AHC/WI: Ex-Confederates Deported Emasse
- Thread starter GlobalHumanism
- Start date
Calculon
Banned
Well yeah the most radical wouldn't have supported it, because they were trying to rebuild the country, not take revenge. The idea is so mind-bogglingly impossible it can only be a revenge fantasy.
I never said they destroyed any lives, it's just if any of them had considered this measure, then they would have been in favor of destroying lives if feasible.
Yeah that's a more likely outcome, even though it is still impossible (just marginally less impossible) as there were about 5 million blacks in the US by war's end and they'd have to be transported across an ocean instead of across the Gulf of Mexico. There were fewer blacks and nobody in the north wanted them. Southerners of course still wanted them around even after the war for pseudo-slavery sharecropping. The North fought the South to preserve the Union, not to end slavery.
This is overly simplistic. In 1861? Sure, I'd buy it. For most of the elites and common folks, the war was about keeping the Union together, saving the country. But by 1864-5, things had changed. The war radicalized lots of people in the North. Just look at Abraham Lincoln. Before the war he is talking about being willing to keep every slave in chains if that would prevent disunion. By 1864?
'There have been men who have proposed to me to return to slavery the black warriors of Port Hudson and Olustee to their masters to conciliate the South. I should be damned in time and in eternity for so doing. The world shall know that I will keep my faith to friends and enemies, come what will.'
Last edited:
How much is it going to cost to round up close to 1 million men and put them on ships/trains? You might make an argument that this needs to be pushed to 2 million for the civilian collaborators. The population of the CSA is somewhere around 9 million. How are you not going to practically ruin the South and furthermore the whole USA if you take 20% of the South's population away? (I think my estimates are good). How are you going to afford it?
Several factors.
The first, as you said, is the fact that they are soldiers. Brazil had a good navy, but the army was to say the least horrible. During this period, Brazil was fighting for control of the rivers of la plata and parana.
The second is the fact that these people are better educated than local Brazilians (usually). The Emperor was especially interested in the agricultural knowledge of the Confederates.
The third is the fact of the region that the Confederates would be allocated, the south, that a small population. But it had a great climate for Europeans (so important to attract immigrants). It was also Brazil's rival on the border with Argentina at the time.
Therefore, in theory, Brazil would gain better agricultural technology, an army (good and veteran), a larger population, other knowledge that the Confederates knew and a possibility for greater territorial expansion in the south of South America.
And that's just what I remember off the top of my head. So, Brazil would welcome everyone without the slightest doubt.
Perhaps that could work. Brazil had quiet low population compared to modern Brazil population. But I would imaginate that they are anyway required to adopt Portuguese and at least some Brazilian habits.
Things like that were less important back in the mid to late 19th century.
“Collaboration” is a very vague term. The majority of the South’s white population could be considered collaborators. And what if draftees. Completely infeasible and would have disastrous economic consequences.
Perhaps, the Emperor was accommodating to the Confederates as he saw them as a very valuable resource for the strengthening of Brazil. In 1865 brasil had about 9.4 million, 1 or 2 million will cause a boom in the nation, it will probably bring social problems. But the benefits are much better than the malefics. (the population of argentina in 1865 was 1.6 M)
The ability to completely control the most fertile regions of Latin America is priceless.
You will probably have to compromise between both sides, but again the gain is too big to ignore. Brazil was superior to Argentina in terms of the navy, if the army is also superior to the nation it will be able to have what it always wanted(in the period of the empire). An empire from the terra del fire to the Amazon. To be honest, the confederates would even help in the matter of industrialization of the nation.
Brazil wanted control of the entire western core of south america.Brazil had control of almost all of it, missing the part of uruguay, argentina and paraguay. the parts of uruguay and argentina were the most valuable.
the white parts are the best.they are more fertile and with a more friendly climate than the rest of Latin America.
Last edited:
If the public supports ethnically cleansing the South after the ACW, they presumably don't care about the well-being of the deportees.
ObMonkeyPaw: they survive the Amazon and emerge as a Brazilian Draka
ObMonkeyPaw: they survive the Amazon and emerge as a Brazilian Draka
Ending the Civil War and defeating the South, only to have the white-ex Confederate population ethnically cleansed from their homes. That will not go well at all. All that leads to is perhaps a brief pause and then round two starts almost immediately after with hundreds of thousands of more people dying in the process.
Honestly, to put this simply, deporting *all* ex-rebels almost certainly wouldn't happen even under the most radical Republican administration; that said, though, that doesn't mean that ex-Confederates would necessarily have free reign-it's not at all hard to see, for example, some states outside the South, perhaps especially out West, putting heavy restrictions on residency of the former Rebels, outside those who can prove their loyalty to the restored Union(though in most of these scenarios, I'd wager that those who could would probably be able to settle down like anyone else coming there.)
(On the other hand, since this topic has been breached.....I realize this is a bit off topic, but no, it is not that likely, even IOTL, that you would have had such enthusiasm for deporting the freedmen-yes, even in our universe, there were many abolitionists and even a fair number of non-radical Republicans who actually had intended for the freedmen to have equal legal rights, prejudices of the era aside; had this not been the case, we almost certainly wouldn't have had the 14th and 15th Amendments and maybe not even the 13th. Yes, there could be a few plausible scenarios to do this, but far easier discussed than actually written.)
Last edited:
Coivara
Banned
Brazilian Draka comes out of the jungle as a crazy mystical empire of race-mixing expansionists.
"The time of the unmixed races are over. We will assimilate all into the greatest race, the cosmic race, as the ancestors predicted it. All worthy genes shall be assimilated, the weak and feeble shall be chattel. We will take all that is worthy from your culture. We will conquer the world and unify it forever as one race, because it is the Divine Will. From your flesh we will drawn strength. Only the Good Men, the men who are better, are fit to lead society. The weaker races shall be assimilated and work for the superior hybrid breeds. You will be assimilated or devoured."
Deporting that many people would lead to the depopulation of much of America especially if they bought their wives and families with them.
with the loss of so many people that could have term economic impact on the economic development of the former CSA states.
Where could they go with good long-term economic proppests? probably Australia.
with the loss of so many people that could have term economic impact on the economic development of the former CSA states.
Where could they go with good long-term economic proppests? probably Australia.
Last edited:
Baloney, the reconstruction optimistic fantasists* are far more vocal and persistent than the Reconstruction pessimist*/realists.
Your argument is a classic case of "woe is me, my (wiser) position is brave, embattled dignified, few, proud, minority position" fallacy.
*optimism measured by a prioritization on freedperson's interests and punitive treatment of CSA supporters who were against freeperson's interests.
*again pessimist measured by a prioritization on freedperson's interests and punitive treatment of CSA supporters who were against freeperson's interests.
Why do you call the "pessimist" realistic? That makes you seem biased.
The Lodge Bill failing was not inevitable, nor was it inevitable that post-1870s European immigration would escalate (It was really bad for African Americans since they were not yet needed in the North, delaying the Great Migration) when a simple immigration bill post the Great Railroad Strike could have succeeded. The Wade-Davis Bill would've helped a lot, as would the Slaughter-House Cases being decided differently (They were a 5-4 vote IOTL). The German Empire deciding to keep minting silver thale coins would prevent the Panic of 1873, which was terrible for the support of Reconstruction
United States v. Cruikshank effectively killed Reconstruction and allowed things like Jim Crow laws to be implemented on a mass scale. Even then, because history is NOT inevitable, black suffrage still managed to elect Fusionist governments up to 1900. All that means is that history does not go the other direction, or at least doesn't go unopposed. You can argue that OTL was one of the best-case scenarios (I disagree) but arguing that it was the ONLY possible scenario is inaccurate
Santa Catarina, Parana and Rio Grande do Sul hadn't experienced the big waves of Germans,Poles,Italians,Swiss by the ACW end so that might have worked, but hard to see massive forced deportations. The Tsars and Soviets had the railroads for their forced deportations, the USA really didn't have any way to forcibly move people west in the 1860s if they wanted to use Alaska, plus the costs, no ROI for deporting people, it wouldn't pay.
But all these examples (save possibly the immigration bill- you would have to give me details of what was proposed) you give are all far more democratic, constitutional, consistent with a rule-of-law frame, non-authoritarian, non-dirigiste, non-collective punishment, non-Jacobin, non-class warfare, non-Marxian, non-“state of emergency”, and far more *American* measures than the far more frequently spoken fantasies on this board of 1) mass executions, deportations, property confiscations of whole masses of southern citizens for having certain demographic characteristics like being in a family that owned slaves, being in a family that owned a lot of land, or being in a family that bought CSA bonds, paid CSA taxes, or had someone serve in the CSA military, being white and not actively part of a Unionist/loyalist movement.
Collective punishment of the latter is very Un-American, but is frequently proposed as the just desserts alternative to OTL Jim Crow, and every month somebody does a TL trying to contrive to make it happen, and it is simply a Tarantino -esque Django Unchained revenge fantasy. It’s not happening outside the ASB forum.
the things you mentioned in post #58? Now those, or most of them, are what if worthy. But to do it right takes a lot of hard work to deal with the constant resistant forces. Handwavium won’t work. Otherwise, historically literate readers won’t be able to suspend their disbelief.
Last edited: