Would the Confederate States government need to be reformed had it won independence?

Would the Confederate States government need to be reformed had they won the American Civil War?

  • Yes

    Votes: 96 91.4%
  • No

    Votes: 9 8.6%

  • Total voters
    105
An independent Confederacy would toss away every last vestige of constitutional rights for its citizenry along with republican government in general (much less the constitution they started with) before they did away with or compromised on slavery. Hence my question -- would collapsing or devolving into a tinpot dictatorship (overseeing an expansive set of central powers, including economic intervention) constitute "reform" under the OP?
 
An independent Confederacy would toss away every last vestige of constitutional rights for its citizenry along with republican government in general (much less the constitution they started with) before they did away with or compromised on slavery. Hence my question -- would collapsing or devolving into a tinpot dictatorship (overseeing an expansive set of central powers, including economic intervention) constitute "reform" under the OP?
I agree, although I think the last clause of the first sentence was the important one.
 

Maoistic

Banned
Slaves lack of freedom of movement did not limit their productivity or consume a lot of time. There was a massive internal slave trade within the American South allowing areas with a shortage of labor to purchase slaves from areas with a surplus. Slavery did make for less efficient workers. Working harder would not lead to a better paying job. Slaves could not save for a better future for themselves or their children. And whose heart would really be in the work after a parent, sibling, spouse, or child had been sold away for the master's profit? Slavery also also made for lower labor costs. Individual slaveholders seldom took a lot of care of their slaves - the vast majority of tenement dwelling northern factory workers still had better housing, better clothing, better food, and better medical care than all but the best treated house slaves of the richest plantation owners. Slaveholders in the American south believed that those lower costs at least made up for the lower production.

None of what you said has anything to do with how lack of freedom of movement limited productivity. The rest of what you said is the same as what I said, with the exception of labour costs being cheap for slaves which actually is still in concordance with what I said about slaves being expensive because, while they weren't paid, they either had to be cared about, making them expensive, or they had to be constantly replaced due to how overworking in their terrible conditions broke their bodies so they couldn't work anymore or just killed them.


The Peculiar Institution[by Kenneth Stampp shows the image of slaves only being used in agriculture is incorrect. Slaves were used in mining, in forestry, and in industry. In many cases slaves were favored because they could not go on strike.

This is a non-sequitur and a strawman. I never said anything about slaves not working in factories, I only said that the South was less industrial than the North, which is true.

Slavery was horrible, but it was not unsustainable. There was far more to it than economics - even the poorest white man had the status of not being a slave, even a semi-literate white man had a better education than the cleverest slave. And there was the fear that if the slaves did become free, they would seek retribution. Many, perhaps most white people in slaveholding states feared that if not held down, the slaves would massacre the white men and rape the white women. Slavery was never replaced because it was less efficient than free labor. In the US, Haiti, and most independence movements in Latin America, slavery was replaced by force. In Brazil and the British Caribbean, slavery was replaced because it was morally repugnant, not because it was economically inefficient.


morally repugnant


https://media.giphy.com/media/Ic97mPViHEG5O/giphy.gif

What's next, William Wilberforce was a revolutionary that wanted independence for the British colonies?

Even slavery's abolition by force triumphed and lasted, as in Haiti, because it was costly and inefficient.
 
In other words, slavery didn't make good workers and made industrialisation far more costly, which is why it was replaced with salaried labour.

Feel free to provide any example of any society in history that replaced slavery with free labor because slavery cost more.
 
None of what you said has anything to do with how lack of freedom of movement limited productivity.

And nothing you have posted has provided any proof that the slaves lack of freedom of movement limited productivity.

The rest of what you said is the same as what I said, with the exception of labour costs being cheap for slaves which actually is still in concordance with what I said about slaves being expensive because, while they weren't paid, they either had to be cared about, making them expensive, or they had to be constantly replaced due to how overworking in their terrible conditions broke their bodies so they couldn't work anymore or just killed them.

If you think my previous post supported any of your points, then you misunderstood me. Having a slave worker was not more expensive than hiring a free worker.

https://media.giphy.com/media/Ic97mPViHEG5O/giphy.gif

What's next, William Wilberforce was a revolutionary that wanted independence for the British colonies?

So now you're mocking the idea that British abolitionists found slavery morally repugnant?

"So enormous, so dreadful, so irremediable did the [slave] trade's wickedness appear that my own mind was completely made up for abolition. Let the consequences be what they would: I from this time determined that I would never rest until I had effected its abolition." - William Wilberforce

Feel free to respond with any quote from Wilberforce that shows he opposed slavery on economic grounds.

Even slavery's abolition by force triumphed and lasted, as in Haiti, because it was costly and inefficient.

Slavery in Haiti did not end because it was "costly and inefficient", it ended because the slaves threw off their chains and fought. Abolition did not continue in Haiti because slavery was "costly and inefficient". Slavery did not return to Haiti because virtually every Haitian was a former slave or the descendant of slaves and knew the horrors of that cruel system, not because slavery was "costly and inefficient". Slavery did not return to Haiti because the people paid a heavy price in blood to keep the French from re-enslaving them, not because slavery was "costly and inefficient".
 

Maoistic

Banned
Feel free to provide any example of any society in history that replaced slavery with free labor because slavery cost more.
The British and French colonial empires, the United States, feudal Western Europe, the Abbasid Caliphate.

And nothing you have posted has provided any proof that the slaves lack of freedom of movement limited productivity.

Except, you know, the way the South fell behind the North in industrial output, becoming instead something of a cotton colony. It's an obvious and logical inference from the evidence.

So now you're mocking the idea that British abolitionists found slavery morally repugnant?

"So enormous, so dreadful, so irremediable did the [slave] trade's wickedness appear that my own mind was completely made up for abolition. Let the consequences be what they would: I from this time determined that I would never rest until I had effected its abolition." - William Wilberforce

Feel free to respond with any quote from Wilberforce that shows he opposed slavery on economic grounds.

The patronising imperialist views of that religious kook are irrelevant because the British Empire only listened to him because it saw the Haitian Revolution, wanting to prevent that, and saw that slavery was slow and inefficient in production during the early decades of the Industrial Revolution. Even then, Wilberforce wanted to abolish slavery because he thought that way Protestantism would have spread more rapidly in the British colonies (he wanted them to remain fully subjugated, so much for his supposed high morality). What does a rapid spread of Protestantism mean? Efficiency and lack of costs. Even Wilberforce wanted slavery out due to being more economical without it.

Slavery in Haiti did not end because it was "costly and inefficient", it ended because the slaves threw off their chains and fought. Abolition did not continue in Haiti because slavery was "costly and inefficient". Slavery did not return to Haiti because virtually every Haitian was a former slave or the descendant of slaves and knew the horrors of that cruel system, not because slavery was "costly and inefficient". Slavery did not return to Haiti because the people paid a heavy price in blood to keep the French from re-enslaving them, not because slavery was "costly and inefficient".

Yes, I know that the glorious Haitian Revolution abolished slavery because the Haitians wanted full freedom, but the reason why Haiti managed to retain its independence was precisely because the lack of slavery allowed the Haitians to organise in such an efficient way that they prevented the Spanish in neighbouring Dominica, and the French, from ever retaking Haiti. Had the Haitians remained with slavery, their military wouldn't have repelled the French and Spanish (and I think the British as well, though I'm pretty sure that's not the case) forces trying to recolonise it.
 
The patronising imperialist views of that religious kook are irrelevant because the British Empire only listened to him because it saw the Haitian Revolution, wanting to prevent that, and saw that slavery was slow and inefficient in production during the early decades of the Industrial Revolution. Even then, Wilberforce wanted to abolish slavery because he thought that way Protestantism would have spread more rapidly in the British colonies (he wanted them to remain fully subjugated, so much for his supposed high morality). What does a rapid spread of Protestantism mean? Efficiency and lack of costs. Even Wilberforce wanted slavery out due to being more economical without it.

The Industrial Revolution is a red herring, since British slaves were almost all used in Caribbean plantations, well away from the centres of industrialisation, and therefore the cost of using slave vs. free labour in factories wouldn't have been a consideration. As for "spreading Protestantism" being a code for "efficiency and lack of costs", that seems an unnecessarily convoluted explanation. Far more likely is the idea that Wilberforce, a zealous Evangelical Protestant, wanted to convert people to Protestantism because he thought it would be good for their souls.
 
The British and French colonial empires, the United States, feudal Western Europe, the Abbasid Caliphate.

In none of those cases was slavery ended because free labor was more efficient. The British Empire ended slavery in its colonies because men you deride as "religious kooks" convinced enough British people that slavery was morally wrong, not because they convinced people that slavery was economically inefficient. Period British people who made an economic argument argued for keeping slavery. Slavery ended in the French colonies because enough Frenchmen came to believe that the humanist ideals of liberte, egalite, fraternite applied to all people, not because they convinced people that slavery was economically inefficient. Period French people who made an economic argument argued for keeping slavery. The northern states of the US ended slavery because more "religious kooks" convinced enough American people that slavery was morally wrong, not because they convinced people that slavery was economically inefficient. The southern states were forced to end slavery because they lost a war to preserve slavery, not because they were convinced that slavery was economically inefficient. Serfdom was ended because enough people were convinced it was morally wrong, not because they were convinced it was economically inefficient. The Abbasid Caliphate did not abolish slavery.

Feel free to provide any example of any society in history that replaced slavery with free labor because slavery cost more.

Except, you know, the way the South fell behind the North in industrial output, becoming instead something of a cotton colony. It's an obvious and logical inference from the evidence.

You have provided opinions and assumptions, not evidence with clear and logical inferences.

You stated that slaves lacked freedom of movement - if by that you mean slaves could only legally go where their masters allowed them to, then we are agreed, If you mean something else by the term "lacked freedom of movement", then you need to explain what you meant. You then claimed that this lack of freedom of movement consumed a lot of time and limited slaves productivity, providing no evidence to back those opinions. You then claimed that the slave system "required individual slavers to take a lot of care for their slaves", which is clearly wrong, from which you reached the unsupported conclusion that slave labor cost more than free labor. You also stated "there was a competition for who could buy and afford more slaves". While this is true, you then made the unsupported claim that this competition slowed down slaves' productivity. You then said that slaves did not make good workers. This is also true, but not because any of the assumptions and opinions you gave - slaves knew that working harder would never make life better for them or their children. You also reached the unsupported conclusion that slavery made industrialization far more costly and the obviously false conclusion that slavery was ended because free labor cost less.

As a whole, the slaveholding states did fall behind the free states in industrial output, but to infer that this was because slaves lacked freedom of movement is not an obvious or logical conclusion. The Deep South favored growing cotton because it was more profitable than industrializing, but Virginia was one of the most industrialized states in the country. Sadly, slavery was sustainable, not just in agriculture, but in industry. Slaveholders looked at the lower labor costs and assumed that meant slaves were more profitable, ignoring that slaves were also less productive. When Hinton Helper tried to show that the slave labor system was less efficient, most white southerners refused to believe him. Even if they had realized that slavery was less efficient, almost nobody was going to voluntarily give away valuable property, relinquish the control they had over their slaves, take the risk of black retribution, or risk a society where a black man could be equal with a white man. The few exceptions did so because they found slavery morally repugnant, not because slavery was economically inefficient.

The patronising imperialist views of that religious kook are irrelevant because the British Empire only listened to him because it saw the Haitian Revolution, wanting to prevent that, and saw that slavery was slow and inefficient in production during the early decades of the Industrial Revolution. Even then, Wilberforce wanted to abolish slavery because he thought that way Protestantism would have spread more rapidly in the British colonies (he wanted them to remain fully subjugated, so much for his supposed high morality). What does a rapid spread of Protestantism mean? Efficiency and lack of costs. Even Wilberforce wanted slavery out due to being more economical without it.

Feel free to provide quotes by Wilberforce or other British abolitionist where they opposed slavery because it was economically inefficient instead of because slavery was morally repugnant.

Yes, I know that the glorious Haitian Revolution abolished slavery because the Haitians wanted full freedom, but the reason why Haiti managed to retain its independence was precisely because the lack of slavery allowed the Haitians to organise in such an efficient way that they prevented the Spanish in neighbouring Dominica, and the French, from ever retaking Haiti. Had the Haitians remained with slavery, their military wouldn't have repelled the French and Spanish (and I think the British as well, though I'm pretty sure that's not the case) forces trying to recolonise it.

Your example makes no sense. If the Haitians had remained with slavery, they would not have revolted in the first place. The Haitians rebelled because slavery was morally repugnant, not because slavery was economically inefficient. The Haitians kept their freedom because death was better than being re-enslaved, not because slavery was economically inefficient.
 
From before US even existed, up to 1860, southern Colonies and then Southern States controlled their slaves without martial law.
Black people in the South essentially lived under martial law from the first slave until 1964. Needing permission to travel from place to place, not being able to own guns, to read, etc. are all forms of martial law. The thing was that the imposition of martial law over slaves was growing incredibly unstable. An entire free (lower-case) state existed in the Caribbean, Cuba was ripe for revolution, and free blacks were living in New Orleans and the entirety of the North.

The issue of slavery would just be entirely too great, regardless of technological advances or governmental improvements. It was in part the cotton gin that spurred the Civil War and emboldened abolitionists to call for further action against the slave power. Imagine slaves working in factories, as their black counterparts in the North were joining white factory workers in the CIO and other unions.
 
Your example makes no sense. If the Haitians had remained with slavery, they would not have revolted in the first place. The Haitians rebelled because slavery was morally repugnant, not because slavery was economically inefficient. The Haitians kept their freedom because death was better than being re-enslaved, not because slavery was economically inefficient.

To summarize this poster's arguments in this and several other threads he's participating in, ideology, religion, culture, and everything else that makes up human sentiment are all meaningless, only the material matters for anything. And he's not the least bit interested in historical explanations for any phenomenon that involves anything intangible.
 
Needing permission to travel from place to place, not being able to own guns, to read, etc. are all forms of martial law.

No. You're arbitrarily describing measures that lasted centuries as "martial law". And those measures applied only to small fraction of population on given territory.

Look, I get. You don't want to think that slavery wasn't unsustainable. But scenario where South was in some sort of perpetual civil war is false one.
 
Look, I get. You don't want to think that slavery wasn't unsustainable. But scenario where South was in some sort of perpetual civil war is false one
But slavery was unsustainable... Slavery is a perversion of labor and markets, and history has proven that. Poor farmers or land owners that couldn’t afford slaves would remain poor. Confederate conscripts were poor white men fighting a war for planters. Regardless of the law, slavery was an unsustainable practice, point blank.
 
To this day, slavery remains sustainable. Look it up.
And the importation and trade of slave labor remains a perversion of the market, labor pool, and just contemporary society. Modern-day slavery has been allowed to persist by folks who wish to cheat the system, and have no regard for human life, but as I said there is a natural response to forced bondage.

My point is not about contemporary slavery, but institutional slavery in the United States, and it is my theory based upon the changing social dynamics that slavery could not sustain itself.
 
My point is not about contemporary slavery, but institutional slavery in the United States, and it is my theory based upon the changing social dynamics that slavery could not sustain itself.
And yet you refuse to answer how it would remain unsustainable. You apply economic and social situation that developed after slavery was abolished to hypothetical alternate scenario where it would not be forcibly abolished. If slavery wasn't abolished by force, social dynamics would evolve differently.
If you want to say "North would invade after decade or so to end slavery", just say it outright instead.

And you keep answering point that I didn't make. Look atmy post.
No. You're arbitrarily describing measures that lasted centuries as "martial law". And those measures applied only to small fraction of population on given territory.

Look, I get. You don't want to think that slavery wasn't unsustainable. But scenario where South was in some sort of perpetual civil war is false one.

Underlined part is point that I made. You answered only the part that isn't underlined, and ignored the rest.
You just keep saying "it was unsustainable!". But you refuse to clarify how it was "martial law" that would make it unsustainable. Restricting rights of a group does not automatically make it "martial law". I am sure most women or peasant serfs couldn't travel either. Does that mean that Angevin England was under "martial law"? No, martial law is "extraordinary measures". There was nothing extraordinary about slavery in 1860s South.
 
And yet you refuse to answer how it would remain unsustainable. You apply economic and social situation that developed after slavery was abolished to hypothetical alternate scenario where it would not be forcibly abolished. If slavery wasn't abolished by force, social dynamics would evolve differently.
If you want to say "North would invade after decade or so to end slavery", just say it outright instead.

And you keep answering point that I didn't make. Look atmy post.
There was an uptick in slave rebellions over the course of the nineteenth century, especially in the run up to the Civil War. John Brown's raid was the last major one (at least according to Wikipedia). 5 North America. You can check that yourself. Now, the heavy-handed tax collecting and central authority of Richmond had already led one Confederate locale to rebel against the rebels (Jones County, MS).

The Confederacy's Golden Circle ambitions also would not fit with an Union government that would likely develop expansionist desires itself. The CSA would not only have to deal with abolitionist raids, but it would be inviting itself into a second war with the United States over Cuba, Haiti, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republican, Mexico and parts of northern South America. There would also be the Spanish to deal with. The entire theory of expanding southward was premised on expanding the slave power.

Whatever your point is, history dictates that maintaining the slave power requires draconian practices to keep down the slave class.

Underlined part is point that I made. You answered only the part that isn't underlined, and ignored the rest.
You just keep saying "it was unsustainable!". But you refuse to clarify how it was "martial law" that would make it unsustainable. Restricting rights of a group does not automatically make it "martial law". I am sure most women or peasant serfs couldn't travel either. Does that mean that Angevin England was under "martial law"? No, martial law is "extraordinary measures". There was nothing extraordinary about slavery in 1860s South.
I don't know a single thing about Angevin England, save what I just learned in my Western Civ class. What I do know is that restricting an entire group of people from being able to read (in violation of the First Amendment), restricting the right of an entire group of otherwise law-abiding persons to own firearms (in violation of the Second Amendment), forcing an entire group of people to accept Christ and reject their other God(s) (a violation of the First Amendment) are just a few extraordinary measures that slave states enacted to restrict the freedoms of blacks. The whole of African American society in the Southern United States just about lived under martial law, specially crafted just for them.

And a fraction of the population? 3.9 million slaves living in the United States in 1860, 4.4 million blacks total in the whole of the country. Mississippi's African American population today is 38%. Alabama's 31%. Louisiana nearly 39%. That ain't a small fraction of the states where slavery was most lucrative. The easy flow of information would not just allow for 50% of the 14% of African Americans to forever live in servitude. This also does not take into consideration that a just few white planters owned most of the slaves. Income inequality and economic stratification on steroids, that's how one should describe slavery. The CSA would likely see an exodus of non-slaving owning and poor whites just because the economic system didn't include them.

Whatever the case may be, even "Confederacy won" writers have a CSA that is perpetually dealing with slave revolts and raids. That mockumentary about the CSA, Harry Turtledove's books.
 
There was an uptick in slave rebellions over the course of the nineteenth century, especially in the run up to the Civil War. John Brown's raid was the last major one (at least according to Wikipedia). 5 North America. You can check that yourself.
All slave rebellions in USA put together involved less than thousand people. The famous Turner rebellion involved less than hundred slaves, and they killed about fifty people.

Whatever your point is, history dictates that maintaining the slave power requires draconian practices to keep down the slave class.
My point is that you're wrong. It didn't.
 
The nature of American slavery meant that slave rebellions were unlikely to ever succeed. The Whites were not outnumbered sufficiently by their slaves to make up for the fact that they had well-organized, well-armed militias to deal with slave rebellions as they occurred.
All slave rebellions in USA put together involved less than thousand people. The famous Turner rebellion involved less than hundred slaves, and they killed about fifty people.


My point is that you're wrong. It didn't.
Define draconian.
 
Top