Independent CSA turns into a military dictatorship late 1800s, most likely general to be dictator?

[RousseauX]

Let's say by some PoD the CSA manages a military victory in the north that triggers british/french intervention that exhausts northern political will to wage the war, the CSA gains independence, maybe without Kentucky or something.

Had the confederacy gained independence in 1863-64 or so, it was heading down some rocky roads even without continual northern hostility, cotton exports would have being the backbone of the CSA economy and by the late 1800s boll weevil destroys much of the cotton industry in the CS. At the same time Egyptian cotton exports were competing with Confederate exports dropping their revenue even further.

Let's say the confederate congress deals poorly with this and the southern economy implodes, under such circumstances, there is a real chance I think the military takes over the stabilize the country, just as the army does so very often in Latin America of the same time period. The army would have retained its prestige from winning the war, and being the only real institution to transcendent class and state lines in the CSA. Both the common white people and some of the elite would have looked to them as an alternative to the corrupt/ineffective political establishment (and of course a way to suppress african-american revolts).

So which general is most likely to become the military dictator in this case? Robert E Lee would have being dead before this, Stonwall jackson and longstreet both probably would have being alive atl. It probably has to be someone from the war, who has the personality/prestige/power to take over the country?

 

[Young Lochinvar]

Frankly, I don’t think Stonewall had the cruelty in him to really make it as a dictator. His secrecy wasn’t paranoia and while he was an absolutely brilliant tactician he doesn’t seem a politician which even military dictators must be. Then again his popularity might have swept him to power in a popular upswell and in wild fantasies he could even become a Confederate Cincinnatus.

I like the idea of Longstreet mending fences with the Northern states and he has a degree of political ambition, but it’s hard to really parse how he’d act in a victorious CSA given he became a Republican OTL.

George Washington Custis Lee may be a go. He has the military career as a Confederate Maj.Gen. and has a family par excellence. Being a lineal descendent of George Washington (via adoption) and being the son of Robert Lee, what better could you do? Though he might be a tad young, 48 in 1880.

Maybe Jubal Early? He had a significant post-war impact OTL setting up the ‘Lost Cause’ view so he was charismatic enough in his writing at least but his early reluctance to support secession probably works against him.

Or, just on war cred. alone, J.E.B. Stuart?

 

[RousseauX]

Frankly, I don’t think Stonewall had the cruelty in him to really make it as a dictator. His secrecy wasn’t paranoia and while he was an absolutely brilliant tactician he doesn’t seem a politician which even military dictators must be. Then again his popularity might have swept him to power in a popular upswell and in wild fantasies he could even become a Confederate Cincinnatus.

I like the idea of Longstreet mending fences with the Northern states and he has a degree of political ambition, but it’s hard to really parse how he’d act in a victorious CSA given he became a Republican OTL.

George Washington Custis Lee may be a go. He has the military career as a Confederate Maj.Gen. and has a family par excellence. Being a lineal descendent of George Washington (via adoption) and being the son of Robert Lee, what better could you do? Though he might be a tad young, 48 in 1880.

Maybe Jubal Early? He had a significant post-war impact OTL setting up the ‘Lost Cause’ view so he was charismatic enough in his writing at least but his early reluctance to support secession probably works against him.

Or, just on war cred. alone, J.E.B. Stuart?

You are right...I forgot about JEB, his death is butterflied mostly likely

based on post-war careers in state governments/congress etc, did any ex-CS generals (lots of them were politicians post war) show a lot of extraordinary acumen?

 

[Md139115]

Or, just on war cred. alone, J.E.B. Stuart?

He would never be just a pure military dictator, this is "The Last Cavalier" we're talking about here.

Long live JAMES I, of the Virginians, Carolinans, Georgians, Floridians, Tennesseeans, Alabamans, Mississippians, Arkansans, Louisianans, and Texans, KING, DEFENDER OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH, PROTECTOR OF THE INDIANS, and HAMMER OF THE DAM'YANKEES.

 

[Lalli]

Well, hardly him need to be served as general on Southern Secession War. It is possible that he was just captain or major during the war so there is much of options.

But him should be intrested to take power and him should too be able to collect enough of collaboratists and skills commit coup.

 

[RousseauX]

Well, hardly him need to be served as general on Southern Secession War. It is possible that he was just captain or major during the war so there is much of options.

But him should be intrested to take power and him should too be able to collect enough of collaboratists and skills commit coup.

sustainable coups require support from enough elements of society to keep the coupsters in power: you need a war general's prestige for that

coups by junior officers are rarely stable

 

[Historyman 14]

Honesty, a coup could very well mean the end of the CSA. Not all the Army may support the general, nor would all of the White Population. At the same time, you have restless slave, a North that would what a round two, a lack of any meaningful Allies, a screw up economy.....a coup could be what bring down everything, and break up the South.

 

[Thoresby]

But would the North want the south back after 20 years? How many British wanted to reconquer the Thirteen Colonies or Southern Ireland or South Americans wanting to recreate Gran Columbia? I think a lot of northerns would think they're better off without the South especially if it descends into dictatorship. That's what I always found tricky with Turtledove's series.

 

[RousseauX]

But would the North want the south back after 20 years? How many British wanted to reconquer the Thirteen Colonies it Southern Ireland or South Americans wanting to recreate Gran Columbia? I think a lot of northerns would think they're better off without the South especially if it descends into dictatorship. That's what I always found tricky with Turtledove's series.

I could see some of the upper south trying to secede back to the USA, the US would prob take Virginia back

but a military dictator would obviously clamp down on them and stop them

 

[Mightyboosh5]

I've always thought the military in the confederacy would develop similarly to the way pre ww2 Japanese military did.

E.g. Individual cliques within the army/navy launch their own attacks and filibusters in central and South America without richmonds support. The army wouldn't really need to create a dictatorship when a weak federal government would bend to their desires anyway.

 

[Historyman 14]

But would the North want the south back after 20 years? How many British wanted to reconquer the Thirteen Colonies or Southern Ireland or South Americans wanting to recreate Gran Columbia? I think a lot of northerns would think they're better off without the South especially if it descends into dictatorship. That's what I always found tricky with Turtledove's series.

I could see some of the upper south trying to secede back to the USA, the US would prob take Virginia back

but a military dictator would obviously clamp down on them and stop them

I've always thought the military in the confederacy would develop similarly to the way pre ww2 Japanese military did.

E.g. Individual cliques within the army/navy launch their own attacks and filibusters in central and South America without richmonds support. The army wouldn't really need to create a dictatorship when a weak federal government would bend to their desires anyway.

There was a fair number of Southern Unionist. (Tenseness. North Carolina. Virginia. Even Arkansas and Louisiana had a ton of them.)

Central America maybe, but I can't see the South doing so well in the lower Americans for various reasons. (Trouble on the home-front, the Union eyeing them, the British getting worry at Confederate growth.) Just picture the public reaction to getting beaten by a lot of Central and South Americans. Support for the Army would drop like nothing else before.

 

[Deleted member 9338]

I was thinking Bragg, political during the war and close to the winning Pres Davis

 

[Thoresby]

I think Southern Unionists would go the way of loyalists in the American War of Independence, i.e. either vote with their feet and move or reconcile with the new order probably becoming extra vocally Confederate to make up for their prior behaviour.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

I could see some of the upper south trying to secede back to the USA, the US would prob take Virginia back

Never gonna happen. They'd have to agree to give up slavery, and with the border states refusing the concept of compensated emancipation all the way to 1863, they would in all likelihood reject the notion they need to give up slavery out of hand in order to rejoin the Union.

That of course, is assuming the Union even abolishes slavery like OTL.

 

[Historyman 14]

Never gonna happen. They'd have to agree to give up slavery, and with the border states refusing the concept of compensated emancipation all the way to 1863, they would in all likelihood reject the notion they need to give up slavery out of hand in order to rejoin the Union.

That of course, is assuming the Union even abolishes slavery like OTL.

West Virginia would have already left, and the Unionists won in the border states.

And why won't the USA abolishes slavery?

 

[EnglishCanuck]

West Virginia would have already left, and the Unionists won in the border states.

And why won't the USA abolishes slavery?

Kentucky, Delaware, Missouri, were the last states to ratify the 13th amendment (Kentucky not until after 1950) so the idea that the states that seceded would willing agree to re-join the Union by abolishing slavery is somewhat unbelievable.

And why would they? If Lincoln loses a second term, the push for the 13th amendment disappears with him. Especially as the Democrats and Conservative Republicans won't support it in order to try and open negotiations with the CSA.

 

[Historyman 14]

Kentucky, Delaware, Missouri, were the last states to ratify the 13th amendment (Kentucky not until after 1950) so the idea that the states that seceded would willing agree to re-join the Union by abolishing slavery is somewhat unbelievable.

And why would they? If Lincoln loses a second term, the push for the 13th amendment disappears with him. Especially as the Democrats and Conservative Republicans won't support it in order to try and open negotiations with the CSA.

The North had no reason for slavery. It is morally repugnant, and has no place in a industrial society like that of the Union. The same goes for a South that try to keep slavery while trying to industrialized. Worst case both blacks, and whites would revoke against Richmond.

The Dred Scott decision is moot given the split.

Also, on the idea of the UK and France helping the CSA. The idea of the British joining the CSA is horrendously overblown by this point. The UK and Union had solid terms at this time, and the UK had no need for cotton from the South. (AKA: Cotton from Egypt and India was the good stuff.) France won't help the South if London don't. (And the public would be in arms against the government for helping a state base on slavery, who been trying to end the slave trade.)

 

[EnglishCanuck]

The North had no reason for slavery. It is morally repugnant, and has no place in a industrial society like that of the Union. The same goes for a South that try to keep slavery while trying to industrialized. Worst case both blacks, and whites would revoke against Richmond.

Morality means nothing in the face of political expediency. If a Democrat (McClellan) wins, they will try and negotiate an end to the conflict, and the South will not enter negotiations if those negotiations are even predicated on ending slavery (as the peace attempts in 1864 show). If Lincoln is out, there's less impetus to push for the 13th amendment by Conservative Republicans, and the Democrats will as a bloc oppose it. And the South can't win if Lincoln stays in office.

If the South were to go full blown military dictatorship it would be to insure that blacks are kept as slaves or second class citizens.

Also, on the idea of the UK and France helping the CSA. The idea of the British joining the CSA is horrendously overblown by this point. The UK and Union had solid terms at this time, and the UK had no need for cotton from the South. (AKA: Cotton from Egypt and India was the good stuff.) France won't help the South if London don't. (And the public would be in arms against the government for helping a state base on slavery, who been trying to end the slave trade.)

What?

 

[cerebropetrologist]

the UK had no need for cotton from the South. (AKA: Cotton from Egypt and India was the good stuff.)

What?

Quite.
'Prior to the Cotton Famine, Blackburn used American middling cotton but as this got scarce and expensive Surat was mixed with it together with Egyptian. Cloth produced by this process was called ‘Coarse’ and was made for the Indian market. Both workers and masters disliked the raw cotton from India, the workers because it was difficult to work and they could make little money from it and the masters because it took longer to work and machinery had to be adapted for it. If they were using American cotton it would take two days or 400 hands to work it up, Surat on the other hand took 2½ days and 500 hands on the same machines. The raw Surat was of poor quality, often dirty and mixed with foreign objects like goats’ hair and jute. Pebbles were often found amongst the cotton, one manufacturer found a stone weighing 10lb in a bale which had cost him 1s. 6d. per pound. Even when it was cleared of its impurities it was difficult to handle because it was excessively dry, brittle and short staple which made it fuzzier and more like wool. More steam was needed in the mills to try and damp it down, the spindles of the spinners and the shuttles of the weavers were often silent due to broken thread. Mr. Baker, the Factory Inspector on a visit to a spinning mill found that the spinner using American cotton could spin 15,000lbs on a certain machine; using Surat he was only spinning 7,000lb in the same time. This in itself was an improvement because when he had first started using Surat his weekly total was only 3,000lbs. As for the workers, they had not only to endure the excessive discomfort of the extra steam in the air, but a material which was forever breaking meant time spent piecing thereby losing money, when they could be spinning and weaving.' (source)

 

[Historyman 14]

Morality means nothing in the face of political expediency. If a Democrat (McClellan) wins, they will try and negotiate an end to the conflict, and the South will not enter negotiations if those negotiations are even predicated on ending slavery (as the peace attempts in 1864 show). If Lincoln is out, there's less impetus to push for the 13th amendment by Conservative Republicans, and the Democrats will as a bloc oppose it. And the South can't win if Lincoln stays in office.

If the South were to go full blown military dictatorship it would be to insure that blacks are kept as slaves or second class citizens.



What?

I can't see McClellan winning in 1864. I mean, even Louisiana voted for Abe. And McClellan only won 3 states.

Its true. Sure, they was the Trent Affair and some wanting to weaken the USA, but London knew its economy heavily reliant on trade with the United States at this time, and the merchant fleet would take a serious beating by the Union's Navy. And by ending slavery, it would be another ace in keeping good ties with the United Kingdom. (Which would be important to everyone in the USA.)

London: So about ending slavery Richmond.....

Richmond: Well...um....about that.

Union: England! We ended slavery!

(The United Kingdom supports the USA and leaves the South out to rot.)