Snake Featherston
Banned
Matt, again, I'm the one using actual incidents of the pre-war and independent CSA of OTL, you're using nothing but speculation and personal attacks.
1) Your fixation on the Provisional Congress neglects one reality of the antebellum South: universal suffrage arrived much later and much more incompletely there than in the North. It was not a tradition, it was a new and rather despised challenge to a class accustomed to a total monopoly on power. There's no tradition or basis for this to overthrow, there's restoring order as the planters wish it to be. Note that the CSA was created by conventions, undemocratically, and formed by a Provisional Congress that was never actually elected by anyone in the new nation. Note, also, that in CS Congressional elections Southerners elected a lot of anti-Confederate politicians to the Confederate Congress, which is one reason *why* the founders of the CSA wanted to limit the franchise.
2) Look, man, I'm the one using facts. What facts are in the assertion I'm referring to here? I'm pointing out things like the Confederacy's foundations in a narrow section of overall Southern politics, its foundation by undemocratic means, its free and easy reversion to totalitarian political means to control itself, and all you've got is again personal attacks and complaining as opposed to an actual argument.
3) They meaning the founders of the Confederacy. This factionalism depended on which state we're talking about. In the original seven there were a good deal of people who did like universal manhood suffrage, usually the people enfranchised in the time immediately preceding the war. There were a larger number of politically involved citizens who wanted the traditional patronage basis of society to continue always and forever. And there were Confederate nationalists who felt that the entire issue needed to be waited upon until after independence. If we bring in North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas things get really messy and convoluted as far as their vision of Confederate society.
4) No, the Confederacy was a souped-up rebellion reliant upon armed force that got shitcanned. There again was no Confederate nation, there was the one hard core of Confederate nationalism in the Confederate army and there were Confederate politicians attempting and failing to establish a Confederate state.
5) The argument about the postwar South meets the following purpose: Confederate military defeat followed attempts by the Confederate President to abolish slavery and recruit slaves as soldiers, this in 1865 and the attempts very much failed. Upon this Foundation the post-war South went to the Black Codes and then to their more moderate successor segregation and to a pale ghost of the Confederacy where an elite sharply identified with the Confederacy restored an agarian economy dependent on unfree black labor. This indicates how thoroughly entrenched the class system in the South actually was, though the segregation-era class system was actually simpler than the old South's had been. The pre-war South had seen a repeated tendency to things like gag orders in the FEDERAL Congress, use of patrols, complete censorship of challenges to their order, the establishment of a surveillance state system, and in all this there is not the least foundation for an enduring Confederate democracy.
Would it disappear overnight? No. Would it last a single generation? Also no. Is this a sign that the Confederate state would disappear with it? Not in the least, as a dictatorship in the CSA's particular context is more stable than democracy will ever be, not least from not having to cube a circle as its very foundation. And a CS dictatorship, in all likelihood run by the Confederate Army, will be far more aware of its weaknesses relative the USA and will be very unlikely so long as its base of power is stable to be involved in any such war.
1) Your fixation on the Provisional Congress neglects one reality of the antebellum South: universal suffrage arrived much later and much more incompletely there than in the North. It was not a tradition, it was a new and rather despised challenge to a class accustomed to a total monopoly on power. There's no tradition or basis for this to overthrow, there's restoring order as the planters wish it to be. Note that the CSA was created by conventions, undemocratically, and formed by a Provisional Congress that was never actually elected by anyone in the new nation. Note, also, that in CS Congressional elections Southerners elected a lot of anti-Confederate politicians to the Confederate Congress, which is one reason *why* the founders of the CSA wanted to limit the franchise.
2) Look, man, I'm the one using facts. What facts are in the assertion I'm referring to here? I'm pointing out things like the Confederacy's foundations in a narrow section of overall Southern politics, its foundation by undemocratic means, its free and easy reversion to totalitarian political means to control itself, and all you've got is again personal attacks and complaining as opposed to an actual argument.
3) They meaning the founders of the Confederacy. This factionalism depended on which state we're talking about. In the original seven there were a good deal of people who did like universal manhood suffrage, usually the people enfranchised in the time immediately preceding the war. There were a larger number of politically involved citizens who wanted the traditional patronage basis of society to continue always and forever. And there were Confederate nationalists who felt that the entire issue needed to be waited upon until after independence. If we bring in North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas things get really messy and convoluted as far as their vision of Confederate society.
4) No, the Confederacy was a souped-up rebellion reliant upon armed force that got shitcanned. There again was no Confederate nation, there was the one hard core of Confederate nationalism in the Confederate army and there were Confederate politicians attempting and failing to establish a Confederate state.
5) The argument about the postwar South meets the following purpose: Confederate military defeat followed attempts by the Confederate President to abolish slavery and recruit slaves as soldiers, this in 1865 and the attempts very much failed. Upon this Foundation the post-war South went to the Black Codes and then to their more moderate successor segregation and to a pale ghost of the Confederacy where an elite sharply identified with the Confederacy restored an agarian economy dependent on unfree black labor. This indicates how thoroughly entrenched the class system in the South actually was, though the segregation-era class system was actually simpler than the old South's had been. The pre-war South had seen a repeated tendency to things like gag orders in the FEDERAL Congress, use of patrols, complete censorship of challenges to their order, the establishment of a surveillance state system, and in all this there is not the least foundation for an enduring Confederate democracy.
Would it disappear overnight? No. Would it last a single generation? Also no. Is this a sign that the Confederate state would disappear with it? Not in the least, as a dictatorship in the CSA's particular context is more stable than democracy will ever be, not least from not having to cube a circle as its very foundation. And a CS dictatorship, in all likelihood run by the Confederate Army, will be far more aware of its weaknesses relative the USA and will be very unlikely so long as its base of power is stable to be involved in any such war.