How long could slavery last in the USA after a Confederate victory?

Kentucky would be a mess. In OTL, there was quite a bit dissent/dissension over slavery being repealed during the Civil War.

Years ago I was researching a point of property law and I found a 1866 or so case where the Kentucky Court of Appeals (the Kentucky Supreme Court of the era) actually ruled in a case that the 13th amendment was unconstitutional because it took the slaves without providing compensation to the slave owners. In this ATL, I don't think they would change their view point.

I suspect that there would be quite a sore point with some Kentuckians to the point where there would be agitation to join the Confederacy.
 
As opposed to the Democrats, who have just watched MOST of their viable party machinery become part of another nation.

Indeed. And the fact that a Confederate Democratic Party will most likely exist destroy nearly all of the American Democratic Party's support.
 
You'd probably see emancipation of the slaves, with financial compensation to the owners, at least in the parts of the Union that remained loyal. If any parts of the declared CSA are in Union hands post-treaty, emancipation will be forced, and I doubt anyone in the USA will shed a tear for the misfortune of slavers.
 
What the fuck is respectable racism?
In a nutshell, racist thoughts and beliefs, etc., that don't look like real racism at first glance, and are instead cloaked in weasel words, sugar coating, etc.; it's still around, but became rather less prevalent after the '50s, except in many hard/far-right circles.
 
In a nutshell, racist thoughts and beliefs, etc., that don't look like real racism at first glance, and are instead cloaked in weasel words, sugar coating, etc.; it's still around, but became rather less prevalent after the '50s, except in many hard/far-right circles.

That isn't what I meant by that. What I simply meant is that before the 1960s you could be an admitted racist and still be considered respectable by most of society.
 
Sorry, I'm not buying it. The decline of overt racism was not due to some upswelling of the benevolence of white America and it's kind of insulting to the civil rights movement to imply that they were. As if all the achievements of the people who were beaten and bloodied were a gift bestowed from on high rather than an argument won the hard way. The fact is there were very, very few changes until African Americans demanded them; until people like Malcolm X eloquently explained how angry we were, how far we had been pushed, and how badly white America had behaved up to that point. Then, and only then, did many begin to re-evaluate their positions.

There were civil rights protests and the like before the 1950s but they were mostly brutally stomped out before the 1950s. Starting in the 1950s and getting more so over the years it got harder and harder to do that. By the 1950s MLK could no longer be ignored, in the 1920s he would have at best been ignored and at worst lynched.

I am not saying that the 1950s and 1960s Civil Rights Movement was easy, just that it would have been considerably more difficult in the 1900s or the 1920s or pretty much any time before WWII.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
Slavery would be considered unpatriotic. We would see the lynching of slaveholders and I would say it would be abolished by 1867, when Radical Republicans gain control of Congress.

Except all Republicans would be discredited after the war.


It was them who caused it after all.
 
Top