Would the CSA become black majority?

what it says on the tin, in 1865 Mississippi and South Carolina were already slave majority (55% and 57%) while Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana all had slave populations over 40% (45%, 44%, 44% and 47%) this doesn't cover any free black populations, any ways with-out freedom and the mass movement of blacks out of the slave to the north and west starting in the 1870s, would more of the south become black or even slave majority? would all of the CSA over all become black majority? if so how long might that take? if not why not?
 
You'd also get an increasing number of slaves with very light colored skin. Already in the wake of the Civil War there was a consistent and rapid drop in the black population across the South as a lot of ex-slaves who could pass did so.
 
It might depend on how the CSA would define race. If slaves are close to becoming the majority, the definition of whiteness might be expanded to allow for light-skinned people of mixed race. The fear of being outnumbered by slaves was an issue for white Southerners in the wake of the slave revolts in Haiti and elsewhere.
 
Or maybe instead of making whiteness more inclusive, the CSA's fear of slave rebellion could lead them to double down on the racism instead? Maybe putting certain poor whites under suspicion for not being white enough? Which would probably be counterproductive for the slaveowners, but they don't need to know that.
 
An independent CSA would likely have a significant white emigration to the USA and a much smaller black emigration - I doubt the US would be welcoming to black immigrants if they're not citizens. Add a likely higher black natural growth rate and the CSA could easily become Black majority by present day - they were already 40% black in 1860. It's more likely though that the CSA would collapse before that into black and white majority countries (with the later likely rejoining the USA).
 
Or maybe instead of making whiteness more inclusive, the CSA's fear of slave rebellion could lead them to double down on the racism instead? Maybe putting certain poor whites under suspicion for not being white enough? Which would probably be counterproductive for the slaveowners, but they don't need to know that.

That would be hard to imagine in a post-Civil War world. Huge numbers of poor whites fought on the side of the Confederacy. The slaveholding minority recognized that it needed the political support of poor whites to maintain its social and economic dominance.
 
what it says on the tin, in 1865 Mississippi and South Carolina were already slave majority (55% and 57%) while Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana all had slave populations over 40% (45%, 44%, 44% and 47%) this doesn't cover any free black populations, any ways with-out freedom and the mass movement of blacks out of the slave to the north and west starting in the 1870s, would more of the south become black or even slave majority? would all of the CSA over all become black majority? if so how long might that take? if not why not?

No, I don't think so, and in fact, I'm afraid that the Confederacy, at least under the leadership of certain elements, might possibly be quick to take drastic measures if they even *think* that there's a population surplus danger; maybe not quite on the level of what happened in TL-191 but it could be pretty nasty, nonetheless.

As for expanding the definition of "whiteness"? Even IOTL, for the most part, only white Anglo-Saxons, and Scots-Irish Anglicized enough to be considered "Anglo" were usually considered to be fully "white" by the people that mattered down there in the South(there were a slight few exceptions, namely the Taliaferros and those descended from the Huguenots, but for the latter, most of those family trees outside of a few spots had mostly blended in with the rest of the population anyway....same was true for the Taliaferros, too.).

I'm not saying this can't be done, but it would likely require a fairly liberal(for the CSA, probably centrist by Union standards) party to win an election at some point.....which would be hard to pull off, unless they were able to stoke populist sentiment.

An independent CSA would likely have a significant white emigration to the USA and a much smaller black emigration - I doubt the US would be welcoming to black immigrants if they're not citizens. Add a likely higher black natural growth rate and the CSA could easily become Black majority by present day - they were already 40% black in 1860. It's more likely though that the CSA would collapse before that into black and white majority countries (with the later likely rejoining the USA).

It really depends on the situation. I can actually honestly see many Americans, in the vast majority of scenarios, being at least somewhat more tolerant of black folks, even if mostly because they feel sorry for the slaves(and ex-slaves who managed to escape their bondage to arrive in the U.S.).....and any state gov't caught sending any escaped slaves back to the C.S. would definitely be met with at least some protest.

That would be hard to imagine in a post-Civil War world. Huge numbers of poor whites fought on the side of the Confederacy. The slaveholding minority recognized that it needed the political support of poor whites to maintain its social and economic dominance.

To some extent, yes, but many of these people had no choice, as they were drafted.
 
Last edited:
As for expanding the definition of "whiteness"? Even IOTL, for the most part, only white Anglo-Saxons, and Scots-Irish Anglicized enough to be considered "Anglo" were usually considered to be fully "white" by the people that mattered down there in the South(there were a slight few exceptions, namely the Taliaferros and those descended from the Huguenots, but for the latter, most of those family trees outside of a few spots had mostly blended in with the rest of the population anyway....same was true for the Taliaferros, too.).

I'm not saying this can't be done, but it would likely require a fairly liberal(for the CSA, probably centrist by Union standards) party to win an election at some point.....which would be hard to pull off, unless they were able to stoke populist sentiment.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. IOTL the one-drop rule was not legally in existence during the slave period and light-skinned people of mixed race very frequently passed as white. If Wikipedia is to be believed, it says:

In the antebellum years, free people of mixed race (free people of color) were considered legally white if individuals had up to one-eighth or one-quarter African ancestry (depending on the state).[5] Many mixed-race people were absorbed into the majority culture based simply on appearance, associations and carrying out community responsibilities. These and community acceptance were the more important factors if a person's racial status were questioned, not his or her documented ancestry. Because of the social mobility of antebellum society in frontier areas, many people did not have documentation about their ancestors.
 
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. IOTL the one-drop rule was not legally in existence during the slave period and light-skinned people of mixed race very frequently passed as white. If Wikipedia is to be believed, it says:

Even during Jim Crow and up through today, those who can pass sometimes chose to and continue to choose to. It could sometimes be quite scandalous if someone was discovered, but most whites would take a light skinned person at face value (especially if they were blond or light-eyed). More "scientific" racial ideas wouldn't begin to come about until the early 20th Century, and the lack of a multi-level hierarchy like in former Spanish colonies and a large, poorly centralized culture meant that no one was checking ancestry and seeing how many great-great-grandparents you could trace back to England or anything.
 
Top