Why Should The Confederacy Have Succeeded To Gain Independence?

Coolie labor would have been more economical that black slaves for such things as mining and building railroads and less risk to their owners. Slaves were expensive, coolies were not.
Thanks for your response.
Can you share the analysis that led you to that conclusion?
 
Thanks for your response.
I don't believe I've said that in this thread. The truth is we do not and never will know how long slavery would have endyred had it not been ended by the Thirteenth Amendment.
You quoted Leftys post, he mentioned cotton being done by mechanical means, and no need for slavery for cotton. Then you posted the response I quoted, which sounds like it would have morphed into other jobs for slaves after 1960.
 
And what exactly did Hayes and his Republican Party cronies do about it -- sent troops back into the South?
Thanks for your response.
That was not an option. In fact, it would be interesting to learn what options you and others think he had.: possibly a new thread?
The 'bottom line' is Hayes, having given his word, kept his part of the bargain: the Southern politicians, so renowned for their sense of honor, did not.
 
Thanks for your response.
Can you share the analysis that led you to that conclusion?
By coolie labor being more economical I mean if something bad happened to one of them it would have been no great financial loss to the companies. Able-bodied black slaves, on the other hand, were valuable property. The expense was the reason most Southern whites and free blacks didn't own them must less put them at risk if less expensive labor was available.
 
You quoted Leftys post, he mentioned cotton being done by mechanical means, and no need for slavery for cotton. Then you posted the response I quoted, which sounds like it would have morphed into other jobs for slaves after 1960.
Thanks for your response.
I did not endorse @leftyhunter's "1960" date, nor did I address that remark. I simply stated, "I believe we make a big mistake assuming that the only economically feasible application of slave labor was growing cotton."
Just because slaves were tasked with growing cotton does not mean that they were incapable of performing other tasks. Yet every time this subject comes up there seems to be an assumption by some that slaves can only pick cotton. Slavery itself is repugnant; to underestimate the intelligence and ability of those unfortunates who were enslaved is insulting.
 
Thanks for your response.
That was not an option. In fact, it would be interesting to learn what options you and others think he had.: possibly a new thread?
The 'bottom line' is Hayes, having given his word, kept his part of the bargain: the Southern politicians, so renowned for their sense of honor, did not.
Do you have a source where Southern politicians even hinted that they were willing to voluntarily continue Reconstruction in exchange for electoral votes? If was up to Hayes to keep his share of the bargain that if enough Southern electors changed their votes to ensure his election he would pull occupation troops out of the South.
 
By coolie labor being more economical I mean if something bad happened to one of them it would have been no great financial loss to the companies. Able-bodied black slaves, on the other hand, were valuable property. The expense was the reason most Southern whites and free blacks didn't own them must less put them at risk if less expensive labor was available.
Thanks for your response.
So your statement is based solely on replacement cost.
 
Do you have a source where Southern politicians even hinted that they were willing to voluntarily continue Reconstruction in exchange for electoral votes?
Thanks for your response.
Continuing forced Reconstruction was not part of the 'deal'. The 'deal' was that the States would move forward supporting the new reality of Black political equality without Federal force. It was somewhat similar to a parent turning over responsibility to his/her child. "You are always complaining about States' Rights, here's your chance to show how responsible you can be."
As it turned out, not responsible at all.
 
Thanks for your response.
Continuing forced Reconstruction was not part of the 'deal'. The 'deal' was that the States would move forward supporting the new reality of Black political equality without Federal force. It was somewhat similar to a parent turning over responsibility to his/her child. "You are always complaining about States' Rights, here's your chance to show how responsible you can be."
As it turned out, not responsible at all.
A source please where Southerners agreed to such a deal.
 
Republicans were losing Votes. The Liberal Republicans were thru with Reconstruction by 72. They saw how corrupt Government had become in the South. And feared the Grant Wing of the Party would do the same, to the North. They were right. The business leaders will replace the AG component of the Party by 80.

Hayes wanted a wink and a nod. He had promised to get out of the South. It is what the Majority Of the Party wanted. Seems a little Desperate to blame all this on the South. Not to say I’m surprised.

Republicans void the. Civil Rights Amendment. Murder Indians and ban the Chinese. Further evidence that only a scant few Republicans believe in equality to begin with.
 
Republicans were losing Votes. The Liberal Republicans were thru with Reconstruction by 72. They saw how corrupt Government had become in the South. And feared the Grant Wing of the Party would do the same, to the North. They were right. The business leaders will replace the AG component of the Party by 80.

Hayes wanted a wink and a nod. He had promised to get out of the South. It is what the Majority Of the Party wanted. Seems a little Desperate to blame all this on the South. Not to say I’m surprised.

Republicans void the. Civil Rights Amendment. Murder Indians and ban the Chinese. Further evidence that only a scant few Republicans believe in equality to begin with.
The most galling thing of all was what a bunch of raging hypocrites radical Republicans actually were.
 
France had invaded Mexico, and the Confederacy would have co-operated with that, and bargained for pieces of northern Mexico. In Mexico, France probably would have allowed the re-introduction of slavery.
Spain was permitting slavery to continue in Cuba, and would have looked for help in renewing the slave trade with Africa.
Brazil could continue slavery as long as the Confederates also allowed slavery. Those two nations would have been resisting the overall trend towards emancipation.
 
I tried writing a novel, much like Jeff Brooks did years ago. So I have my own little thoughts of how things would have looked.

What happened in our timeline was the boll weevil came in during the high point of the cotton barons in the 1890s. Confederate adventurism in Mexico could lead to the weevil being introduced a decade earlier. Now, since in the CSA, the infrastructure of the Deep South is still well intact and never saw the scorched earth of 1864-65. It causes a situation similar to real life where the money leaves the Mississippi Delta, Black Belt, Alabama Wiregrass regions and such that subsisted off cotton for decades. Blacks are de-facto freed and take to the countryside, uneducated, a manumission amendment is eventually passed at the turn of the century, and a new apartheid-type system takes it's place by 1910. Strict yes, but more paternal than post-Civil War reactionary. It'll be a forced economic diversification. And the Confederacy will become an economic colony of American, French and British financial interests, with light steel and coal industry popping up in the Upper South, North Georgia and North Alabama. Virginia becomes the CSA's most populous state, New Orleans is 2 or 3 times the size it is in real life, and Atlanta still becomes a major communications hub for the country. Brazil abolishes slavery around the same time.

Texas probably becomes autonomous later on more than likely.

For the Union, there is no Texas v. White, it's basically been established by blood that a state CAN leave the Union. And the next candidate to go is definitely going to be Utah.
 
Eventually by the 1960s slaves would not be needed for cotton due to agricultural mechanization. On the other hand slaves could still be used for household or simply replaced with de jure Apartheid.
Leftyhunter

I do not see why slaves could not be used in manufacturing, mining, and other jobs. Mills and other things could operate with a large percentage of slaves.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top