What would have been a realistic end date for slavery in a victorious CSA? It seems like farm mechanization would have made the institution obsolete fairly quickly after the 1860s.
Also, after British cotton production in India ended the world's sole reliance on the South for it international pressure and trade sanctions would have probably done the institution in before the 1890s or earlier as well.
Also, general Dixieboo thread too, I guess.
>>946308
Actually mechanization caused slavery to entrench itself, as the cotton gin was what made it so profitable.
>>946308
1880 or so, which is probably how long it would take the north to lick it's wounds and attack again.
>>946308
>>946322
>>946332
https://vine.co/v/ij2YmZQdYwn
https://vine.co/v/ijQEhV73Vvn
I'd imagine even after farm machinery made slavery inefficient for farming, people would continue to own slaves in this hypothetical South as household servants. Of course the South would need the manufacturing capacity to build these machines.
I doubt it would have been made illegal entirely but field slaves probably wouldn't have been around into the 20th century and most blacks would probably have been deported.
>>946332
1880s seem right, as Brazil is probably the most comparable country to the CSA economically and that's when they did it. A second war with the US is an interesting idea, I think it's doubtful they would have been able to muster popular support for it though.
>>946322
I mean mechanization as in new technology such as tractors taking the human equation out of the actual physical act of picking cotton, not tech that processed the product once picked.
>>946367
>1880s seem right, as Brazil is probably the most comparable country to the CSA economically and that's when they did it. A second war with the US is an interesting idea, I think it's doubtful they would have been able to muster popular support for it though.
Nah, it's almost inevitable. Remember, even if the south's strategy works, their game is to outlast the Union, not defeat it directly. That still leaves a hostile state with roughly 3 times the population and even more wealth right next door, who views you as a rebellious set of provinces.
Not to mention the almost inevitability of disputes going down over the territories out west. The question of a second war isn't if, it's when.
>>946308
>>946378
I'm assuming a Confederate victory would have entailed official recognition by the US and then the European powers.
I could see a War of 1812 type scenario where the two countries fight again over more minor things than total annexation vs independence, like as you said western territories or the US not properly respecting CSA sovereignty despite recognizing it. I can't see there being another full scale Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo after how much the first one drained the public.
>>946397
I didn't say anything about the Civil War being or not being about slavery? Stop trying to derail the thread.
>>946410
I didn't try to derail everything, I just want every civil war thread to have this for the inevitable.
>>946406
>I'm assuming a Confederate victory would have entailed official recognition by the US and then the European powers.
Extremely unlikely unless things go very ahistorical, very quickly.
I was assuming a confederate victory in the sense of Lincoln losing the 1864 election and McClellan signing some kind of semi-permanent armistice.
But even if there is full recognition, as well as international recognition, I'm less sanguine than you are about the prospects of long term peace. Countries are willing to pay an awful lot to regain lost "core" territory, as opposed to peripheral ones. I really don't think the U.S. would give up for anything short of a shock that would fully balkanize it.
>>946420
Alright, fine, whatever there's a 100% chance this thread will become a debate about it eventually.
I don't think I've ever seen anybody argue that the ruling class of the South didn't push for the secession because of slavery, so that pic is strawmanning a bit. What I see debated is
>how justified they were in taking action against what did essentially amount to destroying the South's economy and whether there were better ways to have ended slavery
>that the act of secession was an act of the slave owning class, but the actual fighting was done by the lower non-slave owning classes and was primarily motivated by pure Southern nationalist fervor
>>946443
No need to be cynical. I didn't come here to debate it and there's an entirely fair chance no one else will either, but that screen cap should always be available for quick reference.
>>946435
I don't know, the war on the union's part was primarily fought for the preservation of the union. Once the union has quite clearly not been preserved, and especially after 10-20 years of peace, that casus belli sort of disappears and any subsequent war against the south would be to reclaim a territory that the average Yankee either does not care about or openly despises, and on paper does not really benefit the union at all economically or in terms of population/power.
It's so weird to think of a CSA existing today. Imagine Elvis/Johnny Cash/blues music (assuming black people aren't 100% deported, which I doubt would happen) and Coke being considered Confederate things rather than quintessentially American things and the cultural impact the CSA would have on the world after WWII. Imagine having a CSA passport, too.
There would have to be a new demonym for people from the CSA, too. "American" would already be taken, "Southern" wouldn't make sense to anybody outside North America and would be silly. I guess "Confederate" or identifying by state (Texan/Alabaman/Virginian, etc) would work, but I bet something new and crazy like Dixieman/Dixiewoman or something would have developed.
>>946544
There was a movie that imagined an america where the CSA won. Here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exnwTWfFRM8
>>946308
1865 the csa agreed to free the slaves if they were to win the war
>>946557
This is a catastrophically bad movie.
>>946557
CSA itself would split with the northern parts rejoining the union.
![Baumwoll-Erntemaschine_auf_Feld[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/6IMPPgO.jpg "Baumwoll-Erntemaschine_auf_Feld[1].jpg")
>>946322
There's no reason to believe that efficient mechanical harvesters would have entrenched slavery further. They replaced millions of laborers when they were introduced and practically ended labor-intensive farming in the South except in the tobacco industry.
>>946308
I'm not sure slavery would have been abolished entirely. The racial hierarchical mindset and resistance to adopting industrialization continued well into the 20th century. I think we could have seen different forms of slavery emerge, possibly involving better living conditions and access to some legal rights for slaves, but I don't think it would have been ended outright given the fact that the ruling class of the South was so heavily invested in it and came up with every excuse imaginable to maintain it. At any rate, large-scale agricultural slavery would have to have ended by the 1940s at the latest given innovations in mechanical harvesting that rendered using large numbers of laborers obsolete.
>>946308
I know they were the bad guys but why is Confederate art always so good?
>>946397
Virginia and Tennessee voted steadfastly against secession until the federal government tried to raise 75,000 troops from the South to force South Carolina and the rest back into the Union after Fort Sumter. Men like John Bell and Robert E. Lee reflected the popular sentiments of those states: people who reluctantly joined the Confederacy in order to preserve the rights of other states (to secede [over slavery]).
Also that poster totally misinterpreted Manning's thesis of "What This Cruel War Was Over." She never says that troops on both sides "overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery," (a ridiculous notion when you look at the letters of the majority of Union soldiers) she simply states that it was an important factor and that white supremacy informed the opinions and motivations of Confederate troops (no shit).
>>946979
Tennessee never voted for secession I believe.
>>946308
honestly, I don't see a victorious CSA voluntarily ending slavery
When the CSA wrote their constitution they basically copied the U.S constitution with a few notable exceptions:
one being the removal of article 1 section 8. In fact this was their constitution's article 1 section 9
"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
In other words, they removed the clause granting government charter to provide for the general good of the people and replaced it with a clause essentially hard-wiring slavery into CSA society.
A Confederate victory would have been hollow. Impoverished southern whites would have been driven north while more and more industries were given over to powerful plantation owners to be worked by slaves, resulting in a state that would have eventually become majority Negro.
There was literally not a single shred of evidence to suggest that slavery would decline on its own; that was an erroneous prediction that the founding fathers made which didn't take the cotton gin and the rise of mass production and the assembly line into account. The cotton gin (in other words the first breakthrough of the industrial revolution) made slavery extremely profitable, and the number of slaves being imported to the United States was actually accelerating.
Far more likely is that the CSA would have created a state similar to Rhodesia, and probably would have fallen like Rhodesia did: with the colored majority driving out the tiny minority of white land owners and taking the country as their own after many decades of abuse, repression, and neglect
>>946345
>vine
Your average Unionposter, everyone
>>946544
This is damn fun to think about, even if assuming all of these cultural developments are somehow consistent with IRL
/sp/ here, so I can imagine NASCAR being a "national sport" with football up there too, but being a Yankee (i.e. Ivy League) sport in origin I think it would be through the colleges/aristocracy.
Still, considering, how huge football is in the south today, an American-Confederate football rivalry would be incredibly.
Then you have basketball, whose popularity is more towards the Upper/Old South (Carolinas/Virginia). Baseball? Maybe, being the American (Northern) "national pastime" is challenged. However, baseball only emerged in the aftermath (some would say during) the Civil War, so its development would be easiest to predict.
The whole 'black deportation following abolition' is a little far-fetched out of pure logistics. That's A LOT of people, now legally free, you have to get onto ships and send to Africa. Realistically, the South would let them stay because a full-on exodus would a huge dent on the labour force. If it's anytime soon after the war, you have a working white male population that's been hit by war. I can see a substantial amount moving to the North, and some to Africa, depending on how the social dynamics of slavery would play out. It wasn't a 100% malevolent institution. The entrenchment of black communities and the sharecropping phenomenon illustrate that niggas was there to stay.
>>947035
The CSA didn't have a colored majority.
>>946308
it'd be interesting to see what a Confederate victory would even look like. Assuming a victory in 1863 or 1864 the Union had already captured large chunks of Confederate territory...most of Tennessee, the Mississippi Valley, New Orleans, Southern Florida, etc. I don't see the Union giving it back. There's a real question of how viable the Confederacy would be divided and without its largest city.
>>947045
>liking traitors who killed their own thousands of their own kin just to keep niggers and have state sovereignty
Your average Rebelscumposter, everyone.
>>947051
I used the word "eventually" for a reason.
>>947057
>their own kin
>implying
The South was never anything like the North at any point before the war. They didn't even have the same general ethnic backgrounds.
>>947046
agreed...a lot of the great Southern football schools....Auburn, Clemson, Texas A&M....were land-grant schools pushed by federal government programs. Be interesting to see what happened.
>>947046
The North still has more college football championships than the South and don't even get me started on the NFL.
Even if it was victorious, I don't really see the CSA lasting more than 20 years. Extreme pressure from the Union, which would likely force the South into economic ruin (as well as the fact that most of their consumer market had evaporated), and the Union would prevent any attempt by foreign powers to recognize them. They'd probably be eventually assimilated by years of wars and land grabbing. That being said, in a timeline where the South distanced itself for longer the development of the Dixie mindset and tensions between the South and the rest of the nation would be interesting.
>>946345
>check that guys account
>he's alt-right
Why the fuck is he burning a CSA flag in that case?
>>947069
>implying anyone born in America isn't kin to that country
I see you're a divide and conquer shill. Nice try, but I consider other fellow Southerners my brethren.
>>947109
Of all the possible ways for the post-war South to fall, economically is absolutely the most unlikely.
>as well as the fact that most of their consumer market had evaporated
You realize that whole European colonial empires were being built at that time purely for the same sort of production that was happening in the South? The goods produced in the South at the time were in extremely high demand, and with increased mechanization of agriculture, it would have been a fierce competitor in the global market.
>>947206
Reminder that you aren't allowed here as rule /pol/~
>>947192
>right
p spooky
>>947210
Reminder that I am a traitor to /pol/ for helping to burn a Confederate flag, therefore, I'm automatically a /his/torian.
Sorry, but, you're stuck with me whether you like it or not, cuck.
>>947206
>implying Jamal doesn't exclusively cuck alt-right
>>947218
I'm not even alt-right. Good try tho.
>>947228
>claiming you're not alt-right when you are clearly alt-right
>>946308
There would have been a massive slave rebellion before it was abolished
The CSA sent most of its white male population into the military. Over a quarter of them die in the war. White women won't fight, but black women will most likely. They were as involved as black males in attempts to becoming free
>>947240
Remember those rules friendo
>>947242
>muh roolz
I'm neither trolling not being a racist, I'm advocating a just repatriation to your homeland. Why are you against it?
>>947224
We're already minority white by the 2040s and currently like 40% non-white because of Yankees like Ted Kennedy and the immigration bill they shoved down our throats in the sixties, so I don't know what the fuck you're going on about with this "if" business.
Also it's long established that both sides were equally "racist" (according to modern standards) so why don't you get back to /pol/ with your "anti-white" shit.
>>947238
Whatever floats your boat, faggot.
>>947257
>We're becoming non-white by 2040 so why not go full Brazil in the 1860s?
>>947255
Blacks have been here longer than the United States has
This is their homeland
>>947257
Actually no
No hispanic whites will be a plurality in the 2040's if the trends continue
Which means larger than every other group, but below 51%
And no Spics and Niggers aren't friends
>>947269
They weren't even considered citizens by the people who founded this country and were brought here against their will.
>>947272
Completely irrelevant
Their homeland is here
>>947269
What?
>>947269
And instead of being a bona fide aristocrat in Liberia in your own sovereign country, you decide to stay and be the laughingstock of America? Literally why?
>>947269
No, Africa is their homeland. The ones brought over here were just being used as property owned by people.
Literally foreign goods imported here because of supply and demand, they serve no purpose here but for manual task labour. They were MADE in Africa, MADE in Africa. NOT U.S.A.
Get that in your mind, libcuck.
>>947289
This. They were brought here as slaves and with slavery getting abolished, they should've been returned home.
>>947272
This desu, legally they were slaves and were not citizens of the USA therefore they cannot be considered people of this land.
>>947264
Yeah I'm sure the CSA would've had reeeally liberal immigration policies. Jesus christ you're dumb.
>>947271
>Hispanic whites
Funny joke
Actual white hispanics are the upper tiers of their country's societies and thry're not the ones coming here. We get their short, squat, fat peasant class and the census classifies them along with Arabs as white for some reason.
>>947301
>immigration policies
The influential New Orleans and South Carolina aristocrats wanted to reopen the Atlantic trade route and import as many black slaves as possible. They didn't just want the blacks they had to stay, they actually wanted to BRING MORE.
For fuck's sake they even dreamed about annexing Cuba and tapping into their black Caribbean slave pool, face it, CSA would end up being Rhodesia 2.0
>>947314
You blew the fuck out of that guy. Nice job m8. Here's a meme.
>>947314
I'm sure they WANTED to do that, and they were welcome to try if they were okay with constantly getting raped by the American, British, and French navies all the time. You're also ignoring that just 15 years after the war the entire continent of Africa was gobbled up by the Europeans, who would have not allowed any such thing go on in their colonial holdings.
>>947333
Sorry but you were BTFO minutes ago. Go away fag.
>>947333
The CSA could have taken on the Spanish Empire though
It would likely be a hard fought war, much more difficult than the Spanish-American War given CSA manpower and war exhaustion from the Civil War
>>947342
Not just Spain but also Portuguese holdings in Africa. Not to mention the southern Golden Circlers wanted to annex all of picrelated and import tons of Haitians, Cubans, Dominicans and whatever the fuck to the mainland.
>>947342
There's no way in hell the six percent of the CSA that was slave owning aristocrats would be able to get the population behind a war like that. Especially after the Civil War. The US was only barely able to accomplish it and that was forty years later.
>>947354
>the Golden Circlers
So a tiny insignificant fringe movement wanted something so that means the CSA was going to do it. Okay.
>>947135
When push came to shove, grain from the North was far more important to the empires of Europe than cotton from the South. While not as easy, Indian and Egyptian cotton could fill most of the demand. American food was nigh irreplaceable, and I believe the British and French would rather have slightly sub-par amounts of cotton than be starved of food due to American pressure. Plus as history showed us, the British and French weren't too keen on going to war for cash crops, which the Union very well could've threatened to do if Britain/France resumed trade with the CSA.
>>947379
>insignificant and fringe
Kek, they were backed by some of the richest people in the nation. And the southern aristocrats, being the greedy fucks they were, wouldn't refuse a chance to gain a virtual monopoly on all sugar production in the Gulf.
>>947354
Saying that this would have been an actual Confederate goal post-independence is probably one of the most farfetched things I have ever seen here. The Golden Circle shit hit its peak before the war even began and even then it was a fringe group.
>>947402
In fact Golden Circlers were one of the main reasons why secession even happened. Read that book from Keehn.
>>947389
Yeah, and so was the movement in Britain to federalize with Canada, Australia and New Zealand around the same time period to become Super Britain. So fucking what, it's just idealism shared by old crackpots in country clubs that the government hears out and then doesn't act on because it's stupid. If you actually think the CSA's goal after winning independence and losing a quarter of their fighting aged population in the process was to immediately start shit with Mexico and Spain and turn half of the Americas into a superplantation for the aristocracy you need to get your fucking head checked.
>>947432
Well they started a war against the Union which was an equally headfucked move.
While it would be quick and easy for the CSA to reach Cuba and invade, the north would cockblock them from the maneuver. The South would most likely have funded armed revolutions etc in neighbor colonies and developed trade relations with them.
>>947444
The rebellion against the union had motivations besides slavery. The 90% of the south that didn't own slaves was not going to fight an aggressive war against a foreign neighbor purely for slavery and particularly not at a time when Americans were revolted even by the thought of unnecessary foreign intervention or aggression.
>>946397
why do you repost your own copypasta in every civil war thread?
>>946308
if CSA had won and slavery stayed, even if mechanization came, they would still use slaves for men-heavy works like for example mining or hell even chaplinesque style boton pushers on factories.
Its hard to tell how the american economy would have worked, maybe they would have got embargoes from european rivals (incited by exiles) but we must not forget that european were consolidating their global empires with their own amount of factual genocide and murder so they could just look over that american goods were being produced in the "land of the free".
Implying things kept like that for say, 30 years or so the world would be extremely different since there would be possibly no participation of USA in WW1 or maybe even support germany (supossing it would still happen of course)
Maybe we would see a much more "scientific positivist-racist" (>inb4 randomly coined term) like the world nazies or /pol/ would want viewing non european races as inferior and instituzionalizing abuse. Also it would mean that even if the colonial revolutions still came in the 50's they would have been much more violent since people would be not fighting for created nationalims but for real freedom
Maybe then and only then we would have seen a major anti-slavery movement since there would be still people sensitive enough to cry for those nignogs who fell on the colonies or in the fields (implying no censored press)
>>947289
Any African imported as a slave should be sent back
If you can find a 200 year old nigger that fits this go ahead an deport him
The rest were born and raised here and their family has been here probably longer than the country existed
Get that in your mind stormcuck
>>947296
You saying that it isn't there home doesn't make it such
They lived here all their lives and were raised in an American culture
This is their home
>>947299
No that's not how it works
>>947314
>influential New Orleans and South Carolina aristocrats wanted
so the fuck what? There were influential confederates who wanted to end slavery and send them back to Africa. Neither opinions matter when talking about what the South "would have done". Plus the Confederate constitution prohibited the international slave trade so fuck off.
>>947060
The rate of increase in slaves as percentage of the population was decreasing in every Southern state by 1860. The demand for agricultural labor was tapering off as the South ran out of productive land to cultivate.
The south should have won, because it's the better aka redpilled version of Vinland/columbia
>>947473
can you follow reply chains?
>>946308
Well the last time I played vicky 2 as germany I kept the CSA indepedent, and they outlawed slavery in 1875, and then were reabsorbed into the USA in1894 because they dropped their alliance with me and were pathetic
>>946624
This. As soon as the federal government was beaten down and the point was made, I could see Virginia rejoining the Union.
>>947035
>mfw those graphs are misleading since they're only "word counts" and not numbers of actual points
>mfw I have no face
literally every "state right" south carolina lists also mentions slavery
>>947497
>being this mad
>>949341
But the consensus of professional and academic historians is unanimous: These documents clearly listed slavery as the reason why the south seceded. When they discussed "state's rights" and "protection of personal property" it was clearly in the context of supporting the state's right to declare living humans as the lawful property of another. When they discussed Lincoln's election, it was clearly because they feared that his platform of stopping slavery's spread to new states would put them in political tightspot down the road.
It was only later revisionism that downplayed slavery's role in the secession, particularly when the European powers didn't want to listen to any excuse for slavery (they emancipated their slaves around the same time New England did and thought that Napoleon was a wicked tyrant for trying to bring it back)
>>949674
lol why are you even on this board?
>>946819
Because they were the GOOD guys.
>>952831
>wanted to import and breed more blacks for profit while keeping poor whites poor
>good guys
kys
>>947053
Even with a victorious peace, the Union had a had time keeping troops in the army. Without the economic looting post war, the federal debt would have to be made good with higher taxes, etc.Without the stolen cotton, tobacco, and taxes, a 'defeated' Union would have been reluctant to garrison 'rebel' land and after a few years of guerrilla warfare (as in Missouri), they would have withdrawn all occupation troops. The anti-war copperheads would have been economically favorable to the CSA due to the Mississippi River's economic value, forcing a reconciliation over the wreckage of the Abolitionist Republicans.
>>947090
Two national Championships so far, FSU and the U of A. All the others are voted on by drunk journalists and deceptive coaches.
Slavery ended in Brazil in 1888.
CSA would have ended it by then too. Simply due to economic pressures. You make more money with paid labor and being able to trade. Then you can with slaves and not being able to trade.
>>952852
poor whites were for slavery too.
The south's society had a hierarchy. As long as slaves existed, poor whites were not the bottom of society.
>>952931
Far more likely to evolve into an apartheid state and allow the blacks true emancipation.
>>949828
The consensus of professional and academic GDYankee historians may be unanimous in that their heavily biased documents falsely claim slavery as the only reason why the South seceded. When they discussed "state's rights" and "protection of personal property" it was clearly in the context of supporting the US Constitutional right to maintain living humans as the lawful property of another. When Southern elites saw the crookedness of Lincoln's election, they recognized that his platform of stopping slavery's spread to new territories would put them in a political tight spot down the road.
It was only later revisionism that overplayed slavery's role in the secession, but I doubt you'll find any of the tariff problems in Yankee textbooks.
The European powers didn't want to listen to any excuse for slavery. They falsely emancipated their slaves around the same time England did, though they treated their colonies in worse ways than Tubman's book alleged.
Europeans thought that Napoleon was a wicked tyrant for plunging Europe into a quarter century of war. I seriously doubt the illiterate masses of Europe could find America on a map. >>952852
>>946308
Most likely late 19th century. Whether the they would survive is up to debate but I'm glad that the USA stayed intact. I still find it stupid on the fact that a shit ton of people died cause the few rich people wanted to stay rich.
>>952970
>The consensus of professional and academic GDYankee historians may be unanimous in that
No, the consensus of professional and academic WORLD historians.
As in, literally everyone who doesn't have a vested emotional dog in the fight.
>heavily biased documents falsely claim slavery as the only reason why the South seceded.
Those are primary sources, dumbass. Do you know what a primary source is? That's when the PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY SECEDED FUCKING WROTE THE DAMN DOCUMENT.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/
sorry that reality seems "heavily biased" to you
>>946596
https://www.libertyclassroom.com/slavery-and-the-civil-war-revisited/
>>946308
https://www.libertyclassroom.com/slavery-and-the-civil-war-revisited/
Five years after war
The mechanizer cotton picker didn't become a commercially viable product until the 1940s so I don't see slavery being abolished before then, especially if slavery goes from being merely an economic institution to a cultural defining point as a reaction to the war.
Even if negro field labor becomes obsolete that's still no reason to free house servants so it's far more likely that field negroes will be repurposed for industrial work. I also see the potential for official eugenics programs to slowly decrease the surplus negroe population through sterilization.
One potential threat though to the CSA is the cancer of Marxism spreading to their slave population and in a worst case scenario the US could find itself bordered by an aggressive Red Haiti.
>>955859
Southern slavery and industrialization just wouldn't really be compatible. In the South it was taboo for white people to sell their labor to others for a wage because it was seen as subservience, leaving black people as the ones who would develop the skills for industrial work. The value of their labor would increase dramatically given their smaller total population, granting them leverage that they never had before through work slowdowns and other means of damaging their masters' bottom line since they would be too valuable to beat or cripple.
>>946557
>>946578
i don't see what's wrong with it
it's pretty funny so far tb h
