Why do people assume the Confederacy will liberalize post-war?
- Thread starter Band in China
- Start date
The thing is like by than most of Africa is already colonised by Europeans + yeah UK navy is on patrol for anyone dumb enough to smuggle slaves
By this point the Atlantic slave trade is dead and gone. For good reason.
The Confederacy literally put the anti-slave trade clause in their constitution as an olive branch to the UK. Only the most radical fire Eaters would ever suggest dropping it, and I think there would be a public outcry at home (let alone abroad) if they even attempted to amend the clause.
A few reasons. One I suppose is that some would view the prohibition on slave trading as a left over from the Union they left, and more broadly as legislation from the anti-slavery people they feared would abolish the institution if they remained. So they would repeal it to rid the CSA of such residual influences. Another reason is that some slaveowners would see the issue of owning slaves not just as a "states rights" issue, but that the government at any level should have nearly zero regulations on slavery.
Well, Africa. As recently as 1860, a slave ship managed to make it to the US. Though, the British anti slavery patrols would very much prevent a a slave trade from flourishing in the CSA.
Regardless, Latin America did have some instability so I can imagine CSA slave traders exploiting that the illegally sell slaves.
Maybe the CSA might start selling slaves to Natives and frontiersmen out in the territories(since Texas borders the US frontiers). The West in that era was not exactly known for it's stringent law enforcement, so I think some people might get away with owning some slaves there.
To faciliate that trade, the CSA would import slaves to themselves first; acting as an intermediary.
Last edited:
Again, we are talking about an amendment, not just some law. That requires more than some.
Again, why ?
Not necessarily - even after the slave trade stopped, slavery kept limping along for nearly 40 years before it was finally abolished, and internal pressure played a large part on the abolition. presumably, the CSA would take even longer to do that, considering their ruling classes (at the time of independence, at least) also have a fanatical ideological commitment to it that hardly existed in Brazil.
Last edited:
It is true that an amendment would require a higher amount of political support. But I suppose in the first post-war election, there is a plausible chance that more hardline slaveowners would sweep the board.
Simple, money. As their sole legal trading partner, the CSA could charge a large markup on the slaves they sell.
A victory tends to make people more bold, so I can see the logic here, but the situation is far more complicated than that. There is for one the question of the exact state of post-war CSA. I do not see a war weary CSA doing something risky.
While not exactly “liberalize”, I can see a desperate Confederate States of America being forced to make certain changes and decisions by various powers, most likely Britain and France.
They also ignore the centuries of wars that England and France had with each other and yet they fought on the same side in both world wars.
Last edited: