Poll: When Would the CSA Eliminate Slavery

By What Point Would The Confederacy Have Eradicated Slavery?


  • Total voters
    556
Status
Not open for further replies.
An international boycott of all Confederate exports would probably do the trick.

Good idea! But would such a boycott work?
Remember, had the South won the liberal, democratic elements that could- & would- have supported such a move would have been greatly weakened. Connversely, the
reactionary elements would have been so
strengthened that I think they would have
foiled even an attempt @ a boycott(remem-
ber that IOTL both France & the UK supp-
orted the CSA @ least in part because they
hoped it would hurt the cause of democracy
while British unions supported the north- even when their own members were thrown
out of work due to losses in trade caused by
the Union blockade of Southern ports- pre-
cisely because they wanted to head that off).
 
The north will be more democratic which means they can’t expand the military greatly without public support. Regular people in New England and New York might get upset over military expansion if it starts impacting them and won’t elect people supporting this(think of gangs of New York). The south doesn’t have to worry about elections as much since it will be mostly restricted to the upper or middle classes.

Expanding the military of any nation requires public support since the public is going to make up most of the army and pay most of the taxes. If the Confederacy develops a huge standing army, that army will not tolerate being disenfranchised by the planters. Since the Union has over three times the number of taxpayers, they would easily be able create a larger standing army than the Confederacy at a lower per capita cost.

Also Lincoln and extreme republicans could face legal punishment if they did their otl stuff during the war and lost it. Lincoln being tried as a traitor after the war isn’t unlikely if he loses.

This is completely ASB.

A lot of stuff he did violated US law and the constitution. This could lead to the north restricting the power of president more due to Lincoln overstepping himself during the war like when he restricted the press or arrested appeasers in the north as CSA supporters(appeasing and supporting are different). This could hurt possible future military expansion since the president now has a lot less power to push for it.

Perhaps you should read less NeoConfederate websites to get your view of Lincoln. Congress authorized the suspension of habeaus corpus and most of the people arrested by the Lincoln administration were deserters or draft evaders, illegally trading with the Confederacy, people who had defrauded the War Department, or Confederate civilians found in Union states.

The US could also face other succession issues by people who now feel more confident to do the same since the CSA was successful(CSA could likely face the same issue but a victory probably helps calm that greatly).

Why would the Union, which believes that secession is illegal, be more prone to additional secession attempts than the Confederacy, which was founded with the idea that any state can secede at any time for any reason?
 
Expanding the military of any nation requires public support since the public is going to make up most of the army and pay most of the taxes. If the Confederacy develops a huge standing army, that army will not tolerate being disenfranchised by the planters. Since the Union has over three times the number of taxpayers, they would easily be able create a larger standing army than the Confederacy at a lower per capita cost.



This is completely ASB.



Perhaps you should read less NeoConfederate websites to get your view of Lincoln. Congress authorized the suspension of habeaus corpus and most of the people arrested by the Lincoln administration were deserters or draft evaders, illegally trading with the Confederacy, people who had defrauded the War Department, or Confederate civilians found in Union states.



Why would the Union, which believes that secession is illegal, be more prone to additional secession attempts than the Confederacy, which was founded with the idea that any state can secede at any time for any reason?
1. I’m saying the CSA population is willing to put up with much more militarization within society. The middle class is basically the military/police/public workers. If your poor and white the military might be away at gaining political rights and economic opportunities. This would make the military part of normal life for many and be the basis of their livelihood. The point of joining the military would be partly for the lower class to have a chance at being franchised. The CSA will be reliant on a national paramilitary force to keep order in the nation. They probably treat them well to avoid coups. Aristocrats probably support soldiers, officers, and police being paid well. It’s going to be a partial police state. People in service won’t be just fighting wars but used for public development and policing. That type of system can create economic development. State intervention in economic will be common in this oligarch. They allow free trade and private business but often fund or directly help interest groups within the nation(a lot of back room dealing between wealthy elites).

2. My point about Lincoln is he lost the war. A good number of people will be pissed if they lose. Lincoln and Republicans might get full blame for the lost. People will say he started and couldn’t even win it. How is not losing a war not completely discrediting especially in a democracy? They might use any excuse to punish them and US might need a scapegoat to blame for losing the south.

3. The US might try to federalize but a some might not like that in some places and feel a little too bold after CSA victory. They might think US is weak and greatly over guess their strength. They won’t win but might be annoying for a few decades. Remember little stuff can add up overs long period if handled incorrectly
 
Perhaps you should read less NeoConfederate websites to get your view of Lincoln. Congress authorized the suspension of habeaus corpus and most of the people arrested by the Lincoln administration were deserters or draft evaders, illegally trading with the Confederacy, people who had defrauded the War Department, or Confederate civilians found in Union states.
My point is not neo-Confederates. Lincoln was justified in censoring the press during the war. The US often does this in war. The issue is a lot of cases fall into grey areas and aren’t always technically illegal. US laws are often vague and up to interpretation. Lincoln often arrested or censored people for expressing sympathy towards the south or peace. Many of them did support the south or had some other third party interest involved in the conflict. The issue is this isn’t always technically illegal to do in the US and can fall under freedom of speech. An American can express favorable views towards Iran and not be arrested. During a war that could change. That is the situation in the US. Lincoln was justified in what he did but if he loses the war those actions aren’t going to look as justified as otl. To many people it only proves those people he arrested points(in their minds). People are willing to accept a lot during war but only if you win it. If you lose they will call you out for every small thing afterwards. It’s going to be watergate or a bit worse. Not a execution(maybe a angry Union veteran shoots him but not a legal execution) but just a complete discrediting situation. He get impeached or steps down from office. How would a president who lost half the country not be considered a failure by most northerners? Also congress had a lot of republicans during that decision. Many of the non-republicans did not take that decision well. I imagine republicans lose most elections after the war and their political opponents during the war go after them hard. Whoever takes power after the war might claim a lot of stuff Lincoln and republicans did as self destructive and unamerican. It would be like people blaming Republicans and Hoover for the depression during the 30s but much more extreme.
 
Last edited:
My point about Lincoln is he lost the war. A good number of people will be pissed if they lose. Lincoln and Republicans might get full blame for the lost. People will say he started and couldn’t even win it. How is not losing a war not completely discrediting especially in a democracy? They might use any excuse to punish them and US might need a scapegoat to blame for losing the south.

Some Republicans certainly feared this.

Istr reading of a conversation between Sec of War Stanton and Gov Morton of Indiana. Morton, who had used some very questionable means to raise money not voted by the Democratic Legislature, observed that "If the cause fails, I suppose we'll all go to jail." Stanton reportedly replied that "If the cause fails, I do not wish to live." That last sounds a bit extreme, but emotions were running very high at the time.
 
Some Republicans certainly feared this.

Istr reading of a conversation between Sec of War Stanton and Gov Morton of Indiana. Morton, who had used some very questionable means to raise money not voted by the Democratic Legislature, observed that "If the cause fails, I suppose we'll all go to jail." Stanton reportedly replied that "If the cause fails, I do not wish to live." That last sounds a bit extreme, but emotions were running very high at the time.
That’s what I’m wondering about?Northern politics especially New England might be a good bit different if the Republican Party aren’t a political party anymore a decade after the war. A lot of Lincoln opponents probably take power within the US after the war and get elected. It might not be violent(losing the south probably does lower the amount of constant overtop political violence in the country) but it’s going to be a lot of heated politics immediately after the war. Wouldn’t Democrats and other non-republicans who take power after the war might try to reapproachment towards the south after the war? This is why I worry the south might be able to grow. The north and south might openly trade and to some extents work with them a bit after the war? This would help the south grow and the north try to make them a great banana republic(might be the intention but not work in the long run since the south is much bigger then the average banana republic) which might feed into their expansion? War lost might turn public opinion and politicians against trying to stir issues with the south? They might prefer letting them be and trading with them? Early victory probably leaves average northern with less ill will towards the south since a lot less of them would die in the conflict. I see the north building up business and economic ties with the CSA(mostly individual northerner and their businesses. Which might create a lot of third party issues between the two nations). This leads the north to not see the south as a threat because why would a nation that we are trading and doing business with possibly attack us especially one that is considered backwards? But given this is a militarized oligarchy who could very often act on pride and nationalist desires more then reason might sometimes do crazy stuff unexpectedly. I see the north expecting their “southern brothers” to act rational especially given their ties but since this is the CSA that might not happen. The north might think the only reason the south has a large standing army is to keep itself together against slave revolts or against its own succession movements. They might think the country is too tied up with domestic issues to use its military against them in a war(which is true at least until slavery ends in any prolonged war. A short war could still be lost if the north isn’t prepared enough). Some in the north might even support CSA expansion in Latin America indirectly because if they trade with the US freely that is a lot of cheap natural resources that can be traded to them so they might try to encourage people in the north to look the other way to what’s going on in the south and fund those filibusters themselves. What I see becoming a issue a few decades after the war is a growing and expanding south(which some northerner industrialist help indirectly built) become even more nationalistic and ignorant. Let’s say in the 1880s you have militants minded people(which militant minded by CSA standards are likely extreme) take a more dominant role in decision making. They start thinking some of the land the north has is “rightfully southern territory”. The north just thinks this is a bunch of ignorant southerners talking nonsense(there will be groups talking like this all the time. So if the south doesn’t actually do or push for it for the first few decades northerner might think the south is just blowing smoke). Large CSA military presence on the northern border could be justified by the south and north as the CSA preventing slaves or later on blacks from fleeing north which the north probably supports not wanting blacks from the south moving north. This is why I could see the north ignoring the growing south at first. They could have deep economic ties(in a early war victory) and CSA military size written off as a national police force might lead the north in a false sense of security. If the CSA attacks the north in this situation it could make some big gains but they will be seen as a increasingly rogue and aggressive nation internationally. Even in the late 1800 century European powers won’t look kindly on the CSA attacking a US who they were supposed to be on cordial terms for no good reason. They might even have special trade agreements but militants in the nation are able to push for war with the north which catches the north completely off guard but afterwards they will be much more aware and hateful towards the south for good reason. The CSA might take stuff in the war but the north will feel backstabbed by the south. That “southern brethren” concept is died. This is when the north starts to consider the south as a truly separate and hostile foreign element to the nation. The ironic part of this is the north might start saying a lot of racist ideas about the south after this war. In the CSA they are good if the war is won fast but liberal elements in the country probably start butting heads with militants because they attacked their biggest trade partner for places like West Virginia and Kentucky to name a few. It was nothing but a land grab and war of glory. It might be a victory but the war is condemned by most of the world and CSA is put in recession because war with your biggest trade partner isn’t good for the economy. The north could downplay the ability of the south in a short war and underestimate how insane they could be at times. The north can only be caught off guard once but if this situation ends up pushing the more extreme militants out of power in the CSA then a tense peace might stay but this is when proxy and trade wars between the two become more common.
 
Last edited:
The Confederacy will never abolish slavery. But I'm sure they will eventually "abolish" "slavery", and come up with some new terminology.
 
The Confederacy will never abolish slavery. But I'm sure they will eventually "abolish" "slavery", and come up with some new terminology.
I was thinking a transition from slavery/racial science to segregation/apartheid/caste system and finally ending with as a mix of a militaristic and plutocratic society the closer you get to the modern era. Maybe by the late 2000 century and going into the next the CSA values class and nationality lines over racial and ethnic ones. Probably a good bit of religion mixed into the nationality part too? Repressive societies can adept. The only difference is how their exactly being repressive
 
My theory is that eventually poor whites will organize. They will resent being increasingly pushed out of their jobs by slaves. Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Virginia would probably have the strongest movements like this. I do think that abolition of slavery before 1900 is implausible, and abolition of slavery before 1910 is still highly unlikely.
 
If you have a system where slaves are restricted to the lowest jobs, or those that are riskiest, much like in South Africa, then even the lowest class whites will be perfectly content. The upper class/elites in the south/CSA were not entirely stupid. When discussing potential reintroduction of franchise restrictions they continually were talking about how as long as the lowest white were forever well above any black, and also a hope of upward mobility/transition to slave owning was there, it would work. While expanding the role of slave labor may be seen as increasing profit, if you have slaves taking jobs whites want that is political dynamite and I doubt would be allowed. Again look at South Africa where, unlike the south/CSA, the white population was a relatively small minority yet still "better" jobs were reserved for whites. One of the reasons slavery took hold in the south is that you could not get white indentured servants, let alone free men, to do the work slaves were compelled to do.

I agree that if the white blue collar workers see their jobs being given to slaves that will be a problem, but the CSA political class would need to be drinking lead paint to allow that.
 
Furthermore, the slave population might feed into industrialization. Slavery created a situation where many poor whites can’t make a living since slave labor took up most agricultural and rural jobs. They all can’t survive as yeoman and substance farming especially in places like Appalachia when they start logging and mining away a lot of the farming land. They will start working in mines, logging, and mills. Slaves are expensive so many slave owners will not want to rent out or have their slaves working in jobs were they can easily die. That isn’t a good investment on their part when they can paid poor whites nearly nothing to do it.

Or those poor whites could go to the Union where they are better paid. In OTL, almost all of the immigrants went to Union states. In 1850, New York had more immigrants than the whole Confederacy would have a decade later. If the Confederacy does industrialize in the way you suggest, there would be a mass exodus of poor whites from the Confederacy to the Union.

The CSA probably want to make sure this group is doing something that benefits them. The CSA could become a proto-police like state depending on how big the military and government starts to mix. Additionally, CSA expansion could be mostly done by fillbustering like they did before the civil war. Former CSA soldiers go into Central America as mercenaries and take over the place claiming to be the “legitimate” government and asking for CSA to annex it. Think Hawaii or Nicaragua.

William Walker failed abjectly in an attempt to annex Sonora and Baja California in 1854. In 1856 Walker seized control of Nicaragua and was kicked out within a year by Nicaraguan, Costa Rican, Guatemalan, Salvadoran, and Honduran forces. Walker tried again in 1857 and was forced to surrender to the US Navy. Walker tried a third time in 1860, where he was forced to surrender to the British, then handed over to the Honduran authorities who put Walker up against a wall and shot him. That made Walker the most sucessful of the filibusters. If the Confederate attempt to emulate Walker, I expect them to be equally successful.
 
Or those poor whites could go to the Union where they are better paid. In OTL, almost all of the immigrants went to Union states. In 1850, New York had more immigrants than the whole Confederacy would have a decade later. If the Confederacy does industrialize in the way you suggest, there would be a mass exodus of poor whites from the Confederacy to the Union.



William Walker failed abjectly in an attempt to annex Sonora and Baja California in 1854. In 1856 Walker seized control of Nicaragua and was kicked out within a year by Nicaraguan, Costa Rican, Guatemalan, Salvadoran, and Honduran forces. Walker tried again in 1857 and was forced to surrender to the US Navy. Walker tried a third time in 1860, where he was forced to surrender to the British, then handed over to the Honduran authorities who put Walker up against a wall and shot him. That made Walker the most sucessful of the filibusters. If the Confederate attempt to emulate Walker, I expect them to be equally successful.
1. The black population movement will probably be very restricted even after slavery which might prevent their mass exodus and I doubt the north would accept them willingly. Same might go for white southerners. The north might prefer Europeans over them. Also a lot of southerners might be migrant workers and not full residents(many immigrants do go back after making enough money which might actually help the CSA a bit). Not all immigrants will find a better life here. The factories and mines in the north aren’t nice either. Some rather just be poor back at home because they at least have family there. If a bunch of Europeans are coming into the US that might not give poor southerners to much opportunity up there. In otl blacks and whites from the south didn’t start flooding more into the north until the US started to cut back on immigration.

2. Filibustering is more successful when they have a very willing government helping them. The point is to destabilize the country and claim leadership before immediately asking for help from your government. The US in otl didn’t want to involve themselves in that. The CSA will. It’s a lot easier to invade countries after a “private army” has destabilized the place especially if the capital held. This is so the organized army can just march in and clear out any now disorganized resistance. The south will be full of private military type forces. Those groups can involve themselves in Latin American affairs all the time and be used as a political tool by the CSA. The US and Western Hemisphere has been very innovated and ahead of the rest of the world in unconventional warfare. People in the Americas often don’t fight wars the same way Europeans do.
 
I usually in the middle on this. I don’t like many of the CSA wanks either. The only reason I think the CSA could expand into Latin America and Caribbean is due to filibustering and them allying themselves with the local creole elites. Maybe putting in place a new caste system in Latin America. They are a confederacy so laws can vary from state to state a good bit. Hispanic gentleman culture isn’t too different from the one in the south. They just have to be willing to have a less binary racial system in holding like this. If the Hispanics population that identifies as more white or creole accept confederate rule the confederates could be willing to help them and integrate them into their system. Think how the Russian Empire integrated local elites. Also with the exception of Louisville and places near the Ohio river, much of Kentucky supported the confederates. West Virginia also was pretty split too. Could a treaty between the CSA and US require border states to having a vote on which country they would join after the war?

Local Hispanic elites almost universally opposed to annexation by foreign powers. Filibustering repeatedly failed. William Walker, the most successful filibuster, managed to unite Central America against him. Local Nicaraugan elites put aside their war with each other to get rid of Walker. Walker's second attempt was thwarted by the US Navy. Walker's third attempt was thwarted by the British, he was handed over to the Hondurans who put Walker up against the wall and shot him. France, which was much more powerful than the Confederacy, couldn't take Mexico.

Plebiscites are another cliche in Confederate victory timelines. Or more specifically, plebiscites in Union states that never seceded, because in Confederate victory timelines, Union peace negotiators are always inept idiots. Rather than risk a replay of Bleeding Kansas, which would probably re-ignite the war, I'd expect both sides to avoid even the suggestion of plebiscites. In the unlikely event that Confederate peace commissioners insist on plebiscites for areas claimed by the Confederacy, the best they could hope for is the Union negotiators making the counter demand that all Confederate states who haven't already done so must also hold plebiscites on secession.

Barring ballot-stuffing like the Border Ruffians, plebiscites in Kentucky and West Virginia would result in those states voting to stay with the Union. When the Confederates invaded West Virginia, Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky; they expected to be welcomed as liberators and for the locals to flock to join the Confederate armies. A handful of Confederate sympathizers cheered them, but even most of them were not willing to join the Confederacy.
 
I’m a person that can see stuff going hundreds of different ways. I could literally argue from any point of view or perspective. I just pick the ones I find the most interesting or ones I feel like aren’t talked about enough. A powerful CSA is more interesting. Canada is only more of a threat because of Britain.

A powerful Confederacy might be more interesting to you, but it is not credible. The 1914 US Census of Manufacturing shows that 9.5% of US manufacturing was in the former Confederate States, including Oklahoma. If we go with the numbers from Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of Great Powers for 1913, then an independent Confederacy would have about 3% of global manufacturung output. That would narrowly edge out Italy, be roughly 2/3rds of Austria-Hungary's output, and a little under half of France's output. For contrast, manufacturing in the Union states made up over 30% of global manufacturing - more than the 2nd & 3rd place Germany and Britain combined and over 5 times as much as France. An independent Confederacy is very unlikely to do as well as OTL's former Confederate states. The Confederacy would have a weaker currency, higher inflation, larger public debt, lower population, lower education, lower protection of native industries, inferior infrastructure, and almost certainly less territory than OTL's South of 1913.
 
Also the officers and generals in the CSA will be educated. The grunts in the CSA might not be book smarts or even literate but they are probably much more harden and fanatical(especially going into the 1900s) then many other people. Don’t downplay culture here. When kids in New England are learning to read and write kids in the south they are often learning how to use a gun and hunt(this isn’t universal. Nothing is but this could be the common trend. Also the CSA probably still has the right to bear arms). Honor cultures like the south are full of low level violence. This will create people that feel much more natural in combat. When you grow up seeing some of the stuff in places like Appalachia and Texas you become numb to a lot of messed up stuff. A kid from a Brahmin families are not going to be as use to violence like a kid from a plantation family. Compare Mark Twain books to ones based in New England and you can clearly tell the south is much more brutal and violent as a society. This is probably one reason Southerners have almost always made up a disportional number of the US military especially in the marines. They pride themselves in their martial skills while northerners pride themselves in entrepreneurship.

Based on this reasoning, the Confederacy would have won the Civil War. Actual history shows that the average Union soldier was just as good as the average Confederate soldier as well as being better shod, better clothed, and better fed.

"Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South." Sam Houston, Governor of Texas, shortly after his removal from office for refusing to swear loyalty to the Confederacy.

"You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it … Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth — right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail." - William T Sherman, President of Louisiana State University
 
My point is not neo-Confederates. Lincoln was justified in censoring the press during the war. The US often does this in war. The issue is a lot of cases fall into grey areas and aren’t always technically illegal. US laws are often vague and up to interpretation. Lincoln often arrested or censored people for expressing sympathy towards the south or peace. Many of them did support the south or had some other third party interest involved in the conflict. The issue is this isn’t always technically illegal to do in the US and can fall under freedom of speech. An American can express favorable views towards Iran and not be arrested. During a war that could change. That is the situation in the US. Lincoln was justified in what he did but if he loses the war those actions aren’t going to look as justified as otl. To many people it only proves those people he arrested points(in their minds). People are willing to accept a lot during war but only if you win it. If you lose they will call you out for every small thing afterwards. It’s going to be watergate or a bit worse. Not a execution(maybe a angry Union veteran shoots him but not a legal execution) but just a complete discrediting situation. He get impeached or steps down from office. How would a president who lost half the country not be considered a failure by most northerners? Also congress had a lot of republicans during that decision. Many of the non-republicans did not take that decision well. I imagine republicans lose most elections after the war and their political opponents during the war go after them hard. Whoever takes power after the war might claim a lot of stuff Lincoln and republicans did as self destructive and unamerican. It would be like people blaming Republicans and Hoover for the depression during the 30s but much more extreme.


According to the US Constitution it was perfectly legal for Lincoln to suspend Habeas Corpus Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html. There was a rebellion so it was perfectly legal for Lincoln to suspend it.
 
If you have a system where slaves are restricted to the lowest jobs, or those that are riskiest, much like in South Africa, then even the lowest class whites will be perfectly content. The upper class/elites in the south/CSA were not entirely stupid. When discussing potential reintroduction of franchise restrictions they continually were talking about how as long as the lowest white were forever well above any black, and also a hope of upward mobility/transition to slave owning was there, it would work. While expanding the role of slave labor may be seen as increasing profit, if you have slaves taking jobs whites want that is political dynamite and I doubt would be allowed. Again look at South Africa where, unlike the south/CSA, the white population was a relatively small minority yet still "better" jobs were reserved for whites. One of the reasons slavery took hold in the south is that you could not get white indentured servants, let alone free men, to do the work slaves were compelled to do.

You could, you simply would have to pay them better.
 
Furthermore, many southerners did understand how mess up their society was but their loyalty to their homeland was extreme. Even poor whites who hated the plantations class and slavery(not because they thought blacks were equal) would never fight against their homeland. They are very loyal to the land but not necessarily the leaders. They are also xenophobic. They don’t like the idea of outsiders involving themselves in their business. Lee for example would join any side Virginia would choose without question. The confederates were literally arming child soldiers and the elderly by the end of the war. Some even refused surrender after the war was over. Northern culture was a model bourgeoisie one. They are teaching their kids to be businessmen and educating them in school. Southerners are teaching theirs to survive off the land or to be modern knights.

Lincoln's Loyalists calculates that 10% of all draft age white men from Confederate states served in the Union Army. Estimates are that between 1/4 and 1/3 of all whites in the Confederate states were pro-Union. Plus a little under 40% of the Confederate population were slaves, who definitely did not support the Confederate regime. By then end, the Confederates were arming child soldiers and the elderly, but Confederate generals were surrendering in direct defiance of Jefferson Davis' orders and Davis estimated that half of all Confederate soldiers deserted.

The rest of your post reads like regurgitated NeoConfederate propaganda. I am baffled as to why you think educating people makes them worse soldiers - nothing in history supports that position. Poor Confederate whites were working to survive, but so were poor Union citizens. Plantation owners were not teaching their heirs to survive off the land - they were parasites living off of the sweat and blood of black people. They didn't even have to exert themselves to whip those slaves, that was the job of hired overseers. Plantation owners were not teaching their heirs to be modern knights, either, unless your idea of knighthood is a bunch of drunken brats riding down unarmed black civilians who were tying to escape on foot.
 
Last edited:
The north given its resources and numbers should have stomped the CSA quickly but didn’t. One reason for this is because many southern generals spent much more of their life towards the military compared to many in the north who focused more on stuff outside of the military like business.

There are many reasons that it took the Union 4 years to defeat the Confederacy, but superior Confederate generalship is not one of those reasons.

Union generals Burnside, Butler, Hooker, Pleasanton, Pope, and Sigel are generally considered to be some of the worst generals of the war, but outside of Virginia they repeatedly beat the Confederates – Sigel was competent at Pea Ridge, Burnside shut down most of the North Carolina coast and later beat Longstreet, Hooker performed well at Chattanooga and in the Atlanta Campaign, Pleasanton drove the Confederates from Missouri, Pope cleared the Mississippi south to Memphis, and Butler waltzed into New Orleans.

Robert E Lee was arguably the Confederacy's best, yet he never won a campaign outside of Virginia and he was beaten by Meade, who is generally considered a second-string Union general, and by Rosecrans, who is often considered one of the Union's worst generals. Jackson varied in quality - his performance in the Seven Days Battles was poor. At Brandy Station, Stuart was surprised by Pleasanton, who as noted is often considered one of the Union's worst generals. At Knoxbville, Longstreet was beaten by Burnside, who is also considered one of the Union's worst generals.

Joe Johnston was probably the best the Confederacy had in the west, and he wasn’t good enough. AS Johnston was out of his depth - he did not just fail as an army commander, he failed to be an army commander. Floyd and Pillow were cowards. Sibley led his forces to disaster in Arizona. Van Dorn did the same in Arkansas. Price did the same in Kansas, losing to Pleasanton, who is often considered one of the Union's worst generals. Polk was an incompetent backstabber; the Union did a service for the Confederacy when they killed Polk with artillery fire. Hood was a backstabbing subordinate and a total disaster in command. Bragg was one of the few Confederate generals to win battles, but he had no idea what to do with a victory and his abrasive nature helped erode what little cohesion his Confederate army had. During Early's one solo command in the Shenandoah Valley in 1864 he was unable to defeat Franz Sigel, who as you may guess was also considered one of the Union's worst generals, then fatally delayed at the Battle of Monocacy, by Lew Wallace, a man far more noted for his literary accomplishments than his military skill.

Real Confederate advantages were a large territory, good defensive ground, interior lines, fighting on home ground, and the force multiplier of being on the defensive. Confederate leaders frequently threw these advantages away to invade Union territory. Rather than using their real advantages, the Confederacy clung to the myths of having better soldiers and better generals, which resulted in failure from Gettysburg to Glorietta Pass.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top