Nathen Bedford Forrest: Dictator of the Confederacy

My guess is that Forrest's first loyalty will be the military as that would be his basis of support. His loyalty to the planter class would be weaker than most CSA generals as he was a self-made man. A lot of them cosidered him too vulgar and rough. He would have that going for him. He would be more connected to "The common man" than Jeff Davis could ever dream of. As a slave trader and the first Grand Wizard of the KKK there certainly would be very harsh treatment for anyone even thinking about Abolishinism. He would "lock them up and throw away the key". If anyone would try to restart the Atlantic Slave Trade it was him.
 
He would be most comparable to Juan Peron at worst, Porofirio Diaz at best. He'd have the backing of the most powerful and far-reaching Confederate institution, the only truly national one, the ability to establish without limit a functional state and national identity, and as a self-made man and successful combat general without training he's as little-subject to the oligarchy of the Old South as one could ask for. He's the only dictator able to hold the Confederacy together.
 
How good is his Portugese?

One of the few practitioners of slavery besides the CSA at this time would be Brazil.

tangent/fwiw, this line really creeped me out:

The slave population had been in decline since Brazil's independence: in 1823, 29% of the Brazilian population were slaves but by 1887 this had fallen to 5%.[72]

For some reason --cynicism?-- I presume that the number of slaves wasn't reduced due to mass liberation, but that population numbers were reduced by (ahem) more traditional means. Does anyone off-hand know what the case could be? I am able to confess my ignorance here... (As far as I know, because Brazil imported people into slavery longer than the United States did, Brazilian practices with regards to healthcare for slaves were more likely to be based on "well, if they die, we're getting fresh ones next week," etc., versus in the United States, slave-owners had some incentive to not kill the slaves that they had since imports were not forthcoming... am I reading this info correctly?)
 
How good is his Portugese?

One of the few practitioners of slavery besides the CSA at this time would be Brazil.

tangent/fwiw, this line really creeped me out:



For some reason --cynicism?-- I presume that the number of slaves wasn't reduced due to mass liberation, but that population numbers were reduced by (ahem) more traditional means. Does anyone off-hand know what the case could be? I am able to confess my ignorance here... (As far as I know, because Brazil imported people into slavery longer than the United States did, Brazilian practices with regards to healthcare for slaves were more likely to be based on "well, if they die, we're getting fresh ones next week," etc., versus in the United States, slave-owners had some incentive to not kill the slaves that they had since imports were not forthcoming... am I reading this info correctly?)

That's because the Brazilians imported far more men than they did women and made no effort to encourage slave families whatsoever. The end of the slave trade was also already inbuilt into the US Constitution so slaveowners developed rather nightmarish means of "natural" population increase. Brazil didn't do this so much. New World slavery differed sometimes very greatly depending on which society and which era you're talking about.
 
He would be most comparable to Juan Peron at worst, Porofirio Diaz at best. He'd have the backing of the most powerful and far-reaching Confederate institution, the only truly national one, the ability to establish without limit a functional state and national identity, and as a self-made man and successful combat general without training he's as little-subject to the oligarchy of the Old South as one could ask for. He's the only dictator able to hold the Confederacy together.

Would the planter class try to thwart him or does his being on the same side of their most important issue (slavery) cause them to reluctantly back him? If they do what do they try? Also do you think he will try and restart the African Slave Trade or is he to realistic for that?
 
Would the planter class try to thwart him or does his being on the same side of their most important issue (slavery) cause them to reluctantly back him? If they do what do they try? Also do you think he will try and restart the African Slave Trade or is he to realistic for that?


They'd be the cause of his rise in the first place. He's too realistic to restart the slave trade and it'd be a means of losing his own fortune so even if he weren't the desire for a profit would stop him (assuming the victory leaves slavery mostly intact). They might accept him over the likes of Kirby Smith or Bragg, both of whom would have already begun intriguing with the politicians long before any such rise of Forrest.
 
Since by the POD the biggest reason for the rise of Forrest is the lack of funds what do you think he would tax? The big money is with the planters. I think he would be reluctantly forced to raise taxes by taxing cotton and tobacco (Lightly as those are the main exports but even a light tax could raise considerable money), tariffs, luxuries, slaves and land. He wouldn't like doing this but I think he would be forced to raise taxes in some combination of those things. That is where the money is.
 
For some reason --cynicism?-- I presume that the number of slaves wasn't reduced due to mass liberation, but that population numbers were reduced by (ahem) more traditional means. Does anyone off-hand know what the case could be? I am able to confess my ignorance here... (As far as I know, because Brazil imported people into slavery longer than the United States did, Brazilian practices with regards to healthcare for slaves were more likely to be based on "well, if they die, we're getting fresh ones next week," etc., versus in the United States, slave-owners had some incentive to not kill the slaves that they had since imports were not forthcoming... am I reading this info correctly?)

Also, it was around this time that Brazil was starting to get large amounts of low-cost white labor, mainly from Southern Europe. Slavery in Brazil was certainly cruel and brutal, but the Brazilians made no organized effort to wipe out their slave population.
 
Also, it was around this time that Brazil was starting to get large amounts of low-cost white labor, mainly from Southern Europe. Slavery in Brazil was certainly cruel and brutal, but the Brazilians made no organized effort to wipe out their slave population.


Yeah, when you import mainly men then the slave population eventually dies off if you stop importing them.
 
Since by the POD the biggest reason for the rise of Forrest is the lack of funds what do you think he would tax? The big money is with the planters. I think he would be reluctantly forced to raise taxes by taxing cotton and tobacco (Lightly as those are the main exports but even a light tax could raise considerable money), tariffs, luxuries, slaves and land. He wouldn't like doing this but I think he would be forced to raise taxes in some combination of those things. That is where the money is.

He'd have to be taxing tobacco and cotton and also raising tariffs which would be the primary CS source of revenue. If anyone objects he can just unleash canister on them and get them to STFU and let him go about his business. The er....benefits...for him of being a military dictator.
 
He'd have to be taxing tobacco and cotton and also raising tariffs which would be the primary CS source of revenue. If anyone objects he can just unleash canister on them and get them to STFU and let him go about his business. The er....benefits...for him of being a military dictator.


True enough, I just wondered if you see any other major sources of revenue. Taxes might not be as exciting as military campaigns but are essential for maintaining a government.
 
Do you think the KKK would become like a secret-police organization - gestapo like, perhaps?

The KKK and other such paramilitary proto-fascist organizations won't exist ITTL. The CSA as a state would be run by real soldiers, not fascist imitation-soldier butchers. CS troops already had gotten used to shooting their own civilians down and using martial law.

True enough, I just wondered if you see any other major sources of revenue. Taxes might not be as exciting as military campaigns but are essential for maintaining a government.

The problem with that immediately is he's not a whole lot of income to tax, income taxation is illegal as under the US Constitution of the timeframe, and he also doesn't have much to offer to encourage loans and investments in the CSA in the short term.
 
This actually seems like an interesting idea, but what would happen once he died, and what, if anything, would the regime itself (rather than the state) be called?
 
This actually seems like an interesting idea, but what would happen once he died, and what, if anything, would the regime itself (rather than the state) be called?


I don't know what the regime would be called other than "The Forrest Presidency". I think the name of the state would still be the CSA. The way I see this happening is Forrest taking over as an "emergency measure" having the constitution rewritten and have himself made "president for life". It may not even be that officially. Just have no limitations on how many times you can run for president and have him make sure in various ways that he "wins" these elections and there you go. I figure you would officially have governors and state legislatures but they would be controlled by Forrest. Who would come after him? Some hand picked successor I would imagine.
 
Technically can't Forrest be elected the next VP and have the new President resign? Although Forrest would be powerful enough he could just be VP for life with several puppet Presidents. That's how the Latin American dictators who pretended to be democratic did it.
 
Top