CSA wins the American Civil War, when does slavery end?

[Boto von Ageduch]

@Johnrankins:

My basic idea was that

• the border states still were partial towards slavery, and
• a Union weakened by an unsuccessful Civil war, cannot afford to deny them their desire. It would run the risk of these states switching to the CSA.

Both items are challengeable, but I still think they are not completely unrealistic.
The weakest point in my reasoning might be the fact that weakened parties
tend to be rather authoritarian to keep their sphere of power together;
hence perhaps the US would rather suffer further losses than being inconsistent.

 

[Johnrankins]

@Johnrankins:

My basic idea was that

• the border states still were partial towards slavery, and
• a Union weakened by an unsuccessful Civil war, cannot afford to deny them their desire. It would run the risk of these states switching to the CSA.

Both items are challengeable, but I still think they are not completely unrealistic.
The weakest point in my reasoning might be the fact that weakened parties
tend to be rather authoritarian to keep their sphere of power together;
hence perhaps the US would rather suffer further losses than being inconsistent.

Unlikely, if it is after the Emancipation Proclomation the Union Army is sitting on the border states.

 

[DG Valdron]

The will stated...

"...the said emancipation to be accomplished in not exceeding five years from the time of my decease."

The will instructed Lee to manumit the slaves within no more than five years of his father-in-law's death, but also that the slaves were to be freed AFTER ANY DEBT OWED BY THE ESTATE WAS PAID. Lee did not emancipate the slaves immediately, instead choosing to work them for the five year period to pay off the debt on the estate.

'Not exceeding five years' means five years or less. A maximum of five years, or considerably less.

Lee held onto the slaves for the maximum period of time he was legally allowed to do so.

He never tried, nor ever stated a desire, to hold them longer than was stipulated in the will.

So what? He had no legal right to hold them a second longer than the five years.

He still chose to run out the clock.

Indeed, the interesting thing is that the five year period ended in the winter of 1862, by which time Union troops had occupied the Arlington estate and the slaves there were no longer under his control. Yet he went to the effort to formally file the papers manumitting the slaves in a Richmond court, both because he felt he had an obligation carry out his instructions under the will, and also because he wanted to make sure that, if any of the former slaves from Arlington were captured by Confederate forces, the paperwork would be on file documenting their status as freedmen.

Ah, so he formally freed slaves that were no longer under his control. What a guy.

 

[Johnrankins]

Exactly, legally freeing slaves after the maximum time he could keep them and after he no longer had control of them is like me "giving" you a car you already own.

 

[DG Valdron]

I just wanted to say, for the record, that Lee is dead and gone, and properly so. He may or may not have been a brilliant general. He may or may not have been a traitor. His personal integrity or lack thereof is not something I have no particular interest in.

If someone wants to stick up for him, that's their lookout. All I'm saying is that maybe they could pick better examples than that.

 

[robertp6165]

'Not exceeding five years' means five years or less. A maximum of five years, or considerably less.

Lee held onto the slaves for the maximum period of time he was legally allowed to do so.

Lee's options were very limited in this case. There was a significant amount of debt on the estate which had to be paid. If the slaves were to be freed before the stipulated five year period, according to the terms of the will, the debt must first be paid off. As long a there were debt attached to the estate, if he had tried to free the slaves before the debt was paid off, the creditors could have sued him for ownership of the slaves by way of payment of that debt. Arlington estate was still in debt right up to the outbreak of the war.

Lee never had a real opportunity to free the slaves before he did. To have done so he would have been in violation of the terms of the will, and also risked the slaves being seized and sold off by creditors.

So what? He had no legal right to hold them a second longer than the five years.

My statement that he never attempted to hold them for longer than five years was in reply to an earlier poster who said Lee tried to legally finagle his way out of the will and hold them longer than five years, which is simply not true.

He still chose to run out the clock.

As described above, he had little other choice.

Ah, so he formally freed slaves that were no longer under his control. What a guy.

Exactly, legally freeing slaves after the maximum time he could keep them and after he no longer had control of them is like me "giving" you a car you already own.

The point being, which you obviously missed, that he didn't have to bother filing the paperwork. They were already liberated by the Yankees at that time. The only real reason for going to the trouble to file the paperwork was to ensure that the former slaves, if captured by Confederate forces, would be able to prove their status as freedmen. If he had not done that, any Arlington slave recaptured by Confederate forces would have been likely sold back into slavery, and had no possibility of proving that they were freedmen. Lee wanted to prevent that.

 

[Johnrankins]

Lee's options were very limited in this case. There was a significant amount of debt on the estate which had to be paid. If the slaves were to be freed before the stipulated five year period, according to the terms of the will, the debt must first be paid off. As long a there were debt attached to the estate, if he had tried to free the slaves before the debt was paid off, the creditors could have sued him for ownership of the slaves by way of payment of that debt. Arlington estate was still in debt right up to the outbreak of the war.

Lee never had a real opportunity to free the slaves before he did. To have done so he would have been in violation of the terms of the will, and also risked the slaves being seized and sold off by creditors.



My statement that he never attempted to hold them for longer than five years was in reply to an earlier poster who said Lee tried to legally finagle his way out of the will and hold them longer than five years, which is simply not true.



As described above, he had little other choice.





The point being, which you obviously missed, that he didn't have to bother filing the paperwork. They were already liberated by the Yankees at that time. The only real reason for going to the trouble to file the paperwork was to ensure that the former slaves, if captured by Confederate forces, would be able to prove their status as freedmen. If he had not done that, any Arlington slave recaptured by Confederate forces would have been likely sold back into slavery, and had no possibility of proving that they were freedmen. Lee wanted to prevent that.

Would they care? They captured free blacks on the way to Gettysburg and sold them down south when they got back.

 

[DG Valdron]

Probably not.

 

[robertp6165]

Would they care? They captured free blacks on the way to Gettysburg and sold them down south when they got back.

Actually, that's not really true. Somewhere up to 1,000 blacks were captured (estimates range from about 200 to about 1,000...nobody really knows) and taken South. The majority of these people were escaped slaves. There were small numbers of free blacks captured and taken South as well. But the men who claimed to be free were generally not sold into slavery. Instead, they were confined in Confederate military prisons until proof of their status could be verified. Some of them were in Confederate prisons for a period of months, and were used on military labor projects during that period, but if their free status was verified, they were not sold into slavery, but released. (Source: "Race and Retaliation: The Capture of African Americans during the Gettysburg Campaign," essay by David G. Smith, in the book VIRGINIA'S CIVIL WAR, edited by Peter Wallenstein and Bertram Wyatt-Brown, University of VA Press, 2005).

And even if it WERE true, it is irrelevant to the point I was making, which is that Lee was making an effort he didn't need to make, in order to try to prevent that from happening to the former slaves at Arlington. If it was to happen anyway due to circumstances beyond Lee's control, he can hardly be blamed for that. The point is that he did everything in his power to see that the freedom of the slaves at Arlington was legally protected.

 

[Johnrankins]

Lee's options were very limited in this case. There was a significant amount of debt on the estate which had to be paid. If the slaves were to be freed before the stipulated five year period, according to the terms of the will, the debt must first be paid off. As long a there were debt attached to the estate, if he had tried to free the slaves before the debt was paid off, the creditors could have sued him for ownership of the slaves by way of payment of that debt. Arlington estate was still in debt right up to the outbreak of the war.

Lee never had a real opportunity to free the slaves before he did. To have done so he would have been in violation of the terms of the will, and also risked the slaves being seized and sold off by creditors.

If he was truly in debt then you are right, he couldn't free them. If he tried they would be siezed and sold. It was a big reason why the vast majority of Thomas Jefferson's slaves weren't freed. He inherited a heavily mortgaged estate with the slaves attached to the mortgage.

 

[robertp6165]

If he was truly in debt then you are right, he couldn't free them. If he tried they would be siezed and sold. It was a big reason why the vast majority of Thomas Jefferson's slaves weren't freed. He inherited a heavily mortgaged estate with the slaves attached to the mortgage.

Lee was in the same boat, and given the paltry salary he earned as a soldier, he was in no position to pay the debt off immediately so the slaves could be freed early. The only option he had was to work the slaves in the hope that profits from the estate would enable him to pay off the debt.