How long could slavery last in the CSA?

How long could slavery last?

  • No later than 1875

    Votes: 10 4.7%

  • 1875-1900

    Votes: 92 43.0%

  • Into 20th Century, but not beyond

    Votes: 60 28.0%

  • Inevitable, but not sure when

    Votes: 15 7.0%

  • Could survive into present day

    Votes: 37 17.3%
  • Total voters
    214

John Fredrick Parker

Donor
Assuming a Confederate victory in 1862.

1) Even taking CSA victory as a given, could not plausibly survive past 1875
2) Could survive past 1875, but can't plausibly endure into 20th Century
3) Could plausibly continue into 20th Century
4) Fall in inevitable, but unsure when
5) Could plausibly have survived into present day

EDIT: JTBC -- I'm talking about chattel slavery -- the legally recognized "right" to buy, sell, and "own" human beings

EDIT NOTE: Changed 1865 to 1862
 
Last edited:

jakewilson

Until the 1920s-40s, when it becomes painfully obvious how impoverished they are compared to the free industrial states. Then, apartheid or revolution.
I like polls.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
As long as they can keep the slave population captive; you're going to have a situation where demographics will favour the slaves within a generation (in 1860, there are 39% slaves in the CSA, only 1,5% free blacks). 60% of the population holding 40% of the population captive will very quickly, horribly degenerate. If you thought sharecropping and Jim Crow were bad, things are going to suck, even harder.

Two of the states are majority slaves (South Carolina, Mississippi), Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Georgia are almost so; of those four, Louisiana is also majority black. Besides Louisiana, the only majorly industrialized states, North Carolina and Virginia, are the only ones with a significant free black population. A generation later, the four other southern states might be majority black, and you end up with a demographic balance where the West and North of the CSA is still majority white, and wealthier, while the southeastern states are basically in a constant state of internal civil war if they don't give up the peculiar institution fast, and they just fought for the damn thing, and the CSA constitution guarantees the right to own slaves, even if said state decides to go abolitionist.

And ATL where Cuba and the Dominican republic somehow become CSA states just make the situation even worse, now the white plantocracy is absolutely, completely screwed in the mid to long term.

Oh and to make things bleaker; industrial slavery will probably make things worse as the white working class will potentially lack the means to form a significant middle class, there might be one but more on the scale of the latin american republics at the time, at best, with only 6% of the population owning slaves. You'll probably have to have a hefty dosage of racial propaganda to maintain the order and even then the more educated parts of the white lower classes will probably learn of, and in part turn to, fascism or communism by the 20th century. And of course dependency on cash crops with only limited industry will have to be turned around with an ever stagnating economy and an aristocratic mindset in the upper class going against it. Slavery can last, but will the CSA?

Edit: I still say into the 20th century, assuming they don't get foreign pressure. At least it will last longer than Brazil.
 
Last edited:

Troyer IV

Okay... couple of options here depending upon how the CSA became independent.

With Foreign Aid: France and UK helping the CSA means that they will eventually be forced by their respective populace to pressure the CSA to manumission. Time and date on this are up in the air, but probably making steps to such within a decade of the ACW. And then the time frame would depend upon exactly HOW the CSA goes about ending slavery. Would it be up to state vote? Would it be county-by-county vote?

And then you'll have those hardliners which will push against any such agreement, essentially saying it would have been better to be forced to release the slaves under US (American) rule as opposed to UK/French (Foreign) Influence/demand. Those could be sticking points and possibly lead to single states wanting to refuse the vote, secede, or just drag on the charade well into the 20th century.

Without Foreign Aid: A little trickier here, at last in terms of "What if." With less foreign pressure, there will be less to convince the States to release the slaves - at least with the CSA owing their freedom (at least in part) to their allies, they would feel somewhat obligated at emanicaption. Without such obligation, then you never know how it'll go. What if the CSA allows for Black Conscription earlier in the war? This could lead to all kinds of messy situations in Post-War CSA. Or say the slaves, somewhat complacent with slavery within the - at least partly free soil nation - USA, now find themselves with no hope of freedom in an Independent CSA go on to rebel en masse? Would the CSA be forced to break down and call for limited manumission to appease the rebels or would they feel such examples will tear them apart and be forced to scour the earth of such belief?

See, that's just nasty business.

I voted 1875-1900, but it is a grey area.
 

Dan Reilly The Great

Banned
the wording is a bit off, since it technically could survive as long as there are enough people in authority who want to cling to it.

However, it would probably last until the early 20th century.
 

Father Maryland

Personally I think the slaves and potentially the poorer whites would not tolerate the antebellum order for very long post war. I think its very likely that within five years of the wars end major major slave revolts would occur or escape would become a torrential problem.

Though I expect that instead of the majority heading North they would head into the wilderness areas to form something akin to Maroon Camps. Except numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Confederate efforts to destroy the Maroons could very likely accidentally piss off the white inhabitants of the regions which are mostly of the unionist sort.

The issue might end up being not how long slavery can last but how long the confederacy itself can last.
 

Orko

I once started thread about this on these very forums some time ago. I thought that the CSA is going to abolish it by the 1900's, though I realised it's going to be several decades afterward. Though I still think it is inevitable.
 

mrmandias

I think 1875 is too early. Yes, Brazil abolished slavery in the late 19th Century. But that is OTL. OTL the CSA lost and the idea of slavery was massively discredited as a result. Also, in Decades of Darkness there's been some serious discussion of slavery in the industrial context which has mostly persuaded me that slavery can be economically viable up till the information age.
 

Chengar Qordath

Personally, I would think that slavery in the CSA would come under serious pressure as the 19th century came to a close and slavery became less and less acceptable internationally. After all, the Confederacy's economy was heavily dependent on exporting agricultural goods to Europe; once Europe starts refusing to buy slave-grown cotton, the Confederacy has to choose between total economic collapse or abolition. Personally, I would like to think they would choose the latter.

Of course, any Confederate abolition is certain to be accompanied by something like OTL's Black Codes, and is likely to leave the newly freed slaves with an obligation to pay off huge debts to their masters to compensate for lost property. In other words, you might have slavery officially come to an end in the 1890's, but it's likely that the newly freed slaves will only have their lot in life marginally improved at best.
 

galveston bay

Note that slavery during the industrial age is indeed possible and has certain benefits (not to the slaves of course).

Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia both practiced it in huge numbers (the Soviets were more efficient) and not just as a form of destructive labor / extermination campaign. Millions of French, Polish and Italian POWs in German control spent World War II as slaves, as did millions of women from all over the Reich. Of course millions of Russians and Jews as well (to name but a few), but they were purposely worked to death.

North Korea and China to this day have huge numbers of people in camps that are essentially working as slave labor. The PRC military was notorious for this relatively recently (think about that when you shop at certain large mega-stores known for cheap prices). Conditions in some factories in the 3rd World are little different from slavery as well.

So there is little reason why the CSA could not, assuming its survival, have found a way to make that work for them.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
galveston bay said:
Note that slavery during the industrial age is indeed possible and has certain benefits (not to the slaves of course).

Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia both practiced it in huge numbers (the Soviets were more efficient) and not just as a form of destructive labor / extermination campaign. Millions of French, Polish and Italian POWs in German control spent World War II as slaves, as did millions of women from all over the Reich. Of course millions of Russians and Jews as well (to name but a few), but they were purposely worked to death.

North Korea and China to this day have huge numbers of people in camps that are essentially working as slave labor. The PRC military was notorious for this relatively recently (think about that when you shop at certain large mega-stores known for cheap prices). Conditions in some factories in the 3rd World are little different from slavery as well.

So there is little reason why the CSA could not, assuming its survival, have found a way to make that work for them.
Click to expand...

None of these countries ever had the near majority of their population in slave labour, however.
 

galveston bay

archaeogeek said:
None of these countries ever had the near majority of their population in slave labour, however.
Click to expand...

In some states, African Americans were the majority, but not in the entire CSA. A very signficant minority (about 40% based on what I remember off the top of my head), but not the majority.

Aparthid South Africa kept the huge majority of their Black population in de facto peonage up until fairly recently. Certainly it is possible
 

archaeogeek

Banned
galveston bay said:
In some states, African Americans were the majority, but not in the entire CSA. A very signficant minority (about 40% based on what I remember off the top of my head), but not the majority.

Aparthid South Africa kept the huge majority of their Black population in de facto peonage up until fairly recently. Certainly it is possible
Click to expand...

Apartheid south africa lasted 46 years.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
galveston bay said:
White dominance lasted considerably longer than that... going back to settlement. Apartheid was a reaction to previous liberalization... but even prior to apartheid that Whites were definitely running the show.
Click to expand...

At the time of settlement they had the backing of an empire; the CSA doesn't have that. It's not a colony, it's on its own, it has multiple factors that can and probably will pull it apart to begin with, and the CSA's slaves have easier access to modern weaponry than the Zulus, Sothos and the Xhosa had.
 

galveston bay

archaeogeek said:
At the time of settlement they had the backing of an empire; the CSA doesn't have that. It's not a colony, it's on its own, it has multiple factors that can and probably will pull it apart to begin with, and the CSA's slaves have easier access to modern weaponry than the Zulus, Sothos and the Xhosa had.
Click to expand...

oh there is all kinds of things the Union and even the British or French could do to mess this up... smuggling weapons for one. It also depends on what year the South wins. Victory in 1864 is going to be a LOT more of a problem for the South compared to Victory in 1862. For one thing, there are tens of thousands of Union trained Black troops around who will likely stay and fight even if the North loses. I think Turtledove was right about that in "Guns of the South"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top