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

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

Even then the chances of pulling this off are tiny, Haiti is the only successful slave revolt known to history.
 

Deleted member 67076

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
Thats why you need to break it off into warlord states where private individuals will start amassing non state military forces for enforcing security.

I was thinking either a very early and bloody civil war, and/or a European invasion that ends badly. You need a lot of chaos for at least a decade or so to start the transition into localism, caudillos and ever decreasing levies of manpower in order to weaken the ability to call in reinforcements.
 
Thats why you need to break it off into warlord states where private individuals will start amassing non state military forces for enforcing security.

I was thinking either a very early and bloody civil war, and/or a European invasion that ends badly. You need a lot of chaos for at least a decade or so to start the transition into localism, caudillos and ever decreasing levies of manpower in order to weaken the ability to call in reinforcements.
The issue is that the US already is local in that manner. The militias are organized into local companies already, that are answerable to the State Government, but often independent. This of course assumes you balkanize the states as well as they are the natural fallbacks, benefits of federalism. Considering the militia is at broadest every able bodied white man* in the area, you effectively have to change the demographics of the area to really degrade the system

*Some units in the north allowed non whites
 
The most plausible version of this scenario is to have yet another Nat Turner-style slave revolt that gets really bloody, with dozens of white people getting killed. However, there's no way to get a Haiti-style revolt/massacre to succeed in the United States; in Haiti, blacks greatly outnumbered the whites, which was why the Haitian Revolution and subsequent genocide of the French settlers was so successful. And in any case, a violent slave rebellion would quickly get suppressed and result in a lot of black people getting massacred in retaliation.
 
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.

Here's an 1861 map of the slave population of the US. It does not include free blacks.

SlavePopulationUS1860.jpg


As you can see, there's some sizable areas with relatively few whites, so those counties, like the ironically named "Liberty County" in Georgia and the surrounding counties, could have a substantial base for a slave revolt which kills a lot of whites.
 
Here's an 1861 map of the slave population of the US. It does not include free blacks.

SlavePopulationUS1860.jpg


As you can see, there's some sizable areas with relatively few whites, so those counties, like the ironically named "Liberty County" in Georgia and the surrounding counties, could have a substantial base for a slave revolt which kills a lot of whites.

It could work in those counties only for the US military strike back. Successful for while.
 
It could work in those counties only for the US military strike back. Successful for while.

And not very long at that. Someone will be able to get away from the massacre and alert the militia. Once that happens it is all over. In the aftermath many, many more Blacks than Whites will dead as hundreds , if not thousands, of Blacks would be lynched just to "Make sure they aren't with the rebels.", Expect around 10 Blacks killed for every White. IIRC that was the usual ratio.
 
And not very long at that. Someone will be able to get away from the massacre and alert the militia. Once that happens it is all over. In the aftermath many, many more Blacks than Whites will dead as hundreds , if not thousands, of Blacks would be lynched just to "Make sure they aren't with the rebels.", Expect around 10 Blacks killed for every White. IIRC that was the usual ratio.

For a successful rebellion the Deep South needs about two third black population while the edges of the South still needs 50%+. At least make the South a quagmire for the US.
 
For a successful rebellion the Deep South needs about two third black population while the edges of the South still needs 50%+. At least make the South a quagmire for the US.

At least, as the Whites would have the advantages of arms, supplies and command and control. The militias at least approached being real armies with some training, logistical support and a command chain. The rebelling slaves would be untrained, would be supplied with only what they could steal and have a very divided command. There are reasons that there is only one known instance of a successful slave revolt in history.
 
Last edited:
At least, as the Whites would have the advantages of arms, supplies and command and control. The militias at least approached being real armies with some training, logistical support and a command chain. The rebelling slaves would be untrained, would be supplied with only what they could steal and have a very divided command. There are reasons that there is only one known instance of a successful slave revolt in history.

And that on a small part of an island...

As you said.

I personally think that only successful conflict is a guerrilla warfare in the South. Because the US can send more forces if the local militias were to fail.
 
Top