What's the CSA's National Anthem?

  • Dixie

    Votes: 39 48.1%
  • God Save the South

    Votes: 31 38.3%
  • The Bonnie Blue

    Votes: 11 13.6%

  • Total voters
    81
  • Poll closed .
Nevins is definitely superior to Foote in regard to the political and socio-economic aspect of the War. His bias is certainly with the Union and the rise of the 'new order' Northern triumph ensured in the South, although he does nonetheless 'give credit where credit is due', considering the depth and penetration of his research. His favorite Confederate statesman, I think, is the wonderful Henry Allen of Louisiana, and I can't blame him on that count.
 

dcharles

Banned
Nevins is definitely superior to Foote in regard to the political and socio-economic aspect of the War.

I would tend to agree. The three big mid century ACW scholars, Catton, Nevins, and Foote, are all very talented writers-though Foote and Catton are probably a cut above Nevins. But Nevins is definitely the best scholar of the three.
 

dcharles

Banned
In general, in reference to @Khan Doomy 's remarks in post 136, you're about 80% there.

Which is exactly what I want, when you think about it. I want an engaged reader to be able to understand where things are going, but not have it all figured out.

I'll be going into detail about a lot of those questions that @245 and @traveller76 had in upcoming chapters. But there's at least one point that I won't be able to elegantly talk about in narrative form:
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.

So, one of the things that's really hard for me to quantify--though it seems like a great avenue for future scholarly research--is estimating how much money was lost by people all over the world OTL who were betting on an outcome favorable to the South. Really, when you think about it, like, those types of upper crust cotton financiers and their ilk were some of the world's worst people. Since financial history is not something that most people know about or care to learn about, it's hard to note the change OTL vs TTL in an entertaining way. But keep that in the back of your mind. Nothing succeeds like success, and the fact that the pro-Confederate financial speculation paid off in a big way TLL means that further financial investment in the Confederacy is going to be more legitimized. Since there is no Emancipation Proclamation TLL, there's also a segment of European Liberal thought (like Gladstone did early on) that still identifies the Confederate Revolution as a legitimate expression of white men's right to self-determination. Yes, yes, the whole slavery business is odious, but the Southerner is the world's most enlightened master, as evidenced by the increase in black population.
 

dcharles

Banned
they purchased it and didn’t go to war. unlikely that mexico would want to cede such a vast territory.

Exactly. There were only about 15,000 people in Baja back then, so it's something that can be parted with without too much pain. I think even if Vidaurri had gone over to the Confederate side (and that's a big if) taking Northern Mexico, hundreds of thousands of people, would be a big fat shitstorm.
 
Exactly. There were only about 15,000 people in Baja back then, so it's something that can be parted with without too much pain. I think even if Vidaurri had gone over to the Confederate side (and that's a big if) taking Northern Mexico, hundreds of thousands of people, would be a big fat shitstorm.
15,000 people in a massive area, at that. Even today Baja is the least densely populated part of a not very densely populated country (Mexico is very populous - it is also huge)
 
I should think Jed Hotchkiss will be very happy that the majority of West Virginia has been retained within the Commonwealth, should he still obtain the 'forgotten' Geological Maps reserved by Prof. Rogers over at MIT.
 
I would tend to agree. The three big mid century ACW scholars, Catton, Nevins, and Foote, are all very talented writers-though Foote and Catton are probably a cut above Nevins. But Nevins is definitely the best scholar of the three.
I would probably throw Douglas S. Freeman into that list as well. While most of his writing is dated, he is still influential and readable. He, along with those three others, have really done much to shape Civil War historiography and usually from the basis of any Civil War reading list.
 

marktaha

Banned
This thread is interesting as I am currently reading and listening a bit to William Marvel's work. Now Marvel is not a neo-confederate. He openly argues the war was over slavery. But his civil libertarianism (I assume that is the ideology that motivates him, but he is not as crude as Misean critics of the Union. Also the guy does know how to write and speak, and does do some impressive original source research ) leads him to be severely cynical with the USA war effort and accept secession as a right and legal under the US Constitution. One of his more problematic for me arguments in Mr. Lincoln Goes to War is that while one cannot argue that every alternative history if no civil war happened would be better than what took place, he does not believe it would be worse. I question that, and I am glad for thread like this that help formulate some thoughts on it (though in this case the war still took place and south just won. He argues for no war, Lincoln just accepting the loss of the seven deep south states). I think the most important point is giving indicators that the USA itself would be a worse place in this scenario (more institutionally racist).

It also is funny when I read supporters of gradual compensated emancipation arguing that it would had been better for US race relations (Marvel posit it as hypothesis though he is not willing to say if he believes it would be. To his defense he does openly argue that any thoughts on the morality of the civil war do rest of solving the insoluble equation in his mind of weighting the lives of the 620000 that died in the war vs. the millions that would stay in bondage for three-four generations if it did not happen), when the example of Brazil pretty much shows that no, you would more or less get the same bad result with the de jure emancipation we got from the war.

So I think the bad here are realistic. Open Legal Chattel Slavery could and did survive into the 20th century (Mauritania), Leopold of Belgium was permitted to run what was a massive plantation into the 20th century, and slave labor work fine for the crude industrialization practiced by the USSR and others.

The good news is that I expect the good to also be realistic. That might mean lots of tragedy, lots of slow reform, lot of violent revolt, but ultimately some catharsis.
Did it take a war in Brazil?
 
Did it take a war in Brazil?
Yes and no

We had *some* rebellions of abolitionist character, the most notorious of which being the Ragmuffin Revolution during the Regency Period where the South tried to break off from the country and estabilish a abolitionist Confederacy, and during the reign of Pedro the Second we had the Paraguayan War which had nothing to do with slavery but still helped to undermine the institution due to many brazilian soldiers being emancipated slaves sent by landlords who wanted to avoid being drafted

That said, none of these rebellions succeeded and Brazil ultimately never had a full blown Civil War over wheter to end slavery or not

The republican military coup that led to the creation of the First Brazilian Republic against the Braganza Dynasty who had just abolished slavery in the country was supported by slave owners however, who - alongside the military - were the main players during the period we call "The Republic of Coffe and Milk"

This wasnt something as determined as the American Civil War however since it took many other factors for said coup to succeed, mainly Pedro's own dillusionment with the regime, where unlike the cotton farmers in the US the brazilian elites were unlikely to rise up against the monarchy on their own due to Pedro's still high popularity and support from the Navy

This degree of difference can be in part attributed to Pedro's own character as a mediator, always doing his best in his 50+ years of rule to de-escalate any tensions internally and giving the paradoxical tasks of abolishing slavery to the conservatives and to preserve the status quo upon said abolition to the liberals, which prevented an enormous amount of bloodshed...at the cost of keeping slavery going till 1888
 
the example of Brazil pretty much shows that no, you would more or less get the same bad result with the de jure emancipation we got from the war.

Interesting. I didn't think Brazil had the racial hang-ups of the Anglo world. The much lesser stigma of race-mixing was a culture shock for the confederados.
 
Interesting. I didn't think Brazil had the racial hang-ups of the Anglo world. The much lesser stigma of race-mixing was a culture shock for the confederados.
Brazil...is complicated.

Its not the same hang ups, but they exist

Like unlike the confederates Brazil was this special hell where everyone, former slaves included, had their own slaves if they could afford it

However upon the abolition you still had shit like former slaves being pushed into slums & ghettos(thats how we got the favelas), the Navy de-facto re-enslaving people by forcing black people to do forced labour while being whipped(thats how we got the Revolt of the Whip) and the branqueamento policies trying to make Brazil "whiter" existing for quite a while

So while Brazil never had this obsession anglo saxon countries have with racial purity and we didnt have a Jim Crow/Apartheid analogue, it did have a paradoxical obsession with being both european and better than Europe for being miscigenated

Promoting the idea of mixed-race pride while also seeing anything that didnt fit it's idea of "European Brazil" as ugly and inferior, trying to whitewash society as much as possible and treating the "un-white" elements of society with scorn while also talking about how better our society is due to it's multiculturalist foundation
 
I wonder how imperialism is going to be affected by this mess. I could see the Scramble for Africa being worse due to possible worse racism, but aside from that I'm stuck though it's probably going to be worse on all levels.
 

dcharles

Banned
Brazil...is complicated.

Its not the same hang ups, but they exist

Like unlike the confederates Brazil was this special hell where everyone, former slaves included, had their own slaves if they could afford it

However upon the abolition you still had shit like former slaves being pushed into slums & ghettos(thats how we got the favelas), the Navy de-facto re-enslaving people by forcing black people to do forced labour while being whipped(thats how we got the Revolt of the Whip) and the branqueamento policies trying to make Brazil "whiter" existing for quite a while

So while Brazil never had this obsession anglo saxon countries have with racial purity and we didnt have a Jim Crow/Apartheid analogue, it did have a paradoxical obsession with being both european and better than Europe for being miscigenated

Promoting the idea of mixed-race pride while also seeing anything that didnt fit it's idea of "European Brazil" as ugly and inferior, trying to whitewash society as much as possible and treating the "un-white" elements of society with scorn while also talking about how better our society is due to it's multiculturalist foundation

I'm glad you're here to shed some light on the subject. If you have any English sources about Brazilian emancipation and it's discontents, I would welcome the contribution.
 
This wouldn’t be the first time I’ve seen the Union become “more racist” after the CSA wins its independence. With scientific racism on the rise, it would almost impossible to butterfly completely. That said I would imagine the majority of the Catholic immigrants to the US from 1865-1924 end up in Canada or Latin America where there was a much bigger Catholic population.
 
Top