"If the South Had Won the Civil War, Slavery Could..." Topic

… Have Lasted Until the 20th Century.

"…There were two major accomplishments of the Civil War, and they are the preservation of the Union and emancipation.

If the Union hadn't stayed together – that is, if the United States had broken into two – then it's likely that other regions of the US would have taken advantage of Confederate secession or would have seceded themselves, either from the then-existing North or the South. So you could certainly see an independent Midwest, and the area from California through to Washington state probably could have made itself its own place. Even within the Confederacy, there were certainly sections like East Tennessee that were vigorously Unionist during the war, and which might have pulled away…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Jefferson Davis probably had more problems keeping the Confederate states in line in times of war with a common enemy than Lincoln had wrangling his generals.

He had to make promises and take several votes that bode ill for the future of the Confederacy even with a victory over the North.

The Confederacy was essentially back at square one, where the states distrusted each other and without the oversight of a Federal government were trying to settle old scores, with many keeping an eye to keep troops in certain areas for fear a regiment or two from another state might happen to "camp for an extended period" in some counties while being rotated to the front …

Simply put the Confederate states were very eager to secede, but not overly inclined to cooperate in a meaningful way.

There is a chance that Davis get his act together, though that seems unlikely. The Southern states had a pathological dislike of anything that even resembled the power Washington had over the states, creating a huge handicap for the Confederacy who was split in the Virginia-Mississippi-Texas line of the more successful states versus the Alabama, Tennessee and Georgia triangle of less successful states that would have been pushed around by their more potent rival states.

Not to mention that slavery was no longer the magical economic miracle of the South, Russia and India were on the way to break the plantation system by sheer economy of scale. Yes, there might have been a shift towards consolidation, likely given the debt state of many plantations, though that might generate a problem with too large a concentration of slaves in an area, making control more expensive and difficult, especially because the abolitionists would not be sitting on their hands after the war.

If the Confederacy is to last and keep slavery going it's going to need huge reforms and find a way to make slavery tenable against a number of economic and social changes.

I'd not be surprised if another war broke out over some dispute before the end of the 19th century, or the Confederacy getting into some serious internal conflict that would leave it weakened.

King Cotton could only reach so far and half of it was part of the unrealistic dream of many in the South that the beautiful age of belles and cavaliers could be extended in all perpetuity.

Slavery was still economically viable in the South in 1860. Many studies have concluded that a dollar invested in a slave paid returns that compared favorably with a dollar invested in a Northern factory.

After a war to break away from the North (or even without a war) there was no way the South was going to abolish slavery any time soon. They might have made some 'reforms' to placate international opinion, so that it wasn't called slavery anymore, but it would have still been slavery in everything but name. Barring some external intervention, slavery absolutely would have continued into the 20th Century.

"Russia and India were on the way to break the plantation system by sheer economy of scale."

Untrue.

The American southern states had re-established their position as the dominant world source for raw cotton by 1878.

Go here – link

B

All the more important that the Union won …

The possibilities of a southern win in the ACW have been debated to death. Whole alternative history books have been written on the subject. Inevitably, the minute one starts wool gathering about "what ifs," the likelihood that anything is plausible decays exponentially the further out one goes.

I think it's fair to suppose that, if the south had won, they have bigger problems than sorting out what to do about slavery.

Once the common threat is gone, governing the south had to devolve into an exercise in trying to herd cats. The states that suffered the greatest dislocation and damage during the war will need help rebuilding. They'll want a strong central authority to tax the others to help pay for it. The less damaged states will chafe at having to shell out CSA $s for areas outside their states.

The Union and Virginia get into a short sharp fight over custody of West Virginia.

Texas might well secede from the CSA to avoid the reconstruction taxes. It's not like anyone can say they can't secede at this point. With an independent Texas on their northern border, and the French gone, mayhaps Mexico thinks this is a good opportunity to get Texas back. Facing an attack from Mexico, does Texas seek readmission to the northern Union? A hommina, hommina, hommina…

Spain sends an embassy to Florida to invite them back into the fold. Come on back guys, the Sangria is freshly made.

The French lend the south money to rebuild. They default. Suddenly the French are shelling Charleston.

Whatever comes after a southern victory, sorting out the fate of slavery just does not seem a front burner issue. In all likelihood, slavery dies with a whimper, not a bang.

The American southern states had re-established their position as the dominant world source for raw cotton by 1878.

And without the free labor of slavery, imagine that. The problem with cotton was that it quickly depleted the soil and either the land had to remain fallow for extended periods of time or you get new lands. That is a major reason that the South wanted to expand West and South to Cuba.

Interesting threads… thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

If the Confederacy wins then slavery could have survived in the U.S. into the 20th Century. If the Southern states didn't secede it is also possible that slavery could have survived into the 20th Century. As Scott says slavery was economically viable in 1860. If you know where to look there were signs of slavery being integrated into 19th century industry. That isn't to say that it was the most efficient economic model (which it wasn't), but it was sufficiently adaptable to work in a 19th century economy.

@McLaddie. It might be more accurate to consider slavery partially prepaid labor rather than free labor.

"If the South Had Won the Civil War, Slavery Could…" Have made my life easier today.

While slavery was perhaps economically viable in 1865, given the bloodletting and international pressure, even if the South had won in 1865 slavery was doomed on any number of levels. It would have gradually diminished in importance and by the 1880's would have been eliminated. The question is what would have happened to the former slaves…incorporated into a reawakened Southern industrial economy, transformed into the equivalent of the sharecroppers they did become, or expelled from the South.

oldnorthstate, your question "what would have happened to the former slaves?" disproves the rest of your statement about slavery disappearing by the 1880s. Economic viability was only part of the issue. Another major part (in the minds of some, the most important part) was about CONTROL. Blacks were seen by many as only a small step above animals. Dangerous animals. They had to be kept under strict control for the safety of the whites. Slavery was seen as the best way to do that. The South would not give up that control quickly or easily.

The sharecrop system and the KKK gave a system which was not too much different from slavery. There are many levels of subservence. Serfdom was not exactly slavery. Having unpayable debts and inability to move away was not exactly slavery. Being dependent upon government handouts and being unable to find independent work & labor is not exactly slavery. Look at the caste system in India- not exactly slavery either.

I wonder if the real issue is whether the South thinks they actually DID win the Civil War?

Considering how quickly the States determined the Articles of Confederation didn't work, replacing them with our Federal Constitution, I doubt the Confederacy would have held together. They had basically re-established the Articles where the States had sovereignty rather than the central government. It was a basic weakness of the Confederacy, particularly during a war.

They had to be kept under strict control for the safety of the whites. Slavery was seen as the best way to do that. The South would not give up that control quickly or easily.

As Scott and 1968billsfan point out, what gradation of slavery are you talking about?

Nat Turner's Slave Rebellion in Southampton County, Virginia, in 1831 among other revolts scared the slave-owning Southerners to death. Keeping the slaves down was paramount. That is a major impetus behind the KKK after the slaves are freed. Southern Whites saw it as a security issue if not one of survival.