Would slavery have survived after a Confederate victory?

its hard to be a fan of something when you face that it's evil, plus the US doesn't like talking about the Civil War as it was, they like to think of it as two equally right sides fighting it out to prove some manly point

Mass disagreement. Disagreement is pouring from every orifice of my body. Even the ones I don't know about.
 
Given that the War of Southern Rebellion and the foundation upon which the CSA was erected sprang from the belief/point-of-view that slavery was a positive good and a practical necessity ...
- Would the institution have remained unaltered? Yes for several decades, if the CSA remains a sovereign nation.
- Would it be abolished under international pressure? No, the concept of nations joining together to intervene in or put pressure upon one other nation in order to bring about social change is a 20th century concept, not a 19th.
- Would it have been moderated by more laws regulating the treatment of slaves? Yes, as Southern "social reformers" will eventually rise up and call upon slave owners to show kindness to their slaves by providing for all reasonable wants of their slaves and to keep them from the feasr of misery and destitution.
- Would it have gradually disappeared in response to economic changes, or maybe evolved into some form of apartheid? Yes, by the mid-20th century.
 
Slavery as a system was economically unviable. It would have been abolished eventually, but to be honest, I believe it would have survived into the 20th century. Pro-slavery sentiment was a big part of the Civil War, and the South itself was in a time warp. While the North was becoming urbanized and was installing telegraphs, building railways, and creating an industrial economy, the South remained in an 18th century agrarian economy with the old plantation system. And southerners were diehard about states' rights. Tbh, it could have taken until the 1920s until the last southern state abolished slavery.

Though even afterwards, there might be South Africa-style apartheid. I could even see an apartheid, internationally isolated south surviving to this day, though that's near-ASB.
 
Slavery as a system was economically unviable. It would have been abolished eventually, but to be honest, I believe it would have survived into the 20th century. Pro-slavery sentiment was a big part of the Civil War, and the South itself was in a time warp. While the North was becoming urbanized and was installing telegraphs, building railways, and creating an industrial economy, the South remained in an 18th century agrarian economy with the old plantation system. And southerners were diehard about states' rights. Tbh, it could have taken until the 1920s until the last southern state abolished slavery.

Though even afterwards, there might be South Africa-style apartheid. I could even see an apartheid, internationally isolated south surviving to this day, though that's near-ASB.

This is a myth. The South was far from being diehards about state's rights. They rode all over the Northern states rights before the war and the CSA was more centralized then the USA.
 

Cook

Banned
Slavery as a system was economically unviable.
Far from it. Not only was slavery viable, it was immensely profitable and rendered free labour in the same industries completely uncompetitive. Slavery in the south was not in decline prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, it was growing and expanding westwards into the unorganized territories. Hence the Republican campaign to maintain the compromise and prevent slavery moving north of the Mason Dixon line and into Bloody Kansas.
 
Slavery as a system was economically unviable.

Not to mention the fact that there almost certainly would have been large-scale wage depression for free workers as well; look at what happened IOTL when major corporations started outsourcing labor to China and the Third World.....not an exact parallel, of course, but it would almost certainly have the same general effect.

It would have been abolished eventually, but to be honest, I believe it would have survived into the 20th century. Pro-slavery sentiment was a big part of the Civil War, and the South itself was in a time warp.

Yep. Not to mention that slavery might very well have become a truly integral part of Southern culture, period, instead of just amongst the upper classes.

While the North was becoming urbanized and was installing telegraphs, building railways, and creating an industrial economy, the South remained in an 18th century agrarian economy with the old plantation system.

Well, there were a few exceptions, though, such as Birmingham, Alabama for example.....but other than that, yes, that is true.

And southerners were diehard about states' rights.

Many were, yes.

Tbh, it could have taken until the 1920s until the last southern state abolished slavery.

Maybe even longer if all the favorable cards fell into place.

Though even afterwards, there might be South Africa-style apartheid. I could even see an apartheid, internationally isolated south surviving to this day, though that's near-ASB.

I dunno about surviving to the present day, but apartheid might work until the early '90s or so.

This is a myth. The South was far from being diehards about state's rights. They rode all over the Northern states rights before the war and the CSA was more centralized then the USA.

That is a pretty good point, TBH.
 
Yep. Not to mention that slavery might very well have become a truly integral part of Southern culture, period, instead of just amongst the upper classes.

Might have? It already had become pretty much part of it.

That you might be poor, but at least you weren't a _____, poor whites hating/fearing/despising blacks . . .

Well, there were a few exceptions, though, such as Birmingham, Alabama for example.....but other than that, yes, that is true.

I think, but I wouldn't take an oath to it, that Birmingham is post war. Richmond, on the other hand . . .
 
I agree with Cook, there's nothing economically nonviable about slavery. How could forcing an individual to work for no compensation be unprofitable? Slaves were only provided the minimum food/accommodations necessary to survive, upkeep isn't really a factor. Also a shift away from agriculture doesn't necessarily mean a shift away from slavery, forced labor has applications in every economy. What are the slaves going to do about it, rise up? With what weapons and with what morale for that matter? Slavery had persisted in the south for over a century its not like the Confederates wouldn't know how to keep the slaves "in line".

If slavery is to be abolished in an independent confederacy it would have to be on the terms of confederates, but what would compel confederates to give up slavery? International pressure? Not likely unless there's some sort cotton boycott or other such measure that would hit the politically influential plantation owning confederate where it counted, his wallet. Poor confederates wouldn't be so crazy about the competition from freed slaves either. So would slavery have survived a confederate victory, absolutely, the question is more "when and why would the average confederate become hostile to the peculiar institution" (and I doubt the answer is that "when the sons of civil war veterans grow up and decide slavery is mean")
 
Last edited:
Since as Lord Grattan said the southern slave holders considered it to be 'a positive good and a practical necessity', effectively being in the slaves best interests since they couldn't look after themselves, what about white slavery? I seem to recall reading a couple of mentions about this as a way of taking care of the poor white folks. And considering that sooner or later the poor whites are going to realise that slavery is helping keeping them poor it's a handy way of shuffling off some potentially troublesome peasants.
 
That would interfere with the justification that it was good for blacks, because they were just barbarian subhumans (not the latter phrase was ever used directly, but . . . ).
 
I agree with Cook, there's nothing economically nonviable about slavery. How could forcing an individual to work for no compensation be unprofitable?

The most successful enterprises have been those in which the workers, even those at the lowest level, believe that they benefit from the success of the enterprise.

When the workers don't think they will benefit from working harder, or more effectively, the enterprise suffers.

When the workers think that the enterprise is stealing from them - then the workplace becomes an arena in which the workers fight to do as little as possible. The enterprise fights to extract maximum output from the workers, but the added mechanisms to do this drain value.

Furthermore, when the structure of the enterprise depends on maintain ing control of the workers against their will, output level is subordinated to maintaining control. For instance, workers may not be permitted to acquire skills which could endanger the enterprise's control, such as literacy.

Another cost is that to keep severely exploited slave laborers under control, it is necessary to intimidate them with frequent displays of brutal discipline, and for every guard and gang boss to demonstrate their power over the slaves. These displays and demonstrations have costs, in slaves injured or killed. The master/slave hierararchy also requires the masters to suppress or even punish any slave who has consciousness of superior value due to skill. No slave may ever be allowed to be "uppity".

Factors like these are a major reason why the Nazi slave labor system failed to match Allied production levels. It's also why the Soviet gold mines at Kolyma in Siberia had the highest labor costs in the world.

It's also why Robert E. Lee told his sons to avoid having anything to do with black slave labor. It wasn't about the morality of stealing their labor; it was his sense that anything done with black slave labor would be done badly.
 
Since as Lord Grattan said the southern slave holders considered it to be 'a positive good and a practical necessity', effectively being in the slaves best interests since they couldn't look after themselves, what about white slavery? I seem to recall reading a couple of mentions about this as a way of taking care of the poor white folks. And considering that sooner or later the poor whites are going to realise that slavery is helping keeping them poor it's a handy way of shuffling off some potentially troublesome peasants.

I don't think you'd be seeing white slavery at any point, especially once eugenics & related theories begin to take ahold in Confederate society.

The most successful enterprises have been those in which the workers, even those at the lowest level, believe that they benefit from the success of the enterprise.

When the workers don't think they will benefit from working harder, or more effectively, the enterprise suffers.

Yes, and even labor riots, IMHO, may not be out of the question.

When the workers think that the enterprise is stealing from them - then the workplace becomes an arena in which the workers fight to do as little as possible. The enterprise fights to extract maximum output from the workers, but the added mechanisms to do this drain value.

Which would be virtually inevitable with slavery.

Furthermore, when the structure of the enterprise depends on maintaining control of the workers against their will, output level is subordinated to maintaining control. For instance, workers may not be permitted to acquire skills which could endanger the enterprise's control, such as literacy.

Indeed so, and then there is the further problem of those indentured workers who might be able to sneak in a little learning every once in a while.

Another cost is that to keep severely exploited slave laborers under control, it is necessary to intimidate them with frequent displays of brutal discipline, and for every guard and gang boss to demonstrate their power over the slaves. These displays and demonstrations have costs, in slaves injured or killed.

Indeed, and some gang bosses could be not just brutal, but downright vicious; look at what happened in Nazi Germany, for example.

The master/slave hierararchy also requires the masters to suppress or even punish any slave who has consciousness of superior value due to skill. No slave may ever be allowed to be "uppity".

And it's eventually going to get harder and harder for successful suppressions to occur as time goes on.

Factors like these are a major reason why the Nazi slave labor system failed to match Allied production levels. It's also why the Soviet gold mines at Kolyma in Siberia had the highest labor costs in the world.

It's also why Robert E. Lee told his sons to avoid having anything to do with black slave labor. It wasn't about the morality of stealing their labor; it was his sense that anything done with black slave labor would be done badly.

Very true, as some slave workers, including many under particularly unscrupulous masters/bosses, etc. would inevitably find some small ways to get back at them; a tool could go missing, or a part of a machine might not be screwed in correctly, etc. And nothing that could possibly be done, that would be done, even job categorization(I'm referring to the Oliver Bird scheme in DoD, btw), could really stop this, or any other problems altogether.
 
I would hav to look over the state and confederate constitutions, but weren't there laws from before the Civil War against those speaking of abolishing slavery? I am also uncertain about whether they would have the votes for 3/5 of the slaves intact or if that was intact just for tax and electoral reasons in the past and their owners might not have been able to vote for them. I do expect their to be a great deal of rotten boroughs though and for the poor whites to become fairly miffed at under representation. The whole reason slavery was kept to. Blacks was because of fear that the Ntives and indentured Whites would find common cause and revolt.
 
Top