Poll: When Would the CSA Eliminate Slavery

By What Point Would The Confederacy Have Eradicated Slavery?


  • Total voters
    556
Status
Not open for further replies.
A uneducated soldier is likely more fanatical.

Feel free to provide any evidence that uneducated soldiers are likely more fanatical or that being more fanatical makes men into better soldiers. Uneducated Confederates were less likely to enlist and more likely to desert than the sons of slaveholders.

Your poor whites are going to be uneducated(being able to read and little more going into the 1900) and many likely know how to use guns too.

This is true of poor whites in free states as well.

Your white elites and their kids will be petty barons who often study warfare and use poor white masses as their own personal armies(money money, many poor would take the job).

None of those things were true in the slaveholding south. The planters and their sons were not petty barons. The planters and their sons did not "often study warfare". The planters and their sons did not "use poor white masses as their own personal armies".
 
The elites in the south are living the life of luxury but they also idolize glory and war. All their free time will be focused on that.

All of the slaveholders' time was not focuseed on "glory and war". Profit and recreation were far more important to them.

They will be studying in Prussia and France. They will probably be over in Europe watching wars like it is a game or sport to be study.

Confederate leaders did not do this before the war, so why would they do it after the war? If they'd just beaten the Union, a nation with 10 times the industry and over twice the population, they'd be expecting the Europeans to come study with them.

Southerners have been a big innovator in media and propaganda throughout American history that could still be true here.

Feel free to show any period southerners who were "big innovators" in media or propaganda.

Democracies often do poorly at dealing with undemocratic regimes when they become a threat to international scene.

Last I checked, Germany, Italy, and Japan did not win World War II. Undemocratic regimes typically do poorly when they fight democracies.
 
I’m suggesting southerners more constant interactions with violence and being more inclined to act on it leads to them being much more well verse in matters of martial combat?

Drygulching unarmed men in a clan feud to not make people "well verse in matters of martial combat". Whipping slaves does not make people "well verse in matters of martial combat". Riding down the ocassional unarmed fleeing slave does not make people "well verse in matters of martial combat". There is zero evidence that Confederates were better at combat than their Union counterparts.

lso if your people are still dealing with blood feuds and tribal like warfare at home(at least in the early years of the country) wouldn’t that make them better at using weapons?

Actual history shows that the Confederates were not better at using weapons than their Union counterparts.
 
This is one of those myths that simply won't seem to die. It is closely related to the "freed slaves were treated worse than slaves" and "sharecropping was as bad as slavery" (I can actually comment on this one since my father's family were sharecroppers when he was a wee lad, NOT as bad as slavery, or serfdom for that matter, not even in the same bloody universe)

Serfs were also able to actually OWN things and make extra cash by working beyond the duties to the landlord (some slave owners would allow slaves with marketable skills like smithing or cobbling to earn their own money, even manage to buy their freedom, most owners, however, took some or nearly all of this extra income, often to prevent a slave managing to buy his way to freedom) sometimes being able to clear the debt that placed them into serfdom to begin with, with others actually have more cash and a better standard of living than freemen in the same area depending on their skills. Serfs were not even the lowest level of laborer, with cottagers (laborers with just enough land provided to feed their family/pay their "rent") ranking below them since a cottager had almost no hope of earning extra income. Then, below the cottager, were the slaves.

Landlords had legal obligations to the serfs tied to his land, this included the fact that thee land they rented was theirs as long as they paid the annual rent and the various "taxes" a Lord would place on them (things like extra eggs or a goose at Christmas or Easter, a "death tax" when the renter died so his family could remain on the land, etc.).

The status of a serf was anything but pleasant, but compared to chattel slavery, where the slave was LITERALLY seen as and bought/sold/traded as if they were cattle or horses, it would be seen as comfortable. No one simply sold your wife or children to get extra cash for the owner. There were consequences, at least on paper, for killing a tenant, slaves were not afforded that sort of protection, beyond a possible civil penalty if you killed the slave of another owner, same as if you killed a horse. Lords did not simply accept regular die offs of serfs as was the case of with many plantation owners in the Deep South, where slaves were worked in weather conditions that were effectively a death sentence (anyone who has been in the Mississippi delta in high summer knows exactly what I mean). The profits generated by this deadly labor were so high that replacements needed beyond the "natural increase" of already owned slaves (I'll wait while everyone digests the implications here...) were insufficient, fresh bodies could be purchased without unduly hurting the bottom line. It was so bad in the Deep South that many SLAVE OWNERS would not allow their slaves to be sold "down the River" (Washington, as an example, prohibited the sale of any slave outside of the borders of Virginia during his lifetime, and made the same provision in his will regarding his slaves who were to be freed at the death of Martha).

I'm going to assume that your post was the result of accepting one of these myths at face value, without having done any independent research, and not slavery apologia. This time.

Might we agree that different countries had different laws re: Serfdom? Russia vs German states vs France and each very different, some worse than others?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Might we agree that different countries had different laws re: Serfdom? Russia vs German states vs France and each very different, some worse than others?
Sure. Russian laws were effectively the worst, with the bottom level of serfs effectively BEING slaves who could be bought or sold.
 
This is why I’m going with a early confederate victory. Shouldn’t that avoid most of those issues? Also if the CSA is able to impose themselves heavily in economic development couldn’t that help industrialize the country? Can they start up more public programs when having to deal less with elections?

In spring of 1863, there were bread riots across the Confederacy due to ruinous inflation and collapsing infrastructure. How exactly do you achieve early Confederate victory? Where is this hidden Confederate military genius who makes Robert E Lee look like a bumbling incompetent?

What do you mean by the Confederacy imposing "themselves heavily in economic development"? State attempts at managing economies have a record of failure.

The Confederacy would not "start up more public programs", nor would the have to "deal less with elections". And number of public programs has nothing to do with the frequency of elections.
 
Drygulching unarmed men in a clan feud to not make people "well verse in matters of martial combat". Whipping slaves does not make people "well verse in matters of martial combat". Riding down the ocassional unarmed fleeing slave does not make people "well verse in matters of martial combat". There is zero evidence that Confederates were better at combat than their Union counterparts.



Actual history shows that the Confederates were not better at using weapons than their Union counterparts.
I’m saying wouldn’t a independent CSA become like this over time? They have to take care of their domestic issues completely by themselves now. Large slave societies like Rome and Spartan often develop material skills and large military forces. Spartan kept a large military force to suppress the large slave population. Without the major white population boost and support from the north the south has to use more of its men to suppress growing slave population. With the countries separating the cultural gaps could widen. The reason democracies did well in wars in recent times is because geography mostly. Britain is island separated from the issues of mainland. The US had two weak neighbors to south and north and fish to east and west. They also had dominance of Western Hemisphere. Democracies do well in self defense but they often don’t take action first. Kaiserreich wasn’t democratic but could dominate Europe if a few things went differently. America weakened at all does probably weaken spread of democratic republics. Democracy coming out on top is never guaranteed. The north could even go backwards a bit culturally in this pod. If they lose civil war won’t racism there be worse?
 
You speak of democracy as if it were a hindrance to economic development. History shows your opinion to be wrong. Oligarchic systems can allow less developed nations to advance, but more often they enrich the oligarchs and impoverish the rest of the nation. Feel free to give any examples of oligarchic and other undemocratic systems coming up with "clever ways at reforming and modernizing their system" or engaging in "radical reforms" that helped the whole country instead of the oligarchs. And even in undemocratic regimes, the rulers cannot ignore public opinion. History is full of popular uprisings, which even if successfully suppressed, caused economic damage.
What I’m explaining the CSA is doing is what Russia, China, Mexico, and developing nations are doing now. These systems show economic gains at the cost of living conditions(your people and economy don’t always match on how well they are doing). This could work differently in this period but still show economic development. History isn’t linear and different policies create did systems. The CSA and US are likely to run in different ways. The issues with nations like the CSA is they often collapse due to being over ambitious or losing a major war it should not have gotten into. You do realize a good bit of new deal was inspired by the central planning and development programs of the fascist regimes. It wasn’t enforced by force or in authoritative matter like those countries but the idea and goal is similar. Balkanizing usually always leads to unstable situations and less democratic states. Democracy needs stability to do well. A independent CSA doesn’t create that. The US could stay more plutocratic then democratic in a unstable Americas. It will be more democratic then CSA but still influenced heavily by wealthy. Do realize how corrupt US politics in general are especially during this time? That’s going to be a problem in republics to a degree with more diverse . South might be aristocratic but the north could have its own issue with lobbying. The American republic is created on balance. The variety of people is supposed to balance out our culture a bit and prevent extreme elements from taking over. Any states leaving hurts that. Many states often have government step in to prevent them from going too far with things. Also imperialist leader in Europe might feel bold. Monarchs often took advantage of people when their down and cared more of expansion over common sense. For example, Britain and France is more aggressive with Venezuela or Mexico because they think US can’t say as much after losing war since they aren’t a “serious power” to them. They are ignorant and egotistical. A Wilhelm type monarch could easily feel more comfortable getting involved in Western Hemisphere. Every time US gets mad at Europeans fooling around in the Western Hemisphere the Europeans might call in the CSA as help. Interest can easily change over time between countries. The more divided US the more Europeans think they can involve themselves here. A United US keeps them out better. CSA could have a easier time in Central America if Europeans are constantly getting involved in area trying to get control or set up plans for a canal you could see a power vacuum form in region after European interest fail money but the methods used in area might have left it very unstable and economic hardship which CSA takes advantage.
 
Saying they didn’t is a complete lie.

Saying that the North benefited from Reconstruction at the expense of the South is standard NeoConfederate propaganda. It has no basis in reality. Northerners who invested in the postbellum South did profit, but they also restored and improved infrastructure, created jobs, and brought stable currency back into the economically devastated South.

Having the moral high ground against the south isn’t saying much. That’s like US using what Russia does as a excuse for their mistakes. The north might not have been in the wrong as much as the south but they still did stuff based on their own interest and desires like any other group. They did their own wrongs even if they were not as bad or blatant as the south. Saying otherwise is naive and unhistorical.

I never said that the North did not do things based on their own interests and desires. Please stop accusing me of saying things I never said.

I don’t mind you critiquing my ideas but can we stay on the more logistical and practical aspects of it?

My criticism of your ideas has been a criticism of the logical and practical aspects.
 
Saying that the North benefited from Reconstruction at the expense of the South is standard NeoConfederate propaganda. It has no basis in reality. Northerners who invested in the postbellum South did profit, but they also restored and improved infrastructure, created jobs, and brought stable currency back into the economically devastated South.



I never said that the North did not do things based on their own interests and desires. Please stop accusing me of saying things I never said.



My criticism of your ideas has been a criticism of the logical and practical aspects.
I feel like our disagreement comes more from different views on human nature then union or south. Every decision made by any group, nation, or people are going to have some selfish motives in there. The level of mutuality can vary depending on situation between groups. Sometimes one benefits more then other while other times ones getting more screwed then the other or some in between. Other times both benefit equally. Your always going to have selfish people who care more about self gains over everything else. It’s good to follow your beliefs but it’s better to follow your beliefs and get something out of it. People rarely just do stuff out of the kindness of their hearts. The extent of things might be different but the elements of grey and the people who can arise during butterflies are big. Every society has multiple variables to it
 
Some of the regions you mentioned might be union leaning and technically connected to the US but a lot of those areas of Appalachia are connected more to the lower south then the north. Appalachia was often used as a area to grow food for slaves in the lower south.

Much if Appalachia was subsistence farming. Most did not have a surplus to sell to the lower south. Appalachia had a history of not getting along with the lowland elites, due to what they considered excessive taxation and the lowlands refusing to build roads and other "internal improvements". In 1832, Western Virginia strongly considered secession from Virginia. In 1841, Andrew Johnson called for Eastern Tennessee to secede from the rest of the state, followed by the new state of Frankland inviting the Appalachian counties of Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia to join them. During the Civil War, only occupation by Confederate troops kept East Tennessee from emulating West Virginia and staying with the Union. Guerilla bands, a mix of pro-Confederate raiders and outright bandits plundered Appalachia, while the Confederate government did nothing. Confederate conscription was deeply resented in Appalachia, as able bodied men were forced into the Confederate army, leaving their families at the mercy of the guerillas.

Also many of the roads and rails to those areas would go through the CSA and are often the only way there(it’s hard to build rails in mountains and sometimes you can only build in certain places until technology improves).

As noted, one of the major complaints of Appalachia was the lack of roads due to Southern Democrats opposition to internal improvements. Maps of period railroads show that Appalachia was largely unconnected to the rest of the South.

https://www.quora.com/Which-major-railroads-were-used-in-the-civil-war-Any-map

What if a state like West Virginia(just look at its history. It isn’t pleasant) over time feels forgotten by the federal government or mistreated? Kentucky and West Virginia won’t be the nicest play when the coal mines start popping up everywhere.

The opening of the coal mines caused an economic boom for Appalachia. People seldom resent becoming less poor.
 
What about when France is fighting in Mexico? CSA helps France puppet Mexico and the CSA gets northern Mexico in return? France will still be there after the war. They could have good relations with France and the CSA probably would not mind a French puppet to the south especially if they are friendly. The puppet could even eventually become a CSA puppet once the French have to pull out for some reason. The CSA comes in to “help” the now failing government?

Maximilian had to swear an oath to never sell territory to any foreign power. If he offered any land to the Confederates most of his Mexican supporters would abandon him.

The French would pull out if Maximilian's regime was stable or if it was collapsing. In neither case would Maximilian become a Confederate puppet. If the Confederates do come in to "help" the failing Emperor of Mexico, they will face large logistical difficulties. Once it comes clear that the Confederacy is only there to "help" themselves to Mexican territory, they will lose all local support and the war will become a quagmire for the Confederacy.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I’m saying wouldn’t a independent CSA become like this over time? They have to take care of their domestic issues completely by themselves now. Large slave societies like Rome and Spartan often develop material skills and large military forces. Spartan kept a large military force to suppress the large slave population. Without the major white population boost and support from the north the south has to use more of its men to suppress growing slave population. With the countries separating the cultural gaps could widen. The reason democracies did well in wars in recent times is because geography mostly. Britain is island separated from the issues of mainland. The US had two weak neighbors to south and north and fish to east and west. They also had dominance of Western Hemisphere. Democracies do well in self defense but they often don’t take action first. Kaiserreich wasn’t democratic but could dominate Europe if a few things went differently. America weakened at all does probably weaken spread of democratic republics. Democracy coming out on top is never guaranteed. The north could even go backwards a bit culturally in this pod. If they lose civil war won’t racism there be worse?
If anything, the North would evolve into a military behemoth if the Confederacy managed to break away. Having a pack of Traitorous Slavers(TM) committing unspeakable atrocities just miles from the Seat of Liberty and Justice(TM) (Do you think that vicious propaganda is a 20th century phenomenon, the Hearst newspapers literally whipped up the Spanish-American War simply to sell more newspapers) would go over poorly. Every escaped slave, every book, every news report from a visiting British or Canadian journalist, would be more fuel to the smoldering pyre of resentment.

The Confederacy didn't have the ability to match the Federals on any measure, that is why they got their asses kicked IOTL. The South's only hope was that the North would grow weary of the war. The South's problem is that a few years of Southern celebration of their independence (oh, so easy to spin into gloating in the newspapers, something that virtually every literate adult read voraciously), continued brutality (slavery was brutality writ large in the blood of its victims, and the media knew it and that it sold papers), and the famed unwillingness of Americans to accept a defeat (and there are no TV or streaming video to show battlefields at the time to sap that resolve) would almost certainly reap a bitter harvest.

I'd give the Confederacy maybe 10 years before some sort of border incident reignited the War, this time explicitly over Slavery (which instantly freezes the European democracies out of helping the Confederacy) and the North, with its massive population advantage, huge advantage in industry, and media whipped righteous indignation rolls across the North/South border and actually wages a true Civil War, with all that the term implies. Sherman's March to the Sea multiplied a thousand times. Wouldn't be two bricks left stacked across the South by the time it was done, and the world would suffer for generations as a result.

I also have to address yet another myth that seems to have life after death: the supposed martial superiority of Confederate troops.

Bollocks. Did the Southern population hunt and fish? You bet. So did the Northern population outside of the major cities. A farmer in Wisconsin was just as likely as a farmer in Alabama to hunt to supplement his supper table, Californians scraping for a living were just as tough as North Carolinians doing the same. Fishermen in New England endured harsh conditions equal to those from Florida. Settlers in the Dakotas confronting the Sioux faced as implacable a foe as Texans facing the Comanches. Early in the ACW the Confederacy benefited from a few brilliant commanders (were it not for the inspiration fearless religious lunatic that was Thomas Stonewall Jackson the South would have lost at Bull Run, and likely have lost the War before it properly began). That was luck, not superior skills. The North's war was virtually always on the offensive, the South's on the defensive. It was more difficult to charge the Stone Wall at Fredricksburg than to defend it. There was plenty of bravery on both sides, it was no easier to charge up Little Round Top than the Stone Wall, but the Federal forces made those sorts of charges time after time, far more often than their opponents.

What is more martial, standing in the second row behind the Stone Wall reloading muskets for those on standing in the front row while outnumbered 2-1 or being in the second regiment in the line of battle advancing on the Stone Wall across open ground? Bravery is bravery.
 
1. Like I said before what if the military in CSA is acting as a police force and public workers too and not just soldiers?

Using some of the Confederate standing army as police force or public workers does not disprove any of my points. You have claimed the Confederacy could have had 10% of the white population, which was 550,000 men, serving in the military and that the Union would do nothing in response. Even attempting that level of militarization would cause economic collapse for the Confederacy and mass exodus of poor whites. And every person in the Union would have to be lobotomized by the ASBs for them to ignore a hostile, expansionist power on their border assembling an army of over half a million men

Even if both countries stay mostly volunteer forces the south might pay their soldiers much or give them more benefits then north does(many might accept being soldiers if taken care of well in it).

The Union had 3.8 taxpayers for every Confederate taxpayer. You keep ignoring this fact, but like in actual history, the Union would be able to afford a larger army than the Confederacy, pay their soldiers better, and have a lower per person burden on their taxpayers.

Two years of conscription is basically militarized extension of regular school.

Two years of conscription is two years of conscription. The Confederate public hated it during the ACW, they would hate it more in peacetime.

Your learning basic military training but also basic education like reading and writing(they can follow commands better with that). They are learning trade skills and how to police the country. The military is used to give population better skills and education but centered around military uses.

Feel free to give examples of the Confederate army doing any of those things for their soldiers.
 
Much if Appalachia was subsistence farming. Most did not have a surplus to sell to the lower south. Appalachia had a history of not getting along with the lowland elites, due to what they considered excessive taxation and the lowlands refusing to build roads and other "internal improvements". In 1832, Western Virginia strongly considered secession from Virginia. In 1841, Andrew Johnson called for Eastern Tennessee to secede from the rest of the state, followed by the new state of Frankland inviting the Appalachian counties of Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia to join them. During the Civil War, only occupation by Confederate troops kept East Tennessee from emulating West Virginia and staying with the Union. Guerilla bands, a mix of pro-Confederate raiders and outright bandits plundered Appalachia, while the Confederate government did nothing. Confederate conscription was deeply resented in Appalachia, as able bodied men were forced into the Confederate army, leaving their families at the mercy of the guerillas.



As noted, one of the major complaints of Appalachia was the lack of roads due to Southern Democrats opposition to internal improvements. Maps of period railroads show that Appalachia was largely unconnected to the rest of the South.

https://www.quora.com/Which-major-railroads-were-used-in-the-civil-war-Any-map



The opening of the coal mines caused an economic boom for Appalachia. People seldom resent becoming less poor.
They sold some of their food crops they made to the low lands to help feed the slave populations there. That was basis of trade besides logging. Wouldn’t discovery of coal probably lead to expansion of rails and some basic industries? Even if it’s foreign own it’s still there. The mines and logging would also destroy much of the farm land leading to more people in logging, mining, and railroad work. Attitudes can always shift after the war between the low and high lands.
 
I feel like our disagreement comes more from different views on human nature then union or south.

If you feel that "our disagreement comes more from different views on human nature", then you haven't been paying attention. You have been portraying the Confederate soldiers and generals as superior in skill and determination to their Union counterparts. You have at least strongly implied that oligarchy is superior to democracy. You have repeatedly claimed that the Confederates would succeed at things that they failed at in actual history, apparently for no other reason than that they are Confederates.

You have claimed that the Union would have "more incompetent generals if the military is plagued by cronyism and nepotism", while ignoring that the Confederacy had at least as many incompetent generals and was at least as prone to cronyism and nepotism. You have claimed that "A uneducated soldier is likely more fanatical." without providing any evidence that this is true or showing that being fanatical makes for better soldiers. You have claimed that "The grunts in the CSA might not be book smarts or even literate but they are probably much more harden and fanatical(especially going into the 1900s) then many other people", that the war lasted as long as it did "because many southern generals spent much more of their life towards the military", and that Confederate citizens were "better at using weapons" than their Union counterparts. Actual history shows that Confederate soldiers and generals were not superior to Union soldiers and generals.

You have claimed that the Confederacy could keep up with the US on industrialization because "they can just copy the north". Industrial espionage does not provide investment capital, infrastructure, machinery, or skilled workers. You have claimed that "CSA expansion could be mostly done by fillbustering". In actual history filibustering always failed. You have claimed that the Confederacy could support "10 percent of white southerners are a full time paramilitary type force" and that the Union would ignore it. Again, you assume the Union is composed entirely of stupid, incompetent people while ignoring that a standing army of 550 million would bankrupt the Confederacy and cripple their economy.

You have claimed that Southerners were teaching their children "to be modern knights", Confederate "white elites and their kids will be petty barons who often study warfare and use poor white masses as their own personal armies," and that "The elites in the south are living the life of luxury but they also idolize glory and war. All their free time will be focused on that." Actual history shows that all of these are incorrect.

You have claimed "the north will just consider the south lost but not an actual threat to their states." This would require the US ignoring the repeated Confederate attempts to invade the Union. Real people aren't that stupid. You have claimed that "New England and the mid Atlantic states will .... be against expansion of the army." You have provided zero evidence to back this claim. You have claimed that "The north will think it is unable to invade the south but they probably think the south can’t invade them either. Your average northerner would likely not think of the CSA is a threat until they do something like taking DC or march deep into their lands." The Confederacy did all of those things in actual history. You have claimed that "The north benefited greatly from" Reconstruction. Actual history shows the South benefited greatly from Northern investment capital, expansion and standardization of infrastructure, and investment in public schools for freedmen and poor southern whites.

You have attempted to portray oligarchies as superior to democracies because "In a democracy you have a lot of dumb people voting." Actual history shows a lot of oligarchs are dumb people, too. You have said "I think their is a argument for less develop nations being able to advance much more quickly under a undemocratic system." and that the Confederacy "not having to deal with democracy" would help them. You have claimed that "undemocratic regimes sometimes come up with clever ways at reforming and modernizing their system. They can get away with more radical reforms if people aren’t voting on it." Actual history shows that democracies are better at economic development than oligarchies. You have claimed that "Democracies often do poorly at dealing with undemocratic regimes when they become a threat to international scene." Actual history shows that Germany, Italy, and Japan lost World War II.
 
Last edited:
If anything, the North would evolve into a military behemoth if the Confederacy managed to break away. Having a pack of Traitorous Slavers(TM) committing unspeakable atrocities just miles from the Seat of Liberty and Justice(TM) (Do you think that vicious propaganda is a 20th century phenomenon, the Hearst newspapers literally whipped up the Spanish-American War simply to sell more newspapers) would go over poorly. Every escaped slave, every book, every news report from a visiting British or Canadian journalist, would be more fuel to the smoldering pyre of resentment.

The Confederacy didn't have the ability to match the Federals on any measure, that is why they got their asses kicked IOTL. The South's only hope was that the North would grow weary of the war. The South's problem is that a few years of Southern celebration of their independence (oh, so easy to spin into gloating in the newspapers, something that virtually every literate adult read voraciously), continued brutality (slavery was brutality writ large in the blood of its victims, and the media knew it and that it sold papers), and the famed unwillingness of Americans to accept a defeat (and there are no TV or streaming video to show battlefields at the time to sap that resolve) would almost certainly reap a bitter harvest.

I'd give the Confederacy maybe 10 years before some sort of border incident reignited the War, this time explicitly over Slavery (which instantly freezes the European democracies out of helping the Confederacy) and the North, with its massive population advantage, huge advantage in industry, and media whipped righteous indignation rolls across the North/South border and actually wages a true Civil War, with all that the term implies. Sherman's March to the Sea multiplied a thousand times. Wouldn't be two bricks left stacked across the South by the time it was done, and the world would suffer for generations as a result.

I also have to address yet another myth that seems to have life after death: the supposed martial superiority of Confederate troops.

Bollocks. Did the Southern population hunt and fish? You bet. So did the Northern population outside of the major cities. A farmer in Wisconsin was just as likely as a farmer in Alabama to hunt to supplement his supper table, Californians scraping for a living were just as tough as North Carolinians doing the same. Fishermen in New England endured harsh conditions equal to those from Florida. Settlers in the Dakotas confronting the Sioux faced as implacable a foe as Texans facing the Comanches. Early in the ACW the Confederacy benefited from a few brilliant commanders (were it not for the inspiration fearless religious lunatic that was Thomas Stonewall Jackson the South would have lost at Bull Run, and likely have lost the War before it properly began). That was luck, not superior skills. The North's war was virtually always on the offensive, the South's on the defensive. It was more difficult to charge the Stone Wall at Fredricksburg than to defend it. There was plenty of bravery on both sides, it was no easier to charge up Little Round Top than the Stone Wall, but the Federal forces made those sorts of charges time after time, far more often than their opponents.

What is more martial, standing in the second row behind the Stone Wall reloading muskets for those on standing in the front row while outnumbered 2-1 or being in the second regiment in the line of battle advancing on the Stone Wall across open ground? Bravery is bravery.
I’m saying wouldn’t the south become more brutal and repressive as a response to domestic unrest. Countries this size often fall to a strongman. These strongman usually force reform through authoritative practices and military support. They are still right wing regimes but they understand change is needed even if it forced is required a bit(could the south have a Caesar type leader or general take power after war due to unrest which leads to reform of some type). Many could also be populist who rally around poor white support bases(mob rule). This is justified to the public by “keeping order” and other propaganda methods. The CSA will have great periods of unrest but dictator can greatly change a nation in short period given natural resources of confederates(one or few men controlling the nation that size if they know how to do it with the restrictions of public opinion taken into consideration could change a lot. The south could just get lucky and get a calculating leader). I’m saying wouldn’t the union keep progressing relatively stable while violence in south only gets worse on their own but learn through many failures or learn how to change oppressive tactics? Could US and CSA have a Austria-Hungry vs Germany power gap by 1900? The south might be weaker but couldn’t they just grow due to knowing how to recover quickly after each setback or failure. The north “has to put them in their place” everyone once in awhile but this only makes white southerners hate them more and want to get revenge. The north keeps growing at a peaceful rate and often mocks their ignorant south neighbors. But when something that shakes the Union happens again(bound to happen at some point. Terrible depression at some point maybe?) a United States public that is use to peace, grow, and stability is much more inclined to radical action. The southern public is used to unrest and violence probably more so then their more stable neighbors. They might not act rational in peacetime but they might be more rational then people that are used to better living conditions but now have that taken way. The southern public might be more numb to violence and chaos due to dealing with it all the time but never losing too much in process(they can’t afford to lose any states). The northern public might get so use to constant improving conditions when some really bad happens that disrupts that they over react greatly. The CSA might weather the US out. It only takes mismanagement of one domestic conflict to even allow your weaker neighbors at a given opportunity. When a great depression hits southerners might be better off then other places to extent because authoritarian regime can use its power to feed its population and provide work even if either is that good your at least surviving. A liberal republic can be plagued with slums and political unrest if mismanaged during this situation. The north could be plagued with so many issues 50 or more years down road a CSA who has learn to weather this better. A desperate and prideful nation have public masses that are often lead on to feel the same(many follow the crowd). Fanatical might not be the right word but desperate and have nothing to lose. The danger of southern independence is them forming a highly aggressive and dick swinging form of nationalism. Their cultural differences will be more empathize if separated by both. It’s better if the north just takes them over completely because if they don’t they will always be a issue and could try something. Nations like CSA survive and grow off failures of others. It’s a nation where total defeat is preferable because they will keep trying until they get lucky or you go all out with them. Nationalism in CSA could grow to play of fears and self preservation mindsets. Think Japanese citizens killing themselves when us troops invade, Wehrmacht fighting until the last man against USSR, or Israelis when they fight against Arabs. The people there will often be raised thinking they are most noble people. They aren’t growing up in USA anymore but CSA. They will fear “Yankee influence”(unknowable public believe this. Politicians lie about it since they often work with Yankee capitalist. Good number of the public believes it while the elites are much more flipping on that). They will be told Yankees will destroy everything they love and “let blacks rape their women”. Feels like that increases each generation especially if they slap the south around a bit. The south will go all out if the north is ever down on luck. All the problems of confederacy will often be blamed on the north. Southern nationalism will also play on hopes by romanticizing expansion and teaching people they will “take back what’s rightfully theirs”. Some Southerners in mines in Kentucky and West Virginia might buy into that over time. I would like to point out many West Virginians in otl way rebel flag a lot currently. Think how ironic that is. Feeling can change greatly over time.
 
If you feel that "our disagreement comes more from different views on human nature", then you haven't been paying attention. You have been portraying the Confederate soldiers and generals as superior in skill and determination to their Union counterparts. You have at least strongly implied that oligarchy is superior to democracy. You have repeatedly claimed the the Confederates would succeed at things that they failed at in actual history, apparently for no other reason than that they are Confederates.

You have claimed that the Union would have "more incompetent generals if the military is plagued by cronyism and nepotism", while ignoring that the Confederacy had at least as many incompetent generals and was at least as prone to cronyism and nepotism. You have claimed that "A uneducated soldier is likely more fanatical." without providing any evidence that this is true or showing that being fanatical makes for better soldiers. You have claimed that "The grunts in the CSA might not be book smarts or even literate but they are probably much more harden and fanatical(especially going into the 1900s) then many other people", that the war lasted as long as it did "because many southern generals spent much more of their life towards the military", and that Confederate citizens were "better at using weapons" than their Union counterparts. Actual history shows that Confederate soldiers and generals were not superior to Union soldiers and generals.

You have claimed that the Confederacy could keep up with the US on industrialization because "they can just copy the north". Industrial espionage does not provide investment capital, infrastructure, machinery, or skilled workers. You have claimed that "CSA expansion could be mostly done by fillbustering". In actual history filibustering always failed. You have claimed that the Confederacy could support "10 percent of white southerners are a full time paramilitary type force" and that the Union would ignore it. Again, you assume the Union is composed entirely of stupid, incompetent people while ignoring that a standing army of 550 million would bankrupt the Confederacy and cripple their economy.

You have claimed that Southerners were teaching their children "to be modern knights", Confederate "white elites and their kids will be petty barons who often study warfare and use poor white masses as their own personal armies," and that "The elites in the south are living the life of luxury but they also idolize glory and war. All their free time will be focused on that." Actual history shows that all of these are incorrect.

You have claimed "the north will just consider the south lost but not an actual threat to their states." This would require the US ignoring the repeated Confederate attempts to invade the Union. Real people aren't that stupid. You have claimed that "New England and the mid Atlantic states will .... be against expansion of the army." You have provided zero evidence to back this claim. You have claimed that "The north will think it is unable to invade the south but they probably think the south can’t invade them either. Your average northerner would likely not think of the CSA is a threat until they do something like taking DC or march deep into their lands." The Confederacy did all of those things in actual history. You have claimed that "The north benefited greatly from" Reconstruction. Actual history shows the South benefited greatly from Northern investment capital, expansion and standardization of infrastructure, and investment in public schools for freedmen and poor southern whites.

You have attempted to portray oligarchies as superior to democracies because "In a democracy you have a lot of dumb people voting." Actual history shows a lot of oligarchs are dumb people, too. You have said "I think their is a argument for less develop nations being able to advance much more quickly under a undemocratic system." and that the Confederacy "not having to deal with democracy" would help them. You have claimed that "undemocratic regimes sometimes come up with clever ways at reforming and modernizing their system. They can get away with more radical reforms if people aren’t voting on it." Actual history shows that democracies are better at economic development than oligarchies. You have claimed that "Democracies often do poorly at dealing with undemocratic regimes when they become a threat to international scene." Actual history shows that Germany, Italy, and Japan lost World war II.
Democracy have higher possibilities and secures better life conditions in the long run but can fail in time of chaos if managed poorly. Authoritarian societies or people who grow use to them(like the southerners in independent CSA) might become more accustom to coping and dealing with terrible situations. As long as their feed and safe they are content. People in north are accustomed to stability and a better living situation. Losing the south only increases that but that might hurt it once it experiences it’s first serious crisis in a while. Complacency and luxury can destroy a society if your not self aware of it
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top