Confederate emancipation?

It would stand to reason though, if mechanization was forcing sharecropper labor need reduction, it would also have forced slavery need reductions, as it created a ever declining workforce need once the transition starts.

Whether that need had been filled by slaves or sharecropper family labor, the need was going to steadily decline.

I agree. At some point manufacturing and other industries could not use all the excess labor. But at what point?

I will use my father's father for an example. My grandfather owned a large farm and had not mechanize in the teens. Had it not been for the depression he might have mechanized in the 1920s or 1930s. However, during the depression young men knocked on his door practically begging for a job. He hired them but their only pay was room and board, they received no money. My grandmother took on a hired girl to help her, again for room and board. Because of the very low cost labor, my grandfather delayed the expense of mechanizing his agricultural business.

I would assume slavery would work in much the same way. In the South new large farms might opt to accept the expense of mechanizing, while farms that already had slaves would mechanize slower. I would also believe that some Southerns would have moral issues with selling off slaves who had worked for their family for generations. The same could be said with forcing their slaves to be deported to some colony. Mechanizing and riding your self of your slaves could possibly play in to the decision of mechanize.
 
I believe that slavery would end when the agricultural industry mechanized and no longer needed large numbers of labors...

Or, mechanization has always increased the need for large numbers of laborers, to point out how the cotton gin greatly accelerated the need for slave labor to begin with. But true enough, the increased need for laborers as farms mechanized was for seasonal and associated labor, not resident labor. But that makes no difference. Something would have to replace slave labor on Confederate farms if the Confederacy emancipated. (btw this was already covered once in this thread, from about post #49).
 
...That it [slavery] would have somehow existed 90 years in a independent Confederacy certainly...

There can't be a "certainly" in an alternate history. Again, "confederate emancipation" is an alternate history. It's a fiction.

So "right" or "authentic" opinions aren't even possible. There's nothing to be waving a Confederate flag over. There's no point in defending a nation that didn't in fact prevail (especially since no one's been officially badged to defend the Confederacy that did exist).
 
Last edited:
There can't be a "certainly" in an alternate history. Again, "confederate emancipation" is an alternate history. It's a fiction.

So "right" or "authentic" opinions aren't even possible. There's nothing to be waving Confederate flags over. There's no point in defending a nation that didn't in fact prevail (especially since no one's been officially badged to defend the Confederacy that did exist).
Yet here you are participating, so not sure what your crying about. And no one is defending anything speculating. No one is waving either Union or Confederate flags, looking at world history, and the trends for the future going forward from 1860's.

The one who seems obsessed framing everything as either praising or condemning is you, Actual study of history involves neither.......the praising or condemning is those simply spinning agendas, actual study should be neutral if its actually objective.
 
Last edited:
I agree. At some point manufacturing and other industries could not use all the excess labor. But at what point?

I will use my father's father for an example. My grandfather owned a large farm and had not mechanize in the teens. Had it not been for the depression he might have mechanized in the 1920s or 1930s. However, during the depression young men knocked on his door practically begging for a job. He hired them but their only pay was room and board, they received no money. My grandmother took on a hired girl to help her, again for room and board. Because of the very low cost labor, my grandfather delayed the expense of mechanizing his agricultural business.

I would assume slavery would work in much the same way. In the South new large farms might opt to accept the expense of mechanizing, while farms that already had slaves would mechanize slower. I would also believe that some Southerns would have moral issues with selling off slaves who had worked for their family for generations. The same could be said with forcing their slaves to be deported to some colony. Mechanizing and riding your self of your slaves could possibly play in to the decision of mechanize.
I tend to disagree, in business it's the opposite, the largest farms plantations will mechanize first as 1- the are ones who can afford to and 2- the profit from mechanizing will be the greatest. Then it trickles down to mid sized and eventually the smallest that are still surviving. For example my parents said some of the smallest farms were still using horses up into the 60's. All the bigger farms were mechanized

New technology starts at the top with the big guys before filtering down to the small guy. As most often the small guy is using equipment already cast away by the big guys.
 
Last edited:
...yet here you are participating, so not sure what crying about...

I've not shed a tear (no emotional catharsis here :thumbsup: !) and never would over an alternate history of a failed nation. So you know, I'm participating because the thread is somewhat interesting, and again thanks for it.

I'd be interested now for someone to speculate on the political structure in a surviving post-war Confederacy, to suppose that it would at some point be able to declare emancipation. A true democracy is only defined by the existence two or more parties, yet it seems doubtful a surviving Confederacy could get to that point, since it had never before demonstrated any kind of tolerance for alternate political organizations. That would mean a surviving Confederacy would be more a regime than a democracy. At what point would an unopposed regime of a Country still dependent on slave labor be motivated to pull the trigger on emancipation? In other words, who would be pressuring their Congress to do it?

The Union could only get to it as a war measure.
 
Last edited:
I've not shed a tear (no emotional catharsis here :thumbsup:.!) and never would over an alternate history of a failed nation. So you know, I'm participating because the thread is somewhat interesting, and again thanks for it.
again your welcome.
 
That's true, he talked to the Brits about voluntary deportation of Southern ex-slaves (and of course he couldn't have discussed it on any other terms, since he knew full well that the Brits had banned forced deportation of chattel decades before).

You know, if it's still .unclear what Lincoln's views and actions on colonization were, can we maybe hold it over for another thread? It's enough to muse about Confederate emancipation.

Brits were as Racist as the Yankee. Lincoln’s administration talked about deportation. Check Webster for the definition. Forced others, like the Yankee into Slavery.

Hard pilll Edited to swallow, I guess.
 
Last edited:
I've not shed a tear (no emotional catharsis here :thumbsup: !) and never would over an alternate history of a failed nation. So you know, I'm participating because the thread is somewhat interesting, and again thanks for it.

I'd be interested now for someone to speculate on the political structure in a surviving post-war Confederacy, to suppose that it would at some point be able to declare emancipation. A true democracy is only defined by the existence two or more parties, yet it seems doubtful a surviving Confederacy could get to that point, since it had never before demonstrated any kind of tolerance for alternate political organizations. That would mean a surviving Confederacy would be more a regime than a democracy. At what point would an unopposed regime of a Country still dependent on slave labor be motivated to pull the trigger on emancipation? In other words, who would be pressuring their Congress to do it?

The Union could only get to it as a war measure.
I see no reason it wouldn't have split into parties, ever type of representative government does, IIRC there really wasn't different parties in the US until after the war and the Constitution was drafted.

There's always a more conservative party, and some more liberal party advocating some change. The change can be change to anything......

That in four short wartime years pro and anti Davis factions had emerged, suggests to me given peacetime the factions would have likely solidified into parties.

Edit added, yes the federalist party was formed untill 1791.
 
...wartime years pro and anti Davis factions had emerged, suggests to me given peacetime the factions would have likely solidified into parties...

Good point. I wonder what issue besides emancipation would have evoked an alternate party in the Confederacy:

Acquisition of Cuba? Deportation of former slaves? Commitment to discourage voter violence? Commitment to discourage lynching? Anti-discrimination codes? Fair school assignments?

...and here's an interesting one: Stance on temperance and prohibition? ...and an even more interesting one: Stance on excessive post-war tax burden (i.e. hadn't we fought to throw off national oppression)?

All issues that could well invoke an alternate political party, I'm guessing.
 
Last edited:
Anything from more or less taxes, hard vrs soft currency, fiscal responsibility, doesn't have to slavery related, as we still have partisan parties 150 yrs after it.
 
Back
Top