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.
This was all about German leaders with their "Place in the sun" ideal openly challenging both British naval supremacy and the Monroe Doctrine. German-American relation had been worsening long before 1917.
Why is them challenging the Monroe Doctrine a definite? There is plenty of places for Germany to expand before even thinking about Americas? They can project there if they are busy elsewhere. They don’t even have land there. Britain is more of a threat to Monroe Doctrine more so then Germany. US did get mad at Britain more often then Germany for violating Monroe doctrine then they did Germany. Germany has to send its navy on a ASB level mission to even pose a threat to the US. US understands that. If Germany tries to poke its nose in Western Hemisphere economically the US can easily block them out of the region. Britain can project much more in the Western Hemisphere then Germany. That makes conflict with Britain more likely in the long run then Germany. The US honestly does not care if Germany controls mainland Europe as long as they trade with them openly which I don’t understand why they would not. Also German culture and the German government won’t always be seen as the same. Many Americans did not like the British Empire but did respect their culture. Same goes for German culture in the US. War tends to push people towards the extremes. Brutalities of the world wars greatly hurt Germany image(a holocaust would naturally do that)
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Why is them challenging the Monroe Doctrine a definite? There is plenty of places for Germany to expand before even thinking about Americas? They can project there if they are busy elsewhere. They don’t even have land there. Britain is more of a threat to Monroe Doctrine more so then Germany. US did get mad at Britain more often then Germany for violating Monroe doctrine then they did Germany. Germany has to send its navy on a ASB level mission to even pose a threat to the US.
Because the German leadership did so IOTL, with their expansionist policy in Latin America. An independent CSA would have absolutely no impact on Kaiser Wilhelm's coronation. Given Wilhelm's inept foreign policy credentials IOTL, he might end up supporting CSA against the US like he did with Mexico IOTL. And worse, the problems were deeper than just Kaiser Wilhelm, but German/Prussian militarism among its leadership as a whole and its emergence as an economic rival. I did mention that there was a German-American trade war IOTL.
 
Last edited:
Because the German leadership did so IOTL, with their expansionist policy in Latin America. An independent CSA would have absolutely no impact on Kaiser Wilhelm's coronation. Given Wilhelm's inept foreign policy credentials IOTL, he might end up supporting CSA against the US like he did with Mexico IOTL. And worse, the problems were deeper than just Kaiser Wilhelm, but German/Prussian militarism among its leadership as a whole and its emergence as an economic rival. I did mention that there was a German-American trade war IOTL.

True, the man had the grand strategic sense of a gnat.
 
The middle class in south doesn’t care about slavery or causally supportive of it until they think system is failing and will destroy nation(their wealth. They are tied to south economically now morals will often go out of the window by then).

Middle class Southern whites cared about slavery, most of them were slave owners.

Your downplaying how insane, selfish, and stupid people can be.

This is one of the most ironic things I have ever seen posted.

A soft spoken southerner goes to Ireland during the famines and tricks a bunch of illiterate poor starving Irish into indebted labor in CSA mines and railroad structure(Irish indebted labor builds southern railroads?).

The Irish Potato Famine ended over a decade before the Confederacy formed. If the ASBs are giving the Confederates time travel, I'd expect the CSA to at least try to do something useful with it.

And the Confederacy would have no interest in "a bunch of illiterate poor starving Irish". They had plenty of slaves to work the mines and build the railroads and they hated immigrants more than the Union did.
 
Britain has also been in investing in CSA heavily setting up resources extraction efforts(private US business competition there too). The south might have them cheap land and resources needed to start they can make plenty of money from severance tax(state level so they can adept to difference in state raw resources. Different ones need different rates in each state). Each state gets revenue for any resources exported out of state by these businesses. They aren’t really taxed at all for using resources within the state.

The Confederacy would not have cheap land - the cotton boom drove up the prices of both slaves and land. Labor costs would be lower in the Confederacy, but both the Union and Canada would have better infrastructure, lower taxes, and a more stable currency.

The CSA has benefit of likely trying horrible crimes and unconventional/corrupt tactics very often over 100 years earlier before they became prevalent in otl. CSA might also bring worse traits of Union out much more(this is why being united is important. It balances the extremes of others groups). They also have advantage of these tactics working even better given lack of technology and more causal acceptance of horrible acts by the people then.

Atrocities predate the Confederacy by millennia. And committing atrocities does not work better - Nathan Bedford Forrest was surprised that after Ft Pillow, Union troops became a lot more likely to fight instead of surrender to him.
 
Could southerners offer military aid through unofficial mercenaries(likely common in the violent CSA)? Same people who are filibustering are hired by Britain and France to deal with smaller colonial conflicts. They would be useful for solving minor or less serious issues in colonies. And they have someone else to blame if something goes wrong.

No Confederate would want or need "unofficial mercenaries" unless the Confederate central government was collapsing. The French would probably let Confederate expatriots into the Foreign Legion, but the British would have no need or desire for Confederate mercenaries.
 
I would think some of the southern elites/aristocrats go study in Prussia about government and military due to money they have.

Prussian military academies existed to train Prussian citizens to be officers in the Prussian Army.

The wealth families in New England often sent their kids to Prussia or Britain to learn business up until ww1.

Plenty of wealthy Americans sent their kids to European universities, but they were not sent there to learn business.

While others go to Prussia to learn about being soldiers and officers.

Prussian military academies existed to train Prussian citizens to be officers in the Prussian Army.
 
The US didn’t let everyone in who wanted to. Many Jews did come but others probably got told they are taking in no more right now. I’m pretty sure Jews and Slavs would have left Russia in larger number if a nation accepted more in. I feel like it was a first come and serve thing. What was max amount of people the US allowed in yearly from 1865 to 1914?

Until 1921, there were no US quotas on immigration.
 
Postwar OTL the status of black in Louisiana after reconstruction with labor contracts and Jim Crow was no better than elsewhere in the former CSA. The dxirection the south was moving in was to eliminate the class of free blacks.
 
The only issue with that it isn’t as economically profitable on a mass scale especially in the long run and likely pisses off a lot of people. You can more cheaply hire poor whites or even indebted labor. Slave labor in more industrial jobs will be there but mostly for low risk labor(it can still be a hard job and suck but chances of them dying or maimed is extremely less in the jobs they get. I remember reading one British writing about being in south. He asked a man who was dealing with unloading ship cargo why the slaves were sitting around while whites unload cargo. He stated something about not wanting to risk breaking the backs of the slave he paid good money for. He then went on about how it was cheaper to have Irish immigrants do it because if they break their back he doesn’t lose much. Blacks might not be considered equal but they are considered more valuable money wise. Think of the coal mines in Appalachia and how they used animals there. They rather send humans to die and get maimed in mines because to owners they are worth less money wise then a animal(how they often saw blacks). If that donkey dies or gets maimed that costs him more money then having its cheap labor die or get maimed. He had to buy and take care of donkey not the people which is similar to how they saw slavery) If rented slaves die or get maimed they have to repay for damages(think how much that could cost them in comparison to cheap wage labor). If some lower class white or Irish immigrant die or gets maimed they don’t have to pay anyone back. That’s actually less people they have to pay now because they are either died or they fire them after getting hurt and can easily replace them with people desperate for work.

You have a half-remembered anecdote. I have cited multiple real sources that show slaveholders liked using slaves for industry, mining, etc and hat it was profitable in the long run.

"Elsewhere in the South bondsmen worked in sawmills, gristmills, quarries, and fisheries. They mined gold in North Carolina, coal and salt in Virginia, iron in Kentucky and Tennessee, and lead in Missouri." - The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South by Kenneth M Stampp

"Some Southerners were enthusiastic crusaders for the development of factories which would employ slaves, They were convinced that bondsmen could be trained in all the necessary skills and would provide a cheaper and more manageable form of labor than free whites." - The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South by Kenneth M Stampp

"From the earliest beginnings the southern iron industry depended upon skilled and unskilled slaves, Negro iron workers were employed in Bath County, Kentucky and along the Cumberland River in Tennessee. In the Cumberland country the majority of laborers at the iron furnaces were slaves. Montgomery Bell, owner of the Cumberland Iron Works, engaged his own three hundred slaves and many others in every task connected with the operation of forge and furnace. In the Great Valley of Virginia, where the southern industry was centered during the early nineteenth century, slaves constituted the chief labor supply." - The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South by Kenneth M Stampp

Stampp also mentions how slaves were used to build roads, railroads, canals, and bridges. Slaves worked as lumberjacks, deckhands and firemen on river boats, dock laborers and stevedores, and mechanics.
 
Most free blacks in Louisiana, or the South as a whole, did not own slaves.

And if they did it was mostly family members. The reason being it was easier to sell a slave than to free them. So if you let a slave buy his freedom, you might later sell him his wife and children. Sometimes Quakers and other abolitionists would buy slaves but not officially free them, just let them do whatever they want for the same reason. Officially freeing slaves was expensive.
 
It very much is a case of allowig it to happen. Nestle, Starbucks etc still exist.

I read your source, it said nothing about coacoa being grown by slave labor. In Congo, which would be the most likely, it talks about minerals. In Ghana, it is fishing and mines. In Senegal, it is begging. In DR it is coffee but we don't import much from there. In Nepal, it is mostly farming but I don't think much cocoa or coffee is grown there either. In Brazil, they mention ranching, logging, cotton, and soy. What you talking about was around 100 years ago.

Also, last time I checked Nestle and Starbucks are not all powerful and the vast majority of cocoa and coffee is grown by free labor. Mostly poorly paid labor but poorly paid labor is not slave labor.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Also, last time I checked Nestle and Starbucks are not all powerful and the vast majority of cocoa and coffee is grown by free labor. Mostly poorly paid labor but poorly paid labor is not slave labor
In many cases, labour working MNCs actually receive higher wages than those working for local firms, and I am talking about manual labour.
 
I read your source, it said nothing about coacoa being grown by slave labor. In Congo, which would be the most likely, it talks about minerals. In Ghana, it is fishing and mines. In Senegal, it is begging. In DR it is coffee but we don't import much from there. In Nepal, it is mostly farming but I don't think much cocoa or coffee is grown there either. In Brazil, they mention ranching, logging, cotton, and soy. What you talking about was around 100 years ago.
The source wasn't posted to talk about chocolate, but to give an idea of the profitability of the slave trade. Interestingly enough, iirc the majority of the worlds cocoa (like 70%) comes from Ghana where the slavery problem is huge, with it being difficult to deliniate slavery made supplies from child labour supplies etc. It is big in many areas, but with chocolate in particular, it is a big enough deal that there is now slavery free chocolate, being the rare chocolate produced with a guarantee of no slavery, something the big chocolate producers can't guarantee.

Also, last time I checked Nestle and Starbucks are not all powerful and the vast majority of cocoa and coffee is grown by free labor. Mostly poorly paid labor but poorly paid labor is not slave labor.
They don't need to be "all powerful". They and companies like them exist and thrive despite being actively involved in the slave trade.
It is hard to quantify the total amount of their stocks which are produced via slavery, but that is sort of the point. Slavery is a signifcant part of their existence, which is both tolerated and prolonged.
 
The source wasn't posted to talk about chocolate, but to give an idea of the profitability of the slave trade. Interestingly enough, iirc the majority of the worlds cocoa (like 70%) comes from Ghana where the slavery problem is huge, with it being difficult to deliniate slavery made supplies from child labour supplies etc. It is big in many areas, but with chocolate in particular, it is a big enough deal that there is now slavery free chocolate, being the rare chocolate produced with a guarantee of no slavery, something the big chocolate producers can't guarantee.

They don't need to be "all powerful". They and companies like them exist and thrive despite being actively involved in the slave trade.
It is hard to quantify the total amount of their stocks which are produced via slavery, but that is sort of the point. Slavery is a signifcant part of their existence, which is both tolerated and prolonged.

By your own article, there are about forty million slaves total, half of them in sexual slavery of some sort so you are down to 20 million. Mining is a good chunk of that, as it is commonly mentioned and prevalent in history. Domestic slavery is commonly mentioned, particularly in India and the ME and has been common in history. You have to minus all that out and it goes down, down, down the prevalence in any one industry winds up a small minority.

When you are talking 20 million people worldwide, that isn't a lot in the greater scheme of things as there are over 6 billion people total on the planet, it is only 0.3% of the planet's population. When you subtract mining and domestics you are probably down to 10 million or less and that includes basically every type of physical labor other than mining and domestics.
 
By your own article, there are about forty million slaves total, half of them in sexual slavery of some sort so you are down to 20 million.
I think you misread. Sex slavery accounts for only 12.5% by the article's account (unless you count forced marriage, although that gets into a big debate over the difference between sex, and sex as labour). The source drawn upon is only mentioning outright slavery rather than slavery in other terms (such as indentured servitude, prison labour etc) for which the numbers become much larger, and even then in outright terms regarding what is directly known. Legally forced labour in China for instance is a huge issue, but isn't recorded as slavery despite being indistinguishable in most cases.

When you are talking 20 million people worldwide, that isn't a lot in the greater scheme of things as there are over 6 billion people total on the planet, it is only 0.3% of the planet's population. When you subtract mining and domestics you are probably down to 10 million or less and that includes basically every type of physical labor other than mining and domestics.
Think of it this way.
You take a bite into a chocolate bar, and unless it specifies it is slavery free (something that often costs more suggesting a larger amount of chocolate related slavery than currently known), you and the company that produced it have no way of knowing if it was produced by slavery. That is a $161 billion industry that is unable to offer the same assurances of no slavery that almost any other industry can.
 
Maybe. People disappear. Probably poor people in marginal areas. The end up down on plantations in Mississippi, or in mines. No one ever sees or hears of them again. Lot and lots of rumours maybe. But it's not like the Confederacy is going to open up its mines and plantations to American inspectors looking for kidnapped free people.
Escapes do happen. Then there's also kidnapping women to be slaves in the brothels in New Orleans. Kidnap the wrong woman and she manages to escape , that would definitely start a war.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Maybe. People disappear. Probably poor people in marginal areas. The end up down on plantations in Mississippi, or in mines. No one ever sees or hears of them again. Lot and lots of rumours maybe. But it's not like the Confederacy is going to open up its mines and plantations to American inspectors looking for kidnapped free people.
Imagine the raiders ending up kidnapping a Congressman
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top