Slavery persists & everybody wins: a what if

Watching "The Abolitionists" got me thinking. The opposition to women in the movement suggests the problem wasn't only slavery: it was the threat Abolitionism posed to the power structure. It was the same way M. L. King broadening the message to economic justice did.

So, suppose slavery, for whatever reason, survives in the U.S. past 1850. (Obviously, this butterflies the ACW.:rolleyes:) Suppose Garrison & the Abolitionist movement take a different approach, making it about equal justice & economic & social equality. Does this mean Progressives &/or Socialists become more involved? Does this advance the causes of trust-busting? Of labor rights & unions? Women's equality, & getting the vote? Minimum wage laws? Other tax laws (like, frex, capital gains or inheritance taxes)?

Does it impact public transit? (At least some tramways were destroyed because they allowed poor residents access to wealthier areas... And no ACW means less sprawl...:cool::cool:)

Does it affect culture more broadly? Music? Film? TV?

I am presuming slavery is eventually banned, just not by violence...
 
Any persistence of slavery beyond the early 1800s is a no-win scenario because the Bourbon planters were entrenched to the point that slavery became the centerpiece of their heritage- turning the ACW into a crusade for slavery at the top, sold as a paean to states rights to the common poor white soldier. The only way slavery was gonna end was "violently"- our government gave the South enough votes to stop any democratic abolition.

As for the whole "equal rights/econ. justice"- there goes the moderate support and much of the North. Selling slavery as a moral crusade solely based on human bondage was the only way to sell its abolition to the North. Expand that, and suddenly abolition either has to moderate to the OTL position, or lose all political relevance.
 
Massa Chief said:
Any persistence of slavery beyond the early 1800s is a no-win scenario because the Bourbon planters were entrenched to the point that slavery became the centerpiece of their heritage- turning the ACW into a crusade for slavery at the top, sold as a paean to states rights to the common poor white soldier. The only way slavery was gonna end was "violently"- our government gave the South enough votes to stop any democratic abolition.

As for the whole "equal rights/econ. justice"- there goes the moderate support and much of the North. Selling slavery as a moral crusade solely based on human bondage was the only way to sell its abolition to the North. Expand that, and suddenly abolition either has to moderate to the OTL position, or lose all political relevance.

I'm not talking about abolition of slavery as the objective: I'm talking about social justice as the objective & slavery as a symptom of what's wrong.
 
I'm not talking about abolition of slavery as the objective: I'm talking about social justice as the objective & slavery as a symptom of what's wrong.

The problem is that in this case, a large sector of the bourgeoisie just wouldn't care at best.
 

amphibulous

Banned
As for the whole "equal rights/econ. justice"- there goes the moderate support and much of the North. Selling slavery as a moral crusade solely based on human bondage was the only way to sell its abolition to the North.

No, completely wrong.

The North had two problems with slavery that were much bigger than morals:

- First, unfair competition from slave labour, which they feared would drag down Northern working class living standards.

- Second, the disproportionate influence the backward Southern states had on national politics, as the slave population was used to weight the value of Southern votes - made much worse by the Southerners' charming proclivity for eg violent and cowardly armed assaults on their critics in Congress
 
No, completely wrong.

The North had two problems with slavery that were much bigger than morals:

- First, unfair competition from slave labour, which they feared would drag down Northern working class living standards.

- Second, the disproportionate influence the backward Southern states had on national politics, as the slave population was used to weight the value of Southern votes - made much worse by the Southerners' charming proclivity for eg violent and cowardly armed assaults on their critics in Congress

As I said- our government gave the South enough votes in Congress to stop any chance to change anything in the long term. They were more worried about Northern free blacks bringing competition than the possibility of Southern industrial slavery (seeing as the North was more industrial and the South mostly rural).

As for social justice- most people now don't care about that. Trying to popularize social justice and equal rights in still pretty rural 19th century America is not going to be a good time.
 
Massa Chief said:
As for social justice- most people now don't care about that. Trying to popularize social justice and equal rights in still pretty rural 19th century America is not going to be a good time.
The problem is that in this case, a large sector of the bourgeoisie just wouldn't care at best.
I should maybe put it another way. I don't suggest the effort against slavery be abandoned, but instead put in a broader context of equal justice for all.

Selling abolition was not picnic in any case, so the "difficult" argument IMO is a non-starter.:rolleyes:
 
I should maybe put it another way. I don't suggest the effort against slavery be abandoned, but instead put in a broader context of equal justice for all.

Selling abolition was not picnic in any case, so the "difficult" argument IMO is a non-starter.:rolleyes:

I see your point, but I have to reiterate: "equal justice for all" in nineteenth century North America (or in most times and places really, for that matter) would be even less popular than Abolition alone ever was.
 
I see your point, but I have to reiterate: "equal justice for all" in nineteenth century North America (or in most times and places really, for that matter) would be even less popular than Abolition alone ever was.
Why don't we analyze the reasons why such a thing is unpopular and then find PODs to change those reasons?
 
Why don't we analyze the reasons why such a thing is unpopular and then find PODs to change those reasons?

It's hard to pin it down to a single POD, at least a POD that gets you recognizable United States with a slaver South.
Problem is that "... and justice for all" really tackle a daunting array of different things, some of which quite deeply problematic for you average nineteenth century middle class mind, like women equality.
Abolitionism was a though sell, and many Abolitionists only supported it because they believed in racial inequality, and basically didn't want blacks around (of course the problem lied ultimately in labor issues, not in race, at the structural level, but this how ideology shaped the matter in my understanding).
Now, we are talking of a movement in America around, say, 1870 that supports, if I get it right:

Workers' rights
Racial equality
Gender equality
Economic sort-of equality
Fair treatment for minorities such as Jews, Catholics etc.

all while being more or less anti-capitalist.

The WASP Yankee middle class males will, quite correctly, generally see such a thing as against their own power and interests.
I am not sure how it is possible to change this. Maybe if a somewhat more clear-cut notion of human equality (including economic equality, at least to a point) had taken root during the ARW? That could make the contrast between principles included in the Declaration or the Constitution and the dire reality of inequality all the more striking and scandalous, leading to a movement who sees slavery only as the most apparent in a set of contradiction.
It seems pretty tall order to me, but probably feasible.
 
Anti-capitalist equal justice movements are not going to do well. For all the trouble abolition had, it still somewhat fit the interests and attitudes of the Northern VIPs. Anti-capitalist anything does not. If you want equal justice, you have to scratch the back of the powers-that-were, and that means being capitalist to an extent (which also opens up avenues for powerful supporters- Carnegie, perhaps? Other powerful progressives?)
 
Falecius said:
a daunting array of different things, some of which quite deeply problematic for you average nineteenth century middle class mind, like women equality.
Agreed. Which is why I'm wondering if it can't be part of a package: "all men are created equal", after all.
Falecius said:
the problem lied ultimately in labor issues, not in race, at the structural level
That does seem to offer opportunities: slaves were, of necessity, cheaper than wage labor. Thus they undercut the (at that time mainly) Irish immigrants. (So did free blacks, in the longer term.)
Falecius said:
we are talking of a movement in America around, say, 1870 that supports, if I get it right:

Workers' rights
Racial equality
Gender equality
Economic sort-of equality
Fair treatment for minorities such as Jews, Catholics etc.

all while being more or less anti-capitalist.
Agreed--except "anti-capitalist". I'm not seeing how you come to that. (Not sure fair treatment for Catholics & Jews necessarily follows, either. Not at first, anyhow.)
Massa Chief said:
Anti-capitalist equal justice movements are not going to do well.
Agreed, & I'm by no means suggesting it will be anything like easy. Labor rights or wage fairness, frex, don't demand opposition to capitalism--just laissez faire capitalism.
Falecius said:
The WASP Yankee middle class males will, quite correctly, generally see such a thing as against their own power and interests.
True. Can't they be persuaded they benefit from less income inequity? (Or was that not well-understood?) ISTM opposition to robber barons would be a pretty easy sell--even if it came with a "more equality for Jews, Catholics, & Negroes" proviso.:eek:
Falecius said:
I am not sure how it is possible to change this. Maybe if a somewhat more clear-cut notion of human equality (including economic equality, at least to a point) had taken root during the ARW? That could make the contrast between principles included in the Declaration or the Constitution and the dire reality of inequality all the more striking and scandalous, leading to a movement who sees slavery only as the most apparent in a set of contradiction.
It seems pretty tall order to me, but probably feasible.
Tall order it is. I don't think you need go back quite as far as that. What might do it is, as OTL, is the impact of a depression (or, as then called, a Panic). There were enough of those to get the attention of activists...
Falecius said:
I see your point, but I have to reiterate: "equal justice for all" in nineteenth century North America (or in most times and places really, for that matter) would be even less popular than Abolition alone ever was.
I do agree. That's partly why I'm expecting slavery to survive longer: the effort is more diffuse, but it ends up benefitting more people.

That said, I have to wonder if there weren't people OTL already concerned with these things who just aren't as well known as Abolitionists. I'm thinking there's already Progressive & Socialist movements, & labor activism, so while it may be unpopular in some circles, the need for change was recognized.
 
Last edited:
The problem was that progress is always far TOO slow and graduAL - but it does happen, Ask gays today everywhere they're marriages are legal today, like Faelin. Not every social oppresion could be solved at once in either the 1860s or 1960s.

Sadly, slavery was all most people were willing to face then - racism wasn't on the table. But I don't see it not happening - support and pressure groups had been building up here, just as in our colonisers, Britain, which'd already abandoned it.

Though, also, racism was also an excuse for how we got the land and too many other evils.
 
There was a lot of racism, no question, but there was also at least some support for a broader approach. John Brown, by accounts, considered racism an evil, also. I don't expect his revolutionary views would be widely accepted, but...
 
Uh...OTL?
Wendell Phillips, as famous an abolitionist as Garrison. Ran for governor of Massachusetts on the Labor ticket. Rumored to be a member of the International by the end of his life.

Ben Wade. Conviction of Johnson failed in large part because Wade was too well known to be for the worker and opposed to Northern business interests, the "silk stocking Whiggery" Lincoln foresaw as dominating the Republican Party.

George W. Julian. Land reform radical.

All supported women's suffrage, by the way, since at least the 1840s; Julian introduced an amendment in 1868.

(This is not even to mention the fact that there was almost no daylight between the abolitionist and women's suffrage movement period, before the split over the 15th Amendment.)

Folks forget just how radical the Radicals were.

As to plausibility: look at what the textile workers in the UK by and large said and did during the Civil War. (Or during Britain's own abolition fight; there was a mention of Manchester in 1797 recently.)
 
NathanKell said:
Uh...OTL?
Wendell Phillips, as famous an abolitionist as Garrison. Ran for governor of Massachusetts on the Labor ticket. Rumored to be a member of the International by the end of his life.

Ben Wade. Conviction of Johnson failed in large part because Wade was too well known to be for the worker and opposed to Northern business interests, the "silk stocking Whiggery" Lincoln foresaw as dominating the Republican Party.

George W. Julian. Land reform radical.

All supported women's suffrage, by the way, since at least the 1840s; Julian introduced an amendment in 1868.

(This is not even to mention the fact that there was almost no daylight between the abolitionist and women's suffrage movement period, before the split over the 15th Amendment.)

Folks forget just how radical the Radicals were.

As to plausibility: look at what the textile workers in the UK by and large said and did during the Civil War. (Or during Britain's own abolition fight; there was a mention of Manchester in 1797 recently.)
That's what I'm talkin' 'bout.:cool::cool:

I knew there had to be people radical enough. Now it's just a matter of getting them all in the same place...
 
Top