Would slavery have been abolished in the South...?

Question

Would slavery have been abolished in the South, had the Confederacy won the Civil War? If so, how far down the road, or would slavery just exist today?

* In response to Gizkaguy, you raise a valid point, why DID the North export slaves back? However, if I remember correctly, General Benjamin Butler was at least one of the first to turn that around BECAUSE the Southern states considered themselves to be a foreign country like you said, hence, he declared slaves to be contraband of war and did not feel that he had to return anything.

Answer 1

Slavery would have ended within a relatively short period, probably beginning during the 1880s. Certainly the attitudes of other countries toward slavery (i.e., England) would have provided incentive for the end to slavery and that would have been realized by England and other countries no longer doing business with those slave holding States. Then too, the free populations of the slave holding States would have increasingly pushed for an end to slavery because of the individual workers in the free market increasingly being placed in the position of competing with slave labor.

Slavery (within the American slave holding States) was also very expensive, particularly in terms of an economic asset. In most slave holding cultures the value of a slave was low enough so that a slave (over time) could earn and save enough money to purchase their own freedom. This was good (economically) for the slave owner because as the slave acquired sufficient worth to purchase their freedom they would be entering their age when their value to work would begin to diminish. By purchasing their freedom this provided the slave owner with enough capital to purchase a new slave and no longer be responsible for the upkeep of the old slave. However, in the Americas, it was not longer legal to import slaves (it was passed as law in the North and existed within the Constitution of the Confederacy) and therefore the numbers of slaves could increase only through birth within the States. This maintained a very high value of the slave and mad it nearly impossible for a typical slave to purchase their freedom, although some did accomplish this goal.

There was also the challenge of what to do with slaves if the slavery system evolved into a non-slave system. One though was to transfer them to the Caribbean countries and there was some thought to remove them to Africa.

The relatively rapid movement to a non-slave culture was considered far more likely than was the idea of fighting to free the slaves. The American War of the 1860s was started because some States left the Union, not due to slavery. Hostilities actually began when the federal government of the Union ordered the military to supply Fort Sumter following the secession of South Carolina. South Carolina had already informed the federal government of the Union that to supply any of the Forts in Charleston Harbor would be considered an act of war. When the Union military steamer “Star of the West” attempted to supply Fort Sumter by entering Charleston Harbor 9 January, 1861 (prior to Lincoln assuming the presidency), South Carolina fired on this ship actually hulling it with at least two shots and forcing it to turn around and put to sea.

This entire period had nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with the federal government of the Union maintaining its forts in the Sovereign territory of Southern States which had seceded from the Union.

Edit:
As a note. Escaped slaves were returned to their State of origin due to the Constitution, specifically, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3:
“No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to who such Service or Labour may be due.”

From cases to the Supreme Court this was up held as opined in Prigg v. Pennsylvania [1842], “The clause manifestly contemplates the existence of a positive, unqualified right on the part of the owner of the slave which no State law or regulation could in any way qualify, regulate, control, or restrain. The slave was not to be discharged from service or labor in consequence of any State Law or Regulation. (also reference as Jones v. Van Zandt [1847]).

Most historically pertinent, in Ableman v. Booth [1859] “The act of Congress known as the fugitive-slave law was held constitutional.”

Answer 2

Slavery would have been abolished. By the 1860's slavery was already on its way out. Few land owners could afford slaves, and many slave holders freed large portions of their slaves in their wills. Two main things kept the institution of slavery alive: southern hierarchy and economics.

A large part of Southern capital was trapped in slaves. Slave owners feared losing their money. In the 1850's, Congress debated a bill that would have 'bought' slaves freedom. This would have given Slave owners their capital, and eased the transfer to a post-slave economy. I think that without the war, this probably would have happened.

The other thing keeping slavery alive was the Southern Hierarchy. This was the belief that no matter how poor a white man was, he was still better than a black man. It was this philosophy that provided the large numbers of soldiers to the Confederate cause.

Eventually the slave economy would have folded under its own weight, war or no war.

You do ask if the Confederacy would have abolished slavery if they had won the Civil War. The first answer to this is that the Confederacy could not have won an extended war without the help of European powers. European countries were unlikely to get involved so long as the Confederacy endorsed slavery. Many Southern leaders freed their slaves at the outset of the war. To get significant aid from European nations, slavery would have had to been abolished.

The second answer depends on many hypothetical. The first being that Kentucky secedes, secondly Confederate forces are able to take Washington within the first months of the war, and thirdly that the South maintained open sea lanes. If the South did those three things, they would have been able to fight the north to a standstill and force a diplomatic solution. In this scenario, slavery would have continued until either a new war over Western expansion occurred between the USA and CSA, or it fell under its own weight.

Answer 3

Slavery was not stated as an objective by either the South or North during the war, and after Lincoln said it to make himself look good, even though it didn't really make sense.

I'll ask you this: if slavery was an objective of the North, why did they send escaped slaves back South?

And the Southern states had every right to secede - the North refusing to give up their fort was a violation of pre-determined borders.

Furthermore, it was not a civil war. A civil war is a country fighting itself.

The other states were no longer part of the US, so it was a war against another country.

- - -

To Russel: Thanks for not laughing at me like so many others, but if the North was trying to abolish slavery, slaves wouldn't be considered objects, would they? They wouldn't be considered contraband ... they would be given their freedom.

Answer 4

Keep in mind that if they'd won, the US would be two separate countries-- the Confederacy wouldn't have been in charge of the whole United States.

Anyway, they probably would have had to modernize eventually, since many countries would have looked down their noses at them. Then again, the US still has the death penalty, which Europe sees as barbaric, and we haven't gotten rid of it yet.

The trouble is, the South's main source of income was from vast plantations that needed slavery to function. It was either take a blow to the economy, or keep slavery. After a long period of time, when plantations were less needed, they might have gotten rid of slavery, but who knows?

Answer 5

I hate long drawn out answers so here it is quick

Yes it was a dying institution in the 1850s, they were like mexicans today.
Robert E Lee or Pete Longstreet would have been the next confederate president and both those guys disliked slavery. Confederate presidents are elected for max one 8 year term. One of them would have ended it after the war. Slaves were really just turning into a status symbol like a razor phone or H2.

Answer 6

As an institution slavery would have died out under Capitalism. Slavery thrives under feudalism and mercantilism, but not capitalism.

Under Capitalism slavery is simply not cost effective.

Any intelligent capitalist would free the slaves, pay them minimum wage, and charge them for rent, food, and clothing. That is the Capitalist way.

Answer 7

I would think that it would have been abolished down the road, especially after mechanized farming came to exist.

Answer 8

Eventually, almost certainly. But nowhere nearly as quickly, from what I gather.

I'm not an expert or anything, but I'm well read.

Answer 9

We still have slavery today, but the name has changed. Now it's called Minimum Wage!