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 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?

The Confederacy could and did have a higher percent of their population in the military, but they always had a smaller army. You have been advocating the Confederacy having a larger army than the Union, which would require ruinous taxes on the Confederate citizens. Based on free population, the Union had 3.8 taxpayers to each Confederate taxpayer. For armies of equal size a Union taxpayer would be charged about 26 cents for each dollar paid by a Confederate taxpayer.
 
The Confederacy could and did have a higher percent of their population in the military, but they always had a smaller army. You have been advocating the Confederacy having a larger army than the Union, which would require ruinous taxes on the Confederate citizens. Based on free population, the Union had 3.8 taxpayers to each Confederate taxpayer. For armies of equal size a Union taxpayer would be charged about 26 cents for each dollar paid by a Confederate taxpayer.
I’m only asking could they have a army good enough that could make invasion of CSA much harder but invasion of the north is only possible when they are weak or down by something. Not one on one at full strength with each other. Also I would think they would do this over decades
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
That's standard for most discussion threads involving the CSA (and, to be fair, on several other well-trod topics as well).
Well, small group (relatively) talking about hobbies, rather inevitable.

This one has been nice, we're 19 pages in and no one's been Banned.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The Confederacy could and did have a higher percent of their population in the military, but they always had a smaller army. You have been advocating the Confederacy having a larger army than the Union, which would require ruinous taxes on the Confederate citizens. Based on free population, the Union had 3.8 taxpayers to each Confederate taxpayer. For armies of equal size a Union taxpayer would be charged about 26 cents for each dollar paid by a Confederate taxpayer.
The North also had both an industrial base AND a diversified economy to boot. Even with the ultra rich taken into account, wealth was both more evenly spread and easier to acquire than in the South, and wealth was more secure, although far from the stability we accept as a given today. In short it was a modern, late 19th Century industrializing power.

The South, in contrast,was a one trick pony (well, to be fair, one & a quarter once tobacco was taken into account) with its income disproportionately dependent on cotton and its wealth almost exclusively tied up in slaves and acreage (which itself was valuable only in terms of cotton and slaves to produce it). As is usually the case this sort of a disaster waiting to happen economy, one occurred IOTL when the Boll Weevil crossed the Rio Grande in 1892 and proceeded to destroy the cotton industry like a slow moving Angel of Death. It was sheer blind luck (goor or bad depending on one's perspective) that the insect, which is native and endemic to Central Mexico didn't cross over a generation (or two) earlier and tear the cotton kingdom down.
 
I’m only asking could they have a army good enough that could make invasion of CSA much harder but invasion of the north is only possible when they are weak or down by something. Not one on one at full strength with each other. Also I would think they would do this over decades

You missed his point the North is not competing on a 1:1 Basis with the South. the CSA is competing on a 3.8:1 Basis with the North the South needs to tax its people at 3.8 times more than what the average Northern Taxpayer has to pay just to match US Spending

and No if the US wants to conquer the CSA it will conquer the CSA in two years max. The Confederate borders stretch from Virginia to Texas and the Union has bigger numbers, and larger industry and will be on the offensive. The Virginia front may devolve into trench warfare but past the Appachalians US armies can simply turn Confederate positions and maintain an advance all the way to the Gulf of Mexico
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Actually in almost every case, neither the slaves nor the serfs had any choice about it.

At some point the Head of Household of the vast majority of serf families voluntarily took the oath to the local Lord, usually it was after accumulating so much debt that the option was starve or bend the knee. After that, yes, Serfdom was passed from generation to generation, often centuries after any possible debt had been repaid many times over). It was a thoroughly disgraceful and abhorrent system that took far too long to wind up on the ash heap of history. That being clearly stated, the victim remained in their home region, near family and with the local culture intact to provide a modicum of normality.

Slaves, by comparison were ALWAYS involuntary, in the specific case of the United States, taken by force or through warfare, forced onto transports in unspeakably wretched conditions, and sold to the highest bidder, on a different continent, in a different hemisphere, doomed to never see their loved ones or any trace of their culture again.

There is NO equivalency between serfdom, even in its ugliest format, and chattel slavery. NONE.
 
At some point the Head of Household of the vast majority of serf families voluntarily took the oath to the local Lord, usually it was after accumulating so much debt that the option was starve or bend the knee. After that, yes, Serfdom was passed from generation to generation, often centuries after any possible debt had been repaid many times over). It was a thoroughly disgraceful and abhorrent system that took far too long to wind up on the ash heap of history. That being clearly stated, the victim remained in their home region, near family and with the local culture intact to provide a modicum of normality.

Slaves, by comparison were ALWAYS involuntary, in the specific case of the United States, taken by force or through warfare, forced onto transports in unspeakably wretched conditions, and sold to the highest bidder, on a different continent, in a different hemisphere, doomed to never see their loved ones or any trace of their culture again.

There is NO equivalency between serfdom, even in its ugliest format, and chattel slavery. NONE.
Just making sure what does classical slavery count as then? Are we considering classical and chattel/racial slavery as different? Because in classical slavery people often became slaves through debt, war, or variety of ways. The treatment of slaves could sometimes vary greatly. Some were treated worse then slaves in south while others could move up and buy their way out of slavery. Classical slavery seems to be more honest about its intent and not as tied to ideology as much
 
You missed his point the North is not competing on a 1:1 Basis with the South. the CSA is competing on a 3.8:1 Basis with the North the South needs to tax its people at 3.8 times more than what the average Northern Taxpayer has to pay just to match US Spending

and No if the US wants to conquer the CSA it will conquer the CSA in two years max. The Confederate borders stretch from Virginia to Texas and the Union has bigger numbers, and larger industry and will be on the offensive. The Virginia front may devolve into trench warfare but past the Appachalians US armies can simply turn Confederate positions and maintain an advance all the way to the Gulf of Mexico
Doesn’t raw size in numbers matter less if they could at least lessen technology gap(decade at most)? Isn’t the more modern the wars gets the more doctrine, equipment, organization, training, and logistics matter more so then numbers? Would a independent CSA possibly industrialize as a war type economy due to unstable situation and economic struggles over the first few decades? You need your own guns and equipment to police a unstable nation the size of CSA(a lot of places for anti-government or criminals to hide). They can’t get their guns and other materials from the north as easily anymore(they need them on hand for revolts. This is why I think a small arms industry can develop). Could there industry focus on weapons production to a much higher degree then the north once industries grow(they have plenty of resources to make weapons and simple industries to support it)? Even if the army is still voluntary the demand might be higher for guns in the south among the common market(gun ownership could be much higher and market demand encourages industries. Aristocrats might even collect nicer models. Maybe aristocrats want “homemade” guns since they are prideful so they might encourage it). Won’t the southerners quickly figure out “hey we are running low on a lot of vital resources. We should probably figure something out”? A lot of stuff the north provided them is now gone. Wouldn’t many naturally try to fix this especially the aristocrats who are even starting to see signs of failing system after independence(they like power but smarter ones know adapting is necessary)? I’m only recommending the south learns to weather its domestic issues(coming back from brink few times) while the north continues to grow and develop steadily but when a eventual serious internal issue happens it rocks the Union hard and a bunch of Confederates smell blood. The CSA just has to be strong enough once when union is down to greatly change things(they might not be looked at kindly after but one victory still changes things. The advantage CSA has is the US capital and major cities are close to their border(unlike Mexico. Geography can go for or against US here). A CSA during a Great Depression situation might weather it better then union especially if they get cut off from global market and learn to become self sufficient(think USSR technically weathering depression. CSA doesn’t have enough to compete against north directly but it could produce enough to provide enough for itself. That’s one advantage of smaller population you need less to take care of them and the south is full of natural resources). CSA citizens are likely more use to poor living conditions so if the government can at least keep them feed and somewhat secure they will be more content with less then the average northerner in most likely hood. If the US is distracted greatly with a serious domestic issues once while CSA is somewhat stable they could try to rush DC and other major cities before they can respond. Let’s say it’s 1910. The south military is 1890s in technology while union is up to date but distracted with terrible economic and political problems at home for whatever reason. How long would it take to storm into Maryland and capture cities while the US is dealing with other problems? The south is bold enough.
 
At some point the Head of Household of the vast majority of serf families voluntarily took the oath to the local Lord, usually it was after accumulating so much debt that the option was starve or bend the knee. After that, yes, Serfdom was passed from generation to generation, often centuries after any possible debt had been repaid many times over). It was a thoroughly disgraceful and abhorrent system that took far too long to wind up on the ash heap of history. That being clearly stated, the victim remained in their home region, near family and with the local culture intact to provide a modicum of normality.

Slaves, by comparison were ALWAYS involuntary, in the specific case of the United States, taken by force or through warfare, forced onto transports in unspeakably wretched conditions, and sold to the highest bidder, on a different continent, in a different hemisphere, doomed to never see their loved ones or any trace of their culture again.

There is NO equivalency between serfdom, even in its ugliest format, and chattel slavery. NONE.
Well that’s a rather generalizing way of looking at it. Not saying it’s a good thing,but depending on where you are, like Ancient Rome,Middle East and China, being a slave to a noble household could be a way of catapulting yourself to high society. A lot of slaves became wealthy nobles themselves after a period of service to a more important noble household. So really, depending on the time and place, slavery could be better than serfdom.
 
Well that’s a rather generalizing way of looking at it. Not saying it’s a good thing,but depending on where you are, like Ancient Rome,Middle East and China, being a slave to a noble household could be a way of catapulting yourself to high society. A lot of slaves became wealthy nobles themselves after a period of service to a more important noble household. So really, depending on the time and place, slavery could be better than serfdom.

Calbear is referring to Chattel Slavery not Classical slavery
 
Doesn’t raw size in numbers matter less if they could at least lessen technology gap(decade at most)? Isn’t the more modern the wars gets the more doctrine, equipment, organization, training, and logistics matter more so then numbers?

Yes and guess who has more industry, a more educated population, and a better ability to support an industrialized army

ould a independent CSA possibly industrialize as a war type economy due to unstable situation and economic struggles over the first few decades? You need your own guns and equipment to police a unstable nation the size of CSA(a lot of places for anti-government or criminals to hide). They can’t get their guns and other materials from the north as easily anymore(they need them on hand for revolts. This is why I think a small arms industry can develop). Could there industry focus on weapons production to a much higher degree then the north once industries grow(they have plenty of resources to make weapons and simple industries to support it)? Even if the army is still voluntary the demand might be higher for guns in the south among the common market(gun ownership could be much higher and market demand encourages industries. Aristocrats might even collect nicer models.

To bad a small arms industry doesn't cut in industrialized war it not even close. WWI saw the warring powers burning through pre-war munitions stocks at far higher rates than what was initially predicted. OTL the BEF needed a minimum of half a million shells every day just to keep with the expenditure. The North has far far more industrial slack to make up that different than the South ever will.

Won’t the southerners quickly figure out “hey we are running low on a lot of vital resources. We should probably figure something out”? A lot of stuff the north provided them is now gone. Wouldn’t many naturally try to fix this especially the aristocrats who are even starting to see signs of failing system after independence(they like power but smarter ones know adapting is necessary)?

Where will this South get the resources to conduct this build up from?

I’m only recommending the south learns to weather its domestic issues(coming back from brink few times) while the north continues to grow and develop steadily but when a eventual serious internal issue happens it rocks the Union hard and a bunch of Confederates smell blood. The CSA just has to be strong enough once when union is down to greatly change things(they might not be looked at kindly after but one victory still changes things. The advantage CSA has is the US capital and major cities are close to their border(unlike Mexico. Geography can go for or against US here). A CSA during a Great Depression situation might weather it better then union especially if they get cut off from global market and learn to become self sufficient(think USSR technically weathering depression. CSA doesn’t have enough to compete against north directly but it could produce enough to provide enough for itself.

And do you not think the US will realize that many of its cities are close to the border do you not think the US will decide "hmm... let us build some forts along the Potomac to help defend Washington D.C" its not like they built this massive fort network built up in the American Civil War.

The CSA is not remotely comparable to the USSR. The USSR for one had a much larger population, it had a much larger resource base, and it had far more of an ability to isolate itself from the globe. The CSA which is built on exports cannot insulate itself from the global economy to even close to the same degree of the USSR.

If the US is distracted greatly with a serious domestic issues once while CSA is somewhat stable they could try to rush DC and other major cities before they can respond. Let’s say it’s 1910. The south military is 1890s in technology while union is up to date but distracted with terrible economic and political problems at home for whatever reason. How long would it take to storm into Maryland and capture cities while the US is dealing with other problems?

Long enough for the Confederacy to kill the cream of its youth attempting to storm US defensive emplacements. Look up the Battle of the Frontiers to see how well that went for the French. If the CSA is equipped to 1890 standards the US Army would have a field day because the Potomac River would likely have a large network of modern fortifications built because the United States can read a map and the Confederate advance would come to a grinding halt in the face of American machineguns and rapid-fire artillery

The south is bold enough.

Then they're a bunch of idiots which to be fair isn't far off what they were OTL.
 
Last edited:
Slavery would start collapsing anytime from 1880 onward at earliest, after the abolishment of slavery in Brazil the CSA will be left with no one but themselves defending slavery as a institution on the international stage, both Britain and France by the 1880's will have successfully started growing cotton in their colonies and see less reason to deal with them as confederate cotton will be seen as "unethical competition" to "ethical British and French enterprise"

This coupled with the Boil Weevil arriving in the 1990's as well as the CSA's political troubles and the constant economic shocks of the gilded age from industrialization will either cause the CSA to collapse into infighting or have a national crisis which will force the government to allow the states to use their "right's" to decide their own future.

In any case if any of the Confederate States try to leave they might ironically try to region the union if it means a end to the chaos....

However slaver will cease to exist by 1910 at latest I have seen quite a few TL's on here that think it could survive up until the 1930's but there is in my opinion, no realistic way it could survive that long, anything after 1910 is, in my opinion ASB
 
The opening of the coal mines caused an economic boom for Appalachia. People seldom resent becoming less poor.

And look where it got us. Scrip, company towns, and a near-feudal existance for two or three generations. Look at the environmental nightmares in some of the nearby factory towns. With all due respect, please reflect on your own statements before claiming opposing statements are 'neoConfederate propaganda'.

And I know of no Confederate invasion intent on annexing Pennsylvania, Indiana, Vermont, or other Northern states. Quite the reverse for McClellan et al.
 
GDIS:

***Please note that 'idiot' is actually a medical diagnosis. Seriously. So are 'Moron' and 'Retard'.***
 
One thing to consider about the idea that having so many under arms for Internal Security would give the CSA an unexpected advantage in war with the Union?

There is a reason those troops are required for Internal Security. Either the leadership to too fearful to make use of them in an awe inspiring spirited attack upon the soft and non-martial Yankees or doing so ramps up the instability said troops were keeping a lid on.
 
One thing to consider about the idea that having so many under arms for Internal Security would give the CSA an unexpected advantage in war with the Union?

There is a reason those troops are required for Internal Security. Either the leadership to too fearful to make use of them in an awe inspiring spirited attack upon the soft and non-martial Yankees or doing so ramps up the instability said troops were keeping a lid on.

Derivative of that: would a 30 to 32 state Union implement more gun control later on and what impact might that have on conscription/fielding armies later?
 
Just making sure what does classical slavery count as then? Are we considering classical and chattel/racial slavery as different? Because in classical slavery people often became slaves through debt, war, or variety of ways. The treatment of slaves could sometimes vary greatly. Some were treated worse then slaves in south while others could move up and buy their way out of slavery. Classical slavery seems to be more honest about its intent and not as tied to ideology as much

Classical slavery is very different from the economic/race based slave system of the antebellum South. The slave society of the South was built on a massive intercontinental slave trade and the habitual expansion and brutalization of individuals, giving no distinction between them or their children. A slave family did not, legally speaking, exist. Classical slaves had far more opportunities to earn their freedoms and even (depending on the culture, ect) enjoy rights and properties.

Well that’s a rather generalizing way of looking at it. Not saying it’s a good thing,but depending on where you are, like Ancient Rome,Middle East and China, being a slave to a noble household could be a way of catapulting yourself to high society. A lot of slaves became wealthy nobles themselves after a period of service to a more important noble household. So really, depending on the time and place, slavery could be better than serfdom.

Russian serfdom was probably the closest to antebellum slavery, with casual brutalization, control over families and children, the ability to uproot serfs to other estates, wholesale sell them, ect, but even it pales in comparison to the dehumanizing nature of the antebellum South. But as stated above, slavery/serfdom differed wildly across the world, and almost none of it was as ingrained deeply into a society as slavery in the South.

Officially, slavery might one day be abolished, but the status of African Americans as second class citizens or 'property of the state' was unlikely to change before the 1960s in the unlikely event the Confederacy survived.
 
By 1864 or thereabouts Washington, DC was the most heavily fortified city in the world. With the CSA across the river, the fortifications and key parts of the US/CS frontier would make the Maginot Line look like tinkertoys (and the actual fortifications did relatively well in repelling attacks when they were attacked). Until you get to the 1930s level of tech, these sorts of fortifications are very difficult to reduce, and in WWI producing the sort of artillery to do this was a task for the major powers. The CSA is still large, so a US attempt to conquer it like the OTL ACW would be anything but an overnight affair, but given 5-10X the industrial power, 3-5x the population (free), and the presence of the internal slave population in the CSA which is a threat that needs to be controlled the outcome is pretty well determined.

The only way the CSA manages to prevent conquest should it comes to blows is with powerful allies, in particular the UK and lesser France.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top