Slavery and the Civil War

[Fiver]

Not all the alternate histories play it down. Ward Moore's Bring the Jubilee has Lee become president and abolishes it.

That is playing it down. A heavily entrenched part of a reactionary culture that's nearly enshrined in their Constitution is handwaved away by the actions of a man who freed his slaves because he was legally required to.

 

[Wolfpaw]

It really strikes me as just lazy writing when these situations come up.

I don't know if it's lazy writing so much as lazy research. Not that one's really all that better than the other.

 

[Johnrankins]

I think we look back upon such notions as misguided since we have become accustomed to (at least some of us) to the idea of the Federal Government spending money on infrastructure, etc. There is nothing limiting the states as individual or in league or even private ventures from putting money into infrastructure.

Without Federal involvement interstate infastructure becomes EXTREMELY difficult and costly.

 

[Johnrankins]

That would be an improvement on the US Constitution, especially if no earmarks were allowed also.

It is one of its very few improvements, I must admit.

 

[usertron2020]

Without Federal involvement interstate infastructure becomes EXTREMELY difficult and costly.

Have you ever seen a chart of rail lines in the Confederacy during the ACW? The abysmal state of Confederate rails was a major advantage. For the Union.

BTW. The Confederacy abolishing slavery? Even ASBs would choke on that. ATL: Confederate President George Wallace:"Slavery today, slavery tomorrow, slavery forever!"

 

[William_Dellinger]

To begin, Southern Victory TL’s are usually written by a certain type of person: People that can’t think of an original POD. They don’t want to offend anyone and make slavery magically go away within 30 years of the ACW. Some go the opposite way and have slavery continue to the present day like the CSA has stood still for 150 years, even when that’s just…. stupid.

The southern economy was built upon slave labor. Abolishing it pre-1900 is economically suicidal. No Confederate President would have, or could have, abolished slavery from the CSA. Robert E. Lee, while a great general and extremely popular, especially in a CSA victory, would not have run for President (too old, too unwilling, and too sick). His endorsement would naturally have been sought after. Don’t confuse “slavery” with “plantation system”. While the plantation system would eventually go into decline with the advent of modern farm equipment, slavery would not. You don’t have to pay or feed or clothe or beat machines. It’s cheaper in the long run. Naturally, the plantation system wouldn’t go away immediately, but after a generation or two, slaves would mostly be confined to the house and manor in a domestic setting. The question arises; what to do with all the children of slaves that aren’t needed anymore? Going into the factories is ideal, but where do the poor whites work? And they most certainly would have a political voice, after fighting (and winning) the ACW, they wouldn’t come back home and be content to let the landed aristocracy run the show in their favor. And the CSA wouldn’t benevolently decide to free the slaves because they didn’t need them anymore (Note: a politically savvy CS President might choose to implement an apartheid-type system to gain support of European nations, but that’s kind of pushing it). Shipping them off to another country is expensive as all hell, and with the lack of trade that will develop after overseas countries decide that trading with a slave nation is a good way to piss off Great Britain, the CSA won’t be a rich country. So what to do? There would be a general manumission, but with carefully crafted laws in place to keep the blacks from ever gaining a foothold. (This is probably early 20th century.) Slavery would exist in all but name until maybe 1970s, 1980s when global condemnation results in full voting rights for minorities (compare with South Africa and abolition of apartheid).

 

[Johnrankins]

Have you ever seen a chart of rail lines in the Confederacy during the ACW? The abysmal state of Confederate rails was a major advantage. For the Union.

BTW. The Confederacy abolishing slavery? Even ASBs would choke on that. ATL: Confederate President George Wallace:"Slavery today, slavery tomorrow, slavery forever!"

Of course it was, for most of the war the South barely kept the railroads running.

 

[Don Lardo]

I don't know if it's lazy writing so much as lazy research.

Most of the time it's a combination of lazy thinking, lazy writing, and lazy research.

In a few cases it's because, as another poster put it, a certain type of person writes these time lines.

 

[usertron2020]

Most of the time it's a combination of lazy thinking, lazy writing, and lazy research.

In a few cases it's because, as another poster put it, a certain type of person writes these time lines.

Also consider: A certain type of readership. Consider Peter Tsouras' book, "Gettysburg, an alternate history." Every single chapter dedicated to valiant Rebels curbstomping cowardly Yankees. Then three things happen:

1) Lee has a heart attack
2) Longstreet takes over and makes a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing
3) Just as the Rebels are breaking the AotP for good, the Union VI Corps arrives, and-

Nothing. Just the Epilogue, consisting of Longstreet signing a formal surrender to Meade's army. What happened? The chapter in which the Union Army of the Potomac spent it's time curbstomping the Army of Northern Virginia into smithereens was ripped out and put in the shredder, if it was ever even written. Tsouras and his publisher had to know that Southerners would have no interest in a book in which their ancestors were being cut to pieces. But if the entire book short of a two page epilogue was one Rebel victory after another? Well, that will help book sales.

 

[phx1138]

INdeed, in this senerio it the Union will not even have supremancy over North America, this leads to all kind of interesting possiblities in areas that OTL were dominated or even effected by American power.

Hell, Canada's power relatively increases. Will the USA enter WWI? Will the CSA? What about any Cold War?

And it's these easier & more interesting (as well as more palatable!) questions that lead to slavery getting shoved aside.

So let me shove them aside & say first, it's likely in such an ATL, Canada would end up with Alaska & much of Oregon, with Britain much less sensitive to (lesser) U.S. power. (This also probably means the CNR is built on the more northerly route, thru OTL Jasper; likely it still terminates in Vancouver, which is nearer major markets in the south, & icefree year round. Which suggests the CNR might run on the southern route anyhow...) Britain is likely to end up with Cuba & the P.I. (perhaps France does) before WW1. During WW1, Japan is liable to be more important to Britain than OTL, & postwar absolutely. (It means the Anglo-Japanese treaty survives, so nothing like OTL's PacWar happens. May also mean a Sino-Japanese treaty against the Sovs.) Possible Japan gets P.I. after WW1, along with the Carolines. TTL's WW1 is liable to go longer & be a draw, with a treaty in 1919 after mutual exhaustion. This means low probability of WW2. Also IMO means less chance of Britain falling from supremacy in the '20s, & of there being mad inflation in Weimar Germany or a Great Depression. Certainly no Nazis, & Hitler is a house painter or something (or migrates to CSA & becomes a 3d-rate SF writer...) Can I suggest Jerry Siegel & Joe Schuster create Superman in Toronto, instead? Or that Jack Kirby, Joe Simon, & C. C. Beck come north, too? (That's a bit farther-fetched, I acknowledge...)

That said, I have wondered if slavery might not die off as a practise without secession, & under what conditions.

There is nothing limiting the states as individual or in league or even private ventures from putting money into infrastructure.

A bit OT: doesn't that require involvement from either city or state? That is, if Tony Stark wants to go on a bridge-bulding binge between fights with the Mandarin, doesn't he have to get permissions from the cities he wants to put them in?

 

[Lord Grattan]

That said, I have wondered if slavery might not die off as a practise without secession, & under what conditions.

That question has come up before; I'm not sure how long ago though.

...
A bit OT: doesn't that require involvement from either city or state? That is, if Tony Stark wants to go on a bridge-bulding binge between fights with the Mandarin, doesn't he have to get permissions from the cities he wants to put them in?

That issue is part of what's holding up the building of a 2nd bridge between Detroit, MI & Windsor, ON.

 

[cclittle]

Industrialzation

After the Confederate States gsin their independence slavery is still legal. As mechanization increases the need for slaves decreases. International harvester killed the slave trade.

 

[Snake Featherston]

The South will not abolish slavery, its constitution prohibited industrialism. If it defeats the larger, wealthier, industrialized United States in any case that will hardly recommend to Confederate leaders that industrialization works or should be adopted, after all it didn't give the Union the victory. The problem with this is this creates a situation with no good options but instead many that range from Bad to Warhammer40K-level nightmarish.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Reasons why slavery would die in the CSA:
1. CSA would probably need to ally with the UK to win. UK would put a lot of pressure on the young republic, since UK IS the main abolitionist power.
2. Mechanization of agriculture: They wouldn't need that many slaves any more. It would just be an unnecessary expense.
3. Industrialization: It would come to the South, and even if it first just would be after white labour, soon cheap black labour would be attractive.

Point 2 and 3 means slavery in masses would disappear, domestic slavery is more tricky, it has a tendency to survive other types of slavery, but British pressure would not disappear, and when slavery is not important for CSA's economy anymore, abolition is likely.

1) The UK would only back the CSA if it's already a fait accompli.

2) Really? Even after the South was gutted sharecropping meant social systems were virtually intact until the Boll Weevil gutted the cotton crops.

3) With what capital? Why, for that matter, would it be seen as a good thing given in this ATL they've defeated an industrial state with the means available to an agrarian one?

Cotton picking was mechanised in the 1950's/60's, because that's when viable mechanical cotton pickers were invented. There is no drive to mechanise here.

The Boll Weevil will destroy the Confederacy because there'll be no George Washington Carver to bail out the South in that ATL.

Factories in the south already employed slaves. In some ways it's a system better adapted to the American system of manufactures than free labour.

Which is why the Confederacy was in an economic collapse before the Battle of Vicksburg. Yeah.......

In all probability the south would not just keep slavery, but would expand it to other sectors. The drivers for emancipation in the northern states like New York were slaves competing with free labour, and being more efficient. Thus it was an issue of placating the white populace by freeing the black population and pushing them into lower status jobs. The old NW outlawed not slavery but black people totally from their inception for similar economic reasons.

And in all probability the arrival of the Boll Weevil ends the Southern Confederacy because if it makes a shitload of money off of cotton it's not going to consider what happens if an insect guts the cotton crop. And there's no Great Father in Washington to bail out the ungrateful wretches this time.

Exactly! So why would a southern victory timeline be any different, if not much worse and lasting longer than in OTL? An interesting ATL would be a stronger reconstruction after the war.

Again though, I have rarely seen any of these issues discussed in Civil War ATLs. With slaves being roughly 40% of the population of the Confederacy, it seems like this a large issue that cannot be ignored in most timelines, but often is.

On the other hand, do most non-CW timelines go into social issues? Maybe battles, generals, and politics are just more interesting to read and write about.

Because the South considered slavery "the cornerstone of its civilization" and can only win a war in the short term. It's like Nazi Germany wins WWII in 1941 and there's no Holocaust: it completely, utterly, and unforgivably misses what the Confederates themselves stated.

About World War I I'll have to say that Turtledoves world war I was somewhat plausible. About the cold war I'd wonder if it could happen given the POD.

Not in the least. The Confederacy had no means to last into 1916, much less through 1915 with what would have been required for a World War I army.

As 67th Tigers said, this happens not to be the case. In fact, much the opposite is true.

Slaves were outright preferred for industrial operations and, even in 1860, the CSA was one of the leading industrial powers in the world (a fact usually obscured by the much greater industrialization across the border and the tendency to spread smaller works over larger areas, where the north had most of its industry in only a few states). The single factor keeping slaves out of southern industry, where they were in high demand for low cost and greater managerial control, was that the plantations could afford to pay more because cotton was so massively expensive. Whenever cotton prices dropped slave use in southern industries increased. It was the norm.

Given a moderately realistic victory scenario requires foregoing the cotton embargo I daresay that this is rather not taking into account the likely development of CS culture postwar.

It wasn't just the south, either. In central Pennsylvania, with a strong majority in the eastern counties virulently anti-slavery and after the passage of the gradual emancipation bill, slave ownership actually increased for something like 30 years. I did my main History research on it in college. A few slaves were personally owned, but all of the increase in slave numbers was going to the small scale iron mills in the area. Agricultural use was negligible.

Why did people prefer slaves to free workers in industry?

Free American workers were usually either unhappy about the arrangement - working for a wage to sustain yourself was very much looked down on in early American history - or temporary. The latter sprung from the greater social acceptability of working for a wage "until you got the farm running." Historically this was solved by hiring recent immigrants who had no such compunctions. It's worth noting here that the south recieved few immigrants after about 1830 or so until generations after the Civil War.

Even if you had the foreigners to do your factory work, they suffered from the major problem that they would, leave you any time it suited them. Whether they find a better opportunity, want a better living environment, have made enough money to go back to the old country, or are moving closer to relatives, they are just gone as far as the employer is concerned. Slaves had the very major advantage that your highly trained and experienced technician couldn't just decide to leave.

As far as expense goes, it is true in theory that you can pay a wage worker less than you spend on a slave. In practice however, a wage worker paid below survival levels will not be a valuable or long-term employee. To guarantee the satisfaction and loyalty of a free worker would require vastly more than the food, shelter, and holiday "extra" you could use to sustain a slave family.

Finally, it bears mentioning that in the second quarter of the twentieth century slavery reversed its decline worldwide, and reappeared in developed nations. It wasn't just the Nazi slave factories or Soviet gulag system, although they were very substantial. The same period also saw an increased acceptance of the use of prisoner labor. If you're not paying a man, and he can't choose not to work, that's a slave - whether you call him a dissident, a Slav, or a felon. Given these trends, it's concievable that slavery had it survived in a significant form into the 1930s or so, would become more legitimized on the world stage and aped under a variety of much more politically correct names.

Given that slavery was in the main responsible for the Nazi defeat and handicapped the Soviet economy rather badly.....that doesn't speak well for state-run industrial slavery. And in any case the Confederacy's political system would make a Hitler/Stalin analogue rather hard to have realistically.....

 

[Jude815]

Nice to see an interesting discussion build up here. I was thinking of the latest dust-up with Haley Barbour. Ignoring the politics of it, do you think that many southerners tend to want to idealize the past, and that the Southern Victory timelines reflect this? Maybe people feel they can do this because the civil war is so long passed. I have yet to see an Civil Rights movement alternate history, and that is probably for the best. Who would want to read a "Segregationist Victory" timeline? On the other hand, is that so different than a Southern Victory timeline? It may actually be better (although by very little) in at least the slaves and their descendants are free. But even this choice begs the question, why is segregation considered to be an ultimate evil in AH writing, while slavey is not? While a powerful Canada combined with a independent CSA can make for an interesting story, it is built on ignoring the major issue of that time period.

I know I have asked a lot of questions and answered very few here, but I have been thinking a lot about historical memory vs. fact lately, and AH writing is a good representation of this dichotomy.

 

[Jude815]

Also consider: A certain type of readership. Consider Peter Tsouras' book, "Gettysburg, an alternate history." Every single chapter dedicated to valiant Rebels curbstomping cowardly Yankees. Then three things happen:

1) Lee has a heart attack
2) Longstreet takes over and makes a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing
3) Just as the Rebels are breaking the AotP for good, the Union VI Corps arrives, and-

Nothing. Just the Epilogue, consisting of Longstreet signing a formal surrender to Meade's army. What happened? The chapter in which the Union Army of the Potomac spent it's time curbstomping the Army of Northern Virginia into smithereens was ripped out and put in the shredder, if it was ever even written. Tsouras and his publisher had to know that Southerners would have no interest in a book in which their ancestors were being cut to pieces. But if the entire book short of a two page epilogue was one Rebel victory after another? Well, that will help book sales.

Wow, is there any published Southern Victory timeline where Robert E. Lee is not considered to be a Angry southern god of martial power and paragon of human dignity?

 

[MNP]

Nice to see an interesting discussion build up here. I was thinking of the latest dust-up with Haley Barbour. Ignoring the politics of it, do you think that many southerners tend to want to idealize the past, and that the Southern Victory timelines reflect this? Maybe people feel they can do this because the civil war is so long passed. I have yet to see an Civil Rights movement alternate history, and that is probably for the best. Who would want to read a "Segregationist Victory" timeline? On the other hand, is that so different than a Southern Victory timeline? It may actually be better (although by very little) in at least the slaves and their descendants are free. But even this choice begs the question, why is segregation considered to be an ultimate evil in AH writing, while slavey is not? While a powerful Canada combined with a independent CSA can make for an interesting story, it is built on ignoring the major issue of that time period.

I know I have asked a lot of questions and answered very few here, but I have been thinking a lot about historical memory vs. fact lately, and AH writing is a good representation of this dichotomy.

I think segregation is considered worse because it's more current. We have better pictures, video and living witnesses to the segregation of our own past. There are also hints of this implied by people who want to deny things like school services to illegal immigrants (stereotyped as Latino) in the present day. Slavery by contrast was engaged in on some level by a huge number of cultures and involved people of no specific origin. I am willing to generalize that every single people group on earth has members who were slaves at some point so while you have the horror of American South slavery, you also have Islamic slavery where some slaves rose quite high, or Roman slavery. Not to mention medieval serfdom which while different in some very important respects, can be compared to slavery on some levels.

 

[usertron2020]

Wow, is there any published Southern Victory timeline where Robert E. Lee is not considered to be a Angry southern god of martial power and paragon of human dignity?

No. Remember Jubal Early's malignant influence on Civil War history. It sails through the ether even today.

 

[Jude815]

No. Remember Jubal Early's malignant influence on Civil War history. It sails through the ether even today.

Ugh Its a wonder how much bad history, bad fiction, and overall ignorance one middling general is responsible for.