Confederate Industrial centers.

[Know Nothing]

There is nothing preventing individual state-by-state abolition in the CSA, I dare you to prove otherwise, but don't use Article 4 of the CS constitution, that only dictates what the CS Congress can do, that doesn't count as "enshrining" that counts as "taking it out of the national scope and making it a state issue" or is that not "PC" to say that?

And trust me, when the CSA gets the Boll Weevil in the 1890s (possibly earlier) then state-by-state abolition will kick into action fairly quick.

So don't use Article 4 of the CSA Constitution, which permanently enshrines slavery barring a constitutional amendment, to say the CSA Constitution permanently enshrines slavery.

Your best hope is a "Lincoln loses in 1864 scenario" where the South is getting its ass kicked but hangs on by the skin of their teeth, and some other influence causes Lincoln to lose to Democrats in November. THEN, I think it would be possible for an independent CSA to consider abandoning slavery and industrializing. I also think that's the most likely way for North America to remain peaceful until the boll weevil hits in the first place.

 

[eliphas8]

An individual state abolishing slavery in the CSA isn't prohibited, I dare you to try and prove that outside of using Article 4 of the CS constitution, which does NOT prove your point in any way.

YES IT IS, READ THE DAMN DOCUMENT! It makes it entirely clear that no law not a national law passed by congress any law! It is abundantly clear that this is reffering to any attempts to illegalize slavery, I would also like to remind you that they regarded slavery as a basic property rite that could not be interfered with.

 

[Philip]

Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that RB's interpretation of Article 4 is correct. What happens when Alabasippi abolishes slavery? My guess is that at least some of the states start thinking along the lines of 'Oh crap! Here we go again. Once enough states abolish slavery, they will amend the constitution and we will be forced to abolish slavery too.' At that point, either they will amend the constitution (if there are enough states) or secede.

 

[Wolfpaw]

YES IT IS, READ THE DAMN DOCUMENT! It makes it entirely clear that no law not a national law passed by congress any law! It is abundantly clear that this is reffering to any attempts to illegalize slavery, I would also like to remind you that they regarded slavery as a basic property rite that could not be interfered with.

something something States Rights something something nu-uh! something something

What Reggie seems to be failing to take into account is the ideological nature of the slave system.

 

[Virginia Liberal]

A) Am I the only one who feels like this form has gotten just a little off topic?

B)The way to get slavery ended in the CSA is to get the planters to realize that they would make more money by charging free tenant farmers rent and making them feed and house themselves. Its not like they didn't make the same conclusion in the OTL the ones who still had to the money and land left following the war.

C)Now How does the CSA get rid of Slavery it has to be a constitutional amendment. As the constitution as currently written makes it illegal to do so at any level. Luckily its is much easier to amend the CSA Constitution than that of the USA.

D) Now getting back on topic the short victory (1862 win scenario) plays into a less industrialized CSA, where as a long victory (post 62 victory) is more likely to see an industrialized South. Southern Soldiers see the Northern Factories and Railroads and food surpluses and want to imitated it at least a little back home after the end of the war.

E) What is to stop Slave owners from using slaves to work in their factories at least doing the hard work Coal stokers, using slave children to fix broken parts in the machinery sparing white children the missing digits and hands common to Industrial age working families. This also means that their are less paid employees to eat away at profits.

 

[Reggie Bartlett]

So don't use Article 4 of the CSA Constitution, which permanently enshrines slavery barring a constitutional amendment, to say the CSA Constitution permanently enshrines slavery.

Your best hope is a "Lincoln loses in 1864 scenario" where the South is getting its ass kicked but hangs on by the skin of their teeth, and some other influence causes Lincoln to lose to Democrats in November. THEN, I think it would be possible for an independent CSA to consider abandoning slavery and industrializing. I also think that's the most likely way for North America to remain peaceful until the boll weevil hits in the first place.

Article 4 only says the Confederate States Congress and Central Government can't touch slavery, nothing else, I challenged you to find another part of the Confederate documents that say "States can't abolish slavery", and you didn't, I happily accept your concession in the arguement.

YES IT IS, READ THE DAMN DOCUMENT! It makes it entirely clear that no law not a national law passed by congress any law! It is abundantly clear that this is reffering to any attempts to illegalize slavery, I would also like to remind you that they regarded slavery as a basic property rite that could not be interfered with.

I have read the damn document, way too many times to count, it makes it clear in Section 4 of the Confederate States Constitution that the Confederate States Congress CAN NOT AT ANY TIME TOUCH THE SLAVERY ISSUE EVER!

There is nothing in Confederate documentation that individual Confederate states can abolish slavery within their borders, I dare you to find otherwise.

 

[Blackfox5]

A) Am I the only one who feels like this form has gotten just a little off topic?

No, you are not.

B)The way to get slavery ended in the CSA is to get the planters to realize that they would make more money by charging free tenant farmers rent and making them feed and house themselves. Its not like they didn't make the same conclusion in the OTL the ones who still had to the money and land left following the war.

One issue is that the South had spent a lot of time and energy developing an ideology of pro-slavery and how it benefited blacks. Plus you had notions among the plantation aristocrats that democracy requires a slave class to provide the upper class with enough leisure time to devote to affairs of state. It will be decades, probably generations, before people are ready to abandon that and develop a new one.

And they aren't really making money. Any money they "make" basically comes out of the wages they pay them. They'll basically be breaking even from what they had before. You can't get "more" out of people who only have what you give you them.

C)Now How does the CSA get rid of Slavery it has to be a constitutional amendment. As the constitution as currently written makes it illegal to do so at any level. Luckily its is much easier to amend the CSA Constitution than that of the USA.

It's not going to happen anytime soon. When slavery is abolished, an apartheid state will form that is essentially no different. Blacks will still not have equal rights, will be economically marginalized, and inferior in every way.

D) Now getting back on topic the short victory (1862 win scenario) plays into a less industrialized CSA, where as a long victory (post 62 victory) is more likely to see an industrialized South. Southern Soldiers see the Northern Factories and Railroads and food surpluses and want to imitated it at least a little back home after the end of the war.

I am sure that after the war there will be those who form a political faction that espouses all the things that the old pro-industrial parties (Federalists, Whigs, Republicans) promoted. They will be a distinct minority and facing very tough opposition from the founding fathers of the Confederacy who absolutely hated that political ideology. The party will grow very slowly. It may achieve some competitive results in the Upper South, but none in the Lower South. You simply don't have the powerful backing for such a party that the Whigs and Republicans had in the north. They will have very little influence in Confederate politics for a long time. The old anti-industrial elite will do everything possible to marginalize their opponents from tarring them with having Yankee sympathies, gerrymandering their districts, and excluding them from any real power in the Congress.

E) What is to stop Slave owners from using slaves to work in their factories at least doing the hard work Coal stokers, using slave children to fix broken parts in the machinery sparing white children the missing digits and hands common to Industrial age working families. This also means that their are less paid employees to eat away at profits.

Conceivably it could be done, but there are various problems. Here are just a few.

One is that the plantation owners already own land and crops. If you want industrial machines, that requires a significant capital outlay. This means taking out loans by mortgaging their land. Are they going to put their land in hock to the bank just because they might make a profit in manufacturing after paying off the loans and buying their equipment?

Also where are poor whites going to work if the slave owners are taking over not just farm jobs, but also industrial concerns?

What about prestige issues when manufacturing becomes work fit for slaves? It will be hard to recruit whites to do such work.

Also, the day of the assembly line and Model T is far away. Industrial concerns in the 1860s and 1870s is not like they'll become in the 1890s to 1910s. Most industrial work is done by skilled craftsmen. Whites will not appreciate competition from unpaid labor (a major issue of the Republican Party!). It will cost slave owners money to train slaves to be skilled crafts people, and you run the risk that such valuable slaves might escape to the USA (since they have valuable skills that will earn them a living) causing slaveowners to lose their investment.

 

[Fiver]

What is wrong with being a PaleoConservative?

Nothing. I'm just surprised a Paleoconservative wouldn't completely loathe a country that favored judicial activism, dictated wage and prices, had more bureaucrats than a country twice its size, funded itself by massive deficit spending and runaway inflation, confiscated civilian firearms, instituted internal passports, and tried to institute Prohibition.

 

[Virginia Liberal]

I really believe that the focus on the cotton planters is the wrong. For native industrial entrepreneurship of the CSA will come from the upper south states Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky if it joins the south after the war. These states are already the have 90% of the CSA's industry and also have the planters with money that are not tied up in cotton because it wont grow in these states well enough for them to compete with the Deep south. The Tobacco planters are the ones who will have everything to gain by going into industry since tobacco will never surpass cotton in price and was and still is subject to random price drops and inflation, which is why these areas are so poor today in short there is little money in tobacco.

this doesnt mean that all of the industry will be located in theses states but the people who will run the industry will come from there.

posted that earlier but it got lost in the slavery rant

When I see industrialism in the south's future i see it in the Upper south where cotton isn't grown. There would be some industry int he lower south like the Powder works in Augusta.

I'm not saying that the South will ever match the North in Industrial might but I do that the south can industrialize enough to compete on a level (Italy at the least) in the 20th century.

 

[King Gorilla]

I'm not saying that the South will ever match the North in Industrial might but I do that the south can industrialize enough to compete on a level (Italy at the least) in the 20th century.

It can, but I think such a situation is wildly optimistic. I'd go for Spanish levels or lower given the political and social barriers towards industrialization.

 

[Reggie Bartlett]

Nothing. I'm just surprised a Paleoconservative wouldn't completely loathe a country that favored judicial activism, dictated wage and prices, had more bureaucrats than a country twice its size, funded itself by massive deficit spending and runaway inflation, confiscated civilian firearms, instituted internal passports, and tried to institute Prohibition.

And what is wrong with believing in secession and actively seeing the side the tried to coerce and destroy the seceding party, making themselves look no more glorious in the process while their decendants actively go about saying today that my ancestors ought to have been hanged for treason?

 

[Wolfpaw]

And what is wrong with believing in secession and actively seeing the side the tried to coerce and destroy the seceding party, making themselves look no more glorious in the process while their decendants actively go about saying today that my ancestors ought to have been hanged for treason?

Because there is absolutely nothing noble about fighting for slavery.

"You were mean to the slaveowners! You forced them into it!" would be funny if you weren't being serious.

 

[Wolfpaw]

It can, but I think such a situation is wildly optimistic. I'd go for Spanish levels or lower given the political and social barriers towards industrialization.

It's silly to compare the Confederacy to any European nation; that gives the former too much credit. They'd be around the same level as Mexico, maybe.

 

[eliphas8]

And what is wrong with believing in secession and actively seeing the side the tried to coerce and destroy the seceding party, making themselves look no more glorious in the process while their decendants actively go about saying today that my ancestors ought to have been hanged for treason?

Secession was treason, I dont think that the confederate soldiers should have been executed but I believe firmly that it was treason. I also dont see how secession should be state right, thats a ridiculous idea and completely stupid simply for pragmatic reason. The federal government has to have some way of anything it doing having weight or else the country would descend into 50 weak and worthless backwaters.

 

[MAlexMatt]

Secession was treason, I dont think that the confederate soldiers should have been executed but I believe firmly that it was treason. I also dont see how secession should be state right, thats a ridiculous idea and completely stupid simply for pragmatic reason. The federal government has to have some way of anything it doing having weight or else the country would descend into 50 weak and worthless backwaters.

This is getting pretty far off topic.

 

[Reggie Bartlett]

Because there is absolutely nothing noble about fighting for slavery.

"You were mean to the slaveowners! You forced them into it!" would be funny if you weren't being serious.

But there is nothing at all wrong in fighting for independence, there is nothing wrong in fighting for the right to settle the slave issue on the state level outside of all the controversy surrounding the greater nation because of it.

Different strokes I guess, but I feel the CSA may have been right in that department, and that is the last thing I'm going to say about it in this thread.

Secession was treason, I dont think that the confederate soldiers should have been executed but I believe firmly that it was treason. I also dont see how secession should be state right, thats a ridiculous idea and completely stupid simply for pragmatic reason. The federal government has to have some way of anything it doing having weight or else the country would descend into 50 weak and worthless backwaters.

No Confederate was ever hanged for treason, No Confederate was ever brought up on treason, Jeff Davis begged to be tried because he would be sure he would beat the charges.

Secession wasn't spoken against in our Constitution, secession was an unspoken right passed down by our Revolutionary forefathers, why a "pragmatic" you wouldn't understand it, even seeing where you come from, is shocking enough. Conneticut and Massachusetts broke away from England in the same manner that the South did from the Union. I think it still should be a state right, and it is not treason. So there.

 

[SPJ]

Because there is absolutely nothing noble about fighting for slavery.

"You were mean to the slaveowners! You forced them into it!" would be funny if you weren't being serious.

I agree with you on that, but I do have sympathy and respect for the Confederates that, for as far as I can tell, really did believe in the rights of the states such as Patrick Cleburne, Robert E. Lee, and Stonewall Jackosn. As well as the ones who openly reformed after the war and remained peaceful and influental members of society like Lee, James Longsteet, and John Mosby.

posted that earlier but it got lost in the slavery rant

When I see industrialism in the south's future i see it in the Upper south where cotton isn't grown. There would be some industry int he lower south like the Powder works in Augusta.

I'm not saying that the South will ever match the North in Industrial might but I do that the south can industrialize enough to compete on a level (Italy at the least) in the 20th century.

What about Georgia? Many construction plants where built there over the war and I don't see why they wouldn't continue to be built there afterward.

This is getting pretty far off topic.

Yes, sorry I just wanted to share my opinion along with the others.

 

[King Gorilla]

It's silly to compare the Confederacy to any European nation; that gives the former too much credit. They'd be around the same level as Mexico, maybe.

I think Spain, particularly on the eve of the Spanish civil war is a perfectly reasonable comparison

The CSA will end up with factories and railroads. It will probably have a couple of heavy industrial sites. That doesn't mean it will be industrialized. Unless drastic social reforms occur (most of which would involve the effective dissolution of the Confederate states) it will very much remain a rural nation dominated by a land owning aristocracy.

The cotton barons will give way to the timber and coal barons. A generation or two later they too will be usurped by the oil barons. Yet said individuals are likely to be indisposed towards creating the reforms needed for industrialization and modernization. Consequently they will eternally be losing ground against the rest of the world.

 

[eliphas8]

No Confederate was ever hanged for treason, No Confederate was ever brought up on treason, Jeff Davis begged to be tried because he would be sure he would beat the charges.

Secession wasn't spoken against in our Constitution, secession was an unspoken right passed down by our Revolutionary forefathers, why a "pragmatic" you wouldn't understand it, even seeing where you come from, is shocking enough. Conneticut and Massachusetts broke away from England in the same manner that the South did from the Union. I think it still should be a state right, and it is not treason. So there.

Whats odd about a New Englander who opposes secession? The fact is that if you allowed secession the nation would be far weaker than it is today, and so would these new independent nations that started springing up whenever an election goes wrong. I do believe in the message of the founding fathers but I also in a strong central government and I believe that their opinions on states rights where ridiculous, they wanted a nation so decentralized we would be comically weak and ridiculously poor. When they saw how badly this was going under the articles of confederation they made something only somewhat better at holding us together.

 

[Virginia Liberal]

What about Georgia? Many construction plants where built there over the war and I don't see why they wouldn't continue to be built there afterward.

I'm not ruling out any area of the south developing industry and keeping it. I'm aware of the industry that sprung up in Georgia during the war these industries would probably keep going and grow following a southern victory. The northern part of the state could also see the development of industry, as well as Northern Alabama and Southern Arkansas, central North Carolina ,Western/NW South South Carolina and all of Texas.

The point I'm trying to make is that there are planters who would benafit from switching from being a planter to being an industrialist, the most obvious to me are the Piedmont planters of Virginia and North Carolina. This is the home of the Tobacco Planters a crop which is much less profitable, and much much more demanding on the soil than cotton to grow.

If I'm a Planter in South Side Va I'm not going to be making lots of money on my plantation and its gonna be a dice throw every year on if I'll even make a decent profit I'm gonna see building an Iron works or Textile mill or some type of Industry along the James,Staunton/Roanoke, or Dan Rivers might not be such a bad Idea. Is all I'm Trying to say.

I appoligise for not being more clear its sometimes hard for me to get out what I trying to say clearly (my former history professors pointed that out offten enough).