Race relations in the US after CSA victory?

OTL the loyal states were in many ways almost as racist as the southern slave-holding states. Sundown towns dotted the landscape, and free blacks were often barred from serving on juries or voting. During the New York draft riots abolitionists and free blacks were lynched by mobs.

If the Confederacy wins, would race relations in the north worsen, with many people blaming the blacks and republicans for the war? Or is there a chance that equal rights for blacks would be championed by the north, as a means of opposing the CSA? Would there be treaties requiring fugitive slaves to be repatriated? How long does slavery remain in the border states? What happens to the abolitionist movement?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Depends on how and why the rebels are able to "win"

OTL the loyal states were in many ways almost as racist as the southern slave-holding states. Sundown towns dotted the landscape, and free blacks were often barred from serving on juries or voting. During the New York draft riots abolitionists and free blacks were lynched by mobs. If the Confederacy wins, would race relations in the north worsen, with many people blaming the blacks and republicans for the war? Or is there a chance that equal rights for blacks would be championed by the north, as a means of opposing the CSA? Would there be treaties requiring fugitive slaves to be repatriated? How long does slavery remain in the border states? What happens to the abolitionist movement?

Depends on how and why the rebels are able to "win" and when?

If it's after the June 13-16, 1863 draft riots (which as a political phenomenon, are way too complex to reduce to bigotry or racism, alone) then there's one set of answers; if before, there's another.

Likewise, do you really believe the loyal states were "almost as racist as the southern slave-holding states"? Chattel slavery would seem a fairly high bar in terms of racism, would it not?

Just wondering if there's a "what-about" element...

Best,
 
Arguably little better than OTL. Immigrants would still by and large resent black workers for competing with them for cheap labor, the border states will (whenever they get around to abolishing slavery) still be distrustful and resentful of blacks as they had always been. The same idiotic racism that persists to this day would still apply.

You can bet Northern Democrats will probably look for ways to restrict their voting abilities if they can get away with it.

As far as abolition goes, there would be so much philosophical and political soul searching post-secession that it really comes down to what scenario you use if you want to speculate on that. There'd be only some 427,603 (probably less) slaves in the whole Union if you go by the number in the slave states that didn't secede in 1861. Over time they'd escape or be sold South as they became economic liabilities in an industrializing North if they weren't just freed shortly after the war.

It would be a political issue, probably a philosophical one too, but it would be on the back burner compared to things like defense, debt, territorial changes, settling the West, ect.

I mean for comparison's sake let's just look at what happened OTL with victory. Once the threat of Southern rebellion was dead and gone, the North abandoned the freedmen to the tender mercies of Jim Crow and the KKK.

Secession isn't going to improve on that situation.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yep, no difference at all between the southern US and the rest of the country

Arguably little better than OTL. Immigrants would still by and large resent black workers for competing with them for cheap labor, the border states will (whenever they get around to abolishing slavery) still be distrustful and resentful of blacks as they had always been. The same idiotic racism that persists to this day would still apply. You can bet Northern Democrats will probably look for ways to restrict their voting abilities if they can get away with it. As far as abolition goes, there would be so much philosophical and political soul searching post-secession that it really comes down to what scenario you use if you want to speculate on that. There'd be only some 427,603 (probably less) slaves in the whole Union if you go by the number in the slave states that didn't secede in 1861. Over time they'd escape or be sold South as they became economic liabilities in an industrializing North if they weren't just freed shortly after the war. It would be a political issue, probably a philosophical one too, but it would be on the back burner compared to things like defense, debt, territorial changes, settling the West, ect. I mean for comparison's sake let's just look at what happened OTL with victory. Once the threat of Southern rebellion was dead and gone, the North abandoned the freedmen to the tender mercies of Jim Crow and the KKK. Secession isn't going to improve on that situation.

Really?

No difference at all between the southern US and the rest of the country when it comes to race relations, in your eyes?

Best,
 
Some broad observations.

The South (defined by slavery) and the CSA are not synonymous. The Union held on to Maryland and Kentucky, both of which maintained slavery during the war. The former abolished it only by a 1,000 difference in votes, and the latter did not ratify the 13th Amendment. Major Democrat electoral victory is an absolute necessity for any Southern independence TL, and keeping slavery in the border states is in their interest. A major issue here is that, despite the Late Unpleasantness, the issue of slavery in the territories hasn't actually been solved; applying Popular Sovereignty is likely to get very messy, since its doctrinaires never defined when a prospective state gets to decide whether or not it'll have slavery. Can they only allow it after they've promulgated a state constitution, or will they have to allow slavery until the state constitution prohibits it?

That said, I wouldn't describe racism in terms of a linear sliding scale, but rather different types of racism. The South's racism was dominative; they were fine living in close proximity with blacks, slave and free, but they had to know who was boss, and were subject to brutal demonstrations to keep them from forgetting. By contrast, non slaveholding states tended to exhibit exclusionary racism, where the simple presence of blacks [synonymous with slavery, synonymous with Slave Power] was corruptive, hence the popularity of colonization schemes. While they were better off than slaves, free blacks in Northern states tended to be less healthy and less well to do than free blacks in the South; there often just wasn't a role in society for them in the non-Abolitionists imagination.

Should also remember for discussions of race relations in the North that nativists were an important part of the Republican coalition, which risks falling apart from lack of purpose if the issue of slavery in the territories is ever definitively settled and the war ends in defeat.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
And yet,

Some broad observations. The South (defined by slavery) and the CSA are not synonymous. The Union held on to Maryland and Kentucky, both of which maintained slavery during the war. The former abolished it only by a 1,000 difference in votes, and the latter did not ratify the 13th Amendment. Major Democrat electoral victory is an absolute necessity for any Southern independence TL, and keeping slavery in the border states is in their interest. A major issue here is that, despite the Late Unpleasantness, the issue of slavery in the territories hasn't actually been solved; applying Popular Sovereignty is likely to get very messy, since its doctrinaires never defined when a prospective state gets to decide whether or not it'll have slavery. Can they only allow it after they've promulgated a state constitution, or will they have to allow slavery until the state constitution prohibits it? That said, I wouldn't describe racism in terms of a linear sliding scale, but rather different types of racism. The South's racism was dominative; they were fine living in close proximity with blacks, slave and free, but they had to know who was boss, and were subject to brutal demonstrations to keep them from forgetting. By contrast, non slaveholding states tended to exhibit exclusionary racism, where the simple presence of blacks [synonymous with slavery, synonymous with Slave Power] was corruptive, hence the popularity of colonization schemes. While they were better off than slaves, free blacks in Northern states tended to be less healthy and less well to do than free blacks in the South; there often just wasn't a role in society for them in the non-Abolitionists imagination. Should also remember for discussions of race relations in the North that nativists were an important part of the Republican coalition, which risks falling apart from lack of purpose if the issue of slavery in the territories is ever definitively settled and the war ends in defeat.

And yet, almost 9,000 Marylanders enlisted in the USCTs, and almost 24,000 Kentuckians ... is President McClellan planning on disarming them and selling them back into slavery?

How about their wives and children? Going to sell them south as well?

How about their white officers?

That's the point - all these "rebel victory! Huzzah!" scenarios tend to founder on the political and military realities of the Civil War as it was fought...

One can suggest something different, of course, but the suggestion sort of requires an explanation of how one gets there. Otherwise there's a "underwar=profit" issue in play.

Best,
 
The South (defined by slavery) and the CSA are not synonymous. The Union held on to Maryland and Kentucky, both of which maintained slavery during the war. The former abolished it only by a 1,000 difference in votes, and the latter did not ratify the 13th Amendment. Major Democrat electoral victory is an absolute necessity for any Southern independence TL, and keeping slavery in the border states is in their interest. A major issue here is that, despite the Late Unpleasantness, the issue of slavery in the territories hasn't actually been solved; applying Popular Sovereignty is likely to get very messy, since its doctrinaires never defined when a prospective state gets to decide whether or not it'll have slavery. Can they only allow it after they've promulgated a state constitution, or will they have to allow slavery until the state constitution prohibits it?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but outside the Deep South (eg the states that made up the Confederacy) wasn't the issue of expanding slavery not that important? I imagine it might be contentious to some people in Kentucky and Missouri, but those states had industry and economy enough outside of the cash crops of the South to be able to get by without needing to expand slavery.

I can see some wanting to carry the torch (or threatening secession :rolleyes:) but it would be such a fringe issue without the Deep South that it couldn't possibly remain part of the mainstream issues of the day.

That said, I wouldn't describe racism in terms of a linear sliding scale, but rather different types of racism. The South's racism was dominative; they were fine living in close proximity with blacks, slave and free, but they had to know who was boss, and were subject to brutal demonstrations to keep them from forgetting. By contrast, non slaveholding states tended to exhibit exclusionary racism, where the simple presence of blacks [synonymous with slavery, synonymous with Slave Power] was corruptive, hence the popularity of colonization schemes. While they were better off than slaves, free blacks in Northern states tended to be less healthy and less well to do than free blacks in the South; there often just wasn't a role in society for them in the non-Abolitionists imagination.

In most ways it struck me as being broadly similar to the racist attitudes so prevalent in Canada until roughly a generation ago (at least in urban centers, outside of major towns and cities...well different story). Whites attempting to exclude them from affluent society, poor whites resenting them for representing a threat to low income jobs.

Save for the corrupting aspect of course since slavery was a non issue in our history. For most Canadians blacks were simply alien and therefore didn't belong. Much like how we treated the Chinese :(

Should also remember for discussions of race relations in the North that nativists were an important part of the Republican coalition, which risks falling apart from lack of purpose if the issue of slavery in the territories is ever definitively settled and the war ends in defeat.

Well in fairness, the Republicans would still have a solid constituency in the West (Homestead Act, Transcontinental railroad) and their economic policies would certainly help them in the East. Abolition wasn't the be all to end all of the Republican Party.

The Radicals might break with the conservative Republicans over the issue, but I can still see them having a leg to stand on in the long run.
 
And yet, almost 9,000 Marylanders enlisted in the USCTs, and almost 24,000 Kentuckians ... is President McClellan planning on disarming them and selling them back into slavery?

How about their wives and children? Going to sell them south as well?

How about their white officers?

That's the point - all these "rebel victory! Huzzah!" scenarios tend to founder on the political and military realities of the Civil War as it was fought...

One can suggest something different, of course, but the suggestion sort of requires an explanation of how one gets there. Otherwise there's a "underwar=profit" issue in play.

Best,
Southern independence scenarios usually depend on preventing the Emancipation Proclamation, which brought tens, if not hundreds of thousands into the ranks of the USCT. Disarming regiments that were never raised is simple enough for a Democratic president [probably not McClellan, if he doesn't win at Antietam].
 

TFSmith121

Banned
180,000 actually

Southern independence scenarios usually depend on preventing the Emancipation Proclamation, which brought tens, if not hundreds of thousands into the ranks of the USCT. Disarming regiments that were never raised is simple enough for a Democratic president [probably not McClellan, if he doesn't win at Antietam].

180,000 actually, according to Dyer...

So if the "rebel victory" predates the EP, that puts it into 1862 ... So how does the historical reality of 1862 lead to a rebel victory?

McClellan may not be able to win the war on the Peninsula or in Maryland, but he's not going to lose it, either, and Grant et al are cleaning up in the west.

Best,
 
180,000 actually, according to Dyer...

So if the "rebel victory" predates the EP, that puts it into 1862 ... So how does the historical reality of 1862 lead to a rebel victory?

McClellan may not be able to win the war on the Peninsula or in Maryland, but he's not going to lose it, either, and Grant et al are cleaning up in the west.

Best,

The EP was contingent on battlefield success at Antietam by McClellan [which depended on a mad stroke of luck]; 1862 does not make the EP any more than 1776 makes the DoI. If the battlefield, unpredictable as ever, does not develop in the Union's favor, it just might not be issued, which means ATL's year of independence can postdate OTL's EP.

Pembleton or whoever doesn't necessarily need to disarm black soldiers and put them back into slavery anyway, since the Confiscation Act and a militia act were passed by Congress, which makes them considerably more legally robust than the EP.

Furthermore, I'd like to amend my earlier characterization of Northern racism as exclusionary to say that it's the Republicans who have exclusionary racists in their ranks; Northern Democrats are tolerant of slavery, and thus of [dominative] proximity to blacks. Colonization was not a Democratic project, I believe. Maryland had a substantial free black population, so it's not like slaveholding states are categorically incapable of incorporating whoever is both freed by the Confiscation Act and who serves through the militia act.
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
Mad stroke of luck being "Lee's lost order?"

The EP was contingent on battlefield success at Antietam by McClellan [which depended on a mad stroke of luck]; 1862 does not make the EP any more than 1776 makes the DoI. If the battlefield, unpredictable as ever, does not develop in the Union's favor, it just might not be issued, which means ATL's year of independence can postdate OTL's EP.

Pembleton or whoever doesn't necessarily need to disarm black soldiers and put them back into slavery anyway, since the Confiscation Act and a militia act were passed by Congress, which makes them considerably more legally robust than the EP.

Furthermore, I'd like to amend my earlier characterization of Northern racism as exclusionary to say that it's the Republicans who have exclusionary racists in their ranks; Northern Democrats are tolerant of slavery, and thus of [dominative] proximity to blacks. Colonization was not a Democratic project, I believe. Maryland had a substantial free black population, so it's not like slaveholding states are categorically incapable of incorporating whoever is both freed by the Confiscation Act and who serves through the militia act.

Mad stroke of luck being "Lee's lost order?"

Or simply that Lee was overconfident enough to move into loyal territory without a supply line worth the name and a force that was roughly half the size of McClellan's?

I mean, even McClellan would have been challenged not to fend Lee off with those odds and in that operational situation, "lost order" or no.

http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/antietam.html?tab=facts

Cripes, Robert Patterson could have "beaten" Lee with that strategic and tactical situation.

Best,
 
I see free blacks getting the blame for breaking up the country in a CSA victory scenario, which could run the gamut from unofficially condoned terrorism of the black population all the way up to ethnic cleansing. It all depends on how things shake out in the north afterwards and how nasty the war ended up being.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Free blacks, loyal to a fault, as opposed to the actual rebels?

I see free blacks getting the blame for breaking up the country in a CSA victory scenario, which could run the gamut from unofficially condoned terrorism of the black population all the way up to ethnic cleansing. It all depends on how things shake out in the north afterwards and how nasty the war ended up being.

Free blacks, loyal to a fault, as opposed to the actual rebels?

So the poorest class of individuals in the country are somehow to blame?

Say what you wish about the Dolchstoßlegende, but the free black equivalent of the "November Criminals" would be who, exactly?

The right wing in Germany blamed the Weimar politicians, the socialists, the communists, Jews, and even Catholics; these groups, even in Wilhelmine Germany, were hardly in the position of the enslaved and former enslaved in the United States in the 1850s...

This is just bizarre.

Best,
 
Mad stroke of luck being "Lee's lost order?"

Or simply that Lee was overconfident enough to move into loyal territory without a supply line worth the name and a force that was roughly half the size of McClellan's?

I mean, even McClellan would have been challenged not to fend Lee off with those odds and in that operational situation, "lost order" or no.

http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/antietam.html?tab=facts

Cripes, Robert Patterson could have "beaten" Lee with that strategic and tactical situation.

Best,
This is getting off topic.

Deactivating black regiments is a non issue, because the Union using them would make the timeline impossible, and since the Union making use of them was contingent, so unless you're deliberately derailing the thread, we're compelled by the logic of the timeline to assume the EP and General Order 143 were never issued. If you want to point out the improbability of the timeline, then congratulations on your free Captain Obvious spandex.

Dealing with fugitive slaves from another country is an issue, though. If Kentucky maintains slavery, are slaves from Tennessee still slaves if they run into a state outside the Southern union? I believe Maryland law held that Haitian refugees were still legally slaves, though it's been a while since I reviewed the material, and I don't know if other states would follow the same legal logic.
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
Cripes, the OP can't even explain how the rebels gain independence

This is getting off topic. Deactivating black regiments is a non issue, because the Union using them would make the timeline impossible, and since the Union making use of them was contingent, so unless you're deliberately derailing the thread, we're compelled by the logic of the timeline to assume the EP and General Order 143 were never issued. If you want to point out the improbability of the timeline, then congratulations on your free Captain Obvious spandex. Dealing with fugitive slaves from another country is an issue, though. If Kentucky maintains slavery, are slaves from Tennessee still slaves if they run into a state outside the Southern union? I believe Maryland law held that Haitian refugees were still legally slaves, though it's been a while since I reviewed the material, and I don't know if other states would follow the same legal logic.

Cripes, the OP can't even explain how the rebels gain independence, and you're worried about whether fugitive ex-slaves will have to take the underground railroad to free states or not?

The OP hasn't even responded to the first question raised in the thread.

Best,
 
Free blacks, loyal to a fault, as opposed to the actual rebels?

So the poorest class of individuals in the country are somehow to blame?

Say what you wish about the Dolchstoßlegende, but the free black equivalent of the "November Criminals" would be who, exactly?

The right wing in Germany blamed the Weimar politicians, the socialists, the communists, Jews, and even Catholics; these groups, even in Wilhelmine Germany, were hardly in the position of the enslaved and former enslaved in the United States in the 1850s...

This is just bizarre.

Best,

As if logic had anything to do with the victimization of a minority. Might want to ask some Muslim Americans, or perhaps some interned Japanese, on how far loyalty gets you when people are angry, resentful, and want to lash out. Or maybe some of the victims of Golden Dawn in Greece. Did Black Americans in OTL do something to deserve Jim Crow and the KKK?
 
Cripes, the OP can't even explain how the rebels gain independence, and you're worried about whether fugitive ex-slaves will have to take the underground railroad to free states or not?

Puts me ahead of you, having contributed nothing to the thread.

The OP is trusting their readers to imagine a Southern independence scenario of their own, with the understanding that the quite narrow range of possibilities will allow for useful discussion.

If you refuse to meaningfully contribute to a thread until someone has accounted for every bullet of an alternate Civil War, then I'd suggest you not waste time and bandwidth loudly demanding something you've determined to refuse.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Well, it's a little easier for a demagogue to make the

As if logic had anything to do with the victimization of a minority. Might want to ask some Muslim Americans, or perhaps some interned Japanese, on how far loyalty gets you when people are angry, resentful, and want to lash out. Or maybe some of the victims of Golden Dawn in Greece. Did Black Americans in OTL do something to deserve Jim Crow and the KKK?

No, but that's not the argument. White southerners who joined the Klan or passed Jim Crow laws didn't blame African-Americans for the loss of the civil war; they blamed the fact the US had more men and factories.

It's a little easier for a demagogue to make the case the political leaders who signed the terms of surrender were the ones to be scapegoated then, say, the people who picked potatoes in the fields of Bavaria...

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The OP hasn't responded once, so it seems

Puts me ahead of you, having contributed nothing to the thread. The OP is trusting their readers to imagine a Southern independence scenario of their own, with the understanding that the quite narrow range of possibilities will allow for useful discussion. If you refuse to meaningfully contribute to a thread until someone has accounted for every bullet of an alternate Civil War, then I'd suggest you not waste time and bandwidth loudly demanding something you've determined to refuse.

The OP hasn't responded once, so it seems there's nothing to discuss from their (he or she's) perspective.

Trying to get some sort of frame to the question beyond "rebel victory, huzzah!" presumably is of import when one is considering, for example, your very own question, since the issue of whether the border of Kentucky and Tennessee is an internal border or an international frontier.

The outcome of war is what defines postwar policy, correct?


So explaining how one gets from Fort Sumter in April, 1861, to "postwar" at some date in history doesn't seem like a particularly difficult question.

That appears to rankle you for some reason, but without some sort of frame, it's pretty much an unanswerable question.

Best,
 
The OP hasn't responded once, so it seems there's nothing to discuss from their (he or she's) perspective.

Trying to get some sort of frame to the question beyond "rebel victory, huzzah!" presumably is of import when one is considering, for example, your very own question, since the issue of whether the border of Kentucky and Tennessee is an internal border or an international frontier.

The outcome of war is what defines postwar policy, correct?


So explaining how one gets from Fort Sumter in April, 1861, to "postwar" at some date in history doesn't seem like a particularly difficult question.

That appears to rankle you for some reason, but without some sort of frame, it's pretty much an unanswerable question.

Best,

I intended to leave the details of the victory open to discussion, but if you want a more concrete scenario just assume the CSA wins the same way it did in TL 191. It consists of the 11 states which historically formed the CSA, as well as Kentucky and the Indian Territory. It probably isn't a very likely scenario, but any sort of CSA victory is unlikely.
 
Top