Race and social issues in the USA if the Deep South is independent and Canada is American
Dec 9, 2019 0:41:36 GMT
Post by eurofed on Dec 9, 2019 0:41:36 GMT
The issue at hand in this scenario is race and social issues in the USA if the Deep South is an independent state and Canada is American from the beginning. ITTL the USA owns the portion of the North American continent north of the 35th parallel north (more or less the southern border of NC and TN), the West west of the Pecos river, and northwestern Mexico north of the Tropic of Cancer. A broad equivalent of the CSA (although not necessarily an English-speaking one) controls the Deep South (including Texas), the Greater Antilles, and northeastern Mexico north of the Tropic of Cancer.
The PoD might be the Canadian colonies joining the American Revolution and later the USA but the Deep South and Caribbean colonies staying loyal to Britain, and later rebelling and winning their independence with US support when the British government tries to abolish slavery. Alternatively, Britain colonized Canada and France the Deep South. The British conquered the French and Spanish Deep South and Great Antilles colonies in TTL equivalent of the French and Indian War. The American Revolution occurred much like usual and the English-speaking colonies formed the USA. The other BNA colonies joined the revolution as well but opted out of joining the USA due to cultural differences and much more importantly disagreement about the slavery issue. In either case, the USA abolished slavery soon after its birth and disposed of its slaves by selling them to its southern neighbor before emancipation took effect. Soon afterwards, Britain agreed to cede Rupert's Land and the Pacific Northwest to America. The USA and the UK/*CSA cooperated to acquire Louisiana, the Great Antilles, and the northern two-thirds of New Spain either by conquest or peaceful purchase. In either case, they split the booty, with the USA getting northern Louisiana, the Southwest, California, and northwestern Mexico. The *CSA/BSA got southern Louisiana, Texas, Cuba, Hispaniola, PR, and northeastern Mexico. Later the USA got Alaska the usual way. The *CSA might or might not have been able to expand further in central-southern Mexico and Central America. In any case, it clung to slavery like dear life, and became a giant banana republic dominated by plantation economy and a landowner elite that brutally exploited its captive workforce and lorded over its lower classes.
Its relationship with its much more powerful northern neighbor might vary between relatively friendly (much like OTL America and its Latin American client states) and serious hostility (more like modern Cuba or Venezuela) due to liberal-conservative antagonism and slavery-issue polarization. In any case, the *CSA always was careful to grant the USA sufficiently good terms for its trade and otherwise avoid provoking it to a fight. As a rule, also because the *CSA had never been a part of the USA, the Americans never felt a real urge to own it or have too close a relationship with it unless the *Confederates somehow forced the issue. They deemed it too poor, backward, riddled with social issues, hidebound, and with too many Blacks. Since the USA never had a significant Black minority since its birth, it showed an overwhelming unwillingness to acquire one by immigration. America usually kept its borders sealed shut to free Black or African immigrants, except for mixed-race people that could pass for whites or at least a different racial group. As a matter of fact, the USA kept a solid anti-slavery stance and often granted shelter and humanitarian relief to fugitive slaves and Black victims of persecution that crossed its borders. However, past a point such refugees almost invariably exhausted their welcome and faced growing pressure to resettle to Africa or Latin America. The US government and various groups did sponsor several fairly effective programs to support Black immigration to Africa or Latin America. The ones that tried to settle in America and resist pressure to leave faced near-universal denial of citizenship, harsh legal and social discrimination, not-so-occasional mob violence, and the authorities' frequent efforts to round them up and forcibly deport them under various pretexts. For obvious reasons, in most cases illegal Black immigrants were easy to track down despite the long and porous land border with the *CSA. Of course, nothing like the Great Migration was ever remotely close to politically possible, regardless of what happened south of the border or the state of the US job market. Due to lack of limits for their own immigration, European, Asian, and Latin American immigrants took the place of the Blacks in the US workforce.
On the other hand, lack of the conservative influence of the Deep South and the race issues related to slavery and segregation made the USA evolve in a rather more liberal direction than OTL, as it concerned economic and social issues. The political spectrum became much more supportive of government intervention in the economy, first concerning infrastructure building, and later development of a comprehensive welfare system and public regulation of business. America was the first great power in the world to establish female suffrage, and became rather more open-minded than OTL about sexual freedom, social equality, and reproductive rights of women. Even non-Black minorities benefited to a degree. Natives that showed serious willingness to assimilate in American society and culture often got widespread acceptance, even if the ones that forcibly resisted US colonization and tried to cling to their traditional lifestyle met a harsh fate. Nobody ever seriously thought of limiting immigration of Southern and Eastern Europeans as well as White Latin Americans. It bears noting, however, that due to ATL events in Europe scientific racism mostly developed an attitude similar to modern White nationalism from the beginning. Apart from the usual chauvinist mischief between rival nations, racist prejudice against fellow Europeans would have been regarded as utter lunacy. Immigration of Asians and Amerindian Latin Americans often turned out much more controversial, but opposition to it never achieved enough support to enact serious legal limitations.
The PoD might be the Canadian colonies joining the American Revolution and later the USA but the Deep South and Caribbean colonies staying loyal to Britain, and later rebelling and winning their independence with US support when the British government tries to abolish slavery. Alternatively, Britain colonized Canada and France the Deep South. The British conquered the French and Spanish Deep South and Great Antilles colonies in TTL equivalent of the French and Indian War. The American Revolution occurred much like usual and the English-speaking colonies formed the USA. The other BNA colonies joined the revolution as well but opted out of joining the USA due to cultural differences and much more importantly disagreement about the slavery issue. In either case, the USA abolished slavery soon after its birth and disposed of its slaves by selling them to its southern neighbor before emancipation took effect. Soon afterwards, Britain agreed to cede Rupert's Land and the Pacific Northwest to America. The USA and the UK/*CSA cooperated to acquire Louisiana, the Great Antilles, and the northern two-thirds of New Spain either by conquest or peaceful purchase. In either case, they split the booty, with the USA getting northern Louisiana, the Southwest, California, and northwestern Mexico. The *CSA/BSA got southern Louisiana, Texas, Cuba, Hispaniola, PR, and northeastern Mexico. Later the USA got Alaska the usual way. The *CSA might or might not have been able to expand further in central-southern Mexico and Central America. In any case, it clung to slavery like dear life, and became a giant banana republic dominated by plantation economy and a landowner elite that brutally exploited its captive workforce and lorded over its lower classes.
Its relationship with its much more powerful northern neighbor might vary between relatively friendly (much like OTL America and its Latin American client states) and serious hostility (more like modern Cuba or Venezuela) due to liberal-conservative antagonism and slavery-issue polarization. In any case, the *CSA always was careful to grant the USA sufficiently good terms for its trade and otherwise avoid provoking it to a fight. As a rule, also because the *CSA had never been a part of the USA, the Americans never felt a real urge to own it or have too close a relationship with it unless the *Confederates somehow forced the issue. They deemed it too poor, backward, riddled with social issues, hidebound, and with too many Blacks. Since the USA never had a significant Black minority since its birth, it showed an overwhelming unwillingness to acquire one by immigration. America usually kept its borders sealed shut to free Black or African immigrants, except for mixed-race people that could pass for whites or at least a different racial group. As a matter of fact, the USA kept a solid anti-slavery stance and often granted shelter and humanitarian relief to fugitive slaves and Black victims of persecution that crossed its borders. However, past a point such refugees almost invariably exhausted their welcome and faced growing pressure to resettle to Africa or Latin America. The US government and various groups did sponsor several fairly effective programs to support Black immigration to Africa or Latin America. The ones that tried to settle in America and resist pressure to leave faced near-universal denial of citizenship, harsh legal and social discrimination, not-so-occasional mob violence, and the authorities' frequent efforts to round them up and forcibly deport them under various pretexts. For obvious reasons, in most cases illegal Black immigrants were easy to track down despite the long and porous land border with the *CSA. Of course, nothing like the Great Migration was ever remotely close to politically possible, regardless of what happened south of the border or the state of the US job market. Due to lack of limits for their own immigration, European, Asian, and Latin American immigrants took the place of the Blacks in the US workforce.
On the other hand, lack of the conservative influence of the Deep South and the race issues related to slavery and segregation made the USA evolve in a rather more liberal direction than OTL, as it concerned economic and social issues. The political spectrum became much more supportive of government intervention in the economy, first concerning infrastructure building, and later development of a comprehensive welfare system and public regulation of business. America was the first great power in the world to establish female suffrage, and became rather more open-minded than OTL about sexual freedom, social equality, and reproductive rights of women. Even non-Black minorities benefited to a degree. Natives that showed serious willingness to assimilate in American society and culture often got widespread acceptance, even if the ones that forcibly resisted US colonization and tried to cling to their traditional lifestyle met a harsh fate. Nobody ever seriously thought of limiting immigration of Southern and Eastern Europeans as well as White Latin Americans. It bears noting, however, that due to ATL events in Europe scientific racism mostly developed an attitude similar to modern White nationalism from the beginning. Apart from the usual chauvinist mischief between rival nations, racist prejudice against fellow Europeans would have been regarded as utter lunacy. Immigration of Asians and Amerindian Latin Americans often turned out much more controversial, but opposition to it never achieved enough support to enact serious legal limitations.
