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.
It is somewhat exaggerated. The accident rates were high but the great majority lived into their 40s or 50s without getting blind, maimed or deaf. If the accident rate was that high immigrants wouldn't have kept coming.

Don't get me wrong, the accident rate was too high, but it was low enough that people kept coming, there wasn't widespread rioting over it. If the factories were death traps people would have stayed in the Old Country and you would have had mass worker riots as they would have nothing to lose.
That wasn’t the biggest reason for immigration. The old country was often worse living conditions wise or the same. And even if it was better in some places many lacked social mobility and didn’t like the European system so they came here. Being poor and treated horribly here isn’t ideal but at least you and your kids have a much better chance at moving up in the world. You rather be middle class or capitalist in US over Europe during this period(I’ll argue currently too to lessen extent. US can let in as many as it is really willing too). Many people don’t like the thought of being peasants or ruled by aristocrats for their whole life. Some Europeans who come here think technically their descendants could be a president here one day on a off chance instead of ruled over by a king and be in same position as him now. America is founded on equality of opportunity not equality for all. It’s a meritocracy in its original form. Disregarding the racial biases within the system of time, the republic was founded on Bourgeoisie ideas. Every man(they didn’t consider women part of this yet) has equality to move up by his own merit. Only the rich and educated elites who worked to get there are supposed to be the people voting and running for office(it’s a plutocracy if gone unregulated. Your naturally going to have people and groups build wealth up over generations which demeans the hard work point and leads to exploitation and corruption). This is why many classical liberals think poverty is due to personal flaws. Many found this better then living in aristocratic Europe. They can at least move up in a plutocratic and democratic society. The south still might benefit from the same image to a lesser degree(you can technically still move up in the south and be rich their and live like kings/warlords. People with money and less noble ventures might leave Europe to the CSA. People are terrible in most time period while another large percent are uneducated to put it nicely). You can still move up in CSA more likely then Russian Empire, Spain, Italy, and probably Austria-Hungary. People go where their is opportunity and space. European is getting overcrowded and many come to America to live on the open lands more inland(more middle class immigrants). Germans can move out of rapidly industrializing Germany to a decent homestead in the Midwest or more west with some money saved up. Land is cheap and plentiful more so then the old country. Immigration at this time is much less regulated then later centuries. Also it is good to remember some do decide to go back for whatever reason especially poorer ones. People who work in factories are often poor illiterate masses or peasants of European. Life sucked in old country. At least here they have food and a job(dangerous job is better then no job and no food in old country. Think Irish). Even Jews who might receive more bigotry then most can do better since they have no laws against Jews like European nations. This is why it is called the land of opportunity instead of equality. It might sometimes be a harsh life but people have a better chance then most places here.
 
I can see it now, the British government spending tax dollars to pay off private debt made to slavocrats! The British government didn't lend any money to the CSA and so couldn't forgive any of it. They would have to spend tax money to private British citizens to pay off CSA debt. Not going to happen. Great Britain didn't get so rich by spending money so foolishly.

The US would see it as a hostile act and would do something about it, such as building big naval guns for every port, building a seaworthy navy and massing troops on its northern border. Great Britain can make that threat to Canada go away for quickly and cheaply by NOT helping the CSA.



Mostly in Latin America. They may well interfere in Latin America but backing the CSA is pushing it. Not only would it piss off the USA it would piss off their own abolitionist populace.


Russia has a much higher population than CSA would have and Saudi is under US military protection because it is hardly a military power in its own right.


Mexico is about the same size and is hardly a technological or military powerhouse.


The US has PA, CA and likely OK. These are big oil producers in the 19th and early 20th centuries.


Mexico has a lot of resources, that hasn't helped much.


Russia has a very large population, the CSA wouldn't


Not for long. The US has all sorts of ways to officially or unofficially encourage malcontents to move South. I think most CSA sympathetic border Southerners would move to the CSA within a generation or two or simply change sympathies. Why fight it when you simply can move south?


The fire-eating slavocrats couldn't out-politic a used teabag.


Totally ignoring US nationalism.

The Black Slaves from the CSA would make far better spies than anything the CSA would have in the USA. There is no way the slave loving Charleston Mercury is going to be better at propaganda than the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune.



Agreed.


Being slavocrats the only people they get are idiots.


Assuming open borders, which is one hell of an assumption.


In which case the Democratic Party dissolves with impotence.


West Virginia really, really didn't want to be part of Virginia anymore and would worry if the CSA got too strong they might be forced back in again.
Culturally and trade ties will be stronger between the US and CSA then Mexico and US. CSA shares a language and is much closer to its industrial centers then Mexico. Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Cincinnati, St, Louis, and Chicago are not far from the border. The Atlantic states also has much more regular trade between themselves then northern coastal cities do with the Gulf of Mexico. Their will always be some people doing shady and illegal business. A more divided US makes that easier. Businesses abuse borders and countries different policies. They are mostly doing it for their own interest. If the north breaks down too hard that could drive them to pick up and take everything south feeding into their economy.

I would like to point out southern plantation class might be reactionary but they could end up too distracted with the military and it’s own luxury to involve themselves in actually running most things. That could be managed mostly by the growing middle class. Think of all the corrupt local officials you see in depictions of southern culture or Andrew Johnson types. The CSA could have three to four types of leaders over the years. Someone like Lee who sees the flaws of stuff but doesn’t have enough power to completely change. Lee could become kind of a strongman during his reign and set groundwork for industrialization hoping it would eventually lead to slavery being phased away near turn of the century. Lee being military man focuses heavily on reforming, organized, and building up the national defense forces. He then encourages industrial growth through military production(need to arm police force and local militias in case on slave revolt).

Second type would be someone like Andrew Johnson. A populist to the white underclass but constantly at odds with aristocrats and is extremely racist(paranoid about slave up rising more so then the average confederate). He could also encourage industrialization to help provide jobs to white poor and he careless so about upsetting aristocrats. Lee on the other is aristocrat so he knows how to talk to them but Lee seemed much more pragmatic and actually honorable(not fake like most aristocrats even if some of Lee’s ideas were still a bit unpleasant). He was just extremely loyal to his state(Lee is the closest and one of the few real life examples of a southern aristocrat living the life they often pretend to live). Lee probably becomes a Washington type figure to the republic and acts like Washington in many ways but with more strongman tendencies(he thinks people around him are incompetent and wants to try to preserve the new nation. Lee might be a decent leader after the war and set ground work for confederate development).

The third could be Huey Long type man. A other populist but flips flop a lot depending on the crowd and situation. He a “new money” President and a “self made man”. Him and his family came from poor background but worked their way up to own a bunch of mines, mills, textile, small farms(food crops), few slaves, and some private armies. His policies encourage the development of businesses like his(he changing policies to benefit himself and his support base which leads to more small local industries but still industries). The south could have a bunch of Huey Long, Boss Hog, and “new money” white politicians and businessmen in the south. They won’t be bound to the same taboos as slave owning aristocrats and are often populist(propaganda and politic skills. There are layers to class system in the south besides just master and slave).

The four is traditionalist or Davis type. This would basically be stagnation or recession period but end early if he caves to whatever possible shifts happen in the houses during his presidency.

The last one could be a military general originally from the lower. He could come to power by a coup or force the aristocrats to give them more power over the country with rising unrest and domestic issues. Either way the aristocrats become second to power to the new military elite and junta(the structure with the exception of maybe constitution stays unchanged. President and branches still technically rule but in reality they are puppets of military at worse or like Turkey at best when they only throw coups when they don’t support the president but go back to status quo after). Him and military do all in their power to to strengthen nation which leads it to become more spartan like.

Open borders isn’t an assumptions but fact. The US cannot prevent people from across that border if they really want too. Part of it goes through heart of Appalachia mountains. Many slaves, outlaws, partisan, and whoever else isn’t using roads if they are blocked or patrolled. That whole border being patrolled by either country in that time period is impossible. There will be wide areas of long rural wilderness with no one watching those areas. Those companies back then are probably not checking or have paper work to see who is from where back then.

For economic recovery focusing on diversifying the trade economy is key. Focus on trading a greater variety of raw resources to the market. They might not be able to create factories at first but crop production and mineral extraction can pull them out of debt. The south will have more resources then it can use for itself and the country especially given backward living conditions. Unlike a small Latin American nation that trades one or two resources the south trade dozen or more. They just need to make enough to get out of debt first not compete with US but once they get out it won’t be bad especially if the north really doesn’t invade the south. If the south ends war before the major offensives war repairs won’t be nearly as much. The south can pay off debt by trading its resources when left undamaged by the war for the most part. The south can also sell land, property, or other valuable assets within the nation to pay off debts and help develop at the same time. If they are selling this to private companies or interests groups from multiple nations it balances itself out a bit. No country businesses has full control over CSA due to wide variety of them and CSA has made sure it has finally say in things when needed(they make sure businesses are giving them their cut as thanks for letting them run how the see fit in CSA). Foreign businesses in CSA might become more sympathetic or even loyal to them over time. They are winning many(not all) through brides and corruption. The businesses came to CSA looking to exploit the country for all its worth but many while their actual decide to stay when they figure out “hey I have less tariffs, little taxes, no worker rights, no minimum wage, cheap materials nearby, government support, and plenty of cheap labor”. Many probably decide to stay. A Yankee moving to CSA won’t be the same as him going to Mexico(foreigners also can’t own land or certain things in Mexico. Big hinderance to possible early American business). Southern industrialization might just happen. Even if France stayed a reactionary and backwards regime industrialization from Belgium, Britain, and Germany are likely to drift over by default due to how close it is and how often they react with each other.

Why do you have Oklahoma with union? I’m pretty sure they joined south? When did they fall to the north?
 
Slavery was a huge part of the cotton & tobacco plantations which were the basis of the CSA economy so they would be unlike give it up unless forced by outside forces (boycotts on their cotton/tobacco), environmental forces (cotton uses up nitrogen in the soil which was prior to the civil war new territories in Texas etc were being opened up to grow it) or the replacement of human harvesters with machines. In OTL it was George Washington Irving who introduced peanuts as a nitrogen replacement crop in the 1900's saving the south cotton industry, mechanical cotton harvesters were invented in the 1920's and tobacco harvesters in the late 1940's.
 

DougM

Donor
A few points in no particular order

-England is NOT going to go out of its way to support the CSA as it just abolished slavery itself not that long ago and the people are not going to be happy if the government supports a country that only exists to keep slavery going. They may trade with it but they won’t support it in any other manor

-England will also not support the CSA to offset the USA as England (nor anyone else) viewed the USA at the time as a threat to themselves So no need to support the CSA to offset the USA

-CSA is not going to embrace industrialization in any organized manor. The whole reason the CSA EXISTS is because the wealthy slave holders controlled southern politics. And up to the early 1860s they had undue influence on USA politics and when that started deminitioning they started a war to protect Thier slaves and their power. So you are not going to see the government do ANYTHING that diminishes the influence of the plantation slave holding elite. The country was created to keep them in power.

-by the time the war is over England is well on its way to creating alternatives to CSA cotton and are not happy with the tricks the CSA pulled during the war in an attempt force England to back them. The super power of the day is not going to forget that anytime soon. So relations will not be great between England and the CSA. Because the Queen will not be amused by CSAs actions.

Unless of course the same ASBs that won the CSA the war get involved, (yes I personally think that the CSA did just about as well in the real Civil War as it could ever be expected to do. For every time you can point out how the CSA could have done better in a hypothetical situation I can point out two times that they could just as easily done a LOT worse. Let’s be honest if the North had been competent in the beginning the war should have ended in the first year.)
 
1. The black population movement will probably be very restricted even after slavery which might prevent their mass exodus and I doubt the north would accept them willingly. Same might go for white southerners. The north might prefer Europeans over them. Also a lot of southerners might be migrant workers and not full residents(many immigrants do go back after making enough money which might actually help the CSA a bit). Not all immigrants will find a better life here. The factories and mines in the north aren’t nice either. Some rather just be poor back at home because they at least have family there. If a bunch of Europeans are coming into the US that might not give poor southerners to much opportunity up there. In otl blacks and whites from the south didn’t start flooding more into the north until the US started to cut back on immigration.

There was a mass exodus of slaves during the Civil War - roughly 1 in 7 fled to Union lines. If it becomes clear that the Confederacy will achieve independence, I'd expect a lot more to try to flee to Union lines.There may even be a few attempted slave revolts, which would result in severe reprisals. I agree that after slavery (if that ever occurs) the Confederacy would monitor them, but I see no reason they would try to stop them from leaving.

Lincoln's Loyalists estimates that about 1-in-10 of draft age white males from Confederate states served in the Union army. Few, if any, would dare to go back, and there's a good chance many of their families would have to flee to the Union. In OTL, most of them, as well as most of the escaped slaves returned to the South. In an independent Confederacy, they start with about 12% less labor force than OTL's postbellum South.

Not all immigrants did find a better life, but they kept coming to the free states. The 1860 Census shows that about 1-in-40 people in the future Confederate states was an immigrant compared to about 1-in-6 in the Union states. An independent Confederacy would have a weaker currency, worse inflation, and higher taxes than OTLs postbellum south. That economic pressure that did not exist in OTL will lead to large numbers of poor Confederate whites moving to the Union.

Even in wartime, Confederate citizens loathed the draft. A peacetime draft would be even more hated, plus paying for a standing army of the size you envision would have the average Confederate paying more than double the taxes of theier Union counterpart. These changes from OTL would also lead to large numbers of poor whites fleeing the Confederacy.

2. Filibustering is more successful when they have a very willing government helping them. The point is to destabilize the country and claim leadership before immediately asking for help from your government. The US in otl didn’t want to involve themselves in that. The CSA will. It’s a lot easier to invade countries after a “private army” has destabilized the place especially if the capital held. This is so the organized army can just march in and clear out any now disorganized resistance. The south will be full of private military type forces. Those groups can involve themselves in Latin American affairs all the time and be used as a political tool by the CSA. The US and Western Hemisphere has been very innovated and ahead of the rest of the world in unconventional warfare. People in the Americas often don’t fight wars the same way Europeans do.

Why would the Confederacy be "full of private military type forces"? They had the slave patrols, but occasionally riding down unarmed men, women, and children hardly qualifies as being a trained and effective military force.

Feel free to give any examples of successful filibusters. If the Confederacy attempts to use them as a political tool, they're going to need a navy to supply and reinforce them, which is not cheap. Conquest will not be as easy as you envision. European countries with better economies and real military forces failed in Mexico and Cuba. Central American nations had already proved willing to work together to maintain their independence. Both the Union and Britain would frown on the expansion of slavery into Latin America. Also, if it is clear that these filibusters are not just a bunch of adventurers, but sanctioned by the Confederate governmemt, a lot of Latin America will start refusing entry to any Confederates.
 
Immigration to the CSA will be a trickle compared to what OTL ended up in the former states of the CSA for various reasons. The numbers that went to the former CS states 1865-1920s (new immigration laws) were going to an area that was part of the USA, not a separate country so right there is a big difference. In an independent CSA the sorts of restrictions against immigrants from other than Northern Europe are likely to be in place much sooner. It is a given that industrialization in the CSA is going to be reduced over what happened OTL postwar, and those factory jobs were a huge draw for immigrants. Low level jobs in factories for folks not speaking English, and potentially not literate in their own language will either be non-existent or filled by slaves in a CSA. Assuming the steel mills of Birmingham, AL do get built postwar the jobs in those mills filled by greenhorns in Pittsburgh will be filled by slaves. Nobody will come if they don't perceive jobs. The post war USA has the huge agricultural lands of the western USA to fill up. OTL the RRs had super cheap fares for immigrants to come to the Dakotas (for example) or Nebraska to start farms (which would then be customers of the RRs). The CSA has no such huge store of land to give away/sell dirt cheap to family farmers. By the time of the ACW, with the exception of Texas, pretty much all the good land in the CSA was owned by somebody (other than the government), and I expect agricultural land still open is likely to fall in tot he hands of second sons of plantation owners to establish their own slave latifundias.

IMHO the net immigration to North America will probably be a little less than OTL, but I expect the USA numbers will be close to the same, Canada may see a small increase, the the CSA significantly less than OTL to those same states. In the 19th century, especially for folks escaping crap conditions in the old country, I wonder what effect the morality of a slave country would have compared to the effects of perceived opportunity for industrial work or farmland.
 
The south is likely to recover faster then that. I see them getting economic support from European powers. Some of them might rather help build up a stronger CSA to limit US growth.

That makes no real sense. The US was largely isolationist and didn't really bother the European powers. If anything, the US supported European economic powers with trade and investment. It was the US that forcibly opened up Japan. And the US participated in the Boxer rebellion. The US doesn't really interfere with European affairs, or European expansion into Africa or Asia, or their activities in South America. So why bother limiting US growth, based on some hypothetical challenge the US might pose in a century or so?

The advantage the CSA might have to start off with is the Europeans see the US as more of a threat to their power and ambitious more so.

That would require a minimum half century precognition. Not realistic.

They might forgive the CSA debts and loans just to spite and deprive the US of everything possible. Europe is still very imperialist. They won’t be looking to take over stuff directly most of the time but they will desire to expand trade and set up puppets. Weaken US helps that.

That as I pointed out, requires a level of clairvoyant precognition which did not exist.

The US losing civil war is going to be seen with imperialist interest in minds in Europe.

If anything, they'd be massively less concerned about hypothetical burgeoning military power.

That could cause a mess of butterflies. It’s also important to consider the CSA is much bigger then any historical banana republic. The bigger a banana republic gets the more like Putin Russia or Saudi it could become(they can start projecting themselves somewhat). Otl CSA isn’t a small country like Panama or Honduras. Texas by itself is larger then most European countries.

Not in terms of population.
 
Your dismissing the possibility of a slave revolt which is possible in a unstable CSA.

I'm not sure what your point is. Slave revolts were extremely common in the Antebellum South. Every slave owner slept with a pistol under his pillow and every community lived in terror of it. Where are you going with this?

People poor and rich in the south still fear the possibility of a other Haitian type of revolution. Slavery is going to lead the black population being in the 60 percent or more in the Deep South. The south probably puts it down but many people are likely going to start thinking slavery is a outdated way of dealing with the “African Problem/question”. The CSA especially the poor might think continued cattle slavery will leave them too outnumbered by blacks so a gradual end to official slavery is started in the 1880s and ends around 1900. The south thinks about deporting them(not realistic choose) so they go with strict apartheid. Before slavery is ended the black population is sold more evenly across the CSA to lower the amount of areas they hold majority in before they are given serf like status. By the 20s and 30s they become second class citizens?

Ah, you're thinking terror of a slave revolt will lead to emancipation? That's not realistic. The response to that terror is not to free slaves so that they can run around wild and cause more death and violence. It's going to be about investing in even more repression and brutality. You would ensure it doesn't happen by making it illegal for slaves to even know how to read and write, you would control movements, executions and torture would be utterly common.

Fear of a slave revolt will not lead to emancipation, but ever more violent slavery.
 
During this time period the north will be completely against blacks fleeing north.

That really seems like wishful thinking.

They might not like slavers but they don’t want blacks living up there in large numbers. The north is less racist then the south but still racist. A lot of them didn’t believe in slavery but thought blacks and whites should live apart. The north might honestly demand the south keep control of its slave population if they get too unstable or many flee north.

Acknowledging racism in the North, it's not nearly as toxic and it isn't economically driven as in the South. Plus, the North has plenty of room for settlers.

Also free trade in the south isn’t going to work like most places during that century. They are going to be doing more economic practices that looks like modern China, Mexico, Putin Russia, and Saudi. Their advantage comes from being able to let business interest do whatever they want for the most part with basically legal brides(taxes) to the government to look the other. The system is rooted in corruption by sustainable. The south is willing to do much more unethical stuff to develop itself. That can lead to the nation going through up and downs but development could be rapid. They are constantly playing catch up in some things but actually start make innovations through some unsavory practices. For example, testing on live human subjects is considered unacceptable in some places but in others it is considered acceptable. Everyone can agree testing on humans is wrong but someone who is might make quick gains in his research. The US is developing in a safe, rational, and productive way while the south is developing by trail and error to help them quickly catch. The US has the wealth and resources to do this unlike the CSA. That Sam Houston quote is very important here. The southern population only advantage is willing to put up with more unpleasant conditions. Development can be rapid if cautious is often thrown to the wind. CSA is not small like most banana republics it can do something if developed more over time. The south could be a place a lot of reactionary types of elites or shady businesses go to do as they please. They wouldn’t be considered traitors in the north because they are indirectly developing the CSA not helping them intentionally. It’s just business and opportunity. People go to places where they can exploit and get self gains. This isn’t uncommon. The CSA would be the first example of the modern reactionary states we see now in otl. This is what makes the CSA different from many nations. It’s a odd mix of the old and new world.

This really does seem like wishful thinking. You want a path to industrialisation. It's chancy.
 
My only contribution to this thread is that there are two distinct dates here.

1. When the CSA political class wants to abolish slavery.
2. When the CSA actually abolishes slavery.

In a functional constitutional parliamentary system in peacetime, #1 and #2 will be the same. That doesn't seem guaranteed at all. What, do people really think the CSA will be a bastion of political and diplomatic stability?
 
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".

The first economically viable cotton picking machines were introduced in the 1950s.
 
One point that I will make is that even with the civil war, it took and is taking a long time to abolish slavery.

Slavery persisted in four states for a decade after the civil war. The fourteenth amendment did not quite eliminate slavery, but retained forced servitude as punishment for crimes. Take a look at the history of the Jim Crow south, and you'll see a massive use of arbitratry 'criminalisation' to ensure a steady supply of forced labour when and as needed. And we can take a look at the sharecropping economy, segregation and Jim Crow, and it is quite clear that the South imposed a regime as legally close to slavery, and in many cases with no real difference, for as long as they could, well into the 1950's and 1960's. Several southern American states did not actually take slavery laws off their books until the 1990's or later - this was pure spite on their part, but it speaks to the cultural investment in oppression.

I see no basis to believe that a victorious Confederacy, which had entirely built its identity around the peculiar institution, would abandon it quickly or easily. Given South Africa's retention of Apartheid, chattel slavery might have persisted in the Confederacy up until the 1980's.
 
Cryptic said:

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".

So replacing Slavery with.... slavery?
 
Last edited:
I am really not a fan of the equivocation of slavery and Jim Crow. Slavery was extremely bad. Jim Crow was also extremely bad. But if you have any sense of badness, you have to admit that Slavery was significantly worse than Jim Crow.

That's not to say anything good about Jim Crow, but rather underscore how TERRIBLE chattel slavery in the US South was. Seriously, how many sharecroppers in 1880 do people really think went "man, things were better when I had to be a slave"?

Many hardened racists who lived at the time and saw the realities of slavery ended up opposing slavery. One reason Reconstruction didn't go as far as almost all of us would have liked is that is that the ideological coalition against slavery was significantly wider than the ideological coalition against other forms of violent racism. It goes without saying that many people involved in the Scramble for Africa were virulent racists, but even most of them viewed abolitionism as a worthy cause (that they believed they were supporting.)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/scramble_for_africa_article_01.shtml

One thing working against the CSA is obviously that the entire world is going to be disgusted with slavery. In my opinion, the CSA could have probably won the war if they actually seceded to protect states right's, but it was obvious to everyone (and people in Britain/France) that they were seceding only to protect slavery.
 
I am really not a fan of the equivocation of slavery and Jim Crow. Slavery was extremely bad. Jim Crow was also extremely bad. But if you have any sense of badness, you have to admit that Slavery was significantly worse than Jim Crow.

I agree. But the south didn't voluntarily repudiate slavery with Jim Crow. Their toy was taken away from them, and this was as close as they could legally get to it, fighting against the restrictions imposed on them.

The assumption among some is that somehow, the South would magically voluntarily repudiate slavery and transition naturally to Jim Crow, if they had full legal powers and no restrictions. I don't think so. Oppressors never voluntarily surrender their oppression.

Even giving up the word 'Slavery' in exchange for a de facto legal situation of perpetual slavery and peonage called something else would provoke psychotic outrage.
 
In many states former slaves were either manipulated or forced in to signing labor contracts, which the local legal authorities would enforce much as the slave patrols did prior to emancipation. About the only aspect of slavery that was missing was the threat to sell family members away, whipping was still there however amputation etc also were too much.
 
One point that I will make is that even with the civil war, it took and is taking a long time to abolish slavery.

Slavery persisted in four states for a decade after the civil war. The fourteenth amendment did not quite eliminate slavery, but retained forced servitude as punishment for crimes. Take a look at the history of the Jim Crow south, and you'll see a massive use of arbitratry 'criminalisation' to ensure a steady supply of forced labour when and as needed. And we can take a look at the sharecropping economy, segregation and Jim Crow, and it is quite clear that the South imposed a regime as legally close to slavery, and in many cases with no real difference, for as long as they could, well into the 1950's and 1960's. Several southern American states did not actually take slavery laws off their books until the 1990's or later - this was pure spite on their part, but it speaks to the cultural investment in oppression.

I see no basis to believe that a victorious Confederacy, which had entirely built its identity around the peculiar institution, would abandon it quickly or easily. Given South Africa's retention of Apartheid, chattel slavery might have persisted in the Confederacy up until the 1980's.

Slavery persisted in exactly NO states a decade after the ACW. Four Slave State remained in the Union during the ACW but slavery was outlawed there as well after the 13 amendment passed.
 
Last edited:
For one thing, I assume one of the first amendments after the war would outlaw secession and state militias.

An amendment that specifically outlawed secession would be seen as an acknowledgment that the Confederates were right when they said they had a right to secede, so i don't see an amendment like that being proposed, let alone adopted. State militias formed the basis of the US Volunteers, so I don't see them being outlawed, either.
 
Convict Leasing....

I remember reading about Convict Leasing a long time ago, on the case of the Scottsboro Boys. Going by old old memories, this was a group of young black men who were falsely convicted for raping a white girl. I seem to remember one of them, after conviction, was leased to a lumberyard. I remember that this struck me as bizarre back then. I'm not sure how honest my memories play me, and frankly, for years, I thought this was a brain glitch.

But no, it was real, and pretty horrible. The distinction between this and slavery is pretty ... tenuous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convict_lease
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top