They might face internal opposition from Constitutionalists within the "South". There had bee notable people within the Southern establishment who saw secession and even the attempt as a big act of treason.
They might face internal opposition from Constitutionalists within the "South". There had bee notable people within the Southern establishment who saw secession and even the attempt as a big act of treason.This is something that always puzzled me as to why it didn't happen in OTL.
instead of firing upon fort sumter when the union refused to evacuate its military positions in the seceding states, the south could have built a strong legal case that the union was an affair that required the consent of the states, and that the states could voluntarily back out of said union. With the right lawyers they might have won the supreme court battle (to the detriment of african americans, the united states, and the world as a whole)
They might face internal opposition from Constitutionalists within the "South". There had bee notable people within the Southern establishment who saw secession and even the attempt as a big act of treason.
Yes, secesh was about slavery, but lots of southern men wanted to kill a yankee period. Still do, drive south and ask.And WHY did they want to kill the yankees? They thought they going to abolish SLAVERY.
This is something that always puzzled me as to why it didn't happen in OTL.
instead of firing upon fort sumter when the union refused to evacuate its military positions in the seceding states, the south could have built a strong legal case that the union was an affair that required the consent of the states, and that the states could voluntarily back out of said union. With the right lawyers they might have won the supreme court battle (to the detriment of african americans, the united states, and the world as a whole)
This is a very difficult question. How could it be abolished? Would there ever be a sufficiently large majority of free states that would vote this way? Certainly, even the loyal slave states voted to keep slavery during the civil war. I could perhaps see enough of a shift in attitudes in the upper south that slavery might be abolished by the mid-20th century, but prior to this it's very hard to see the US abandoning the practice.
Hmm, economic pressures sufficient to get slave owners to outright delete their main assets? Further, what economic problems could there be in the early-mid industrial era that would make cheap labour uncompetitive? I could see slavery declining slowly, unlikely but possible, but the idea that property rights would be impinged on to such a degree in the American south seems highly unlikely to me. Truthfully, mid-20th century to me is optimistic. An equivalent shift in culture to what we saw around 1970-1980 would be more likely to do the trick.I agree with your main point that absent the ACW slavery would've been hard to abolish, but I can't see it lasting to the middle of the 20th Century. I think such States as Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Texas, and Missouri would be compelled by economic, political, and social forces to abolish it by the 1880's. By the 1890's the Deep South would find itself under enormous pressure to emancipate the slaves. The Boll Weevil Infestation might deliver the final blow to the Cotton Kingdom, forcing the South to reorder it's economic system.
In 1912 the Union would have 47 States, (Minus 1 for West Virginia). Passing a Constitutional Amendment would take 36 States. By then you could probably count on 37-39, if Virginia, and North Carolina fall the way I think they would. A united Virginia is much less dominated by Slave Interests, and NC was less dependent on Slavery then the Deep South States. So my guess would be Emancipation would happen before WWI at the latest.
Unfortunately, the more I’ve thought about this issue, the more I realize that absent either a slave rebellion or the North invading the South (as actually happened), slavery could have existed indefinitely. The only other pathway would have been a compensated abolition plan, but uh... hmm... would the political will have ever been there for that?Hmm, economic pressures sufficient to get slave owners to outright delete their main assets? Further, what economic problems could there be in the early-mid industrial era that would make cheap labour uncompetitive? I could see slavery declining slowly, unlikely but possible, but the idea that property rights would be impinged on to such a degree in the American south seems highly unlikely to me. Truthfully, mid-20th century to me is optimistic. An equivalent shift in culture to what we saw around 1970-1980 would be more likely to do the trick.
Unfortunately, the more I’ve thought about this issue, the more I realize that absent either a slave rebellion or the North invading the South (as actually happened), slavery could have existed indefinitely. The only other pathway would have been a compensated abolition plan, but uh... hmm... would the political will have ever been there for that?
Although, it’s a little more complex than “giving up assets,” as you can argue that it was more profitable to have cheap wage labor than slavery, or at least as profitable. However, it’s not really an economic argument that would be enough to end slavery by itself, you need some type of political push, internally or externally.
Yes, that's true. I think it would take a couple of decades, but it would probably only require a couple of states to flip to get an amendment through. As previously mentioned, states like Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia are much easier to move, and I could see the former having long since flipped given how weak slavery was there. The particular matchup of slave vs free states is going to be the biggest determinant here. There's traditionally 16 states in the US South, 17 if we count Missouri... enough to block an amendment at 50 states, but not many beyond that. Alternatively, losing 3 slave states pretty much ensures a successful amendment.Right, but those social movements you’re talking about were not as common in the South, so even if they still gain popularity in this timeline, it still may lead to a conflict rather than some gradual reform movement. I don’t know, though.
Short of a radically different social development in the US, which I won't say is impossible but would probably require an additional POD, I can't see slavery lasting into the 21st century as it really was so incongruent with the social developments of the mid-20th century. Feminism, anti-racism, anti-homophobia; these were powerful forces that were opposed to the values of slavery to an extent far beyond what 19th century abolitionists were, and we saw how each of these movements massively altered society. Still, it would not be an easy fight.
I think it really does need to be thought of in terms of assets. If slavery is made illegal, all the money you put into slaves immediately evaporates. Even if you can hire them back at very low wages, that investment is still gone. An argument could be made that from a tabula rasa perspective slavery is less efficient than slave-wages, but within the established context I think it wouldn't be at all persuasive.
One thing I could see, though I won't call it likely, is a northern-dominated US government deliberately breaking up anti-slavery states like California and New York in order to "stack" the senate. I'm not sure how difficult this would be, and whether or not the South would be able to respond in kind to a sufficient extent, but a "states arms race" could work. I guess it depends on the particulars. A virulently anti-slavery government that can't get an amendment through could wage economic warfare, or be deliberately disruptive in other ways. Hard to see what would motivate a government to act so divisively, though.
None of this suggests that slavery would end, only that it would be ever more controversial. It remains economically viable, and people are happy to take criticism if the alternative is losing lots of money. I cannot see the British or French empires taking actual action on this matter in 1900.Several points. The growth of the abolitionist movement in America, and around the world had become a majority movement across most of the Western World, and was becoming so in the U.S.. The whole force of progressive movements were focusing against slavery, and only moved on after the ACW. Even in the Border States political resistance to uncompensated emancipation faded away, because everyone could see slavery was a dead letter. The decline of the Cotton Kingdom with cotton from India, and Egypt coming on line would equal it's political decline. Likewise the Southern States would continue to decline in wealth relative to the North.
The Southern Elite wanted respect, they hated being thought of as backward, and cruel. Being held up to the whole World as Moral Lepers was intolerable to them, which is what provoked them to secede to begin with. The increasing rate of slaves running away would make slaves a reducing asset. Finally the impoverishment of Working Class Whites by Slavery would within a generation turn the majority of the Southern Population against the institution, though not against racism. With so many factors converging against it, it's hard to imagine the evil institution surviving much past 1900.
As for States being broken up by the Federal Government that is a Constitutional Impossibility. A State breaking itself up would be so against it's own interests as to be absurd, which is why no state has done it. West Virginia has been the only case, and that was a result of part of the State trying to break up the Union.
None of this suggests that slavery would end, only that it would be ever more controversial. It remains economically viable, and people are happy to take criticism if the alternative is losing lots of money. I cannot see the British or French empires taking actual action on this matter in 1900.
I did not say that the federal government would force it, but rather a federal government supported by free states might consider spilling them with their consent. This has obvious advantages in the senate, though certainly it’s an extreme measure.
Do you have any evidence that slavery was becoming unprofitable?Slavery was losing it's economic viability. The cost benefit analysis was turning against slavery. Slavery was dependent on a massive internal security system to keep the slaves under control, and in place. Soil exhaustion, and the need to acquire more land for cotton cultivation was driving poor White Farmers off their land. Lack of capital investment was deigning White Working Class People opportunities for alternative incomes, and they were falling into poverty. The only people that would lose money from emancipation would be a tiny minority of the Southern Population. Slave Holders couldn't hold a veto over emancipation indefinitely. The Slave Holders would find themselves a tiny, increasingly isolated political interest group. They themselves saw the writing on the wall better then most, which is why they forced the Secession Crisis of 1860.
Do you have any evidence that slavery was becoming unprofitable?
I do not think this is at all conclusive. Slaves might have had higher costs than very cheap labour, but they had other advantages too. They were reliably going to be available, they could be rented out, and were extremely fungible. Unlike free labour, they would have to do any job they were given. I won't say that overall they were "more" or even "just as" productive as free labour, but I doubt that the gap was big in the 19th/early 20th centuries. Moreover, and this is the big one, "getting rid" of slaves has a problem. Unless someone wants to buy them, meaning that demand is still strong and slavery still viable, this means giving up on a lot of investment. Even selling them at a modest loss will be unattractive as they can still be used to make a profit. IMO this is the main problem is disentangling the economy of the South from slavery. No matter how strong an argument there is that free labour is overall more efficient from an aggregate perspective, people do not want their valuable capital to be legislated out of existence.Slave labour was not free labour - at least not completly. The owners had to maintain the slaves - food, clothing, some form of housing etc. I know it wasnt much but still it was a cost. But if you have dirt cheap work of poor free people available slavery is not necesserily worth it. The free labour might cost a bit more - but I dont think in a case I described by much. And free people - unlike slaves - are easier to get rid off if they are not needed. Like when its off season and their work is not needed they can be fired and be only employed and paid again in the next season. And the amount of work will be most during harvest - people can simly be employed for that only and the emloyers dont have to care from what they live in the rest of the year. There is also no need to organize their housing - this also provides extra space as it wont be on the estate, or if it is they can be made to pay for it, food etc which they will have to do themselves. There is no need for an owerseer off work time and there is no need to ensure they wont escape - they are free to leave but easily and cheaply repleced if they do leave. With slaves the owner had to maintain them even in the winter or outside harvest season, had to create and mantain an organisation for their care (man i feel bad calling it that), and likely the number of owerseers - who for the recods are not productive people to be paid or be maintained - is likely much greater. And than of course a free labourer will IMO likely do a better job than a slave - because however much he might hate the work he is doing it from his own will while the slave is forced to it.
Thus IMO - however cruel and unpopular it might be - in environments were abundant cheap free labour is available the free labourers are in a way worse off than if they were slaves. Of course theoretically they might have got the possibility to leave and search for better opportunities but in a lot of cases they either lack the ability or at least believe they lack the ability to leave. Or have ties they are not ready to severe etc and as a result continue to live a life where they can be regarded as worse off - at least materially - than slaves.
But back to topic I dont think that much cheap free labour was available in the american south in the era of the civil war, thus IMO slavery was still a much cheaper option for the plantation owners than replacing it with free labour. If free cheap labour was available in abundance a lot of them would have gotten rid of the slaves themselves and the whole region would have been much less pro slavery. Actually that would have been the time the south ended slavery on its own - when cheaper alternatives became aveilable (either in new machines or cheap free labour), and not before that.
Slave labour was not free labour - at least not completly. The owners had to maintain the slaves - food, clothing, some form of housing etc. I know it wasnt much but still it was a cost. But if you have dirt cheap work of poor free people available slavery is not necesserily worth it. The free labour might cost a bit more - but I dont think in a case I described by much. And free people - unlike slaves - are easier to get rid off if they are not needed. Like when its off season and their work is not needed they can be fired and be only employed and paid again in the next season. And the amount of work will be most during harvest - people can simly be employed for that only and the emloyers dont have to care from what they live in the rest of the year. There is also no need to organize their housing - this also provides extra space as it wont be on the estate, or if it is they can be made to pay for it, food etc which they will have to do themselves. There is no need for an owerseer off work time and there is no need to ensure they wont escape - they are free to leave but easily and cheaply repleced if they do leave. With slaves the owner had to maintain them even in the winter or outside harvest season, had to create and mantain an organisation for their care (man i feel bad calling it that), and likely the number of owerseers - who for the recods are not productive people to be paid or be maintained - is likely much greater. And than of course a free labourer will IMO likely do a better job than a slave - because however much he might hate the work he is doing it from his own will while the slave is forced to it.
Thus IMO - however cruel and unpopular it might be - in environments were abundant cheap free labour is available the free labourers are in a way worse off than if they were slaves. Of course theoretically they might have got the possibility to leave and search for better opportunities but in a lot of cases they either lack the ability or at least believe they lack the ability to leave. Or have ties they are not ready to severe etc and as a result continue to live a life where they can be regarded as worse off - at least materially - than slaves.
But back to topic I dont think that much cheap free labour was available in the american south in the era of the civil war, thus IMO slavery was still a much cheaper option for the plantation owners than replacing it with free labour. If free cheap labour was available in abundance a lot of them would have gotten rid of the slaves themselves and the whole region would have been much less pro slavery. Actually that would have been the time the south ended slavery on its own - when cheaper alternatives became aveilable (either in new machines or cheap free labour), and not before that.