Poll: When Would the CSA Eliminate Slavery

By What Point Would The Confederacy Have Eradicated Slavery?


  • Total voters
    556
Status
Not open for further replies.
Saying the confederate did better then they were supposed to is not a lost cause thing. A lost cause person would be romanticizing them.

You mean like claiming that the Confederate culture produced better soldiers and better generals, even though the facts show that they didn't? Or claiming that Confederates were teaching their children "to be modern knights" when that only happened in Confederate mythology?

Where were these Confederate "modern knights" when Confederate soldiers massacred white Union civilians, robbed their banks, and set fire to their towns? Where were these Confederate "modern knights" when Confederate soldiers enslaved black Union civilians and enslaved or murdered black Union POWs? Where were these Confederate "modern knights" when Confederate President Jefferson Davis ordered the summary execution of any Union officers commanding black troops or serving under Benjamin Butler? Where were these Confederate "modern knights" when Confederate agents attempted to use germ warfare against Union civilians?
 
The South was about as large as Napoleonic France. It could be conquered only so fast.

The Confederacy was about the size of modern Spain, France, Germany, Italy, and Poland combined. Napoleon spent 10 years failing to conquer than much territory. The Union succeeded in 4. It probably would have been 3 without McClelllan.
 
The Confederacy was about the size of modern Spain, France, Germany, Italy, and Poland combined. Napoleon spent 10 years failing to conquer than much territory. The Union succeeded in 4. It probably would have been 3 without McClelllan.

In land area, yes. But it only had about 9 million people and one third of them were slaves.
 
Also this is 1800s. Chicago and those places don’t get really bad until later. It’s important to consider city violence is much different then the stuff experienced in the south or rural areas. They are using tools and knives as weapons in cities in the 1800s most of the time. They aren’t hunting or using guns as much. Appalachian is likely to have better aim over a mobster in New York. They can shoot animals from miles away without a scope. That skill relates well into battle. Blood feuds in Appalachia have been described as similar to tribal warfare. People in this time in Texas are probably still fighting native Americans and dealing with a even crazier Wild West. Also the defeat in the Civil War would likely destabilize the US a bit. Wouldn’t defeat greatly hurt the credibility of the Union to many people?

This also reads like NeoConfederate mythology. Nobody "can shoot animals from miles away without a scope". The Union was more urbanized, but almost everyone in the US came from the countryside and none of the animals they hunted were shooting back, let alone had artillery. Texas was fighting more native Americans than New Jersey or Georgia, but no more than frontier free states like Colorado or Minnesota. And being educated or raised in an urban environment did not mean people were bad shots. Engineer and inventor Hiram Berdan founded the 1st US Sharpshooters in 1861. Two of its 10 companies were recruited in New England. Another was from Albany, New York. And 3 companies came from New York City. In the 8 companies of the 2nd US Sharpshooters, also founded in 1861, 5 companies were from New England and another company was from Pennsylvania. To pass the rifle test a man had to be able to place ten shots in a 10 inches diameter circle from 200 yards away.
 
The Confederacy will never abolish slavery. But I'm sure they will eventually "abolish" "slavery", and come up with some new terminology.
Mechanized agriculture was going to abolish slavery in the CSA just like it did in Brazil (1880s). My guess is that the CSA would then follow Brazil, Cuba, Russia, and the Carribean by instituting a system of quasi free sharecroppers on near mandatory "contracts".
 
Real Confederate advantages were a large territory, good defensive ground, interior lines, fighting on home ground, and the force multiplier of being on the defensive. Confederate leaders frequently threw these advantages away to invade Union territory.
Armies fighting on the defensive don't win wars when facing an industrialized opponent. The result is just slow strangulation from the industrialized power. The only way for the CSA to win was to break the union will to fight was to attempt to fight an offensive war- preferably on Union territory.
Lincoln's Loyalists calculates that 10% of all draft age white men from Confederate states served in the Union Army. Davis estimated that half of all Confederate soldiers deserted.

Very true, the CSA had a desertion problem that matched that of the Union when one factors in that the Union was winning. Likewise, both combatants had the same level of internal loyalty problems. The only thing that kept 10% of Union men out of the Confederate army is that the CSA never occupied union territory as a victorious power. Thus, CSA recruits were limited to pretty large numbers from Kentucky and Missouri. Men with pro CSA leanings from southern Illinois, Indiana, Delaware and Maryland were simply cut off as the war went to the Union's favor.
 
Last edited:
The mid-Atlantic and New England would have more influence because they are now a much more powerful voting bloc. The rest of the country isn’t nearly as populated yet.

The US Census of 1860 strongly disagrees with you. The population of the Midwest and Far West was only slightly less than the population of New England and the Mid-Atlantic States, which was not a united voting bloc anyway.

I’m trying to say the north might think they can control the south through indirect means like trade or navy but disregarding the importance of the army. Furthermore, if the war ends early they might not invade PA.

On the day that the Confederates attacked Ft Sumter, Confederate Secretary of War Leroy Pope Walker announced the Confederate intention to invade and seize the US capitol. In 1861, Confederate forces attempted to invade Kentucky under Polk and Crittenden, West Virginia under Lee. In 1862 Confederate forces attempted to invade New Mexico and Colorado under Sibley, Kentucky under Bragg, Arkansas under Van Dorn, and Maryland under Lee. There is absolutely no way that the Union would discount the possibility of the Confederacy invading them.
 
One thing about poor whites moving North, they might automatically be US citizens, especially if the US refuses to recognize the CSA. At the very least, I'd guess that anyone born before secession would be a US citizen.
 
In a democracy you have a lot of dumb people voting. They will often vote based more on emotion then reason depending on the context.

In an oligarchy you have a lot of dumb people making decisions and often acting on emotion rather than reason. In a dictatorship you have a lot of dumb people making decisions and often acting on emotion rather than reason. Every form of government in human history has had idiots rise to power. Democracies are not more prone to this than other forms of government and have the advantage that you can get rid of idiot leaders without having a coup or civil war.

Your idea requires more than just stupidity on the part of the Union public, it requires them ignoring that the Confederacy had proved itself to be an expansionistic, hostile power that believed that all slaveholding states, the major mineral producing territories, and a route for a transcontinental railroad were their by right.

If the Confederates start a massive arms buildup, the Union will not ignore them. Based on the number of free people, the Union had 3.8 taxpayers for every 1 Confederate taxpayer. The Union could spend half as much per taxpayer and have an army almost twice the size of the Confederate army. If the Confederates start an arms race, the Union will win.
 
I believe the American union is similar to the Soviet one. If one leaves others will try and follow them unless your willing to use the force to keep them.

The Soviet Union was Russia forcibly annexing a bunch of countries with different languages, customs, and sometimes religion. That bears no resemblance to the formation of the United States. The states of the USA spent hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of millions of dollars to try to preserve the Union - no state is going to just turn and walk away after that. There might be later regional seccessions by other parts of the US, but they would only happen after a couple of decades of deep, unresolved conflict. The Confederacy was founded on the idea that any state could leave at any time for any reason. Proportionately, they spent more lives and money than the Union did. An independent Confederacy is far more likely to balkanize than the Union.
 
The Soviet Union was Russia forcibly annexing a bunch of countries with different languages, customs, and sometimes religion. That bears no resemblance to the formation of the United States. The states of the USA spent hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of millions of dollars to try to preserve the Union - no state is going to just turn and walk away after that. There might be later regional seccessions by other parts of the US, but they would only happen after a couple of decades of deep, unresolved conflict. The Confederacy was founded on the idea that any state could leave at any time for any reason. Proportionately, they spent more lives and money than the Union did. An independent Confederacy is far more likely to balkanize than the Union.

For one thing, I assume one of the first amendments after the war would outlaw secession and state militias.
 
The Soviet Union was Russia forcibly annexing a bunch of countries with different languages, customs, and sometimes religion. That bears no resemblance to the formation of the United States. The states of the USA spent hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of millions of dollars to try to preserve the Union - no state is going to just turn and walk away after that. There might be later regional seccessions by other parts of the US, but they would only happen after a couple of decades of deep, unresolved conflict. The Confederacy was founded on the idea that any state could leave at any time for any reason. Proportionately, they spent more lives and money than the Union did. An independent Confederacy is far more likely to balkanize than the Union.
The confederacy proves people can leave the union if they want too. It sets a bad precedent. The Union could not keep the south within its union. Nothing they did or say would change that. What you seem to be looking over is losing half your country is going to be looked at as weak by many other powers and people. The US system looks much weaker now in otl. Like the USSR in the 1900 century was a revolutionary republic the US was revolutionary republic of the 1800 century. But instead of being based in Marxist values the US was based on enlightenment values. The best example of a liberal republic would have failed at staying fully together. Europeans will see the US system as failing and weak compared to their own even if that isn’t fully true. A criticism of American democracy was often it would devolve into mob rule and could not last in a larger nation in the long run. Even liberal minded people often thought the American system was too liberal. The CSA will prove that point to many. Ideology plays apart in this. America does lose a good bit of face for losing the south. You do realize how increased federalization and putting in place the laws you proposed looks like a country that is desperately trying to keep it’s country together. The victory of the war helped push federalization. Federalization looks like the union is just rebuilding itself if they win the war. It isn’t as noticeable to the people. With less of a mess created by the war and after imagine of victory federalization would be much more noticeable to people and intentions are clear. Many Americans will not like federalization. Many didn’t like it in otl. Without the victory and credibility of winning it federalization is harder to push through. Think of most countries that try to centralize after losing civil wars. Many can go either way depending on post war politics. Reconstruction and post war situation gave the union the perfect excuse and way to federalize. Federalization also worked well because it wasn’t blatant to people. Average Americans often did not notice it because it was subtle and done in the re-organizing of the post war years. With federalizations if it doesn’t have the south your likely to face issues with the federal government almost have complete regional biases towards New England, Mid-Atlantic, and the Midwest(biggest voting blocs) while giving less regards to regions out west. The west often lobbies with the south for its own reasons. Without them they can more easily be out voted by places out east on a federal level. They could be dead set against something but be forced to follow east desires because they got out voted federally. This becomes more a issue the more urban the east gets while the west stays more rural. You might have regional conflicts of interest and this leads back to the CSA example inspiring others. They might fail but they might keep trying. Also I’m arguing for a strong CSA but honestly I think most of the time if the south wins the union and the confederacy could both face more Balkanizing and each independence feeding more into others. The more countries in the former US the more unstable all within it become.
 
In an oligarchy you have a lot of dumb people making decisions and often acting on emotion rather than reason. In a dictatorship you have a lot of dumb people making decisions and often acting on emotion rather than reason. Every form of government in human history has had idiots rise to power. Democracies are not more prone to this than other forms of government and have the advantage that you can get rid of idiot leaders without having a coup or civil war.

Your idea requires more than just stupidity on the part of the Union public, it requires them ignoring that the Confederacy had proved itself to be an expansionistic, hostile power that believed that all slaveholding states, the major mineral producing territories, and a route for a transcontinental railroad were their by right.

If the Confederates start a massive arms buildup, the Union will not ignore them. Based on the number of free people, the Union had 3.8 taxpayers for every 1 Confederate taxpayer. The Union could spend half as much per taxpayer and have an army almost twice the size of the Confederate army. If the Confederates start an arms race, the Union will win.
Yes, oligarchy will have that too but I think their is a argument for less develop nations being able to advance much more quickly under a undemocratic system. CSA might fail and make mistakes but not having to deal with democracy as much they can keep pushing a bunch of different reforms through more quickly(varying on success). If enough of the oligarchy thinks “guys I know we don’t want to but we got to industrialize or find some alternative to it. We can’t let those Yankees out do us completely”. Some might not like it but many of the elites will likely think something has to be done(they might lack the better details of that at first but they have benefit of trial and error until they figure it out). They are prideful. A lot of countries reform because they don’t want to be outdone by others. The US might laugh at some of those failed attempts but dictatorship or undemocratic regimes sometimes come up with clever ways at reforming and modernizing their system. They can get away with more radical reforms if people aren’t voting on it.
 
Last edited:
In an oligarchy you have a lot of dumb people making decisions and often acting on emotion rather than reason. In a dictatorship you have a lot of dumb people making decisions and often acting on emotion rather than reason. Every form of government in human history has had idiots rise to power. Democracies are not more prone to this than other forms of government and have the advantage that you can get rid of idiot leaders without having a coup or civil war.

Your idea requires more than just stupidity on the part of the Union public, it requires them ignoring that the Confederacy had proved itself to be an expansionistic, hostile power that believed that all slaveholding states, the major mineral producing territories, and a route for a transcontinental railroad were their by right.

If the Confederates start a massive arms buildup, the Union will not ignore them. Based on the number of free people, the Union had 3.8 taxpayers for every 1 Confederate taxpayer. The Union could spend half as much per taxpayer and have an army almost twice the size of the Confederate army. If the Confederates start an arms race, the Union will win.
I think both countries will be dealing with its own succession movements for the next few decades. American republics once they start breaking up usually continues to do so until something extreme is done. I think it comes down to who runs themselves the best or who is able to at least keep the most order within their borders.
 
This also reads like NeoConfederate mythology. Nobody "can shoot animals from miles away without a scope". The Union was more urbanized, but almost everyone in the US came from the countryside and none of the animals they hunted were shooting back, let alone had artillery. Texas was fighting more native Americans than New Jersey or Georgia, but no more than frontier free states like Colorado or Minnesota. And being educated or raised in an urban environment did not mean people were bad shots. Engineer and inventor Hiram Berdan founded the 1st US Sharpshooters in 1861. Two of its 10 companies were recruited in New England. Another was from Albany, New York. And 3 companies came from New York City. In the 8 companies of the 2nd US Sharpshooters, also founded in 1861, 5 companies were from New England and another company was from Pennsylvania. To pass the rifle test a man had to be able to place ten shots in a 10 inches diameter circle from 200 yards away.
Shot part is exaggerated. I’m hinting towards their education being generally more militarized in nature. If you spend your whole life focused towards martial skills more then let’s say business this has to add up over time. If your spending all your time focusing on something your likely to make more innovations in it then people who don’t.
 
You mean like claiming that the Confederate culture produced better soldiers and better generals, even though the facts show that they didn't? Or claiming that Confederates were teaching their children "to be modern knights" when that only happened in Confederate mythology?

Where were these Confederate "modern knights" when Confederate soldiers massacred white Union civilians, robbed their banks, and set fire to their towns? Where were these Confederate "modern knights" when Confederate soldiers enslaved black Union civilians and enslaved or murdered black Union POWs? Where were these Confederate "modern knights" when Confederate President Jefferson Davis ordered the summary execution of any Union officers commanding black troops or serving under Benjamin Butler? Where were these Confederate "modern knights" when Confederate agents attempted to use germ warfare against Union civilians?
Your taking this too personal and literal. That will be their mindset not the reality. Their mindset and outlook is important to consider because that will tell us how they would act and do things. Southern culture is going to have a ton of romanticism and pseudo science that will treat as a reality by them. That’s why I say what they say and do will be different
 
There are many reasons that it took the Union 4 years to defeat the Confederacy, but superior Confederate generalship is not one of those reasons.

Union generals Burnside, Butler, Hooker, Pleasanton, Pope, and Sigel are generally considered to be some of the worst generals of the war, but outside of Virginia they repeatedly beat the Confederates – Sigel was competent at Pea Ridge, Burnside shut down most of the North Carolina coast and later beat Longstreet, Hooker performed well at Chattanooga and in the Atlanta Campaign, Pleasanton drove the Confederates from Missouri, Pope cleared the Mississippi south to Memphis, and Butler waltzed into New Orleans.

Robert E Lee was arguably the Confederacy's best, yet he never won a campaign outside of Virginia and he was beaten by Meade, who is generally considered a second-string Union general, and by Rosecrans, who is often considered one of the Union's worst generals. Jackson varied in quality - his performance in the Seven Days Battles was poor. At Brandy Station, Stuart was surprised by Pleasanton, who as noted is often considered one of the Union's worst generals. At Knoxbville, Longstreet was beaten by Burnside, who is also considered one of the Union's worst generals.

Joe Johnston was probably the best the Confederacy had in the west, and he wasn’t good enough. AS Johnston was out of his depth - he did not just fail as an army commander, he failed to be an army commander. Floyd and Pillow were cowards. Sibley led his forces to disaster in Arizona. Van Dorn did the same in Arkansas. Price did the same in Kansas, losing to Pleasanton, who is often considered one of the Union's worst generals. Polk was an incompetent backstabber; the Union did a service for the Confederacy when they killed Polk with artillery fire. Hood was a backstabbing subordinate and a total disaster in command. Bragg was one of the few Confederate generals to win battles, but he had no idea what to do with a victory and his abrasive nature helped erode what little cohesion his Confederate army had. During Early's one solo command in the Shenandoah Valley in 1864 he was unable to defeat Franz Sigel, who as you may guess was also considered one of the Union's worst generals, then fatally delayed at the Battle of Monocacy, by Lew Wallace, a man far more noted for his literary accomplishments than his military skill.

Real Confederate advantages were a large territory, good defensive ground, interior lines, fighting on home ground, and the force multiplier of being on the defensive. Confederate leaders frequently threw these advantages away to invade Union territory. Rather than using their real advantages, the Confederacy clung to the myths of having better soldiers and better generals, which resulted in failure from Gettysburg to Glorietta Pass.
I think the north could still face the issue of having more incompetent generals if the military is plagued by cronyism and nepotism. Didn’t the union army have a issue with putting the sons of rich northern families in places of leadership? The south had this issue too but at least their rich kids likely spend more time at it. I see corruption being a issue in both militaries but if people in the south are focusing more towards military life I would think that lessen the negative impacts of favoritism in the military?
 
Lincoln's Loyalists calculates that 10% of all draft age white men from Confederate states served in the Union Army. Estimates are that between 1/4 and 1/3 of all whites in the Confederate states were pro-Union. Plus a little under 40% of the OCnfederate population were slaves, who definitely did not support the Confederate regime. By then end, the Confederates were arming child soldiers and the elderly, but Confederate generals were surrendering in direct defiance of Jefferson Davis' orders and Davis estimated that half of all Confederate soldiers deserted.

The rest of your post reads like regurgitated NeoConfederate propagands. I am baffled as to why you think educating people makes them worse soldiers - nothing in history supports that position. Poor Confederate whites were working to survive, but so were poor Union citizens. Plantation owners were not teaching their heirs to survive off the land - they were parasites living off of the sweat and blood of black people. They didn't even have to exert themselves to whip those slaves, that was the job of hired overseers. Plantation owners were not teaching their heirs to be modern knights, either, unless your idea of knighthood is a bunch of drunken brats riding down unarmed black civilians who were tying to escape on foot.
When you talk about British imperialism you talk about the British cultural ideas behind it to understand the situation. The ideology and propaganda points are usually not the reality but still important. A uneducated soldier is likely more fanatical. Your poor whites are going to be uneducated(being able to read and little more going into the 1900) and many likely know how to use guns too. They are basically legal gun thugs like the ones you see in the Appalachian mines. Your white elites and their kids will be petty barons who often study warfare and use poor white masses as their own personal armies(money money, many poor would take the job). Poor whites are living off the land not by choice but by need. Poor whites are doing this because many of them are struggling just to make it by. You can make a little extra from hunting and get food at the same time. Having people go hunt for food in late 1890s is probably not the best sign of a well off society(if your people have to still hunt regularly for food your probably not taking good care of them). The elites in the south are living the life of luxury but they also idolize glory and war. All their free time will be focused on that. They will be studying in Prussia and France. They will probably be over in Europe watching wars like it is a game or sport to be study. The most dangerous part I think about the south is how they can make average person believe in a lot of their bullshit(when the south calls itself the land of opportunity they probably mean white person can technically become a petty baron too given “some hard work and luck” in this pod). Southerners have been a big innovator in media and propaganda throughout American history that could still be true here. You have a highly backwards culture but one with modern technology that could adept(we still have many examples of this today sadly). This should give away the type of society I’m describing. It is backwards and repressive but that does not mean it can’t become a threat over time(even if they lose big much later on). It has happened before and will probably happen again. Regimes like this often thrive on the failures of others more so then completely their own merit. Democracies often do poorly at dealing with undemocratic regimes when they become a threat to international scene.
 
Last edited:
Based on this reasoning, the Confederacy would have won the Civil War. Actual history shows that the average Union soldier was just as good as the average Confederate soldier as well as being better shod, better clothed, and better fed.

"Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South." Sam Houston, Governor of Texas, shortly after his removal from office for refusing to swear loyalty to the Confederacy.

"You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it … Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth — right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail." - William T Sherman, President of Louisiana State University
He makes a very valid point.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top