Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then we could get into the fact that slavery was an untenable system destined to collapse in on itself.
.
I suspect that fragmentation would have had slavery at its root, just as the actual war did. Keep in mind that the Confederate Constitution provided the central government no power at all to free slaves, liberation would have had to have been accomplished on a state by state basis. That is where problems would have risen. The more liberal of the Confederate states would have acted first while the deep South states would have held firm. Slaves in the hard line states would then be running away to the states which had freed slaves...and the South would have internally reproduced the same causes which led to the real war.
Will the free Southern states cooperate with a Fugitive Slave Law? What if the freed slaves in those states had been enfranchised, would they have allowed their states to cooperate with such a law? What if the states which freed their slaves enjoyed full commercial relations with the rest of the world, while those states clinging to slavery became the object of an international boycot?
1869--CSA successfully negotiates a peace treaty with the USA.
1870-CSA government becomes deadlocked over "States Rats"
1871-CSA government decides "States Rats" is not about rodents
1872-CSA government resumes fighting about "States Rats" The USA begins RR construction to link the North with the West Coast. CSA fights some more about States Rats.
1880- USA has built and extensive RR network and has invented electricity. South still fighting about States Rats. Electric research moves at warp speed for the North as they don't have to argue with the Southerners anymore.
1890-North builds border fence along CSA border. CSA argues for States Rats. CSA invents nothing. USA debates over illegal immigrants from the CSA.
1914--Germany negotiates a truce with France and England after the CSA tries to become their ally. WWI never happens.
1941--Japanese task force pulls a U turn in the Pacific after CSA Navy tries to join. WWII never happens. CSA asks Japan for help in solving States Rats issue.
1945--CSA president declares war on the Soviet Union. The Russians send them a bottle of vodka. USA lands first man on the moon.
1950--Germany, Russia and the USA perfect fusion technology. Global Warming never happens. Final disarmament takes place. Canada applies for Statehood. USA rejects reunification feelers from CSA after initial talks break down over States Rats. USA ambassador advises CSA to ask the French upon leaving.
1990--USA builds colonies in 100 different galaxies and perfects wormhole technology to travel back and forth instantly. CSA invents the Pet Rock and declares Billy Ray Cyrus entertainer of the year. Cuba increases their aid to the CSA to combat hunger.
Last edited by PullMyFinger; 12-27-2011 at 11:34 AM..
It would have dumped slavery in less than ten years. The North would have refused to trade with the South and forced them to dump slavery.
'It?'
"It" would have no authority to free slaves, this was spelled out in its constitution. If slaves were freed, it would have been Virginia freeing its slaves, North Carolina freeing its slaves, Arkansas feeeing its slaves etc. In theory, all of the Confederate states could have freed their slaves save one, and there would not have been anything the other states could have done about that one, at least nothing legal.
And trade sanctions? I don't think so. First the South could have shifted the bulk of its manufacturing needs to exports from England, France and Germany. Preventing just that was the purpose of the Northern blockade during the war. More critically, the South could have utilized access denial to the Mississippi mouth as ongoing blackmail to persuade the North not to engage in any sort of trade sanctions.
Having failed to force the freeing of slaves via invasion and conquest, the Northern merchants of the Ohio and Mississippi Valley states would have been quite anxious to resume trade.
In order to understand how slavery may have ended in the South had the South won the war, its important to understand how slavery ended in the North?
Was it the abolitionists that help end slavery in the North or did it simply become unprofitable?
The south had a heavily agrarian economy where large estates needed large amounts of cheap labor. Slaves worked for them at the time, but was beginning to die out before the cotton gin came along and huge cotton fields were profitable. You needed many force hands to work them.
The north was small farms and much more commerse and as the industrial revolution gained, factories. They also had a good supply of immigrants who would work dirt cheap, could be fired easily if they didn't and you didn't have to care for the children too young to work or those too old or sick. It wasn't your problem. Slavery dissapeared since it was not economical. I think the same would have happened in the south, as it did after the war. Share cropping replaced holding slaves. Basically the feudal serf resurrected with the tithe replaced with the company store. The overhead was much less. And prison labor, ie chain gangs didn't involve anyone but the principal worker either.
Slavery was cultural too, so for the south remnants would hang on, but like in the north I think it would have faded on its own.
The bigger question is what would have happened differently in the world if there was no US (as we know it, no growing nation to start playing in the late 19th century, no unified nation to tilt the tide in ww1 and 2, no superpower to face off with the Soviet Union which would have taken as much as it did with or without us...
I think the South (CSA) would have either grown more federalist and survived as a poor nation dependent on agriculture, or fractured into a balcanized state. The North would have reabsorbed some but not all, and the US and CSA or remnants of it would have been inward focused when in the parallell we live in we started looking outward, and that would have made a great deal of difference to the rest of the world.
In order to understand how slavery may have ended in the South had the South won the war, its important to understand how slavery ended in the North?
Was it the abolitionists that help end slavery in the North or did it simply become unprofitable?
It was abandoned by state action in all the northeastern states. It wasnt that slaveowners all simply manumitted their slaves - though its also the case that generally the slaveholders were not numerous enough or motivated enough to fight back against emancipation, though in some places (NY and NJ) they managed to delay it some.
According to Fogels and Engerman slavery was quite profitable in the 1850s. Its not at all clear that it would have ended on its own (and the end in brazil was rather complex and was certainly impacted by "abolitionist" type pressures)
Its also quite possible that slavery would have been succeeded by some kind of forced labor system under another name (like in the Turtledove series). I mean look at what southern states tried to do in the immediate wake of the war, before the 14th amendment was passed.
Having failed to force the freeing of slaves via invasion and conquest, the Northern merchants of the Ohio and Mississippi Valley states would have been quite anxious to resume trade.
I don't recall there being a large trade between the Midwestern states and the Southern states along the Mississippi circa 1860. It's my understanding that the Midwest sent agricultural products (wheat, corn, beef, pork, etc) east to the New England States and to Europe in exchange for manufactured products from those two areas.
The South was self-sufficient in agricultural products and the Midwest had no factories for turning cotton into cloth. About the only thing that might have flowed from the South to the Midwest was tobacco.
If I'm wrong, then please enlighten me - exactly what trade was being conducted via the Mississippi between the Southern states and the Midwest?
I don't recall there being a large trade between the Midwestern states and the Southern states along the Mississippi circa 1860. It's my understanding that the Midwest sent agricultural products (wheat, corn, beef, pork, etc) east to the New England States and to Europe in exchange for manufactured products from those two areas.
The South was self-sufficient in agricultural products and the Midwest had no factories for turning cotton into cloth. About the only thing that might have flowed from the South to the Midwest was tobacco.
If I'm wrong, then please enlighten me - exactly what trade was being conducted via the Mississippi between the Southern states and the Midwest?
A. AFAIK the pre war south was NOT self sufficient in food - it imported from the midwest. After Sumter the CSA BECAME self sufficient in food, by converting land that had grown cotton for which the export market had mostly been lost due to blockade.
B. the river to New Orleans provided an alternate route for exports to europe - without it the midwest was dependent on (northeastern owned) railroads, whose rates were a point of contention
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
