Fate of Other Minorities Under a CSA Victory: Flight or Assimilation

This has come up a few times in recent weeks, and Turtledove's extremely romanticized view of the CSA clouds the issue. And the CSA's temporary pragmatism in seeking treaties with the Five Tribes shouldn't be assumed to be the norm. There's no reason they won't break any treaties the first chance they get. (I expect we'll get lots of hollering from the Confederate apologists about that. Heck, I expect lots of holloering from the apologists period.)

Basically, other minorities besides Blacks fare far worse under a CSA victory for a simple reason:

Minorities generally do far worse under a newly independent nation with its new and aggressive nationalism than they did under the previous nation-state. Eg, the USA treated Indians far worse than Britain did because it was no longer restrained by the Crown, or by a British govt worried about stability and financial costs or conflicts in other parts of the empire.

The most extreme case is of course the genocide carried out by Turkey vs Armenians once they got free from the Ottoman Empire. I don't expect outright genocide (except possibly for Seminoles and Lumbee), bu I would expect even more extreme prejudice and assimilation eforts than IOTL, including cultural genocide and probably eugenics.

We should also surmise that the prejudice of the Old South IOTL vs any minority is far worse when they don't have to worry about a federal govt or northern civil rights groups, northern whites, northern Blacks, and other minorities they can form an alliance with which exist in far greater numbers in other parts of the US IOTL, like Latinos, Jews, etc.

Jews in a new CSA-

See the Knights of Mary Phagan, the Leo Frank case, the worst instance of anti Semitism in US history, pogroms all over the state of Georgia and lynchings actually carried out by Georgia state legislators themelves. Something like it may happen even sooner under the CSA.

Latinos-

Tejanos (Mexican Texans) will mostly do very poorly. IOTL they faced almost as much lynching as Blacks, and quite a lot of land losses. Some tried assimilation, demanding to be counted as "white."

Those of (theoretically) all Spanish ancestry will do better, but even they will face land losses at times. IOTL they were loyal to class, not ethnicity, working with the white supremacist insurgents of the Confederacy. Some stayed powerful under Reconstruction. Others were betrayed and loss their land and power. Expect the same in a CSA, only worse.

Landless and mixed race Mexicans (which is just about all of them) did far worse, and they tended to be pro Union or were reluctantly drafted into Confed militias. Expect the Cortina Wars to continue, but far worse. Expect Plan of San Diego like uprisings. Expect many to flee to Mexico. Expect lots of "passing" when possible.

Cubans-

No doubt the Confederacy will hope to annex Cuba or buy it from Spain. A war w/Spain is possible, possibly to divert attention from economic stagnation or continued conflict within the CSA.

That means the CSA inherits all the long history of conflict that Cuba had IOTL, massive slave revolts and repression that lasted for the whole last half of the 19th century. No doubt that will affect how white Southerners view Cubans. Expect a far worse divide along race among Cubans than IOTL.

Indian Tribes-

A lot depends on how the CSA victory was won, whether it includes OK Territory. But before getting to that...by tribe:

Tigua in W Texas
Kickapoo in S Texas
Both likely migrate to Mexico.

Alabama-Coushatta in E Texas- have long had an amazing ability to keep a low profile. Expect the same.

Lumbee in S Carolina- fought the CSA hard as guerillas. They're going to face a lot of retaliation, have to go into hiding or migrate, maybe south to join the Seminole o N to the US.

Catawba- long allied themselves with white slaveowners by hiring out as slavecatchers. Expect them to do the same.

Eastern Band Cherokee- Extremely pragmatic. Formed a CSA militia IOTL, but at the same time publicly declared their loyalty to the Union. The latter kept them from getting any retaliation by the fed govt as the Five Tribes faced, the former temporarily got them the right to vote on the state and local level. Voting rights didn't last, and don't expect them to under a CSA.

Seminole- Expect a Fourth Seminole War, this time vs the CSA. No reason they'd lose this one, they did amazingly well vs the US the first three times.

Mississippi Choctaw- are today the 3rd biggest employer in the state thanks to casinos. Don't expect that under the CSA. They would've long since been assimilated.

OK Territory
Assuming a CSA victory that gets OK Territory, expect mass migrations from most of the tribes.

IOTL some Cherokee fled to Mexico, led by Sequoyah. I expect even more would under the CSA, though some might seek refuge in the US. Perhaps the US sets up a different territory as a dumping ground for tribes.

IOTL, the Watie Boudinot faction of traitors that sold out their people before the Trail of Tears were the main pro Confederacy faction, waging war on their own people. Though generously accepted back and forgiven in the cause of unity, many chose to turn their backs on their own people and heritage, regarded being Cherokee as shameful and assimilated, until in the 1990s some of them formed the Southern Cherokee to try and get a casino.

Expect the same, except even more extreme sooner on, as the fate of Cherokees under a CSA. Expect revenge by the Watie faction vs the rightlful Cherokee leaders.

Some of the other Five Tribes, esp Choctaw and Seminole, regarded their Black "slaves" as allies or under fictive kinship. They'll almost certainly flee with them rather than live under the CSA.

Expect many other tribes to flee OK Territory to Mexico, or to face an even more extreme version of assimilation than faced by the tribes IOTL.

And once the 1930s and 40s come around, it'll be appalling to see the extent of the appeal of Nazism to elites in the CSA. Will Jews and others face Nuremburg-style laws? I wouldn't expect death camps, but possibly mass deportations driven by unrest caused by the Great Depression.
 
Last edited:
And once the 1930s and 40s come around, it'll be appalling to see the extent of the appeal of Nazism to elites in the CSA. Will Jews and others face Nuremburg-style laws? I wouldn't expect death camps, but possibly mass deportations driven by unrest caused by the Great Depression.

That is more than a tad bit unrealistic. While its likely that the South could embrace some form of Fascism, like many other countries did, you appear to be neglecting the 'butterfly effect' which may create situations close to those you describe or those that are better.
 
ok, another issue is- how bout all the black soldiers in the USCTs- assuming of course that the North still loses the war despite the EP & recruiting tens of thousands of black soldiers ? Maybe they could be settled in the Great Plains states as per Admiral Matt's proposals in previous discussions on this issue ? Or maybe as a Tlaxcalan auxiliary-style frontier guard on the borders of Kansas/Nebraska/Indian Territory ?

Oh, the Lumbees are in NC, too btw...
 
Pogroms all over the state of Georgia?

Source, please.

The only actual violence I can recall is the lynching of Frank himself, although many Jews in Georgia feared it could spread beyond that.

And you forget the Confederate Vice-President was Jewish himself, even though he caught a lot of crap for that.

About the Armenian Genocide, I don't recall any killing by the government of Turkey--the Genocide (if you can call it that, given the Armenians of Constantinople survived) was conducted by the Ottoman Empire itself.

And I think the Great Depression and Nazism would be butterflied away by a CSA victory.
 
One thing I've generally disliked about many AH wherein the South wins is the direction taken by the Union. In many portrayals the North becomes more racist almost to the point of being as bad as the South, especially when the South quickly and cleanly ends slaver by the mid-1880s.

Given American history in general, we have always measured ourselves by being different from our would be adversaries. In the ARW we moved away from the Monarchy, in WWI and WWII we were the Arsenal of Democracy and in the Cold War we became more religious to contrast the godless commies. If the South wins I think this behavior would have been magnified. The Union, after an administration or two of appeasement prone Democrats, would move to highlight its difference from the CSA by passing laws aimed at the better treatment of minorities.

As for the CSA I think the OP is largely correct. The Jewish cabinet member in the CSA government was token who had largely stopped practicing the religion. I think any attraction to Fascism would be dependent on the course of history at large, but perhaps the CSA's brand of fascism would be a bit more like the Huey Long style of Social Populism.

Benjamin
 
And I think the Great Depression and Nazism would be butterflied away by a CSA victory.


Definitely. For one, without a singular US you're going to have much more variety in the markets around and after a WW1 that may or may not happen. Say it does, and it does create a market downswing ... there is no reason to believe that both the USA and CSA have to be effected. Without such events there is little chance anything resembling Nazism comes around ... barely even Fascism too.

Also liked how someone mentioned that the US might look to contrast itself with the CSA by well treatment of blacks and such. I actually think that probably could likely happen. It depends on if the blame for the rebellion goes to the Republican/Abolitionist politicians or just the black population at large or to simply the CSA population.
 

Onyx

Banned
I live in Georgia, and studied on Frank, there weren't any pogroms or that kinda crap, the only reason why Jews left the state is because of the Lynching, plus I doubt that there wouldn't be as much Anti-Semitism you'd think since Jews in the CSA fought more than the Union Jews..

Also Judah Benjamin was Jewish, so there should AT LEAST be some respect to the Jews for that.

You should also add about the Germans, they had some of them live in Texas I think.
 

Onyx

Banned
I live in Georgia, and studied on Frank, there weren't any pogroms or that kinda crap, the only reason why Jews left the state is because of the Lynching, plus I doubt that there wouldn't be as much Anti-Semitism you'd think since Jews in the CSA fought more than the Union Jews..

Also Judah Benjamin was Jewish, so there should AT LEAST be some respect to the Jews for that.

You should also add about the Germans, they had some of them live in Texas I think.
 

Faeelin

Banned
I live in Georgia, and studied on Frank, there weren't any pogroms or that kinda crap, the only reason why Jews left the state is because of the Lynching, plus I doubt that there wouldn't be as much Anti-Semitism you'd think since Jews in the CSA fought more than the Union Jews.

I don't see this as dispositive one way or the other. After all, nobody cared about the fact that Jews fought disproportionately more for the Kaiserreich...
 
I don't see this as dispositive one way or the other. After all, nobody cared about the fact that Jews fought disproportionately more for the Kaiserreich...

There was a much stronger pre-existing anti-Semitism in Germany before that, dating back hundreds of year (there were mass killings of Jews during the Black Death and during the Crusades).
 

Faeelin

Banned
There was a much stronger pre-existing anti-Semitism in Germany before that, dating back hundreds of year (there were mass killings of Jews during the Black Death and during the Crusades).

It's a good thing Americans popped out of the aether instead of being descended from Europeans, then.
 
The most extreme case is of course the genocide carried out by Turkey vs Armenians once they got free from the Ottoman Empire. I don't expect outright genocide (except possibly for Seminoles and Lumbee), bu I would expect even more extreme prejudice and assimilation eforts than IOTL, including cultural genocide and probably eugenics.

Run! Run! Save yourselves! Save yourselves!

Ahem. This is the biggest piece of bollocks I've heard in a long time. Those people who believe there was a genocide (and I see absolutely no reason to have that debate again) say that the Ottomans did it, and some of the more moderate ones milk Mustafa Kemal's comments condemning "cowardly massacres of Christians".

There was a much stronger pre-existing anti-Semitism in Germany before that, dating back hundreds of year (there were mass killings of Jews during the Black Death and during the Crusades).

What I believe he of the Faeelinistic koans is saying is that, while to an extent there was more establised anti-semitism in Germany, events happening hundreds of years ago and all over Europe were not enormously relevent to it.
 
Last edited:
It's a good thing Americans popped out of the aether instead of being descended from Europeans, then.

The Leo Frank situation was the closest thing to a European-style pogrom that ever happened in the US and only one Jew was killed.

For your argument to hold any water whatsoever, there would have to be some kind of continuation between European anti-Semitism and American anti-Semitism.

I don't recall anyone trying to scapegoat the Jews for the early defeats in the Revolution, let along scapegoating them in such a manner that would lead to violence. I think during the Civil War, some people in the CSA claimed Jews were selling luxury goods and not war materiel, but did not provoke any violence.
 
The Indian Territory might not be subject to excessive grief by the CSA.

For one thing, the South consistently failed to find settlers for the territories, the main reason they were so enraged about losing Kansas, their idea of 'fairness' being free states settle Nebraska and get that while free states settle Kansas but lose it to mobs who show up from Missouri on election day.

Likewise, for all the proclamations of how New Mexico/Arizona was 'obviously' part of the south slave owners were virtually absent. While Buchanan was president the slave states were horrified to discover a total of 12(!) slaves living in this territory plus an additional 10 transients(passing through or, rather, their owner passing through).

So barring a dramatic change, and after a war which certainly left things to do closer to home(and also killed many southerners), it isn't very likely that too many settlers are heading to the Indian Territory.

OTL it wasn't until the 1890s that even a portion of this land was opened to white settlers and that was entire US with vastly greater immigration.

Now consider the CSA with little immigration, far fewer would-be settlers, the Indian Territory's greater strength relative to the CSA than to all of the USA, and the US probably delighted to take advantage of a crisis...
 

First off, I want to say that you've put an impressive amount of thought into this. However, I want to quibble with you on a couple points:

1. I don't agree that the CSA would necessarily treat the Native American tribes in *Oklahoma that badly, if only out of pragmatic concerns. If the tribes don't have any reason to be loyal to the CSA, they could cause a lot of problems. The OK-Kansas border doesn't have any natural obstacles, to my knowledge, and it's really long, so the US would be only too happy to smuggle guns across and it would be easy to do so. Whatever the CSA's racist ideology tells it about Native Americans, they'll see that having the US Army kicking down the doors of Dallas in the first week of a war because the CSA couldn't control Oklahoma is not in their best interest.

2. If the CSA gains any territory in Latin America, they would have to make concessions to the natives or face endless rebellions (which, again, the USA would be only too happy to finance). We might see a multi-level racial caste system similar to apartheid South Africa, where Latinos might enjoy full freedom within their historic territories but be restricted from entering the white states.

3. About Nazism and eugenics: I agree that Nazism as we know it is probably butterflied away to a large extent. However, I've always thought that something like it would emerge in the CSA. Eugenics and ideas about "racial hygeine" will have a huge appeal in an independent CSA. Eugenic ideology basically provides answers to all of its ideological problems: it justifies treating people differently (read: worse) based on their skin colour; eugenics has the potential to justify the continuation of slavery even after the economic argument is mooted.
 
The Leo Frank situation was the closest thing to a European-style pogrom that ever happened in the US and only one Jew was killed.

For your argument to hold any water whatsoever, there would have to be some kind of continuation between European anti-Semitism and American anti-Semitism.

I don't recall anyone trying to scapegoat the Jews for the early defeats in the Revolution, let along scapegoating them in such a manner that would lead to violence. I think during the Civil War, some people in the CSA claimed Jews were selling luxury goods and not war materiel, but did not provoke any violence.

As I said, I'm certainly not saying anti-semitism wasn't a bigger tradition in Germany than in some other countries, but A) Anti-semitism can, as seen with WW1, be subject to sudden upsurges when people need scapegoats, and nobody could have imagined the Holocaust or even Kristallnacht at the time which, if it was the time of bigoted Junkers writing ridiculous reports about shirking, was also the time of Rathenau being an important man in the war-economy, so the CSA is hardly immune to this vilest phenomenon and B) We shouldn't look for proof of Germany's anti-semitic problems in events centuries ago that weren't even limited to Germany.
 
As I said, I'm certainly not saying anti-semitism wasn't a bigger tradition in Germany than in some other countries, but A) Anti-semitism can, as seen with WW1, be subject to sudden upsurges when people need scapegoats, and nobody could have imagined the Holocaust or even Kristallnacht at the time which, if it was the time of bigoted Junkers writing ridiculous reports about shirking, was also the time of Rathenau being an important man in the war-economy, so the CSA is hardly immune to this vilest phenomenon and B) We shouldn't look for proof of Germany's anti-semitic problems in events centuries ago that weren't even limited to Germany.

My point was there was not a continuation between European anti-Semitism and American anti-Semitism, not that anti-Semitism could not pop up on its own.

Faeelin's "Americans are descended from Europeans" is grasping at straws.
 
Top