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.

DougM

Donor
The south is going to be very slow to industrialize. Industry has a LOT less use for slaves then cotton farming.
The thang that will slow down industries is the big plantation owners who have a TON of political influence and who do NOT want to lose said influence. The south for years had political influences in the US beyond what the voting population should have had because only white men voted but ALL the black population counted (for 1/3) in determining electoral college numbers.
Once the north got big enough and started voting in more of a block the south lost its control of the national government. As this was happening the south forced through laws the north hated and thus the north voted against the south the south lost control and took its toys and went home.
Do you think these same men/families are going to want to lose control of the new government of the CSA? Of course not so they will use said influence to keep industry to a dull roar. So don’t expect a lot of industry in the south any time soon.

As for when they free the slaves that will be solely based on outside influences. Basicly whenever the Alien Space Bats tell them to they will free the slaves. Note these are probably the same Alien Space Bats that we’re needed for the CSA to win its independence.
 
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?
I could just see them possibly running it poorly. A massive navy especially a deep sea one I think they can do but the army during this period I would think might be filled with corruption. So would the south’s but their heavy focus on military life maybe lessen negatives of that bit. I’m worried the north might fill its military with incompetent leaders especially in areas they care less about.
 
I'd argue it depends on the constitution, slavery literally couldnt be abolished by the confederate constitution so in theory another civil war would be neccessary, because theres also a clause that says you cant amend it either
 
Countries throughout history had large, centralized armies so why is it so difficult for the US?
Because the Founding Fathers paid attention to history, and noted that Armies under control of the King was not so good with that Army not later oppressing the people they were supposedly protecting.

Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers that the armed Populace would tip the balance in matters between Federal and State to prevent tyranny.

That's why there is a 2nd and 3rd Amendment
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
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.
Actually what the Confederacy proved, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the only way a state can leave the Union is by mutual consent. Established that little fact for all time (or at least until the Japanese ensured that the United States would always have a ginormous standing army and technology ensure that a bunch of yahoos with small arms were nothing but a target rich environment for actual soldiers).
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
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. 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. Also my point about troops is not their willingness to fight during a actual war but prepare during peacetime. People in New England and Mid-Athletic would not want to have conscription imposed on them. They would riot if the union tried to make 2 to 5 years of military or civic duty mandatory. The south would do that. They will not invest that much time into that. Yankees will not want a good portion of their young lives to be stuck doing military service. The south might impose mandatory service for 2 to 5. People who do more years get more benefits and pay. Many poor whites could voluntarily stay in the military for up to 8 years. They will have high voluntary numbers because many people would see it as the only way of moving up in the world. Some still do this. People in the south will be more willing to serve for much longer periods of time. They probably get a lot of action too during peacetime acting as a national guard and police force too. Who do you think they will need to put down possible slave revolts, partisans and bandits in Appalachia, Native Americans and outlaws out west, and that only increases with expansion. Blacks might be used as a excuse to keep a massive standing military/police force even after slavery ends. Their society would become more Spartan like. That is a lot of experience. They will be more mobilized and prepared to start off with. That’s kind of bad if the US has to mobilize while the CSA basically already are and are even adding more. The CSA technology might not be that good but a lot of major cities aren’t far from the border. It’s hard to mobilize if some of your major cities get captured right away. Do you think Yankees are willing to commit that much to the military? If let’s say 10 percent of white southerners are a full time paramilitary type force while under 1 percent of the north population is currently military ready at the start of the war how does that close the gap at the start? They will build up a large navy and a very well equipped and trained army but the CSA could have a much larger portion of their population committed to military life while the voluntary/draft based north has a much lower percentage on that. That might lessen number gaps in the early war between the two. The north would have to make sure it’s standing army isn’t overwhelmed by confederates early in the war. If they do that they win. If their lines break the Confederates could take DC and maybe Philadelphia. West Virginia could hold. The mountains make it were numbers are less of a factor. Kentucky gets overwhelmed but the River actually stops any further advancement(Kentucky south state line isn’t defendable at all especially when technology improves). Maybe parts of Missouri and plains too. The confederates have to depend on winning early every time. Maryland and Delaware would be pushing it but given the chance I could see them doing it. They have to overwhelm and blitz as much as possible early on to win. This just needs to be successful once to improve CSA chances in the long run. The north might think they did all in their power to prepare but they didn’t think they needed to go to the extremes the CSA did. This isn’t a liberal republic. This is Putin Russia in the 1800s at best and proto-fascism state at worse. If they take Kentucky and West in the 1800 century that is more defensible borders and coal later on. CSA might be backwards but they could still have more Calvary ready to start a war. Even in the 1800 century Calvary units could likely go through the Great Plains pretty quickly and capture rails and cutting the US in half. Geography might hurt them here if the CSA is a militarized state with men ready on all fronts to some degree while the US has a lot of land that would be impossible to guard without investing a lot of manpower and resources. A lot of borders are literally straight lines between the two. Slavery does free up and likely encourage many whites to join the military. The north just had to hold out until their reserves come in to reinforce them. The war could start out with the confederates out numbering them 12 to 1 or more but the war could end with the union outnumbering them 20 to 1 if not more. But even with outdated weapons they are probably still very efficient soldiers given the system described. If they are successful at expansion they are going to become the Russia of the Western Hemisphere. They will be seen as this aggressive nation but backwards nation who many dislike but some work with. They depend heavily on raw resources which given the amount they have they could get some useful friends. I do think a divided America might be seen as weaken or a easier target by European powers. They might be getting more involved in the Americas with the US being more divided. This is still the age of imperialism. They probably won’t be trying to take over stuff directly like the rest of the world but they might try to create allies, business, and even puppets more so then otl. I could see Germany and Britain playing people within the Western Hemisphere in this situation.

Edit: It is also important to consider states like this can more easily survive in this era especially within the Americas(abundance of natural resources. Market demand will win some allies). International cooperation of post-ww2 isn’t here yet. States like this would be slowly isolated and pressured into collapse in most situations post-ww2. Any regime can survive a long time when they always have a good number of nations to trade with. They might use their raw resources to get enough weapons stockpiled and ready especially with Europeans willing to feed into conflict. The CSA still have a lot of valuable raw resources.
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

Wait....

Did you just say that Freedmen did not benefit from being free?

Because it really looks like you did.
 
Because the Founding Fathers paid attention to history, and noted that Armies under control of the King was not so good with that Army not later oppressing the people they were supposedly protecting.

Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers that the armed Populace would tip the balance in matters between Federal and State to prevent tyranny.

That's why there is a 2nd and 3rd Amendment

It was also true it wasn't 1776 anymore and 1865 would play a more prominent role in people's mind than 1776 during the 1870s.
 
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".
Mechanised agriculture is not going to abolish slavery in the 1880s. Or 1890s. Or 1900s and 1910s, or even 1920s. Inventing a mechanised cotton-picker was a very tough challenge. It didn't really get going until the 1930s in OTL, and it wasn't for lack of trying.

The next biggest slave-grown crop, tobacco, was also very hard to mechanise, and still involved considerable hand labour until even later than the 1930s. So don't count on mechanised agriculture to make any difference to slavery for a very long time.
 
Wait....

Did you just say that Freedmen did not benefit from being free?

Because it really looks like you did.
I’m saying enough wasn’t done. I have repeated this a bunch of times on here so please look back at my previous comments. I already got warn about over posting. I’m arguing enough wasn’t done. Going from a slave to a serf(sharecropping) is improvement but it still isn’t good. The black population also suffered from increased violence by resentful whites after the war. I’m criticizing the lack of stuff done not the process itself. Also can we focus on practical and logistics of these post instead of morals of it. I would hope everyone can agree with what is morally wrong and right here for the most part but if we focus too much on that instead of discussing the actual topic at hand we get too tied up discussing this and not the pod as much. Let’s discuss the pod?
 
my point about troops is not their willingness to fight during a actual war but prepare during peacetime. People in New England and Mid-Athletic would not want to have conscription imposed on them. They would riot if the union tried to make 2 to 5 years of military or civic duty mandatory. The south would do that.

In actual history, Confederates hated conscription. There were whole counties where it wasn't safe for Confederate recruiting agents. If the Confederacy imposed a mandatory 2 to 5 years military service, poor Confederate whites would flee in huge numbers to the Union or overthrow their own government.
 
If let’s say 10 percent of white southerners are a full time paramilitary type force while under 1 percent of the north population is currently military ready at the start of the war how does that close the gap at the start?

10% of white southerners would be 550,000 troops. That's over half of the adult white male population under arms - attempting it would cripple the Confederate economy. Based on pre-war army expenses, that would cost the Confederacy $550 million a year, which would require massive deficit spending and lead to ruinous inflation which would bankrupt the Confederacy. And the Union would never ignore over half a million Confederate troops on their border.
 
10% of white southerners would be 550,000 troops. That's over half of the adult white male population under arms - attempting it would cripple the Confederate economy. Based on pre-war army expenses, that would cost the Confederacy $550 million a year, which would require massive deficit spending and lead to ruinous inflation which would bankrupt the Confederacy. And the Union would never ignore over half a million Confederate troops on their border.
What I’m wondering if they are a police or militarized state maybe even somewhat corporatist would the military be more self sustaining and actually help economic development while in the US they have to invest in it the regular way? The CSA could develop into a state like that over time. Isn’t the military less expensive when they are also your regular police force and public sector workers? Would the help it feed into itself and possible economic development?
 
I agree that the CSA would be a oligarchy republic I think the only aspect of “states rights” that would survive is confederation aspect of it. Regional laws and varieties might vary greatly. Economics and the military will likely be more centralized but state individual policies could be different. For example Natives Americans are given statehood and fully equality in Oklahoma for supporting the south but not in Texas or to certain tribes the CSA sees as “unfit” for citizenship

The idea of the Confederacy granting full equality to Native Americans is wildly unlikely.

Maybe if they took northern Mexico they don’t allow mix race people from region to go to places like Mississippi or certain states that don’t want them but in the Mexican states they have the caste system reintroduce. Hispanic landowner who are considered “white enough” run those states.

How is the Confederacy supposed to take any of northern Mexico? Every offense campaign they attempted in OTL ended in failure.

National identities are not as strong in Latin America like it is currently. If the CSA is willing to pander to local elites heavily they might have no problem joining the confederacy.

That's what William Walker, OTLs most successful filibuster, thought up until they put him up against the wall and shot him. Hispanic elites repeatedly and forcibly resisted foreign invaders. Mexican Governor Vidaurri is the only Hispanic elite to attempt to join his state to the Confederacy and this was so unpopular he soon had to flee.
 
The idea of the Confederacy granting full equality to Native Americans is wildly unlikely.



How is the Confederacy supposed to take any of northern Mexico? Every offense campaign they attempted in OTL ended in failure.



That's what William Walker, OTLs most successful filibuster, thought up until they put him up against the wall and shot him. Hispanic elites repeatedly and forcibly resisted foreign invaders. Mexican Governor Vidaurri is the only Hispanic elite to attempt to join his state to the Confederacy and this was so unpopular he soon had to flee.
What about when France is fighting in Mexico? CSA helps France puppet Mexico and the CSA gets northern Mexico in return? France will still be there after the war. They could have good relations with France and the CSA probably would not mind a French puppet to the south especially if they are friendly. The puppet could even eventually become a CSA puppet once the French have to pull out for some reason. The CSA comes in to “help” the now failing government?
 
If you invade a country during a civil war or revolution(likely in the region) and help one side in it they might accept you officially ruling them if you helped them from losing complete power. They let the local elites basically run the place themselves with maybe a few tolerable concessions on their part. Latin America and the CSA will be very similar in many regards. Could the CSA be structured like this? A confederation of conservative local elites who help each other out(the south is still the dominant force in it)? Think of how Russian Empire expanded east.

The French tried something like this in OTL when they attempted to annex Mexico. They had a bigger population, more manufacturing, and better logistics than the Confederacy, but they failed.
 
Last edited:
The French tried something like this in OTL when they attempted to annex Mexico. They had a bigger population, more manufacturing, and better logistics than the Confederacy, but they faile.
Yes but imagine CSA and France working together against Mexico. That could make a big difference. CSA takes the north and maybe the Yucatán while France takes the rest as a puppet. That could be the very start of southern industry. France and the CSA start helping each other in their imperial expansions in Latin America. This sees limited French investment in New Orleans which helps make it the first major industrial center in the CSA(nothing like the major northern cities but respectable). It’s a gulf port so it’s good area to get supplies and support from when needed in their new Mexican holding. Maybe CSA focuses solely on a coastal or defensive navy? Once France pulls out of Mexico due to issues in Europe the CSA has gotten a little industrial boost by France and now stands in the position to take the place of France in the power vacuum they left in a now weakened Mexican government?
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top