67th Tigers
Banned
Mark Egnal's book Clash of Extremes is a good and accessible exploration of the economic underpinnings.
He did an episode of CWTR recently (link).
He did an episode of CWTR recently (link).
Actually less so in several ways. The war, after all, degraded institutions the longer it goes on. In peacetime the planters aren't going to accept the meaningful equality of all *white* men, let alone the kind of reforms that would allow the CSA to exist short of a military dictatorship of a vile and repressive kind.
And what would the response of the non-planter white men be to decreased representation of their interests?
Revolution/rebellion.
Violent agitation, at any rate. Not sure if they'd raise the Red Flag or not.
Violent agitation met with a volley of live-fire musketry which turns it into a rebellion. The Confederate government will never look kindly to challenges from poor whites in the South. And no matter the POD in question the CS government will already have set the precedent of using the jackboot to repress its domestic opposition.
When did this ever happen in the real CSA?
More to the point, the Union Army fired on civilians in New York in 1863. What does this make the Union?
When did this ever happen in the real CSA?
Repeatedly, in North Carolina, Texas, eastern Tennessee, in cases where the Unionists got sick and tired of being conscripted for a rich man's war but a poor man's fight. And frankly I'm disgusted that you're using two wrongs make a right as a logical fallacy, and ignoring the massive, murderous rioting in New York in 1863 that preceded that. The Lincoln Administration had its own instances of murderous policies but that one instance is the only case where it applied to white Americans. I would recommend reading the books Bitterly Divided, The South v. the South, Guerillas, Unionists, and Violence, Enemies at Every Door and other accounts of how the CSA handled its actual dissidents. That the Union did bad things doesn't make CS bad things not-existent, but then I'd scarcely expect familiarity with the Two Wrongs Make a Right and Tu Quoque fallacies as far as Civil War discussions are concerned. I suppose to you the murder of blacks in New York is not worth sending the army to do what civil authorities could not do.
Shh your talking logic to a person who gets there facts from Thomas Woods.MAlexMatt, except that the rioters in NYC were driven largely by bigotry which is why they made such an effort to target black people, including a prominent orphanage, in 1863 NYC.
It's telling that you seem to be extremely sympathetic to Unionists in the South being angry for conscription to fight a 'rich man's war', but are more than happy to apologize for the Union government killing people who were angry over the exact same thing.
During the war it did.
But I'm confused as to how the white male population is going to see 'decreased representation of their interests'.
Universal white male suffrage had already been achieved virtually everywhere in the country by 1860.
I maintain that Snake's version of the CSA is utterly at odds with the reality of the South in 1860.
It's telling that you seem to be extremely sympathetic to Unionists in the South being angry for conscription to fight a 'rich man's war', but are more than happy to apologize for the Union government killing people who were angry over the exact same thing.
The founders of the Confederacy were talking of rolling back universal manhood suffrage and objected to it as far too democratic to their liking. They did not even accept all whites as equally granted rights in their brave new world, they were never going to allow for say, distribution of land that would favor increasingly squeezed small farmers, and even in the first seven CS states secession started with coercive, blatant voter fraud.
Incidents such as murdering a man, burning his corpse, and dragging it through the streets by his genitals cost them any sympathy whatsoever, as do the lynchings and murderings of completely innocent people like orphanages. They initiated this and were stoked up to do it by the Copperheads, the CS government in contrast was initiator of all violence in its own territory against its own dissidents. They weren't angry over the same damn thing, Southerners were angry over having to have everything taken from them by a CS government that went out of its way to conciliate planters even at the interest of the CS government itself, US rioters were simply displeased at the prospect that blacks might at some future points have equal rights and serve alongside them.
To be fair I think both riots were in large part due to the men not wanting to die in a very bloody war.
That's true and both ultimately did object to the same *concept*.....though in rather different fashions. And neither attempt actually worked.
Yes, attacking conscription centers sounds a lot better than attacking orphanages!
More accurately attacking conscription *officers.* That quasi-feudal concept of CS politics regularly backfired on it, and the handling of conscription was one of the prime examples of it. While militarily far more efficient than its US counterpart this was a prime cause of Confederate political disintegration and actually made the CS Army both over-mobilized and mal-distributed.
How did they handle conscription ?
Impressment officers press-ganging people predominantly of the lower classes into service. This was not exactly the most politically adept way to do it, and it helped immensely to contribute to the miniature civil wars all over the Confederacy toward its collapse.