Conderate states never rejoin US

[bgwah]

The South would have eventually abolished slavery, but of course at a later date.

Interestingly enough, Breckinridge (sp?) almost won Oregon. Lincoln only won with 36% of the vote.

I think it's very possible that the Pacific Coast would form its own nation, probably two.

I almost wish the Union kept up with the equal number of slave-free states thing. Except we got more slave states in Latin America! And eventually had to take over Canada to get more free states.

Ooh, we could take over the entire continent!




I do wonder how long it would have been until the South abolished slavery, though. I can't see it doing it early than the 1880s. I wonder if it could have gone onto to the 20th century!

And after that, what about civil rights? Similar time line as South Africa?

[memphis]

I'm working on a timeline where the south wins the ACW due to the border states all opting to secede too and no fort sumter(gives the south more time to prepare). The US eventualyl retakes some of the border states but in 2005 the confederacy is still around. Its a militaristic apartheid slave state superpower by now. The US is a technocratic nation and the world economic/space superpower.

This is highly unlikely.  First, it is based on the assumption that the South, pre-Civil War, was fundamentally racist.  This is not the case.  The anti-bellum South was prodominantly paternalistic (and still is to some extent, even today).  The slave owners who treated their slaves well (which made up the vast majority, BTW) didn't think it terms of White or Black so much as the Father-Family ralationship which existed between Wealthy Southern Gentalmen and, well, pretty much everyone else.  Wealthy Southern men saw it more as their duty to community and God to "take care" of people who were, for whatever reason, of lower circumstances than themselves, including poor whites.

In fact, institutionalized racism was acctually more popular in the North, as Northern "intellectuals" were deeply involved in the formation of the various race theories, which sought to prove that North Western Europeans (except the Irish) were supirior to all other men, because of evolution.

Without the social collapse that came after the war, it is doubtful that racism would have been such a huge issue in the South as it was in the RTL, and blacks probably would have eventually been emancipated anyway.  Acctually, what is more possible than the senerio that you proposed is some sort of communist revolution which united poor white and blacks against the wealthy elite.

You're really romanticizing issues of race in the Old South. Above all, whites in the South were scared to death of a slave rebellion a la Haiti, and they crafted cruel slave codes that required slave owners to keep blacks "in their place." At the same time, suggestions that the Confederacy would still have slavery in 2005, more than 100 years after it was abolished everywhere else seem dubious.

[??????????]

I'm working on a timeline where the south wins the ACW due to the border states all opting to secede too and no fort sumter(gives the south more time to prepare). The US eventualyl retakes some of the border states but in 2005 the confederacy is still around. Its a militaristic apartheid slave state superpower by now. The US is a technocratic nation and the world economic/space superpower.

This is highly unlikely.  First, it is based on the assumption that the South, pre-Civil War, was fundamentally racist.  This is not the case.  The anti-bellum South was prodominantly paternalistic (and still is to some extent, even today).  The slave owners who treated their slaves well (which made up the vast majority, BTW) didn't think it terms of White or Black so much as the Father-Family ralationship which existed between Wealthy Southern Gentalmen and, well, pretty much everyone else.  Wealthy Southern men saw it more as their duty to community and God to "take care" of people who were, for whatever reason, of lower circumstances than themselves, including poor whites.

In fact, institutionalized racism was acctually more popular in the North, as Northern "intellectuals" were deeply involved in the formation of the various race theories, which sought to prove that North Western Europeans (except the Irish) were supirior to all other men, because of evolution.

Without the social collapse that came after the war, it is doubtful that racism would have been such a huge issue in the South as it was in the RTL, and blacks probably would have eventually been emancipated anyway.  Acctually, what is more possible than the senerio that you proposed is some sort of communist revolution which united poor white and blacks against the wealthy elite.

You're really romanticizing issues of race in the Old South. Above all, whites in the South were scared to death of a slave rebellion a la Haiti, and they crafted cruel slave codes that required slave owners to keep blacks "in their place." At the same time, suggestions that the Confederacy would still have slavery in 2005, more than 100 years after it was abolished everywhere else seem dubious.

You are correct about slave codes but he is absolutely correct on the development of racism and the treatment of slaves in the south.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The Confederacy likely evolves into a nasty slave empire taking over lands in latin america. The long night of slavery would still reign beneath the mason-dixon line as slaves work in cotton plantations and steel mills even today..

Of course that never would have actually happened if the south won.

1 Slavery ended because of social changes and not economic conditions. These factors wouldn't apply in a newly indepdendnt confederacy. An indepdencnet confederacy would expand into cuba, central america and mexico spreading its system.

2 What is more likely than your idea of a confederacy simply giving in to the rest of the world would be the confederacy forming alliances with reactionary powers like apartheid south africa, brazil(only started abolition after the CSA was defeated), Fascist italy, the radical islamist regimes in the middle east, pinochet's chile, white australia policy australia and various latin american juntas. If history went like OTL we'd see a cold war between the US, Soviets and a reactionary alliance lead by the CSA(the CSA would prevent the total defeat of the axis powers so we could end up with a rump nazi germany with pre-WWII boundaries and rump militarist japan consisting of the japanese isles also being in this alliance).

[memphis]

I'm working on a timeline where the south wins the ACW due to the border states all opting to secede too and no fort sumter(gives the south more time to prepare). The US eventualyl retakes some of the border states but in 2005 the confederacy is still around. Its a militaristic apartheid slave state superpower by now. The US is a technocratic nation and the world economic/space superpower.

This is highly unlikely.  First, it is based on the assumption that the South, pre-Civil War, was fundamentally racist.  This is not the case.  The anti-bellum South was prodominantly paternalistic (and still is to some extent, even today).  The slave owners who treated their slaves well (which made up the vast majority, BTW) didn't think it terms of White or Black so much as the Father-Family ralationship which existed between Wealthy Southern Gentalmen and, well, pretty much everyone else.  Wealthy Southern men saw it more as their duty to community and God to "take care" of people who were, for whatever reason, of lower circumstances than themselves, including poor whites.

In fact, institutionalized racism was acctually more popular in the North, as Northern "intellectuals" were deeply involved in the formation of the various race theories, which sought to prove that North Western Europeans (except the Irish) were supirior to all other men, because of evolution.

Without the social collapse that came after the war, it is doubtful that racism would have been such a huge issue in the South as it was in the RTL, and blacks probably would have eventually been emancipated anyway.  Acctually, what is more possible than the senerio that you proposed is some sort of communist revolution which united poor white and blacks against the wealthy elite.

You're really romanticizing issues of race in the Old South. Above all, whites in the South were scared to death of a slave rebellion a la Haiti, and they crafted cruel slave codes that required slave owners to keep blacks "in their place." At the same time, suggestions that the Confederacy would still have slavery in 2005, more than 100 years after it was abolished everywhere else seem dubious.

You are correct about slave codes but he is absolutely correct on the development of racism and the treatment of slaves in the south.

I have no doubt that slaveowners thought they were "taking care" of blacks by "keeping them in their place" and not allowing them to learn to take care of themselves. All of this was based on a racist idealogy that said that blacks were inherently incapable and a threat to whites as well as themselves.  Racism did acquire a more scientific legitimacy in Northern circles, only because people in the North were more interested in approaching the issue from a scientific perspective. Evidence of pre-bellum Southern racism: It was a felony to teach free blacks to read in most Southern states. Every Southern state forbade free blacks from entering and in 1859, Arkansas ordered all free blacks to leave. In Query XIV of his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson says of blacks, "in reason much inferior" and "in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous." I'm sure that not every slaveowner was vindictively cruel, but Southern society was fully based upon institutionalized white supremacy. It'm amazing what a lust for large profits will do to people.

[??????????]

Please quote your source for your revisionist claim that "free blacks were forbidden from entering states". Many southern states and Virginia in particular had an incredibly large free population at the beginning of and throughout the civil war. Many of these freedman supported the confederate cause with support or by joining the ANV. I continually hear this claim that it was "against the law to educate blacks" and although this law did exist it was very rarely if ever enforced. Thomas J. Jackson (better known as Stonewall) established a Sunday school in Virginia in which he taught black children the bible and how to read and write. Many house slaves of the period were taught to read and often helped take care of the family books. Though all people knew their place, whether they be rich white/poor white/rich black/Slave or Free, they all had a common respect for each other in the sense that they weren't continually killing/assaulting each other like Northern revisionists continually lie about. To understand the situation I suggest you go back and read the slave narratives and the various diaries written during the peroid instead of believing revisionist filth coming out of the mouths of those like James McPherson or William C. Davis.

[??????????]

The Confederacy likely evolves into a nasty slave empire taking over lands in latin america. The long night of slavery would still reign beneath the mason-dixon line as slaves work in cotton plantations and steel mills even today..

Of course that never would have actually happened if the south won.

1 Slavery ended because of social changes and not economic conditions. These factors wouldn't apply in a newly indepdendnt confederacy. An indepdencnet confederacy would expand into cuba, central america and mexico spreading its system.

2 What is more likely than your idea of a confederacy simply giving in to the rest of the world would be the confederacy forming alliances with reactionary powers like apartheid south africa, brazil(only started abolition after the CSA was defeated), Fascist italy, the radical islamist regimes in the middle east, pinochet's chile, white australia policy australia and various latin american juntas. If history went like OTL we'd see a cold war between the US, Soviets and a reactionary alliance lead by the CSA(the CSA would prevent the total defeat of the axis powers so we could end up with a rump nazi germany with pre-WWII boundaries and rump militarist japan consisting of the japanese isles also being in this alliance).

1. With what army would an independent confederacy conquer South America with? Do you really think that by 1863 (lets assume thats when the war ends) the CS army was really in shape for a large scale invasion of Spanish held territories? Plus even if the "invasions" were thought of a few years later the south did not have incredible manpower to pull of such extraordinary operations.

2. Why do you assume the CSA would have sided against the US? Anyhow the CS wouldn't have lasted much past 1918 and they would have eventually reunited with the North on their own terms more then likely.

[memphis]

My source is The Enduring Vision, my old high school history textbook. Pretty mainstream stuff. Southern states did tolerate free blacks, who had been emancipated during the Manumission craze after the Revolution, but they banned free blacks from other states from resettling in their states.  They didn't want anymore aberrations suggesting that blacks could be anything else but slaves. It was also generally assumed that they would help slaves in an uprising. For this reason, Memphis imposed a curfew on free blacks.
There is a major problem with the WPA slave narratives. Old freedman, who had been oppressed by white people their entire lives, were being asked by white people (sent by the federal government) what slavery was like. Do you really think they were going to say it was awful? Black people were, rightfully, scared out of their minds to complain about their lot to white people in the 1930s. They'd most likely end up hanging from a tree.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

an independent confederacy would likely try to reenslave the free blacks at first but eventually comes up with a confederate version of apartheid to put free blacks and darker skinned hispanics from the inevitable conquests in...

[??????????]

My source is The Enduring Vision, my old high school history textbook. Pretty mainstream stuff. Southern states did tolerate free blacks, who had been emancipated during the Manumission craze after the Revolution, but they banned free blacks from other states from resettling in their states.  They didn't want anymore aberrations suggesting that blacks could be anything else but slaves. It was also generally assumed that they would help slaves in an uprising. For this reason, Memphis imposed a curfew on free blacks.
There is a major problem with the WPA slave narratives. Old freedman, who had been oppressed by white people their entire lives, were being asked by white people (sent by the federal government) what slavery was like. Do you really think they were going to say it was awful? Black people were, rightfully, scared out of their minds to complain about their lot to white people in the 1930s. They'd most likely end up hanging from a tree.

I understand your point about the narratives, although I respectfully disagree with you sir. But anyways, mostly I was referring to various sources written from blacks who were asked at the time, not later on in the 1930s. Freeing slaves was not all the uncommon in Virginia in the years leading up to the war. Off the top of my head (I'll look it up again), Virginia had nearly 180,000 freed slaves in 1860. When the war started some broke and sided with the union and some broke and sided with the csa.

But anyways its nice to finally have someone new here to debate this with instead of certain people who are like "OMG you want to own slaves, yada yada yada".

[12th Doctor]

Just to add fuel for States, I know, for a fact, that Louisiana permitted free blacks top own slaves.

[skybridge]

Suppose that the confederate states never rejoin the US, but magically politics are the same in the non-Confederate states.

We have no TX, OK, AR, LA, MS, AL, FL, GA, TN, SC, NC, VA

Electoral vote
* indicates from south
# means solid south
Bold indicates different from real life

1868: Grant beats Seymour 173-64
1872: Grant beats Greely 236-23
1876: Hayes really beats Tilden 166-108
1880: Garfield beats Hancock 214-60 #
1884: Blaine beats Cleveland 182-75 #
1888: Harrison beats Cleveland 233-61 #
1892: Cleveland betas Harrison, Weaver 163-145-22 # election thrown
1896: McKinley beats Bryan 271-62 #
1900: McKlinley beats Bryan 292-41 #
1904: Roosevelt beats Parker 336-20 #
1908: Taft beats Bryan 321-35 #
1912: Wilson beats Roosevelt, Taft, 299-88-8 #
1916: Hughes beats Wilson 254-147 #
1920: Coolidge beats Cox 382-13
1924: Coolidge beats Davis, LaFollette 382-0-13 #
1928: Hoover beats Smith 372-23
1932: Roosevelt beats Hoover 337-59 #
1936: Roosevelt beats Landon 388-8 #
1940: Roosevelt beats Wilkie 314-82 #
1944: Roosevelt beats Dewey 295-99 #
1948: Truman beats Dewey, Thurmond* 205-189-0
1952: Eisenhower beats Stevenson 377-18
1956: Eisenhower beats Stevenson 382-13
1960: Kennedy beats Nixon 222-179
1964: Johnson* beats Goldwater 397-5
1968: Nixon beats Humphrey, Wallace* 236-166-0
1972: Nixon beats McGovern 383-17 #
1976: Ford beats Carter* 220-179 #
1980: Reagan beats Carter* 363-37
1984: Reagan beats Modale 379-13 #
1988: Bush* beats Dukakis 280-111 #
1992: Clinton* beats Bush* 331-52
1996: Clinton* beats Dole 328-55
2000: Gore* officially beats Bush* 272-211(officially #)
2004: Kerry beats Bush* 252-126 #

People like Johnson, Carter, Clinton and -- thankfully -- the Bushes never run in this scenario.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Just to add fuel for States, I know, for a fact, that Louisiana permitted free blacks top own slaves.

just because freed blacks could own slaves doesn't mean we'd see any better race relations. In an independent confederacy the few upper or middle class freed blacks would end up being absorbed into the white population.

[ATFFL]

Slavery was on its way out in the upper south for a variety of reasons.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Slavery was on its way out in the upper south for a variety of reasons.

That statement is wrong. In the 1850's before the civil war, slavery's strengh was just getting stronger and stronger in the upper south.

[memphis]

What was happening was that prices for slaves were much higher in the Deep South, so lots of people were selling their slaves South and thereby reducing the population of slaves in states like Maryland and Virginia.

[??????????]

Slavery was on its way out in the upper south for a variety of reasons.

That statement is wrong. In the 1850's before the civil war, slavery's strengh was just getting stronger and stronger in the upper south.

Then explain why Virginia came near to banning slavery in the 1850s?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

virginia didn't come close to banning slavery in the 1850's IIRC. It DID come within a few votes of compenstated emancipation in the 1830's... but that was before sectional tensions ratched it up.

[DanielX]

Slavery was on its way out in the upper south for a variety of reasons.

That statement is wrong. In the 1850's before the civil war, slavery's strengh was just getting stronger and stronger in the upper south.

Then explain why Virginia came near to banning slavery in the 1850s?

I believe Straha is mistaken on this one. Slavery was thriving further south and west, in big cotton states like Alabama and Mississippi, as well as Sugar plantations in Louisiana. In old tobacco states like the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland, slavery had been slowly dying out from the 1780s on. Cotton basically was what kept slavery alive, more-or-less.

An independent confederacy would have eventually banned slavery; however, it probably would not have happened in every state until well into the 20th century. Increased competition from cotton coming from India and Egypt would have made cotton less profitable, and I don't see the Confederacy gaining much in the way of slave industries.

[ATFFL]

Slavery was on its way out in the upper south for a variety of reasons.

That statement is wrong. In the 1850's before the civil war, slavery's strengh was just getting stronger and stronger in the upper south.

Then explain why Virginia came near to banning slavery in the 1850s?

I believe Straha is mistaken on this one. Slavery was thriving further south and west, in big cotton states like Alabama and Mississippi, as well as Sugar plantations in Louisiana. In old tobacco states like the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland, slavery had been slowly dying out from the 1780s on. Cotton basically was what kept slavery alive, more-or-less.

An independent confederacy would have eventually banned slavery; however, it probably would not have happened in every state until well into the 20th century. Increased competition from cotton coming from India and Egypt would have made cotton less profitable, and I don't see the Confederacy gaining much in the way of slave industries.

An independent confederacy would have fallen apart rather quickly.  They had the precedent that you could leave if you did not like the results of an election.  SC, the most reactionist state at its most reactionist time, would have not liked something and left within a few years.  Other states would have followed suit.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Not likely. I see the CSA staying together even if jsut at first to protect slavery and southern culture.

[memphis]

virginia didn't come close to banning slavery in the 1850's IIRC. It DID come within a few votes of compenstated emancipation in the 1830's... but that was before sectional tensions ratched it up.

This was immediately after the Nat Turner rebellion. With the threat of a widespread slave rebellion, some people thought having a slave society might not be such a good idea after all. Virginia also included what is now West Virginia, a mountainous region that was often hostile to slavery and its interests.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Right. West virginia seceded from virginia because it felt underrepresented.

[??????????]

Right. West virginia seceded from virginia because it felt underrepresented.

This is not why West Virginia was created at all. Where in the world are you getting your information from?

[memphis]

West Virginia seceded because they were pro-Union. You could say that's underrepresentation.