• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Confederate States of America: What Would've Happened if the South Won the Civil War.

Discussion in 'History & Genealogy' started by Gxg (G²), Jan 15, 2013.

  1. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,141
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others
    Shalom..

    It was a blessing of late being able to do some more study of history and seeing the ways that the development of the U.S took place. Specifically, I've been fascinated learning on the issue of Secession's impact. It's a concept that has been present since the foundation of the history of our nation.

    The reality of what occurred with the British was a concept of Secession - one that has been aggressively debated since many felt colonies acted improperly with Britain in breaking away since its origins came from the British establishing things/ having many parts of the South developed as PRISON colonies for others to pay off their debts - more discussed in #131

    Secession is something that seemed to be a present reality since the Revolution. And in 1860, it seemed that Secession took a different turn than before. For the focus was the issue of slavery. There were various reasons as to why the SOuth wished to secedd from the U.S - but slavery was paramount. Many groups that fled the Southern States - some by force (such as the Native Americas on the trail of Tears) while others by desire for freedom (as with Black slaves/seminoles) - wanted to go out West since that was a "No Man's Land." And for many Southern States, settlers from those areas started to go into the territories where free blacks/Native Americans were present and wanted to make those areas their own so that they could increase the business of slavery in those areas - with the US-Mexican War actually beginning over those issues ( more shared here in #93 , #96,#100 /#114 ). Some of the Founding Fathers had always been against slavery - although others actively supported it as a "necessary evil." For those touched sharply by the curse of slavery, they often did what they had to do - even if it meant breaking the law to get justice.

    There is a recent film on the issue which seemed to address the issue sharply- called Django Unchained. The film is a three-hour Quentin Tarantino film, a cowboy-style Western set in the American slave South of 1858. The film itself has been rather remarkable - and has generated a greater conversation about the enslavement of my ancestors than any that I have witnessed perhaps since Roots because our society has long been in denial about African American slavery--America's original sin--since well-before its abolition. It's something I glad broke A LOT of rules in Hollywood with the sterotypes of heros - and real/relatable ones at that. Historically - when it comes to what happened in the West/Southern culture with violence and gun-slingers who were people of color ( more shared here or here ) - you'll not hear a lot of discussion on the subject. And for reviews:

    [​IMG]



    Going back to the issue of slavery, the North, concerning slavery/racism, had just as many issues as the South - with the North practicing slavery via wage slavery where blacks were able to integrate/not be in chains and yet not have equal access to resources as whites did - increasing impoverishment.

    The South would later allow Neo-Slavery in the form of Jim Crow after the Reconstruction -and many historians have pointed out where Lincoln was really only concerned with slavery in the sense of severe abuse toward slaves - but never had any remote concern for the slaves being seen as intellectual/moral equals to whites (more noted in-depth here in #1). He even noted directly that he would have sought to win the Civil War without freeing blacks if he could of - and thus, many blacks/whites felt it was about pragmatism on the part of the North more so than concern for the plight of blacks.

    Nonetheless, the South was without excuse - following the American Revolution, slaves/blacks was an elephant in the room that would not go away.

    The film "Amistad" does an excellent job on the issue, discussing a key issue precedding Civil War later. Amistad was the name of a slave ship traveling from Cuba to the U.S. in 1839. It was carrying a cargo of Africans who have been sold into slavery in Cuba, stolen/beaten and taken on board, and chained in the cargo hold of the ship. As the ship was crossing from Cuba to the U.S., Cinque, who was a tribal leader in Africa, lead a mutiny and took over the ship. They continued to sail, hoping to find help when they landed. Instead, when they reached the United States, they were imprisoned as runaway slaves. They didn't speak a word of English, and it seemed like they are doomed to die for killing their captors when an abolitionist lawyer decided to take their case, arguing that they were free citizens of another country and not slaves at all. The case finally got to the Supreme Court, where John Quincy Adams made an impassioned and eloquent plea for their release.

    John Quincy Adams prophesied how the Civil War itself would indeed be the completion of the American Revolution if slavery could not be resolved properly...


    Sadly his words were not heard - and many have long made it out as if the slavery issue was not a key issue behind the secession of the Southern States. For those against Confederates, there were MANY things at stake that caused a lot of reasons to be fearful. The secession made room for other nations to jump in and support an immoral practice on a global scale.

    Many have no idea on how they were Confederate Slave owners who moved to Brazil (called the Confederados), as the slave trade was international and it opened up doors for commerce/business relationships throughout the Americas.

    The history of the Conferados is truly fascinating..and for more, one can investigate a read entitled "The Deepest South: The United States, Brazil, and the African Slave Trade" ( ):

    Having roots in Latin America, I'm aware of how the abuses in slavery were even worse there (and in the West Indies as well) than in North America....and I know there has always been strong racism present due to what the Portuguese and Spaniards did in coming over/setting up the systems they did. Thus, no surprise to see what happened with the active development of relationship between others in the American South and those in the Southern Hemisphere. The American Civil war even managed to spill into Brazil, as seen in the Bahia Incident ( a naval skirmish fought in late 1864 during the American Civil War where a Confederate States Navy warship was captured by a Union warship in Bahia Harbor, Brazil...and the engagement resulted in a United States victory, but also sparked an incident with the Brazilian government, which claimed the Americans had violated Brazil's neutrality by illegally attacking a vessel in their harbor..nore shared here).

    SOuthern States desiring secession wanted to create a new International Empire called the "Golden Circle" that would've taken slavery onto an entirely different level. For what occurred with the Golden Circle (proposed country) was the unrealized pan-Caribbean political alliance of the 1850s, organized chiefly by United States adventurers, and envisioned the incorporation of several countries and states of the Americas into a federal union similar to the United States...it would've forced the states in the U.S to really reconsider a lot of things.

    The balance of power between the northern and southern U.S. states was threatened by the proposed Golden Circle since Federalists feared that a new Caribbean-centered coalition would align the new Latin American states with the slave states in the US..tilting the balance of power southward and weakening U.S. federalism in favor of the Pan-American confederalist union, whereas those Americans in favor of the Gold Circle believed that an alignment with the remaining slaveholding Caribbean territories would reinforce their political strength.

    Some have noted where there were black slave owners and having them involved made a difference - as seen in Black slave owners in the Golden Circle | Southern Nationalist - and it's amazing seeing how the narrative of all blacks being against the confederacy doesn't line up with history.

    For more, one can study Chesteron's 1922 work called What I Saw in America. What Chesteron noted is especially considering the timing of it being written in 1922. This was less than 60 years removed from the Civil War. That would be like someone writing about Korea and Vietnam right now. The memories and direct consequences of those wars are still very real to us today. Chesterton was born in 1874, only four years after Virginia itself was re-admitted to the Union (1870). The crushing of secession was ultimately written down in history as the “right” thing to do, only because, ultimately, most Southerners accepted it as simply immutable. ...and to be clear, as many blacks fought in the Civil War on the side of the South for their own reasons (freedom being one of them (more here/here /here)as well as the fact that not all in the South endorsed slavery nor abuse as many in the North claimed---and for them, the North often didn't have much to offer). The Reconstruction was to be the re-programming of the Southern mind. It worked, and now Lincoln is seen as great. If, as Chesterton alludes to with his Irish example, the Southern spirit had continued to buck against centralized government and the resistance had continued into the twentieth century, Lincoln would be viewed more like Cromwell than Bismark.

    Had the Confederacy won, who knows the ways things would have turned out for others in the Caribbean. People on both sides were EITHER concerned for the welfare of minorities....OR couldn't of cared less about the plight of blacks. History is truly complicated...

    There's actually a very amazing mockumentary on the issue entitled C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America (more shared here ) -as it explores the results of a Southern victory in the Civil War and posits the Golden Circle as a plan enacted after the war. One of the most wild and yet challenging critiques I've ever come across...


    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2017
  2. jehoiakim

    jehoiakim Servant

    +60
    Messianic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Interesting... Your 3rd paragraph sounds quite familiar I believe I posted something similar a few months ago that was almost word for word the same :)
     
  3. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,141
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others
    Argh!!! My bad - as when I went back to get the post where I originally got it from and your quote was in there where you said some things as well which I responded to. Thanks for bringing it to my attention as I went back and corrected it.

    That said, do you have anything to say on the post itself/the OP subject of the Confederacy? It is a very fascinating issue/topic to me - especially on the Confederados - and coming back from Central America - specifically Panama - the concept of diaspora/the reasons behind it was on my mind a lot. For slavery was a big deal in Panama (as the French had previously built a railroad through Panama, linking the Atlantic to the Pacific, an undertaking that relied heavily on slave labour and other nations such as Spain also utilized slavery in Panama repeatedly since Panama was a major distribution point for slaves headed elsewhere on the mainland - with many slave revolts occurring). The ways that the U.S worked with Colombia on gaining influence in the Isthmus of Panama is a trip when seeing how the Confederacy tied into it (more here). After its independence from Spain on November 28, 1821, Panama became a part of the Republic of Gran Colombia which consisted of today's Colombia, Venezuela, Panama and Ecuador. Consequently, the political struggle between federalists and centralists that followed independence from Spain resulted in a changing administrative and jurisdictional status for Panama. For under centralism Panama was established as the Department of the Isthmus and during the federalism as Sovereign State of Panama. In 1846 a treaty between Colombia and United States was signed - a treaty saying that the United States was obliged to maintain "neutrality" in Panama in exchange for transit rights in the isthmus on behalf of Colombia..as everyone wanted to develop things there. And with the Civil War of the States in the U.S, a lot of potential advantages that were planned may've been lost..or taken advantage of by the Confederate States.

    Panama's part of my ethnic heritage and my mother's fromt here and our ancestry is in the West Indies/Latin America - and for me, it's stunning thinking on some of the cultural dynamics there and the ways that even Latin America was connected to the South. An estimated 3 million Southerners abandoned their homes in the former Confederate States and moved all over - to Texas, out West and even to Northern states. Many left the United States altogether despite language difficulties, distance and expense..and they never to return. Many migrated to Mexico, Canada, England ( which was pro-Confederacy during the war), Venezuela or numerous other foreign locations. But the most popular country of Southern emigration was Brazil.

    Many have no idea on how they were Confederate Slave owners who moved to Brazil (called the Confederados), as the slave trade was international and it opened up doors for commerce/business relationships throughout the Americas.

    As another noted:
    U.S. nationals - before and after Emancipation -- continued to actively participate in this odious commerce by creating diplomatic, social, and political ties with Brazil, which today has the largest population of African origin outside of Africa itself.

    Proslavery Americans began to accelerate their presence in Brazil in the 1830s, creating alliances there—sometimes friendly, often contentious—with Portuguese, Spanish, British, and other foreign slave traders to buy, sell, and transport African slaves, particularly from the eastern shores of that beleaguered continent.


    Spokesmen of the Slave South drew up ambitious plans to seize the Amazon and develop this region by deporting the enslaved African-Americans there to toil. When the South seceded from the Union, it received significant support from Brazil, which correctly assumed that a Confederate defeat would be a mortal blow to slavery south of the border. After the Civil War, many Confederates, with slaves in tow, sought refuge as well as the survival of their peculiar institution in Brazil.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2013
  4. keith99

    keith99 sola dosis facit venenum

    +3,685
    Atheist
    Single
    Read Guns of the South by Turtledove.

    But ignore the timetravel aspects.

    I'll agree with him. Limited westward expansion. Limited growth.

    No U.S. with Northern industry and Southern good ol boys who can already shoot. WW II comes out differently, and none of those outcomes would be good.
     
  5. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,141
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others
    Not really seeing where limited Westward expansion was always the best option - nor do I see where the way it went down was the best.
     
  6. keith99

    keith99 sola dosis facit venenum

    +3,685
    Atheist
    Single
    Despite the fact that most Amercains overstate it, American involvement in WW II. Reduce that influence and it would lengthen the war.

    Germany and for that matter Japan had atomic bomb projects. Worst case is NOT the axis winning it is a dead heat on bring those into production.

    Now of course if we go with the idea that if that occured there would have been different people in power everywhere all kinds of thigns could work out differently. But if one thinks the basic situations that led to WW I and WW II would stil have been there most outcomes are bad.
     
  7. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,141
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others
    War being lengthened still doesn't really address the issue of the OP - what would've happened if the Confederacy had won and did Western expansion gone down the best way possible?



    Depends on how you see it..
     
  8. keith99

    keith99 sola dosis facit venenum

    +3,685
    Atheist
    Single
    Westward expansion was in large part expidited because of a combined resources of the North and South. At least in the Southwest Mexico was no match for that combined power.

    If instead of a contest with one dominant power there were 3 much closer to equal powers it is reasonable to conclude that expansion would be slowed by conflict and fear of conflict.

    In attitude Mexico seems more in line with the South, but often economic concerns count for far more than idealogy. My bet would be an ever shifting set of alliances. At least 3 powers, The North, The South and Mexico. With things equal enough the various tribes could tip teh balance of power. (and it would be foolish to assume they would act as a unified force). If Texas managed to get and stay independent thing get even more convoluted. Also teh Mormons were far from the discontented group that went West. With a closer balance there could have a dozen mini republics in the West.
     
  9. lismore

    lismore Legend

    +1,418
    Christian
    Single
    Good news for Mexico and the Indians then?

    The French Empire and Napoleon 3rd may have been first to recognise the Confederacy, then perhaps they would have been friends and allies. Then during the Franco-Prussian War when France needed allies against the Prussians then the CSA may have helped France instead of watching from the sidelines like Britain and the USA. Therefore no German Empire, no World War One, No Nazis, No World War Two.

    We got two World Wars because we were sleeping in 1871. Perhaps the CSA would have been more watchful.

    :)
     
  10. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,141
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others
    :thumbsup: Good analysis..
     
  11. michaelG1949

    michaelG1949 Newbie

    181
    +24
    Harry Turtledove has written quite afew alternate histories. some the he wrote on an independent confederacy are quite lduuinteresting. in one of his books when the.slaves joined in the second or third war against the north in the 1940s the south started concentration and exterminatin camps for getting rid of its slave population, and the first nuclear weapons that the north dropped were on confederate cities. as i remember more now it was world war, thenorth alignef with germany and the south with britain. the north got help from germany for the atom bomb. if the country had stayed split the whole would have been diferent.
     
  12. michaelG1949

    michaelG1949 Newbie

    181
    +24
    sorry about all the errors, still not used to typing on a little phone
     
  13. apache1

    apache1 Junior Member

    +28
    Non-Denom
    Married
    There were a sizeable number of Native Americans that fought for the South during the American Civil War. Will Thomas, a white man that was adopted by a Tsalagi (Cherokee) chief himself became principal chief of the Tsalagis of the Eastern Band of Cherokees in North Carolina, was in many ways as much a Tsalagi as a Native born one. He became a colonel for the Confederate Army in the Civil War and had a largely native outfit named Thomas Legion that fought (and beat) a Yankee force in the vicinity of Gatlinburg, Tenn. Also, in Oklahoma, another Tsalagi named Stand Watie was a brigadier General for the Confederate Army, and did not surrender to the Yankees til a full month after Lee surrendered at Appomattox. Also, many other Indian tribes and nations, especially in Oklahoma and Texas region, supported the South, including "Five Civilized Tribes" (Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole) and other Indians that had relocated or been removed from back East to Oklahoma, such as Shawnee, Sauk and Fox, etc., fought for South, as did some plains and southwest tribes (e.g. some Commanche and Kiowa and Apache did, though not as many). Also, some fought for North, including Ned Christie, a Cherokee gunfighter on par with Jesse James or Wyatt Earp. The way the Indians had been treated in past (Trail of Tears, etc.) they saw the "Greycoats" (Confederates) as an alternative to the "Bluecoats" (Union). There were of course other factors (some Oklahoma Indians had black slaves, though not a lot, many Indians that fought for Confederacy, as well as many whites, did not own slaves at all or even believe in it). Very complex time period.
     
  14. apache1

    apache1 Junior Member

    +28
    Non-Denom
    Married
    The ironic thing is that many of the Conferados have a Latino or even "colored" appearance to them, after all those years of inter-marrying with Indians, mestizos, and even blacks. I for one, being from Appalachian area of American South and part-Cherokee Indian have an interest in this, and would love to go there someday to meet the Conferado descendents.
     
  15. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,141
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others

    Very good information that gives a different spin on things - and many thanks for sharing :)

    What you mentioned with the Indians owning slaves is indeed very true and a part of history that's not remembered easily...even though it was radically different and mild compared to most of white ownership of slaves - and often brought critique from other white slave-owners (as William Katz notes best in his book "Black Indians: A Hidden Heritage" ). On the same token, the same thing goes for Blacks who owned slaves as well. A lot of people argued that others voluntarily made themselves as slaves - and that goes for even blacks owning slaves as well..

    And with what the North allowed in Wage Slavery - regulating blacks to the slums/impoverishment while saying they were already "free" - was what they were doing worse than the South or the same?
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2013
  16. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,141
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others
    It is amazing that many would look for them and perhaps miss them because of the ways apperances change over time. It would be amazing to meet them
     
  17. apocalypto

    apocalypto Guest

    +0
    Obama would be on the plantation, not in the White House
     
  18. I Eat Pie

    I Eat Pie Well-Known Member

    +83
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    CA-Conservatives
    If the South won, there would be more of the Bible and the commandments in school, and we would still have our liberties. No tyrants would try to censor us or take our guns away.
     
  19. I Eat Pie

    I Eat Pie Well-Known Member

    +83
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    CA-Conservatives
    You have balls of titanium/adamantium.

    Love the honesty :wave:
     
  20. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,141
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others
    That - and every other person of color potentially, which is NOT a good thing. All joking aside, I don't think the comment (if trying to make a political point) was necessary to include the imagery of plantation.
     
Loading...