How long would Slavery Last in a Victorious Confederacy?

[Divergent54]

Until the Revolution and the founding of the Soviet Negro Republic of course.


Didn't the cotton crop fail in the late 1800s? I doubt slavery (let alone the CSA as a polity) would survive that, imagine the white farmers and workers seeing the plantation owners living lavishly on their saved funds while everyone else suffers for lack of export and economic activity.


Has there been a Confederated Socialist States of America TL yet?

A genocide of butterflies were heard , , ,

I could see a communist revolution but supported by the Soviet Union or even have the existence of the Soviet Union ? Think of the butterflies. Soviet is a Russian derived word and it assumes that the timeline has a communist Russia similar to OTL even if the POD was around the 1860s. The butterflies . . . I hear their cries.

 

[Johnrankins]

its also likely some states in the confederacy remove slavery before others as international pressure increases, to the point where you'd have other states pressuring internal states in the confederacy to make moves to be more internationally marketable. I don't see it going to 1900, certainly not 1920 or higher. At that point they either get rid of it or their house of cards is coming down. Even the most die hard supporters during the 1860's would see the writing on the wall when you have America as well as the rest of the world bearing down. If they can figure out a way cheaper that doesn't piss off the international community (ala intense sharecropping on every basis) they're going to do it. Because in doing so, they get the best of both worlds.

They fought for slavery but economics and survival will play a factor in them getting rid of it. I'm also in no way suggesting that them abolishing slavery increases the quality of life for afro-confederates on most if any basis.

Under the CSA Constitution a slave outlawing slavery is all but meaningless. Article I Section IX No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves, shall be passed. Article II Section II The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States, and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in such slaves shall not be impaired.No slave or Person held to Service or Labour in any State or Territory of the Confederate Slates under the Laws thereof, escaping or unlawfully carried into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such slave belongs, or to whom such Service or Labour may be due. Article II section III The Confederate States may acquire new territory, and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States lying without the limits of the several States, and may permit them, at such times and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the territorial government, and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and territories shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

Article II Section II would make it all but meaningless as the CSA would consider the arguments of the Dredd Scott Decision valid which basically stated a slave could inhabit a Free State indefinitely and still remain a slave. Reinforced by the CSA Constitution itself it would make emancipation by state meaningless.

 

[Orko]

As stated above, it would be impossible to abolish slavery in the CSA unless done by the government in Richmond with consent of all the states. That would be a huge difficulty for any Southern abolitionist movement (not to mention that even the existence of such a movement in the South will be very difficult). I agree that we're not gonna see any serious considerations for abolition in the South until the early 1900's, considering how important slavery was to the South and how hated abolitionists were, but by then things could go in so many different directions it's difficult to really figure under which conditions abolition could happen. After several decades of independent existence, would the CSA still be a plantation-economy? Would it be a failing behind due to failure to industrialize or thriving as a source for cheap primary commodities? Would wage-labor manage to take anywhere in the South and encourage the plantation-owners to become more like modern capitalists than plantation-aristocrats? If so, then do the plantation-owners give up willingly on their slaves so they could become industrialists (because it's impossible to run a firm in a modern, industrial market without wage-laborers that can be fired and hired whenever you want), or is there some struggle between an ascendent industrial bourgeoisie and the slave-owning aristocracy? What happens to the non-slave owning whites in that period? Do they grow resentful that there isn't enough land to farm or new jobs because of all the slaves around? Does that lead to a sort of Southern freesoiler movement that pushes against slavery? Does the CSA get involved in any WW1-analogue if that happens? If so, and it's on the losing side, maybe the victorious powers force it to free the slaves? Or maybe it's on the winning side, but is bled so dry by the war that they have to free the slaves to avoid a black uprising (or maybe they used black soldiers out of desperation during the war and that forces them to rethink all of the race relations in the country?)? Honestly, is it possible to predict what would be more likely to happen to the Confederacy 50-60 years down the line? It just seems to me like it could go either way, and that makes answering the OP's question kinda difficult.

 

[Planet of Hats]

As mentioned above, the Confederate constitution explicitly prohibits outlawing slavery. Abolition has a lot of legal hurdles, and even in the 1920s you have some old folks who were still alive for the war and remember what it was fought for.

I'm far from an expert but I tend to hold the view that any successful Confederacy is doomed and liable to explode within 50 to 70 years of the Civil War, probably in a massive slave revolt with outside powers possibly backing the slaves.

 

[Aphrodite]

Slavery could last a long, long time perhaps even to the present day. How can it be abolished?

The slave owners would need compensation. Are the free going to tax themselves to free the slaves? Doubt it

How are the slaves going to organize a revolt? With modern technology its very easy to control populations
\
What outside power will intervene and why? Who gains by bringing down such an institution in a far away land

Jim Crow lasted until the `1950s and was brought down by judges not the people. South Africa kept its race laws until the 1990's

I wish the answer was different but there's nothing to say that slavery couldn't still exist today

 

[Md139115]

Something I think needs pointing out.

I just finished reading a very good account of the Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond. Starting in 1848, Senior partner Joseph Anderson began supplementing the labor force with slaves in an attempt to lower prices (his company was being forced to charge 1.5 times Northern manufacturers and almost double the British to remain profitable). The roughly 170-220 slaves he employed between then and the Civil War managed to lower his costs by a small, but recognizable amount, in spite of the fact that they only made up around 1/6th of the work force. When the Civil War broke out, something like 230 Northern and foreign workers atTredegar quit, and many of the Southerners enlisted in the heady first days of the conflict (almost never to return, Anderson would spend the rest of the war failing to convince the Confederate War Department and General Lee that the men were more valuable to the war effort with him, rather than shouldering a rifle). Although he never managed to run Tredegar at full production, Anderson was able to produce all he did with his remaing white laborers... and around 500-800 slaves.

I have to be blunt. It is a fallacy that industrial labor and slave labor were mutually exclusive. I can easily see an industrial Confederacy powered by slaves being both survivable and profitable well into the 20th century, only subcumbing to general abolition after some country pulls a China and manages to do it even cheaper.

The only thing standing in the path of this is when the POD occurs. The later the South wins, the less likely slavery is to survive, if only because the more slaves are freed by the Union armies, the smaller the breeding population will be post-war.

 

[Griffon]

It's interesting to watch people discuss things regarding the Civil War on this site as certain topics seem to come up over and over again and lead to pages of debate over them. One of the topics that keep popping up is the topic of just how long slavery was going to last in a victorious Confederate States of America. I don't know if this topic has already been made but here it goes anyways. How long would race based chattel slavery last in a surviving and victorious Confederate States of America? How profitable would the system be going into the 20th century or even 21st century? Was it doomed due to economic and diplomatic reasons or was the system both economically viable and sustainable even with the rest of the western world despising the practice? Could the system adapt to other purposes other than the plantation economy? Would the ideology of slavery overcome all of the hurdles it faces regarding economics and diplomacy seeing as slavery was the reason the south seceded and that it was the cornerstone of southern civilization (at least in the Deep South) at the time?

This does come up frequently.

The first thing that comes up is the caveat "it depends," specifically it depends on what 'victory' means, how the South achieved it, whether it involves the entire confederacy or just part, and what relations are with the North. In particular, the relative power and trade relationship with the North is going to be a big factor, as well as whether or not the Confederacy can expand or if the Union has them boxed in.

In general, assuming the Confederacy is essentially intact and just 'wears out' the North's warfighting spirit, I'd say slavery probably ends (or largely ends) by 1880-1895. I think this would largely be because the Confederacy may not have long-term stability -- they had a lot of fractures even with the war going on and will have a lot more afterwards. I'd say there's a good probability of one or more states leaving the Confederacy within a decade or so. Eventually, the Confederacy will be impacted by foreign trade sanctions, likely including from the US. That'll be another internal pressure that could lead to Confederate fracture. Ultimately, whatever is left of the Confederacy will deem it not worth continuing by late in the century.

 

[Sicarius]

Lincoln's 1862 plan for emancipation allowed slavery as late as 1900. I scarcely think an independent Dixie would be more generous.

 

[Moosemac]

On thing to keep in mind is even if the confederacy frees the slaves eventually, they certainly are not about to start accepting them. At best, you might get the ATL version of Jim Crow. I would also would not be surprised if there were efforts once it was clear that slavery was going to be slowly abolished to send as many "freedmen" to places in the north and Liberia as possible.

 

[Perkeo]

Slavery was an outdated institution in civilized societies even in the 1860. Czarist Russia abolished serfship around 1870. So either the CSA abolishes slavery or slavery leads to the abolition of the CSA within the lifetime of war veterans.

 

[Johnrankins]

Slavery was an outdated institution in civilized societies even in the 1860. Czarist Russia abolished serfship around 1870. So either the CSA abolishes slavery or slavery leads to the abolition of the CSA within the lifetime of war veterans.

Why? Unless the US is going to fight a revanchist war to regain the South using emancipation as an international excuse, which is actually quite likely but not certain, what is going to stop it from continuing? It is 3,000 miles from Europe and Mexico is too weak to conquer the CSA, as weak as it is likely to be.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Article I Section IX No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves, shall be passed.

Still, this applied only to Confederate Congress. States were free to abolish slavery, and some would have done it pretty early.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

I've always wondered that if the CSA did win, how long before the Slaver class is overthrown? Cotton is on the way out, the CSA is in for a heavy recession post war and the slaves (at least from what I've heard) outnumbered the whites by quite a bit. Plus any victory for the CSA is only going to make them weaker in the long run. The sort of victory needed by the CSA to beast the Union would have depleted their manpower quite a bit. It would also be in the USA's interest to support slave revolts in the hope or getting provinces to rejoin the union.

I think the chances of avoiding a massive slave war in the south before the 20th century are pretty slim in this TL.

 

[Kalan]

I think this question is tightly linked with the continued survival of the CSA itself. And I personally think it is likely that the CSA will collapse before it finds the will to abolish slavery on its own.
First of all the CSA is guaranteed to be embroiled in disputes with the USA. One key issue will be runaway slaves. Before the war the fugitive slave act mandated that any slave had to be returned to its owner, and anyone who assisted him faced sever punishment. The northern states hated this law and people accused of violating it were acquitted by juries making its enforcement almost impossible. Thus after the war there is no way the USA is going to return escaped slaves, which will be a constant cause of friction. Secondly, there will be the question of settling the west. Bleeding Kansas was not only a prelude of the civil war but also the second major cause of it. The peace treaty of the civil war will doubtlessly include some kind of settlement for the western territories, but American settlers were not know for respecting such agreements. In Arizona and New Mexico there will be fights between settlers arriving from the USA in the west and the CSA in the east, in Oklahoma and Colorado there will be clashes between settlers from Kansas and those from Texas.

Thus I would argue that future conflict and wars between the USA and CSA are inevitable. Now as the industrialisation progresses the balance of power is going to shift further in favour USA, and the CSA can only hope to win a rematch with outside help. In fact, the general consensus of this forum seems to be that the only way for the CSA to win in the first place is due to help from France and/or Britain. Now, Napoleon III might be willing to prop up the CSA indefinitely to safeguard his Mexican adventures, but the German unification is going to put and end to that [1], just like it ended his support for the papal state IOTL.
The UK on the other hand lacks any strong incentive to keep supporting the CSA. On one hand the population hated slavery (and as has been noted the UK had been curtailing slavery for about half a century), on the other hand the USA was a major trading partner, which is not going to change because of one war. Furthermore the CSA cannot offer the UK any support in areas where it matters (India and China), so the alliance offers little gain for Britain. And historically Britain had absolutely no problem to end alliances under these circumstances.

So I'd say that slavery lasts as long as the CSA does and ends sometimes in the 1890s after a particularly bloody massacre of between settlers from the CSA and USA in Colorado triggers a second war.


[1] Otto von Bismarck was appointed as chancellor of Prussia in 1862, the Second Schleswig War took place in the fall of 1864, and the rivalry between Prussia and Austria in the German Confederation had been ongoing for a decade. Thus, I'd say that it had aquired sufficient inertia to be stopped by a few butterflies.

 

[DG Valdron]

Still, this applied only to Confederate Congress. States were free to abolish slavery, and some would have done it pretty early.

As pointed out, it would be meaningless. Anyone could bring a slave into a Confederate 'free' state and keep them there working indefinitely. You could even sell your slave while he or she was in the Confederate free state.

 

[The Gunslinger]

My opinion on it is that it'll stick around as long as everybody is making money off of it. If there ever reaches a point where Britain, France and America all embargo southern cotton over slavery you might see changes being made into something almost equally awful but not technically slavery. A great deal of this depends on internal politics and external pressures so it's tough to say when this takes place though. I'd guess from 1880 to the turn of the century.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

As pointed out, it would be meaningless. Anyone could bring a slave into a Confederate 'free' state and keep them there working indefinitely. You could even sell your slave while he or she was in the Confederate free state.

The question is if sojourn means to stay in a free state for some weeks, or to live in the free state. Your point is only valid if the second option is true.

 

[DG Valdron]

The question is if sojourn means to stay in a free state for some weeks, or to live in the free state. Your point is only valid if the second option is true.

Perhaps you can quote the Confederate Constitution.

 

[Kalan]

Still, this applied only to Confederate Congress. States were free to abolish slavery, and some would have done it pretty early.

Would they? The abolition of slavery was a very long and drawn out process in the north, and often the law didn't free the current slaves but only mandated that children of slaves born after a certain date would be free. Why do you think it would be faster in the CSA?

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Perhaps you can quote the Confederate Constitution.

This is what I meant:

Under the CSA Constitution a slave outlawing slavery is all but meaningless. Article I Section IX No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves, shall be passed. Article II Section II The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States, and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in such slaves shall not be impaired.