Independent Deep South

[pattersonautobody]

If secession of the deep south was allowed, likely slavery would be gone within a few decades and readmission into the Union possibly delayed until world war 1, simply because of the issue of tarriffs. I think tensions Mexico and Cuba, and an ATL Zimmerman telegram might offer the cassus belli that economic concerns and the non existence of slavery that de facto would be the reasons for rejoining.

the United States and the south would be both more economically advanced today by a little. Race relations might not be markedly different. Proof of this can be seen in nearly every nation on Earth that had ended slavery without either war or general insurrection tends to have decent race relations, though not perfect race relations. We might se de facto, instead of de jure segregation, which still exists today (face it, how many people even in the 1990s lived in diverse neighborhoods?)

the civil war captivates the public imagination as it feels like our nation had to atone for the sin of slavery with the death of so many, because as the Bible says without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. However, pretty much every nation on Earth with slavery ended it cheaper, with no loss of life, and no national destruction. Of course people would not know it at the time but everyone of every race was probably better without the civil war in the long run (in the short run, blacks are obviously better off emancipated.)

the knock on effects on us policy are profound. If secession is allowed, it becomes a viable policy. We would hear threats of it over the decades but ironically I think that the rise of modern identity politics might lead to real secession (an OTL Obama or Trump might lead to a state or two actually seceding, but they will come crawling back when the lack of federal funds take their effect.)

all in all, America would be very similar economically and even socially, but our political maneuvering will be literally and rhetorically different.

 

[Odd_Numbered_Bonaparte]

I'd just like to drop in here and point out that keeping the Ohio and Upper Mississippi Valleys (and by extension the Great Lakes, which in turn feeds into New York) economies running required free movement on the Mississippi river and access to the port of New Orleans.

If nothing else the Union will not be letting Louisiana just walk.

 

[aspie3000]

It would be pretty horrifying, and probably have more legs than we'd like to think. I think the questions to be asked are 1) What kind of trading concessions does it give to the British? It's not going to have the same ability to negotiate for the terms of trade in it's cotton as the full US did; and 2) How does it replace labor? Historically, the Deep South had a burn rate they made up by buying people from the Upper South, who are now on the other side of a national border that bans the international slave trade. I see ideas to enslave some poor white accelerating in this circumstances, and 3) What (horrifying, horrifying) knock on effects are there when this nation, founded on racial supremacy and people who would try to breed human beings like animals, runs into the eugenics craze of the fin de seicle?

A lot of deep southern intellectuals argued for the enslavement of poor whites. I wonder if the confederacy would turn into some sort of even more brutal feudal system than the middle ages with plantation lords as the aristocrats and everyone else black and white as serf slaves.

 

[DG Valdron]

If secession of the deep south was allowed, likely slavery would be gone within a few decades

Because of Magic Ponies?

and readmission into the Union possibly delayed until world war 1,

Seriously, what's the basis of these argument?

an ATL Zimmerman telegram might

Why would there be a Zimmerman telegram?

the United States and the south would be both more economically advanced today by a little. Race relations might not be markedly different. Proof of this can be seen in nearly every nation on Earth that had ended slavery without either war or general insurrection tends to have decent race relations, though not perfect race relations.

I find this simplistic and inaccurate. South Africa, for instance, doesn't have terrific race relations.

the civil war captivates the public imagination as it feels like our nation had to atone for the sin of slavery with the death of so many, because as the Bible says without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. However, pretty much every nation on Earth with slavery ended it cheaper, with no loss of life, and no national destruction. Of course people would not know it at the time but everyone of every race was probably better without the civil war in the long run (in the short run, blacks are obviously better off emancipated.)

So... you're arguing that blacks would have been better off in the long run without emancipation?

Forgive me, I don't see the position as credible. Slavery, or slave labour was simply too vital to the Southern Economy and far more entrenched in Southern Society. They were going to maintain that institution indefinitely in the face of all possible odds.

 

[rfmcdonald]

Forgive me, I don't see the position as credible. Slavery, or slave labour was simply too vital to the Southern Economy and far more entrenched in Southern Society. They were going to maintain that institution indefinitely in the face of all possible odds.

You would need to give good reasons for this to change, and this TL provides none of this. Southerners OTL had shifted their opinions on slavery over the 19th century, seeing it no longer as a necessary evil but as a positive good. Why are Southerners going to renounce this view readily in their timeline, especially since when just to the north they will see the Union forcibly disrupting slave-based societies that they were intimately associated with?

 

[rfmcdonald]

If the CS is too poor, you may see the US say no to reunification.

This is it. Plus, if this Deep South ends up forming a national identity separate from the United States, this identity is likely to persist no matter what happens.

 

[Arkenfolm]

the United States and the south would be both more economically advanced today by a little. Race relations might not be markedly different. Proof of this can be seen in nearly every nation on Earth that had ended slavery without either war or general insurrection tends to have decent race relations, though not perfect race relations. We might se de facto, instead of de jure segregation, which still exists today (face it, how many people even in the 1990s lived in diverse neighborhoods?)

How would it be more economically advanced? If you left the Deep South in a disfunctional state like the CSA (which wouldn't even have the Upper South in this scenario) for 50-60 years before reannexation, it's gonna be way worse and have that much more of a hole to build up from. It would be a miracle if the Deep South was even as well off as the modern Deep South, let alone better.

And if they abolish slavery on their own, why would they not want to do something (i.e. segregation) about these now free blacks? It would be an Apartheid-level at minimum sort of society, with as much slavery as they could possibly fit in without it actually being legally slavery. With that in place, there's no way that race relations in a Deep South-only CSA are going to be decent, or even "poor", especially if/when some manner of conscience grows in the black population, something like the anti-Apartheid movement. This would be far more dangerous to the South than the Civil Rights era given there would be a far larger proportion of blacks than in that era (no Great Migration of blacks, since I doubt the US is going to let in a bunch of black immigrants anytime soon). And the government would try and suppress this at all costs. The only good news for this CSA is that that sort of conscience could take a century or more to evolve, and hopefully for their sake and that of everyone living there, they've re-submitted to US rule by then.

Of course people would not know it at the time but everyone of every race was probably better without the civil war in the long run (in the short run, blacks are obviously better off emancipated.)

Sure, assuming we could've ended slavery without the Civil War and not much more than a decade or two behind schedule.

 

[Mikestone8]

And if the CSA becomes an economic basket case, a lot of its white population may well migrate across the border, until most of the States are majority-Black. Will they even dare to emancipate in that situation?

 

[TheYoungPretender]

If secession of the deep south was allowed, likely slavery would be gone within a few decades and readmission into the Union possibly delayed until world war 1, simply because of the issue of tarriffs. I think tensions Mexico and Cuba, and an ATL Zimmerman telegram might offer the cassus belli that economic concerns and the non existence of slavery that de facto would be the reasons for rejoining.

the United States and the south would be both more economically advanced today by a little. Race relations might not be markedly different. Proof of this can be seen in nearly every nation on Earth that had ended slavery without either war or general insurrection tends to have decent race relations, though not perfect race relations. We might se de facto, instead of de jure segregation, which still exists today (face it, how many people even in the 1990s lived in diverse neighborhoods?)

the civil war captivates the public imagination as it feels like our nation had to atone for the sin of slavery with the death of so many, because as the Bible says without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. However, pretty much every nation on Earth with slavery ended it cheaper, with no loss of life, and no national destruction. Of course people would not know it at the time but everyone of every race was probably better without the civil war in the long run (in the short run, blacks are obviously better off emancipated.)

the knock on effects on us policy are profound. If secession is allowed, it becomes a viable policy. We would hear threats of it over the decades but ironically I think that the rise of modern identity politics might lead to real secession (an OTL Obama or Trump might lead to a state or two actually seceding, but they will come crawling back when the lack of federal funds take their effect.)

all in all, America would be very similar economically and even socially, but our political maneuvering will be literally and rhetorically different.

Ah, this is the CSA thread post I've been expecting for most of the last month. The interesting ignorance of other societies race relations, the "regret" about how much better off all the races would truly be without a Civil War, etc. But before I get reported for being mean to someone for discussing the facts of history; the details.

1) Slavery was pretty damned profitable and popular in the South, and not just for cotton. It produced wheat and rice and indigo and tobacco as well. Plans for slave run industries were fully up and in train by 1860. The base economic model was so workable that discussion on enslaving poor whites was active. The Lost Cause does not exist until it is lost; thus, actually independent Southerners would have no need to invent reasons why they didn't like slavery. They'd just have founded a nation on it.

2) More than that, the South's attitudes towards slavery were very malleable. There's a reason why the attitudes of 1790's Southerners have to be trotted out to defend the idea that the South didn't like Slavery. It's because the South of the 1860's loved it. Any independent South did not only found itself on slavery, they did so in a time period that is about to get very comfortable with the idea of biological hierarchies "scientific" proofs of superiority. And how do I know this will happen in the South? Why, because it did. Today's paternalism about how race relations would be better without a civil war were the first version of the Lost Cause's benevolent paternalism.

In other words, you've got quite an.... alternative write -up here about US history, but it doesn't really hold up.

 

[Kirk Kerman]

What about the west? I have a feeling that no matter what, the North and South would come to arms over the Mexican territories.

 

[pattersonautobody]

Forgive me, I don't see the position as credible. Slavery, or slave labour was simply too vital to the Southern Economy and far more entrenched in Southern Society. They were going to maintain that institution indefinitely in the face of all possible odds.

Your reply was full of inaccuracies. for one, south africa never had slavery and you asked me for rationale for some of my conjectures, but you ignored the rationale actually already given in my reply.

Lastly, the above quotation shows you do not know enough about the topic of antebellum slavery. Eugene Genovese convincingly argued that slavery was on its way out due to its economic inefficiencies. THe border states, like Maryland, only had token slave populations. Even states like VIrigina were slave exporters, mostly to the deep south. This wasn't because any of these guys had a come to Jesus moment. It was simple economics.

THis is why societies like Brazil, which had way more slaves and emancipated them later than the US, still ended up getting rid of slavery. It was economically inefficient. No magic ponies are necessary. IOTL we saw slaves states getting rid of their slaves because the institution economically did not work. It was only a matter of time that this would occur to the deeper south as well.

 

[pattersonautobody]

How would it be more economically advanced? If you left the Deep South in a disfunctional state like the CSA (which wouldn't even have the Upper South in this scenario) for 50-60 years before reannexation, it's gonna be way worse and have that much more of a hole to build up from. It would be a miracle if the Deep South was even as well off as the modern Deep South, let alone better.

I am positing that the net economic gains of not burning half the south to the ground and killing off an making cripples out of a million able bodied men is greater than the economic benefits of earlier emancipation.

For the record I am not trying to defend the CSA. I am not a red neck, I'm from NY.

 

[Arkenfolm]

I am positing that the net economic gains of not burning half the south to the ground and killing off an making cripples out of a million able bodied men is greater than the economic benefits of earlier emancipation.

For the record I am not trying to defend the CSA. I am not a red neck, I'm from NY.

That's what I'd think too, but this question is obviously extremely nuanced, and the CSA was probably the worst possible response there was to the question. I think the net "benefits" of delaying slavery's abolition for overall results (for slaves, this would be a century later, only benefiting their grandchildren at least) is yet another questionble thing. Let's say slavery's abolished in the CSA the same year Brazil abolishes slavery. Sure, if things are done peacefully, there's gonna be a huge future potential much more so than OTL.

I'm curious when you think abolition vs preserving the old system might have been acceptable. With the way the South was and how the slave power lobby influenced things, I don't think anything but a strong revision of the Constitution (if not writing a new Constitution) would have solved the issue in the 1860s.

 

[pattersonautobody]

I'm curious when you think abolition vs preserving the old system might have been acceptable. With the way the South was and how the slave power lobby influenced things, I don't think anything but a strong revision of the Constitution (if not writing a new Constitution) would have solved the issue in the 1860s.

I honestly think that the Civil War was in many ways similar to what the Trump Presidency is for the modern American workingclass--a last gasp of a significant demographic before the sands of time make them irrelevant.

The slave power lobby was declining in influence--this is why they had to resort to secession to begin with. The slave power lobby was cooking up schemes such as annexing Cuba and turning it into five states simply because they needed the additional senators to offset the fact that the American west was shaping up to be anti-slavery. All of the border states in economic terms lacked slavery, and large states like VIrginia were not very long behind. Economic reality, and labor via immigration, was going to kill slavery and no amount of fire-eating in south carolina could offset the economic reality for the entirety of the south which would increasingly set in.

So, the ironic thing is if the Civil War is averted by any means, the likely result is that the southerners who were so pro-slavery in 1860, would not be as adamant by 1870, would be very quiet by 1880, and would probably want full abolition by 1890. Fighting the Civil War itself, in some ways, put slavery front and center when in fact by 1870 it was on its way to irrelevance.

I think the slavocracy knew their days were numbered. I think this affected their psychology and led them to act so extremely. A lightbulb burns brightest right before it burns out.

 

[DG Valdron]

Your reply was full of inaccuracies. for one, south africa never had slavery

Sigh.

http://www.sahistory.org.za/article/history-slavery-and-early-colonisation-south-Africa

 

[pattersonautobody]

Sigh.

http://www.sahistory.org.za/article/history-slavery-and-early-colonisation-south-Africa

You got me there, I did not look it up.

 

[Marius]

Your reply was full of inaccuracies. for one, south africa never had slavery

Sigh.

http://www.sahistory.org.za/article/history-slavery-and-early-colonisation-south-Africa

You got me there, I did not look it up.

I just wanted to reply to LOL at this exchange.

There's a museum dedicated to Cape Town's slave history: http://www.iziko.org.za/museums/slave-lodge

 

[Incognitia]

I think it's entirely valid that an independent CSA might give up slavery within a couple of decades of independence.

Not because the slaveholders will suddenly see the light, but rather because of the same kind of concerted British diplomatic, economic and military pressure that helped to finish off slavery in Brazil.
I mean, it's not a guarantee, but that's certainly a large part of why multiple politicians in Britain were in favour of a split in the US - the CS alone would be much weaker before British pressure than the US as a whole.

 

[Skallagrim]

There are major differences between an independent CSA (as it was in OTL) and an independent Deep South-only CSA. The Deep South had by far the highest "slave density", and the institution was most entrenched there. In OTL, the CSA's consitution made it more or less impossible to abolish slavery. In this ATL, it will be even more difficult. Yes, slavery was - worldwide - very much on the way out. And I am one of those who firmly believes that had there been no civil war, slavery would have lived on up to the 1910s at the very outside...

...but this is a scenario where a country is formed with the specific intent to preserve slavery for all time. And unlike in OTL, this alt-CSA does not have the Upper South. That's where nearly all the Southern industry was (and even that was underdeveloped, compared to the North). Also keep in mind that unlike what's described in the OP, such a Deep South-only CSA would not include Texas. As observed earlier in this thread, it was the pro-CSA coup to gain political control of Texas that led to the cascade wherein other states were forced to choose, and some opted to secede as well. And as I have argued, this "peaceful secession"-scenario demands that lawful secession procedures exist and are followed. Furthermore, to keep the CSA "Deep South-only", those legal criteria for secession must be stringent. (If they are not, and secession is easy, you will end up with a bigger CSA containing all slave states, not a smaller CSA.) That means Texas will not secede. This alt-CSA would consist of South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Florida... and no more. Which means no Texan oil boom in the future, either!

Now consider the nature of Southern, and especially Deep Southern, culture. A powerful planter elite that thinks in very feudal terms: they consider themselves aristocrats. Literally. There was extensive literature that argued that the Southern planters all descended from the Norman conquerors of England (whom they - ahistorically - described as aristocratic and refined), while the people in the North (and especially New England!) descended from the Anglo-Saxons (who were described as mere yokels; serfs). This Southern upper class did not want industry. Northern industry obviously created a middle class, a merchant base... it would eliminate class distinctions! The horror!

No, these planters would much prefer things to stay agricultural, pastoral... feudal. There was a modest white middle class. Shopkeepers. Artisans. Farm hands. And, of course... security forces and slave-catchers. Few people who think only casually about antebellum Southern society seem to realise that it was in so many ways a paranoid police state. Many poorer whites were employed, at least part-time, in some function related to keeping order and continually suppressing the slaves. This system was remarkably stable. A bigger white middle class would mean white unemployment. An end to slavery would mean more competition for poor whites from free blacks. The poor whites were thus coaxed into believing they, too, were stakeholders in this social model. (Most of these poor whites never knew that this neo-feudal arrangement kept them poor and subjugated, too, and withheld from them many amenities that industry could have offered.)

A CSA that had oil-rich Texas and the nascent industrial sectors of the Upper South, as well as the Appalachian regions that held many poorer whites that held no stake in slaveholding... such a CSA might eventually have abolished slavery. External pressure and internal pressure could have seen to that.

But this Deep South-only CSA? No way. This country would be the very heart of slaveholder society. It would be agricultural. It could be self-sufficient as far as food production was concerned, and it would actively wish to avoid the blessings of modern industry. So even a complete international embargo would not bring it to its knees. It would become a hermit kingdom sooner than abolish its "sacred tradition". And who would interfere? No one fought a war to end Apartheid. Maybe the boll weevil could destroy Southern argiculture, thus forcing it to end its isolation and negotiate with the embargo-enforcing powers? Maybe. But an embargo might prevent the importation of the boll weevil in the first place.

In any case, I think any hopeful scenarios are purely wishful thinking. And I am no radical CSA-basher. I do not believe every Southerner was a racist monster, nor do I think the Northerners fought the Civil War to free the slaves. (They fought it to restore the Union, pure and simple.) I hold that if no civil war had been fought, slavery would have faded out. Race relations might even have turned out better than in OTL, had there been no divisive war that tore up the entire Union. And again, I can even believe that OTL's CSA might have been pressured to get rid of slavery, somewhere in the first half of the 20th century. (Although that's really a toss-up; it might also have gone the Apartheid-route, becoming internationally isolated for refusing abolition.)

But to argue that an alt-CSA consisting of only the Deep South would somehow turn out okay... that's not realistic. And to believe that in such a scenario, race relations would be better than in OTL? That's delusional at best.

 

[Mightyboosh5]

@Skallagrim I get your point about apartheid South Africa not being invaded and functioning as an isolated state for a long time however I don't think it's a good analogy. For the South African afrikaaners they viewed that state as literally the only place they could exist as a people with nowhere to move to and surrounded by chaotic black states that expelled whites en mass such as Angola and Zimbabwe. White southerners however would be living in an economic backwater and would easily be able to move north and find better standards of living.

They would also have a good example of a multi racial economic and democratic system that is not threatening to most white people on their border in the way South Africa didn't.