When the CSA is brought up on this forum, one thing most people agree on is that slavery would be abolished sooner or later due to one or more factors. I am going to list each factor I am aware of and see if it points to a quick {quick for the CSA} abolition. In this analysis, I'm assuming a limited conflict takes place between the Union and Confederacy which results in a quick victory for the CSA and independence. So, without further ado:
THE CSA WOULD HAVE ABOLISHED SLAVERY BECAUSE:
- Slavery Doesn't Mesh With An Industrialized Economy
WRONG again! The United States was industrializing nicely before the Civil War. But I suppose, an independent CSA is another matter.
The South had several things going against it as it industrialized. Most of the regions wealth was in slaves, not capital, so obtaining money to build a factory or railroad was difficult. Most of its white population was rural and practiced subsistence farming, so they weren't doing much for the economy. The lack of a consumer base for the reasons above meant that there wasn't much desire or reason to build any manufacturing plants in the region, since not many people could buy the finished products.
Throughout its pre-Civil War history, the South was industrializing, but very very slowly, and only in urban areas like Atlanta. So yes, I would agree that slavery does not really work in an industrialized country. But I would counter with one question: so what? Just because slaves and industry don't mix doesn't mean the CSA would choose industry. They could, and probably would, keep their slaves and just export raw material.
Such an arrangement works for everyone. The South keeps its slaves, the North and Europe get cheap raw material, everyone wins. Except the slaves and poor whites, but who cares about them. The Northern business sector was massively anti-war; there's a reason why New York City threatened to cede during the war. Sure, they kept their mouths shut once those government contracts started flowing, but really the status quo would have made them happier.
Now I can hear some of you screaming at your screens. "But the South has to industrialize with an angry Union at their border!!!!" Do they really? If the Union government, after a limited {or no} conflict, agrees to let the South go, would they really want to take them back? Every year the CSA remains independent is a year for it to establish its own culture, for the business sector to adapt to the status quo, for the world to just move on. Eventually, the Union is going to look across the border and think "eh, it's not worth it."
Of course, for the first decade or so tensions may run high. But will the CSA industrialize to counter a Union threat? Unlikely. More likely is they'll import more weapons from Europe instead.
- Mechanization of Agriculture Would End Slavery -OR- Synthetic Materials Would Overshadow Cotton
The best argument, I think. Fails on the simple fact that not all slaves were used in agriculture; many worked in mines, catering, shopkeeping, shipbuilding, and other sectors of the economy. Now of course agriculture and particularly cotton was the major sector, so I'm not saying this argument is wrong. But consider this; the first practical, commercially viable cotton picker was invented in
1943. That's quite a wait.
For synthetics, they hit the scene in the late 30's and 40's, spurred by World War II. Without World War II... who knows?
So, in conclusion. My argument is that the CSA would have abolished slavery once mechanization fully took root. So... the 50's or 60's. If the CSA simply shuffles the slaves into other areas like mining, might take even longer. They might not even call it slavery anymore, maybe something nicer like "free labor programs" or "we swear these aren't slaves". The CSA would live happily as a third-world nation with high amounts of foreign capital and a poor population, dependent on cash crops. And of course, I'm assuming the Confederacy doesn't collapse into communist revolution, which is not all that unlikely.
I invite counter-arguments.
*Time on a Cross is demonized in academic circles for good reason. However, many of its statistics are sound. This is one of them