Could slavery have ended without the war?

[GennGreymane]

Slavery could have ended without the war if some states didn't want more rights to keep the federal government from stopping slavery.

Here we go again.
@Machismo this guy is stealing your style.

[Machismo]

Here we go again.
@Machismo this guy is stealing your style.

No, unlike that guy, I don't support slavery.

[Deleted]

No, slavery was the main cause of the war, any attempt to abolish it would have lead to violence.

A longer transitional period could dampen it, like in South America....

[Machismo]

This is the same mentality pushed by Judge Napolitano. Slavery was not dying a slow death, the slave trade was. Slavery would have gone on quite strong for decades. Oppression shouldn't be tolerated out of convenience.

[-Nurot]

This is the same mentality pushed by Judge Napolitano. Slavery was not dying a slow death, the slave trade was. Slavery would have gone on quite strong for decades. Oppression shouldn't be tolerated out of convenience.

This.

If it hadn't been decided and abolished in such a matter and it remained a states right issue, it would have gone on for quite some time afterwards. If it went on too much longer, we might still have states today that would still support and uphold segregation, not to mention voting rights, or even women's rights.

[akris15]

I couldn't imagine slavery lasting that much longer in the south due to external Economic pressures. In the Late 19th century the quality of life in Europe was raising quickly and there was the agriculture revolution going on. This increased the demand in Europe for more imports. The south would have to turn to some pressure of industrialization to compete on the world market to keep up with demand. The thing is to use machinery there would have to be some education to be given which is contrary to how you keep slave populations in control. Therefore you would need immigrants to work along side slavers which didn't work out in the end. Not only that the slave market was drying up. This is what it took for Brazil, the last slave holding country in the west, to give suffrage in the 1880s.

I couldn't imagine Slavery lasting that much longer so I would say the US would barely outlast Brazil at worst until the 1890s essentially due to external economic pressures from Europe on the world market. Granted this is preventing a Butterfly of Doom situation and trying to discount any situation with Mexico (who were looking to capitalize on a weakened south due to war).

[MoanaLisa]

To specifically answer the question:

No, Lincoln could not have ended it without the South seceding. Lincoln's election was the event that lit the fuse fully on secession but there were many in the South that believed that if their "peculiar institution" were ever to have a chance of surviving long term they had to go it alone and deal with the rest of the world as a power apart from the United States.

Would slavery have eventually died out? Yes, but it would have taken a while. The south economically could not viably continue the practice as part of the United States for very long. But it's not difficult to imagine that without secession the slave states would have increasingly been subject to revolts (supported by abolitionists in the North), seeing their crops ruined, and isolation from the a great share of the business of the rest of the country. Trade between North and South would be severely damaged and while part of the U.S. they would be required to follow whatever laws, tariffs, etc. that the North would pass through House and Senate. Because the South was largely an agrarian economy they had a very tiny industrial base and were required to import nearly everything of that nature. European countries would likely embargo shipments of cotton from the South and then they would be stuck. Most of Europe had already banned slavery and even countries like Mexico would be doing the same once they achieved independence. Left without markets and no industrial base the entire thing would eventually have collapsed in on itself.

So it was doomed from the start if they stayed. Probably extended a while but still doomed if they left to go it alone as well.

[Milchshake]

Probably, but you know what argument the slave owners were using if slaves were set free? "It'll collapse the economy if we have to pay people to work!"

No, seriously.

Well 150 years later they still hate the idea of paying people for work. Its the region were wages and worker's rights are among the lowest.

Maybe its just built into Southern Culture. Or the fault of the North for giving up on Reconstruction and DeNazification.


The South was enforcing slavery through violence, and used violence and war to defend it. It could have only been solved through war.

[MoanaLisa]

It would have taken another century without a war.

I don't think it would have taken that long. The expansion west in the late 1800's would have left the South behind and isolated. Rail networks which were being built at a furious rate after the war would have largely shut the South out of that expansion. I agree the South was very likely to start a war to preserve itself but I have real difficulties seeing how slavery would be viable on a large scale after 1900. Probably still pockets here and there but even that would have been a very difficult thing to self-sustain.

[Milchshake]

I don't think it would have taken that long. The expansion west in the late 1800's would have left the South behind and isolated. Rail networks which were being built at a furious rate after the war would have largely shut the South out of that expansion. I agree the South was very likely to start a war to preserve itself but I have real difficulties seeing how slavery would be viable on a large scale after 1900. Probably still pockets here and there but even that would have been a very difficult thing to self-sustain.

North Korea is nation state that should be seemingly difficult to maintain.... yet there it is. It's also known for brutalizing and basically enslaving large parts of the population.

[MoanaLisa]

North Korea is nation state that should be seemingly difficult to maintain.... yet there it is. It's also known for brutalizing and basically enslaving large parts of the population.

I'm not convinced that comparing the economic conditions of 150 years ago to today apply. We're discussing what might have happened then.

Also, North Korea has China to help with its economy.

The Confederacy never had any sort of economic power of that size and scope in its corner and within easy reach. The Confederacy's primary allies in the hemisphere were Cuba, the Bahamas, and Bermuda. If you want to try to make a case that those allies have anything like the same economic heft as North Korea sharing a land border of some 900 miles with China, feel free. It's unlikely that anyone is going to buy that.

Drawing parallels between separate economies 12,000 miles apart and 150 years different in time doesn't strike me as anything useful.

[Z-Man]

It was on the decline until the invention of the cotton gin turned cotton into an incredibly profitable crop. There was no way the South was going to give that up, and demographics were against them keeping their 50% of the House and Senate forever. It was a choice between paying their workers or going to war.

[Milchshake]

I'm not convinced that comparing the economic conditions of 150 years ago to today apply. We're discussing what might have happened then.

Also, North Korea has China to help with its economy.

The Confederacy never had any sort of economic power of that size and scope in its corner and within easy reach. The Confederacy's primary allies in the hemisphere were Cuba, the Bahamas, and Bermuda. If you want to try to make a case that those allies have anything like the same economic heft as North Korea sharing a land border of some 900 miles with China, feel free. It's unlikely that anyone is going to buy that.

Drawing parallels between separate economies 12,000 miles apart and 150 years different in time doesn't strike me as anything useful.

It's as useful as waving a rhetorical wand and saying that slavery will end eventually. It does show the great lengths that oppressive regimes will go to protect themselves.
Like you're pointing out there's many ways for history to take a turn. But overlooking how the coal and oil rush would impact a slavery based economy. in the early 1900's Southern Appalachian States violently put down working strikes of free miners. The miners were striking against the use of cheaper prison labor (mostly black) in competing mines. So again the state governments and oligarchs went to violent lengths to protect cheap or unpaid labor.

No doubt the Confederacy wouldn't survive as a Modern Slave State. But you're judging it through the bias of living in a Modern Capitalist state. The Confederacy could have survived as some weird Slave Petro State or basically a non-modern state relying on cheap labor and resource extraction. With modern amenities and privileges reserved for the ruling elite.

[Breccia]

At some point, automation would have made slaves less cost-efficient to own. That might have been enough to turn the tide.

[draynay]

Most of Europe had already banned slavery and even countries like Mexico would be doing the same once they achieved independence

Mexico did indeed work to ban slavery from the moment they gained independence and succeeded more than 30 years before the US did, and it was one of many legal sticking points with slaver immigrants in Texas.

Its also worth mentioning that the US invaded and took territory from Mexico in order to secure an increased number of southern territory which could potentially become slave states.

With the seizing of potential slave territory from Mexico, the 1850 Compromise, the Fugitive Slave Act, and the further Kansas-Nebraska Act espoused by Stephen Douglas, the pro-slave faction was pushing hard, and as soon as they got their first setback with the election of Lincoln, they quit the union. Things were never going to be resolved with anything short of war.

[Puremallace]

No. Southern plantation owners wanted free labor and they owned the politicians.

[PACOX]

I dont think so. Slavery might have been in Europe, part of the reason is because European culture, even the racist parts, was so much different than the US.
Slavery in the US was is own little sell contained system with its own culture to support it. People with no connection to planations fought for that shit. Why would Southerners give up their plantations as long as they were making money? There was "slavery free" labels on goods back then. Its not like we don't tolerate harsh working conditions today in favor of cheaper goods.

History shows that the South certainly would've have given up slavery through legislation. The 100+ years after the war shows that they certainly didn't give a damn about black people. US culture, especially at that point in time, really couldn't care less about what the world though about how the US handled civil rights. Hell, the CSA probably would've reignited the Atlantic Slave Trade if it proved economical. Less money spent (sounds disgusting just thinking about it) maintaining domestic slaves when you an just ship in new ones.

[Z-Man]

Less money spent (sounds disgusting just thinking about it) maintaining domestic slaves when you an just ship in new ones.

Producing your own was more profitable than shipping them in. The biggest piece of Virginia's economy wasn't from agriculture, but from breeding slaves and selling them in other states. They literally had baby factories full of women who were raped and restrained until they delivered. There's just no common ground when dealing with a mindset that can institutionalize something like that.

[PACOX]

Producing your own was more profitable than shipping them in. The biggest piece of Virginia's economy wasn't from agriculture, but from breeding slaves and selling them in other states. They literally had baby factories full of women who were raped and restrained until they delivered. There's just no common ground when dealing with a mindset that can institutionalize something like that.

TBH I wasn't trying to think to much out the realities of breeding human cattle but you're absolutely right in that regard.