How long could slavery have lasted in the south?

[Dis]

Assume the south won the war, or there was no war in the first place and the south remained with the U.S.

I can't see slavery having lasted much longer. Russia had already freed their serfs like 10 years ealier. Most of the world was moving away from slavery.

Sometimes I think the whole war and all those deaths were unnecessary. Would it have been that bad to have 2 seperate countries?

In time there would have been free trade, and both countries would have prospered. Both countries would have fought in ww1 and ww2- though they may have entered the war on different dates. Who knows, perhaps we would not have the problems we have today with an overpowered federal goverment.

[RedFred]

Slavery is still more widespread than most people think. IIRC most of the world's chocolate is still produced using slave labour.

[Verres]

On the whole, i agree. 2 seperate countries would probably make the US that little bit less powerful so that there was another power in the world equal enough to counter-balance it and stop it ALWAYS getting its own way and having the final say.

[Napoleon I]

Well, actually slavery could have lasted quite a bit longer in the South had it been allowed to. Russia freed its serfs precisely in 1861 (what a coincidence ), but that doesn't necessarily means South would have. In many respects, the US was more of a distant backcountry to European politics at that time than Russia was, especially the South and the West.

I can easily see slave labor in the South lasting into the twentieth century, and then going away in slow stages, as industry finally spreads. That would create a whole heap of social tension, and possibly, some very serious problems down the road - things like siding with conservative Germany and Austria in WWI to keep their old way of life. That would effectively keep both the North and South out of the European war - and who knows what might have happened?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

If the South had won the Civil War, or if it had never been fought, slavery could easily have lasted into the 20th century. After all, if the US had decided to keep slavery, there would be little anyone else could do about it; and if the CSA had become independent -- severing its connection to the Union's industrial economy -- slave labor would be one of the only ways to keep the place going. (Although the CSA might have been pressured by Britain to end it). What would be interesting would be how that would change the demographics of both places. Remember, staring around the time of WWI, there was a massive migration of blacks from th rural south to the urban north, where they found jobs in the North's booming industrial economy. But if slavery were maintained, this would likely be a mass migration of poor white Southerners. The net result would be an overwhelmingly white North/Union and a South/CSA with a white overclass, black underclass, and not much in between; the former would greatly resemble Canada, while the latter would resemble South Africa or maybe even Brazil.

[Dracon II]

How would the western states have been divided?

[Whaleboy]

On the whole, i agree. 2 seperate countries would probably make the US that little bit less powerful so that there was another power in the world equal enough to counter-balance it and stop it ALWAYS getting its own way and having the final say.

The South would have most likely moved (militarily) into latin America, perhaps even as far down as Brazil. I believe this was a part of the Confederate long term goal before the Civil War. Had this come to pass, then the Cons would have got a lot more powerful, possibly moved up North (and North again ).

Make one small change in the past and the future will have changed dramatically. The world would probably now be ruled by Wales. Which means Bodds.... this isn't going anywhere.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by elijah
The South would have most likely moved (militarily) into latin America, perhaps even as far down as Brazil. I believe this was a part of the Confederate long term goal before the Civil War. Had this come to pass, then the Cons would have got a lot more powerful, possibly moved up North (and North again ).

Sans the North's Industrial power, CSA wars against its southern neighbors would probably be short-lived, especially if you're talking Brazil. I think it's a bit more likely you'd have seen the UK coming back trying to get its hooks back into the South. If England got too aggressive, who knows...maybe the CSA and the USA would ally against them, sowing seeds for an eventual reunification.

But on the whole, I think Rufus is correct in that the South would become a relative backwater plantation nation a la Brazil, while the North would be more like Canada (perhaps the two would even merge?).

[Bosh]

To make things even more interesting, there was an abortive declaration of independence by the three western states at the very beginning of the war, if you give them a third nation then you kick the US down another good-sized notch. An independent pacific union could have gotten very interesting as communication with the atlantic would have been in a lot worse shape and you'd probably end up with an interesting really multicultural nation with even more Asians (and possibily hispanics) than are in the area as is...

[SlowwHand]

It cracks me up to listen to Northerners talking trash about what was going on in the South.


The war, as far as slavery concerns, wasn't even necessary.
Slavery would have been gone, without Federal interference, within 10 years.

Contrary to beliefs by some, Confederate's weren't FOR slavery.
Confederate leadership, including Lee and Longstreet, was against slavery.




Now, you Northerners go back to your informed discussion.

[Arrian]

If that makes you feel better, Sloww, great. But I don't buy it.

The fact is we'll never know. But from what I know of the period, and I did study it some, I think slavery would've lasted more than 10 years.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

Frankly, I don't care if you "buy it" or not.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
It cracks me up to listen to Northerners talking trash about what was going on in the South.


The war, as far as slavery concerns, wasn't even necessary.
Slavery would have been gone, without Federal interference, within 10 years.

Contrary to beliefs by some, Confederate's weren't FOR slavery.
Confederate leadership, including Lee and Longstreet, was against slavery.


Now, you Northerners go back to your informed discussion.

Dear Neo-Confederate,

Just because some Confederates were not for slavery, does not mean that the majority of Confederates were not in support of slavery.

One of my sigs is only one example of a prominent Confederate leader who thought differently from General Lee.

Up through the 1850's, there were some white Southern leaders who cooked up plans to take over parts of Central America and the Carribean to expand their slave empire.

Look at the facts, instead of relying on your excessive idealization of your own region's history.

Sincerely,

Objective Yankee

[Sava]

Contrary to beliefs by some, Confederate's weren't FOR slavery.

[SlowwHand]

And now we hear from the biased History Teacher in training, who doesn't even know when his state joined the Union; and the guy who has no loyalties to anything.

I stand corrected.

[Bosh]

Contrary to beliefs by some, Confederate's weren't FOR slavery.

Well they prized it highly enough to give up British support to attempt to keep slavery going. If it wasn't for Southern slavery the UK would almost certainly have intervened on its behald, or at least broken the northern blockade that cripped the Southern economy and did more to break Southern resistance than anything else...

[SlowwHand]

You're also misinformed, Boshco.
The Confederacy had ship-building yards in England.
Officially, they were unauthorized.
That doesn't mean they weren't there.

[Bosh]

Right, and I'm sure there was plenty of gun running from the UK into the South without the British doing anything to stop it, but that doesn't mean there was anything the kind of responce they would have gotten if the south had told the brits "we'll get rid of slavery and have nice low tariffs for UK manufactured goods if you get the yankees off our backs."

Did a quite google search and this seems to back up what I'm saying:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A912386
plenty of blockade running but:

"The Confederates expected the British to break the blockade or escort ships through it, but this never happened. Unusually, Britain did not even object to the seizure of British ships running the blockade."

Also IIRC, the CSA sent diplomats to the UK on an English ship which a US ship attempted to grab. This caused a major furore (sp?) in the UK and many peole called for a declaration of war on the US, one of the main factors in preventing this from happening is the power of the UK anti-slavery lobby. If it wasn't for that you'd have gotten a good bit more pro-South UK, especially after the Cotton Famine hit...

[Arrian]

Yes, the Confeds got several commerce raiders from the Brits. It served their (the Brits) interests to make life a little bit more difficult for the USA. However, when push came to shove over whom to support (or stay out of it), the issue of slavery hurt the CSA's chances. Trade with the USA was also a major issue (wheat, IIRC).

So the CSA had its commerce raiders, but then the USA got a bunch of soldiers from Ireland. Neither was officially sanctioned by the UK - in fact both practices were highly illegal.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

Very good, Boshko.

Now, as an Independant, post here the percentage of farms that used slaves.
And when you do, bear in mind that when it says 1/3 in like the Big 3, that means 2/3 had none.

[Arrian]

That's one statistic one could use, Sloww. Another is what percentage of the South's GDP was generated by slave owning planatations. The rich southerners - the ones who ran the place - had slaves. Lots of 'em.

The common confed soldier who joined up to defend his home, as against his right to own other people? I feel bad for the poor sods, but they were misguided.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

I already know the percentage answer.

[SpencerH]

Slavery on a large scale might have lasted till the early 20th century but I doubt it. Slaves were expensive and with the development of the industrial age maintaining large slave workforces on the big plantations for farm work would have been economically untenable. Slavery would probably exist outside of farming though (as it does today anyway).

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Very good, Boshko.

Now, as an Independant, post here the percentage of farms that used slaves.
And when you do, bear in mind that when it says 1/3 in like the Big 3, that means 2/3 had none.

If your grocery store sells 5 Colas, two of which are Coke and Pepsi, does that mean that Coke and Pepsi only account for 40% of the stores Cola sales? Of course not.

The number you ask for is meaningless. It's not the percentage of farms that had slaves, but the portion of the Southern agricultural economy that those farms represented. If one plantation has slaves, and two small farms do not, but the plantation produces 10 times as much cotton as the two small farms combined, then 1/3 vs. 2/3 is not the relavent comparison.

[Bosh]

Right, but those 1/3 tended to be bigger than the 2/3.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Slavery on a large scale might have lasted till the early 20th century but I doubt it. Slaves were expensive and with the development of the industrial age maintaining large slave workforces on the big plantations for farm work would have been economically untenable. Slavery would probably exist outside of farming though (as it does today anyway).

True, but that assumes that the South would have developed an industrial economy. Why assume that?

[SlowwHand]

Figure it out then, Bosko. Don't twist what I said.
Look at agriculture, as a whole.

[Bosh]

Oh and the answer the question, once Africa was thoroughly colonized exportation of slaves would've become a lot harder (that was one of the Brits' favorite excuses for colonizing, stamping out slave-exportation) which would have increased the price to slaves (supply and demand) until they became economically unviable.

IIRC the last American country with slavery was either Brazil or Cuba which I think abolished it in 1881, don't see how the south could have lasted that much later, but then again cotton-farming slaves tended to live a lot longer than sugar-farming places, (suger farming is a lot harder work) so the US south would have been less hard hit by a complete cessation of slave imports.

[Japher]

Cotton and Tobacco, and Tobacco was a lot harder to harvest. If the US still went into the industrial age at the same time, despite a Civil War, slavery wouldn't of lasted much longer due to better tools requiring less people to do the work. Yet, civil rights might not have been instilled for a lot longer after...

While the Civil War wasn't fought to abolish slavery it encouraged the Emancipation Proclomation, gave an outlet for slaves to become "papered" freeman, and earned them a great deal of respect amongst the states... Without the war, civil rights and freedom would of really been a lot further off than just the abolition of slavery...

[SlowwHand]

Thank you, Japher.


Let me say this again.
Contrary to what Northerners thought/think/fought for, it wasn't about slavery to the South.

Of course to some of the North, they'll always disagree, and continue to tell Southerners why the South fought.
And THAT'S the reason the South fought, even then.