How long would Slavery Last in a Victorious Confederacy?

[aspie3000]

It's interesting to watch people discuss things regarding the Civil War on this site as certain topics seem to come up over and over again and lead to pages of debate over them. One of the topics that keep popping up is the topic of just how long slavery was going to last in a victorious Confederate States of America. I don't know if this topic has already been made but here it goes anyways. How long would race based chattel slavery last in a surviving and victorious Confederate States of America? How profitable would the system be going into the 20th century or even 21st century? Was it doomed due to economic and diplomatic reasons or was the system both economically viable and sustainable even with the rest of the western world despising the practice? Could the system adapt to other purposes other than the plantation economy? Would the ideology of slavery overcome all of the hurdles it faces regarding economics and diplomacy seeing as slavery was the reason the south seceded and that it was the cornerstone of southern civilization (at least in the Deep South) at the time?

 

[Lalli]

Slavery would survive to 1900, probably longer perhaps to 1920's. Hard to believe that abolishment of slavery can happen earlier because constitution secured existence of chattel slavery and there were still veterans left who fought for that. And even later abolishment happen due international pressure.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

I don't think slavery economically viable with wheat, but that's my speculation and plenty of others on this site who seem more well informed say otherwise. Even without a constitutional guarantee of slavery, the fact remains that those who fought for the Southern Way of life (read: slavery) are not going to let it go away.

The only plausible way for the CSA to win is with outside help, probably the British (at the beginning of the war, both sides had slaves so there was no moral revulsion away from the rebels). This ironically means Britain would have to clean up its mess in the 1920s or whenever for abolitionism since they are the only country that could feasibly put diplomatic pressure on them.

As bad as colonial British chattel slavery was in the 1700s, it was better than the post cotton gin conditions the southern slaves worked under. Also, in some sense British chattel slavery was "less evil" than what many of the Islamic states in the Mediterranean (I can't name them all besides the Ottos) and West Africa. The British "only" purchased slaves from slavers while the latter not only had a slave market and chattel slavery, but they also hunted for and created new slaves too.

 

[aspie3000]

I don't think slavery economically viable with wheat, but that's my speculation and plenty of others on this site who seem more well informed say otherwise. Even without a constitutional guarantee of slavery, the fact remains that those who fought for the Southern Way of life (read: slavery) are not going to let it go away.

The only plausible way for the CSA to win is with outside help, probably the British (at the beginning of the war, both sides had slaves so there was no moral revulsion away from the rebels). This ironically means Britain would have to clean up its mess in the 1920s or whenever for abolitionism since they are the only country that could feasibly put diplomatic pressure on them.

As bad as colonial British chattel slavery was in the 1700s, it was better than the post cotton gin conditions the southern slaves worked under. Also, in some sense British chattel slavery was "less evil" than what many of the Islamic states in the Mediterranean (I can't name them all besides the Ottos) and West Africa. The British "only" purchased slaves from slavers while the latter not only had a slave market and chattel slavery, but they also hunted for and created new slaves too.

I'm going to need some clarification regarding this but didn't sugar lords in Barbados and other British islands work their slaves to death in the cane fields to the point that they had to import more slaves from Africa constantly to replace them while in the south they increased by natural means? I have never heard anyone say that Mississippi had worse working conditions than Barbados.

 

[jetpack]

I think that there will be an increase in abolitionist sentiment, due to international contact and economic changes. Some of them might push for a replacement to the constitution because constitutions don't usually last very long. There will also be people who would refuse to give up slavery, since it was what their country fought for, they believe it's their right, and there are people who profit a lot from it. The resulting internal conflict will set a limit for how long the Confederacy can last, especially since the US would be happy to intervene if there's a revolution, or slave revolts, or too much rioting. I don't see legal Confederate slavery (or the Confederacy) lasting as long as it did in Brazil.

 

[Mr. Mass Line]

Until the Revolution and the founding of the Soviet Negro Republic of course.


Didn't the cotton crop fail in the late 1800s? I doubt slavery (let alone the CSA as a polity) would survive that, imagine the white farmers and workers seeing the plantation owners living lavishly on their saved funds while everyone else suffers for lack of export and economic activity.


Has there been a Confederated Socialist States of America TL yet?

 

[SargentHawk]

As an institution? Id say probably 1880-1890 before they are forced by international communitues and threats from the north to crash their party. That being said, ending it as an instution does not mean it would be much better, there would very likely be jim crow laws as well as much lower wages (we're talking just enough to get by). Some employers would possibly even offer housing in return for large swaths of their pay. So ended around 1884 probably, but de facto indentured servitude until at least 1915 at which theyd be risking riots and such. African-Confederate army regiments may exist if theyre offered greater pay than they had ever seen before ( still not very much) but that'd be pushing it and would be depending on the situation.

Not entirely convinced a victorious south after slavery and indentured servitude runs out deports them as a cost saving measure to open up jobs to poor whites. Itd be very interesting to see the CSA somehow have Cuba and then lose it to an afro-confederate rebellion, where afro-confederates flee/are allowed to leave to after a certain point.

 

[riggerrob]

OTL Britain passed the Slave Trade Act in 1807. This banned transportation of slaves between British colonies. At the same time, Britain pressured other Eurooean countries to stop trading slaves. The Royal Navy also pressured ships to stop hauling slaves to the Americas.

With no new slaves being imported, CSA would struggle to perpetuate their slave-economy past 1900, CSA would need to increase birth rate amongst dark-skinned slaves and improve living conditions to reduce infant mortality.

As for ACW veterans reluctance to free slaves .... you are never going to change their attitudes, so will just have to wait until veterans die of old age.

OTL Bol weevils arrived in 1892, devastating cotton plantations. This forced mass migrations of farm labourers and forced land-owners to plant other crops: like peanuts.

 

[Johnrankins]

As an institution? Id say probably 1880-1890 before they are forced by international communitues and threats from the north to crash their party. That being said, ending it as an instution does not mean it would be much better, there would very likely be jim crow laws as well as much lower wages (we're talking just enough to get by). Some employers would possibly even offer housing in return for large swaths of their pay. So ended around 1884 probably, but de facto indentured servitude until at least 1915 at which theyd be risking riots and such. African-Confederate army regiments may exist if theyre offered greater pay than they had ever seen before ( still not very much) but that'd be pushing it and would be depending on the situation.

Not entirely convinced a victorious south after slavery and indentured servitude runs out deports them as a cost saving measure to open up jobs to poor whites. Itd be very interesting to see the CSA somehow have Cuba and then lose it to an afro-confederate rebellion, where afro-confederates flee/are allowed to leave to after a certain point.

Way too early. The people who fought to preserve slavery are mostly still alive. 1900s at the earliest, 1920s more likely. It is more likely to last until 1990 than go away in 1890.

 

[Johnrankins]

OTL Britain passed the Slave Trade Act in 1807. This banned transportation of slaves between British colonies. At the same time, Britain pressured other Eurooean countries to stop trading slaves. The Royal Navy also pressured ships to stop hauling slaves to the Americas.

With no new slaves being imported, CSA would struggle to perpetuate their slave-economy past 1900, CSA would need to increase birth rate amongst dark-skinned slaves and improve living conditions to reduce infant mortality.

As for ACW veterans reluctance to free slaves .... you are never going to change their attitudes, so will just have to wait until veterans die of old age.

OTL Bol weevils arrived in 1892, devastating cotton plantations. This forced mass migrations of farm labourers and forced land-owners to plant other crops: like peanuts.

The Atlantic Slave Trade was banned by the US in 1807. Of course there was slave smuggling but the RN put an end to most of that. It wasn't slaves coming in from Africa that increased the number of slaves, it was slaves being born in the US. For all its faults the Antebellum South wasn't the West Indies. The vast majority of slaves lived considerably into child bearing years and often beyond.

 

[FieldMarshal]

As others have said, I would expect international pressure and likely a few internal developments (a slave revolt or two) would result in the end of slavery by the early 1900s. After that, it's Jim Crow for the forseeable future.

 

[Johnrankins]

As others have said, I would expect international pressure and likely a few internal developments (a slave revolt or two) would result in the end of slavery by the early 1900s. After that, it's Jim Crow for the forseeable future.

International pressure won't do a damn thing, they were willing to fight a war to preserve it and endure a blockade that was more devastating than any embargo would be.

 

[FieldMarshal]

International pressure won't do a damn thing, they were willing to fight a war to preserve it and endure a blockade that was more devastating than any embargo would be.

Sure, but if I recall correctly part of the reason they were willing to endure the blockade was because they thought the British would be champing at the bit for Southern cotton. In the post-war world, the realization that the British do not necessarily need the South for cotton might influence their decisions regarding slavery somewhat, especially if Britain makes abolitionism a prerequisite for continued support against the Union.

But in any case, the domestic developments are certainly more important. Enough slave revolts might do it. A Free-Soil kind of movement in the South that sees slavery as a threat to white jobs might arise, but I don't know how feasible that would be, seeing as slavery was such a part of Southern culture.

 

[Johnrankins]

Sure, but if I recall correctly part of the reason they were willing to endure the blockade was because they thought the British would be champing at the bit for Southern cotton. In the post-war world, the realization that the British do not necessarily need the South for cotton might influence their decisions regarding slavery somewhat, especially if Britain makes abolitionism a prerequisite for continued support against the Union.

But in any case, the domestic developments are certainly more important. Enough slave revolts might do it. A Free-Soil kind of movement in the South that sees slavery as a threat to white jobs might arise, but I don't know how feasible that would be, seeing as slavery was such a part of Southern culture.

Without a blockade any embargo will leak like a sieve. If nothing else the CSA smuggles through Mexico which, although anti-slavery, always needed the money. If the UK was actually foolish enough to support the CSA during the war it won't for long afterwards, the CSA has nothing to offer.

Any slave revolt will be put down ala Nat Turner. A slave revolt has overthrown a government all of once in all of known history. The South was terrified of slave revolts, particularly after Haiti, and took strong steps to prevent them from being more than local problems. Even Nat Turner's rebellion killed all of 55 to 65 people. Slave revolts would be a nuisance, nothing more.

 

[Jasen777]

March 22nd, 1926.

Seriously though...

I don't think slavery economically viable with wheat, but that's my speculation and plenty of others on this site who seem more well informed say otherwise. Even without a constitutional guarantee of slavery, the fact remains that those who fought for the Southern Way of life (read: slavery) are not going to let it go away.

Yes, slavery is very likely to outlive it being "economically viable", due to it's role as a social control system. We might see states or the confederate government running slave programs at a loss, if it become unprofitable for owners (this happens with prison labor were the state carries the cost and the labor benefits private business).

There is also some indications that slavery would be profitable in factories.

 

[Fiver]

Didn't the cotton crop fail in the late 1800s? I doubt slavery (let alone the CSA as a polity) would survive that, imagine the white farmers and workers seeing the plantation owners living lavishly on their saved funds while everyone else suffers for lack of export and economic activity.

The Boll Weevil entered Texas in 1892 and had covered the whole Cotton Belt by 1922. In the Deep South, the weevil would force crop diversification, which helped the economy. Farmers growing only cotton faced greater risks, but if they were fortunate enough that the weevil didn't eat their crop, the profits became even higher. Cotton growers who gambled and lost would have to sell their slaves to pay their debts, which would drive down slave prices. The weevil would have much less effect in the Confederate Border States, which grew little cotton and already had a greater crop diversity. The lower slave prices would have several results. A larger number of whites would now be able to afford slaves, making for a broader base of people with a financial interest in maintaining slavery. The regional difference in slave prices would reverse a longstanding trend, with the Deep South becoming the area selling slaves and the Border South buying them. Lower slave prices would also lead to more free blacks being able to buy the freedom of their family members. None of this will end the financial reasons for slavery, let alone the social reasons.

 

[SargentHawk]

its also likely some states in the confederacy remove slavery before others as international pressure increases, to the point where you'd have other states pressuring internal states in the confederacy to make moves to be more internationally marketable. I don't see it going to 1900, certainly not 1920 or higher. At that point they either get rid of it or their house of cards is coming down. Even the most die hard supporters during the 1860's would see the writing on the wall when you have America as well as the rest of the world bearing down. If they can figure out a way cheaper that doesn't piss off the international community (ala intense sharecropping on every basis) they're going to do it. Because in doing so, they get the best of both worlds.

They fought for slavery but economics and survival will play a factor in them getting rid of it. I'm also in no way suggesting that them abolishing slavery increases the quality of life for afro-confederates on most if any basis.

 

[dcharles]

At least until the turn of the nineteenth/twentieth century. As others pointed out, the boll weevil hits in the South during that time. Something that hasn't been pointed out is that cotton was basically at its high water mark in terms of price in 1860. The trend is downhill from there. While the market rebounded from the immediate postwar cotton glut, it never truly recovered. So the cotton kings would be gradually losing influence throughout the 19th century, and when the boll weevil hits in the twentieth, its going to be harder to sustain the market for slaves. While slaves were used in industrial applications and would have continued to be used in industrial applications, slavery simply isn't as broadly applicable to manufacturing as it is to plantation agriculture.

If domestic unrest/diplomatic pressure/military pressure doesn't kill slavery around this time, the invention of the mechanical cotton picker will. IOTL, John Rust invented it in the 30s, but people had been messing around with the idea for 70 years before that. In an ATL, it could happen sooner or later than that.

I've seen it bandied about that there are too many veterans alive who "fought for slavery" to let it end before the 20s. There's some truth to that, but I think it's overstated. People go to war for a lot of reasons, but usually its just because a boy is twenty and all his buddies are going too. And then there's the whole "defending your home" thing. So some people fought for slavery, and more people fought because it seemed dishonorable to stay home while everyone else didn't. Slaves were very expensive and most people didn't own any. The army skewed poor, so to say they all fought for slavery is simplifying the story.

 

[NHBL]

Slavery may well continue indefinitely, IMVHO. It's an ideal social control system, and slaves can do some sorts of factory work, lay railroad track, dig holes, and more. It might even be that some slaves can move about, but pay their owner a tithe of what they make.

Slave revolts will happen, and may be supported by the USA and/or other countries. Sooner r later, I suspect that another war is almost inevitable. Slave revolt is put down, leaders escape to the USA. Extradition demanded and refused...tensions escalate, and sooner or later, BOOM!

 

[NHBL]

Another thought: Escaped slaves will be a flashpoint, and if there's another war, slavery lasts only until American forces conquer CSA lands.