Musings on an Independent Confederacy, Part 3

Guest post by Chris Nuttall.

Writing a response to a response is always a tricky problem, but I do think that there are several points that should be made.

I believe that I did note that there were differences between the North and South, although I didn’t give them as much attention as Richard.  However, some issues – like geography – remain fairly consistent throughout history and others – like economics and military technology – change rapidly.  The fact of the matter is that the CSA was an agricultural state that did not share the Northern industrial base prior to the war and had to struggle quite hard to accomplish as much as it did.  I am in no way disagreeing that the CSA had a remarkable level of success; my point is that the CSA could not hope to keep up with the North over a long period (and certainly never managed to match the North for the four years of warfare in OTL).

This happened, at least partly, because the political dominance of the South was in the hands of people who had invested heavily in land and farming (and slaves.)  It was not in their interests, prior to the war, to invest in industrialisation and there is no reason to believe that they would change their attitude very willingly in an independent South.  There are several separate reasons for that, but the main one (IMHO) was that the South’s aristocracy (in all, but name) would not want to reward workers as extensively as the North could and did.  They would see an industrial class as a threat to their power – and slaves make poor industrial workers.  It would be very difficult for them to translate their power from slave plantations to industrial complexes.

I mention slavery quite extensively because it WAS the stone around the CSA’s collective neck.  I agree that the people of that era saw nothing wrong in slavery, but as the years wore on slavery became less and less efficient whatever the political structure of the USA/CSA.  While slavery has been in existence since earliest times, there were significant differences between Roman slavery (for example) and the kind practiced by the CSA; specifically, slavery being largely restricted to blacks.  A roman slave had a good chance of freedom and even rising to a prominent position in society; a black freedman in the south was held in bondage even after he was manumitted by his owner.  Leaving aside modern morality, this was not a system for getting the best from one’s population.  There was nothing the average black in the CSA could do to escape the curse of being born black.

Even in OTL, the South managed to push blacks down under Jim Crow laws; I can think of no good reason for assuming that they would do less if the CSA managed to become independent.  At the very least, the slaves would remain enslaved for years – again, not something conductive to social development.  The average Southerner thought of ‘niggers’ as a separate subhuman race, not as fellow human beings.  They were property.  ‘Niggers’ were demonised to an extent that would shock us today.  The thought of black men having sex with white women (but not the reverse, provided it was just an affair (or rape)) was horrifying to them.  They simply did not see the black man as human.

But it doesn't really matter WHAT the South thought of slavery.  The economics of the situation don’t change, short of something happening to alter them from the outside.

Give up slavery?  The slaveholders would demand compensation for their lost property.  Make compensation?  But who would pay for the slaves?  And even if they do, the blacks are not suddenly going to become full citizens of the CSA.  My bet is that they’d be treated as a subhuman underclass right from the moment they were declared ‘free.’

It is impossible to say what would have happened if the South had become independent.  All I can do is point to trends that existed within the South and how they might have developed if the CSA had been allowed to leave the Union.  I do not believe that the South enjoyed a basis for true independence AND stability, at least in the long-term.  In some ways, it would be like India in 1947, rather than America in 1776; there would be serious social strains right from day one.  How would the CSA cope as the world changed around it?

I don’t think they could do very well, unless they managed to give their black (and Hispanic) underclass(s) a stake in the system.  And that was probably beyond them.  The Southern Culture was unable to adapt to the idea of black equality for years in OTL.  Their culture was also ill-adapted to face the modern world, but that’s a different issue.

Allowing modern morality to infest history is a valid problem.  Slavery was not the be-all and end-all of the origin of the war.  However, I did my best to put morality aside and stick to the facts (and how they might be extended if the CSA won the war.)

Thank you for writing the response.  I rarely get such interesting feedback.

*      *      *

Chris Nuttall blogs at The Chrishanger and has a website by the same name. His books can be found on Amazon Kindle.

Musings on an Independent Confederacy, Part 2

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 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.

Musings on an Independent Confederacy

Guest post by Chris Nuttall.

The American Civil War is one of the more popular stamping grounds for alternate history.  Some writers have explored a victorious CSA; others have looked at how that victory might have come about.  But few of them seem to consider the long-term development of the CSA in a manner I consider realistic.  Certain factors – geography, for instance – do not change regardless of who is in the White House, while other factors twist and turn according to the dictates of history.  What would an independent CSA actually look like?

I’m not going to worry too much over how the CSA gains its independence.  A stunning military victory might be enough to break the US’s war effort.  Outside support (such as British intervention after the Trent Affair) would make the CSA much more formidable very quickly.  Lincoln might try to move too quickly, overreach himself and eventually lose all support within the north.  Obviously, certain things will be different depending on the precise details of the war.  A CSA that leaves in peace is different from a CSA that wins the debate by force.  I am merely going to assume that the states that formed the CSA in our timeline separate from the Union and see what happens after that.

Historically, the CSA’s government simply didn't function very well.  Indeed, the level of success they did have (in building up an arsenal, for example) was remarkable.  President Davis was dedicated to the cause, but he found it difficult to convince all the states to move in unison, even in their own defence.  He was an experienced military officer himself, yet he found it hard to delegate responsibility and meddled with the war effort from a distance.  The CSA also didn't have political parties – and while I tend to agree that political parties are a bad thing, they are vital for commanding support from the Senate.  Davis had a position that was more vulnerable than he perhaps realised.

How will this develop in the first twenty years after independence?  One thing that will have been made clear by the fighting (if there is a war in this timeline) is that the CSA will need to keep an army.  Without an ongoing war, it is likely that Davis will find it much harder to convince the states to continue to collaborate in building a force that can stand up to the North.  One possibility is that each state will develop its own army with a small confederate force as a reserve if necessary.  Davis may will lose a great deal of political capital trying to make it work, which given the ramshackle nature of Confederate politics may be personally disastrous for him.  It’s possible that someone like Lee (assuming he is still prominent) will have more success, but the CSA may not see the need for a CSA army.  It might end up being pointed at the CSA states.

I think that it won’t be long before the South develops political parties of its own.  One of them, I suspect, will be a heavily conservative party based around the plantation owners, who were the richest men in the South.  Others are likely to be very different; one may support emancipating the slaves, one may feel that ‘nigger’ labour is taking jobs from white men, one may want political reform.  I have a feeling that the South will see a surprising amount of emigration from younger white men who feel that there is no place for them in the South.

This may seem odd, but it is a fact of history that the US North received an astonishing amount of immigrants even during the four years of civil war.  The south received almost none, at least as far as I am aware.  Looking at the South, it seems natural that the South would develop vast plantations rather than independent farms and freeholds, plantations where slavery would rule supreme – and almost no industry at all.  I suspect that the Confederate government would try hard to encourage industry within the CSA – they performed some remarkable efforts during the war – but the basic tenor of the South told against it.  This means, I believe, that the South will remain economically weak during the first 40 years or so after secession.

However, this may cause major problems for the South in the very near future.  There was a reason the South believed (wrongly) that ‘King Cotton’ could be used to force the British and French into recognising the South – cotton was very important to their economies.  However, in OTL, the British sourced new supplies from both India and Egypt, not least because the CSA couldn't supply them with cotton.  In ATL, there will still be supplies from alternate sources, cutting the price of CSA exports and therefore reducing the revenues it had to draw upon.

These two problems will probably mean that the CSA will not become anything more than a local power.  Building a Navy is expensive and will become more so as the improvements developed by the USN and the Royal Navy become requirements for naval forces (or they will become useless white elephants in the event of a war).  I doubt that the CSA could afford to keep up, which suggests that the USN will still rule the American waters.  Alliance with Britain and France might solve this problem, but that presents other difficulties (see below.)

In the long term, the CSA does have the oil fields of Texas, which may be discovered earlier.  However, this may be of questionable value until the 1914s, assuming that technology continues to develop roughly on schedule.

When dealing with the CSA, there is one element that stands up above all others; slavery.  The CSA was completely composed of slave states – there were relatively few free black men – and they had a reasonably sophisticated set of justifications for slavery.  These are the people who used the word ‘nigger’ even in routine conversation.  Whatever Harry Harrison may suggest, the South is not suddenly going to become a PC state that bans slavery.  In fact, there are strong grounds for suspecting that slavery will continue in the south until at least the 1900s.  As I have noted above, the South’s economy was largely based on slave plantations and the owners of those plantations would be the most politically powerful men in the country.  The concept of monopoly-holders wielding vast power to crush competitors isn't a new one.

This would probably be enhanced if the South believes that it fought to defend slavery.  If the North made the emancipation proclamation in this timeline, the South is very likely to stubbornly resist any steps towards slave emancipation.  Worse, freeing the slaves would be expensive; slave owners (political power, remember?) will demand compensation, while the poorer whites would be fearful of being undercut by black labour or having to pay for freeing the slaves.  Ian Montgomery suggests that in the event of Southern emancipation, the South would probably try to pay for it by taxing the newly-freed blacks.  This might be tricky as the blacks would have little to pay the taxes, at least at first.  They might therefore be forced back onto the plantations as ‘debt slaves,’ rather than more formally being enslaved.

I could see some of the South’s ‘gentlemen’ going for such a solution.  The slaves have to work anyway...and they don’t have to feed the slaves from their own pocket.  Oh, and as the slaves are not technically slaves, they don’t have to worry about slave revolts.

A more reasonably solution might be some form of gradual emancipation, with all black children born after a certain date automatically declared free.  This would make it easier for the South’s economy to adapt, but it would have two disadvantages from the point of view of the South’s elite.  It strikes at the core of their power...and it leaves them without a source of new slaves (the CSA didn't import slaves, IIRC).

In the long term, there will probably be a series of bloody upheavals.  The South simply didn't recognise the black man – ‘niggers,’ remember? – as equals.  If the Slaves become free through almost any process, they are still likely to be at the bottom of the pile and the very lowest class of people.  The civil rights era in OTL might be a storm in a teacup compared to what seethes through the South, assuming that no solution becomes possible.  What if the blacks, taking on more and more of the work as poor whites head north, eventually take over and destroy their masters?

[Some people have commented that the CSA eventually planned to emancipate the slaves.  I have seen nothing that suggests that this was actual Southern policy during the war, and would be very curious to see any evidence that might come to light.  Frankly, I would be astonished if any did.]

Another question mark lies over the Native Americans/Indians.  The CSA tended to strike deals with Indians willing to cooperate with the CSA, but to treat brutally any Indians who refused to be ‘reasonable.’  Governor Baylor of Arizona Territory issued orders for effective genocide to his subordinates, although they were never carried out and Baylor was removed from office by President Davis.  We could conclude that the CSA would be happy to leave the Indians in the desert – the land wasn't so good for farming – or that they would eventually drive the Indians to near-destruction.  Given the CSA’s racial attitudes, it doesn't look good.  But the Indians would make good scouts for the CSA’s army.  Perhaps some kind of compromise could be worked out.

How exactly will the South relate to the rest of the world?  British and French recognition will be important to Richmond and they will probably spend a great deal of time courting London and Paris.  However, the CSA was not in a strong position to seduce either of the two main European powers.  It would be clear to London, at least, that the US would grow stronger much more rapidly than the CSA and allying with the South would be a self-defeating proposition.  What can the CSA offer compared to the US as a trading partner, or the danger of losing Canada in a war with the US?  The South could sell food to the UK – very important, true – and cotton, but what else?  It would be difficult for London to cosy up to the South because of their unrepentant slavery.

What I think is most likely to occur over 1862 to 1910 is that the South will gradually be eclipsed by the North.  The Yankees were in a much better position to provide opportunities for immigrants, including some from the South, than the South itself.  I suspect that there would either be mass emigration from the South or massive civil unrest.  The South will seek short-term gratification instead of long-range safety.  By 1910, the South will be an economic basket-case, with blacks as an underclass contemplating revolution while the rest of the world largely ignores it.  It is quite possible that the South will attempt to compensate by inviting Hispanic immigration from Mexico, but unless they change their racial policies (to the tune of accepting ‘greasers’ if not ‘niggers’) they will merely be storing up trouble for themselves.   I could easily see the blacks and Hispanics becoming Communists.  What do they have to lose, apart from their chains?

There might well be another war between North and South.  If so, what might it look like?  A near-term war between the two might well look like Harry Turtledove’s How Few Remain, at least in general outline.  It is unlikely, however, that Turtledove’s predictions of trench warfare for an alternate Great War will come true.  The terrain between North and South is nowhere near as restrictive as the French countryside fought over by France and Germany in 1914.  It is more likely to reassemble the Eastern Front, with both sides trying to outflank the other.  The North will have a major advantage in motor vehicles and weapons, while the South will probably have to try arming Hispanics (or even blacks; historically, some blacks did fight for the CSA) to make up the numbers.  Long term; this is likely to bite them hard on the ass.

If a version of World War One did occur in this timeline, I think the South would have tried to stay out of the fighting.  Sending food to Britain might be its only contribution to the war effort, while the British court the US, which could offer much more to the war.  But both American states would have little interest in the war directly.  Why should they join?

One AH theme that has popped up from time to time is that of Confederate Nazis.  This argument postulates that the CSA would be a natural ally for Nazi Germany as they shared similar racial views.  At its height, the theme suggests that the South would perpetrate a Holocaust on its black population, just as the Nazis did to the Jews.  It is, I will admit, possible (all things are possible), but the South had differing ideas to the Nazis.  The blacks would also be a vital part of what remains of their economy.

Harry Turtledove, in his Southern Victory series, suggests that the South would turn into something reassembling a Nazi state (complete with Holocaust.)  It does make sense in the series, but I am not sure that the CSA could ever become as powerful as it does in the book (and still inferior to the US).

For those interested in writing an AH book set in (for example) an alternate 1914 with an independent CSA, it is worth considering that the butterfly effect will have made the people of the CSA very different from the people of OTL.  How many famous names will not exist because their parents were on opposite sides of the North/South divide?  Anyone wanting to write a convincing history will have to consider if famous people will still become prominent in ATL.  Example: Theodore Roosevelt gained fame in Cuba, which helped to take him to the White House.  Will he still be famous in an alternate history?  Other people may live longer.  Turtledove comes up with the idea that Custer’s Last Stand will not take place in ATL because the CSA border would have prevented him from charging all the way to Little Big Horn and nemesis.

There are people who still see a certain romance in the South’s ‘Lost Cause.’  It is not an attitude I share.  The South was governed by a thoroughly unpleasant system that kept hundreds of thousands of people in bondage – and convinced hundreds of thousands of people who didn't directly benefit from slavery to fight for it.  There is a good reason why Lincoln is not only the greatest American, but one of the greatest humans in history.  The defeat of a system based on human bondage was a truly worthy deed.  Had the South become independent, the world would be a far darker place.

Apartheid South Africa, only worse.

[As always, I welcome comments and suggestions for additional articles.]

Appendix – RBC (on CF.NET) suggested that the South would end up with at least four political parties.

Democratic Party: The initial ruling party in the Confederate States, it shares its name with a party of the same name in the United States. However, this party likely disappears after a few elections, to be replaced by some new parties, such as the Populists or the Whigs. Ideology: Fluctuating.

Whig Party: The first party to emerge after the formation of the Democratic Party, the Whigs become the political vehicle for much of the planter aristocracy, particularly in the states along the Atlantic coast, and, potentially, Kentucky (if it is part of the confederacy). Ideology: Conservative; represents the interests of the landed classes.

People's (Populist) Party: Initially formed to represent small farmers, the Populist Party becomes the main party of working class (white) protestants financed by a small group of gentry residing in mostly western states, such as Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee. Curiously, this is also the party preferred by the Indians of the Confederacy. Ideology: Christian populism, temperance; eventually woman's suffrage.

Farmer and Labour Party: Dominated by Catholics (mainly Irish, Italian, and French), this party is strongest in Louisiana and mining towns throughout Dixie. It is this party that pushes successfully for programs in the Confederacy to aid small farmers and improve working conditions for miners and factory workers. Opponents accuse this party of catering to slaves because free blacks are permitted to attend its party meetings. Ideology: Worker's rights, agrarianism.

*      *      *

Chris Nuttall blogs at The Chrishanger and has a website by the same name. His books can be found on Amazon Kindle.