No ACW, when is slavery abolished?

Note also it would have been physically dangerousin 1860 for a white guy to say publicly he believed in racial equality and the immorality of slavery in say Kentucky, I suspect it would have been near suicideal in Mississippi or South Carolina
 
For that matter, saying you believed in racial equality was dangerous in 1960, and suicidal in 1964 Mississippi, but being anti - slavery would be a bit different, especially if the British are refusing to buy your cotton until you free the slaves.
Note also it would have been physically dangerousin 1860 for a white guy to say publicly he believed in racial equality and the immorality of slavery in say Kentucky, I suspect it would have been near suicideal in Mississippi or South Carolina
 

Thande

Donor
Well if this was an imaginary setting where there is for some reason no internal political pressure from the rest of the Union, and no economic pressure from the rest of the world, then there's really no reason why slavery would ever come to an end 'just 'cause'. Some people have tried to make arguments that it would be economically unsustainable with industrialisation, but Jared covered this issue in DoD and in any case to my mind this misses the point. By the 1840s or so, the southern states were committed to slavery as part of their identity which they paranoid-ly saw as being threatened, and so they would continue defending the institution of slavery even if it was demonstrably shown to worsen the lives of whites as well as blacks.

But this isn't an imaginary world and you generally can't get away from those factors (DoD does justify their absence fairly well I should point out) so it's not really a sensible question to ask in this form.
 
Would the British do that? More to the point, would everyone else do that as well?

Britain is not the only (a major, maybe even the most important, but not the only) customer.
 
Well if this was an imaginary setting where there is for some reason no internal political pressure from the rest of the Union, and no economic pressure from the rest of the world, then there's really no reason why slavery would ever come to an end 'just 'cause'. Some people have tried to make arguments that it would be economically unsustainable with industrialisation, but Jared covered this issue in DoD and in any case to my mind this misses the point. By the 1840s or so, the southern states were committed to slavery as part of their identity which they paranoid-ly saw as being threatened, and so they would continue defending the institution of slavery even if it was demonstrably shown to worsen the lives of whites as well as blacks.

But this isn't an imaginary world and you generally can't get away from those factors (DoD does justify their absence fairly well I should point out) so it's not really a sensible question to ask in this form.

Yes, I think DoD did an okay job with this........Fairly well? I'm not quite totally convinced of that(it's not that off the mark though, compared to Stirling), but at least it wasn't quite as farfetched as the Draka series ended up being, and did seem to add some unique twists to the concept, so I'll give him points for that.

Ultimately, though, of all the works I've seen, perhaps one of the most plausible & believable scenario I've seen so far, might actually be TL-191: The C.S.A. does manage to hold onto the practice until 1918, but is forced to stop doing so after TTL's WWI, as one of the conditions for peace.
 
I thing we're all overlooking something here, and this is rebellion from below. After all, desegregation and civil rights did not happen by Northern whim.

It's one thing to own and raise slaves on what is basically a medieval-style agricultural plantation and quite another to do so in the late 19th and 20th centuries, in an era of quick communication and universal literacy (slaves can't be kept illiterate forever, their owners' hands will be forced). Communism in particular would spread like wildfire. And when the first rebellion happens, can the North keep looking on impassively as their own countrymen are slaughtered, radicals may they be?
 
I thing we're all overlooking something here, and this is rebellion from below. After all, desegregation and civil rights did not happen by Northern whim.

It's one thing to own and raise slaves on what is basically a medieval-style agricultural plantation and quite another to do so in the late 19th and 20th centuries, in an era of quick communication and universal literacy (slaves can't be kept illiterate forever, their owners' hands will be forced). Communism in particular would spread like wildfire. And when the first rebellion happens, can the North keep looking on impassively as their own countrymen are slaughtered, radicals may they be?

How are you going to force their hands?
 
How are you going to force their hands?

Look, you can't be illiterate in modern society if you expect to function at all. If slaveholders expect to get any kind of use out of their slaves at least basic literacy will be necessary.
 
Which doesn't require their slaves being able to function in modern society, just for them to be capable of picking crops and other forms of uneducated labor.

Modern agriculture is more knowledge-intensive, though, at the very least to operate machinery.

And not all slaves would be agricultural. It's hard to have an housemaid if she can't even read what dishwasher she's using.
 
Modern agriculture is more knowledge-intensive, though, at the very least to operate machinery.

And not all slaves would be agricultural. It's hard to have an housemaid if she can't even read what dishwasher she's using.

Still seems like something that would take well beyond the late 19th century to become even a potential issue.
 

Thande

Donor
Ultimately, though, of all the works I've seen, perhaps one of the most plausible & believable scenario I've seen so far, might actually be TL-191: The C.S.A. does manage to hold onto the practice until 1918, but is forced to stop doing so after TTL's WWI, as one of the conditions for peace.

No it doesn't :confused: The CSA in TL-191 got rid of slavery in 1881 (or just after) when Britain and France demanded it as a condition for help in the Second Mexican War. It forms the climax of How Few Remain.
 
No it doesn't :confused: The CSA in TL-191 got rid of slavery in 1881 (or just after) when Britain and France demanded it as a condition for help in the Second Mexican War. It forms the climax of How Few Remain.

Alright then, my mistake....hadn't read the series in a long time, so please do forgive that slip-up. :eek:
 
I thing we're all overlooking something here, and this is rebellion from below. After all, desegregation and civil rights did not happen by Northern whim.

It's one thing to own and raise slaves on what is basically a medieval-style agricultural plantation and quite another to do so in the late 19th and 20th centuries, in an era of quick communication and universal literacy (slaves can't be kept illiterate forever, their owners' hands will be forced). Communism in particular would spread like wildfire. And when the first rebellion happens, can the North keep looking on impassively as their own countrymen are slaughtered, radicals may they be?

Look, you can't be illiterate in modern society if you expect to function at all. If slaveholders expect to get any kind of use out of their slaves at least basic literacy will be necessary.

Modern agriculture is more knowledge-intensive, though, at the very least to operate machinery.

And not all slaves would be agricultural. It's hard to have an housemaid if she can't even read what dishwasher she's using.

All very good points here. Of course, there's always a few ways that the elite of a few Southern States could keep slavery alive until about the first decade of the 20th Century or so, including the use of slaves as a status symbol of sorts.
 
I think that after 1850 there will still be a secession crisis regardless of how you set up a scenario. What you might have is a different lead-up to Fort Sumter with a POD of Harper's Ferry or just afterwards. Keep Virginia and Tennessee in the Union, which will probably allow North Carolina to stay as well, and the other states will probably at least consider coming to the table for some sort of negotiations. Slavery was an interesting question as it produced a lot of the material used in Northern factories, so some economics would come into play. I could see a gradual manumission starting with children born in 1879 with freedom to all coming January 1, 1900 for sake of a nice round number. And there might also be a push for mechanical cotton harvesters in the meanwhile.

Without an ACW though there will be some notable changes in military doctrine and deployment, especially as a nation like the USA will not have had a deployment of note for over half a century should the Spanish-American war or equivalent be the first taste of battle afterwards. Our navy will be horribly underdeveloped as well. The flip side would mean a lot of wealth in the South would still be concentrated and her rail system will still need standardization, though industry might find more favorable conditions in the South at an earlier time than OTL.
 
Top