How would the Confederate States have helped end the slave trade?

In Article I, Section 9 of the Confederate States Constitution, it says and I quote 'The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slave-holding states or territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden and Congress is required to pass such laws to shall effectually prevent the same. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State, not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy'.

In other words, the Confederate States had outlawed the slave trade, although for the reasons of supporting native slave owners by allowing them to put a higher price on their slaves as opposed to any reason of morality like Britain and France did, which were cracking down on the slave trade.

If the CSA won (Let's be generous and place the victory in 1861, just after the Battle of Bull Run) and the Confederate States was asked to help crack down on the slave trade and the CSA agreed to help, how would the CSA help end the slave trade?
 
1861 seems very very optimistic, but accepting the stiplation, large slaveholders might be supportive of the ban since it would in the short term increase the value of their "capital". Longer term, it might encourage smaller farms to mechanise their operations to compete. I could think of other more dystopian possibities as well. I can't see a slaveocrat South lasting unchanged much past 1900. The provision is pretty meaningless anyway. Thankfully, the postwar Atlantic slave trade won't survive the combined efforts of the RN and the USN.
 
They'll probably do exactly what they'd done before the war and throw a couple coastal patrols together to intercept slave smugglers but that's about it. They have little incentive to actually help end slavery but as Cladius points out, the CSA's help wasn't needed to stop the Atlantic slave trade.
 
The fear was believe in the importation of foreign slaves who would insight rebellion.

The dynamics of bozales and creole slaves in well known in Latin America and unlike say Haiti where slave death exceeded natural replacement states like Virginia were net exporters.

Basically the end of external slave trade ≠ the end of slave trade as a whole and is not as progressive as say Confederate apologists elsewhere on the internet like to purport.

Example:Laws around sugarcane in the US has not curbed sugar consumption in the US, it only consolidated landowners of sugarcane.
 
Well, if the crew of coastal patrol ships are crewed by South Carolinians they would probably tell them how to get to Charleston. ;) I think NO ONE would trust the CSA to crack down on the Atlantic Slave Trade the moment they thought it was in their interest not to. The prohibition was as much about the RN doing anti-slavery patrols off the African Coast and trying to get British support as economics.
 
Nothing would change and the Confederacy would remain a backwards banana republic even by the standards of its time. Not importing more slaves does not end the slave trade so long as slavery continues to exist within the Confederacy.
 
By the 1840's there's virtually no Transatlantic Slave Trade, it's already illegal everywhere in the Americas. Also, the Brits are already actively patrolling the Atlantic for slave ships since then and I personally don't think that they need help.
 
There are several different political currents going on here.

The official ban on the Transatlantic slave trade was the status quo in the US since 1808, so the CSA would have made waves by changing that (and made foreign support even more difficult to achieve). The Upper South had economic reasons to oppose the slave trade (since selling excess slaves further south was a tried and true money-earner, and reopening importation would damage that). As noted, the fear of slave rebellions was very real in the South (one reason they had reacted so strongly to John Brown's raid). Note that there were some Fire-Eaters who wanted to reopen the slave trade, but they were largely politically incompetent and marginalized in the CSA during the war (which, in any case, had enough trouble being able to import military supplies, much less slaves).

None of that means that a victorious CSA would lift a finger to do anything about it. If diplomacy required it, it might send a ship or two to join the various international anti-slaver fleets patrolling off the coast of Africa to capture slave-traders, but that's about it (and even that's honestly something of a stretch, especially given that the Confederate Navy is likely tiny and focused on coastal defense ships, and thus ill-equipped to participate in such an effort). There certainly wouldn't be political will for anything more (especially since the Fire-Eaters will probably retain enough influence to make even that difficult).
 
Well, if the crew of coastal patrol ships are crewed by South Carolinians they would probably tell them how to get to Charleston. ;) I think NO ONE would trust the CSA to crack down on the Atlantic Slave Trade the moment they thought it was in their interest not to. The prohibition was as much about the RN doing anti-slavery patrols off the African Coast and trying to get British support as economics.

South Carolina rather openly tolerated the illegal slave trade. This was shown in the case of Wanderer, a beautiful yacht built in New York state in 1857. Her first owner sold her to William Corrie of SC. Corrie sailed her to Africa, loaded up 487 slaves, and sailed to Jekyll Island, Georgia, delivering 409 survivors. The case became notorious, and Wanderer was seized by the Federal government. When Wanderer was put up for auction, Corrie was the only bidder (a visiting Yankee tried to bid, but Corrie punched him in the head). Corrie made at least one other slaving voyage in Wanderer before the Civil War broke out. Wanderer was then seized by the Union, and became a supply ship and armed patrol craft for the blockade.
 
Top