during this time and had an army standing close by. But Louisiana was too vital as the gateway to the Mississippi for either the Confederacy or the US to allow it to be taken. The only way I would see this is if the Union had some sort of arrangement with France against the Confederacy.

A more competent Mexican government (not likely during this period) might fight some border disputes with Mexico, but I don't think that they'd try to reverse the results of the Texas war. That said, it strikes me as ASB that the Union would intervene.

 

[Keperry]

If the Confederacy wins and then falls apart, could a slave rebellion or revolution be possible in one of those newly independent states (one with a higher black population like South Carolina or Mississippi), moreso than it would be in a united Confederacy?

 

[DG Valdron]

If the Confederacy wins and then falls apart, could a slave rebellion or revolution be possible in one of those newly independent states (one with a higher black population like South Carolina or Mississippi), moreso than it would be in a united Confederacy?

Slave rebellions are guaranteed. There were a lot of them in the old South. Nat Turner was just the tip of the iceberg. Every slave owner slept with a pistol under his pillow.

Success? That's difficult. Haiti was a successful slave rebellion, but they had a lot of things going their way.

My view is that it's inevitable that it will happen, likely several times, and almost impossible to succeed.

 

[jahenders]

It depends, of course, a lot on what exactly the "win" entails, how severe, and when.

That being said, I think there is a very good chance of some level of CSA collapse after a win. Though they joined together to secede, their goals/priorities were far from universal and they (obviously) showed a pretty strong "independent" streak. So, I think tensions (including probable economic limitation) could cause some states to split off.

For example, within 10 years you might have some combination of Texas, Florida, Tennessee, NC, or AR leave the CSA. Some of these might try to "go it on their own" as independent countries, while others (TN, AR, etc) might be willing to abandon slavery to seek re-admission to the US.

Over time, the US might try to "woo" some of the other remaining states back, especially assuming they eventually find slavery unprofitable and/or untenable. Even VA, for instance, might decide to come back after 20-30 years, leaving the CSA to either admit overall failure and fold or just move their capital elsewhere.

 

[ThePest179]

Very likely. The CSA was built on subjugating 1/3 of its population, and this isn't counting the pro-Union militias still active post-war* or their Northern neighbors looking for ways to screw them over.

The whole thing falls apart after massive slave rebellions and a US invasion.


*Important to note that most of the votes for secession won in small margins, some might have been rigged, and in Texas the vote was not to secede, however secessionists took the state over by force afterwards.