Guest Post by Richard Small.
I just recently became aware of the Alternate History Weekly Update blog site because I discovered that it had mentioned my new alternate history novel, Confederate Star Rises. I was immediately drawn to the “Musings on an Independent Confederacy” post, naturally, because it fits right in with the subject of my book. I wanted to write a response to the post, but my response is much larger than the 4096 character limit. By reading that interesting post first, you will acquire the proper context from which the following is written …
I just recently became aware of the Alternate History Weekly Update blog site because I discovered that it had mentioned my new alternate history novel, Confederate Star Rises. I was immediately drawn to the “Musings on an Independent Confederacy” post, naturally, because it fits right in with the subject of my book. I wanted to write a response to the post, but my response is much larger than the 4096 character limit. By reading that interesting post first, you will acquire the proper context from which the following is written …
I thought I might approach this subject from a little
different viewpoint than what has been so far expressed. And I use the word
“viewpoint” deliberately. Viewpoint does not mean truth or fact or belief or
even opinion. One can, for example, examine a viewpoint without incorporating
it as a belief or opinion. The holding of a viewpoint becomes an opinion. But
viewpoint on its own is just that, a viewpoint.
Now this is just a personal evaluation on my part. But I
believe that the earlier postings are approaching the subject matter from the
“present-time” viewpoint. There is nothing wrong with that. But to really get
to the heart of the matter, I believe it is necessary to look at it from a
different viewpoint. That is, one should to try to transport himself back in
time to that period of history in America when the great conflagration between
North and South occurred, and having done so, transform our mindset to the
mindset of the period. It’s really an attempt to see things through the eyes of
those who actually lived during that time.
How do you do that? It seems really difficult when you think
about it. My solution to this problem was to immerse myself in books and other
data written by the actual actors in the Civil War drama. How did they think?
What did they say? Since my book is called Confederate
Star Rises, you might guess which side of the conflict I spent the most
research time. And as the story unfolded in my mind, I decided to write it as
if the author of the book was an actual General officer in the Confederate Army
of Northern Virginia -- even more important, therefore, to write the book from
his viewpoint. I did this in order to give credibility to the story I was
crafting, to make it more real from the perspective of the Southern mind of the
time.
And so here is that viewpoint. The Northern and Southern
culture was quite different during that time. Most Southerner never ventured to
the North. Similarly, most Northerners never paid a visit to the South. Slavery
- not slavery. Agricultural - industrial. You get the idea. From the very birth
of the nation, differences existed between the southern and northern states.
And over the next 80 years, the differences increased to the point of
irreconciliation resulting in war.
Was the war fought over slavery? Well, yes. And well, no.
Slavery was the overt issue that ultimately gave the North the moral high
ground in the conflict. But is there not a deeper concept that motivated both
North and South to fight, spilling the blood of over 600,000 American lives in
the process? Was it not really fought over the right of a sovereign State to
secede from the Union of sovereign States, if the majority will of the people
of that State freely determined to do so? To the South, the compact documented
in the original Constitution was ratified by the United States of America; to the North, it was approved by the United
States of America. See the
difference?
The previous postings take a rather dark view of an
independent CSA. And it seems that this rather distressing historical what-if
picture of their history is rooted in the modern mind’s distaste of the South
due to its institution of slavery.
So let’s look at slavery. To the modern mind, the concept is
abhorrent. And its segregation offshoot is just as repulsive. But what about
the mind of the 1860’s? If you look at the whole spectrum of history, the prohibition
of slavery was actually a rather new idea. Throughout the rather sad history of
this planet, slavery had been an accepted part of life for thousands of years.
It was a “normal” institution in most societies. Why even the biblical St. Paul
urged the runaway Philemon to return to his master. It’s only in the last 200
years that the family of nations as a group agreed that slavery was a moral
evil and should be illegal. Was the South slow to accept this? Yes, and if an
independent CSA would have waited until after 1888 to emancipate their slaves,
they would have been the last nation to do so.
But why was slavery so important to the South? Was it not
the economics of slavery? Was not their entire economy dependent upon slave
labor? Had not slave-holders invested significant monies in their slave
property? Bottom line, it was the economics of slavery that cemented the
institution of slavery to the South. And the threat of economic upheaval led to
secession.
How can I describe something similar in today’s world that
would help us see and feel what the Southerners felt when Abraham Lincoln of
the abolitionist Republican Party was elected? I have been a software engineer
for 30+ years. During that time I have seen millions of jobs eliminated from
this country due to outsourcing while my own earning power has steadily diminished.
My own economics are being threatened. Imagine what Southerners felt, rightly
or wrongly thinking their economics were about to be turned on its head.
So they went to war to retain their declared independence
and way of life. And it forced them to innovate and create like they never had
before. For example, an armament industry sprang up seemingly overnight; they
also were the first to invent and construct and launch a submarine. There are
plenty of historical examples of Southern ingenuity that runs contrary to the
country-bumpkin image popular in today’s world.
I have spent the majority of the time setting the table for
my own take on a post-Civil War independent CSA. And I just don’t see this dark
and dreary outlook that has been expressed in the other postings. I see them developing
into a strong, viable nation among the family of nations, perhaps even a
prominent one. I see them expanding westward as far as Arizona and gaining a
western port to the Pacific at the Gulf of Cortez. I see them as a regional
power in the Caribbean, perhaps incorporating the State of Cuba as part of the
CSA. And certainly emancipation would be in their future. Would their slaves be
freed before Brazil’s slaves? My guess is that they would, or shortly
thereafter.
I do see the possibility of re-unification with the USA,
perhaps around the early-to-mid-point of the 20th century.
But I could also see a CSA continuing to go its own way,
further developing its own unique culture to the point where the differences
between the CSA and USA would become too significant for re-unification to
occur. Chief among the differences would be treatment of the African-American,
although if nothing changed in the USA, it would take some time before the
differences became really pronounced. I can’t see the African-Americans in the
CSA ever becoming first-class citizens. But who knows? Even apartheid in South
Africa finally came to an end. The sad thing is that the African-American of
the South really would have nowhere to go. The North tried sending some of them
to Liberia in Africa. I’m not sure that they would be welcomed in the USA. Not
a pretty picture of CSA society, but plenty of bright, intelligent citizens to
make it a viable, prosperous nation, albeit a segregated one.
I have painted just a few high-level brushstrokes on a
complex and controversial topic. I hope you found it
stimulating.
* * *
Richard Small is the author of the newly published alternate
history novel, Confederate Star Rises, first book
of the Confederate Star trilogy. You can visit his website at RichardSmallAuthor.com.
I have nothing against either Mr. Nuttal nor Mr. Small. However, I think that in this discussion, the latter falls into a frequent trap that plagues discussions of the Confederacy, its history, and related issues.
ReplyDeleteMy problem with confederate apologists, real or imaginary, is that they overlook the fact that the South started the war.
It would be nice if, for once, these discussions did not start on a bogus premise. Indeed, such would allow for discussions on much broader notions of the CSA existing. Meanwhile, too seldom is the fate of the remaining United States handled realistically or well in "Southern victory" explorations.
Good point, James. Much time and thought go into what the South would be like had they won the war, but it seems little effort is expended on postulating the future of the remaining USA. Would be another interesting thread for the AHWP blog.
ReplyDeleteAs for who actually started the war, I am well familiar with both sides of the argument, and don't really have an opinion one way or the other. Many times in life apparency is not reality. I personally don't count it as a defining point regardless of which side of the aisle you are sitting on. I guess the USA started the Iraq war. Is it that important? Maybe, maybe not. It's not always bad to start a war; nor is it always good to not start one.
Thanks for responding to my posting.
Excellent post, Richard. Congratulations on the publication of your book. You make a good point that the "reason" for the start of the war was the constitutional right of a sovereign state to secede from the union of sovereign states.
ReplyDeleteDebating the FACTS concerning who started the war is like debating the FACTS surrounding what many today call Obamacare. It cannot be done. People are too passionate about their "side" of the debate.
ReplyDeleteOf course, aside from passion very few Americans of 2012 have ever read a word of the Constitution and have absolutely no idea what is legal and what is not according to that document.
And I suppose that could bring us to a study of just whether or not a piece of paper drafted well over 200 years ago is worth squat in today's society.
All of that aside, CSR is a great read!