How long would the Confederacy survive?

[jmc247]

See, I think this is an understated thing in most TLs. I just read a book about the Civil War and the author makes the argument that even by 1863 in OTL, slavery was really wounded by the simple fact that slaves ran away to the Union forces everywhere, in huge numbers. Granted, peace will help reduce these areas (I doubt the North will get to keep New Orleans for example) but still. Thousands of slaves will escape to a North that, while not being an enlightened racial utopia, certainly isn't going to send them back. Is slavery really tenable in such a circumstance?

It was wounded by slaves going North yes. It was wounded by some being effectively free inside parts of the South where order had broken down.

And, it was wounded due to the CSA impressing increasing numbers of slaves for non-combat military roles to support their armies.

The final wound before the end of the war came when they were trying to get farmers to emancipate their slaves for combat once that was allowed.

Spoiler

 

[The Tai-Pan]

It was wounded by slaves going North yes. It was wounded by some being effectively free inside parts of the South where order had broken down.

And, it was wounded by then due to the CSA impressing increasing numbers of slaves for non-combat military roles to support their armies.

The final wound before the end of the war came when they were trying to get farmers to emancipate their slaves for combat once that was allowed.

Yeah, the author makes all those same arguments. It wasn't the main thrust of the work but it was something I had never thought about before. TL's often represent slavery as a immutable, never changing pillar.

 

[TRH]

See, I think this is an understated thing in most TLs. I just read a book about the Civil War and the author makes the argument that even by 1863 in OTL, slavery was really wounded by the simple fact that slaves ran away to the Union forces everywhere, in huge numbers. Granted, peace will help reduce these areas (I doubt the North will get to keep New Orleans for example) but still. Thousands of slaves will escape to a North that, while not being an enlightened racial utopia, certainly isn't going to send them back. Is slavery really tenable in such a circumstance?

I think it gets glossed over in part because it forces a reckoning sooner rather than later. If you include a successful CSA in your timeline, you'll want to keep it around for a while even if it winds up failing in the end because it feels like a waste of time otherwise. But this movement of slaves northwards is something that will either bleed the Confederate economy to death or (more likely IMO given the attitudes of CSA leadership) leads to round two really early once Confederates decide they won't let the border impede their pursuit of "stolen property." And that's a war the CSA simply can't win because its political objective is impossible, to the extent it's clearly defined at all.

 

[DanMcCollum]

No reason it wouldn't survive until the modern day. Once a country wins its independence, it's usually got it for the longhaul - and I'm pretty sure the United States isn't going to want to retake the territory; why try to absorb millions of of hostile citizens after a generation or two of independence - that's just madness. But whether slavery would last until the modern day is highly doubtful. And it's anyone's guess whether the Confederate government that exists at end of the Civil War is going to survive (lord knows there could be revolutions, or simply efforts to craft new constitutions). But the chances are very good that some country occupying the American South, and still calling itself the Confederacy, exists on the map in *2023.

 

[Jiraiyathegallant]

By 1900, I do not believe the Union would want to take a country that is 1/3rd black and has its own identity. Absent a war that began largely to keep the South in the Union and ended with the abolition of African slavery, the US may not internally have an identity forged partially on the abolition of slavery and thus remain more racialist. If not for the Nazis as well, casual racism might just be the norm and make the South functionally undesirable to the North.

With Southern whites having their own identity and Southern blacks not being wanted, the North probably prefers the South stays an independent society they can trade with.

 

[sarahz]

A Confederate victory is one of the most famous alternate history scenarios one can think of. Countless words have been written/typed thinking of how they could've defeated the Union and secured their independence.

But assuming they were successful, that raises the question...how long would an independent Confederacy last? I've seen a wide variety of estimates ranging from the Confederacy lasting to the current day, to some like Turtledove having them last a few decades to others who argue they wouldn't last more than five years.

So I'm putting it to you, my fellow alternate history enthusiasts. If the Confederacy won the ACW, how long would it have survived as an independent nation? Would it make it to the modern day or not? And if not, then how long does it last? Five years, the 1890's? The turn of the century?

Depends very much on how and when they won., and what they did next. If they alienate the UK and France in any major way they will almost certainly end up losing a war to either the US or Mexico or both in combination.

 

[bguy]

See, I think this is an understated thing in most TLs. I just read a book about the Civil War and the author makes the argument that even by 1863 in OTL, slavery was really wounded by the simple fact that slaves ran away to the Union forces everywhere, in huge numbers. Granted, peace will help reduce these areas (I doubt the North will get to keep New Orleans for example) but still. Thousands of slaves will escape to a North that, while not being an enlightened racial utopia, certainly isn't going to send them back. Is slavery really tenable in such a circumstance?

How many slaves are realistically going to be able to escape though when there aren't Union armies in the South? It looks like about a thousand slaves managed to successfully escape per year pre-Civil War.

Exploring A Common Past: Researching and Interpreting the Underground Railroad

There's no reason to believe that number will be substantially higher if the Southern states are an independent nation. (Most of the slaves are held in the Deep South after all, which is the region the furthest away from any free territory, and that's going to continue to be true whether the Deep South is part of the United States or part of the Confederate States.) A thousand slaves per year escaping isn't going to be anywhere near enough to cripple the institution of slavery. Not when there are nearly 4,000,000 people being held as slaves in the southern states in 1860.

As for slavery being damaged by 1863, sure but that was IOTL where Union armies had advanced deep into Mississippi and Louisiana and Tennessee by 1863. In a timeline where the Confederates achieve independence, the Union probably isn't achieving anywhere near the same level of military success it enjoyed IOTL, so that would mean much less opportunity for slaves to escape behind Union lines than IOTL.

 

[HelloThere]

I agree with previous posts who emphasize that the issue of longevity depends on the circumstances under which the Confederates achieve independence in the first place. I would say that the Confederacy can definitely survive into the 20th century. After that, it will probably slide into a systemic political crisis at some point, because the economy will not be able to keep up with that of the North and the economic elite will probably be viewed as outdated.

I think the Confederates and Brazil would be similar in that respect: republics whose economic model has an expiration date, leaving them vulnerable to mass populist movements (a Confederate Getulio Vargas? *cough cough* Huey Long *cough cough*). If these populist autocrats manage to modernize, I see no reason why the Confederacy shouldn't survive to this day (maybe it won't be called the Confederacy then, but that would be mere speculation).

 

[raharris1973]

(more likely IMO given the attitudes of CSA leadership) leads to round two really early once Confederates decide they won't let the border impede their pursuit of "stolen property."

...because they just *have* to grab the idiot ball and do this without regard to odds of success or dangerous consequences. Because to be evil means to be cartoonishly stupid too.

Nah, I don't think so.

You know how the South works to counter the bleed off and escape of its human property? Hint: It's not militarized incursions and pursuit operations.
It is primarily about maintaining internal and border controls. For retrievals from across the border, Confederate property holders and authorities mainly use a softer approach, relying on a desire many northerners have that *competes* with the desire have to not send escapees back as a way to torque off the southern traitors; the just as genuine and widespread desire to not have nonwhite people loitering or passing through their communities, especially in large numbers.

Confederate property holders and authorities (and state governments), wherever they can, will make overtures across the border to municipal and county level Mayors, Sheriffs, business leaders and other officials and citizens groups of any of a white supremacist, Democratic, or Copperhead bent who can be persuaded or already believe it is in their community interest to not become a stop in the underground railroad or a refuge for runaway slaves or a host community for free people of color, and coordinate actions against escapees, abolitionists, and sympathetic ministers and journalists to efficiently and quietly detain and return escapees back over the border. Folks from the CSA side will likely help subsidize or defray the costs of their collaborators on the northern side, or outright bribe them.

On stretches of the Union/CSA border where there are no willingly cooperative collaborative local officials, politicians, citizen's groups, police departments present or dominant on the Union side of the border ready and willing to help return escapees, the Confederates who lose fugitives slaves that way just have to 'like it or lump it' and accept it as part of the cost of living and doing business.

 

[TRH]

...because they just *have* to grab the idiot ball and do this without regard to odds of success or dangerous consequences. Because to be evil means to be cartoonishly stupid too.

Nah, I don't think so.

Read up on the Fugitive Slave Act and the actions of slave hunters trying to enforce it before you get so confident in what's too stupid or evil to be done by slaveowners trying to preserve their property. I don't doubt that they'd have internal and border controls as well - they had those during the war as well - but the length of the border means they won't be enough by themselves. And I'm sure they'd also attempt diplomatic measures to repatriate escaped slaves, but the North has no incentive to comply, so that's not an effective solution either.

 

[raharris1973]

the North has no incentive to comply

'the North' isn't a monolith

The North as a corporate entity, a foreign country, and a recent opponent in a war would not be bound legally, nor feel bound by reasons of sentiment, to help southern slave-catchers at all. Northern border towns and property owners, worried about 'there goes the neighborhood' and not wanting demographic change in their community, or trespassing on their property, just might have practical motive or sentiment to cooperate with slave catchers.

If fugitive slaves escaping the south into the north just be automatically teleported to the paradise dimension, 100% of of northerners, or nearly so, would be happy with those escapes. But that didn't happen and raised a question of where the fugitives would live next. The harsh reality is that in response, northern popular support for escapes fell below 100%, especially at the border, for that very reason.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

'the North' isn't a monolith

The North as a corporate entity, a foreign country, and a recent opponent in a war would not be bound legally, nor feel bound by reasons of sentiment, to help southern slave-catchers at all. Northern border towns and property owners, worried about 'there goes the neighborhood' and not wanting demographic change in their community, or trespassing on their property, just might have practical motive or sentiment to cooperate with slave catchers.

If fugitive slaves escaping the south into the north just be automatically teleported to the paradise dimension, 100% of of northerners, or nearly so, would be happy with those escapes. But that didn't happen and raised a question of where the fugitives would live next. The harsh reality is that in response, northern popular support for escapes fell below 100%, especially at the border, for that very reason.

You are putting modern views of border controls and immigration onto a very different landscape.

 

[raharris1973]

You are putting modern views of border controls and immigration onto a very different landscape.

You are putting a modern view of race and racism being among the cardinal sins and Confederates = Nazis in a different different landscape and country....the 19th century American past

 

[The Tai-Pan]

How many slaves are realistically going to be able to escape though when there aren't Union armies in the South? It looks like about a thousand slaves managed to successfully escape per year pre-Civil War.

Exploring A Common Past: Researching and Interpreting the Underground Railroad

There's no reason to believe that number will be substantially higher if the Southern states are an independent nation. (Most of the slaves are held in the Deep South after all, which is the region the furthest away from any free territory, and that's going to continue to be true whether the Deep South is part of the United States or part of the Confederate States.) A thousand slaves per year escaping isn't going to be anywhere near enough to cripple the institution of slavery. Not when there are nearly 4,000,000 people being held as slaves in the southern states in 1860.

As for slavery being damaged by 1863, sure but that was IOTL where Union armies had advanced deep into Mississippi and Louisiana and Tennessee by 1863. In a timeline where the Confederates achieve independence, the Union probably isn't achieving anywhere near the same level of military success it enjoyed IOTL, so that would mean much less opportunity for slaves to escape behind Union lines than IOTL.

I would assume escapes would be far greater when the North was actually a refuge and not a place where they could get captured and re-sent South. Once they cross that border, they'd be home free (from slavery, not all other problems). It would be a very big change from OTL. Also, groups in the North that would support the Underground Railroad would be more free to operate in a USA no longer shackled to the Slave Power. They very well may be more effective.

 

[TRH]

'the North' isn't a monolith

The North as a corporate entity, a foreign country, and a recent opponent in a war would not be bound legally, nor feel bound by reasons of sentiment, to help southern slave-catchers at all. Northern border towns and property owners, worried about 'there goes the neighborhood' and not wanting demographic change in their community, or trespassing on their property, just might have practical motive or sentiment to cooperate with slave catchers.

Assuming the blacks stay in the first town they reach across, then you might have some idea of who to approach and who to bribe. If not? You need to go searching, you need to verify which slaves are where so you can return them to whichever slave owner. The United States is a big place, so you could wind up having to search hundreds of miles depending on the situation. How much are you willing to pay in bribes, in addition to paying for the muscle needed to escort someone back to their plantation per slave? And how many times are you willing to do this before you get sick of it and want a permanent solution?

You are putting a modern view of race and racism being among the cardinal sins and Confederates = Nazis in a different different landscape and country....the 19th century American past

Nobody said anything about ethnic cleansing yet, so this is a strawman.

 

[bguy]

I would assume escapes would be far greater when the North was actually a refuge and not a place where they could get captured and re-sent South. Once they cross that border, they'd be home free (from slavery, not all other problems). It would be a very big change from OTL. Also, groups in the North that would support the Underground Railroad would be more free to operate in a USA no longer shackled to the Slave Power. They very well may be more effective.

They still have to get across that border though. If you are a slave in Mississippi or South Carolina it's a very long way to the US border and there are going to be a lot of slave catching patrols between you and the border. (Not to mention the Confederate Army actually on the border.)

It's also far from certain the North will be a refuge for escape slaves. Maybe when the Republicans are in power it will be, but IOTL the post-war northern Democrats were extremely hostile to African-American rights. Thus it's very doubtful they are going to be welcoming to escaped slaves. You won't see the Fugitive Slave Act being enforced, but I would expect that whenever the Democrats are in the White House you will see U.S. customs agents returning any slaves they catch trying to cross into the United States, and Democrat governors and attorney generals and sheriffs will certainly continue to try and suppress the Underground Railroad operating in their jurisdictions.

 

[TRH]

They still have to get across that border though. If you are a slave in Mississippi or South Carolina it's a very long way to the US border and there are going to be a lot of slave catching patrols between you and the border. (Not to mention the Confederate Army actually on the border.)

It's also far from certain the North will be a refuge for escape slaves. Maybe when the Republicans are in power it will be, but IOTL the post-war northern Democrats were extremely hostile to African-American rights. Thus it's very doubtful they are going to be welcoming to escaped slaves. You won't see the Fugitive Slave Act being enforced, but I would expect that whenever the Democrats are in the White House you will see U.S. customs agents returning any slaves they catch trying to cross into the United States, and Democrat governors and attorney generals and sheriffs will certainly continue to try and suppress the Underground Railroad operating in their jurisdictions.

As far as the federal level goes, you need to remember that the Gilded Age had a reputation for extremely close elections between the Democrats and Republicans...with the Southern states voting again. Without those, I don't think they can compete for the presidency or Congress at all. And that's not considering the direct backlash they're liable to suffer for perceived disloyalty during the war, in the same vein as the Federalists post-1812 and the Democrats post-Vietnam. They may still win state-level elections in some places, but they won't be competitive without major changes to their image and platform. Doughfaceism is probably dead.

 

[Beefhammer]

Depends on how much damage to its interior the Union does before the war's end, in particular how many slaves are able to escape to Union lines. Any way you cut it though, a surviving Confederacy is almost certainly going to be a paranoid, ultra-militarized police state.

 

[Insane Ranter]

Apartheid survived until globalization so...

Apartheid started in 1948. Globalization dependson who you talk to started at different points in time and in different pop up points. 1942 is a start date for some.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

They still have to get across that border though. If you are a slave in Mississippi or South Carolina it's a very long way to the US border and there are going to be a lot of slave catching patrols between you and the border. (Not to mention the Confederate Army actually on the border.)

Very true but there is a wrinkle. I agree that only slaves near the Union really have any prayer of escaping, but I think many would. If they start doing in large numbers, is slavery going to be tenable in the Upper South? It isn't like they are going to buy slaves from the Deep South and bring them northward, just to run away. Far too expensive. Such a thing may really alter the slavery system, indirectly, even in distant Louisiana and South Carolina?

It's also far from certain the North will be a refuge for escape slaves. Maybe when the Republicans are in power it will be, but IOTL the post-war northern Democrats were extremely hostile to African-American rights. Thus it's very doubtful they are going to be welcoming to escaped slaves. You won't see the Fugitive Slave Act being enforced, but I would expect that whenever the Democrats are in the White House you will see U.S. customs agents returning any slaves they catch trying to cross into the United States, and Democrat governors and attorney generals and sheriffs will certainly continue to try and suppress the Underground Railroad operating in their jurisdictions.

See, here I'm not so sure. Are they really going to do that? I'm not sure. The North is NOT some liberal racial utopia, I understand that but event here slavery was generally considered bad. People didn't like it, and that sentiment from growing even when slavery was a part of their own nation. Surely such feelings would intensify when it gained the mark of 'the Other'. Slavery existed in the North, sure, and in the Border States but I don't think it's going to last long. How many Northern voters are really going to support sending Blacks back to the South, knowing they will be put in chains?

Of course, it isn't like they want Black people as their neighbors (northern people were plenty racist) but most Blacks aren't going to hang around the border, for lots of reasons. They'll head to the big cities.