CSA Slaves Revolt
- Thread starter Solomi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- civil war slave revolt
Probably a pat on the back from Lincoln for straining Confederate resources behind enemy lines, before reintegrating the former slaves back into American society as free men. If the ex-slaves want independence, well... let's just say the last people who tried to secede make a pretty good counter-example to such ideas. 
If the ex-slaves want independence, well... let's just say the last people who tried to secede make a pretty good counter-example to such ideas.
I'd love to see that. And I'd love to see the Blacks having a Hati-level of dedication to fight (to the last man)
The Blacks get wiped out. Like it or not the Whites have larger numbers, better training, better weaponry, better organizations and more money. On Haiti the Whites were outnumbered 10:1 or more and few had military training while the Blacks had nothing to lose as life expectancy was so low there. In the CSA Whites outnumber Blacks, many had military training and the life expectancy of a slave was decades. Haiti was seen as an example to White Southerners and they pretty determined it wouldn't happen to them and took steps to avoid it. Much as I strongly dislike the Antebellum South they were not stupid people to the last man.
Probably a pat on the back from Lincoln for straining Confederate resources behind enemy lines, before reintegrating the former slaves back into American society as free men. If the ex-slaves want independence, well... let's just say the last people who tried to secede make a pretty good counter-example to such ideas.
Unlikely, the official US Government position at the time is that if there was a massive , bloody slave revolt the US would help the CS put it down. It is the one scenario I could see the US winning and in the end adapt the Antebellum South's positions on slavery. Abolitionism would be discredited totally in the North and even Free Soilism would take a hit. At the very least you would probably make Northerners voting in politicians to vote for more pro-slavery control legislation. As far as most Northerners would be concerned it would have proven that the Southerners were right and Blacks need to be kept in slavery to keep them for raping, murdering and pillaging.
What? How on earth would if discredit abolitionism? Even if the USA did put down the slave revolt, how is this going to change public opinion.
Because the it would have "proved" Blacks are unmanageable. That they needed to be kept under strict control to prevent them from raping , murdering and pillaging. It would "prove" to many White Northerners that the Southerners were right that if Blacks weren't kept as slaves they would degrade into paganism, cannibalism, human sacrifice and devil worship. That was the heart of much of the pro-slavery propaganda and to many Northerners the incident would have "proven" it right.
What?
You want to see the Blacks of the American South vilified as savages and see large swathes of them die for no reason?
Die in a Chaotic slave revolt that might make the Lost Cause seem valid?
Abolition would continue, probably, but there would be a very different a much more racist Reconstruction. We might even see re-segregation from the North in order to ensure the safety of the "misguided" Whites against the "savage" Blacks.
Exactly, you could even see Blacks rounded up in the North and sent into the Western Deserts into the middle of "Indian Country". The idea might well occur that you should have the "Savages (Blacks ) fight the savages (Native Americans)" so it is easier for White People to take over later.
I mean, it's entertaining AH if they fight to the last rebel with no surrendering. Just like a Romanian AH, a John Softswoft not fuck up AH, and third Crusader AH are usually more entertaining that Byzantium come back AHs. This could be very entertaining (all though I wouldn't want to live in a future from that past, but hey I'm not so I don't care). I suppose it needs a good writer, I don't think one as low quality as myself could pull it off and make it good.
How would a rebel vs rebel fight prove to the North that slavery was right? From the perspective of a central state trying to reign in rebels, it doesn't matter if it's 3 million rebel As and 1 million rebel Bs or 4 million rebel As. They all need to be brought back under the control of the central government by diplomacy or by the point of a stick. I'm not saying you are wrong, I think you just aren't giving enough details to sell why the North would discredit abolitionism. From what I can see, it would just return to business as usual after the war (minus a few hundred thousand lives), slavery in the south with the North not being fans of it but a plurality accepting it as a fact of life.
this is happening during the ACW? Wouldn't this make the Union's job a whole lot easier? The south can scarcely afford to pull any men from the front line, and here they'd have no choice. The Union would surge forward everywhere. The question is what happens when they start moving into areas that are under revolt... I think they'd just disarm everyone and sort it out afterwards...
edit: Not to mention, a mass revolt would likely cause huge desertions in the CSA ranks, as everyone went home to protect their families...
edit: Not to mention, a mass revolt would likely cause huge desertions in the CSA ranks, as everyone went home to protect their families...
Anaxagoras
Banned
The existing Home Guard would be sufficient to deal with the problem, seeing as the slaves would have no organization, no leadership, and would be armed mostly with improvised weapons made agricultural implements. Even late in the war, there were large numbers of ill-disciplined cavalry units tasked with rounding up deserters, bringing in new recruits, and keeping an eye on the slaves. These troopers weren't much use on the front, but would easily be able to handle the rebel slaves.
If it's late in the war (and it probably would be) then the bands of deserters hiding in the wilderness would probably happily take on the rebel slaves if it meant be granting amnesty.
Because one group of Rebels are Black Slaves and the North was pretty racist at the time and the Confederate States Army was White. The Black Slaves are murdering and pillaging the countryside in a manner that Southerners were claiming what would happen if Blacks weren't kept under control by slavery before the war. As far as many Northerners would be concerned the war has proved Southerners correct that Black People were all savage animals that could only be controlled by the lash. Again the North was also pretty racist for the most part.
that seems a little rosy for such a scenario, particularly late in the war. The south was already scraping to find enough men to man the front line, and this isn't going to help. The deserters aren't going to 'hide in the wilderness', they are going to go home to their families to protect them...
So you are saying not only would the north stroll in and reassert authority with the slaves revolted and fought to the last rebel (not last slave, probably only 75% male slave revolt since the OP say they go full Haiti so we have to go with the OP's scenario, so some would stay with their masters and obviously not be fought for) and slavery (which I agree with) but this would turn sentiment in the North to favor the South's position?
It isn't going to help but Anx is probably right . Even CSA reserve militia (the most useless units in the CSA) were capable of handling untrained, badly supplied, badly armed unorganized mobs which is what the revolting Blacks would be .
What I am saying is that having a bunch of "Black Savages" revolt in the manner which the South widely predicted before the war would "prove" that it was correct. Sure , it would make the North's job easier but it would be seen to be because of the greater resources of the North and the South having to deal with a revolt on its own not because of the wrongness of slavery. I imagine the thought to be similar to "The South was correct that Black Savages needed to be controlled but they shouldn't have revolted because they wouldn't be allowed to take the Black Savages into the territories. That would have made things worse as making sure they are kept inside the Slave States ensures that Black Savages won't cause havoc in the territories. Even though the South was correct about the Black Savages they shouldn't have seceded. "
Anaxagoras
Banned
Alternatively, it might cause men to flock back to the colors if the Confederate government dispatches regular army units to suppress the rebellion. There were men who might be tired of fighting Yankees who would be more than happy to fight against insurgent slaves.
that seems unlikely. The one thing about a mass slave revolt would be that the enemy would be all over the place, not confined to a front line in a war. When the Union armies surged forward in OTL, the southern armies saw wide scale desertion, even though the armies were nowhere near a lot of their homes. In this scenario, the solders' families are threatened pretty much everywhere...