CSA non black racism

samcster94

Banned
We all know the CSA hated black people, even for the standards of the time. What would a surviving CSA think of Jews, Latin Americans, Native Americans, Asians etc ...? I don't think it'd be pretty.
 
Well in OTL the CSA actually had fairly good relations with Native Americans though considering how awful relations were with the US government that's a very low bar to crawl over and the CSA had a Jewish Secretary of State which was before the US managed one.
 
We all know the CSA hated black people
They didn't hate black people, They viewed them as inferiors.

What would a surviving CSA think of Jews, Latin Americans, Native Americans, Asians etc ...? I don't think it'd be pretty.
They did have good relations with Native Americans and viewed Jews positively. You might end up with CSA with the View that as long as your not black you are on pair with Whites.
 
They didn't hate black people, They viewed them as inferiors.


They did have good relations with Native Americans and viewed Jews positively. You might end up with CSA with the View that as long as your not black you are on pair with Whites.
I doubt that very much. The South was strongly Protestant, and Irish/Hispanic Catholics may see their religion being conflated with their race. Jews would probably do fine, but the good relations with the natives would last roughly as long as it took for white settlers to want their land, just as they did in the United States.
 
Sadly you are dealing from a false assumption. Slave owning Southerners did not hate blacks. Slave owners considered slaves as property. Does one hate his favorite horse or dog? Perhaps non slave owning Southerners had some resentment. Slaves were very expensive property. It took resources to maintain the quality of life of that said personal property. A rough comparison would be owning and maintaining 50 luxury automobiles.
 
Sadly you are dealing from a false assumption. Slave owning Southerners did not hate blacks. Slave owners considered slaves as property. Does one hate his favorite horse or dog? Perhaps non slave owning Southerners had some resentment. Slaves were very expensive property. It took resources to maintain the quality of life of that said personal property. A rough comparison would be owning and maintaining 50 luxury automobiles.

That's far too positive a picture. Look at how sadistic many slave owners could be - look at Edwin Epps (who apparently IRL was even worse than the film version, hard as that might be to believe). That wasn't just a case of seeing slaves as property or as inferior, based on what Northrup wrote that was him enjoying the ability to hurt and torment his slaves. And I'd say there were plenty of other slave owning Southerners who enjoyed having that power.

EDIT: Also, IIRC a penalty that could be and was meted out to slaves was mutilation - removal of extremities. Pretty sure that that didn't get done to 'favourite horses or dogs'.
 
That's far too positive a picture. Look at how sadistic many slave owners could be - look at Edwin Epps (who apparently IRL was even worse than the film version, hard as that might be to believe). That wasn't just a case of seeing slaves as property or as inferior, based on what Northrup wrote that was him enjoying the ability to hurt and torment his slaves. And I'd say there were plenty of other slave owning Southerners who enjoyed having that power.

EDIT: Also, IIRC a penalty that could be and was meted out to slaves was mutilation - removal of extremities. Pretty sure that that didn't get done to 'favourite horses or dogs'.
I am not going to get involved in any discussion about how slaves were treated, partly because I do not know. What I do know is that there are far too many people who treat their pets terribly and abuse, starve or mutulate them.
 
You aren't contradicting each other.

Many people "love" their slaves (or animals indeed, or wives or children) especially when they're obedient and useful but will still beat or kill them... This kind of "love" is not the opposite of abuse but the other face of the same coin.
 
I can't say if antisemitism in the south/CSA was any worse than it was in the north, but if you read the proceedings of the Confederate Congress and various newspapers articles, Judah Benjamin was frequently reviled as a "Hebrew". The attitude towards the Irish was similar to the north, and Catholics depended on where you were - in Louisiana and parts of Texas which were heavily Catholic one thing, elsewhere another. Latinos were pretty much confined to Texas at the time of the ACW.
 

JJohnson

Banned
Also note that Hispanic, Asian, Indian, and black all fought in the CS army according to pension records and personal testimonies.
 
Also note that Hispanic, Asian, Indian, and black all fought in the CS army according to pension records and personal testimonies.
The CSA planned to recruit black soldiers later once the war turned against them, but those plans never went forward. Also, just because a certain racial group served in the Confederate army doesn’t mean they would be at all inclined to reduce their antipathy to that group. Just ask the Union’s black soldiers (or the Irish) how much their lot improved after the war.
 
The CSA planned to recruit black soldiers later once the war turned against them, but those plans never went forward. Also, just because a certain racial group served in the Confederate army doesn’t mean they would be at all inclined to reduce their antipathy to that group. Just ask the Union’s black soldiers (or the Irish) how much their lot improved after the war.
I think they did raise a company or two of black soldiers who did nothing more than march through Richmond once or twice. But as for the other racial categories, discrimination against them was never set into law nor was it much of a societal issue. Latinos AFAIK weren't seen as a separate race back then, you could be Hispanic but also be white, Indian, black, or whatever. And I don't think Asians received much in the way of discrimination either, albeit mostly or entirely because there were so few in the east at this time that people generally didn't know what to think of them and there weren't enough Asian recruits on either side to form whole regiments of them so they fitted them in with the whites.
 
As far as I recall there is one instance of an Asian (Chinese) in the Union Army (in a Connecticut or RI unit I think). Never seen an Asian in a CS unit, but it is possible. Latinos would be in either a Texas or Florida unit, possibly a Louisiana unit. The native Americans who fought for the CS side were mostly out of the Indian Territory and this was a bit of the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" idea. The CSA was able to make promises to the Native Americans in the territory, its easy to give away what is not yours. I'm not sure what the attitude of Native Americans in the east towards the CSA was, after all in was Indians from the southeast who went through the Trail of Tears thanks to Jackson, although Negro slaves were held by the "civilized" tribes. In any case the Latinos, native Americans, and any stray Orientals in the CSA were a drop in the bucket compared to the black population slave and free. With the exception of some better toleration for Catholics in some areas (like Louisiana, parts of Texas), anyone other than a white Protestant is going to face various levels of social discrimination at a minimum in the CSA (like in the USA) and likely more legal discrimination as well.
 
As far as I recall there is one instance of an Asian (Chinese) in the Union Army (in a Connecticut or RI unit I think). Never seen an Asian in a CS unit, but it is possible. Latinos would be in either a Texas or Florida unit, possibly a Louisiana unit.
As I recall there were a few dozen or so Asians in the Union Army spread throughout various different regiments, most of these individuals being Chinese people who for whatever reason made their way out to the eastern states. IIRC there was one Chinese guy who was known for still wearing the Manchu queue who made a lot of white friends in his unit but unfortunately died at Gettysburg. As for the Confederate side, the sons of the famous Siamese Twins enlisted in the reb army as their fathers were both proud Southerners and slave owners in addition to being Thai immigrants, and I heard something about Filipinos and Chinese people arriving in New Orleans during the war being drafted into the reb army. As for Latinos, there were likely many in the regiments of some border states (in addition to there being several well known Hispanic individuals throughout both sides, the first Hispanic man to win the Medal of Honor was a Bostonian who yanked the flag right out the hands of a reb during Gettysburg despite himself also being a flag bearer. There were also several high ranking officers on both sides of Hispanic descent or origins.
The native Americans who fought for the CS side were mostly out of the Indian Territory and this was a bit of the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" idea.
I'm pretty sure the tribes who fought for the CS side were motivated less by the "enemy of my enemy" ideal (after all, many tribes up north fought for the north despite having previously been victims of the US government as well and the tribes evicted to Oklahoma were victimized by Southerners directly) and more by their own economic interests, namely slavery. The 5 Civilized Tribes practiced a lifestyle akin to that of the Southern whites who had been their neighbors including owning slaves.
 
Sadly you are dealing from a false assumption. Slave owning Southerners did not hate blacks. Slave owners considered slaves as property. Does one hate his favorite horse or dog? Perhaps non slave owning Southerners had some resentment. Slaves were very expensive property. It took resources to maintain the quality of life of that said personal property. A rough comparison would be owning and maintaining 50 luxury automobiles.

Yeah, no it was hate.

Imagine raping a married woman you owned and then molesting your son. Beating him and abusing him to the point of hiding under the big house for hours on end and then being so salty that after slavery ends you in a klan hood beat the woman you raped and begot a son with for dare existing outside of your constant control.


The CSA planned to recruit black soldiers later once the war turned against them, but those plans never went forward. Also, just because a certain racial group served in the Confederate army doesn’t mean they would be at all inclined to reduce their antipathy to that group. Just ask the Union’s black soldiers (or the Irish) how much their lot improved after the war.

Eh, they thought about allowing mixed race free men of color who owned slaves not black people.

Some with more distant ancestry fought the civil war but that's it .
 
We all know the CSA hated black people, even for the standards of the time. What would a surviving CSA think of Jews, Latin Americans, Native Americans, Asians etc ...? I don't think it'd be pretty.

I don't think it would be pretty, either. Jewish people might have it OK, considering that Judah Benjamin did become SoS of the Confederacy.....but even the Irish might be in real trouble unless they convert away from Catholicism.

Italians had it very bad in the South far into the 20th Century. There had been Anti- Italian lynchings. In one case 11 people had been lynched by a mob .

Sadly, yes.

Sadly you are dealing from a false assumption. Slave owning Southerners did not hate blacks. Slave owners considered slaves as property. Does one hate his favorite horse or dog? Perhaps non slave owning Southerners had some resentment. Slaves were very expensive property. It took resources to maintain the quality of life of that said personal property. A rough comparison would be owning and maintaining 50 luxury automobiles.

While it may be true that not all slave owners were outright cruel, and were simply overbearingly paternalistic, there were quite a few who were bonafide sadistic, as @theg*ddam*hoi2fan pointed out below:

That's far too positive a picture. Look at how sadistic many slave owners could be - look at Edwin Epps (who apparently IRL was even worse than the film version, hard as that might be to believe). That wasn't just a case of seeing slaves as property or as inferior, based on what Northrup wrote that was him enjoying the ability to hurt and torment his slaves. And I'd say there were plenty of other slave owning Southerners who enjoyed having that power.

EDIT: Also, IIRC a penalty that could be and was meted out to slaves was mutilation - removal of extremities. Pretty sure that that didn't get done to 'favourite horses or dogs'.

And thus, a large part of why many Northerners came to hate slavery so much-was the cruelty that all too often was a feature of enslavement.
 
Top