alternatehistory.com
II
The Burgist[1] and the Aristocratic Republics: The USA and CSA before the Revolutions by Dale Huckabee, Ph.D. Ozark University Press, 2007
During its inception, the party system of the Confederate States of America was much like the United States during the American War for Independence- nonexistent. That soon changed after the Treaty of Lisbon in 1865. Just like in the United States after her independence, partisanship quickly crept into Confederate politics. Stephens was unlike his template president, George Washington, in how quickly he picked up a party affiliation.
He decided to side with the Protectionist Democrats almost as soon as the war was over. Stephens was instrumental in the early creation of that party, setting its pro-tariff and pro-industrialization platform. In Stephens’ mind, he wanted the CSA to become self-sufficient and not overly reliant on foreign, particularly Usonian, industrial production. As a result, the foreign policy of the Protectionists was born from their economic policy. They favored an antagonistic relationship with the USA and friendly relations with Europe and Latin America. The Protectionists were wholly against expanding the CSA southwards into the Caribbean and Mexico. Their domestic program also stemmed from their pro-industrialization stances, advocating for relaxing the slave codes in order to allow slaves to become literate, therefor making them better manufactory workers. They eventually became a pro-immigration party and were fiercely opposed to organized labor and workplace democracy. This caused them to become the party of the city, liberals, former Whigs, and burgesses.
Their more electorally successful opponents, the agrarian minded Constitutionalists quickly became the standard bearer for states’ rights. While early Protectionists like Stephens and Early were strong advocates for states’ rights, their party eventually abandoned the position in favor of more centralized power to allow for stronger currency and central banking, both anathema to slavocrats. The Constitutionalists were the clearer successors to the Southern Democratic Party, espousing a platform built on soft currency, low tariffs, détente with the US, a paternalistic idea of slave welfare, and states’ rights. They began, just like the Protectionists, as a faction of the Democratic Party and received their name from their strict reading of the Confederate constitution. They became the natural ruling party of the Confederacy, due to the widespread property and literacy requirements for voting keeping political power safely in the grasp of both planters and burgesses.
The third and underappreciated force in Confederate politics was the Populist Party. The party of the hardscrabble farmers in Appalachia, poor whites, and the proletariat, they were mostly kept out of office through state level ballot box restrictions put in place by Constitutionalists. And wherever the franchise was less restricted, outright electoral fraud kept the Populists out of power. While they were widely popular with the Confederate lower classes, they were notoriously unable to get elected to any offices of substance. There was never a Populist POTCS and only a handful of Populists became Congressmen, usually caucusing with the Protectionists. The Populists never had much of a coherent platform, but they were largely speaking less white supremacist than the other parties. [2] Their popularity but lack of electoral success is likely one of the major contributing factors that may have led to the growing class consciousness amongst Southrons [3]
As for the enslaved, they often secretly held abolitionist viewpoints in their hearts but as Usonian and homegrown leftists began to quietly disseminate Marxist and Libertarian thought, often coded inside of religious language in order to hide it from their oppressors. It became clear that among the enslaved there were two major prophets promising their liberation: Moses and Marx…[4]
WI: Jefferson Davis did not die? from counter_factual:board
[1] Marx was translated a bit differently
[2] This is a nuance that Dr. Huckabee kinda glosses over in his attempt to portray the Populists as the good guys. The Populists, in truth never had much of a coherent platform on slavery or race relations. Populist politicians often had positions that ran the gamut from maintaining the status quo to just short of emancipation, and a few oddballs who wanted to deport black folks to Africa.
[3] See why he wanted to portray the Populists as the good guys? Dr. Huckabee isn’t exactly a bad historian for doing this, by the way. He’s just human, flawed, and a bit stuck in his ways.
[4] Not exactly. As we will later find out, American leftism, particularly in the South, is not exactly Orthodox Marxism. The variant that takes off the strongest among the slaves and the few free blacks is closer to OTL Maoism, with a few students of Bakunin running around. In fact, I'd call it a sort of Folk-Marxism, where it's mostly passed down and disseminated as an oral tradition
[5] This is somewhat contrived, but considering how much Davis struggled with malaria throughout his life, it’s not totally out of the question, imho
[6] They aren’t remembering that Stephens was an early Protectionist and was much more on board with a decentralized Confederacy than Davis was. Not everybody can be good at history
[7] States Rights Gist really existed and he’s my favorite treasonous aristocrat, just because of how beautifully ridiculous his name is
During its inception, the party system of the Confederate States of America was much like the United States during the American War for Independence- nonexistent. That soon changed after the Treaty of Lisbon in 1865. Just like in the United States after her independence, partisanship quickly crept into Confederate politics. Stephens was unlike his template president, George Washington, in how quickly he picked up a party affiliation.
He decided to side with the Protectionist Democrats almost as soon as the war was over. Stephens was instrumental in the early creation of that party, setting its pro-tariff and pro-industrialization platform. In Stephens’ mind, he wanted the CSA to become self-sufficient and not overly reliant on foreign, particularly Usonian, industrial production. As a result, the foreign policy of the Protectionists was born from their economic policy. They favored an antagonistic relationship with the USA and friendly relations with Europe and Latin America. The Protectionists were wholly against expanding the CSA southwards into the Caribbean and Mexico. Their domestic program also stemmed from their pro-industrialization stances, advocating for relaxing the slave codes in order to allow slaves to become literate, therefor making them better manufactory workers. They eventually became a pro-immigration party and were fiercely opposed to organized labor and workplace democracy. This caused them to become the party of the city, liberals, former Whigs, and burgesses.
Their more electorally successful opponents, the agrarian minded Constitutionalists quickly became the standard bearer for states’ rights. While early Protectionists like Stephens and Early were strong advocates for states’ rights, their party eventually abandoned the position in favor of more centralized power to allow for stronger currency and central banking, both anathema to slavocrats. The Constitutionalists were the clearer successors to the Southern Democratic Party, espousing a platform built on soft currency, low tariffs, détente with the US, a paternalistic idea of slave welfare, and states’ rights. They began, just like the Protectionists, as a faction of the Democratic Party and received their name from their strict reading of the Confederate constitution. They became the natural ruling party of the Confederacy, due to the widespread property and literacy requirements for voting keeping political power safely in the grasp of both planters and burgesses.
The third and underappreciated force in Confederate politics was the Populist Party. The party of the hardscrabble farmers in Appalachia, poor whites, and the proletariat, they were mostly kept out of office through state level ballot box restrictions put in place by Constitutionalists. And wherever the franchise was less restricted, outright electoral fraud kept the Populists out of power. While they were widely popular with the Confederate lower classes, they were notoriously unable to get elected to any offices of substance. There was never a Populist POTCS and only a handful of Populists became Congressmen, usually caucusing with the Protectionists. The Populists never had much of a coherent platform, but they were largely speaking less white supremacist than the other parties. [2] Their popularity but lack of electoral success is likely one of the major contributing factors that may have led to the growing class consciousness amongst Southrons [3]
As for the enslaved, they often secretly held abolitionist viewpoints in their hearts but as Usonian and homegrown leftists began to quietly disseminate Marxist and Libertarian thought, often coded inside of religious language in order to hide it from their oppressors. It became clear that among the enslaved there were two major prophets promising their liberation: Moses and Marx…[4]
WI: Jefferson Davis did not die? from counter_factual:board
Julius_Cheeser said:
PhillyGurL said:
eas66 said:
Squithrile said:
PhillyGurl said:
HerodotusIsMyHero said:
Comrade Dixie said:
Roboman said:
[1] Marx was translated a bit differently
[2] This is a nuance that Dr. Huckabee kinda glosses over in his attempt to portray the Populists as the good guys. The Populists, in truth never had much of a coherent platform on slavery or race relations. Populist politicians often had positions that ran the gamut from maintaining the status quo to just short of emancipation, and a few oddballs who wanted to deport black folks to Africa.
[3] See why he wanted to portray the Populists as the good guys? Dr. Huckabee isn’t exactly a bad historian for doing this, by the way. He’s just human, flawed, and a bit stuck in his ways.
[4] Not exactly. As we will later find out, American leftism, particularly in the South, is not exactly Orthodox Marxism. The variant that takes off the strongest among the slaves and the few free blacks is closer to OTL Maoism, with a few students of Bakunin running around. In fact, I'd call it a sort of Folk-Marxism, where it's mostly passed down and disseminated as an oral tradition
[5] This is somewhat contrived, but considering how much Davis struggled with malaria throughout his life, it’s not totally out of the question, imho
[6] They aren’t remembering that Stephens was an early Protectionist and was much more on board with a decentralized Confederacy than Davis was. Not everybody can be good at history
[7] States Rights Gist really existed and he’s my favorite treasonous aristocrat, just because of how beautifully ridiculous his name is
- Guildencrantz
- Word Count: 880