Re: To Live and Die in Dixie
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 19:37:05 PSTBlack
> From: "scott palter" <payankee2345@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: To Live and Die in Dixie
> >From: "F. Michael Zimmerman" <fmz1@...>
> > > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 20:11:48 PST
> > > From: "scott palter" <payankee2345@...>
> > > Subject: Re: Re: To Live and Die in Dixie
> > >
> > > >From: "F. Michael Zimmerman" <fmz1@...>
> > > > > Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 15:17:25 PST
> > > > > From: "scott palter" <payankee2345@...>
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: To Live and Die in Dixie
> > > > >
> > > > > >From: "F. Michael Zimmerman" <fmz1@...>
> > > > > >Reply-To: email@example.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 19:50:07 PST
> > > > > > > From: "scott palter" <payankee2345@...>
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: To Live and Die in Dixie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >From: "F. Michael Zimmerman" <fmz1@...>
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> > > >I do know that the traditional anti-Black position of the Klan
> > > >oritinally motivated at least as much by political as by racial
> > > >considerations.
> > >
> > > No it was straight dose white supremacy. The split of the White
> > > south into
> > > Populists and Bourbons comes later and produces Jim Crow whereby
> > > they use
> > > the final extinction of black political and civil rights as a
> > > to
> > > disenfranchise many poor whites - poll tax, elaborate
> > > requirements, monoparty system...
> > >
> >White supremacy was the general consensus of Whites in both the
> >and the South. It scarcely needed defending or advocacy at that
> > What spurred the Klan to advocate it was the propping up of
> >governments as a tool of Yankee domination.This sounds a lot like the relationship between the Klan and the
> What spurred the Klan was any status for the blackman that did not
> amount to
> de facto slavery / peonage. Essentially the 'Redeemers' operated on
> levels. The Klan in its various incarnations was the military arm
> while the
> politicans and business types were the respectable front. The
> front essentially said,' give us home rule and we can bring 'peace'
> to our
> state - otherwise every election will be a minicivil war.'
> Essentially the
> North got tired of having to prop the carpetbag regimes up with Army
> but wouldn't let them form their own partisan militia to do the
> dirty work.
Citizens Councils in the 1950's South after Brown, OTL.
>Some pretty heavy news censorship might be necessary in order to
> >That would probably not happen in this TL. To fight against a
> >determined guerrilla resistance, the Reconstructionists would need
> >satraps which can actually DO something effective!
> The name of the game was letting the blacks and Tories form their
> militias and then not puking at the resulting rounds of massacre and
> countermassacre. In this TL the North keeps the Federal army
> (blacks and
> foreign volunteers) as a backstop to the local militias. Its bllody
> Missouri fought out over 16 states.
prevent a voter backlash in the North.
Something similar happened to news reports in the South regarding the
integration battles of the 1950's and early 1960's, OTL. There was a
"Magnolia Curtain" of censorship of the news about the early
integration fights. I lived in Texas as a child and left there in
1961. I never heard of Martin Luther King until 1962 when I was
living in California. I learned about events such as the Birmingham
bus boycott of 1958 and the Little Rock battle of 1957 (the year I
started first grade in Texas) the same way kids learn about them today
- --as history not as current events. Later I asked my parents what the
news coverage was like when these things were going on. They said
there was none. I am not aware that any of this news censorship was
enforced by the government. But it was pretty thorough.
So on this ATL, the government's role in censoring news unpleasant to
the North might not be unduly heavy-handed. A little "encouragement"
could go a long way. But official censorship would probably exist
>But there would be individual differences in success or failure at
> >After the redistribution of land, the majority of the new farmers
> >would go bust.
> Not true - absent a state that taxes them to death it is hard to go
> subsistance farming in the South or Midwest. This is especially
> true if you
> partition the old plantations (the best land)into little 40 acre
farming. By the law of averages, some would do better at it than
others. The ones that do well would get bigger at the expense of the
ones who do not so well.
> But a very few would buy out the rest and become a new
> >agrarian aristocracy. These new aristocrats would be in a
> >position. Unlike the old planters, they would not have good
> >with the old-timers. They would need support from Washington in
> >to survive. But their wealth would enable them to create their own
> >power base in their adopted homeland. This might not sit well with
> >the federales. The climate two or three generations later would
> >probably be interesting times!
> There was a new planter class after the USCW - very few of the old
> aristocracy survived as an economic as oppossed to a political
> They were the Bourbons - a mixture of new planters and newThis role of FDR and Truman, OTL, might suggest an unlikely alliance
> businessmen - the
> backbone of a conservative Democratic party that oppressed its
> region, black
> and white, as the local satraps of the real money in the north and
> Essentially until FDR and Truman broke the stranglehold of postCW
> capitalism, the US South and West were exploited economic colonies
> of the
> Chicago to Boston plutocracy.
between the Southern guerrillas and the more radical elements of the
Northern labor movement. Each is the enemy of the other's enemy
(Washington). That could be a powerful incentive for them to form an
> >Why didn't Lee fight a guerrilla war from the outset? He probably
> >could have won such a war with the resources available to the CSA
> >the start of the war.Lee an Lincoln were not that far apart on the issue of slavery. The
> Lee went to war to defend Virginia. More generally he went to war
> preserve a sociopolitical system, including some form of white
> supremacy but
> not specificially chattel slavery with which he had problems. A
quarrel was more one of jurisdiction over it.
> guerillaJefferson Davis would have fired him out of hand for that!
> might have won the South
> its independence. Virginia would have been burned to the ground and
> the old
> social structure would have been destroyed. Fine for a Dixie
> A disaster for a conservative sword of old Virginia.
>The assassination of Lincoln, OTL, could hardly have come at a worse
> >Had the records of the ring of Long Island spies in the
> >War been unsealed yet?
> Don't know.
> That is a very interesting story. Those
> >operatives played a decisive role in strategic mistakes by the
> >which led to Yorktown. They planted false intelligence about
> >Washington's army to make it look as if an attack on New York was
> >imminent when in fact Wachington was closing in on Cornwallis.
> >Cornwallis begged for reinforcements, they kept the troops that
> >have pulled his chestnuts out of the fire garrisoned in New York!
> >seems that John Jay directed this part of the operation, and that
> >Washington could barely stomach it. Was there anything like this
> >going on in the CW? Lee seems to have had the same kind of
> >as Washington. Did the CSA have anybody competent to handle black
> The Confederates had a very effecient spy system throughout the old
> and the occuppied South. They had a lousy black ops department.
> Too many fanatics and dreamers. The best they did was a silly raid
> Vermont from Canada and more involvement than was healthy in the
> assassination plot. Lee had nothing against spying. He was not a
time for the South. And at any rate, it would have been more
advisable to poison Lincoln than to shoot him. Assassinations can
cause a backlash. It can be harder for the principals to conceal
their role than to do the deed in the first place. For that reason it
is usually advisable to conceal not only the roles of the principals
but the fact that a given death was an assassination in the first
place. Poisoning does a better job here. It can usually be made to
look like death from some natural cause.
> black opsresulting
> kind of guy. Again, he went to war to preserve a culture. Victory
> have too high a price for he and his cohorts.
> > > which would have required excellent
> > > >communications for the leaders of the CSA to recognize quickly
> > > enough
> > > >to make use of them. Foulups in communication and the
> > > >military blunders were a big bane of the CSA in that war.probably
> > > >
> > > >In toto, the war looks like a chess game between two opponents
> > > are
> > > >fairly evenly matched against each other. One side is doing a
> > > >respectable job of wearing the other down. Then it tries for a
> > > >grandstand play that seems incredibly brilliant at the time but
> > > seems
> > > >incredibly stupid afterwards. The result is the loss of the
> > > or
> > > >some other disaster and it is all downhill from there.
> > > >
> > > Actually it was a completely onesided game - the North had all
> > > piueces
> > > but had to play against a tighter clock than the south did
> > >
> > >
> >But over the long haul a protracted guerrilla conflict could have
> >the same result as Mao's campaign in China. It would have been a
> >brutal war and the government that eventually rose to power
> >would have been just as brutal after the long years of war.This could stir up lasting enmity between the USA and France and Great
> Again, the Dixie patriotism was mostly at the bottom - hardcore
> veterans and
> the selfmade officers like Forrest who just plain hated everything
> Yankees stood for. The South's governing class did not go to war
> for Dixie
> but rather to preserve a particluar South where they were the
> rulers. A victorious South after a peoples war would be populist as
> well as
> nationalist. There is also the issue of whether the localist
> loyalties of
> the prewar generations could be reconciled with the war created
> patriotism of the troops.
> >Of course, Britain or France might have just decided to come in and
> >mop up the whole thing! Division and conquest was the name of the
> >game in European geopolitics at that time.
> A European intervention would have produced a very different North
> The price of a Euro propped up Dixie was the Yankees taking Canada
> keeping it. So you might have peace in 1868 with France /
> controlling south and central Mexico, Dixie running from New Orleans
> Vicksburg to Chattanooga to Knoxville to Winchester to Aquilia Creek
> and the
> rest of Mexico, the US and Canada part of the new US of A.
Britain. By itself this would probably cause us to become friendly to
Germany, but to stay out of World War I as long as possible. I know
that J. P. Morgan invested heavily in Britain, OTL. But with this
change, he might have been replaced by other capitalists who thought
>It seems that at every point where a peaceful resolution could have
> The more I look at the
> >war, the more it seems that it was fomented out of issues that
> >probably could have been resolved peacefully were it not for
> >working behind the scenes.
> What made the war 'inevitable' was the collapse of the two national
> - first the Whigs and then the Democrats. Essentially the
> Republicans were
> a sectional Yankee (note NOT Northern) party. the Breckinridge
> were a scetional Southern party. The South's political classs would
> agree to be ruled by Lincoln. There were no uncompromisable issues.
> Lincoln had NO intention of attacking slavery in the South and
> lacked the
> votes in Congress to do so if he had wished to. What he wanted was
> a final
> restriction of slavery in the territories. However, there was
> really little
> more territory than was suitable for slavery. A piece of Kansas, a
> bit of
> Arizona - there were counties that could have taken plantations but
> territories or states. Most intelligent Southerners knew this. The
> trade involved Federal dollars for fugitive slaves to make up for
> the fact
> that enough Northern courts would NOT enforce the law, enough
> improvements to make up for the economic cost to the South of the
> tarrifs, cheap money which the South needed as it was a net
> borrower, and a
> good homestead system to glean off surplus poor whites from the
> South who
> might otherwise agitate for real political power. Lincoln, Bell and
> all tried. The sectionalists fought them down as a road to personal
been achieved, something always happened to torpedo such an event.
This is what causes me to suspect that the War was fomented by outside
Texas had tried to make a go of it as an independent nation and had
failed. So the Southerners must have known that secession was no
panacea. A compromise solution should have been possible.
> It might be interesting to see who bought
> >Confederate war bonds. The stakes of the war made a Confederate
> >bond a gamble not too different from a bet at the horse races,out.
> while a
> >Union war bond would be redeemable no matter how the war turned
> >Unless I miss my guess, this assymetry would have been reflecte invictory
> >higher interest rates and deeper discounts on the Confederate
> >instruments. I would expect that the chief purchasers abroad would
> >certain wealthy individuals who might have preferred a Union
> >but could afford to insure themselves against the opposite for aI am sure she did. But the value of these bonds would have been
> >fraction of what they were investing in the North!
> Confederate bonds sold in Europe to the same class of well placed
> speculators who made loans to the government de jour of your typical
> republic - Dixie had a better credit rating than the previous
> Mexican junta
> for example...
closely tied to the fortunes of the Confederate army. It might be
interesting to see who financed BOTH sides. I doubt that the backers
of a scheme to gain control of the finances of North America cared who
won the war so long as ALL surviving governments racked up a big stack
of war debts.
> >I suspect that after a generation or two, there could be a fallingAmericans
> >between the Federal government and the new ruling class in the
> >We see something similar happening with some of the Blacks today.
> >Those who have not completely sold out are now figuring out that
> >might be able to do better on their own than they can as vassals of
> >the central government. The only chance of freedom-loving
> >may be to accept them as allies.People who have advenced themselves through Federal power come to see
> Do NOT understand your comments above. this TL, our TL?
how Federal power limits future advancement. This can lead to a
falling out between the Federal government and their protectees. On
OTL this may be happening now between the minorities and the Federal
government. On this ATL, it might have happened between the Federal
government and the new ruling class of the South.
> > > > > > > As an aside probably a much milder surpression of thefor
> > > Amerinds.
> > > > > > > Army would
> > > > > > > have kept control of the reservations which mean MUCH
> > > white
> > > > > > > encroachment, actually feeding the tribes, employment
> > > manyto
> > > > > > > warriors as
> > > > > > > Army scouts ( de facto Army auxils) and Tribal Police.
> > > Again,
> > > > > means
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > intermountain West as a Republican ghetto instead of a
> > > >Democratic
> > > > > > > one as in
> > > > > > > OTL.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >The USA would have had to do an about-face in its treatment
> > > the
> > > > > >Indians to get their support. They were already friendly
> > > >CSA
> > > > > >and a guerrilla war would have been right up their alley.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What Indians outisde of the slaveholding ones in Oklahoma
> > > > > friendly to
> > > > > the South? I am on firm ground that the army was
> consitantly on
> > > > > better
> > > > > terms with the amerinds than were the largely southern
> > > > > western
> > > > > settlers or the politically appointed (and usually corrupt)
> > > Indian
> > > > > agents.
> > > > > I am just presuming that the reservations were left as wards
> > > the
> > > > > Army
> > > > > (the policy until Useless Grant) . The old regulars were
> > > hardasses.
> > > >
> > > > > This
> > > > > is especially so for the exUSCW officer corps which included
> > > large
> > > >
> > > > > number
> > > > > of fairly young combat vets. They'd have been firm but fair.
> > > lot
> > > > > of
> > > > > Indian trouble consisted of settlers consistantly breaking
> > > treaties
> > > > > and
> > > > > Indian agents consistantly leaving the Indians starving and
> > > cheated.
> > > >
> > > >What alienated the Indians in the Indian territory on OTL was
> > > >migration of dispossessed Southerners after the war. With an
> > > ongoing
> > > >guerrilla war in the South, these boys would have stayed home
> > > gonehave
> > > >elsewhere to continue the fight. A few Indian chiefs would
> > > >figured that the enemy of their enemy (the USA) was theirSo it could have turned into class war on both sides of the
> > >
> > > There biggest enemy was the white settler - if the army had
> > > guarded
> > > the reservation boundaires against endless encroachment...
> >How would you envision the guerrillas' policies toward the Indians?
> None really. Essentially the guerilla cannot take hold beyond the
> areas of
> white settlement and the western indians are all beyond this zone -
> the only
> overlap is Oklahoma where the low population and likely large
> garrison are unilkely to make the civilized tribes stick with Dixie
> than it takes the first Yankee occuppiers to free the slaves the
> held. Oklahoma in the USCW was essentially a class and money war.
> richer Indians had slaves. The richer Indians had commercial ties
> to white
> Texas. The poorer Indians had no slaves to lose. Many of them were
> partial black descent. They were largely outside the money economy.
> Rich =
> confederate. Poor = Union
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2
Comment: For more information GOTO http://www.pgpi.com
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.