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
Slavery is just not going to become uneconomical. However you try to logic your way around it, the data says it's an extremely profitable and efficient economic institution; they're not going to 'realize free labor is more efficient' because it just isn't. Antebellum Virginia pointed the way; even if cotton suffers a contraction, they can made great profits off slave wheat and corn production, and were using slaves to build railroads, to mine, to work in sawmills and distilleries and iron works. By renting out slaves, they can mimic the economics of free labor; I can imagine lots of slaveowners not even putting their slaves to work for them, just renting them out into whatever sector of the economy gives the best returns on labor.

Slavery was often fairly profitable for those engaged in it, yes, that much is true. But it's also not at all true that free labor is no more efficient than slave labor; it was, in fact, rather more efficient, per capita, not just with agriculture, but other occupations as well.

And while slave renting might have become a thing, one would still have to deal with fair few problems with slave labor that would be far less common with paid workers, regardless, such as sabotage, intentionally shoddy work, etc.-indeed, even IOTL such incidences were not that rare, even in factories; objectively speaking, it can be easily argued that it's really quite surprising that it wasn't even more of a problem, considering what was happening on plantations, etc.

Furthermore, slavery would, in fact, have eventually become uneconomical, even if the C.S. state and federal governments continually intervened on the system's behalf-particularly where agriculture was concerned, technology would have made maintaining a large farm much easier, with tractors, etc.., becoming fairly common by the 1920s, maybe the 1930s at the latest(right around the same time they did IOTL; combine harvesters followed not much later than that, by about 1950 or so).

I have an idea for another scenario, what about a huge speculation bubble regarding slaves? I don't know if the CSA could survive that long, but imagine a time where the demand for slaves goes up, as well as the prizes, even lower middle class whites start buying one slave or the other, if only for speculation purposes, maybe even on credit and working extra hard to keep up with the payments. Wouldn't that be ironic?

It has happened with houses, so why not with slaves.
Eventually the bubble will burst, a lot of people will be bancrupt or deeply in debt.
The market for slaves could collapse, keeping slaves around just incase the market will recover is not as easy at it is with houses or stock...

So if you can't sell your slave, because nobody is buying, and you can barely feed your own family you'd no choice but to tell him or her to get the hell out.

Maybe some old planter families would keep slaves after that, but that would be an oddity...

This is a scenario that I myself have brought up on a number of occasions, and it makes perfect sense when you really think about it; it is, in fact, an inevitability once the timeline gets long enough.....which in a surviving C.S.A., it's very likely to get there, with the only real difference being how badly the bubble bursts at the end of it all.

Wrecked in the short term. In the long term, it was a blessing, for it forced the South to diversify its economy.

That much is very true. Unfortunately, however, the Confederate leadership would likely never come around to that fact unless it were forced upon them somehow; as @Sift Green rightly pointed out, slavery was pretty much already part of a whole way of life, much like Communism in the Soviet Union.
 
I pretty much agree with you here.

My quibble is that the CSA is not the sort of state to pass a law appearing to uplift their black population for the sake of doing so. It would take time and economics to force them to do so, and it would very much be in the interests of the planter elite.

Saphroneth said:
I think this is true, but I think that of the "appear to uplift black population" and "actually uplift black population" choices, the CSA might well rather do the former before the latter.

I'd agree with both of these. The CSA will only free their slaves when it is in their interest to do so, and that only happens after decades of growing international pressure and economic developments in automation begin to eat away at the effectiveness of slave labor. On their own, international pressure to abolish slavery can be resisted if it's profitable to maintain it, and bad economic times for slavery can be weathered if there aren't international forces to capitalize on the weakness. I can't see it happening before the 1930's, and I'd consider even that a rather optimistic date. And regardless of when the South does free its slave population, it will do so only in name to alleviate the international pressure to do so. The Southern social and political system was built entirely on the back of coerced black labor, which OTL shows is perfectly viable and profitable in a modern industrialized economy. Combined, those mean that the reality of black slavery in the South won't change, even if the name does.
 
This is a scenario that I myself have brought up on a number of occasions, and it makes perfect sense when you really think about it; it is, in fact, an inevitability once the timeline gets long enough.....which in a surviving C.S.A., it's very likely to get there, with the only real difference being how badly the bubble bursts at the end of it all.

The big difference between the Tulip bubble and a slave bubble is that the slave will keep returning money as long as his production exceeds his costs. If it costs $50 (Obviously 1860's dollars are being used) a year to keep a slave and he produces $60 a year then it pays to keep him in slavery no matter what the price of the slave is. That money is gone, you are still making the $10 a year on his labor. Freeing him just costs you the ten bucks a year plus whatever you lost in his decline of price. What it would result in is worse treatment of slaves. A greater tendency to work them to death since it is so cheap for you to replace them.
 
I'd agree with both of these. The CSA will only free their slaves when it is in their interest to do so, and that only happens after decades of growing international pressure and economic developments in automation begin to eat away at the effectiveness of slave labor. On their own, international pressure to abolish slavery can be resisted if it's profitable to maintain it, and bad economic times for slavery can be weathered if there aren't international forces to capitalize on the weakness. I can't see it happening before the 1930's, and I'd consider even that a rather optimistic date. And regardless of when the South does free its slave population, it will do so only in name to alleviate the international pressure to do so. The Southern social and political system was built entirely on the back of coerced black labor, which OTL shows is perfectly viable and profitable in a modern industrialized economy. Combined, those mean that the reality of black slavery in the South won't change, even if the name does.

Erm.....there are some valid points here, but I'm afraid you're wrong re: the bolded-firstly, slavery ended in 1865 IOTL, a good few decades before we had a fully modern industrialized economy, anyway-also, as I pointed out, slave labor tended to be rather less efficient than free labor per capita, anyway: while slavery could have remained viable for some time after the 1860s, especially if slavery managed to diversify significantly(which isn't impossible), there would, eventually, come a decline in profitability, and viability along with that.

That said, though, I must admit that a lack of viability wouldn't necessarily lead to the C.S.A. manumitting, though-again, slavery was no longer just an economic system, but part of an entire way of life.
 
Erm.....there are some valid points here, but I'm afraid you're wrong re: the bolded-firstly, slavery ended in 1865 IOTL, a good few decades before we had a fully modern industrialized economy, anyway-
With the bolded part, I was actually thinking less of slavery and more of coerced labor in general. You are absolutely right that slavery was ended before we saw a modern industrialised economy, but things like sweatshops and some of the things done to migrant farm workers exist and are profitable. While they certainly aren't slavery, they are forms of coerced labor, at least to some degree and they work, as do indentured labor, peonage, debt slavery, wage slavery, corvee labor, and straight up impressment - so I don't see why slavery couldn't work in the same roles in TTL. This is in addition to the sad truth that slavery is far from gone in the present day. It is alive and well in many parts of the world, just less well known and thankfully less widespread than it used to be.

9also, as I pointed out, slave labor tended to be rather less efficient than free labor per capita, anyway: while slavery could have remained viable for some time after the 1860s, especially if slavery managed to diversify significantly(which isn't impossible), there would, eventually, come a decline in profitability, and viability along with that.
That's interesting, but does make a certain amount of sense. Do you happen to know why slavery was less efficient per capita?


That said, though, I must admit that a lack of viability wouldn't necessarily lead to the C.S.A. manumitting, though-again, slavery was no longer just an economic system, but part of an entire way of life.
I guess, I'd disagree because I see the CSA as far more likely to manumit and maintain their system largely intact with some other name serving as a fig leaf for slavery than refuse and see the whole system jeopardized
 
The black/slave population of the south was around 30-35% (the states that seceded). The percentage is likely to climb with time. This is obviously not a "good thing" as the actual need for slaves does not grow as fast as the black population. I shudder to think of what may be done to avert this problem - given the ideas of the eugenics movement, which included sterilization of "undesirables" and the later T4 program of the Nazis which eliminated the severely disabled...
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
There wasn't much international pressure on Brazil, who had way more slaves, to end slavery. Brazil only did so in 1888, I think. Nor was there on Ethiopia, who had slavery until the Italian invasion, to end slavery. I don't see why there would be on the South.

The fact that the North starts running circles around them economically through industrialization would perhaps push them into looking into industrializing and accepting immigrants. Slavery itself might be abolished on a state by state level, however. Arkansas for example had noted abolitionist sentiment in the run up to war, and Virginia came very close to abolishing slavery several times before, while North Carolina was looking into industrializing. On the other hand, that might mean that states like Mississippi and Louisiana, with their huge profitable cotton plantations, and South Carolina, with its coastal rice and indigo production, might try to hold onto slavery as long as possible because there was little incentive to industrialize.
 
There wasn't much international pressure on Brazil, who had way more slaves, to end slavery. Brazil only did so in 1888, I think. Nor was there on Ethiopia, who had slavery until the Italian invasion, to end slavery. I don't see why there would be on the South.

The fact that the North starts running circles around them economically through industrialization would perhaps push them into looking into industrializing and accepting immigrants. Slavery itself might be abolished on a state by state level, however. Arkansas for example had noted abolitionist sentiment in the run up to war, and Virginia came very close to abolishing slavery several times before, while North Carolina was looking into industrializing. On the other hand, that might mean that states like Mississippi and Louisiana, with their huge profitable cotton plantations, and South Carolina, with its coastal rice and indigo production, might try to hold onto slavery as long as possible because there was little incentive to industrialize.

The problem was under the CSA constitution banning slavery by state was useless. Because of the "slave transit" clause it made slavery legal in all states if it was legal in a single one.
 
That's interesting, but does make a certain amount of sense. Do you happen to know why slavery was less efficient per capita?

In theory, anyway, a slave has no incentive to work productively, having no economic stake in the outcome. In fact, there might even be a disincentive to work hard, as a very productive slave might be more likely to be sold to another planter, as his/her value would be high.

The free laborer on the other hand is getting paid a wage, which might increase if he works hard, and there is also the fear of getting fired to motivate him as well.
 
Slavery might appear to be long-term economically viable for untrained eye, but so did communism until 1980s.
By 1930s it would increasingly obvious, thanks to other countries mechanising, and having larger agricultural output compared to CSA.
Not that it would convince South to abolish slavery. Heck, planters would probably keep asking for bailouts (to protect southern way of life!) and receive them.
CSA would end up corrupt Banana Republic.
 
I'm wondering if the Deep South had a net loss or gain in white immigrants & births? That is was it gaining or losing freemen in the agricultural & industrial workforce?
 
That's interesting, but does make a certain amount of sense. Do you happen to know why slavery was less efficient per capita?

The crunch is per capita. Free labour tends to move...or rather a few alert workers tend to move...towards the jobs paying better wages which tend to pay better wages because the job has a higher value added so the employer is making more as well.

It is worth noting that the shifts in absolute numbers tend (though there can be dramatic short term shifts) to be small however over time the movement of labour to more efficient production produces a steady growth in gains.

With the situation where all the labour is owned then setting up a new business becomes more costly as you have to literally buy the labour meaning in effect you pay the equivalent of free wages for months if not years in advance. Again this slows the rate of adaptation to more efficient industries and so the cycle of free labour scoring productivity gains faster than slave labour is accelerated.

The problem for the Confederates is that the lag in productivity growth would not be apparent and thus increasingly inefficient industries might on the surface appear quite profitable.
 
Furthermore, slavery would, in fact, have eventually become uneconomical, even if the C.S. state and federal governments continually intervened on the system's behalf-particularly where agriculture was concerned, technology would have made maintaining a large farm much easier, with tractors, etc.., becoming fairly common by the 1920s, maybe the 1930s at the latest(right around the same time they did IOTL; combine harvesters followed not much later than that, by about 1950 or so).
Interesting thought there is that slavery might well be profitable in manufacturing industry - but it would really struggle, I suspect, with a service economy and the transition to a mobile workforce. A post-industrial Confederacy would probably be very grim indeed.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I'm wondering if the Deep South had a net loss or gain in white immigrants & births? That is was it gaining or losing freemen in the agricultural & industrial workforce?
The two are not quite the same - free blacks did exist. (Indeed, 3,000 of them owned an average of 6.7 slaves each.)
There were a total of 132,000 free blacks - roughly 4% of the black population of the states of the CSA. (This does not count Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri or Delaware.)


In theory, anyway, a slave has no incentive to work productively, having no economic stake in the outcome. In fact, there might even be a disincentive to work hard, as a very productive slave might be more likely to be sold to another planter, as his/her value would be high.

Gulag labour tended to work fairly well.
 
The crunch is per capita. Free labour tends to move...or rather a few alert workers tend to move...towards the jobs paying better wages which tend to pay better wages because the job has a higher value added so the employer is making more as well.

It is worth noting that the shifts in absolute numbers tend (though there can be dramatic short term shifts) to be small however over time the movement of labour to more efficient production produces a steady growth in gains.

With the situation where all the labour is owned then setting up a new business becomes more costly as you have to literally buy the labour meaning in effect you pay the equivalent of free wages for months if not years in advance. Again this slows the rate of adaptation to more efficient industries and so the cycle of free labour scoring productivity gains faster than slave labour is accelerated.

The problem for the Confederates is that the lag in productivity growth would not be apparent and thus increasingly inefficient industries might on the surface appear quite profitable.
Thing is, slavery can mimic the economics of free labor through the process of renting out slaves. Let's say a planter has 200 slaves, and has 80 of them growing wheat and doing domestic tasks year round. He can lend those extra 120 slaves out to whatever industry promises the best return for the better part of the year, but recall them for the harvest season when the agricultural demands spike sharply. On the flipside, a new business using slave labor doesn't need to purchase every single hand they have working, they just have to pay the rental fee for the labor, which results in much lower overhead.
 
The two are not quite the same - free blacks did exist. (Indeed, 3,000 of them owned an average of 6.7 slaves each.)
There were a total of 132,000 free blacks - roughly 4% of the black population of the states of the CSA. (This does not count Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri or Delaware.)

...

Thanks for the answer tho it was to a different question.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Thanks for the answer tho it was to a different question.
Yeah, I just thought I'd make clear that there's an additional and non-trivial (though minor) way for the free labour pool to grow, since your question above seemed to equate "white" and "free".
We do a disservice to forget that the CSA had free and even patriotic Black citizens - the very fact the 1st Louisiana Native Guard existed to be banned by the Confederate government shows that. (15% of the free black residents of Louisiana signed up.)

As to your original question, it's probably in the census data.
 
Yeah, I just thought I'd make clear that there's an additional and non-trivial (though minor) way for the free labour pool to grow, since your question above seemed to equate "white" and "free".
We do a disservice to forget that the CSA had free and even patriotic Black citizens - the very fact the 1st Louisiana Native Guard existed to be banned by the Confederate government shows that. (15% of the free black residents of Louisiana signed up.)

As to your original question, it's probably in the census data.
In the long run how can the idea of White Supremacism reconcile with the free Blacks?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
In the long run how can the idea of White Supremacism reconcile with the free Blacks?

Quite simply, actually - it's a lot like the Roman Empire. (Romans, ie whites, are not to be slaves, but ex-slaves can become good enough to own slaves of their own.)

The idea is that the free blacks are the best of the race, and that blacks who work hard and prove themselves can aspire to be as good as the average white.
 
The idea is that the free blacks are the best of the race, and that blacks who work hard and prove themselves can aspire to be as good as the average white.
Hypothetically, that's how it would work. In practice, I think that America as a whole over the course of the 1850s and 1860s saw a tendency to view even free blacks as inferior to whites (e.g. the restrictions on immigration to Northern states). As such, it would seem more likely that in an independent Confederacy even the most patriotic black slave-owner would be seen as a tier below not just the average white, but the poorest.
 
Top