If the Confederacy had won the civil war, when would have slavery ended in the South?
I think international pressure would've spurred them to. There wasn't a major power going forward with slavery and the global position on slavery as a whole would've forced our hand. A pointless war if there ever was one...
Why doesn't international pressure end slavery in the places in the world where it still exists
Because those groups care not for prosperity, but only to continue their personal dominion over their respective countries. Unless you're talking about the sex trade that still exists here. I have no idea why that continues.
Hard to say. I agree there would have been international pressure, but we do business with lots of countries that don't respect human rights. I would hope that slavery would have faded as younger generation changed public opinion but it'd likely be a slow process. There would be too much pride in the fact that they just fought a war over it.
I agree, getup. This is also why I believe Lincoln is one of the most overrated presidents ever.
He led us into a completely unnecessary war which resulted in tremendous loss of life. Slavery was the backbone of the Southern economy. The North had the luxury of moral righteousness, the South did not.
Lincoln should have helped the South transition their economy slowly, not force their hand via emancipation. I understand that the radical Republicans were war-mongering, but he should have done more to prevent the war.
The Civil War was no triumph--as you read in the history books--it was a grave mistake. An avoidable tragedy.
I'm not going to argue that Lincoln was overrated, he was. He suspended habeas corpus and had protesters imprisoned indefinitely, but you make it sound like the didn't want the war. They were pushing for it more than the Republicans were. But it was a very flawed time in our history and shouldn't define us as a country in the modern era.
*like the south didn't want war
I'd say no later than the 20's
Alternate history hub did a video on it on YouTube.
Cool. I'll have to look for that. I always love thinking about alternate history.
I think that honestly would depend on one question: how deep would Confederate ties (militarily, economically, etc.) with Britain (and to a lesser extent France) go? A strong Anglo-Confederate connection might have forced a quicker end to slavery (even if the result would have been far from equality), especially in a potential crisis situation. The lack of such a connection probably would have allowed slavery to continue on much longer, though whether it would've reached the 1900's is too dependent on intervening events IMO to make a prediction on.
Yes. Pretty hard to say how long slavery would have lasted - too many IFs. I'm not sure if Britain would have done much about slavery. They might have pressured them, but I suspect that they would do business with them and hope it eventually goes away. Who knows.
They might have, but given the British public's view of slavery by the late 1800's and the increasing importance of public opinion, British pressure wouldn't shock me, especially if it came tied up as part of an alliance (example: The US is about to go to war with the CS. The CS has a much better chance of winning by allying with Britain. Given CS cotton exports would still largely be going to European, and especially British textile factories, both sides would have incentives for keeping such trade alive, even if that meant ending slavery, at least de jure). There are way too many if's to even try and give a definitive answer though
You might want to check out How Few Remain by Harry Turtledove. It's the first book in a long series about what may have happened if the Confederacy won the Civil War, and deals a lot with the issue presented in the poll. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Few_Remain
Cool! Thanks for sharing!
Not much faith in America. Sad, really.
It depends. First, tell me if all the 2nd Amendment people would have supported the right of slaves to own guns. If the answer is yes, then the Confederacy would have gone down in a blaze of gunfire long before 1900.
Why would they do that? Rights apply to citizens, blacks aren't citizens (Dred Scott v Sandford)
Probably never - they were profoundly addicted to "free labor" to maintain their lifestyles. Imagine that the south was addicted to free stuff. Lol.
Maybe, but it's more than just free labor. From what little I know, slavery was hurting the overall economy of the South. I think most of it had to do with attitude that whites and blacks were not equals.
I mostly agree and indeed the free labor kept them wedded to an inefficient agrarian based economy while the north had to adapt labor saving methods and change the basis of their economies as they eliminated their reliance upon "free labor". Yes and you are entirely right about the white supremacist aspect/element of the social structure of their society. That also help them back - although it was not nonexistent in the north as well. Nevertheless, substantially moderated in comparison.
After 1900...and probably its own holocaust and civil war
This user is currently being ignored
True - the South winning would have depends on the North deciding it wasn't worth the fight. Given how hard the South was willing to fight to keep and expand slavery, I'm not sure it would have died out quickly.
Yes terry they were profoundly addicted to free labor to say the least.
Ha! I thought about asking slavery would still exist, but I'd like to believe it wouldn't have survived.
I'd like to think it would have eventually died by 1900, but sometimes I wonder if it would have lasted longer.
A few countries that abolished slavery (and made it illegal) after 1900:
1962 Saudi Arabia
1964 United Arab Emirates