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.
One obstacle to immigration in the South was the racial hierarchy. The high price of slaves (due largely to their use in industry) meant that it was ineffective to have slaves doing labor like ditch digging, but having migrant labor do it as you would in the North meant you'd created a white underclass effectively under the black population. There were a lot of tensions in cities like Memphis and New Orleans in the 1850's caused by this, and it's likely that even if anyone wanted to move to the Confederacy to work, they'd be discouraged from doing so.

This is interesting but I'm not sure I understand it. Could you expand on this?
 
In the south, both before the war and afterwards for a loooong time, some sorts of work especially manual labor like ditch digging and so forth were considered "nigger work". It was demeaning for a white man to undertake such work, even if they had no other employment and tended to make them socially untouchable.
 
I voted 1895. Though realistically I think it would be somewhere between 1885-1899. The Cotton industry would probably collapse worldwide sometime in the 1870's-1880's like it did in OTL, and the Confederacy would find itself on the cusp of a cataclysmic depression that would threaten to end the Confederacy as a whole. The Confederacy's hands would be tied and if they truly meant to stay independent, they would need to diversify their economy outside of what the institution of slavery could realistically supply.

This would probably take the form of states individually emphasizing and subsidizing different industries not reliant on slavery, Texan oil assuming they don't secede from the economic turmoil, for example. Perhaps some states would even go as far as to institute state level slavery bans in order to promote supplying white farmers with waged jobs.

This would, of course, bring up the issue of where the former slaves go, and I'd be willing to wager that they would be sent either to Cuba, Santo Domingo, Puerto Rico or Yucatan, assuming that the Confederacy has somehow acquired these states by the 1890's, which I personally don't think is that far fetched. Either that or the sharecropping scenario that played out in our timeline plays out again except on steroids.

Another less likely possibility would be the economy being so crippled that the very fabric of the Confederacy is immediately threatened, forcing the Confederate government to convene in Richmond to begrudgingly admit that the institution of slavery had failed, leading to either an amendment to the Confederate Constitution or a completely new constitution, both scenarios would legally outlaw slavery. As you could probably tell though, those scenarios are unlikely to succeed for a variety of reasons.

Last possibility is a war between the North and South occurring in the late 19th to early 20th century (1895-1905, probably). In this scenario the North devastates the South, but due to cultural and political divides that are judged to be impossible to bridge between the two nations, the North allows the Confederacy to persist independently, but with drastic concessions. One such concession would most definitely be the outlawing of slavery.
 
Slavery would start collapsing anytime from 1880 onward at earliest, after the abolishment of slavery in Brazil the CSA will be left with no one but themselves defending slavery as a institution on the international stage, both Britain and France by the 1880's will have successfully started growing cotton in their colonies and see less reason to deal with them as confederate cotton will be seen as "unethical competition" to "ethical British and French enterprise"

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

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

However slaver will cease to exist by 1910 at latest I have seen quite a few TL's on here that think it could survive up until the 1930's but there is in my opinion, no realistic way it could survive that long, anything after 1910 is, in my opinion ASB

While I think the 1930s is the earliest the Confederacy might end slavery. No country ever boycotted US cotton or tobacco for being grown by slaves, so I see no reason why any period country would boycott Confederate cotton or tobacco. Most of the world's cotton crop was significantly inferior to Southern cotton. Egyptian cotton was at least as good, but there was only so much cotton that Egypt could produce. If Britain and France found superior strains of cotton and invested heavily, they might reduce the Confederacy to 50% of the world's cotton supply.

The boll weevil went through the South between about 1890 and 1920. A lot of people seem to think the boll weevil would help end slavery, but I have yet to see any explanation as to why. Any planter bankrupted by the boll weevil would have to sell his assets, including his slaves, to pay his debts. Enough planters would be forced into selling that the price of slaves would drop sharply, increasing the number of Confederates who owned slaves, and thus had a financial interest in maintaining slavery. If a Great Depression isn't butterflied away, then it and the boll weevil might lead to a communist or fascist overthrow of the existing Confederate government, but that will not lead to emancipation.
 
Last edited:
And I know of no Confederate invasion intent on annexing Pennsylvania, Indiana, Vermont, or other Northern states. Quite the reverse for McClellan et al.

There were Confederate invasions intent on annexing Kentucky, Missouri, New Mexico, Colorado, perhaps Maryland and California. And once the Confederacy attacked Fort Sumter and announced their intention to invade and seize the US Capitol, the Lincoln administration had an obligation to defeat the Confederacy.
 
Last edited:
I never mention annexing just invading. You would want to grab major industrial centers in US to stop mobilizations as much as possible and damage their war ability. The coal industry did have booms the locals just didn’t really benefit from it. The coal companies and owners are making great money. That why I think they would become a political force within the CSA and lead to industries(coal has often lead to industrialization). They aren’t as tied to slavery and will have different interest. The Southern economy could expand on who it is exploiting.

Southern coal mining was heavily tied to slavery.

"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
 
No country ever boycotted US cotton or tobacco for being grown by slaves, so I see no reason why any period country would boycott Confederate cotton or tobacco.

That is because no country ever kept true slavery past 1888 once you get past 1910 no country will support any other country that has true slavery in name.

Now if the CSA changed it to sharecropping/segregation like OTL It could exist, the problem is that the ones who made the big decisions in the CSA where the plantation owners and they won' support any attempt to ban or restrict it so the transition to segregated wage slaves won't happen like in OTL, it only did in ours because the Union forced the end of slavery on them.

then it and the boll weevil might lead to a communist or fascist overthrow of the existing Confederate government, but that will not lead to emancipation.
This is hogwash, you say the boil weevil and the destruction of cotton won't change anything but then turn around and say it "might" under "the right circumstances" ignoring the fact that to reach this point in time that's exactly what the CSA would need "the right circumstances", the moment you said a communist overthrow wouldn't end slavery (because you say so) you ceased to be making a credible argument, as anybody knows that the entire idea of communism is that everybody is treated equally and everybody gets their fair share, and that they typically only show up in societies that have no opportunity of advancement and are hopelessly corrupt or despotic, such as Tsarist Russia or the CSA....
 
I voted 1895. Though realistically I think it would be somewhere between 1885-1899. The Cotton industry would probably collapse worldwide sometime in the 1870's-1880's like it did in OTL, and the Confederacy would find itself on the cusp of a cataclysmic depression that would threaten to end the Confederacy as a whole. The Confederacy's hands would be tied and if they truly meant to stay independent, they would need to diversify their economy outside of what the institution of slavery could realistically supply.

I'm not sure that works. Assuming the collapse of the cotton industry, the price of slaves drops, and more and more people own and use slaves. For cotton plantations, they have two principle assets - land and slaves. Slaves are more fungible than lands.

This would probably take the form of states individually emphasizing and subsidizing different industries not reliant on slavery, Texan oil assuming they don't secede from the economic turmoil, for example. Perhaps some states would even go as far as to institute state level slavery bans in order to promote supplying white farmers with waged jobs.

With what revenue? States that are largely dependent on Cotton, are going to see their economies and revenue streams take a beating. There's not going to be any revenue to subsidise any other industries. On top of that, political power is monopolised by the Cotton industry, so any subsidies are going to go to propping that up.

This would, of course, bring up the issue of where the former slaves go, and I'd be willing to wager that they would be sent either to Cuba, Santo Domingo, Puerto Rico or Yucatan, assuming that the Confederacy has somehow acquired these states by the 1890's, which I personally don't think is that far fetched. Either that or the sharecropping scenario that played out in our timeline plays out again except on steroids.

Spain still possessed a formidable Navy right up until about the 1880's when it began to fall behind. The Confederacy wouldn't have the financial resources of the United States and doesn't inherit any tradition of a blue water navy, and it's logistical capacities seem seriously doubtful. So it's seriously unlikely that the Confederacy could beat Spain, or take Cuba or Puerto Rico away. There are major obstacles (like the whole of Mexico) to taking the Yucatan. And there seems no real foundation for making a claim on the Dominican Republic. There's also the United States, Britain and France which would all be likely to oppose Confederate intrusion into the Caribbean/Central America.

All of these 'territories' are already inhabited by local populations and cultures which have no ability to accommodate an influx of millions or even hundreds of thousands of exiled slaves. You'd be talking mass death and humanitarian holocaust of extraordinary dimensions.


[
 
This would, of course, bring up the issue of where the former slaves go, and I'd be willing to wager that they would be sent either to Cuba, Santo Domingo, Puerto Rico or Yucatan, assuming that the Confederacy has somehow acquired these states by the 1890's, which I personally don't think is that far fetched.

How would this happen? I don't think many ex-slaves would voluntarily agree to be exiled. Are they going to be kept in slavery until they are sent off?

I think it's more likely that they just stay where they were, like ex-slaves did in the rest of the Americas. There will still be a need for their labor.
 
Would it be possible for the Confederacy to try and join in the scramble for Africa and possibly get some less profitable area (say, Western Sahara) through where they can settle the free blacks?
 
Would it be possible for the Confederacy to try and join in the scramble for Africa and possibly get some less profitable area (say, Western Sahara) through where they can settle the free blacks?
This presumes the Confederacy has enough of a functional economy and power projection to try. It also presumes the people running the place actually want to get rid of those fit for menial labor (consider the violent efforts to keep the 'exodusters' from leaving).
 
the moment you said a communist overthrow wouldn't end slavery (because you say so) you ceased to be making a credible argument, as anybody knows that the entire idea of communism is that everybody is treated equally and everybody gets their fair share

Eh, I can think of at least one example of communists not practicing what they preach. The Rand Rebellion, in which white leftist miners adopted the slogan "Workers of the world, unite and fight for a white South Africa!" IIRC, Lenin invited them to Moscow, sat them down, and told them off, and they diversified their party's demographics in a hurry. It wouldn't be that much of a stretch to think that TTL CSA communists have weird ideas of what "egalitarian" means in the context of a racial hierarchy. North Korea, to use an extreme example, steeped themselves in racial pseudoscience and eventually distanced themselves from the "communist" label.

Realistically, though, you're right: Any global left-wing movement would quickly turn their backs on any self-declared communist group that advocates for slavery, and that would invite a takeover by a faction that doesn't. More realistically, a racist communist group would advocate for segregation, breaking off pieces of land for the minority groups and organizing them akin to one of the SSRs.
 
How would this happen? I don't think many ex-slaves would voluntarily agree to be exiled. Are they going to be kept in slavery until they are sent off?

Could be something more diplomatic, say a buyback program where the government purchases the slaves and relocates them forcibly to the territories. Perhaps it is something more bloody and less of a relocation and more of a genocide. A large population would most certainly remain right where they are though, I will concede that.
 

DougM

Donor
You are not going to see states supporting industry nor are you going to see the politically powerful land/slave holders going to give up Thier power influence and money only 30 years after the fought a war and formed a country to protect that very thing.
 
The problem with ending slavery in the CSA is that the folks with political power as a class are the ones who own the most slaves. Flat out emancipation, like from the Emancipation Proclamation and the 14th Amendment would bankrupt a large proportion of the political elites and upper class as a huge amount of capital was invested in slaves. OTOH, the CSA as a whole and the individual states would be in a very poor position to compensate slave owners, even with payments over time and no interest.
 

Marc

Donor
The problem with ending slavery in the CSA is that the folks with political power as a class are the ones who own the most slaves. Flat out emancipation, like from the Emancipation Proclamation and the 14th Amendment would bankrupt a large proportion of the political elites and upper class as a huge amount of capital was invested in slaves. OTOH, the CSA as a whole and the individual states would be in a very poor position to compensate slave owners, even with payments over time and no interest.

I am a lot more cynical about motives apparently. I think even those who own 1-50 slaves (the bulk of the slave owning population), are going to be very unwilling to give up on their higher social standing as slave owners (like being the family that owns the Mercedes on the street), to not wanting to lose the pleasures of sexualized violence against defenseless women, men, and children.
Slavery is about culture as much as it is about economics.
 
You are not going to see states supporting industry nor are you going to see the politically powerful land/slave holders going to give up Thier power influence and money only 30 years after the fought a war and formed a country to protect that very thing.
Thirty years is a full generation, two even, depending who you talk to. On top of that, money talks, and if slavery stopped being profitable and proved to be more of a economic burden than it was worth, the Confederacy would be forced to accept that model failed. Either that or dissolve the country.
 
While I agree that the CSA would be underdeveloped compared to the North, this last statement does not reflect their attitude. Their constitution banned their federal government from funding internal improvements. Their attitude was that internal improvements should be funded by the states, alone or (where necessary) in cooperation. They cited examples of where this had happened (such as Georgia and its neighbours in building railways). This would naturally be less efficient than having their federal government fund internal improvements, but it's an exaggeration to say that they were constitutionally forbidden from making internal improvements.

Here'e how that worked out for Virginia, the South's most industrialized state with probably the best infrastructure.

"Virginia worked feverishly to modernize their economy through large investments in canals, railroads, and banks. Such efforts, however, largely failed. Virginia's transportation network remained highly localized with little integration; no intersectional trunk lines connected Virginia's cities to midwestern markets; and the manufacturing base remained small, especially in relation to northern states. The central problem was that Virginia's slave economy discouraged the development of a large commercial city that could provide investors, traffic, and passengers for major transportation projects" - John Majewski, A House Dividing: Economic Development in Pennsylvania and Virginia Before the Civil War

"It was one thing to wish for improvements that would capture western trade; it was another to build them. As chapter 5 demonstrates, local financing made coherent networks cumbersome to organize, especially with no fewer than four cities seeking to build the central trunk line. Pitting Richmond, Norfolk, Petersburg, and Lynchburg in a battle for mercantile supremacy, these commercial rivalries prevented the legislature from focusing resources on a single trunk line. By 1860, a collection of uncompleted and unprofitable railroads and canals littered Virginia's landscape."-- John Majewski, A House Dividing: Economic Development in Pennsylvania and Virginia Before the Civil War
 
The consistent problem that people overlook is that slaves are property. Specifically, slaves are valuable property.

In 1805 there were one million slaves, worth 300 million. In 1860, there were four billion slaves worth 4 billion dollars. No one gives up 4 billion dollars.

https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economics-of-the-civil-war/

Slaves were 40% of the population, and they were responsible for over half of agricultural labour. Slaves and Land were the two big commercial assets in the South. And slaves were more fungible than land. You could sell and relocate slaves, you couldn't do that with land.

I don't see anyone in the Confederacy being willing to take that loss. I don't see anyone in the Confederacy being able to pay for emancipation.

The sort of economic shock you would need to see slavery becoming economically worthless would destroy the Confederacy.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top