I wish I was in the Land of Cotton: Dixieland II TL

herricks

Darth_Kiryan said:
That many serville wars and somehow they still manage to beat the US. A US by the way which is nerfed so much where any of the New England States were able to produce in a week/month what the Confederacy were not able to do in four years.

I do not understand where all of the Confederate industrial power came from. It actively makes no sense. Never mind the fact that the US has a hostile power on their southern border, and they somehow do not have an equipped nor trained army.
Click to expand...

Well the second one I had planned would've been real small covering only a few counties at most less than a thousand total white casualties.

The third wouldn't have been sported by the US
 

Darth_Kiryan

herricks said:
Well the second one I had planned would've been real small covering only a few counties at most less than a thousand total white casualties.

The third wouldn't have been sported by the US
Click to expand...

I'd be honest enough to think that the US wouldn't really need to support a slave insurrection.
 

Spengler

Banned
You know all the USA needs to do is build up for a year and then steam roll the CSA, plus arm the blacks.
 
Last edited:

Spengler

Banned
Not Henry G. said:
There could be some internal problems in the US that could keep it from doing so, just look at the "The Confederacy" TL. Nothing's set in stone
Click to expand...
Yeah I have my doubts that the USA would just disinigrate like he says. MOre likley it would turn into a much less liberal centralized republic.
 

DG Valdron

herricks said:
Well the second one I had planned would've been real small covering only a few counties at most less than a thousand total white casualties.

The third wouldn't have been sported by the US
Click to expand...

Nat Turner's rebellion OTL, killed about 55 to 65 white people and was a national trauma. This would have been twenty times that size.
 

DG Valdron

herricks said:
My first idea was for the servile wars. The first one yall saw with the same end result, war with the US. The second at the tail end of the war with the US but much much smaller with much fewer casualties I was thinking either the eastern shore of Virginia or in the Florida panhandle. Then in the late 1880's a third servile war that was big but never decided on a place. After the rebellions and other internal and international events the confederacy finally decides to end is slavery but instead of just getting them they move them out of the country.

But yall've pretty much been saying that nothing like that can happen with what I've done so far so I've decided to abandon that idea
Click to expand...

It's hard to imagine three colossal slave rebellions in succession leading to emancipation. Maybe not impossible, but you have to work really really hard for it. It's an uphill battle, it doesn't follow intuitively or naturally.

As to moving all the slaves out of the country - even with the fall of King Cotton, the South survives on the labour of slaves, or on the cheap labour of segregated, Klan Terrorized, Jim Crow blacks. If they get rid of blacks - who fills that void?

And how will they afford to send millions of black people out of country?
 

Spengler

Banned
herricks said:
i don't know about in the 1800's but we use them now in harvesting rice


two colossal

they could pack them in like they did when they sent them to America from Africa
Click to expand...
Still couldn't afford it. THree million people even packed 1000 to a ship is 3000 ships.
 

Redolegna

herricks said:
they could pack them in like they did when they sent them to America from Africa
Click to expand...

The Atlantic slave trade brought that many over four centuries. Leaving aside the horrific death toll that such cramped conditions would produce, I think that the British would actually see such a move as an attempt at resuming the slave trade they have banned and are enforcing over the seas. They would intervene and it would not be pretty. I'm talking Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans and five or ten more coastal cities bombarded and burned to the ground ugly.
 

Darth_Kiryan

Not Henry G. said:
There could be some internal problems in the US that could keep it from doing so, just look at the "The Confederacy" TL. Nothing's set in stone
Click to expand...

The Confederacy industrializing at the rate it has makes no sense - given that their entire society relies on the existence of slavery, industry in general is a no-no. It would be limited in order to keep their society slaveocratic. And the US being as weak as it is also makes even less sense.

When a New England State/New York/New Jersey can outproduce anything the Confederates did in four years in a couple of weeks/a month, and that has been completely nerfed, there is a problem.

That said. Internal problems would be significantly political. But to say that the US is not capable of defending itself, arming itself or even capable of supporting itself or an army in the face of having a clearly hostile power to the south is laughable. The politicians would see this. They would want to maintain an army that is at least offers an advantage of 2-1 in terms of military strength. And depending on whether or not Canada/UK is hostile in any way, that would exponentially be larger. Never mind the existence of mexico. There are at least three ambivalent powers surrounding the US. There is going to have to be a strong military in the US. They have the economy to maintain one. The Confederacy does not.
 
Last edited:

Not Henry G.

Darth_Kiryan said:
The Confederacy industrializing at the rate it has makes no sense - given that their entire society relies on the existence of slavery, industry in general is a no-no. It would be limited in order to keep their society slaveocratic. And the US being as weak as it is also makes even less sense.

When a New England State/New York/New Jersey can outproduce anything the Confederates did in four years in a couple of weeks/a month, and that has been completely nerfed, there is a problem.

That said. Internal problems would be significantly political. But to say that the US is not capable of defending itself, arming itself or even capable of supporting itself or an army in the face of having a clearly hostile power to the south is laughable. The politicians would see this. They would want to maintain an army that is at least offers an advantage of 2-1 in terms of military strength. And depending on whether or not Canada/UK is hostile in any way, that would exponentially be larger. Never mind the existence of mexico. There are at least three ambivalent powers surrounding the US. There is going to have to be a strong military in the US. They have the economy to maintain one. The Confederacy does not.
Click to expand...

Of course. I was mostly talking about the US having political problems that might lead to further secessions. The CSA industrializing that fast is a no go, and Hancock being re-elected is straight up impossible.
Everything else you're spot on.
 

herricks

BELFAST said:
As long as they are not too large and heavy. Heavy equipment breaks the iron pan under a rice paddy and makes it impossible to flood the rice paddy.
Click to expand...

Don't know enough about early combines but they do harvest rice with them now. I've never even seen a rice field but have been around combines all my life and ran them plenty of times
 

herricks

Alrighty folks. After much consideration on what to do regarding this TL I've decided to start over. I've lost interest in trying to continue the TL this way so I'm starting over. I hope yall read my redo confederate TL and enjoy it. If yall do you will almost certainly see a couple posts that are taken from this TL regarding the first war. Thanks for all the opinions and input
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top