Cleburne's Confederacy

[Not Henry G.]

In 1864 Patrick Cleburne, the "Stonewall of the West", recognized the CSA was losing the war and pleaded for negro troops to be raised in order to make up for the loss of manpower.
Suppose the government takes it seriously and, thanks to increased manpower and a moral reversal (south is freeing their slaves while north still has his), manage to win their independence.
How would a Confederacy that won its independence thanks to black people be like? Culturally, economically, etc. And how would the US react to such a defeat?

 

[Emperor Norton I]

1864 is too late for any sort of Confederate victory and regardless, Afro-Confederate troops being raised is going to be a complicated issue within the CSA, to say the least. Yes, the CSA did secede for slavery; that was it's point despite revisionism thereafter. And the South, albeit the North was racist as well, had a unique and much harder racism than found elsewhere in the United States due to it's culture of slavery.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

Have you been reading the Black and the Gray?

 

[Blackfox5]

I normally don't like to sandbag the POD, but this is extremely unlikely to happen.

1) The raising of black troops would be extremely divisive within the Confederacy. Too many of the political elites would be against it. A large part of the White enlisted men and officers might just go home.

2) Why would any of the black slaves in the Confederacy join the CSA at this point in time (honestly, at any point at all)? The North has already made abolition of slavery in the South as one its de facto war aims with the Emancipation Proclamation. While the Union is stymied in Virginia, it is trouncing the Confederacy in the West. A lot of the black population is already aiding the Union war effort in one way or another - outright flight to the Union armies, service in the Union armies, acting as guides or informers, and probably a not insignificant amount of work slow downs and sabotage. It is hard to see any kind of appeal that would cause a significant number of black slaves to enlist.

3) Black Confederates are likely to highly unreliable in battle, and not trusted by their white commanders. What Confederate general is going to use them in battle? Put them in a critical part of the battlefield? Or simply trust them not to defect to the Union the moment the Union forces come into contact?

4) Considering how badly the Confederate economy is, what happens when most of its available labor manpower is now taken away from it? Who is going to do all that work?

If some strange bizarre reason this did work, and it was able to reverse the Confederate defeat, you have the situation where there are large numbers of black Confederates who are now free, have training in arms, and have weapons. This is a recipe for massive political instability. Potential for a mass slave revolt is ripe. Even if it is defeated, it'll put even more strain on a society that just ended a very long and debilitating war.

There will also be additional political instability among the fire eaters who feel completely betrayed by the calling up of black soldiers. There is going to be fierce divisions within the Confederacy.

Even if by some miracle this plan worked, the lifespan of the CSA as we know it is likely to be only a few more years before it enters another war or have many states secede from it, or just have the authority of the CSA collapse within certain states.

 

[David S Poepoe]

In 1864 Patrick Cleburne, the "Stonewall of the West", recognized the CSA was losing the war and pleaded for negro troops to be raised in order to make up for the loss of manpower.
Suppose the government takes it seriously and, thanks to increased manpower and a moral reversal (south is freeing their slaves while north still has his), manage to win their independence.
How would a Confederacy that won its independence thanks to black people be like? Culturally, economically, etc. And how would the US react to such a defeat?

Frankly, you would be far better off posting an ATL of your own creation rather than positing a question that will have this thread quickly devolve into arguments. You will find in alternative history that there are frequently no such things as alternative history on certain topics. Much like predestination, there is only one path permitted by the Thought Police for this particular POD.

 

[Zulufoxtrot]

Frankly, you would be far better off posting an ATL of your own creation rather than positing a question that will have this thread quickly devolve into arguments. You will find in alternative history that there are frequently no such things as alternative history on certain topics. Much like predestination, there is only one path permitted by the Thought Police for this particular POD.

No you'll find that certain POD's are hard to pull off to the point of having an astonishingly low chance of occurring, because they're based on a sudden change or reversal of something that's already deeply ingrained. In order to get black troops in an amount reasonable to accomplish what the OP asks, you have to fundamentally change the way the South views race, and with that you're unlikely to have a Civil War to begin with.

By 1864 it's unlikely to say the least that attitudes, prejudices, and a culture built on the institution of slavery will suddenly accept fielding emancipated black soldiers in large numbers during a war being fought largely for the preservation of enslaving blacks.

I think a positive response to Cleburne's call would be maybe a small contingent of black troops, that would be incredibly divisive. I imagine there would be a lot of internal struggle, and calls for him to be removed in the Army of the Tennessee. But that doesn't mean it can't have a positive or further reaching effect. It could lead to Cleburne surviving the war, and from there who knows what effects the guy could have on the post-war situation in the South?

 

[Johnrankins]

No you'll find that certain POD's are hard to pull off to the point of having an astonishingly low chance of occurring, because they're based on a sudden change or reversal of something that's already deeply ingrained. In order to get black troops in an amount reasonable to accomplish what the OP asks, you have to fundamentally change the way the South views race, and with that you're unlikely to have a Civil War to begin with.

By 1864 it's unlikely to say the least that attitudes, prejudices, and a culture built on the institution of slavery will suddenly accept fielding emancipated black soldiers in large numbers during a war being fought largely for the preservation of enslaving blacks.

I think a positive response to Cleburne's call would be maybe a small contingent of black troops, that would be incredibly divisive. I imagine there would be a lot of internal struggle, and calls for him to be removed in the Army of the Tennessee. But that doesn't mean it can't have a positive or further reaching effect. It could lead to Cleburne surviving the war, and from there who knows what effects the guy could have on the post-war situation in the South?

Exactly, people don't do a 180 that easily or quickly. Also WHY would Black troops trust the CSA government freeing them after the war? There is little for them to assume that and every reason for them to assume they will be backstabbed after the war. After all what is a promise to a slave worth?

They knew full well by that time that joining the Union Army would make sure they would be free. Despite Whites trying to prevent it the slaves were aware of the Emancipation Proclamation and what it meant. The most likely scenario of the CSA doing what Cleburne wanted is that the CSA would train them and arm them and then they promptly desert to the Union.

 

[Not Henry G.]

Have you been reading the Black and the Gray?

Lol I read it a while back, and I've been thinking about it since then.

Frankly, you would be far better off posting an ATL of your own creation rather than positing a question that will have this thread quickly devolve into arguments. You will find in alternative history that there are frequently no such things as alternative history on certain topics. Much like predestination, there is only one path permitted by the Thought Police for this particular POD.

I've noticed that a lot of ideas get shot down just because they're "not likely"

No you'll find that certain POD's are hard to pull off to the point of having an astonishingly low chance of occurring, because they're based on a sudden change or reversal of something that's already deeply ingrained. In order to get black troops in an amount reasonable to accomplish what the OP asks, you have to fundamentally change the way the South views race, and with that you're unlikely to have a Civil War to begin with.

By 1864 it's unlikely to say the least that attitudes, prejudices, and a culture built on the institution of slavery will suddenly accept fielding emancipated black soldiers in large numbers during a war being fought largely for the preservation of enslaving blacks.

I think a positive response to Cleburne's call would be maybe a small contingent of black troops, that would be incredibly divisive. I imagine there would be a lot of internal struggle, and calls for him to be removed in the Army of the Tennessee. But that doesn't mean it can't have a positive or further reaching effect. It could lead to Cleburne surviving the war, and from there who knows what effects the guy could have on the post-war situation in the South?

It did happen, though. In 1865 the South began training black troops. though only one group was ready by the time they surrendered. Desperation does wonders for changing your views.
My idea is that they make this change sooner, so gradually the confederate ranks start filling up again, plus the feeling that the south just got a "second wind" and the fact they set their slaves free (thus negating the point of the war to many) causes problems to the north.

I can't remember who said that "alternate history is about what is possible, not what is likely", but it's a damn good phrase. A lot of people here seem to only care about what would most likely happen, rather than seeing the many other choices available.

 

[Zulufoxtrot]

It did happen, though. In 1865 the South began training black troops. though only one group was ready by the time they surrendered. Desperation does wonders for changing your views.
My idea is that they make this change sooner, so gradually the confederate ranks start filling up again, plus the feeling that the south just got a "second wind" and the fact they set their slaves free (thus negating the point of the war to many) causes problems to the north.

Right but there's your problem. Even at their most desperate the legislation they passed basically amounted to getting permission from the slave's master to let them enlist, and if I remember right they only got an incredibly small amount of recruits. And this would be months after Robert E. Lee made a similar call for the enlistment of blacks. If that's all they're willing to do in such desperation, and with the support of their greatest hero, I don't see them doing much more based on Cleburne's plea at an earlier point in the war. It's not that the enlistment is impossible in and of itself, it's that you're not going to get enlistment in the numbers needed to rollback the North. And that's not even considering the logistical issues of the Confederacy simply trying to feed, clothe, arm, and train a number of soldiers significant enough to counter the Union. And if you don't have a significant number of black soldiers in the field prior to Atlanta's fall and the election of 1864, you probably aren't going to see the Union backing down.

I also don't think "negating the point of the war" as you put it would cause more problems for the North than it would for the South.

It's not impossible to get black troops, but it's very hard to get enough black troops into the field within a time frame that makes the South staving off the North possible based only on the government listening to Cleburne.

 

[Johnrankins]

Right but there's your problem. Even at their most desperate the legislation they passed basically amounted to getting permission from the slave's master to let them enlist, and if I remember right they only got an incredibly small amount of recruits. And this would be months after Robert E. Lee made a similar call for the enlistment of blacks. If that's all they're willing to do in such desperation, and with the support of their greatest hero, I don't see them doing much more based on Cleburne's plea at an earlier point in the war. It's not that the enlistment is impossible in and of itself, it's that you're not going to get enlistment in the numbers needed to rollback the North. And that's not even considering the logistical issues of the Confederacy simply trying to feed, clothe, arm, and train a number of soldiers significant enough to counter the Union. And if you don't have a significant number of black soldiers in the field prior to Atlanta's fall and the election of 1864, you probably aren't going to see the Union backing down.

I also don't think "negating the point of the war" as you put it would cause more problems for the North than it would for the South.

It's not impossible to get black troops, but it's very hard to get enough black troops into the field within a time frame that makes the South staving off the North possible based only on the government listening to Cleburne.

Not talking about the fact their loyalty to the CSA would be extremely questionable. There is a very good likelihood that they would receive the training, arms and ammo and then promptly desert to the Union the moment they make contact with it.

 

[David S Poepoe]

I've noticed that a lot of ideas get shot down just because they're "not likely"
.

My advice would be to tell those who say "not likely" to "up theirs".

 

[LHB]

I also don't think "negating the point of the war" as you put it would cause more problems for the North than it would for the South.

This point is one that deserves further elaboration. While it wouldn't be an issue for the North in the South there were (and the names escape me at the moment) a number of prominent politicians who expressed their opinions on Cleburne's idea. There was one who said it most directly by responding with something to the effect of, "And if these black soldiers save the Confederacy doesn't that disprove everything we've been fighting for?"

The foundation of slavery was the idea that whites were inherently superior to blacks and without whites around the blacks would be miserable. There was no doubt in the Southern mind that blacks could not be soldiers for this reason. If you have black units in the Confederate Army performing well enough to turn the tide of the war then you've not only got a powerful object lesson in proving that whole notion wrong but you've also got a large group of armed, trained, disciplined, and battle-hardened slaves who could easily turn that against their masters. This would be an especially major concern in much of the South because it was quite normal for the local white population to be outnumbered by blacks, especially in the heart of the cotton belt.

From where the CSA stands, both ideologically and practically, arming slaves to save the Confederacy would be a Pyrrhic victory at best and pave the way to their own downfall shortly after at the hands of the people they once enslaved.

 

[sloreck]

The issue by 1864 is not just manpower for the CSA. The question is how many blacks will be willing to enlist, the number that signed up in 1865 was pretty small - adding 5,000-10,000 more troops who were trained and ready to go in to battle by fall 1864 is a drop in the bucket. Simply equipping a significant (greater than 10,000) number of new troops will be an issue.

The problems of the CSA went beyond manpower, as much as that became an increasing issue. The number of blacks that could be enlisted, by being willing and also who could/would be realized by owners is really not all that great. Slaves forced to join the army, asking for trouble

Having said all of that, enlisting large numbers of slaves with a potential of not only freedom for themselves but other sweeteners, such as manumission of families, would require a southern society that was completely different from the southern society of 1860 - and even 1865. And, as noted before, even large numbers of black soldiers doesn't solve the problem of not enough tools of industry/war.

 

[TFSmith121]

Please list 10 enslaved men willing to fight for the rebels...

In 1864 Patrick Cleburne, the "Stonewall of the West", recognized the CSA was losing the war and pleaded for negro troops to be raised in order to make up for the loss of manpower.
Suppose the government takes it seriously and, thanks to increased manpower and a moral reversal (south is freeing their slaves while north still has his), manage to win their independence.
How would a Confederacy that won its independence thanks to black people be like? Culturally, economically, etc. And how would the US react to such a defeat?

Please list 10 enslaved men willing to fight for the rebels...if you can find them, you'll have a squad. Congratulations, you have accomplished more than the entire Confederate war department and the adjutants general of 13 "rebel" state governments accomplished between 1861-65, plus a century and a half of legions of Lost Cause types trying to demonstrate (at least to their own consciences) that 600,000 or more people died because of tariffs.

The US forces were recruiting entire divisions of USCTs by 1864...more than 150,000 men (even some officers), by 1865.

The reason it didn't happen historically is not because there were men of African ancestry banging on the door of the recruiting office and being denied the opportunity to take the oath of allegiance to the CSA.

Best,

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

My advice would be to tell those who say "not likely" to "up theirs".

That is not likely to happen.

 

[David S Poepoe]

That is not likely to happen.

You can be diplomatic about it. Tho in most cases just ignore them.

 

[LHB]

My advice would be to tell those who say "not likely" to "up theirs".

So tell me what are your thoughts on TLs that run on handwavium?

 

[sarahz]

Please list 10 enslaved men willing to fight for the rebels...if you can find them, you'll have a squad. Congratulations, you have accomplished more than the entire Confederate war department and the adjutants general of 13 "rebel" state governments accomplished between 1861-65, plus a century and a half of legions of Lost Cause types trying to demonstrate (at least to their own consciences) that 600,000 or more people died because of tariffs.

The US forces were recruiting entire divisions of USCTs by 1864...more than 150,000 men (even some officers), by 1865.

The reason it didn't happen historically is not because there were men of African ancestry banging on the door of the recruiting office and being denied the opportunity to take the oath of allegiance to the CSA.

Best,

Well the Free Blacks of New Orleans offered to put a force in the field right at the start of the war, having fought with Jackson in 1812. The Free Blacks included slave owners, and contributed to the State Militia patrols to catch escaped slaves . Their offer was brusquely declined.
Perhaps if their offer had been accepted and black soldiers, albeit not slaves, had performed well there may have been some knock on effects.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Think about the meeting in which Cleburne made his proposal. After he read the memorandum, General William Walker nearly challenged him to a duel and General William Bate accused Cleburne of treason. Joe Johnston (personally not a supporter of slavery, btw) told Cleburne not to go forward with his proposal and told every at the meeting to shut up about the whole thing.

Jefferson Davis heard about it anyway, because an outraged Walker disobeyed Johnston's orders and reported it. Davis immediately ordered - not suggested, but ordered - all discussion of the matter terminated completely. This was not in the heyday of the summer of 1862, when the Confederacy was riding high. This was in January of 1864, when the Confederacy had suffered shattering defeats and was clearly on its heels.

If the South was going to maintain such a fervent opposition to any hint of abolitionism in such circumstances, you need major PODs to get them to alter their perceptions. And those very PODs will likely prevent the war in the first place.

 

[stubear1012]

Black Slave owners in Louisiana

Many years ago I took my children went to Natchitoches, Louisiana which was an old French settlement in Northwest Louisiana. We went to a small settlement called Cane River Creole National Historical Park. According the information available, the settlement and surrounding area was settled by the black decendents of French plantation owners. It appears that the wealthy French plantation owners acknowledged their black children and they did inherit property.

When the Union army came up the Red River, they were surprised to find black slave owners living on plantations and owning black slaves. They then burnt down the black slave owners buildings just has they had been burning down the white slave owners buildings.

Since it was several years ago, I dont remember if there was any mention of the black slave owners trying to join the Confederate army.

Stubear1012