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 Isn't Economically Viable
WRONG! Slavery is amazing, as far as economics go. I have heard some on this forum argue that slavery is not financially viable because of all the expenses tied into it. Let me list them quickly and show why those expenses aren't really important:
Slave Housing
- Slave housing was cheap and shitty. Next.
Slave Clothing
- Slave clothing was cheap and shitty. Next.
Feeding Slaves
- Slave food was cheap and shitty. Next
Health Care
- Slaves got the bare minimum in terms of health care, enough to get them back to work. Often times health care was administered by other slaves, using what herbs and medicine they could find or make. Oftentimes, it was cheap and shitty.
So as you see, although caring for a slave isn't cheap, it isn't exactly cost-prohibitive. However, slaves were quite profitable. In fact, slavery was the
second most valuable part of the United States economy. The slave industry was more valuable, dollar for dollar, than the railroads, manufacturing, banking, and commerce sectors
combined. Wow. The only thing more valuable than a slave in antebellum U.S was the land. And good luck evaluating that. Slave production was also highly efficient. Southern, slave-run farms were often more efficient than their Northern counterparts. Fogel's and Engerman's book
Time on the Cross* estimated that Southern farms were at least 35% more efficient than Northern ones, with all variables the same, except the slave part.
Northern business interests were also heavily tied into slavery. To give a simple example: The slaves picked the cotton that was transported to the factory that was made into a dress that was stored in a warehouse that packed the dress and shipped it off to England. Right there we have several sectors reliant on slaves for profit: Transport, manufacturing, storage, shipping, consumers. But that's not all. How about the bank that gave a loan to the shipping company to do business? They need the slave to pick the cotton so that the shipping company will make money and pay their loans. How about the retailer that sells the dress? Or more directly, the bank that finances the plantation itself? Everyone was profiting off of slavery, and to say it wasn't economically viable is nonsense.
If that doesn't do it for you, here's some hard numbers. In 1860, a male slave at his "peak" {around 25 years old} held an average value of $1500. Adjusted for inflation, that's around $37,000. The slave sector of the economy, around 1860, was valued at around $4 billion. Adjusted for inflation, that comes out to[SIZE=+1]
nearly $100 billion. And the funny thing is that, before war broke out, prices were going up.
A slaveholder could expect a 10% return on a slave over its lifetime. Not bad for an economically nonviable choice.
[/SIZE]
- 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.
- Britain and France Would DEMAND an end to Slavery
This assumption is the most popular one, I think. Eventually Britain and France will tire of the way that the South still has slaves, and put pressure on them to stop. Presumably while wagging their finger and scowling.
The one question I have always asked when hearing this is: Why in the world would Britain and France give a shit? They're the kings of not giving a shit about what goes on elsewhere. First, France and Britain had more pressing concerns on the continent, what with Prussia and everything. Second, both countries but especially Britain had extensive financial ties with the U.S prior to the Civil War, and as the U.S economy was running on slaves it's pretty hard to argue that they really cared. Yeah, I know that the British and French people really detested slavery, but very few were willing to go on a crusade to end it around the world. And once again, before the Emancipation Proclamation there was no indication that slavery was coming to an end in the United States. Britain and France could have put pressure on the Union to make slavery an important issue in the war {and by this I mean, promise to end it}, but they didn't. Because they really did not care.
A real world example, Ethiopia had slaves until 1942. France and Britain could have, at any time, forced Ethiopia to stop slavery, and Ethiopia couldn't have done a damn thing about it. But they didn't. Now, if they're not willing to take the moral high ground against a dirt-poor nation in Africa that they shared borders with, why would they force a much larger, stronger, more economically important nation across the ocean to do it {and now I mean the CSA}?
In the end, money > morality. They would have tolerated slavery for a long while yet.
- 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