I'm fairly old (over 60) and read textbooks throughout school that taught that Reconstruction was at best misguided do-goodism and at worst criminal oppression of white southerners by vindictive Radical Republicans. It was a policy favored by vicious extremists who abandoned Lincoln's fair and humane treatment of the South, and probably the biggest mistake in American history that turned good Southerners into racists. Seriously! And these books were published in Chicago and New York! Nary a peep about what blacks in the South endured or thought. You need to remember that, even into the mid 20th century, blacks basically didn't register in American popular culture, and "Birth of a Nation" was not yet seen as the racist diatribe that it is. History was interpreted through the eyes of white people and largely judged by its effect on white people.
WI: Confederates win, but collapse?
- Thread starter Gan
- Start date
I'm fairly old (over 60) and read textbooks throughout school that taught that Reconstruction was at best misguided do-goodism and at worst criminal oppression of white southerners by vindictive Radical Republicans. It was a policy favored by vicious extremists who abandoned Lincoln's fair and humane treatment of the South, and probably the biggest mistake in American history that turned good Southerners into racists. Seriously! And these books were published in Chicago and New York! Nary a peep about what blacks in the South endured or thought. You need to remember that, even into the mid 20th century, blacks basically didn't register in American popular culture, and "Birth of a Nation" was not yet seen as the racist diatribe that it is. History was interpreted through the eyes of white people and largely judged by its effect on white people.
So much of this depends on how the south wins the war and how the collapse happens. Is the nation paralyzed by massive internal slave revolt or do certain states disagree with the central government and simply leave?
Texas and Virginia could probably go it alone but many of the other states probably can't (but Virginia could probably be coaxed back with minimal effort). My guess is the Union probably tries to coax back the border states because they'll probably require minimum effort and bloodshed. Once that happens I suspect they'd wait and see what happened with the rest.
Texas and Virginia could probably go it alone but many of the other states probably can't (but Virginia could probably be coaxed back with minimal effort). My guess is the Union probably tries to coax back the border states because they'll probably require minimum effort and bloodshed. Once that happens I suspect they'd wait and see what happened with the rest.
A massive slave revolt could never get off the ground. The Southern States would stomp it before it got well under way. You might get some escapees making nuisances of themselves from hideouts in the Dismal Swamp and/or Louisianan Bayous, but that's likely to be about it.
usertron2020
Donor
1) I'm 54.
2) Depending on just HOW old you are exactly and just WHERE
you were raised, you could have expected to have been fed poisonous Dunning Thesis claptrap up until the 1960s. If you grew up in the South, God knows when the textbooks were finally updated.Consider: No Reconstruction historian of ANY stature was a NON-Southerner prior to the 1960s. Small wonder if you were fed this nonsense. You didn't see terms like "carpetbaggers" or "scalawags" in MY textbooks growing up, other than that they were used by the KKK against Yankees moving South after the war, or against Southern Whites co-operating with Reconstruction.
3) Beautifully put. A classic and infamous case of history starting out as Historical Negationism, requiring very heavy Historical Revisionism in the 60s to produce genuine Historical Fact. Funny. Its usually the other way around.
The internet is filled with Negationists, but thankfully Ian keeps a tight collar on them here.By border states, can I assume you mean those states south of the actually identified states as belonging top the OTL terms Border States? I.E., Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri?
If so, that means Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and the Indian Territory. IDK whether any of these states will respond to 'coaxing', short of some kind of Jake Featherstone/Vlad Tepes turn in CSA politics. The Union has already drawn on so much political capital by keeping the Border States loyal.
Indeed. One of the reasons the South did so well at the start of the ACW was that the Antebellum South by 1860 was an armed camp, plus they had a military tradition. Consider: Even as late as 1941 the US Army Officer Corps was of 75% White Southerner extraction!
While control of communications and movement within the South wasn't up to Okhrana levels, they were certainly heading in that direction.
Well, they can try.
Every slave owner lived in fear and slept a gun under their pillow. They bought and sold human beings, they raped women, separated children from their mothers, and worked people to death. They pretended to themselves that it was right and just, they told themselves it was natural, they pretended that they were looking after their victims, and they told themselves that their victims loved them.
But deep down, they knew the truth of what they were. And the people they tortured and chained knew it too.
They were only going to maintain the system with perpetual brutality, and everyone knows what that brings.
So there were going to be slave revolts, massive ones and small ones. I won't say the slaves would win. But they were going to happen.
OP raises a really interesting question. I hope I'm not repeating anyone.
I think a big factor in answering what states stay and go is the slave population. Many of the states are going to have very large, or even majority, slave populations, and now they find themselves with very few resources to keep that population in line. So some of these states will probably need to band together in some sense in order to keep things under control. I'm not saying they would; the CSA just fell apart so making a new union with anyone probably isn't high on the list.
On the other hand, going back to the Union depends on whether or not they get to keep their slaves. If not, then I can see many, many Southern states clinging on to their independence with their last breath.
I think that Texas will have a shot at staying independent. It's far away from the center of Union power, it has the geography to defend itself (never taken in the Civil War), and the slave population is low enough, and the land big enough, that resources won't be tied down keeping the slaves in line (Texas didn't gain a large black population until the Civil War, where masters would flee with their slaves to Texas).
I can also see some of the Upper South states fairing fairly "well" being independent.
The Deep South states are screwed.
I think a big factor in answering what states stay and go is the slave population. Many of the states are going to have very large, or even majority, slave populations, and now they find themselves with very few resources to keep that population in line. So some of these states will probably need to band together in some sense in order to keep things under control. I'm not saying they would; the CSA just fell apart so making a new union with anyone probably isn't high on the list.
On the other hand, going back to the Union depends on whether or not they get to keep their slaves. If not, then I can see many, many Southern states clinging on to their independence with their last breath.
I think that Texas will have a shot at staying independent. It's far away from the center of Union power, it has the geography to defend itself (never taken in the Civil War), and the slave population is low enough, and the land big enough, that resources won't be tied down keeping the slaves in line (Texas didn't gain a large black population until the Civil War, where masters would flee with their slaves to Texas).
I can also see some of the Upper South states fairing fairly "well" being independent.
The Deep South states are screwed.
TFSmith121
Banned
No need to fight as guerillas...
When there were six regiments of cavalry, 14 regiments of heavy and light artillery, and 138 regiments of infantry of these individuals...
When there were six regiments of cavalry, 14 regiments of heavy and light artillery, and 138 regiments of infantry of these individuals...
When there were six regiments of cavalry, 14 regiments of heavy and light artillery, and 138 regiments of infantry of these individuals...
If they join up with backwood guerillas, and score some northern arms deals, hell how many OTL Latin American dictatorships have fallen that way?
Why should such revolts be any more likely after the ACW than before it?
The south is still the same armed camp, where every white man has a gun, but hardly any blacks do.
Incidentally, I understand that thousands of slaves took the opportunity to run away during the ARW, when the British Army was disrupting life in the southern colonies in 1780-81, and many escaped in the chaos. Yet once the war ended order was soon reimposed, and slavery continued for another 80 years. Why would it be different after a successful war for Southern independence?
Look at my above post. Those three things:
1. A popular guerilla movement
2. A rouge faction of the military.
3. foreign arms deals.
Have brought down nations. How is the CSA any different?
And I repeat my question. How are any of these factors more serious after the ACW than before it - or more serious after a Southern WoI than after the American one?
For Pete's sake, the Blacks couldn't even defeat the KKK, despite the South having been totally defeated and their having government support. So how the [expletive deleted] do they stand an earthly in a world where the South has won?
Any slave found off the plantation without a pass would just get shot out of hand. A revolt would never have the chance to get "massive".
And how far had rebellious slaves got before the ACW against the organised states of the South
As in, 'occurring pretty much on a yearly basis through the region.'
Why do you think the South was an armed camp anyway? You figure they just liked the pretty uniforms. The South was terrified of its slaves and slave revolts.
And thousands of slaves continued to run away after the ARW on such a constant basis that southern physicians diagnosed an actual mental illness - 'Drapesomania - the compulsion of a slave to run away',
It was such a persistent thing that the term 'underground railroad' emerged describing both the numbers and the level of organisation of fleeing slaves.
It was such a persistent and troublesome thing that the South insisted on imposing the 'Fugitive Slave Act' on the North.
Well, arguably, after Reconstruction it was imposed again. But it was always based on horrific levels of violence. And there was a constant level of resistance.
Am I saying that slave revolts would be successful? Nope.
On the other hand, a politically isolated confederacy, economically handicapped, and lurching from crisis to crisis. A resentful North, no longer under political control of the South. A passionate, ideologically committed abolitionist movement to supply weapons and contact. Damned right you would get more and nastier revolts.
The Antebellum South was a nasty, violent, dysfunctional society that was propped up by a resource based export economy and the functionality of the north that they despised. It wasn't going to become a magical land of free ponies on independence. Rather, it was going to magnify its dysfunction.
TFSmith121
Banned
Yep ... Happy, contented slaves they were not
Yes; "happy, contented slaves" they were not.
The common theme in all "successful confederacy" posts is a) the actual process in which the rebellion wins is never provided in any detail, and b) the reality that one-third of the south' population were brutally repressed chattel (much higher in a couple of states, actually) and c) said "successful confederacy" and brutally repressed chattel have a land frontier the length of more than half the continent AND friends to the north AND in the USCTs the trained personnel for cadre...
Do the math; makes China in the Nineteenth and early Twentieth look like an oasis of peace and stability.
Best,
Yes; "happy, contented slaves" they were not.
The common theme in all "successful confederacy" posts is a) the actual process in which the rebellion wins is never provided in any detail, and b) the reality that one-third of the south' population were brutally repressed chattel (much higher in a couple of states, actually) and c) said "successful confederacy" and brutally repressed chattel have a land frontier the length of more than half the continent AND friends to the north AND in the USCTs the trained personnel for cadre...
Do the math; makes China in the Nineteenth and early Twentieth look like an oasis of peace and stability.
Best,
Well, if that's true the revolts can't have been very "massive".
Had the South been facing a serious slave revolt every year, how could it ever have seceded? It could never have sent its men of military age away to the war with all those rebellious slaves left in the rear. Yet that is exactly what it was able to do.
I've no doubt most slaves were far from happy with their lot; but that doesn't mean they were in any position to do anything about it. They weren't.
usertron2020
Donor
TFSmith: Clap clap clap encore
Agreed. A state like North Carolina might be more interested in Re-Union, but they're geographically isolated.
I really REALLY REALLY don't see Texas staying out of the Union. It blocks the USA's access to Southern California, the Arizona Territory, Utah, and (partially) Colorado. I mentioned about Texas facing a possible four front Union invasion post-ACW: the OTL Native American counter-offensive that drove the Texans back to their pre-1850 borders (imagine if they are supplied by the Union Army), Union-supported Juarista Mexico (with the possibility of using Mexico as a Union base to invade Texas over the Rio Grande), invading troops from New Mexico, and Union troops coming from an easily conquered Indian Territory. I forgot the FIFTH invasion route: Amphibious invasions all along the Texas Gulf Coast by an unimpeded Union Navy/Marines/Army.
And Texas is flat flat flat territory, much of it still inhabited by Natives.
Not rebellions so much as revolts designed to facilitate mass population migrations. I would imagine that the CSA would soon find itself be depopulated of its slaves all along the Union border, and for a good hundred miles to the interior. That would only get worse as time went on and the Underground Railroad grew and grew. Also, expect the Union to finally put unrelenting teeth into the Anti-Slave Trade Treaties. With the Royal Navy cutting off the flow from Africa and the Union Navy covering the CSA coastline, the Slavers will soon find themselves with a dwindling supply of property. Unless, God forbid, they actually started treating their slaves better
Jefferson Davis' slaves, supposedly living on a "model" plantation, ran off to Federal forces just as quickly as everyone else
Such a comparison is really unfair. To China
Agreed. A state like North Carolina might be more interested in Re-Union, but they're geographically isolated.
I really REALLY REALLY don't see Texas staying out of the Union. It blocks the USA's access to Southern California, the Arizona Territory, Utah, and (partially) Colorado. I mentioned about Texas facing a possible four front Union invasion post-ACW: the OTL Native American counter-offensive that drove the Texans back to their pre-1850 borders (imagine if they are supplied by the Union Army), Union-supported Juarista Mexico (with the possibility of using Mexico as a Union base to invade Texas over the Rio Grande), invading troops from New Mexico, and Union troops coming from an easily conquered Indian Territory. I forgot the FIFTH invasion route: Amphibious invasions all along the Texas Gulf Coast by an unimpeded Union Navy/Marines/Army.
And Texas is flat flat flat territory, much of it still inhabited by Natives.
What do you consider "Upper South"?
Not rebellions so much as revolts designed to facilitate mass population migrations. I would imagine that the CSA would soon find itself be depopulated of its slaves all along the Union border, and for a good hundred miles to the interior. That would only get worse as time went on and the Underground Railroad grew and grew. Also, expect the Union to finally put unrelenting teeth into the Anti-Slave Trade Treaties. With the Royal Navy cutting off the flow from Africa and the Union Navy covering the CSA coastline, the Slavers will soon find themselves with a dwindling supply of property. Unless, God forbid, they actually started treating their slaves better
Jefferson Davis' slaves, supposedly living on a "model" plantation, ran off to Federal forces just as quickly as everyone else
Why do you need details for a fap-worthy fantasy?
Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and above all, South Carolina. Didn't you ever wonder why they fired first?
Such a comparison is really unfair. To China
Last edited:
usertron2020
Donor
Slave revolts were few and far between, but fairly bloody when they happened. Of course, like the medieval lords that they were, the Slavocrats' responses to revolts was always far bloodier.
As to the Civil War and the slaves that were kept down, well, for the most part, they weren't. If the Union Army got to within 100 miles of the slaves, they were gone. And CSA law insured exemptions from military service for slavers and their overseers, depending on their number of slaves. So to some degree, in the case of individual plantations, and the degree over which they controlled communications, the slaves just didn't know what was going on. A good example of this is the African-American holiday of "Juneteenth". Celebrated in Texas, because the Whites refused to even TELL their slaves that they were free until when on June 14th 1865, with the arrival of the Union Army in East Texas, it was left to the Yankees themselves to tell the EX-slaves that they had actually been free for two full months!
To a certain degree, the slavers, or in some cases, their spouses, had been forced to "come to an understanding" with their slaves if they didn't want to see mass runoffs. As in, no whips, no use of chattel, no selling of slaves. But anyone who had practiced mutilation could expect to see their slaves gone whatever the promises, and whatever the distances to the nearest Union soldier.
Last edited: