Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
jnewt

Modern Day Confederacy

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

Rush was talking about this last week.  It is pretty silly to have slavery around to this day.

The last sovereign nation on Earth (which was an officially recognized nation internationally) to criminalize slavery officially was Mauritania in 1984 - which, needless to say, is a piss-poor, highly socially-retrograde, horribly corrupt, desert hole-in-the-ground suffering from miserable economic and social inequity and with no industrialized economic basis in it's own borders at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2017 at 4:12 PM, SirLagsalott said:

Is this scenario would the CSA have eventually outlawed slavery? While it would happen much later than the US did I could realistically see it happen in the early 1900s. 

I see that happen by 1890 they woud have no choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Presidentinsertname said:

I see that happen by 1890 they woud have no choice.

As I said, especially with the Khedive of Egypt and Central Asian interests flooding the international market near the end of the U.S. Civil War and shortly after with inexpensive cotton without the stain of slave labour attached to it. This factor has been consistently ignored in it's impact (despite me bringing it up several times) in this modern Confederacy idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Patine said:

As I said, especially with the Khedive of Egypt and Central Asian interests flooding the international market near the end of the U.S. Civil War and shortly after with inexpensive cotton without the stain of slave labour attached to it. This factor has been consistently ignored in it's impact (despite me bringing it up several times) in this modern Confederacy idea.

Right which is one of the reasons that idea about a tv show about slavery in the US today is kind of silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

As I said, especially with the Khedive of Egypt and Central Asian interests flooding the international market near the end of the U.S. Civil War and shortly after with inexpensive cotton without the stain of slave labour attached to it. This factor has been consistently ignored in it's impact (despite me bringing it up several times) in this modern Confederacy idea.

So when do you think the CSA would have abolished slavery?  The 1870s?  1880s? 1890s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jnewt said:

So when do you think the CSA would have abolished slavery?  The 1870s?  1880s? 1890s?

Given their export economy was, at the time, almost entirely cotton-based through slave labour, I can't see it lasting more than the late 1870's at the most. Even Brazilian slavery, which outlasted U.S. slavery in the Western hemisphere in existence, reverted to slaves for domestic household duties and internal improvement labour for the most part as opposed to cash crops before that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

Given their export economy was, at the time, almost entirely cotton-based through slave labour, I can't see it lasting more than the late 1870's at the most. Even Brazilian slavery, which outlasted U.S. slavery in the Western hemisphere in existence, reverted to slaves for domestic household duties and internal improvement labour for the most part as opposed to cash crops before that point.

I'd say late 1880's early 1890's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

I'd say late 1880's early 1890's

After fighting a Civil War (even if winning) and then constantly losing money over their only principal export to new exporters in the world market with a less odious brand, and having next to no economic diversification of large note, could their economy hold out that long?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

After fighting a Civil War (even if winning) and then constantly losing money over their only principal export to new exporters in the world market with a less odious brand, and having next to no economic diversification of large note, could their economy hold out that long?

Considering the South was so invested in it to fight a war for it I say they'd only do it when most countries were willing to take a moral stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

Considering the South was so invested in it to fight a war for it I say they'd only do it when most countries were willing to take a moral stance.

Egypt and Central Asia would offer a 'moral' opportunity before the Civil War was even over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

Egypt and Central Asia would offer a 'moral' opportunity before the Civil War was even over.

Labor from there wouldn't have been as cheap as slave labor until the 1880's or so. once it was cheap they'd take a moral stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

Labor from there wouldn't have been as cheap as slave labor until the 1880's or so. once it was cheap they'd take a moral stance.

Do you know anything at all about 19th Century Egyptian farmers? They were 'freemen,' but they weren't well-paid and their labour was indeed quite cheap by Western European or free American agrarian standards. I read a book years ago about the little-known role the Khedive of Egypt opportunistically flooding the world market with cheap, but not slave-produced, cotton in the last years of the U.S. Civil War called, "The South Didn't Lose Along the Mississippi or the Appalachians, it Lost Along the Nile." I wish I could remember the author now. It was a while ago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re-reading this thread, it quickly went to "la-la land," in several very hostile and differently headed roads. A classic example of why alternate history is always such a botch, no matter who attempts it, and why it's as full of wholes to easily criticize, on strong grounds of backing, as Swiss cheese. It's a genre I never take up in my fictional writing or scenario, and with good reason...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×