Souljah Spy oh that’s good 😂
DM me I’m happy to email you what exists of “Our Man in Dixie”
Nothing For Which to Apologize: Ambition and Loathing in the New South
- Thread starter dcharles
- Start date
DM me I’m happy to email you what exists of “Our Man in Dixie”
Loved that latest update, the "wild west" sounds super interesting, would love to hear of some more of the factions operating in the area. Gotta say Smalls listing off all the dead leaders and the reckoning the CSA deserves was chilling
So the Confederacy is developing into a police state, with the Directorate, possibly with proto-fascist tendencies if the New South Party's brand of populism is anything to go by. The US, meanwhile, seems to be turning into an ethnonationalist's fantasy. The mention of Sicilians and Jews in New Orleans implies that a lot of the late-19th century immigration to the US went to the CS instead--"Build the Wall" 150 years early?
Somehow both countries manage to come out worse than OTL.
Loving the Smalls character, and the rewriting of the Ballad of John Henry.
France, it seems, remains an Empire to at least 1894.
Excellent post, all told! EDIT: The New South Party, though it has some ominous overtones, is kind of hard not to find sympathetic--their objections to corruption and their belief in the social contract sound quite good. I have to actively remind myself that they're still a slaver party.
Last edited:
Which on that note raises the question what other potential repercussions there would be in Europe of the CSA winning.
dcharles
Banned
You're always so observant! I love it.
There's still lots of immigration to the US, but there's just a bit more to the CS than the OTL South bc of a stronger economy in general. That'll probably slow down somewhat when we get into the 20th century, but especially in the 19th century, there's unmet demand for skilled labor. As the native workforce, both slave and free, becomes more skilled, this demand trails off. Russian Jews are a special case, as they are a little warier of the US TTL, due to certain US Presidents to come's warm embrace of the Tsarist regime...
I don't know who Allan Nevins is, really, but I know I hate the TTL version viscerally. The entitlement of those "my ancestors got here before yours did" types does that to me.
As to those Presidents to come...oh dear. Looking forward to seeing what, if any, role the CS plays in such a conflict. Though I wonder about your earlier remark about the CS as canary in the slaveocrat coal mine--the Romanovs were already abolishing serfdom in 1861, but I wonder if a later Tsar can be stupid enough to try and undo that.
What was the amendment Seymour passed which "preserved the national bloodline"? Let me guess it was an amendment which was innocuous in language (maybe it was something along the lines of enshrining jus sanguinis as the law of the land) but was abused like how the penal exemption in the 13th Amendment was abused IOTL.
dcharles
Banned
He wrote _The Ordeal of the Union_, an eight volume history of the war. Very influential, but also the kind of guy that people in 1950 thought was "fair and balanced." Which... generally strikes the modern reader as far too sympathetic to the Confederacy. It's good work, but also not making a statement that will ruffle any mid century modern feathers.
TTL, he's also an establishment historian, but the establishment is more reactionary than OTL.
On that note, I noted he mentioned Howard Zinn's work, which makes me wonder what his works would be like ITTL.
dcharles
Banned
That's the White Immigration Amendment, which TTL, by the 1960s, is cast as something that was done to preserve the national character and prevent a refugee crisis, and justified as an unfortunate necessity brought on by Confederate Remandment.
Ah--so the northerner equivalent of Shelby Foote, I take it?
The fact that in the 1960s it's referred to as "preserving the national bloodline" with tones critical of 20th century immigrants implies that it merges with the social Darwinist trend of the late 19th century in unsavory ways--I'm going to guess that Madison Grant or someone like him is still well-regarded in the 1960s.
Looking forward to seeing how it goes!
Honestly, what would be interesting would be the sort of war plans and military strategies both the United States and the Cinfederacy would have in the event of war between the two countries would have, especially in the field of naval warfare.
I wonder if America and up being the "Prussia of north America" like in other independent CSA timelines?
What happened to slavery in maryland and Missouri?
Dose the fugitive slave act still matter in post civil war America?
Dose the CSA annexes north mexico and cuba thanks to the influence of the golden circle?
What happened to slavery in maryland and Missouri?
Dose the fugitive slave act still matter in post civil war America?
Dose the CSA annexes north mexico and cuba thanks to the influence of the golden circle?
This is quite different from many of the Confederacy survives timelines that I have read. I have some questions.
1. How are the European countries, especially France, the UK and others reacting to the Confederate use of impressed labor? Are the Europeans investing in the Confederacy?
2. Does the US still trade with the Confederacy or is there a movement to raise tariffs or block Confederate imports?
3. What does Mexico think of the Confederate system, are there any movements to help runaway slaves?
1. How are the European countries, especially France, the UK and others reacting to the Confederate use of impressed labor? Are the Europeans investing in the Confederacy?
2. Does the US still trade with the Confederacy or is there a movement to raise tariffs or block Confederate imports?
3. What does Mexico think of the Confederate system, are there any movements to help runaway slaves?
Based on the posts and reading between the lines plus trends in OTL
1)I wonder if America and up being the "Prussia of north America" like in other independent CSA timelines?
Well the US still remains the pre-eminent industrial and economic power in the Americas. We do seem to have a more nationalist turn in politics (which also means racist) so in a way it does not need to become the Prussia of North America. Economically it already was. I just do not see that translating to militarism. The war was lost, and my expectation based on attitudes during the war, is that in general the whole effort was seen as wasted and the problem of an overarching executive. The default fall back will be the "good riddance attitude" and focus on further development of western territories, infrastructure etc following a Whig-Republican platform or internal developments. Without question we do have indicators of a push to centralization. The amendment making secession illegal under the USA constitution probably indicates and intolerance to the idea of states ever again being permitted to declare "neutrality" or similar defiance of the Federal Goverment. Indeed I expect many states to pass internal laws prohibiting speech is support of secession, or the tabling of such proposals in state legislatures (think the gag rule but in this case vs. secession).
I expect a drive to a larger more regular army, and tying states forces closer to Federal control as OTL, and bigger navy. I expect the continuation of expanding the American System to the Pacific (as OTL) but in the Atlantic and Caribeean I expect the continuation of the Anglo-USA understanding. The creation of an independent CSA does not change that as long as British elites prefer a stable USA keeping the peace in North America, and the USA prefers a stable and accommodating Britain in keeping the Atlantic open.
2) What happened to slavery in maryland and Missouri?
I bet the ATL abolition of slavery amendment to be one about compensated emancipation. The interesting question is what happened to the free African-Americans (I term I only apply to USA ex-slaves and freedmen). Keep in mind that in this case there numbers are much smaller than OTL (I would guess about 400k freedmen, and the 300k slaves in Slave USA states).
3)Dose the fugitive slave act still matter in post civil war America?
I bet that considering racial attitudes and historical examples the rules are simple. No slaves may enter USA territory by voluntary action of their masters (you cannot bring your slaves). But any slaves that escape from the CSA to the USA will probably be treated as "stolen livestock", so there is probably a legal framework to make claims, but of course how conscientiously these are enforced will depend on the locality and who controls the federal goverment. There is of course no intra-USA fugitive slave act. Maybe it is initially amended along the proposals of Lincoln in 1860-1861 (trial by jury etc), but it probably is given a sunset provision along with the deadline for compensated emancipation.
4) Dose the CSA annexes north mexico and cuba thanks to the influence of the golden circle?
Based on the publication cities of some of the books cited it does seem that the CSA at least has annexed a sliver of land in Baja California. So probably not all of Northern Mexico but parts in order to gain a pacific port.
5)How are the European countries, especially France, the UK and others reacting to the Confederate use of impressed labor? Are the Europeans investing in the Confederacy?
Considering the timeline (this covers the gilded age) I would find it hard to think that states willing to invest OTL in Brazil or Cuba, or giving Leopold of Belgium his own private Plantation will care much. Rhetorically they will of course raise the issue, but they will invest. That said I still expect the USA to get the lions share of UK capital.
6)Does the US still trade with the Confederacy or is there a movement to raise tariffs or block Confederate imports?
My expectation is that you have a differentiated brorder. I think that the US in return to getting the Mississippi and other important revers internationalized (maybe even with the establishment of the equivalent of the Rhine Commission) it will agree to not levy any tariffs on good traveling up or down the river, but will have tariffs on land borders and oceanic ports. This seems a sensible compromise and I do not think the CSA is stupid enough to antagonize the USA on this issue (which would probably be a popular war issue if it does).
7) What does Mexico think of the Confederate system, are there any movements to help runaway slaves?
The writing indicates that many CSA salves run away to Mexico, and that there is a much larger Afro-Mexican community. In all probability Mexico has the second largest African community after the CSA, larger than the USA. pretty much the north is blocked to any African-Confederates (free or runaway), so most will migrate escape down south rather than north.
8)Honestly, what would be interesting would be the sort of war plans and military strategies both the United States and the Cinfederacy would have in the event of war between the two countries would have, especially in the field of naval warfare.
To be frank imho, the social history here is the fun and exciting part. But let us consider some elements. If the UK is still happy with the Anglo-USA understanding it likely will not help the CSA built the naval or armed forces needed to contest the Atlantic or Pacific or Caribean from the USA. The CSA will be nicely told to accommodate the existing arrangements. Within the CSA I am not sure we would see mass support for militarization in that sense. Instead the push would be for a military mainly built to suppress Afro-Confederates and police the USA-CSA border. Any navy is likely to be mostly aimed at coastal defense and riverine operations, than a true blue water navy. The USA and UK can and will deter any extra-Hemispheric powers investing to make such a navy. Most of the defence against a possible USA war (and I am not sure either goverment will much push for war fevers) will be focused on riverine forts and coastal forts. But an internationalization of the Mississippi and other key rivers will probably even keep that under control.
We need to remember that the basic characteristic of USA decision makers in most of the 19th century was a fundamental belief in the power of their economy, and I expect most to believe that a strong US economy will not permit the CSA much wiggle room to start a war. Of course if powers arise in the CSA that seek to hurt the USA economy or close of markets to it, then you can see a rise of tensions.
The point remains that the bleakness of this scenario is that the UK-US and CSA have a common interest for commercial stability that will give the CSA a lot of protection in many issues as long as the CSA does not attack that commercial stability. In another name it is the very rationality of a domination of peaceful intetions that makes this a bleak scenario when it comes to social history and conditions, especially for African Americans (whether USA or Afro-Confederates)
1)I wonder if America and up being the "Prussia of north America" like in other independent CSA timelines?
Well the US still remains the pre-eminent industrial and economic power in the Americas. We do seem to have a more nationalist turn in politics (which also means racist) so in a way it does not need to become the Prussia of North America. Economically it already was. I just do not see that translating to militarism. The war was lost, and my expectation based on attitudes during the war, is that in general the whole effort was seen as wasted and the problem of an overarching executive. The default fall back will be the "good riddance attitude" and focus on further development of western territories, infrastructure etc following a Whig-Republican platform or internal developments. Without question we do have indicators of a push to centralization. The amendment making secession illegal under the USA constitution probably indicates and intolerance to the idea of states ever again being permitted to declare "neutrality" or similar defiance of the Federal Goverment. Indeed I expect many states to pass internal laws prohibiting speech is support of secession, or the tabling of such proposals in state legislatures (think the gag rule but in this case vs. secession).
I expect a drive to a larger more regular army, and tying states forces closer to Federal control as OTL, and bigger navy. I expect the continuation of expanding the American System to the Pacific (as OTL) but in the Atlantic and Caribeean I expect the continuation of the Anglo-USA understanding. The creation of an independent CSA does not change that as long as British elites prefer a stable USA keeping the peace in North America, and the USA prefers a stable and accommodating Britain in keeping the Atlantic open.
2) What happened to slavery in maryland and Missouri?
I bet the ATL abolition of slavery amendment to be one about compensated emancipation. The interesting question is what happened to the free African-Americans (I term I only apply to USA ex-slaves and freedmen). Keep in mind that in this case there numbers are much smaller than OTL (I would guess about 400k freedmen, and the 300k slaves in Slave USA states).
3)Dose the fugitive slave act still matter in post civil war America?
I bet that considering racial attitudes and historical examples the rules are simple. No slaves may enter USA territory by voluntary action of their masters (you cannot bring your slaves). But any slaves that escape from the CSA to the USA will probably be treated as "stolen livestock", so there is probably a legal framework to make claims, but of course how conscientiously these are enforced will depend on the locality and who controls the federal goverment. There is of course no intra-USA fugitive slave act. Maybe it is initially amended along the proposals of Lincoln in 1860-1861 (trial by jury etc), but it probably is given a sunset provision along with the deadline for compensated emancipation.
4) Dose the CSA annexes north mexico and cuba thanks to the influence of the golden circle?
Based on the publication cities of some of the books cited it does seem that the CSA at least has annexed a sliver of land in Baja California. So probably not all of Northern Mexico but parts in order to gain a pacific port.
5)How are the European countries, especially France, the UK and others reacting to the Confederate use of impressed labor? Are the Europeans investing in the Confederacy?
Considering the timeline (this covers the gilded age) I would find it hard to think that states willing to invest OTL in Brazil or Cuba, or giving Leopold of Belgium his own private Plantation will care much. Rhetorically they will of course raise the issue, but they will invest. That said I still expect the USA to get the lions share of UK capital.
6)Does the US still trade with the Confederacy or is there a movement to raise tariffs or block Confederate imports?
My expectation is that you have a differentiated brorder. I think that the US in return to getting the Mississippi and other important revers internationalized (maybe even with the establishment of the equivalent of the Rhine Commission) it will agree to not levy any tariffs on good traveling up or down the river, but will have tariffs on land borders and oceanic ports. This seems a sensible compromise and I do not think the CSA is stupid enough to antagonize the USA on this issue (which would probably be a popular war issue if it does).
7) What does Mexico think of the Confederate system, are there any movements to help runaway slaves?
The writing indicates that many CSA salves run away to Mexico, and that there is a much larger Afro-Mexican community. In all probability Mexico has the second largest African community after the CSA, larger than the USA. pretty much the north is blocked to any African-Confederates (free or runaway), so most will migrate escape down south rather than north.
8)Honestly, what would be interesting would be the sort of war plans and military strategies both the United States and the Cinfederacy would have in the event of war between the two countries would have, especially in the field of naval warfare.
To be frank imho, the social history here is the fun and exciting part. But let us consider some elements. If the UK is still happy with the Anglo-USA understanding it likely will not help the CSA built the naval or armed forces needed to contest the Atlantic or Pacific or Caribean from the USA. The CSA will be nicely told to accommodate the existing arrangements. Within the CSA I am not sure we would see mass support for militarization in that sense. Instead the push would be for a military mainly built to suppress Afro-Confederates and police the USA-CSA border. Any navy is likely to be mostly aimed at coastal defense and riverine operations, than a true blue water navy. The USA and UK can and will deter any extra-Hemispheric powers investing to make such a navy. Most of the defence against a possible USA war (and I am not sure either goverment will much push for war fevers) will be focused on riverine forts and coastal forts. But an internationalization of the Mississippi and other key rivers will probably even keep that under control.
We need to remember that the basic characteristic of USA decision makers in most of the 19th century was a fundamental belief in the power of their economy, and I expect most to believe that a strong US economy will not permit the CSA much wiggle room to start a war. Of course if powers arise in the CSA that seek to hurt the USA economy or close of markets to it, then you can see a rise of tensions.
The point remains that the bleakness of this scenario is that the UK-US and CSA have a common interest for commercial stability that will give the CSA a lot of protection in many issues as long as the CSA does not attack that commercial stability. In another name it is the very rationality of a domination of peaceful intetions that makes this a bleak scenario when it comes to social history and conditions, especially for African Americans (whether USA or Afro-Confederates)
That said I am actually surprised at the anti-secession amendment since the copperheads were pro-states rights. I would expect instead states amending their constitutions to make secession illegal (think Nevada's Loyalty Clause), and requiring all new states to include such clauses in their constitutions as the price of inclusion, rather than a constitutional amendment. An interesting story there of why anti-war Democrats opt for a constitutional amendment. That said I am pretty confident that there would be mass support for killing the "state neutrality" loophole.
Will we see freebooters and filibusters from both the US and Confederacy in Latin America?
"Will we see freebooters and filibusters from both the US and Confederacy in Latin America?"
Hmm I expect the USA to be less involved focusing on Pacific expnasion, and letting the UK manage that region. I expect the UK to be opposed to CSA adventurism.
You will have an upheaval in the 1910s-1914 as the UK will focus more on the German threat, it is then that you might see rising USA-CSA tensions.
Hmm I expect the USA to be less involved focusing on Pacific expnasion, and letting the UK manage that region. I expect the UK to be opposed to CSA adventurism.
You will have an upheaval in the 1910s-1914 as the UK will focus more on the German threat, it is then that you might see rising USA-CSA tensions.