Slavery and the Civil War

Jude815

Just a quick thought. I have read a number of civil war alternate histories, and a majority of them seem to ignore the issue of slavery. Maybe "ignore" is the wrong term, but it certainly is an issue that is brushed aside. There are certainly exceptions to this, but not many.

It seems like for most "southern victory" histories, the issue of slavery is either completely ignored, or downplayed. Usually by claiming that it is "on its way out" or that the Confederacy would do away with it rather quickly. This seems unlikely to me.

Even if you believe this to be true, I have yet to read a convincing theory on how. Its as if the entire issue is brushed aside. I don't think it could ever be that simple.

I imagine that most writers prefer to talk about the battles and/or the politics associated with the war. There is no easy way to write about slavery. Maybe this is why you don't see alternate histories of the civil rights movement.

Any thoughts on this, or am I totally off base?
 

mrmandias

Here are some interesting arguments on the subject from a thread in another forum (links below), suggesting the the end of slavery in a victorious Confederacy was by no means inevitable or bloodless

Commenter A:
1) In the 1850s, slavery did not seem to be declining. Cotton enjoyed an enormous boon, slaves had become valuable enough that some illicit slave-trading had revived, Southerners had widely switched from seeing slavery as a necessary evil to seeing it as a positive good, Southerners had started to actively agitate for the expansion of slavery, including by conquest of Cuba and Central America, and the slave-power had won numerous political victories, including Dred Scott, the overthrow of the Compromise of 1850, and a strengthened fugitive slave act. Slavery was profitable enough that southerners had started to agitate for reopening the African slave trade and, in fact, a few expeditions had evaded the US and British navies and had made enormous profits on slave cargos. These ship captains and crews were acclaimed and feted in the South.

2) Even if you ignore the fact that our perspective is a hindsight perspective, you have to acknowledge that our perspective is of a world in which the Civil War occurred. The world in which Cuba and Brazil abolished slavery was a world in which educated opinion had been shaped by the Union's bloody and resolute victory over the South. Would black slavery have appeared so obviously an anachronism and an evil if Sherman's legions had't marched through Georgia, burning and liberating, while ex-slaves danced and their former masters cowered? That was a very religious age--it was also an age that read its Old Testament--and in a real way because of the Civil War it appeared to the minds of men that God had judged the slavers and had found them wanting. I’m being poetic here but I think the Civil War itself really did change attitudes.

3) The argument that slavery was economically inferior to free labor does not mean that slavery's extinction was inevitable. Economic institutions, once set in place, can be extremely difficult to change, even if, in theory, a different set of institutions would be preferable. Its the economic equivalent of the founder effect. This is even more so when powerful interests do benefit economically from these institutions (think the planter class); when there are strong emotional, cultural, and ideological supports for the institutions (as was the case in the South); and when there are non-material benefits that the institution offers (i.e., being a master and a boss can be psychologically and, er, sexually satisfying).

Commenter B
Slaves were people and 40 more years of whipping, beating, separation from family, castration, mutilation, etc., is not irrelevant even if slavery would end in 40 years.

Commenter C
Consider the virtual slavery instituted by the nazis. Industrialization isn't inherently incompatible slavery. Even if it were agriculture would be – and still is – a lot more profitable with cheap labor.
[The Decades of Darkness thread has a very significant discussion about whether slavery can be profitable or efficient in the industrial age.]

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2008/02/lincoln-and-the-will-of-god/

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2007/05/memorial-day/
 

David S Poepoe

Banned
I think you are forgetting the most important part, at least for ATLs that are hitting the bookstores - they are stories and the author needs to tell the story within a certain confines in order that the story will be read. The issue of slavery in the ACW will be ignored since one can not take an overall broad look at things within an ATL, there is only so much we are going to write about. We leave off what is outside the ATL and we expect that those events will happen historically.

There are limitations to the butterfly effect - especially when it comes into conflict with telling a good story.

In the general realm of AH regarding the ACW much as with any statistic history may be read and interpreted many ways. How an ATL is constructed past the POD is pure speculation and interpretation and the outcome is never certain.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Jude815 said:
Just a quick thought. I have read a number of civil war alternate histories, and a majority of them seem to ignore the issue of slavery. Maybe "ignore" is the wrong term, but it certainly is an issue that is brushed aside. There are certainly exceptions to this, but not many.

It seems like for most "southern victory" histories, the issue of slavery is either completely ignored, or downplayed. Usually by claiming that it is "on its way out" or that the Confederacy would do away with it rather quickly. This seems unlikely to me.

Even if you believe this to be true, I have yet to read a convincing theory on how. Its as if the entire issue is brushed aside. I don't think it could ever be that simple.

I imagine that most writers prefer to talk about the battles and/or the politics associated with the war. There is no easy way to write about slavery. Maybe this is why you don't see alternate histories of the civil rights movement.

Any thoughts on this, or am I totally off base?
Click to expand...

Reasons why slavery would die in the CSA:
1. CSA would probably need to ally with the UK to win. UK would put a lot of pressure on the young republic, since UK IS the main abolitionist power.
2. Mechanization of agriculture: They wouldn't need that many slaves any more. It would just be an unnecessary expense.
3. Industrialization: It would come to the South, and even if it first just would be after white labour, soon cheap black labour would be attractive.

Point 2 and 3 means slavery in masses would disappear, domestic slavery is more tricky, it has a tendency to survive other types of slavery, but British pressure would not disappear, and when slavery is not important for CSA's economy anymore, abolition is likely.
 

Blackfox5

I think the simplest answer is that some people have a romantic view of the Confederates given the talents of many of their generals, the spectacular nature of some of their victories, and nostalgia. This is especially true of people who are from the South, and this is part of their heritage.

Because of that romantic attachment, they are drawn to create or read AH about Confederate victory. However, modern mores means the presence of slavery is something that's extremely ugly, and ruins this romantic vision. So instead of dealing with it, they miraculously make it go away.

It's not realistic and completely ignores that the Civil War was fought because slaveholders in the South were paranoid about anyone getting rid of it. But these TLs aren't being done to do a realistic timeline, but to engage in fantasy wish fulfillment.
 

Typo

Banned
Even if you believe this to be true, I have yet to read a convincing theory on how. Its as if the entire issue is brushed aside. I don't think it could ever be that simple.
Click to expand...
Lost cause Lost cause Lost cause Lost cause
 

Jude815

Blackfox5 said:
I think the simplest answer is that some people have a romantic view of the Confederates given the talents of many of their generals, the spectacular nature of some of their victories, and nostalgia. This is especially true of people who are from the South, and this is part of their heritage.

Because of that romantic attachment, they are drawn to create or read AH about Confederate victory. However, modern mores means the presence of slavery is something that's extremely ugly, and ruins this romantic vision. So instead of dealing with it, they miraculously make it go away.

It's not realistic and completely ignores that the Civil War was fought because slaveholders in the South were paranoid about anyone getting rid of it. But these TLs aren't being done to do a realistic timeline, but to engage in fantasy wish fulfillment.
Click to expand...


That seems very likely when it comes to many ATLs. Slavery is not an easy issue to deal with, and many writers find it easier to sidestep the issue. However, I think this kind of romanticism leads to a blindness over history, which I find suprising in AH writers, who tend to have an avid interest in the subject.

The Confederate constitution made abolution extremely unlikely as a political matter in the Confederate States. Furthermore, a group is less likely to give something up that they fought and won a war over, even with outside pressure from the UK. I imagine that any outside pressure would lead to further resistance. Southerners hated the idea of their fellow countrymen being against slavery, how would they react to outside interferance from the UK?

But say this is wrong, and somehow slavery was quickly and easily ended. What about civil rights? I imagine that any southern abolition would lead to slavery in everything but name. The real issue is still being ignored.
 
Last edited:

Mr Qwerty

Jude815 said:
But say this is wrong, and somehow slavery was quickly and easily ended. What about civil rights? I imagine that any southern abolition would lead to slavery in everything but name. The real issue is still being ignored.
Click to expand...

Which did happen-with the Northern victory. You're absolutely right.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
yourworstnightmare said:
2. Mechanization of agriculture: They wouldn't need that many slaves any more. It would just be an unnecessary expense.
Click to expand...

Cotton picking was mechanised in the 1950's/60's, because that's when viable mechanical cotton pickers were invented. There is no drive to mechanise here.

3. Industrialization: It would come to the South, and even if it first just would be after white labour, soon cheap black labour would be attractive.
Click to expand...

Factories in the south already employed slaves. In some ways it's a system better adapted to the American system of manufactures than free labour.

In all probability the south would not just keep slavery, but would expand it to other sectors. The drivers for emancipation in the northern states like New York were slaves competing with free labour, and being more efficient. Thus it was an issue of placating the white populace by freeing the black population and pushing them into lower status jobs. The old NW outlawed not slavery but black people totally from their inception for similar economic reasons.
 

Jude815

Mr Qwerty said:
Which did happen-with the Northern victory. You're absolutely right.
Click to expand...

Exactly! So why would a southern victory timeline be any different, if not much worse and lasting longer than in OTL? An interesting ATL would be a stronger reconstruction after the war.

Again though, I have rarely seen any of these issues discussed in Civil War ATLs. With slaves being roughly 40% of the population of the Confederacy, it seems like this a large issue that cannot be ignored in most timelines, but often is.

On the other hand, do most non-CW timelines go into social issues? Maybe battles, generals, and politics are just more interesting to read and write about.
 

The Uchronian

Peabody-Martini said:
There have been TLs relating to a CSA victory and slavery. The consensus was the result would be a dystopian failed state.
Click to expand...

And it probably would fail eventually...........and would probably fall harder, the longer it lasted.{It seems to me that DoD's U.S. was probably headed in that direction, what with all the revolts in South America and all......A newly Republican Canada wasn't going to help matters, either. ;)}
 

Lord Grattan

yourworstnightmare said:
Reasons why slavery would die in the CSA:
1. CSA would probably need to ally with the UK to win. UK would put a lot of pressure on the young republic, since UK IS the main abolitionist power.
2. Mechanization of agriculture: They wouldn't need that many slaves any more. It would just be an unnecessary expense.
3. Industrialization: It would come to the South, and even if it first just would be after white labour, soon cheap black labour would be attractive.

Point 2 and 3 means slavery in masses would disappear, domestic slavery is more tricky, it has a tendency to survive other types of slavery, but British pressure would not disappear, and when slavery is not important for CSA's economy anymore, abolition is likely.
Click to expand...

Would mining operations in the Confederate West give slavery a new lease on life/prolong its life?
 

Corbell Mark IV

If I might add, IMO one of the most interesting effects of a Confederate Victory is the loss of the USA superpowerdom.

INdeed, in this senerio it the Union will not even have supremancy over North America, this leads to all kind of interesting possiblities in areas that OTL were dominated or even effected by American power.

Hell, Canada's power relatively increases. Will the USA enter WWI? Will the CSA? What about any Cold War?

With these questions, the question of slavery is just a distraction to be pushed aside to get to the "funner" questions.:)
 

Spengler

Banned
Corbell Mark IV said:
If I might add, IMO one of the most interesting effects of a Confederate Victory is the loss of the USA superpowerdom.

INdeed, in this senerio it the Union will not even have supremancy over North America, this leads to all kind of interesting possiblities in areas that OTL were dominated or even effected by American power.

Hell, Canada's power relatively increases. Will the USA enter WWI? Will the CSA? What about any Cold War?

With these questions, the question of slavery is just a distraction to be pushed aside to get to the "funner" questions. :)
Click to expand...

About World War I I'll have to say that Turtledoves world war I was somewhat plausible. About the cold war I'd wonder if it could happen given the POD.
 

DuQuense

Slavery was profitable enough that southerners had started to agitate for reopening the African slave trade and, in fact, a few expeditions had evaded the US and British navies and had made enormous profits on slave cargoes. These ship captains and crews were acclaimed and feted in the South.
Click to expand...
The CS Consitution bans the Trade.
The CS Congress had ratified the Anti Trade treaties with Britain, and was planning to send ships to participate in the Anti Slave Trade patrols.
About World War I I'll have to say that Turtledoves world war I was somewhat plausible.
Click to expand...
I've always found it sorta Implausible.
It ignores the South's being the Centre of Isolationism, Ignores the time between the Assignation and the DOW's, Ignores the Diplomatic Butterflies from the US & The CS being in the Alliance Systems.
 

Fiver

yourworstnightmare said:
Reasons why slavery would die in the CSA:
1. CSA would probably need to ally with the UK to win. UK would put a lot of pressure on the young republic, since UK IS the main abolitionist power.
Click to expand...

1. The UK supporting the CSA is highly unlikely to mean more than offering international arbitration. Alliance would be unpopular with the British public. If the CSA is losing, Britain would not ally with it. If the CSA is winning, Britain has no need to ally with it.

If Britain puts pressure on the CSA to end slavery, the CSA will not ally with Britain. CSA leadership seceded from the Democratic Party because northern Democrats refused to endorse the Dred Scott Decision or allowing slavery in the territories. The CSA seceded from the US because the Republicans opposed slavery in the territories and might eventually manage to repeal the Fugitive Slave Law and overturn the Dred Scott Decision.

Neither the northern Democrats not the Republicans were putting pressure, let alone a lot of pressure, on the South to end slavery. Such action by Britain is more likely to result in the CSA declaring war on Britain than the CSA ending slavery.

That would be stupid on the CSA's part, but they'd already been stupid enough to open fire on a nation that outnumbered them better than 2-to-1 and had 11 times as much industry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top