Confederate Populist Backlash

What everybody seems to be ignoring is the fact that by 1863-64 the Confederacy is essentially bankrupt. Assuming an enforced peace brokered by Britain/France is the port of New Orleans the South's largest city returned to the Confederacy. Are they allowed to impose tariffs on Norther western agricultural products passing through the city.

Also by this date England is already assessing the possibility of replacing Southern cotton with much higher quality Egyptian/Indian strains. So where is the South to sell their product. Mercantile theory prevalent at the time would indicate that England buy from within the Empire.

And just at the point, hopefully, where they are ready to regain their former glory you have Mr Boll Weavil making his appearance.

I think it's general consensus that the South had to expand its sphere to ensure it's existance. Where. Mexico is not an ooption--neither France or England would allow that. None of the European nations would allow them to take any of the Carribean islands. Do you seriously believe the could have expanded to take California. Not a chance. What about the contiguous western states--Ariz, NM, Nev, Wyo, Colo., slaves being employed as cowboys. You give a slave a horse and you get a free man with a free horse.

I agree its within the realm of possibility that the South could have endured but only as a weak sister propped up by European nations unwilling to allow a reunited Union to grow into a viable competitor.
 
What everybody seems to be ignoring is the fact that by 1863-64 the Confederacy is essentially bankrupt. Assuming an enforced peace brokered by Britain/France is the port of New Orleans the South's largest city returned to the Confederacy. Are they allowed to impose tariffs on Norther western agricultural products passing through the city.

Also by this date England is already assessing the possibility of replacing Southern cotton with much higher quality Egyptian/Indian strains. So where is the South to sell their product. Mercantile theory prevalent at the time would indicate that England buy from within the Empire.

And just at the point, hopefully, where they are ready to regain their former glory you have Mr Boll Weavil making his appearance.

I think it's general consensus that the South had to expand its sphere to ensure it's existance. Where. Mexico is not an ooption--neither France or England would allow that. None of the European nations would allow them to take any of the Carribean islands. Do you seriously believe the could have expanded to take California. Not a chance. What about the contiguous western states--Ariz, NM, Nev, Wyo, Colo., slaves being employed as cowboys. You give a slave a horse and you get a free man with a free horse.

I agree its within the realm of possibility that the South could have endured but only as a weak sister propped up by European nations unwilling to allow a reunited Union to grow into a viable competitor.

“Also by this date England is already assessing the possibility of replacing Southern cotton with much higher quality Egyptian/Indian strains.”

I’m slightly off the OP and I don’t have the reference to hand but I read some time ago that the only way Egypt could even hope to satisfy demand for cotton was by getting slaves in from east African countries until slavery was eventually abolished in Egypt in 1877.
 
What everybody seems to be ignoring is the fact that by 1863-64 the Confederacy is essentially bankrupt. Assuming an enforced peace brokered by Britain/France is the port of New Orleans the South's largest city returned to the Confederacy. Are they allowed to impose tariffs on Norther western agricultural products passing through the city.

Also by this date England is already assessing the possibility of replacing Southern cotton with much higher quality Egyptian/Indian strains. So where is the South to sell their product. Mercantile theory prevalent at the time would indicate that England buy from within the Empire.

And just at the point, hopefully, where they are ready to regain their former glory you have Mr Boll Weavil making his appearance.

I think it's general consensus that the South had to expand its sphere to ensure it's existance. Where. Mexico is not an ooption--neither France or England would allow that. None of the European nations would allow them to take any of the Carribean islands. Do you seriously believe the could have expanded to take California. Not a chance. What about the contiguous western states--Ariz, NM, Nev, Wyo, Colo., slaves being employed as cowboys. You give a slave a horse and you get a free man with a free horse.

I agree its within the realm of possibility that the South could have endured but only as a weak sister propped up by European nations unwilling to allow a reunited Union to grow into a viable competitor.

In general agreement but you are wrong on one point. Britain had already gone to free trade and laizze faire as economic policies. Which in the longer term was to do much damage to the country. 😂 There would be public opposition to slavery and its products with probably some individual boycotts but in general I suspect British merchants would buy slave produced cotton.

As Poorville points out Egypt was also a notorious slave state in this period, although European pressure was starting to have an impact. Plus most of the sources I've seen here is that CSA cotton would be cheaper and better quality that rival producers at that point. True continued use of slavery would have economic, social and political costs and the Boll Weavil will have a big impact some time down the line but, if they don't do something very stupid, which they might well they should have a reasonable economy, provided that peace is obtained before too much of the CSA is too ravaged by war and that the peace sees them getting most/all of their territory back. Internally of course could well be a different issue.

Steve
 
What everybody seems to be ignoring is the fact that by 1863-64 the Confederacy is essentially bankrupt. Assuming an enforced peace brokered by Britain/France is the port of New Orleans the South's largest city returned to the Confederacy. Are they allowed to impose tariffs on Norther western agricultural products passing through the city.

Also by this date England is already assessing the possibility of replacing Southern cotton with much higher quality Egyptian/Indian strains. So where is the South to sell their product. Mercantile theory prevalent at the time would indicate that England buy from within the Empire.

And just at the point, hopefully, where they are ready to regain their former glory you have Mr Boll Weavil making his appearance.

I think it's general consensus that the South had to expand its sphere to ensure it's existance. Where. Mexico is not an ooption--neither France or England would allow that. None of the European nations would allow them to take any of the Carribean islands. Do you seriously believe the could have expanded to take California. Not a chance. What about the contiguous western states--Ariz, NM, Nev, Wyo, Colo., slaves being employed as cowboys. You give a slave a horse and you get a free man with a free horse.

I agree its within the realm of possibility that the South could have endured but only as a weak sister propped up by European nations unwilling to allow a reunited Union to grow into a viable competitor.

Actually, the UK became more dependent on Southern Cotton as the 19th Century progressed, not less:
FNYzH5iY_o.jpg


As for the prospects of Slavery for the next several decades, see Economics by Paul Samuelson, page 783:

"The newer farmlands of the Mississippi afforded a high marginal-product to the slaveowners. . . . . Hence, the Invisible Hand of competition caused the tidewater regions [coastal areas of Virginia, North Carolina, etc] to specialize in the production and reproduction of slaves, for sale to the fertile lands westward [such as Mississippi]."
 
I still wonder if a newly independent Confederacy could have ever, ever, changed it's social structure where it came to slavery.

We do have examples, even after the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation, the 13th and 14th Amendments, of blacks being denied their rights and kept in a position of near slavery for decades after the Civil War.

Why do we assume, in the light of this actual, historical, evidence of the lack of social change, it will be all sweetness and light with a Confederate victory affirming the right to own slaves?
 
I still wonder if a newly independent Confederacy could have ever, ever, changed it's social structure where it came to slavery.

We do have examples, even after the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation, the 13th and 14th Amendments, of blacks being denied their rights and kept in a position of near slavery for decades after the Civil War.

Why do we assume, in the light of this actual, historical, evidence of the lack of social change, it will be all sweetness and light with a Confederate victory affirming the right to own slaves?

Given every other slave owning society did, I don't see why the Confederacy would be special in this regard in terms of retaining slavery.
 
Not understanding your argument. Is your argument that former slaves were given complete social and economic equality post slavery?
Leftyhunter

My understanding was that he was arguing slavery as an institution would be retained indefinitely by the Confederacy, although I could have simply misunderstood the post in question.
 
My understanding was that he was arguing slavery as an institution would be retained indefinitely by the Confederacy, although I could have simply misunderstood the post in question.

@Generic Username ,

Yeah, you got it right, I was suggesting that slavery would not just go away in an independent Confederacy based on actual racial attitudes of a defeated South right through history up until the Civil Rights clashes of the 1960s.
 
@Generic Username ,

Yeah, you got it right, I was suggesting that slavery would not just go away in an independent Confederacy based on actual racial attitudes of a defeated South right through history up until the Civil Rights clashes of the 1960s.

Given both Spain and Brazil, as two prominent examples in this regard and contemporary to the Confederacy, did, I'm not sure why the C.S.A. would not. Racial attitudes in the North were not much better, and they still gave up slavery due to the economics of it; I can foresee the same for the Confederacy.
 
Given both Spain and Brazil, as two prominent examples in this regard and contemporary to the Confederacy, did, I'm not sure why the C.S.A. would not. Racial attitudes in the North were not much better, and they still gave up slavery due to the economics of it; I can foresee the same for the Confederacy.
It would be fair to state the Confederacy would eventually give up slavery but not Apartied .
Leftyhunter
 
Given both Spain and Brazil, as two prominent examples in this regard and contemporary to the Confederacy, did, I'm not sure why the C.S.A. would not. Racial attitudes in the North were not much better, and they still gave up slavery due to the economics of it; I can foresee the same for the Confederacy.

Thank you for the clarification.

So you feel there is no correlation slavery being extended into the 20th century with a Confederate victory even with the already establised history of racial problems in the post-war South of our time?
 
Thank you for the clarification.

So you feel there is no correlation slavery being extended into the 20th century with a Confederate victory even with the already establised history of racial problems in the post-war South of our time?

I don't think racial relations will be all that different to OTL, no, but I don't foresee slavery being held indefinitely. Economically, that just doesn't make much sense and, as I pointed out, all nations ended up moving from that particular model at some point. I'd expect the first decade or so of the 20th Century would be the firm cut off, with around 1900 being where I'd put the most stock.
 
I don't think racial relations will be all that different to OTL, no, but I don't foresee slavery being held indefinitely. Economically, that just doesn't make much sense and, as I pointed out, all nations ended up moving from that particular model at some point. I'd expect the first decade or so of the 20th Century would be the firm cut off, with around 1900 being where I'd put the most stock.

My problem with your above is not so much an economic one as a social one. The racial divide was pretty intense after the Civil War and I see no reason for it to go away any quicker with a Confederate victory reaffirming the institution and the class and racial control it supported.

In fact it seems it would be reinforced from a "positive good" to a confirmed way of live, tested in battle and the ideal of slavery confirmed in victory.

I would bet the institution would remain into well into the 1960s, even the rest of the century, before any slight changes would be considered. And remember, the South of the 19th century had very little concern for what other nations did or said about their way of life, even to the point of being unable to give up slavery to gain foreign recognition when it desperately desired such.
 
My problem with your above is not so much an economic one as a social one. The racial divide was pretty intense after the Civil War and I see no reason for it to go away any quicker with a Confederate victory reaffirming the institution and the class and racial control it supported.

In fact it seems it would be reinforced from a "positive good" to a confirmed way of live, tested in battle and the ideal of slavery confirmed in victory.

I would bet the institution would remain into well into the 1960s, even the rest of the century, before any slight changes would be considered. And remember, the South of the 19th century had very little concern for what other nations did or said about their way of life, even to the point of being unable to give up slavery to gain foreign recognition when it desperately desired such.

As I said, however, why would the Confederacy be unique in this regard? Brazil didn't hold onto slavery, nor did Spain, the Ottomans, the Dutch, etc. All contemporary slave holders of the C.S.A. eventually ended the institution by the 20th Century; they can hate Black people all they want, but eventually it just economically makes sense to go to emancipation. The Social is always interconnected with the Economic and one need not be a follower of Marxist economics to see this.

As for the influence of foreign opinion, that's just not supported; emancipation was never held as a matter of intervention or not.
 
My problem with your above is not so much an economic one as a social one. The racial divide was pretty intense after the Civil War and I see no reason for it to go away any quicker with a Confederate victory reaffirming the institution and the class and racial control it supported.

In fact it seems it would be reinforced from a "positive good" to a confirmed way of live, tested in battle and the ideal of slavery confirmed in victory.

I would bet the institution would remain into well into the 1960s, even the rest of the century, before any slight changes would be considered. And remember, the South of the 19th century had very little concern for what other nations did or said about their way of life, even to the point of being unable to give up slavery to gain foreign recognition when it desperately desired such.
Not sure about all that. No Christian country had legal slavey after Brazil outlawed slavery largely due to resistance by Afro Brazilians. Yes some 20 th Century examples of European countries going back to slavery for a while.
Overall though sanctions do change politcal behavior so eventually the Confederacy would have to give up slavery and sort of kind of loosen post slavery apartheid.
Leftyhunter
 
As I said, however, why would the Confederacy be unique in this regard? Brazil didn't hold onto slavery, nor did Spain, the Ottomans, the Dutch, etc. All contemporary slave holders of the C.S.A. eventually ended the institution by the 20th Century; they can hate Black people all they want, but eventually it just economically makes sense to go to emancipation. The Social is always interconnected with the Economic and one need not be a follower of Marxist economics to see this.

As for the influence of foreign opinion, that's just not supported; emancipation was never held as a matter of intervention or not.
Not sure about all that. No Christian country had legal slavey after Brazil outlawed slavery largely due to resistance by Afro Brazilians. Yes some 20 th Century examples of European countries going back to slavery for a while.
Overall though sanctions do change politcal behavior so eventually the Confederacy would have to give up slavery and sort of kind of loosen post slavery apartheid.
Leftyhunter

Thank you both for your replies and views above. Both are interesting and, to me, well thought out and I appreciate you both taking the time to consider my view.

Gonna have to rethink this one a bit.

Thanks again for engaging with me on this topic.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Back
Top