Successful Confederate Revolution

If the Confederate States won the American Civil War, what are the chances of a major revolution by the blacks, Indians, and poor whites? Could these groups even work together? And if a revolution is possible, what are the chances of it succeeding? The date of Confederate victory doesn't really matter, but let's just suppose it is a typical late victory scenario. The CSA is still rebuilding from a long and destructive war and all that. What are the likely consequences of a major revolution among the poorest citizens toppling the Confederate government and all state govs?
 
"The date of Confederate victory doesn't really matter, but let's just suppose it is a typical late victory scenario."

I guess thats 1863 or 1864.

I think the chances of a revolution involving the blacks, indians and poor whites to be null to zero.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
If the Confederates win before the Emancipation Proclamation, then there is n chance o such a revolt.

If the Confederates win in 1863, you'll see more subversive activity on the part of the slaves that was the case before the war, but not much.

Late victory scenario, and you will have several thousand freed slaves in the South in possession of arms and having received military training. The chances of a guerrilla war are thus rather high. A wise Confederate government would insist that all blacks that had taken service with the Union forces be taken to the North as a condition of the peace, although many short-sighted Southerners will insist that they be returned to slavery (which is impossible from a practical point of view).
 
Huh, thought there'd be more discontent among some groups. Heard that many southerners, even whites, joined the Union army during the march on Atlanta. Well, surely the black recruits formerly in the CS Army would be upset enough to help the slaves start a nationwide revolt if the government was callous enough?
 
Setting aside the question of whether such a revolt would succeed, it seems virtually certain that a victorious Confederacy would probably experience more and more widespread slave revolts. There's a likelihood that some revolts might spread on a very large scale. Slavery is not a desirable condition. Even before the civil war, slave revolts were relatively common, terror of slave revolts was universal, and runaway slaves were a major social and economic problem. A post-civil war slave society would merely turn up the pressure cooker.

That said, it seems unlikely that such a revolt would experience any long term success.
 

Tom Kalbfus

Banned
Setting aside the question of whether such a revolt would succeed, it seems virtually certain that a victorious Confederacy would probably experience more and more widespread slave revolts. There's a likelihood that some revolts might spread on a very large scale. Slavery is not a desirable condition. Even before the civil war, slave revolts were relatively common, terror of slave revolts was universal, and runaway slaves were a major social and economic problem. A post-civil war slave society would merely turn up the pressure cooker.

That said, it seems unlikely that such a revolt would experience any long term success.
Its a matter of numbers, white people outnumbered black slaves, it kind of makes slavery pointless as well, if there are more white people than black people to do the work, why have slaves at all when there are so many whites to employ?

There is no reason why slaves couldn't have eventually out numbered white people, after all the more slaves you have, the more masters you can have. Many people wanted to be wealthy and own slaves, and if that ever happened the South would have evolved into a decandant Roman type society where the slaves did all the work and once slaves out number the rest of the population, they can overturn society and take over. Slavery was a ticking timebomb for the south, it would have eventually have gone off, if not for the Civil War.
 
Its a matter of numbers, white people outnumbered black slaves, it kind of makes slavery pointless as well, if there are more white people than black people to do the work, why have slaves at all when there are so many whites to employ?

You just missed the point entirely.

By the time of the ACW, most Americans, North and South, saw blacks as inferior. They saw slavery not as "employment" but as a free labor source. And they that believed slavery was the Negro's natural condition. Plus the work was considered to be 'beneath' the white man. That's why there were very few white artisans, even in the rural South. White men didn't become blacksmiths; they became farmers, planters, etc. And made what they couldn't purchase.
 
Most of this was covered in a thread a few weeks ago involving the breakup of the CSA. Basically, the later the CSA victory happened, the greater likelihood of breakaway or de facto independent regions.

A revolution across the entire CSA seems unlikely to me because of communication problems and the heavy censorship, high number of political prisoners, etc, of the CSA. But I'd expect there would be more John Brown or Nat Turner type figures.
 
AmIndHistoryAuthor, do you mean later in terms of when the CSA is established or later in terms of how long the war lasts before the CSA wins?
 
If the Confederate States won the American Civil War, what are the chances of a major revolution by the blacks, Indians, and poor whites? Could these groups even work together? And if a revolution is possible, what are the chances of it succeeding? The date of Confederate victory doesn't really matter, but let's just suppose it is a typical late victory scenario. The CSA is still rebuilding from a long and destructive war and all that. What are the likely consequences of a major revolution among the poorest citizens toppling the Confederate government and all state govs?

I don't think a revolution is likely in the short or medium term, but the long run, if the Confederacy survives that long, holds some possibilities. The agricultural Depression of the 1920s plus increased competition to white workers from black slaves plus the development of free black - poor white alliances plus the Confederacy's likely democratic deficit and poor standards of government plus a few other factors would make a potentially explosive situation.
 
CSA wins pre-Emancipation Proclamation = Any free blacks that still lived in the south would flee north, as would any runaways that were surrendering themselves to the Union army or whatnot. With no hope of any further Congressional/Presidential emancipation for them, the rate of runaways would only increase.

CSA wins post-Emancipation Proclamation = Same basic thing, though I highly doubt that any blacks having served with the Union would be forced back to the CSA (and likely those that would might be executed upon arrival).

Poor Whites may well leave and/or go about their life as usual. Eventually there may be white groups that spring up to challenge authority and secede from the confederacy. Unlikely that they will help blacks for much of anything, and vice versa.

Indians and Mexicans... similar results. Unlikely to join other groups, and so long as the blacks are there to take a beating, the option for progress is still there, though still small.
 
Regardless of when the CSA gains its independence, a lot would depend upon the stance the USA takes toward the confederacy. If the USA is ready to acknowledge the new status quo and develop reasonably good relations with the CSA (which I personally think is the most likely outcome if the CSA acheived independence on its own), successful revolutions would not be particularly likely. The US would not attempt to foment slave revolts or anything else to destabilize its southern neighbor. As long as black slavery survives, the only realistic type of revolutionary activity would be slave revolts. Poor whites were, if anything more racist and anti-black than the slave-owning aristocracy. Unless one wants to imagine some sort of Turtledovian "Super-South", Mexicans and American Indians would be a very tiny minority of the CSA population. Also, it is highly unlikely either group would necessarily find common cause with enslaved blacks. Also, as direct competitors with poor whites as low status freemen, it is unlikely they would join with them.

I think the best likelihood for revolution would be in a more "progressive" confederacy which eliminated slavery and adopted superficially less racist government policies, while still attempting to maintain the aristocratic power base. I'd imagine something like prerevolutionary Russia, but because the CSA would still have a fairly strong tradition of republican and "democratic" attitudes inherited from the USA, even weaker. In this situation, the various poor minority groups as well as the poor whites might join together in some form of Agrarian socialist revolt.
 
how bout if a post-CW CSA started fragmenting as different states had their own grievances against Richmond & began seceding ? Perhaps in such a power vacuum more revolts by poor whites & blacks could result ? As for the Indians, would the pro-Union members of the Civilised Tribes in Indian Territory continue to wage guerilla warfare against their pro-CS neightbours ?
 
AmIndHistoryAuthor, that's what I thought but wasn't certain.

It would seem that the longer the war lasts, the stronger any Confederate central government would become, which might be a concern for potential separatists.


On the other hand if the USA is clever then an independent Indian state might be established and even somewhat expanded from Oklahoma as a buffer state between the USA and CSA.
 
It would seem that the longer the war lasts, the stronger any Confederate central government would become, which might be a concern for potential separatists.

On the other hand if the USA is clever then an independent Indian state might be established and even somewhat expanded from Oklahoma as a buffer state between the USA and CSA.

If it's a stronger central govt, that makes for a nice irony.

A lot depends on how the victory comes about. A truly crushing battlefield victory that leads to panic across the US? Or simple weariness, a McClellan victory at the polls for example, would just lead to things left standing in the field and a much weaker CSA.

I don't know of any proposals by either side, or from within the tribes, for an independent Indian state post-ACW. It seems to me you'd need that crushing victory for the US to consider it.
 
Probably also inevitable.

There were those who broke with the Union over what they saw as Lincoln's attack on state's rights and expansion of federal powers and were distraught to find the Confederacy doing the exact same things.


If the CSA wins by war weariness in the 1864 election and relations don't improve then there might be an option for the Indian Territory to make a proposal to the USA whereby the USA recognizes their independence and the USA gets to deploy all its forces while the CSA is distracted.

However, a long time success would require the USA winning but not decisively and the CSA being able to recover a balance, perhaps with British support.
 
Top