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'd like to move this conversation in a somewhat different direction.

It's 1910. The Confederacy is still around, but it's been taken over by a strongman in a wave of popular resentment against the plantation oligarchy. The economy is in shambles and foreign investment and trade is badly needed. However, some countries are starting to avoid doing business with Dixie as it is the only "civilized" country that allows slavery.
The US doesn't want to invade right now because it is busy valiantly defending the rights and freedoms of a fruit corporation in Central America.

What would this strongman do to secure foreign investment and trade?

-There must be nothing called slavery in practice, and the iconic scenes of slave auctions, whippings, and chains must at the very least be out of the public eye.
-At the same time, the former slaves need to go somewhere; the Yankees won't take them and there aren't enough boats to send them to Africa.
-The poor whites who put the strongman in power would riot if they had to live near free blacks, but at the same time there are jobs that whites refuse to do.

What type of system would most effectively solve this strongman's problems?
 
Other than the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) there were no "ethnic" restrictions on US immigration until the early 1920s. There is no reason for this to change with the CSA breaking free.

BTW the crap educational system in the south will hamstring process. Even OTL the educational system in the south for whites (forget blacks for a moment) was overall much poorer than the rest of the USA. Before the ACW a significant percentage of engineers, doctors, etc in what was to be the CSA were educated in the north simply because the institutions to do this were inadequate. The southern elites saw education as for the elite, and funding public schools and public universities was much lower than elsewhere.
 
I'd like to move this conversation in a somewhat different direction.

It's 1910. The Confederacy is still around, but it's been taken over by a strongman in a wave of popular resentment against the plantation oligarchy. The economy is in shambles and foreign investment and trade is badly needed. However, some countries are starting to avoid doing business with Dixie as it is the only "civilized" country that allows slavery.
The US doesn't want to invade right now because it is busy valiantly defending the rights and freedoms of a fruit corporation in Central America.

What would this strongman do to secure foreign investment and trade?

-There must be nothing called slavery in practice, and the iconic scenes of slave auctions, whippings, and chains must at the very least be out of the public eye.
-At the same time, the former slaves need to go somewhere; the Yankees won't take them and there aren't enough boats to send them to Africa.
-The poor whites who put the strongman in power would riot if they had to live near free blacks, but at the same time there are jobs that whites refuse to do.

What type of system would most effectively solve this strongman's problems?

Something that looks like Spartiate helotry, but updated for the industrial era.
 
How? The problem is the 4:1-5:1 population difference and 10:1 industrial difference after the ACW which will only get worse. That means it will always be 5X easier for the US to raise an army than the CS. Troops have to be taken from the general public and they have to be paid. So by 1890 or so you are going to have the CS attack at least as many US troops as they have with the CS using repeating rifles, a gatling gun here and there and 3 inch rifled guns of some sort while the US will have better repeating rifles, man portable machine guns and modern artillery. The CS army wouldl be torn to pieces.
I would imagine decades down road the CSA could have enough raw resources to fund the industries that it finds vital which makes them able to at least wage war better. Businesses are given tax cuts and tools to build industry(if you give people with the skills and money the opportunity to have all their basic resources(raw resources) you can track investors and people. In the north you often have to pay more taxes, more legal work, and buy your own materials. In the south they are literally giving people all the stuff they need except physical money which investors cover. There are people with the money and skills who would jump at that and careless about morals) with CSA could still get a lot of immigrants from people denied access to US. US did have limits and restrictions even at height of immigration into US. Europe got plenty of desperate people. If the CSA gets worried about being outnumbered by blacks too much they might expand on who it is willing to accept into country. Jews probably rather live in south over Pale settlements. Same goes for serfs and many Slavs. Some go north and some stay or get stuck there. Wouldn’t many Europeans denied entrance into US go to confederacy as a second option? The intention might not even be to stay there but use it as way to get into the US who shares a large border with CSA. They could see a map and figure that out. Like I said before it much easier for a illegal to cross CSA and US borders then the Mexican one. America in otl could much more easily control who going in and out of its nation(which helps stability. This is why natural borders are often better and not artificial ones). A CSA who just letting in as many white immigrants as possible to close the demographic gap might see a large number of Europeans enter its country. Even if half stay in CSA that changes things a decent bit. Western United States might get flooded with massive immigration from south(some southerners but more so Europeans using CSA to get into the US). This could help the north or destabilize it depending how it is handled(if they head west in large numbers they could be first people to settle many areas which creates unassimilated ethnic enclaves throughout the west. Assimilation is big part of US).

If the CSA was at least able to utilize its resources and build up industry a bit the rest could take off rapidly and just happen. Industrialization can happen at very rapid speeds closer you get to modern day and more you interact regularly with industrial nations. Some random Yankee with some money to spare will look at the south and think “I could make some money down there if I did this”. He can go down south much more easily then somewhere like Mexico and Japan and already speaks the same language(helps trade) and are use to working with each other(people like knowing what their getting in the deal. You want to know how to read them well in business situation). They might despise each other but some of both won’t turn away from making money with each other during peace time regularly. The more north develops the more it lingers over to the south. There might be many backroom and unspoken agreements between both nations. Free trade and business between the CSA and USA would be a for lack of a better word a cluster—-k(bust boom much more often). With the exception of blacks or slaves, the north and south will likely allow individual movement and business pretty freely. Crossing over Virginia to Maryland you might see border patrols but they are just there to prevent invasion or stop runaways slaves or later blacks illegals(north thinks slavery is wrong but they often don’t interact at all with blacks personally as much. There majority in some regions in the south so even if whites there hate them it’s going to be different in mindset due to them interacting with them daily. Northerners often feel more uncomfortable and unsure of blacks actually living with them. They are against slavery and more liberal ones might even be for helping them through various means but blacks living with them really at all wasn’t well received. If that wasn’t true don’t you think the majority of blacks would live in the north instead of the south right now. Some went back to the south after race riots and unions lobbying for employers to hire white and immigrant labor happened in the north. How are you so bad some go back to the south to farm. Think of a person who wants to go help people in Africa but live in a separate resort while starving people are around them in tents. The north will often just be the lesser of two evils which seems to be a occurring theme in American history). Couldn’t many northerner blame blacks somewhat for the war too which increases the more nativist type racist?(because they blame southern aristocrats doesn’t always mean they aren’t blaming others too. Some northerner might believe Africans “taint” any region they come to. These nativist racist say “look at CSA, Haiti, Brazil and Latin Americans. Maybe those Germans Americans and Anglo Americans become more Eurocentric in out look while the south goes the way a more “American” identity? Think how that changes racial views in both countries. Wouldn’t the Germans who still largely retain their culture at time make US more Germanic in character due to many in the Midwest, PA, and Northern Plains?). Border patrols probably let whites and immigrants travel freely between borders even in Maryland and Virginia. It would be impossible to pick out every white person crossing borders constantly especially since many are doing it where there is no one stopping them(border patrols in 1900s aren’t just walking around Kansas plains or heart of Appalachia mountains or southern Missouri looking for illegals who are constantly going back and forth. The only reason blacks are caught more often and watched for North is because they would stick out badly in most areas especially rural ones where they are likely going through while jumping border. The north is much much more white back then(it’s like white guy in China. China greatly diverse but you are easily picked out of a crowd when your a 6,5 guy with blonde hair and blue eyes). The northern patrols might deport black US citizens thinking they are illegals(if your from 1890s rural New England their a good chance that you never seen a black person before so they might be much more ignorant when dealing with them. The south might look at them like dangerous cattle and pets but they could likely pick out their slaves in a large crowd of black people(those kidnapping of freeman were never a mistakes in identification. These people deal with human trafficking. They know how to pick out large crowd or they would suck at their job). Look at demographic map of US. Blacks didn’t leave south until the great migration which wasn’t well received either and actually lead to US government discouraging it to some degree. Even if either side tries to stop movement between the border bribes could be cheap and ease way around that. You probably have people working in north but living in the south in many border regions(will cause a lot of fraud, tax, and money issues for both countries but southerners could use this to build up wealth he brings back home to use). Also if industrialization does take off to any degree wouldn’t a industrial but conservative culture have very high birth rates? Couldn’t when the north birthrates start dropping the south is taking off and southerners start scattering and creating big ethnic minorities outside of its border?

Growth will be rapid and fast but very unregulated and controlled. You will have people that own stuff or businesses on both side of the border. Legal and illegal businesses or mix of the two would be common. The north and south still have elements of meritocracy and capitalist mindsets. The south isn’t legally hereditary it’s more plutocratic in laws. This will change CSA a good bit once industry takes off. Industrialization in the south is coming through private interest groups for most part not directly government(they encourage at best or indifference at worse. They aren’t going to turn investors away as long as both sides careless about what the other side is doing(remember people often think short term not long goal or event politics. Some people don’t care who they are profiting from as long as they get their). A major capitalist in north could make a deal with a southern resource extraction company and fund them. A company from Germany is given a nice deal with CSA(land and resources) which convinces him to settle there. They can make money off mines in Appalachia but live in Savannah. These businesses grows to be a large influential interest group in CSA or US or both. Stuff like this happens over and over the decades. Aristocrats don’t take much notice to growing middle class and industrializing at first because none of them cause them trouble so they keep growing and growing at a fast rate to the point where when they do get into conflict with aristocrats they are either on equal or more powerful(how are they supposed to know their political threat until they outvote them in elections or have power to oppose you more now. Also aristocrats can’t just prevent people from doing business most of the time. Aristocrats often don’t care about what the middle class does until it is too late. A lot of them are enjoying life, doing what they want(not in a good way), partying, studying their interest(arts for ones that like to party and seem smart. Military for ones that wanted to do something besides indulging themselves all day and picked military out of romanticism). The middle class in south doesn’t care about slavery or causally supportive of it until they think system is failing and will destroy nation(their wealth. They are tied to south economically now morals will often go out of the window by then). They might have power to push for reform(remember aristocrats saw slaves chattel for profit often while whites who were not as connected or causal supporter of it thought blacks were animals that needed to be leashed). A middle class shift to political dominance or semi dominance could be the way south ends slavery because they have a more of leash approach which makes them see slavery as outdated at “keeping blacks under control”. They come up with its own black code laws which vary on state on extremist. Black codes in most states with very high black populations could be worse then Jim Crow. States with much higher white populations might just restrict movement of blacks in and into their state who fear massive emigration of black into white areas. This could be encouraged by the coal industry who wants to keep people fear down in the mostly white Appalachian regions because if they are rioting they aren’t working. They rather do something political as propaganda to ease fears and make its people less likely to rise up.

The south on a normal day would be that time periods Brazil or El Salvador on crime and violence but they probably have enough force to keep them from getting any worse then that. The CSA is going to make sure it’s nice areas are really nice and luxurious. Southern culture often covers itself heavily in romanticism and self image. They will bride or try to cover up bad depictions of the country and pay groups to hype them up enough to the point it over overwhelms bad depictions a lot. Imagine southerners aristocrats who probably like talking about themselves all day and about south. Since some of them fancy the arts they write heavily romanticized books about the south that depicts it as a “noble, rugged, and honest land”. Imagine the adventure setting books southern elites would write about the south. It’s propaganda but many reading this in Europe see it as real and which might attract some. People are often buying and reading entertainment pieces more so then news even back then. Your downplaying how insane, selfish, and stupid people can be. Americans have given money and invest in places all the time without considering political, ethnic, environmental, and religious issues that could arrive later. America had given weapons to people that attacked us only a decade later. They could easily sell weapons and resources to a group of people without knowing or caring for what they exactly are doing until it impacts them. US government could despise CSA but public doesn’t want to retake it completely for same reason people now would say no to annexing Mexico. Total war and conquest of world war scale is off a good but Franco-Prussian(south lose quick but concessions are mostly economic which might actually be unintentional destructive) or border incidents are common. The south might honestly just talk bad about north a lot and cause trouble they can’t blame on them(shady business, criminal, and propaganda tactics). Then have a “private meeting” with US diplomats or business people who are ones negotiating from top position while the south is trying to get best deal it can and twist it to the public. The south and north wouldn’t be the same country anymore but it would run like a poorly regulated version of modern economic globalization but on a more regional scale. Some of the foreign and economic policies i’m describing in this is how the US reacted once it became a military superpower. The US isn’t like the Europeans. Americans even during this time preferred soft power methods and not blunt force or imperialism. The south own culture and mix of American culture could create a imperialist power that used more soft power but only uses force when its very desperate or knows it can win. Reactionary regimes have shown ability to survive and project soft power effectively if they manage raw resource production well enough(government revenue and living conditions won’t always go hand and hand. For whites you could have a system where their is no safety net at all but outrageous wealth for a single person is(Theocratic Arab kingdoms attracts Indian immigrants due to labor demands and they treat them terrible but they still come. Well some can’t leave but their passports get taken which CSA would definitely do. A soft spoken southerner goes to Ireland during the famines and tricks a bunch of illiterate poor starving Irish into indebted labor in CSA mines and railroad structure(Irish indebted labor builds southern railroads?). There a good chance Britain looks the other way to this if CSA only do it to the Irish. Britain might support that and CSA might try to do favors for other imperial powers to expand(basically CSA is willing to do things many elites in other countries like Britain are not willing to do but would look the other way and be thankful if someone else does). This helps CSA have Britain look the other way to their many horrific actions or only pay lip service to it because they are basically their only thug. Britain has also been in investing in CSA heavily setting up resources extraction efforts(private US business competition there too). The south might have them cheap land and resources needed to start they can make plenty of money from severance tax(state level so they can adept to difference in state raw resources. Different ones need different rates in each state). Each state gets revenue for any resources exported out of state by these businesses. They aren’t really taxed at all for using resources within the state. The CSA has benefit of likely trying horrible crimes and unconventional/corrupt tactics very often over 100 years earlier before they became prevalent in otl. CSA might also bring worse traits of Union out much more(this is why being united is important. It balances the extremes of others groups). They also have advantage of these tactics working even better given lack of technology and more causal acceptance of horrible acts by the people then. Some in Britain or even CSA could satire the south in a light hearted or tragic hero way to lower public disapproval in places like Britain. The British label southerners as the “noble white savages” and “Descendants of savage Celtic warriors”. The British depict them them as Scot-Irish in roots(The British writing likely don’t want to consider them Anglo Saxons any more even if cordial with them officially. Many aristocrats type would take that as the biggest insult to national and personal pride. The lower class confederates ironically might like it). If southerners are seen as Anglo Saxon their backwardness is considered a more personal insult to many Brits if not Britain is willing to ease up on confederate actions(slavery ending will keep being pressured by Britain and when they finally do end slavery Britain media might depict it as “British influence helping guide the young American nation into the modern era”). Britain is willing to look other way to a lot of stuff if you go out of your way to help them a lot even if they think your backwards. Could southerners offer military aid through unofficial mercenaries(likely common in the violent CSA)? Same people who are filibustering are hired by Britain and France to deal with smaller colonial conflicts. They would be useful for solving minor or less serious issues in colonies. And they have someone else to blame if something goes wrong. They just deport and not paid them when they mess up and deny involvement but process keeps going on. Nationality and allegiances are not as dogmatic as European. For example Bush SR is a stereotypical New England republican but his son George H Bush is considered Texas. You could still have the same dynamic with rich New Englanders going to places like Texas and assimilate or integrate into the culture. Maybe during monopoly and oligarchs companies in the US and also is expanded into the CSA(stayed political neutral until later). Once the north tries to break them up the south bends to them more the company starting leaning more towards CSA. Once slavery isn’t in the union anymore most people in the north won’t care about blacks as much. Slavery isn’t a union problem anymore as long as slaves stay in the south. People often care less about problems in other countries especially in the US(they do business and not politics this policy doesn’t change with CSA but they undermine themselves a bit. Northerners capitalist could be on a beach house and hear about a slave rebellion and be surprised. They could as been in confederacy for few years be totally unaware of the political situation in CSA(he only in the nice areas. He doesn’t know about the local problems personally or even care. He focused on business and his own stuff.) This is just all happening. It isn’t a organized plan just a bunch of circumstances coming together. People are going to act in variety of ways and overlap between CSA and USA will likely be high.
 
Other than the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) there were no "ethnic" restrictions on US immigration until the early 1920s. There is no reason for this to change with the CSA breaking free.

BTW the crap educational system in the south will hamstring process. Even OTL the educational system in the south for whites (forget blacks for a moment) was overall much poorer than the rest of the USA. Before the ACW a significant percentage of engineers, doctors, etc in what was to be the CSA were educated in the north simply because the institutions to do this were inadequate. The southern elites saw education as for the elite, and funding public schools and public universities was much lower than elsewhere.
I would think some of the southern elites/aristocrats go study in Prussia about government and military due to money they have. The wealth families in New England often sent their kids to Prussia or Britain to learn business up until ww1. Why would at least some Southern elites who have money, time, and possible desire might want to go there for prestige and just to go. It’s a prestige thing(“I went Paris to study the languages and art”. “I studied war and combat”.) They are going for the hell of it like rich kids now except to a more extreme and blatant level. Also the aristocrats could become more like a mix of Junker and Saudi nobles. They will indulge themselves like Saudi princes if they can but also expect their sons or at least some of them to be “men”. Think of their definition of that. They want to be in military out of pride and sometimes a twisted obsession with war. You could have southern aristocrats go to Paris and Vienna to study music, language, art, and cultures(a lot of them just partying but they are likely getting more involved in romantic and folkish literature(could have a following) While others go to Prussia to learn about being soldiers and officers. The southern elites are often ignorant but they they will be involved in latest trends of Europe and alway added regional twist to them.
 
Yes, but... This more or less meant you could not randomly kill slaves, but if whipping led to death, or one was executed by an owner for a serious offense, so what. In general, mistreatment of slaves was considered low class and would get you snubbed in the antebellum south. The definition of mistreatment, however, meant that whippings, mutilations, use of women for sexual purposes, confinement in irons, long work days, etc were not considered mistreatment. There were sadistic owners who sued their slaves for obscene and disgusting practices, they were whispered about and often shunned but I'm not sure if any were actually punished by the state. The key part of the law is "malice aforethought", punishing a slave was not necessarily malicious...
They are based around many falsehood. No slave owner would say he did this to slaves. Raping a slave was considered disgusting act for different reasons. They viewed men would did this as depraved and lacking control(that why they often blamed Irish overseers a lot for it. Who did take part in it a lot themselves). You would also disgrace your wife a bit. In a culture that values honor and image they will get good at covering their shady stuff. Many did do these acts but many slave owners wanted the appearance of being civil and honorable man. Those plantations are twisted it more psychological then mental. A lot of slave owners seemed like a extremely abuse fathers(some were). I feel like system itself created a lot of mental unstable people on both sides. There were probably plantations in otl that “encouraged” slaves to appear always happy and if they don’t they get removed from sight and punished in a more psychological or threaten way for most minor things. They want them to feel like helpless children that’s a part of psychological impact. Imagine being a slave locked in a small hot box in southern weather with little water, food, and sleep for a good period of time then when you get pulled out some man talks to you in a soft southern accent like you are his kid and he explaining why he punished you. The amount of disrespect and demeaning nature of that is the worse thing to do to a human. At least getting lynched is usually done out of hate and anger which I can’t explain why but I feel like that is less bad then demeaning nature of a slave in the south.
 
Why would they be told no? You do know the Jewish Neighborhoods in New York and other big cities were started mostly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries,right? Why would that change?
The US didn’t let everyone in who wanted to. Many Jews did come but others probably got told they are taking in no more right now. I’m pretty sure Jews and Slavs would have left Russia in larger number if a nation accepted more in. I feel like it was a first come and serve thing. What was max amount of people the US allowed in yearly from 1865 to 1914?
 
They are based around many falsehood. No slave owner would say he did this to slaves.

That's just not true. All you have to do is go to the records of the time, and the diaries, journals, letters, etc. Further to that, there's quite a lot of white man's DNA that ended up in the population. 'High Yaller' slaves were particularly sought after in brothels. Many slave owners maintained slave mistresses, with varying degrees of openness. Hell, Thomas Jefferson did.

Raping a slave was considered disgusting act for different reasons.

They didn't even consider it rape. Slaves were property. Consent wasn't an issue.

They viewed men would did this as depraved and lacking control(that why they often blamed Irish overseers a lot for it. Who did take part in it a lot themselves).

That assertion is romantic, delusional and ahistorical

You would also disgrace your wife a bit. In a culture that values honor and image they will get good at covering their shady stuff. Many did do these acts but many slave owners wanted the appearance of being civil and honorable man. Those plantations are twisted it more psychological then mental. A lot of slave owners seemed like a extremely abuse fathers(some were). I feel like system itself created a lot of mental unstable people on both sides. There were probably plantations in otl that “encouraged” slaves to appear always happy and if they don’t they get removed from sight and punished in a more psychological or threaten way for most minor things. They want them to feel like helpless children that’s a part of psychological impact. Imagine being a slave locked in a small hot box in southern weather with little water, food, and sleep for a good period of time then when you get pulled out some man talks to you in a soft southern accent like you are his kid and he explaining why he punished you. The amount of disrespect and demeaning nature of that is the worse thing to do to a human. At least getting lynched is usually done out of hate and anger which I can’t explain why but I feel like that is less bad then demeaning nature of a slave in the south.

Okay, this is creepy. Maybe you should do some research. Read up on actual slavery, what it was actually like, what people did, and how they did it, and how it all worked.
 
That's just not true. All you have to do is go to the records of the time, and the diaries, journals, letters, etc. Further to that, there's quite a lot of white man's DNA that ended up in the population. 'High Yaller' slaves were particularly sought after in brothels. Many slave owners maintained slave mistresses, with varying degrees of openness. Hell, Thomas Jefferson did.



They didn't even consider it rape. Slaves were property. Consent wasn't an issue.



That assertion is romantic, delusional and ahistorical



Okay, this is creepy. Maybe you should do some research. Read up on actual slavery, what it was actually like, what people did, and how they did it, and how it all worked.
“Moreover, slaves are like other people, and imbibe prejudices quite common to others. They think their own better than that of others. Many, under the influence of this prejudice, think their own masters are better than the masters of other slaves; and this, too, in some cases, when the very reverse is true. Indeed, it is not uncommon for slaves even to fall out and quarrel among themselves about the relative goodness of their masters, each contending for the superior goodness of his own over that of the other…They seemed to think that the greatness of their masters was transferable to themselves. It was considered as being bad enough to be a slave, but to be a poor man’s slave was deemed a disgrace indeed!”

This is a statement by Fredrick Douglass who was a slave. Read me what he describes and don’t tell me those are some seriously mess up psychological issues in some slaves? I know what I said is mess up but this shows signs of their mindset. It’s sad
 
@ Modern Imperialism:

1. If Southern elites sent their children overseas for any education it was to the UK, they saw themselves as "equivalent" to the English country nobility.
2. Until after German unification (1871) going to "Prussia" for education was definitely not a thing, and certainly not to "learn war". I doubt anyone in the South had even heard of Clausewitz, at that point really only available in the original German and trust me NOT an easy read.
3. There were NO restrictions on Jews or any other Europeans immigrating to the USA prior to the immigration laws of the 1920s other than the more general rules against folks with disease coming in, known criminals etc. If you want to know the numbers and distribution of immigrants 1865-1914 feel free to look up that data readily online. The only "racial/ethnic" restriction on immigration was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, until after WWI.
 
@ Modern Imperialism:

1. If Southern elites sent their children overseas for any education it was to the UK, they saw themselves as "equivalent" to the English country nobility.
2. Until after German unification (1871) going to "Prussia" for education was definitely not a thing, and certainly not to "learn war". I doubt anyone in the South had even heard of Clausewitz, at that point really only available in the original German and trust me NOT an easy read.
3. There were NO restrictions on Jews or any other Europeans immigrating to the USA prior to the immigration laws of the 1920s other than the more general rules against folks with disease coming in, known criminals etc. If you want to know the numbers and distribution of immigrants 1865-1914 feel free to look up that data readily online. The only "racial/ethnic" restriction on immigration was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, until after WWI.
Didn’t all the immigration almost go completely through New York? Would more port and different boat prices lead to more people being able to come? CSA is closer then Latin America to Europe. Wouldn’t travel not be too hard for the time?
 
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 majority of Confederate voters would never let this happen. If it was somehow imposed on them, then large portions of white Confederates would leave the country.

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.

The only French and the Prussians military academies I can find were established by their governments to train their citizens to be officers in their armies. They would not accept Confederate citizens. Some sons of rich Confederates would attend the private military academies of the South, but it would not be universal. Virginia Military Institute and the Citadel in South Carolina would probably be the most prestigious,

Slaves will often(not always) be forbidden from factories for a few reasons.

This would happen over the dead bodies of Confederate factory owners. They preferred slaves, who cost less and could not go on strike.

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.

Those Confederates who actually believe in States Rights would bitterly oppose a large peacetime Confederate standing army. Even Confederates who don't care about centralization would want to keep government expenses down.

In 1866, the total serving in all services the US armed forces were about 77, 000. If the Confederate are willing to spend twice as much per taxpayer, which is unlikely, their postbellum military would be about 40,000 - 30,000 soldiers, 10,000 sailors and marines.

Some are even given land and resources to start small local arm industries

That is probably unconstitutional under the Confederate Constitution. Most Confederate politicians were strongly opposed to government funding private enterprise. There also the problem of where does the Confederate government get the land to distribute?

The south has plenty of resources to start up basic and light industries. They have coal, oil(later), and other raw resources.

Industry requires tools, machinery, skilled workers, and investment capital. The Confederacy was weak on the first three and had very little investment capital.

Transportation, trade, and communication systems could be nationalized.

Those Confederates who actually believe in States Rights would bitterly oppose nationalization of transportation, trade, and communication systems. So would every owner of these businesses. So would every owner of other businesses in the Confederacy, since they would worry they were next for nationalization. It also means nobody would risk investing in Confederate business, which would have a bad effect on the Confederate economy.
 
Last edited:
@Modern Imperialism : I won't do all your research for you, however while NYC was the biggest immigration also came through Boston, Baltimore, New Orleans, and Galveston as well as some via Canada (from Montreal).
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Free trade and business between the CSA and USA would be a for lack of a better word a cluster—-k(bust boom much more often). With the exception of blacks or slaves, the north and south will likely allow individual movement and business pretty freel
Oh no, it would be 50% tariff rates applied on CSA goods and 0% applied on US imports. CSA politicians were committed to free trade even if their economy was underdeveloped.

Britain has also been in investing in CSA heavily setting up resources extraction efforts(private US business competition there too).
Investing in Gilded Age US would be far profitable.

Aristocrats don’t take much notice to growing middle class and industrializing at first because none of them cause them trouble so they keep growing and growing at a fast rate to the point where when they do get into conflict with aristocrats they are either on equal or more powerful(how are they supposed to know their political threat until they outvote them in elections or have power to oppose you more now. Also aristocrats can’t just prevent people from doing business most of the time. Aristocrats often don’t care about what the middle class does until it is too late. A lot of them are enjoying life, doing what they want(not in a good way), partying, studying their interest(arts for ones that like to party and seem smart. Military for ones that wanted to do something besides indulging themselves all day and picked military out of romanticism). The middle class in south doesn’t care about slavery or causally supportive of it until they think system is failing and will destroy nation(their wealth. They are tied to south economically now morals will often go out of the window by then). They might have power to push for reform(remember aristocrats saw slaves chattel for profit often while whites who were not as connected or causal supporter of it thought blacks were animals that needed to be leashed). A middle class shift to political dominance or semi dominance could be the way south ends slavery because they have a more of leash approach which makes them see slavery as outdated at “keeping blacks under control”.
How are they going to have a large middle-class. Their economy and industry are underdeveloped, their education system is garbage.

CSA could have enough raw resources to fund the industries that it finds vital which makes them able to at least wage war better. Businesses are given tax cuts and tools to build industry(if you give people with the skills and money the opportunity to have all their basic resources(raw resources) you can track investors and people. In the north you often have to pay more taxes, more legal work, and buy your own materials. In the south they are literally giving people all the stuff they need except physical money which investors cover.
Investors will prefer USA, sorry man. And this is before the Transcontinental Railroad project.

CSA's low tariff/free trade policy means that cotton export revenue would be exhausted rapidly, so no domestic capital available.

Resources? Well, no where near the Great Lake areas. Oil? I don't they even have the skills and technology required to extract oil.

The CSA also lacks technology, machinery and equipment for industrialization. They also lacks skilled labour to learn, copy and operate them.

Finally, skilled labour, skilled labour, skilled labour. Skilled immigrants would go to the North where industry job opportunities are available.
 
Last edited:
The majority of Confederate voters would never let this happen. If it was somehow imposed on them, then large portions of white Confederates would leave the country.



The only French and the Prussians military academies I can find were established by their governments to train their citizens to be officers in their armies. They would not accept Confederate citizens. Some sons of rich Confederates would attend the private military academies of the South, but it would not be universal. Virginia Military Institute and the Citadel is South Carolina would probably be the most prestigious,



This would happen over the dead bodies of Confederate factory owners. They preferred slaves, who cost less and could not go on strike.



Those Confederate who actually believe in States Rights would bitterly oppose a large peacetime Confederate standing army. Even Confederates who don't care about centralization would want to keep government expenses down.

In 1866, the total serving in all services the US armed forces were about 77, 000. If the Confederate are willing to spend twice as much per taxpayer, which is unlikely, their postbellum military would be about 40,000 - 30,000 soldiers, 10,000 sailors and marines.



That is probably unconstitutional under the Confederate Constitution. Most Confederate politicians were strongly opposed to government funding private enterprise. There also the problem of where does the Confederate government get the land to distribute?



Industry requires tools, machinery, skilled workers, and investment capital. The Confederacy was weak on the first three and had very little investment capital.



Those Confederate who actually believe in States Rights would bitterly oppose nationalization of transportation, trade, and communication systems. So would every owner of these businesses. So would every owner of other businesses in the Confederacy, since they would worry they were next for nationalization. It also means nobody would risk investing i Confederate business, which would have a bad effect on the Confederate economy.
[/QUOTE]
Not nationalize but more the states work together collectively on transportation and basic infrastructure. They are mostly just laying ground work for businesses and industries to make it easy for investors and businesses with money to help develop the country. Foreign industries are still industries there. They are subsidizing private sector to do this at most or even just individual states do this since they have great control over economics. For example states like Texas who are less dominated by slavery has economic and political environment for industrialization? Companies and businesses could go to CSA for the same reason some companies go to Mexico from US currently. It has resources there and cheap labor and could possible be used as a loophole around certain trade restrictions(changing of production rates of your factories in both countries due to predict changes in the market). Tariffs in US might make some companies and businesses to go to the CSA to get around tariffs if they have none.
 
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.

The Confederacy did not develop "more modern warfare tactics and doctrines" in actual history. The Confederacy did not learn "to fight in small organized units and move across rugged areas" in actual history. The Confederacy did not learn "the mistakes and successes of wars in Europe", they usually didn't even learn from their own mistakes. The Confederacy would be reactionary, overconfident, and convinced of their innate superiority; all of which discourage, rather than encourage, military innovation.

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.

The losers always spend more time studying warfare than the winners. The Union would have the advantage in funding, numbers, logistics, industry, naval power, and technology. So long as Scott, Grant, or Sherman are alive, they also have men who thought on the strategic level, which the Confederates lack.

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.

The Confederacy didn't do this in actual history, so why would they do this after achieving independence?

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.

Robert E Lee was arguably the Confederacy's best. He never thought above the operation level and when faced with opponents were were not intimidated by his audacity, he lost.

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 makes no sense. In the Civil War, the Union had actual strategic plans, the Confederates never developed a strategy. The Union learned how to fight across multiple fronts, the Confederacy did not. The Union proved better at organizing troops movement. The only way that the Confederacy "could be fighting with ww2 tactics while US uses civil war tactics still" is if the ASBs make it so.

Many people don’t learn military tactics until they experience it on the receiving end. Generals often learn from their mistakes.

Generals seldom learn from their mistakes. Shelby Foote correctly noted that Grant was rare among generals of his age, or indeed any age, in that he learned from his 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.

Fear of a second Haiti convinced the majority of white people in slaveholding states that slavery must be kept forever. Even most white Unionists were bitterly opposed to ending slavery - they were firmly convinced that freeing the slaves would result in mass murder of white males and mass rape of white females.

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 Confederate military would never demand an end to slavery. If a military junta does seize power in the Confederacy, they might make all slaves property of the state, but they would not free the slaves.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Companies and businesses could go to CSA for the same reason some companies go to Mexico from US currently. It has resources there and cheap labor and could possible be used as a loophole around certain trade restrictions(changing of production rates of your factories in both countries due to predict changes in the market). Tariffs in US might make some companies and businesses to go to the CSA to get around tariffs if they have none.
Do not apply late-20th century thinking. Outsourcing was never a big thing during the 19th century.

Also, it was the US tariffs that forced European companies to invest there, as they could not hope to export to the US freely. Meanwhile, the lack of tariffs would make the CSA a dumping ground.

They are mostly just laying ground work for businesses and industries to make it easy for investors and businesses with money to help develop the country. Foreign industries are still industries there. They are subsidizing private sector to do this at most or even just individual states do this since they have great control over economics.
The US had more developed legal and institutional framework, as well as better infrastructures.
It also had more investment opportunities, even before the Gilded Age kicked in. Gilded Age would certainly suck foreign capital away from CSA.

Mind you, the gap between USA and CSA at that time was bigger than the gap between China and India during the 1990s.
 
Confederate Constitution explicitly forbade further secession.
You are right about the boil weevil spread being gradual and it having a more gradual impact on slavery, but this comment is just out of place, when your entire society is based off the concept that states have the right to succeed and do as they please as a right, it its sorta taken that if push comes to shove they will succeed anyway if they think it suits them...
I'd say, at least to the 1920's, and quite possibly much later. Assuming they just take the name off and call it something else, then well into the 50's and 60's.

Yes, but we are talking about Slavery not paid sharecropping or a segregated workforce, there is no way on earth that any system truly like 1860's slavery will survive long past 1910 much less through the 1950's and it will take more than the CSA renaming slavery to get the international community off their back over the issue and overcome the problems of slavery as a system. After all it's not like the plantation owners are going to start paying slaves without need, so how likely is the CSA to switch to sharecropping or similar? after all in OTL paid sharecropping only arose because slavery had been banned and the rich needed a excuse to keep their workforce, so without this internal pressure how likely is slavery to make this transition, much less make it smoothly?
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top