Slavery in the CSA

when would Slavery end in the CSA?


  • Total voters
    143
I said 1920's because it is as long as I think they'd be able to get away with it and I'm a bit more swayed by the late emancipation arguments. The 1920's is long enough after the war for people to convince themselves the war was not about slavery, long enough for the development of a more diversified economy, and because this was a time when social movements like women's suffrage got going (while the south still had slaves?!). Also, the CSA might get its own little roaring 20's just like its northern neighbor. It might feel confident enough to do away with slavery while it is in a good mood.
 
Last edited:
During the 20 years or so before the Civil War the status of free blacks in what would become the CSA had been deteriorating. Some states instituted laws that required manumitted slaves to leave (this did not affect those free in the state before the new law passed). The general trend in most of the slave states, especially those in the deep south and/or with large slave populations, was to restrict or remove free blacks. The slave owners and slave theory apologists realized that an example of free blacks who could succeed or even do very well on their own without the "benevolent" control of white masters had the potential to destroy the underpinnings of the slave system - which basically said blacks were inherently inferior and destined to be ruled by their betters for their own good.

To admit that blacks had the potential to be on a more or less equal plane as ANY white man destroyed the logic behind race based slavery. Once the cover of race was removed, slavery in the USA/CSA would be nothing more than the enslavement of captives, which the white Romans had done to white captives from Gaul, Britannia, etc.

There is no way free blacks, either before or after formal slavery is ended whenever that might be, are going to be "citizens" in the CSA. Voting, testifying in court against a white man, etc. etc. not going to happen.
 
Is there a chance that after a couple decades, the slave population in the South would outnumber the white population?
 
A few men, such as Robert E. Lee, still maintained the old-fashioned attitude that slavery was morally wrong but that nothing could be done about it...
Lee never once said or wrote that slavery was morally wrong. He never had the slightest qualm about exploiting slave labor for the profit of himself or his family.

He described it as an evil, but in the sense that gambling or drunkenness were evils. He said that it was a greater harm to whites to be slaveowners than for blacks to be slaves: it corrupted them, made them brutal, etc.

He also thought that slaves (and blacks generally) made bad workers.

This sort of vague distaste should not be confused with the explicit moral case against slavery made by (for instance) Lincoln: that slavery was the systematic robbery of the slave by the master.
 
basically what the Tin says, say the CSA wins early in the war, say September 1862, they take DC and force peace, any ways, what would Slavery look like after the war? how long would it last? and how would it end?
Initially, the CSA would be the The South Triumphant, with slavery as its proud banner.

That wouldn't last. It would alienate opinion in Europe, and create permanent disgust for the CSA in the USA.

The CSA would have a lot of difficulties. Independence would not repair the economic damage of the war, and cotton prices would remain depressed.

The "Fire-Eater" claims that with victory, everything will be wonderful would fade out. There would be bitter divisions over who was to blame for the problems and what to do about them.

Lower class whites would find that the planter elite ruled to suit itself.

By the 1870s, these problems would be acute, and would be greatly aggravated by the CSA's ugly image abroad.

Another factor is that with white supremacy wired into the CSA constitution, paranoia about abolitionists starting slave rebellions would fade.

Eventually, some Southerners would begin to argue that formal chattel slavery was not really needed. The blacks could be converted to indentured servants, and nothing really need change. The PR benefits would be huge - and would be badly needed.

Some kind of preference cascade would happen, and the formal abolition of slavery would take place around 1882.

Alternately - the slaveholder elite digs in hard, and suppresses any questioning of slavery. The CSA becomes an impoverished pariah state, whose ruling class clings fanatically to the fantasy of the Old South.

The white lower class becomes increasingly alienated; the black slaves increasingly restive.

This lasts until a bit after 1900, when there is a cultural and political upheaval throughout the South, and the entire slavery system and its political basis are tossed out. There are simultaneous revolutions by poor whites in the Upper South and blacks in the Deep South against their common enemy. When the smoke clears, the blacks have established a series of enclaves where slaves were most concentrated. The new white governments recognize the enclaves as independent. Blacks in other areas are mostly shipped off to the Colored Reserves.
 
During the 20 years or so before the Civil War the status of free blacks in what would become the CSA had been deteriorating. Some states instituted laws that required manumitted slaves to leave (this did not affect those free in the state before the new law passed). The general trend in most of the slave states, especially those in the deep south and/or with large slave populations, was to restrict or remove free blacks. The slave owners and slave theory apologists realized that an example of free blacks who could succeed or even do very well on their own without the "benevolent" control of white masters had the potential to destroy the underpinnings of the slave system - which basically said blacks were inherently inferior and destined to be ruled by their betters for their own good.

To admit that blacks had the potential to be on a more or less equal plane as ANY white man destroyed the logic behind race based slavery. Once the cover of race was removed, slavery in the USA/CSA would be nothing more than the enslavement of captives, which the white Romans had done to white captives from Gaul, Britannia, etc.

There is no way free blacks, either before or after formal slavery is ended whenever that might be, are going to be "citizens" in the CSA. Voting, testifying in court against a white man, etc. etc. not going to happen.
Since I found all this a bit odd, I went around and did some digging.

I was unable to find much specifics, for example, which states said what specifically, how often exceptions were granted (only that they were), when which laws were enacted, basic stuff like that. Of course you must know that these sorts of laws were not unique to the South.

Also something of note is as far as I know, the Confederacy never said anything about free black's citizenship. This was a states thing, at least for the brief time the CSA existed.

So yeah, colour me extremely unconvinced about your conclusion which seems, like much about the theoretical independent CSA, contrived in order to perpetuate ideas that probably aren't as likely as people like to think they are.
 
Let's pretend for a moment that CSA does not collapse into 19th Century Somalia, only with more race crisis and conflict to boot. Because it probably would, fast, with a poor white population, an angry black slave class, and a smaller rich white oligarchy ruling over them.

But lets pretend it wouldn't. By the 1890ies, you'd start to see countries industrialising with the internal combustion engine, sweatshops, etc. But the CSA wouldn't, because slavery is inefficient and not conducive to labour saving devices. On top of that, an industrial society requires technical competence to operate, and people aren't going to want to teach the slaves. So the CSA is going to stagnate.

However, people are going to see that, as well as the problem, but they can't change anything because of the established slaveowners. You are going to need a new generation of people who grew up outside of the North-South dichotomy of the pre-civil War era and don't have an obsession with slavery.

So, at the earliest, this generation would be voting around the 1890ies. So, the absolute earliest it would happen would be the 1890ies, most likely later (1900-1920) when the Civil War generation would have largely died off.

Also, it would definitely happen on a state-by-state basis. The Confederacy seceded from the Union in fear of a Federal attempt to end slavery nationwide. They are never going to let that happen again, so the Federal government of the Confederacy is going to be far weaker and something like banning slavery is going to be an entirely State-based thing.
 
Define slavery. Do you mean specifically chattel slavery, or will debt slavery and peonage fall under the definition too? I can see CSA transition from chattel slavery to debt slavery and peonage and thus claim they have abolished slavery, while they really haven't.
 
This kind of misses the point. Brazil had slavery and was not an international pariah and got foreign investment, as far as I'm aware.

So we're assuming the CSA will be an international pariah for slavery even though Brazil wasn't, why exactly?
Bluntly, not a small part of is is because the CSA elite is white and English speaking. There will be a somewhat racist expectation that they should "know better", or at least be more amenable to persuasion. The lack of a language barrier will also mean it'll be a lot easier for abolitionist societies in Britain and the north to produce publicity material - leaflets, lecture tours by the more eloquent runaways, eventually radio broadcasts, etc.

It's also worth bearing mind that although Brazil may not have been a full on pariah it's wrong to say the pressure did not ratchet up over time - in 1852 for example Britain finally lost patience with Brazil's prevarications over abolishing the slave trade and put the Brazilian coast under close blockade with RN warships raiding Brazilian harbours and burning slave ships at anchor, frequently exchanging fire with Brazilian shore defences in the process. Faced with a choice of war with Britain or seriously clamping down on the slave trade, Brazil opted to clamp down. If the CSA tries to revive the slave trade - or even just turn a blind eye to illegal smuggling - it's not inconceiveable that there will eventually be similar operations directed against Charleston or New Orleans. Either way, pressure is going to ratchet up.
 
Bluntly, not a small part of is is because the CSA elite is white and English speaking. There will be a somewhat racist expectation that they should "know better", or at least be more amenable to persuasion. The lack of a language barrier will also mean it'll be a lot easier for abolitionist societies in Britain and the north to produce publicity material - leaflets, lecture tours by the more eloquent runaways, eventually radio broadcasts, etc.
Is there any historic evidence to suggest that any of this could be possible, or is all this just conjecture? Specifically, what evidence is there that the CSA should "know better?" Was there similarly expressed evidence of this around the time?

It's also worth bearing mind that although Brazil may not have been a full on pariah it's wrong to say the pressure did not ratchet up over time - in 1852 for example Britain finally lost patience with Brazil's prevarications over abolishing the slave trade and put the Brazilian coast under close blockade with RN warships raiding Brazilian harbours and burning slave ships at anchor, frequently exchanging fire with Brazilian shore defences in the process. Faced with a choice of war with Britain or seriously clamping down on the slave trade, Brazil opted to clamp down. If the CSA tries to revive the slave trade - or even just turn a blind eye to illegal smuggling - it's not inconceiveable that there will eventually be similar operations directed against Charleston or New Orleans. Either way, pressure is going to ratchet up.
The CSA is not going to revive the slave trade. The slave trade is explicitly banned in its constitution, banned slightly more thoroughly than it was in the US. There's an exception however, for the USA.

On Smuggling, it was not just Brazil that smuggled slaves, it happened in the US (where New York was the focal city around the 1850's), Mexico, independent Texas, the Caribbean, etc. It really died down after about 1850 though, as the US tried to crack down on it. My question still remains, why is the CSA so special that either:

1 - It will increase Smuggling

or

2 - The foreign community will focus on it more than they did/they do the countries with similar issues.


I wouldn't be surprised if the illegal slave trade slowed down even further in the event of a victorious CSA. At the time the main source of capital for it was from the North, and with the CSA gone I expect there to be an even greater crackdown on the trade. Heck, the CSA might indeed try to promote the idea that it's working to suppress it, since it usually got slaves from non-southern ports anyway. I mean, Mexico didn't import slaves for itself, it imported them to sell them over-land. The exception for trade with the USA might be pointed to to help shift blame the US, hence an even greater crackdown.

But either way, I wouldn't see it as a big deal.
 
I suspect that the CSA will increasingly see life for poor whites get worse and worse, who will turn against slavery and potentially be disenfranchised by the elites. That is likely to see poor whites leave the confederacy. I imagine tobacco states like Virginia will increasingly see themselves losing white manpower, which will become ever more worrying as humanitarian groups in the North scale up the underground railroad, increasing the incentives for slaves to attempt revolts. I imagine secession will happen state by state in the North, which will then lead to similar processes further South. If the CSA wants to survive as a country it will have to scrap the constitution and write a new one. Otherwise there will be a deep south rump with huge slave uprisings that likely cause the USA to intervene.
 
Is there any historic evidence to suggest that any of this could be possible, or is all this just conjecture?
Are you seriously asking for proof of a strong and organisaed anti-slavery camapaign? Because if you're not prepared to admit even that much I'm not sure these much point in this discussion. For the record, the world's oldest human rights organisation was founded in 1839 - the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society. I'm not sure what you thought they did with their time, but a quick google will show it certainly included pamphlets, lectures and whatnot.

The CSA is not going to revive the slave trade. The slave trade is explicitly banned in its constitution, banned slightly more thoroughly than it was in the US. There's an exception however, for the USA.
I'm glad you have a view of the CSA as a society of enlightened constitutionalists who will enforce the law as it stands without fear and favour and not turn a blind eye to it when it's in their economic interests to do so, but will you at least acknowledge there is room for debate on this issue?

1 - It will increase Smuggling

or

2 - The foreign community will focus on it more than they did/they do the countries with similar issues.
I'm perfectly happy to concede they may only get a similar level of attention as similar slaving societies - so long as you concede that "level of attention" in this instance runs up to and includes the RN imposing a coastal blockade and raiding of ports to clamp down on any illicit trading going on.


I wouldn't be surprised if the illegal slave trade slowed down even further in the event of a victorious CSA.
So now you're proposing the CSA as a bastion of *anti*slavery activity? I'm sorry, but this thread has now moved into Alice in Wonderland territory.
 
Is there a chance that after a couple decades, the slave population in the South would outnumber the white population?
I suspect this won't happen.

First reason is runaways will become more and more common, as I don't see the North returning slaves period, and the Mexicans definitely wouldn't.
Abolitionism will be strong in the North- even if there's a tacit agreement to try and force them into Canada eventually.

Secondly, I suspect the poor whites will hate the planters who run the politics, but they'll also hate the blacks, and we'll still see lynchings and massacres. Planters won't stop there- it will be too politically costly.

I think the next step would be reservations, possibly via deportation. I could see the CSA getting an African colony for this purpose, maybe as part of WWI spoils. (I see the CSA and USA being on the same side in WWI, and getting the colony in exchange for ending slavery, they just send as many blacks as possible there instead)

I don't see any scenario where blacks gain rights gradually over time. It will either be forced on the CSA down the barrel of a gun, or they'll just end up killing them all.
 
Is there a chance that after a couple decades, the slave population in the South would outnumber the white population?
not with the upper South in the mix but the deep South that was the case (or nearly so)

Mississippi: 55% slave
South Carolina: 57% slave
Louisiana: 47% slave
Alabama: 45% slave
Georgia: 44% slave
Florida: 44% slave
 
I think that the CSA has an excellent chance of self-destructing, of getting into a rematch with the Union, or facing a revolution, all of which would probably end slavery.

But there are ways around these problems: The CSA could be geographically conservative (and not include its "maximal" borders and ensuring tension with the Union) and mature enough to recognize that a further war with the Union would be a disaster. Poor Whites do have another out besides getting angry with the planter elite--they can go North, and I think the Planters would probably have them leave instead of potentially challenging their power. And besides, the CSA's ideological commitment to slavery probably leads towards a dictatorship / Police State instead of the "Libertarian Democracy" that one might expect today.

All the same, the Confederacy is ideologically committed to Slavery, and are going to see their victory as vindication. There is zero hope of the initial generation of Confederates, which has written Slavery = Good = Never Going Down reversing course and throwing it down. By 1910 or so most of them have died or are now in their 60s and 70s.

But their children aren't going to live in a world that asks whether Slavery is a good system, its a world that's pretty sure it is. Discussion on that point was banned in the antebellum period. Perhaps poor whites have started to complain about the current order--and that's going to be solved one way or another, perhaps by some sort of social aid, perhaps by emigration, and perhaps by simple ham-fisted oppression.

The people in power are the planters, and that's not likely to change. Perhaps a standing army or evolved national slave hunter force emerges, but its mission is still that of maintaining the status quo. A very reactionary clique is in power, and transitioning to a more conventional industrial model is hobbled by money (tied up in slaves), infrastructure (the South didn't really like internal improvement projects as part of the Union and wouldn't have pushed it like the Union did), increased military spending, and its founding ideology.

The Soviet Union lasted 70ish years, and I think that's a reasonable estimate for the life of Slavery in the CSA. By the 1930s, the Confederacy will be decades behind the North, the nation has probably crystallized as a unpopular dictatorship, and the guys at the top have run out of options to stop revolution and imposing control over something like 75% of the population.
 
Considering that the Confederate Constitution forbade attempts at Emancipation and they HAD PICTURES OF SLAVES ON THEIR MONEY, I think it'll take either a successful revolution, or round two with the US before the Confederacy frees their slaves. I honestly don't even think the advent of mechanization would do it, the Confederates might be tempted to put the slaves to work in factories rather than in the fields when that happens. It's ingrained in their cultural identity to the point where it can only be removed by force.
 
Are you seriously asking for proof of a strong and organisaed anti-slavery camapaign?
No. I'm asking for evidence that White and English Speaking is especially relevant in making foreign powers come down harder on the CSA than they did on Brazil for example.

I'm glad you have a view of the CSA as a society of enlightened constitutionalists who will enforce the law as it stands without fear and favour and not turn a blind eye to it when it's in their economic interests to do so, but will you at least acknowledge there is room for debate on this issue?
I'm just going to step aside for a moment and make an observation.

Isn't it funny that when the CSA constitution says something that might be considered good, some people might immediately jump to the idea that the CSA will simply disregard its own constitution. But when the Constitution says something bad, we will assume that the CSA will cling to it throughout its death throes, never changing or debating about it.

In this case, the CSA is not going to revive the slave trade and there's no room for discussion on that point specifically. The illegal slave trade I'll get to in a second.

I'm perfectly happy to concede they may only get a similar level of attention as similar slaving societies - so long as you concede that "level of attention" in this instance runs up to and includes the RN imposing a coastal blockade and raiding of ports to clamp down on any illicit trading going on.
According to you, they did this with Brazil. And all those other nations active in the illegal slave trade? Did Britain blockade them? Seems like what happened to Brazil was especially hard.

So now you're proposing the CSA as a bastion of *anti*slavery activity? I'm sorry, but this thread has now moved into Alice in Wonderland territory.
So I'm assuming you're not reading what I'm saying. I never said the CSA would be "a bastion of anti-slavery activity." I said a victorious CSA might slow the illegal slave trade down from what it was at the time.

The CSA and USA can no longer keep the status quo on the illegal slave trade, since the funds and major port involved in the trade is now in a separate country from the demand for slaves. What you have now is a situation where the CSA can not fund an independent trade as well as before, so if it starts up its own trade for some reason, it will be less effective than the previous status quo, so it will be "slowed down" from before.

If people in the USA attempts to continue its involvement in the same capacity as before, the USA government now has all the reason in the world to clamp down on it far harder than they did before, as I had already outlined in the post which you seemed to have ignored the majority of. It would be an attempt to return to the status-quo situation, except now there are two countries and the actual slave holding power can shift the blame completely to the US. "Oh, we didn't know those slaves were illegally captured." "They're the ones tricking us into buying illegal slaves!" This might be great for the CSA but it's intolerable for the USA. So we still have a situation where the trade will slow down.

The CSA does not exist in some kind of fantasy world where if they are to be successful they are an economic basket-case, but if they are to do something immoral that will hasten their destruction, they're economically perfectly functional.
 
Top