How long would the Confederacy survive?

[bguy]

As far as the federal level goes, you need to remember that the Gilded Age had a reputation for extremely close elections between the Democrats and Republicans...with the Southern states voting again. Without those, I don't think they can compete for the presidency or Congress at all. And that's not considering the direct backlash they're liable to suffer for perceived disloyalty during the war, in the same vein as the Federalists post-1812 and the Democrats post-Vietnam. They may still win state-level elections in some places, but they won't be competitive without major changes to their image and platform. Doughfaceism is probably dead.

I don't know. Throughout the Gilded Age, the Democrats were highly competitive in a lot of the northern states.

-New Jersey (they won it in every election from 1876 to 1892)
-Connecticut (they won it in every election from 1876 to 1892 except 1880)
- New York (they won it in 1876 and 1884 and 1892 and only narrowly lost it in 1880 and 1888).
-Ohio (they narrowly lost it 1876, 1888, and 1892).
-Indiana (they won it in 1876, 1884 and 1892 and only narrowly lost it in 1880 and 1888)

If the Democrats carry those five states plus the border states of Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware (all of which the Democrats dominated in the Gilded Age) then they can win a presidential election by winning both of Oregon and California (they nearly carried both states in 1876 and only narrowly lost Oregon and did carry California in 1880) or one of Wisconsin (which they narrowly lost in 1876 and did carry in 1892 or Illinois (narrowly lost in 1888 and did carry in 1892).

Thus there's definitely a path for the Democrats to win a Gilded Age presidential election even without the Southern states.

And wouldn't any backlash the Democrats face for perceived disloyalty during the war be offset by the backlash the Republicans would face for having bungled the war?

 

[Jaehaerys48]

One interesting thing to think about is whether the “Great Migration” - the internal migration of millions of African Americans from the South to the North that took place in the 20th century - would occur with an independent Confederacy. Obviously it would be dependent on slavery being abolished and the South permitting Black emigration.

Without the migration the demographics of the north and Midwest look very different. Cities like New York, Chicago, and DC would have a far smaller African American population.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

Actually the party system in a seven deep south states secedes peacefully scenario is interesting. The upper south states, the four that seceded and the four that stayed, are still in the union. And three of them were carried by Bell and the Constitutional Unionists in 1860. While two went for Breckinridge, I don't think there is much point to the continued existence of the southern Democrats in this scenario. The Constitutional Unionists have a reason for existing, either as the party most likely to negotiate a peaceful reunion with the southern states, or as an alternative to the Democrats in the remaining slave states, since the only one with any Republican Party organization at all was Missouri and it would take a long time to forever for the Republicans to build one in the other states, even with all the postal jobs.

So in this scenario is one of the few PODs where you could actually get a multi-party system in the United States. Its before the compromise of 1876 set the two party system in stone. The Constitutional Unionists (they would probably go just by the "Unionists") would be positioned to attack the people who later became the Mugwumps IOTL. Alternatively, the Republicans are not the establishment party, not having won a war to reunite the union and not having presided over emancipation and reconstruction. They become more liberal and populist than IOTL, absorbing the Greenback support, and the Unionists stand more for sound currency and the interests of the upper South elite, but against the Democratic big city machines.

 

[Taunay]

You are putting a modern view of race and racism being among the cardinal sins and Confederates = Nazis in a different different landscape and country....the 19th century American past

I dont see any of that in his comment.

 

[Taunay]

My guess: Confederacy is like Brazil, but smaller and poorer. Probably the Anglo equivalent of a Latin American country (which goes against OTL's somehow-racist idea that British settler colonies are "destined" to become rich, powerful, prosperous etc. simply because they were settled by men under St. George's Cross).
I recommend reading the Cinco de Mayo TL. Although the Confederacy is not the main focus, the author does talk a bit about its development and is said that by 2020 it would probably end up as an English-speaking Brazil, with both poor whites and blacks living in alt-TL favelas on the outskirts of the few rich cities in the region

 

[marktaha]

American Mercury in the 30s surmised a wool hat Republic under someone like Huey Long. I once tried to work out an alternative CSA myself.

 

[KingSweden24]

I agree with previous posts who emphasize that the issue of longevity depends on the circumstances under which the Confederates achieve independence in the first place. I would say that the Confederacy can definitely survive into the 20th century. After that, it will probably slide into a systemic political crisis at some point, because the economy will not be able to keep up with that of the North and the economic elite will probably be viewed as outdated.

I think the Confederates and Brazil would be similar in that respect: republics whose economic model has an expiration date, leaving them vulnerable to mass populist movements (a Confederate Getulio Vargas? *cough cough* Huey Long *cough cough*). If these populist autocrats manage to modernize, I see no reason why the Confederacy shouldn't survive to this day (maybe it won't be called the Confederacy then, but that would be mere speculation).

*shamelessly glances at first linked TL in sig*

Great minds think alike, I guess!

 

[KingSweden24]

They still have to get across that border though. If you are a slave in Mississippi or South Carolina it's a very long way to the US border and there are going to be a lot of slave catching patrols between you and the border. (Not to mention the Confederate Army actually on the border.)

It's also far from certain the North will be a refuge for escape slaves. Maybe when the Republicans are in power it will be, but IOTL the post-war northern Democrats were extremely hostile to African-American rights. Thus it's very doubtful they are going to be welcoming to escaped slaves. You won't see the Fugitive Slave Act being enforced, but I would expect that whenever the Democrats are in the White House you will see U.S. customs agents returning any slaves they catch trying to cross into the United States, and Democrat governors and attorney generals and sheriffs will certainly continue to try and suppress the Underground Railroad operating in their jurisdictions.

I think this is unfair to postwar Democrats in this hypothetical. Democratic hostility to Black rights in this time period was just saying aloud what many Republicans privately thought, but it was also a product of sharing a party with the South. Actively returning slaves across the border would be hideously unpopular

 

[Sceonn]

Apartheid started in 1948. Globalization dependson who you talk to started at different points in time and in different pop up points. 1942 is a start date for some.

Yes, Wiki recognize three globalization periods with the latest starting along the fall of the USSR.

 

[bguy]

I think this is unfair to postwar Democrats in this hypothetical. Democratic hostility to Black rights in this time period was just saying aloud what many Republicans privately thought, but it was also a product of sharing a party with the South. Actively returning slaves across the border would be hideously unpopular

Northern Democrats didn't just push anti-black policies at the national level when they needed southern votes. They also pushed such policies at the state level. (Witness Thomas Hendricks (pre-Civil War) fighting for the Indiana state constitution to prohibit allowing blacks to move into Indiana or Allan Thurman running for the governorship of Ohio in 1867 on a platform of "No Negro Equality.")

As for returning slaves being unpopular, maybe but I think you are underestimating just how easily human beings can ignore the suffering of others when they don't have to directly witness it. And there's a lot of influences in the North to make Northeners willingly turn a blind eye to the suffering of slaves. Even aside from the endemic racism throughout the North and the fear of working class immigrants that escaped slaves would undercut their position in the job market, the U.S. is going to have an immense amount of trade with the Confederate States. Manufacturers and farmers will be selling their goods down south, textile mills will be importing their cotton from the Confederacy, bankers will be extending loans to Southern plantation owners and Midwestern farmers will be wanting to sending their produce down the Mississippi to New Orleans. All these interests are going to want good relations with the Confederate States so as to insure their own business dealings, and if the price of maintaining such good relations is having the federal government returning some escaped slaves then I'm afraid it's a price a lot of people will be willing to pay as long as they don't have to personally witness what is being done to the escaped slaves.

 

[KingSweden24]

Northern Democrats didn't just push anti-black policies at the national level when they needed southern votes. They also pushed such policies at the state level. (Witness Thomas Hendricks (pre-Civil War) fighting for the Indiana state constitution to prohibit allowing blacks to move into Indiana or Allan Thurman running for the governorship of Ohio in 1867 on a platform of "No Negro Equality.")

As for returning slaves being unpopular, maybe but I think you are underestimating just how easily human beings can ignore the suffering of others when they don't have to directly witness it. And there's a lot of influences in the North to make Northeners willingly turn a blind eye to the suffering of slaves. Even aside from the endemic racism throughout the North and the fear of working class immigrants that escaped slaves would undercut their position in the job market, the U.S. is going to have an immense amount of trade with the Confederate States. Manufacturers and farmers will be selling their goods down south, textile mills will be importing their cotton from the Confederacy, bankers will be extending loans to Southern plantation owners and Midwestern farmers will be wanting to sending their produce down the Mississippi to New Orleans. All these interests are going to want good relations with the Confederate States so as to insure their own business dealings, and if the price of maintaining such good relations is having the federal government returning some escaped slaves then I'm afraid it's a price a lot of people will be willing to pay as long as they don't have to personally witness what is being done to the escaped slaves.

Oh I’m not saying that Hendricks (a committed white suprematist) was cynical rather than genuine, or even that Blacks would have many rights in the US, I’m just skeptical there’s much of a lobby for “we must return the slaves so the South will like us” as an active point of view.

 

[Mikestone8]

See, I think this is an understated thing in most TLs. I just read a book about the Civil War and the author makes the argument that even by 1863 in OTL, slavery was really wounded by the simple fact that slaves ran away to the Union forces everywhere, in huge numbers. Granted, peace will help reduce these areas (I doubt the North will get to keep New Orleans for example) but still. Thousands of slaves will escape to a North that, while not being an enlightened racial utopia, certainly isn't going to send them back. Is slavery really tenable in such a circumstance?

Iirc large numbers of slaves used the *ARW* as an opportunity to escape - some even joining the British army. Yet that didn't stop slavery continuing another eight decades.

 

[Jiraiyathegallant]

My guess: Confederacy is like Brazil, but smaller and poorer. Probably the Anglo equivalent of a Latin American country (which goes against OTL's somehow-racist idea that British settler colonies are "destined" to become rich, powerful, prosperous etc. simply because they were settled by men under St. George's Cross).
I recommend reading the Cinco de Mayo TL. Although the Confederacy is not the main focus, the author does talk a bit about its development and is said that by 2020 it would probably end up as an English-speaking Brazil, with both poor whites and blacks living in alt-TL favelas on the outskirts of the few rich cities in the region

It took Brazil a hundred years to catch the US 1860 GDP per head. How will the Confederacy end up a poorer Brazil?

 

[funnyhat]

One interesting thing to think about is whether the “Great Migration” - the internal migration of millions of African Americans from the South to the North that took place in the 20th century - would occur with an independent Confederacy. Obviously it would be dependent on slavery being abolished and the South permitting Black emigration.

Without the migration the demographics of the north and Midwest look very different. Cities like New York, Chicago, and DC would have a far smaller African American population.

It's very doubtful that it would happen ITTL. The US passed laws against Asian immigration in the 19th century and restricted immigration from southern Europe in the 1920s. It's a safe assumption that it would seek to restrict black immigration also.

Apartheid started in 1948. Globalization dependson who you talk to started at different points in time and in different pop up points. 1942 is a start date for some.

Apartheid was not created from scratch. There had always been segregation in South Africa, it just codified it further.

 

[Beefhammer]

Come to think of it, how does the Confederacy escape destruction, a peace treaty or an armistice?

 

[Khan Doomy]

Hmm there are two different things going on here. 1) Discussions on how the North handles the issue of African-Americans 2) Discussions on how the South will deter slaves escaping. While the two are connected, they are two different Alternative History topics

On (1) I find the idea of any support for an international fugitive slaves act problematic. And while local governments can muck around, I cannot see the Federal Goverment letting them do so. A lot will depend on how the North decides to handle the issue. It is not monolithic, but so was racial prejudice and legalized racism not monolithic. As long as there are states in the USA more willing to give African-Americans a chance, there will be little reason to interfere with escapees beyond funneling them towards those states. The Federal Goverment could decide to resolve the issue partly by a reservation policy as it did with Native Americans, it could also go with the historical results of the Constitutional Amendments. A lot will depend on when the war ends and how. 1864 with a McCellan-Pendelton Presidency? Very hard to see any willingness to play along with the South on this. Hard-liner attitudes of weaking even an Independent CSA would lead to tolerating the Underground Railroad. It could more seriously support emigration to Canada or Africa (with the US perhaps taking a much more serious interest in Liberia). A lot will depend on whether you still get Lincoln's favored policy of letting the border states do emancipation and when they do.

The point is that even a Democrat victory is not going to implement the Chicago Platform.

What I am trying to say is that while many Northerners were racial prejudiced, and many Union states racist, there was a general deep seated opposition to a) expansion of slavery b) that morphed in the crucible to war to opposition to slavery. These are not going to go away.

My view is that the general idea would be to "encourage" escaped african-americans to emigrate or move to territories (and let those territories figure things out perhaps violently). Racism in the USA might interestingly end up with at least one majority African-American state carved out of territories (why not, the LDS got Utah). Since the US African-American population will not be as big as it was OTL, a state would not be totally weird, and one easy way to resolve this for the USA.

I would thus caution against an assumption of a seamless coordination between the slave-holding CSA and the slavery hating USA on this issue.

That said, there are of course multiple ways for the CSA and CSA states to alleviate the loss due to escapes. This will range from police power repression to schemes of gradual emancipation that would keep many slaves put in the hopes of liberty for themselves or their children. Remember the CSA constitution only says the CSA goverment cannot abolish slavery. And you could have state constitutions that de-facto abolish slavery but not de-jure. Politics is the art of the practical.

What I do not see happening is the CSA stirring the hornets nest again by too aggressive an attitude over this issue vs. the USA. A CSA that eschews expanding slavery on the continent, and avoids antagonizing the American System as seen by the USA (refer to McDougall) can get away with a lot more than a CSA that picks a fight over territories or goes on some stupid adventure in Central America.

Again a lot depends on the contours of a) how the CSA becomes independent b) when

That said my view is that chattel slavery as practiced in the ante-bellum south was not going to survive long. But again , as long as you keep the de-jure rules, there is a lot of leeway what you do de-facto.

And the same goes for the USA.

That said I do think the Great Migration still happens. Indeed it might even be a coordinated policy between the USA seeking labor to replace people marshalled for WW1 and the CSA seeking to alleviate its own racial issues. Interestingly though the migrants will be CSA nationals, and thus you might get a situation similar to Gestarbiter in Germany, or Koreans in Japan, in the USA.

 

[Khan Doomy]

Hell I can see some level of prejudice existing between African Americans (those who are nationals of the USA, living in states (or a state) that give them civil rights) vs. Confederate Africans emigrating during the great migration. Would it be that weird for people who can claim the legacy of the USCT, have enjoyed the fruits of liberty under the US Constitution, however tenuous, develop their own identity distinct from that of the legacy of slavery? Especially if even two or three USA states treat them as fellow citizens rather than second-class nationals?

 

[Khan Doomy]

Indeed this thread raises an interesting question. What does victory mean for the CSA? Saying independence makes sense for the Upper South (and even there just Virginia really) and SC. But the Lower South did not secede over independence, or even the preservation of slavery. It seceded over the question of the Expansion of Slavery (McDougall lays out well in Throes of Democracy). The one thing no Northern Politician could give it and hope to survive politically (and maybe physically). Lincoln was willing to give them almost everything but that, and I find it hard for any USA president (whether Seward, McClellan, Chase or Pendelton) negotiating peace being willing to accept that either. How does a victory that grants independence but closes off expansion of slavery in North America affect calculations about the long-term survival of slavery? Both sides believed that absent expansion, slavery was doomed to die. We might go on about whether slavery could survive or not, but in 1860s people did thing absent expansion it could not. Virginians, and Carolinians might not care much (hell NC only seceded because Virginia did so, and SC just wanted to secede whatever the cause), and just happy to get independence, but the Lower South? How does the failure to get that affect the view of slavery as a long-term investment? (on an interesting point, would be interested to see a thread focusing just on the negotiations and inter-CSA tensions over them).

 

[BELFAST]

Was the desire to expand slavery intended to prevent there being a majority of free states in the union that would sooner or later abolish slavery?
CSA has a built-in majority of slave states so that is no longer a problem.

 

[Wade Hampton V]

Another issue I think that ties into the one about whether the US will be welcoming of escaped slaves, and to what degree, is the war guilt ascribed to slaves by a defeated North. It's possible that the whole reason for the split in the country and the resulting war with all the attendant death and destruction followed by eventual defeat could be blamed on the slaves (which I realize is idiotic but the human propensity for scapegoating is sadly all too real).

In such a case there could be a very real societal rejection of any attempts to assist escaping slaves except among those most committed to abolition to begin with, the hard-core abolitionists and certain religious denominations.