Hard Kick to the Nuts: The Confederacy Burns

Of course there were die-hard guerillas. What do you think Jesse James was doing? He wasn't robbing for himself. He was accumulating a war chest for a 2nd rebellion. So were others like him.
who were some of those others? i've got a narrative idea for a TL which would involve Jesse James in his role as an ex-Confederate bushwhacker but didn't know that he wasn't a unique case
 
What ever the the high minded statements of folks like the James and Dalton gangs, the "die-hards" were leftovers from bands like Quantrill's which were, at best, marginally military and just a fraction away from frank criminals during the war. The KKK was much more "political" than these gangs, as they had an open political agenda which was to overturn any progress for freedmen during and after reconstruction.

As I said in my previous post, the Union will treat these guerillas as criminals not soldiers. Assume that some CSA leaders escape and attempt to run a government in exile and coordinate with guerillas (as opposed to bank robbers). Who will allow these folks to do this? Great Britain? France? Mexico? Will anyone want to piss off the USA by aiding and abetting this sort of thing. As a matter of practicality if the leaders are in Europe coordinating this insurgency is difficult given the transportation/communications of the 1860s. If they are in Canada or Mexico, the risks to those countries by allowing this are quite real.

The best ally the CSA had postwar was Andrew Johnson, had he failed to respond forcefully to this sort of insurgency and properly protect freedmen the impeachment vote would have gone the other way. Some of the consequences for the defeated states are seen The Knight Irish's TL. Here you could see much more destruction of infrastructure in rebellious areas, more widespread permanent disenfranchisement of former CSA soldiers and officials, extending to any civilians convicted of aiding guerillas. Certainly it would take longer for readmission to the Union for southern states, and much longer and stronger continuing oversight of practices to disenfranchise and impoverish freedmen.

The bottom line is that the bulk of the southern population knows that "winning", either in terms of an independent CSA and/or slavery reinstituted is simply not going to happen. Supporting the guerillas is going to result in more personal hardship including loss of property, imprisonment , or death. Sure giving up food at gunpoint will happen, but how long before the next Union patrol is told about this. To use Mao's simile, no ocean no fish.

@Denv : You really aren't going to get many more slaves than OTL. Large segments of the colonial and early republic are neither geographically nor economically suited for large scale slavery. Slaves are expensive, both to buy and support. OTL when the economics of slavery began to become less attractive in the upper south, slave populations were reduced by selling south/other areas where slavery was still economic. If free labor or indentured servants work better economically than slaves, that is the way folks will go.
 
How much could we scuttle British settlement of North America and how much could we scuttle free Spanish settlement of their areas? Have an idea where the Spanish part of North America is vastly a slave majority. Thanks to the tiny population of the British to the North, the new slave state is able to fight the colonies to the North either at an advantage or on equal terms. This assumes that when the state makes its move that they colonies there have declared independence.

Also would anyone be willing to help such a nation in the meantime? Haiti got a pretty raw deal OTL but perhaps with a savvy leader could we see a European nation helping with their development in exchange for an alliance order to get a foothold on the Americas?

I am aware that this makes the "South" and "North" no longer the same nations. They're not even part of the same nation in this scenario.
 
Did any Spanish colony have a "vast slave majority"? Certain regioins maybe, but even Cuba and Puerto Rico as a whole had plenty of white settlers, and mixed-race people would not be counted as black and often would try and pass for white. As we saw in Spanish Louisiana, there's plenty of room in those colonies for white settlement by Canarians and such, especially outside the Low Country in places like the Piedmont.

But what would you count as "Spanish North America"? The historic CSA except Spanish--Virginia was about the northern limit of Spanish penetration in the 16th century? Something else? Because given Spain's mismanagement and underdevelopment of their colonies, such a state would probably be even less capable of fighting the US than the CSA was, but on the other hand, being so culturally and racially distinct from the US would make it a lot less likely the US would go for annexation (or if it were a revolt like the Civil War, make the US more likely to give up and settle for peace).
 
This is the specific incident I was thinking of, though several other politicians and federal appointees were also killed or subjected to violence.

OTOH, that incident was in 1898, when Reconstruction had long been dead and buried, and the perpetrators knew it would never be renewed, no matter what they did.

Did anything comparable happen during Reconstruction? There was of course lots of violence then, but my impression is that it was directed against black would-be voters, schoolteachers, and others unconnected with the Federal government.
 
With the downsizing of the massive Federal army upon war's end, the few remaining Confederate hold-outs were pretty much chased and caught by civil authorities. Some never surrendered, preferring to move to the Wild West or even South across the Mexican border. I'm sure others, who would not want to live under Yankee laws, could leave and move overseas back to Europe, Africa, South America or even up to Canada, like the Loyalists of the Revolution.

I'm thinking the common folks would be very tired of four years of war and would want to get back to "normal" life as quick as they could. Anyone disturbing progress would be quickly labeled a common criminal and subject to everyone's justice. These gangs could last for years with support from their local communities that they supported, but eventually they would wither and die out.

Bear in mind I'm looking at this from a Hollywood standpoint as well as historical, all the outlaw movies that have been produced!
 
OTOH, that incident was in 1898, when Reconstruction had long been dead and buried, and the perpetrators knew it would never be renewed, no matter what they did.

Did anything comparable happen during Reconstruction? There was of course lots of violence then, but my impression is that it was directed against black would-be voters, schoolteachers, and others unconnected with the Federal government.
Black political enfranchisement continued to exist after Reconstruction ended and it took until the turn of the century for Jim Crow to come around in full force- McKinley specifically appealed to his black constituents in the South when he ran for office, which is why Frazier Baker got his government post in the first place.
 
@metalinvader665, for Spanish North America I'm thinking Florida plus the rest of the North American Caribbean coastal areas. Perhaps some extra territory up to Virginia could work too. I'm imagining Spanish colonization where they set up colonies that are similar in proportional slave population to French Haiti. For some reason in this timeline there's little Spanish immigration to these colonies so they're mostly populated by Slaves.

As for why the English colonies might make a move on them, perhaps they feel threatened by a freed slave state on their doorstep? The colonies may interpret it as a disruption of their world order or something similar to the US occupation of Haiti is happening? The colonies may develop profitable business interests in the region and find them threatened by the people there?
 
Top