Confedrate States without Slavery

No I'm not, I'm merely stating that the pro-aboltion policies were pushed with ulterior motives, hence why I compared them to Germany justifying taking elsass lothringen with it having ethnic germans, in reality the prussians wanted a more defensible border and a buffer to appease the south germans it just so happened that the land taken had a decent amount of germans in it. It was a nice bonus but not the actual reason for it at all.

If the abolitionist policies were simply an ulterior motive and nothing more (again, nobody is denying that an argument can be made that those policies did help the war effort), then they would not have been pursued at all after the war. Nor would the 13th amendment been pushed in the closing days of the war.
 

Gaius Julius Magnus

Gone Fishin'
Lets say Union forces offer to make a deal, they can leave the Union but they must free their slaves. Would the Confederates take the deal? What happens to them if they do? Also the freed slaves are sent North. How are they received?
The Union would never offer this and the rebels would never accept it.

But in the unlikely event this does happen, I'd expect the southern economy to completely collapse if slaves are both freed and moved north. So they probably wouldn't be independent for too long after that.

In the north, I'd imagine probably a lot increased racial tensions between freed slaves, whites, and other immigrants over competition for jobs in the workforce.
 
Last edited:
If the abolitionist policies were simply an ulterior motive and nothing more (again, nobody is denying that an argument can be made that those policies did help the war effort), then they would not have been pursued at all after the war. Nor would the 13th amendment been pushed in the closing days of the war.
Because the north is Abolitionist? It's not like I've been saying they weren't.
 
Given that nobody in this thread is making that argument, there is absolutely no reason to frame your position in that way if you are discussing this matter in good faith.
My intial argument was that the North only went to war over the actual secession and never would have made this offer, I proceeded to get dragged into this mess where I was trying to reply to multiple people from my phone while also doing something. The wording reflected my annoyance during the situation, which if I'm being honest means I probably wasn't discussing it in good faith.
 
Neither side would be happy with this peace deal. Anti-war Northerners would not want slave immigration to the North, and Southerners would not want to lose their main source of income, especially the landed elites who actually controlled the government. This peace offer makes no sense, given that neither side would consider it in their interests to send freed slaves up north.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
This peace offer makes no sense, given that neither side would consider it in their interests to send freed slaves up north.
That's actually a point worth noting - "free soil" often meant "we don't want no blacks in our state" for a lot of people. (IIRC at least one Pacific Coast state banned blacks entirely.)
 
Entirely ASB. Preservation of the Union was always the paramount Union war aim.

Assuming a handwavium, though. . . they would take the deal in 1865, but not before.
yes the only time the confederacy would take the deal is on the verge of defeat but at this point it wont be offered.
 
While the north, even abolitionists, was quite racist by today's standards, when one reds the letters home by Union soldiers, as the war progressed their attitudes towards blacks and slavery changed. As Union troops penetrated further and further in to the south, especially in areas where slavery was widespread, their attitudes towards slavery/the "peculiar institution"/the "southern way of life" changed often radically. The soldiers came to see slavery as a "bad" thing in and of itself for a variety of reasons and this percolated back to the folks at home. Attitudes in the north concerning slavery in 1861 were quite different by 1865.

This is not attempting to say the ACW was a "noble crusade" to make men free (and equal). In the beginning it most certainly was not, and it was a combination of practicality/military efficiency and large numbers of white troops getting to see slavery first hand that shifted northern attitudes to see ending slavery as a war aim - most assuredly NOT about any sort of racial equality as understood today.
 
While the north, even abolitionists, was quite racist by today's standards, when one reds the letters home by Union soldiers, as the war progressed their attitudes towards blacks and slavery changed. As Union troops penetrated further and further in to the south, especially in areas where slavery was widespread, their attitudes towards slavery/the "peculiar institution"/the "southern way of life" changed often radically. The soldiers came to see slavery as a "bad" thing in and of itself for a variety of reasons and this percolated back to the folks at home. Attitudes in the north concerning slavery in 1861 were quite different by 1865.

This is not attempting to say the ACW was a "noble crusade" to make men free (and equal). In the beginning it most certainly was not, and it was a combination of practicality/military efficiency and large numbers of white troops getting to see slavery first hand that shifted northern attitudes to see ending slavery as a war aim - most assuredly NOT about any sort of racial equality as understood today.
Of course, even abolitionists considered transporting freed slaves back to Africa to be the "optimal" outcome. Poor whites didn't want blacks competing for jobs, rich whites didn't want to deal with an influx of even more ignorant poor people, and practically all whites didn't want to have a black man as a neighbor. Just because they saw slavery as bad and felt sorry for slaves does not mean they wanted anything to do with them after they were freed.
 
Top