Suppose that the Southern States had won the Civil War?

Page 2 of 4 [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

showman616
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 8 Feb 2009
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 170
Location: Washington DC, USA

26 Oct 2009, 10:51 pm

I toyed with writing a sci fi novel about that.

America becomes two countries. The north would not be able to afford to buy alaska from russia. Alaska get siezed by Japan in the 1905 russo japanese war.

During the depression both americas are driven to politcal extremes. The confederacy elects a a kind of cross between Huey Long and George Wallace type- an american fascist.

The south becomes allied to the axis, the north to the allies. And the US ends up refighting the civil war-but with the weapons of world war two.

North america ends up as devestated as Europe and Japan were in the reall ww2. There for no marshal plan for rebuilding europe. And the whole world slips back into the dark ages.

Thank gawd lee surrendered!



Silver_Meteor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,399
Location: Warwick, Rhode Island

27 Oct 2009, 1:15 am

Slavery in the South would have died out in the late 1800s. I am not sure about racial segregation though. It would have lasted much longer.


_________________
Not through revolution but by evolution are all things accomplished in permanency.


Ugainius
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 8
Location: Somewhere

27 Oct 2009, 1:00 pm

I personally believe had slavery in the southern states been allowed to die out naturally the great racial tensions could have largely been avoided. A lot of the hatred of blacks can be largely attributed to the intense bitterness over the loss of the civil war and the economic decline that followed.



X_Parasite
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 716
Location: Right here.

27 Oct 2009, 1:20 pm

Southern whites viewed blacks as inferior. In general, everyone was racist, even in the North.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

27 Oct 2009, 4:33 pm

X_Parasite wrote:
Southern whites viewed blacks as inferior. In general, everyone was racist, even in the North.


Few in the Union believed that a black man could be on equal terms with a white man. However many in the Union believed that slavery was an abomination.

ruveyn



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

28 Oct 2009, 10:05 pm

Silver_Meteor wrote:
Slavery in the South would have died out in the late 1800s. I am not sure about racial segregation though. It would have lasted much longer.


Why would slavery have died out on its own? Most of the people in some southern states were slaves, and it took federal troops to come in and announce that they were free.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Oct 2009, 8:56 am

pandabear wrote:
Silver_Meteor wrote:
Slavery in the South would have died out in the late 1800s. I am not sure about racial segregation though. It would have lasted much longer.


Why would slavery have died out on its own? Most of the people in some southern states were slaves, and it took federal troops to come in and announce that they were free.


Modern industrial technological systems do not work will with labor provided by chattels.

ruveyn



david_42
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2009
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 216
Location: PNW, USA

29 Oct 2009, 9:32 am

The form of slavery that existed in the South was only viable as long as land for growing labor-intensive crops (cotton, cane, etc) was cheap and fertile. Much of the land in the South was close to exhaustion by then.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

29 Oct 2009, 11:03 am

Why wouldn't modern industrial technological systems work with labor provided by chattels? Many slaves in the South were, in fact, highly skilled craftsmen.

Thomas Jefferson owned over 600 slaves, many of whom he fathered himself. And, many of his slaves were quite skilled, especially those who built Monticello.

Slave labour was used to build the US capital.

After federal troops freed the slaves, many southern plantations move to a sharecropping system, which built upon the old model of slavery. The only difference was that the people could no longer be auctioned off.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Oct 2009, 12:13 pm

pandabear wrote:
Why wouldn't modern industrial technological systems work with labor provided by chattels? Many slaves in the South were, in fact, highly skilled craftsmen.



One of the main costs of slavery was deliberate slow work on the part of the slave along with escapes to freedom. A voluntary worker is more productive.

Can you see people on assembly lines being whipped to make them work faster. Simon Legree is out of place in an industrial scence.

In the late and unlamented Soviet Union where workers toiled for the State production was very low. To get good work from workers one has to give them good material incentives and a certain amount of respect.

ruveyn



beejay
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 236
Location: Wilmington, North Carolina

29 Oct 2009, 11:58 pm

showman616 wrote:
I toyed with writing a sci fi novel about that.

America becomes two countries. The north would not be able to afford to buy alaska from russia. Alaska get siezed by Japan in the 1905 russo japanese war.

During the depression both americas are driven to politcal extremes. The confederacy elects a a kind of cross between Huey Long and George Wallace type- an american fascist.

The south becomes allied to the axis, the north to the allies. And the US ends up refighting the civil war-but with the weapons of world war two.

North america ends up as devestated as Europe and Japan were in the reall ww2. There for no marshal plan for rebuilding europe. And the whole world slips back into the dark ages.

Thank gawd lee surrendered!


There's a series of books written by alternative history author Harry Turtledove that almost mirrors when you've described (with a twist):

The point of divergence with our timeline is during Lee's first invasion of the North. In actual history, a copy of the general's orders to his subordinates was lost, the Union Army found it and caught up with the Confederates at Antietam; fighting Lee to a draw and forcing him back to Virginia. Instead, the order is not lost; the Confederates make it to near Harrisburg, PA and win a major victory against McClellan's army, which nearly collapses. They occupy Harrisburg and then Philadelphia; the UK and France intervene and the Confederacy wins its independence.

Twenty years later, the Confederacy buys two states from Mexico to have access to the Pacific, and the U.S. declares war to stop it. The UK and France ally with the CSA and defeat the U.S. again; afterwards, the U.S. forms an alliance with Germany. Since the U.S. President at the time was a Republican (the party in power while the U.S. lost its last two wars), the GOP becomes a minority party (the Democrats are still the conservative party at the time). Instead, led by Abraham Lincoln (who wasn't assassinated), left-wing Republicans unite with socialists to make the Socialist Party the other major party in the U.S. The CSA was forced by Britain and France to end slavery, but replaces it with a harsh form of Apartheid.

World War I begins as it did in real history, but with the U.S. allied with Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire and the Confederacy allied with Britain, France and Russia. After years of trench warfare, the U.S. and its allies (whose leading general was an elderly George Custer) finally make use of tanks and win. The CSA is crippled during the war by socialist revolutions in black-majority areas and loses territory to the USA, who also occupies Canada (except Quebec, which becomes independent); the Bolshevik revolution is eventually crushed by the forces of the Czar.

Fascism rises in France (the Action Française makes France a fascist monarchy) and Britain (Mosley is a more powerful figure, but does not take power) instead of Germany (no Hitler); the Confederacy is ruled by the fascist Freedom Party and its leader, Jake Featherston. He demands, and receives via plebiscite, much of the territory lost to the USA, but invades the US anyway. Featherston's CSA is so much like Hitler's Germany that Richmond actually hosts the 1936 Summer Olympics.

The Confederate army takes Ohio and splits the U.S in two, but is soundly defeated when they try to take Pittsburgh. The Confederates build the first atom bomb and sneaks it into Philadelphia (the capital since the Civil War or War of Secession as it is called in the books), but it detonates on the outskirts of town. The U.S. nukes Norfolk and Charleston, and the U.S. army drives deep into the Confederacy in a 20th century-version of Sherman's March to the Sea, and troops discover that the Confederate government has rounded blacks into concentration camps and committing genocide. The U.S. and Germany win (atom bombs have been dropped on cities in Europe as well), the Confederacy ceases to exist and a occupation begins with significant resistance.

Oh yeah, the Mormons in Utah seem to rise in revolt during each of the wars, so the U.S. army must pacify three different rebellious areas on the continent.

An interesting and entertaining series of books; it certainly paints the picture of a darker world.


_________________
My fellow Americans. As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball; but tonight I say, we must move forward, not backward; upward, not forward; and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!


pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

30 Oct 2009, 10:28 am

ruveyn wrote:

One of the main costs of slavery was deliberate slow work on the part of the slave along with escapes to freedom. A voluntary worker is more productive.

Can you see people on assembly lines being whipped to make them work faster. Simon Legree is out of place in an industrial scence.

ruveyn


Employers have the same problems with unions, which have been quickly going away anyway, much to the satisfaction of capitalism. Also, employers can have problems with some employees who quit when another employer offers a higher salary. At least with slaves, you had a good chance of having them returned to you, unless they made it to Canada.

Nowadays, you just fire someone you don't like, and just be a little bit mindful of our pretentious EEO laws, which really only exist for show.

Instead of being physically whipped, employees these days face a lot of psychological pressures. The satisfaction that a supervisor derives from exercising control and lording over properly obsequious subordinates must not be impugned.

At least with slaves, you didn't have to worry about health insurance and pensions--when they got old and sick, you just shot them or worked them to death.

ruveyn wrote:

One of the main costs of slavery was deliberate slow work on the part of the slave along with escapes to freedom.


You shouldn't be so critical of slaves. Most of them made fine, outstanding workers, labouring hard from sun-up to sun-down, so long as anti-Americans like Abe Lincoln, Karl Marx and Michael Moore didn't put foolish ideas into their heads.



showman616
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 8 Feb 2009
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 170
Location: Washington DC, USA

30 Oct 2009, 8:17 pm

To beejay

Thanks. That IS interesting- about the turtledove books.
Sounds like a dark but fun romp through history.
It does mirror my ideas in some ways.



showman616
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 8 Feb 2009
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 170
Location: Washington DC, USA

30 Oct 2009, 8:27 pm

Before the civil war there were attempts in America at manning urban factories with slaves but for some reason it never worked economically.

Slavery works on rural plantations, but not in urban factories.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

30 Oct 2009, 8:27 pm

Hypothetical...

If the south was strong enough who knows.

As they were not they wouldn't have held onto it very long.



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

02 Nov 2009, 2:03 pm

ruveyn wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Why wouldn't modern industrial technological systems work with labor provided by chattels? Many slaves in the South were, in fact, highly skilled craftsmen.



One of the main costs of slavery was deliberate slow work on the part of the slave along with escapes to freedom. A voluntary worker is more productive.

Can you see people on assembly lines being whipped to make them work faster. Simon Legree is out of place in an industrial scence.

In the late and unlamented Soviet Union where workers toiled for the State production was very low. To get good work from workers one has to give them good material incentives and a certain amount of respect.

ruveyn


Low production? They still managed to out-tank everybody else combined...


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]