Poll: When Would the CSA Eliminate Slavery

[Fiver]

Slave labor is mostly still agriculture and cash crops base but growing slave labor in industrial sector not be the majority in most places outside the Deep South and even their it will only be half the workers at most.

I have quoted multiple historians who show that you are wrong. They mention several industries where the majority of the workers were slaves. And these industries were not limited to the Deep South; my sources have mentioned slaves being most of the work force for industries in Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri, and Arkansans.

 

[Fiver]

Too many slaves in industry leads to not enough being used to maximize production on plantations which aristocrats would be against. They will rent slaves but often only ones they are will to spare which won’t be enough for all industrial jobs

I have provided plenty of evidence that the South was not suffering from a shortage of slave labor in either agriculture or industry.

Slave labor would be feeding into industries more then actual dominating them.

I have provided plenty of evidence that slave labor was dominating many Southern industries.

Slaves make the crops and do trivial work for the most part to build into the other industries.

I have provided plenty of evidence that slaves were being used in highly skilled jobs in Southern industry.

But the side effect of the practices you listed above is chattel slavery transitioning into more classical slavery which will greatly change mindsets because they are learning more skills and are probably more educated then before.

Incentives to Southern industrial slaves was leading to an increase in free blacks in the Border South, but it was not transitioning the Southern culture from chattel slavery to classical slavery.

What do you think some whites(not all but a growing number) will start thinking when they see blacks do more skilled jobs and showing higher levels of intelligence(has nothing to do with race. The more people are allow to learn the more intelligent you actually become)? They will look at them and see more of themselves and similarities especially if they are often working together and experiencing relatable suffering(a lot more interacting then with each other down south). They will start seeing them as more human.

A handful of Southerners did see this and become abolitionists. They were violently suppressed, fled the South, or were dismissed as insane.

 

[Modern Imperialism]

I have quoted multiple historians who show that you are wrong. They mention several industries where the majority of the workers were slaves. And these industries were not limited to the Deep South; my sources have mentioned slaves dbeing most of the work force for industries in Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri, and Arkansans.

Because that was the situation in 1860 or 1865 does not mean it will be the same in 1880 or even a decade later. You completely disregard butterflies and changes in demographics and economics over time. No society or nation this size has stayed that stagnant in this time period. They aren’t this isolated society cut off from the rest of the world. They are trading and you have the flow of ideas and culture coming into the country. The south as a independent country can run things how they want to a much larger degree then OTL. Society and demographics change. Also the slave population isn’t big everywhere in the south. Places that lack slaves likely develop differently economically like they did elsewhere

 

[Fiver]

I want to state I think industrialization starts off as mostly agricultural mechanization with port, roads, railway, and other basic infrastructure development being tied with some gains into the basic industries too because plantation owners probably want to produce more crops faster and give them tools to help make themselves richer but it leads to all this unintended stuff many short sighted leaders would not see happening.

While slaves were used extensively in Southern industry, including improvement of infrastructure, "agricultural mechanization" is notably absent, since Southern planters did not care about "agricultural mechanization".

But imagine a society that accepts slavery but has knowledge and resources to advance since they can just copy and trade from other nations pretty freely. That large slave labor force can be used to greatly increase basic industries and encourage urbanization. Imagine if some super genius in Rome times somehow develop industrial practices or technology. The nation would become a economic giant because it is using slaves to mine, build roads, railways, infrastructure, and produce goods.

The South did use slaves to "to mine, build roads, railways, infrastructure, and produce goods". It did not become an "economic giant".

Remember by 1860 industrialization only took off in the north first because of the culture there naturally created it and it was relatively new. Britain only starts takes off 1820s or around the beginning of Queen Victoria right?

1820 is towards the end of the First Industrial Revolution in Britain.

 

[sloreck]

In the mid-19th century literacy even for skilled factory workers is not necessary. Over the next 50 years, a larger proportion of blue collar jobs require some level of literacy. You also need literate supervisors in the factory/mine or other industrial concern. Couple this with the trend in the south pre-ACW of tightening down on laws preventing slave literacy and manumission, free blacks allowed in a state this leads to the likely scenario:

1. You'll have a hard separation in non-agricultural employment (somewhat like aspects of OTL apartheid in South Africa) where certain categories of jobs are reserve for whites by law and custom, and increasingly by educational skills, starting with basic literacy.
2. Because of (1) the entry level jobs industry, mining, etc won't be there to attract the immigrant whites who filled, and would fill, such jobs in the USA/north. Add to that the lack of land for new farmers - no western plains being opened, and good "new" land mostly going to the wealthy who can purchase it - and you have many reasons over and above the anti-immigrant attitude of the south to make immigration in large numbers or even OTL numbers not happening. Remember OTL an immigrant who went south, and later decided to go elsewhere could go north or west but ITTL he would need to be allowed to cross an international border.
3. Even with the lesser cost of slave versus free labor, increasing mechanization in industrial concerns with increased productivity will happen as it means more profit. Between less need for slaves per unit of production, and natural increase, you should have plenty of slaves to do the manual jobs that were in part filled by the Irish or Italians OTL.

After the initial reshuffling following the end of the war and the independence of the CSA with pro-unionists moving north and pro-CSA types moving south (IMHO more of the former than the latter), I doubt the USA would be very open to any whites wanting to move from the CSA to the USA. The USA would never return slaves escaping across the border, however how welcoming they would be is subject to debate.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

I think another question to be taken into account is when would the Confederate States abolish slavery in relation to the United States? I think too many people are taken it as a given that the US would still pass the 13th amendment. In any realistic CSA victory scenario, it would be a Democrat (likely McClellan) as president. They ran unabashedly racist campaigns, and were largely opponents of the Emancipation Proclamation, and would the War Democrats who supported it OTL support it without the political capital to be gained from the Lincoln administration?

To look at it this way, the measure was an uphill battle even with Lincoln ascendant in office. With a Democratic president, would the 13th amendment be passed later than 1864-65? My thinking is, probably delayed until the late 1860s-70s. With that in mind, the remaining slave states (Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky) in 1860 had 427,000 slaves between them. Now, the number who escaped/were freed would probably be around 100,000 (unless I'm wildly overestimating it) leaving still some 300,000 enslaved persons in the United States. This might present a problem politically, as these states would be inclined to vote Democrat.

The Confederacy then would be able to make connections with the slave states still in the Union, and this would complicate the escape of slaves over the border, since would they be returned by local authorities or slave owners?

So if the Union is delayed in abolishing slavery by 5-10 years, this will at least effect the perception of slavery in North America and its practice in the Confederacy, which may have run on effects in the Confederacy.

 

[Johnrankins]

I think another question to be taken into account is when would the Confederate States abolish slavery in relation to the United States? I think too many people are taken it as a given that the US would still pass the 13th amendment. In any realistic CSA victory scenario, it would be a Democrat (likely McClellan) as president. They ran unabashedly racist campaigns, and were largely opponents of the Emancipation Proclamation, and would the War Democrats who supported it OTL support it without the political capital to be gained from the Lincoln administration?

To look at it this way, the measure was an uphill battle even with Lincoln ascendant in office. With a Democratic president, would the 13th amendment be passed later than 1864-65? My thinking is, probably delayed until the late 1860s-70s. With that in mind, the remaining slave states (Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky) in 1860 had 427,000 slaves between them. Now, the number who escaped/were freed would probably be around 100,000 (unless I'm wildly overestimating it) leaving still some 300,000 enslaved persons in the United States. This might present a problem politically, as these states would be inclined to vote Democrat.

The Confederacy then would be able to make connections with the slave states still in the Union, and this would complicate the escape of slaves over the border, since would they be returned by local authorities or slave owners?

So if the Union is delayed in abolishing slavery by 5-10 years, this will at least effect the perception of slavery in North America and its practice in the Confederacy, which may have run on effects in the Confederacy.

I doubt the Democratic Party would survive the civil war in TTL. There would probably be another party that would take its place that is as racist but they won't call themselves Democrats and likely have somewhat different policies. After all its support went south. As the CSA continues its downward path afterward, the Republicans or whoever replaces them can point to failed Democratic Party policies down south.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

I doubt the Democratic Party would survive the civil war in TTL. There would probably be another party that would take its place that is as racist but they won't call themselves Democrats and likely have somewhat different policies. After all its support went south. As the CSA continues its downward path afterward, the Republicans or whoever replaces them can point to failed Democratic Party policies down south.

I'm skeptical. The Border States would form the basis for regional support, and New York was a reliable Democratic stronghold for years (Tamanny Hall was still in full swing) and New Jersey, and other states in the Northwest all swung for Democrats post war. They had a reliable base in the North, but so did the Republicans, as abolitionism wasn't their whole platform. A Peace Democrat in 1864 is probably a must in any realistic Confederate victory scenario IMO so they'd have a ability to win the peace as it were.

 

[Fiver]

The stuff about restriction on freeman after the war wasn’t universal in each state or the same. Louisiana might do the propose industrial slavery first and the other states see how much the Francophone elites are seeing how much money they are making which convinces other in different states to do the same. You could have states each trying different things with varying success but when it is successful many states copy it.

What do you mean by "industrial slavery"? Slaves were used heavily in Southern industry.

Restrictions on free blacks after the war was universal across the former Confederate states, it just was not uniform. This was nothing new, all of the states that formed the Confederacy restricted the rights of free blacks before the war. Different Southern states did try different methods of repressing the free blacks, but none of the former Confederate states and few of the former Confederate leaders tried to let free blacks have the same rights as white people.

 

[Fiver]

https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/...Vaw05lHnYIfxPIcYxUbC0wCm2&cshid=1560053520968

I clicked your link, but it said the page was not found.

 

[Fiver]

The point about the border is neither side can fully monitor all the types of possible people going back and forth across a border like that. It isn’t like the Mexican or even Canada border.

If people raid across the border, it will be obvious where those raiders came from. In OTL, the Canadians knew where the Fenians came from, the Mexicans knew where the filibusters came from, and Kansas knew where the Border Ruffians came from. If Union free blacks are being assaulted, kidnapped, or killed; the US will know that they came from the Confederacy.

Have you been reading everything I put in my post? I know there long but I feel like your over looking some stuff I mentioned?

I have been reading your full posts, but let me repeat someone's earlier suggestion about paragraphs.

I’m throwing general ideas and trying to stay in a certain direction with them but not all my points are uniformed more throwing questions. My main point those is the more divided America is the more unstable both nations are which can lead to multiple butterflies.

No one is disagreeing with your main point, but invoking butterflies doesn't make everything possible.

 

[Fiver]

The north can’t just blame the CSA if a bunch of rebellious locals(actually locals) start causing issues. You need proof especially if the CSA is saying they have nothing to do with this.

If a bunch of rebellious locals in an area with large amounts of immigrants from the Confederacy start agitating to join the Confederacy, the Union will blame the Confederacy and Confederate denials would be meaningless. While further breakup of the Union is possible, the Civil War happened after 70 years of the country being deeply divided over the issue of slavery. The surviving Union has no issues that are as divisive or as geographically distinct, so it would probably take at least until the 1920s for the USA to be on the brink of a 2nd Civil War. The Confederacy, OTOH, was founded on the idea that you can secede if your candidate loses an election, so it will be much more prone to balkanization.

 

[Fiver]

America had to deal with bandits on the Mexican border too before ww1 they didn’t declare war or fully invade the place(I know they sent troops but I say that was more mutual between the too).

The Mexican Expedition of 1916 was not mutual. Mexican troops fought US troops.

The CSA falling to Haiti type revolution to any degree would even scare people in the union. They might not support slavery but many rather have backward confederacy to the south then a much larger Haiti which means they could fund and give them money to prevent that while also forcing some concessions from them which(Europeans might feel the same to a lesser degree.

The US would be more likely to fund revolutionary groups within the Confederacy than to spend money propping up the Confederate government. There were not enough black people to seize control of all of the Confederacy. Even a serious attempt 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 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 if they hadn't already done so.

Even if the CSA falls to a revolution the union would immediately invade to prevent a black government south of them.

I suspect a lot of Union citizens would feel the Confederates deserved a slave revolution. though white Americans will probably show more sympathy to the whites massacred by blacks in the Confederate Civil War than they would show towards the blacks massacred by whites. While they wouldn't be thrilled at a black-majority nation carved out of the Confederacy, few American whites would be eager to spend blood and treasure fighting them. Odds are good that this new black majority nation wouldn't even border the USA and the white majority remains of the Confederacy are not going to let Union troops march across their land, suspecting, perhaps correctly, that the Union would just be trying to annex the Confederate Border States.

The bigger concerns for most US citizens would be what foreign government had funded and supplied the black revolutionaries, what ideology the new black-majority nation espoused, and whether the new country was friendly towards the Union. In anything resembling OTLs 1930s, the Union would be more favorable to a democratic republic than to a fascist government, and more favorable to a fascist government than to a communist government.

 

[Johnrankins]

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).

I would argue forced marriage is sex slavery. After all, the woman isn't there willingly. A forced marriage isn't a marriage at all but a form of sex slavery. If you did write that off that decreases the number of slaves not increase the number of slaves working in cocoa and coffee fields.

 

[Fiver]

For example, what if a political split happens within the north after the war(the south success or failure is irrelevant in this because this is more just within). Radical Republicans lose support outside of New England while the moderates keep the mid Atlantic and majority of the Midwest who has pockets of democrats while the border states still are majority democrats. The moderate republicans don’t trust the democrats but work with them somewhat and try to have cordial relations with the CSA but keeps troop at the border and still publicly condemns there practice of slavery but trade and do business when they aren’t being overly aggressive. Some Radical Republicans break from the party over this. The radicals have solid control in the New England and have pockets in upper New York. They blame copperheads(democrats) for being undermining traitors to the Union war effort while they call moderates weak appeasers.

The Radical and Moderate Republicans were not that geographically separated. Checking the Wikipedia article on Radical Republicans, I count 11 men from Ohio; 6 from Illinois, 4 from Massachusetts; 3 each from Indiana, Maine, Michigan, and Pennsylvania; 2 each from California, Kansas, Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, and New York; as well as 1 man from each of New Hampshire, Oregon, and Wisconsin. Breaking that up regionally, that's 30 men from the Midwest, 8 from New England, 7 from the Mid-Atlantic states, and 3 from the Far West.

The War and Peace Democrats, a divide you skipped over, also are not that geographically separated.

 

[Fiver]

Slaves fleeing the CSA might be sent to Liberia to “live free and with their people”(north doesn’t want them there).

Forced colonization was a non-starter. So long as they lived in their own segregated neighborhoods and towns, blacks would be tolerated by most USA whites, and exceptional whites like Thaddeus Stephens and Abraham Lincoln would accept them fully.

White southerners are a issue because many claim to be union citizens. Some are let in while others are not

There were no US immigration restrictions at that time, plus the Union believes white southerners are still Union citizens, so they will all be let in, except for officials of the Confederate government. Men who served in the Confederate military might be barred as well, unless they could show they were drafted. Southern whites would probably also be required to take a loyalty oath.

(it’s go to remember some Appalachians actually flip flopped sides during the war. Some attacked both union and confederates. Some honestly hate both sides to different degrees. It’s good to remember that Appalachians don’t often like the union either. They just hate the confederates or plantation class more). Southerners who are turn away at Maryland border(easiest one to monitored) just go through Appalachia to get to the union(many are from there so they know the region well and its extremely rural but climate is usually tolerable unlike desert).

Again, there no US immigration restrictions at that time. There no Border Patrol and the first real restrictions on white immigrants didn't come until 1921.

The main things being snuck through Appalachia would be cotton and tobacco, to avoid the Confederate export tariffs. It might also be a popular route for escaped slaves as well.

 

[Fiver]

Moderates and democrats support white southerner coming north while radicals try to prevent it.

Why would Radical Republicans oppose white southerners moving to the US?

During a recession maybe a few decades or so later New England feeling more alienated by the growing voter blocs and there increased trade with Britain(they would definitely support New England independence because that could greatly benefit them but only once they declare it) makes them feel like succession is the right route to go. New England has a vote of succession(they have threatened to succeed from union before and even before CSA thought about it but their issues is trade conflicts).Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut vote yes to leave with public support. New England leaves the union stating if a slave holding de facto noble republic can secede they can(domino effect

New England had not threatened to secede before, that is a myth. Britain has nothing to gain from encouraging New England to secede and could lose quite a bit. No one would secede based on increased trade with Britain. After the Civil War, there is almost no chance of another section of the US seceding peacefully.

These supposed regional voting blocks did not exist in OTL and have no reason to form if the Confederacy gains independence. Between 1868 and 1912; Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island gave their electoral votes to the winning Presidential candidate 12 out 12 times. Vermont did it 11 of 12 times; Connecticut 8 of 12 times. Looking at real voting patterns, New England and the Midwest got the Candidates they wanted virtually all of the time, the Mid-Atlantic states got the candidates they wanted most of the time, the Border North and the Far West got the Candidates they wanted about half of the time. The Far West would be the most likely to secede, but that would probably require something to get really toxic around the Progressive movement.

 

[Fiver]

New England doesn’t even have to fight a war because the UK would recognize them immediately and maybe even offer military support if US tried to invade. New England is right next to Canada and has heavy enough ties with Britain to do that. The US accepts succession of New England but agrees any additional states or regions that try to join New England won’t be accepted by either side and borders are recognized as they currently are(upper New York is like Missouri in this situation but New England and Britain agrees with the union not accept any part of that to lessen tension since trade and businesses will continue as before but New England has more control over its affairs).

In the wildly unlikely event that New England attempts to secede, there will be a war. That's the way it always went in the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century If Britain recognizes the New England Confederation, that just means it is a bigger war. This wouldn't be like the Trent Incident, the Union would be a lot more powerful. Looking at the Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy, by 1880 the US had almost double the manufacturing of France, Germany, or Russia; and matched Britain sometime around 1890. Obviously, the US wouldn't be doing that well if they lost New England, but the presence of the hostile, expansionistic Confederacy to the south means the US would have a significantly larger peacetime army and navy than in OTL. Britain's ability to project force into North America is more limited than the Union's. With the amount of rail connections between the US east and west coast, there is no way the Union could be blockaded, and Britain has far too powerful a fleet for a blockade of New England and Canada to work. At sea, I'd expect rival commerce raiders to cripple the merchant fleets of both sides. The Union would probably try to conquer Canada again, with a decent chance of getting everything west of Ontario and probably regaining some of New England. Britain would probably keep its most populous Canadian provinces and most of New England, so both sides would declare that they won the war, when the real winners would be France and Germany. The New England Confederation would probably find itself a British client state, with no more, and possibly significantly less control of its affairs than before secession.

In the middle of this mess, Confederate hotheads could lead an attack on the Union, intending to "liberate" Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland. I'd expect this to fail, with the Confederacy losing Tennessee and Arkansas, and the Union remembering this stab in the back for a long, long time.

This changes things even more greatly. Now down south during this same time you could have the Confederacy lose Texas but retain the rest of its country and maybe the Indian territory becomes its own country too(likely a puppet of someone after independence).

The entire TransMississippi could end up seeing the Richmond government as distant, unresponsive, and only caring about getting taxes from the TransMississippi, so the Confederacy might just lose everything west of the Mississippi River. The Confederacy would go to war try to prevent this, but their force projection capabilities were poor. I'd expect the Union public to favor recognition of the TransMississippi, giving the Confederates a dose of their own medicine. The Union governemt might formally recognize the New Republic, calculating that the Confederacy would be extremely stupid to attack the Union while fighting it's own Civil War. I'd expect the Confederate government to be that stupid and to lose. Though technically independent, I'd expect the TransMississiipi to become an economic client state of the Union.

 

[Nivek]

As say before the more they can keep it till economics don't allow it and/or britain don't find it funny, yhem we going to get a prision-complex system and apartheid would make south africa feel ashamed themselves...so 1900 at lastest

 

[sloreck]

In the book "If the South had Won the Civil War", written in the early 60s, you had Texas (taking Indian Territory with it) seceding from the CSA sometime after the ACW.