What would happen if the Confederates won and there was still slavery in the South until 1920?
The Confederates win: slavery until 1920
- Thread starter Johnrankins
- Start date
Very likely but that could easily be ignored by the Confederate government. The world maybe disgusted but unwilling to do much of anything about it.
Too many Southerners seem to write TLs in which slavery was banned very shortly after the ACW, not wanting to acknowledge that their ancestors fought largely to preserve slavey.
Why?
Hrmm. Slavery might work for industrialization; sweatshop labor for a Britain that prefers overseas investment? But in an age of protectionism, who is the market?
David S Poepoe
Banned
The South would find it necessary to industrialize, since depending upon the POD, it will find that industrialization was necessary to win independence. The region had a small but growing industrial base at the outbreak of the war.
The South would have petroleum, giving it world clout c. 1900. Unfortunately, the world would have to tolerate their treatment of slaves the way we tolerate Saudi Arabia's treatment of women.
But the cloud has a silver lining: the underground railroad only has to end at the Ohio River and large numbers of ex-slaves will be re-settled in the midwest: Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Illinois. The German immigrants who arrived in a wave in the late 1870's might choose to turn south, taking advantage of greater opportunities; and yes: industrialization.
But the cloud has a silver lining: the underground railroad only has to end at the Ohio River and large numbers of ex-slaves will be re-settled in the midwest: Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Illinois. The German immigrants who arrived in a wave in the late 1870's might choose to turn south, taking advantage of greater opportunities; and yes: industrialization.
But Iran and the Middle East didn't have clout until the 1960s, 1970s due to oil.
and the South would let the Germans in?
i kind of doubt it. maybe the Germans head west....Personally, I could see the Confederacy abolishing slavery once international pressure to do so mounts, but doing so in such a way that it is really abolition in name only. That way they can still keep their way of life intact while allowing the rest of the world to pretend there's no slavery in the South because they don't call it slavery.
They couldn't, because no business in their right mind would choose to have workers that need wages rather than slaves who work for free.Also why would the Germans want to compete against slave labor?
This isn’t true at all. Immigrant labor was actually cheaper to use in factories in the North. You could pretty much work a man to the bone for next to nothing in a factory without worrying overly much due to the fact that there was always someone else available to replace them. Conversely slaves were seen as investments and just like you wouldn’t run a thoroughbred horse to death if you had any sense you’d do what you needed to ensure that you’d get as much work out of your slaves for as long as possible which generally means taking moderately good care of them.
David S Poepoe
Banned
All very true. Its much more likely that 'moderately good care' for slaves would be better than good living conditions for free labor. However, free labor in the end is more cheaper and flexible that slave labor. I believe that at some point some one will look at the bottom line and figure out hiring migrant workers would make more business sense.
German immigrant labor would not be competing against slaves. Many were skilled craftsmen leaving for economic reasons. Most were literate, though they needed to learn English. Craftsmen who worked near the great lakes would be in the Mississippi and Tennessee River communities, rarely in the cotton fields. They would provide a skill base for industrialization.
Is that not because the British controlled all of that oil directly or indirectly?