Poll: When Would the CSA Eliminate Slavery

[Thomas1195]

But remember that same republic supported the Russian Empire.

Because it was the only choice for them.

I know that was because of Germany threat to them but a US without the CSA is a much more Germanic country now.

Germany and USA was friendly OTL until they became economic and geopolitical rivals some time after 1870, with Germany increasingly pursuing expansionist and militaristic policy, and the Americans felt that they might threaten Monroe Doctrine. And trade war actually occurred between Germany and the US during the 1880s.

 

[Modern Imperialism]

Because it was the only choice for them.


Germany and USA was friendly OTL until they became economic and geopolitical rivals some time after 1870, with Germany increasingly pursuing expansionist and militaristic policy, and the Americans felt that they might threaten Monroe Doctrine.

You do not think US being more German in demographics might change that? Also Britain is more of a threat to the US then Germany. They have don’t even have land in the Western Hemisphere. I was thinking PA and Midwest relationship with Germany would be similar to New England and England in the long run especially with continued German immigrants. The only reason US fought in ww1 is because the Kaiser was a complete idiot in foreign affairs.

 

[Fiver]

CSA could attract immigrants with money.

US Census data shows the Confederacy would have difficulty attracting any immigrants. In 1860, there were over 233,000 immigrants in the states that would form the Confederacy. That's about 1-in-40 people and half of those immigrants lived west of the Mississippi. For contrast, there were 3.8 million immigrants in the states that would stay with the Union, about 1-in-6 people.

Appalachia and much of Texas isn’t cash crop lands so aristocrats careless about it. The land in Appalachia was mostly unkept lands or small substance farming before mines and mass logging so mines and logging taking hold won’t impact aristocrats that much. The land in Appalachia is cheap so immigrants might buy mineral rights to a lot of cheap lands(a lot cheaper and easier to buy the mineral rights but it is a highly corrupt system.

The problem with industrializing Appalachia is it has little infrastructure and the South has little investment capitol. And since the Confederacy had already confiscated the property of US citizens during the Civil War, foreigners are going to be very cautious about investing in the Confederacy.

Texas has a bunch of land for immigrants not tied to cash crop/slave labor. How did slavery and ranchers interact or overlap? That is one I have never actually heard or read at all about? Would they use slaves that much on a ranch or would they be mostly wage labor and families working it? This would create two new elite classes not tied to slavery within the south. You now have ranch and coal barons who use cheap white labor instead of slaves.

"The southern coal and iron mining industry was greatly dependent upon slave labor and many mining companies invested substantial sums in bondsmen..." - Industrial slavery in the Old South, Robert Starobin

 

[Fiver]

This would be the new money class(probably log and rail company owners too).

"Slaves were used greatly to log the pine, cypress and live-oak in the swamps and forests from Texas to Virginia and especially along the Gulf Coast... By 1860, the southern lumber industry engaged about 16,000 laborers, most of whom were slaves." - Industrial slavery in the Old South, Robert Starobin

"Southern internal improvement enterprises were so dependent upon slave labor that virtually all southern railroads, except for a few border-state lines, were either built by slave-employing contractors or by company-owned or hired bondsmen." - Industrial slavery in the Old South, Robert Starobin

It’s also good to remember the black population in Appalachia and western Texas will be much lower then the Deep South(lacks crops that would bring them in).They are much more heavily white. The argument by this new elite since many have roots in lower class is that cattle slavery will lead to them being out number by blacks too much because slavery encourages more breeding(masters want more free labor or people to sell). Then being from more white areas might make them fear being eventually overrun by blacks if slavery continues. In Deep South where some states are reaching over 60 percent black populations many might fear that continued slavery will mean that will grow by more. After a serious slave revolt that opinion grows even among some aristocrats.

Fear of slave revolts was the reason that most Southern whites supported the existence of slavery. Rising slave populations will strengthen Confederate support of slavery, not turn them into abolitionists.

 

[Fiver]

So a strict version of black codes are put in place around turn of century(no weapons, restricted movement, live in restricted areas, and ban from some areas or places completely). Blacks in 1905 have to carry around identification cards and can’t across state lines without permission or company of white officials. Stuff like that. That’s why I think it becomes police state like. You have little corrupt state militias or police patrolling areas for blacks(even after slavery) and anti-government groups).

1905? That describes 1850 in the slaveholding states.

Those militias can probably be easily converted to soldiers especially if theirs a lot of them.

Those militias will receive no training, let alone military training. The only skill required for hunting suspected escaped slaves is one of the patrol being sober enough that they don't fall off their horse and call off the dogs before they maim or cripple the slave. Lynching a suspected Unionist requires even less skill - you just don't call off the dogs and then set fire to the home of the helpless widow and orphans. You don't get real soldiers out of these patrols, you get the murderous thugs that followed William Quantrill, Chamnp Ferguson, and Bill Anderson. They're great for massacring civilians and POWs, but that's all.

Think how militarized some law enforcement is now in US. The south would do that much earlier. They are likely training and equipping these patrols with military left overs. Even if both nations are voluntary forces the south has to spend less time training them since many of those patrols get military like training and gear.

Why would the Confederate government train or equip slave patrols? That costs money and untrained amateurs had proved good enough to beat unarmed and frequently malnourished slaves.

Slave rebels and partisans are basically live target practice to confederates.

That's a pretty coldblooded way of describing the massacre of helpless civilians.

 

[Fiver]

Even if both nations are voluntary forces the south has to spend less time training them since many of those patrols get military like training and gear. Slave rebels and partisans are basically live target practice to confederates. Those partisans also have guns and know how to use them(confederacy is learning how to fight partisans. Think how that relates to changes in war in the next 100 years).

If the Confederacy is dealing with organized partisans they will have to develop the tactics to do that, they will need to use actual Confederate soldiers, and they will need to use significant forces. If you try to use militias and slave patrols for this difficult and very dangerous job, the possible outcomes are:

* The militia charges in and get wiped out.
* The militia refuses to take on organized partisans.
* The militia spends a few days "looking for" Unionists in places where they don't think there are any Unionists, then report the Unionists have escaped.
* The militia spends a few days "looking for" Unionists in places where they don't think there are any Unionists, then report there are no Unionists.
* The militia ambushes and kills a couple of random poor white men that they don't like, steals anything that isn't nailed down, sets fire to their homes, and possibly rapes their women.
* The militia ambushes and kills a couple of random black men, steals anything that isn't nailed down, sets fire to their homes, and possibly rapes their women.

After enough of these failures, the Confederacy probably will learn the proper methods for their regular troops to beat Unionist partisans. This will prove useless if they have to fight the US, which will have repeating rifles, Gatling guns, and barbed wire. It would be less useless if the Confederates decide to act as partisans against the US troops, but they will regularly be betrayed by the slaves and surviving relatives of white Unionists.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

It is because the opposite side was large enough to frustrate his plan. Without the Bulgarian Horrors thing, Disraeli would have intervened at will and much earlier.

Opposition didn't rule out military action, Disraeli sent the fleet and the Russians stopped at San Stefano lest war be risked. Opinion was with him on that one, and the Russians sought terms before intervention was necessary.

The British actually ruled out military intervention in any case, and while the main reason was deep economic ties (with the North) and heavy reliance on grain supplies from the North, anti-slavery sentiment both in the public and within the Parliament was a contributing factor.

When precisely? They were very much willing to go to war for their own interests in 1861-62, economics be damned. The North was far more dependent on British trade than the reverse, and King Grain is as big a hoax as King Cotton from all my searches into the subject. Anti-slave sentiment had very little to do with the politics of recognition, otherwise Gladstone would never have become PM once, much less twice.

Though let me answer my own question here: no pro-Southern politician was dragged over the coals and no one who profited from blockade running or who did business with the South was ever ostracized from British society for their dealings. Similarly, business with an independent South would be just as trivial. Some might take a moral stance to it, but would the spinners and mill workers of urban and rural England really get bothered that their cotton came from slave laborers in Georgia vs peasants in Egypt? They didn't really give notice before 1861, and I doubt most would after if it keeps a roof over their heads. The men who profit off it? Even less thought.

 

[Fiver]

Aristocrats will probably let the other classes grow.

Unless the Confederate "aristocrats" establish a totalitarian regime and institute mass sterilization or extermination, they will "let the other classes grow".

The only time other classes will come into conflict with aristocrats is when they think slavery is becoming a self destructive element after a Spartacus type revolt.

The Third Servile War against Spartacus did not lead to the Roman lower classes coming into conflict with the aristocrats. It did not lead to the lower classes thinking that slavery was "becoming a self destructive element". That didn't happen in the First and Second Servile Wars. It wouldn't happen in an independent Confederacy.

 

[CountPeter]

Outside of revolution, I think I side with the indefinate crowd.

Whilst not neccesarily efficient, slavery is still in effect for much of the world's economy. If you have eaten Nestle chocolate for instance, you are likely to have eaten slave produced products. Starbucks too for some of it's blends (potentially more so now it has partnered with Nestle).

Slavery is and can be very profitable in the modern world, being a $150 billion industry (https://www.freetheslaves.net/our-model-for-freedom/slavery-today/). Having an institution like that built into your state isn't inherently an economic sword of damocles when most of the world still allows it in a non confederate victory, pretending it doesn't benefit from it.

 

[Fiver]

The CSA system was intended to create a aristocrat slaver republic but the system would naturally shift towards a plutocracy with some authoritative and militaristic elements.

An "Aristocrat slaver republic" is already a "plutocracy with some authoritative and militaristic elements". No shift is needed.

Aristocrats might only control the cash crop production economically while other classes rise up on resource extraction or other raw resources. The CSA will still have elections among middle to upper classes. For 1 aristocrat let’s say there are 5 miner owners. Now add that together and it will change who is getting elected and funding.

The planters would still outnumber the mine owners, but there would be no Confederate distinction between "aristocrats" and mine owners - both would be wealthy men who own lots of slaves. The only wealthy men excluded from being "aristocrats" were men like Nathan Bedford Forrest who made their money as slave traders.

If the CSA took Kentucky and West Virginia it would be harder to across a river for illegals trying to get into the Union(a lot less people knew how to swim then right?

Even Robert E lee couldn't take West Virginia. Where is this mythical Confederate military supergenius who could take West Virginia and Kentucky?

Immigrants from Europe might go to CSA intending to go to the US when US tells them no(pretty sure US even then only let certain amount come at one time and only so many people can come in through New York). The CSA might have cheaper boat tickets. Many might get stuck there(sad circumstances). What if the CSA has its immigrants port city as New Orleans(don’t know where they would have it exactly so I guessed) to try and help settle Texas but many decide to use that as a way to move to Union States in the great plain or west? That still a lot of people moving through the country which leaves a lot of possibilities.

In the 18th Century, the US had no immigration quotas. The first national anti-immigrant law as the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. Before then, there was no such thing as an "illegal alien", and no European qualified as an "illegal alien" until 1891. The first immigration quotas were established in 1921. The free states were far more accepting of immigrants than slave states. The American Party (The Know Nothings) was a mid-19th Century anti-immigrant part. In the 1856 Presidential election, the Know Nothings got between 32.9% and 54.6% of the popular vote in slave states as opposed to between 32.8% and 0.5% of the popular vote in free states.

 

[Modern Imperialism]

1905? That describes 1850 in the slaveholding states.



Those militias will receive no training, let alone military training. The only skill required for hunting suspected escaped slaves is one of the patrol being sober enough that they don't fall off their horse and call off the dogs before they maim or cripple the slave. Lynching a suspected Unionist requires even less skill - you just don't call of the dogs and then set fire to the home of the helpless widow and orphans. You don't get real soldiers out of these patrols, you get the murderous thugs that followed William Quantrill, Chamnp Ferguson, and Bill Anderson. They're great for massacring civilians and POWs, but taht's all.



Why would the Confederate government train or equip slave patrols? That costs money and untrained amateurs had proved good enough to beat unarmed and frequently malnourished slaves.



That's a pretty coldblooded way of describing the massacre of helpless civilians.

Most Southerners, poor or wealthy, will not kill women or children. They will shoot the dad in front them but usually not kill them too. They will not usually rape white women(black women are a different story). They even won’t kill black kids and women often times(they will beat them but usually not kill them). The south has honor in a way. A twisted way but they still have limits. Think of the g code. That is basically the morality and mindset of many southerners.

Also why would they not train there slave patrols and militia units at all? That goes against all human reasoning. Confederates want to get better at what they do and take pride in “hard work”. Naturally they want to get better at catching slaves and fighting partisans in the country. They are being paid to do this and they probably develop as time progresses to something more then rag tag armed groups. These start out as local self armed units that are trained by a confederate military officer. The officers trains them at being better at using guns and other martial skills. They are taught how to catch slaves while causing the least amount of damage to the slave(the more damaged slave the less the slave is worth). This could using houses, ropes, and nets or even setting traps. You also need to know how to follow tracks when finding escaped slaves. Additionally, you need to know how to train hounds or other dogs to track and catch slaves. Like modern police dogs they will be taught to go for the limbs(they don’t want the slave dead. Also it makes it hard for them to escape again after a dog gets a good grip of that leg). They might act like thugs but that doesn’t mean they don’t refine their skills and tactics. Many slave catchers could very well take a sick amount of pride in how well they do at their job(the faster you catch the slave and the less damaged he is the more that person gets paid. The slave owners rather have their slaves in one piece if possible). Let’s say the confederates have an issue with Appalachian partisans hiding in the claves in the mountains and some have even started making underground tunnels or hide in abandoned mines. The confederates start utilizes chemical weapons to gas them out or use that against labor unions later on. These groups are taught how to fight in small well trained and disciplined but brutal units(better at killing and ambushing partisans in rural areas like Appalachia. Confederates rather lose as little men as possible while inflicting the most causalities). If these units develop more into a police type force they might be given left over or outdated military gear(they are learning how to use these weapons in domestic issues). The police in the south when dealing with whites will be taught shoot first(“frontier justice”). This applies to blacks who revolt or when they aren’t slaves anymore too. Everyone wants to become more efficient at what they do especially prideful people in the south even if what they are doing is very brutal. The CSA could easily arm them with military gear, weapons, some horses, and have them trained very regularly since many do this as a full time job now(poor whites need jobs). Some officers(Bedford Forest types) could be very willing to train these men. Training brutality might be extreme if someone like Bedford Forest or hotheaded aristocrats(training someone in a brutal fashion might be common but won’t drive away many volunteers if they are getting paid well especially since how harsh normal life makes this treatment seem more normal to them. Aristocrats don’t mind paying them a bit more if it helps keep the slaves on the plantation and unionist dealt with. All levels of government are likely to be fine with funding this since it’s in all their best interest). What their doing is wrong but they are going to try to do it in the most practical and efficient way. They are thugs but that doesn’t mean they can’t train and learn so they can get better at it.

Edit: you do realize slaves are often bred selectively by masters like animals. This means the most physically strong or fast are often forced to breed together so the master can have better laborers in the field. That makes them harder to catch when they escaped if your stupid about it. This stuff isn’t right but it does take skills of some sort. Imagine someone who desires freedom more then anything else and the fear of being caught would drive someone. Mix that with physical traits of selective breeding and constant labor in the field. These are people just like us. Me or you are going to do whatever it takes to put up as much of a fight as possible to be caught.

 

[Sicarius]

Most Southerners, poor or wealthy, will not kill women or children. They will shoot the dad in front them but usually not kill them too. They will not usually rape white women(black women are a different story). They even won’t kill black kids and women often times(they will beat them but usually not kill them). The south has honor in a way. A twisted way but they still have limits. Think of the g code. That is basically the morality and mindset of many southerners.

Emmett Till. Addie Mae Collins. Cynthia Wesley. Carole Robertson. Carol Denise McNair. Huie Conorly. John Taylor. Ernest Green. Charlie Lang. Andrew Clark. Major Clark. Alma and Maggie House (both pregnant). Samuel Smith. William Shorter. Fred Rochelle. Henry Smith. Jesse Washington. Mary Turner. Thomas Shipp. Willie James Howard. And many others we'll never know, small bodies burned, drowned, mutilated, parts cut off for souvenirs while they were still alive.

What are you basing any of this on? "They will not usually rape white women." Compared to who? Based on what? Your cockamamie bull about ~tHe HoNoRaBlE sOuThRoN~ who would never do such things is like erasing these murdered children from history. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it or how many thousands of words you take to say it. It's wrong.

Edit: you do realize slaves are often bred selectively by masters like animals. This means the most physically strong or fast are often forced to breed together so the master can have better laborers in the field. That makes them harder to catch when they escaped if your stupid about it.

Who's your source, Jimmy the Greek?

And it's chattel slavery.





The 'g code'. Lord, grant me the strength.

 

[Modern Imperialism]

Emmett Till. Addie Mae Collins. Cynthia Wesley. Carole Robertson. Carol Denise McNair. Huie Conorly. John Taylor. Ernest Green. Charlie Lang. Andrew Clark. Major Clark. Alma and Maggie House (both pregnant). Samuel Smith. William Shorter. Fred Rochelle. Henry Smith. Jesse Washington. Mary Turner. Thomas Shipp. Willie James Howard. And many others we'll never know, small bodies burned, drowned, mutilated, parts cut off for souvenirs while they were still alive.

What are you basing any of this on? "They will not usually rape white women." Compared to who? Based on what? Your cockamamie bull about ~tHe HoNoRaBlE sOuThRoN~ who would never do such things is like erasing these murdered children from history. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it or how many thousands of words you take to say it. It's wrong.

Who's your source, Jimmy the Greek?

And it's chattel slavery.





The 'g code'. Lord, grant me the strength.

They are thuggish so the G code is a good comparison. Also there are always exceptions towards the norm but the majority of the time they usually aren’t killing white women and children most of the time(my observation, I notice they kill the men much more often then women and kids. Remember what people do during a war is much more extreme then peacetime). Shitty people still have limits. There is a variety in extremes. It’s harder for a lot of people to kill women and children. Many criminals now for example will kill pedos in prisons even if they serial killers or harder murders. Many in the south don’t believe in killing women and children(more so white ones)

Edit: If your not from the south look at African American culture to understand southern culture better. The similarities are striking. Many of my africana teachers will often point to many of the negative traits of African American culture being rooted in southern culture as well(that where the majority lived especially back then. They often took many traits and behaviors from them). But the more positive traits of the culture are the same too. That’s the ironic part of slavery it turned the slaves more into the image of their master without either side realizing it. Think of all the negative traits tied to black and southern culture. They are almost exactly the same. You can tell how a society might develop by examining how they reacted to many things in otl. Similar situations might give us a good idea on what they might do. Also the situation you mentioned was CSA firing on partisans who were companied by women and children I think in North Carolina correct? It was a massacred by not really a organized or plan(just them firing reckless into a group of people off impulse and women and children getting into the cross fires). This is terrible but not planned or desired. You seem to be cherry picking information a bit.

 

[Modern Imperialism]

I feel like since we are talking about the south we often are blinded by modern values and ideas about things. We should talk about the south the same way we talk about the Romans and Greeks when it comes to morality and values. They have their own sense of honor that is extremely backwards by our standards but it still has standards and codes to them even if some are often hypocritical. That’s one of the reasons the civil war happened. You have two people with different mindsets come into conflict. Independent CSA only intensifies it(they can choose how they want to do things without the north to help moderate them a good bit). I feel like people who often dehumanize the south are often the same people who paint other similar terrible regimes in a more pleasant or dismissive because they are different in some aspects. There are often many grey areas in history because humans are often conflicted or hypocritical creatures that are often hard to predict especially when they act on impulse like southerners often do. The extremist of Nazi regime I think has blinded modern people from looking more into the more odd viewpoints of many throughout history. Humans aren’t black and white. Some will even act against personal beliefs if they like a person enough. Southerners are going to be looking at stuff in a similar fashion to how we would describe more “honor culture” societies. Think Japan and the samurai. They were brutal and savage in many ways but they did have their own code, standards, and limits on things. The south is no different.

Read literature from southern writers who are very critical of their own society. Those are usually the most honest opinions about them. Mark Twain writing for examples. There is good reason many observers even back then called many groups in the south a “peculiar people” because they often did stuff that made no sense to them.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

His description of its government resembles strongly a Banana Republic.

Are there any TLs on this site where the CSA becomes an economic colony of America?

 

[Thomas1195]

You do not think US being more German in demographics might change that? Also Britain is more of a threat to the US then Germany. They have don’t even have land in the Western Hemisphere. I was thinking PA and Midwest relationship with Germany would be similar to New England and England in the long run especially with continued German immigrants. The only reason US fought in ww1 is because the Kaiser was a complete idiot in foreign affairs.

Kaiser was nut in foreign affair and pissing off the US long before ww1. An independent CSA would not butterfly away Kaiser Wilhelm, and the rise of militarism and "place in the sun" in Germany as a whole. Worse, it might courted the CSA like it did with Mexico IOTL, which can be expected given German inept foreign policy under Kaiser Wilhelm.

In general, the problem was not about the US being more German, it was German weltpolitik that directly challenged US interests.

The Brits actually accepted with Monroe Doctrine as it largely suited its interest of preventing other European powers. Meanwhile, Germany's new naval plan and its various activities in Carribean and Latin America actually unsettled the US and openly threatened the Monroe Doctrine. Not to mention German-US trade rivalry
(Britain was already a free trader and France never presented itself as a serious economic rival).

 

[Johnrankins]

Are there any TLs on this site where the CSA becomes an economic colony of America?

Mine. https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...d-times-there-are-not-forgotten-redux.384495/

 

[Johnrankins]

Edit: If your not from the south look at African American culture to understand southern culture better. The similarities are striking. Many of my africana teachers will often point to many of the negative traits of African American culture being rooted in southern culture as well(that where the majority lived especially back then. They often took many traits and behaviors from them). But the more positive traits of the culture are the same too. That’s the ironic part of slavery it turned the slaves more into the image of their master without either side realizing it.

I largely agree with this actually. Black Culture is largely Southern Culture. It is based mostly on the Deep South as that is where they lived for centuries. It was pretty much inevitable that their culture would be based on it as their culture was going to be highly influenced by the society they were living in. American Black Culture actually has little in common with African Culture. After all, they haven't lived there for centuries.

 

[Modern Imperialism]

I largely agree with this actually. Black Culture is largely Southern Culture. It is based mostly on the Deep South as that is where they lived for centuries. It was pretty much inevitable that their culture would be based on it as their culture was going to be highly influenced by the society they were living in. American Black Culture actually has little in common with African Culture. After all, they haven't lived there for centuries.

That’s why I often use black culture to help me determine the path of southern culture. I find it funny those. When I am highly critical of southern culture people often back my points more but when I say anything that can be taken as a positive they often dismiss the points. When I do the same with black American culture those same people are often the exact opposite. They get often dismiss of the negative points and supportive of the more positive. That’s how I can normally tell biases. Similarities is one reason I think slavery and racism part will eventually end over time. Even the most ignorant people in the south will eventually see that.

Edit: to be clear this is referring to deep and coastal south the most. Appalachia is a different story. There you have the violence of Deep South racism mix with ignorance of rarely interacting with black people(like the north). That is one reason the KKK took off in the region after the war(they might have supported the union but many of those unionist join the KKK after they saw now free blacks coming through the mountains). Appalachians now often call the Deep South the “dirty south” in a mocking or racist way. It’s good to separate the south into a few subgroups. This being Texas, Deep South, Appalachia, Upper South(lowlands and coastal areas), Louisiana, and Oklahoma. The Deep South and Louisiana are usually the most similar to black American culture since they had the greatest numbers.

 

[Fiver]

What I’m explaining the CSA is doing is what Russia, China, Mexico, and developing nations are doing now

And I am pointing out that the Confederate population would never tolerate that level of centralization, the Confederate leadership saw no need to industrialize, and Confederate law would not allow it. You could only get this after a centralizing group, most likely fascist or communist, overthrew the existing Confederate government.

The issues with nations like the CSA is they often collapse due to being over ambitious or losing a major war it should not have gotten into.

That is what happened to the CSA in OTL. If they somehow achieve independence, the Confederacy is still likely to collapse "due to being over ambitious or losing a major war it should not have gotten into".

The American republic is created on balance. The variety of people is supposed to balance out our culture a bit and prevent extreme elements from taking over. Any states leaving hurts that.

So you are saying the abolitionists were "extreme elements"? And that the advocates of treating people as property "created on balance"?

Confederate leaders held beliefs that directly contradicted America's founding ideals.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…" - Declaration of Independence.

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy