Spartacus in the American South

During the era of American plantation slavery, the southern whites deeply feared a slave revolt, and took great pains to make sure there wouldn't be any; they forbade most slaves to have an education, and split up troublesome groups by selling them off separately. Mostly, these efforts worked, as there were no significant revolts. The only one that came close to a large rebellion was the famed Nat Turner revolt, which involved only 70 slaves at the most, and led to the death of 58 whites (of course, the slaves ended up suffering a lot more than that).
2 parts for this thread:
Sometime in the 1850-1860 decade, what would it take to spark a large scale revolt among southern slaves? Was there anyone who could have been a black Spartacus; educated, military minded, charismatic? Could the slaves gain access to firearms? If the slaves managed to get together a large armed force, would they try to go to the north or to Mexico to gain their freedom? Would the tiny US army be able to stop them?
If we assume that this large revolt happened, leaving hundreds dead on both sides, what will be the afteraffects on US society in north and south? Will the south be more willing to consider emancipation, or just clamp down all the harder? Will the abolitionists, having seen the bloody results of their wishes granted, be more or less strident in their attacks on the south?
 

Chris

Banned
Interesting idea, I've explored something like it, but this is different.

I suppose that the rebellion would destroy most of the Planters lands and therefore their wealth, making their power weaker and less dominant in the south. The rebellion would probabuly be crushed in increasingly bloody fighting, with genocide practiced by both sides. After a few massicares of innocent blacks, most of the rest would try to fight anyway, even if they were not involved in the revolt at all. Most of the population of the south would be involved, perhaps killed, and the area desvastated.

Probably slavery would end, although wither by allowing the slaves to be free men or by genocide of the slaves.

One other outcome, perhaps the fighting speads beyond the ability of the southern milita to control it. The north refuses to send their milita to uphold slavery, or to commit army forces. The price for military support is an end to the southern stranglehold on the US politics and emancipation. The slaves would need to be given some land- if the US blames the planters for this, the land can come from their land - and some incentive to keep them happy in the US.

Chris
 
No, I don't think this is possible.

Here are the reasons...

A) Spartacus was a deserter of the Roman Army. Thus, he was moderately well educated, and he was more than familiar with military tactics. Plus, he fought all the time as a gladiator, sharpening his skills every day. There is no black slave from the 1850s which would possibly fit this bill.

B) Spartacus had plenty of access to the weapons of the time, weapons that did not need constant resupply. Again, no black slave would have access to or the support to run the weapons of the time.

C) Spartacus was able to wander around Italy and the Roman Empire basically as he pleased. Due to the modern wonders of the railroad, slaves would soon be caught up to by professional soldiers.

D) Assuming that ideal conditions like those afforded to Spartacus actually occured for a slave, Spartacus fought mainly against rather shitty generals. A slave would face the militias of the South (most likely not the regular army) lead by some of the most capable officers in the world at the time. Soon, officers would return from regular posts to lead armies against the rebels. The revolt would be crushed. No slave had the training and education to match a Stonewall Jackson, James Longstreet, or Robert E. Lee on the field of battle.

For the results...

A) Immediate crackdown on slaves. Huge numbers will be killed by lynching. All in all, it will be an utter disaster for the slaves of the time, whose lives would go from bad to worse overnight. Some in the south may see the need for emancipation, but not many.

B) Abolitionist movement quiets for a while (maybe a decade) but then comes roaring back, possibly with more force and even possibly with some support in the South. I do, however, think that the abolitionists will be more willing to negotiate with the slaveowners.

C) Perhaps, the Liberian movement grows, as more people see the "necessity" of sending the slaves back in order to keep them out of society. After all, they would say, they'd proven themselves unable to live in a civilized manner...

D) Membership in a KKK-type organization would skyrocket and membership would stay up for years to come as members of the alt-KKK become the unofficial watchmen of the southern way of life. Increased membership in the *KKK leads to increased membership in the *Black Panthers and thus greater racial violence for the next hundred years.
 
I was wondering too how to get a black Spartacus... the big problem is that they weren't allowed to be officers before the ACW, although lots of them served in America's various wars before that, mainly as temporary militia, IIRC. WI a free northern black, who had some inborn military skill ala Genghis Khan, would serve in that function, or maybe a foreign negro (who weren't so downtrodden in Europe). It is the biggest stumbling block in the POD... yet not an insurmountable one...
 
There's also the racial element. Spartacus got support from non-slaves. People who found themselves increasingly marginalised. But in America, the "poor whites" would be much more likely to cling on to their racial status and perhaps be the most rabid in suppressing any servile revolt.
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
Born into slavery in 1811 Luther Jessup was apprenticed to a printer in 1821. Freed in 1830 when his master manumitted all his slaves on his death, he made his way north and lived quietly in Massachusetts until 1857. The only hint he gave of future greatness was a habit of voracious reading.

A mysterious and never quite explained return to Mississippi in 1859 resulted in his arrest and return to slavery due to trumped up charges of mistaken identity. The beginning of his rebellion was a simultaneous and amazingly well planned coup which turned half the state of Mississippi bloodlessly to his control in one night.

This is from a story I started on this on the old board. It was pretty thoroughly torn apart there for pretty much the same objections we are seeing here, among others

The most valid I think is that the Southern poor whites would be the slaves worst enemy instead of their main support but that is hard to say. Early reconstruction saw several cases where poor whites and newly freed slaves worked fairly well together, particularly when the whites stood to gain as much or more than the blacks.

I think a freed black could easily educate himself as to military matters and secretly gain support and arms from Northern abolitionists.

And the numbers, 4 million slaves vs 5 million whites. They're outnumbered but only by 20% and everyone on one side will fight, while the other will probably exclude all women and everyone under 16 and over 50.
 
I think there is little chance of anything like Spartacus not so much for lack of training as for lack of arms. A 1st century BC army requires a few competent leaders, lots of shields, spears, and swords, and armour if you can get it. Most of all it needs food. The slave rebels could get all of that 19th century armies need artillery, gunpowder, lead, rifles, cartridge paper, blasting caps, telegraph gear, hundreds of literate administrators and all kinds of other things the slaves could not provide themselves. Thus, holding territory would be all but impossible.

On the other hand, untrained but determined rebels may not win wars much, but they have a good record at outwitting conventional forces, inflicting heavy casualties, and keeping the enemy on edge. Thus I'd assume a general slave uprising would not last long (it would make all whites in the US far too panicky), but small-scale insurrections could well lead to an assumptuion that they are 'a Southern problem', leaving northern Abolitionists to quietly root for the rebels while the local militia and patrollers face the dilemma of how to tell a murderous rebel with a looted varmint rifle he hasdn't got at the moment from a harmless field hand...

They might just kill them all, but as the whites of Haiti can't tell you any more, that's rarely a wise policy.
 
"A) Spartacus was a deserter of the Roman Army. Thus, he was moderately well educated, and he was more than familiar with military tactics. Plus, he fought all the time as a gladiator, sharpening his skills every day. There is no black slave from the 1850s which would possibly fit this bill."

In the book "Nightjohn," the title character is a free black who went "undercover" as a slave in order to make trouble (by teaching slaves to read). Perhaps we can have a similar character, one w/ military experience. NapoleonXIV's scenario could work out.
 
What about New Orleans militia ?

Drawing on my previous post on the New Orleans free black militia units, WI an officer from the Corps d'Afrique, who was formerly a slave but now free, and perhaps also saw service during the Mexican War, takes a grievance against the entire Southern plantation system and somehow inspires a slave revolt among blacks in Louisiana and other parts of neighbouring states at some point in the 1850s ? The Corps d'Afrique would form 1 source IMHO for a potential black Spartacus in the antebellum South, with the necessary military training and weapons to mount and lead a revolt against white authority, however shortlived that may be. Of course, John Brown or some other fiery militant northern abolitionist could try to make his way down South undercover to help out.
 
Maybe it would work better with a different approach--the Spartacus-type revolt takes place *after* the South wins the Civil War. :)

After Confederate independence is accepted; Lincoln resigns and Hamlin takes over, the Secret Service and Pinkerton's Detective Agency are merged into the Interior Department, which still oversees the National Parks in later decades, but also has things like the CIA and FBI.

Pinkerton's has Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman and other blacks trained to foment rebellions. Other white agents spread propaganda and dissent among the Confederate states. They are hoping to trigger Spartacus-type rebellions, but end up starting secessionist movements in the South.

Sojourner Truth and Frederick Douglass are sent to Florida to start a Spartacus-type revolt, and some time around this, Florida secedes. The two then get married and become the first president and vice-president of the black government of Florida. The white government of Florida tries to arrest them, but Union forces threaten to blockade its ports, and the Confederacy isn't ready for another all-out war.

A similar Spartacus-type revolt takes place in Louisiana, supported by Pinkerton's, and Louisiana secedes and it gets a black legislature with less opposition than in Florida. Blacks were much better off in Louisiana, and Pinkerton's efforts were more successful.

With the help of Pinkerton's, Blacks also agitate in Texas, which secedes and the US offers it Oklahoma and Kansas in exchange for economic, military and political cooperation.

The Confederacy wants to invade Cuba, but the US and Spain conspire to prevent it. (And Florida wanted extra priveleges from the Confederate government; this is partly why it seceded.)

William Randolph Hearst tries to have a ship in Havana Harbor blown up to foment war and sell newspapers but Confederates catch wind of the plot and expose it. This only makes further resentment against the Confederacy, the North sends warships down there and the war is on, much to Hearst's pleasure. The US and Spain win, and Cuba gets independence.

In popular culture southerners start being portrayed as smooth-talking tricksters telling both truth and lies at the same time.

The Confederacy is considerably weaker, and N. America is dominated by the US. Seeing how badly things have gone for the South, Russia gives more rights to the serfs. The butterfly effect causes different heirs to be born to the Romanovs, and czar Basil ascends the throne in 1904. He is accomodating, and is willing to allow Socialists to be in the Russian Duma.

Russia never sold Alaska; Basil's brother Boris is sent off to be governor of Alaska, which Russia never sold; the Gold Rush started in 1885, and many serfs were sent there to work, and many of them became a little better off, so the agitation which led to the Revolution wasn't so severe.

Lenin is more troublesome than most, and he is arrested and exiled, and begins publishing newspapers and magazines; Hugo Gernsback publishes some of his stories and articles in a magazine of futuristic speculation in technology and society. Lenin never read anything but his own stuff, so he didn't realize his work was being published in a scientifiction magazine. His work was also published elsewhere, but people tended to not take his ideas very seriously. Trotsky was more influential in Eastern European politics, but didn't start any revolutions. Stalin's parents had several sons who were troublemakers but who didn't do anything worse than rob a bank. Hitler's parents had only daughters, and they all married doctors. Rasputin's parents had one son, who emigrated to Italy to study anthropology.

Austria-Hungary, disgusted with Balkan agitation and worried about what happened to the US and the Confederacy when they fought a civil war, gives the Balkans independence as a single unit, knowing full well they'd never cooperate. Separately, they might have constituted several separate threats. But as a single "united" nation, they'd never be able to pose a significant threat to anybody but themselves. They wouldn't even be able to agree on how to divide up their disunited country. Other provinces of the empire are given expanded rights and more representation in Parliament. Prussia is a more centralized constitutional monarchy. Rights are expanded, not quite so much as in Austria-Hungary, but Jews and others are allowed/encouraged to emigrate. Large Jewish communities are established in many places around the world.

H.G. Wells becomes Prime Minister of Britain and organizes the League of Nations. Winston Churchill becomes a newspaper columnist and editorial writer, and publishes several books, including a well-known political science textbook.

Kemal Ataturk didn't get born; his parents have a different son who becomes a restaurateur. A different person enters politics, and is not quite so hostile to the Ottomans; he becomes Sultan of the Ottoman Empire in 1920; Sultan in name only, he institutes drastic reforms and drags the Empire into the 20 th century. His successors divide the titles of Sultan and Caliph, with strict rules dividing their powers and responsibilities, and rules on how to settle disagreements between the two. The rules only apply within the empire, but Moslems outside the empire tend to go along with it.

In 1925, an ex-patriate British soldier marries a sheikh in Oman, unites the Arabian Peninsula and founds the modern Arabian kingdom. He doesn't get to be king, but he and his descendants have a lot of influence. The Kingdom of Arabia cooperates with the British and other Western powers, and is a rival to the Ottomans.

In 1930, there is no Great Depression; Argentina is still the most prosperous country in S. America. The Florida peninsula has been divided straight down the middle into two nations, East Florida and West Florida, but they're still fighting over whether blacks get the east half or the west half, and which half should Indians, Asians and others go to? The whites want the income and technical skills those groups can offer, but don't want non-whites as citizens or landowners.

Louisiana is like Monaco, a prosperous tourist trap for the wealthy. Texas would be more prosperous if they wouldn't keep fighting with the blacks and Indians.

The CSA ended up encouraging almost all the blacks to leave, so they wouldn't have to buy up the slaves and pay off the former slaveowners. Slavery is still on the books, but few people actually have slaves any more. The plantations have been divided up into tiny, barely self-sufficient farms, and they're too proud to accept much foreign aid.

With all the worries about the South, the US never bothered to annex Hawaii, which has remained independent, and Japan is being militaristic. China and SE Asia are all divided up into little warring countries each with their own variant of monarchy, fascism, communism, socialism, etc. So Japan found it easy to take them over by 1935, and now it has its sights set on Hawaii, and maybe Alaska. They also want Easter Island, just for completeness; the Japanese want all of the Pacific. This is too close for the US and Canada, and the British are worried about Australia; the British Empire is still strong and prosperous, and is waiting for an excuse to declare war on Japan. The Japanese don't feel like trying to invade Siberia, but they do want the oil, so they make good trade deals with the Russians, who need the money.

The Confederacy sees this as an opportunity to get some employment and income, to stimulate their economy, so they send delegations to both Japan and the US, promising support and cooperation in any war. The Confederacy wants to side with whoever offers the better deal.

Japan offers the better deal, but the Confederacy should have known better; the Pinkerton agents find out who they're preparing to fight, and when the war breaks out in 1940, the US is prepared and blockades all the Confederate ports.

Floridians are a little grateful, hoping the US will impose a peace they couldn't come up with themselves. But the US was too busy worrying about Japan, and didn't have anything to do with Florida, Texas or Louisiana; all 3 of those countries stayed out of the war.

There isn't any massive Pearl Harbor type attack, and the Great Pacific War lasts from 1940-1944. The British hold onto Australia and New Zealand, Japan keeps China and SE Asia but isn't allowed to expand any further. Other Pacific islands get independence and good trade relations with anybody in the world they want. Russia officially stayed out of the war but still had to pay penalties for siding with Japan.

A rocket scientist recommends jet planes, zeppelin observation platforms and spy satellites to keep an eye on the Confederacy, Japan and anybody else which might be giving trouble. So the US starts working on those.
Japan also starts an aerospace industry.

In 1980, the main powers are the US, Britain and Japan. Singapore is the site of a major space launching facility run by the Japanese. Other sites are Bikini Atoll, (US); Easter Island (Britain); and Bahrain in the Persian Gulf, run by a consortium of Jews and Arab oil sheikhs.

Ironically the Confederacy isn't that bad off now. Immediately after the Japanese War, there was a lot of hostility and resentment, but after that cooled off, massive foreign aid poured in, in exchange for many concessions. The aid helped small farms to become self-sufficient, and many small industries supply needs for the local populace. The government is very weak, and the army consists of local police forces.

East Florida (blacks and Indians) and West Florida (whites) are finally at peace, both rivals for the tourist dollar.

How the boundary line ran through the Everglades was decided by a famous boxing match held on July 11, 1971, televised worldwide, on pay-per-view, refereed by a famous US boxing promoter. This was effectively the end of the fighting, and the two countries get along well now.

After years of agitation over who should be allowed to vote in Texas, the President of Texas, Teejay "Ribeye" Elbone Hagstrom finally said in frustration, "Let ‘em all vote and see what that gets ‘em!" So, though only citizens can vote, there are no age restrictions on citizenship or the right to vote. Small children can vote, if they're capable of filling out a ballot correctly. There are no restrictions based on land ownership, wealth, marital status, residency, health status or group membership. And there are no racial restrictions either. But local communities always come up with other imaginative restrictions, which blacks and Indians are always looking for ways to get around. It's all a game, which all Texans are good at.

Japan is the tyrannical menace to the East, not expanding in any obvious way, but spreading its tentacles all over the world. Its economy and society are more efficient than OTL Soviet Union, and women aren't that badly treated–as long as they obey every single little rule. Racism doesn't seem as obvious, since common Japanese citizens are treated as badly as foreigners are. Of course, people with money get treated better.

Russia didn't exactly have a revolution or civil war, but there was so much constant internal dissent and economic difficulty–a combination of bad luck and incompetent officials, they didn't fight in the Japanese War; Its economy started to pick up around 1970.

Britain leases Antarctica to scientists and businessmen hoping to do research and/or make some money off it.

The International Space Station is a thriving venture, serving as a hotel and also a platform for spying on the nations of the world. Japanese, Confederate, US and other spies and businessmen gather as a neutral meeting ground. Ordinary tourists are welcome, and strictly left alone by the spies.

Africa and S. America are pretty much the same as OTL, except for Argentina being better off.
 
Spartacus post-CW

hey sunsurf, in this scenario of a Southern victory, what about potentially having some black veteran officers and soldiers from USCT regts, or possibly from outfits like the 54th Massachusetts (although there were only a few runaway slaves within the 54th's ranks, despite what's portrayed in GLORY) and 1st Kansas, who infiltrate into the South (at great risk to their own lives, of course) to liaise with slave resistance leaders and train up and arm slaves to rise in revolt against the white Southerners ? Of course, this scenario would also need to have the existence of such black regts in the fight in order for these veteran colored troops to be available, and that the North still loses despite their presence...
 
A point to consider is that military skill is not the same thing as military education. Toussain Louverture and Dessaline were hardly educated, yet the Haitian won against the French. The same with Giap ( a teacher) who defeated the French Army at Dien Bien Phu.

So an uneducated slave could come up with some innovative tactics (guerrilla ?) the more traditionnally minded southern officers could have real trouble to deal with. As for ammunitions, they could be stolen or smuggled by norther supporters
 
There was several British-trained Former slaves during the War of 1812:

Military Freedom: In 1813 and 1814, the Royal Navy established advance bases on islands just off the coast in the Chesapeake area. Many black slaves, anxious for freedom, made their way to these places where they were fed by the British authorities. Their numbers grew to such proportions that the Royal Navy formed three companies of black "colonial marines" which were used in raids along the American coast. At the end of the war, all these ex-slaves were settled on land in the West Indies.

The Coloured Corps: There are few concrete facts known about The Coloured Corps, but it is thought that the regiment is rooted with a man called Richard Pierpont. Pierpont was a native of Africa was sold into slavery at a young age. He appears to have won his freedom by fighting for the British in the American Revolutionary War. He was subsequently granted land near St. Catherines in Upper Canada, and became a prosperous farmer. As an older man, it seems that Pierpont petitioned the Upper Canadian Legislature in 1812 to form a black regiment to fight against the Americans. His request was and the unit was formally embodied into the militia as The Corps of Articifers in the spring of 1813, but seems to have been relegated to non-combat support. The unit consisted of about fifty men from the Niagara region, many of whom had escaped slavery in the United States and were surviving as labourers or indentured servants. The unit was to be used solely as a labour force to construct defenses at Burlington and Fort George. It did see action manning the guns when Americans attacked the fort in May of 1813. Nothing else is known about their subsequent participation in the war.
 
There were white people who opposed slavery in the South in the pre Civil War era. Many opposed it because they felt they faced unfair competition. I also believe that some had moral objections.

These people- like most Northern Republicans of that era- would not seem like perfect anti racists to someone of our times. Still they might have seen themselves as having a common interest.

WI a black Spartacus could somehow have linked with premature white Populist sometime pre 1860. I assume that this would have been more possible without the slave revolts which happened in the early 1830s which seem to have had a large element of black racism.

Any idea how this might have happen?
 
OTL, earlier: The war in Indo-China stops. Many Algerian soldiers who had fought for freedom go home back to the same disadvantaged conditions as before. The Algerian rebelon gets much worse soon after.

ATL: The Vietnam war ends or winds down. Many black GI's with much experience of guerilla war come home from fighting for freedom and find at home the same tyranny as before. Many of them stir up armed trouble at home. One incident sends black and white at each other's throats, such as:-
- A black man shoots or blows up a segregationist state governer (Wallace?), and afterwards writes street graffiti "HEYDRICH IS DEAD".
- Some black ex-GI's raid a KKK meeting or a white social event or the like.

This leads to blowing up railways and road bridges, and so on. The whites hurt more because they have more to lose. Space work at Cape Canaveral must stop because of unsafe access roads. Etc etc etc, millions of white and black refugees, black secessionist war in the southeast.

OTL: The USA president sees the "writing on the wall" in time and starts steps to bring in social equality for black people.
 
NapoleonXIV said:
Born into slavery in 1811 Luther Jessup was apprenticed to a printer in 1821. Freed in 1830 when his master manumitted all his slaves on his death, he made his way north and lived quietly in Massachusetts until 1857. The only hint he gave of future greatness was a habit of voracious reading.

A mysterious and never quite explained return to Mississippi in 1859 resulted in his arrest and return to slavery due to trumped up charges of mistaken identity. The beginning of his rebellion was a simultaneous and amazingly well planned coup which turned half the state of Mississippi bloodlessly to his control in one night.

This is from a story I started on this on the old board. It was pretty thoroughly torn apart there for pretty much the same objections we are seeing here, among others

The most valid I think is that the Southern poor whites would be the slaves worst enemy instead of their main support but that is hard to say. Early reconstruction saw several cases where poor whites and newly freed slaves worked fairly well together, particularly when the whites stood to gain as much or more than the blacks.

I think a freed black could easily educate himself as to military matters and secretly gain support and arms from Northern abolitionists.

And the numbers, 4 million slaves vs 5 million whites. They're outnumbered but only by 20% and everyone on one side will fight, while the other will probably exclude all women and everyone under 16 and over 50.


can someone provide mne with a link...............
 
Top