What if the Confederacy had won the War?

[johan_steele]

Ouch... Interesting thread... very intresting. And I HATE What if's!

[unionblue]

My Dear Shane,

That is all historical facts are, the 'what ifs' that actually happened.

YMOS,
Unionblue

[hawglips]

I prefer the alternate history that the CSA and USA would have lived happily side by side, and would have been allies in most all international affairs, much like we have been with Canada.

A peaceful coexistence and allied relationship would very likely have ensued.

Hal

[thea_447]

I like your alternate history, Hal, and I believe it might have worked. They could have remained allies but at the same time would have existed as two separate nations, equal in status to one another.

[unionblue]

Hal & Thea,

So, if the South could have left the Union, with the institution of slavery intact, No problems? Or do you both ascribe to the idea that slavery would have died out on its own?

Unionblue

[thea_447]

Yes, I believe slavery would have died out and a war didn't have to be waged for this to happen. I base this on among other things, the cotton gin, new manufacturing, industry. The South was agrarian for all the years leading up to the war. But with the cotton gin, negroes would not have been needed to make cotton King again. Plus the plantation owners would not have had to feed, cloth,and maintain all these people. On a purely economic level there would be no profit in having all those slaves then. At the same time some way would have to be found to reimburse the South for all the money they'd paid for these slaves. The Abolitionists were intent on seeing that the slaves were freed and that the South just lose all their investment. And let's not forget tariffs were still being crammed down their throats.
Also the North should have allowed some railroads to traverse main routes through the South to help in this endeavor. It's quite apparent in the long scheme of things that when they were developing the rail system they were planning for troop movements. (Yes, I do see the hackles rising on your neck, Neil...take a deep breath, you'll be fine!)

If the North had backed off, let the tariff issue die down and not pursued a course of forcing this taxation, things would have gone differently. You say Sumter, I say invasion! Cry me a river, whine me a song...

If one tries to put this in the perspective of 1860 it is easier to understand why the South felt their back was to the wall. Hotheads among us will say that they deserved what they got. But I say this war could have been averted.

Slavery may have taken 15-20 years to die out but as the South outgrew its agrarian nature and saw what other parts of the country were doing to turn a profit, no thinking man would have continued on this perilous course. Think about it. If you could free yourself, as a plantation owner, of the burden of, say 400 souls, and still maintain your cotton crop, even at a reduced profit for a few years, wouldn't you do this and branch out into other areas of mercantilism?
In this way they could free themselves from having to buy all their products from the North or from England and become self-sustaining. And of course they would still have had the responsibility of training these negroes for work (for pay) since the North didn't even want them to come in their direction for fear they were a threat to white factory jobs.

And the poor farmers who actually fought this war could have stayed alive, maintained their farms and continued with their lives almost untouched. After all the only reason they went to war was because they were invaded and felt that their very families and lands were at stake. If the shoe had been on the other foot and Southerners had invaded the North and fought on Northern farmlands, wouldn't Northern farmers have reacted in precisely the same way? You better believe they would!

Just a few thoughts on this. I will respond with more later.

-T-

[hawglips]

Slavery survived nowhere else, so I am inclined to lean towards it dying out in the CSA as well.

Back in the New England furor over Madison's War and even earlier at the time of Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase, those New Englanders advocating secession were pointing out the likelihood of a peaceful separate, and allied coexistence with their Southern brethren.

Hal

[unionblue]

Hal,

Interesting, don't you think, that this concept that slavery was going to die out in the South anytime soon? I find it amazing that it can even be contemplated, based on the opinions and articles of the time.

As for your comment on the New England furor, please remember that the South, in Congress and elsewhere, said that secession at that time would have been treason and was rejected as a means of leaving the Union, in spite of the fact those New Englanders stated they could have a separate, peaceful coexistence with them.

Unionblue

[johan_steele]

Hal,

Slavery was still going on elsewhere in the world... Africa, the Middle East, South America & large chunks of Asia...

Thea, the cotton gin had been around and in wide use for what... 60 years if memory serves me right... figure out the combined cost of the slaves in the South and I think you will see that it would have been financial suicide for any politician in the South to even suggest the elimination of slavery. Also note who the slave owners were... figure 25-30% of the populace... all likely land owners, more likely than not to vote to retain slavery and w/ the money &amp; incentive to push their political agenda. A South w/out the US... defiently pro slavery, for how long? You point out the cotton gin as an incentive to eliminate slavery... I just don't see it.<font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font> was making slavery more efficient. What about the house slaves? Who would have replaced the huge staffs needed to run the large plantation houses? Would the Southern Aristocricy have been willing to give that up or to start paying them? The professional tradesmen who were slaves were making a lot of money for their masters... again not an incentive to eliminate slavery.

The South was primarily agricultural in nature, those poor white farmers who were eeking out a living would have suddenly had competition from the new class of freemen... I think they would have opposed the elimination of slavery as well. In fact they did.<font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font> was illegal to teach a black man or woman to read through most if not all of the South... Illiteracy alone would have kept the black man on the bottom of the trade scale. Forced to take the lowest paying jobs or work for food trades; essentially still a slave.

I'm sorry I just don't see the benevolant masters suddenly turning their slaves loose in 1866 or 1870, why? There was just no incentive, economical or cultural, to do so for the planter of 1860.

Just a point to ask, how in the devil can the CSA firing on Ft Sumter be thought of as a Union invasion... A point quite a few people seem to forget is that Lincoln didn't call for 75,000 volunteers to put down the Rebellion until AFTER Ft Sumter had been fired upon.

Just to reiterate the Timeline: 12 April Sumter shelled. 15 April Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers. From 20 December of 1860 when SC seceded until 12 April of 61 the CSA had been busy seizing US Arsenals, armories, forts, equipment &amp; imprisoning US Regular soldiers... There was nothing friendly about the act of Secession and nothing to suggest that the South ever intend a peaceful split.

There was most of 4 mos to figure out a peace... I don't think Lincoln would have even considered such a thing as a CSA &amp; the South seemed more interested in a fight.

Freeing the slaves in the CSA was not even seriously considered until the war was all but over.

As it was the Emancipation Proclomation was a brilliant political manuever... one that probably would not have been made w/out the Civil War.

[unionblue]

Thea,

I too, tend to disagree that the cotton gin would have eventually gotten rid of slavery. In fact cotton production and slavery WAS on the way out UNTIL the cotton gin was invented. Then the tremendous increase in the planting of cotton and the more slaves needed to harvest it and therefore the huge increase in the profits from the planting and harvesting of cotton. The resulting increase in slaves resulted in the very things you say would not have happened. No one who was involved with cotton was going to let two billion dollars of property walk (slaves) along with all the profit being generated by their labor. The cotton gin created that situation when it was introduced. Let's follow the logic. The cotton gin was invented in 1793. In 1790, cotton production was a mere 3,000 bales; by 1810 it had increased to 178,000 bales, then jumped to 732,000 bales by 1830, and then to 4,500,000 bales by 1860. Well over 50% of US exports was made up of cotton! And slavery was going to just 'die out?' Slavery had made this huge production possible!

And the deep South was NOT increasing in manufacturing, devoting itself to cotton production. This is why the upper South did not at first jump on the secession band wagon as they WERE trying to develop industries and such and did not want them sucked down over the issue of slavery, not tariffs, which the upper South supported to protect their own newly emerging industries and manufacturing.

No, the march was on for more slave states, more land for cotton production and more slaves. Slavery was going no where, not even close to dying out.

And Thea, PLEASE forget the tariffs, just once, as it was not the issue of the time, not since 1830. The tariff rates had been dropping right up until the beginng of the war. In 1857 the tariff was at 20%, the lowest it had been since 1816! As for your constant finger-pointing at the Morril Tariff, Lincoln had yet to take office and although passed in the House, the Senate still had to vote on it and this happened AFTER the South had left in secession.

As for the idea of the North building railroads to transport troops in a coming war against the South, again, please rethink that. The very first time the railroad was used to transport troops for an ongoing battle was Bull Run and it was the Confederate forces who used it! The very idea of using railroads to transport troops to battle was so novel that no one else in the WORLD had done it, let alone planned to do so as you suggest the North had plotted.

Sorry, attitudes and newspapers and reports from the South itself said slavery was a valued institution, a 'positive good' and 'God's work', etc. It wasn't going anywhere.

Sincerely,
Unionblue


(Message edited by Unionblue on December 17, 2003)