Alternate History: If the Confederacy Had Won

[pgwenthold]

In thinking about the "states' rights" claims about the Confederacy, I wonder, were they really in support? I mean, we have the real life attempts to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, and the fact that they threatened to secede over the fact that Delaware tried to get around it. But let's take it a bit more: Suppose the Confederacy had won?

Would they have imposed the CSA constitution on the union? If I remember right, the CSA constitution specifically prohibited states from outlawing slavery. Would that apply to the rest of the union, then?

I contend the south was not in any way in favor of states' rights, because if it were up to them, they would have insisted that all that states be slave states. They only adopted a "states' rights" stance to protect their right to keep slavery. I don't think for a second that, had they the power, they would have forced all states to participate. They actually opposed the states' rights guaranteed by the US Constitution, so when they got their chance to write their own, they took that part out.

 

[Giz]

In thinking about the "states' rights" claims about the Confederacy, I wonder, were they really in support? I mean, we have the real life attempts to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, and the fact that they threatened to secede over the fact that Delaware tried to get around it. But let's take it a bit more: Suppose the Confederacy had won?

Would they have imposed the CSA constitution on the union? If I remember right, the CSA constitution specifically prohibited states from outlawing slavery. Would that apply to the rest of the union, then?

I contend the south was not in any way in favor of states' rights, because if it were up to them, they would have insisted that all that states be slave states. They only adopted a "states' rights" stance to protect their right to keep slavery. I don't think for a second that, had they the power, they would have forced all states to participate. They actually opposed the states' rights guaranteed by the US Constitution, so when they got their chance to write their own, they took that part out.

You got this much right: The Confederates had been for 'States Rights' only when it was convenient for them (they loved federal government power when it came to the fugitive slave law).

I'm not sure where you get "Would they have imposed the CSA constitution on the union? "? I don't think that the CSA ever had a goal of conquering the Union, just of being able to secede. I can see that a particularly thumping ahistorical CSA victory might even lead to the North paying reparations or allowing the border states (i.e. Kentucky, Missouri) to choose their allegiance... but occupying the North as a whole? With the forces they had (Cornwallis is laughing)?

 

[Imhotep]

What if the British had helped them and then gotten involved in the end of the war negotiations?

 

[John Jones]

The CSA never expected to conquer the northern states. The strategy was to fight a defensive war. Southern armies marched into Gettysburg to convince the north to sue for peace.

How did that work out?

 

[John Jones]

What if the British had helped them and then gotten involved in the end of the war negotiations?

Then the north would have blockaded the rebellious southern ports. Wait. That happened already.

Plus - slavery was enormously unpopular amongst the British at the time.

 

[John Jones]

You got this much right: The Confederates had been for 'States Rights' only when it was convenient for them (they loved federal government power when it came to the fugitive slave law).

I'm not sure where you get "Would they have imposed the CSA constitution on the union? "? I don't think that the CSA ever had a goal of conquering the Union, just of being able to secede. I can see that a particularly thumping ahistorical CSA victory might even lead to the North paying reparations or allowing the border states (i.e. Kentucky, Missouri) to choose their allegiance... but occupying the North as a whole? With the forces they had (Cornwallis is laughing)?

I can't believe the Confederacy even agreed to their own constitution.

My honors history professor told us that the Confederacy officially protested that their access to the services of the US Post Office was cut-off after secession.

 

[simonxlong]

In thinking about the "states' rights" claims about the Confederacy, I wonder, were they really in support? I mean, we have the real life attempts to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, and the fact that they threatened to secede over the fact that Delaware tried to get around it. But let's take it a bit more: Suppose the Confederacy had won?

Would they have imposed the CSA constitution on the union? If I remember right, the CSA constitution specifically prohibited states from outlawing slavery. Would that apply to the rest of the union, then?

I contend the south was not in any way in favor of states' rights, because if it were up to them, they would have insisted that all that states be slave states. They only adopted a "states' rights" stance to protect their right to keep slavery. I don't think for a second that, had they the power, they would have forced all states to participate. They actually opposed the states' rights guaranteed by the US Constitution, so when they got their chance to write their own, they took that part out.

There were many strong states' rights advocates in the south, but I think that practicality would have forced a much stronger central government regardless of whether or not they actually "believed" in states' rights. After years of bloody conflict, southern man power and resources were depleted, large parts of the south lay in waste, they had virtually no major industrial development, and a massive slave population to keep in check all with a whole generation of young men decimated. Additionally, the north would have been a major, hostile foreign power, with a growing population and a massive industrial base. After years of conflict, I doubt the two nations would be very amiable. Likely, many northern elements would have begun to actively encourage slaves to flee northward and many anti-slavery groups might have begun advocating armed slave rebellion, even to the point of equipping slaves if possible.

While the south could have traded cotton and tobacco for industrial goods as they had before the war, they would nonetheless have to maintain a powerful standing army and strong internal security. I can't imagine that state rights could have survived in any meaningful way in a post war environment.

 

[Border Reiver]

What if the British had helped them and then gotten involved in the end of the war negotiations?

I think it doubtful that the British would have given military assistance in the form of troops or ships unless the Union forces threatened Canada or their Caribbean colonies.

The British on the whole were far more in sympathy with the (later) Union goal of ending slavery then they were with CSA's decision to keep it. They liked CSA cotton for their mills, but not enough to risk either Halifax or Jamaica over.

The possibility of them wanting to assist in any post-war negotiations between the now shrunken Union and the CSA is fairly high, but given the rather harsh feelings over the sale of commerce raiders by Britain to the CSA, I think that the Union would not have accepted them as neutral arbitrators.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

The alternate history used in Deadlands has some interesting possibilities that hadn't occurred to me. Namely, while the Civil War drags on and eventually gets called off on account of zombies, the Indian Nations get their act together and carve out a large part of the midwest as their territory, and the Mormons remain isolated enough to pull off Deseret. So America splinters into half a dozen nations, not just two.

 

[Border Reiver]

The alternate history used in Deadlands has some interesting possibilities that hadn't occurred to me. Namely, while the Civil War drags on and eventually gets called off on account of zombies, the Indian Nations get their act together and carve out a large part of the midwest as their territory, and the Mormons remain isolated enough to pull off Deseret. So America splinters into half a dozen nations, not just two.

Never read the series - but as a matter of national interest - what happens to Canada in that scenario?

The US Civil War, with the threat from terrorists operating on US soil was one of the big factors in Confederation.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Never read the series - but as a matter of national interest - what happens to Canada in that scenario?

The US Civil War, with the threat from terrorists operating on US soil was one of the big factors in Confederation.

It's a roleplaying game setting, that can be summarized as "Weird West." It's been around for a few decades and rewritten a couple of times, so the sillier bits of alternate history have been shaved down, leaving everything familiar but different in a plausible way, before the sillier bits of horror get added back in. Mexico, for instance, is now technically part of France due to Juarez and Maximilian working out the other way, and is plaguing the US southwest with an army of undead shock troops led by the ghost of Santa Anna.

I'll see if I have the book that covers Canada, but I'd guess you're still a loyal part of jolly ol' Britannia when you aren't being eaten by wendigos or vampires on a winter holiday.

 

[dudalb]

Harry Turtledove has made a career of writing about that very thing.....

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Never read the series - but as a matter of national interest - what happens to Canada in that scenario?

The US Civil War, with the threat from terrorists operating on US soil was one of the big factors in Confederation.

Okay, found it. The splatbook is called "The Great Weird North."

Like most of the other alternate history, it resembles our own but with minor events exaggerated. Canada still forms its confederacy, but it's shakier due to being pulled in separate directions.

Britain allied with the Confederacy in return for emancipation, i.e. we're not doing slavery in our game just forget it you jerks, and to weaken the Union prior to another invasion attempt. They recently (game is set in 1878) occupied Detroit while Union forces were elsewhere, although Canada itself doesn't officially claim it.

In return, the Union government is turning a blind eye to the Fenian Brotherhood, which is a credible terrorist organisation operating out of New York and trying to set up an Irish Republic in Canada. So tensions are fairly high between the countries.

The Sioux Nation is trying to get their northern Cree neighbors to rebel and join them, but the Cree are more interested in petitioning to become their own province than full independence.

Emboldened by its acquisition of Mexico, France is also trying to get Quebec to rebel, and is having much more success.

The Mounties formed up and marched to Fort Whoop-oh... and got eaten by something nasty. They're currently trying to rebuild their numbers and bootstrap their way into being the region's supernatural-killing Men in Black.

Speaking of, the major supernatural threat is a new ice age held off by a nationwide magical fence. I don't think I'd use it if I were to run a game set in Canada - too many Game of Thrones and border wall jokes, even if it predates both. Go with 30 Days of Night-style vampire swarms, those are always cool.

 

[SpitfireIX]

If I remember right, the CSA constitution specifically prohibited states from outlawing slavery.

Actually, it prohibited the Confederate government from outlawing slavery, not individual states.

I don't think for a second that, had they the power, they would[n't] have forced all states to participate.

This was widely believed by opponents of slavery in the North. From Lincoln's Cooper Union Address:

These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.

I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way. Most of them would probably say to us, "Let us alone, do nothing to us, and say what you please about slavery." But we do let them alone - have never disturbed them - so that, after all, it is what we say, which dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying.

I am also aware they have not, as yet, in terms, demanded the overthrow of our Free-State Constitutions. Yet those Constitutions declare the wrong of slavery, with more solemn emphasis, than do all other sayings against it; and when all these other sayings shall have been silenced, the overthrow of these Constitutions will be demanded, and nothing be left to resist the demand. It is nothing to the contrary, that they do not demand the whole of this just now. Demanding what they do, and for the reason they do, they can voluntarily stop nowhere short of this consummation. Holding, as they do, that slavery is morally right, and socially elevating, they cannot cease to demand a full national recognition of it, as a legal right, and a social blessing.[bolding mine]​