Imagine a TL in which 1863 goes even better for the Union than IOTL, possibly resulting in them taking Richmond and forcing the CSA to move its capital to Atlanta. The South is in dire straits, Lee’s army still exists but is in full retreat, and the Confederate government can see the end of slavery looming if Grant and Sherman aren’t stopped as soon as possible. Would it be at all possible (not necessarily plausible, but possible) that the Confederacy might institute some limited recruitment of female soldiers in order to keep their armies intact?
PC: A collapsing Confederacy recruits women to shore up their reserves
- Thread starter Kirook
- Start date
RightHoJeeves
Banned
I think the CSA would sooner approve regiments of manumitted slaves (something they did very late in the war OTL) than start using women for manpower. The only utility in using women would be for morale purposes in the sense that it might shame men away from desertion if there are women serving in combat as marksmen and skirmishers (Imperial Russia actually did this in WWI and for the same reason).
Otherwise they'd be better off having women work in factories and in the fields to free up more men for active duty.
This is probably true, but manumitted slaves would be far more likely to desert and join the Union rather than stay with their slaver/white-supremacist former masters.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
Not if you want to keep a large number of the rank and file in order.
Sure, the politicians may claim its only going to be a limited recruitment, but if the women are being drafted into uniform not only is that alone HIGHLY offensive to the sensibilities of pretty much every Western society in the world, but the act stinks of a desperation that's likely going to break the moral of the menfolk: if there's no choice but to throw the womenfolk into the firing line, does the Cause really even have a prayer of holding on? And if it dosen't, why keep fighting instead of deserting?
Sure, the politicians may claim its only going to be a limited recruitment, but if the women are being drafted into uniform not only is that alone HIGHLY offensive to the sensibilities of pretty much every Western society in the world, but the act stinks of a desperation that's likely going to break the moral of the menfolk: if there's no choice but to throw the womenfolk into the firing line, does the Cause really even have a prayer of holding on? And if it dosen't, why keep fighting instead of deserting?
OtL Both Grant, Sherman, NB Forrest (in retrospect) and others believed the Confederacy would have either lasted 1-2 years or won had the recruited black soliders. Furthermore, the vast majority of black soliders would have served the Confederacy well.
The reasoning is simple. Black soliders who are manumitted are free. In addition, as vetrans they've garnered respect which helps undermine slavery, improving the situation of blacks overall in a victorious Confederacy. It's progress, not the progress of a Union Victory, but still progress.
RightHoJeeves
Banned
Not necessarily. Slavery conditions varied throughout the South and there were a fair number of slaves who were well-treated and placed in trusted roles as household workers or in skilled labor positions, particularly in the Upper South where there was no plantation economy. Those slaves would most likely serve loyally and reliably.
For his part I do know Robert E. Lee was enthusiastic about arming slave regiments due to ANV's severe manpower shortages. I imagine he would have ensured that they be well-treated and commanded by appropriate officers. I doubt that they turn the tide of the war but enough could have been raised to cause Grant problems militarily and Lincoln politically.
Yes, the same Lee who enslaved any black he came across in the North would definitely have done that. And saying so certainly isn't white-washing of a man who deserved to swing after the war.
RightHoJeeves
Banned
That has zero bearing on Lee's desperate need for manpower and his documented willingness to, as he put it, make a soldier out of anything with arms and legs.
It isn't whitewashing his character to say that he wouldn't let idiotic racism get in the way of his military needs at his army's most desperate hour.
Black soldiers totally undermined the entire idea of the Confederacy. No way they would ever be tried on a large scale.
What people are willing to do on paper does not equate to what they will do in real life. Lee was a slaver, and that would have come through in how he treated whatever black soldiers ended up under his command. This applies to the Confederacy as a whole. Even IF we assumed that black soldiers wouldn't desert or surrender the second Union soldiers were nearby (frankly doubtful), they will still be treated like garbage both by their officers and the men around them. The Confederacy was FOUNDED on white supremacy as its exclusive principle. Trying to say that this would magically change is nonsense.
RightHoJeeves
Banned
The CSA being founded on white supremacy and the notion that Lee would ensure satisfactory treatment of black soldiers in the interest of guaranteeing their adequate performance are not mutually exclusive propositions.
What exactly do you mean when you say that they would be treated like garbage?
I mean that they would be treated the same way that whites in the CSA treated every other black person, as beneath them. Likely they would be given the absolute worst assignments, the worst food, the worst equipment, verbally abused, etc.
Habits of a lifetime are not broken quickly.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
To be fair, by this point the masses are already living so low on the hog it's difficult to treat the blacks much worse if you still want them to be effective soldiers
RightHoJeeves
Banned
By 1865 the supply situation for the CSA armies was so poor pretty much everyone was going to suffer equally. As far as assignments go I suspect at first they'd be kept in the rear performing manual labor like digging trenches, repairing railway lines and guarding supplies. You might see a few brigades sent to the front to plug up holes as the army gets worn down.
As for verbal abuse, that's hardly different than the treatment Union black brigades received from the white enlisted ranks and many of their officers.
I find it very hard to believe that blacks would be treated fairly or even remotely close to it in a nation where they were literally enslaved.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
He wasen't making that claim. He's point out that there isen't much space between the "floor" of undersupply/overwork at which the blacks could still be semi-effective soldiers/laborers and what the white soldiers were already experiancing by the end of the war. Being a private/grunt in an on the run, defeated army in the 1800's isen't exactly a comfortable proffesion for anybody (Wellington famously called even his own British soldiers the scum of the earth).
RightHoJeeves
Banned
It isn't a matter of choosing to treat them unfairly because by the time the CSA is desperate enough to enlist black troops pretty much every soldier is suffering great privations.
So let me summarize it thusly: a CSA desperate enough to raise black troops is a CSA desperate enough to overlook their society's norms when it comes to dealing with blacks. That doesn't mean racial equality by any means, it just means the black troops will be treated well enough to perform their duties and whatever racial abuse and prejudice they experience is about the same as black Union troops experienced.
Your position is that they would never do this as OTL showed and I'm in general agreement but the OP suggested arming women, which is step much further down that road than arming black men.
Max Sinister
Banned
If they didn't IOTL although at the end they even tried some black regiments (not very successfully), I don't see why they'd do in other TLs.