How long did they plan to keep slavery?

>Slavery was a minor issue in CSA
lol no

Until England and France eventually tell them to cut that shit out or be embargoed

as long as they could get away with it, once the industrial revolution hit they would just use slaves as factory workers, so it might even benefit the CSA in some loose sense had they remained independent, but at some point outside pressures on the CSA would cause them to abolish slavery. I'd give it until at least 2000 if they survived that long before the CSA would introduce basic rights and abolish slavery and the decades following would be civil rights movements everywhere that chokehold the nation so dependent on subservience

The CSA didn't have the finance capital necessary to industrialize. They would have been reliant on foreign investments if they wanted to build a modern economy.

Jews ruled the Confederacy you retard.

I thought Jews ruled the north and wanted to end slavery to promote race mixing

Fuck off with your sarcasm you ape. North represented the interest of white yeonen, CSA represented the interests of kike bankers, textile nerchants and slave breeders.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_P._Benjamin
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Levy_Yulee
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_F._Jonas
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salomon_James_de_Rothschild

>mfw I fund out that 40% of the population was slaves

Completely stable conditions.

The southern elite wanted a permanent slave empire spanning the entire western hemisphere. Go to central America, and to this day, people talk about William Walker and Los Filibusteros.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Walker_(filibuster)

they didnt. they didnt really think ahead when the made the CSA

and thats different from the south now?

Jim Crow laws barely did anything other than making leftists screech. The only tangible effect it had was school segregation, but schools are segregated even today, even if it's voluntary and not by law.

>Not seeing the difference between force and choice.

Kek. Had they won America would never have evolved into a global superpower.

The fight was about states' rights; The right for a State of the Union to decide the laws that governed its people, not the us government.

There was more race mixing in the South, honestly. Masters liked a bit of black dessert.

They do

Why do Southern niggers always go quiet when the Rothschild-Confederacy issue gets brought up?

It's ok only if you castrate them like the arabs and persians used to do.

They’ve been in a full rout since the Dylann Roof incident brought the heat down on the lost-cause losers and shined the light on all the ways that they surreptitiously bend the truth to make their point seem compelling. Actual historians released a bunch of primary sources BTFO’ing them out, forever, and it’s been all butthurt and delicious tears about statues of Nathan Bedford Forrest (a domestic terrorist) and Robert E. Lee (a guy who explicitly did not want a statue) being taken down

I wasn't taking into account the financial capabilities of the CSA, either way the idea that the CSA survives at all is ludicrous anyways.

With pressure from France and Britain, slavery would have ended in, at most, 1885. It just didn't have a place in the changing times. Also, considering that the CSA would have freed it's own slaves, race relations would be far better than in the modern South where Yankees who had no stake in the matter forced them into freedom.

The jews brought the niggers.

I am pretty sure the slave industry needed a hell of a lot more than just 15 ships.

What pisses me off is that for some short-term cotton profits, which whatever wealth was created by slavery was destroyed during the Civil War, we now have to deal with Niggers forever in America. It's kind of like an infection that won't heal. Slavery is always a mistake for the enslavers. It forces a superior race to interact with an inferior race. What happens? The inferior race is elevated, and the superior race is degraded.

Then you better like living in an non-industrialized shit hole

>billions
user the nigger population in Coonfrica didnt exceed 10 million in the 1800s.

Kek this is delusion at its highest form
Kike had a hand in slavery,nogs had it but no we suddeners r clean we didn want any of dem knee grows

So long as it was more profitable than using machinery and paying white workers. So until like the 1920s. If slavery had been kept as an institution, the US probably wouldn't have had as big an edge in industrialization as it did, and wouldn't have become a superpower.

Cuckfederates will defend this and their Jew masters

how does anne frank get pregnant again?

Why? Wouldn't USA still have enough resources and conditions even without CSA states?

>le all jews are bad
>not just zionists
Wow /pol/ memes have been bastardized like hell. The Rothschilds didn't support the CSA or else you'd really think foreign powers would have intervened. It's also ironic given the globalism of (((them))) which would run counter to secession movements.
There were Jews on both sides.
myjewishlearning.com/article/jews-in-the-civil-war/
The American Revolution's biggest fiancie was a Jew so I guess you should support secession from the US too. Oh wait, maybe it wasn't a modern zionist proxy war after all.

Good
Still goes on in Africa and the Middle East m8. There are actually more people enslaved today than ever.
Yeah as way of asserting dominance by raping them and producing more slaves not treating them as equals and they would otherwise have white kids with their white wives.

The confederate constitution bans emancipation

>Article I Section 9(4)
>No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

Also keep in mind that the ruling class in the CSA have a good interest in keeping slavery going.

In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the US census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.

The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves. Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).

The figures show conclusively that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters in pre-Civil War America. The statistics outlined above show that about 28 percent of free blacks owned slaves—as opposed to less than 4.8 percent of southern whites, and dramatically more than the 1.4 percent of all white Americans who owned slaves

The North had no right to obliterate the southern Economy over night, without a valid replacement. Mechanized farm work (tractors etc..) were only a few years away from widespread implementation, and this should have been taken into account by Lincoln and the North Before calling for emancipation of slaves.

It was literally impossible for southern agriculturists to convert over night to an entirely new ( and useless/outdated) business model, when slavery could have persisted (under a provisionary case) untill the workforce could be replaced by machines.

I have no idea how typical, detached Northerners cannot cognitively understand the immense un-seeable infrastructure that underlined human (or slave) driven venture. How could they have not understood that simply "freeing the slaves" would have FAR FAR more consequences than just "HURR hire somebody for a fair wage".

Its the same Northern city people today, that destroy the fabric of agricultural or "country' life, that have not a single iota of an idea on what it means to live and survive by the sweat of your brow and the blood of your flesh.

and I doubt slavery would have lasted through the industrial revolution

really specific choice of a country

You were already sperging out about slavery and declaring war before the emancipation proclamation.

Lincoln said they could keep all their slaves. Nobody was demanding this save John Brown and a few radicals.

Slaves can do more than just farm work senpai. The Nazis and Soviets used slaves in factories. The North also helped the South rebound economically afterwards.
mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/291/cotton-and-the-civil-war
I will concede that they had the right to secede.

...

>there are good jews
"No"

>Jews
>enslaving the literal masters of the world

Germany and Egypt tried that, it didn't end well for them.

>Irish

Irish already do a job for nickel what a nigger does for a dime and a white man used to get a quarter for. It'd be redundant to enslave them.

>Mexicans

Mexicans will do for a penny what an Irishman does for a nickel.

>Slavs

I mean I guess, but there isn't any major population of Slavs in North America to enslave.

States rights to own slaves, yes

>Slavs
You're welcome to try you mulatto faggot.

Well there's also the fact we're talking about literal slaves here

We win the Civil War and prevent the World Wars from occurring.

Anne goes on to live a perfectly normal life, marrying and giving birth to many children.

All thanks to us.

>prevent the World Wars from occurring.
literally how

again, the war was about states rights. If a state by means of proper representation via legitimate congress decided that owning slaves is what was best for that particular state then sure, but what was robbed of the south, and the country's people for that matter, was the Choice.

if it was about state's rights, why didnt the confedarate constitution allow for states to succeed from it in a similar manner?

Not as long as the union. We're still slaves to this day.

Why can the federal government legally tell a state what type statues it can honor?

Some had delusions of it lasting forever, others saw the writing on the wall, probably around 40 years. If the South wins in 1863, I think they probably forge a strong alliance with the US within 75 years, maybe even fold back into the Union with some stipulations. Those last 2 years and reconstruction really brought the generational bitterness out.

A few radicals that had some fairly large political sway within the GoP.

Not him but American manufacturing proved to be a decisive factor in both world wars. American-made weapons and ammunition helped keep the Entente's war effort alive until 1917 when the United States formally joined the war. A Confederate victory in the Civil War would've likely resulted in American manufacturing not becoming as dominant. Without America to tip the scales, the First World War either ends in a German victory or forces the Entente to negotiate an end to the war on much more even terms. The Treaty of Versailles, which enflamed German public opinion and jump-started movements like the NSDAP isn't nearly as draconian simply because Britain and France don't have American fighting power to back them up should Germany refuse. Without the extremism and poverty caused by Versailles, the Weimar Republic might actually stand a chance at survival.

Political optics is the most likely explanation. If they explicitly include it, that looks like they knew secession from the Union was not within the bounds of the original agreement. You have to consider the chronology of events. In the early years of the conflict, before the realities of the casualties at Shiloh solidified the ordeal from a conflict to a full scale war in the minds of everybody, the war was all about controlling and convincing border states of the validity of each sides's cause. A large contingent of the argument was the assertions of each side as to the nature of the union. The US asserted that it was a compact of the people, forged in the revolution and predating the constitution. They argued that the constitution was merely a written expression of an abstraction that superseded any document. The CS argued that the revolution was simply an enemy of my enemy is my friend situation, and that the constitution was the binding tie, which was ratified by the states, proving their sovereignty. Had they won independence, they may have added an explicit clause on secession, but at they that time, it was seen as potentially giving ammunition to northern newspapers and politicians. When we look back now, it seems like a glaring omission, but at that moment, while they were fighting for secession, it would have served no purpose towards their current goal. Their belief in secession couldn't really be questioned seriously, but them feeling the need to amend the constitution to include it could be seen as a concession to the argument that the states were not sovereign under the US constitution. these kinds of things had explosive potential in that time. Swaying 15% of the men in a single major city had the potential to turn the tide of the war before the sides became politically entrenched.

YEEEEE-HAW
THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN