What if the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully?

[Foxfyre]

Slavery was nearly at an end, but then the cotton gin came along, so whatever came after would have replaced the gin and the need for slaves.

And just the vast numbers of blacks would have prevented an SA

Slavery would have come to an end, probably not latter than 1900, not because it was profitable, but because of the engrained cultural tradition. But for that cultural tradition, it would have ended at least 20 years earlier. Segregation is another matter entirely. Segregation would have continued well into the 1960's and 1970's, if not longer and would have been quite similar to SA.

I mildly disagree. I believe if slavery had been allowed to die a natural death as it did in Canada and Mexico, segregation would not have been a natural consequence as it did not occur in Canada and Mexico. When social change comes via the conscience and more noble intentions of the people, the results is almost always more edifying and satisfying than it is when it is via government edict and most especially when it is without a bloody war that created many long lasting problems apart from the issue of slavery.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I guess it sucks that evil fucks who think people should own other people started the war in first place huh? I have a better question why the fuck are idiots like you still worshiping democrat fucks like that?

Question: Are you a liar or as ignorant of American History and how political parties have evolved as your post claims.?

Aww is the democrat sad because the truth was let out?

Truth? Only if posted by Winston Smith in his job at the Ministry of Truth.

 

[Toro]

No, because it's a false premise.

Why? The Soviet Union industrialized in part because of slave labour used to build the industrial capacity of the nation. Do we not discount this when we measure the economic performance of the USSR or do we whitewash it and say it doesn't matter?

The insinuation being that the north did not have slaves post 1861. Law was written, sure. But they were gradual measures. Furthermore, northern states certinaly did not extend the franchise to blacks post abolition.

That's true but it misses the point. This isn't about racism or voting. It's about the economy. In 1860, the South's economy was based upon agriculture, which was reliant almost entirely on slave labour. The north was industrializing, which was dependent upon wage labour. The vast majority of labour in the North at the time of the Civil War was based on wages.

So to ask for all people or white people from a standard of living context of the south is moot. As Bro said, the south had a very wealthy culture following the cotton boom. The north, being more industrialized, (contrary to other assertions) saw standards of living in shambles. Textiles being the obvious go-to as a point of reference...or shall we say, sweat shops.

I took a full year honours course in economic history of North America in college 20+ years ago, and I recall that the standard of living in the South as not being anywhere near the standards of living as the North. However, I cannot find my old textbook so I can't confirm that. So I might be wrong. However, I did find this from Gavin Wright entitled Slavery and American Economic Development

"Contrary to depictions off the slave South as a propserous economy devastated by war and abolition, these essays locate the root of postebellum regional backwardness firmly in the antebellum era. That era was indeed propserous for the slaveowners. But if we evaluate regional performance using a consistent measuring rod appropriate for a free society, such as the value of nonslave wealth per capita, we find levels in the South just over half those of in the free states."

Also, the idea that an agrarian society was generally wealthier than an industrialized society contradicts economic history to this day. The progress of economic history throughout the world has followed a similar pattern:

agriculture --> manufacturing --> knowledge base.​

Agriculture generally is subsumed by manufacturing because manufacturing is higher value-added, which requires higher productivity, which means higher wages. Historically, workers flock from the farm to the city to work in manufacturing because they can earn a better living. This happened in Europe and the UK, it happened in America, it happened in the Asian Tigers, and is happening in China today. That the South was somehow immune from this pattern and different smacks more of historical revisionism designed to reinforce confirmation bias of those in the South.

It also reinforces the Marxist argument that American capitalism was built on slave labour. In fact, our understanding of economic progress and the critical importance of productivity in the development of capitalism contradicts the argument that the South was a richer society, or at least would remain so. Economic wealth is driven primarily by productivity growth, not by slave labour as the Marxists claim. We empirically know that productivity is the driver of higher wages and returns on capital, and thus drives economic growth. Slavery reinforces the discredited Marxist theory of The Surplus Value of Labour. It's odd that self-proclaimed libertarians cling to this notion of the Confederacy being richer than an industrializing society.

But again, maybe I'm wrong. Feel free to show that I am.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The standard and style of living in the North for the middle and laboring classes would have been much higher than the South.

How do you come to that conclusion? The south had a higher standard of living overall than the northern states prior to the Civil War.

Of all people or white people?

Southern whites had a lower standard of living than northern and western whites, for sure.

 

[JakeStarkey]

As if in those days the north had no slaves...or treated blacks and women as equals...

More revision from northern loyalists.

Can you answer the question?

In the North, people were generally paid. In the South, much of labour was not. So if we looked at GDP per capita, which is a measure of living standards, was it higher in the South or the North? And what was the median?

No, because it's a false premise. The insinuation being that the north did not have slaves post 1861. Law was written, sure. But they were gradual measures. Furthermore, northern states certinaly did not extend the franchise to blacks post abolition.

So to ask for all people or white people from a standard of living context of the south is moot. As Bro said, the south had a very wealthy culture following the cotton boom. The north, being more industrialized, (contrary to other assertions) saw standards of living in shambles. Textiles being the obvious go-to as a point of reference...or shall we say, sweat shops.

All nonsense. Only 1 of 4 white families in the South had slaves, and most whites worked in the fields with their blacks. They were, in the cotton fields, a malaria and mosquito stricken population. If you look up the censuses for 1840 and 1850, I bet you will find the average white family mortality in the South was less than in the North and the West.

 

[Toro]

Slavery would have come to an end, probably not latter than 1900, not because it was profitable, but because of the engrained cultural tradition. But for that cultural tradition, it would have ended at least 20 years earlier. Segregation is another matter entirely. Segregation would have continued well into the 1960's and 1970's, if not longer and would have been quite similar to SA.

Precisely.

I have no idea when slavery would have ended, but it ended in South Africa in 1834-38 as it did throughout the British Empire. However, South Africa remained a racist state into the 1990s. No doubt the Confederacy would have remained a racist state at least into the 1960s and probably beyond. And there's no reason to think that the Confederacy would have been perceived and treated much differently than South Africa.

 

[regent]

Some of the Confederate states may have been allowed to rejoin the union. Those areas in some southern states, that were more prosperous, may have left the confederacy and gone on as independent countries, it would be legal to secede. I wonder if any would have coupled up with a foreign country, for example Cuba or one in Africa. The slaves would have eventually rebelled and maybe ended up with their own country, say Mississippi. I think Lincoln made the right decision, maybe most of the South does to?

 

[thanatos144]

We would all be speaking Russian because we wouldn't be a United States because democrats think people are property

 

[editec]

The CSA's economic system was largely slave based agriculture and export dependent.

Had the Rpublic allowed the CSA to go its own way the war between the USA and CSA would likely have happened shortly after it happened, anyway.

the CSA had its eyes on the American West, Mexica and central America and the Caribean.

Sooner or later the USA and the CSA would have gone to war over some expansionist policy or the other.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The CSA's economic system was largely slave based agriculture and export dependent.

Had the Rpublic allowed the CSA to go its own way the war between the USA and CSA would likely have happened shortly after it happened, anyway.

the CSA had its eyes on the American West, Mexica and central America and the Caribean.

Sooner or later the USA and the CSA would have gone to war over some expansionist policy or the other.

Excellent.

I wonder if CSA would have tried to take Mexico.

 

[Foxfyre]

The CSA's economic system was largely slave based agriculture and export dependent.

Had the Rpublic allowed the CSA to go its own way the war between the USA and CSA would likely have happened shortly after it happened, anyway.

the CSA had its eyes on the American West, Mexica and central America and the Caribean.

Sooner or later the USA and the CSA would have gone to war over some expansionist policy or the other.

Excellent.

I wonder if CSA would have tried to take Mexico.

When we were still operating our business, Mr. Foxfyre and I used to travel the entire state of New Mexico. And he found a barber he liked in Las Cruces NM and timed his haircuts for when we were working in that little city. Well Guillermo was a naturalized citizen from Mexico and he would expound on politics and such while cutting hair. And he was firmly convinced that the best thing that could happen to Mexico is for the USA to annex it. And then folks would be flooding into Mexico instead of Mexicans trying to sneak in here.

So that is an interesting concept. If the few states that made up the Confederacy were doing their own thing and needed to expand and had invaded and made Mexico part of them, how would that have changed the dynamics for Mexico and all of us? Of course it is now moot, but it is interesting to think about.

 

[Toro]

The CSA's economic system was largely slave based agriculture and export dependent.

Had the Rpublic allowed the CSA to go its own way the war between the USA and CSA would likely have happened shortly after it happened, anyway.

the CSA had its eyes on the American West, Mexica and central America and the Caribean.

Sooner or later the USA and the CSA would have gone to war over some expansionist policy or the other.

Excellent.

I wonder if CSA would have tried to take Mexico.

When we were still operating our business, Mr. Foxfyre and I used to travel the entire state of New Mexico. And he found a barber he liked in Las Cruces NM and timed his haircuts for when we were working in that little city. Well Guillermo was a naturalized citizen from Mexico and he would expound on politics and such while cutting hair. And he was firmly convinced that the best thing that could happen to Mexico is for the USA to annex it. And then folks would be flooding into Mexico instead of Mexicans trying to sneak in here.

So that is an interesting concept. If the few states that made up the Confederacy were doing their own thing and needed to expand and had invaded and made Mexico part of them, how would that have changed the dynamics for Mexico and all of us? Of course it is now moot, but it is interesting to think about.

I had listened to an author on NPR talk about this. Apparently, there were some in the Confederacy who advocated not only an invasion of Mexico but dreamed of a nation that went into South America and encircled the Caribbean.

 

[thanatos144]

Excellent.

I wonder if CSA would have tried to take Mexico.

When we were still operating our business, Mr. Foxfyre and I used to travel the entire state of New Mexico. And he found a barber he liked in Las Cruces NM and timed his haircuts for when we were working in that little city. Well Guillermo was a naturalized citizen from Mexico and he would expound on politics and such while cutting hair. And he was firmly convinced that the best thing that could happen to Mexico is for the USA to annex it. And then folks would be flooding into Mexico instead of Mexicans trying to sneak in here.

So that is an interesting concept. If the few states that made up the Confederacy were doing their own thing and needed to expand and had invaded and made Mexico part of them, how would that have changed the dynamics for Mexico and all of us? Of course it is now moot, but it is interesting to think about.

I had listened to an author on NPR talk about this. Apparently, there were some in the Confederacy who advocated not only an invasion of Mexico but dreamed of a nation that went into South America and encircled the Caribbean.

But but but that can't be Confederates are only peace loving people. .... They would never be so evil to want to invade another country. Its not like they were slave owners or anything.

 

[Foxfyre]

When we were still operating our business, Mr. Foxfyre and I used to travel the entire state of New Mexico. And he found a barber he liked in Las Cruces NM and timed his haircuts for when we were working in that little city. Well Guillermo was a naturalized citizen from Mexico and he would expound on politics and such while cutting hair. And he was firmly convinced that the best thing that could happen to Mexico is for the USA to annex it. And then folks would be flooding into Mexico instead of Mexicans trying to sneak in here.

So that is an interesting concept. If the few states that made up the Confederacy were doing their own thing and needed to expand and had invaded and made Mexico part of them, how would that have changed the dynamics for Mexico and all of us? Of course it is now moot, but it is interesting to think about.

I had listened to an author on NPR talk about this. Apparently, there were some in the Confederacy who advocated not only an invasion of Mexico but dreamed of a nation that went into South America and encircled the Caribbean.

But but but that can't be Confederates are only peace loving people. .... They would never be so evil to want to invade another country. Its not like they were slave owners or anything.

Oh give me a break. It was the 'peaceful' north that declared war on the south remember? And while there is absolutely nothing to commend slavery, the 'noble' north was more than happy to benefit from the products and produce they depended on the south to provide.

So stow the righteous indignation please and let's focus on the OP and how things might be very different if the north had not declared that war but had let the southern states go. It is an interesting topic and everything doesn't have to be politicized or pushed into the political correctness models.

 

[Hoffstra]

...An additional advantage of letting the Confederacy go peacefully is that the Negroes would have remained slaves. They would not have been able to move to the North and turn downtown areas of Northern cities into crime ridden slums.

so you hate human freedom, huh?

 

[Hoffstra]

The South was a society and economy totally dependent upon human tyranny and slavery to survive.

 

[bendog]

The South was a society and economy totally dependent upon human tyranny and slavery to survive.

That's simply untrue. The vast maj of southern whites didn't own slaves, but rather were subsistence farmers or small merchants. The wealth in the south was tied to land and slaves, and held by an elite.

While the poor whites fought and made up the manpower of the armies, it wasn't to support the white master on the hill. Ideologically, they opposed the North's power to outvote them in Washington to favor northern manufacturing, and they truly believed in states rights. In 1861, there was nothing radical in the notion that states could leave the union. The constitution didn't prohibit it, and there was (-: that amendment about powers not enumerated were reserved to the states.

The worst you can say about most white southerners was they didn't import all these slaves, and they didn't want millions of them (I think the figure is two slaves for three poor whites though it's been awhile since I looked, and I'm not inclined) running free in the countryside competing with them for land and food.

And that's how we got the Klan. Later, it turned into a tool of the elite. Before WWII they were dependent upon cheap, terrorized labor. After WWII it simply came down to a rich man hides by giving poor men poor enemies.

 

[thanatos144]

I had listened to an author on NPR talk about this. Apparently, there were some in the Confederacy who advocated not only an invasion of Mexico but dreamed of a nation that went into South America and encircled the Caribbean.

But but but that can't be Confederates are only peace loving people. .... They would never be so evil to want to invade another country. Its not like they were slave owners or anything.

Oh give me a break. It was the 'peaceful' north that declared war on the south remember? And while there is absolutely nothing to commend slavery, the 'noble' north was more than happy to benefit from the products and produce they depended on the south to provide.

So stow the righteous indignation please and let's focus on the OP and how things might be very different if the north had not declared that war but had let the southern states go. It is an interesting topic and everything doesn't have to be politicized or pushed into the political correctness models.

Again truth shall set you free. It was the slavers in the south that attacked first

 

[thanatos144]

The South was a society and economy totally dependent upon human tyranny and slavery to survive.

That's simply untrue. The vast maj of southern whites didn't own slaves, but rather were subsistence farmers or small merchants. The wealth in the south was tied to land and slaves, and held by an elite.

While the poor whites fought and made up the manpower of the armies, it wasn't to support the white master on the hill. Ideologically, they opposed the North's power to outvote them in Washington to favor northern manufacturing, and they truly believed in states rights. In 1861, there was nothing radical in the notion that states could leave the union. The constitution didn't prohibit it, and there was (-: that amendment about powers not enumerated were reserved to the states.

The worst you can say about most white southerners was they didn't import all these slaves, and they didn't want millions of them (I think the figure is two slaves for three poor whites though it's been awhile since I looked, and I'm not inclined) running free in the countryside competing with them for land and food.

And that's how we got the Klan. Later, it turned into a tool of the elite. Before WWII they were dependent upon cheap, terrorized labor. After WWII it simply came down to a rich man hides by giving poor men poor enemies.

Many people didn't own factories in the industrial revolution does that mean factories didn't have s major effect on the economy? When Di you fool's stop trying to make scumbags look heroic?

 

[regent]

I often wondered why those poor whites in the south fought for the confederacy and my answer was: the confederacy had a strict social system and the poor whites were not at the bottom of the pile. The whites had status there was a group below them. A poor white could be expected to be treated as a Donald Trump.