I think for a pretty long time. It lasted in Brazil until the 1880s, and slavery was critical to the survival of the Deep South (Texas excluded, with its oil). Even with the boll weevil destroying cotton crops, I think slavery would have lasted past 1920. Then, it would have been replaced by a sort of mass, legally enforced version of sharecropping.
How long would Slavery Last in a Victorious Confederacy?
- Thread starter aspie3000
- Start date
More likely IMO, slavery would still remain legal, even if rarely practiced. It could also, sadly, become commonplace in places like oil rigs and textile factories.
I agree that it would still be there in practice, but I think for the most part it would be abolished in name only, in order to comply with international norms. Personally, my idea of a "victorious" south looks vaguely similar to modern-day Qatar, with a massive percentage of the population having so few rights that they're practically slaves, while the citizens live in luxury and become the fattest people on earth. And of course, this is assuming that the "CSA" remains united, and Texas happily contributes its oil wealth to the rest of the group.
edit: changed "standards" to "norms"
Maybe they would not force the war, but there were already precedents. Texas was one, though in a different context; and the Union did roll over Mexico up to California. By the same time, the Knights of the Golden Circle were setting up their plans to secede, conquer the Caribbean and Central America, and turn these regions into slave states. It was hardly feasible, but the idea was running. So they might make up any pretext to invade, or provoke Mexico or especially Spain as much as they could to force an attack.
I just realized something. How was the Confederacy run? Would it have been more like the Articles of Confederacy? If it was, that could lead to some problems, especially between the states
In theory, by a near-copy-paste of the United States constitution.
In practice... well, it started much more decentralized, but the central government gained a whole lot more power during the war. How it would be in a victorious Confederacy is going to depend a whole lot on your PoD.
I don't see that at all. The Confederacy has no blue water traditions. It doesn't seem likely that the Confederacy could or would pose a naval challenge to Spain, at least not for the first thirty or forty years. As for Mexico, maybe, maybe not. The Confederacy really had nothing much going on in the way of logistics. They had trouble supplying an army out of field.
One might assume that a Confederacy might have butterflies that would give it the economic capacity to support an army in the field out of country, and make the investment required to do so. But equally, the same butterflies might eventually make Spain or Mexico more formidable in comparison to the Confederacy.
I suppose if you want to wank unrealistically, sure thing. Realistically, I can see many elements of the Confederacy having malice and motivation. The actual ability? Doubt it. Odds are they'll just engage in bloody but futile military adventures to no good effect.
War powers would likely devolve rapidly after a war. The Confederacy was a hotbed of centrifugal rather than centralizing forces.
There were definitely a lot of centrifugal forces, but the war destablized preexisting power structures both economically and in the sense that largely-poor veterans would demand something for their service. Look at the narrowly-averted Newburgh Conspiracy after the Revolution, and - more prosaically - how large a political issue pensions were.
On the other hand, I do agree the Davis government was very unpopular.
I dunno. The Confederacy and its revolt was fundamentally conservative and reactionary. The secession was driven by the ruling elites. I don't see how they lose the stranglehold on power. If anything, I think that the eventual outcome of the war would be to reinforce centrifugal power structures.
No way to tell, of course. Miracles happen. But overall, I think the confederacy as an Agrarian, Specialty Crop/Plantation economy would tend to follow Latin American models. The path of least resistance is that it would sink rather than soar.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
At least early on, the Confederate government has to worry about states threatening to return to the Union though. This prevents her from being TOO centeralized, as in a Rebel Victory scenario I doubt the E.P is going to pass too quickly and the Northern Democrats are likely to regain political dominance in the Union, and would likely welcome any "wayward sons" back home.
Just a side note:
It appears to be a trend among slave nations. Brazil was just the same - the group that structured national politics in the late 1830s was very centralized around the Emperor and his men, and at the same time dealt with demands of the local elites - though not by giving them enough power to rule themselves.
It appears to be a trend among slave nations. Brazil was just the same - the group that structured national politics in the late 1830s was very centralized around the Emperor and his men, and at the same time dealt with demands of the local elites - though not by giving them enough power to rule themselves.
Mexico had a larger free population than the Confederacy. The Mexican states near the Confederate border were Chihuahua (population 164,000), Coahuila (population 67,000), Nuevo Leon (population 145,000) , and Tamaulipas (population 109,000). The Confederacy was uniformly poor at force projection. They only held New Mexico Territory (population 93,000) for a couple months and failed abjectly in their invasion of Colorado Territory (population 34,000). The Confederacy might be able to take some of Mexico, but it would not be a rollover.
Fighting Spain presumably means an invasion of Cuba. Spain had a large and established navy. The Confederate Navy was small and started from scratch. The Spanish Navy had a handful of ironclads, but unlike Confederate ironclads, they were deep water ships. The Confederacy had less than 2/3 the population of Spain. The Cubans were determined about being independent. They lost roughly 150,000 in the Ten Years War (1868-78). Had the Confederacy suffered equally, they would have lost 1.5 million, not 300,000. And there's the Confederacy's greatest enemy in an attempted invasion of Cuba - disease. The main thing a Confederate invasion of Cuba would produce is dead Confederates.
Why would the the boll weevil lead to insufficient food? It was a major cash crop in the Deep South, but even there it wasn't the whole economy. The Border South was a lot more diversified and not dependent on cotton.
Why would the boll weevil lead to this? In OTL, it made cotton growing much higher risk, but also much higher profit if the weevil didn't hit your fields. The bankruptcy of some cotton plantions would put few people out of work. The slaves would be sold to other owners and the overseers would generally be able to find work elsewhere.
Compared to Mexico, France was richer, more educated, with a far better transportation system, a far larger manufacturing base, more natural resources, and a strong martial tradition. Mexico won. The Confederacy would start its independence in poor financial shape. They amassed over twice the per capita debt of the Union. By 1863, Confederate currency was so worthless people stopped counterfeiting it. Large amounts of their labor force was dead, crippled, or fled to Union territory. Their infrastructure had been heavily worn down by the demands of the war and needed major investment just to restore it to pre-war levels. The Confederacy had less than 1/4 of France's manufacturing ability. The Confederacy was far less educated than France. The Confederacy had no real deep water navy and building one would be expensive. And the Confederacy had been uniformly poor at force projection.
The Confederacy didn't really have a good transportation system at all. Basically, it was a patchwork of poor quality, short run, disconnected rails, poor quality seasonal roads, and stretches of navigable rivers, most of which was oriented to local traffic, or feeding multiple foreign export points. The Confederate rails couldn't operate profitably or regularly during the civil war, and were run by fiat. It's not especially good infrastructure, unless you're a neocolonial client.
And this is important. If you're going to run a foreign war, you need a centralized and coordinated system to requisition men and materials, ship them to gathering points and launch in any significant numbers or equipment. The Confederacy just isn't set up that way. You'd need at least a generation worth of infrastructure investment and improvements.
I don't see the Confederate industrial infrastructure being suited to maintaining an offensive war or war in the field. As to being richer, that's a pretty iffy proposition.
The thing people consistently misunderstand is how incredibly difficult it is to move and keep an army outside your national borders. You have to maintain a population of thousands, you have to continually provision them. Very few countries are able to do it. France and England were leading contenders, and even they had uphill battles.
Defenders have massive home ground advantage, including shorter lines of communication, much more ease in recruiting and supplying their army.
A Mexican-Confederate War is a non-starter. The Confederacy has no meaningful ability to invade Mexico, at least not without a generation of capacity building and heavy investment.
As to Cuba, to have any kind of shot, you have to beat the Spanish Navy. 1860's and 1870's Confederacy? Forget it. Again, you need a generation to build that capacity. So not until the 1890's or later.
And that's assuming that Mexico and Spain stand still and fail to progress.
The forces that tend towards tearing the CSA apart can be easily augmented by the USA. For example, if a state is considering leaving the CSA, the USA could say, "If you rejoin the Union, we will, of course, defend American territory against any invader. Slavery is prohibited in the USA, but we'll offer a generous program of compensated emancipation."
Also, the USA might, as soon as it's back on its feet, extend the Monroe Doctrine. It could get the support of Mexico in that extension. CSA slavecatchers that even let a single round cross the American border will be in for a world of hurt. Any slavecatchers that come north to find out who is supporting the underground railroad likely hang if caught.
Without southern senators to object, it's possible that the annexation of Santo Domingo/The Dominican Republic would have happened.
Also, the USA might, as soon as it's back on its feet, extend the Monroe Doctrine. It could get the support of Mexico in that extension. CSA slavecatchers that even let a single round cross the American border will be in for a world of hurt. Any slavecatchers that come north to find out who is supporting the underground railroad likely hang if caught.
Without southern senators to object, it's possible that the annexation of Santo Domingo/The Dominican Republic would have happened.
Possibly true, but I mean more in the context of the question i.e. conflicts over slavery in a surviving Confederacy.
Everyone does forget the tensions that will be created between the Upper South along with Texas, which would most likely have a much greater incentive and resource base to become industrialized given time, and the Deep South, who will be much more closely wed to the old system and will try to stymie the progress necessary to make the Confederacy economically competitive.
dcharles
Banned
Yes, that's true. But you're leaving out the big factor of Mexico being on the other side of the world from France. That's the kind of thing that negates the advantage of their transportation system.
As did the US.
All reasons why they lost the war. I don't think these things can happen close to the extent they did IOTL and have the CS win.
Which would stimulate their already significant manufacturing capability, which itself had been radically improved by the demands of war. But anyway, I don't really see the CS like, conquering Mexico or something, and I doubt there's going to be a war six months after they conclude war with the US. So to me, this scenario implies a cooling off period, and it implies a war with limited aims.
Not really. A literacy rate of 89% among Southern whites. France's literacy rate was about 60% at the same time. Throw in the slave population, and that's close to a wash.
Indeed. And since they're the fourth richest nation in the word, they have the deep pockets.
The 9500 miles of railroad in the Confederacy in 1860 is more than almost anywhere else in the world, full stop. It's more than anywhere in Europe except the UK, if I'm not mistaken. Other than that, only the US has more miles of RR than the Confederacy. Crucially, its about 38x more miles of track than Mexico had in the same year. Inferior to the US does not mean inferior to everyone. The US managed to invade Mexico twenty years earlier, when all of the transportation infrastructure was far worse.
See:https://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/0910/csj/csj1.html
From an earlier thread:
"So, according to Wilson, "as a cotton manufacturing region, the slave states ranked behind the North, England, and France, but above Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Spain, and Finland...while Southern spindles were far fewer than those of the North, they were generally newer and more cheaply operated. A contrast with Britain in 1860 is instructive British mills held about eight times as many spindles as those of the US but produced only about four times as much cloth. The South had about the same relationship to the North.
[Above is with reference to 1860, not the CS after the wartime industrialization]
"'If we treat the South as separate countries and rank them along the countries of the world, the South would stand as the fourth richest nation in the world in 1860'...Southerners possesed more wealth than France, Germany, or Denmark." [I don't know what his definition for Germany is, but I can't imagine it includes anything less than Prussia.]
If the US could do it with less infrastructure in the 1840 it could be done later.
I wasn't positing the 1860s, but I don't see why it's a given. Cuba is 90 miles away from the CS. Spain is 5000 miles away from Cuba. Moreover, as weird as it seems to say, with extremely limited resources, they manage to be on the cutting edge of naval technology for their brief existence. So even if their navy is inferior to Spain's, it doesn't need to be on par, it just needs to be strong enough to secure those 90 miles. That's far more manageable.
I don't think it assumes that at all. I think the converse assertion assumes that the CS somehow regresses, while Mexico skyrockets above it's OTL performance. How that works is unclear to me.