What really is the future of the CSA?
- Thread starter EasternRomanEmpire
- Start date
Whataboutism regarding the Reich is utterly unacceptable≥ hereabouts.I'm not trying to defend the Wehrmacht I simply want to say that crimes against humanity wasn't something that existed on neither side of the war, the fascist were just the more horrible.
Marocchinate - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Allied war crimes during World War II - Wikipedia
Kicked for a week
As to this -
I am still trying to determine if this is simply absolute ignorance on the realities of Germany during the Nazi regime or if it an attempt to push the LONG discredited, and frankly repugnant. "Clean Wehrmacht" myth.
Stay tuned.
I mean, to be somewhat fair, while it is long - and rightfully - discredited, it still gets a lot of currency in pop culture unfortunately. I mean, I remember war comics from the 80s and early 90s that pushed it, and even relatively recent films have done it to a certain extent... So people can end up being genuinely ignorant on that one. They shouldn't be, of course, but it can happen.
When people say 'the Confederate Constitution says xyz' an open question would be how amended or replaced (think articles of Confederation) the Confederate Constitution would be after the war as they try to form a working government, solve their problems or work around inconvenient parts of the Constitution.
I think the longer the war, the greater the impetus to cut through the bullshit.
For example, you could see the Confederate Government not funding internal improvements. But, The Bank Of the Confederacy, est 1867, is private and just happens to fund or give loans for whatever projects the government directs it to for internal improvements.
And the Confederate Supreme Court, appointed by the same administration that established the bank, says it's just fine and dandy and will say so for the next 30 years until they die of old age.
The troubling question here, and this on the broader subject - what are the Confederate leaders really going to see as "the bullshit"?
I mean, there are quite a few people who thought that - for example - quarreling with Davis wasn't inconsistent with "a working government", however much it may seem they put state interests/concerns above the national war effort. Presumably a victorious CSA means something different in some regards, but if the Confederate leadership is all made up of moderate and pragmatic people it's kind of weird there's a CSA in the first place from the standpoint that secession was not a moderate and pragmatic minded choice.
Just to underline that this is a mess to sort out.
No shortage of their leadership including their President and VP thought secession was an insanely bad idea and said so at the time, but they also believed it to be Constitutional.
The South didn’t like concentrated power and states like GA had barely more regard for the Davis then they had for Lincoln. One only need to witness what happened when Davis tried to nationalize GA Rail Roads. Concentrated power is good for war, but it’s not good for everything.
Last edited:
Davis is not exactly someone I'd point to as moderate or pragmatic when it comes to their leadership, unfortunately for the CSA.
A lot people who opposed seccesion never the less supported their state and fought for the Confederacy. A lot of people served in the Army, and like the Continental army before it suffered from the deficiencies of the government they defended and want it fixed. Lots of ex soldiers know how to use a rifle are going to want better treatment. There are areas like Appalachia which largely supported the Union who now have a vote.
I think there will largely be two parties, largely mirroring the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans of the 1790s, with the latter supporting the original spirit of 1861 and the former in touch with reality.
It depends on what you are looking for. The political virtuoso who would try to make a complicated set of diplomatic and political maneuvers and back down when needed? That is not Davis.
He was the military man who would never back down from a challenge and would try to fight to the last man and the last bullet.
Last edited:
What do you see being the main power bases and leaders of these two parties, then?
I should have broadened out my comment he wouldn’t have just fought to the last man, he was giving out swords to ten year olds.
This feels like the ideal outcome for the CSA, I think.
The Confederacy had plenty of stubborn generals.
Wasn't it just him wearing his wife's shawl or something like that? I dimly recall reading about the details being less absurd than how it sounds at first glance, but it's still odd sounding out of context.
Last edited:
Who knows what he got up to recreationally. 19th century folk were as diverse as 21st century, just quieter about it.
I cannot find such bank on google, and there was no Confederacy government in 1867.
Impossible. The South accounted for 29% of national population but only 8% of national industrial output. There is no way in hell the South could achieve parity with the North in terms of per capita industrialization.
... sry but ...
It seems to me @EasternRomanEmpire made it rather clear (see above quote) that he doesn't pursue ans "Clean Wehrmacht" path or tries to justify/vindicate any behavior of the Wehrmacht or Nazi state instititutions.
What he pointed at seems to me the IMHO 'common knowlegde' that at some point in history some ethnicities or nations are
neither bright shining white knights
nor wholesale made up of devils alone
Last edited:
The topic involves ALTERNATE HISTORY and this specifically a SPECULATIVE example of how a victorious Confederacy might work around parts of their constitution which get in the way of governing.
If you had read my post or what I was quoting that should be obvious. Don't know if you're trying to troll me, seriously.