CSA wins the American Civil War, when does slavery end?

[Onkel Willie]

Suppose the Confederates win the American Civil War and become independent. I assume that at some point they'll have no choice but to abolish slavery. All other countries are doing (even backward Russia abolished serfdom) and the rest of the civilized word will be disgusted by the CSA is slavery continues there and might stop trading with them.

So here's my question: When would/could the CSA realistically abolish slavery?

[DValdron]

Jim Crow persisted until the 1960's.

South Africa maintained Apartheid until the 1980's.

I can see some form of forced labour/restricted rights to persist late into the 20th century, maybe beyond.

[Geekhis Khan]

The typical assumption I've seen is in the 1880s to 1890s,
though I've seen estimates as late as the 1920s to 1930s.

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Well it is very possible that slavery could be abolished in 1864, considering that Confederate Congress takes more kindly to the Cleburne Proposal and allows slaves to fight for the CSA to recieve freedom, and eventually their families will be freed, the end of slavery being therefore some time before the 1880's perhaps. If slavery as a whole isn't abolished during the Civil War, you might see freedmen and abolitionists perhaps buying the freedom of those remaining in bondage. But this is just an optimistic viewpoint.

[TNF]

I would surmise the 1880s, but slavery would only end in name only. A peonage system would most likely be adopted, gratifying the CSA's British and French allies with the end of 'slavery', but in reality, not doing much more than that.

If that's the case, that peonage system might end up lasting until the mid-1920s or 1930s, when you then see something like apartheid come into being.

[sahaidak]

Look here:
"How Long Could Slavery Last In America?"
http://alternatehistory.com/discussi...d.php?t=117781

[deejay27]

I could have lasted for a long time as previous examples of other countries. But it really depends on how the CSA stands in the world.

If they had to rely on British and French support then they would likely be under a lot of political pressure to peform at least a gradual releasing of all the slaves. I could see a lot of prejudism, separtism, and lack of rights for former slaves.

If the CSA somehow managed to do it on its own and hold it together they might keep slaves for a longer period of time. But economically it didn't make a lot of sense to have plantations with large amounts of slaves when you could use machinery and the lack of a slave market would have hindered it even further.

[Susano]

The CSA basically just fought for slavery. They had based their entire identity on it. Indeed, their constitution forbade abolishment of slavery, and made impossible any amendment to abolish it. A long, long time. I would even say it could go the other way as people here describe it - people here say slavery wille ventually be abolished, but blacks will further be kept down. Could it not be the other way? That is, slavery is kept for generations, but there are more and more regulations protecting slaves and eventually toning slavery down?

[Jaded_Railman]

Originally Posted by Susano

The CSA basically just fought for slavery. They had based their entire identity on it. Indeed, their constitution forbade abolishment of slavery, and made impossible any amendment to abolish it. A long, long time. I would even say it could go the other way as people here describe it - people here say slavery wille ventually be abolished, but blacks will further be kept down. Could it not be the other way? That is, slavery is kept for generations, but there are more and more regulations protecting slaves and eventually toning slavery down?

Slavery was the particular bone of contention, but the Civil War was about the centralization of the Union against what the Southern states saw as their rights, as contained in the Constitution.

[Blue Max]

Probably until the USA kicks its butt in a rematch, perhaps around 1900. Given the power to turn its own slaves against it, this second war is probably the turning point where Slavery gets busted up for good.

Note that the Union may well opt to keep a Rump CSA instead of reannexing the entire country--if it does so, this Rump CSA is going to be little better than a US Puppet.

[DuQuense]

All other countries are doing (even backward Russia abolished serfdom

The CS would abolish slavery in 1911 the same year that Russia [which wasn't all that backward anymore] finally Abolished It.


Seriously -- It would depend on the pace of Industrialization in The CS, If the question comes up during King Boll Wevill days of destroying King Cotton maybe they are all freed.
However if it waits till the 20's~30's when the Slaves have all moved to the Factories, then it may last till the Post Industrial age.
Computers replace Slavery.

[Susano]

Originally Posted by Jaded_Railman

Slavery was the particular bone of contention, but the Civil War was about the centralization of the Union against what the Southern states saw as their rights, as contained in the Constitution.

It doesnt matter what social developments you claim. The ACUTE cause was slavery, and hence the CSA DID assemble its identity around that cause celebre. Hence slavery would not so easily be abolished even IF the constitutioned allowed for it - which it didnt, and which of course is a further, ah, complication!

That seems in general to be something nobody has mentioned here:
The CSA CANNOT legally abolish slavery without adopting a whole new constitution, for which it has no legally defined means, either!

[Jaded_Railman]

Originally Posted by Susano

It doesnt matter what social developments you claim. The ACUTE cause was slavery, and hence the CSA DID assemble its identity around that cause celebre. Hence slavery would not so easily be abolished even IF the constitutioned allowed for it - which it didnt, and which of course is a further, ah, complication!

That seems in general to be something nobody has mentioned here:
The CSA CANNOT legally abolish slavery without adopting a whole new constitution, for which it has no legally defined means, either!

I'm not claiming any social developments. Both the North and the South had been playing hard, loose, and fast with the Constitution since day one, but the South viewed Lincoln as the guy who was gonna push too far. The entire antebellum period after the Founding generation died was basically a long game of Constitutional Chicken. The South just ended up being the one to blink because the North threatened their slaves.

And the CSA cannot abolish slavery -- does it say anything about the individual states? The CSA was, afterall, supposed to a re-constitution of the republic as it existed before men like John Marshall got ahold of it. The states should have been just as free to manumit their slaves as the states which did so during the Revolutionary period.

[Susano]

Originally Posted by Jaded_Railman

I'm not claiming any social developments. Both the North and the South had been playing hard, loose, and fast with the Constitution since day one, but the South viewed Lincoln as the guy who was gonna push too far. The entire antebellum period after the Founding generation died was basically a long game of Constitutional Chicken. The South just ended up being the one to blink because the North threatened their slaves.

*sighs* As said, it doesnt matter what else causes there might have been. Slavery had become the South's cause celebry, and an identity giver - wether that was originally so or only became so during secession and war is in the end irrelevant. In any case it means slavery wont be abolished too quickly.

And the CSA cannot abolish slavery -- does it say anything about the individual states? The CSA was, afterall, supposed to a re-constitution of the republic as it existed before men like John Marshall got ahold of it. The states should have been just as free to manumit their slaves as the states which did so during the Revolutionary period.

Hm. Inetersting quetsion. It appears that while the CSA constitution requries that all new states must have slavery, and that CSA Congress cannot abolish slavery, and that out-of-state slaves must be respected as property - there is nothing to indicate directly that states couldnt outlaw slavery. With all these clauses it would go heavily against the spirit of the constitution, though, and one can read the law about admitting only slave states also so that all states must have and retain slavery, I guess. And I guess any "judicial activism" will for the first few generations or so for above mentioned reasons be pro-slavery, so...

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

The idea of slavery existed into the 1900's, let alone the 60's, seems kinda bizarre, think about it. Slavery in Brazil was just as integral to their economy and way of life as it was with the South, perhaps even more so. To assume that the CSA would hold on to slavery much longer would be very odd. They'd eventually have essentially the same reasons for abolishing slavery as Brazil, cost of slave upkeep more than pay for migrants, abolitionists become more common (they were surprisingly common OTL in the South, even before the ACW), etc. Also, there is a possibility that the literate freedmen could get the slaves and others to start a Marxist revolution. I always kind of wanted to do a TL where the CSA becomes a socialist nation with the blacks and poor whites overthrowing the aristocracy.

[Chengar Qordath]

Eventually economic costs and pressure from abolitionists both at home and abroad is going to force abolition, probably before the end of the 19th century. The CSA probably won't like it, and it will almost certainly be abolition in name only, but trying to maintain official slavery is going to turn them into a pariah state, and eventually result in foreign investment getting cut off and embargoes being placed on their goods by the "civilized" world. There eventually comes a point where trying to maintain the slave system is tantamount to national suicide, and the CSA isn't going to go that far (and if they do then it's a precursor to the end of the CSA as a unified independent entity).

[wormyguy]

Originally Posted by DuQuense

The CS would abolish slavery in 1911 the same year that Russia [which wasn't all that backward anymore] finally Abolished It.

Say what?

If you're referring to the Emancipation of the Serfs, that was in 1861. Slavery was abolished by Peter the Great in 1723.

[Dungeon Dwelling Dragon]

Well, the CSA loss, combined with the adoption of abolition as an explicit war aim by the north served to further discredit slavery. In determining how long slavery would last, I think the possible butterfly effect of a slavocracy going from a failed experiment (otl) to a 'glorious success' atl has to be taken into account. In the Brazil case, for instance, one could imagine anti-abolition forces in the CSA attempting to keep Brazil 'firm' on the issue, and vise-versa, a situation which didn't develop since the CSA didn't exists.

I don't know how much a difference this would make, but I think it would have some effect on the speed at which slavery becomes fully discredited, both outside of slave-holding nations and within.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Chengar Qordath

Eventually economic costs and pressure from abolitionists both at home and abroad is going to force abolition, probably before the end of the 19th century. The CSA probably won't like it, and it will almost certainly be abolition in name only, but trying to maintain official slavery is going to turn them into a pariah state, and eventually result in foreign investment getting cut off and embargoes being placed on their goods by the "civilized" world. There eventually comes a point where trying to maintain the slave system is tantamount to national suicide, and the CSA isn't going to go that far (and if they do then it's a precursor to the end of the CSA as a unified independent entity).

It occurs that betting on nation's aacting rationally in defense of ofunding myths ad the interests of the propertied elite may not be the bst idea.

After all, Confederate planets will still have markets for cotton; nobody will boycott the Confederacy over how they grow it, given global demand.

Moreover, as Jared has pointed out, slaves were used in industrial enterprises in the antebellum south. Though I'd be interested in how their productivity compared...

And, of course , there is the issue of how you free them. Compensating slaveowners seems a nice way to subsidize planters, and seems politically iffy.

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by Hresvelgr

The idea of slavery existed into the 1900's, let alone the 60's, seems kinda bizarre, think about it. Slavery in Brazil was just as integral to their economy and way of life as it was with the South, perhaps even more so. To assume that the CSA would hold on to slavery much longer would be very odd. They'd eventually have essentially the same reasons for abolishing slavery as Brazil, cost of slave upkeep more than pay for migrants, abolitionists become more common (they were surprisingly common OTL in the South, even before the ACW), etc. Also, there is a possibility that the literate freedmen could get the slaves and others to start a Marxist revolution. I always kind of wanted to do a TL where the CSA becomes a socialist nation with the blacks and poor whites overthrowing the aristocracy.

If there is a revolution down south I see slavery lasting until AT LEAST 1920 more likely the 1960s or later. Indeed they may have it until today. Some African countries had slavery until the 1990s IIRC.