Exactly. O never understand why this sort of topic gets posted so often and I never see either of our responses written.
How long would Slavery Last in a Victorious Confederacy?
- Thread starter aspie3000
- Start date
Did the Southern states, IOTL, became poorer in the next decades after the war? If so, maybe some of this poverty could be attributed to the damages of war, but if they were still not making enough money after, say, 30 or 40 years this might indicate they were quite poor all along. In this case, even if they succeeded in the war, and even if it cost them much less, they would probably be ineffective. Poor whites would probably travel North or West, but black people would probably be forbidden to do so.
You've given yet another reason why the CSA won't have a standing army. I could see this as being something that would lead to states north and south bulking up and formalizing their militias.
The states were just as broke. Almost no one had money. The CSA NEEDS a standing army, if it doesn't the USA will notice and start marching south again.
If you feel the need for an army badly enough, you will find a way to get one, poor as it might be. Look at North Korea...
Ended sometime 1885-1920ish as far as chattel slavery goes. Slavery under another name? Probably another 20-40 years to factor in labor needs and the time before agricultural mechanization becomes a thing, you could add on another 20-30 years if you have the "right" political coalitions forming.
The CSA would not survive the inevitable economic ruination and would enhance reunification in so doing.
These sorts of questions always end in people talking passed one another. "How long slavery lasts in the CSA" is entirely dependent upon myriad other developments, such as "what are the CSA's relations with its neighbours like", which includes questions about those countries' internal developments, "how does the CSA develop internally" with the most obvious aspect of this being "(how long) does the CSA's government in its 1860's form last?", and "what date range are you exploring". The CSA could end up a communist dictatorship, the US might become some sort of Fascist nightmare that grows more fond of their southern cousin's institutions, 150 years of history (or more) is more than enough time for anything like this to occur.
It seems that this question is usually asked with an unspoken premise, of "(assuming the CSA's institutions otherwise remain the same and the US/other states do not invade/develop differently) how long does slavery last in the CSA?". The obvious answer here, and any other answer is utterly disingenuous/misinformed, is that slavery lasts indefinitely. Given that the two major things that might change it, i.e. outside intervention and major internal changes, are not changing, the premise of the question is inherently tilted towards conservatism. Slavery as "economically unviable" is whiggish nonsense, and otherwise the American South proved quite happy to continue treating the descendants of former slaves horrendously which combined with the sheer capital tied up in slavery is more than enough to keep the institution alive forever.
It seems that this question is usually asked with an unspoken premise, of "(assuming the CSA's institutions otherwise remain the same and the US/other states do not invade/develop differently) how long does slavery last in the CSA?". The obvious answer here, and any other answer is utterly disingenuous/misinformed, is that slavery lasts indefinitely. Given that the two major things that might change it, i.e. outside intervention and major internal changes, are not changing, the premise of the question is inherently tilted towards conservatism. Slavery as "economically unviable" is whiggish nonsense, and otherwise the American South proved quite happy to continue treating the descendants of former slaves horrendously which combined with the sheer capital tied up in slavery is more than enough to keep the institution alive forever.
Yep, they might wind up a Third World backwater which I actually see as likely but a Third World backwater with a standing army. From their point of view it is better to be a Third World backwater than being reconquered by the US.
They would survive it longer than allowing the USA to just steamroller them as it has a standing army and they don't.
Being on the other side of the world didn't stop France from conquering Indochina. They failed in Mexico, but France's record on force projection was often successful, in contrast to the Confederacy who always failed in attempts to invade and seize Union territory.
While I doubt the Confederacy could win with less cost than they had sustained by mid-1863 in OTL - Over twice the per capita debt of the Union. Overtaxed infrastructure deteriorated to the point there were bread riots across the Confederacy. Confederate currency so worthless people had stopped counterfeiting it. Large amounts of their labor force dead, crippled, or fled to Union territory.
I'm confused on why you think the Confederate railroads needing major investment to regain prewar levels would stimulate Confederate manufacturing. Confederate railroads were on the verge of bankruptcy thanks to having to give priority to government cargoes, which they had to carry at rates dictated by the Confederate government. In general, Confederate railroads could not afford to repair and refurbish their rails and rolling stock, let alone buy replacements. The Confederate government clearly wouldn't bail them out.
Confederate industry had expanded heavily during the Civil War, but that was due to increased government contracts, not increased civilian consumption. When the war ends, the Confederacy would massively downsize their military and most of those contracts would go away. Additionally, the Union blockade had provided better protection for Confederate industry than any tariff could. The end of the blockade would leave Confederate industry competing with cheaper foreign imports. Combined, I'd expect these would lead to massive downsizing of Confederate industry after independence.
How are we defining richest? The majority of Confederate wealth was tied up in land and slaves. as well as being concentrated in the hands of a small percent of the Confederate population. And building a navy takes more than just buying ships, you need the infrastructure for repairing and maintaining the ships, plus large numbers of trained officers and crew.
The US had several advantages in 1848 that the Confederates would not have after independence, The US had a 3-to-1 population advantage as opposed to a 4-to-3 Confederate numbers advantage over Mexico. The Confederacy had no one with the offensive abilities of Winfield Scott or Zachary Taylor. The Confederacy lacked both the ships and trained personnel to have a real blue water navy.
I haven't read a lot on the French Intervention, but what I've read said that by 1865 the French public was getting tired of the war and that Napoleon III was looking for an excuse to pull out. If Maximillian does defeat the Juaristas, there still a good chance of him being deposed in favor of the his heir Agustin Iturbide.
Napoleonrules
Banned
British influence and assistance, which the CSA will need to survive, will pressure the CSA to abandon slavery quicker than people are saying. Many of you are actually suggesting the CSA would consciously decide to keep slavery 20-40 years longer than Brazil. Not likely at all. Actual slavery is what we are talking about btw, not "worse than South Africa apartheid and Jim Crow combined" which yes, would continue to... what year are we in? Yeah, whatever year you're reading my post regardless of when I'm posting this. Look at the South today 150 years after the Civil War, which they lost, and went through forced integration and national TV telling them "racism is wrong" for the last... 50 years? Or only 10-20 years for some of those towns... now imagine if they had won! As for the argument- well veterans who fought for the right of slavery would stop the abolition of slavery. Yeah... no. Because- reasons. But really because they will be a small number of the white population, they will be old, and remember- class struggle. Yes, the non-slave holding rural whites will want controls on the Blacks to keep them from competing with them, but they also will see it as a reason the wealthy are wealthy and will be against slavery. City folk, with less number of slaves, most likely won't care about slavery either. The segment that actually relies on, NEEDS, and WANTS slaves will be small. A more "economical" way to "control" the Black population will be found that does away with the international stigma of being an actual "slave-holding nation" which Britain will not, over more and more time, want to be associated with. They are already turning to Egypt and India for cotton, what else can the CSA offer to say "let us keep slaves so we can give you...." a moral black-eye for supporting them?
Thank you for the links. They show that in 1848, railroads could carry US troops from the US heartland to central Louisiana, While there are more southern railroads in 1861, those railroads still could only carry troops from the Confederate heartland to central Louisiana.
The Confederacy had naval yards, but the Union retook the Northfolk Naval Yard in 1862 during the Peninsula Campaign.
If the war ends with the Union in control of Tennessee, which is quite likely, the Confederates only rail route from Richmond to New Orleans would require going through Union territory.