South Slave Emancipation

I previously thought about how Slavery was so entrenched into the USA South that there was no way the CSA would emancipate its slaves in the 1890s (a... oddly common cliché among ACW timelines at one point before I stopped paying attention to those threads on this site). Slavery was in the society and even some internal observers noted how dependent the economy was on slavery by the 1830s. It could not be eliminated quickly without destroying the Plantar class, who basically controlled the state governments and at the same time they refused to think of a future of the institution being slowly eliminated the way it was in the British Empire.

The Southerners knew Lincoln had abolitionist sympathies and were afraid he was the first domino in Emancipation. Well, they were right in a way, just that Lincoln didn't really intend for it to be that way when he got elected. The American Civil war was a long fought out war, and I seriously doubt the South would be willing to give up an institution they fought to bitterly over. My initial thoughts were that Emancipation in a hypothetical CSA is that it would not be possible without another way or at least until not only the generation that fought in the ACW died, but until all their great grandchildren were no longer working age since Slavery was that ingrained in the South.

But then I thought about it. I think there might be one way for a hypothetical victorious south to go under legalized compensated Emancipation. Some people said "If the South did X they could have won" but the odds were stacked in favor of the North. British intervention in favor of the South, although unlikely, would turn the tide around. It's not likely since the British economy was not dependent on Cotton as much as the South would like to think, the fact that the British stockpiled a lot of Cotton anyways, and the fact that Egypt simply filled in the void. The British also imported wheat (or Bread? I forgot) from America and while alternative sources could be found, it would not exactly be cheap. The British were not huge fans of slavery either, although they never forced the issue on USA before the ACW.

British intervention in favor of the South, although unlikely, would likely lead to other European countries giving recognition and tip the odds. It's really the only way because the South could not win without them.

Now here is the interesting part. The British didn't put huge diplomatic pressure to end slavery of US in the 1850s and they likely aren't going to on the South in the short run. But by the OTL 1870s, they were doing it to Brazil, a country with a stronger economy than the South likely would have. It is logical to assume they would be constantly reminding the South how backwards slavery was. Implicit is "I made you. I can unmake you.

And I think the local plantar class might do something to figure out how to reorient their economy. True in the OTL American Civil War after EP they didn't drop it when their choices were "keep holding onto slavery to the bitter end" and "not be victims of scorched Earth." But in an alternate timeline under British diplomatic pressure, seeing Brazil free its slaves, I think TTL South might be able to think about it over a decade (not in the heat of war) and realize that as much as it likes holding Slaves and as much as they believe their racist ideology, the trio of self-preservation, agricultural reform, and long term economic prosperity has to be the better choice.
 
A British boycott of American cotton would have gone a long way to ending slavery in the US but it's very possible it would have been politically infeasible to get passed in Britain for domestic economic reasons since it would hurt British manufacturing.

A mechanical cotton picker also would have dramatically reduced the dependence on slavery while maintaining the plantation economy.

A pre-Civil War growth in cotton exports from other parts of the British Empire would have helped as well since it would have given Britain the option of turning away slavery cotton.

As late as 1850 there are probably several economic factors that could help and at a certain point large-scale slave labor in cotton manufacturing becomes unprofitable. The danger though is that slavery could be extended to a growing manufacturing sector in the South. Just before and during the Civil War there were several successful examples of slavery in factories with not much indication that it didn't work. I have a strong suspicion that economic pressures on cotton production would not be enough to end the institution by itself.
 
As late as 1850 there are probably several economic factors that could help and at a certain point large-scale slave labor in cotton manufacturing becomes unprofitable. The danger though is that slavery could be extended to a growing manufacturing sector in the South. Just before and during the Civil War there were several successful examples of slavery in factories with not much indication that it didn't work. I have a strong suspicion that economic pressures on cotton production would not be enough to end the institution by itself.

I've come to the conclusion this is far more likely than emancipation, simply due to the fact no sane Southern slaveowner would be willing to tolerate seeing his biggest store of value go up in smoke and nobody is going to pay for compensated emancipation. The issue of capital is one that needs to be addressed, given how heavily leveraged Southern interests generally were, but I have no doubt you'd find "carpetbagger" industrualists willing to move the looms and cigar rollers closer to supply and so get Yankee money for that.
 
Well thought, but wouldn't this sort of scenario mean the South abolishes slavery after Brazil does? And there's no reason to suppose Brazil doing that before it did IOTL, probably later (as the South winning the Civil War with British help would likely make slavery appear more viable than IOTL in the 1880s). So we're still at some sort of "emancipation" in 1890-1900 timeframe I think. Probably made in such a way that former slaves, while no longer formally regarded as "property", would still be effectively under conditions of exploitation, dependence and lack of opportunities that resemble slavery as much as the Southern planters can make it so.
 
A British boycott of American cotton would have gone a long way to ending slavery in the US but it's very possible it would have been politically infeasible to get passed in Britain for domestic economic reasons since it would hurt British manufacturing.

Basically in the 1830s and 1850s the British didn't like slavery but just wasn't that committed to meddling in internal affair of another nation just to make a point about slavery.

I previously though in a victorious SOUTH there was no way they ever get rid of slavery in even 3 generations without another war.

But as Slavery in Birtain becomes more unpopular as the decades passes, I think British pressure might do it with the message of "I made you. I can unmake you. Wouldn't it be nice if both of us could just be friends?"

Well thought, but wouldn't this sort of scenario mean the South abolishes slavery after Brazil does? And there's no reason to suppose Brazil doing that before it did IOTL, probably later (as the South winning the Civil War with British help would likely make slavery appear more viable than IOTL in the 1880s). So we're still at some sort of "emancipation" in 1890-1900 timeframe I think. Probably made in such a way that former slaves, while no longer formally regarded as "property", would still be effectively under conditions of exploitation, dependence and lack of opportunities that resemble slavery as much as the Southern planters can make it so.

I think at some point the ex-slaves would basically be non-voting poor class, but not (aside from voting legally) different than poor landless whites. The de facto situation would probably be fairly grim, but I would imagine any tenant that managed to scrape together some savings (since as freedmen their savings cannot be confiscated by landlords) would be free to move on to whatever job he thinks is more pleasant than his current one.

I was looking at the larger picture though than the lives of the exploited.

Basically, sometimes when the Brazilian royal family is like "You know... slavery needs to go in Brazil" the British will eventually constantly nag at the South.
 
I think you have it backwards. Successful secession will vindicate slavery. It'll give it a political boost everywhere it's practiced by deterring reformist forces and emboldening conservative elements to make it central to their ideology. Economics and geopolitical necessity will make abolitionism less of a pressing issue in Britain as well.
 
But then I thought about it. I think there might be one way for a hypothetical victorious south to go under legalized compensated Emancipation. Some people said "If the South did X they could have won" but the odds were stacked in favor of the North. British intervention in favor of the South, although unlikely, would turn the tide around. It's not likely since the British economy was not dependent on Cotton as much as the South would like to think, the fact that the British stockpiled a lot of Cotton anyways, and the fact that Egypt simply filled in the void. The British also imported wheat (or Bread? I forgot) from America and while alternative sources could be found, it would not exactly be cheap. The British were not huge fans of slavery either, although they never forced the issue on USA before the ACW.

British intervention was not unlikely; indeed, it was a very real threat in the late summer of 1862 until the indecisive nature of the Battle of Antietam delayed it and then Gettysburg brought it to a close.

Nor do any of the reasons cited against it hold much weight. If American grain exports are cut off, the British would revert to 1857 levels of consumption....which they did anyway IOTL 1866; the price rise would thus be minimal if not trivial. Stocks of Southern cotton had largely been exhausted by late 1862 and early 1863, explaining the rapid and sustained increase of cotton prices in London. Nor could Egyptian and Indian sources compete in cost, scale of production and quality.

And I think the local plantar class might do something to figure out how to reorient their economy. True in the OTL American Civil War after EP they didn't drop it when their choices were "keep holding onto slavery to the bitter end" and "not be victims of scorched Earth." But in an alternate timeline under British diplomatic pressure, seeing Brazil free its slaves, I think TTL South might be able to think about it over a decade (not in the heat of war) and realize that as much as it likes holding Slaves and as much as they believe their racist ideology, the trio of self-preservation, agricultural reform, and long term economic prosperity has to be the better choice.

The decision on the part of Brazil to emancipate was directly tied to the defeat of the Confederacy. Same for the Spanish in Cuba. Remove the Confederate defeat, and the Slave bloc of the New World remains there and thus diplomatic pressure would have significant limits on it; it's just too strong of a bloc to push around much, especially if the U.S. retains slavery in its border states.

With this said, I think economic pressures will ultimately lead to gradual emancipation at the end of the century and start of the 20th. It just makes too much sense cost wise to switch to mechanical agriculture as well as wage-based industrial labor, particularly when the need for educated workers (not possible with slaves) arises.
 
I think you have it backwards. Successful secession will vindicate slavery.

Will it outside of North America? Whatever causes Britain to side with the South (their only chance, however slim) will not be the issue of slavery. The South would be little more than a pawn of whatever faction in Britain decided neutrality wasn't the best option. Many times a Great Power backed a faction with a couple ideology they disagreed with just to further their own goal. I'm looking at you France! Their alliance with the Ottomans hardly was an embrace of Islam.
 
Will it outside of North America? Whatever causes Britain to side with the South (their only chance, however slim) will not be the issue of slavery. The South would be little more than a pawn of whatever faction in Britain decided neutrality wasn't the best option. Many times a Great Power backed a faction with a couple ideology they disagreed with just to further their own goal. I'm looking at you France! Their alliance with the Ottomans hardly was an embrace of Islam.

That's irrelevent, mostly. A C.S.A government is, first and foremost, a republic primarily dependent on the continued goodwill of the (voting) population, and if the domestic slaveholding elite (Who's fortune/value is tied up in slaves) and power white laborers not wanting the sudden surge of competition for wages are pledging electoral genocide on you if you try to emancipate the slaves than the polite diplomatic notes from Britain aren't going to be enough to change your mind, or if you try 2 years later you'll kicked out of office by the comopetition who promises to not implement the iniative. London isen't going to force every firm in the Empire to boycott Southern cotton, with plenty of bussiesses likely to look the other way and the consumers not particularly caring, or if they try I'm sure their French or Yankee competition would be more than happy to scoop up the supply at the now lower prices.
 
A nominal emancipation that maintains slavery de facto under the guise of contract labor, debt servitude, sharecropping, and black codes could maybe happen in the CSA if there's sufficient international pressure.

You could also have a situation come the 19th century that the poor white farmers of the south identify slavery is the root cause of their being dominated by the planterocracy. They proceed to push for emancipation and either deportation or a black code system that makes blacks subservient to all whites rather than just the planters.


However, you're never in a million years to get equality in the CSA short of full revolution.
 
However, you're never in a million years to get equality in the CSA short of full revolution.

I don't know, I think few if you suggested a few possibilities of the next millennium to Romans in 27 BC, most of them would laugh and tell you it will never happen in "a million years"

But full equality wasn't even the point of the conversation anyways.

Thinking more of the lines of WW2 Era relations. Or something where anyone with cash could just move to find a better living.

domestic slaveholding elite (Who's fortune/value is tied up in slaves)

It's true that the elite of the plantar class is vested in not losing their biggest asset (at this point, they are so dependent on slaves, the capital in them is probably larger than that of the land). The main economic lever has, buying the cotton, is smaller by the 1890s thanks to Egypt, so even an Empire wide boycott wouldn't do anything (not that the central government is likely to care enough).

But polite notes from Birtain worked on Brazil (ok admittedly the royal family already had that on their mind for awhile even if it wasn't on the minds of the other elites or large voting blocks) and OTL Brazil had a larger economy than any South could have (even if they accomplished that ASB dream of scraping enough money to buy Cuba). So it worked on a country that had an economy larger than the South's, less dependent than the South's and not in terminal danger.

But they also have an interest in got getting all their property expropriated by a Northern Reconquest war. And just as the South couldn't win the American Civil War without Britain, it should be obvious after winning the ACW with Britain's help (however it comes and for whatever reason they go to war against he North), it can't really expect to fend off a reconquest attempt alone. Without imports from the sea, in three years they'd be out of powder. Polite diplomatic notes from the only nation capable of fending off total annihilation of the South should be more important to them than polite diplomatic notes from any other country. The Plantar class should (?) be able to know the significance of polite diplomatic notes from Britain saying "hey man, you know even Brazil moved on to a mode modern economy. Perhaps you really ought to be thinking about what your society is built on and no one does that kind of thing anymore. It's kind of ugly"

Or maybe they'll have no sense of self preservation. I agree the South's politicians will be receptive to whatever the Plantar Class wants.
 
You are focusing too much on the "economic rationalily says...." argument.
Newsflash: Nations make choices that are economically counter-productive all the time. Especially if it's about traditions that are deeply ingrained in their national culture and the Elites in particular are ideologically wedded to.
Try telling the Middle East how much more properous they'd be if they all become liberal secular nations, with rule of law, strong legal insitutions, equal participation for women in the workforce, etc etc. All perfectly true, but you still wouldn't get far anway. This sort of appeal to economic self-interest only works with the Ferengi.
 
liberal secular nations, with rule of law, strong legal insitutions, equal participation for women in the workforce, etc etc. All perfectly true, but you still wouldn't get far anway.

What? LIBERAL nations? Middle East is not Europe and fiscally liberal spending is not going to make them wealthier.
 
Top