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.
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.

All of which is more politically more sound than spending it on the CSA. British society was strongly anti-slavery at the time. I am not saying that British investment won't happen but people who do it too openly might not be invited to the best clubs.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The Confederacy will have to pay its debts by taxation, inflation, or taking on even more long term debt.
$2.7 billion of national debt in waiting, worthless currency, inability to raise tax and tariffs, inability to support internal improvements, extreme corruption, war destruction (on more industrialized border states), uneducated workforce, and outdated economic structure driven by slave labour.

We can see a TTL Venezuela.
 
@ greenhorn: The first antibiotics (sulfa drugs) are late 1920s/early 1930s. Penicillin was basically WWII, and after WWII all sorts were developed. Between the 1860s and 1920s, while you get the germ theory of disease and immunizations (other then the existing smallpox) during this time, as well as antiseptic/aseptic technique any effect of antibiotics won't be until roughly 1930 and then only limited.

note: by 1910 there was Salvarsan, an arsenical, for treatment of syphilis. However it was only good for that, and not fully effective.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
All of which is more politically more sound than spending it on the CSA. British society was strongly anti-slavery at the time. I am not saying that British investment won't happen but people who do it too openly might not be invited to the best clubs.
And France, once the Republicans take over, would turn away from CSA and towards Union and never look back.
 
If the Confederacy somehow keeps any of their hotheads from firing on Union forces for that long, that will give the Union ample time to secure control of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas; which only seceded in OTL after the Confederates attacked Ft Sumter. It also means the Union will have all of that time to set up an effective blockade of Confederate ports.

That would be a disaster for the Union. The hotheads in South Carolina and Lincoln calling for 75,000 volunteers to put down the rebellion brought 4 more states into the Confederacy, sending Federal troops into Virginia, et all and blockading Southern ports would probably drive all the slave states into revolt. Lincoln, to his credit, was well aware of not shooting first or getting a fight going.

All of which is more politically more sound than spending it on the CSA. British society was strongly anti-slavery at the time. I am not saying that British investment won't happen but people who do it too openly might not be invited to the best clubs.

That's the modern equivalent of saying people who do business with places like Saudi Arabia and Qatar wouldn't be invited to the best parties in Washington. The equivalent of the time period is that despite the rampant slavery and atrocities committed by the Ottomans in the 1870s, the British still sent a fleet and threatened war on their behalf.

People are going to invest in Southern cotton and buy Southern product if its profitable, most of Britain genuinely won't care.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The equivalent of the time period is that despite the rampant slavery and atrocities committed by the Ottomans in the 1870s, the British still sent a fleet and threatened war on their behalf.
You refer to the Russo-Turkish War, right?
You know, the ruling Conservatives were crushed in the 1880 general election partly because of Gladstone's Midlothian Campaign attacking Disraeli's pro-Ottoman policies. And, public outrage over the Ottoman's atrocities also prevented full military intervention for the Turks as well.

As for the CSA, as I mentioned, its currency is worthless, so no one would bother to hold CSA currency denominated assets/investments. CSA would still generate profit for European businesses but in the form of a dumping ground for their goods. Holding investments in CSA for British politicians/PM candidates is also politically suicidal, as opposition would have a field day campaigning against it.
 
They are conservatives not classical liberals. Classical liberals at this time would be more of the republicans but the south probably has its own liberalish party(economically)

Except it does go against the history of the South. The Antebellum South was strongly opposed to public education. Also, the ACW showed how libertarian the South really was and that is not much. The CSA was the closest any part of the US came to full-blown Communism.
 
Large-Scale Chattel Slavery in plantations would likely to end in early 1900s, due to simple economic uncompetitiveness if anything, but they would definitely ended.

Small scale domestic slaves however, is likely to last literally forever. Just look at North African, Middle Eastern, South Asian, and South East Asian countries... A middle-class family there could easily afford a live-in domestic worker (usually a poor girl) paid only by food, clothing, and shelter, alongside a pitiable few *pocket money* that isn't really a wage. With legalized slavery, I could see that type of de-facto slavery would be filled with literal slaves.
Yes, I'm Indian by birth and can confirm that. The elderly and the infirm require such servants, in fact the landlords of my childhood home, most of my neighbors and my grandparents employed such girls. I liked playing with them as a child.
 

DougM

Donor
Yes but the difference is the Great Britain had only recently done away with slavery in all forms and was pushing this. It was sort of a social thing. And while individuals may get away with dealing with a slave country the Government or anything large and semi public such as banks was going to get huge backlash if they did much with the CSA.
This is probably why the CSA’s dream of being recognized by a Great Britain in the real timeline was NEVER going to happen.
The government, the politicians and the people of Great Britain had spent to much political clout on the anti slavery bit in the recent past to back track and publicly embrace the CSA and its slavery.
 
You refer to the Russo-Turkish War, right?
You know, the ruling Conservatives were crushed in the 1880 general election partly because of Gladstone's Midlothian Campaign attacking Disraeli's pro-Ottoman policies. And, public outrage over the Ottoman's atrocities also prevented full military intervention for the Turks as well.

As for the CSA, as I mentioned, its currency is worthless, so no one would bother to hold CSA currency denominated assets/investments. CSA would still generate profit for European businesses but in the form of a dumping ground for their goods. Holding investments in CSA for British politicians/PM candidates is also politically suicidal, as opposition would have a field day campaigning against it.

Disraeli was also quietly dying in 1880, there had been poor economic straights as part of the Long Depression, and many were critical Disraeli didn't actually go to war to stop the Russians completely in 1878. Public opinion turned on a dime when everyone was afraid the tsar would take Constantinople and there was almost a Crimean War 2.0, and the public would have been willing to back it at first.

Another important question, how much did Gladstone suffer for his unabashedly pro-Confederate stance he maintained during the ACW, up to making a very public speech dismissing slavery and calling for recognition of the Confederacy? How many UK politicians were ever raked over the coals for having profited from blockade runners?

The value of the CSA's currency is hard to speculate upon since it really depends on when and how the war ends.

Yes but the difference is the Great Britain had only recently done away with slavery in all forms and was pushing this. It was sort of a social thing. And while individuals may get away with dealing with a slave country the Government or anything large and semi public such as banks was going to get huge backlash if they did much with the CSA.
This is probably why the CSA’s dream of being recognized by a Great Britain in the real timeline was NEVER going to happen.
The government, the politicians and the people of Great Britain had spent to much political clout on the anti slavery bit in the recent past to back track and publicly embrace the CSA and its slavery.

This is not really true. Support for recognition of the CSA in OTL had an up and down swing in British political spheres, and it had the support of men in the cabinet, including one William Ewart Gladstone who openly stated the slavery matter was irrelevant. Realpolitik, not sentiment, would guide British policy, and the simple fact was that the Confederacy only once came close to being considered for foreign recognition in 1862 and squandered that opportunity.

It's just like today where in terms of making money and realpolitik, people aren't really concerned whether their goods come from slaves or free workers.
 
I agree that making profit and political realpolitik will trump "morality" in most cases, though not always. For the USA after CSA secession, helping them industrialize, improve the rail system, etc is counter to realpolitik. Here you have a hostile country with a long and porous border right next to you who, for the moment, has serious issues with lack of industry and capital because the capital is tied up in land and slaves. Helping them industrialize is quite contrary to national interests. Selling finished goods is one thing, building factories is another. Of course, the issue of CS currency being quite soft and subject to more inflationary risks is another problem.
 
Regardless of the length of the war, crushing Unionists and unruly slaves would be the first post-war task of the Confederate armies. I expect most will be given the same chance that the UCT Tennessee Unionists were given at Ft Pillow and be massacred, though some may fight their way to Union territory. There's also a good chance the Confederate government will force a Trail of Tears on white Unionist civilians.
Many Appalachians can be very stubborn and feel very tied to the land(also forcing whites out like natives are harder to justify and do most of the time). Many rather keep fighting or just hide deep in the mountains(a lot of places to hide). Flip floppers will also be common. These people often didn’t care about slavery that much morally. Some just hated southern elites and lower south for its own personal reasons so they joined the union. You had some people attack both the union and confederates at different points of the war(the war in this area was more local confederates vs local unionist then anything else). They just don’t like people “imposing” on them. That’s what makes situation there crazy. They honestly might be too busy killing each in Appalachia(like in the civil war and reconstruction). CSA did have a decent amount of support there(plural or slight majority depending on area). North Carolina Appalachia didn’t turn more union until the governor put in place his more intense draft laws. Appalachia is a issue for both nations because the locals often only care about their own grievances and either don’t care about outside world or are even hostile towards it. The union and confederates could be giving guns to partisans to fight each other but those partisans could easily end up attacking them too. Appalachia isn’t going to be pleasant on either side of the border and locals might start hating each side more and more. Some will even think about Appalachian independence given the strong regionalism(neither the confederates or union would want this. It would almost split the CSA in half and the union doesn’t want to lose more states especially on the CSA border. Both sides won’t tolerate an independent movement especially if it is socialist in some of its beliefs).

Let’s say you have some unionist in CSA Appalachia flee right across the border into West Virginia and Kentucky where the CSA can’t get them. Them doing cross border raids and attacks as an act of revenge even if done independently is likely because they can run back and forth across the border to safety pretty easily since they know the land well(that area where Virginia, Kentucky, and West Virginia is the heart of the Appalachian mountains that would be very hard to prevent small groups from crossing either way if someone wanted too). The union might see this and think “enemy of my enemies are friends” not realizing these people often don’t like them either but hate the confederates more(at the movement). So they give them union made guns and let them set up base on the border to cause trouble for the confederates(more passive in nature these groups are often acting on their own and the union support is more like “why not, let them cause trouble for confederates. We will even give yall some guns”. The confederate either use force or try to flip some by giving them back there land(very important to them but some are likely still to refuse).

The issue comes when coal barons, companies, and company towns become common in union Appalachia. Many of those people even the ones they armed will think those groups I mention(not the actual government yet but businesses in the area) are no better then the southerner elites if not worse. What would happen if partisan groups the union was funding to fight confederates decided to attack company towns(with local assistance) in West Virginia and Kentucky especially if these towns are own by New Englanders or northerners? Those companies are going to wonder “wait how did a bunch of hillbillies get well manufactured union guns” and if they find out its from the government they will be pissed and many within the north will be upset too. It’s also likely many of the local residents assist them if they attack these groups. They could also be funded by non government groups in the north who think they hate the confederates for the same reasons they do which can lead to similar issues when they turn against them. This would put the US government in a tough position. Funding partisans isn’t going to be taken well by some internationally(Europeans have stigma about this type of stuff. They often found it “unfitting of civilized people”), public up north going to be piss when they find out especially businesses, and the south will use this to point finger(trying to direct stuff towards the north to cover up their own stuff), and finally the north might lose local support in the area depending on how they handle this. The north is likely to support businesses over people like otl which means they are seen as part of them.

The US is still making this mistake and has done so in the past with partisans. They give weapons off of “enemy of my enemy is a friend” logic not looking more into it(Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan are good examples. They often give weapons to coalition or partisan forces not realizing many might become something else later on or not taking into account them trading weapons to other groups they do not support. The US doesn’t intentionally create terrorist groups. They unintentionally do it because they often throw money and resources at their problems without taking everything into account). CSA doesn’t have as much money to throw so their methods will be more force or concessions(free land or materials as a form of bribery). The government of both nations actually might be the more rational ones in this while they have individual groups and people doing reckless stuff. The north will likely not go to war over border issues because they will see it as cheaper and easier to solve issue from within(a very hard problem to solve). People from New York City or Boston isn’t going to see “a bunch of hillbillies and rednecks acting like thugs and criminals in the border regions worth a costly war and re-integrating the south”. Many prefer a proxy type conflict over an actual war. Also you can’t always just start a war over acts of independent people and groups. The issue with this though it makes it where both governments can easily deny responsibility for a lot of things. When you have people on both sides of the border doing their own things actual government funded forces can cross the border and cause trouble because both can easily throw them under the bus if they get caught by claiming those people have “no ties to the government”. It’s like using Bid Laden as an excuse to invade Saudi or using cartel as an excuse to invade Mexico(kidnapping of citizens and guns are common on the US-Mexican border but we don’t invade the place). It might have some valid points but no one sees it worth the trouble or a realistic choice. The confederates will likely have officials in government doing their own thing too. The confederates probably labeled a lot of groups like this as illegal or criminals but like Mexico does a very poor job at stopping them because they have people in the government, military, and even some public support.

For example, Jesse James does his otl stuff. He attacks union businesses, rails, and government stuff in Missouri and Kansas. The union can’t catch him because he flees over to Arkansas and Oklahoma when in trouble. This is where he sets up base. The confederates government consider him a criminal but much of the public in the south romanticize him and see him as a “freedom fighter”. Some locals in the confederate states and even southern Missouri help him. People in law enforcement in the south often are sympathetic to him or even work with him at times and he even brides people on both sides a lot. The north is very annoyed with his actions especially towards the railroads. The south “officially” see him as a criminal so they can’t take action against him there especially with how unwilling the confederate government is to lose face to the US(they can’t send forces into the country like Mexico). The US can either catch him in Missouri or fund/bribe people to kill him in the CSA(CSA doesn’t lose face but has to be careful not to make it look like government did it because the public sees him as a Robin Hood character. CSA also has to worry about people tipping him off from within government). The border regions will have a lot of grey points and be very blurred in most issues. You have a lot of people in both countries acting on impulses and their own interests. A lot of the partisans will likely be making money in criminal ways too. Jesse James could steal bonds from the union and sell them somewhere in the south. Outlaws out west might kidnap blacks in the union and sell them in the south. Some American people are often going to be playing both governments to their advantage. If the CSA tried to force me out of the country for being a unionist I could easily go to a rural area re enter the country under a new name and identity in a different area of the CSA. Same goes for the other way around with the union.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
many were critical Disraeli didn't actually go to war to stop the Russians completely in 1878
It is because the opposite side was large enough to frustrate his plan. Without the Bulgarian Horrors thing, Disraeli would have intervened at will and much earlier.

The value of the CSA's currency is hard to speculate upon since it really depends on when and how the war ends
Yes, we all know that its national debt was much more than its national tax income. Combined with its policy of printing money as the main source of revenue as the war went on (lol), they made Greece look fiscally responsible, and runway hyperinflation occurred and their currency became worthless. Worse, the CSA government was barely able to raise and collect tax due to the dominance of states' rights ideology embedded in its institutions.

The war would certainly be brutal (and mainly on Confederate's most productive regions - the border states) and only either foreign intervention or Union war weariness can result in a CSA independence.

how much did Gladstone suffer for his unabashedly pro-Confederate stance he maintained during the ACW, up to making a very public speech dismissing slavery and calling for recognition of the Confederacy? How many UK politicians were ever raked over the coals for having profited from blockade runners?
The British actually ruled out military intervention in any case, and while the main reason was deep economic ties (with the North) and heavy reliance on grain supplies from the North, anti-slavery sentiment both in the public and within the Parliament was a contributing factor.

Of course, the issue of CS currency being quite soft and subject to more inflationary risks is another problem.
Especially with their high war debt (much larger than the amount of tax raised) following the war, substantial damages in main economic states near the border (the possibility of retreating Union troops and freed blacks pulling a scorched earth cannot be ruled out), and their inability to raise tax.
 
I keep seeing stuff about republic France not supporting the CSA and preferring the union. But remember that same republic supported the Russian Empire. I know that was because of Germany threat to them but a US without the CSA is a much more Germanic country now. The Germans might be liberals and not like the conservative kaiserreich but some still have ties(business and personal) to Germany and are sympathetic to it. A US that becomes to friendly with Germany even in appearance might make French Republic still support the CSA
 
All of which is more politically more sound than spending it on the CSA. British society was strongly anti-slavery at the time. I am not saying that British investment won't happen but people who do it too openly might not be invited to the best clubs.
Only if they know or if they are really public about it. Some wealthy Americans invest in Saudi heavily and get gifts from them even those much of the public sees the country with complete disgust. They can also be investing indirectly and not directly. A textile in Britain can have contacts or deals with confederates and most of the public or even fellow friends know little about it. People are often not just openly talking about their business stuff especially at social events. Saudis send politicians in the US “gifts” all the time usually by giving it to their children. I could see the southern elites gifting capitalist in Britain and even the US with luxury items. The south actually might have a decent luxury industry. The elites might want their own cotton brand high class clothing. Southern belles could very well be spending outrageous amounts on the latest fashions.

Edit: Look at WWE in Saudi Arabia right now if you want a perfect example of this.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top