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 have a higher percent of their population under arms. It would come at a cost of higher taxation and/or increased inflation and reduce the number of Confederates available to the work force. Both of these would hamper the Confederate economy. The Confederacy could not have a larger army than the Union without bankrupting themselves and crippling their economy.

I’m also hinting at rapid industrialization through non democratic means on the confederacy part or at least limited. Industrialization always rapidly changes thing.

This level of centralization and state managed economy would require the violent overthrow of the existing Confederate government. If the Confederacy managed to survive its own civil war, their industrialization would be as "efficient" as real world state managed industry. The non-democratic industrialization would push unrealistic production goals that would be met by steep reduction in quality. The state managed bureaucracy would only match consumer needs by luck, with there being large surplusses or shortages on most industrial goods. Rapid industrialization also requires large amounts of investment capital. That requires that the Confederate government raise taxes and/or increases deficit spending.. Higher taxes and higher inflation would result in a lot of people leaving the Confederacy, either by emigration or attempted state secession.
 
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...

So what? The Confederacy was entirely willing to abrogate States Rights when it pleased them. Secession in the Confederacy would be met with violence.

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?

Ending slavery would be taking 30% of the valued assets of the Confederacy and wiping it out with one stroke of the pen. Yeah, good luck with that.

Go to millionaire plantation owners and tell them "We're going to erase 60% of your equity, by taking your slaves and setting them free. Don't worry though, we'll make it so they still have to work for you." That's going to go over so well.

Let's get very serious here: The post-Confederacy only accepted segregation, jim crow and sharecropping because the Union took away their slaves by force. Period.
 
Last edited:
The Confederacy could have a higher percent of their population under arms. It would come at a cost of higher taxation and/or increased inflation and reduce the number of Confederates available to the work force. Both of these would hamper the Confederate economy. The Confederacy could not have a larger army than the Union without bankrupting themselves and crippling their economy.



This level of centralization and state managed economy would require the violent overthrow of the existing Confederate government. If the Confederacy managed to survive its own civil war, their industrialization would be as "efficient" as real world state managed industry. The non-democratic industrialization would push unrealistic production goals that would be met by steep reduction in quality. The state managed bureaucracy would only match consumer needs by luck, with there being large surplusses or shortages on most industrial goods. Rapid industrialization also requires large amounts of investment capital. That requires that the Confederate government raise taxes and/or increases deficit spending.. Higher taxes and higher inflation would result in a lot of people leaving the Confederacy, either by emigration or attempted state secession.
Undemocratic doesn’t always mean a fully state run economy. They could just be bending over hard(pandering) to investors and businesses that come to CSA to increase industrialization. Why would that method not work in gilded age(it works to extent now)? I feel like this period of time often had countries(big and small) that were behind culturally and had outdated structure that didn’t know how to use modern technology or understand changing economics yet even if they have the resources and technology. It seems like a major transitional period.
 
Those police training isn’t going to be too different from more modern military training. They have to train people how to put down revolts and unrest. They might not be training like napoleonic armies but they are training more like modern military units. The CSA backward domestic conflicts is training them how to fight with modern weapons and small units across large rugged terrains(a lot of confederacy).

Period police training was almost non-existent and would provide nothing resembling military training, let alone modern military training. Period slave patrols provided zero training of any kind, let alone military training. The only requirements were one of you being sober enough you didn't fall off your horse or fail to call off your dogs before they maimed or killed an unarmed man woman, or child. Slave revolts were suppressed by overwhelming numbers and savage reprisals against unarmed civilians, not military tactics. Only actual Confederate military units would receive military training, which largely consisted of learning to follow orders and move in formation. Period Confederates did not train like modern military units - they would only do so if ASBs implanted the idea in their minds.
 
One thing that modern police training does is try and have the officers think several times before they pull the trigger, even if receiving fire. In the military, while you are not opening fire on groups of civilians willy-nilly, in a fire fight if one bullet is good five are better. Just an example. The only thing police training does for any infantryman is that the cop may be better at accepting orders promptly than a civilian at the beginning of training, and may have useful firearms proficiency (or not, many instructors prefer somebody who has never used firearms as they have no bad habots to get rid of). Police in the latter half of the 19th century received almost no "training".
 
Period police training was almost non-existent and would provide nothing resembling military training, let alone modern military training. Period slave patrols provided zero training of any kind, let alone military training. The only requirements were one of you being sober enough you didn't fall off your horse or fail to call off your dogs before the maimed or killed an unarmed man woman, or child. Slave revolts were suppressed by overwhelming numbers and savage reprisals against unarmed civilians. Only actual Confederate military units would receive military training, which largely consisted of learning to follow orders and move in formation. Period Confederates did not train like modern military units - they would only do so if ASBs implanted the idea in their minds.
They would have way more partisans then the north. Won’t they likely have to constantly fight partisans and even terrorist like groups? Won’t something like that lead to CSA creating first primitive forms and only develop it over time when constant unrest isn’t uncommon? Unstable countries sometimes answer this by creating more modern type of police and national security forces(north likely doesn’t need one like the south since the north is stable. The reason I like using Putin comparison is because they have elections and a good bit of public support. It’s a hybrid regime. Elections are still important but often have high amounts of corruption, populism, and dirty politics(even low level political violence might not be uncommon which could be one reason for them taking action against it). The south will depict themselves as democratic republic(not fully true at all but China in otl right now has people believe their elections actually matter so it isn’t unlikely many southerners think the same). Them trying keep the appearance of democracy is what becomes issue(they are constantly practicing propaganda methods. As it’s own government they have to learn how to keep poor whites somewhat content).
 
Also the south will fear not having a big defensive force will lead to them being the next Haiti.

A large standing army is not needed to keep the slaves suppressed, the slaveholding states managed this just fine before the war. The Confederate states would want a large enough standing army to discourage invasion, but they could not afford to build one bigger than the Union army. The most successful slave revolt in a US slaveholding state was Nat Turner's rebellion, which resulted in the death of 50 whites, with 150 to 200 slaves killed in retaliation. That is less than 1/1000th of the casualties of the Haitian rebellion. Unless there is a slave rebellion with hundreds or even thousands dead, the Confederates will not feel thatarmed forces are needed to keep the slaves in line, and even then they will strongly favor state militias over increasing the size of the national standing army.

CSA could get rich off natural resources in a similar fashion as Saudi once they discover them all.

The Saudi royal family got rich off of oil, most of the population remained in poverty. With the massive profits from oil, little money went to industrialization or infrastucture in Saudi Arabia.The Confederacy would follow a similar pattern - most of the wealth would flow into the hands of the men already rich enough to own dozens of slaves, while the majority of the Confederate population remained poor. Since it would be less profitable than resource extraction, little of Confederate investment capital would go into industry. And the Confederate Constitution forbade "internal improvements" so the Confederate government will be spending no money on infrastructure.
 
Last edited:
No reason they don’t mechanized.

The Confederacy is a slave society. Slave societies are slow to mechanize.

The south is going to be authoritarian in many ways but their methods of doing it could be head of their time.

19th century authoritarian regimes like the Congo "Free" State were horrific. 20th century authoritarian regimes like Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia were even worse. The antebellum South was already fine with violently suppressing freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press if it helped preserve slavery. If an independent Confederacy is ahead of its time on authoritarian methods, real or suspected abolitionists will be disappeared. If an independent Confederacy is ahead of its time on authoritarian methods, men who spoke ill of the Confederacy, like Sam Houston, will be quietly erased from the history books. The antebellum South was already a surveillance state for both free and enslaved blacks. If an independent Confederacy is ahead of its time on authoritarian methods, this will be extended to poor whites, who would live in constant fear of being denounced by neighbors, friends, or even family as closet abolitionists or Unionists. If an independent Confederacy is ahead of its time on authoritarian methods, it would be euthanizing old, sick and crippled slaves. If an independent Confederacy is ahead of its time on authoritarian methods, it would be sterilizing or enslaving the few free blacks left. If an independent Confederacy is ahead of its time on authoritarian methods, it would be enslaving the Native Americans and taking their lands. If an independent Confederacy is ahead of its time on authoritarian methods, it would be putting suspected Unionists in interment camps for re-education. forced labor, and possible sterilization.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
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.
OMG!

Do you actually believe this?

No slave owner? Have you ever LOOKED at any records of the era. They actually had a LEGAL TERMS for individuals who were 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 black, and 1/16 Black. There were states where a freedman who was 1/8 or 1/4 Black was legally considered to be white

THOMAS JEFFERSON had SIX children by Sally Hemmings. THOMAS FUCKING JEFFERSON. Now there is considerable debate over the exact nature of the relationship in some circles (I tend to fall into the "How the F### could she consent, she was a GD SLAVE" school of thought), but there is ZERO doubt regarding parentage (DNA: Blessing or curse? Film at Eleven). Now, the lunact of this whole thing is that Hemmings was already mixed race, by most accounts 3/4 while, making her children with Jefferson 7/8 white (which made them white under Virginia law, but since they were born of a slave they were considered slaves until either 1) Jefferson allowed them to escape, which he did with two of them, or until they were freed upon his death (as stated in his will). They were literally "Negro Slaves" one day and White the next day. That is how screwy the law was. The law only existed in that way because it was so common to have mixed race individuals in the Slave States.

Doesn't take a lot of math to figure out how that happens, especially as one gets to 1/8 or 1/16th.
 
OMG!

Do you actually believe this?

No slave owner? Have you ever LOOKED at any records of the era. They actually had a LEGAL TERMS for individuals who were 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 black, and 1/16 Black. There were states where a freedman who was 1/8 or 1/4 Black was legally considered to be white

THOMAS JEFFERSON had SIX children by Sally Hemmings. THOMAS FUCKING JEFFERSON. Now there is considerable debate over the exact nature of the relationship in some circles (I tend to fall into the "How the F### could she consent, she was a GD SLAVE" school of thought), but there is ZERO doubt regarding parentage (DNA: Blessing or curse? Film at Eleven). Now, the lunact of this whole thing is that Hemmings was already mixed race, by most accounts 3/4 while, making her children with Jefferson 7/8 white (which made them white under Virginia law, but since they were born of a slave they were considered slaves until either 1) Jefferson allowed them to escape, which he did with two of them, or until they were freed upon his death (as stated in his will). They were literally "Negro Slaves" one day and White the next day. That is how screwy the law was. The law only existed in that way because it was so common to have mixed race individuals in the Slave States.

Doesn't take a lot of math to figure out how that happens, especially as one gets to 1/8 or 1/16th.
I believed the otl situation of slavery is really fucked up more so then most slavery especially when it comes to psychological impacts. They had a lot of twisted, hypocritical, and mess up relationships. That one reason I could see something like Brazilian “whitening” becoming a thing later on. Fredrick Douglass even mentions how messed up the situation is even among black slaves themselves(I put quote earlier). Read what he says then compare it to my comment on it. Brainwashing of some slaves seem almost unreal. Some slaves probably did develop Stockholm like symptoms while living as a slave(think of a traumatized or abused person not blaming there kidnapper and actual defending them. There are cases of this in our world now so it might of been even more common during slavery but due to lack of knowledge about it back then little researched it). Slavery likely leaves a lot of them mentally scarred.

Also I would like to point out southern society will have a lot of things known but not talked about. They likely aren’t causally talking about raping slaves especially around women, kids, and strangers. Many know about it but don’t talk about it loudly or publicly. Most pretend it isn’t happening or ignore it. That’s why the culture is hypocritical everyone or many knows what going on but many decided to ignore it or not talk about it. If someone brought up an aristocrat sleeping or raping slaves especially around his family that guy would probably challenge him to duel or have his guards beat hell out of him. It is one thing to know but that does not mean people causally discuss it in public. You think at those “high class” events they discuss that. They might go in back room of their house or secluded area to do it. His close friends probably know about and even talk about it among themselves but not around their families or other people. Also someone close to them yapping about it to everyone isn’t going to be taken well. The aristocratic are more rich rednecks who like to play noble and exploit people but not Nazis. That’s why they might be willing reform more so then racist in Europe. If self preservation(from within) of nation is in danger they will start flipping flopping on stuff a lot more often or try to play both sides(Huey Long and populist types).
 
Last edited:
I believed the otl situation of slavery is really fucked up more so then most slavery especially when it comes to psychological impacts. They had a lot of twisted, hypocritical, and mess up relationships.
tenzernew.gif


All legally slaves.

No shortage of fair skinned, blue eyed and red haired Slaves in the South
 
tenzernew.gif


All legally slaves.

No shortage of fair skinned, blue eyed and red haired Slaves in the South
If they are that white they are often being passed off as white. Lying about birth and background could be common especially with people who can bribe officials. Also if they escape they can blind in more and fade into white population(often intentionally). This helps my argument about possible “whitening” or CSA having a more American identity that is similar to Latin America in many ways. The thing that needs to be remembered many mix race people could support CSA more so then blacks. Didn’t most free blacks/mix race people own slaves in places like Louisiana(racial ideas were original different in that state due to French influence. I could see mix race people not challenge slavery but the one drop rule. They argue having “white blood” makes them better then full blooded blacks and undeserving of being subjugate to slavery which I could see the CSA maybe conceding that. Mix race people aren’t given equality at first but are labeled as freeman? The mix race population could become more tolerated and accepted over many many decades due to them often siding with upper class for its own benefit. You do know most mix race slaves worked in the house and not as much in field as fulled blooded blacks. Many black slaves often hated mix race slaves. Aristocrats probably vary a bit and are conflicted about how to treat mix bastards depending on the person.
 
If they are that white they are often being passed off as white. Lying about birth and background could be common especially with people who can bribe officials. Also if they escape they can blind in more and fade into white population(often intentionally). This helps my argument about possible “whitening” or CSA having a more American identity that is similar to Latin America in many ways. The thing that needs to be remembered many mix race people could support CSA more so then blacks. Didn’t most free blacks/mix race people own slaves in places like Louisiana(racial ideas were original different in that state due to French influence. I could see mix race people not challenge slavery but the one drop rule.
You seem to be ignorant of the trends in Dixie and the CSA cracking down on Free Blacks, manumission, those with known negro ancestry being treated like whites at all, etc. Louisiana was not the wave of the future but an aberration to be fixed.
 
You seem to be ignorant of the trends in Dixie and the CSA cracking down on Free Blacks, manumission, those with known negro ancestry being treated like whites at all, etc. Louisiana was not the wave of the future but an aberration to be fixed.
It’s a confederacy. States could have widely indifferent domestic policies. The French culture is stronger in Louisiana in this pod and the government can’t just push around states. The state governments and federal government could be plagued by corruption and less democratic then US but they still have control over state policy. Racial laws themselves might very to extents in each state. Also free blacks aren’t always mix. Free blacks could still be oppressed heavily but mix people not so. Many are still slaves on plantations but they are often the slaves helping master(often dad) run the place. Mix slaves aren’t like fully black ones. They have blood with actual aristocracy who is influential in CSA(think of situations and political change slave-master relationship has in the classical world like Constantine mom being a slave). Many aristocrats are racist but many also take great pride in families and bloodline. Some mix people will be treated poorly but others are used to police blacks(men) or as pampered sex slaves(women). I think it is kind of insulting to blacks and mix people themselves if you don’t think some of them would know how to subtly play ignorant or stupid master or overseer. Wouldn’t many slave women think having sex with master for 5 minutes or less while getting to live in nice plantation mansion is better then laboring all day in a hot cotton field and still likely get raped more brutally by some illiterate oversear? They might be slaves but self preservation and moving up in anyway possible is better then staying in field. Honestly the more I describe southern culture and society the more I realize how insane the culture is in comparison to many places.
 
This debate frankly seems to be a hobby-horse more concerned with getting a particular outcome (a strong CSA postwar) than whether that outcome is plausible.
I definitely see a case of an end-state being pictured (A 'good old country boy' dominated polity in Dixie that can at least regularly black the eye of, if not casually smack around, the industrialized Union run by shopkeepers) and the speculation/world-building focused on getting to that point.

It’s a confederacy. States could have widely indifferent domestic policies. The French culture is stronger in Louisiana in this pod and the government can’t just push around states. The state governments and federal government could be plagued by corruption and less democratic then US but they still have control over state policy. Racial laws themselves might very to extents in each state. Also free blacks aren’t always mix. Free blacks could still be oppressed heavily but mix people not so. Many are still slaves on plantations but they are often the slaves helping master(often dad) run the place. Mix slaves aren’t like fully black ones. They have blood with actual aristocracy who is influential in CSA(think of situations and political change slave-master relationship has in the classical world like Constantine mom being a slave). Many aristocrats are racist but many also take great pride in families and bloodline. Some mix people will be treated poorly but others are used to police blacks(men) or as pampered sex slaves(women). I think it is kind of insulting to blacks and mix people themselves if you don’t think some of them would know how to subtly play ignorant or stupid master or overseer. Wouldn’t many slave women think having sex with master for 5 minutes or less while getting to live in nice plantation mansion is better then laboring all day in a hot cotton field and still likely get raped more brutally by some illiterate oversear? They might be slaves but self preservation and moving up in anyway possible is better then staying in field. Honestly the more I describe southern culture and society the more I realize how insane the culture is in comparison to many places.
A) You are making considerable use of speculation and more to the point ignoring what is actually recorded in terms of application of the One Drop Rule. The bulk of the Slave States were not only very strongly invested in White Supremacy but were getting more so over the decades, and course corrections would need a reason beyond "Their would-be lordships might find it more practical if it would help beat up Yankees in the long term" to be implemented.

B) Did you really just break out the "better to be raped on a regular basis than working hard in the field' thing? Seriously?
 
I definitely see a case of an end-state being pictured (A 'good old country boy' dominated polity in Dixie that can at least regularly black the eye of, if not casually smack around, the industrialized Union run by shopkeepers) and the speculation/world-building focused on getting to that point.

A) You are making considerable use of speculation and more to the point ignoring what is actually recorded in terms of application of the One Drop Rule. The bulk of the Slave States were not only very strongly invested in White Supremacy but were getting more so over the decades, and course corrections would need a reason beyond "Their would-be lordships might find it more practical if it would help beat up Yankees in the long term" to be implemented.

B) Did you really just break out the "better to be raped on a regular basis than working hard in the field' thing? Seriously?
For B I’m not saying all but some. It’s not a great situation either way. Your probably getting rape either way some might find it preferably if they present themselves as more willing(if they refuse or resistance the rape is likely much more brutal). It’s self preservation not choice. People who are desperate or in terrible situations are often willing to sacrifice anything for a chance at moving up in anyway. Wouldn’t you agree a obedient house slaves(even if they are pretending) probably don’t have it as bad as ones in field? This is common throughout history.
 

DougM

Donor
We seam to be missing a key point.
The powers that be in the south (namely the wealthy land/slave owners) had decades of extreme influence in politics and when that was threatened they ended up starting a civil war to protect their wealth and influence.
Now they have a country that they built and created to protect Thier power and wealth (slavery) there is no way in this green earth that they are going to creat a class of wealthy factory owners that could ultimately take away the aforementioned power influence and wealth,
They killed tens of thousands to make sure they kept power and the wealth they are not going to allow the government they created and control do anything that would effect that.
They may someday have outside influences force them the way apartheid was ended but they won’t allow wealthy factory owners to arise they way robber barons did Historical in the US. These people are not stupid they know that they could lose power if not careful and they will not allow that to happen
 
Also social mobility is key for industrialization and the south still has that to an extent).

Social mobility is not key for industrialization. Investment capital, a trained work force, tools, and machinery are necessary for industrialization.

Northern industrialist and capitalist can easily go to the CSA and do business. Same language and they use to be part of the same country. When worker rights, unions, fair wages, safety regulations, and environment laws becomes a issue for them in the north the south might welcome them in. The south will have cheaper labor, less worker rights, less taxes/tariffs, and panders to them heavily.

The labor force would be cheaper in the Confederacy if you only need unskilled labor, but lack of educational facilities in the South means skilled workers would probably have to be paid as much or more than skilled workers in the Union. And wages are only part of the cost of production. The Confederacy was strongly against "internal improvements", so they will not be pandering to northern industrialists. This same opposition to internal improvements means the Confederacy will have inferior infrastructure, which increases the cost of getting Confederate goods to market. The Confederacy had virtually no hard currency, it would all be fiat paper money, which means the Confederacy will have higher inflation, which will drive up both the risk and the cost of Northerners investing in Confederate businesses. The Confederacy also lacked investment capital - northern banks and investors are more likely to invest in Union industries. If The Confederacy starts nationalizing some industry, as you have proposed, foreign investment in Confederate firms will evaporate. Lower Confederate import tariffs mean that the Confederacy will have a hard time developing local production of machinery and tools. It would be cheaper for an industrialist in the Union to purchase machinery and tools made in the Union than for an industrialist in the Confederacy to import those same tools and machinery. Even if import tariffs are lower in the Confederacy, overall taxes would be higher since the Civil War had a much higher cost per person in the Confederacy than in the Union. The Confederacy has a much smaller market than the Union - for every 1 USA taxpayer there are 3.8 CSA taxpayers. The Confederacy allows export tariffs , which the Union Constitution forbids, so Confederate exports will be much more expensive. Capitalists who stay in the Union may pay more for labor, but goods shipped from the Confederacy will cost more due to paying transportation costs, Confederate export tariffs, and Union import tariffs. The Union will still be buying raw materials from the Confederacy, but locally produced finished goods will be cheaper than imports from the Confederacy and don't risk you getting boycotted by abolitionists, and free blacks.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top