CSA embarks on genocide against slaves after Emancipation Proclamation

[Melvin Loh]

OK, how feasible is such a scenario ? Could the CS have decided to embark on an earlier version of what happens in Turtledove's books after 1st Jan 1863, and what would've been effects in the North and among Britain and France too ?

[Keenir]

OK, how feasible is such a scenario ?

why would the CSA do that? the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves living in CSA territory which was presently occupied by Union troops.

[EvolvedSaurian]

I'm going to have to repeat the 'why', but for a different reason.

Why the hell would they kill off the basis of their economy?

It also kinda moots their argument for leaving, makes sure the Radical Republicans get their way after the war and leave a permanent scar on the Southern psyche.

:rolleyes:

[Anaxagoras]

why would the CSA do that? the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves living in CSA territory which was presently occupied by Union troops.

This is incorrect. It only freed slaves in CSA territory that was NOT occupied by Union forces.

[NapoleonXIV]

why would the CSA do that? the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves living in CSA territory which was presently occupied by Union troops.

Let's say there's a big slave revolt. It's put down quickly and easily but not before widespread atrocities (or just widespread and believed reports of such, perhaps promulgated by insane racists like Nathan Bedford Forrest et al.)

[Ghost 88]

OK, how feasible is such a scenario ? Could the CS have decided to embark on an earlier version of what happens in Turtledove's books after 1st Jan 1863, and what would've been effects in the North and among Britain and France too ?
They would join Australia as pariahs for killing blacks.
I hope that was as offensive to you as the suggestion that Turttledoves superimposing Nazis over the south bears any relation to what could have happened in 1860s America or 1930s America for that matter. The CSA was fighting a war to keep thier slaves why for any reason do you think they would kill them because a Northern President proclaims something that they consider to have no validity. The emancipation proclamation freed exactly zero slaves. It has no effect in Missouri,Kentucky,Maryland,Delaware,Most of the state of Tennessee,The part of Virginia that soon will become West Virginia parts of the coastal Carolinas Virginia and Ga, and the Occupied areas of Louisianna.
If the CSA was going to kill slaves for any reason they would have done so OTL that they didn't means they wouldn't.

[Melvin Loh]

Dude, no offence taken whatsoever :)

Well, I reckon Napoleon's POD is quite plausible, anyways.

[Ghost 88]

Let's say there's a big slave revolt. It's put down quickly and easily but not before widespread atrocities (or just widespread and believed reports of such, perhaps promulgated by insane racists like Nathan Bedford Forrest et al.)
Having read Wikis article on N.B.Forrest it is my duty to inform you that while Forrest may be a racist he was not insane, was not held accountable by W.T.Sherman for Ft. Pillow and ordered the Klan disbanded when its actions became violent. His actions in being a part of the Klan after the ACW and his being a Slave broker before the war do bring discredit to his overall life but to brand him as you have on non exsistant evidence and false accusations brand you as more intolerant of your fellow man than Forrest has been proved guilty of.

[Ghost 88]

Dude, no offence taken whatsoever :)

Well, I reckon Napoleon's POD is quite plausible, anyways.
Only if you can get widespread cordination by the slaves in question and many of the dead rebeling slaves would die at the hands of Union troops if white women and children were part of the slaves score.

[Melvin Loh]

Mate, what about that occasion when, as described IIRC in Malcolm MacPherson's BATTLE CRY OF FREEDOM, Forrest met a northern black man who'd been captured by Confederate troops, and abruptly just pulled out his pistol and blew the poor guy's head off for no reason at all ? Maybe he wasn't held accountable for Fort Pillow (after his troops ran riot and butchered the Tennessee white loyalist and black USCT garrison), and also when he tried to distance himself from the Klan after its more extreme activities became public knowledge, but heck he wasn't a saint as you see to argue, was he ?

[Ghost 88]

Mate, what about that occasion when, as described IIRC in Malcolm MacPherson's BATTLE CRY OF FREEDOM, Forrest met a northern black man who'd been captured by Confederate troops, and abruptly just pulled out his pistol and blew the poor guy's head off for no reason at all ? Maybe he wasn't held accountable for Fort Pillow (after his troops ran riot and butchered the Tennessee white loyalist and black USCT garrison), and also when he tried to distance himself from the Klan after its more extreme activities became public knowledge, but heck he wasn't a saint as you see to argue, was he ?
I do not think Forrest was a saint I clearly stated he had some serious flaws. In 40 years of hearing and reading about Forrest I have never heard of the Mcphearson story. As to Fort Pillow I refer you to the Wiki article on Forrest, it seems that the Massacre may have been blown out of propotion as a racist act in Northern propaganda as the casualities for both White and Black was high and Gen. Sherman's investigation found Forrest not to be at fault.
I would defend Charles Manson if he was accused of something he could not have done or the evidence appears to clear him of. This is the case with Forrest that he was not guilty of Ft Pillow and left the Klan before it became the violent and murderous organization it is. If you can provide documented proff that the man was guilty,then I may be able to reconsider.
Also his joining the Klan to begin with is a mark against him and a much bigger mark is his being a Slave Broker before the war.

[NapoleonXIV]

Having read Wikis article on N.B.Forrest it is my duty to inform you that while Forrest may be a racist he was not insane, was not held accountable by W.T.Sherman for Ft. Pillow and ordered the Klan disbanded when its actions became violent. His actions in being a part of the Klan after the ACW and his being a Slave broker before the war do bring discredit to his overall life but to brand him as you have on non exsistant evidence and false accusations brand you as more intolerant of your fellow man than Forrest has been proved guilty of.

Sorry. Really, I just meant racist to the extent of wanting genocide of the blacks, which I guess would be insane. NBF just happened to be the guy who came to mind, having founded the Klan and all.

[Smaug]

All too often people think that the American Civil War had slavery at its roots. Thats not the case, it wasn't a grand crusade to free slaves, it was about states rights and economics. States rights lost....

I don't approve of slavery in any way shape or form, but local governments lost rights to shape the way that thier constituency's want things to be. Thats a bit wrong, IMO.

As far as slavery is concerned, with the exception of radically abolishionist states, Black folks weren't treated any better by the North than the South. The Union armies regularly used Black formations in the first lines of attack, or as support troops, whether they were the best unit for the job or not. We've all seen "Glory", and that stuff happened.

The fact of the matter is that everyone is prejudiced. Its not right, but we are. Not necessarily against blacks, or any other racial/religious/nationality or whatever, but all people inherit the opinions of thier elders, at a certain level, and that stuff persists even when you try to make up for it in a denial kinda way. Its human nature.

[Admiral Matt]

Not going to happen.

Not in the 1860s, anyway. I could perhaps invision an all-conquering revanchist North in the 1880s or 90s killing and deporting all the blacks it could get a hold of. At least there would be some logic to it - the South would be stripped of that which set it apart from the loyal states. Not that I think it is likely, just possible.

Getting the Confederates to cut their own economy out from under themselves would require extraordinary circumstances. Especially since it would be the ruling class that would suffer the most (besides the blacks, obviously). I'm not even entirely convinced by Turtledove's depiction of this. Maybe in the latter half of the century, if some very big changes had happened, but I don't see it.

[robertp6165]

Okay, boys and girls, I can see that it is time to convene another session of Nathan Bedford Forrest 101...myths and legends concerning Nathan Bedford Forrest.

<raps Napoleon XIV's hand with a ruler>

Nappy, I've told you before, quit shooting spitballs at Melvin! Now, please pay attention!

Let us begin with the alleged incident when

...as described IIRC in Malcolm MacPherson's BATTLE CRY OF FREEDOM, Forrest met a northern black man who'd been captured by Confederate troops, and abruptly just pulled out his pistol and blew the poor guy's head off for no reason at all?

That incident is reported in ONE source. There were a number of people (other officers, enlisted men) present at the alleged incident, several of whom left accounts, and none of the others mentions anything of the kind occurring.

Forrest was known for being prepared to take violent action in defense of his own life or property, including an incident, for example, where he killed a black man with an axe after the war when the man attacked him. He killed many people during the course of his life for such reasons. But he was not known for wanton acts of murder against either black or white people.

So why should we believe this story, when it goes against all the other evidence we have of the man?

Now, let's examine Forrest's association with the Klan.

NBF just happened to be the guy who came to mind, having founded the Klan and all.

Incorrect. Forrest had nothing to do with the founding of the Klan. The Klan was founded by six former Confederate soldiers who met in a law office in Pulaski, Tennessee, in late 1865 to form a fraternal club...to be similar in nature to the fraternities found on college campuses and so forth...for their own amusement. Later, as a prank, they took to riding through town at night in ghostly costume. It was only later that the organization began to pursue political goals, and the night-riders turned violent. Forrest was not among the six who met to form the Klan, and indeed is not reported to have joined until mid-1866.

This is where the story gets interesting. Forrest was not present at the meeting, held in Nashville, Tennessee, where he supposedly joined the Klan and was elected Grand Wizard. He was, at the time, in Mississippi attending to business concerns. Forrest always denied that he had ever been a member of the Klan, and indeed, the Congressional investigation which was conducted into the matter exonerated him of this.

The only evidence we have that Forrest was ever a member of the Klan comes from John Morton, Forrest's former Chief of Artillery who definitely WAS a major figure in the Klan. It is Morton who gives the account of the meeting where Forrest was supposedly inducted as a member, and, interestingly, recent analysis indicates that Morton also seems to have written the order whereby Forrest supposedly disbanded the Klan in 1869. So we really have no good evidence that Forrest was involved with the Klan at all.

John Morton certainly had a motive for wanting to use Forrest's name in promoting the Klan, and also the opportunity to do so. So again, without any independent evidence, why should we believe this story?

Now, lets examine one final item, Nathan Bedford Forrest's racism. While it is true that he was a racist...as indeed, virtually everyone was at that time...there is no real evidence that he was an EXTREME racist, or not more so than the general population at the time. Was he a slave trader before the war? Yes...because it was a way to become wealthy quickly. Racism had little or nothing to do with it.

Forrest freed his own slaves who served with him in the Confederate army, something an extreme racist would never have done. He also is on record as having said the following, in an 1875 speech before the Independent Order of Polebearers (The Independent Order of Pole-Bearers Association ws a predecessor to the NAACP and was organized by Southern blacks after the war to promote black voting rights, etc. One of their early conventions was held in Memphis and Mr. Forrest was invited to be the guest speaker, the first white man ever to be invited to speak to the Association)...

Ladies and Gentlemen I accept the flowers as a memento of reconciliation between the white and colored races of the southern states. I accept it more particularly as it comes from a colored lady, for if there is any one on God's earth who loves the ladies I believe it is myself. ( Immense applause and laughter.)

I came here with the jeers of some white people, who think that I am doing wrong. I believe I can exert some influence, and do much to assist the people in strengthening fraternal relations, and shall do all in my power to elevate every man to depress none. (Applause.)

I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms, and wherever you are capable of going. I have not said anything about politics today. I don't propose to say anything about politics. You have a right to elect whom you please; vote for the man you think best, and I think, when that is done, you and I are freemen. Do as you consider right and honest in electing men for office.

I did not come here to make you a long speech, although invited to do so by you. I am not much of a speaker, and my business prevented me from preparing myself. I came to meet you as friends, and welcome you to the white people. I want you to come nearer to us. When I can serve you I will do so.

We have but one flag, one country; let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment. Many things have been said about me which are wrong, and which white and black persons here, who stood by me through the war, can contradict. Go to work, be industrious, live honestly and act truly, and when you are oppressed I'll come to your relief.

I thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for this opportunity you have afforded me to be with you, and to assure you that I am with you in heart and in hand. (Prolonged applause.)

It may also interest you to know that when Forrest died two years later, his funeral procession numbered 10,000...of whom 3,000 were black.

[MerryPrankster]

The slavers harshly repressed slave rebellions, but full-blown genocide would be too much even for them.

Confederate =/= Nazi, people.

[NapoleonXIV]

Well ok, let's ask our Resident Confedarate Apologist.

Who would want to committ genocide on the blacks during the ACW? And don't try to say there weren't any. The hatred after was just too rabid IMO, besides, slavery is just long term genocide anyway. You still take the person's life, only you use it for your own purposes rather than simply destroying it.

I still think my idea stands. The Southern whites feared a slave revolt above everything. You wouldn't need a real one even, just a well-placed and spread series of rumors, perhaps while Sherman was marching.

You maybe wouldn't even need the rumors. Let's say Lincoln and Douglass are more listened to, and we see large nos of blacks in the Union Armies going South after Emancipation, and lets say the Southerners get the idea that their own slaves are just awaiting the arrival of the Black Soldiers. So these same blacks are treated to the site of hundreds of black bodies hanging from trees everywhere they go. They're human beings too and can only take so much before they start some atrocities of their own. A chain reaction ensues.

God, what's the matter with me. Why can't I come up with any pleasant ideas lately?

[zeitenschmiede]

not going to happen. period

that would be like as if a state which is at war with another blows up his machinery cos of some irrational hatred. cos that is what the blacks were...machinery.

[Wendell]

Total abolition is a sounder way to prevent slave revolts than is genocide.

[Keenir]

Instead of genocide...maybe have the Confederacy move all their slaves to shantytowns the length of the Union-Confederacy border.

now that'd be a line in the sand. :D :eek: :D

[Wendell]

Instead of genocide...maybe have the Confederacy move all their slaves to shantytowns the length of the Union-Confederacy border.

now that'd be a line in the sand. :D :eek: :D
Good luck finding an agreeable border:rolleyes:

[Keenir]

Good luck finding an agreeable border:rolleyes:

the disputed area is filled with slave shantytowns, whose inhabitants are forbidden from moving either into the Union or into the Confederacy.

[Wendell]

the disputed area is filled with slave shantytowns, whose inhabitants are forbidden from moving either into the Union or into the Confederacy.

West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri?

[Admiral Matt]

Wait.

Did you just say that genocide and slavery are the same thing?

Do I actually need to point out how insane that is?

[Wendell]

Wait.

Did you just say that genocide and slavery are the same thing?

Do I actually need to point out how insane that is?

I don't know who said that. I said that genocide is a nonsensical approach to ending slave revolts in the CSA.

[robertp6165]

I don't know who said that [slavery is the same as genocide].

Napoleon XIV said it. Admiral Matt was responding to him, not you.

[robertp6165]

Wait.

Did you just say that genocide and slavery are the same thing?

Do I actually need to point out how insane that is?

Well, it would probably be idle of me to point out that Napoleon XIV takes his moniker from a musician whose only hit was "They're coming to take me away, Ha ha." :D

[robertp6165]

Well ok, let's ask our Resident Confedarate Apologist.

Who would want to committ genocide on the blacks during the ACW? And don't try to say there weren't any. The hatred after was just too rabid IMO, besides, slavery is just long term genocide anyway. You still take the person's life, only you use it for your own purposes rather than simply destroying it.

I still think my idea stands. The Southern whites feared a slave revolt above everything. You wouldn't need a real one even, just a well-placed and spread series of rumors, perhaps while Sherman was marching.

You maybe wouldn't even need the rumors. Let's say Lincoln and Douglass are more listened to, and we see large nos of blacks in the Union Armies going South after Emancipation, and lets say the Southerners get the idea that their own slaves are just awaiting the arrival of the Black Soldiers. So these same blacks are treated to the site of hundreds of black bodies hanging from trees everywhere they go. They're human beings too and can only take so much before they start some atrocities of their own. A chain reaction ensues.

I can agree that a large-scale slave uprising would be harshly suppressed...if indeed it could have been suppressed with the resources the Confederacy had available to do that in wartime (old men and boys left behind while the men of military age were away at the front fighting the Yankees). Likely many hundreds, or even thousands of slaves would have been killed in such a case. But genocide, by definition (at least according to my trusty American Heritage Dictionary) is "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group." That is not something that was at all likely to happen, nor is it likely that anyone would even have advocated it.

[NapoleonXIV]

Well, it would probably be idle of me to point out that Napoleon XIV takes his moniker from a musician whose only hit was "They're coming to take me away, Ha ha." :D

He had other hits. Have you never heard the flip side of TCTTMA?

[htgriffin]

OK, how feasible is such a scenario ? Could the CS have decided to embark on an earlier version of what happens in Turtledove's books after 1st Jan 1863, and what would've been effects in the North and among Britain and France too ?

Some of the Planters may do this rather than let said darkies run loose, but most would go nuts over the proposed destruction of property and march them to the West or further South in even greater numbers than they did after proposals to conscript same for labor were approved.

If you are talking about what few freedmen were still on the loose, that is another story altogether (there were already efforts at reenslaving them outright, and many were kidnapped and sold anyway).

HTG

[Keenir]

West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri?

I don't believe border and neutral state are the same thing.

although that would be a thought....if a border state renegs on its neutrality, throw a few thousand homeless slaves at their cities, watch the state economy spin.

[Smaug]

Some of the Planters may do this rather than let said darkies run loose, but most would go nuts over the proposed destruction of property and march them to the West or further South in even greater numbers than they did after proposals to conscript same for labor were approved.

If you are talking about what few freedmen were still on the loose, that is another story altogether (there were already efforts at reenslaving them outright, and many were kidnapped and sold anyway).

HTG

The planters ended up better off. Share-Cropping might've put black folks in almost a more precarious position economically. They had to work just as hard, with less economic security.