Calblog

One wonders if the South had prevailed how long the slaves would have remained enslaved, and how much farther behind America would be to this day in terms of racial equality.

Had the South prevailed, would the South have been as forgiving to the North as President Lincoln--wiith malice toward none"--had intended reconstruction would be toward the South?

The world itself might me markedly different today (most likely for the worst) had the South prevailed and kept an entire race enslaved for who knows how much longer.

Had the South prevailed, they would have been a separate country and did not need to be forgiving to bring the country together. The South prevailing is indeed the subject of many alternative history writers, including Harry Turtledove.

As for slavery, I am guessing that industrialization would have made the plantation system economically impracticable Blacks probably would have been freed because it would too expensive to support them. They still would have been treated badly, as they were for decades.

The notion I have never seen addressed is the pne I posit -- slaves being freed by the SOuth at the very start of the war.

But the whole unifying point of the Confederacy was that no central govt could impose such a decision on the various states.

there must have been some decisions imposed by the central government, such as the decision to go to war and the decision to surrender.

Slavery would likely have ended in the South within 20-30 years. This is, of course, reasoning by analogy to the other slave areas in the Americas, as well as by the fact that the United Kingdom, the major export market for the South, got really active in disrupting slavery and the slave trade in the latter part of the 19th century.

Note that slavery ending and racism ending are not the same, so don't get on me about the Klan still torching churches or anything.

Had the South prevailed, they would have been a separate country and did not need to be forgiving to bring the country together.

Just a personal feeling, but I get the feeling that had the South prevailed, the Confederacy would have pressed its standing as victor to demand (and receive) reparations from the Union to cover Confederacy losses during the war.

What’s more, the bitterness rife in the South would have caused the aggrieved Confederacy to exact punishment on the North as the prerequisite for reunification—the only question is how severe the punishments the South would determine to mete out in the process of Reconstruction. Certainly this matter would have elicited varying opinions in the South. I can think of no strong reason—however—to assume that had the South prevailed, Dixie would have swelled with the refrain of, “Let’s let bygones be bygones.”

One thing I am confident of, The South would have enjoined slavery upon the North as a term of capitulation; slavery would not have thereafter been a Southern phenomenon. The war was deciding not merely deciding slavery (yes or no) for the South, but slavery (yes or no) for the states in total.

The notion I have never seen addressed is the pne I posit -- slaves being freed by the SOuth at the very start of the war.

That certainly would have simplified the 1860’s, and beyond. :-)

Your notion is worthy of thought, of contemplation. I think the fact that the notion of the South having freed the slaves at the very start of the war has not been addressed before, is due—frankly—to its extreme improbability.

Don’t get me wrong, though. Probability or improbability—however—does not invest “What ifs” with merit or non-merit. All “What ifs” invite their own lines of supposition, which even in themselves are exercises giving us a richer, fuller understanding of how things came to be as they are.

The notion you have posited brings us back to such basic questions as, “Could the Civil War have been avoided? (And if so, how?),” and, “Are there any set of circumstances short of war wherein the South would have consented to freely abolish slavery in the historical context/climate of the 1800’s?”

The Founding Fathers essentially punted on the issue of slavery in order to form as much of a “more perfect union” as could then be had while still cobbling together a cohesive unity among the colonies. That tension between free society and slave society put them on a collision course. Outside of extraordinary circumstances, it was only a matter of time before the issue was settled by war. What is more, the divisions only became more deep-set and obstinate over time.

Perhaps war could have been avoided by terms acceptable to both sides, though if there ever were, I am as yet ignorant of what they might be. Certainly as things stood leading up to 1860—following the stop-gap and inadequate Missouri Compromise, Bleeding Kansas, et al—the die was cast. Each side, North and South, had become invested in a blood-feud, each fixed by the memory of its slaughtered comrades into positions diametrically opposed to the opposing faction. The nature of the variances itself proved at that late hour unyielding in any manner of compromise that the opposing side would absolutely require as an alternative to open conflict.

At this point I remain convinced that if the Civil War was ever avoidable, it was avoidable by actions taken prior to and at or around the Nation’s founding. The Founders found the matter too thorny to confront in the nascent moments of our Nation’s history. It remains, then, all the more doubtful a question whether it could have been peaceably resolved at any future point.

See the series of books by Harry Turtledove, beginning with How Few Remain, the alternate history of the SECOND War Between the States (the South having won the first one with their breakout at Gettysburg). Subsequent books show the USA and CSA on opposite sides in wars analogous to WWI and (forthcoming) WWII.

"there must have been some decisions imposed by the central government, such as the decision to go to war and the decision to surrender"

but neither actually happened. in true confederate fashion, the decision to break away was agreed to by all of the states which renounced the union individually, so there was no imposition at all.

as for surrender, each souther state more or less fought on its own, sometimes blatantly screwing other states and the war effort as a whole in favor of self-defense. confederate soldiers in some states faced starvation while other confederate states splurged on expensive new uniforms late in the war.

once individual confederate states decided that it was not in their best interest to send support to Virginia and others, they selfishly withheld support. while the union fought as 1 cohesive whole, the South fought as an alliance of individual states. once the South started losing, this alliance broke down and defeat was just a matter of time.

Where I Live in the Great Valley of Virginia
Slavery was never an economic success story. It was more prevelant in the big coastal plantations. Cyrus McCormick and others created better agricultural economies that certainly would have rendered the institution obsolete.

Also, wouldn't a victorious CSA have been quite in debt to England? Perhaps even becoming a vassal state of sorts?

When William Wilberforce set about to end slavery in the British possessions and then set about to "reform British Manners" it would seem reasonable to expect that slavery would die the death it deserved to in the CSA. Unfortunately the present situation in Sudan does not allow me the luxury of certainty in this. Indeed, the restoration of the United States stands as one of those miraculous moments in history.

It was not an easy reconciliation, and our own region suffered much hardship after Sheridan's raids on the "breadbasket of the Confederacy." Yet the nation that emerged was a stronger and better one. I doubt a divided North America would have had such a presence in modern history.

Southerners did not fight for slavery: only about 1/4 of southerners even owned a slave, and the vast majority of those only owned 1 or maybe 2 slaves. The vast bulk of the slave population was owned by a small minority of wealthy plantation owners.

The Southerners DID fight to stop the slaves from being freed, however. Southern whites were adamantly opposed to cohabiting with freed black 'equals'.

The only way to free slaves without a war would have been to: #1 purchase their freedom with compensation and #2 pay to transport the freed slaves to Liberia.

This would have been very expensive, but I think the government could buy off 90% of the slave owners who owned just a few slaves, sending those slaves to Liberia, then with only a small minority of rich folk owning all the remaining slaves, the Union could leverage the support of the poor and middle classes in the South to impose a 'taking' on the plantation owners with minimum compensation, say 1/10 to 1/20 of the market value of a slave. Then the vast bulk of freed slaves could be deported and shipped to Liberia en masse.

Sure it would be expensive and it would take decades, but it would have been a solution that 90% of people could live with, and the remaining 10% could not have caused much trouble without the support of the masses.

The 2 groups that would be mucho pissed would be the hard-core abolitionists and the wealthy southern plantation owners, and NO solution would have pleased of both those interest groups.

I think the civil war could have been avoided, but it would have taken extraordinary leadership from a President willing to reach out and embrace Southern concerns, while at the same time opposing abolitionists at home.

The middle road has always been the most difficult one in politics.

The reality made losers of all sides: the South was ravaged and destroyed, then occupied by force of arms, and blacks faced a century of hatred and abuse as living, breathing, reminders of northern aggression and the subjugation of the south.

Had the slaves been freed at the outset--that would have eliminated much of the impetus for secession.

So not only might the war not have been fought over slavery, it might not have been fought at all.

Now that's REAL alternate history...

You could be right Chtis, but if slavery were the major impetus for the war, it seems nonsensical for a General (and one of the more highly regarded ones*) to be supporting the idea of freeing the slaves.

*An early death makes him lesser known but I haven't read anything suggesting his opinion would have not held some weight.

Weel ok there's this:

and this:

the proposal caused quite a backlash in the south and possibly affected the length of the war. When Jefferson Davis decided to remove Johnston from command during the Battle of Atlanta, he selected John Bell Hood over Pat Cleburne in part because of this proposal.

I'm done now. Back to asking questions, not trying to answer them.

Eh, I guess I just don't put too much stock in why the Generals of a particular army fight. Since by and large, it is not their decision to go to war. Granted, their beliefs CAN have a major effect on HOW the war is prosecuted (or in McClellan's case, if it's prosecuted at all), but such is a rarity.

For an analysis of how and why an independent CSA would have freed the slaves, see Roger Ransom, THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA: WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN (W.W. Norton, 2005); Chapter 4.