Admiral Halsey
Banned
They're gonna get what's coming and then some. Sherman's going to burn it down so hard not even a fly is gonna rise again anywhere south of the Mason-Dixon!
Until Every Drop of Blood Is Paid: A More Radical American Civil War
- Thread starter Red_Galiray
- Start date
Honestly, a broader initial secession movement followed by more competent Union prosecution of the war is probably the best bet here.
And of course...
'MURICA! For Honest Abe and apple pie! Rally 'round the flag, boys, we'll rally once again, SHOUTING THE BATTLE CRY OF FREEEEEE-DOM!!!!!!!
And of course...
'MURICA! For Honest Abe and apple pie! Rally 'round the flag, boys, we'll rally once again, SHOUTING THE BATTLE CRY OF FREEEEEE-DOM!!!!!!!
You actually reminded me, given the scope of devastation the south is probably going to see some demographic changes (considering there wasn't really all that much otl surprisingly). Blacks made up the heavy majority of the (lower) Mississippi valley and some parts of the delta (factoring Creoles and Cajuns), the Alabama/Mississippi black belt, and the coastal strip of Virginia, N.C., S.C. and Georgia, and southeast Texas (basically all the areas in the south that have both fertile and flat land). The greater devastation ttl will kill lots of southern whites and probably displace much of the rest of their population, so by the end of the war I see whites being basically eradicated from all the slave-majority areas I listed earlier. This gives the federal government after the war a chance to permanently reshape the south's demographics to ensure they never rebel again.
Forty acres and a mule was a noble gesture, but most of the north opposed it (they didn't want to have blacks settling the midwest with them, sadly), and if it had been attempted would have led to starvation as the resettled slaves would be essentially dumped there without the knowledge of how to grow most crops. However, at this point there is still plenty of arable untilled land in the lowland south (especially in the Mississippi Valley), so the federal government as part of atl "reconstruction" can just relocate the remaining southern whites to the highland territories (Virginian and Carolinian piedmont, central Tennessee, northern Alabama) and declare all the black majority territories I mentioned above as free land to the now-freed slaves. This solves most potential white v. black violence but more importantly, it both irreversibly shifts the plantation economy to be non-existent AND settles the question: "what do all these people do now that they are not slaves anymore". The north and midwest will be happy as they didn't want any black migrants, and with the white population so devastated they can ensure that southern "democrats" will never dominate congress again.
A detailed proposal would be: "Confederate sympathizers" would be "evacuated" from the former slave areas and moved to the "upland" areas of their states to ensure their "safety" from the freedmen. In return, the freedmen would have permission to develop the land they live on and live as they please. Western Tennessee, southeastern Missouri, northern Louisiana, and the Arkansas Delta are ceded to the (now black) state of Mississippi, western Virginia is broken off as otl, and the Appalachian parts of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee are broken off and combined as a state of Appalachia as a reward for their loyalty with the capital at Knoxville (these areas were heavily unionist). Now North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and *expanded Mississippi are permanently majority African (IE: unionist). Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Florida are not majority black but are still heavily affected by this as to mostly destroy the "southern" way of life.
The advantages of this plan are that no old state is completely broken up (a major legal concern) and that nowhere in the north (in theory) has to deal with any refugees/freedmen, and the idea of the "south" is more or less destroyed. So in the Fed's eyes, it's a win-win scenario. I'm pretty sure there are flaws with this somewhere, I would like feedback on this idea.
The only way I can see this working is genius khan devesation of south and even then it would be a massive efforts and cost tons of money and resources and make many whites pissed of about being kicked out of there homes. It mean elimating 40 percent of the population out of majority black areas of the south.
Yeah though I figured there will still be some migration and probably some people staying and be comfortable with the freedman. I’m wondering if inter-mixed marriages would be legalized sooner...
The whole basis of the scenario is that the south has undergone a "gengis khan devastation", otherwise it would be totally unfeasible. Kicking the remainder is supposed to be essentially cultural genocide to ensure that the south cannot do anything like their revolt ever again. (It's pretty revolting to do ethnic cleansing like this, I don't think it would be possible unless enough of the southern white population was killed off to make removing the rest from the "Blacklands" relatively easy)
Strictly speaking, the only people actually forced to leave are "Confederate Sympathizers" in my proposal, so I think there certainly would be plenty of people that weren't very enthusiastic about the succession being allowed to stay. To the (northern) public, the idea would be to permanently remove disloyal elements, but the hidden part is that it would make many of the deep southern states have a black supermajority that future revolt is impossible (the goal would be getting South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and *Expanded Mississippi 75% black, and Virginia, Florida, Arkansas, and Louisiana at least 30% black).
The white unionist populations of the south get 2 states instead of just west Virginia otl in order to suppress fears of "good people being governed by negros
" (still plenty of racism up north, but the plan feeds in to that as it is partially designed to keep blacks out of northern states by having them be dominant where they already live.) The state of Mississippi is dramatically expanded to encompass nearly all of the lower Mississippi Valley to keep black influence in the Senate to a minimum without changing the states too much, as northern Democrats might riot otherwise.
Quasi? I think Mr.Count has been smoking some of that dere ol' hempweed. If Ahm not mistaken.
Is this update entirely OTL stuff, or have the butterflies started hitting already here?
Well, they are "quasi" in the sense that it is mostly an "informal" aristocracy with no formal titles.
While I think some of this is workable, it wouldn't be completely doable. Trying to relocate the yeoman farmers of the South would probably spark that endless insurgency we worry about, and be opposed by the North. Breaking up the Southern aristocracy's plantations, confiscating land from Southern officers and politicians (and perhaps doing what was done in portions of Missouri for particularly recalcitrant regions by emptying out towns and villages) and doling out the unused land would be more doable. Areas that have high incidents of violence could probably be used as examples to others in that mold.
I think that places like Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tidewater Virginia and North Carolina would be the most logical locations. Most of these regions had black majorities (Mississippi and South Carolina especially) which would allow for strategic relocation, and even see bits of 'voluntary' white flight as well. This would give areas for freedmen to be resettled at need, and allow for black majority areas with some security. In more black majority counties then you could try the rigorous enforcement of local government, while letting the former Confederates alone so long as they don't interfere.
Breaking up states (especially the proposed state of Appalachia) would be more difficult from a legal perspective since I can foresee many of them not really wanting to join together. The geography would be terrible for one thing.
One of the things I can compare this to is A Glorious Union, where similar, but not as harsh, Reconstruction programs are carried out. Though they avoid most post war violence since they leave Imperial Mexico alone and it acts as a safety valve for fleeing Confederates.
EDIT: Avoid, not oppose post war violence. There's one last spate of bad violence, but it leads to a round of proscriptions of the organizers and ring leaders which takes the heart out of the militant movements in the South.
Last edited:
As a fan of that TL, I fully agree; the key difference was in focusing the status of the residents as opposed to the states. While there were hangings, these executions were limited and targeted to those who committed specific offenses. Expiation and Proscription prove to be much more precise tools for cracking down on unrepentant rebels.
1/3 of all Sothern men of fighting age were killed during the civil war, uping the casualties would do it.
Suffering several serious defeats in quick succession followed by the southern leadership throwing men into the meat grinder without care, just to slow the inevitable. Combine that with a scorched-earth policy burning everything of use in the South just to slow down the union army advance. Throw in a few massacres of southern citizens trying to stop their homes from being burnt buy Confederate troops.
That would build up some serious hatred for the Confederate leadership. Lincoln would be smart enough total war crimes tribunal. The southern population would demand the ruling elite of the Confederacy be hung.
Last edited:
Wow.First of all, I've been really been enjoying your timeline; I like the idea of a more radical Lincoln and stronger Radical Republicans.
Regarding the mini-update, I see someone's been reading The Battle Cry of Freedom.
So why did industrialization fail in the south? All the reasons you listed are valid. I would also suggest another factor; Psychology. As the book Attack and Die noted; southerners, like their Celtic ancestors, lacked tenacity and discipline. Industrial work requires a lot of dull tedious work; southerners IMHO did not like such work. Also there was a disdain for labor in general; this was why the idea of being a planter held a lot of appeal; the prospect of easy living.
I want you to replace "Celtic" with any other "minority" group and read that statement to yourself. You will have a week to really get the flavor.
Kicked for nationalist/ethnic broad brush insults.
See ya in 7.
EddyBoulevard
Banned
Did you just kick someone for speaking their mind? Are you the PC Police or something?
He kicked someone for suggesting that A Celtic Peopwk are lazy and that the southern people are lazy and that the reason why the planter lifestyle is so popular is because they want a easy living,which is a new stereotype that I have never heard before but you learn a new thing every day on this site not always for the better
Actually I'm one of the Board Moderators. As such I am tasked to ensure Board policies are followed. That includes preventing things like nationalist or ethnic insults.
