"CSA Today"

[Hashemite]

CSA wins in 1865. i would ask first how would a victorious CSA be today? When would slavery be abolished? What territories would it have in 2006?, and who would be the President?

[Smaug]

Just my opinion, but I think slavery was already becoming unprofitable. The latter Civil War Era of sharecropping put blacks further back than a possible CSA timeline.

I'm not a bigot or slavery friendly person by any stretch, but I can't help but think that the way Imancipation was crammed down the South's throat, it certainly encouraged some of the animosity that lasted till the 1960's.

Many of the citizens of the border states realised that it just wasn't as profitable, and much like communism, took all the benefit out of excelling. Making them work part of your property, and giving them a garden to do with as they would, was far cheaper than feeding, clothing, and assuring that the slaves were in good health.

I honestly think that, "The Imancipation Proclamation" did more harm than good to blacks, in the long run.

It all comes down to economics....Almost all conflicts have.

[Evil Opus]

The CSA is conquered in the 1940's by the United States after a fascist CS regime starts WWII. The Germans take over France, and England is given a bloody nose. The US occupation of the CSA continues until 1991, when the original states that formed the Confederacy in 1861 are granted independece. President George W. Bush of the Whig Party was elected in 2004 over Democrat Zell Miller to a six year term. President Bush has been somewhat unpopular ever since Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans.

[JimmyJimJam]

The CSA collapses by 1870.

[Filo]

I'm arriving in Year 2006 with my Timeline(just in year 1925)
I belive that the south was expanding in caraibean islands and the president may be Pat Buchanan or wors Pat Robertson.
Slavery continue for a lot(If not for economic reasons at least as cultural factor) and was abolished arounth 1890 as for Brasil

[DoleScum]

CSA wins in 1865. i would ask first how would a victorious CSA be today? When would slavery be abolished? What territories would it have in 2006?, and who would be the President?

1. Given the fact that the CSA toyed with the idea of partial of phased emancipation during the closing stages of the civil war, mainly in order to gain supprt from Britain and France, slavery could have been removed as an institution quite early during the CSA's history. Although certainly the CSA would have instituted a strong 'apartheid' type political and social system.
Free coloured citizens of the CSA would probably have few political rights, would be totally disenfranchised and would probably be barred from certain professions and from holding substantial amounts of proerty/assets.

2. Economically the CSA would find life very difficult. The Civil War and disruption to the trans-Atlantic cotton trade meant that Europeans were able to locate or produce alternative sources of raw cotton. The CSA would have found it extremely hard to regain the total dominance of supply it had enjoyed prior to the war.
Also the European textiles market was due to go into long-term decline during the 1870s. Meaning the CSA would either have had to switch to agricultural production - something it would need to do in order to avoid dependency on US food supplies, or 'King Tobacco'.
The CSA would also be saddled with a huge amount of government debt. The CSA ran up massive amounts of debt in Europe by dishing out government bonds in Britain and France with ridiculously high rates of interest. Failure to pay these debts could have led to joint Frano-British intervention in the CSA at some point in the future - as happened in Mexico, Egypt and China during the mid-C19th.

[Heart of Darkness]

1. Given the fact that the CSA toyed with the idea of partial of phased emancipation during the closing stages of the civil war, mainly in order to gain supprt from Britain and France, slavery could have been removed as an institution quite early during the CSA's history.

Interesting that you'd say this. By the end of 1864 - beginning of 1865, when the emancipation of blacks willing to fight for the CSA began, I think recognition by England or France of the CSA was a hallucinatory pipe dream. I think the emancipation had more to do with the CSA government desperately trying to find more bodies to fill it ranks.

Which brings me to my point: What an Independent CSA would look like would probably have a lot to do, if not mostly to do, with how it won its independence. 1) An early victory in which the North just fumbled around and came to terms before the election. 2) A peace canidate winning the elections, 3) Or some continued years of strife and the CSA eventually winning a guerrilla war sometime between 1865 and 1870.

I think the earlier it wins, the less likely you are to see many social changes in the CSA any time soon, such as aboloshment of slavery (Maybe as late as the early 20th century), or a move away from a culture dominated by the planter aristocracy. Of course slavery would eventually end, and their economy would diversify, but their racial hang ups would remain as strong as ever. (Granted, I'm sure forced emancipation added some measure of hostillity to the newly freed blacks, but the writings of men like R.E. Lee and Jeff Davis, J.E Brown (Governor of Georgia), Ect, provide ample evidence that the maintence of racial caste system was considered a matter of the upmost importance by southern elites, long before the civil war ever brought the prospect of forced emancipation out of the realm of fantasy.

Today, the CSA might look very much like South Africa did during aparteid, at least in form. They'd have a significant black population, but the international pressure on them to reform would be significantly less because blacks wouldn't constitute a majority, and especially not a super majority like they did in South Africa.

A latter victory date probably produces more disruptions in the South's society. A win for McClellan might have brought about an independent South, but McClellan himself might not have been such a roll-over as people imagine. I think a McClellan presidential victory, comming at a time when the Southern's generals already realized that their war-making resources were nearing exhaustion, might have more likely brought about a negotioated re-union rather than the conquest that resulted a year later. Reconstruction would have been tabled, and the Emmancipation proclomation might have ended up being worth about as much as toilet paper indian treaties were written on, but the Southern states, one by one, might have started to vote to rejoin the union - under pressure, but with certain garantees - untill all but a handful had rejoin. The holdouts would have probably 'seen the light' withing a decade or two as well.

Such an outcome would have effected the national culture of the entire United States, probably delaying emmancipation in effect, and worsening race relations slightly, even greater segregation than we have today, blacks just as likely as hispanics to have the lowest of the low paying jobs, migrant workers, maids, ect, (but I think it'd take a while for a person ISOT'ed from our TL to this one a while to pick up on the subtle differences. )


Now if the south won through gureilla war, all bets are off the table. Its old institutions would have probably come through such a conflict shattered, and emancipation in effect if not through proclimation would likely be inevitable. How many blacks chose to fight with the insurgents would effect future race relations, but such a hardfought and vicious campaign - if successful - might be just enough to give the south a truly seperate culture from the rest of the united states, rather than the thin / watery difference that existed between an average southernor and average northerner, mostly due (if not solely due) to the peculiar institution of slavery. But predicting what it'd look like today is hard, because I believe such a south might have eneded up being fertile breeding ground from some of the more radical ideas of early 20th century, for it'd be licking its wounds and trying to recover from the resulting power vaccum.

(State Governments would probably collapse during the struggle, or become mere figurehead unable to control the roviving bands of armed gureillas, each claiming to to rightful heirs to the Army of the Northern Virginian, ect.)


Well, that's at least how I see it.

[robertp6165]

...the writings of men like R.E. Lee and Jeff Davis, J.E Brown (Governor of Georgia), Ect, provide ample evidence that the maintence of racial caste system was considered a matter of the upmost importance by southern elites, long before the civil war ever brought the prospect of forced emancipation out of the realm of fantasy.


To what writings do you refer? Robert E. Lee never wrote anything arguing in favor of a "racial caste system." Indeed, in those few instances where he expressed himself on the subject by words or, more importantly, by action, he encouraged acceptance of blacks into society.

Jeff Davis also never, to my knowledge, wrote any such thing. Davis believed, even before the war, that the slaves were going to be freed in the relatively near future, and that they would have to be prepared for citizenship. He educated many of the slaves on his own plantation because of these beliefs.

If you are going to make assertions like this, it would be good to see some examples.

[Heart of Darkness]

The bellow, from http://radgeek.com/gt/2005/01/03/robert_e , is a little tougher on the man than I would be, giving him dispensation for the time and place into which he was born, but for R.E.L., this is my basic point.



I’ve spent some time ragging on neo-Confederate mythistory (http://radgeek.com/gt/2001/05/28/the_civil) here before; today I’d like to take a bit of time to talk about another of the idiot notions popular with the Stars-and-Bars crowd: the idea that Robert E. Lee opposed slavery, or that he didn’t own any slaves. No he didn’t, and yes he did. Robert E. Lee defended the institution of slavery and personally owned slaves.


Lee cheerleaders love to point out that Lee wrote to his wife, in 1856, that In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil He did write that, but the use of the quotation is dishonest. The quote is cherry-picked from a letter that Lee wrote to his wife on December 27, 1856 (http://fair-use.org/robert-e-lee/letter-to-his-wife-on-slavery); the passage from which it was taken actually reads:
In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.
—Robert E. Lee, letter to his wife on slavery (http://fair-use.org/robert-e-lee/letter-to-his-wife-on-slavery) (December 27, 1856)
Lee, in other words, regarded slavery as an evil—but a necessary evil ordained by God as the white man’s burden. Far from expressing opposition to the institution of slavery, the purpose of his letter was actually to condemn abolitionists; the letter was an approving note on a speech by then-President Franklin Pierce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Pierce), which praised Pierce’s opposition to interference with Southern slavery, and declared that the time of slavery’s demise must not be sped by political agitation, but rather left to God, with whom two thousand years are but as a Single day. After that reassuring note, Lee goes on to offer an impassioned plea for toleration of the Spiritual liberty to enslave an entire race:
Although the Abolitionist must know this, & must See that he has neither the right or power of operating except by moral means & suasion, & if he means well to the slave, he must not Create angry feelings in the Master; that although he may not approve the mode which it pleases Providence to accomplish its purposes, the result will nevertheless be the same; that the reasons he gives for interference in what he has no Concern, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbors when we disapprove their Conduct; Still I fear he will persevere in his evil Course. Is it not strange that the descendants of those pilgrim fathers who Crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom of opinion, have always proved themselves intolerant of the Spiritual liberty of others?
And what did the painful discipline … necessary for their instruction mean? One of the sixty-three slaves that Lee inherited from his father-in-law explains:
My name is Wesley Norris; I was born a slave on the plantation of George Parke Custis; after the death of Mr. Custis, Gen. Lee, who had been made executor of the estate, assumed control of the slaves, in number about seventy; it was the general impression among the slaves of Mr. Custis that on his death they should be forever free; in fact this statement had been made to them by Mr. C. years before; at his death we were informed by Gen. Lee that by the conditions of the will we must remain slaves for five years; I remained with Gen. Lee for about seventeen months, when my sister Mary, a cousin of ours, and I determined to run away, which we did in the year 1859; we had already reached Westminster, in Maryland, on our way to the North, when we were apprehended and thrown into prison, and Gen. Lee notified of our arrest; we remained in prison fifteen days, when we were sent back to Arlington; we were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where, in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable, was called in, who gave us the number of lashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to lay it on well, an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done. After this my cousin and myself were sent to Hanover Court-House jail, my sister being sent to Richmond to an agent to be hired; we remained in jail about a week, when we were sent to Nelson county, where we were hired out by Gen. Lee’s agent to work on the Orange and Alexander railroad; we remained thus employed for about seven months, and were then sent to Alabama, and put to work on what is known as the Northeastern railroad; in January, 1863, we were sent to Richmond, from which place I finally made my escape through the rebel lines to freedom; I have nothing further to say; what I have stated is true in every particular, and I can at any time bring at least a dozen witnesses, both white and black, to substantiate my statements: I am at present employed by the Government; and am at work in the National Cemetary on Arlington Heights, where I can be found by those who desire further particulars; my sister referred to is at present employed by the French Minister at Washington, and will confirm my statement.
—Testimony of Wesley Norris (http://fair-use.org/wesley-norris/testimony-of-wesley-norris) (1866); reprinted in John W. Blassingame (ed.): Slave Testimony: Two Centuries of Letters, Speeches, and Interviews, and Autobiographies Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press (ISBN 0-8071-0273-3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Booksources&isbn=0807102733)). 467-468.
Some Lee hagiographers seem to be completely unaware that Lee ever owned slaves, much less treated them like this. Part of that’s just the warping of tidbits they heard elsewhere—it’s true that Lee did not own any slaves during most of the Civil War—and part of it is, frankly, dishonest fudging—Lee’s sixty-three slaves were, in spite of being legally under his control and forced to work on his plantation, not held under his own name, but rather temporarily under his control as an inheritance from his father-in-law, G.W.P. Custis (http://www.nathanielturner.com/willofgeorgewashingtonparkecustis.htm). Other Lee cheerleaders recognize that Lee did own slaves, but give him props for manumitting them. What they leave out of the record is that Custis’s will legally required Lee to emancipate the slaves that passed into his control within five years of Custis’s death. Custis died October 10, 1857 and his will was probated December 7, 1857 (about a year after Lee wrote his letter on slavery); Lee kept the slaves as long as he could, and finally filed the deed of manumission with Court of the City of Richmond on December 29, 1862—five years, two months, and nineteen days after Custis’s death.


Custis actually gave freedom to his slaves without qualification in his will; the matter of the five years was supposed to be time for Custis’s executors to do the legal paperwork for emancipation in such manner as may to [them] seem most expedient and proper. There’s good reason to read the clause as intending for the five years to serve as an upper bound on settling the legal details, not as five more years for driving the slaves for whatever last bits of forced labor could be gotten. Lee, however, did not see it that way, and set the slaves to for his own profit for as long as he could. We have already seen that some of the slaves disagreed with Lee on this point of legal interpretation, and how he treated those who acted on their legal theory by seceding from his plantation.


Of course, Lee never was very big on secession at all. Those who love to haul out the Confederacy — Lee included — as heros for secessionist self-determination tend to neglect comments such as this one:
Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for perpetual union so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution.
—Robert E. Lee, letter, 23 January 1861
Secession allowed; anarchy established, and not a government; one sighs—if only.
Robert E. Lee is no hero. He was a defender of slavery and a harsh critic of abolitionism; he was also a slaver who brutally punished those who sought their rightful freedom. There are many reasons to damn the Federal government’s role in the Civil War, but none of them offer any excuse for celebrating vicious men such as Lee.

[DoleScum]

Heart of Darkness, good post sir.

Interesting that you'd say this. By the end of 1864 - beginning of 1865, when the emancipation of blacks willing to fight for the CSA began, I think recognition by England or France of the CSA was a hallucinatory pipe dream. I think the emancipation had more to do with the CSA government desperately trying to find more bodies to fill it ranks

Agreed, although the Confederates were aware that the emancipation proclamation European support for the Confederacy rapidly shrank. The passing of a Confederate emancipation law in 64-65 would have had little impact on European opinion because most Europeans believed the Confederates were already screwed and because the 'partial' plan to release slaves for service in the military fell far behind Linocolns promise of immediate freedom.

Which brings me to my point: What an Independent CSA would look like would probably have a lot to do, if not mostly to do, with how it won its independence. 1) An early victory in which the North just fumbled around and came to terms before the election. 2) A peace canidate winning the elections, 3) Or some continued years of strife and the CSA eventually winning a guerrilla war sometime between 1865 and 1870.

An excellent point, and one which I totally agree with.

To me it seems that the only option for a viable Confederate nation would be an early victory, coupled with recognition by Britain and France prior to 1863. This way the Confederates retain the slaves system and have not suffered too much economic damage as a result of the war.
A CSA emerging after 1863 would have been so radically different from the ideal established by secession that it may indeed have foundered and shrunk, with individual states going crawling back to the Union. The interesting point here is how viable would a CSA be in which the government had found it necessary to free and arm large numbers of slaves in order to win independence? I'm imagining that there would be a huge amount of disaffection amongst the Confederate planter classes.

Today, the CSA might look very much like South Africa did during aparteid, at least in form. They'd have a significant black population, but the international pressure on them to reform would be significantly less because blacks wouldn't constitute a majority, and especially not a super majority like they did in South Africa.

The South Africa comparison is interesting but the difference in this TL would be the presence of a strong and prosperous USA just accross the boarder. I'm assuming that even if the US recognised the CSA it would continue to collude in helping slaves to escape, possibly leading to numerous diplomatic rifts and maybe even a complete closing of the CS - US boarder.

[Straha]

The Confederacy as it stands today consists of southern virginia, tennessee, florida, cuba, alabama, missisipi, mexico minus baja california, north carolina, arkansas, central america north of panama, louisiana, texas, georgia, south carolina and liberia. The Confederacy also has claims on the moon and mars. Confederate jackboots are in its latin puppet governments or manning bases inside the CSA to watch the slaves and prevent the yankees from getting ideas. The CSA is second only to the Union in terms of international power and influence.

Slavery's end ranged from the early 10 mid 20th century in upper dixie(1940's in virginia) and mexico to never in deep dixie. Only a couple of valley states(central mexico), cuba and virginia DON'T have apartheid of some sort or another. In some cases the apartheid is merely as mild as OTL's jim crow in others its much worse. Pretty much everywhere in the CSA noncitizens(blacks and darker latins) have a curfew of 8 PM every night. THese noncitizens can also be drafted for forced albor projects such as the key west/habana highway or rebuilding new orleans after hurricane katrina.

The CSA handled the demographics issues of the rising black and latin populations by divide and conquer tactics. In fact it divided up the lighter blacks and latins from their darker relatives by making the catagories of mixedz and latin. These new lighter groups got more legal rights and privilages than the rest of the black/latin population enjoys. Race relations with these groups ended up being advanced compared to OTL's race relations in dixie by a large amount leading to extensive intermarrying between whites/mixed and white/latin o latin/mixed. The CSA uses alot of guest workers but citizenship is HARD to get. The Confederacy uses meztizo or black peons/slaves for jobs citizens won't do. Due to the cheap supply of labor, the CSA doesn't use as much labor saving technology. That combined withthe more genteel and relaxed attitude towards life has produced a different application of high tech in the CSA than in the USA.

Current Confederate president is Robert Harris. An election campaign is currently going on and the current frontrunner is Jebediah H. Rodack of the plantation party. The 3 parties in CS politics are the Democrats, One Nation Party and Plantation party. The 3 parties in US politics are the Liberals(semi-libertarians), Country party(vaguely centrist) and the Greens(social democrats). The Union president is Wendell Cohen.

Due to different sociocultural development gay rights are long accepted in both north and south. Gay marriage(in fact if not name) has been legal for nearly 30 years in both the USA(EVERYONE simply gets civil unions with the churches deciding what they'll call "marriage") and CSA(its legal). The reasons it was legalized in the US were because od a d. The Confederate reasons for legalizing are a desire to make gays have to live under the same standards as straights(Confederates are prudish about sex outside of marriage)

[The Mists Of Time]

Human nature being what it is, I have always thought that if The Confederacy had won the Civil War they would not have been content to go south of the Potomac River and have two seperate countries. I have always felt if The South had won then Confederate troops would have occupied the North the same way that Federal troops occupied the South in OTL.

The two halves, North and South would have come together as one country and one government again. The North and South needed each other. The South was so agricultural and the North becoming so industrial, I'm not sure long term the two could have really survived as seperate countries. I think they would have had to work closely together and eventually come back together as one country to survive. Where the Capitol would be, how the government would be set up is a good question. The constitutions of both the USA and CSA are nearly word for word duplicates, except the CSA Constitution limits The President to a single 6 year term and allows and promotes slavery.

As to slavery, I feel it would have been phased out, perhaps fairly quickly, either as a concession to The North, because it was already recognized as becomming economically unfeasible, or because of how the rest of the world was viewing slavery and The South because of slavery. Probably for all three reasons.

If that had happened I think Civil Rights would have come much sooner and with much less turmoil. I think part of the problem with Civil Rights in the early 1960's was that it started coming a little less than 100 years after the end of The Civil War and a lot of the feelings about the war were still too close. I think The Federal Government imposing Civil Rights in the early 1960's was psychologically viewed by a number of southern whites at the time as the victorious North imposing itself on an already vanquished South. Those feelings wouldn't have accompanied Civil Rights if The South had won the Civil War.

Beyond that, I don't know what the ATL would have been like, how much it would have been different or how much it would have been like OTL. But after a certain point, I think we might be surprised at how close the ATL would be like OTL.

[WFHermans]

Victorious in the sense of the CSA taking over is quite different from existing beyond 1865.

[The Mists Of Time]

Victorious in the sense of the CSA taking over is quite different from existing beyond 1865.

I'm assuming the CSA would have had the military capacity to occupy the North after the war. With that in mind let me ask this.

You are the CSA and you've just won the Civil War and are in a position to name all the terms of The North's surrender. Evn though you have the agricultural power to grow food and cotton, The North has the righ industrial capacity. You're aware of the difference that could have made in the war. You are also aware the world is moving from reliance on an agrarian economy to an industrial one.

Are you going to let The North to build up its industry and become a world economic power while agricultural economies like your's shrink from power, or are you going to occupy The North against whom you've won the war and take that industrial might for yourself?

[David S Poepoe]

I'm assuming the CSA would have had the military capacity to occupy the North after the war. With that in mind let me ask this.

You are the CSA and you've just won the Civil War and are in a position to name all the terms of The North's surrender. Evn though you have the agricultural power to grow food and cotton, The North has the righ industrial capacity. You're aware of the difference that could have made in the war. You are also aware the world is moving from reliance on an agrarian economy to an industrial one.

Are you going to let The North to build up its industry and become a world economic power while agricultural economies like your's shrink from power, or are you going to occupy The North against whom you've won the war and take that industrial might for yourself?

The South was never in the position to occupy the North in the event of victory. They don't have the manpower - and suggesting so is crazy. What you are missing is that there are inherit limitations in the Confederate Government, small but important ones, that handicap it to a greater extent concerning industrialization.

What you (the CSA) has to do is support the budding industrial base that did start thru out the South. You are going to have to introduce tariffs and protectionalist policies.

[WFHermans]

Well this is an alternative history forum, remember?

If the CSA would have won a total victory, they would simply have taken over the USA.

[Nicole]

Well this is an alternative history forum, remember?

If the CSA would have won a total victory, they would simply have taken over the USA.
No they wouldn't, that would be foolish- If you read Southern statements, many wanted to be free of the North. The Southerners wanted a democracy, and them controlling said state would be impossible if it included the north.

[The Mists Of Time]

Quote: "If you read Southern statements, many wanted to be free of the North."

Especially in certain kinds of situations, people especially politicians often say one thing and then do something else.

If the South had won the Civil War and would have had the ability and capicity to do so, I still think they would have occupied the North. I think it would have been too rich a prize for them to turn down.

However that would have worked out, I still feel that sooner or later, and probably sooner rather than later, South and North would have come back together again as a single nation. I think both sides would have felt it was in their best long term interest to work together as a single nation rather than being split in two. And beyond a certain point after the war, I think we might be surprised at how close the ATL and OTL would be to each other.

[Straha]

Both Northern and Southern racism would prevent a reunion. Without dixie the US would be mostly immigrant white ethnic and asian(assuming they grab the phillipines). Dixie would be largely southron cracker white, black slaves and latins. That and the increasing cultural differences would prevent the nations from ever wanting to reunite.

[Wendell]

CSA wins in 1865. i would ask first how would a victorious CSA be today? When would slavery be abolished? What territories would it have in 2006?, and who would be the President?
I could see a CSA war over slavery, but assuming that does not happen, the CSA ends up largely as follows:

1865: 11 states, plus most of Indian Territory and pre 1860 New Mexico Territory. Slavery ends in U.S. within a decade. Remainder of NM and IT added to states and territories above them.

1867: Parties form in the new nation: The Demorats and the Whigs; Offers made to Mexico for Northern Sonora. The deal takes the southernmost border of the New Mexico Territory to the Gulf of California; New Mexico is reoranized into wartime Arizona. U.S. bans secession and lobbies to buy HBC with some success. Alaska stays Russian.

1874: Brief border war with U.S. results in Maryland gaining Va. portion of Delmarva. The lower part of the Chesapeake Bay is internationalized. "Saskatchewan" (HBC) Territory divided.

1877: New Columbia (postal code CN) becomes a state. Vancouver will be its capital.

1880: Self-coup in CSA; new constitution and new name adopted; Republic of Dixie is proclaimed with Vicksburg as its capital.

1898: Dixie-Spanish War; Cuba and Puerto Rico ceded to CSA; Spain ends up losing Philippines to Japan, and sells Guam to Germany; U.S. annexes Hawaii as a teritory.

shall I continue?

[robertp6165]

The bellow, from http://radgeek.com/gt/2005/01/03/robert_e , is a little tougher on the man than I would be, giving him dispensation for the time and place into which he was born, but for R.E.L., this is my basic point.

First of all, let me congratulate you. Of all the many times I have called upon the various neo-abolitionists on this board to provide actual historical backing for their positions instead of arguing based on their own self-righteous opinions, you are, I believe, the first to ever attempt to comply. My hat is off to you, sir. :)

In response...First, none of this proves your own argument that Lee favored a racial caste system. At most this proves that Lee was not an abolitionist...or at least, not an abolitionist in the same vein as Northern abolitionists like Garrison, Phillips, and others. And the two are not the same thing.

Second, with regard to the 1856 Lee letter to his wife, the author of the piece you cite is guilty of a bit of cherry-picking himself. He leaves out a rather important section of the letter, to wit...

Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy. This influence though slow, is sure. The doctrines & miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years, to Convert but a small part of the human race, & even among Christian nations, what gross errors still exist! While we see the Course of the final abolition of human Slavery is onward, & we give it the aid of our prayers & all justifiable means in our power, we must leave the progress as well as the result in his hands who sees the end; who Chooses to work by slow influences; & with whom two thousand years are but as a Single day.

Reinserting this section, what we have in this letter is a rather long-winded argument against the tactics being employed at that time by Northern abolitionists...who were busily engaged in demonizing Southerners as immoral persons and sinners against God, which, oddly (sarcasm alert), was a wholly ineffective way of convincing Southerners that slavery ought to be abolished...and not an argument against abolition itself. Indeed, Lee says that we should give the cause of abolition the aid of "our prayers and all justifiable means in our power." The tactics of the Northern abolitionists which Lee condemns were not justifiable, because they achieved the exact opposite of what they were intended to achieve, by placing Southerners into a siege mentality.

Third, the supposed story of Lee ordering the whipping of some of his slaves is rather suspect. What evidence do we have that this man was ever actually a slave on the Custis plantation in the first place? Why is it that, out of 63 slaves on the plantation which were held by Lee for five years, only one ever claimed to have been whipped at the orders of Lee? It is odd that this story only appears in 1866...at a time when Union authorities were actively seeking any sort of testimony...perjured or otherwise...for a possible trial of Lee and other Confederate leaders for treason (the use of perjured testimony by the Federal Government in trials at this time is well documented. Perjured testimony by paid witnesses was used in the trial of Henry Wirz and of the Lincoln Conspirators, for example). Could it be that this man was looking to make himself a little extra cash, perhaps? Without independent corroboration or other examples where Lee had other slaves whipped, please forgive me if I beg leave to doubt.

Fourth, the quotation regarding Lee's opposition to secession is absolutely correct. He did oppose secession. But he considered himself a citizen of Virginia first, and of the United States second. When Virginia seceded, he felt bound by that decision, regardless of his own personal feelings about secession.

That all being said, however, your introduction of this material, while I applaud the attempt, does not prove your assertion that Lee favored a racial caste system. Not even close. You are going to have to do a bit better than that, I am afraid. :)

[htgriffin]

CSA wins in 1865. i would ask first how would a victorious CSA be today? When would slavery be abolished? What territories would it have in 2006?, and who would be the President?
The term Anglophone Banana Republic(s) comes to mind.

Seriously, a strict caste system run by a small minority of extremely wealthy would-be Aristocrats with a plurality of Chattel Slaves (sorry Smaug, the prospect of so many Free Negroes was a thing of horror to any Right Thinking Southern Gentleman) or at best Debt Peons does not make for a lot of overall wealth and productivity. The people at the to would be happy enough, and given the history of political repression nobody else would complain.

The decenteralised political setup has a better-than even chance of keeping the CSA together only by virture of keeping the Central covernment all but useless. That being said Texas may spin off (snatching chunks of Mexico if possible) and it will take generations for Appalachia to be reconciled to the absolute dominance of the Planters. As for further conquests? Attempting them in the Carib is almost a certainty but success in the face of the face of the Royal Navy and the... displeasure of the local Freedmen is less so.

Be that as it may, revolution is also a possibility.

HTG

[htgriffin]

I'm assuming the CSA would have had the military capacity to occupy the North after the war. With that in mind let me ask this.

You are the CSA and you've just won the Civil War and are in a position to name all the terms of The North's surrender. Evn though you have the agricultural power to grow food and cotton, The North has the righ industrial capacity. You're aware of the difference that could have made in the war. You are also aware the world is moving from reliance on an agrarian economy to an industrial one.

Are you going to let The North to build up its industry and become a world economic power while agricultural economies like your's shrink from power, or are you going to occupy The North against whom you've won the war and take that industrial might for yourself?
Given that the Vulgar Industrialism has been proven insufficent, quite likely the former. Jingoistic ClapTrap trumps rationed analysis far too readily.

Besides, they would be stretching themselves impossibly thin by any attempt to occupy the North (or West for that matter).

HTG

[htgriffin]

Well this is an alternative history forum, remember?

If the CSA would have won a total victory, they would simply have taken over the USA.
The ASB board is that way.

HTG

[htgriffin]

No they wouldn't, that would be foolish- If you read Southern statements, many wanted to be free of the North. The Southerners wanted a democracy, and them controlling said state would be impossible if it included the north.
Rhetoric aside, they seemed far more interested in an Ogilarchy where the idea of having lots of slaves working your land was dangled in front of the poorer whites to keep them loyal.

HTG

[Filo]

But if England, that was a Monarchy in wich one branch of parlament is ereditary(since to little years before), is now become a democracy; why the southern states cannot become a full and well working democracy?
Why the Confederacy cannot abolish(or manumiited if you don't like this term) their slaves along with Brasil in 1889 and reform his class sistem?(if ever they have one?)
Margaret Tatcher was not a dukess and neither Tony Blair is an earl so why you must see the confederacy forever linked to year 1800?

[htgriffin]

But if England was a Monarchy in wich one branch of parlament is ereditary(since to little years before) is now become a democracy; why the southern states cannot become a full and well working democracy?That is why I mentioned the possibility of Revolution.
Why the Confederacy cannot abolish(or manumiited if you don't like this term) their slaves along with Brasil in 1889 and reform his class sistem?(if ever they have one?)Because those who would lose the most from Emancipation were in fact running the place. Something that applied neither to Imperial Brazil or the various Caribbian colonies.
Margaret Tatcher was not a dukess and neither Tony Blair is an earl so why you must see the confederacy forever linked to year 1800?
Because, sad to say, the people in charge of the CSA largely liked it that way.

Note, not the populace of the CSA (although smiling and nodding for Massa was a good survival trait), but the leaders whose "animate property" was actually increasing in value. It is possible that Dixie's grandees would adapt/modify the system before it blows up in thier face, but I doubt it.

HTG

[WFHermans]

The ASB board is that way.

HTGWhat's the ASB board?

Anyway...to get a good answer to the what-if question, the victory of the CSA should be elaborated more.

[Filo]

That is why I mentioned the possibility of Revolution.Because those who would lose the most from Emancipation were in fact running the place. Something that applied neither to Imperial Brazil or the various Caribbian colonies.
Because, sad to say, the people in charge of the CSA largely liked it that way.

Note, not the populace of the CSA (although smiling and nodding for Massa was a good survival trait), but the leaders whose "animate property" was actually increasing in value. It is possible that Dixie's grandees would adapt/modify the system before it blows up in thier face, but I doubt it.

HTG

Well if there's a thing i like of America its that americans are a democratic people and i think that the Csa would reform itself also if they would stand conservative; for no other reason that american liberties and constitution is a great value.
No European country have done a thing such that, neither revolutionary France.
So i'm confident that Confederacy would evolve from its antiquates standards.
I use as example Italy, we have a fascist party ruling because our constitution was not strong, and not so loved as american one and the previous governaments had use it as they prefer; giving the way to Mussolini.
I belive that a fascist regime(Maybe a criptofascist ultra conservative governament) was not possible in america.
Neither north or south...

[luakel]

Well this is an alternative history forum, remember?

If the CSA would have won a total victory, they would simply have taken over the USA.
Completely implausible.
I could see a CSA war over slavery, but assuming that does not happen, the CSA ends up largely as follows:

1865: 11 states, plus most of Indian Territory and pre 1860 New Mexico Territory. Slavery ends in U.S. within a decade. Remainder of NM and IT added to states and territories above them.

1867: Parties form in the new nation: The Demorats and the Whigs; Offers made to Mexico for Northern Sonora. The deal takes the southernmost border of the New Mexico Territory to the Gulf of California; New Mexico is reoranized into wartime Arizona. U.S. bans secession and lobbies to buy HBC with some success. Alaska stays Russian.

1874: Brief border war with U.S. results in Maryland gaining Va. portion of Delmarva. The lower part of the Chesapeake Bay is internationalized. "Saskatchewan" (HBC) Territory divided.

1877: New Columbia (postal code CN) becomes a state. Vancouver will be its capital.

1880: Self-coup in CSA; new constitution and new name adopted; Republic of Dixie is proclaimed with Vicksburg as its capital.

1898: Dixie-Spanish War; Cuba and Puerto Rico ceded to CSA; Spain ends up losing Philippines to Japan, and sells Guam to Germany; U.S. annexes Hawaii as a teritory.

shall I continue?
Hmm... If the US is buying HBC, then they might not buy Alaska in 1867, but it's still plausbile they will do so before the gold rush. I also think the US would intervene more in the Pacific. Maybe the OTL Sp-Am War could be a collaboration between the US and CS?

[Heart of Darkness]

First let me tell you I always welcome a good debate, and embark upon my arguments in the spirit of friendly argument. :) And now, with the ghost of Northern soldiers at my back (Haha) I attempt to open a new campaign against Johnny Reb, or at the most famous of damned 'Sesesh.' :D


While we see the Course of the final abolition of human Slavery is onward, & we give it the aid of our prayers & all justifiable means in our power, we must leave the progress as well as the result in his hands who sees the end; who Chooses to work by slow influences; & with whom two thousand years are but as a Single day. ---Robert E. Lee

When it comes to the issue of slavery, it seems to me Lee was something of a sophist. As long as the issues of its immorality and eventual abolition were confined to the ethereal realms of high philosophy and some hypothetical and distant future which neither he, nor his progeny, would ever live to see, he was all for it. Any attempts to bring such high and noble thoughts down to the material plane, and give them flesh and form which might interact, perchance disturb, the current reality was however a “No, No!”

If we were to change this man’s words:

‘While we see the Course of the final independence of the Colonies is onward, & we give it the aid of our prayers & all justifiable means in our power, we must leave the progress as well as the result in his hands who sees the end; who Chooses to work by slow influences; & with whom two thousand years are but as a Single day.’

And transport them into the historical context in which his father lived, we could not construe them in such a way as to believe he’d ever lift a finger to aid the Rebellion. (And might always find a reason to conclude the means of severance unjustifiable, and thus oppose it!) Certainly he would not be categorized as just a different kind of Patriot (in the Revolutionary sense), but no Patriot at all!

Therefore I’d say emphatically he was not a different kind of abolitionist, but no abolitionist at all. No more than me occasionally opining about the evils of strong drink, and rhapsodizing about a distant future in which a triumphant God has successfully eradicated the Devil’s elixir from the earth, drunkenly from my barstool should afford me even a nominal affiliation with the Temperance movement. (Moreover, our friend Lee did lap his fill of the strong drink of slavery, even if he did judiciously avoid the lesser sins of the distillery. Not should it incline the critical thinker to believe I’d ever cast my vote for Prohibition should it reach the ballot boxes!


Third, the supposed story of Lee ordering the whipping of some of his slaves is rather suspect. What evidence do we have that this man was ever actually a slave on the Custis plantation in the first place? Why is it that, out of 63 slaves on the plantation which were held by Lee for five years, only one ever claimed to have been whipped at the orders of Lee? It is odd that this story only appears in 1866...at a time when Union authorities were actively seeking any sort of testimony...perjured or otherwise...for a possible trial of Lee and other Confederate leaders for treason (the use of perjured testimony by the Federal Government in trials at this time is well documented.
Admittedly, the story may or may not be true. I’m not so quick to discount it, however, in light of the fact that Robert E. Lee was more than willing to employ slave catchers – a collection not known for their overabundance of ‘the milk of human kindness – in order to drag men and women attempting to flee back into his own personal bondage. As evidenced by his own words, (from Robert E. Lee: A Biography, by Emory M. Thomas. Pages 177-178):

In May 1858, Lee wrote to Rooney and admitted. "I have had some trouble with some of the people. Reuben, Parks, Edward . . . rebelled against my authority---refused to obey my orders, & said they were free as I was etc. etc. I succeeded in capturing them however, tied them & lodged them in jail. They resisted till overpowered & called upon the other people to rescue them."


Soon after this incident Lee informed William o. Winston, who had helped him settle Francis Nelson’s accounts for Custis at White House and Romancock, that he was sending three male slaves to Richmond under guard. Winston was to rent them if possible to someone in the city. If Winston could find no one to take the men, he was to hire them out on some farm or send them to work at White House. Quite likely the three men were Reuben, Parks, and Edward.

Lee the novice planter continued to have troubles with his slaves. The following summer (1859) at least two Arlington slaves attempted to flee to freedom in Pennsylvania. Captured in Maryland, the runaways returned under guard to Arlington.

Fugitive slaves, Arlington, and the Custis connection with George Washington attracted attention. On June 24th, 1859, Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune printed two anonymous letters written from Washington about Arlington slaves and slaveholder Lee.

One correspondent identified as “A.” suggested that the five-year time limit was an invention of Custis’s heirs and alleged that slaves at Arlington had had to exist on a half-peck of unsifted meal per week, and had “been kept harder at work than ever.” When two men and a woman ran away, “A.” claimed Lee ordered the captured fugitive males given thirty-nine lashes and himself administered thirty-nine lashes to the woman’s bare back. The second letter, written by “A Citizen,” charged that Custis was the father of fifteen of his slaves and then repeated the story of Lee’s punishment of the recaptured runaways.

Now, even I am doubtful that Lee would flog a women, even a black woman whom he felt fit to own, thirty-nine times. Getting his own hands dirty, and doing the evils that must be done to force others to labor so that you may profit, didn't fit well with his psychology --- or that of most of the southern aristocracy for that matter, except for the handful who used their positions of power to indulge in bonifide sadism. But he did employ overseers to manage his lands, and I also found it doubtful flinched at allowing them to perform duties - such as whippings - that are par for the course of interms of extracting forcible labor.

(Indeed I could even see a man as 'noble' as Lee --- and he did have a plethora of admirable qualities, although a commitment to the advancement of human dignity was not one of them --- in his noble way demanding of himself what he'd ask of others and whipping a runaway (male) himself. This, I admit, is just pure speculation. But Lee demonstrated that he could be 'hard' when he needed to be throughout his life, on and off the battlefield, and definately felt he need to be a slaveholder.)

Moreover he did, without regard to their own aspirations or the supposed evil he recognized in the system, hunt down three men - at the least - seeking no more than possession of their own bodies and return them to his grip. I believe these are not the actions of a man who have surrenderd his human chattle at much less than the impetous of Nothern steel.

But surrender them he did, a mere three days before Lincoln's Emancipation proclomation went into effect! And just like the much maligned Lincoln, he freed mostly slaves over which he no longer had any possession. (As he and his wife's slaves were mostly confined to Arlington, which Union forces had already occupied, and true to their war aims by the time, had already set free!)

But the perhaps again Lee said it best, and proved he was affected and embracing of the racial pre-occupations of region, when he told Governor Stockdale of Texas, in 1870:

"Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand."
And at that time, in 1870, what use were the victors putting their victory to? That's right, the The 15th Amendment!

The amendment states, in full:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race), color, or previous condition of servitude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery).Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_power_of_enforcement).
It was ratified on Feburary 3, 1870. And had Lee known it would come to this, not only the abolition of slavery, but the enfranchisment of black men, (which oddly, many of even the most enlightened Southerns considered two seperate issues.) he would have ordered his army to perish to the last man at Appomatox rather than surrender.

'Nuff said.

[Earling]

Frankly I think the CSA would be far more similar to Mexico than its supporters would appreciate. A lack of strong, stable centralised leadership and a subsequent lack of industry and infrastructure see's it largely a play ground for foreign industries and a puppet to the whims of the north.

On the other hand I could see the CSA being the worlds second communist power if Slavery hasn't be removed (in whatever slow and gradual manner) by 1930~ that does presume that whoever leads the revolt could actually drive the Union out which is doubtful.. but if the CSA can somehow win in the civil war...

As a large and powerful state that is somehow disdainful of centralisation, maintains slavery, holds all of Mexico and a swathe of the other possessions I dont see it by 2006. The USA would have no reason to tolerate such a situation, and 20 years post the civil war even the most optimistic CSA win scenario's see the Union fly past in terms of actual power.

[robertp6165]

First let me tell you I always welcome a good debate, and embark upon my arguments in the spirit of friendly argument. :)

Which I greatly appreciate and for which I thank you. This has been, all too often, a rarity on this board.


When it comes to the issue of slavery, it seems to me Lee was something of a sophist. As long as the issues of its immorality and eventual abolition were confined to the ethereal realms of high philosophy and some hypothetical and distant future which neither he, nor his progeny, would ever live to see, he was all for it. Any attempts to bring such high and noble thoughts down to the material plane, and give them flesh and form which might interact, perchance disturb, the current reality was however a “No, No!”

That is one way to look at it. Of course, another way to look at it is that he was a man of the same stripe as Thomas Jefferson, who opposed slavery and believed it to be an evil institution, but was not able to conceive of a way it might be ended.

If we were to change this man’s words:

‘While we see the Course of the final independence of the Colonies is onward, & we give it the aid of our prayers & all justifiable means in our power, we must leave the progress as well as the result in his hands who sees the end; who Chooses to work by slow influences; & with whom two thousand years are but as a Single day.’

And transport them into the historical context in which his father lived, we could not construe them in such a way as to believe he’d ever lift a finger to aid the Rebellion. (And might always find a reason to conclude the means of severance unjustifiable, and thus oppose it!) Certainly he would not be categorized as just a different kind of Patriot (in the Revolutionary sense), but no Patriot at all!

Granted, the quotation above could be construed that way. But, as the author of the piece you originally cited did when referring to defenders of Lee, I would take you to task for "cherry-picking," taking the quote out of context, and ignoring the other, equally important parts of the letter. When taken in context, Lee was condemning the Northern abolitionists for their methods, which he saw as being counter-productive and thus not justifiable. Using your scenario, if the American colonists had been using some unjustifiable and counterproductive method to win their independence...perhaps conducting a campaign of assassination and terrorism in London, for example...Lee might well have said the same type of thing in condemning those actions.

Therefore I’d say emphatically he was not a different kind of abolitionist, but no abolitionist at all. No more than me occasionally opining about the evils of strong drink, and rhapsodizing about a distant future in which a triumphant God has successfully eradicated the Devil’s elixir from the earth, drunkenly from my barstool should afford me even a nominal affiliation with the Temperance movement. (Moreover, our friend Lee did lap his fill of the strong drink of slavery, even if he did judiciously avoid the lesser sins of the distillery. Not should it incline the critical thinker to believe I’d ever cast my vote for Prohibition should it reach the ballot boxes!

I suppose it all boils down to what we mean by "abolitionist." If you mean someone who is actively working toward abolition, Lee certainly was not that. If we mean someone who intellectually supports the cause of abolition, but is unable (or unwilling, as you like) to actively work toward it's achievement (which could be for any number of reasons), then Lee might possibly have been an abolitionist in that sense, just as Thomas Jefferson was. Likely the issue simply wasn't important enough for himself, personally, that he cared to devote time and energy to it's prosecution. Lee wasn't a crusader, and "crusading types" generally annoyed him. In that, he was simply one of the vast majority of people who don't get actively involved in the "cause du jour." I personally don't feel that the point is all that important anyway to the original issue we were discussing, which was did Lee favor a racial caste system.

Admittedly, the story (of Lee ordering the whipping of slaves) may or may not be true. I’m not so quick to discount it, however, in light of the fact that Robert E. Lee was more than willing to employ slave catchers – a collection not known for their overabundance of ‘the milk of human kindness – in order to drag men and women attempting to flee back into his own personal bondage. As evidenced by his own words, (from Robert E. Lee: A Biography, by Emory M. Thomas. Pages 177-178)...etc...

Well, if all the evidence anyone can find is a couple of unsubstantiated letters to the editor, that in and of itself indicates that there is not much truth to the story.

One thing that we modern people are often not aware of is that flogging was not an uncommon punishment unique only to slaves at that time in history. It was widely used as a judicial punishment in the United States, both north and south. Attica Prison, for example, routinely flogged inmates in need of discipline into the mid-1840s...only a decade before the supposed events we are discussing. Many if not most towns, rather than go to the expense of building and maintaining a jail, set up a whipping post instead and petty criminals were whipped instead of being incarcerated (I myself, in the course of researching county records from various locales, have come across quite a few receipts where the local circuit court paid somebody for "whipping a thief.")

Given those conditions, Lee would certainly have not flinched, if he had ordered the whipping of slaves who ran away from the plantation, from mentioning this in his letters. Having slaves flogged under these circumstances would not have been considered a shameful act by most people at that time. He certainly, as you point out, mentions that he pursued and captured them, and that he had them jailed. Why no mention of the whippings in the letters? Perhaps because they didn't happen?

But surrender them he did, a mere three days before Lincoln's Emancipation proclomation went into effect! And just like the much maligned Lincoln, he freed mostly slaves over which he no longer had any possession. (As he and his wife's slaves were mostly confined to Arlington, which Union forces had already occupied, and true to their war aims by the time, had already set free!)

Yes, this is true. But it should also be mentioned that they had been, in a de facto if not de jure sense, free since Arlington was occupied by Union forces in mid-1861. He certainly received no profit from them between that time and late December 1862, when he filed the paperwork formally manumitting them. Given that fact, one might ask why he bothered to file the paperwork at all? The only logical reason for this, aside from Lee's sense of duty, was to ensure that if any of these slaves were captured by the Confederates, they would be treated as free men and not sold back into slavery.

But the perhaps again Lee said it best, and proved he was affected and embracing of the racial pre-occupations of region, when he told Governor Stockdale of Texas, in 1870...

"Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand."

And at that time, in 1870, what use were the victors putting their victory to? That's right, the The 15th Amendment!...It was ratified on February 3, 1870. And had Lee known it would come to this, not only the abolition of slavery, but the enfranchisment of black men, (which oddly, many of even the most enlightened Southerns considered two seperate issues.) he would have ordered his army to perish to the last man at Appomatox rather than surrender.

'Nuff said.

Actually, the Stockdale quote is almost certainly fraudulent (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/992421/replies?c=171). But if he did say it, the Stuart letter, which he signed about 2 weeks after the date of the supposed Stockdale quotation, makes it clear what he was referring to.

The great want of the South is peace. The people earnestly desire tranquillity and restoration of the Union. They deplore disorder and excitement as the most serious obstacle to their prosperity. They ask a restoration of their rights under the Constitution. They desire relief from oppressive misrule. Above all, they would appeal to their countrymen for the re-establishment, in the Southern States, of that which has been justly regarded as the birth-right of every American, the right of self-government.

Lee, if quoted correctly by Stockdale, was referring to the continuing military occupation of the Southern States, the misrule and corruption of the Carpetbag Governments, and the denial of political rights to white Southerners...not the 15th Amendment.

[Cosmos]

Frankly I think the CSA would be far more similar to Mexico than its supporters would appreciate. A lack of strong, stable centralised leadership and a subsequent lack of industry and infrastructure see's it largely a play ground for foreign industries and a puppet to the whims of the north.

Yes, I tend to agree with this scenario. I'd add the possibility of one or more CSA states siding with the US' enemies in WWII, thus requiring the US to keep some forces on the southern border, perhaps occupying part of the CSA for a time during the war. By our time, the CSA would be like Mexico, a place for multi-national corporations to get cheap labor.

At the same time, I think the political-legal enviornment in the US would not be as friendly to such corporations as it is in our universe. What I mean is that a labor-oriented blue state frame of mind would have been the only major opponant to the business Republicans. It would be a US with no bible Belt, no Scopes Trial, etc. The Henry Wallace doctrine of non-interference with the Soviets might have won out. The 2 major parties in the US would be the Republicans and the Democratic Socialists. Thus I do not agree with the next part of your scenario which is:



On the other hand I could see the CSA being the worlds second communist power if Slavery hasn't be removed (in whatever slow and gradual manner) by 1930~ that does presume that whoever leads the revolt could actually drive the Union out which is doubtful.. but if the CSA can somehow win in the civil war...



I don't see as brutal a cold war between the US and USSR (and thus the CSA not eager to join a Soviet-led Stalinist block), because the US, being more socialistic than in our universe, would have decided that a strong resistance to Soviet expansion in Europe and Asia would draw too many resources away from social programs at home. The US would still develop nuclear weapons, though both it and the USSR would build fewer of them. On the other hand, there would still be a strong reaction to the Sputnik launch and a NASA would emerged, its human space program (what in our universe is controled from JSC, Houston) would be based in Cambridge, Mass, specificaly Kendell Sq, as originally proposed by JFK. Perhaps launches would take place from Hawaii.

[Earling]

At the same time, I think the political-legal enviornment in the US would not be as friendly to such corporations as it is in our universe. What I mean is that a labor-oriented blue state frame of mind would have been the only major opponant to the business Republicans. It would be a US with no bible Belt, no Scopes Trial, etc. The Henry Wallace doctrine of non-interference with the Soviets might have won out. The 2 major parties in the US would be the Republicans and the Democratic Socialists. Thus I do not agree with the next part of your scenario which is:


Well I agree with this.

I just think that there is almost certainly going to be a revolution in the CSA over slavery. It seems the CSA will almost inevitably not solve the problems of emancipation and segregation swiftly enough for it to be avoided. In any revolution of the 20th century you can rely on some left wing force claiming to be communist, regardless of whether they are in practice or not. If the USA is more socially minded they might even support a left wing rising in the south.

[Straha]

1 I don't see a US as going socialist because of no CSA. In fact the removal of southron populism from the union may make the US more skeptical of economic populism in general. We'd see more 19th century reform(like a central bank) but we'd avoid the rist of social democracy in the US(the presence of a central bank would prevent various depressions/panics). The lack of southron social conservatism and racism would make the US more socially libertarian(not liberal. Libertarian. Since the civil rights issue would solve itself in the union slowly and early no need for great society style social engineering). This world could see a panic of 1929 or 1930 but no depression. A more capitalist, more socially libertarian America.

2 I see the CSA shambling along for a few decades, fighting another war with the US? and losing some land leading to a depression. The resulting depression would cause alatin america style authoritarian backlash in the 1890's or so and MASSIVE centralization. A CSA run by the elite(both landowners and business), the churches and the state. We'd see a second Confederate constituion, one that probably doesn't provide for any civil liberties for anyone. It probably has lots of clauses relating to puting down dissidents.

3 It wouldn't be a stretch to see an alliance of rural populists and labor unions forming a "Country Party" and an alliance of big business the rich and noneconomic social reformers either continuing the GOP or forming a "Liberal Party". In the. Thanks to the US political system not needing to appease southern segregationists expect the senate filibuster rule to be nonexistent. Also expect gerrymandering to be abolished.

[Cosmos]

Well I agree with this.

I just think that there is almost certainly going to be a revolution in the CSA over slavery. It seems the CSA will almost inevitably not solve the problems of emancipation and segregation swiftly enough for it to be avoided. In any revolution of the 20th century you can rely on some left wing force claiming to be communist, regardless of whether they are in practice or not. If the USA is more socially minded they might even support a left wing rising in the south.
Yes, I agree there would be a revolution in the CSA. I just don't think it would have any reason to identify -or get support from- the USSR. As you say above, the USA itself might be inclined to support left wing elements within the CSA. The USA would provide money and arms. If a movement of blacks and friendly whites led to a revolutionary government taking over in the CSA (or in certain CSA states) they would be socialist yes, but not Stalinist; rather, they would be influenced by the USA socialist party, which I see as being similar to the forerunners of today's Democratic Socialists of America -in other words by the Henry Wallace faction. Alternatively, if the Republicans were dominant in the USA, they might intervene in a southern revolution to create a government friendly to northern business. But as I indicated, given that the Socialists in the north would be more influencial in than in our universe, it still would not be as corporate-friendly we see it now. Either way, however, the CSA would not be run by the sort of Communist party that the USA would perceive as threatening the way that it preceived (and some still do!) the regime of Castro in Cuba, and even Chavez in Venezuela.

[Faeelin]

1 I don't see a US as going socialist because of no CSA. In fact the removal of southron populism from the union may make the US more skeptical of economic populism in general.

I'm not so sure. Where were men like Teddy Roosevelt, and others from? The progressive movement seems to be something that swept most of the western world, and it would probably do so in the ATL too.

[Straha]

I'm not so sure. Where were men like Teddy Roosevelt, and others from? The progressive movement seems to be something that swept most of the western world, and it would probably do so in the ATL too.
We'd see TR type progressive economic reform. Stuff like national banks, proto-new deal stuff earlier than OTL. But with the reforms done earlier than OTL we'd see the labor radicals mollified and end up complacent like how america of OTL avoided going socialist due to the existence of the new deal.

[Cosmos]

We'd see TR type progressive economic reform. Stuff like national banks, proto-new deal stuff earlier than OTL. But with the reforms done earlier than OTL we'd see the labor radicals mollified and end up complacent like how america of OTL avoided going socialist due to the existence of the new deal.

The progressive wing of the Democratic Party is in line with the Democratic Socialists of America in terms of policy. I'd say all that would be needed is a little bit less opposition than currently exists. Without the Bible Belt, the business Republicans would have less leverage and the DSA would be one of the major parties. I'm not saying that the USA would be socialist as a matter of course, just that socialism would be one of two competing ideologies, the other being liberatarianism. Sometimes one groups would be in power, sometimes the other. Often one group would control the presidency while the other controled congress, just like the Dems and Reps of our TL

[Straha]

Actually for the competing ideologies in the US I've got a mix of populism, progressivism and moderate democratic socialism on one side and semi-libertarianism(not as extreeme) on the other.

[Wendell]

Completely implausible.

Hmm... If the US is buying HBC, then they might not buy Alaska in 1867, but it's still plausbile they will do so before the gold rush. I also think the US would intervene more in the Pacific. Maybe the OTL Sp-Am War could be a collaboration between the US and CS?
Actually, a neutral U.S. buying the rest of the Spanish Pacific rather than Germany might be interesting. I was trying to butterfly away a future war between the U.S. and Japan by keeping the Western Pacific outside of formal U.S. control...

As for Alaska, the U.S. may get it anyway through one of several means.

[Archangel Michael]

President George W. Bush of the Whig Party was elected in 2004 over Democrat Zell Miller to a six year term.

Considering that Bush was born in Connecticut. People seem to forget this when writing a "CSA wins the ACW" or "Texas Remains Independent" TL.

I'm currently writing a story where the CSA wins the ACW, and it's set during a war in the Forties. Imagine Turtledove's CSA TL but with the roles reversed (a fascist Union vs. a democratic, yet slaveholding, Confederacy).

[Filo]

I'm currently writing a story where the CSA wins the ACW, and it's set during a war in the Forties. Imagine Turtledove's CSA TL but with the roles reversed (a fascist Union vs. a democratic, yet slaveholding, Confederacy).

Usa may win the war and the fascism rule the earth :(

In my timeline Neither Usa or Csa fall to Fascim; i belive american democracy is too strong to fall, also if can be menaced

[Archangel Michael]

In my timeline Neither Usa or Csa fall to Fascim; i belive american democracy is too strong to fall, also if can be menaced

Technically, it's not truly American democracy because the USA and the CSA are monarchies (U.S. under the Washingtons and the C.S. under the Connaughts, a branch of the British royal family). Probably not very plausible, but :p.

[Straha]

I have the CSA being a repressive police state with elements of Apartheid South Africa, Nazi germany, stalinist russia, saudi arabia(conservatism), brazil(BIG class divide and slavery), Post-revolutionary Iran(theocratic repression). Its still a democracy but an authoritarian and HIGHLY socially conservative one. The parties are the Democrats, Plantation Party and One Nation Party.

[htgriffin]

Well if there's a thing i like of America its that americans are a democratic people and i think that the Csa would reform itself also if they would stand conservative; for no other reason that american liberties and constitution is a great value.
I am afraid you _VASTLY_ overestimate the regard in which various constitutional freedoms were held by the leadership and much of the population in the Deep South. The comittment to 'States Rights' showed up the day they could not compell the Federal Government to intervine in the affairs of the Northern States, the whole freedom of assembly/speech/association idea was ignored outright (note please the overt censorship of the mails they feared a Republican administration would halt), and the class stratification was increasing/ossifying in the pre-war years.

HTG

[Kidblast]

Much of the South's poverty stems from the brutal "Total War" concept of Sherman, and the following Reconstruction. If the South won the War, I believe that it would be much better off, than one would suspect. I also think that the South would probably by 2006, be an analogue of Portugal or Greece in terms of Wealth.

The CSA would have abundant natural resources, and if the ruling elite was far-sighted they would be able to industrialise.

I doubt Blacks would be better off though, probably there would be some sort of Jim Crow laws still in effect, but I think most Blacks would move up North if they could.

[Straha]

Much of the South's poverty stems from the brutal "Total War" concept of Sherman, and the following Reconstruction. If the South won the War, I believe that it would be much better off, than one would suspect. I also think that the South would probably by 2006, be an analogue of Portugal or Greece in terms of Wealth.

The CSA would have abundant natural resources, and if the ruling elite was far-sighted they would be able to industrialise.

I doubt Blacks would be better off though, probably there would be some sort of Jim Crow laws still in effect, but I think most Blacks would move up North if they could.
The union wouldn't let the blacks in in though.

[King Gorilla]

The union wouldn't let the blacks in in though.

Not officially but I suspect they would be seen as a cheap laborforce that readily available to the black (pardon the pun) economy through illegal immigration, much like how hispanic immigrants/migrants are currently used in the US.

[htgriffin]

Much of the South's poverty stems from the brutal "Total War" concept of Sherman, and the following Reconstruction. If the South won the War, I believe that it would be much better off, than one would suspect. I also think that the South would probably by 2006, be an analogue of Portugal or Greece in terms of Wealth. I think you should consider where the wealth was concentrated before making such optimistic predictions.

The CSA would have abundant natural resources, and if the ruling elite was far-sighted they would be able to industrialise.The Planter Grandees of Old Dixie.

Farsighted.

That, my friend, is a very big if.

I doubt Blacks would be better off though, probably there would be some sort of Jim Crow laws still in effect,At best. I have yet to see any reason for the Confederacy to embrace abolitionism that trumps the vested interests and biases of the ruling castes. but I think most Blacks would move up North if they could.This is what we refer to as Understatement, Vast.

HTG

[Straha]

Not officially but I suspect they would be seen as a cheap laborforce that readily available to the black (pardon the pun) economy through illegal immigration, much like how hispanic immigrants/migrants are currently used in the US.
In a Confederacy victorious timeline I see the US opting to make the phillipines a part of the US. With filipinos as citizens able to come in and work why bring in blacks from dixie?

[Nicole]

But if the Phillipines are states, then their citizens are US citizens, which means they have those pesky "rights", rather than being in fear of deportation constantly.

I think that as long as slavery lasts, the US will promote and help fugitives to undermine the institution.

[Straha]

I see the US having barbed wire, robot patrols and eventually forcefields on the border to keep out the escapees/illegals.

[Kidblast]

I think you should consider where the wealth was concentrated before making such optimistic predictions.

Some of the richest areas of the US were in the South before the Civil War.

At best. I have yet to see any reason for the Confederacy to embrace abolitionism that trumps the vested interests and biases of the ruling castes.

Brazil emancipated their slaves, and I don't see why the Confederacy wouldn't either. Sharecropping is much more profitable than slaving.

[Kidblast]

The union wouldn't let the blacks in in though.

Why not? Is there any specific reason, or are you suggesting that plain racism is the factor.

[HueyLong]

Why not? They don't want border incursions, and those border won't be like Mexico or Canada- it will be a threat.

They don't want blacks, and they don't want the problems of fugitive slaves. The North was just as virulently racist as the CSA. Look at the Draft Riots. They lost, and they aren't going to welcome the Negros.

Slavery was profitable, people. I have a few accounts of accounting on the subject, I just have to dig up the source again. It was also a big influence for the domestic slave tarde. It gave many planters a bit of capital and stability- if they had a bad crop, they could just sell a slave.

[Straha]

The CS blacks would be seen as potential spies so the paranoia would prevent any major illegal immigration.

[King Gorilla]

Some of the richest areas of the US were in the South before the Civil War.
Some of the formerly richest areas of SA and the Caribbean are now suffering from abject poverty. The Southern Planter class seems better suited to take up the mantel of the Caudillo than that of the entrepreneur. Cash crop based economies seldom exhibit much foresight for future economic, a fact usually worsened by the presence of narrow-minded landed aristocrats who fear any change in the status queue that upset their privileged roles in society. I would imagine cotton would continue to be king until global competition would collapse its price or the boll weevil would inadvertently bring about a recession of biblical proportions. As a consequence of this cotton first economic policy, free trade would strangle Southern industrial development in the cradle as there would be little incentive to develop domestic industries when you could simply import superior cheaper versions of the same product from either the US or Europe.

[htgriffin]

I think you should consider where the wealth was concentrated before making such optimistic predictions.
Some of the richest areas of the US were in the South before the Civil War.More to the point, most of the richest _people_ were in the South (specifically the planter aristocracy).

Keeping them rich/happy and profiting the nation's general econimy are not mutually inclusive.At best. I have yet to see any reason for the Confederacy to embrace abolitionism that trumps the vested interests and biases of the ruling castes.

Brazil emancipated their slaves, and I don't see why the Confederacy wouldn't either.The little detail of an actively abolitionist monarch overriding the protests of the (politically, economically, and demographically much weaker in proportion) planters... and getting overthrown for his troubles not too much later Sharecropping is much more profitable than slaving.Ignoring the fact that Debt Peonage is not that much of an improvement (esp. without Amendments 13-15 to even pay lip service to, you must consider the capital lost by such a scheme... and who would lose it.

HTG

[htgriffin]

Why not? Is there any specific reason, or are you suggesting that plain racism is the factor.
In all fairness I can see a fair number of negroes being permitted in, or at least through, just to spite the arrogant Grandees that owned them (who were far less popular even before the war).

And the Draft Riot of NYC was more due to certain gang leaders and criminals being drafted period than to the cause being faught for.

That being said, the Irish immigrants did see the negro as unwanted competition.

HTG

[htgriffin]

The CS blacks would be seen as potential spies so the paranoia would prevent any major illegal immigration.
That would take vast levels of paranoia mated with a heavy dose of cluelessness.

Needless to say it is possible.

HTG

[Faeelin]

Much of the South's poverty stems from the brutal "Total War" concept of Sherman, and the following Reconstruction.

Interesting. Most nations on earth manage to recover from disasters a century and a half in their past.

Perhaps the CSA is a "special" nation? (In the negative sense, of course).

[Wendell]

But if the Phillipines are states, then their citizens are US citizens, which means they have those pesky "rights", rather than being in fear of deportation constantly.

I think that as long as slavery lasts, the US will promote and help fugitives to undermine the institution.
I think the U.S. would rather undermine the territorial integrity of the CSA...

[HueyLong]

Americans would have enacted legislation to stop black fugitives- much like they did to stop the Yello Peril.

[Wendell]

Americans would have enacted legislation to stop black fugitives- much like they did to stop the Yello Peril.
That sounds about right. Many in the north despised blacks almost or as much as did southerners.

[Straha]

Hence my suggestion of forcefields and robot patrols in the modern union

[Wendell]

Hence my suggestion of forcefields and robot patrols in the modern union
Too futuristic...

[Straha]

Not necesarily. In a world with the US having a space program being funded several times our NASA facing off against a confederacy with a bigger space program than our america, an imperial germany with a space program bigger than oru soviets and a societ union with a larger space program than OTL expect technologicla benefits to come dirtside...

[Wendell]

Not necesarily. In a world with the US having a space program being funded several times our NASA facing off against a confederacy with a bigger space program than our america, an imperial germany with a space program bigger than oru soviets and a societ union with a larger space program than OTL expect technologicla benefits to come dirtside...
Wouldn't they care more about nukes?

[Straha]

Wouldn't they care more about nukes?
Moreso than OTL which also speeds up development of technology in nuclear related areas. We'd see nukes in space in tihs TL. Both nuke powered ships and nuclear orbital bases.

[Wendell]

Moreso than OTL which also speeds up development of technology in nuclear related areas. We'd see nukes in space in tihs TL. Both nuke powered ships and nuclear orbital bases.
And any use of nukes against cities?

[Straha]

And any use of nukes against cities?
The Confederacy uses nukes putting down resistence movements in its latin puppet states in the 60's adn the germans use them in their african colonies.

[Kidblast]

Interesting. Most nations on earth manage to recover from disasters a century and a half in their past.

Perhaps the CSA is a "special" nation? (In the negative sense, of course).

The South has managed to recover in OTL, but much progress was only made after the 1930s.

Another thing to bring up.

Until about the 1920s or so, the Black birthrate was much higher than the white birthrate. If this continued in the CSA, would the CSA to maintain white numerical superiority by either:

1) Allowing more immigration

OR

2) Sending Blacks back to Africa.

[Straha]

You forgot option #3

3 Use skin color as a divide to split up the black population. Basically give the lighter skinned blacks a special "Colored" status and let them have much more rights/privilages then the other blacks. Basically the "Coloreds" would have equal rights advenced by decades compared to even our world's blacks but the black population is screwed.

[Faeelin]

The South has managed to recover in OTL, but much progress was only made after the 1930s.

It's worth asking why. The awful state of southern education probably had something to do with it, and I don't think that would have changed in an independent CSA.

[Straha]

You're right that southron education even in a Confederate Superpower would suck royally. Expect such useless subjects as "Bible Studies" or "Raciology" to get a place in CS education. Creationism is probably the order of the day with some "liberal" states teaching intelligent design instead. The end result of all this would be a Confederacy that starts falling behind in technology when we start getting into the internet/biotech/nanotech(we already use a bit of it but not too much) era whenever it happens.

[Heart of Darkness]

We concider to no end how a possible CSA would treat any blacks unlucky enough to be born within its borders, and I can imagine its attitudes would extend to the African continent and any independent sub-Saharan african states that would arise in this timeline as well.

However, do you think the CSA would be able to mitigate its racial theories enough to have productive relations with the Indians and the Chinese or japanese, assuming any significant oriental / asian nations ever developed. ( Some Indians are pretty dark, practically as dark as Africans.)

Would the C.S.A.'s positions allow the Europeans and others more cover for racism themselves, or do you think their opinions might remains practically the same as OTL despite a CSA victory?

[Wendell]

You're right that southron education even in a Confederate Superpower would suck royally. Expect such useless subjects as "Bible Studies" or "Raciology" to get a place in CS education. Creationism is probably the order of the day with some "liberal" states teaching intelligent design instead. The end result of all this would be a Confederacy that starts falling behind in technology when we start getting into the internet/biotech/nanotech(we already use a bit of it but not too much) era whenever it happens.
Why call it "Raciology" and not "Eugenics"? Furthermore, why not teach evolution, if it can be used to justify Confederate practices?

[Wendell]

We concider to no end how a possible CSA would treat any blacks unlucky enough to be born within its borders, and I can imagine its attitudes would extend to the African continent and any independent sub-Saharan african states that would arise in this timeline as well.

However, do you think the CSA would be able to mitigate its racial theories enough to have productive relations with the Indians and the Chinese or japanese, assuming any significant oriental / asian nations ever developed. ( Some Indians are pretty dark, practically as dark as Africans.)

Would the C.S.A.'s positions allow the Europeans and others more cover for racism themselves, or do you think their opinions might remains practically the same as OTL despite a CSA victory?
I think there could be Confederate court battles over race. For example, could whites marry Northern Indians (Desi) due to their relationship (perceived or actual) with Europeans?

[Kidblast]

I think there could be Confederate court battles over race. For example, could whites marry Northern Indians (Desi) due to their relationship (perceived or actual) with Europeans?

Well, I've met Indians almost as light as I am, and I would definately be considered white in the CSA. (My family lived in Mississippi for the last 150 years, and my Great-Great Uncle fought for the Confederacy in the Civil War.)

[Wendell]

Well, I've met Indians almost as light as I am, and I would definately be considered white in the CSA. (My family lived in Mississippi for the last 150 years, and my Great-Great Uncle fought for the Confederacy in the Civil War.)
That's quite interesting. What brought your ancestors to Mississippi, if I may ask?

[Kidblast]

That's quite interesting. What brought your ancestors to Mississippi, if I may ask?

Manifest Destiny mostly. From what I can tell from my genelogical research, most of them lived in South Carolina, Kentucky, or Tennesee before moving to Mississippi. All of my mother's family lives in Vicksburg or Jackson, and most of her ancestors have lived there from before the 1850s. I visited some of their tombstones there last year.

[Wendell]

Manifest Destiny mostly. From what I can tell from my genelogical research, most of them lived in South Carolina, Kentucky, or Tennesee before moving to Mississippi. All of my mother's family lives in Vicksburg or Jackson, and most of her ancestors have lived there from before the 1850s. I visited some of their tombstones there last year.
That's interesting.

[Kidblast]

Although this may sound like a stupid question, why did Brazil not enact Jim Crow laws after they emancipated their slaves?

[HueyLong]

Because they didn't have a major white population- most were mestiso or full-blown black. Brazil didn't have the poor white buckra' or anything all that similiar.

The white aristocrats had the same thing in place unofficially.

[King Gorilla]

And there was alot of miscegenation so even amongst the elities there were traces of african ancestry.

[Straha]

What? No comments on my third solution to CS demographics which doesn't involve the solutions of either immigration or colonizing blacks in africa?