• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

if the south had won the Civil War....

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Leros said:
What I've read is that it had cost more to feed, house, and take care of a slave than it did to pay them extremely low wages once they were free.
Click to expand...

But how does this make sense? The only way that could be possible is if you're paying the ex-slaves less than the cost of keeping them alive. Eventually they would just die off, wouldn't they?

Even if you think of slaves as being like horses, this is terrible farming practice. A strong well-fed horse (or black person) does much better work than one that is starving to death or sick due to malnutrition. It seems logical that keeping an army of well-fed animals (slaves) to work in factories or farms would be very profitable.

edit
It might also be profitable to educate the slaves so they can also do somewhat skilled work and follow written instructions. Slaves could weld, lay bricks, work in a steel mill, print license plates (lol prison joke)
 
Last edited:
techs said:
I think the real question is whether it would have been cheaper to own a factory slave who you would have to clothe, house and feed versus a free man who would have to cloth, house and feed himself.
Click to expand...

That is basically what would happen.

Remember, to a plantation owner, a slave was an investment. If you bought a slave, and then worked it to death, you were out a good chunk of cash. Did this keep them from mistreating them: No. Did it keep them from using them like a simple consumable: Yes.

When dangerous work had to be done, plantation owners didn't send their slaves to do it. They hired Irishmen. If an Irishman dies doing something hazardous for you, you're out whatever his daily wages were (as in, jack shit). If I recall AP US History correctly, slaves had a higher life expectancy than immigrant Irish in the south.

Economically, using slaves in factories would have been bad investments. You would never likely see a return on that. But hiring some poor shit off the street to do things was virtually free. You didn't have to take care of him at all (though many factories did so they could get all of the wages back in room and board). And of course, if poor shit died, there's 200 more trying to get his job who are just as consumable. You'd have to buy more slaves.

Now, just want to point out: Slavery is bad. Not only is it immoral, it's also un-economical.

BTW: If you're looking for an entertaining movie about if the south had won, try watching "The Confederate States of America". It has a picture of our modern whitehouse on the front. You cna get it from Blockbuster I know, dunno about Netflix. And a disclaimer about it for the average ATer. You must have some knowledge of US history to understand the humor at all.
 
gimmewhitecastles said:
I wasn't assuming that the CSA would have joined Mexico. Just saying they would have been a third world country like Mexico. But with that said, Mexico might have reclaimed Texas.

[SPANISH]"Remember the Alamo!"[/SPANISH]
Click to expand...

I was referring to the CSA asking Spain to build them warships after the Union got England and France to put them on hold. Spain could never have resisted the chance to take control of such a strategic advantage under the guise of 'helping' the CSA and England would never have allowed that. They would have tried to occupy the ports and chase Spain out.
 
Kreon said:
Economically, using slaves in factories would have been bad investments. You would never likely see a return on that. But hiring some poor shit off the street to do things was virtually free. You didn't have to take care of him at all (though many factories did so they could get all of the wages back in room and board). And of course, if poor shit died, there's 200 more trying to get his job who are just as consumable. You'd have to buy more slaves.
Click to expand...

Just like horses, you're supposed to breed your slaves. Take the male with the most desirable traits (strong, understands directions) and mate it with all of your females. Your wife and daughter might volunteer for this as well 😉
Keep the ones you need, sell the ones you don't need. It's just like raising and selling horses.
 
Rudeguy said:
I talked to a good ol' boy from Alabama today. He had the whole deep south accent, spoke so slow that I was dozing off between his words....stereotype to the max. I had zero doubt that he had the IQ of a toothpick. Once I actually got him to open up, he was VERY intelligent and one of the nicest guys I've ever talked to. He seriously wanted me to come down and have tea if I was ever in the area.

Completely screwed up my hatred of southerners.
Click to expand...

Dude, he probably wants to blow you...and then kill you and eat your remains.
 
if the south had won the Civil War....

Then northeners would be complaining about the poor, Southern, illegal immigrants who only want to come up here to live off welfare and free medical care.
 
if the south had won the Civil War....

Then the northern states would have invaded Canada for lebensraum.
 
if the south had won the Civil War....

Then the north would have stood by and watched the Brits roll up the south.
After all, the Brits had ended slavery many years before. And in the song Hail Britainnia the very sixth line is "Britons never will be slaves."

Then, after the South loses the war with Britain, the north rolls in and defeats the weakened Brits. And the south becomes a protectorate of the north.
 
I doubt it, and there would be less resentment on the part of the whites in the south for having been "forced" to give up their slaves. I really think that a lot of what perpetuates the racism in the deep south is the very real notion, passed through the generations from former slave owners right down to the current white generation, that blacks are inherently inferior to whites. There is a certain animosity behind it that belies connection to any observable black trait. All I can think is that the original slave owning population must have been extremely pissed at being forced to give up their slaves. So pissed that they made sure their kids were pissed about it too, who passed on that anger to their children.

This rage has lost its hard edge and specificity over the years, but I think it is a great factor in the continuation of racism in the south. Now think of how much less it would be present if the southern people themselves chose to free their slaves willingly. Even if the southerners of the time maintained their white supremacist ideas, they would have been patting themselves on the back for being so kind rather than stewing over something that was being forced on them. I believe that black/white relations in the south would be a great deal better in addition to slavery ending at a somewhat later date had the south won the Civil War.
 
techs said:
if the south had won the Civil War....

Then the north would have stood by and watched the Brits roll up the south.
After all, the Brits had ended slavery many years before. And in the song Hail Britainnia the very sixth line is "Britons never will be slaves."

Then, after the South loses the war with Britain, the north rolls in and defeats the weakened Brits. And the south becomes a protectorate of the north.
Click to expand...

If I recall my American History courses correctly, Britain sympathized with the south more than the north because the southern way of life was reminiscent of the British way of life with it's caste system and such. Also Britain had a lucrative trade with the south in the form of agricultural exports. The Brits were actually fairly close to throwing in with the south against the north at one point during the war.
 
Rudeguy said:
Good point...but would there have been and industrial revolution with free labor? Necessity breeds invention, right?
Click to expand...

Necessity breeds specific invention, if you have something that seems critical of course people will look at ways of getting it done. But technology moves forward even if it doesn't have a readily apparent application at the time. The beginning of the Industrial Revolution predates the US Civil War and it was happening in Europe at the same time. Slavery had nothing to do with it.
 
Mechanized farming would have made slavery obsolete pretty quickly. Traction Engines were being put into mainstream use by the end of the 1860s. One machine could do the work of several slaves. No need to feed, clothe, or shelter it either.

I think the South winning would have drastic consequences on the global scale than simpler issues of race and slavery. The North came out of the war far more powerful, militarily and industrially, than it went in. It was one of the driving forces that led to Canadian confederation. The Provinces were worried that the stronger US would invade as part of manifest destiny. Canada may not have united when it did. Plus the US would have lost half it's territory. So instead of two world powers in North America (with one being a superpower), you would have three or more weaker ones.

It creates a ripple effect. Cuba may have remained a Spanish possession due to the weak US military, and the fact it wasn't near US waters. Perhaps Castro would never have come to power. The US may never have entered WWI in force. Their troops and manufacturing never would have bolstered allied armies to the same extent, if they participated at all. The war's outcome would have been far murkier. No clear victors at best. Most likely a stalemate. Perhaps World War II would never take place as the Versailles Treaty never existed. The Nazis may never have risen to power. Or, World War II could have been the Allies against the Soviet Union. It's entirely possible Europe today would be controlled by a single Soviet hyperpower. This would lead to communism becoming the dominant global ideology.
The Empire of Japan could have risen to become the competing superpower against the Soviets. Without US involvement in the Pacific, Japan could have concentrated it's military on conquering China and its resources. Without a strong West to balance them, both states would have wielded tremendous global power. Being old rivals, there likely would be a war between the two at some point.

As for the CSA itself, I don't think would have become a major power even if it had won. The southern US is and always has been agriculturally based. This is one of the primary reasons they lost in the first place. Lack of resources, logistics (railroads), and manufacturing compared to the North. Heavy industrialization is what drove the current world powers to where they are today. The South would probably not have a great deal of influence globally. I could see it becoming an Apartheid state like South Africa. A weak, global pariah.
 
mmntech said:
The US may never have entered WWI in force. Their troops and manufacturing never would have bolstered allied armies to the same extent, if they participated at all. The war's outcome would have been far murkier. No clear victors at best. Most likely a stalemate. Perhaps World War II would never take place as the Versailles Treaty never existed. The Nazis may never have risen to power. Or, World War II could have been the Allies against the Soviet Union. It's entirely possible Europe today would be controlled by a single Soviet hyperpower. This would lead to communism becoming the dominant global ideology.
Click to expand...
if I remember right, in that one series I linked, WW1 was practically a stalemate on the European side, but no treaty of versailles = no nazi party = no mass exodus of scientists out of Germany = the Kaiser gets the a-bomb and drops it on London and Paris.
 
ShawnD1 said:
Wait, what? Right now we import stuff from China because cheap labor lowers the price of goods. Slavery accomplishes basically the same thing but not only do you get Walmart prices, but you can export those Walmart prices to everyone else! It's win-win for everyone! (except blacks)

If the south had won, it would probably play like the revolutionary war did. The south would be a new country and the north would give up and go away. What happened when the US invaded Canada and lost? They gave up and went away. That was all that happened.
Click to expand...

Slaves were already expensive at the time since most countries had banned the trade. At the time of the civil war, the only available slaves were generally bred in the country, so prices were much higher. The efficiency of machines would have left a large glut of slaves though, so either slave owners would have to support slaves they didn't need, or let them go.

The North would have been very prosperous. Even more prosperous after the invention of the welfare state, the current south is a huge drain on resources.
 
would be lulz
north harbors massive grudge against britain for helping the south...
tell the brits to bite themselves in ww2😉
 
SlitheryDee said:
If I recall my American History courses correctly, Britain sympathized with the south more than the north because the southern way of life was reminiscent of the British way of life with it's caste system and such. Also Britain had a lucrative trade with the south in the form of agricultural exports. The Brits were actually fairly close to throwing in with the south against the north at one point during the war.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by "sympathize". The British people did not sympathize with the South. The anti-slavery movement was huge in Britain. The British navy sailed around putting an end to the slavery in all their colonies. (yeah, the British didn't see the Empire system as a problem, however. Funny how you rationalize things that make you money)

The British politicians of the time considered themselves enlightened men. They too were mostly anti-slavery.

Britain was solidly with the north morally. It was the lucrative cotton trade that caused Britain to provide some small assistance to the South. It was also the long shot hope that by breaking up the Union one or both parts could be reacquired, though that was pretty far fetched. Britain had never built their empire by defeating any kind of decent army, and the north and south had both.

So, Britain was economically and geo-politically drawn to the South. It was the fact the South had slavery that kept Britain from supplying an real help and caused the sympathies of Britain to be with the North.
 
SlitheryDee said:
I doubt it, and there would be less resentment on the part of the whites in the south for having been "forced" to give up their slaves. I really think that a lot of what perpetuates the racism in the deep south is the very real notion, passed through the generations from former slave owners right down to the current white generation, that blacks are inherently inferior to whites. There is a certain animosity behind it that belies connection to any observable black trait. All I can think is that the original slave owning population must have been extremely pissed at being forced to give up their slaves. So pissed that they made sure their kids were pissed about it too, who passed on that anger to their children.

This rage has lost its hard edge and specificity over the years, but I think it is a great factor in the continuation of racism in the south. Now think of how much less it would be present if the southern people themselves chose to free their slaves willingly. Even if the southerners of the time maintained their white supremacist ideas, they would have been patting themselves on the back for being so kind rather than stewing over something that was being forced on them. I believe that black/white relations in the south would be a great deal better in addition to slavery ending at a somewhat later date had the south won the Civil War.
Click to expand...



Yeah, if they did that it would have been great.
Only problem was they didn't. And if left on their own they might still have slavery. So a "somewhat later date" might STILL be in the future.
I wonder how you would feel as a slave knowing you and your kids, and grandkids and their kids would be slaves, because it was better if your master willingly freed you, instead of being forced to free you.
 
I think the world has figured out that paying poor people is much more productive than slavery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top