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.
Citation needed. This sounds made up based on stereotypes.

Edit: The whole argument seems like it's working backwards from a successful CSA scenario, trying to make facts fit the goal. If the CSA was ruled by brilliant, rational people with deep foresight, if the Union was ruled by blind, ignorant fools, if slave revolts made countries more tolerant, if poverty made countries richer, if ignorance made countries more innovative, if constant crises made countries strong... Why didn't it work like that elsewhere? They were inbred!
https://www.brown.edu/academics/eco...ke Golosov_Industrialization Russia_Paper.pdf
Here the one about Russian industrialization. It also compares them to Soviets.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_intermarriage
Royal incest in Europe is very well known so I’m using wiki for it because you can add the dots together by looking at family tree. You don’t want your leaders of the country to have a bunch of genetic defects. They were so caught up with keeping things within the family and did not understand the genetic impact of it. Some had Kings that had bad mental and physical deformities. I think all of the kids or most of Russia last Tsar inherited diseases from Queen Victoria line due to incest over multiple generations. I just find it funny when Europeans labeled some places and people in the US as inbred but their country gave a real one a crown and country to rule while ones here are thought to live in backward places.
 
There's a galaxy of difference between:

6i83Pnz.png


and "They were just really stupid. Because of all the incest."

Just so, thus "made up based on stereotypes". That does nothing to prove the (entire???) aristocracy of Russia and Austria was inbred to such an extent they had mental impairments that directly impacted industrialization. It wasn't the case. Look at the paper you yourself cite.
 
There's a galaxy of difference between:

6i83Pnz.png


and "They were just really stupid. Because of all the incest."

Just so, thus "made up based on stereotypes". That does nothing to prove the (entire???) aristocracy of Russia and Austria was inbred to such an extent they had mental impairments that directly impacted industrialization. It wasn't the case. Look at the paper you yourself cite.
Not saying all(nothing is universal). But if incest was a issue especially in the monarch lines it’s reasonable to say that probably impacted the amount of of good and bad leaders since they are often the people running the country. How many do you think was left mentally incapable to properly run a country or plagued by genetic issues that impacted leadership. Look at the Russian royal family. They lost kids because of genetic defects(they bleed very easily forget the name of disease those). I’m losing the Russian example to show differences and similarities that might or might not lead to success or not in the CSA. That’s why you study other nations and groups. You learn what trends are and what is successful and not successful. Then you also want to look at the variables involved in it.
 
Look at the Russian royal family. They lost kids because of genetic defects(they bleed very easily forget the name of disease those).
Which kids did the Romanovs lose to hemophilia?
The only hemophiliac Romanov I can recall was Alexei Nikolaevich, who died from being shot and stabbed (to an extent and in locations that
made hemophilia irrelevant). In 1918, aged 14.
(And it has been noted that the hemophilia gene inherited from Victoria implies either a mutation or the involvement of
someone not previously involved in any royal bloodline.)

Also, wasn't it specifically the Spanish Habsburgs that became inbred?
 
Sigh... Hemophilia is an x-linked genetic condition involving factor VIII deficiency in the clotting change. Women are usually carriers (as they have 2 X chromosomes, however male offspring of a female carrier have a 50/50 chance of having hemophilia. Hemophilia in European royalty appears to have been the result of a spontaneous mutation in Queen Victoria as her descendants had a pattern of hemophilia in the males consistent with this - including the Tsarevitch. The Habsburgs had more problems with inbreeding.
 
Not saying all(nothing is universal). But if incest was a issue especially in the monarch lines it’s reasonable to say that probably impacted the amount of of good and bad leaders since they are often the people running the country.
Is it reasonable? If you're going to throw out the claim 'Austria didn't industrialize as successfully as it could have because Franz Joseph had incest-related mental impairments' you might want to back it up.

The idea is kind of central to your argument, the Confederates are somehow just better faster smarter than everyone else. You have it that the wise, Ayn Randish Confederate heroes of industry would act with cool foresight and rapidly re-tool their economy and society for the 20th century. The counterpoint is that OTL other, less backward countries that were not reeling from war and heavy debt didn't do this. There has to be a reason, so the reply is ... the other countries' leaders are just dumb dudes!

Nah. The Confederacy would probably act a lot like those nations that lagged behind, for the same materialist reasons. Power was in the hand of reactionaries invested in the status quo who felt their economic interests might be threatened by change.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
). If the south has much more free trade when the rest of the “civilized”/western world(looked as backwards but still part of this by other nations) is cutting back on it greatly that can actually create rapid industrialization at the cost of living conditions for many
It will become a dumping ground for foreign manufacturers. They can simply export goods there. And based on what actually happened IOTL, no foreign country would really have spare investment capital to invest in the CSA.

Tariffs and protectionist policies piss off a lot of capitalist and liberal businesses people.
Tariffs forced European investors to open subsidiaries in the US. And the majority of the US business world favoured tariffs at that time.

Russia, Prussia, and Austria you had Luddites(no where near as extreme in Americas) and some people against industrialization to a almost cartoonish degree. Russia was even against railroad investment and construction for awhile which is completely stupid considering the size of Russian Empire and funding they had especially when it depends on exports raw resources a lot.
On the other hand, Germany actually had a large number of liberals and modernizers to counter-balance the so-called Luddites.

About Russia, its railroad construction and industrialization was funded by France because it was France's only geopolitical ally at that time. And Republican France would be far more likely to be pro-US as IOTL (leaning towards the CSA would anger the liberals and socialists there, who dominated French politics at that time). As I said, no spare capital for the CSA. Britain was busy spending money on India, Malaya or its White Dominions, or Latin America, or the US itself. For Germany, German banking system was always geared towards its industries rather than capital exports.
 
Could slavery by race slowly be replaced with slavery by status? Suppose gradual emancipation is backfilled with criminals at varying levels, creating an eventual police state where not all (but still most) slaves are black nor are people born into bondage...?
 
Wage labor is cheaper for a factory and mine given the high amount of risk and high price of slave labor.

This is incorrect. Slaves were used heavily in Southern industry in OTL.

"Flour mills, textile mills, government-funded projects, tobacco factories, and iron manufacturers used enslaved labor to keep the cost of production low." - Library of Virginia

Romans only worked slaves in mines because they had plenty of slaves to spare. The south does not.

This is also incorrect. Slaves were used heavily in Southern mining in OTL.

"The southern coal and iron mining industry was greatly dependent upon slave labor and many mining companies invested substantial sums in bondsmen..." - Industrial slavery in the Old South, Robert Starobin

"Gold was mined throughout the Piedmont and Appalachian regions largely with slave labor..." - Industrial slavery in the Old South, Robert Starobin

Railroad work might even be considered too dangerous for slaves.

This is also incorrect. Slaves were used heavily in Southern railroad construction in OTL.

"Southern internal improvement enterprises were so dependent upon slave labor that virtually all southern railroads, except for a few border-state lines, were either built by slave-employing contractors or by company-owned or hired bondsmen. The Mississippi Railroad, owning sixty-two Negroes, the Montgomery and West Point, with sixty-seven, the South Carolina, with ninety, and the New Orleans, Jackson and Great Northern, owning 106 blacks, were typical slave-owning railroads... Altogether, southern railroads probably employed more than 20,000 slaves." - Industrial slavery in the Old South, Robert Starobin
 
The south is likely to recover faster then that. I see them getting economic support from European powers. Some of them might rather help build up a stronger CSA to limit US growth.

Businessmen invest to gain profits, not to affect the balance of political power.

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

No period European power saw the US as a threat to their ambitions. They would see the USA as even less of a threat if Confederate secession was a success.

They might forgive the CSA debts and loans just to spite and deprive the US of everything possible.

Real European powers did not forgive national debts. And the Confederate government had gotten no loans from any European government.
 
The CSA could out politic and be better at propaganda then the US.

In actual history, the USA regularly out politicked and out-propagandaed the CSA.

They intentionally try to cause domestic issues in the US for its own gains and even sometimes bring in others by economic means(not military).

This only works of the ASBs make every Union citizen appallingly stupid. If the Confederacy tries to "cause domestic issues in the US", the least the Confederate can expect is Union retaliation in kind. Roughly 40% of the Confederate population were slaves, Another 15% to 20% of the population were white Unionists. With just a little support from the Union, this disgruntled majority could cause severe problems for the Confederacy. More likely, the Union will use these Confederate attacks as an excuse to crush the Confederacy.
 
Last edited:
Many of the private groups might feel more loyal to the CSA then US because they benefit them more or have heavy economic ties. They are not open about it but many have general ideas they are copperheads.

Virtually all Copperheads were anti-war, not pro-Confederacy.

CSA has the advantage is espionage and propaganda(southern accents are good at sugarcoating things).

You're really claiming that having a southern accent makes you better at propaganda? In actual history, the Confederates were not better at propaganda or espionage.
 
Let’s use Kentucky and West Virginia as examples. After the war the coal and logging industry will start taking off in both CSA and US Appalachia.

This coal would be mainly going to power US factories. And Southern Appalachia was probably the most pro-Union part of the Confederacy. The Union will be building the roads and rails into Appalachia - unlike the Confederacy which is Constitutionally forbidden to spend government funds on internal improvements. This coal boom will tie Kentucky and West Virginia more closely to the Union, not the Confederacy.

You will have companies who own mines and land on both sides of the borders.

During the Civil War the Confederate government seized all property within Confederate territory that belonged to Union citizens and declared that any debts owned to a Union citizen were now owed to the Confederate government, so there will be no companies that own mines and land on both sides of the border. It also means that Union investors will be very unlikely to invest in anything in the Confederacy. There is simply too much risk that the Confederacy will seize their property and refuse to honor legal debts to US businesses again.

Many southerners will probably come work in these jobs in both Kentucky and West Virginia.

You are forgetting that there is now a heavily guarded border between the Confederacy and the Union states.
 
Southerners might be better at politicking.

They weren't in actual history.

Appalachia is a great place for partisan activities.

That's why most Confederate tax collectors and military recruiters avoided Appalachia. As the most pro-Union part of the South, it was not a safe place for Confederate officals.

The north with all its money and men can’t completely guard that border.

The Union did a better job of it than the Confederacy.

Ranger type units and criminals(primitive cartels and bandits) can easily go back and forth undetected.

Last I checked, bandits were not invisible movie-style ninjas.
 
This coal would be mainly going to power US factories. And Southern Appalachia was probably the most pro-Union part of the Confederacy. The Union will be building the roads and rails into Appalachia - unlike the Confederacy which is Constitutionally forbidden to spend government funds on internal improvements. This coal boom will tie Kentucky and West Virginia more closely to the Union, not the Confederacy.

I would argue the opposite for KY and WV. First, until about mid-1863, WV was not much more than Charleston and the Ohio River frontage - its armies had *a lot* of Ohio mixed in. Also, Wheeling and the B&O railway were important for trans-Appalachian troop movements, those counties were likely gone regardless.

Second, the strikebusters and corporste violence combined with scrip and company stores made virtual fiefdoms out of mych of the region. It created a strong sense of loathing into many, and those who got out often never looked back.

Third, why industrialize an area hostile to your own interests when you can just treat it as an internal colony instead?

During the Civil War the Confederate government seized all property within Confederate territory that belonged to Union citizens and declared that any debts owned to a Union citizen were now owed to the Confederate government, so there will be no companies that own mines and land on both sides of the border. It also means that Union investors will be very unlikely to invest in anything in the Confederacy. There is simply too much risk that the Confederacy will seize their property and refuse to honor legal debts to US businesses again.

What stops international conglomerates from forming a Confederate division just as Toyota formed a North American division...?

You are forgetting that there is now a heavily guarded border between the Confederacy and the Union states.
And where it will be...
 
The issue with that is one not all of them are “officially” supported by the CSA. Which could go either way on being true or not(some could just be redneck nationalist trying something with only a small group but still causes a diplomatic incident).

If there are raids from the Confederacy into Union territory, the Confederacy will be held responsible. If the Confederacy is smart, they will return all free blacks enslaved by the raiders, fully pay for all property damage, and hand over any raiders responsible for the deaths of Union citizens. If the Confederacy refuses there will be a war, which probably results in the destruction of the Confederacy

Two this could lead to places joining the CSA like Crimea joining Russia.

Crimea joined Russia the same way the France joined Nazi Germany. If the Confederacy marches troops into Union states there will be another war, which probably results in the destruction of the Confederacy

"It is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal." - Confederate Secretary of State Robert Toombs

"The North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South." Sam Houston, Governor of Texas, shortly after his removal from office for refusing to swear loyalty to the Confederacy.

"You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it … Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth — right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail." - William T Sherman, President of Louisiana State University
 

DougM

Donor
Your still missing the fact that the confederacy leaders are not motivated to build a big army or industry. In fact they are motivated NOT do do these things.
In this time line the Confederacy WON with what they have so where is the need for more? So the leaders (you know those land and slave owning gentleman that started a war to me the money power and slaves?) will be motivated solely to keep Thier power and money and setting up a powerful centralized military means the central government will be powerful enough to do whatever it wants and setting up or allowing industry to become big will create rivals for power and money that will have different views on the whole land owner/plantation/slavery bit.
A true Robber Baron industrialist has no particular interest in keeping slavery going. His only interest is money. And whatever gets him more if it, if that happens to support slavery and plantations so be it but if eliminating slavery makes more money for said Robber Baron then he will turn anti slavery, Industry does not NEED slavery as demonstrated in the North and in England, but Plantations DO need slaves. So creating the two large powerful groups (the military and the industrialists) will mean losing influence for the landed gentry.
And we KNOW they don’t want that. We know this because they started the deadliest war in US history to keep their power and slaves. But NOW that that they have all the power they are just going to willingly give it up?
Don’t be rediculus.
This whole concept is more ASB then the South Winning the war.
 
If there are raids from the Confederacy into Union territory, the Confederacy will be held responsible. If the Confederacy is smart, they will return all free blacks enslaved by the raiders, fully pay for all property damage, and hand over any raiders responsible for the deaths of Union citizens. If the Confederacy refuses there will be a war, which probably results in the destruction of the Confederacy



Crimea joined Russia the same way the France joined Nazi Germany. If the Confederacy marches troops into Union states there will be another war, which probably results in the destruction of the Confederacy

"It is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal." - Confederate Secretary of State Robert Toombs

"The North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South." Sam Houston, Governor of Texas, shortly after his removal from office for refusing to swear loyalty to the Confederacy.

"You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it … Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth — right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail." - William T Sherman, President of Louisiana State University
The point about the border is neither side can fully monitor all the types of possible people going back and forth across a border like that. It isn’t like the Mexican or even Canada border. Have you been reading everything I put in my post? I know there long but I feel like your over looking some stuff I mentioned? I’m throwing general ideas and trying to stay in a certain direction with them but not all my points are uniformed more throwing questions. My main point those is the more divided America is the more unstable both nations are which can lead to multiple butterflies. Think about every nation in the Americas and many former colonies when things start going this direction they usually don’t bounce back fully. The north can’t just blame the CSA if a bunch of rebellious locals(actually locals) start causing issues. You need proof especially if the CSA is saying they have nothing to do with this. The copperheads and a lot of the union is going to treat that as a proxy war within the state to calm the region not go out of its way to invade the CSA and possibly appear as aggressors towards some. You can’t always invade a country for the action of private groups. You can put economic restrictions but full military action against the CSA would not be likely. America had to deal with bandits on the Mexican border too before ww1 they didn’t declare war or fully invade the place(I know they sent troops but I say that was more mutual between the too). When border incidents happen you could have the CSA deny its involvement and say it will do better measures to secure its own border while in reality they only cherry pick who to deal with to keep up appearances and deal with groups that they don’t like. Both borders are going to have people doing there own thing and often against the wishes of both governments. I’m not even saying confederate and union leaders are smarter or dumber either way. What I’m saying your going to have large movements of people and wealth across a more politically and economically unstable North America. The CSA falling to Haiti type revolution to any degree would even scare people in the union. They might not support slavery but many rather have backward confederacy to the south then a much larger Haiti which means they could fund and give them money to prevent that while also forcing some concessions from them which(Europeans might feel the same to a lesser degree. Even if the CSA falls to a revolution the union would immediately invade to prevent a black government south of them. For example, what if a political split happens within the north after the war(the south success or failure is irrelevant in this because this is more just within). Radical Republicans lose support outside of New England while the moderates keep the mid Atlantic and majority of the Midwest who has pockets of democrats while the border states still are majority democrats. The moderate republicans don’t trust the democrats but work with them somewhat and try to have cordial relations with the CSA but keeps troop at the border and still publicly condemns there practice of slavery but trade and do business when they aren’t being overly aggressive. Some Radical Republicans break from the party over this. The radicals have solid control in the New England and have pockets in upper New York. They blame copperheads(democrats) for being undermining traitors to the Union war effort while they call moderates weak appeasers. Slaves and southerners are becoming a issue in border regions. Slaves fleeing the CSA might be sent to Liberia to “live free and with their people”(north doesn’t want them there). White southerners are a issue because many claim to be union citizens. Some are let in while others are not(it’s go to remember some Appalachians actually flip flopped sides during the war. Some attacked both union and confederates. Some honestly hate both sides to different degrees. It’s good to remember that Appalachians don’t often like the union either. They just hate the confederates or plantation class more). Southerners who are turn away at Maryland border(easiest one to monitored) just go through Appalachia to get to the union(many are from there so they know the region well and its extremely rural but climate is usually tolerable unlike desert). Moderates and democrats support white southerner coming north while radicals try to prevent it. This causes resentment in West Virginia, Missouri, and Kentucky and even Maryland somewhat(New Englanders are often the miner owners in those states think what feeling that can lead to especially with federalization possibly upsetting locals who like to do things there way. People there are often against federal involvement even if they depend on it ironically). The moderates just want to ease tension after war and focus on the economy. They keep the military to the point that south isn’t a direct threat but radical republicans are becoming an annoying issue. They are building a strong support base in New England but the people in mid Atlantic are getting annoyed with them especially within the cities. This is more heated politically debate but not violent. During a recession maybe a few decades or so later New England feeling more alienated by the growing voter blocs and there increased trade with Britain(they would definitely support New England independence because that could greatly benefit them but only once they declare it) makes them feel like succession is the right route to go. New England has a vote of succession(they have threatened to succeed from union before and even before CSA thought about it but their issues is trade conflicts). Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut vote yes to leave with public support. New England leaves the union stating if a slave holding de facto noble republic can secede they can(domino effect). New England doesn’t even have to fight a war because the UK would recognize them immediately and maybe even offer military support if US tried to invade. New England is right next to Canada and has heavy enough ties with Britain to do that. The US accepts succession of New England but agrees any additional states or regions that try to join New England won’t be accepted by either side and borders are recognized as they currently are(upper New York is like Missouri in this situation but New England and Britain agrees with the union not accept any part of that to lessen tension since trade and businesses will continue as before but New England has more control over its affairs). This changes things even more greatly. Now down south during this same time you could have the Confederacy lose Texas but retain the rest of its country and maybe the Indian territory becomes its own country too(likely a puppet of someone after independence). Both nations are at a good risk of fractioning more so. The reason Europeans will be an issue is because they could likely recognize and support more democratic and non-slaver independence movements.

Edit- I doubt many in the north are willing to fully take over the CSA unless it complete failed state which would cause them a lot of issues for them. Invading the south and retaking it completely later would just leave a more destroyed or unstable region to repair(much more worse then otl reconstruction and much more expensive especially depending on the economic situation in the union).
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top