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.
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 could see that happening, what I can't see is them actually winning.
 
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.
I usually in the middle on this. I don’t like many of the CSA wanks either. The only reason I think the CSA could expand into Latin America and Caribbean is due to filibustering and them allying themselves with the local creole elites. Maybe putting in place a new caste system in Latin America. They are a confederacy so laws can vary from state to state a good bit. Hispanic gentleman culture isn’t too different from the one in the south. They just have to be willing to have a less binary racial system in holding like this. If the Hispanics population that identifies as more white or creole accept confederate rule the confederates could be willing to help them and integrate them into their system. Think how the Russian Empire integrated local elites. Also with the exception of Louisville and places near the Ohio river, much of Kentucky supported the confederates. West Virginia also was pretty split too. Could a treaty between the CSA and US require border states to having a vote on which country they would join after the war?
 
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.
I agree completely about state capitalism being possible but I thought the CSA having a large poor white lower class would encourage them to industrialize when these groups start getting upset by the lack of opportunities or jobs open to them?
 
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.
Lowell, Mass spun more cotton than the entire South and it wasn't the only city in the North that spun cotton. Copying technology is easier said than done and it always leaves you behind. I have no doubt they will copy some technology but most of the time it will be inferior to the original and by the time it hits the original's in quality the North invented a newer, better model that it has to copy.

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.
Some, yes. Most of them will stay in the more stable, prosperous, faster growing United States, particularly the ambitious ones.

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.
If it ends early it looks even more of a threat. A quick ending war would likely drive a desire for better military training. After all, it proved inadequate.
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.
I actually agree with you here. "State's rights" was more of an excuse than a real policy. Most of the "movers and shakers" of the South didn't give a damn about "State's rights". However, there is no proof dictatorships do better than democracies when fighting wars.
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.
You mean the more abolitionist parts of the country, who had no problems raising troops? Besides outside of Disney Star Wars countries rarely have problems raising troops when there is a direct threat right next door.
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.

Agreed, this is actually likely. This is why the boll weevil is not going to end slavery as others have asserted.

In short, you have to give EVERY break to the CSA and give the USA EVERY hinderence for the CSA to have a ghost of a chance taking US soil.
 
I usually in the middle on this. I don’t like many of the CSA wanks either. The only reason I think the CSA could expand into Latin America and Caribbean is due to filibustering and them allying themselves with the local creole elites. Maybe putting in place a new caste system in Latin America. They are a confederacy so laws can vary from state to state a good bit. Hispanic gentleman culture isn’t too different from the one in the south. They just have to be willing to have a less binary racial system in holding like this. If the Hispanics population that identifies as more white or creole accept confederate rule the confederates could be willing to help them and integrate them into their system. Think how the Russian Empire integrated local elites. Also with the exception of Louisville and places near the Ohio river, much of Kentucky supported the confederates. West Virginia also was pretty split too. Could a treaty between the CSA and US require border states to having a vote on which country they would join after the war?

You aren't in the middle, you are a Lost Causer.
 
I am not because I would never want to live in a society like that. I’m from the south but this world would be terrible to live in. Why can’t I post ideas without people thinking I actually believe in them personally?

Because you are doing back-flips to keep the CSA a credible threat to the USA. Considering the power differentials the US would have to be run by absolute idiots for the CS to be a real threat to it. It has many times the population and even more times the economy. By 1900, at the latest, the CSA would be about as much a threat to the USA as Canada. After 1900, at the latest, Canada would be more of a threat. There may not be that many Canadians but at least they are educated.
 
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.

Or a Fascist or some kind of theocracy with a populist preacher that says it is "God's will" that "The nigger gets nigger work while the White Man gets White Man's work" with collective ownership of slaves. You could see an unholy mess from that as I am sure you can figure out on your own.
 
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.

Way too early. The problem is that people in the South were far too worried about mass rapes and killings happening if the slaves were kept free. What good would money be if the newly freed slaves were raping and killing the countryside? That is exactly what they thought would happen. Complete impoverishment is preferable to that.
 
Because you are doing back-flips to keep the CSA a credible threat to the USA. Considering the power differentials the US would have to be run by absolute idiots for the CS to be a real threat to it. It has many times the population and even more times the economy. By 1900, at the latest, the CSA would be about as much a threat to the USA as Canada. After 1900, at the latest, Canada would be more of a threat. There may not be that many Canadians but at least they are educated.
I’m a person that can see stuff going hundreds of different ways. I could literally argue from any point of view or perspective. I just pick the ones I find the most interesting or ones I feel like aren’t talked about enough. A powerful CSA is more interesting. Canada is only more of a threat because of Britain.

Also the officers and generals in the CSA will be educated. The grunts in the CSA might not be book smarts or even literate but they are probably much more harden and fanatical(especially going into the 1900s) then many other people. Don’t downplay culture here. When kids in New England are learning to read and write kids in the south they are often learning how to use a gun and hunt(this isn’t universal. Nothing is but this could be the common trend. Also the CSA probably still has the right to bear arms). Honor cultures like the south are full of low level violence. This will create people that feel much more natural in combat. When you grow up seeing some of the stuff in places like Appalachia and Texas you become numb to a lot of messed up stuff. A kid from a Brahmin families are not going to be as use to violence like a kid from a plantation family. Compare Mark Twain books to ones based in New England and you can clearly tell the south is much more brutal and violent as a society. This is probably one reason Southerners have almost always made up a disportional number of the US military especially in the marines. They pride themselves in their martial skills while northerners pride themselves in entrepreneurship.

Furthermore, many southerners did understand how mess up their society was but their loyalty to their homeland was extreme. Even poor whites who hated the plantations class and slavery(not because they thought blacks were equal) would never fight against their homeland. They are very loyal to the land but not necessarily the leaders. They are also xenophobic. They don’t like the idea of outsiders involving themselves in their business. Lee for example would join any side Virginia would choose without question. The confederates were literally arming child soldiers and the elderly by the end of the war. Some even refused surrender after the war was over. Northern culture was a model bourgeoisie one. They are teaching their kids to be businessmen and educating them in school. Southerners are teaching theirs to survive off the land or to be modern knights.

The north given its resources and numbers should have stomped the CSA quickly but didn’t. One reason for this is because many southern generals spent much more of their life towards the military compared to many in the north who focused more on stuff outside of the military like business. Saying the confederate did better then they were supposed to is not a lost cause thing. A lost cause person would be romanticizing them. Don’t underestimate a nation that is heavily prideful and nationalistic. They will try crazy stuff especially with their back against the wall. Japan and Germany both did stuff that are borderline insane. People that are heavily nationalistic will do terrible things if they think it will help and protect their home and love ones. Southern culture is also filled with a lot of double standards, contradictions, and hypocrisy. This means they will likely twist things whenever they feel it is needed. Anyone who has listened to a southern accent knows how they can make anything sound good depending on how they do it. Southern culture and the CSA isn’t as stubborn as people think. They just don’t want to admit defeat or when their wrong. But they will adept just without admitting it.
 
Or a Fascist or some kind of theocracy with a populist preacher that says it is "God's will" that "The nigger gets nigger work while the White Man gets White Man's work" with collective ownership of slaves. You could see an unholy mess from that as I am sure you can figure out on your own.
I don’t think a CSA will become a full theocracy but it could have theocratic elements. I could see the CSA making Christianity(no official sect due to the great variety within the confederacy) the state religion but still tolerating Jews(I don’t see them hating too much on them for any reason). Christianity will be largely tied to nationalism. Think Spain or Russian Empire. Also why does no one think the CSA could become like a Anglo Brazil? Couldn’t a concept similar to “whitening” develop in the south later on?
 
I’m a person that can see stuff going hundreds of different ways. I could literally argue from any point of view or perspective. I just pick the ones I find the most interesting or ones I feel like aren’t talked about enough. A powerful CSA is more interesting. Canada is only more of a threat because of Britain.
After 1900 at the latest Canada would be more of a threat because it would have a larger economy. The CSA would be a basket case.

Also the officers and generals in the CSA will be educated. The grunts in the CSA might not be book smarts or even literate but they are probably much more harden and fanatical(especially going into the 1900s) then many other people.
Fanatical troops with 1872 Springfield rifles and 3-inch Rifle guns with a few Gatlings here and there are going to nothing but die going up against 1892 Krags, M1897 artillery pieces and 1895 colt/browning machine guns. The US will have field telephones at least for their fortresses and the CS will have telegraphs.
[/QUOTE]
Don’t downplay culture here. When kids in New England are learning to read and write kids in the south they are often learning how to use a gun and hunt(this isn’t universal.
My brother was rated a "marksman" by the US army but somehow managed to get educated enough to be the head of IS in a largish medium sized company.

Nothing is but this could be the common trend. Also the CSA probably still has the right to bear arms). Honor cultures like the south are full of low level violence. This will create people that feel much more natural in combat. When you grow up seeing some of the stuff in places like Appalachia and Texas you become numb to a lot of messed up stuff.
While the impoverished areas of Chicago, Kansas City, and Brooklynn were no doubt complete havens of peace and quiet. There certainly was no violence in the slums of Chicago.
A kid from a Brahmin families are not going to be as use to violence like a kid from a plantation family. Compare Mark Twain books to ones based in New England and you can clearly tell the south is much more brutal and violent as a society. This is probably one reason Southerners have almost always made up a disportional number of the US military especially in the marines. They pride themselves in their martial skills while northerners pride themselves in entrepreneurship.
That doesn't matter much if you are massively outnumbered and outgunned.

Furthermore, many southerners did understand how mess up their society was but their loyalty to their homeland was extreme. Even poor whites who hated the plantations class and slavery(not because they thought blacks were equal) would never fight against their homeland. They are very loyal to the land but not necessarily the leaders. They are also xenophobic. They don’t like the idea of outsiders involving themselves in their business. Lee for example would join any side Virginia would choose without question. The confederates were literally arming child soldiers and the elderly by the end of the war. Some even refused surrender after the war was over. Northern culture was a model bourgeoisie one. They are teaching their kids to be businessmen and educating them in school. Southerners are teaching theirs to survive off the land or to be modern knights.
WW2 Japanese soldiers were even more fanatical and it helped them not at all in the end.
The north given its resources and numbers should have stomped the CSA quickly but didn’t. One reason for this is because many southern generals spent much more of their life towards the military compared to many in the north who focused more on stuff outside of the military like business.
The South was about as large as Napoleonic France. It could be conquered only so fast.
Saying the confederate did better then they were supposed to is not a lost cause thing. A lost cause person would be romanticizing them. Don’t underestimate a nation that is heavily prideful and nationalistic. They will try crazy stuff especially with their back against the wall. Japan and Germany both did stuff that are borderline insane. People that are heavily nationalistic will do terrible things if they think it will help and protect their home and love ones. Southern culture is also filled with a lot of double standards, contradictions, and hypocrisy. This means they will likely twist things whenever they feel it is needed. Anyone who has listened to a southern accent knows how they can make anything sound good depending on how they do it. Southern culture and the CSA isn’t as stubborn as people think. They just don’t want to admit defeat or when their wrong. But they will adept just without admitting it.

That isn't going to help them at all if they are going up against 1895 colt/browning machine guns with 1872 Springfields.
 
Slavery would be replaced by convict labour, with most convicts being black (which was something that happened in OTL until WW2 or even later.)
 
After 1900 at the latest Canada would be more of a threat because it would have a larger economy. The CSA would be a basket case.


Fanatical troops with 1872 Springfield rifles and 3-inch Rifle guns with a few Gatlings here and there are going to nothing but die going up against 1892 Krags, M1897 artillery pieces and 1895 colt/browning machine guns. The US will have field telephones at least for their fortresses and the CS will have telegraphs.

My brother was rated a "marksman" by the US army but somehow managed to get educated enough to be the head of IS in a largish medium sized company.


While the impoverished areas of Chicago, Kansas City, and Brooklynn were no doubt complete havens of peace and quiet. There certainly was no violence in the slums of Chicago.

That doesn't matter much if you are massively outnumbered and outgunned.


WW2 Japanese soldiers were even more fanatical and it helped them not at all in the end.

The South was about as large as Napoleonic France. It could be conquered only so fast.


That isn't going to help them at all if they are going up against 1895 colt/browning machine guns with 1872 Springfields.[/QUOTE]
If the CSA is focused heavily on its military and its industry is based around it why would they be that behind against the US in weapons. The US will definitely have a better navy but why could the CSA not have it’s own cheap but reliable gun that can be easily made? You can have a bit of variety when it comes to gun types. Did the 1800s have anything similar to the AK47? By that I mean do they have a gun that is cheap, reliable, and fast to make?

Also this is 1800s. Chicago and those places don’t get really bad until later. It’s important to consider city violence is much different then the stuff experienced in the south or rural areas. They are using tools and knives as weapons in cities in the 1800s most of the time. They aren’t hunting or using guns as much. Appalachian is likely to have better aim over a mobster in New York. They can shoot animals from miles away without a scope. That skill relates well into battle. Blood feuds in Appalachia have been described as similar to tribal warfare. People in this time in Texas are probably still fighting native Americans and dealing with a even crazier Wild West. Also the defeat in the Civil War would likely destabilize the US a bit. Wouldn’t defeat greatly hurt the credibility of the Union to many people?
 
If the CSA is focused heavily on its military and its industry is based around it why would they be that behind against the US in weapons. The US will definitely have a better navy but why could the CSA not have it’s own cheap but reliable gun that can be easily made? You can have a bit of variety when it comes to gun types. Did the 1800s have anything similar to the AK47? By that I mean do they have a gun that is cheap, reliable, and fast to make?
Because the CSA would be a rural, impoverished backwater. It would have two choices 1) A small, modern army. 2) A large , obsolete army. It wouldn't have the money for a large, modern army.

Also this is 1800s. Chicago and those places don’t get really bad until later. It’s important to consider city violence is much different then the stuff experienced in the south or rural areas. They are using tools and knives as weapons in cities in the 1800s most of the time. They aren’t hunting or using guns as much. Appalachian is likely to have better aim over a mobster in New York. They can shoot animals from miles away without a scope. That skill relates well into battle. Blood feuds in Appalachia have been described as similar to tribal warfare. People in this time in Texas are probably still fighting native Americans and dealing with a even crazier Wild West. Also the defeat in the Civil War would likely destabilize the US a bit. Wouldn’t defeat greatly hurt the credibility of the Union to many people?

No, there were more than a few gunfights in the cities like Chicago as well. In the slums, guns were available and were used. Chicago was very much known for being a "tough city".

The ACW would have almost certainly "Federalized" the government a good deal. State militias might be banned by constitutional amendment. The states can't rebel if they don't have an army. By the time 1880 rolls around the United States is compaing itself quite well to the Confederate States.
 
Because the CSA would be a rural, impoverished backwater. It would have two choices 1) A small, modern army. 2) A large , obsolete army. It wouldn't have the money for a large, modern army.



No, there were more than a few gunfights in the cities like Chicago as well. In the slums, guns were available and were used. Chicago was very much known for being a "tough city".

The ACW would have almost certainly "Federalized" the government a good deal. State militias might be banned by constitutional amendment. The states can't rebel if they don't have an army. By the time 1880 rolls around the United States is compaing itself quite well to the Confederate States.
But would federalization be less successful the farther west you get especially with the CSA makes the way their more snaking to travel. Won’t the Mormons out west feel more bold and be upset by federalization? How strong is federal authority in California and and the west coast in this situation? Also wouldn’t native Americans be more of a problem. They can now go back and forth between the CSA and the US to avoid trouble. Each country supports different tribes that do raids into each other’s border regions? Same goes for outlaws and bandits? Could you also have partisan activity funding by both nations? The CSA has someone like Jesse James causing trouble in Missouri? The US does the same. Could a southern victory lead to a domino effect that ends with the Balkanization of the Americas? Those borders aren’t going to be the most monitored or controlled once your east of the Mississippi River.

Furthermore, won’t Lincoln and the Republicans be discredited by the defeat? Isn’t the gun fights of Chicago more the 1910 and onwards. Were those cities like that between 1865 to 1900? Isn’t it more like gangs of York during the 1800s and becomes more mobster like in the 1900s?
 
But would federalization be less successful the farther west you get especially with the CSA makes the way their more snaking to travel. Won’t the Mormons out west feel more bold and be upset by federalization? How strong is federal authority in California and and the west coast in this situation? Also wouldn’t native Americans be more of a problem. They can now go back and forth between the CSA and the US to avoid trouble. Each country supports different tribes that do raids into each other’s border regions? Same goes for outlaws and bandits? Could you also have partisan activity funding by both nations? The CSA has someone like Jesse James causing trouble in Missouri? The US does the same. Could a southern victory lead to a domino effect that ends with the Balkanization of the Americas? Those borders aren’t going to be the most monitored or controlled once your east of the Mississippi River.

Furthermore, won’t Lincoln and the Republicans be discredited by the defeat? Isn’t the gun fights of Chicago more the 1910 and onwards. Were those cities like that between 1865 to 1900? Isn’t it more like gangs of York during the 1800s and becomes more mobster like in the 1900s?

To some extent, maybe but with the rails, telegraph, and later, telephone federalization shouldn't be too much of a problem. The Mormons are massively outnumbered and widely hated, if they rise up they get squashed. The Feds had no problems dealing with the West Coast OTL before the ACW , why should they have a problem with it after it?

Sadly, the Native Americans are probably shoved into reservations even quicker than OTL. The US will have a large standing army and the natives can give the troops needed practice. Outlaws and bandits are hardly going to cause the government to collapse. There may be more of them but it would be manageable.

Nah, guns were used all during the 19th century. This wasn't the movies. You had large criminal gangs in the slums and they used guns.
 
To some extent, maybe but with the rails, telegraph, and later, telephone federalization shouldn't be too much of a problem. The Mormons are massively outnumbered and widely hated, if they rise up they get squashed. The Feds had no problems dealing with the West Coast OTL before the ACW , why should they have a problem with it after it?

Sadly, the Native Americans are probably shoved into reservations even quicker than OTL. The US will have a large standing army and the natives can give the troops needed practice. Outlaws and bandits are hardly going to cause the government to collapse. There may be more of them but it would be manageable.

Nah, guns were used all during the 19th century. This wasn't the movies. You had large criminal gangs in the slums and they used guns.
Thoughts city gangs of the 1800s were barely more then disorganized mobs or small groups and they didn’t become bigger and organized until the 1920s. Always thought of Chicago as more of a city that grew in the 1900 century more so then the previous one. Imagine some partisans will linger for a few decades throughout both nations. Also how does British and French investment help CSA development if relations are good? Wouldn’t CSA help France in Mexico after the civil war and in return they get some land?
 
Thoughts city gangs of the 1800s were barely more then disorganized mobs or small groups and they didn’t become bigger and organized until the 1920s. Always thought of Chicago as more of a city that grew in the 1900 century more so then the previous one. Imagine some partisans will linger for a few decades throughout both nations. Also how does British and French investment help CSA development if relations are good? Wouldn’t CSA help France in Mexico after the civil war and in return they get some land?

Large numbers of small gangs will kill you as quickly as a small number of large ones. You don't need 300 people in a gang to buy a .32.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top