Confederacy and Union gun control laws

Presuming an independent and separate Confederacy/Union survive into modern times, how might their laws on gun control differ? Would there be any in a surviving Confederacy to speak of?
 
With a hostile neighbor right next door, you won't see the Militia atrophy as it did after the ACW, and compulsory military service and keeping a service weapon at home afterwards, the Swiss system on steroids
 
Regarding Gun Politics in a surviving Confederacy. The Confederacy and the states in the Confederacy would absolutely not let any black under any circumstance even so much as pick up as much as a small pistol as they would want total control over the blacks (If the blacks in a surviving Confederacy got their hands on firearms the Confederacy would likely find themselves in real trouble).

Gun Politics in the Union in the event of the Confederacy achieving independence would likely adopt a truly complete pro-gun agenda that would likely last into present day ITTL and probably end up seeing to it that so much as anything that can be even real remotely described as anything so much as possibly anti-gun would never be tolerated under any circumstance (Since the Union would see anything as anti-gun as being nothing other than Pro-Confederate philosophy and propaganda).
 
Actually, more, at least in the Confederacy. Unless you somehow think the "Black Codes'" prohibitions of blacks carrying weapons "don't count."
I just said both would have less than OTL 2019 US. I didn't say which of the two countries had the least laws.
 
I just said both would have less than OTL 2019 US. I didn't say which of the two countries had the least laws.

I would have to say that a law barring the majority of the population of a state (as blacks were in some Deep South states) from bearing arms is more severe than any 2019 US law! (And I would think it obvious that the severity of the laws is more important than the sheer number of them.)
 
Those laws would have been tossed sometime between the mid 1950s to mid 1980s and wouldn't be relevant for 2019. Remember,The CSA is smaller and vulnerable to pressure on the race issue than the OTL US with it's south, plus white-majority unlike south africa so less to lose. Also, much more integrated into the world economy due to geography so more for CS elites to lose on sanctions.
 
Regarding Gun Politics in a surviving Confederacy. The Confederacy and the states in the Confederacy would absolutely not let any black under any circumstance even so much as pick up as much as a small pistol as they would want total control over the blacks (If the blacks in a surviving Confederacy got their hands on firearms the Confederacy would likely find themselves in real trouble).

Gun Politics in the Union in the event of the Confederacy achieving independence would likely adopt a truly complete pro-gun agenda that would likely last into present day ITTL and probably end up seeing to it that so much as anything that can be even real remotely described as anything so much as possibly anti-gun would never be tolerated under any circumstance (Since the Union would see anything as anti-gun as being nothing other than Pro-Confederate philosophy and propaganda).

Seems to me that the easiest thing to do for the USA to cause trouble for the CSA would be to run guns across the border.

Also the idea of the Whites keeping a foot on the face of the Black population forever is a fantasy. Even barring a revolt with smuggled US weapons, sooner or later some bright spark is going to realize they can cripple the economy of the South basically at will. What does the White population do if one day... the blacks doing all the entry level scut work strike? Go out and turn firehoses on picket lines? We saw how that worked OTL... Heck, a bad enough incident might be what a hawkish Union Government is looking for... And now you've got a strike and your more industrialized neighbor to the north invading to "Depose the tyrants who would turn weapons on their own population, yearning for its liberty!"
 
Last edited:
Nothing is forever but South Africa did not fully do away with apartheid until the 1990's.
South Africa was a bit easier to secure from outside influences and harder to pressure due to half the whites not speaking english on top of more white unity due to being a small minority. Realistically speaking the CS would end up dropping racial segregation in a window say 10 years earlier to on the outside 20 years later than OTL's south.

We'd get a modern CSA that's somewhere between upper-middle income on the low end, to say southern europe in terms of overall development, high inequality and polarized politics, not minidraka.
 
Less gun laws in both rcountries than OTL.

Let's leave aside the issue of whether the CSA would eventually do away with its prohibitions on firearms ownerships by blacks. Why would the USA without a South have fewer gun laws than in OTL? After all, in OTL the South has been the leading region of opposition to gun laws. Consider the 1993 Brady Act. It passed the House 238-189 over strong southern opposition--by my count, the Representatives from the 11 states of the CSA were 71 No, 54 Yes, 1 not voting. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1993/h564 (And a lot of the southern "Yes" votes were from southern Florida, not really "southern" except geographically.)

I cannot understand the reasoning that says that a USA where northern and West Coast metropolitan areas (the most pro-gun-control areas in OTL) will be proportionally stronger and the Deep South and Texas (the most anti-gun-control areas in OTL) excluded is going to have less gun control than the USA of OTL.
 
That was OTL, with a very specific history as far as both crime/political alignments that wouldn't apply in CS victory timelines. For starters, on the political side expect the socialists to be influential instead of the progressives/"social gospel" types -- New Englander moralism caused the US to be split in two, so it'd be discredited. Much less progressive-era "vice" cleanups or prohibition means less organized crime to justify gun laws. This is before factoring in the effects of nuking prohibition.
 
Why would the USA without a South have fewer gun laws than in OTL? After all, in OTL the South has been the leading region of opposition to gun laws.


From NY Post
The father of New York gun control was Democratic city pol “Big Tim “Sullivan — a state senator and Tammany Hall crook, a criminal overseer of the gangs of New York.

In 1911 — in the wake of a notorious Gramercy Park blueblood murder-suicide — Sullivan sponsored the Sullivan Act, which mandated police-issued licenses for handguns and made it a felony to carry an unlicensed concealed weapon.

This was the heyday of the pre-Prohibition gangs, roving bands of violent toughs who terrorized ethnic neighborhoods and often fought pitched battles with police. In 1903, the Battle of Rivington Street pitted a Jewish gang, the Eastmans, against the Italian Five Pointers. When the cops showed up, the two underworld armies joined forces and blasted away, resulting in three deaths and scores of injuries. The public was clamoring for action against the gangs.

Problem was the gangs worked for Tammany. The Democratic machine used them as shtarkers (sluggers), enforcing discipline at the polls and intimidating the opposition. Gang leaders like Monk Eastman were even employed as informal “sheriffs,” keeping their turf under Tammany control.

The Tammany Tiger needed to rein in the gangs without completely crippling them. Enter Big Tim with the perfect solution: Ostensibly disarm the gangs — and ordinary citizens, too — while still keeping them on the streets.

In fact, he gave the game away during the debate on the bill, which flew through Albany: “I want to make it so the young thugs in my district will get three years for carrying dangerous weapons instead of getting a sentence in the electric chair a year from now.”

Sullivan knew the gangs would flout the law, but appearances were more important than results. Young toughs took to sewing the pockets of their coats shut, so that cops couldn’t plant firearms on them, and many gangsters stashed their weapons inside their girlfriends’ “bird cages” — wire-mesh fashion contraptions around which women would wind their hair.

Ordinary citizens, on the other hand, were disarmed, which solved another problem: Gangsters had been bitterly complaining to Tammany that their victims sometimes shot back at them.

So gang violence didn’t drop under the Sullivan Act — and really took off after the passage of Prohibition in 1920. Spectacular gangland rubouts — like the 1932 machine-gunning of “Mad Dog” Coll in a drugstore phone booth on 23rd Street — became the norm
.

So with an existing CSA, would the Tammany Machine even exist? the US Democrat/Republican trajectories would be far,far different in this TL.

There probably would be a lot more of Jayhawker and Bushwhacker action all along the US/CSA border. Gun Control would be a hard sell with the possibility of raiders being around.
 
There probably would be a lot more of Jayhawker and Bushwhacker action all along the US/CSA border. Gun Control would be a hard sell with the possibility of raiders being around.

I think that at least by the twentieth century, the USA/CSA border would be about as violent as the USA/Canada border.
 
I think that at least by the twentieth century, the USA/CSA border would be about as violent as the USA/Canada border.
1812 didn't result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men by Canadian hands and loss of half the country.

And face it, there's not much worth robbing in the South. That's why the James and Youngers were as far North as Minnesota.
Those guys were not going to be Farmers in a post 1865 CSA
 
Those of the Confederacy would most likely be racist-only whites allowed to have guns.
Racist whites with the proper political affiliations and sufficient Party loyalty.
The Confederacy would have been ruled by a small group of elites who would be constantly worried about uprisings among the common people.
 
Top