AHC - How might a CSA balkanization work?

[damein fisher]

We see a Blakanized North America containing the CSA all the time here, but in almost all of those depictions, the CSA is a whole entity. I, however, find it more likely that the CSA might devolve into various independent nations, rather than remain whole.

How could the CSA become balkanized following Independence? What might causes be for rebellions and revolutions?

[For the sake of the question being asked, let's assume that all of the core CSA gains independence as well as the CS Arizona and Kentucky]

 

[Anaxagoras]

For starters, as soon as oil is discovered in Texas, the Lone Star State is out of there.

 

[ETGalaxy]

Rebellions of slaves could result with independent black states across the south. Maybe there's a Native American revolt in Oklahoma too?

 

[Anaxagoras]

Rebellions of slaves could result with independent black states across the south.

Unless we are talking about an 1864 CS Victory scenario, slave revolts are rather unlikely. The Southerners were very, very, very good at preventing slave revolts from happening, as can be seen by the ridiculously small number of slave revolts before the war. In a CS victory scenario, moreover, slaves willing to risk their lives for their freedom are much more likely to bolt for the United States than they are to plot an uprising they know has little to no chance of success. In an 1864 victory scenario, of course, the situation is very different, given the large number of freed slaves enrolled in the Union Army, armed, and given military training.

Maybe there's a Native American revolt in Oklahoma too?

Why?

 

[damein fisher]

Unless we are talking about an 1864 CS Victory scenario, slave revolts are rather unlikely. The Southerners were very, very, very good at preventing slave revolts from happening, as can be seen by the ridiculously small number of slave revolts before the war. In a CS victory scenario, moreover, slaves willing to risk their lives for their freedom are much more likely to bolt for the United States than they are to plot an uprising they know has little to no chance of success. In an 1864 victory scenario, of course, the situation is very different, given the large number of freed slaves enrolled in the Union Army, armed, and given military training.

I'd imagine that slave revolt would happen, keep in mind that the CSA's economy and therefore military strength would be weaker than it was when it was apart of the US. Also, I'd imagine that perhaps we might see a form of socialism develop with poor white farmers and slaves uniting.

 

[ETGalaxy]

Unless we are talking about an 1864 CS Victory scenario, slave revolts are rather unlikely. The Southerners were very, very, very good at preventing slave revolts from happening, as can be seen by the ridiculously small number of slave revolts before the war. In a CS victory scenario, moreover, slaves willing to risk their lives for their freedom are much more likely to bolt for the United States than they are to plot an uprising they know has little to no chance of success. In an 1864 victory scenario, of course, the situation is very different, given the large number of freed slaves enrolled in the Union Army, armed, and given military training.



Why?

1: If there's some war that the CSA fights in the future and loses I can see slaves rising up.

2: I don't know, it was just a random idea I got. Maybe the Native Americans leave the CSA in the same war that the CSA loses?

 

[Anaxagoras]

I'd imagine that slave revolt would happen, keep in mind that the CSA's economy and therefore military strength would be weaker than it was when it was apart of the US.

Its economy might be weaker, but its military strength would be considerably greater, given that it would have to maintain a larger standing army in the face of a potential second war with the United States. And in the aftermath of its war for independence, it would have a ready reserve of several hundred thousand experienced soldiers.

Also, I'd imagine that perhaps we might see a form of socialism develop with poor white farmers and slaves uniting.

Even a cursory glance at the social history of the South could tell you that the poor whites and the blacks are never going to unite on anything, ever.

 

[damein fisher]

Even a cursory glance at the social history of the South could tell you that the poor whites and the blacks are never going to unite on anything, ever.

After a few decades of oppression at the hands of rich plantation owners? I could easily see them, if not uniting, at least working together temporarily to overthrow the elite. It's not that they want the same things, it's that the path to achieve each groups wants aligns nicely.

 

[Anaxagoras]

After a few decades of oppression at the hands of rich plantation owners? I could easily see them, if not uniting, at least working together temporarily to overthrow the elite. It's not that they want the same things, it's that the path to achieve each groups wants aligns nicely.

They had aligned nicely between 1619 and 1861, too. But we didn't see any united rebellion and anything even close to it.

 

[damein fisher]

They had aligned nicely between 1619 and 1861, too. But we didn't see any united rebellion and anything even close to it.

Yes, but as the times go on, the ability for such groups to rebel would become greater. I agree that such a rebellion might not succeed, but the idea of it happening is in no way unrealistic.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

In short, it really wouldn't. People tend to underestimate the nationalistic idealism (or at least regional) and identity that grew in the South during the Civil War, and then through Reconstruction. An independent CSA is then nominally held together by a shared sense of independence, and a cross state border desire to continue the institution of slavery, which means a now national effort of repression.

That then raises the point of why exactly these states would balkanize when they largely have the options of giving up slavery and being reabsorbed into the Union (and with all the hubbub people make about how the South will never give up slavery you really need to do some mental gymnastics to make this happen) and the other option is trying to form working countries on their own, and for lots of the South that isn't a viable option.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

I can see Texas going. It has the size, culture, the distance from Richmond and, most importantly the economy to do so.

Everyone else? More lilkely to get re-absorbed back into the Union then go it alone.

 

[cmakk1012]

I can see Texas going. It has the size, culture, the distance from Richmond and, most importantly the economy to do so.

Everyone else? More lilkely to get re-absorbed back into the Union then go it alone.

Yeah, balkanization almost certainly means reintegration to the Union with only a possible exemption for Texas.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

For starters, as soon as oil is discovered in Texas, the Lone Star State is out of there.

The oil was discovered by a stubborn person from Ohio (I think Ohio) who kept sniffing around in the same area despite people continually telling him there was nothing to be found. It's very plausible that the oil won't be found.


If I had to guess, the looming threat of the Union would be enough to keep the Confederacy together at the state level.

I could see the North funding insurgencies down south though. There'd be a lot of newly freed black communities in the Sea Islands who won't want to go back in chains. Places like Jones County Mississippi, the Republic of Winston, and Searcy County Arkansas likely wouldn't be too happy either.

 

[Anaxagoras]

I could see the North funding insurgencies down south though. There'd be a lot of newly freed black communities in the Sea Islands who won't want to go back in chains. Places like Jones County Mississippi, the Republic of Winston, and Searcy County Arkansas likely wouldn't be too happy either.

Even if the federal government does not do this, abolitionist organizations might do it on their own. Indeed, that's the basis for the plot of my novel House of the Proud.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

I can see Texas going. It has the size, culture, the distance from Richmond and, most importantly the economy to do so.

Everyone else? More lilkely to get re-absorbed back into the Union then go it alone.

If the Texans try to break off, I expect them to strike a deal with the Union for the latter to intervene to support their bid for independence. The Union then retakes the bulk of the Confederacy, if not the whole shebang.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

Even if the federal government does not do this, abolitionist organizations might do it on their own. Indeed, that's the basis for the plot of my novel House of the Proud.

John Brown brigades running south writ large would be likely I'd think. You'd have a lot of freedmen ex-soldiers and Union abolitionists with axes to grind.

 

[Anaxagoras]

If the Texans try to break off, I expect them to strike a deal with the Union for the latter to intervene to support their bid for independence. The Union then retakes the bulk of the Confederacy, if not the whole shebang.

Texas might simply be allowed to go its own way. After all, the fact that the Confederacy existed at all stated quite plainly that the Confederates believed secession to be a constitutional right of any state and the Confederate Constitution said nothing different about secession than the United States Constitution did.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

Texas might simply be allowed to go its own way. After all, the fact that the Confederacy existed at all stated quite plainly that the Confederates believed secession to be a constitutional right of any state and the Confederate Constitution said nothing different about secession than the United States Constitution did.

I'm skeptical of this. Letting your constituents secede is bad precedent.


Plus there's this tidbit from the book Dixie Betrayed: How The South Really Lost The Civil War which implies that Secession was not allowed under the Confederate Constitution.

"On February 5 [1863], the Senate heard a proposed amendment to the Confederate Constitution that would allow an aggrieved state to secede from the Confederacy. "It shall do so in peace," read the proposal, "but shall be entitled to its pro rata share of property and be liable for its pro rata share of public debt to be determined by negotiation." The idea was referred to the Judicial Committee. Two days later senators failed to recommend the amendment, and the whole thing was dropped as a dangerous idea."

 

[TruthfulPanda]

Happy reading:
http://jjmccullough.com/CSA.htm