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.
I would also like to point out attacks against blacks got worse after the civil war because many whites were resentful towards blacks over all the stuff that just happens. They were near pogroms against blacks after union soldiers left. This does not demean the cruelty of slavery but slave masters aren’t going to allow a angry mob to slaughter slaves they paid for. The slavery system in the south had economic and psychological elements to. The average master wants to avoid abusing his slaves physical(there are exceptions but this isn’t the norm. Also the more beat up a slave is the less useful they are and their value goes down).

Are you really arguing that black people were treated better when they were slaves?
 
Are you really arguing that black people were treated better when they were slaves?
I’m pointing out the different issues that they now face. Slavery and Jim Crow are bad in different ways. Slavery you have no rights. You are property which is the most demeaning thing you can do to a person. Slaves often face abuse and harsh physical punishment. They also face a lot more psychological abuse. But what makes slavery worse then what came after is how it is degrading to human dignity. A slave can technically have a more “comfortable”(rare but their were probably few owners who did. Some people are nicer to make themselves look better which I could see some of them doing. But they more often turn a blind eye to what their overseers did when they were not around) life then a factory worker but that isn’t the point. That worker has freedom and would never give that up. The worker is given some protected rights not a slave even those the worker has poor living conditions. The slave would probably feel the same if he ever experienced freedom. Think of the story of the starving wolf and pet dog. You rather be starving but retain your freedom like the wolf instead of being a well fed pet. That is a good way to look at the differences from being second class citizens and slavery. Things might suck but you still have some control over your life. After the civil war you are either in debt servitude or are third class citizens. The difference with a slave those is because their property that is worth money will mean killing them will be frowned on. They would only kill them in extreme cases. This is why if slavery going on longer will mean a larger black population. They will be encouraged to breed more and are not killed by angry whites like in the otl post war years. I have explained this already. Are you reading all my points?
 
Could anyone see the south having like some horror movie like plantations? When you visit it’s like Gone with the Wind. All the slaves act happy and master brags about treating them well. But at night at the slave houses their torture and rape? Or a less strict version of that is Disney like slave labor. They want to keep the image of everyone being super happy and nice but behind the scenes is a completely different story and lie?
 
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.
To be fair, France only decisively failed after the USA started providing serious support to Mexico. Which is not to say that France would have definitely won without US actions, but it's at least within the realms of plausibility that France could have succeeded.

Getting the USA to stand aside if the CSA tries to invade Mexico would be even harder than getting them to stand aside with the French intervention, of course.
 
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.

This is a little misleading. Napoléon III tried to make Mexico a client state under Maximillian. The French expedition was fairly large by the standards of overseas campaigns but still involved only a portion of the full military capability. About 38 000 French troops were sent to Mexico. For comparison, over 300 000 troops went to the Crimean War a few years earlier.
 
Last edited:
1. I’m saying the CSA population is willing to put up with much more militarization within society.

You did quite a bit more than claiming the CSA would be more militarized. You have claimed they could have had 10% of the white population, which was 550,000 men, serving in the military and that the Union would do nothing in response. Even attempting that level of militarization would cause economic collapse for the Confederacy and mass exodus of poor whites. And every person in the Union would have to be lobotomized by the ASBs for them to ignore a hostile, expansionist power on their border assembling an army of over half a million men

2. My point about Lincoln is he lost the war. A good number of people will be pissed if they lose. Lincoln and Republicans might get full blame for the lost. People will say he started and couldn’t even win it. How is not losing a war not completely discrediting especially in a democracy? They might use any excuse to punish them and US might need a scapegoat to blame for losing the south.

You did quite a bit more than claiming that Lincoln would be blamed for the loss of the war, you claimed that Lincoln and the Radical Republicans would be tried for treason. Nobody with an ounce of brains will claim that Lincoln started the war - the Confederates attacked Union troops in a Union fort on Union soil, then announced their intention to invade and seize the Union capitol. Democrats would blame Lincoln for the loss of the war. Republicans would blame the Democrats, especially the Copperheads and George McClellan. Either side could win out in the court of public opinion, but there would be no treason trials.

3. The US might try to federalize but a some might not like that in some places and feel a little too bold after CSA victory. They might think US is weak and greatly over guess their strength. They won’t win but might be annoying for a few decades. Remember little stuff can add up overs long period if handled incorrectly

The Union was federalized and had no festering regional differences after the loss of the bulk of the slaveholding states. The Confederacy was a confederation, founded on the idea that any state could leave at any time for any reason. Yet you have asserted that the Union would be more likely to balkanize than the Confederacy.
 
You did quite a bit more than claiming the CSA would be more militarized. You have claimed they could have had 10% of the white population, which was 550,000 men, serving in the military and that the Union would do nothing in response. Even attempting that level of militarization would cause economic collapse for the Confederacy and mass exodus of poor whites. And every person in the Union would have to be lobotomized by the ASBs for them to ignore a hostile, expansionist power on their border assembling an army of over half a million men



You did quite a bit more than claiming that Lincoln would be blamed for the loss of the war, you claimed that Lincoln and the Radical Republicans would be tried for treason. Nobody with an ounce of brains will claim that Lincoln started the war - the Confederates attacked Union troops in a Union fort on Union soil, then announced their intention to invade and seize the Union capitol. Democrats would blame Lincoln for the loss of the war. Republicans would blame the Democrats, especially the Copperheads and George McClellan. Either side could win out in the court of public opinion, but there would be no treason trials.



The Union was federalized and had no festering regional differences after the loss of the bulk of the slaveholding states. The Confederacy was a confederation, founded on the idea that any state could leave at any time for any reason. Yet you have asserted that the Union would be more likely to balkanize than the Confederacy.
1. Like I said before what if the military in CSA is acting as a police force and public workers too and not just soldiers? The military in the north will be used for just defense and a bit out west but in the south it is used much more constantly. Slave revolts and runaway slaves might be dealt with by paramilitary forces. Think a more unofficial soldier class or something like the samurai. CSA has well trained standing armies to prevent the country from falling apart(this could lower the chance of countries leaving too). A large military might be more of a necessity then anything. Even if both countries stay mostly volunteer forces the south might pay their soldiers much or give them more benefits then north does(many might accept being soldiers if taken care of well in it). With many poor white people in the south seeing military as a better life they might have higher volunteer rates. The reason the north might not think much of the south militarizing is the military is mostly being used against their own people not foreign countries at first. Southern troops are fighting union loyalist, slave revolts, natives, and outlaws not countries at least yet. The army might not look like it can be used far from home. This is true in a prolong traditional war when extended periods of war and conflict will stir up the oppressed back home. But a short war can still be won since it will be felt less at home and they can get back home before unrest gets too high. This situation will stay true until slavery ends maybe even a bit after. If the military is used as a giant public project that might lessen the financial cost and poor whites might even be for it. Two years of conscription is basically militarized extension of regular school. Your learning basic military training but also basic education like reading and writing(they can follow commands better with that). They are learning trade skills and how to police the country. The military is used to give population better skills and education but centered around military uses. Something like that can help develop. Even when not part of the official military or police force they could be hired guns for plantation owners and mining companies. They been previously given military training and are now acting a security force. You would have a lot of small private armies that heavily work with the state but fund themselves, a large police force who are militarized, and a decent size but well trained and armed professional army. Those populations can be converted to military use much faster then factor workers or regular farmers. The north would have no need for stuff like that. The south would. The south could invent a lot of oppressive tactics and methods a century earlier. Later dictator might copy some of the CSA government methods. The slave population will justify a large standing military type forces in the nation to poor whites. So would the threat of north and natives out west. The military could also become the voice of the white underclass of the nation so that might help in the support for its expansion. Being drafted during official peace isn’t going to be as bad to some southerners because it isn’t like a war draft. They are drafting over a longer period of time and lower rates then war so it’s less noticeable. The big one is being conscripted during peace doesn’t have as high of a chance at death. Poor people in the south aren’t living nice lives so military barracks will be seen as not too bad by many especially if they get some benefits there. Southern elites might cater heavy to poor masses a bit to keep them happy. Think how Rome dealt with its poor masses. The situation in the south might also lead them to become rather good in unconventional warfare to help against lack of raw numbers against the north.

2. Treason was a bit far. But I think something like a extreme version of watergate scandal is fair. Lincoln steps down from office or forced from office. He lives the rest of his life away from politics and not remembered well. He dies few years after the war. Some republicans are completely discredited probably the more extreme ones while moderates and others leave the party to create a new one. What would a party like that look like?

3. I think both nations actually have a good chance of Balkanizing more. How they prevent or don’t could be different. CSA might stop this by becoming less democratic while the US just centralizes. US is still democratic just more federalized. The south is still a confederation but not democratic or false democratic(they like to keep the image they are even when their not).
 
Last edited:
My point is not neo-Confederates. Lincoln was justified in censoring the press during the war. The US often does this in war. The issue is a lot of cases fall into grey areas and aren’t always technically illegal. US laws are often vague and up to interpretation. Lincoln often arrested or censored people for expressing sympathy towards the south or peace. Many of them did support the south or had some other third party interest involved in the conflict. The issue is this isn’t always technically illegal to do in the US and can fall under freedom of speech. An American can express favorable views towards Iran and not be arrested. During a war that could change. That is the situation in the US. Lincoln was justified in what he did but if he loses the war those actions aren’t going to look as justified as otl. To many people it only proves those people he arrested points(in their minds). People are willing to accept a lot during war but only if you win it. If you lose they will call you out for every small thing afterwards. It’s going to be watergate or a bit worse. Not a execution(maybe a angry Union veteran shoots him but not a legal execution) but just a complete discrediting situation. He get impeached or steps down from office. How would a president who lost half the country not be considered a failure by most northerners? Also congress had a lot of republicans during that decision. Many of the non-republicans did not take that decision well. I imagine republicans lose most elections after the war and their political opponents during the war go after them hard. Whoever takes power after the war might claim a lot of stuff Lincoln and republicans did as self destructive and unamerican. It would be like people blaming Republicans and Hoover for the depression during the 30s but much more extreme.

The war could be lost by the Union in several ways.

* In 1860, the Confederate elect someone other than Jefferson Davis, who chooses not to attack Ft Sumter and keeps the South Carolina hotheads from doing so. Meanwhile, the Union elects someone other than Lincoln, who will choose to let the Confederates go.
* The Lincoln administration botches the Trent incident, leading to war with Britain, which allows the Confederacy to achieve independence.
* The Confederates select someone other than Jefferson Davis, who develops a cohesive (probably Fabian) strategy, drawing the war out. In 1864, the Democrats nominate a Peace Democrat, win the election, and acknowledge Confederate independence.

None of these wold result in Lincoln resigning. Only the second has any chance of Lincoln being impeached, and even that is unlikely. In any scenario where Lincoln is actually President, both he and the party will be able to blame the British or the Democrats for the loss. They may lose in the court of public opinion, but so could the Peace Democrats, or the Democrats as a whole. Between the Confederates all being nominally Democrats and the Copperheads, they could end up demonized as the party of traitors.

And while most of the population of the Union would be unhappy about losing the Confederate states, that's not the loss of half of everything, it's about 1/4 of US territory, 1/3 of US population and 1/10 of US industry.

Looking at attempted and successful assassinations, none were made because the President failed. They were a mix of complete loonies and people outraged that the President did not share their political extremism.
 
Last edited:
How does this sound for domestic politics in the CSA for the after war years in a victory where they aren’t as ravaged by the war:

The top class are the 1 percent slave owners. The ones who own over hundred not ones who own five. The could have a weighted wealth voting system to balance power their way. The are often well educated but not in the same way as northerner elites. Southerners learn about the creative arts and military. That is the main focus of their education. Wealthy aristocrats in the south will send their sons to Prussian or French military schools to learn about war and improve martial skills. Besides that they are learning French, Spanish, Latin, and European arts. They are behaving like medieval aristocrats(people who pretend to be cultured but but behave like warlords). They are most powerful group in the country but they are so involved in their own interest the middle class are the ones actually running the country for the most part. Aristocrats might only get heavy into politics when their “way of life” is impacted.

The middle class could be a mix of groups like yeomans, small slave owners(poor whites who moved up), roaming Yankee capitalist(some of them might see gains in less noble ways down in Dixie. Like copperheads from north coming south) and growing military/police class. These groups are less bound by upper class taboos. The small slave owner might open up a mill or textile next to his land to make some extra money especially if he near a river. He careless about upper class taboos he just wants a better life and money. He does not have enough slaves to put in the factory or doesn’t want to risk hurting something he paid for in a factory drives him to use cheap wage labor. Many poor whites work in these rural factories especially when growing barons(plantations) and state sponsored companies(resource extraction and logging mostly) drive them off their lands so they need wage and rent now. Small rural factories(usually next to homesteads with 10 or less slaves) run by local landowners would be filled with poor whites who would work for pennies. Slaves will often(not always) be forbidden from factories for a few reasons. One they rather use them to maximize cash crop production, two they don’t want their property getting damaged in factories(they try them in factories at first but figure out flaws quickly after some small slave owners lose money), three white women might work in some factories(this is iffy. I could see the CSA actually being strict of white women in the workforce. Maybe more so then the US. But I could also see that being the law but not enforced well) which means probably no slaves in those, and lastly the got plenty of cheaper whites for the job. They might not see that all at first but figured that out later when things just develop into this by chance. This could be the transition to limited industrialization.

A other class that we could see growing during this period is full time soldiers/law enforcement/public workers. Plus limited conscription, people who stay in service longer are provided increased paid and benefits. They help suppress slaves, natives, loyalists, and outlaws while also getting formal military training. Some are even given land and resources to start small local arm industries(they won’t trust slaves in those. They probably keep those away from black or slave population centers. These factories are probably heavily guarded by a private army or local law enforcement). The south has plenty of resources to start up basic and light industries. They have coal, oil(later), and other raw resources. They might not produce as much as the north but they could produce enough to supply themselves and plus some. Transportation, trade, and communication systems could be nationalized. CSA central government controls that while states control their domestic policies. Confederation is a bunch of small self-sufficient states that can’t do much on their own but add all their small extra resources together they can. They can fund and take care of themselves but not project their power unless they work together. That could be the mindset. The south is likely to encourage light weaponry production. It will need local guns and arms to suppress the slave and other populations. The south could have good light and mobile infantry. Their guns could be cheap but reliable. Guns can be easily tailored towards your advantages especially as guns advance in variety. The north will always out do them in heavy or more complex industries but the south could keep up but going cheap and reliable route. Think USSR vs US in technology gap. I explained the possible basis and start to southern industries.

The CSA situation at home and mindset could lead to them developing more modern warfare tactics and doctrines. They are learning to fight in small organized units and move across rugged areas. Wealthy are learning the mistakes and successes of wars in Europe. North might have more funding and numbers but they might lack on doctrine until they experience it first hand. I doubt they will spend as much of their life studying warfare. There reaction will be more just to be prepared. The south could be trying to figure every possible military tactic or advantage they could get. They might eventually figure something out. They might not have a noble prize winner but they could have a lot of military geniuses who are extremely brutal at the same time. The CSA might learn how to fight across multiple fronts, organize troop movement, and communication. They could be fighting with ww2 tactics while US uses civil war tactics still. This is a time people are learning how new military technology works. If the south is solely focused on that it isn’t unreasonable to say they might get smart at it while north focuses on more important skills. Many people don’t learn military tactics until they experience it on the receiving end. Generals often learn from their mistakes.

Slavery can also end because of racism itself ironically. If people start fearing a second giant Haiti in the south that might convince them to end it. The black population will be over 60 in Mississippi. Imagine if one or few rebels somehow armed a few dozen or hundreds slaves and they started attacking rural plantations. Imagine news outlets exaggerating this as a second Haiti revolution which puts the poor white population in panic and starts pogroms across the CSA(white population in CSA will likely be heavily armed). Poor white angry mobs even get into conflict with large slave owners when they demand to kill or round up slaves before they can be armed by rebels. The growing military knows fears are greatly over exaggerated but the act brutally and start militarizing the nation to keep order. Police are sent to plantations to keep order. White mobs are calmed by national guard. And the rebels are brutally put down. Some of their alleged northern ties increases anti-union feelings. The military has used this chaos to strengthen its power. Having a lot of white lower class sympathies they demand the aristocratic elite to finally start slowly facing out slavery under a threat of a coup. The military fears continued slavery will leave them too out number(racism can work both ways).

How are some of these points?
 
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.
Economic math always trumps subjective feelings.

At the end of the day, slavery was going to become uneconomical by the 1880s. Sure, the CSA planters would follow the "slavery today, slavery forever" slogan of the Cuban (emancipation in Cuba was gradual and took until the 1880s) and Brazilian planters, but the same hard math economics would end slavery in the CSA by the 1880s. No amount of subjective feelings regarding control could change that.

The only real option the CSA had was to convert the slaves into quasi free sharecroppers on 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.

Historical timeline shows otherwise. Slavery was abolished in Brazil in 1888- not out of a change of heart from owners, but because plantation slavery was no longer economical. Likewise, there is no need for mechanized cotton pickers as in otl human share croppers fulfilled that role.

Mechanization did not need to be total (mechanized cotton pickers) to make plantation slavery uneconomical. Rather, each incremental increase was a nail in the coffin of plantation slavery.
 
1. Like I said before what if the military in CSA is acting as a police force and public workers too and not just soldiers? The military in the north will be used for just defense and a bit out west but in the south it is used much more constantly. Slave revolts and runaway slaves might be dealt with by paramilitary forces. Think a more unofficial soldier class or something like the samurai.
Japan never had anywhere close to 10% of its population as part of the Samurai class.

CSA has well trained standing armies to prevent the country from falling apart(this could lower the chance of countries leaving too). A large military might be more of a necessity then anything. Even if both countries stay mostly volunteer forces the south might pay their soldiers much or give them more benefits then north does(many might accept being soldiers if taken care of well in it). With many poor white people in the south seeing military as a better life they might have higher volunteer rates.
How is it paying for this? The CSA will be poor. It can afford a small, professional army which will likely be outnumbered by the just as modern US Army. It can have a large, poorly trained and equipped army made mainly up of cannon fodder. It wouldn't have the money for a large, professional army with modern weapons.

The reason the north might not think much of the south militarizing is the military is mostly being used against their own people not foreign countries at first. Southern troops are fighting union loyalist, slave revolts, natives, and outlaws not countries at least yet. The army might not look like it can be used far from home.
If a large army exists it will be seen as a threat.

This is true in a prolong traditional war when extended periods of war and conflict will stir up the oppressed back home. But a short war can still be won since it will be felt less at home and they can get back home before unrest gets too high.
How? They will be poorer relative to the North than in 1860 and they couldn't pull it off then, how could they later?

This situation will stay true until slavery ends maybe even a bit after. If the military is used as a giant public project that might lessen the financial cost and poor whites might even be for it.
Not enough, it would be cheaper to train people to do public work projects separate from the army as that would be all that they would do.

Two years of conscription is basically militarized extension of regular school. Your learning basic military training but also basic education like reading and writing(they can follow commands better with that). They are learning trade skills and how to police the country. The military is used to give population better skills and education but centered around military uses. Something like that can help develop.
Actual real schools do that cheaper and better.

Even when not part of the official military or police force they could be hired guns for plantation owners and mining companies. They been previously given military training and are now acting a security force. You would have a lot of small private armies that heavily work with the state but fund themselves, a large police force who are militarized, and a decent size but well trained and armed professional army
Not enough of them and mine employee who is a hired gun is not down there actually mining, which is what you need them to do.

Later dictator might copy some of the CSA government methods. The slave population will justify a large standing military type forces in the nation to poor whites. So would the threat of north and natives out west. The military could also become the voice of the white underclass of the nation so that might help in the support for its expansion.
None of this lowers the cost nor the perceived threat.

Being drafted during official peace isn’t going to be as bad to some southerners because it isn’t like a war draft. They are drafting over a longer period of time and lower rates then war so it’s less noticeable.
The costs are quite noticeable.
 
Historical timeline shows otherwise. Slavery was abolished in Brazil in 1888- not out of a change of heart from owners, but because plantation slavery was no longer economical.
Wrong. Slavery in Brazil was abolished per decree of the Emperor even though it was still turning around good profits. It was not abolished because it had ceased to be economical.

It is true that slavery in Brazil was less profitable on the whole than slavery in the antebellum South, but that had nothing to do with mechanisation. It was because the slave population in Brazil had always had natural decrease, ie slaves who died or were freed outnumbered those who were born. (Mostly due to the climate meaning that the death rate from disease etc was higher, and also because freeing slaves had always been more common in Brazil than in the antebellum South.) This meant that as soon as slave imports were stopped in Brazil in the early 1850s, slavery's days there were numbered. In contrast, the slave population in the antebellum South grew via natural increase, and had done so for a long time.

Likewise, there is no need for mechanized cotton pickers as in otl human share croppers fulfilled that role.
Eh? People were trying to make mechanised cotton pickers for a long time. Sharecropping didn't dissuade them from trying. As soon as viable mechanical cotton pickers were invented, sharecropping faded away pretty quickly.

Mechanization did not need to be total (mechanized cotton pickers) to make plantation slavery uneconomical. Rather, each incremental increase was a nail in the coffin of plantation slavery.
Mechanisation of cotton and tobacco would be insignificant until the 1930s or (being generous with technology) the 1920s. Those two crops were the bedrock of plantation slavery. Any pressure from mechanisation will be insignificant until then.
 
That’s what I’m wondering about?Northern politics especially New England might be a good bit different if the Republican Party aren’t a political party anymore a decade after the war.

A common AH cliche is the Republican Party going away because of Confederate independence. While this certainly is possible, it is far from certain. Lincoln would never have acknowledged Confederate independence, which means that probably happens under a Peace Democrat elected President in 1864. This will give justification for the Republicans to blame the Democrats for losing the war. If Lincoln dies and his Vice President acknowledges the Confederacy, the Republicans will still be able to blame the loss on the Peace Democrats undermining the war effort, tarring all of them, or at least the Copperheads, as traitors, and they will not be shy about pointing out that the Confederates are all nominally Democrats. The War Democrats and the Peace Democrats might even fracture into separate parties, guaranteeing Republican dominance unless the differences between the Moderate (Free Soil) and Radical (Abolitionist) Republicans also lead to that party fracturing. Even if the Democrats don't fracture, they lost a major part of their voter base when the Confederacy seceded, so the Republicans could still dominate. You could even see a swing among Union Democratic politicians towards many of the policies proposed by the Republican Party in an attempt widen their voter base. Whatever happens, the ideologies that formed the Republican Party will not disappear. Even if the Republican party collapses, a similar party will emerge.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn’t Democrats and other non-republicans who take power after the war might try to reapproachment towards the south after the war?

A Union politician being too friendly with the Confederacy could be seen in much the same way as a Cold War era US politician being too friendly with a Communist regime. Much like Nixon being the only one who could go to China, rapprochement with the CSA is most likely to succeed when backed by a committed opponent of secession. That leaves out any Peace Democrat as well as unsuccessful War Democrat generals, such as McClellan. Lincoln would be an strong possibility if he won a non-consecutive term in 1868, but the Republicans would probably field another candidate. General Winfield Scott Hancock would be a strong possibility for a War Democrat that, if elected, could successfully advocate rapprochement with the Confederacy.
 
Japan never had anywhere close to 10% of its population as part of the Samurai class.


How is it paying for this? The CSA will be poor. It can afford a small, professional army which will likely be outnumbered by the just as modern US Army. It can have a large, poorly trained and equipped army made mainly up of cannon fodder. It wouldn't have the money for a large, professional army with modern weapons.


If a large army exists it will be seen as a threat.


How? They will be poorer relative to the North than in 1860 and they couldn't pull it off then, how could they later?


Not enough, it would be cheaper to train people to do public work projects separate from the army as that would be all that they would do.


Actual real schools do that cheaper and better.


Not enough of them and mine employee who is a hired gun is not down there actually mining, which is what you need them to do.


None of this lowers the cost nor the perceived threat.


The costs are quite noticeable.
It doesn’t have to be 10 percent I’m just giving numbers. I’m bad at that part of it so I’m giving wide ranges. I’m asking couldn’t the south have a higher percentage compared to the north to lessen the gap a good bit? I’m also hinting at rapid industrialization through non democratic means on the confederacy part or at least limited. Industrialization always rapidly changes thing. The north will have a consumer market and the south might have state capitalism and focus on certain industries much more. What if 30 years down they are focusing heavy on war materials during peacetime and the north isn’t. They don’t know each other exact stockpiles. I’m also say a police force that is highly militarized is going to be needed and desired by everyone to prevent slave revolts. They will spend on that even if it hurts them a bit. Those police training isn’t going to be too different from more modern military training. They have to train people how to put down revolts and unrest. They might not be training like napoleonic armies but they are training more like modern military units. The CSA backward domestic conflicts is training them how to fight with modern weapons and small units across large rugged terrains(a lot of confederacy). The confederacy going to be plagued with violence of all types it isn’t unreasonable to say they will come up with oppressive means to solve these issues and also indirectly transition it into a more militarized nation while being justified to citizens as “keeping order”(that excuse doesn’t work as well in northern culture. One reason our nation hasn’t fallen to a strongman as often. Also the south will fear not having a big defensive force will lead to them being the next Haiti. So cost is likely over extended a bit but the people accept that out of fear of a slave uprising. They can’t call in help from the north anymore. Slaves are majority in some states. So imagine a nation that probably has a bunch of guns floating around in the consumer market, right to bear arms and people want them there, and a bunch of escaped slaves, freeman, or abolitionist tried something. That radically changes the mindset of the nation. That founding principle is quickly regarded as outdated and a new excuse and system is made).

If that happens that nation can radically change but a strongman isn’t a radical so he has to justify change to those people mindset. The CSA of 1862 isn’t going to be the CSA in 1882. The CSA is right next to one of largest industrial powers in the world that’s going to lingering over a bit especially with continued business ties. CSA could get rich off natural resources in a similar fashion as Saudi once they discover them all. No reason they don’t mechanized. The south is going to be authoritarian in many ways but their methods of doing it could be head of their time. This is why I say their culture is hypocritical because it is outclassed by their pride and emotion. Reactionary European nations are dead set on most things. If the south is getting out done and embarrassed by the north a lot of people could start flip flopping on things and rewording themselves as a excuse to do something that could help them compete. Japan modernized because they did not want to get out done by the Europeans and taken over. The south will be similar with the north. The more authoritarian, prideful, and militarized over time(as their own nation they know they have to do more for themselves now). The US will build up but those are two different systems against each other. The south also still have social mobility in some forms for all whites(people are less likely to leave if they think they have a chance and north will be filled with other immigrants which discourages them from there. Also social mobility is key for industrialization and the south still has that to an extent).

Northern industrialist and capitalist can easily go to the CSA and do business. Same language and they use to be part of the same country. When worker rights, unions, fair wages, safety regulations, and environment laws becomes a issue for them in the north the south might welcome them in. The south will have cheaper labor, less worker rights, less taxes/tariffs, and panders to them heavily. But the south is smart about it and it’s gets little cut for government use. The south has sweatshops that produce cheap and simple but reliable goods. They have raw resources, cheap labor, rural landless and jobless poor, lower taxes, and lack of worker rights. A capitalist who already has money could easily see gains in that. Dixieland ain’t far from him and Dixieland is also highly corrupt. They could be pulling Saudi type stuff. Imagine confederates in Chinese ports tricking illiterate Chinese peasants to come over to CSA and work but them and their families get stuck over there in indentured servitude building railroads. Or even border outlaws kidnapping free blacks near the southern border to be sold down south. The south is creating more eerily modern day issues. How is the north supposed to react to a bunch of independent criminals like this in this time period? The issue with it being in this time period is the CSA still isn’t as easily be on impose by the US like they currently can with Mexico. CSA domestic issues can spill over into the US causing a lot of issues in both nations. Balkanize or divided Americas might be acting more like countries in the post-ww2 era in many regards while European is still stuck in the Victoria era but the Europeans might learn a lot about war before experiencing it themselves in ww1 depending on how things develop in the Western Hemisphere.
 
I'm not sure if you have watched this before or have anyone in the previous comments recommend this to you already, but I do recommend this video, in it the CSA didn't abolish it even up to 2004!(for god sake it's unimaginable to me, but then who knows)
 
I'm not sure if you have watched this before or have anyone in the previous comments recommend this to you already, but I do recommend this video, in it the CSA didn't abolish it even up to 2004!(for god sake it's unimaginable to me, but then who knows)
I have seen that. Southern culture is going to be cartoonish in some ways but I would say that is super extreme and unlikely.
 
The north and south might openly trade and to some extents work with them a bit after the war? This would help the south grow and the north try to make them a great banana republic(might be the intention but not work in the long run since the south is much bigger then the average banana republic) which might feed into their expansion?

The Union and the Confederacy would openly trade, but I don't see them "working with each other". That would require a threat to the national survival of both countries, which is unlikely. The Union need do nothing to try to make the Confederacy into a banana republic, they were already doing that in the Deep South - economy based on exports, large impoverished working class, oligarchic leadership, stratified social classes, little industry. The Border States had more industry and more mixed economies than the rest of the Confederacy, but they also suffered the most economic damage from the war. The Confederacy's low tariff policy will put Confederate industry at a disadvantage compared to Union industry. The Confederacy's ruinous inflation during the war impoverished a lot of middle class whites. A lot of small farmers will be forced to sell their land to rich men. If they're lucky they're get to stay on as exploited sharecroppers instead of being kicked off the land and replaced with slaves.

Confederate belief in Manifest Destiny will fuel their desire for expansion as will soil exhaustion. (Cotton and tobacco tended to be hard on the soil.) Considering that every Confederate attempt to annex Union territory ended in failure, I consider Confederate attempts at expansion to be very unlikely to succeed.
 
Even if the USA puts some restrictions on sales to the CSA (no weapons for example), the CSA will have a problem in that if they want to avoid buying from the USA, buying from the UK or France is going to cost more - shipping steel rails or locomotives across the Atlantic as opposed to them being delivered across the border does add to the price, as well as issues concerning spare parts that the local industry can't make. The big problem for the CSA is going to have a currency that has value. Nobody is going to want nicely printed toilet paper in return for manufactured goods. BTW it is worth noting that during the ACW a real problem the CSA had was that private blockade runners, which well outnumbered CSA government chartered runners, preferred to carry "luxury" cargoes including the latest European fashions over things like powder and weapons which were less profitable. Expect the upper classes/elites who will be the ones profiting from the cotton trade and getting hard currency to spend much on the latest Paris fashions for southern belles. Sure some will be invested, but probably in more land or slaves, not manufacturing plants.

Economics will drive change, but as long as the "ruling class" gets theirs, only slowly.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top