WI: Haiti-style massacre against whites in the Southern US

In January 1804, under the orders of Jean Jacques Dessalines, a massacre was carried out by freed slaves against their former French overlords. Armed with knives and bayonets, entire white families were butchered by squads of Haitian soldiers, even those whites who sympathized with the Haitians were slaughtered. Women and children were among the victims. By the end of the violence in April of that year, 5,000 people had been murdered and the Haitian whites had been eradicated, with only a few exceptions made such as doctors and professionals and a small group of German colonists who had arrived before the revolution.


In a official proclamation in April 1804, Dessalines would later say ""We have given these true cannibals war for war, crime for crime, outrage for outrage. Yes, I have saved my country, I have avenged America",

Dessalines' secretary was even more blatant about the celebration of the violence. "For our declaration of independence, we should have the skin of a white man for parchment, his skull for an inkwell, his blood for ink, and a bayonet for a pen!"

In the 1805 constitution, all citizens were defined as "black," and white men were banned from owning land.

Understandably, this violence sent a chill down the spines of American slave owners. They believed that if the slaves were ever freed in the south, then there would be a repeat of 'the horrors of Santo Domingo' within the continental United States.

In the run-up to the U.S. presidential election of 1860, Roger B. Taney, wrote "I remember the horrors of St. Domingo" and said that the election "will determine whether anything like this is to be visited upon our own southern countrymen." (FYI, Roger Taney was the Supreme Court judge who ruled in favour of Dred Scott's owner in Dred Scott V Sandford)

The closest that the US came to something resembling Haiti was in Nat Turner's 1831 slave rebellion, in which the black rebels butchered sixty whites, using the same weapons as in Haiti-knives, hatchets, axes and other blunt instruments. But the rebellion was small, with only seventy slaves taking part and the rebellion was localized within Southampton County, Virginia.

But, at the risk of going into ASB territory, let's imagine that somehow, the rebellion sets off a firestorm across the South. It is crushed by the US Army and state militias, but before it is, hundreds of whites are dead at the hands of slaves. Instead of just being another slave rebellion, the whites see this as a attempted genocide of their race by their slaves.

What happens next to the United States as a result of this?
 

Skallagrim

Banned
First of all, this could only conceivably happen on a very local scale. There is a major difference between Haiti -- which was almost exclusively black, with a tiny white slavocrat elite -- and the South, where only two states ever had a slave majority (South Carolina 57%, Mississippi 55%), whereas the rest of the Deep South had somewhere between 44% and 47% at any given time. The rest of the slave states were all between 10% and 30%. None of this matches Haiti's circumstances, and the events that occurred on Haiti cannot be repeated without some pretty drastic alterations to the timeline. That said, a rebellion going completely wild can occur locally. If something goes terribly wrong in the Deep South, and a number of radical uprisings (inspiring each other) occur and lots of white people get slaughtered... well, the response will be brutal. This will be "proof" that having blacks in one's country cannot ever work (as many politicians had argued, to some degree). The outcome, simply put, will be the worst possible "end of slavery" you can imagine, occuring in one of various possible ways. All of them gruesome.

-- The event may galvanise the proponents of "colonisation" (i.e. the expulsion and re-settlement of every last African-American somewhere outside the USA). It was already clear, or would inevitably become clear quickly, that re-settlement in Africa was not viable due to the vast numbers of people. I've occasionally suggested that if the USA ever decided that expulsion of all blacks had to happen, the most viable way would be to conquer Haiti, ship all blacks there, and then depart (essentially leaving them to die there, because the island's existing infrastructure and developed means of production would not be able to sustain the resulting population).

-- Another possible outcome could be... well, concentration camps. It's not a very complicated idea, after all. The "trail of tears" marching all blacks to those camps would already kill many, and after that, pure neglect, starvation and unsanitary conditions would "do the rest". The much-reduced population that eventually remains will be small enough to be realistically shipped to Liberia. (A trip most of them will not survive, since they'll already be severely weakened by their prior hardship.)

-- It might also lead to a push for legislation mandating that all male slaves be castrated, so that the slave population will "simply die out". It would hardly be the first time this has been done, although historically it has primarily happened in situations where slaves were so abundant and considered so cheap/worthless that the severe risk of death was just accepted by the slave-masters. Castration, except when done very professionally by a medical expert, can easily cause the victim to bleed to death, after all. The USA was historically not a place where this was done, and certainly not after the slave trade ban (since slaves reproducing was the only way to get more slaves). If the mindset that a black population is too dangerous to tolerate within the USA becomes dominant, however, something like this can be implemented. They might even present it as the humane alternative to... well, to wholesale slaughter/genocide. (Which I do not see happening, even in this ATL: history proves that people are often horrifyingly fine with something that will result in mass dying -- see: Trail of Tears -- but less willing to embrace active industrial genocide when alternatives are available.)

tl;dr -- this is a timeline you don't want to be in, and we may all be grateful that it was so unlikely to occur.
 
Last edited:
First of all, this could only conceivably happen on a very local scale. There is a major difference between Haiti -- which was almost exclusively black, with a tiny white slavocrat elite -- and the South, where only two states ever had a slave majority (South Carolina 57%, Mississippi 55%), whereas the rest of the Deep South had somewhere between 44% and 47% at any given time. The rest of the slave states were all between 10% and 30%. None of this matches Haiti's circumstances, and the events that occurred on Haiti cannot be repeated without some pretty drastic alterations to the timeline. That said, a rebellion going completely wild can occur locally. If something goes terribly wrong in the Deep South, and a number of radical uprisings (inspiring each other) occur and lots of white people get slaughtered... well, the response will be brutal. This will be "proof" that having blacks in one's country cannot ever work (as many politicians had argued, to some degree). The outcome, simply put, will be the worst possible "end of slavery" you can imagine, occuring in one of various possible ways. All of them gruesome.

-- The event may galvanise the proponents of "colonisation" (i.e. the expulsion and re-settlement of every last African-American somewhere outside the USA). It was already clear, or would inevitably become clear quickly, that re-settlement in Africa was not viable due to the vast numbers of people. I've occasionally suggested that if the USA ever decided that expulsion of all blacks had to happen, the most viable way would be to conquer Haiti, ship all blacks there, and then depart (essentially leaving them to die there, because the island's existing infrastructure and developed means of production would not be able to sustain the resulting population).

-- Another possible outcome could be... well, concentration camps. It's not a very complicated idea, after all. The "trail of tears" marching all blacks to those camps would already kill many, and after that, pure neglect, starvation and unsanitary conditions would "do the rest". The much-reduced population that eventually remains will be small enough to be realistically shipped to Liberia. (A trip most of them will not survive, since they'll already be severely weakened by their prior hardship.)

-- It might also lead to a push for legislation mandating that all male slaves be castrated, so that the slave population will "simply die out". It would hardly be the first time this has been done, although historically it has primarily happened in situations where slaves were so abundant and considered so cheap/worthless that the severe risk of death was just accepted by the slave-masters. Castration, except when done very professionally by a medical expert, can easily cause the victim to bleed to death, after all. The USA was historically not a place where this was done, and certainly not after the slave trade ban (since slaves reproducing was the only way to get more slaves). If the mindset that a black population is too dangerous to tolerate within the USA becomes dominant, however, something like this can be implemented. They might even present it as the humane alternative to... well, to wholesale slaughter/genocide. (Which I do not see happening, even in this ATL: history proves that people are often horrifyingly fine with something that will result in mass dying -- see: Trail of Tears -- but less willing to embrace active industrial genocide when alternatives are available.)

tl;dr -- this is a timeline you don't want to be in, and we may all be grateful that it was so unlikely to occur.

3 followed by 2 is the most likely IMO with 2 being closer to indian reservations than concentration camps as that is cheaper. You need to pay guards for concentration camps. Castrate the men and boys and then move the survivors along with the women and girls into the desert. Many will die en route while many will die within a few years with Blacks dying out in a few decades. A nasty scenario all around.
 

Big Smoke

Banned
Have a more chaotic collapse of the CSA, with slave revolts occuring behind the Southerners' as the country collapses with the weight of a blockade, political turmoil, and a northern assault - the slave revolts, of course, take on a radical outlook and result in guerilla warfare/ethnic cleansing in the deep south until order is (tyrranically)restored by the force of Northern arms. Of course, in the long run, its probably worse for blacks.
 
There's a fourth option. The greater chaos inspires abolitionists to campaign even harder against slavery. It will also have the effect of increasing the popularity of the free soil movement. "We don't want that happening in our neighborhoods," would drive justification to further exclude free blacks from free states. On the flip side, pro-slavery advocates become even further entrenched. This might even lead to an earlier American Civil War under the right circumstances.
 
First of all, this could only conceivably happen on a very local scale. There is a major difference between Haiti -- which was almost exclusively black, with a tiny white slavocrat elite -- and the South, where only two states ever had a slave majority (South Carolina 57%, Mississippi 55%), whereas the rest of the Deep South had somewhere between 44% and 47% at any given time. The rest of the slave states were all between 10% and 30%. None of this matches Haiti's circumstances, and the events that occurred on Haiti cannot be repeated without some pretty drastic alterations to the timeline.

Very much this. *Bad afterlife place you believe in, or New Jersey* , the slave uprisings in Haiti really only took off when said Whites (And the rather substantial and locally well-statused and wealthy Free Creole/Mixed Race population) split along economic and racial lines over the political fate of the colony during the turmoil of the French Revolution and started arming and organizing the slaves to fight their battles to the point they could be considered a coordinated movement that could conduct the massacures on their now-fractured and totally isolated from outside support oppressors, rather than simply being a series of disjointed oppritunistic plantation burnings and such occuring at roughly the same time based on the spread of rumors that Paris had freed them (Which is... complicated). There's not a snowballs chance in the Sahara the same civil war, isolated type conditions would ever occur in Dixie on any reasonable POD
 
Last edited:
There's a fourth option. The greater chaos inspires abolitionists to campaign even harder against slavery. It will also have the effect of increasing the popularity of the free soil movement. "We don't want that happening in our neighborhoods," would drive justification to further exclude free blacks from free states. On the flip side, pro-slavery advocates become even further entrenched. This might even lead to an earlier American Civil War under the right circumstances.

Dixie would give in if they're scared shitless about a repeat of the... events should they take their attention off the wolf they're wrestling. You aren't going to see a civil war, but you could very well get "Reconstruction" with the South freeing the slaves only if there's Northern bayonets backing them to keep the blacks from getting uppity while they or at least their children are "Civilized and Reducated" (Likely in a kind of Reservation School system). Still, that might be better for individual Blacks in the long run if you can get the cultural idea of "We killed the African to save the Human underneath" to stick and get them more firmly assimilated into the American identity like other immigrant groups.
 
There's a fourth option. The greater chaos inspires abolitionists to campaign even harder against slavery. It will also have the effect of increasing the popularity of the free soil movement. "We don't want that happening in our neighborhoods," would drive justification to further exclude free blacks from free states. On the flip side, pro-slavery advocates become even further entrenched. This might even lead to an earlier American Civil War under the right circumstances.

The opposite is more likely IMO as it would "vindicate" the racists. "As we always said, niggers are wild, savage animals only fit for the lash! Only the harshest treatment will keep these cannibalistic, paganistic savages in line. If even slavery can't keep them in line we must drive them into the desert." is what the South would be saying and they would get a large following.
 
For a plausible PoD, we could use Gabriel Prosser's rebellion in 1800, in Virginia, not being delayed by horrible weather, and proceeding as planned.
 
The opposite is more likely IMO as it would "vindicate" the racists. "As we always said, niggers are wild, savage animals only fit for the lash! Only the harshest treatment will keep these cannibalistic, paganistic savages in line. If even slavery can't keep them in line we must drive them into the desert." is what the South would be saying and they would get a large following.

Which is reflected in the entrenchment of the pro-slavery position and exclusion of free blacks from free states.
 
Haitians weren't killing whites. Only French white men and french aligned mixed race men.

Germans, English, Spanish people were fine and even invited over a thousand Germans after the massacre occurred.
 
There was several attempts, they all failed, the only way I can see it happening is if the South breaks away and the North decides to let them burn
 
Haitians weren't killing whites. Only French white men and french aligned mixed race men.

Germans, English, Spanish people were fine and even invited over a thousand Germans after the massacre occurred.

I'm not sure about the English or Spanish, but the constitution of 1805 mentions Germans and Poles. I believe the Germans came before the revolution, not after.

The constitution is complicated towards race: in article 12 it forbids all white men from owning land, but then article 13 specifies the exceptions, and article 14 declares that all Haitians are black.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure about the English or Spanish, but the constitution of 1805 mentions Germans and Poles. I believe the Germans came before the revolution, not after.

The constitution is complicated towards race: in article 12 it forbids all white men from owning land, but then article 13 specifies the exceptions, and article 14 declares that all Haitians are black.

My statement was to show that doing the revolution it was not a race war and that beore and after there were people who were europeans intergrated into society even a supposed "black" society.

I posted the Constitution here before, I'm aware of it. My point stands, It was not about color alone.
 
In January 1804, under the orders of Jean Jacques Dessalines, a massacre was carried out by freed slaves against their former French overlords. Armed with knives and bayonets, entire white families were butchered by squads of Haitian soldiers, even those whites who sympathized with the Haitians were slaughtered. Women and children were among the victims. By the end of the violence in April of that year, 5,000 people had been murdered and the Haitian whites had been eradicated, with only a few exceptions made such as doctors and professionals and a small group of German colonists who had arrived before the revolution.


In a official proclamation in April 1804, Dessalines would later say ""We have given these true cannibals war for war, crime for crime, outrage for outrage. Yes, I have saved my country, I have avenged America",

Dessalines' secretary was even more blatant about the celebration of the violence. "For our declaration of independence, we should have the skin of a white man for parchment, his skull for an inkwell, his blood for ink, and a bayonet for a pen!"

In the 1805 constitution, all citizens were defined as "black," and white men were banned from owning land.

Understandably, this violence sent a chill down the spines of American slave owners. They believed that if the slaves were ever freed in the south, then there would be a repeat of 'the horrors of Santo Domingo' within the continental United States.

In the run-up to the U.S. presidential election of 1860, Roger B. Taney, wrote "I remember the horrors of St. Domingo" and said that the election "will determine whether anything like this is to be visited upon our own southern countrymen." (FYI, Roger Taney was the Supreme Court judge who ruled in favour of Dred Scott's owner in Dred Scott V Sandford)

The closest that the US came to something resembling Haiti was in Nat Turner's 1831 slave rebellion, in which the black rebels butchered sixty whites, using the same weapons as in Haiti-knives, hatchets, axes and other blunt instruments. But the rebellion was small, with only seventy slaves taking part and the rebellion was localized within Southampton County, Virginia.

But, at the risk of going into ASB territory, let's imagine that somehow, the rebellion sets off a firestorm across the South. It is crushed by the US Army and state militias, but before it is, hundreds of whites are dead at the hands of slaves. Instead of just being another slave rebellion, the whites see this as a attempted genocide of their race by their slaves.

What happens next to the United States as a result of this?
I couldn't see it on a national scale, and only on state level where black is the majority
For example: Alabama, South Carolina, and Mississippi
 
There was several attempts, they all failed, the only way I can see it happening is if the South breaks away and the North decides to let them burn

Until Southern Whites (If the near ASB conditions needed to do this happen) petition to reenter the Union on condition that the US puts down these "Violent savages". After which the US sends in the army. No matter how you look at it this will wind up being worse for Blacks than OTL.
 
The only way for a Haiti alike situation to happen in the US is if the numbers of blacks form a minimum of 66% or so. Two third of a population. In the Southern States of course. Which is possible for the Deep South. And Slave Trade needs continue a bit longer. If I remember it correctly the French also imported former soldiers who were enslaved in West Africa to Haiti. Which also aided a bit. People born and raised as slaves won't know any better unless they get treated as bad as possible.
 

Deleted member 67076

The early US falls into a warlord era following a military defeat abroad against a European empire.

The result being that enough of the military apparati is weakened to allow for slaves to pose a credible threat via large scale insurrection while the forces that be are too preoccupied to respond effectively. But those that do respond with extreme brutality, which causes the slaves to retaliate equally.
 
The early US falls into a warlord era following a military defeat abroad against a European empire.

The result being that enough of the military apparati is weakened to allow for slaves to pose a credible threat via large scale insurrection while the forces that be are too preoccupied to respond effectively. But those that do respond with extreme brutality, which causes the slaves to retaliate equally.
This wouldn't exactly work. The US military of the period was tiny. What the US had was State Militias and in the case of the South local Slave Patrols. Given how decentralized this system is, and the fact that militia could not be deployed outside of their state unless the state consented, a major military defeat of the regular army abroad would not effect this. To actually do this, you need a major defeat on US soil, which basically means ACW, or large scale European invasion
 
Top