Would the Confederates ever abolish slavery if they had won?

Would the Confederates ever abolish slavery if they had won?

  • Yes

    Votes: 140 69.3%
  • No

    Votes: 62 30.7%

  • Total voters
    202
I have severe doubts the U.S. would actually kick off a gigantic war for oil out of the blue; it's a democratic republic, you need popular support for a massive undertaking like this. Texas can be a very inhospitable region for military operations, and the South controls the relevant reaches of the Mississippi River; the U.S. would want to base its operations off a river or off the sea, which is by no means a sure thing when the Royal Navy has a say in things.

Plus, if the Europeans do want to get involved, it's not like in crackpot Nazi invasion TLs where they have to make an amphibious landing; the British still have Canada as a base of operations, and the U.S. can't invade Canada and overwhelm the Confederacy, not when they've had the chance to prepare themselves for years with forts and peacetime conscription and whatnot.

That's also discounting the very real possibility of detente between the USA and CSA; the two would doubtless become massive trading partners in the years following normalized relations; the war would likely end because of popular opposition to conscription and emancipation, the two things most necessary as means and motivation to make war on the Confederates again. If the war failed, the Republicans could be completely discredited; the northern democrats would use their political control to shore up their position by bringing in as many immigrants as possible and ensure a steady voting base, strengthen their political machines, take control of the important offices, etc.
 
What would count as "abolishing" slavery?

Could you get a system of "contract labour" where in theory only the contract, rather than the actual person, was bought and sold, but where the individual whose contract it was didn't really notice much difference in practice?
 
I have severe doubts the U.S. would actually kick off a gigantic war for oil out of the blue; it's a democratic republic, you need popular support for a massive undertaking like this. Texas can be a very inhospitable region for military operations, and the South controls the relevant reaches of the Mississippi River; the U.S. would want to base its operations off a river or off the sea, which is by no means a sure thing when the Royal Navy has a say in things.

Plus, if the Europeans do want to get involved, it's not like in crackpot Nazi invasion TLs where they have to make an amphibious landing; the British still have Canada as a base of operations, and the U.S. can't invade Canada and overwhelm the Confederacy, not when they've had the chance to prepare themselves for years with forts and peacetime conscription and whatnot.

That's also discounting the very real possibility of detente between the USA and CSA; the two would doubtless become massive trading partners in the years following normalized relations; the war would likely end because of popular opposition to conscription and emancipation, the two things most necessary as means and motivation to make war on the Confederates again. If the war failed, the Republicans could be completely discredited; the northern democrats would use their political control to shore up their position by bringing in as many immigrants as possible and ensure a steady voting base, strengthen their political machines, take control of the important offices, etc.

Sorry but Canada doesn't really count, its population is way too spread out. It isn't population dense GB or France. It is one of the least population dense countries in the world. It had one major naval port on the East Coast in Halifax that is it. Hardly enough for a major undertaking. It is like trying to invade Germany via Norway in WWII with the bonus that there is no "Russia" to distract the US. That said I doubt a war over oil would occur, more likely the US would just buy it.
 
Sorry but Canada doesn't really count, its population is way to spread out. It isn't population dense GB or France. It is one of the least population dense countries in the world. It had one major naval port on the East Coast in Halifax that is it. Hardly enough for a major undertaking. It is like trying to invade Germany via Norway in WWII with the bonus that there is no "Russia" to distract the US.
The soldiers come obviously from the British Isles(the advantage of having Canada is not the population it has), the density of population doesn´t change anything and at least Canada and the US share a border, Norway and Germany don´t. Plus the US doesn´t have the South.
 
The soldiers come obviously from the British Isles(the advantage of having Canada is not the population it has), the density of population doesn´t change anything and at least Canada and the US share a border, Norway and Germany don´t. Plus the US doesn´t have the South.

It isn't the number of soldiers it is the logistics. A population sparse country like Canada simply doesn't have all the logistical infrastructure a country like GB and France has. It just doesn't pay off. It does have a rail net, roads and warehouses of course but not nearly as dense as GB or France has. The US had railroads going all over the place by 1890, Canada much less. The cities are far too spread out for it. It simply does not have the population density to afford a highly dense transportation and supply system while the US does. The South contributed little to the US economy, it had only 10% of the industrialization the North had. It would hurt a bit but not that much.
 
It isn't the number of soldiers it is the logistics. A population sparse country like Canada simply doesn't have all the logistical infrastructure a country like GB and France has. It just doesn't pay off. It does have a rail net, roads and warehouses of course but not nearly as dense as GB or France has. The US had railroads going all over the place by 1890, Canada much less. The cities are far too spread out for it. It simply does not have the population density to afford a highly dense transportation and supply system while the US does. The South contributed little to the US economy, it had only 10% of the industrialization the North had. It would hurt a bit but not that much.
Yeah Canada will have problem in the West but in the East less so. The US is fighting in 2 fronts also.
 
Last edited:
The South contributed little to the US economy, it had only 10% of the industrialization the North had. It would hurt a bit but not that much.
80% of the North's exports are products of slave labor. The profit-capital from those exports are what's filling the banks and funding the insurance companies that finance industrial expansion. The two sections are fundamentally dependent on each other (well, the North is dependent on the South; the South could export to Britain rather than the North); with this level of economic cooperation, war between the two democratic republics is much less likely.

We should keep in mind that as late as 1860, a cleat majority of Americans (~60%) were explicitly slavery-tolerant, while the remaining 40% who voted for Abraham Lincoln were divided between abolitionists and anti-expansionists. In Lincoln's home state of Illinois, 70% voted to bar black immigration to the state. During the war Emancipation was the most unpopular policy the Republicans ever enacted. If there is pressure to end slavery, it's probably not going to come from the United States (especially if Kentucky et al stay in the United States and the Democrats become a long term ruling party).
 
80% of the North's exports are products of slave labor. The profit-capital from those exports are what's filling the banks and funding the insurance companies that finance industrial expansion. The two sections are fundamentally dependent on each other (well, the North is dependent on the South; the South could export to Britain rather than the North); with this level of economic cooperation, war between the two democratic republics is much less likely.

We should keep in mind that as late as 1860, a cleat majority of Americans (~60%) were explicitly slavery-tolerant, while the remaining 40% who voted for Abraham Lincoln were divided between abolitionists and anti-expansionists. In Lincoln's home state of Illinois, 70% voted to bar black immigration to the state. During the war Emancipation was the most unpopular policy the Republicans ever enacted. If there is pressure to end slavery, it's probably not going to come from the United States (especially if Kentucky et al stay in the United States and the Democrats become a long term ruling party).

Only a very small percentage of US GDP was exports, the US economy was almost entirely domestically driven. It is like saying something costs 400% of the interest on your savings account. Since the interest rates are so low right now unless you are a millionaire that means virtually nothing. Something costing 400% of the interest on your savings account may cost very little indeed.
 
Yeah Canada will have problem in the West but in the East less so. The US is fighting in 2 fronts also.

It will have a problem in the East as well. Eastern Canada might be more heavily populated than Western Canada but it is still nothing to write home about.
 
Last edited:
Agreed, somehow they managed to establish the presidency and the legislature why didn't they get around to establishing a Supreme Court? They didn't WANT TO.

The level to which they even established a Legislature is somewhat tenuous - it was in executive session the entire time, and did not even keep a record.

Of course we can. But the US of A wrote down their reasons for forming a government as including the British inciting domestic insurrections (i.e. slave revolts). They also included the declaration that taxation without representation is reprehensible... but I'm pretty sure that a woman still had to pay tax.


As far as the Constitutional and slavery goes, there are even more examples! There was a clause prohibiting any legislation on the slave trade until the 1810's, for instance, and one of the strong reasons for protecting a local militia from becoming subsumed into a Federal force. (The Constitution is a better guide to intents than the Declaration until after the ACW.) However, slavery wasn't the raison d'être of the document. There were... others... who had this quote on tap, but for all the talk of states rights, states in the CSA were actively forbidden from any wide-scale emancipation or abolition.

Moreover, if we view the various secession declarations as a sort of CSA Federalist Papers, its even more evident that slavery was front and center. Front and center, and any hypothetical CSA victory will have involved a long and bloody war. Their boys will have died for the principle of white supremacy; and without defeat, there's not reason to pretend it was never about slavery. They'll hold on to it for awhile, regardless of any pressure from their British patron.


Something else it's worth remembering is that embargos are not a thing at this time. The CSA's trade will likely suffer from their peculiar institution, but it won't be anything like as serious as some make it out to be - it would be more along the lines of a partial boycott than anything, and there will be manifest advantages to traders who do choose to trade with the South (it's a decision made on an individual level).

In particular, the South was a major market for manufactures , and they bitterly resented the tarrif walls imposed to protect fledgeling Northern industries.

The South has cotton, and Europe has manufactures - they'll trade. I imagine that there would be a certain exoticism to the lavish plantations and the social caste system. The thing that I think a lot of Independent CSA timelines forget that in about 20 years, the sort of racial hierarchy that the South is so fond of will be considered the acme of scientific modernism. The peculiar institution would no longer be peculiar - it'd be a proof of the South's farsightedness, as they'll have been proven right by those great scientific lights of the age, Austin Chamberlain and Francis Galton and Karl Pearson.

Why moderate a system that will be seen as so thoroughly scientific?
 
Wouldn't it be more likely for individual states to make the decision to end slavery within themselves on a state by state level? And not actually on a national level.

If my understanding is correct, which it probably isn't, wouldn't that be a change that wouldn't require a change to the constitution?

That way you could have several states within the confederacy abandon slavery, and then have those states apply political pressure eventually to have the holdouts join them in ending it.
 
The confederate constitution forbids congress from outlawing slavery, and while the individual states can, they're forbidden from interfering with the property rights of slaveowners from other states within their borders.
 
in about 20 years...they'll have been proven right by those great scientific lights of the age, Austin Chamberlain and Francis Galton and Karl Pearson.
In the mid-1880s, Austen Chamberlain will be a Cambridge undergraduate and Karl Pearson a mathematician at UCL. However, to me it seems that expecting the race debate to be completely unaffected by the continued existence of slavery in North America is a bit like expecting CND to be completely unaffected by WWIII.
 
They were fighting a war for it, but then again, I doubt a government that not only allows Slavery, but takes part in it, would last long due to international pressure.

TBH, even though it certainly is true that slavery would have eventually become unprofitable for all but a select few, the sad truth is, by OTL 1860, the Perfidious Institution was no longer just an economic system, but was starting to become a whole way of life, which would make it rather difficult to eliminate. Even after it's zenith around the dawn of the 20th Century, I could see it lasting for a few decades afterwards, maybe only finally eliminated thanks to a massive economic bubble that would certainly, without a shred of doubt, develop, and eventually burst(this would be thanks in no small part to increasing advances in agricultural science & technology)-the main question would be when?

Of course, it could simply just last until the C.S.A. is conquered by the North after losing another war between the States.
 
If there is pressure to end slavery, it's probably not going to come from the United States (especially if Kentucky et al stay in the United States and the Democrats become a long term ruling party).

I could see either party collapsing in the event of a Union defeat. Certainly, the Republicans could be damaged by a failure to defeat the South. But the Democrats could also be seen as the party that committed treason. There could be a major reorganization after the war. Maybe the Whigs would come back from the dead?
 
I don't think democrat collapse and Union defeat are compatible outcomes. If the south wins independence, it'll be because the democrats got enough electoral support; having the whole electorate turn on them as traitors for doing the thing they turned out in droves for them to do stretches belief somewhat.
 
Navies don't win wars by themselves so why would they bother?

If Britain gets involved, the Royal Navy can help win a war that would otherwise be lost. Likewise, anyone's expeditionary force can make a difference. As to why--access to oil, other goods, or simply because "The French are supporting the CSA--we can fish in troubled waters..."
 
I don't think democrat collapse and Union defeat are compatible outcomes. If the south wins independence, it'll be because the democrats got enough electoral support; having the whole electorate turn on them as traitors for doing the thing they turned out in droves for them to do stretches belief somewhat.

Good point. You're right - the CSA probably doesn't win without a Democratic victory in 1864.
 
If Britain gets involved, the Royal Navy can help win a war that would otherwise be lost. Likewise, anyone's expeditionary force can make a difference. As to why--access to oil, other goods, or simply because "The French are supporting the CSA--we can fish in troubled waters..."

It would have to be awfully, awfully close. GB can't support more than a corps or so through Canada, at most.
 
In the mid-1880s, Austen Chamberlain will be a Cambridge undergraduate and Karl Pearson a mathematician at UCL. However, to me it seems that expecting the race debate to be completely unaffected by the continued existence of slavery in North America is a bit like expecting CND to be completely unaffected by WWIII.

Good point. Just Galton then. Point being, thirty years after the South lost, the world will paradoxically be much more comfortable with the justification of the peculiar institution.
 
Top