Race relations in the US after CSA victory?

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,

That's not the point I was making. The point was that black southerners were victimised because they were there and they were vulnerable and white southerners wanted to lash out. The details are irrelevant. As they were with the Japanese. As they are with Muslim Americans. Or the Roma. Or literally any other group that gets a kicking.

It's not like northerners were all that fond of blacks to begin with. Ethnic cleansing (I.e. back to Africa) would simply follow a clear strain of thinking going back long before the war. Even in OTL many, if not most whites didn't want blacks around, hence redlining and the evolution of the ghettos.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Seriously? Turtledove?

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.

That's an Antietam Campaign with Lee (with 45,000 men) defeating McClellan (with 87,000) on the Susquehanna because - why, again? Why not dig in east of the river to protect Harrisburg? Considering Lee has a) no supply line; and b) no bridging train; and c) is outnumbered almost 2-1, no, it's not very likely.

McClellan was a lot of things; idiotic was not one of them. This is the same CG who managed Malvern Hill - or, at least, did not get in the way of Porter managing Malvern Hill. Same difference.

And this wins the rebels Kentucky and the Indian Territory, as well? Yeah, okay. Apparently Buell's and Grant's and Rosecrans' armies have vanished .. cripes, Halleck et al were at Corinth, Mississippi five months before Antietam. How the hell does the Byzantine scholar justify that? Time travelers with machine guns?:rolleyes:

This is why "save the webels" concepts are so entirely unpersuasive; they have to ignore the economic realities so hard, they may as well be grad students hoping for a tenure track position...

Anyway - questions:

1) If the Confederacy wins, would race relations in the north worsen, with many people blaming the blacks and republicans for the war? No; given the fantastical elements of any such "victory," presumably God would be blamed. Slightly more seriously, any surviving doughfaces after the great copperhead purge of 1862 would be blamed.

2) Or is there a chance that equal rights for blacks would be championed by the north, as a means of opposing the CSA? Yes; having a built-in guerilla movement in the enemy's camp is a godsend; likewise, it makes the issues clear to the Europeans who pride themselves on abolition.

3) Would there be treaties requiring fugitive slaves to be repatriated? No; why send useful manpower to one's enemy?

4) How long does slavery remain in the border states? Slavery was prohibited in the District of Columbia in 1862; Maryland prohibited slavery in 1864; Delaware, Missouri, and West Virginia in 1865. Kentucky, apparently, is magically transported into rebeldom, so they don't matter.

5) What happens to the abolitionist movement? It advocates for the destruction of the rebels and runs guns into Appalachia, across the Ohio, the Mississippi, etc.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
"First, they came for the poor agricultural working class"

That's not the point I was making. The point was that black southerners were victimised because they were there and they were vulnerable and white southerners wanted to lash out. The details are irrelevant. As they were with the Japanese. As they are with Muslim Americans. Or the Roma. Or literally any other group that gets a kicking. It's not like northerners were all that fond of blacks to begin with. Ethnic cleansing (I.e. back to Africa) would simply follow a clear strain of thinking going back long before the war. Even in OTL many, if not most whites didn't want blacks around, hence redlining and the evolution of the ghettos.

"First, they came for the poor agricultural working class" doesn't quite cut it, does it?

And ethnic cleansing? By a government that apparently can't manage to defeat the rebels with 3-1 odds, but will pay to ship people to West Africa, when no prewar Congress was ever willing to pay for it?

There's a reason it was the African Colonization Society, and not the African Colonization Department.

No, it's still bizarre.

Best,
 
Top