Eventual abolition of slavery in victorious CSA - why?

An oddly common thread in works involving Southern victory in the Civil War is the idea that they would of their own volition eventually abolish slavery and replace it with the "apprenticeships", "court costs", and similar post-Reconstruction arrangements to keep blacks productive but powerless. I have never understood the logic of this.

With the exception of a few minor complaints about tariffs and domination by manufacturing interests, the entire purpose of the Southern rebellion was maintaining slavery. You see this in all the declarations of secession and all the rhetoric around it. I don't see what political or economic forces would lead to a demand for emancipation, even as de jure subjects: the plantation owners would never go for it, and they and their interests dominated politics in the Confederacy and the post-Reconstruction governments. Sure, it drives down wages for free white people and undercuts the prices they can get for their produce, but how would they come to understand that, with a government unrestrained by First or Fourteenth Amendments able to jail or allow mob violence against anyone inclined to make that point? Even in real life, poor whites and blacks in the South had nearly identical economic interests but the former were unwilling to see it and act on it, and trumped-up charges and mobs were used against "Red agitators" trying to organize them.

Turtledove's Timeline-191, if I remember correctly, had emancipation follow from a black revolt, with the goal of preventing another one. I don't buy it: the response to that, for the South's whole history up to that point, was to kill or torture enough blacks to make the rest fall back in line, even if that wasn't the most cost-effective thing. What motive would a victorious South have to change that, when anyone advocating doing so could be called a "nigger lover" and run out of town? I think this underestimates just how afraid Southern whites were of the supposedly inherently violent, rapey, animalistic stereotypes; a revolt would if anything make them more afraid of that.

Another idea I've seen is that slavery becomes inherently "uneconomic" with industrialization. This doesn't necessarily follow either: sure, slavery is bad for economic growth as a whole because it holds back consumer demand, but it works out just fine for the factory and plantation owners. Why would an industrializing South not simply put the slaves to work in the factories, where, unlike free laborers, they can't strike, picket, vote for candidates promising safety regulations, or quit? They might lack any incentive to make the factories more productive and therefore passively or actively sabotage processes, but the same was true of a worker paid an hourly wage, who also could and did do those sorts of things. This would make free labor cheap and thereby keep wages down, but again, where are the political forces that would lead poor white people to organize based on that?

For the reasons above, I see no reason to believe that had the South won, they wouldn't still have black people in chains today. But I see slavery's abolition as such a common event in these works that I have to wonder what these authors see that I don't. Can someone enlighten me?
 
I think it's a combination of thinking Europe (the biggest markets) becoming more disgusted by slavery and coercing abolition, a general want for people to believe that whatever society would naturally progress, and influenced by TL191
 
Realistically, I think it would only be abolished in the light of the Congo Affair being exposed and the boll weevil which would more or less peg it in Q1 of the 20th century. Of course I can see it falling out of favor by 1900 in Texas with the discovery of oil and in the Upper South (North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia) with increased industrialization and anti-slavery sentiment, particularly in the Appalachians. But I can’t see it going away elsewhere before then.
 
They would have abolished it simply because, with time, it wouldn't be profitable. People make it like the planters really thought blacks were inferior and that was all they needed to secede. They believed that, yes, but the main reason was that slavery made them A LOT of money, and they feared its end would make them poor.
As time passes and technology advances, slavery-driven economies become more trouble than they're worth, and they would have seen that. They weren't stupid, it was money first, ideology second.
 
It's changing attitudes in Europe that probably leads to worsening relations and an eventual boycott. If the price of southern cotton plummets, then the whole reason for owning slaves is mootbecause it's no longer a product that generates wealth and power. You can get that with freeing the slaves and leaving something just as odious in its place.
 
Slavery will eventually become more and more difficult to swing a profit from, in the late 20th century. Social attitudes will change over time as well, but slower than OTL. Presuming similar international developments, pressure such as what apartheid South Africa found combined with the previous factors would probably be enough to see slavery abolished at a similar time to the end of apartheid.
 
1. By the 1880s and 1890s it would be a new and more open (for the era) generation running the show in the CSA so there is a possibility already there.
2. Diplomatic fallout with Europe and the entirety of the world. It's kinda hard to trade with slavers in the 19th century. Only Brazil would be a friend to the CSA, but that would disappear as well in the 1880s. Geopolitics and international relations at work.
3.Economics. it really doesn't make sense economically by the 1890s to keep slaves when they would be a bloody deficit in the Confederate economy as the country industrializes.

Combination of all three above would probably 8/10 lead to abolishment in the late 1880s or 1890s, or if you're pushing it the early 1900s.
 
A lot depends on how powerful the planter class remains in the CSA.
Boll weevil will hit their profits hard and would other parts of the world starting to produce cotton.
A boycott of slave-produced cotton by other countries could bankrupt the planter class
I not sure the CSA has much reason to industrialise as it is cheaper to import cheap goods made in British and French factories as the USA does today with cheap factory goods from China. Without air conditioning factories in the CSA would be too hot in summer for many industries.
The Boll weevil will probably cut the profits enough from cotton to make investments in other business possible.
CSA construction will probably too hard to change so chattel slavery will not be abolished by the CSA federal government.
The protection of slavery in the CSA construction will only go when the population owners think it no longer serves a useful purpose or they can no longer get the government to subsidise because they think it is the natural order.
A lot depends on the cost of catching escaping slaves heading for the union and what levels of tax people in the CSA are will to pay for this.
High taxes and lack of well paid industrial jobs could see many white people moving north to places like Detroit where they will be plenty of jobs in factories.
Planters themselves might move to other models of forced labour like debt slavery, sharecropping or convict labour.
It is hard to see chattel slavery continuing to the present.
I do agree with you in ah there is a lot of implausible plots were chattel slavery is abolished before 1900 by the government of the CSA.
It is hard to say have events might transpire in a CSA that survives to the present.
 
Last edited:
It's hard to see chattel slavery lasting more than a couple decades in a "victorious" CSA (IMO the best they could have hoped for is a negotiated peace, with the Union basically holding all the good cards at the table).
Brazil abolished slavery in 1888... would've been an awfully hard row (of cotton, tobacco, what-have-you) to hoe if you're the ONLY western nation continuing a practice that's been determined odious by most every other independent nation on earth... including those that are your major trading partners. Dependency on foreign trade was built-in to the economy of the southern states - if it came down to losing the foreign trade, or ditching slavery, slavery would be phased out... probably (as with the abolition of slavery in the UK colonies) with ample compensation for the rich asshole former slaveowners who had already profited greatly off "the system", at the expense of the po' white trash...
1024px-Slavery_abolition.svg.png
 
...Turtledove's Timeline-191, if I remember correctly, had emancipation follow from a black revolt, with the goal of preventing another one...

Timeline-191 doesn't have emancipation as the result of a slave revolt. Instead, Turtledove had the Confederacy reluctantly agree to bring an end to slavery in return for military aid against the United States from the UK and France in a war they have little chance of winning on their own due to the US's greater population and industrial capacity. The system they replace it with is an apartheid style regime only a little bit less restrictive than slavery, with blacks needing to seek legal authorization to change jobs or travel, combined with a total denial of citizenship to the point of not allowing black residents to have surnames.

Regardless of how plausible Timeline-191 is, abolition of slavery within a decade either way of 1900 seems likely. International condemnation and contempt for the slavery is only going to grow. Even if the example of the Confederacy makes Brazil keep it's slaves longer, the factors that led to abolition in Brazil will still exist. Unless the rest of the United States has fallen into complete anarchy, the Confederacy is going to have a stronger neighbour to the north that has good reasons to treat it with hostility. Isolation in the face of a growing disparity in power with the United States isn't a long-term strategy for success. The Confederacy will either change to stay in the good graces of its allies, assuming it has any allies by the end of the 19th century, or the Confederacy will come to an end for any number of reasons, only some of which are directly related to slavery.

It's possible that a tottering Confederacy, slavery and all, could stumble through the first few decades of the 20th century. The likelihood of it making it to the 21st seems low.
 
An oddly common thread in works involving Southern victory in the Civil War is the idea that they would of their own volition eventually abolish slavery and replace it with the "apprenticeships", "court costs", and similar post-Reconstruction arrangements to keep blacks productive but powerless. I have never understood the logic of this.

With the exception of a few minor complaints about tariffs and domination by manufacturing interests, the entire purpose of the Southern rebellion was maintaining slavery. You see this in all the declarations of secession and all the rhetoric around it. I don't see what political or economic forces would lead to a demand for emancipation, even as de jure subjects: the plantation owners would never go for it, and they and their interests dominated politics in the Confederacy and the post-Reconstruction governments. Sure, it drives down wages for free white people and undercuts the prices they can get for their produce, but how would they come to understand that, with a government unrestrained by First or Fourteenth Amendments able to jail or allow mob violence against anyone inclined to make that point? Even in real life, poor whites and blacks in the South had nearly identical economic interests but the former were unwilling to see it and act on it, and trumped-up charges and mobs were used against "Red agitators" trying to organize them.

Turtledove's Timeline-191, if I remember correctly, had emancipation follow from a black revolt, with the goal of preventing another one. I don't buy it: the response to that, for the South's whole history up to that point, was to kill or torture enough blacks to make the rest fall back in line, even if that wasn't the most cost-effective thing. What motive would a victorious South have to change that, when anyone advocating doing so could be called a "nigger lover" and run out of town? I think this underestimates just how afraid Southern whites were of the supposedly inherently violent, rapey, animalistic stereotypes; a revolt would if anything make them more afraid of that.

Another idea I've seen is that slavery becomes inherently "uneconomic" with industrialization. This doesn't necessarily follow either: sure, slavery is bad for economic growth as a whole because it holds back consumer demand, but it works out just fine for the factory and plantation owners. Why would an industrializing South not simply put the slaves to work in the factories, where, unlike free laborers, they can't strike, picket, vote for candidates promising safety regulations, or quit? They might lack any incentive to make the factories more productive and therefore passively or actively sabotage processes, but the same was true of a worker paid an hourly wage, who also could and did do those sorts of things. This would make free labor cheap and thereby keep wages down, but again, where are the political forces that would lead poor white people to organize based on that?

For the reasons above, I see no reason to believe that had the South won, they wouldn't still have black people in chains today. But I see slavery's abolition as such a common event in these works that I have to wonder what these authors see that I don't. Can someone enlighten me?
A surviving confederacy (if it does not reform ) would have a populist undercurrent like that of the late roman republic; as more whites become poor; the more dissatisfaction they could have against the government;(along with European educated people; merchants; industrialists; and other people)((other events that could lead to this would be economic boycott by France and England; economic influence of US; bole weevil epidemic; and the upper south become more industrialized and deciding to get rid of slavery )) which a reformist or populist could use against the government. This could end up with a reformist- conservative civil war like that of Sulla vs Marius and Caesar vs Pompey. (which would lead some states abolishing slavery)
 
Last edited:

Ficboy

Banned
It's pretty much out of sheer pragmatism and economics. The Confederacy like almost major nation in existence had no problem with the institution of slavery specifically the chattel version. However by the time the 1880s rolls around industrialization is in full swing and the last Western nation to have slavery Brazil is already going to abolish the institution anyway and this puts the Confederate States in a very difficult position. Therefore they would have to abolish slavery and it will be gradual with compensation similar to Britain (one of their main trading partners alongside France) lasting at around 20 years or so. Coupled with the Panic of 1873 that would negatively impact the CSA's main sources of foreign trade the United Kingdom and France respectively and their institution will eventually come to an end no matter what.

Then we also have to look at the ex-slave blacks place in an independent South vs its Reconstruction/Jim Crow counterpart. OTL, blacks were mostly (but not always) terrorized by organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan, the White League and the Redshirts as well as discriminatory voting laws with measures like literacy tests and poll taxes, lynchings and other forms of violence all of this caused them to go to the North. TTL will be very different as while they are technically citizens with the same rights in reality they don't have much power to begin with and coupled with competition in the job market with yeoman and poor whites will make it very difficult for them to exist after slavery and that's not getting into the fact that sharecropping would not exist at least not to the extent seen in OTL and they may very well go to the United States because of the lack of opportunities.
 
Last edited:
Brazil abolished slavery in 1888... would've been an awfully hard row (of cotton, tobacco, what-have-you) to hoe if you're the ONLY western nation continuing a practice that's been determined odious by most every other independent nation on earth... including those that are your major trading partners.

This ignores the influence of the outcome of the ACW on slavery in Brazil and Cuba:

"The American Civil War was also a critical turning point in the struggle over slavery in both Cuba and Brazil. The defeat of the slaveholding Confederacy had a powerful effect on public opinion in both empires...The 'civilized world' had condemned slavery, and abolition in the United States was the last nail in the coffin of proslavery respectability. In Spain an abolitionist society formed in 1865, and Spanish legislators raised the question of the future of slavery in the Caribbean. In Brazil, Dom Pedro II suggested to his cabinet that they consider a plan for gradual emancipation; *all of these actors explicitly noted the end of slavery in the United States as a principal motivating factor.* [my emphasis--DT]

"With Washington DC no longer acting internationally in the interests of slaveholders, the United States finally cooperated with Great Britain in its decades-long effort to abolish the transatlantic slave trade. The Anglophone nations pressured Spain, which formally abolished its slave trade in 1866. The Spanish government also created the *Junta de Informacion sobre Ultramar* to consider colonial reforms, including the gradual abolition of slavery...The Junta disbanded with few accomplishments, which frustrated the ambitions of colonists and abolitionists alike and laid the seeds of a war on independence that would come.

"Spain's actions inspired Dom Pedro to finally make public his desire to see gradual abolition in Brazil. His 1867 address to the newly elected Chamber of Deputies charged them to consider the future of the empire's 'servile element' with a view to ending slavery. With small steps, the emperor had already begun to act toward this end. In July 1866 he responded to the petition of a French abolitionist society by observing that emancipation was 'nothing more than a question of method and opportunity. In November he granted freedom to government-owned slaves who agreed to serve as soldiers in the Paraguayan War and strongly encouraged private slaveholders to grant manumissions for the same purpose. But slaveholders were Dom Pedro's most powerful supporters, and their interests would not be ignored. These initial steps foundered, but the question of emancipation had been raised, and it did not go away...

"Conflict in Cuba and the Spanish government's [1870] Moret law contributed powerfully to Dom Pedro's ability to move the passage of Brazil's own [the Rio Branco Law]...Like the Emancipation Proclamation in the United States these laws were more important for their symbolic impacts than for the number of enslaved people freed through the formal mechanisms they put in place...

"In the urban centers of Brazil, which had grown in wealth and sophistication over the years, *the advance of international abolitionism inspired many.* [my emphasis--DT] Brazil's abolitionist movement took off in the late 1870's when reformer-legislators...became disenchanted with the inadequacy of the Rio Branco Law and publicly dedicated themselves to immediate abolition.."

Edward B. Rugemer, "Why Civil War? the Politics of Slavery in International Perspective, " in *The Civil War as Global Conflict: Transnational Meanings of the American Civil War* edited by David T. Gleeson and Simon Lewis (University of South Carolina Press 2014).
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ucy7BwAAQBAJ&pg=PT27
 
Last edited:
An oddly common thread in works involving Southern victory in the Civil War is the idea that they would of their own volition eventually abolish slavery and replace it with the "apprenticeships", "court costs", and similar post-Reconstruction arrangements to keep blacks productive but powerless. I have never understood the logic of this.

With the exception of a few minor complaints about tariffs and domination by manufacturing interests, the entire purpose of the Southern rebellion was maintaining slavery. You see this in all the declarations of secession and all the rhetoric around it. I don't see what political or economic forces would lead to a demand for emancipation, even as de jure subjects: the plantation owners would never go for it, and they and their interests dominated politics in the Confederacy and the post-Reconstruction governments. Sure, it drives down wages for free white people and undercuts the prices they can get for their produce, but how would they come to understand that, with a government unrestrained by First or Fourteenth Amendments able to jail or allow mob violence against anyone inclined to make that point? Even in real life, poor whites and blacks in the South had nearly identical economic interests but the former were unwilling to see it and act on it, and trumped-up charges and mobs were used against "Red agitators" trying to organize them.

Turtledove's Timeline-191, if I remember correctly, had emancipation follow from a black revolt, with the goal of preventing another one. I don't buy it: the response to that, for the South's whole history up to that point, was to kill or torture enough blacks to make the rest fall back in line, even if that wasn't the most cost-effective thing. What motive would a victorious South have to change that, when anyone advocating doing so could be called a "nigger lover" and run out of town? I think this underestimates just how afraid Southern whites were of the supposedly inherently violent, rapey, animalistic stereotypes; a revolt would if anything make them more afraid of that.

Another idea I've seen is that slavery becomes inherently "uneconomic" with industrialization. This doesn't necessarily follow either: sure, slavery is bad for economic growth as a whole because it holds back consumer demand, but it works out just fine for the factory and plantation owners. Why would an industrializing South not simply put the slaves to work in the factories, where, unlike free laborers, they can't strike, picket, vote for candidates promising safety regulations, or quit? They might lack any incentive to make the factories more productive and therefore passively or actively sabotage processes, but the same was true of a worker paid an hourly wage, who also could and did do those sorts of things. This would make free labor cheap and thereby keep wages down, but again, where are the political forces that would lead poor white people to organize based on that?

For the reasons above, I see no reason to believe that had the South won, they wouldn't still have black people in chains today. But I see slavery's abolition as such a common event in these works that I have to wonder what these authors see that I don't. Can someone enlighten me?
It's all Mosby's fault.
As far as I know nobody thought anyone with clout in the old Confederacy was against slavery before the 1872 election. Mosby, the 'Grey Ghost', a famous irregular cavalryman of the Confederacy in the Civil War, Grant's campaign manager in Virginia, stated that he had seen a hotel entry book somewhere signed by Robert E Lee opposing slavery. If true, this was an isolated statement, contradicted by strong pro-slavery statements in the 'Memoirs of General Lee' by Lee's chief of staff, read and authorized by Lee; and contradicted to the point of lunacy by Lee running a slave plantation and fighting for the slave cause. But it was convenient for Grant's campaign and Grant won the presidency. Mosby was known for sneaky tactics in the war, and after Grant was elected he was sent to China for decades. This risibly thin election twaddle stayed convenient for the South after the war, and here we are. People still kind of believe it.
But there's no way a victorious South would give up slavery. After a lost war they kept 'slavery by another name'. After winning, fat chance they'd give it up. And even a successful war would leave them needing money bad. Fitzhugh's 'Socialism, the Modern Name of Slavery' would provide a name change if needed.
 
Mauritania gave up slavery irl (a result of a variety of things, the culmination of a long process of limitation of slavery started by the french, international pressure and tension with senegal, rise of the el hor haratine movement, 1970s drought making slavery obsolete), but it did, and if freaking Mauritania did you can be sure the csa would eventually do during the 20th century, although the sheer stubbornness and rigidity of american legalism could make it last long after it becomes uneconomical (irl America sure is known for its plethora of outdated and contrived laws which would be inimaginable in 90% of the world)
 
An oddly common thread in works involving Southern victory in the Civil War is the idea that they would of their own volition eventually abolish slavery and replace it with the "apprenticeships", "court costs", and similar post-Reconstruction arrangements to keep blacks productive but powerless. I have never understood the logic of this.

With the exception of a few minor complaints about tariffs and domination by manufacturing interests, the entire purpose of the Southern rebellion was maintaining slavery. You see this in all the declarations of secession and all the rhetoric around it. I don't see what political or economic forces would lead to a demand for emancipation, even as de jure subjects: the plantation owners would never go for it, and they and their interests dominated politics in the Confederacy and the post-Reconstruction governments. Sure, it drives down wages for free white people and undercuts the prices they can get for their produce, but how would they come to understand that, with a government unrestrained by First or Fourteenth Amendments able to jail or allow mob violence against anyone inclined to make that point? Even in real life, poor whites and blacks in the South had nearly identical economic interests but the former were unwilling to see it and act on it, and trumped-up charges and mobs were used against "Red agitators" trying to organize them.

Turtledove's Timeline-191, if I remember correctly, had emancipation follow from a black revolt, with the goal of preventing another one. I don't buy it: the response to that, for the South's whole history up to that point, was to kill or torture enough blacks to make the rest fall back in line, even if that wasn't the most cost-effective thing. What motive would a victorious South have to change that, when anyone advocating doing so could be called a "nigger lover" and run out of town? I think this underestimates just how afraid Southern whites were of the supposedly inherently violent, rapey, animalistic stereotypes; a revolt would if anything make them more afraid of that.

Another idea I've seen is that slavery becomes inherently "uneconomic" with industrialization. This doesn't necessarily follow either: sure, slavery is bad for economic growth as a whole because it holds back consumer demand, but it works out just fine for the factory and plantation owners. Why would an industrializing South not simply put the slaves to work in the factories, where, unlike free laborers, they can't strike, picket, vote for candidates promising safety regulations, or quit? They might lack any incentive to make the factories more productive and therefore passively or actively sabotage processes, but the same was true of a worker paid an hourly wage, who also could and did do those sorts of things. This would make free labor cheap and thereby keep wages down, but again, where are the political forces that would lead poor white people to organize based on that?

For the reasons above, I see no reason to believe that had the South won, they wouldn't still have black people in chains today. But I see slavery's abolition as such a common event in these works that I have to wonder what these authors see that I don't. Can someone enlighten me?
There is also the possibility of a reconquest of the confederacy by the USA.
 
An oddly common thread in works involving Southern victory in the Civil War is the idea that they would of their own volition eventually abolish slavery and replace it with the "apprenticeships", "court costs", and similar post-Reconstruction arrangements to keep blacks productive but powerless. I have never understood the logic of this.

With the exception of a few minor complaints about tariffs and domination by manufacturing interests, the entire purpose of the Southern rebellion was maintaining slavery. You see this in all the declarations of secession and all the rhetoric around it. I don't see what political or economic forces would lead to a demand for emancipation, even as de jure subjects: the plantation owners would never go for it, and they and their interests dominated politics in the Confederacy and the post-Reconstruction governments. Sure, it drives down wages for free white people and undercuts the prices they can get for their produce, but how would they come to understand that, with a government unrestrained by First or Fourteenth Amendments able to jail or allow mob violence against anyone inclined to make that point? Even in real life, poor whites and blacks in the South had nearly identical economic interests but the former were unwilling to see it and act on it, and trumped-up charges and mobs were used against "Red agitators" trying to organize them.

Turtledove's Timeline-191, if I remember correctly, had emancipation follow from a black revolt, with the goal of preventing another one. I don't buy it: the response to that, for the South's whole history up to that point, was to kill or torture enough blacks to make the rest fall back in line, even if that wasn't the most cost-effective thing. What motive would a victorious South have to change that, when anyone advocating doing so could be called a "nigger lover" and run out of town? I think this underestimates just how afraid Southern whites were of the supposedly inherently violent, rapey, animalistic stereotypes; a revolt would if anything make them more afraid of that.

Another idea I've seen is that slavery becomes inherently "uneconomic" with industrialization. This doesn't necessarily follow either: sure, slavery is bad for economic growth as a whole because it holds back consumer demand, but it works out just fine for the factory and plantation owners. Why would an industrializing South not simply put the slaves to work in the factories, where, unlike free laborers, they can't strike, picket, vote for candidates promising safety regulations, or quit? They might lack any incentive to make the factories more productive and therefore passively or actively sabotage processes, but the same was true of a worker paid an hourly wage, who also could and did do those sorts of things. This would make free labor cheap and thereby keep wages down, but again, where are the political forces that would lead poor white people to organize based on that?

For the reasons above, I see no reason to believe that had the South won, they wouldn't still have black people in chains today. But I see slavery's abolition as such a common event in these works that I have to wonder what these authors see that I don't. Can someone enlighten me?

The TL-191 bit is a common misconception, see below:

Timeline-191 doesn't have emancipation as the result of a slave revolt. Instead, Turtledove had the Confederacy reluctantly agree to bring an end to slavery in return for military aid against the United States from the UK and France in a war they have little chance of winning on their own due to the US's greater population and industrial capacity. The system they replace it with is an apartheid style regime only a little bit less restrictive than slavery, with blacks needing to seek legal authorization to change jobs or travel, combined with a total denial of citizenship to the point of not allowing black residents to have surnames.

This. By when TL-191 proper begins, we get the impression that there is little real difference in the condition of black people post-slavery than there was pre-slavery: the plantation system still works, with black plantation workers still de facto being property of the plantation owners even if de jure they're paid employees, plus as NotedCoyote says they're restricted from travel, restricted from changing jobs, not allowed surnames...

And TBH, I could easily see the Confederacy having a system like this following a victory in the Civil War. Not real, meaningful emancipation, but emancipation in name only? Yep...
 
There would be no fugitive slave laws in the north, and it seems like there would be organized militant abolitionist groups raiding across the border and fleeing slaves. I could even see northern tolerated "pirate" ships launching raids against coastal Carolina plantations (and freeing slaves as well as looting, perhaps receiving a bounty from northern abolitionist groups for each freed slave).

The geo political arena could get interesting everywhere. You can imagine the French backed regime surviving in Mexico, until 1871, at which time French troops would be evacuated to defend France (assuming the Franco Prussian war doesn't get butterflied).

If Slaves flee to Mexico, or anti slavery raids are organized from there does the Confederacy invade to establish a friendly regime, would rising powers like Germany then counter intervene???
 
There's also the fact that "the CSA was about to abolish slavery anyway!!!" is a key belief of Lost Causers. Patrick Clebourne requested that enslaved people be freed to help fight against the Union, as he truly believed in an independent Southern USA... and was quickly shouted down as an "abolitionist conspirator" and was never granted a promotion in the confederate army ever again. The CSA's entire reason for existing was slavery, and if it were abolished the CSA's entire reason for being would be gone as well. Even if you do a TL-191 esque partial emancipation, you will still be risking a second civil war. In fact, if you have a POD after 1862-1863 (I mention this because I've seen a few interesting TL's where the POD is in late 1863 or 1864), you are probably going to get a civil war no matter what; by the end of the Civil War, Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina were all threatening to leave, as Jeff Davis and the confederate government was becoming more and more authoritarian to try to maintain unity against the US. So honestly, the CSA is going to most likely hold on to slavery for dear life, perhaps even into the early 1900s, while the US licks its wounds and either prepares for round two or picks and chooses a handful of important states (like Virginia) to readmit and string the rest along as deeply impoverished banana republics, not dissimilar from US policy in Central America.
 
Depending on the definition, they would never actually give up slavery. Even if they abolished de-facto chattel slavery, apprentice programs (the newly freed slave and their immediate children/descendant owes their former owner labor), becoming 'wards of the state' (ie serfs) coupled with restrictions on travel, owning property, ect, that by the time the South 'gave up' slavery, the only fundamental difference for a generation might be a lack of dogs and bullwhips. But casual brutality towards black people, discrimination and the various unsavory tactics we saw IOTL would probably be encouraged, if not state policy, in the Confederate States by the mid 1900s. Basically only by the time the third generation after 'emancipation' has grown up in the 1980s would they be 'free' and then would simply be second class citizens who can't move where they want, can only own property in restricted areas, can't vote, and are banned from certain types of labor.
 
Top