Impact of Losing the Civil War on US Race Relations

[Fire_Unionist]

Open-ended topic but an interesting one. If the US had lost the civil war and been forced to let the southern states go, how would race relations in the North have developed differently?

1. Would blacks be seen as having "caused the war" and thus face increased racism/persecution?
2. Would the USA define itself against the CSA and adopt a more liberal attitude towards race relations than OTL?
3. The CSA would probably (at least nominally) abolish slavery at some point, but until then, what actions would the US government take with respect to aiding runaway Confederate slaves (not to mention the question of slavery in the border states)?

 

[Klausewitz]

I rather fear that they would define themselves against the South in the sense of 'at least we are not as bad as them' leading to low, low expectations...

 

[keynes2.0]

how would race relations in the North have developed differently?

Decades after the civil war, southern organizations like the daughters of the confederacy started a massive propaganda effort to whitewash the southern cause and make slavery seem like a benign institution. This came after southern terrorists had been successful at forcing federal troops to leave the south in the late 1870s so that they could go around murdering any black people who tried to organize themselves politically. Racism was a political tool, by pushing racist narratives they could promote a political agenda at home and by promoting those views around the country they could avoid a backlash for making a farce of democracy. It was not inevitable that this campaign of organized racism would win, occasionally white populists in the south tried to ally themselves with black people. They failed because of the effectiveness of the campaign to disenfranchise the blacks but it wasn't a foregone conclusion that they would fail.

If the CSA had survived, it would have continued to practice chattel slavery for decades, well into the era of photography and the explosion of newspaper correspondents. Their efforts to depict slavery as a benevolent institution would have been as hollow as the Soviet efforts to claim their workers were more free then american workers. Just like the anti-communists used images of soviet breadlines, the anti-racists would use images of confederate chain gangs. The desire for magnanimity towards one's countrymen that gave tolerance to confederate apologists would have been completely absent. Black people from the south would be known as refugees, not fugitives. And while race relations in the north were never good before the civil war, they were certainly far less racist then the south. Things would have certainly been far more progressive.

 

[IsadorBG]

Seems like Keynes did not understand the question. Just in case I am rather sure that what F_U means by North is the USA not the CSA.

To answer tough I wonder if North activist would continue to try to bring black past the borders to free them and how this would affect the relations between the 2 states.

Very likely that another war between the two happen again at some point altough the CSA would probaby stay independent for good.


There's also the problem of slaver states that remained loyal to the Union (like Kentucky I believe?)
Does a defeated Union really have the power to antagonises those states with the possibility to trigger another secession war likely involving the CSA again ?

In any cases I am pretty sure that the federal government would be weakened by the secession at least for a few years.
The specter of other secessions would probably remain in the political life of the Union from there on

 

[keynes2.0]

No, my answer was relevant to the USA.

Does a defeated Union really have the power to antagonises those states with the possibility to trigger another secession war likely involving the CSA again ?

Delaware, Maryland and Missouri abolished slavery during the war. So it's just Kentucky you are talking about. I think it's pretty likely that Kentucky would have come around.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Open-ended topic but an interesting one. If the US had lost the civil war and been forced to let the southern states go, how would race relations in the North have developed differently?

1. Would blacks be seen as having "caused the war" and thus face increased racism/persecution?
2. Would the USA define itself against the CSA and adopt a more liberal attitude towards race relations than OTL?
3. The CSA would probably (at least nominally) abolish slavery at some point, but until then, what actions would the US government take with respect to aiding runaway Confederate slaves (not to mention the question of slavery in the border states)?

FU!!!!!!! So nice to see you my friend. You have been missed. Leave it to you to throw a hand grenade in a room and walk away.

My only question before I answer is whether or not this falls into a hypothetical alternate history thread that will be locked?

Say Atlanta does not fall because its commander is not foolish enough to leave his strong fortifications and engage Sherman in a battle of maneouvre, and Lincoln loses to McClellan in 1864. McClellan will push forward his Peace Plank, try for reunification, will waffle and waver, but under no circumstance will he lose any more troops and will refuse to prosecute the war at the cost of further life and will settle for peace.

You have an end to the War of the Rebellion. The story will read that Lincoln lost because he failed to 'Preserve the Union' by politicizing Abolition with the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln divided his own house.

The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments will not be passed as written. Dred Scott is still on the books.

Your entire point now revolves around the Border States, including Missouri, which I have no doubt is the basis of your entire line of questioning.

Slavery will be present in both the USA and the CSA as determined by the individual states. Will the Federal Army be forced to occupy the Border States to prevent them leaving the Union? Would anyone DARE to free their slaves in this environment?

Regardless, the slaves would be freed over time. I would have picked a different ending to the War of the Rebellion; but I have never suggested an independent CSA and USA would be beneficial for anyone.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Delaware, Maryland and Missouri abolished slavery during the war. So it's just Kentucky you are talking about. I think it's pretty likely that Kentucky would have come around.

Delaware had only 1,800 slaves, located almost exclusively in one county, and the attempt for the state to purchase their freedom did not pass because of a heavy dislike of Abraham Lincoln; additionally, Delaware refused to ratify the 13th Amendment.

Maryland passed a new Constitution that did not permit slavery in 1864 while under martial law with the vote heavily influenced by Union troops voting in the election. Even with an army in place, Maryland is exempted from the Emancipation Proclomation for fear of backlash threatening the security of Washington.

Missouri did abolish slavery - in December 1865, well after Lee had surrendered at Appomatox Court House in April of that year.

None of this would have occurred if the North was losing the war.

 

[JodelDiplom]

The union would be nuts not to abolish slavery in their remaining states as fast as they could. Slavery was the wedge that had divided the old union, they would be determined not to let it divide what's left of the union. It would end within a few years, if needed with heavy compensation or under military pressure.

 

[keynes2.0]

It would end within a few years, if needed with heavy compensation or under military pressure.

There were only ~10,000 slaves left in the border states at the end of the war. So if compensated emancipation was politically easier, it wouldn't be very expensive. Once that's done, it wouldn't be long before every slave in the south would know the second you made it across the border you were free.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

There were only ~10,000 slaves left in the border states at the end of the war. So if compensated emancipation was politically easier, it wouldn't be very expensive. Once that's done, it wouldn't be long before every slave in the south would know the second you made it across the border you were free.

I'm not sure how easy it would be.

But, to me, this has always been the logical solution to the problem if the Fire Eaters had not been allowed to start the war. A complicated formula of tax benefits and monetary compensation resulting in Emancipation backed with voluntary Federal relocation to new lands out west - 40 acres and a mule. it would be expensive, but a hell of a lot cheaper than the War of the Rebellion.

Alas . . .

 

[Ming]

A complicated formula of tax benefits and monetary compensation resulting in Emancipation backed with voluntary Federal relocation to new lands out west - 40 acres and a mule. it would be expensive, but a hell of a lot cheaper than the War of the Rebellion.

Alas . . .

You can't move the cotton work force out of the south in the mid 19th century, there is literally no one available to replace them. (I mean you can but it's going to be an economic disaster) Union troops even pitched in getting ex slaves back into the fields after emancipation in Louisiana. You're going to have to buy the land and the slaves from the planters And break them up to be worked by the freedmen. Budget buster to be sure, but as you say, cheaper than the rebellion.

I like the idea of a mass "exoduster" (google it) movement before the railroads gobbled up all the good land but I think it's telling that white contemporaries always talked about Liberia or Linconia or Dominica and never anything out west.

 

[Seli]

A lot of the issues came from the USA losing reconstruction. If they lost they war there would have been no reconstruction. So probably better race relations in the USA. Balanced by even more decades of inhumane suffering and oppression in the south.

 

[Sanny]

Things weren't much better up North anyway, even after the war, many former slaves were homeless and not had any money in their pockets and struggled to find food to eat hence some resorting to thievery. A lot of them went back to the South or stayed in the south to find work as farmhands, labourers and cottonpickers, exactly what they were doing before but now paid a measly sum.

 

[vaan24]

And maybe Mexico is able to invade the south west of USA easily too

 

[JodelDiplom]

And maybe Mexico is able to invade the south west of USA easily too

Unlikely. No matter how the civil war ends, it has militarized the (dis)united states so much that the Mexicans stand no chance.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

And maybe Mexico is able to invade the south west of USA easily too

Good luck with that. You can pick a military formation at random from either the USA or CSA OOB, give them something resembling a competent military commander, and they'd eat the Mexican Army for breakfast.

You send either Longstreet or Hancock with a full corps of picked troops, they'll stop marching when they get to the Andes.

 

[vaan24]

Good luck with that. You can pick a military formation at random from either the USA or CSA OOB, give them something resembling a competent military commander, and they'd eat the Mexican Army for breakfast.

You send either Longstreet or Hancock with a full corps of picked troops, they'll stop marching when they get to the Andes.

But good training takes a minimum of time and I think that the present case the two US states would be bloodless of their war because a civil war is more difficult to rely on a traditional war, and then at worst for the Mexicans suffice that they take a beating at the beginning to question themselves (hello Prussia after Jena and Auerstadt ).

 

[JodelDiplom]

But good training takes a minimum of time and I think that the present case the two US states would be bloodless of their war because a civil war is more difficult to rely on a traditional war, and then at worst for the Mexicans suffice that they take a beating at the beginning to question themselves (hello Prussia after Jena and Auerstadt ).

Can you rephrase that? I don't understand what you are trying to say there.

 

[vaan24]

Basically a country is not recovering easily from a civil war and even at worst, that Mexico loses a battle largely at the beginning of the war would be enough for the country to question itself (Sorry English is not my first language and I have trouble sometimes with)

 

[JodelDiplom]

Basically a country is not recovering easily from a civil war and even at worst, that Mexico loses a battle largely at the beginning of the war would be enough for the country to question itself (Sorry English is not my first language and I have trouble sometimes with)

Thanks, I understand the second half of it now. But which country are your referring to with "recovering from civil war"? Mexico or USA?

General tip: Write shorter English sentences. In fact write them much shorter than you would in your native language. That will make what you write easier to understand.