i guess i'm the only one that thinks slavery for the most part will be gone except large plantations & & factories by the 1890's to 1900's. & once mechanized farming starts up the need for hundreds of slaves to farm your land will vanish cause you'll only need a couple with tractors. But i figure slavery would die out enough that by 1900ish it would peacefully end.
If CSA had won?
- Thread starter nova2010
- Start date
NomadicSky
Banned
I think so...slavery wouldn't still be around. People in the modern CSA would probably look back on shame about that part of their nations past.
You're not the only one who thinks that. But even in 1860, the 'average' slave lived on a farm with 3-8 slaves, not in a large plantation. So I'm really not all that convinced.
And since cotton, the benchmark product for slavery, won't realistically be mechanised until the 1930s or 1940s (a mechanical cotton picker was a very hard thing to develop), that means... well, draw your own conclusions.
Given that slavery lasted until 1888 in Brazil, and given that slavery was far, far more entrenched in the South than it was in Brazil, colour me skeptical on that one.
Snake Featherston
Banned
A Confederate victory would be interesting for the Anglosphere concept, namely that societies that speak English are predestined to be democratic, free, equal societies. The CSA in practice would have collapsed into military rule in the medium term and its long term future is likely to be two generations, the USA would want it back as much as South Korea wants North Korea back but would intervene if for no other reason than to keep anyone else from so doing.
The failures of the Confederacy, as in the cases of the USSR and Rhodesia are built into the system. 2/3 of a state's population holding the other 1/3 as slaves is a foundation that guarantees no democracy will endure in any such system. The Confederacy had no financial infrastructure worthy of the term, and it functioned best in the real war when run by the generals, who in even the most plausible short-victory scenarios will have experience of their own, and if the CSA ekes out a political "win" in 1865 then half the CSA will have been run by military dictatorship for quite some time. The Confederacy cannot simply abandon slavery, nor will it do so, the Confederacy of OTL only scrapped slavery when Richmond's fall was a foregone conclusion, and any victorious CSA will never do this.
Confederate leaders would do their damndest to keep the rotten structure together but its flaws would be too many circles to square for anyone, no matter how brilliant, co-operative, and long-term-thinking (all words that apply to none of the generals or politicians in the Confederacy) to do so, and the great tragedy of the Civil War is that a victorious CSA would be as much a disaster for the entire South as the defeated one was for black Southerners.
The failures of the Confederacy, as in the cases of the USSR and Rhodesia are built into the system. 2/3 of a state's population holding the other 1/3 as slaves is a foundation that guarantees no democracy will endure in any such system. The Confederacy had no financial infrastructure worthy of the term, and it functioned best in the real war when run by the generals, who in even the most plausible short-victory scenarios will have experience of their own, and if the CSA ekes out a political "win" in 1865 then half the CSA will have been run by military dictatorship for quite some time. The Confederacy cannot simply abandon slavery, nor will it do so, the Confederacy of OTL only scrapped slavery when Richmond's fall was a foregone conclusion, and any victorious CSA will never do this.
Confederate leaders would do their damndest to keep the rotten structure together but its flaws would be too many circles to square for anyone, no matter how brilliant, co-operative, and long-term-thinking (all words that apply to none of the generals or politicians in the Confederacy) to do so, and the great tragedy of the Civil War is that a victorious CSA would be as much a disaster for the entire South as the defeated one was for black Southerners.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Given how long sharecropping lasted, cotton slavery IOTL will endure into the 1920s in any victorious CSA timeline, and the Boll Weevil will do more to destroy the Confederacy than anything else will. A victorious CSA finding a G.W. Carver is as likely as the USSR finding a miracle-working agrarian scientist instead of Trofim Lysenko.
1. yeah i know the cotton picker wasn't mechanized until then but i was mainly talking about tractors to do the stuff before the actual harvesting, but they did have early cotton picker types back all the way to 1850's & a horse-drawn cotton picker was made in 1905 & doing reading they said a one row picker like that could replace 30 or 40 hand pickers
2. ell i figureit'll catch on more in the northern confederate states first & slow gain popularity else where. & i was also thinking that after Brazil abolished it the international pressure would increase alot more on the CSA
usertron2020
Donor
1) Expect a certain someone
to come riding in on his raging charger to explain how ASB this idea is.2) And to tell us that even if you put the war in the 2010s, the US would be thrown back in full retreat and total disarray.
3) Not to mention that even in the 2010s, with a united US, we still don't have a chance of survival, much less victory.
4) Speaking of whom, where is he?
Why hasn't he chimed in yet?According to The Peculiar Institution by Stampp, most slave owners had 10 or less slaves. OTOH, over half of all slaves belonged to men that owned 20 or more slaves.
Hmm. I was going off memory from Gavin Wright, and I can't find my copy of his book at the moment. But checking Fogel, he has a similar comment to stamp about over 60% of slaves being on plantations (which he defines as 16 or more for these purposes).
So, presumably my memory is faulty, and Wright must have been talking about the average slave owner having 3-8 slaves, and not the average slave, which would fit with Stampp too. My mistake.