"No law denying or impairing right of property"
Sojourn will last as long as the owner wants.
How long would Slavery Last in a Victorious Confederacy?
- Thread starter aspie3000
- Start date
"No law denying or impairing right of property"
Sojourn will last as long as the owner wants.
Why would there be an increase in abolitionist sentiment after the ACW? Even the white Unionists in Confederate states were generally pro-slavery as they believed that emancipation would result in the mass murders of white men and the mass rape of white women.
If the economy of the CSA is as bad as I expect, I could see one or more states decide that perhaps they'd be better off out of the collapsing nation. Perhaps one or more of the states decides to leave, secretly offering to return to the USA in return for compensation for freeing the slaves. (The compensation would, of course, be paid in US gold dollars, not CSA money...)
Since the wealthy have a disproportionate influence, that just might fly. Does the state leave peacefully, or does war ensue?
Since the wealthy have a disproportionate influence, that just might fly. Does the state leave peacefully, or does war ensue?
Britain is the only country who really tried to pressure countries into ending slavery and it didn't stop the British from trading for cotton. The Union might threaten the Confederacy, but they are not going to do it over the Confederacy keeping slavery. For the Confederacy to end slavery in the lifetime of the men who fought the war would be to admit their reason for fighting was wrong -The Confederacy ending slavery in the 1880s or 90s is about as likely as the US petitioning to rejoin the British Empire around 1800 to 1810.
In OTL, slave revolts did not result in increased abolitionist sentiment in the South, they resulted in heavier repression of the slaves. Why would that change after independence? The Confederacy suffered over 250,000 dead rather than give in to external pressure to end slavery. Why would that change after slavery?
If the confederates DO somehow win, the North isn't going to come back to fight a war with emancipation. This means only Britain can possibly except enough pressure on them.
In a world with a surviving Confederacy I could easily see more nations joining Britain in that regard, with an extra 20-30 years I'd have trouble seeing that not occur.
the hangup I see a lot of people having is the belief that if the south ends slavery, it would actually end slavery. and for those that quote their constitution, amendments are possible as well as their supreme court and who may having changing interpretations on the written words, it isn't even uncommon for the US constitution
The South isn't going to end slavery because people's ideas change or the people in power have a change of heart. I wouldn't even bet on an abolitionist movement existing, but they would do it for survival. Those in power and those who held slaves may not have been moral, hell i'd call them evil, but they weren't suicidal. They wanted slavery for their own selfish survival economically, socially, and politically. Slavery held up their survival in the 1860's; but, now as an independent nation wanting to express power and independence in the world, they are facing far different situations. They are going to have to industrialize, and when they do, agriculture will more than likely cease being the South's only major commodity. Not because agriculture, especially cotton, slumps but because they simply have to make up the lack of these other products if they are to survive. The United States certainly isn't going to be a favored trader if one at all. Therefore the situation changes and slavery as they fought for it ceases to be the most beneficial route for them to take.
Those who fought for the South don't have to admit anything they did was wrong, the exact opposite, the ones in the position to make the change could make ending "slavery" work even 'better' for them. They would do so by ending slavery "classic" and introducing slavery "diet". Afro-Confederates would cease to be property but they would remain the cheapest labor possible, except now not only can white business owners (and formal slaveowners) stop having to pay for the housing, feeding, and clothing of their slaves but they can now sell all of this to them at just the right price to keep them in their system; with the added caveat that the same ones buying it are producing it at Far less than they would have to pay anyone else. They would be enslaved not by law but by the economics of the situation. And if they went this route, I'd even argue that the risk of revolt is lowered, as to the afro-confederates it may still possibly be seen as a better deal than being in chains that are visible. I'm not saying it is factually a better situation mind you.
I'm of the argument that the Confederacy ending slavery in 1880-1890 is more likely than them securing independence to begin with. But it isn't because they would have good intentions in doing so. But, I'm also perfectly willing to accept that there has been a long standing two camps to this argument and I'm not expecting to win anyone over or for the argument to end.
Last edited:
I really don't think other countries would bother putting the bonus on the Confederacy and not the North African states which not only had slaves, they captured people and turned them into slaves! The Barbary Wars stopped them from having the naval power to capture ships and enslave captives but it was not due to a change in law of slavery in those nations but due to a lack of capacity
And no, I don't see anyone but Britain being able to force the issue if they tried. Also, Britain is likely the only one to try, if it does at all
And no, I don't see anyone but Britain being able to force the issue if they tried. Also, Britain is likely the only one to try, if it does at all
I wonder at the economics of it all. The basic problem of slavery vs. wages is that with slaves, someone has to take care of them while they are children, when they are too old to work, and feed/house and clothe them. With a wage worker, the worker takes care of all of that himself. Under industrial slavery, the factory owner may not take care of that himself, but someone has to. For a slave owner, providing slaves to a factory will be profitable so long as he can get very cheap food, clothing, and housing... the question is if it would be cheaper than just paying wages to workers...
eventually... but in the time frame we're talking here, unions are something in the future...
If they were willing to do change it to "slavery in almost all but name" they would have been willing to do so before fighting a bloody war. That would have been acceptable to the North at the time. The problem was that Southerners thought slavery to be moral and Abolitionism to be immoral. "Freeing" slaves even in such a matter would be admitting they were morally wrong.
Southerners thought Blacks need the "Civilizing influences of slavery" so as not to descend into cannibalism , paganism, debauchery and idleness. That it was only through the loyalty to their master (Southerners had delusions of this also) that prevented them from raping every White woman they saw, stealing everything in sight and sacrificing people to dark gods. That Black people were actually happiest when enslaved whether they knew it or not. That slavery was for the slaves own good. It might sound crazy but this is the mythos that was most commonly believed.
That is more possible, personally I would expect either the CSA not to last long or wind up an economic colony of the US in all but name.
Look at land of Cotton, it's a rather hilarious timeline with the South being compeltly subordinate to New York investors
The idea that slavery couldn't end within in the lifetimes of people who fought in ACW, uses wrong arguments to justify itself.
Southern planters might've plunged US into war over slavery, but it wasn't how they 'sold' the war to poor and middle class domestically, or other countries internationally. No, they justified secession with stuff like Washington violating state rights, or appealed to southern national identity, or claimed that states joined union was voluntarily so could voluntarily leave. They did not feature slavery prominently in their propaganda, because they weren't stupid, they it wouldn't 'sell' very well.
10%: "Not even fifty years had passed since war, and we're ending slavery! An outrage!"
90%: "Okay. If I joined Lee's army to defend slavery, and not to defend our independence, I'd be pretty angry about it. *goes back to drinking his beer*"
Members of social groups who'd oppose ending of slavery would do so regardless of whether they remembered the war.
ACW being fresh in everyone's memory would be stumbling block to ending slavery, but not insurmountable one.
Could socialist movement of poor and working class whites spearhead abolishment of slavery? They'd want it to end for both ideological reasons (equality of men), and economical ones (slavery driving down wages of freemen).
Southern planters might've plunged US into war over slavery, but it wasn't how they 'sold' the war to poor and middle class domestically, or other countries internationally. No, they justified secession with stuff like Washington violating state rights, or appealed to southern national identity, or claimed that states joined union was voluntarily so could voluntarily leave. They did not feature slavery prominently in their propaganda, because they weren't stupid, they it wouldn't 'sell' very well.
10%: "Not even fifty years had passed since war, and we're ending slavery! An outrage!"
90%: "Okay. If I joined Lee's army to defend slavery, and not to defend our independence, I'd be pretty angry about it. *goes back to drinking his beer*"
Members of social groups who'd oppose ending of slavery would do so regardless of whether they remembered the war.
ACW being fresh in everyone's memory would be stumbling block to ending slavery, but not insurmountable one.
Could socialist movement of poor and working class whites spearhead abolishment of slavery? They'd want it to end for both ideological reasons (equality of men), and economical ones (slavery driving down wages of freemen).
Even GB would have problems unless they team up with the US. The CSA was 3,000 miles away and as the American Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 showed it makes logistics a real bitch.
I meant they would be the only one with clout. if the South wants to go into autarky just for slavery, GB would look at the budget line of "invasion" and be like... "nah."
Md139115
Banned
1. On the child question, watch and take care of them by having them work at the factory, as child laborers would do in this country well into the 20th century.
2. The elderly can sweep floors, and you don't have to provide any more than food or housing, which brings me to...
3. The present era of the manufacturing employee taking care of himself/herself is relatively recent. Historically, large corporations in America would mandate that the employee buy from company stores and live in company housing, essentially taking back nearly all of the paycheck they had just given said employee.
In short, industrial slavery did already exist in America, it was called the Gilded Age. What I am suggesting is that Southern industries, freed from the constraints of any labor laws at all, unions, the residual loss of income from those employees who figure out a way to get what they need outside the company town, and protected from all muckrakers, because that would be abolitionism, would actually probably manage to eventually surpass the rump US as a manufacturing power.
We are probably lucky they never got the chance to try.
Actually, quite a few non-slaveowning southerners bought into the slavery rhethoric, due to a collection of factors and agents:
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/why-non-slaveholding-southerners-fought
Here's an extract from the article:
Last edited:
true to a point, but there is still that time when children are just too young and elderly just too old to work, and the slave owner still has to feed/house/clothe them. Not to mention the disabled; harsh as it is, the wage worker who becomes disabled can just be fired, but the disabled slave can't. I'm not saying it wouldn't work and not be profitable, but it would only do so as long as food/housing/clothing can be gotten very cheaply, to make up for the extra expenses involved. Change any of that trifecta, and it might not work...