How socially conservative would a surviving Confederacy be?

Very socially conservative compared to the union or even OTL US until the 1970s or 1980s when *Jim Crow breaks and the CSA has it's *1960s a decade or two late and veers sharpy to the (identity politics-focusd) left.

Going by 1) the more WASP composition of the population 2) higher nonwhite population(black/spanish) than the US 3) even more identity-focused politics expect alot of realistic CSAs to be more on the ah SJW side of things than OTL US.

Unlikely, even if Jim Crow would have ended by now it wouldn't happen overnight and it takes time for things to change.
 
I imagine about as socially conservative as apartheid South Africa as a base starting point. Racial relations will be worse than our own world while labor movements will be somewhat stilted by those race issues with competition between white and black laborers.

Quite honestly the whole thing would probably change through violence at some point.
 
Unlikely, even if Jim Crow would have ended by now it wouldn't happen overnight and it takes time for things to change.
The CSA is smaller than the rump union by quite a bit and thus easier to pressure so good odds of jim crow ending on schedule. I said the 70s/80s thing as a compromise. Think a transition like Spain once Franco was gone, combined with Ireland's post-1990s liberaliztion.
 
It depends. They'd continue the slave system for as long as they could until it wasn't economically viable and even then, they'd have very few allies to begin with. It'd be a anachronistic modern feudal system for a couple of decades. Granted, this is if they survive and not fight amongst themselves.

I'd figure the resentment the North would have on them would linger extensively. Hell, I could see some of the north backing up socialists because they'd be the ones willing to help uproot the CSA.
 
It depends. They'd continue the slave system for as long as they could until it wasn't economically viable and even then, they'd have very few allies to begin with. It'd be a anachronistic modern feudal system for a couple of decades. Granted, this is if they survive and not fight amongst themselves.

I'd figure the resentment the North would have on them would linger extensively. Hell, I could see some of the north backing up socialists because they'd be the ones willing to help uproot the CSA.

This is a major point oft-missed. The CS even with a raging war in the middle 1860s, was teetering upon civil war with itself and unable to draw upon united action as effectively as one may expect. The state of Georgia especially, one notices their stiff resistance to the command of Jefferson Davis and other military leaders. Meanwhile, there too exists a divide between the eastern limits and that of the western sectors of the country, that in certain situations could lead to counter-secessionist tendencies and or the civic disloyalty exhibited by the government of Georgia. To keep the country together, the CS leaders in Virginia and the east coast, would need to balance their policies and attempt to appeal to all sides, which could be unattainable peacefully.

In terms of the anachronistic perception of slavery, I would disagree with this assessment. Characterizing past events in light of the otl, 1880-1940, is a limited mode of comparison; it is more appropriate to view these items in terms of precedent. Namely, that slavery if upheld in the southern states, would likely evolve into different forms that maintained the essence of what slavery was (master and subservient relations, white supremacy, 'the white man's burden' and general economic trends and what was at the possession of the people therein [do note, slavery and other types of labor occur for reasons, they do not occur simply for the sake of white supremacy or such, as the colonists in the new world, did not acquire these slaves through war as Assyria or others gained slaves]).

These different forms, I cannot speculate upon definitively, but the idea that the Southern agricultural collective would continue indefinitely as it had for the past century with all the world nearby and connected to it developing as otl, is not very sound. Already, we have examples of how slavery differed by region in the Southern states and by locale and the differing modes of labor instructed to slaves. Records give proof for instance of how slaves within Virginia were used in dual activities in the realm of domestic duties and in stewardship activities for large homes. While in large cities, such as New Orleans, slaves participated in work in loading ships, production of items on ships, proto-industrial activities and in more 'refined works like cashiers, bar tenders, clerks, accountants and so forth. These are examples of relations that slaves in the southern states held with the wider society that was not contained to agriculture and could give models to how slavery might evolve in a world wherein agricultural practices are changed and developments are agreed upon by the wider Southern agricultural social strata. Much of the agricultural progress discussed here, that I would expect to occur, would be along the lines of what was occurring naturally in 1858 in Virginia and North Carolina, that is ideas of more refined crop rotation and use of marls explained by Southern intellectual Edmund Ruffin (1794-1865). Oddly, despite some of these positive agricultural developments having been opined upon originally in southern states, these ideas though adopted in minor amounts in the 1850s, ceased to be practiced after the Civil War and thus a rapid disintegration of soil and drain exhibited in southern states in the 1870s that was warned about by the upper echelons of Southern society in the 1850s. These economic troubles in the 1870s experienced in the south due to the loss of crops and soil, has been a discussed reason for the rise of racial populists in the southern region and an excessively radicalized mindset among the Southern working and lower classes. This is plausible especially as the mindset of some could be that such disasters were tied to the abolition of slavery and the actions of the US government, fueling directly the KKK and other movements noted in the 'Lost Cause' mythos.

An aside, some of these innovations in agriculture spoken of in the 1850s, were though unpracticed by the less educated farming class of the poorer white southern society as a whole, was adopted readily by the adherents of Booker T. Washington and the Institute of Tuskegee.

As far as political movements, there are many possibilities, yet I find the prospect of a slave rebellion unlikely. The only successful organic slave rebellion, that of Haiti, occurred in a very different geography, one that was very tight, with limited natural barriers and ready intermingling between different slave populations on separate plantations. In the Southern states, slaves were spread out in a massive array and were often in remote plantations or remote homesteads, all with little access to weapons or material to create long range logistical campaigns necessary to overthrow governments. One need only observe the environment of Louisiana or Mississippi to see the difficulty innate in this proposition, that is vast forests and swamps that preclude such actions. Even in these times, there was no bridges across major rivers such as the Mississippi and thus, the slave army in question would require some sort of naval contingent, very unlikely. It is also very improbable that slaves would ever rebel en masse without a large amount of intermingling between plantations and relations of slaves developed outside of their relatives on the plantation or with their masters. In other near slave rebellion successes, such as the Zanj rebellion, this was achieved through both a close intermingling of slave workers in the fields and mines of the Sawad and simultaneously a joint operation by a dedicated cadre of Khawarij-Shi'a partisans who through the use of varied means of deception and long term strategy gathered a large army of slaves, Bedouin, partisans and generally disaffected Arab tribesmen.
 
The CSA is smaller than the rump union by quite a bit and thus easier to pressure so good odds of jim crow ending on schedule. I said the 70s/80s thing as a compromise. Think a transition like Spain once Franco was gone, combined with Ireland's post-1990s liberaliztion.

So it is smaller, who cares? Racism would be far more embedded than you would like to think. I think slavery would last until 1920 or so, Jim Crow might last to 2000-2010 or so.
 
So it is smaller, who cares? Racism would be far more embedded than you would like to think. I think slavery would last until 1920 or so, Jim Crow might last to 2000-2010 or so.

Personally, my opinion would be that slavery could last indefinitely, just in ways different from otl slavery of mass teams of slaves working cotton, sugarcane or tobacco as was the status quo in 1859 among most Southern states (exceptions found within rural Virginia, New Orleans, Atlanta, Richardson, Charleston and in some places in Northern Mississippi, where there existed certain types of 'slave communes'. Without the Civil War, there would be no Jim Crow or Apartheid in the sense of otl. During Antebellum, there was not a division in the imagined otl sense that occurred post-1897. Jim Crow laws and other similar sentiments, were a reaction of the middle and lower class southern population against a perceived 'uppity' African descent communities within the South and the need on their part to carve for themselves a perceived space and maintain their symbolic colonial domination. In a scenario of an independent and lasting CS with slavery, these pressures do not exist.
 
South Africa held out to the 1980s before starting reform and 1994 for junking apartheid entirely. The CSA wouldn't be as far away or as ah culturally insulated. Well that and the white majority thing.

A confederacy in 2019 would be just another developed anglo nation, granted one that's poorer/dysfunctional due to being more agricultural+mroe third world like politics but still (lower half admittedly) first world.
 
South Africa held out to the 1980s before starting reform and 1994 for junking apartheid entirely. The CSA wouldn't be as far away or as ah culturally insulated. Well that and the white majority thing.

A confederacy in 2019 would be just another developed anglo nation, granted one that's poorer/dysfunctional due to being more agricultural+mroe third world like politics but still (lower half admittedly) first world.

Assumption that the CS is necessarily Anglo is a bias on your part. The experience of Louisiana should be discussed in this case and even the relation of Texas that breaks the mold of the uniform Anglo relation that is exhibited in Virginia, Carolinas and Georgia. Remember, the CS is a conglomeration without its attachment to the even more Anglophone Northern states, and thus will have little crown to enforce Anglophone policies upon Louisiana as the otl US did using Reconstruction and the Civil War as pretext to hammer on the Creole Elite of the state.
 
Also, it does not seem there was large anti Jewish sentiment in the southern states, considering the life of Benjamin Judah...

Except that Benjamin and other prominent Confederate Jews were subjected to venomous anti-Semitic attacks:

"J. B. Jones was a Northern journalist [actualy he was from Maryland and spent his childhood in Kentucky and Missouri--DT] with Southern sympathies who settled in Richmond at the age of fifty-one and wrote a diary of the war. A job in the War Department gave him an inside view of the action, and his two-volume A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capitol offers invaluable observations of the day-by-day events. Jones disliked Jews. In his original (unedited) diaries he mentions the word 'Jew' in a derogatory way forty times, with special hatred for Benjamin and other Jews of prominence. His anti-Semitism gives insights into the thinking of the times.

"The atmosphere in Richmond against all Jews, even the 'exceptions,' grew worse as the impact of the war unsettled the economy. Jones wrote that A. C. Myers, the 'Jew Quartermaster General,' met the plea of soldiers for blankets with the answer, 'Let them suffer.' He called the distinguished Gustavus Myers 'the little old lawyer for Jew clients.' 'Illicit trade,' he wrote, 'has depleted the country of gold and placed us at the feet of Jew extortioners.' He reported laughter in the streets of Richmond 'when a Jew is asked what will be the price of shoes, etc., tomorrow.' Finally, he concluded, 'These Jews . . . have injured the cause more than the armies of Lincoln.'

"Southern Punch magazine also vented its rage against the Jews to its Richmond readers: 'Who are our capitalists at the present time? . . . The dirty greasy Jew peddlar [sic], who might be seen, with a pack on his back, a year or two since, bowing and cringing even to Negro servants, now struts by with the air of a millionaire.'

"The German Jews were subjected to special scorn: They were considered foreigners, charged with avoiding conscription, and suspected of antislavery sentiments. The Richmond Examiner hammered home this theme, to the consternation of the Jews of Richmond:

"While many of our people have been dragged from their homes and frequently from sick and needy families by the inexorable demands of conscription, thousands of Jews . . . have gone scot-free simply for the virtue of denying their allegiance to the country in which some of them were born and which many of them by the plainest acts have pretended to adopt.

"The editorial grew in vituperation as it enlarged its attack:

"They have flocked here as vultures and birds of passage. One has but to walk through the streets and stores of Richmond to get an impression of the vast number of unkempt Israelites in our marts. . . . Every auction room is packed with greasy Jews. . . Let one observe the number of wheezing Jewish matrons .. . elbowing out of their way soldiers' families and the most respectable people in the community."

Eli N. Evans, Judah P. Benjamin - The Jewish Confederate, pp. 199-200. https://books.google.com/books?id=Iv8qYPusXWcC&pg=PA199 https://books.google.com/books?id=Iv8qYPusXWcC&pg=PA200

Henry S. Foote (who had once been Governor and US Senator from Mississippi and was now a member of the Confederate Congress from Tennessee) "routinely referred to [Benjamin] as "Judas Iscariot Benjamin" and the "Jewish puppeteer" behind the "Davis tyranny" and more than once identified him as "the sole cause of the calamities which have befallen the country." At one point, Foote went as far as proposing that the Confederate constitution should be amended to specify that no Jews should be allowed within twelve miles if the national capital." https://books.google.com/books?id=hHJyDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA226

Granted, Foote had a pathological hatred of Davis, and would use any weapon to discredit Davis's supporter Benjamin--but it is still significant that he evidently viewed anti-Semitism as an effective weapon for that purpose. And he may have been right: when Foote make his remark about banning Jews from within twelve miles of the Confederate capital "a wave of applause swept the house." https://books.google.com/books?id=gks-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA167

Of course anti-Semitism existed in the North as well; August Belmont (chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and characterized by the New York Times as "an agent for foreign Jew bankers") was a favorite villain for Republicans and we all know about General Orders #11. But as Leonard Dinnerstein noted in his history of anti-Semitism in America:

"Antisemitism also erupted in the South during the war. Antipathy to foreigners, which included Jews, was more severe in this region than in the North. Moreover, in ways that were easy to sense but more difficult to measure, observers noted that the region's intense commitment to fundamentalist Christianity encouraged greater disparagement of Jews. Larger numbers of people were wary of merchants and suspicious of their methods and acquisitions, and, since southerners suffered more atrocities and devastation than people in the North, they shared a heightened sense of frustration and despair. Jews were denounced for being insufficiently proslavery and disloyal to the Confederacy. It was commonly assumed that Jewish merchants hoarded merchandise and sold goods at extortionist prices, thereby intensifying the South's great deprivation. The diary of John Beauchamps Jones, a clerk in the Confederate War Department, reeked with antisemitic references; the citizens of Talbotton and Thomasville, Georgia, voted to expel Jews who lived in their towns; and members of the Confederate House of Representatives openly denounced Jews in their midst.

"For southerners, Judah P. Benjamin, who served successively as Attorney-General, Secretary of War, and Secretary of State in the Confederate government, stood out as the archetypal perfidious Jew. Benjamin had been born Jewish but, like August Belmont, married a non-Jew, raised his daughter as a Christian, and did not affiliate with any Jewish organizations. Southern antisemites resented him and although he suffered no undue attacks while an attorney in Louisiana, or as a United States Senator representing the state from 1853 through 1861, many confederates attributed military losses and diplomatic failures to his being Jewish.. A Methodist parson in Nashville, characterized Benjamin as "a little pilfering Jew ... one of the tribe that murdered the Savior," stories circulated in the Confederate Army that he lived on "fine wines, fruits—the fat of the land,". and one person even believed that the prayers of the Confederacy would have been more efficacious without a Jew in the Cabinet." https://books.google.com/books?id=G2DnBwAAQBAJ&pg=PT73

So instead of saying, "there couldn't have been that much anti-Semitism in the South--look at Judah Benjamin" one could just as well say "yes, look at Judah Benjamin and the hatred, often explicitly anti-Semitic, that he engendered."

I realize that these things are much more likely to happen in wartime, when "foreigners" are viewed with special suspicion and "middlemen" and "profiteers" are easy to blame for shortages. No doubt in the peacetime Confederacy, the virulence of anti-Semitism would greatly diminish. But in both the North and South, the underlying attitudes about the Jew as "other" would still remain, with dangerous implications in the event of future wars or depressions. (Such attitudes of course were not inconsistent with saying that one's friend Mr. Cohen or Mr. Levy, a Jewish merchant from Charleston, was a fine man. As Mary Chesnut remarked, "Everybody everywhere has their own Jew exceptions." https://books.google.com/books?id=WojvfHAX4lgC&pg=PA547)
 
Last edited:
@David T

1. Your quotations depict a reality of anti semitism as existing, today in the modern country of the US, you can peruse through articles and publications such as 'The Daily Stormer' and find anti-Jewish sentiment. However, would we say that the US is especially anti-Jewish or more than countries and polities of the past. In Medieval History, many Islamic polities are seen as somewhat tolerant of Jewish peoples, yet said Islamic polities exhibited massacres, jizya taxation and discrimination not allowing Jews entry into positions within law or military. Yet in the CS, said person of Jewish identity, could achieve a position as not only a high placement judge but also one of the more prominent positions in the CS government. To say that the CS is thus, exceptionally anti-Jewish is perhaps the most excessive and incredulous statement I can imagine on the topic. We also speak of civic matters, not peddling in the realms of perception and vagrant opinions of varied politicians who equally were ridiculed for their own policies. There thus, I request of you, can you find a legislation that gave to the Jewsih community special discrimination, as there existed for persons of African or partial African descent in said states/country?

2. It is odd that such sentiment were it pervasive in the Southern realms, that no action was taken against the large Jewish community in New Orleans or Charleston prior and during the war. Further, it is curious that said community in New Orleans, whence expelled and mistreated by the US occupation, was bemoaned by the local populace and viewed as a 'war crime' by CS officials and common Southern opinion int he region.

3. My position, was not that 'look at Judah Benjamin, there is no anti-Jewish attitude in the southern regions', only that it was a response to the comment made by an earlier poster, that there existed little to no Jewish community in the Southern realms and that were there Jews, they were minuscule and unnoticed or outright viewed with hatred.
 
Last edited:
As far as political movements, there are many possibilities, yet I find the prospect of a slave rebellion unlikely. The only successful organic slave rebellion, that of Haiti, occurred in a very different geography, one that was very tight, with limited natural barriers and ready intermingling between different slave populations on separate plantations. In the Southern states, slaves were spread out in a massive array and were often in remote plantations or remote homesteads, all with little access to weapons or material to create long range logistical campaigns necessary to overthrow governments. One need only observe the environment of Louisiana or Mississippi to see the difficulty innate in this proposition, that is vast forests and swamps that preclude such actions. Even in these times, there was no bridges across major rivers such as the Mississippi and thus, the slave army in question would require some sort of naval contingent, very unlikely. It is also very improbable that slaves would ever rebel en masse without a large amount of intermingling between plantations and relations of slaves developed outside of their relatives on the plantation or with their masters. In other near slave rebellion successes, such as the Zanj rebellion, this was achieved through both a close intermingling of slave workers in the fields and mines of the Sawad and simultaneously a joint operation by a dedicated cadre of Khawarij-Shi'a partisans who through the use of varied means of deception and long term strategy gathered a large army of slaves, Bedouin, partisans and generally disaffected Arab tribesmen.

I'm by no means an expert on this but could demographics be changed radically as a result of the post war economy.

Lets say we continue with the assumption that the southern economy will be stilted and agricultural due to the dominance of the planter class, surely many poor whites would seek to migrate to the north for better working conditions and the Union would probably be happy to accept them over eeastern and southern european migrants. states in the black belt and particularly around the missisippi become majority black after a few decades and then the idea of a slave revolt would be more likely especially if the confederacy is racked with political and economic crises.

Just my two cents
 
Haiti succeeded for several reasons:
1. There was a marked black majority in Haiti
2. Haiti was a significant distance from France or any other center of French power.
3. Napoleon/France were involved in on and off wars with the UK and various other continental powers.
4. The combination of the yellow fever virus and a large population of Aedes Egypti mosquitoes to spread it. Over 70% of the French soldiers sent to Haiti died from this, and many of the others were sickened and out of action for a prolonged period of time.

NONE of these conditions are relevant for a CSA after the war ends with the USA. While some areas of the CSA might be black majority, the overall black population was significantly less than the white population. Prewar, and most certainly after independence, patrols, militia, etc, were very effective in preventing any sort of slave rebellion of more than local concern and while France could write off Haiti, a slve rebellion as an internal matter in the CSA would be crushed ruthlessly. As weapons technology advances, trained militia/soldiers with repeating cartridge rifles against slave with hand weapons or some revolvers or hunting weapons is going to be even more unequal than slaves and soldiers armed with muzzle loaders. Once machine guns come in to service, it gets even more unequal.
 
Haiti succeeded for several reasons:
1. There was a marked black majority in Haiti
2. Haiti was a significant distance from France or any other center of French power.
3. Napoleon/France were involved in on and off wars with the UK and various other continental powers.
4. The combination of the yellow fever virus and a large population of Aedes Egypti mosquitoes to spread it. Over 70% of the French soldiers sent to Haiti died from this, and many of the others were sickened and out of action for a prolonged period of time.

NONE of these conditions are relevant for a CSA after the war ends with the USA. While some areas of the CSA might be black majority, the overall black population was significantly less than the white population. Prewar, and most certainly after independence, patrols, militia, etc, were very effective in preventing any sort of slave rebellion of more than local concern and while France could write off Haiti, a slve rebellion as an internal matter in the CSA would be crushed ruthlessly. As weapons technology advances, trained militia/soldiers with repeating cartridge rifles against slave with hand weapons or some revolvers or hunting weapons is going to be even more unequal than slaves and soldiers armed with muzzle loaders. Once machine guns come in to service, it gets even more unequal.

Not talking about tanks, APCs and warplanes!
 
One aspect of social conservatism: At least until slavery ends, I do not think the CSA will be particularly friendly to immigration. As I wrote here last year:

***

Southerners before 1860 were not terribly friendly to immigration. I do not simply refer to mass nativist movements, although Know Nothingism briefly flourished in the South as well as the North. I have in mind the feelings of many Southerners who did not belong to any nativist movement, like Edmund Ruffin: "One of the great benefits of the institution of African slavery to the southern states is its effect in keeping away from our territory, and directing to the north and north-west, the hordes of immigrants now flowing from Europe, and which accession of population has already so much demoralized not only the states receiving the largest supplies of such population, but the federal government itself. Every political aspirant, aiming for the highest offices, deems it to his interest to conciliate and attempt to bribe to his support, this new and enormous element of political power. Hence we see unprincipled, but not the less influential and dangerous aspirants for presidential honors, competing with each other, as to who shall offer the highest bids for this support, in bestowing the public lands gratuitously on immigrants from all the world. It will not be long before this foreign power, so fostered and increased, will be so strong, that the grants, conditions, or acquiescence of the government, will be altogether superfluous and worthless." (Ruffin acknowledged that "To hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Europe our country has been greatly indebted for their useful private or public lives" but added "But I speak of classes, and not of individuals--of the general rule, and not of its exceptions.") https://books.google.com/books?id=nWNKAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA64-IA15

To be sure, there were some dissenters. As Eugene Genovese writes in The Political Economy of Slavery, "J. L. Orr, an advocate of industrial expansion, chose consistency over safety and advocated liberal naturalization procedures in the Confederacy, praising foreign mechanics as 'everywhere useful citizens.' Not many Orrs were to be found in the slave states. The foreign-born population of the Southern cities continued to cause apprehension among the rural slaveholders. With only 20 per cent of Charleston’s population foreign-born in 1848, foreigners led natives by almost two to one in the race for poorhouse admission. Elsewhere, except in New Orleans, conditions were about the same: unskilled Irish workers struggling to stay alive, Jewish peddlers and small merchants doing a necessary job but arousing considerable resentment by their mode of life, German artisans falling under the suspicion of antislavery feelings, and so forth." https://books.google.com/books?id=ld_bAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA232

In general, I think Ruffin's view was more prevalent--that slavery discouraged immigration to the South was considered a feature, not a bug. If even in the North it was feared that immigrants would bring foreign "isms," this fear had to be more intense in the South.
 
What would Texas do without football?

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...roosevelt-and-southron-rules-football.429835/

***

[DBWI] Theodore Roosevelt and Southron Rules Football
Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by David T, Nov 5, 2017.


You know, I think that in the end, Southron Rules Football will be considered the greatest legacy of President Theodore Roosevelt. (A fascinating what-if would be, What if his father didn't commit suicide in despondency over the Yankee defeat, and his Georgia-born mother, Martha Bulloch Roosevelt, didn't return to her plantation with young Theodore? Could he have become a success in *Yankee* politics? Or what if Theodore had been born after December 20, 1860 and had thus been ineligible under Article II, section one, paragraph seven of the Confederate Constitution http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp [1] to become President?)

We are so used to thinking of college football as *the* characteristic sport of the South that we forget that in the early twentieth century, there was so much uproar over casualties that it seemed the game would be abolished. Politicians and newspapers complained that the game amounted to the "suicide of the white race." In this crisis, President Roosevelt acted, summoning representatives of Virginia, Georgia Tech, Jefferson Davis, and other major colleges to Richmond and urging them to take the needed steps to save the game. Thus was born the Confederate Collegiate Conference ("the KKK" as some wags liked to call it) and the reforms that led to Southron Rules football--reforms which were of course rejected in the North. ("Maybe Southerners need to be mollycoddled," sneered Yankee President Joseph Foraker, long Roosevelt's arch-enemy. "After all, they've been looked after by their colored slaves, pardon me, that's 'apprentices for life,' since birth. We prefer a manlier game here up North.")

It's ironic that the game of football, which Roosevelt did so much to save, also proved in the end to be his downfall. His inviting the Indian athlete Jim Thorpe to dine with him at the presidential mansion turned out to be his political suicide.

[1] "No person except a natural-born citizen of the Confederate; States, or a citizen thereof at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, *or a citizen thereof born in the United States prior to the 20th of December, 1860*, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the limits of the Confederate States, as they may exist at the time of his election."' (Emphasis added.)
 
Last edited:
I suspect rugby could make its way down South, and it's not impossible for American football to migrate south. Baseball almost definitely would.

Basketball is unlikely, even in North Carolina (now that's a huge butterfly)

As for the opening question- I think you'd see a lot fewer blacks in the South. Escapes would become more frequent, since freedom would be crossing to the North or Mexico, and there would be no hope of escaping bondage in the South. Once slavery becomes economically unviable- you'd see the black population dealt with in one form or another- my guess is you'd see something that falls short of genocide but would have a significant death toll, perhaps bantustans/forced migrations. It would be worse than apartheid South Africa.

Eventually the South would be defeated in a followup war, or collapse from a revolt of poor whites (A communist CSA is something that I think is plausible, though that might lead to a US invasion)
 
Regarding abortion, the early evangelical movement was pretty okay with abortion early on. Pro-liferism was seen as a catholic thing.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...irth-control-to-being-obsessed-with-them.html
In his book Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics, Jonathan Dudley notes that most evangelicals held far more liberal views at the time. “God does not regard the fetus as a soul no matter how far gestation has progressed,” wrote professor Bruce Waltke of Dallas Theological Seminary in a 1968 issue of Christianity Today on contraception and abortion, edited by Harold Lindsell, a then-famous champion of biblical “inerrancy.” His argument rested on the Hebrew Bible, “[A]ccording to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”

This position was reaffirmed at a symposium sponsored by Christianity Today and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, where participants agreed to disagree over the “sinfulness” of an “induced abortion,” but agreed about “the necessity of it and permissibility for it under certain circumstances,” namely, rape and incest. The document produced by the conference, “A Protestant Affirmation on the Control of Human Reproduction,” said, “The prevention of conception is not in itself forbidden or sinful providing the reasons for it are in harmony with the total revelation of God for married life” and that the “method of preventing pregnancy is not so much a religious as a scientific and medical question to be determined in consultation with one’s physician.”

Three years after the symposium, the conservative Southern Baptist Convention endorsed this view, with a call for “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.”


I also disagree that southern blacks would be left-wing. Why would they be pro-government in a racist country? Black self-reliance would probably be the bigger ideology.

It took a pretty unique convergence of things to make blacks vote 90% democrat OTL. Particularly the New Deal helping them out for the first time ever and the significant Federal involvement in desegregation efforts.



There ought to be a distinction made between social conservatism and racial conservatism. Abortion, religion, and drug use can be fairly easily divided away from immigration and racial matters I would think.




Following any Civil War, we're bound to see the emergence of sharecropping (which was already emerging in parts of Tennessee and Mississippi before the war) and economic issues coming from the bollweevil. Without George Washington Carver introducing crop rotation and with the emergence of sharecropping, I would expect much poor white populist sentiment to emerge.


I would think Southern politics would descend into a planter + urbanite vs farmer/yeoman divide.
 
Top