Slavery in the US in the event of a Confederate Victory

I've often read scenarios that assume slavery in the north is promptly abolished following defeat. But I'm not sure that is accurate and so would like the opinions of others on that.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Confederates win, probably via a British intervention sometime in 1862-63.

Assuming an end to the war in 1863 what is going to happen to the border states? You will still have a few slave states at least, and the Union holding onto Kentucky and West Virginia is quite plausible to say the least.

Slavery remained entrenched in all those states except for West Virginia, which had, per the Willey amendment (that was necessary for the Republicans to allow them statehood) a system of emancipation for certain age groups which would have freed its first slave in 1867 and from what I understand of the rules I don't think all of the slaves were going to be freed even in the long term, although certainly most would have.

It would seem plausible that McClellan and Pendleton would win the 1864 election given that the Republicans are demoralized and quite possibly fractured into two parties at this point (I could see Fremont's Radical Democracy *party fulminating over the peace and everything associated with it).

Now McClellan and the rest of the northern Democrats so far as I'm aware tended to not be particularly against slavery, and many of the Copperheads who would probably grow in strength by having been proven right were positively in favour of it,

Given that the likely Democratic position in the immediate aftermath of a devastating defeat would probably be trying to peacefully woo the southern states back (which was their historical stance in 1864) given that the military option had been a clear failure - would they move to abolish slavery any time soon in the border states?

Aside from the states there is slavery in the territories and particularly the District of Columbia, which was abolished by Congress in 1862 - would the restoration of slavery in the District of Columbia at least be possible, as a peace offering to the south and a "screw-you" to the Republicans?

Long term of course slavery was going to pass away in the North, just as it would inevitably die in the South (and even Brazil or the Soudan) but I'm wondering how long it would have lasted. Long term of course most people in the US would finally realize that the South isn't coming back, at least peacefully and slavery is only going to become more odious to the general public, but is the abolition of slavery in the 1860s likely? Or are we going to see a compensated manumission happening like in DC sometime in the late 1860s, or a gradual emancipation (sort of like West Virginia but more thorough) start up?

Or would slavery just be abolished via a constitutional amendment in the mid 1860s regardless?

Incidentally - does anyone think the Constitutional Union party could have survived under such circumstances or was it moribund?


*Speaking of Radical Democracy - what would you call the members of such a party? Radical Democrats doesn't really work, given that they are technically Radical Republicans and absolutely hate the Democrats - would they be called simply Radicals?
 
Last edited:
Assuming that WV, KY in the USA, also Indian Territory, what would be AZ & NM slavery in those states that had it in say 1863 was on the way out even in 1860. I certainly can't see it lasting very long. Aside from the abolitionist sentiment present in the USA, slavery is now seen as the driver of the rebellion that broke the Union, so any sentiment for it to be continued /allow to exist much longer will be pretty minimal. There may be resentment towards blacks, but no sentiment for slavery.
 
Slavery is dead in the territories. There was simply too much abolitionist sentiment. DOA. Same with District of Colombia. DOA.

As to the four remaining slave states... I think two of them slavery was pretty marginal, so it's probably dead there. Slavery in the remaining couple of states would be dependent on their political position and ability to threaten an exit. Clock is ticking.
 
Slavery is dead in the territories. There was simply too much abolitionist sentiment. DOA. Same with District of Colombia. DOA.

As to the four remaining slave states... I think two of them slavery was pretty marginal, so it's probably dead there. Slavery in the remaining couple of states would be dependent on their political position and ability to threaten an exit. Clock is ticking.

According the Census of 1860 the four border states has the following slave population

  • Delaware: 1,798 slaves owned by 587 families representing 3% of all families
  • Kentucky: 225,483 slaves owned by 38,645 families representing 23% of all families
  • Maryland: 87,189 slaves owned by 13,783 families representing 12% of all families
  • Missouri: 114,931 slaves owned by 24,320 families representing 13% of all families
So Delaware can be classified as marginal, but Maryland and Missouri have a significant percentage of slave owners, and slavery was thriving in Kentucky. I agree that any slavery in the territories is DOA, but I don't know their historical status in 1860. The District is likely to have emancipation early, only because the Republicans will push for it before the mid-terms.

The eventual fate of the slavery in Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky I imagine would have to be tied to some sort of compensated emancipation. Any less than that may scare the states in the CSA, except maybe for Maryland but that was already a deal on the table given to them by Congress IIRC in 1862.
 
Slave states no longer comprise half of the Senate, so I don't think there'd be much issue with abolishing slavery. I'm not sure it'd happen immediately post-war, but by the 1880s at the latest it'd be ended.

The Confederacy would be a weak and unstable polity. The Civil War escalated a whole bunch of class tensions in the south that were only papered over post-war by opposition to reconstruction and the unifying factor of white supremacy (unifying for southern whites that is). Now throw on top of that the underground railroad only having to extend to the Cumberland River and Potomac River, appalachian folks in hard to control regions who were never very pro-secession anyway, and Freedmen who likely will be heading south to cause trouble.

Odds are the union could just reconquer the place anyway down the line fairly easily - or at least gobble up some choice bits and heavily dominate the remainder.
 
Only in Kentucky are the slave owning families a significant percentage of the total. Other than Kentucky the average is 3-4 slaves/family, Kentucky is slightly over 5/family. These numbers are a bit misleading, as those families that owned large establishments/plantations would have significantly more slaves, and most families might own just one or two. A family that owns one or two slaves, especially urban families owning a house servant or two, will probably not be financially distressed by going from owning the servant and covering all expenses, and changing to a wage servant. Given there is now "peace" between the USA and CSA and the lines have been drawn, I can't see Kentucky trying to secede - the Union Army will simply crush that. Assuming the UK supported CS independence, I don't see them jumping in militarily for the CSA to expand after this peace, especially when the expansion would be to grab more slave territory from the USA. The CSA might expand/try to expand south, and the UK turn a blind eye but restarting the war with the USA - not likely.

I expect slavery to be dead in the USA one way or another within a few years, not 10-20. I really don't expect any free blacks going south to cause trouble. The USA will most likely be OK with allowing escaped slaves in, or at least not returning them as they transit to Canada. On the other hand, the USA will not be happy with US citizens going south to cause trouble, especially black citizens. Finally what the CSA would do to northern blacks caught trying to cause trouble of any sort in the south, and any slaves assisting them or with them, would be truly horrific. Simply execution would be the best choice - from there it gets much worse, and any not killed or dying in very unpleasant ways will be enslaved in the worst possible conditions. I expect the CSA will, at least to start with, will have all free blacks either leave or be re-enslaved.
 
When there's a Confederate victory in a British intervention 1862-1863, it's almost certain the U.S. will ban slavery altogether in the few states that have it and haven't seceded and joined the Confederacy (West Virginia, Missouri, Maryland, and possibly Kentucky if it still in Union hands) as well as banning secession to prevent any future civil wars occurring between the states.
 
IMHO you can count on a constitutional amendment that would specifically ban secession - thus eliminating the "legal" argument that southern states used.
 
This secession ban amendment would be
IMHO you can count on a constitutional amendment that would specifically ban secession - thus eliminating the "legal" argument that southern states used.
This secession amendment would be put in place by the U.S. only after the war had ended by then (in an ATL Confederate victory) the Confederacy will have already won and so it wouldn’t matter if the “legal” argument was eliminated or not as that law doesn’t affect them or their secession.
 
Slave states no longer comprise half of the Senate, so I don't think there'd be much issue with abolishing slavery. I'm not sure it'd happen immediately post-war, but by the 1880s at the latest it'd be ended.

The Confederacy would be a weak and unstable polity. The Civil War escalated a whole bunch of class tensions in the south that were only papered over post-war by opposition to reconstruction and the unifying factor of white supremacy (unifying for southern whites that is). Now throw on top of that the underground railroad only having to extend to the Cumberland River and Potomac River, appalachian folks in hard to control regions who were never very pro-secession anyway, and Freedmen who likely will be heading south to cause trouble.

Odds are the union could just reconquer the place anyway down the line fairly easily - or at least gobble up some choice bits and heavily dominate the remainder.
I suggest reading the thread “If the Confederacy, would reunification happen?” to get a good idea about your argument.
 
It doesn’t matter what the border states think. The free states make up more than 3/4 and so their state legislatures will be able force through amendments banning both slavery and secession.
 
It doesn’t matter what the border states think. The free states make up more than 3/4 and so their state legislatures will be able force through amendments banning both slavery and secession.
Well, I agree WCV215, of course free states legislatures will ban slavery and secession. Border states like Kentucky who knows depending how long the war goes out in the event of the Confederate victory.
 
@Dixieland1861 The idea of an anti-secession amendment to the constitution of the USA would be to prevent any future secession in a CSA victory scenario. Obviously, like any law, it is only as good as enforcement but it would prevent any "legal" argument in the future should there be some sort of crisis.
 
@Dixieland1861 The idea of an anti-secession amendment to the constitution of the USA would be to prevent any future secession in a CSA victory scenario. Obviously, like any law, it is only as good as enforcement but it would prevent any "legal" argument in the future should there be some sort of crisis.

The Union will not pass any anti-secession amendment because the position of the federal government was that secession was implicitly banned by the Constitution. Passing such an amendment would imply that secession was legal prior to its passing, thus discrediting the Unionist position.
 
The Union will not pass any anti-secession amendment because the position of the federal government was that secession was implicitly banned by the Constitution. Passing such an amendment would imply that secession was legal prior to its passing, thus discrediting the Unionist position.
Really, prior to the Civil War there were no laws that prohibited state secession and not even the Constitution spoke of it. The Southern Unionists you noted were pretty much living in foreign territory (the CSA) and their argument for secession was all about creating new states in the Union (just ask West Virginia) therefore any Unionist secession in a place like say East Tennessee or Union-loyal areas of a (possible) Confederate-held Kentucky would mean the government admitting newly-created states into the Union.
 

Paul Large

Banned
I've often read scenarios that assume slavery in the north is promptly abolished following defeat. But I'm not sure that is accurate and so would like the opinions of others on that.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Confederates win, probably via a British intervention sometime in 1862-63.

Assuming an end to the war in 1863 what is going to happen to the border states? You will still have a few slave states at least, and the Union holding onto Kentucky and West Virginia is quite plausible to say the least.

Slavery remained entrenched in all those states except for West Virginia, which had, per the Willey amendment (that was necessary for the Republicans to allow them statehood) a system of emancipation for certain age groups which would have freed its first slave in 1867 and from what I understand of the rules I don't think all of the slaves were going to be freed even in the long term, although certainly most would have.

It would seem plausible that McClellan and Pendleton would win the 1864 election given that the Republicans are demoralized and quite possibly fractured into two parties at this point (I could see Fremont's Radical Democracy *party fulminating over the peace and everything associated with it).

Now McClellan and the rest of the northern Democrats so far as I'm aware tended to not be particularly against slavery, and many of the Copperheads who would probably grow in strength by having been proven right were positively in favour of it,

Given that the likely Democratic position in the immediate aftermath of a devastating defeat would probably be trying to peacefully woo the southern states back (which was their historical stance in 1864) given that the military option had been a clear failure - would they move to abolish slavery any time soon in the border states?

Aside from the states there is slavery in the territories and particularly the District of Columbia, which was abolished by Congress in 1862 - would the restoration of slavery in the District of Columbia at least be possible, as a peace offering to the south and a "screw-you" to the Republicans?

Long term of course slavery was going to pass away in the North, just as it would inevitably die in the South (and even Brazil or the Soudan) but I'm wondering how long it would have lasted. Long term of course most people in the US would finally realize that the South isn't coming back, at least peacefully and slavery is only going to become more odious to the general public, but is the abolition of slavery in the 1860s likely? Or are we going to see a compensated manumission happening like in DC sometime in the late 1860s, or a gradual emancipation (sort of like West Virginia but more thorough) start up?

Or would slavery just be abolished via a constitutional amendment in the mid 1860s regardless?

Incidentally - does anyone think the Constitutional Union party could have survived under such circumstances or was it moribund?


*Speaking of Radical Democracy - what would you call the members of such a party? Radical Democrats doesn't really work, given that they are technically Radical Republicans and absolutely hate the Democrats - would they be called simply Radicals?
Two different ways the south could of won there freedom from the north. One being that Sherman despite all efforts could not take Atlanta this causing Lincoln his second term and giving The Democrats the Whitehouse with there platform of peace. Another being that little round top fell to the south at the battle of Gettysburg. If there was
No charge at the south when amo was gone. But rather the north ran causing the hill to fall. From that spot all areas of the northern army could be shelled causing them to loose the battle this giving the south the ability to march on Washington and putting a document on Lincoln’s desk calling for the end to the war. Now the south can “try” and form a nation. Always remember in the south states rights always came first. If they survive they would grow south. And create a tropical empire where slavery would become assential in the sugar fields etc. So I see a road to victory with slavery growing not ending. In 2018 I see a quazi style of slavery where persons of colour have some rights and purchasing of them would be called something softer but there life would be third class at best. I mean even today by a free country there are large population blocks that work for nothing and have very little in rights.
 
Top