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.
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.
Wouldn’t northerner probably have more stable and secured lives especially in rural areas? The city seems to be rough up north but the rural areas seem rather pleasant by the standards of the period up there? I’m suggesting southerners more constant interactions with violence and being more inclined to act on it leads to them being much more well verse in matters of martial combat? The best push for innovation is necessity? If they are constantly dealing with much more violence at home after independence wouldn’t your average southerner feel more numb and knowledgeable in it then people up north. Rural areas in the south could still be having duels and blood feuds while Midwest just has peaceful German farmers who own a small bit of land. Rural people in the north seem more like middle class farmers and not poor ones like the south. Also if your people are still dealing with blood feuds and tribal like warfare at home(at least in the early years of the country) wouldn’t that make them better at using weapons? I’m pretty sure those people are learning better combat skills then an average city thug? It’s like comparing settle people to nomads. Nomads while smaller in number probably on average have better survival skills then most settled people just due to the fact they needed it to survive while settle people do not. If I live in Michigan I don’t have to worry about my rival and his friends coming to my homestead to rob and shoot me like I do in Texas or Appalachia? Rural crime is common in the south but it often goes unreported or monitored. These people are more left on their own while people in the union not so much. I’m asking won’t they(poor whites) be better at combat due to the simple fact violence is so much part of their daily lives learning to use a gun and fight is a common trait because if you don’t you could have a higher chance of dying? While in the union that is much less of a issue in most places?
 
Last edited:
For one thing, I assume one of the first amendments after the war would outlaw secession and state militias.
Most Union forces were State raised. You won't see that changing. Border States in this TL wont let State Militias wither as happened OTL before the Spanish American War.
 
I’m saying reconstruction wasn’t successful at changing the culture or improving things in the region like they said it would. From a political and economic standpoint yes it was success. From a moral and ideology standpoint it was a failure. The north benefited greatly from it. Southerners and blacks not so much.

Are you really saying that the blacks did not benefit from being freed?
 
I’m saying reconstruction wasn’t successful at changing the culture or improving things in the region like they said it would. From a political and economic standpoint yes it was success. From a moral and ideology standpoint it was a failure. The north benefited greatly from it. Southerners and blacks not so much.

Saying that the North benefited from reconstruction is standard NeoConfederate propaganda. Things improved greatly for the black people - they were no longer slaves. They were able to vote and some even were elected to Congress. Things improved for the white people as well. A lot of those carpetbaggers were teachers, which gave both freedmen and poor whites enough education that they had a chance at better jobs and better lives. Northern businessmen provided economic investment and improved infrastructure in ways that never would have happened under a Confederate government.

The failure came not from reconstruction, but from the Andrew Johnson's attempts to undermine it and from the Republican party abandoning it after the presidency of US Grant. That allowed the racists to steadily make things worse for the blacks, though never as bad as they were under slavery.
 
Last edited:
Are you really saying that the blacks did not benefit from being freed?
No, I’m saying enough wasn’t done to improve their situation greatly. Getting rid of slavery a start but sharecropping isn’t much better. Also when union soldiers left blacks were basically put in second class citizenship again and vulnerable to more violence. If you are going to reconstruct a place at least go all out when you do it and not half. Western Germany is the model example on how you rebuild a society after defeating
 
Saying that the North benefited from reconstruction is standard NeoConfederate propaganda. Things improved greatly for the black people - they were no longer slaves. They were able to vote and some even were elected to Congress. Things improved for the white people as well. A lot of those carpetbaggers were teachers, which gave both freedmen and poor white enough education that they had a chance at better jobs and better lives. Northern businessmen provided economic investment and improved inrastructure in ways that never would have happened under a Confederate government.

The failure came not from reconstruction, but from the Andrew Johnson's attempts to undermine it and from the Republican party abandoning it after the presidency of US Grant. That allowed the racists to steadily make things worse for the blacks, though never as bad as they were under slavery.
That’s my point southern loyalist and moderate northerners went half ass with reconstruction. If your going to do it at least go the radical route. You already fought the war. A bit more work and blood isn’t much to ask. Both sides have their flaws and mistakes to varying degrees(way more the south but the north screwed up a bit too).
 
Much the the region stayed second world like until the 40s. Appalachia was like the second world until very recently. The south is kind of has a banana republic type relationship with the north until the 40s to 60s.

Of course the South was poor after the war. The Confederacy took crops and animals from Confederate farmers and paid for it at prices they dictated in nigh-worthless Confederate currency. The Confederacy forced railroads to carry government cargoes at government dictated prices, without reimbursing them for the heavy wear to locomotives, carriages, and track. The Confederacy funded itself on massive national debt and rampant inflation, which impoverished most of the South. The Confederacy chose a war which got major portions of their work force dead or maimed.
 
[QUOTE="Modern Imperialism, post: 18978752, member: 120586" Much the the region stayed second world like until the 40s. Appalachia was like the second world until very recently. The south is kind of has a banana republic type relationship with the north until the 40s to 60s.

Of course the South was poor after the war. The Confederacy took crops and animals from Confederate farmers and paid for it at prices they dictated in nigh-worthless Confederate currency. The Confederacy forced railroads to carry government cargoes at government dictated prices, without reimbursing them for the heavy wear to locomotives, carriages, and track. The Confederacy funded itself on massive national debt and rampant inflation, which impoverished most of the South. The Confederacy chose a war which got major portions of their work force dead or maimed.[/QUOTE]
This is why I’m going with a early confederate victory. Shouldn’t that avoid most of those issues? Also if the CSA is able to impose themselves heavily in economic development couldn’t that help industrialize the country? Can they start up more public programs when having to deal less with elections?
 
Getting rid of slavery a start but sharecropping isn’t much better.

You're seriously saying that sharecropping wasn't much better than slavery? The employer couldn't rape the sharecroppers wife or daughters with impunity or sell them to the 'fancy' trade. The employer couldn't whip the sharecropper or forcibly break up his family.
 
Last edited:
You're seriously saying that sharecropping wasn't much better than slavery? The employer could rape the sharecroppers wife or daughters with impunity or sell them to the 'fancy' trade. The employer couldn't whip the sharecropper or forcibly break up his family.
It’s basically going from a slave to a serf. It’s a improvement but still not pleasant by any degree. Your still not technically equal. This is where they fail. If you do something make sure to go all the way through with it like Germany. The allies and USSR was pretty good at reshaping German culture completely. The north should have been a bit more like that in the south. They let the old guard(redeemers) take power after leaving.
 
Saying that the North benefited from reconstruction is standard NeoConfederate propaganda.
Saying they didn’t is a complete lie. Having the moral high ground against the south isn’t saying much. That’s like US using what Russia does as a excuse for their mistakes. The north might not have been in the wrong as much as the south but they still did stuff based on their own interest and desires like any other group. They did their own wrongs even if they were not as bad or blatant as the south. Saying otherwise is naive and unhistorical. I don’t mind you critiquing my ideas but can we stay on the more logistical and practical aspects of it? I would like to know about that aspect of it. That’s why I keep asking questions about it. Your taking this too much to the more moral aspect of it. We all know the south is in the wrong there but morals have nothing to do with what might have. As long as they find something moral under their culture and are practically able to do it then it could happen.
 
Let's assume the absolute best possible outcome for the south. When the Confederacy secedes the north says "goodbye", although West Virginia decides to leave Virginia and maybe Eastern Tennessee also goes and you get the two combined in the state of "Franklin". Kentucky and Missouri stay Union, and Oklahoma remains Indian Territory owned by the USA. So no devastation of the south, and relatively few blacks escape slavery and go north. Pretty soon thereafter slavery ends in the few enclaves in the new USA. The CSA is now an agricultural economy based on slave plantations, and the forced industrialization that the war/blockade fostered, small as it was, does not happen. The political classes are overwhelmingly in favor of remaining agricultural (Cotton is King) and against industrialization, preferring to import manufactured goods from elsewhere (possibly the north but certainly England and France).

Unlike OTL, there won't be any northern investment in the CSA to the extent there was OTL. The foreigners may invest in things like railroads, but why build factories in the CSA to compete with the factories you already own (and have sunk costs) in the UK or France especially since tariff or other barriers to trade won't be an issue. The CSA is stuck with the debts the south had before secession, if they repudiate them their credit rating takes a huge hit, and to the extent there are any gold reserves in the USA they don't get any. FWIW while things like cotton will sell even though slave produced, there would be a significant push against slave manufactured goods exported from the CSA (workers in importing countries seeing work lost to slaves) which would be another strike against industrialization if production is pretty much limited to a small internal market.

All of this is not a recipe for success. As far as expansion, the USA will be more than happy to support Central American/Caribbean countries against filibusters or worse, and I doubt the British and French would be pleased to see various local countries incorporated in to the CSA contrary to their interests.

This is the best case scenario, and 99% ASB. Winning the ACW (in the sense of becoming independent) will mean physical devastation, loss of male population, loss of a fair number of slaves, and a huge debt and inflation on top of "best case".
 
Let's assume the absolute best possible outcome for the south. When the Confederacy secedes the north says "goodbye", although West Virginia decides to leave Virginia and maybe Eastern Tennessee also goes and you get the two combined in the state of "Franklin". Kentucky and Missouri stay Union, and Oklahoma remains Indian Territory owned by the USA. So no devastation of the south, and relatively few blacks escape slavery and go north. Pretty soon thereafter slavery ends in the few enclaves in the new USA. The CSA is now an agricultural economy based on slave plantations, and the forced industrialization that the war/blockade fostered, small as it was, does not happen. The political classes are overwhelmingly in favor of remaining agricultural (Cotton is King) and against industrialization, preferring to import manufactured goods from elsewhere (possibly the north but certainly England and France).

Unlike OTL, there won't be any northern investment in the CSA to the extent there was OTL. The foreigners may invest in things like railroads, but why build factories in the CSA to compete with the factories you already own (and have sunk costs) in the UK or France especially since tariff or other barriers to trade won't be an issue. The CSA is stuck with the debts the south had before secession, if they repudiate them their credit rating takes a huge hit, and to the extent there are any gold reserves in the USA they don't get any. FWIW while things like cotton will sell even though slave produced, there would be a significant push against slave manufactured goods exported from the CSA (workers in importing countries seeing work lost to slaves) which would be another strike against industrialization if production is pretty much limited to a small internal market.

All of this is not a recipe for success. As far as expansion, the USA will be more than happy to support Central American/Caribbean countries against filibusters or worse, and I doubt the British and French would be pleased to see various local countries incorporated in to the CSA contrary to their interests.

This is the best case scenario, and 99% ASB. Winning the ACW (in the sense of becoming independent) will mean physical devastation, loss of male population, loss of a fair number of slaves, and a huge debt and inflation on top of "best case".
Some of the regions you mentioned might be union leaning and technically connected to the US but a lot of those areas of Appalachia are connected more to the lower south then the north. Appalachia was often used as a area to grow food for slaves in the lower south. So they might not have many slaves themselves but they still make money from it indirectly. Also many of the roads and rails to those areas would go through the CSA and are often the only way there(it’s hard to build rails in mountains and sometimes you can only build in certain places until technology improves). Wouldn’t that create border issues and long term conflicts of interest? What if a state like West Virginia(just look at its history. It isn’t pleasant) over time feels forgotten by the federal government or mistreated? Kentucky and West Virginia won’t be the nicest play when the coal mines start popping up everywhere. That could lead to resentment over a few issues? Having a country like the CSA south even a weak one could still destabilize the US a bit. Conflicts between average people and groups will often cross borders causing problems for both nations?
 
Most Union forces were State raised. You won't see that changing. Border States in this TL wont let State Militias wither as happened OTL before the Spanish American War.

I realize that most Union forces were state raised but there is no reason for it not to change post-war. I imagine it would. Just have the US Regular Army with no state militias. All recruitment would be at the Federal level. Secession is real difficult if the states have no armies. That is a good argument post-war.
 
It’s basically going from a slave to a serf. It’s a improvement but still not pleasant by any degree. Your still not technically equal. This is where they fail. If you do something make sure to go all the way through with it like Germany. The allies and USSR was pretty good at reshaping German culture completely. The north should have been a bit more like that in the south. They let the old guard(redeemers) take power after leaving.

Everyone agrees that it went from slave to serf. However, a serf is still not as bad as a slave. It took quite a few centuries for Europe to go from slave to serf to free men. It took the US about 100 years or so. For a whole host of reasons slaves weren't going to become free men overnight. You are trying to get millions of Americans to go from "Blacks are natural born slaves unworthy of any rights" to "Black people are equal to the White Man" overnight. That is not going to happen short of ASB mind control.
 
I realize that most Union forces were state raised but there is no reason for it not to change post-war. I imagine it would. Just have the US Regular Army with no state militias. All recruitment would be at the Federal level. Secession is real difficult if the states have no armies. That is a good argument post-war.
People in the US can easily organize themselves in far off territories and self arm. A state militia can better react to that then a regular federal army who can be slow to respond. The US relies on having a least some local support. If they look weak or oppressing to enough people they can lose that area. It takes a long time for the US regular military to travel to each end of the country or out west. They also go through a lot of rugged terrain. Second amendment could cause big issues too. They might not win but it will be annoying for the US. Also the US needs state militias to fight native Americans too. Regular army doing all this can just become a bureaucrat nightmare. The US is really big and rugged in many places. I would think that would become a issue?
 
Everyone agrees that it went from slave to serf. However, a serf is still not as bad as a slave. It took quite a few centuries for Europe to go from slave to serf to free men. It took the US about 100 years or so. For a whole host of reasons slaves weren't going to become free men overnight. You are trying to get millions of Americans to go from "Blacks are natural born slaves unworthy of any rights" to "Black people are equal to the White Man" overnight. That is not going to happen short of ASB mind control.
They could at least have made it more economically oppressive over Jim Crow and unfiltered violence. I think they could have at least done that. That would at least give blacks with some luck and money a chance which helps things greatly in the long run.
 
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".
It wasn't just about economics, it was about CONTROL. Blacks were seen as little better than animals. Dangerous animals. Slave owners and non-slave owners alike agreed that keeping the blacks under tight control was absolutely necessary and most saw slavery as the best means to do that. A victorious South was not going to give up slavery for a long, long time.
 
People in the US can easily organize themselves in far off territories and self arm. A state militia can better react to that then a regular federal army who can be slow to respond. The US relies on having a least some local support. If they look weak or oppressing to enough people they can lose that area. It takes a long time for the US regular military to travel to each end of the country or out west. They also go through a lot of rugged terrain. Second amendment could cause big issues too. They might not win but it will be annoying for the US. Also the US needs state militias to fight native Americans too. Regular army doing all this can just become a bureaucrat nightmare. The US is really big and rugged in many places. I would think that would become a issue?

Why? It isn't like you can't have US Army bases in every state if need be. The whole country is connected by rail. It wouldn't take long for them to get out west if they are stationed out west. All the regular army would have to do is prepare for war, fight a regular war, fight the small Indian wars, occasionally put down riots. Countries throughout history had large, centralized armies so why is it so difficult for the US?
 
They could at least have made it more economically oppressive over Jim Crow and unfiltered violence. I think they could have at least done that. That would at least give blacks with some luck and money a chance which helps things greatly in the long run.

Even that is questionable. Even as world class sprinter can't do a 100 yd dash in 2 seconds.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top