Economically it makes sense imo for them to continue their plantation style. Than like try for that cause it's much easier and also like already there. Also an easy supply of cash is easily given. Through cash crops export.
What would a country formed after a successful slave revolt in the American South be called?
- Thread starter TheStu
- Start date
Do you not understand African formed concepts maintained and were spread in the United States? The rice cultivation systems of South Carolina are directly related to west african antecedents and were maintained by their descendants into the early 20th century.
African concepts and knowledge bases did not merely disappear, they transmuted and found use in the material culture of their host nations.
African communities knew herding, blacksmithery, weaving and other skills that made them extremely important for the self contained plantation.
Blacksmiths were also revered and feared even as a distinct caste that exists in African American communities in the 20th century as exalted individuals who skill set provided them greater freedoms and possiblity of material freedom.
Slave owners didn't just see African skills, control alt delete them and inserted European skills. That so reductive to think that.
Beyond that it's the 18th century with direct from Africa populations absolutely did have skills they brought. There were blacksmiths amongst the Seminole freedmen.
Read the above but also do you really think people just picked cotton as there only role? Like literally believe that?
Timbuktu's Prince Abdul Rahman Ibrahima Sori, respected amongst the enslaved and the master of his plantation rose to overseer who's knowledge of cotton cultivation from West Africa and herding made him a leader that lead to his return to Africa.
Europeans relied on Africans for cotton, indigo and other industries to survive. It was not and has never been "only" picking cotton.
That's what I mean in this case, there would be no independent maroon nation, there would be almost a continuation of African blacksmiths, carpenters and weavers amongst other black people who were assimilated into the town systems.
What most people do not understand is in the case of the Estelusti (Black Seminole) were not running away and living in Seminole villages by the late 18th century. They lived as tribute villages within the greater confederate structure with the possibility of fully being incorporated.
The offered regular tribute and warriors but lived rather independently save for the main translators and commanders of the broader Seminole society.
In the swamps of Florida corn was not something that could be grown to the same degree as further north.
West African agricultural knowledge of rice is what kept them all alive, in fact you'll notice Sofkee the former corn based staple of the Muscogee descended Seminole is rice based by the 19th century.
In this otl on a fundamental level there can be no maroon society that becomes a state without it's integration with an independent tribal nation.
I'd also argue that unlike Jamaica where maroons eventually did return runaways after they signed treaties with england later runaways after an established maroon community developed would work as tribute mining, farming and producing raw material for militarial safety.
I could see in the end some proposed nation being upwards of 1/3rd black or afro-indigenous by the 20th century.
Last edited:
Uhm, how the f does blacksmithing knowledge translated into mass production of gun? Despite what people think, making a shitty black powder musket is not that hard and could be achieved by talented blacksmiths with comprehensive knowledge. The problem come with mass production and ensuring that you could supply the guns. That requires a lot of machine tools, a huge knowledge base that would overwhelm any normal person as well as an actual industry behind it. That’s also just a tiny facet of a successful revolution, which required much much more than bravery and dumb luck.
Also, it’s frankly impossible to form a nation from freed slaves in mainland America. Not even the federal government would allow that, and the “nation” crumbled under the might of the US army
Also, it’s frankly impossible to form a nation from freed slaves in mainland America. Not even the federal government would allow that, and the “nation” crumbled under the might of the US army
Last edited:
Which is why the South needs to succeed in getting their independence. And then they choke on it.
Why would it make sense for them to cotton planting or just plane cash crop planting like the cash cow they have now rn. And instead switch from cash crop farming to like iron works which sounds like economically imo it doesn't make sense.
A successful revolution in southern usa is in my opinion impossible. The only place that a slave revolt succeeded was Haiti due to the great disparity between whites and blacks. (40,000 French vs 450,000 slaves). If we take the country in the Americas that received the largest number of slaves, Brazil. The biggest slave revolt was the Malês revolt, which was started by 600 African slaves. It lasted 24 hours.
For an uprising to take place successfully in the USA. The disparity between whites and blacks must be immense, truly massive.
For an uprising to take place successfully in the USA. The disparity between whites and blacks must be immense, truly massive.
E
Eh, what I mean is that the North will always reconquest the South and with it, a hypothetical nation of revolts slaves. It’s simply impossible for the federal government to ignore such a dagger in their underbelly. Even a slave revolt nation would still be absorbed and broken up, simply because it’s not in America interest to let an independent nation existing on their soil
It could be reabsorbed peacefully by the North as a spiteful 'fuck you' to the southern states, especially if they still hold a grudge against the South for rebelling, and if the slave rebels moderate enough.
I mean, the South would be eventually be defeated and absorbed, even if they managed to ekk out a temporary white peace, and then I doubt that America would allow a nation of former slaves or anyone really to survive so close to their heartland. Best case scenario is peaceful annexation follow with a more "cleaned up" deep south and an earlier Civil Rights movement
Last edited:
I didn't say they only picked cotton, seeing as I also listed tobacco farming and domestic work. That's a strawman argument. I asked how many slaves were in a position to pass down knowledge of smelting ore.
A more radical and successful French revolution
Haiti and LOUSIANA
AND MAYBE some resistance promoted in places like Jamaica
Haiti and LOUSIANA
AND MAYBE some resistance promoted in places like Jamaica
Perhaps in the event of a successful slave revolt, the ex-slaves would see the writing on the wall and apply to be annexed to the USA, while trying to maintain their regional political power and influence? The North was still quite white supremacist, but perhaps not so much that they'd fight another war and commit themselves to an occupation--especially if they'd lost the Civil War.
In Haiti the gens de coulour both free People of color iirc owned 1/2 or 1/3 of all slaves and 1/3 of all property pre revolt.
After the revolt, Toussaunt wanted the whites to stay keep their position and continue their cultivation of cash crops.
Meanwhile due to nappy he got arrested and as revenge to French attrocities iirc Dessalines killed the whites.
Still everyone continued to trade with them unlike in the contrary and believe that everyone stopped.
The Haitian leadership knew that they need to continue cultivating cash crops mainly sugar and coffee to survive.
Look what happened when Petion botched up land reform, he destroyed Southern Haiti's economy. Later by Boyer after it got reunited. Christophe of North Haiti might've done land reform but he maintained cash crop production. Boyer meanwhile did land reform at North Haiti. But instead it proved disastrous.
If No land reform, and dictatorial powers not given to Christophe. Petion would not have not rebelled iirc. Haiti would've paid French debt and better off imo.
If that's after the civil war, I expect the poor whites and slaves uniting but end is like Haiti after louvertour did. The only major difference being like no slavery
The majority of enslaved people did not live in plantations with hundreds of other enslaved people.
Most enslaved people lived in smaller plantations or within the confines of small farms where their skill and knowledge base required many differing job roles that yes were passed down. Tanning, weaving, blacksmithing were yes passed down. How do you think this process occurred? Do you think a slave master sat down and taught every enslaved person a skill?
Specialists were purchased, rented and themselves even paid for their labor but also to teach those skills to other enslaved people.
Thats how it worked.
What are you going on about still? Raw material exporting is cheap, as people well aware of value added goods it behooved many to attempt their own production systems.
Doctor Morse reporting to the Secretary of War on Indian Affairs in 1822, 22 years after the introduction of the cotton economy.
Choctaw women unmixed and mixed race be it part white or black along with enslaved men and women who had the knowledge base of cotton did what no other white cotton producer in the South had done: they cut out the middle and produced for their nation and to settlers/colonizers further east.
Please just stop with the stereotypes of enslaved people or on this topic because you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about at all.
But does it do successful counterrebellions against rebels against the USA?
What about a new state within the Union? Or maybe, if the South succeeds for long enough, the USA may no longer consider the South an integral part of the nation.