How long would Slavery Last in a Victorious Confederacy?

[bguy]

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.

What would keep a Confederate 'free' state that really, didn't want people bringing slaves into their state from simply seizing any slaves in its borders pursuant to the state's impressment power? Seven Confederate states passed impressment legislation in 1862/1863 and the Confederate national government passed such legislation in 1863, so impressment appears to have been permissible under the Confederate Constitution, and that would give any Confederate 'free' states a powerful tool to discourage slave owners from bringing slaves into any free states. After all a Mississippi slave owner isn't likely to risk bringing his slaves with him when he visits 'free' Tennessee if he knows the Tennessee state government will promptly impress his slaves for the next five years.

And anyway, its not as though the Confederate Constitution was all that difficult to amend. The Confederate Congress didn't even have a vote in the amendment process and it only took 2/3 of the states to approve a constitutional amendment (as opposed to the U.S. where an amendment typically requires a 2/3 vote for both houses of Congress and then ratification by 3/4 of the states), so its not as though any constitutional prohibition would be that difficult to get around if there ever starts to be genuine popular support for getting rid of slavery (or at least making it easier for individual states to prohibit slavery within their borders.)

 

[Johnrankins]

Look at land of Cotton, it's a rather hilarious timeline with the South being compeltly subordinate to New York investors

Glad you like it, it is mine. https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...d-times-there-are-not-forgotten-redux.384495/ I just updated it for one of the first battles in the Second Great War.

 

[NHBL]

If there is another war between the USA and the south, I suspect that it will end with harsh terms for the CSA, if there even IS a CSA any more. I certainly don't think that there will be a USA that's as ill prepared for war as it has been in OTL. The USA will be very prepared for littoral warfare next time around. Of course, the CSA might try to be North America's oil monopoly...

 

[Johnrankins]

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.

Actually they did, the middle class bought house slaves themselves and the lower classes liked someone to look down upon. Both believed the mythos and didn't want "out of control" blacks raping their wife and daughters. Despite what Southerners want to say today, it was sold as pro-slavery war.

 

[Kalan]

What would keep a Confederate 'free' state that really, didn't want people bringing slaves into their state from simply seizing any slaves in its borders pursuant to the state's impressment power? Seven Confederate states passed impressment legislation in 1862/1863 and the Confederate national government passed such legislation in 1863, so impressment appears to have been permissible under the Confederate Constitution, and that would give any Confederate 'free' states a powerful tool to discourage slave owners from bringing slaves into any free states.

Well, since the CSA never got around establishing their supreme court it is hard to know what the Constitution permitted. However, given the fact that that slave owner held all the power in the CSA it is likely that they would appoint judges supporting the right to own slaves and highly critical of such attempts.

And anyway, its not as though the Confederate Constitution was all that difficult to amend. The Confederate Congress didn't even have a vote in the amendment process and it only took 2/3 of the states to approve a constitutional amendment (as opposed to the U.S. where an amendment typically requires a 2/3 vote for both houses of Congress and then ratification by 3/4 of the states), so its not as though any constitutional prohibition would be that difficult to get around if there ever starts to be genuine popular support for getting rid of slavery (or at least making it easier for individual states to prohibit slavery within their borders.)

And where would that genuine popular support come from? Already before the civil war many states had forbidden the dissemination of of abolitionist literature and don't see them allowing foreign (i.e. US) abolitionist societies operating. Furthermore many people who were against secession ended up fighting for the US (every southern state except South Carolina fielded at least one regiment of white volunteers for the US) and would be evicted after the war further weakening opposition to slavery in the CSA.

 

[Johnrankins]

If there is another war between the USA and the south, I suspect that it will end with harsh terms for the CSA, if there even IS a CSA any more. I certainly don't think that there will be a USA that's as ill prepared for war as it has been in OTL. The USA will be very prepared for littoral warfare next time around. Of course, the CSA might try to be North America's oil monopoly...

With California and Pennsylvania that would be impossible until at least mid 20th century. California has oil wells even now, I don't know about Pennsylvania.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Glad you like it, it is mine. https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...d-times-there-are-not-forgotten-redux.384495/ I just updated it for one of the first battles in the Second Great War.

Oh, that's funny, I wasn't even paying attention to who was commenting about the probable CSA fate, so I didn't notice it was you!

 

[Mackus]

Actually, quite a few non-slaveowning southerners bought into the slavery rhethoric

But less than bought into idea of southern sovereignty, of state rights, or just plain "giving 'em Yankees good lickin!". Most really believed that slavery wasn't primary cause of war.

Actually they did, the middle class bought house slaves themselves and the lower classes liked someone to look down upon. Both believed the mythos and didn't want "out of control" blacks raping their wife and daughters. Despite what Southerners want to say today, it was sold as pro-slavery war.

So, how much of this was due to wanting black to remain slaves, and how much was slavery being only way to keep blacks from harming decent people?

If to majority (not all) of Southerners, priority is to keep blacks from harming whites, and slavery is merely means to that end, then most Southerners when faced with very real possibility of externally imposed emancipation, would decide to pre-empt it with emancipation+expulsion:
-"Dammit Dixie! You better straighten up and end slavery right away!"
-"You know what? To make you happy, we'll send those slaves to you, so you could free them yourself. Surely, if you want us to live with free blacks, you wouldn't mind having them at your country?"
-"Gee, look at the time! I forgot I have to iron my cat!"

 

[Johnrankins]

But less than bought into idea of southern sovereignty, of state rights, or just plain "giving 'em Yankees good lickin!". Most really believed that slavery wasn't primary cause of war.

Actually most did, they were quite up front about it. The one thing you can't say is that they hid it.

So, how much of this was due to wanting black to remain slaves, and how much was slavery being only way to keep blacks from harming decent people?

If to majority (not all) of Southerners, priority is to keep blacks from harming whites, and slavery is merely means to that end, then most Southerners when faced with very real possibility of externally imposed emancipation, would decide to pre-empt it with emancipation+expulsion:
-"Dammit Dixie! You better straighten up and end slavery right away!"
-"You know what? To make you happy, we'll send those slaves to you, so you could free them yourself. Surely, if you want us to live with free blacks, you wouldn't mind having them at your country?"
-"Gee, look at the time! I forgot I have to iron my cat!"

Expel them WHERE? Neither the US or Mexico is likely to be willing to take them.

 

[SargentHawk]

Expel them WHERE? Neither the US or Mexico is likely to be willing to take them.

they could always just make them swim to Cuba. sorta joking sorta not. CSA has the possibility of getting grimdark real fast

 

[bguy]

Well, since the CSA never got around establishing their supreme court it is hard to know what the Constitution permitted. However, given the fact that that slave owner held all the power in the CSA it is likely that they would appoint judges supporting the right to own slaves and highly critical of such attempts.

The slave owners hated the original impressment acts but they were still passed and enforced. I think any Confederate Supreme Court would be reluctant to touch those acts because striking them down would leave the Confederacy very vulnerable in any future war with the United States. (The acts were originally employed as a war measure after all.) Furthermore, the Confederate Constitution made it very difficult for Confederate 'federal' judges to affect state laws, so even if national impressment legislation is voided, it could be difficult to strike down state impressment laws.

And where would that genuine popular support come from? Already before the civil war many states had forbidden the dissemination of of abolitionist literature and don't see them allowing foreign (i.e. US) abolitionist societies operating. Furthermore many people who were against secession ended up fighting for the US (every southern state except South Carolina fielded at least one regiment of white volunteers for the US) and would be evicted after the war further weakening opposition to slavery in the CSA.

I fully agree with this. But we were discussing whether the Confederate States (or a single Confederate state) that wanted to emancipate could do so or not, so the question assumes that the requisite popular support is there. (The difficulty of obtaining that popular support in the first place is a different question entirely.)

 

[Mackus]

Actually most did, they were quite up front about it. The one thing you can't say is that they hid it.

Well, jolly good that I didn't say it!
If 85% of southerners "believed in" slavery, and 95% "believed in" southern sovereignty, state rights, etc, then obviously more believed in those causes than they believed in slavery. I am technically correct. The best kind of correct.

As time passes, poor white man in North grows relatively richer compared to poor white man in South. A lot are gonna question whether they actually indirectly benefit from slavery, or are they just patsies for the planters.

Expel them WHERE? Neither the US or Mexico is likely to be willing to take them.

Yes. I've always been wondering if surviving CSA would be audacious/trolling enough to answer foreign demands for emancipation with: "Ok, if you like them so much, YOU can take them. No? Okay, I guess you're not that much opposed to slavery. Talk is cheap."

 

[Johnrankins]

The slave owners hated the original impressment acts but they were still passed and enforced. I think any Confederate Supreme Court would be reluctant to touch those acts because striking them down would leave the Confederacy very vulnerable in any future war with the United States. (The acts were originally employed as a war measure after all.) Furthermore, the Confederate Constitution made it very difficult for Confederate 'federal' judges to affect state laws, so even if national impressment legislation is voided, it could be difficult to strike down state impressment laws.

More likely it would be ruled that they are applicable only in time of an existential war or in other words when the CSA is actually invaded. The courts often allow the government to do things during wartime that it doesn't normally allow. So the impressment law would probably be struck down in peacetime while the court's decision would state it is permissible during a time of actual invasion.

 

[Johnrankins]

Well, jolly good that I didn't say it!
If 85% of southerners "believed in" slavery, and 95% "believed in" southern sovereignty, state rights, etc, then obviously more believed in those causes than they believed in slavery. I am technically correct. The best kind of correct.



Yes. I've always been wondering if surviving CSA would be audacious/trolling enough to answer foreign demands for emancipation with: "Ok, if you like them so much, YOU can take them. No? Okay, I guess you're not that much opposed to slavery. Talk is cheap."

It won't matter. No one will listen to the CSA anyways. It is not likely to have much more influence than Costa Rica, certainly after cotton prices crash.

 

[Flashman]

OTL Britain passed the Slave Trade Act in 1807. This banned transportation of slaves between British colonies. At the same time, Britain pressured other Eurooean countries to stop trading slaves. The Royal Navy also pressured ships to stop hauling slaves to the Americas.

With no new slaves being imported, CSA would struggle to perpetuate their slave-economy past 1900, CSA would need to increase birth rate amongst dark-skinned slaves and improve living conditions to reduce infant mortality.

As for ACW veterans reluctance to free slaves .... you are never going to change their attitudes, so will just have to wait until veterans die of old age.

OTL Bol weevils arrived in 1892, devastating cotton plantations. This forced mass migrations of farm labourers and forced land-owners to plant other crops: like peanuts.

The South hadn't been an importer of slaves since the 17th century.

 

[Mackus]

It won't matter. No one will listen to the CSA anyways. It is not likely to have much more influence than Costa Rica, certainly after cotton prices crash.

After cotton prices crash, south will just diversify its economy. Just like most economies did in similar situation. It'll bounce back up.
At first, no-one listened to Bolsheviks, or Nazis. They eventually started to listen again.

And before rest of the world will listen again, Southern electorate will keep listening. They gonna look at US demanding end of slavery, and not willing to take in the slaves. A lot of undecided become convinced that ending slavery on North terms will spell doom for South. If free blacks are not dangerous as North says, why wouldn't North take them in?

Nature abhors hypocrisy. Being confirmed hypocrite disarms your arguments completely when try to convince someone to your point of view.

 

[SiddFinch1]

I could see if being phased out starting in 20-30 years--- have it converted to a form of indentured servitude over time if the UK puts some pressure on.

Slaves are officially and legally freed but must compensate their employers via indentured servitude contract paid over many years. Kind of a supped up Jim Crow sharecropper system. Far from fair or legitimate but gives the appearance of complying with British desires.

 

[Orko]

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.

I think I disagree. The problem with slavery in an industrialized society is not that it is physically impossible to have unpaid slaves doing factory work, it's that the logic of an industrialized market economy conflics with the logic of slave owning plantation aristocracy. In industrialized capitalism, there are always new form of all sizes popping up and falling down, or laying off workers and then rehiring them in accordance with the business cycle. This works fine for employers of wage laborers, because they only hire people's work temporarily and pay them just so long as they're hired. In a slave economy though, you have to buy labor at a higher cost and permanently before the work even begins. Basically, it turns the variable costs of wage labor into permanent investment. Rather than just buy the physical capital and then hire or fire workers as necessary, investors will have to buy the slaves at a high cost first, making it difficult for smaller investors to thrive, and then they just have to hope they bought the right number of slaves. If they bought too many, it's much harder to dispose of that extra labor because they can't just be fired, and if the profits turn out to be smaller than expected then the high costs of initial investment might prove that the whole enterprise was not worth it. In addition, it will mean that in periods of economic growth the price of slaves will increase as everyone will want to hire more labor, resulting in price increases that are not seen in other factors of production, therefore making investment even harder just when the market is ready for growth. Whereas in a recession, the price of slaves will decrease making it more difficult for industrialists to adjust to the market by selling their slaves.

What I can see, though, is foreign investors taking advantage of the low costs of labor (because they're all unpaid slaves) and building factories in the CSA where mostly slaves work (this I think can only work so long as the industrialists are foreign and their markets are mostly outside the CSA, for the reasons explained above). This might prove a little difficult though so what I think is even more likely and interesting is a situation in which foreign investors don't directly own the slaves, only the physical capital and administrative corporate infrastructure, while the slave owners operate as manpower contractors basically and rent their slaves to foreign owned factories. This would make an interesting dynamic and push the slave owners to a strange position in which they are the global masters of the cheapest labor but also not even the ruling class of their own country (after all, they're just middlemen int this arrangement). I also wonder how the big plantation owners would react - would they be strongly opposed to this new class of slave contractors because it sidelines themselves and also puts their own country under foreign economic influence, or do they use this as an opportunity to use their slaves outside harvest time by renting them in factories?

 

[dcharles]

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.

Minor quibble: the Art I Sec IX portion applies to the Confederate government and not the state governments. All your other points are spot on.

However, it was easier for the CS to amend the Constitution than for the US to do the same (2/3 majority instead of 3/4 majority). Even beyond that, I'm skeptical that the CS Constitution would be a particularly long lived document. The US Constitution is very much an outlier in this regard, and the CS version has some obvious flaws (that Rankins pointed out.)

 

[SargentHawk]

you might even see a whole rewrite ala articles of Confederation > US Constitution (but still remaining a confederacy) after 20-30 years of finding the kinks in the system.