THE BLACK AND THE GRAY

[robertp6165]

This being my first post, and with due awareness to my relative inexpierience with writing alternate histories. I must say that your scenario seems very well thought out and detailed. I have read many civil war PODS and am using one to write my very first Alternate History story, which I hope to finish shortly. I hope to be able to achieve the level of interest and plausibility your scenario contains. I hope you will consider writing on other civil war PODS, I have enjoyed this one very much.

Thank you! Be sure to vote for it on the Best 19th Century Timeline Award category! I will look forward to reading your effort when you finish it.

 

[Historico]

What I meant by Teaxan culture is... What is the Majority of the Population is Anglo, Mexican, and Black? Has it absorbed the Mexican Culture and Added some Anglo factors into? Does Texas recieve much more Immigration thatn the US? And with Texas, being that there wasn't any Juneteenth have the Blacks also suffered under the Peonage system also?

Has the Confederacy made any attempts of making Cuba, Puerto Rico into full fledged States? Do the Carribean Territories suffer under the Peonage System as well? How have the British coloines and South America taken to their new Confedrerate overlords? And is there any large amount of Immigration to the New Confederate Territories? What about the education systems and Political Structures of the CSA Territories? And I can't wait to see Good Ol Confederate fillibusters trying to expand Confederate power through South America...

 

[Historico]

What I meant by Teaxan culture is... What is the Majority of the Population is Anglo, Mexican, and Black? Has it absorbed the Mexican Culture and Added some Anglo factors into? Does Texas recieve much more Immigration thatn the US? And with Texas, being that there wasn't any Juneteenth have the Blacks also suffered under the Peonage system also?

Has the Confederacy made any attempts of making Cuba, Puerto Rico into full fledged States? Do the Carribean Territories suffer under the Peonage System as well? How have the British coloines and South America taken to their new Confedrerate overlords? And is there any large amount of Immigration to the New Confederate Territories? What about the education systems and Political Structures of the CSA Territories? And I can't wait to see Good Ol Confederate fillibusters trying to expand Confederate power through South America...

Is annyone going to tackle my questions?

 

[robertp6165]

What I meant by Teaxan culture is... What is the Majority of the Population is Anglo, Mexican, and Black? Has it absorbed the Mexican Culture and Added some Anglo factors into? Does Texas recieve much more Immigration thatn the US? And with Texas, being that there wasn't any Juneteenth have the Blacks also suffered under the Peonage system also?

The majority of the population is undoubtedly, especially since the conquest of Mexico proper in 1905, Mexican. The next largest group is Anglo/white European, followed by blacks and then native American. The Anglos are in definite control. The original Anglo "Texans" are on top of the heap, but they share power with white European immigrants who have come in since the 1870s, and to a lesser extent even with blacks, who have benefited (to a lesser extent than in the Confederacy, but still have seen benefit) from their service in the Confederate and Texas armies during various wars. Texas has been encouraging immigration from Europe and the "Anglo" republics of North America, partly to facilitate economic growth, but also because boosting the non-Mexican population is a major policy goal for Texas. I am thinking they would have to have set up something akin to South Africa's apartheid system...but aimed at the Hispanic population rather than the blacks. Mexicans are very repressed and restricted within the Republic of Texas, and Texas deals with any signs of insurrection among them quite brutally. If there is a dystopia in this timeline, Texas is it.

Has the Confederacy made any attempts of making Cuba, Puerto Rico into full fledged States?

Cuba was admitted into the Confederacy as a State a long time ago. Puerto Rico and Guyana will be admitted in the next installment of the timeline.

Do the Carribean Territories suffer under the Peonage System as well?

No. The Confederate national government never introduced it into the territories, all of which were acquired after slavery was abolished in the Confederacy. But remember that in most places (all except South Carolina, Mississippi, and Alabama, where the system was abused and perpetuated as a means to keep local blacks under control), the peonage system worked well as a means for blacks to transition from slavery to the responsibilities of full citizenship. So for the most part, blacks did not "suffer under the Peonage System." It was a necessary step on their road to full citizenship.

How have the British coloines and South America taken to their new Confedrerate overlords? And is there any large amount of Immigration to the New Confederate Territories? What about the education systems and Political Structures of the CSA Territories?

The Confederate have had a lot of experience administering overseas territories, and the experiences they had in Cuba taught them the value of ruling with a light hand. So overall, the people of Guyana are taking to Confederate rule just fine. As for the education system and political structure in the CSA territories, I imagine those will be similar to those in the Confederate States themselves. And yes, there has been some immigration to the Confederacy, and to the Confederate territories. But not nearly as much as into the U.S. and Texas, because the Confederates don't actively encourage it to the same extent.

And I can't wait to see Good Ol Confederate fillibusters trying to expand Confederate power through South America...

Well, you are going to have to...because it's not going to happen.

 

[Brilliantlight]

The Kenner Mission was sent in 1865 in OTL. In the timeline it is done in early 1864.

Why? Until Atlanta falls the South thinks it has a prayer of a chance and it wouldn't send such a mission if they had a prayer of a chance. There was A REASON why it wasn't sent in 1864, namely the South wasn't going to give up slavery except under two conditions 1)Northern force of arms or 2) It is clear #1 is going to happen anyways so give it up to look like it is a concession. By this time most Southern politicians are worrying about treason trials and getting shot or hanged. Unfortunately for them by the time they were willing to offer it Europe knew the war was over as well and figured "why piss off the winning party to help a doomed cause just because at the 11th hour they are willing to give up what they started the war over?"

 

[Historico]

With the Confederacy thriving in this TL, How has submarine Technology progressed since the C.S.S. Hunley? Does the Confederacy have an particular edge over the other powers of the World because of their subs? And How tightly do the Confederacy patrol it's borders?

 

[robertp6165]

With the Confederacy thriving in this TL, How has submarine Technology progressed since the C.S.S. Hunley? Does the Confederacy have an particular edge over the other powers of the World because of their subs?

Submarine technology is roughly equal to OTL. The Hunley made no more impact in this TL than it did in OTL. It went out, sank the Housatonic, and then sank itself. And since, as in OTL, it took 3 crews to their deaths, no more were built. John Holland, as in OTL, developed the first truly practical subs in the last years of the 19th Century, selling his plans to the U.S. Navy and Texas initially.

Indeed, in the Great War, the Confederacy did not have a large submarine force. Indeed, the really innovative power in submarine tech was Texas, who saw submarines and torpedo boats as an inexpensive alternative to a traditional battleship navy and fielded a large fleet of them in the Great War (they did have a small battleship fleet which cooperated with the British fleet in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean during the war as well).

The performance of Texas and other subs in the Great War lead all the major powers to invest in sub fleets between the wars, and subs played a large role in the War of Austrian Devolution. But again, the Confederacy was not especially innovative with regard to submarine design.

And How tightly do the Confederacy patrol it's borders?

No particularly tightly, probably not much more than the OTL United States did.

 

[Historico]

The majority of the population is undoubtedly, especially since the conquest of Mexico proper in 1905, Mexican. The next largest group is Anglo/white European, followed by blacks and then native American. The Anglos are in definite control. The original Anglo "Texans" are on top of the heap, but they share power with white European immigrants who have come in since the 1870s, and to a lesser extent even with blacks, who have benefited (to a lesser extent than in the Confederacy, but still have seen benefit) from their service in the Confederate and Texas armies during various wars. Texas has been encouraging immigration from Europe and the "Anglo" republics of North America, partly to facilitate economic growth, but also because boosting the non-Mexican population is a major policy goal for Texas. I am thinking they would have to have set up something akin to South Africa's apartheid system...but aimed at the Hispanic population rather than the blacks. Mexicans are very repressed and restricted within the Republic of Texas, and Texas deals with any signs of insurrection among them quite brutally. If there is a dystopia in this timeline, Texas is it.

Robert, So have there been more of an southward Illegal migration of Mexicans to the Free Republics of South America(An interesting twist)? But how did Texas and the United States do during the Dust Bowl years? And was there any of North America's Anglo Republics that expierenced the lifestyle of the Roaring Twenties as in OTL?

 

[robertp6165]

PRESIDENTS OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA
1861 TO PRESENT

NAME...........................................TERM...................PARTY

Jefferson Finis Davis........................1861-1868...........Liberty
Robert Edward Lee..........................1868-1870...........Liberty
Patrick Ronayne Cleburne.................1870-1874...........Liberty
James Longstreet............................1874-1880...........Liberty
Wade Hampton...............................1880-1881...........Liberty
Fitzhugh Lee..................................1881-1892............Liberty
Joseph Wheeler..............................1892-1898............Liberty
Raphael Semmes, Jr.........................1898-1904...........State Sovereignty
J.E.B. Stuart, Jr..............................1904-1910...........State Sovereignty
Simon Bolivar Buckner, Jr..................1910-1916...........State Sovereignty
Woodrow Wilson.............................1916-1922............Liberty
Eugene Talmadge............................1922-1928...........State Sovereignty
Albert Cabell Ritchie........................1928-1934............Liberty
Thomas W. Hardwick.......................1934-1940............Liberty
Harvey Parnell................................1940-1946............State Sovereignty
Richard Brevard Russell.....................1946-1952............Liberty
Colgate Whitehead Darden................1952-1958............Liberty
Robert Gregg Cherry.........................1958-1964...........Liberty
Theodore R. McKeldon......................1964-1970...........State Sovereignty
Fred Shuttlesworth ..........................1970-1976...........State Sovereignty
Robert E. Lee IV..............................1976-1982...........Liberty
James Eubert Holshouser...................1982-1988...........State Sovereignty
Charles Clifton Finch.........................1988-1994...........State Sovereignty
Zell Bryan Miller...............................1994-2000...........Liberty
Juan Hernando Alvarez......................2000-2006...........Liberty

PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
1861 TO PRESENT

Name............................................Term..................Party

Abraham Lincoln..............................1861-1865..........Republican
George Brinton McClellan...................1865-1869..........Democrat
William Seward................................1869-1872..........Republican
Henry B. Anthony............................1872-1873..........Republican
Ulysses S. Grant.............................1873-1881..........Democrat
Benjamin Harrison............................1881-1889..........Republican
James Baird Weaver.........................1889-1893..........Democrat
William McKinley..............................1893-1905..........Republican
William Jennings Bryan......................1905-1909..........Democrat
Theodore Roosevelt.........................1909-1910..........Republican
William Howard Taft.........................1910-1921..........Republican
Alfred E. Smith................................1921-1925..........Democrat
Charles Evans Hughes.......................1925-1933..........Republican
Franklin Delano Roosevelt..................1933-1941..........Democrat
Herbert Henry Lehman......................1941-1949..........Republican
Frederick George Payne....................1949-1957..........Democrat
Nelson A. Rockefeller........................1957-1969..........Republican
William Victor Roth...........................1969-1973..........Republican
Thomas Francis Eagleton...................1973-1977..........Democrat
Ronald Wilson Reagan.......................1977-1985...........Republican
Edward Moore Kennedy.....................1985-1993..........Democrat
James Johnston Blanchard.................1993-2001...........Republican
Lincoln Davenport Chafee..................2001-2009...........Republican

 

[Othniel]

Are you sure Taft would be in the White House? Without the Phillipean governing expirence I'm almost postive that he'd be in the spreme court by 1905.

 

[Othniel]

After rereading your TL, there would be no way Taft would become president. Without something more important to keep him out of the spreme court he would have taken a friend's nomination, thatis if a Republician was in office at the time. McKinley was in office at the time the appointment would run and thus I think you see a fair chance that somebody else will get the Republician party nomination. His nature was to be a judge.

 

[htgriffin]

Obviously it made an impact on you, at any rate.

Ha-ha.

You are of course entitled to your opinions. However, the footnotes to the timeline, which perhaps you didn't read, explain the reasoning and historical justification behind all of the "implausibilities" you cite, as well as other items in the timeline likely to be found controversial in some quarters.

Actually I did read them. I simply questioned your reasoning and conclusions, especially considering multiple factors you ignore or dismiss out of hand.

As I stated in the footnotes, I did compress the timeline a bit. In OTL, the letter from Governor Henry Watkins Allen, which is what actually started the process which lead to the black recruitment law, was published in October 1864. The legislation was passed in March 1865, six months later. However, the factor which caused the legislation to pass was General Lee coming out publicly in favor of it. This happened in February 1865, and the legislation was passed a month later. In the ATL, Lee doesn't wait five months before coming out publicly...he does so almost immediately, because the proposal originated within the army itself, rather than being proposed by a politician. That is what allows the timeline to be compressed.

You presume this is sufficent, while I suspect that the less dire military and political situation would have made the Confederate House (last I checked the Senate never approved this, the only troops were authorized by Virginia on a state level) find such a desprate measure tolerable.

The first units that were raised in OTL were primarily composed of free blacks. They did flock to the banner, or were in the process of doing so when the war ended.

Interesting... but I wonder how many dismissed this offer (esp. since the regimental recruits were already working for the Confederate Military Hospital)?

The fact remains that Forrest did free his own slaves who went with him into the army.

Promising freedom, or perhaps an 'honorable retirement' to those who did 'nigger work' and thus freed up white men to fight is a far cry from actually giving slaves arms and encouraging them to kill white men.

I think you really do not grasp the degree to which Servile Insurrection terrified the White South. Even the rumor of revolt was met with a general crackdown, and the reaction Mr. Turner and Mr. Vessey inspired is a matter of public record. House servants were trusted... somewhat... if they were sufficently and consistently servile... but the Planter Aristocrats calling the shots in the CSA were deeply fearful of their vast wealth's source.

He did have black soldiers in his command. The private mentioned in the timeline, Louis Napoleon Nelson, actually did serve with Forrest.

Did he know it? Given his treatment of Union Forces of Color I find this rather difficult to credit without a fair bit of independent confirmation.

Forrest was an extremely clever strategist. We are talking about a man who once convinced a Union general to surrender by having a single battery of artillery ride around and around a hill over and over again, convincing the Yankee that he was outnumbered when in fact his force was far superior to Forrest's. Do you think it totally impossible that he would not take advantage of the recently passed legislation to encourage black Union troops to desert?

No.

I think it surprising that it would work, considering the odds against any Black man going as far as to inlist being willing to take him at his word given what had been happening before 1864.

They did exactly that in OTL...it just took them 20 years to accomplish with a 30,000 man army. With a 500,000 man army, it takes less than five years. Why is that implausible?

Doing so while the Confederacy makes no attempt at expansionism which the South was the biggest endorser of in the pre-war years? Especially if the reason for that Army was still exant?

Yes (if anything western settlement would be slowed here)

The riots are based on the OTL 1863 riots, just magnified.

It is hard to duplicate or magnify the factors that resulted in the NYC riots (large population of immigrants worried about competition, strong criminal gangs, etc.) that you seem to be basing this on, at least not enough for the result you are shooting at.

As for banishing the blacks, several northern States already had laws on the books that did just that.

And several others had considerable popular support for abolitionism, as shocking as you may find it.

More to the point these were also the wealthier and more influential ones, and not likely to do this complete about-face either.

In the extremely bitter atmosphere following a lost war, is it totally implausible that this would become a national policy?

See Above, especially since the southern planters were considerably less loved than the Negro even in the most anti-black 'Free-Soil' states.

I do not deny that slave-rape occurred. What I do deny is that it was a common occurrence.

<looks at descriptions of escaped slaves and explicit definition of negro>

<looks at private writings of planter's wives>

<looks at genetic makeup of Black American ethnic group>

<looks at family... indeed at own reflection>

I'll not even dignify this statement with a reply..

And if you will recall, I made that statement in response to the ludicrous argument made by another poster that, because some slave women were raped by their owners, the slaves would not have resented being raped by Yankee soldiers who happened to be passing through...which was an extremely frequent occurrence, as you can find by researching the OFFICIAL RECORDS and other wartime sources.

As frequent as assaults by... well... anyone who thought to in peacetime, not to mention Confederate soldiery?

A Crass and rude statement that I disagree with, but the presumption that all was roses and safty in the gentle keeping of Southern Gentlemen is an insult.

As I said earlier, you are entitled to your opinions. I recognized, before I wrote the timeline, that any timeline which presented the Confederacy in anything other than a completely negative light would be a lightning rod for comments like these, and my prediction has been fulfilled, in spades.

Having read your work and your footnotes, I think there is far more than Yankee Snobbery behind the criticism of your work.

I will be honest, there is quite literally nothing I find admirable about the inception of the Confederate States of America. The fact that the same people who forced through the Fugitive Slave Act, hailed as a victory the Dred Scott decision, and opposed popular soverighty in the territories in favor of mandating the extension of slavery (and not coincidentally, the political power of thier class) as far as possible fled the Union (often indulging in vote-rigging and open intimidation) to avoid federal dictatorship is laughable. The Tariff was the lowest it had been in decades, and and there were more than enough free-soil agricultural states to help block it.

(Yes, Lincoln offered legal protection of slavery within the slave states if they remained in the Union... But. That. Was. Not. Enough. To. Satisfy. The. Pro. Slavery. Camp.)

If you drew up a TL where the CSA, somehow, grew beyond it's base origins (much as one could argue the USA did) then you would receive a lot less criticism than you do in attempting to dismiss those base origins out of hand.

Which is why, in contrast to most other writers of AH, I went to great lengths to footnote the timeline and present historical backing for it. Given that I DO have ample historical backing for all the events which I portray in my timeline...something which it's detractors, when challenged, never seem to be able to provide...please forgive me if I am not unduely bothered by your rants. Have a nice day.

It is clear that you have a vested interest in seeking any reason or excuse, when discussing the Confederate Cause or Southern society, to ignore the proverbial 'Elephant in the Room' in favor of some inherent agrarian nobility of charachter not found in the money-grubbing yankees... and seek to scrape up any events that you could portray as normalcy despite the numerous counterindications found in the public record.

You are entitiled to your dreams, but you can expect to be called on attempts to pass them off as well researched Alternate History.

HTG

 

[robertp6165]

Actually I did read them [the footnotes to the timeline]. I simply questioned your reasoning and conclusions, especially considering multiple factors you ignore or dismiss out of hand.

In other words, you read them, but chose to ignore them because of your own preconceived biases.

You presume this [Lee's declaration of support for the black recruitment law] is sufficent, while I suspect that the less dire military and political situation would have made the Confederate House (last I checked the Senate never approved this, the only troops were authorized by Virginia on a state level) find such a desprate measure tolerable.

Actually, the Senate did approve it, on March 13, 1865. As for whether Lee's support would have been as decisive in 1864 as it was in 1865, that is questionable. As with any AH, one must read this timeline as a description of what MIGHT have happened, not necessarily what WOULD have happened.

Interesting... but I wonder how many dismissed this offer (esp. since the regimental recruits were already working for the Confederate Military Hospital)?

It is impossible to know that. I went with the best evidence available. Again, this is AH...an exercise in what MIGHT HAVE BEEN, not in what WAS, or what WOULD HAVE BEEN.

Promising freedom, or perhaps an 'honorable retirement' to those who did 'nigger work' and thus freed up white men to fight is a far cry from actually giving slaves arms and encouraging them to kill white men.I think you really do not grasp the degree to which Servile Insurrection terrified the White South. Even the rumor of revolt was met with a general crackdown, and the reaction Mr. Turner and Mr. Vessey inspired is a matter of public record. House servants were trusted... somewhat... if they were sufficently and consistently servile... but the Planter Aristocrats calling the shots in the CSA were deeply fearful of their vast wealth's source.

Odd that this argument was not being made, from some quarter, during the Confederate debates which lead to the passage of the black recruitment bill in OTL. One would think, if this was such a major concern in the white South, that we would find Confederate Senators and newspaper editors railing that "We can't arm the slaves...they'll just turn the guns against us!" But that didn't happen. We find people arguing that slaves won't make good soldiers or that white soldiers will desert rather than serve with them. We don't find anyone arguing that the slaves will rebel once armed.

Did he know it? Given his treatment of Union Forces of Color I find this rather difficult to credit without a fair bit of independent confirmation.

You might do some actual research on Forrest, rather than blindly accepting the "cardboard villain" figure which is popularly bandied about nowadays and the blurbs which appear in general histories of the war. He was a lot more complex than his modern detractors give him credit for.

His "treatment of Union forces of Color," as you put it, amounts to one incident...Fort Pillow. And that incident is highly controversial even to this day. Despite over a hundred years of research and retellings of the story, we still don't know exactly what happened at Fort Pillow. But there is one major fact which argues strongly against the stories that Forrest lead a massacre there. Union General William T. Sherman was ordered to investigate the incident. He sent a letter to Forrest informing him that if his investigation found evidence of a massacre, he would retaliate against Confederate prisoners in Union custody. No retaliation ever took place, indicating that Sherman, at least, found no evidence of a massacre.

I think it surprising that it [Forrest's attempt to get black Union troops to desert] would work, considering the odds against any Black man going as far as to inlist being willing to take him at his word given what had been happening before 1864.

To what are you referring?

Doing so [forcing the Indians onto reservations] while the Confederacy makes no attempt at expansionism which the South was the biggest endorser of in the pre-war years?

The reason why some antebellum Southern politicians pushed expansionism in pre-war years was simple...an attempt to maintain the balance of power between the South and the North in Congress. This motive no longer exists in the ATL, and the Confederacy, having endured three years of bloody carnage and destruction in order to achieve it's independence (and having achieved it only by the expedient of arming the slaves) is not going to be eager for a rematch with the Union any time soon. So they aren't going to do anything provocative to cause that to happen. And with a 500,000 man army, the Union could still devote vastly increased resources to Indian fighting, even if they felt the need to keep a large force on the Confederate border as well. The Indians are toast, either way.

It is hard to duplicate or magnify the factors that resulted in the NYC riots (large population of immigrants worried about competition, strong criminal gangs, etc.) that you seem to be basing this on, at least not enough for the result you are shooting at.

I freely admit we are talking a worst case scenario here. But, as stated above, this is AH...an exercise in what MIGHT have happened, not what necessarily WOULD have happened.

I find it somewhat amusing that Harry Turtledove, in the GREAT WAR, AMERICAN EMPIRE, and now the SETTLING ACCOUNTS series, deals in worst case scenarios too, but we don't find people like you accusing him of bias because of it. Constant warfare between the Union and the Confederacy? Constant rebellions in Utah, bloodily suppressed by the Union? A Confederate Nazi Party setting up death camps for blacks? All of these things MIGHT have happened, but were very unlikely. They do make for a good story, though, however implausible they might be. Why should not my scenario be granted the same leeway as these equally implausible scenarios?

And several others had considerable popular support for abolitionism, as shocking as you may find it. More to the point these were also the wealthier and more influential ones, and not likely to do this complete about-face either.See Above, especially since the southern planters were considerably less loved than the Negro even in the most anti-black 'Free-Soil' states.

I am fully aware that there was considerable popular support for abolitionism in some Northern States. But support for abolitionism does not translate into a desire to live alongside blacks. Sentiment in the North in OTL after the war was pretty universal in that they wanted the freed blacks to stay in the South. And in a scenario where blacks are being held up as the "cause" of all the suffering endured...in vain...by the Northern people during a very bloody war, which is VERY LIKELY to have been the case if the North lost the war, I think you would find pro-black sentiment in the North a scarce as hen's teeth.

<looks at descriptions of escaped slaves and explicit definition of negro> <looks at private writings of planter's wives> <looks at genetic makeup of Black American ethnic group><looks at family... indeed at own reflection>

I'll not even dignify this statement [that slave rape was uncommon] with a reply.

You ignore some data which don't support your conclusion. First, I have done extensive research in the 1870 Census...the first in which free former slave families are enumerated. If slave rape was common, you would expect there to be a very large proportion of mulattoes listed, but there isn't. Are they there? Yes. Are they there in large numbers? No. Second, the private writings of planter's wives are not a reliable source...many women are quite often suspicious of their husbands even when such suspicion is not warranted, and in any case, we have only a tiny number of such memoirs which does not make for a representative sample. And third, the "genetic makeup of black Americans" today has as much to do with mixing which occurred after the war as it does with what went before. The fact that many (or even most) blacks today have white DNA does not prove when that DNA was introduced, or how.

As frequent as assaults by... well... anyone who thought to in peacetime...

Again, I would like to see the data which supports this.

...not to mention [widespread rapes of slaves by] Confederate soldiery?

Or the data which supports this.

A Crass and rude statement that I disagree with, but the presumption that all was roses and safty in the gentle keeping of Southern Gentlemen is an insult.

Where did I say that "all was roses and safety in the gentle keeping of Southern gentlemen?" Odd, I don't recall ever saying that. This is what is called a Straw Man argument, and is invalid.

I will be honest, there is quite literally nothing I find admirable about the inception of the Confederate States of America. The fact that the same people who forced through the Fugitive Slave Act, hailed as a victory the Dred Scott decision, and opposed popular soverighty in the territories in favor of mandating the extension of slavery (and not coincidentally, the political power of thier class) as far as possible fled the Union (often indulging in vote-rigging and open intimidation) to avoid federal dictatorship is laughable. The Tariff was the lowest it had been in decades, and and there were more than enough free-soil agricultural states to help block it.

You are welcome to your opinions. I have argued all of these points elsewhere, and I won't rehash those arguments here. The problem with using this argument as a reason to dislike my timeline is that my timeline has nothing to do with the "inception of the Confederacy," the process by which the Confederacy declared it's independence, or the reasons why it did so. It is about what MIGHT have happened if the Confederacy had acted on a proposal which was made historically, and had carried out actions in early 1864 which IT CARRIED OUT IN OTL in early 1865.

Even if we accept everything you say about how and why the Confederacy came to be, it has no relevance to the timeline because all this occurred before the POINT OF DEPARTURE.

If you drew up a TL where the CSA, somehow, grew beyond it's base origins (much as one could argue the USA did) then you would receive a lot less criticism than you do in attempting to dismiss those base origins out of hand.

Odd. I thought that was what I did! But strangely, I still find my work being criticized. Oh well. As I said before, I really never expected anything different.

It is clear that you have a vested interest in seeking any reason or excuse, when discussing the Confederate Cause or Southern society, to ignore the proverbial 'Elephant in the Room' in favor of some inherent agrarian nobility of charachter not found in the money-grubbing yankees... and seek to scrape up any events that you could portray as normalcy despite the numerous counterindications found in the public record.

You are entitiled to your dreams, but you can expect to be called on attempts to pass them off as well researched Alternate History.

Here we see the true origins of your critique, which is not so much about my work as it is about your perception of my politics. Given that fact, it is obvious that I could present the most meticulously researched timeline in the world, and you would still find fault with it, because it does not present the Confederacy as a complete dystopia.

So, once again, please forgive me if I am not unduely bothered by your rants. Have a good day.

 

[chronos]

Well I thought it was an excellent time-line and enjoyed reading it, in spite of the nay-sayers which have arrived in droves. I will post one of my own when it's finished.

 

[robertp6165]

Well I thought it was an excellent time-line and enjoyed reading it, in spite of the nay-sayers which have arrived in droves. I will post one of my own when it's finished.

Thank you. Actually, opinion on it has been as much favorable as negative, which surprises me. I expected reaction to be a lot more negative than it has been.

 

[chronos]

Interesting one,the South rexruits Black troops in time and changes the overwhelming balance in numbers held by the North in 1864.

If Sherman fails to take Atlanta and worse loses badly Lincoln will not win the 1864 election and there will be a negotiated peace.

 

[htgriffin]

Odd that this argument was not being made, from some quarter, during the Confederate debates which lead to the passage of the black recruitment bill in OTL. One would think, if this was such a major concern in the white South, that we would find Confederate Senators and newspaper editors railing that "We can't arm the slaves...they'll just turn the guns against us!" But that didn't happen. We find people arguing that slaves won't make good soldiers or that white soldiers will desert rather than serve with them. We don't find anyone arguing that the slaves will rebel once armed.

Perhaps because of the presumption that only the most trustworthy slaves (as judged by thier masters) would even be armed. You propose a far more general appropriation of property under far less desprate conditions.

His "treatment of Union forces of Color," as you put it, amounts to one incident...Fort Pillow. And that incident is highly controversial even to this day. Despite over a hundred years of research and retellings of the story, we still don't know exactly what happened at Fort Pillow. But there is one major fact which argues strongly against the stories that Forrest lead a massacre there. Union General William T. Sherman was ordered to investigate the incident. He sent a letter to Forrest informing him that if his investigation found evidence of a massacre, he would retaliate against Confederate prisoners in Union custody. No retaliation ever took place, indicating that Sherman, at least, found no evidence of a massacre.

Lucky Nate....

The reason why some antebellum Southern politicians pushed expansionism in pre-war years was simple...an attempt to maintain the balance of power between the South and the North in Congress. This motive no longer exists in the ATL, and the Confederacy, having endured three years of bloody carnage and destruction in order to achieve it's independence (and having achieved it only by the expedient of arming the slaves) is not going to be eager for a rematch with the Union any time soon. So they aren't going to do anything provocative to cause that to happen.

Three years of bloody carnage is quite sufficent to keep a great deal of attention on things.

And with a 500,000 man army, the Union could still devote vastly increased resources to Indian fighting, even if they felt the need to keep a large force on the Confederate border as well. The Indians are toast, either way.



I freely admit we are talking a worst case scenario here. But, as stated above, this is AH...an exercise in what MIGHT have happened, not what necessarily WOULD have happened.

I find it somewhat amusing that Harry Turtledove, in the GREAT WAR, AMERICAN EMPIRE, and now the SETTLING ACCOUNTS series, deals in worst case scenarios too, but we don't find people like you accusing him of bias because of it. Constant warfare between the Union and the Confederacy? Constant rebellions in Utah, bloodily suppressed by the Union? A Confederate Nazi Party setting up death camps for blacks? All of these things MIGHT have happened, but were very unlikely. They do make for a good story, though, however implausible they might be. Why should not my scenario be granted the same leeway as these equally implausible scenarios?

Two points you miss:

• I for one am not holding up Turtledove as an unequaled master of AH.
• All of his major shifts occur _well_ after a fairly minor/plausable POD. This is what I was telling you was needed for a plausable Utopic CSA.

I am fully aware that there was considerable popular support for abolitionism in some Northern States. But support for abolitionism does not translate into a desire to live alongside blacks. Sentiment in the North in OTL after the war was pretty universal in that they wanted the freed blacks to stay in the South. And in a scenario where blacks are being held up as the "cause" of all the suffering endured...in vain...by the Northern people during a very bloody war, which is VERY LIKELY to have been the case if the North lost the war, I think you would find pro-black sentiment in the North a scarce as hen's teeth.

Given.

Psychotically Anti-Black sentiment on the scale you mention is also unlikely, especially given how many northerners were far more concerned about the preservation of a republican union and how disliked the Planter Aristocracy had made themselves on thier own.

You ignore some data which don't support your conclusion. First, I have done extensive research in the 1870 Census...the first in which free former slave families are enumerated. If slave rape was common, you would expect there to be a very large proportion of mulattoes listed, but there isn't.

Acknowledgement of nigger byblows was not exactly common, and considering the devinition of Blackness I think Mulattoes, Quadroons, and Octroons were quint undercounted.

Are they there? Yes. Are they there in large numbers? No. Second, the private writings of planter's wives are not a reliable source...many women are quite often suspicious of their husbands even when such suspicion is not warranted, and in any case, we have only a tiny number of such memoirs which does not make for a representative sample. And third, the "genetic makeup of black Americans" today has as much to do with mixing which occurred after the war as it does with what went before. The fact that many (or even most) blacks today have white DNA does not prove when that DNA was introduced, or how.

I think my own and my sister's research into my family tree would have taken note of honorable marriage with whites.

There were none. Concubinage to men with power of life and death over one was the best case scenario.

You are welcome to your opinions. I have argued all of these points elsewhere, and I won't rehash those arguments here. The problem with using this argument as a reason to dislike my timeline is that my timeline has nothing to do with the "inception of the Confederacy," the process by which the Confederacy declared it's independence, or the reasons why it did so. It is about what MIGHT have happened if the Confederacy had acted on a proposal which was made historically, and had carried out actions in early 1864 which IT CARRIED OUT IN OTL in early 1865.

Under a vastly different political and military situation.

Would you take seriously an attempted POD where the German and Japanese leadership surrendered unconditionally to the Allied Powers in mid-1944 without a great deal of changes in external factors?

Even if we accept everything you say about how and why the Confederacy came to be, it has no relevance to the timeline because all this occurred before the POINT OF DEPARTURE.

If the changes in policy and attitudes happened over the course of a generation, or even a decade, I would not complain.

The instant 180s your propose are... hard to swallow from my end.

Odd. I thought that was what I did! But strangely, I still find my work being criticized. Oh well. As I said before, I really never expected anything different.

Grow Beyond != Handwave Away.

Here we see the true origins of your critique, which is not so much about my work as it is about your perception of my politics. Given that fact, it is obvious that I could present the most meticulously researched timeline in the world, and you would still find fault with it, because it does not present the Confederacy as a complete dystopia.

Nope. You do not show a plausible transition of the CSA to anything but a Dystopia.

Trust me, there is a vast different between the frentic handwaving you present and a course of reforming a society quite throughly... which, IMO, would be required.

HTG

 

[htgriffin]

If Sherman fails to take Atlanta and worse loses badly Lincoln will not win the 1864 election and there will be a negotiated peace.

Nobody could dispute this at all.

(unless they were convinced that Lincoln was the sort of power-mad tyrant that would never permit himself to stand for an election he could lose, but that is another story)

Interesting one,the South rexruits Black troops in time and changes the overwhelming balance in numbers held by the North in 1864.

My key question is how on Earth Lee could get away with this before Atlanta falls, and any hope of a new President to negotiate with is gone, without it blowing up in his face. I am afraid this is where Robert's idea falls apart on the plausability scale.

HTG

 

[robertp6165]

My key question is how on Earth Lee could get away with this before Atlanta falls, and any hope of a new President to negotiate with is gone, without it blowing up in his face. I am afraid this is where Robert's idea falls apart on the plausability scale.

HTG

I freely admit that in order for the scenario to work, a lot of things have to go exactly right for the Confederacy.

But this is true of any alternate history. As stated earlier, AH is not an exercise in what WOULD ABSOLUTELY have happened or what was MOST LIKELY to happen, but simply one possible scenario that MIGHT have happened.

 

[htgriffin]

My key question is how on Earth Lee could get away with this before Atlanta falls, and any hope of a new President to negotiate with is gone, without it blowing up in his face. I am afraid this is where Robert's idea falls apart on the plausability scale.

I freely admit that in order for the scenario to work, a lot of things have to go exactly right for the Confederacy.

But this is true of any alternate history. As stated earlier, AH is not an exercise in what WOULD ABSOLUTELY have happened or what was MOST LIKELY to happen, but simply one possible scenario that MIGHT have happened.

While I say that this is true as far as it goes, there is a limit between a Remote Possibility (Post 1225 Rhomaioi Recovery) and Utter Pipe Dream (Post-1450 Rhomaioi Recovery).

All things considered, The Black and the Gray comes far closer to the latter without considerable tweaking well before the POD given.

HTG