How long would the Confederate States need to last?

Don't forget that, by quirk of historical accident, there already is a line pretty much defining the boundary of the Confederate culture with the non-Confederate culture. The Mason-Dixon line happened to be pretty close to the boundary of the range of malarial mosquitos (the area where more malaria-resistant Africans were able to endure the low lying ground near the rivers better than whites) and thus the area where slavery really took deep root. This may be why "Dixie" was a thing even before the Civil War.
Dixie was not a thing before the Civil War, it did not mean "the South". It was a song by a Northerner and it was popular throughout the nation, he was embaressed when the South took it as an unofficial "theme" during the war.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Dixie was not a thing before the Civil War, it did not mean "the South". It was a song by a Northerner and it was popular throughout the nation, he was embaressed when the South took it as an unofficial "theme" during the war.
It's a song about going to the "land of cotton", "a-way down south in Dixie", to be performed in blackface and in exaggerated vernacular. I'm pretty sure it's about the South.
 
It's a song about going to the "land of cotton", "a-way down south in Dixie", to be performed in blackface and in exaggerated vernacular. I'm pretty sure it's about the South.
It wasn't FOR the South, as a rallying anthem, nor was Dixie a common name for the South in general prior to the Civil War. There's dispute as to just where "down south" Dixie was supposed to be. It certainly did not refer to "slave holding states in general" or to the South in general or even to "the land of cotton" IN GENERAL. That is an idea to the name of Dixie that came with the Civil War. The song was written by a northerner without that intention, and the intention to the song must be attributed to what the author meant and cared about and not to our own interpretations. So, no, it doesn't refer to the South. And it was equally popular in the North before the South appropriated it as an anthem.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Of course it wasn't for the South, it was written when that was a region of the US.

I still think there's strong evidence from the wording and performance of the song that Dixie meant the area we now think of as the South - there's several strands of evidence, from the cotton reference (overwhelmingly Southern) to the blackface to the mention of "down south", which suggest the song referred to that area of the US.

It's also pretty clear there was an existing cultural divide roughly along Mason Dixon.
 
Of course it wasn't for the South, it was written when that was a region of the US.

I still think there's strong evidence from the wording and performance of the song that Dixie meant the area we now think of as the South - there's several strands of evidence, from the cotton reference (overwhelmingly Southern) to the blackface to the mention of "down south", which suggest the song referred to that area of the US.

It's also pretty clear there was an existing cultural divide roughly along Mason Dixon.
"several strands of evidence" versus- what the author actually said about the song he wrote... I think the author wins.
 
Do you have a source for that about Lee? I've always believed her was a proponent of States Rights over the Federal Government. It's why he refused command of the Union Army, because Virginia was seceeding. So for him to do a complete 180 in regards to the Confederacy would be, interesting

The common narrative is that for Robert E Lee, his loyalty to Virginia was above all other loyalties. Historian Gary Gallagher disagrees, concluding that Lee ended up placing his loyalty to the Confederacy over his loyalty to Virginia. You can find some of Gallagher's lectures online, and in Becoming Confederates, Gallagher concluded that Lee "...thoroughly embraced a nationalist point of view and demanded that state and local interests give way to need of the central state."
 

Saphroneth

Banned
"several strands of evidence" versus- what the author actually said about the song he wrote... I think the author wins.
Not really. I mean, the author would have a very good selfish reason to say it wasn't "meant" for the South after the country erupted into a war and the South was the enemy, but the song is obviously on the face of it about the south - there's no other part of the country which fits.
"Land of cotton", for example.
Not only is cotton overwhelmingly a thing for the South, it's overwhelmingly a thing for the deep South - the only remotely dubious state which had any is Tennessee, and that seceded too:

1860.jpg



"down south in Dixie" obviously implies it's about the south, too.

I'm afraid that the most reasonable explanation to me seems to be that "death of the Author" applies.
 
Not really. I mean, the author would have a very good selfish reason to say it wasn't "meant" for the South after the country erupted into a war and the South was the enemy, but the song is obviously on the face of it about the south - there's no other part of the country which fits.
"Land of cotton", for example.
Not only is cotton overwhelmingly a thing for the South, it's overwhelmingly a thing for the deep South - the only remotely dubious state which had any is Tennessee, and that seceded too:

1860.jpg



"down south in Dixie" obviously implies it's about the south, too.

I'm afraid that the most reasonable explanation to me seems to be that "death of the Author" applies.
You're confusing what I'm saying. I'm not saing Dixie is not a place IN the South, I'm saying it is NOT THE SOUTH. Dixie was certainly meant to mean a localized specific place somewhere in the South (Louisiana claims that it refers to a place in their state). What you're saying that it refers to THE SOUTH in general is wrong, it never did until the Civil War. You're being anachronistic. It would be like taking the song "Cleveland Rocks" and applying the name Cleveland to the entire Midwest after it was a used a rallying cry for failed rebellion in 1990 (possibly led by Drew Carey), and then after that going back and saying Cleveland Rocks the song is about the entire Midwest. #Anachronism.
 
If so, then why is almost every language the remnant of a past empire or state? The territorial extent of Romance languages is a direct remnant of the Roman Empire. The extent of Arabic dialects is a direct remnant of the Caliphate. Chinese dialects are spoken in the area they are because that area has been ruled by Chinese dynasties for thousands of years. Turkic languages throughout Central Asia are there because of numerous tribal confederacies that pushed west from the Mongolian steppe. All the Balkan countries, Turkey, and Armenia had the territorial extent of their national identities and their languages determined by international borders chosen and ethnically cleansed from the late 19th to early 20th centuries. The national boundaries of almost every country in Eastern Europe were decided by the Soviets at the end of WW2, leading to a shift in many languages. The use of the French language in Canada is a direct remnant of French North America. Latin America would not speak Spanish were it not for the Spanish Empire. Nahuatl and Quechua in Mexico and Peru only survived as long as they have because they were each spread by vast empires. The Scandinavian languages are different from each other precisely because Norway, Denmark, and Sweden have been different countries for centuries. Korean follows the borders of old Joseon. Vietnamese follows the borders of many series of ancient Vietnamese dynasties. Thai is spoken in the areas it is because of the slow ancient expansion into Khmer territory.

Give it 100-200 years. I guarantee you that the borders of Africa will form concrete national identities in 80% of countries in Africa. There is currently a line between Francophone and non-Francophone countries in Africa. And in the Middle East, many of the colonial boundaries have already solidified into new national identities.

The Roman Empire is not an example of "borders create national identities". The Romans saw themselves as having a distinct identity, different from the many people they ruled over. Many of the people they ruled felt the same way - the Greeks saw themselves as Greeks, not Romans. The Jews saw themselves as Jews, not Romans. The Egyptians saw themselves as Egyptians, not Romans. The Caliphate did not create national identities, either - the Egyptians, Jews, and Persians all maintained their national identities. In many ways, China is a variety of national identities united by a common written language and not everything controlled by China has come to see itself as Chinese. China controlled the Vietnamese people form 111BC to 39AD, 43 to 544, and 602-938, yet their national identity remained Vietnamese. Tibet was controlled by China from 1720 to 1912 and from 1950 to the present, yet their cultural identity is Tibetan, not Chinese. For that matter Manchu and Mongol conquest of China did not result in the Chinese changing their national identity to Manchu or Mongol. Conquests by Turkic peoples did not erase the national identities of Persians, Arabs, Jews, Egyptians, Kurds or Armenians. Ethnic cleansing and forced deportations are not examples of borders creating national identities, they are examples of national identities expelling or destroying other national identities. Sweden, Norway, and Denmark kept their cultural identities even though they were united from 1387 to 1523 and the latter two were united from 1536 to 1814. Finland was part of Sweden from the 14th century to 1809, then part of Russia from 1809 to 1917, yet they maintained their cultural identity. Poland was divided among Prussia, Austria, and Russia in 1795, but they kept their Polish identity until they could regain independence in 1918.

Bringing this back on topic, the common borders from 1776 to 1861 did not lead to a common national identity for all people of the United States. Instead the Confederate attempt at a separate national identity led to their attempt to change the borders. Centralizing might lead to a common national identity across the Confederate states, but even during the war many Southerners saw their identity as being primarily tied to their state, not the Confederacy as a whole. There was a lot of common culture across the Confederate states, but there were also differences between the Border South, the old states on the Atlantic, the new cotton states of the Gulf, French influenced Louisiana, and the Texas frontier. Post-war Confederate unity is probable, but far from certain.

Then there are the slaves, roughly 40% of the Confederate population. Few if any will ever see themselves as part of a Confederate national identity.
 
Top