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.
The South was founded on the basis of Slavery. It wasn't states rights, tariffs, southern culture(except the culture of owning people as property), it was slavery. So the idea that it would abolish Slavery isn't looking at it properly. The south would keep slavery, it may not be plantation slavery, but slavery would remain as a core of their culture.

Again I point out that the best time to abolish slavery is when ever a communist revolution happens.

Doesn't necessarily have to be communist, could be a populist military leader that appeals to the poor whites. Regardless, I agree that any Confederacy that attempts to lean into industrial slavery very hard would fall to revolution of some sort.
 
I always felt the Confederacy would pretty much become a British puppet if it wanted to survive. So, the British would likely mount pressure on them and slavery would be abolished during the 1880s. I guarantee sharecropping or something similar will be used for Confederate blacks and could last into the mid-20th century.
 
The South was founded on the basis of Slavery. It wasn't states rights, tariffs, southern culture(except the culture of owning people as property), it was slavery. So the idea that it would abolish Slavery isn't looking at it properly. The south would keep slavery, it may not be plantation slavery, but slavery would remain as a core of their culture.

Again I point out that the best time to abolish slavery is when ever a communist revolution happens.
Brazil abolished slavery, so why wouldn't the CSA at some point, even if it is as late as the Early-Mid 20th Century?
 
Brazil abolished slavery, so why wouldn't the CSA at some point, even if it is as late as the Early-Mid 20th Century?
And there we go. The fact that the confederacy would keep slavery forever is simply ridiculous. The CSA would eventually get rid of slavery and in my opinion it will be sometime in the 1890s( more then likely 1894-1898). But this does not nessaceraly mean blacks get off easy (I mean this is still a place run by white plantation owners). The confederacy would more then likely not allow blacks to hold office or vote. They would more then likely implement maximum jim crow law. Another "interesting" law might be that blacks have to be payed but can be payed what every you want( meaning that you could pay your black worker a penny for the whole day).
 
Last edited:
Due to the peculiarities of the Confederate constitution, I could see the CSA retaining slavery well into the modern day, in that it remains "on the books" legal but is simply not actually practiced in any state of the Confederacy, at least not in a manner similar to 19th century chattel slavery. Rather, individual black sharecroppers/industry workers could have the threat of "re-enslavement" dangling over their heads, should they act outside their societal niche. The majority would be subject to the Confederate version of apartheid/super Jim Crow, including forced migrations and dirt-poor bantustans. They would be "free" in that they wouldn't be born slaves and not enslaved at the moment, but the option to enslave troublemakers and rebellious black communities would remain possible.

It cannot be stressed enough how deeply slavery was entrenched in the constitution of the CSA. Four separate clauses (Article I, Sections 2 and 9 and Article IV, Sections 2 and 3) solidify the peculiar institution in the south, each in different ways, and together would make it extremely difficult to pass an amendment to simply outlaw slavery. It literally forms the linchpin that the constitution revolves around.

You cannot simply say "they'd pass an amendment" and leave it at that. Though it may be technically possible from a legal standpoint, it would be political suicide until at least the 20th century thanks to the political and ethnic chauvinism Dixie culture will inevitably adopt, especially riding a patriotic high like a victory in a civil war for a generation or so. It'd be like OTL's United States trying to repeal the 2A - legally possible, but political suicide unless political circumstances absolutely require it and an overwhelming majority are in favor.

Also, Brazil's identity as nation-state did not revolve around it's practice of slavery, unlike the Confederacy's. It did not culturally or legally shackle itself to slavery, as the CSA did. Thus, banning slavery in Brazil was ultimately an economic decision, not a cultural or ethno-political one, which is what the South's had devolved into by 1840 regardless of their claims to the economics of the institution.
 
When would the CSA abolish slavery? Well firstly do you consider modern prison slavery to be slavery?


Either way, the answer is "When the workers rise up and it becomes the CSRA", most likely.
 
The South was founded on the basis of Slavery. It wasn't states rights, tariffs, southern culture(except the culture of owning people as property), it was slavery. So the idea that it would abolish Slavery isn't looking at it properly. The south would keep slavery, it may not be plantation slavery, but slavery would remain as a core of their culture.

Again I point out that the best time to abolish slavery is when ever a communist revolution happens.

On the other hand, the USSR was founded on the basis of communism, as was the People's Republic of China; if anything, Communism was even more integral to their culture than slavery was to the South, given that only a quarter of Southron families owned slaves but everybody in the former countries was required to be communist. Both the USSR and China of them abandoned it even though the latter claims it hasn't. By 1930, the vast majority of people in the South would not have ever fought for slavery, unless of course there were another war.

Which brings up another point: The main question of the thread implicitly assumes that the CSA's practice of slavery would not be directly opposed after its independence, but how likely is that? Is it likely that the United States, Mexico, and other countries would continue tolerating the existence of the Confederacy as a slaver state for multiple generations? The last "civilized" country to abolish slavery was Brazil in 1888, although it had been in the process of abolishing the practice since the Rio Branco law in 1871. In 1890, the Brussels Conference had the various colonial powers agree to end the slave trade in their colonies, particularly those in Africa, and there was a general tide of increasing emancipation right up until (and continuing after) slavery was declared a violation of human rights by the UN in 1948. While it's true that Britain had grown tired of enforcing its anti-slave-trade policies by the mid-19th century, more and more of the European powers were clamping down on the practice as time went on. Adding to this, the US's most likely political strategy would be to undermine the CSA's reputation abroad, and Mexico would probably seek to make sure the two don't become friendly; would the two really avoid direct conflict for so many decades?
 
The South was founded on the basis of Slavery. It wasn't states rights, tariffs, southern culture(except the culture of owning people as property), it was slavery. So the idea that it would abolish Slavery isn't looking at it properly. The south would keep slavery, it may not be plantation slavery, but slavery would remain as a core of their culture.

Again I point out that the best time to abolish slavery is when ever a communist revolution happens.

Assuming the ideology isn't butterflied away, I think that the Confederacy is more likely to go fascist than communist. Either way, it would not be poor whites uniting with the slaves to overthrow the large slaveholders, it would be the poor whites seeing the slaves as part of the problem. There is no best case for the slaves, but the least bad is probably forced expulsion from the Confederacy. The most likely result of a poor white revolution would be private ownership of slaves being replaced by state ownership, which could get even worse if sick, elderly, and injured slaves are euthanized, likely with the facade of claiming it was for the good of the state. Full-fledged Nazi or Khmer Rouge style extermination of the slaves is unlikely, based on how few totalitarian governments went that far, but not impossible.

Alternatively, you could see mass slave revolts in states where they are the majority - in 1860 they were 57% of the population of South Carolina and 55% of the population of Mississippi. this would probably require covert support from a foreign power willing to supply arms to the slaves. In this case that foreign support would be more likely to come from communists than fascists. While forced expulsion of all whites would probably be the goal, there probably would be some massacres, which Confederate propaganda would inflate.
The Confederate government would probably try to crush the rebellion as quickly as possible, followed by horrific retaliations. Even at their most successful, I don't see the rebels gaining all of the Confederate states, but a partition is possible. Perhaps a People's Republic of America consisting of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida. The Northern Confederate states of Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina; if they were still part of the Confederacy at that point, would continue to call themselves the CSA, but with slaves now able to flee north, south,or west would probably see their slave populations drop sharply. The TransMississippi of Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas could well break away from the Richmond government due to the geographical separation.
 
On the other hand, the USSR was founded on the basis of communism, as was the People's Republic of China; if anything, Communism was even more integral to their culture than slavery was to the South, given that only a quarter of Southron families owned slaves but everybody in the former countries was required to be communist. Both the USSR and China of them abandoned it even though the latter claims it hasn't. By 1930, the vast majority of people in the South would not have ever fought for slavery, unless of course there were another war.

In the states that formed the Confederacy about 1/3 of all families owned slaves. In the modern US, about 1/3rd of all families own firearms. The Confederacy abolishing slavery is about as likely as the modern US banning all personal gun ownership.

Which brings up another point: The main question of the thread implicitly assumes that the CSA's practice of slavery would not be directly opposed after its independence, but how likely is that? Is it likely that the United States, Mexico, and other countries would continue tolerating the existence of the Confederacy as a slaver state for multiple generations? The last "civilized" country to abolish slavery was Brazil in 1888, although it had been in the process of abolishing the practice since the Rio Branco law in 1871. In 1890, the Brussels Conference had the various colonial powers agree to end the slave trade in their colonies, particularly those in Africa, and there was a general tide of increasing emancipation right up until (and continuing after) slavery was declared a violation of human rights by the UN in 1948. While it's true that Britain had grown tired of enforcing its anti-slave-trade policies by the mid-19th century, more and more of the European powers were clamping down on the practice as time went on. Adding to this, the US's most likely political strategy would be to undermine the CSA's reputation abroad, and Mexico would probably seek to make sure the two don't become friendly; would the two really avoid direct conflict for so many decades?

Brazil did abolish slavery in 1888. but in 1885 King Leopold had established the Congo Free State, enslaving the Africans there for personal profit. Even though Leopold's atrocities were publicized shortly after, nobody stopped buying rubber from him. The British Government was the first government to bother to investigate the reports and they didn't do it until 1903. Leopold continued to oppress the Congolese until 1908.
 
Last edited:
I would say 1890s or no later then 1900. Segregation would take place right after in most cases. How racial ideas and views develop could vary greatly depending on the progress and success of the CSA. The CSA has the potential to become a major regional power depending on how the civil war goes and how they handle themselves. They will be more imperialistic then the US. I think slavery will also depend on the success of their expansion campaigns and what lands they take.

What lands from who? All the land around them is either in the US or Mexico. A direct attack on the US is suicide plain and simple, Mexico is very difficult and suicidal if it has US backing.
 
@tsoch: like @marathag pointed out, slave labor in factories, especially in more skilled trades or more complex products, is really a recipe for inefficiency. There are oral histories which clearly indicate that slaves worked just hard enough to avoid the lash and not one bit harder. The "efficiency" of the work they did for their own gardens or for handicrafts they could sell was substantially greater. While if you have supervisors/overseers constantly checking for quality control, tool conservation, and so forth you can reduce (but not eliminate) problems in these areas, but having a lot of overseers on the factory floor is an expense which means the savings for slaves is now reduced. Also if slaves are forbidden to be literate, and are minimally numerate, this limits what they can do in a factory. Custodial work, pushing bins of product or parts around, loading/unloading rail cars and so forth, sure. Being a skilled machinist or operating cranes, not likely.

It is worth noting the well documented difference between the productivity of private plots versus communal land on Soviet state farms. Warren Buffet, a well known and highly successful US investment manager once opined;"in the history of the world, nobody washed a rental car".

True enough unless you count leasing as owning.
 
In the states that formed the Confederacy about 1/3 of all families owned slaves. In the modern US, about 1/3rd of all families own firearms. The Confederacy abolishing slavery is about as likely as the modern US banning all personal gun ownership.

The rabid second amendment worship of the current gun lobby only dates to the 1970s; prior to that, gun ownership had declined precipitously, and it could have easily gone another way given a different postwar era.

If many people believed that slavery was directly threatening their livelihood (for example, through depression of unskilled labor wages, or through international isolation, or as a part of a larger oligarchic worker-exploiting system), then it would see serious domestic challenge.
 
What lands from who? All the land around them is either in the US or Mexico. A direct attack on the US is suicide plain and simple, Mexico is very difficult and suicidal if it has US backing.
I think people underestimate the military power the CSA could become. Industrialization might come from the CSA creating its own military industrial complex. This is actually how much of the south was industrialized in otl but this could happen a lot sooner with a independent CSA. They will also have moderate light industry to turn their raw resources into manufacture goods. The CSA is going to have a more professional and larger standing army then the US due to possible revolts by slaves or later on segregated blacks. Many lower class whites also might rebel due to the aristocratic nature of the CSA. The US will still be a much bigger industrial power but I say the gap will be lessen. Think gap between Germany and France on industry.

If the US still uses volunteer base army while the CSA uses a professional standing army the CSA could pull off a situation similar to the Franco-Prussian war next time it goes to war with the US especially if the US capital is still in DC. Basically the US might underestimated a CSA who is becoming more and more militarized while the US only focuses on industry and trade. They think the CSA is backwards and not a threat to US lands. A better trained, organized, and standing CSA army could advance fast in the north before the US mobilizes it’s troops. And when they finally do it will likely be rushed and disorganized.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The US will still be a much bigger industrial power but I say the gap will be lessen
Or accelerated? The Gilded Age would have still occurred anyway, and economically the South would have even worse than IOTL.

You must also remember that the CSA pursued free trade policy like Britain despite not having an established industrial base, while the late 19th century was characterized by the trend of the Long Depression and the imposition of tariffs by the majority of Western countries. This means their nascent industries would have been crushed, especially their potential closest trading partner had a 40-50% tariff barrier.

If the CSA could not get Texas, they would not have access to oil.

To quote the following reasoning.
I certainly wouldn't copy-paste the OTL's South onto an independent Confederacy, but it gives us ballpark for estimating. If the Confederacy did as well as OTL's South, then on the eve of OTL's Great War, their manufacturing would narrowly edge out Italy, be roughly 2/3rds of Austria-Hungary's output, and a little under half of France's output.

I've seen posters claim that the independent Confederacy would be much more prosperous and industrialized than OTL's South, but that seems to be wishful thinking.

An independent Confederacy is very unlikely to do as well as OTL's former Confederate states. The Confederacy would have a weaker currency, higher inflation, larger public debt, lower population, lower education, lower protection of native industries, inferior infrastructure, and almost certainly less territory than OTL's South of 1913.

The Confederacy had a weaker currency than the US dollar, due to a complete lack of specie to back the currency. The Confederacy's currency reform did drop their inflation from a calamitous 700% to a merely ruinous 50%, but their inflation soon spiraled even higher as they continued to fund their government by massive deficit spending. By the end of the war, the per capita Confederate debt was massively higher than the Union per capita debt. A lot of that debt came from Confederate "greybacks', many of which were redeemable with interest between 6 months and 2 years after the end of the war.

An independent Confederate population would be significantly lower than in OTL for several reasons. Roughly 1/7th of the slave population fled to the Union in OTL - none of them would voluntarily return. Lincoln's Loyalists calculates that roughly 10% of draft age men from Confederate states served in the Union army - few if any of them would dare to return to an independent Confederacy. An independent Confederacy would also get less immigrants than OTL's postbellum South. Census records show that hardly any immigrants went to slave states. In 1860, immigrants were about 1/6th of the population of the Union states, but only about 1/40th the population of Confederate states.

An independent Confederacy would have lower education than OTL's South because it was illegal to teach blacks and a lot of Confederate leaders opposed public schooling as another form of "internal improvements". In OTL, a lot of the "carpetbaggers" were teachers who went south to create schools for the freedmen and poor whites. They won't be creating those schools in an independent Confederacy.

An independent Confederacy would have less protection of native industries because they believed strongly in low tariffs. An independent Confederacy would have inferior infrastructure to OTLs South because their Constitution made it illegal for the government to fund "internal improvements". Southern railroads also wouldn't be getting the level of investment or standardization from northern financiers that they did in OTL.

The Confederacy will also probably be smaller than the 11 states that seceded in OTL. Not even Robert E Lee could keep the Union from getting West Virginia. Unless the Confederacy can produce at least one general who exceeds Lee in skill, they will at a minimum also lose some or all of Arkansas and Tennessee, and they could lose quite a bit more.
 
I think people underestimate the military power the CSA could become. Industrialization might come from the CSA creating its own military industrial complex. This is actually how much of the south was industrialized in otl but this could happen a lot sooner with a independent CSA. They will also have moderate light industry to turn their raw resources into manufacture goods. The CSA is going to have a more professional and larger standing army then the US due to possible revolts by slaves or later on segregated blacks. Many lower class whites also might rebel due to the aristocratic nature of the CSA. The US will still be a much bigger industrial power but I say the gap will be lessen. Think gap between Germany and France on industry.

If the US still uses volunteer base army while the CSA uses a professional standing army the CSA could pull off a situation similar to the Franco-Prussian war next time it goes to war with the US especially if the US capital is still in DC. Basically the US might underestimated a CSA who is becoming more and more militarized while the US only focuses on industry and trade. They think the CSA is backwards and not a threat to US lands. A better trained, organized, and standing CSA army could advance fast in the north before the US mobilizes it’s troops. And when they finally do it will likely be rushed and disorganized.


In other words, if the Confederacy is run by incomparable geniuses while the US is run by stammering idiots they have a chance. Why would they have a moderate light industry to change cotton and tobacco into cloth and cigarettes? They didn't pre-war and considered industry being unfit for anyone but "Yankee Mudsills".

Why would the US go back to an all-volunteer militia-based army when there is a direct threat to it on its Southern border? If the CSA maintains a well trained, organized, standing army it will be noticed and so the USA will have one too. The big difference will be that the US can afford to spend more on training and supplies than the CSA can. I would imagine it would build a series of forts along its southern and western borders as well. I'm afraid the CSA isn't going anywhere.
 
What lands from who? All the land around them is either in the US or Mexico. A direct attack on the US is suicide plain and simple, Mexico is very difficult and suicidal if it has US backing.

Overconfidence was common among Confederate leaders. Successful independence would only feed that overconfidence. If they could defeat the 'mongrel' Yankee race, they'd be even more sure they could beat Hispanics. I expect the Confederacy would attempt to expand into the Caribbean and/or Central America. I expect the main thing this would produce is dead Confederates.
 
I think people underestimate the military power the CSA could become.

In general, Confederate capabilities are over, not underestimated.

A while back there was a thread on AH clichés we dislike, where I listed:

The Confederatewank Domino Effect Any change bigger than Abe Lincoln gets a hangnail inevitably results in Lee annihilating the Army of the Potomac and seizing Washington DC, Lincoln folding after his brain and spine have been removed, Britain and France become willing to intervene militarily on the Confederacy’s behalf, and the Confederacy is given back every inch of lost territory, plus Kentucky as a special bonus prize. If they go after anything in Latin America, the conquest is quick, easy, and permanent.

The Confederacy Has No Warts The large numbers of black and white southerners in the Union Army, the pro-Union guerrillas, the damage to the CSA infrastructure, the massive government debt, and the spiraling inflation magically disappear. Slavery ends almost immediately, usually at the hand of an idealized version of Lee. Confederate politicians show an equanimity about this that makes a bunch of hippies holding hands and singing Kumbayah look like starving feral dogs fighting over a steak. There is no significant dissent on any decision ever made by the Confederate government. Immigrants and free blacks are welcomed with open arms.
 
In other words, if the Confederacy is run by incomparable geniuses while the US is run by stammering idiots they have a chance. Why would they have a moderate light industry to change cotton and tobacco into cloth and cigarettes? They didn't pre-war and considered industry being unfit for anyone but "Yankee Mudsills".

Why would the US go back to an all-volunteer militia-based army when there is a direct threat to it on its Southern border? If the CSA maintains a well trained, organized, standing army it will be noticed and so the USA will have one too. The big difference will be that the US can afford to spend more on training and supplies than the CSA can. I would imagine it would build a series of forts along its southern and western borders as well. I'm afraid the CSA isn't going anywhere.
They had textiles in the Carolinas and others areas before the war. The CSA isn’t going to be stagnant at least in technology when they can just copy the north who is next to them. Industry might come by necessity. Lee and many other confederate leaders will understand the importance of industry to the survival of the nation. Your also going to still have Yankee or immigrant capitalist and industrialist in the south. Their loyalty might be more with money then the US. If they marry into aristocratic southern families they could become more loyal to the south then north especially their kids. If the war ends early and fast the north will just consider the south lost but not an actual threat to their states. Don’t underestimate how egotistical nations can be in this century. That is one reason France lost the Franco-Prussian war completely. CSA is going to be heavily influenced my romanticism. If the US was a republic based on enlightenment ideas then the CSA will probably be more like the conservative monarchs in Europe but in the form of a republic. That “state rights” stuff isn’t going to last. At least in a democratic form it won’t. Your going to have states run by aristocratic or oligarchy elite. The voting franchise is going to be heavily restricted even among whites. Voting going to be tied to wealth and military service(lower class option at social mobility). The difference between the US and CSA will be how democratic each is.

New England and the mid Atlantic states will dominate the US even more then otl. Many there will be against expansion of the army. They might support navy expansion but not the army. Militarism isn’t as prevalent in northern culture. This is even true today. Everyone is so focused on southern culture they are forgetting Yankee culture. Opposition to wars might be strong in the north especially after losing the south. They probably think they could control the CSA with its trade/industry and in worse case scenario the navy. The north will think it is unable to invade the south but they probably think the south can’t invade them either. Your average northerner would likely not think of the CSA is a threat until they do something like taking DC or march deep into their lands. They will probably think of the south as full of rednecks and black slaves ruled over by a small aristocratic class. They won’t think the south is threat even if some politicians do. The north will be more democratic which means they can’t expand the military greatly without public support. Regular people in New England and New York might get upset over military expansion if it starts impacting them and won’t elect people supporting this(think of gangs of New York). The south doesn’t have to worry about elections as much since it will be mostly restricted to the upper or middle classes. Also Lincoln and extreme republicans could face legal punishment if they did their otl stuff during the war and lost it. Lincoln being tried as a traitor after the war isn’t unlikely if he loses. A lot of stuff he did violated US law and the constitution. This could lead to the north restricting the power of president more due to Lincoln overstepping himself during the war like when he restricted the press or arrested appeasers in the north as CSA supporters(appeasing and supporting are different). This could hurt possible future military expansion since the president now has a lot less power to push for it. The US could also face other succession issues by people who now feel more confident to do the same since the CSA was successful(CSA could likely face the same issue but a victory probably helps calm that greatly).

Furthermore, the slave population might feed into industrialization. Slavery created a situation where many poor whites can’t make a living since slave labor took up most agricultural and rural jobs. They all can’t survive as yeoman and substance farming especially in places like Appalachia when they start logging and mining away a lot of the farming land. They will start working in mines, logging, and mills. Slaves are expensive so many slave owners will not want to rent out or have their slaves working in jobs were they can easily die. That isn’t a good investment on their part when they can paid poor whites nearly nothing to do it. If they die they lose nothing and they don’t have to pay that guy now. Industrialization in the south is probably not going to be traditional for that period. A lot of mills and small factories are going to be built in rural areas near rivers or mines. Luxury goods also probably become big industry in the south. The upper class will desire them and so will many Europeans(think a American Gucci or them selling liquor like Jack). Slave labor frees up a lot of white labor for other industries and the military. The CSA probably want to make sure this group is doing something that benefits them. The CSA could become a proto-police like state depending on how big the military and government starts to mix. Additionally, CSA expansion could be mostly done by fillbustering like they did before the civil war. Former CSA soldiers go into Central America as mercenaries and take over the place claiming to be the “legitimate” government and asking for CSA to annex it. Think Hawaii or Nicaragua.
 
Most Europeans thought of slavery as abhorrent, and certainly a mass boycott movement of Confederate goods would develop. And the British would be happy to eliminate a competitor to Indian cotton

By 1865, 300,000 people in northern England were out of work due to the lack of Indian and Egyptian cotton vs. Southern cotton production. Source
Consumer goods are far easier to target for boycott than industrial goods. Cotton was one of the lifebloods of the industrial revolution and throughout the 19th century, India and Egypt lacked the ability to meet that global demand. Ergo, the notion that Europe (or Northern US textile mills) would boycott slave-produced cotton is wishful thinking.

Setting that aside, and addressing the OP's question, the devil is in the details. The conditions by which a victorious CSA wins their independence matter a lot. A CSA that miraculously wins after the Democrats take back the White House in 1864 would be entirely different than one in which Antietam (1862) goes far more horribly wrong for the US. A late war victory for the CSA (however unlikely) would be one in which the CSA is forced to deal with a country in which slavery may exist on paper but in practice, it won't look very much like slavery of the antebellum South. Too much would have changed. I think a late war victory would result in something that looks more like apartheid long before 1900, simply out of their perceived necessity. Chattel slavery may get swapped out with peonage or wage slavery by the 1880s or 1890s or even earlier simply because by 1864 the social fabric of the South was already undergoing tremendous stress.

On the other hand, if the CSA somehow or another got lucky in 1861 or 1862 and captured Washington or the like, the institution of chattel slavery could have existed into the 20th century, because an early victory leaves most social structures intact as well as leaving most of the Southerners who died (source) alive.

Although the CSA constitution explicitly supported slavery, it's worth asking the question, how easy would it have been to amend it?
Turns out, somewhat easier, in principle, than the US. The Confederate constitution required only three states to call a constitutional convention to amend their constitution. The US constitution required 2/3. Because of this, it is highly likely that if the CS Constitution wasn't working the way a majority of states wanted, a new constitution would have been voted on.

Something to think about, while the South was skeptical of northern industrialists, the later in the war victory comes, the more wedded to State-Capitalism the Confederacy became. Also, the more realization that their economy couldn't be tied to a single crop. A late war victory timeline that explores the growth of state-capitalism through the 20th century would be interesting.
There's not a lot that I like about Turtledove's TL-191 series, but one thing I think he nailed was that a CSA victory, regardless of when it came, would have doomed race relations in the North. Northerners would have been far more likely to have directed their bitterness toward freedmen and women than toward anyone else had the North lost, IMO.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top