In the US, slavery remained legal right up to the Emancipation Proclamation, and de jure speaking, right up until the Confederacy surrendered or you were occupied, not counting slavery among the Plains tribes. Without the civil war, how long can it last?
As Brazil goes, [it was 1888] so MUST go the hemisphere.
Who says that Brazil has to abolish slavery in 1888? Abolition was fairly unpopular among the elite plantation owners, and they dominated the country (there was no real merchant/industrial power to oppose them, like there was in the US). If Isabel decides that she'd rather become an Empress* than free the slaves, slavery in Brazil might have survived all the way to the 1920s (when the Brazilian rubber industry finally started to decline).This topic often comes up. Either with or without a Confederate victory. Everyone has their own opinions; some insist it could go well into the 20th century, sometimes almost to mid - century. I always say no later than about 1890. As Brazil goes, [it was 1888] so MUST go the hemisphere. And for the upper south, probably during the 1870s, even if it is still legal on the books. The deep south may have been stubborn, but it would not want to become a pariah among civilized nations. The price simply wouldn't be worth it. Now, let's see how heated this thread gets.
not long at all, as soon as a Republican President is elected.
not long at all, as soon as a Republican President is elected.
This topic often comes up. Either with or without a Confederate victory. Everyone has their own opinions; some insist it could go well into the 20th century, sometimes almost to mid - century. I always say no later than about 1890. As Brazil goes, [it was 1888] so MUST go the hemisphere. And for the upper south, probably during the 1870s, even if it is still legal on the books. The deep south may have been stubborn, but it would not want to become a pariah among civilized nations. The price simply wouldn't be worth it. Now, let's see how heated this thread gets.
Assuming that we suddenly see a huge drop in profits from tobacco across the Upper South, why bother abolishing slavery? Why not just sell some of the slaves to the Deep South and keep the rest to maintain the plantation and work as house servants? And I don't think that the southerners cared about what the Europeans thought of them. Slavery was viewed as backwards and barbaric by most of the Western world in 1861, yet the South still fought to keep it.OK, let's try a different tack. Forget Brazil.[And Cuba] Two scenarios; one where there is a CSA victory, however improbable. So they win, Garrison, et al. seethe with impotent fury, and slavery marches on. But the rest of the world, bit by bit, starts to regard the CSA as something akin to apartheid SA. Now, I would have been ashamed to live in such a state, with the rest of the world condemning me. So, attitudes begin to change, first, in the upper south. How much agony can be involved in going from de jure slavery, to de facto slavery, which is what sharecropping was. Maybe the plantation owners see their profits drop 10 -15% or whatever, but their workforce, for the most part, has to stay; plus, you can have all the Jim Crow laws you want, segregation on steroids; no one is talking equality for the races here. And this is so much better than being treated like the world's leper colony. When the Upper South goes through this transition comparatively painlessly, from about 1870 - 1880, then the rest of the CSA sees the benefit of it, and eventually follows suit, circa 1890. Yeah, yeah, I know, the sacred CSA constitution; so the state govt of Tennessee votes to phase out slavery anyway, and says F you, Richmond, and what are they gonna do, start another war?
Why are we assuming that most of the states outside of the OTL CSA would care about abolition in this scenario? The 13th Amendment barely passed in OTL*, and that was almost entirely within the north during a time when the entire country was fighting a war against slaveowners. Not to mention that the strongest pro-slavery elements in the country obviously weren't even in Congress at the time.The next scenario involves no civil war, again borderline ASB perhaps, but whatever. You need 75% of the states to ratify a change in the constitution? Let's do the math. Say by 1880 it is attempted. Now, no war means WV is butterflied away. Maybe even NV. [There was a political reason for Nevada's early entry into the union, I don't remember what.] So with these 2 not in the mix, I count 25 states in the OTL USA and 11 traditional CSA ones. Not yet enough, but if you count the 4 upper south states as being ready for abolition by now, then it goes to 29 vs 7, which is enough. Spring forward to 1890, then you have the 2 Dakotas, Montana, Washington, Wyoming and Idaho, by now its pretty much a slam dunk. Voila, bye bye slavery, welcome to sharecropping. And if I can't convince you with all that; that there will be no 20th century slavery anywhere in America, no way, no how, then I respectfully give up.
In the US, slavery remained legal right up to the Emancipation Proclamation, and de jure speaking, right up until the Confederacy surrendered or you were occupied, not counting slavery among the Plains tribes. Without the civil war, how long can it last?
Only as long as it takes for 33 percent of the population of the southern states to say "no."
As Orwell said, famously, in similar circumstances less than a century later, "how long can we keep kidding this people?"
Best,