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 amendment that specifically outlawed secession would be seen as an acknowledgment that the Confederates were right when they said they had a right to secede, so i don't see an amendment like that being proposed, let alone adopted. State militias formed the basis of the US Volunteers, so I don't see them being outlawed, either.

I think it would be more seen as an acknowledgment that attempted secession was successful and something needed to be done in the future to stop it. If the South wins the war than secession was successful, illegal or not, and things have to be done to stop it in the future. That amendment would give it more solid legal backing AND enable the government to use that to pass legislation more easily to prevent it.

State militias may have formed the basis of US volunteers but times change. Just because things are done in a certain doesn't mean they have to remain that way forever. After all, they aren't of immense importance now. I think we would a great deal of centralization after TTL ACW.
 
The state militias/state volunteers OTL continued until the late 1800s, and were finally done away with in the Root Reforms of the early 1900s when the modern National Guard system was established which had the state units firmly under the control of the Army in terms of training and equipping, establishing better standards for officers and so forth. If you have mandatory service, which is unlikely, you would then see a reserve system, true many units being state based but under central control, rather than dual Guard/Reserve system you have to this day. Other changes would need to be made, such as no passage of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.
 
So replacing Slavery with.... slavery?

I think whenever people talk about the Confederacy 'ending' slavery they really ought to remember that it's just getting rid of de-jure slavery in exchange for de-facto slavery. The only two ways I see slavery ending in the Confederacy are through foreign invasion/revolution or the slaveocracy demands a 'bail out' of the slave economy through the government purchasing the collective slave wealth at some point.
 
The state militias/state volunteers OTL continued until the late 1800s, and were finally done away with in the Root Reforms of the early 1900s when the modern National Guard system was established which had the state units firmly under the control of the Army in terms of training and equipping, establishing better standards for officers and so forth. If you have mandatory service, which is unlikely, you would then see a reserve system, true many units being state based but under central control, rather than dual Guard/Reserve system you have to this day. Other changes would need to be made, such as no passage of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

So what? If you make one huge change in history you should expect it to have huge effects. Losing the ACW isn't a minor change in US history but a very, very big change.

You seem to think drastic changes would lead to minor results. Losing the ACW would change the US drastically and would result in major changes to the timeline. After losing the ACW I think the US government would take drastic steps to make sure it doesn't happen again.
 
I think whenever people talk about the Confederacy 'ending' slavery they really ought to remember that it's just getting rid of de-jure slavery in exchange for de-facto slavery. The only two ways I see slavery ending in the Confederacy are through foreign invasion/revolution or the slaveocracy demands a 'bail out' of the slave economy through the government purchasing the collective slave wealth at some point.

More accurately it was replaced with a kind of pseudo-serfdom. If there were no real changes you would have to expect Blacks to have not overwhelmingly voted Republican after the war. They would have felt betrayed by the Republican Party.

The "Harlem Renaissance" would never have happened. Anything akin to jazz would never have taken off. There would have been no "Great Migration". There were some actual real effects.
 
The state militias/state volunteers OTL continued until the late 1800s, and were finally done away with in the Root Reforms of the early 1900s when the modern National Guard system was established which had the state units firmly under the control of the Army in terms of training and equipping, establishing better standards for officers and so forth. If you have mandatory service, which is unlikely, you would then see a reserve system, true many units being state based but under central control, rather than dual Guard/Reserve system you have to this day. Other changes would need to be made, such as no passage of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.
The real 'root' of the problem was that State Militias were limited to operate only in US States or Territories, and nowhere else.

Thst led to Militia men needing to resign (as a complete unit, even) and then Volunteer into new units to operate in Cuba or the Philippines during the War with Spain.

The new National Guard did not have the international restrictions that the State Militias had.
 
The main difference between slavery and serfdom is that the slaves actually had value and their owners would treat them well enough not to risk losing their investment. Serfs OTOH, were pretty much expendable.
 
The main difference between slavery and serfdom is that the slaves actually had value and their owners would treat them well enough not to risk losing their investment. Serfs OTOH, were pretty much expendable.

If that were true people would have preferred being slaves to serfs when the opposite is true.
 
There was a mass exodus of slaves during the Civil War - roughly 1 in 7 fled to Union lines. If it becomes clear that the Confederacy will achieve independence, I'd expect a lot more to try to flee to Union lines.There may even be a few attempted slave revolts, which would result in severe reprisals. I agree that after slavery (if that ever occurs) the Confederacy would monitor them, but I see no reason they would try to stop them from leaving.

Lincoln's Loyalists estimates that about 1-in-10 of draft age white males from Confederate states served in the Union army. Few, if any, would dare to go back, and there's a good chance many of their families would have to flee to the Union. In OTL, most of them, as well as most of the escaped slaves returned to the South. In an independent Confederacy, they start with about 12% less labor force than OTL's postbellum South.

Not all immigrants did find a better life, but they kept coming to the free states. The 1860 Census shows that about 1-in-40 people in the future Confederate states was an immigrant compared to about 1-in-6 in the Union states. An independent Confederacy would have a weaker currency, worse inflation, and higher taxes than OTLs postbellum south. That economic pressure that did not exist in OTL will lead to large numbers of poor Confederate whites moving to the Union.

Even in wartime, Confederate citizens loathed the draft. A peacetime draft would be even more hated, plus paying for a standing army of the size you envision would have the average Confederate paying more than double the taxes of theier Union counterpart. These changes from OTL would also lead to large numbers of poor whites fleeing the Confederacy.



Why would the Confederacy be "full of private military type forces"? They had the slave patrols, but occasionally riding down unarmed men, women, and children hardly qualifies as being a trained and effective military force.

Feel free to give any examples of successful filibusters. If the Confederacy attempts to use them as a political tool, they're going to need a navy to supply and reinforce them, which is not cheap. Conquest will not be as easy as you envision. European countries with better economies and real military forces failed in Mexico and Cuba. Central American nations had already proved willing to work together to maintain their independence. Both the Union and Britain would frown on the expansion of slavery into Latin America. Also, if it is clear that these filibusters are not just a bunch of adventurers, but sanctioned by the Confederate governmemt, a lot of Latin America will start refusing entry to any Confederates.
Earlier victory avoids a lot of that. Many slaves didn’t start moving around in large numbers until the north actually invaded. If the war ends early somehow and stays mostly in Maryland and northern Virginia much of the south is left unharmed physical(economics is a different story but it’s still less bad. By the time they fully mobilize the war could be over. That lowers a lot of domestic and economic issues. The mobilize army who is left mostly undamaged could be use to purge the country of any loyalists out holds and slave unrest quickly after the war(CSA army can take care of partisans and slaves). The south could have played a more defensive and egging approach. They ask for “peace talks”(knowing the will be denied but using it as propaganda against Lincoln to help turn public opinions). The south makes sure to not fire or attack first in early days of the war but at the same time they are making it very hard for Union troops not to fire at them first. A more hardline Lincoln or Lincoln who feels rushed might overreact or act to early(that why he waited to free the slaves. If he did it too early the border states leaving or partisans in them will be more of a issue. Lincoln in otl was successful where many others fail in a domestic conflicts like this) increasing his opposition. The south trades as much as it can to help stockpile war materials at home before blockade takes full effect. The campaign starts much more later then otl. The war could be more of a political disaster for the north then a actual military defeat. CSA try to prolong peace talks as long as possible to take time to prepare and build up. Maybe they keep actual war from starting for a year or more. In that time they trade, draft, stockpile war materials, train, organize armies, and try to build up political support. North will being do this too but the longer with no progress the more public gets upset and opposition grows. South looks more legitimate to many the longer they go on without immediate threat or harm to the nation by union forces. Also that army can be used to clear unionist and partisans within the CSA while north is still trying to figure stuff out politically. By the time the north starts going on offensive they could lose some early battles or have slow gains which is the nail in coffin for north(they can win war if they keep pushing but average northern doesn’t realize that. All he knows progress is slow and many of them are dying. They want peace with the south who keeps asking for it). It’s now 1863ish. There is only little to no progress in northern Virginia or progress is slow(the south did build up more then otl due to trading until blockade took full effect. They can bleed and grind down the north a bit early on). Invasion of New Orleans failed and the Union just now is fighting confederates in Kentucky(confederate actions in Kentucky and West Virginia can be seen in different ways depending on pod). Kentucky claimed neutrality in conflict. Whoever violates that first could impact public opinion in the state. In otl it was CSA first but union moving troops in first could be bad decision in long run(civil war can easily escalate into a variety of issues due to divisive elements in the nation(people smell blood and opportunity. Morals of war don’t matter to them. They are playing their own angle). Lincoln and moderate republicans being level headed and calm prevented that. They could have overstepped which changes things greatly. The south is literally looking for legitimate excuses to use against the north to justify themselves. You don’t want to give them more political fuel). West Virginia was originally part of Virginia. Northerners might not consider the south being offensive in both states as not too aggressively. They would be given help by local supporters and partisans so it’s not like invading PA or DC to average Yankee). All they have done is blockade them and driven them completely out of Arizona and New Mexico completely. This might look bad to public by 1863. Also the longer the south keeps a lot of that land the more likely for issue with Britain and France. It won’t be military action but could be more economic ones. The CSA in this pod keeps trying to trade as much to Britain as possible before blockade takes full effect and south even tries after but often gets stop. A few of these times British or French go to southern ports(could be private citizens from there too which is often case. It isn’t always government running the ships there). These citizens get stopped or arrested on a few occasions. Britain or France gets upset over blockade, partly due to ego. They don’t like being told off especially when their public attention is on it. They can’t back down to a “former colony” or a non truly European power. America was often viewed similarly to how Europeans viewed Russia but the liberal version of that. They are “kind of Europeans”. They might not support or recognize CSA but if UK and US get pissy with each other the UK could cut off trade until the war is officially over. US tell UK to stop going to southern ports and UK responses by going to none(what economic effect does this have if it happens once war starts going?).

Trade and barriers to it is key to human development. The south benefits(kind of pig backing off of) from sharing language, economic, and cultural ties to the two current biggest industrial powers in the world Britain and US. Both of which they probably trade heavily with each other(this isn’t Cold War. Nations that hate each other still trade very regularly during this time while at peace. Look at ww1. Some of opposing countries were large trade partners before the war). CSA isn’t Japan or even Mexico a random middle to upper class Yankee or Brit could go to the south and live like a king if he has money(he can go their and exploit people with enough money. He doesn’t even have to learn a new language). CSA could attract immigrants with money. Appalachia and much of Texas isn’t cash crop lands so aristocrats careless about it. The land in Appalachia was mostly unkept lands or small substance farming before mines and mass logging so mines and logging taking hold won’t impact aristocrats that much. The land in Appalachia is cheap so immigrants might buy mineral rights to a lot of cheap lands(a lot cheaper and easier to buy the mineral rights but it is a highly corrupt system. A farmer can own land but someone with mineral rights can destroy it completely to get minerals below without any regard to residents there). Texas has a bunch of land for immigrants not tied to cash crop/slave labor. How did slavery and ranchers interact or overlap? That is one I have never actually heard or read at all about? Would they use slaves that much on a ranch or would they be mostly wage labor and families working it? This would create two new elite classes not tied to slavery within the south. You now have ranch and coal barons who use cheap white labor instead of slaves. Maybe a mix of debt and prison labor too but not actual slaves as much. This would be the new money class(probably log and rail company owners too). Even if many of these industries are foreign own some local elites will be tied to this. It’s also good to remember the black population in Appalachia and western Texas will be much lower then the Deep South(lacks crops that would bring them in). They are much more heavily white. The argument by this new elite since many have roots in lower class is that cattle slavery will lead to them being out number by blacks too much because slavery encourages more breeding(masters want more free labor or people to sell). Then being from more white areas might make them fear being eventually overrun by blacks if slavery continues. In Deep South where some states are reaching over 60 percent black populations many might fear that continued slavery will mean that will grow by more. After a serious slave revolt that opinion grows even among some aristocrats. So a strict version of black codes are put in place around turn of century(no weapons, restricted movement, live in restricted areas, and ban from some areas or places completely). Blacks in 1905 have to carry around identification cards and can’t across state lines without permission or company of white officials. Stuff like that. That’s why I think it becomes police state like. You have little corrupt state militias or police patrolling areas for blacks(even after slavery) and anti-government groups(criminals, outlaws, and crimes by the rich probably get often overlooked or bribed). Those militias can probably be easily converted to soldiers especially if theirs a lot of them. Think how militarized some law enforcement is now in US. The south would do that much earlier. They are likely training and equipping these patrols with military left overs. Even if both nations are voluntary forces the south has to spend less time training them since many of those patrols get military like training and gear. Slave rebels and partisans are basically live target practice to confederates. Those partisans also have guns and know how to use them(confederacy is learning how to fight partisans. Think how that relates to changes in war in the next 100 years). The northern people aren’t doing stuff like that on a regular basis.

Aristocrats will probably let the other classes grow. The areas I mentioned will not oppose strong opposition to them at least at first. Why would they care about what’s going on in areas that lack plantations? They would not involve themselves in each other affairs. The only time other classes will come into conflict with aristocrats is when they think slavery is becoming a self destructive element after a Spartacus type revolt. Before that they could work well together. Coal mines will encourage railroad development in CSA. These industries would start growing after the war so they aren’t a issue at first. They just naturally pop up and grow over time due to variety of things. Once they are noticeably they are too powerful for the aristocrats to completely disregard.

The CSA system was intended to create a aristocrat slaver republic but the system would naturally shift towards a plutocracy with some authoritative and militaristic elements. The aristocracy is de facto not official like Europe. They are technically just like any other white citizens but the laws are made to benefit them without directly saying so. That keeps them in control in a regular small banana republic that relies on one or two resources(small nations literally just have less resources and people. That is easier for aristocrats to control because less variables. CSA still big in size and has a good bit of resources in it especially later). Aristocrats might only control the cash crop production economically while other classes rise up on resource extraction or other raw resources. The CSA will still have elections among middle to upper classes. For 1 aristocrat let’s say there are 5 miner owners. Now add that together and it will change who is getting elected and funding. Aristocrats are not going to prevent poor elites from moving up legally. Their system is all or nothing a lot of the time(for whites at least). Being poor sucks but being in upper classes is considered more luxurious then most places(think people rich in Saudi vs being poor). That’s why the CSA might adept their still a meritocracy and capitalist to an extent but one based on more exploitation economics(look at history of southern economics). The elections are literally the upper and middle class voting on how to run the country. Yeoman, small slave owners, ranchers, miner owners, and small factory owners all might vote differently then the aristocrats and become a bigger voting bloc(especially if wealth voting system is a flat weight and not weighted or its more de facto. Like literacy test and pole taxes). Aristocrats probably have a good bit of influence but like the Brahmin families in New England they don’t dominate everything.

Furthermore, both CSA and US can have more people then otl. A independent CSA is other port Europeans can use to get into America. Walking over from Arkansas to Missouri would not be that hard if your a single person or small group. Remember walking from CSA to US is much easier then doing same from Mexico. Mexican-American border is harsh terrain(it’s desert not plains and forest). Some areas are rugged but not harsh in most places. I can walk from Tennessee to Kentucky out in middle of nowhere without dying from nature. Union couldn’t stop that if it tried. If the CSA took Kentucky and West Virginia it would be harder to across a river for illegals trying to get into the Union(a lot less people knew how to swim then right? I feel like that is a more modern trend? A lot of older people I know here could not). Immigrants from Europe might go to CSA intending to go to the US when US tells them no(pretty sure US even then only let certain amount come at one time and only so many people can come in through New York). The CSA might have cheaper boat tickets. Many might get stuck there(sad circumstances). What if the CSA has its immigrants port city as New Orleans(don’t know where they would have it exactly so I guessed) to try and help settle Texas but many decide to use that as a way to move to Union States in the great plain or west? That still a lot of people moving through the country which leaves a lot of possibilities. France and Germany had travel and trade between borders pretty openly before ww1 and they hated each other. Also that border is much easier to monitored then the US and CSA one.

The north doesn’t like slavery and supports abolishment but they don’t actually want to live or “mingle” with blacks. They can barely tolerate the Irish at this point. The north isn’t as racist as the south but it’s still racist and racist in different ways. Didn’t some white abolitionist believe it was wrong to treat blacks like cattle but thought “Africans should have been left in Africa to develop separately from Europeans and whites?”. Didn’t many have mindsets like that? You notice how the KKK became super big during the 20s in northern states like Indiana. It was because that was exactly the same time the great black migration from the south to the north happened. Northern racism gets violent when they have to actually live with them and compete for jobs(blacks labor was cheaper and less likely to form unions. Many factories like that). Your also forgetting the US only allows white/European immigrants for the most part at this time. Down the road they ban Chinese. This US is likely the same on that. They even had a debate once if Finns were European enough to come here or two “Asian”(I don’t know why they had that debate. How many Finns were even coming here to make someone even think that). Them just letting blacks come in freely seems very unlikely. The amount of hostility towards them by Yankees might be 10x of otl illegal Mexicans in America. They probably don’t count them as citizens and deport them(harder to blend in as a black escape slave when you are surrounded by Germans in Midwest. You probably stick out. Blacks didn’t leave the south in large numbers until after 1910. Midwest was even whiter before the great migration. A illegal white blends in more easily and would be hard to find due to the lower numbers of records back then. How would they id some random German that snuck in through Oklahoma?). It just causes a lot of border issues seen in more of the modern day but due to limitations of the time they are made worse. The north might even deport some legal blacks to the south(they did do this to Mexicans citizens in 30s or 50s. They could definitely do that to blacks in 1890s). Comparing north to south on racism level is like comparing Nazis to south. They are different and have different mindsets. Africans could not immigrate to US(not counting forced movement of course. Talking about voluntary) until really the 60s. That why I believe the union will likely deport many of them back especially since they are not in union anymore.
 
The state militias/state volunteers OTL continued until the late 1800s, and were finally done away with in the Root Reforms of the early 1900s when the modern National Guard system was established which had the state units firmly under the control of the Army in terms of training and equipping, establishing better standards for officers and so forth. If you have mandatory service, which is unlikely, you would then see a reserve system, true many units being state based but under central control, rather than dual Guard/Reserve system you have to this day. Other changes would need to be made, such as no passage of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.
I was actually think the south would have something like root reform with the national guard but it is extended to police force and public safety officials. All states technically still have their own militia or armies but they are controlled tightly by the military. National Guard is often called in to keep order in CSA but can also act as a military force in time of war. System like that would probably see them have good but probably brutal training(I see them trying some Russian type training methods). They could also be one of the first to utilize dogs more often in policing and war(hounds). The south would probably have a much higher voluntary rate if the military(good pay and benefits for poor people. Better then a mine). CSA National Guard would basically be a large army all but in name. The military throwing coups is much more likely with national guard system in the CSA. You could even have the military do stuff like the Turkish coups or have small coups against governors they think have become a issue.
 
If that were true people would have preferred being slaves to serfs when the opposite is true.
I think Stockholm syndromes or something like it might have been more common in slaves then most people think. Especially mix slaves. Slavery in the south literally mentally broke many. Some sadly never recover from that. I’m surprised no one has done more research on this. All those “happy slave” could just be people trying to cope with the mess up situation of their life. Could Stockholm like symptoms form in some after slavery as a psychological reaction to seeing cross burning, lynching, and your family being killed by angry white mobs?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The main difference between slavery and serfdom is that the slaves actually had value and their owners would treat them well enough not to risk losing their investment. Serfs OTOH, were pretty much expendable.

This is one of those myths that simply won't seem to die. It is closely related to the "freed slaves were treated worse than slaves" and "sharecropping was as bad as slavery" (I can actually comment on this one since my father's family were sharecroppers when he was a wee lad, NOT as bad as slavery, or serfdom for that matter, not even in the same bloody universe)

Serfs were also able to actually OWN things and make extra cash by working beyond the duties to the landlord (some slave owners would allow slaves with marketable skills like smithing or cobbling to earn their own money, even manage to buy their freedom, most owners, however, took some or nearly all of this extra income, often to prevent a slave managing to buy his way to freedom) sometimes being able to clear the debt that placed them into serfdom to begin with, with others actually have more cash and a better standard of living than freemen in the same area depending on their skills. Serfs were not even the lowest level of laborer, with cottagers (laborers with just enough land provided to feed their family/pay their "rent") ranking below them since a cottager had almost no hope of earning extra income. Then, below the cottager, were the slaves.

Landlords had legal obligations to the serfs tied to his land, this included the fact that thee land they rented was theirs as long as they paid the annual rent and the various "taxes" a Lord would place on them (things like extra eggs or a goose at Christmas or Easter, a "death tax" when the renter died so his family could remain on the land, etc.).

The status of a serf was anything but pleasant, but compared to chattel slavery, where the slave was LITERALLY seen as and bought/sold/traded as if they were cattle or horses, it would be seen as comfortable. No one simply sold your wife or children to get extra cash for the owner. There were consequences, at least on paper, for killing a tenant, slaves were not afforded that sort of protection, beyond a possible civil penalty if you killed the slave of another owner, same as if you killed a horse. Lords did not simply accept regular die offs of serfs as was the case of with many plantation owners in the Deep South, where slaves were worked in weather conditions that were effectively a death sentence (anyone who has been in the Mississippi delta in high summer knows exactly what I mean). The profits generated by this deadly labor were so high that replacements needed beyond the "natural increase" of already owned slaves (I'll wait while everyone digests the implications here...) were insufficient, fresh bodies could be purchased without unduly hurting the bottom line. It was so bad in the Deep South that many SLAVE OWNERS would not allow their slaves to be sold "down the River" (Washington, as an example, prohibited the sale of any slave outside of the borders of Virginia during his lifetime, and made the same provision in his will regarding his slaves who were to be freed at the death of Martha).

I'm going to assume that your post was the result of accepting one of these myths at face value, without having done any independent research, and not slavery apologia. This time.
 
The confederacy proves people can leave the union if they want too.

It proves that states can leave the Union if they're willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and hundreds of thousand of lives to achieve that independence. There might be later regional secessions by other parts of the US, but they would only happen after a couple of decades of deep, unresolved conflict.

What you seem to be looking over is losing half your country is going to be looked at as weak by many other powers and people.

The Confederacy was not half of the US. It was less than 1/3 of the population, 1/4 of the territory, 1/10 of the industry. Europeans did tend to underestimate the US - if the Confederacy does gain independence, the will underestimate the US even more.

The best example of a liberal republic would have failed at staying fully together. Europeans will see the US system as failing and weak compared to their own even if that isn’t fully true. A criticism of American democracy was often it would devolve into mob rule and could not last in a larger nation in the long run.

Rather than seeing the US as failing and weak, the rest of the world will see republics as less effective forms of government. The rising tide of nationalism will still result in independence attempts by colonies, as well as ethic minorities within the European states, but those new nations are more likely to become monarchies than republics.[/QUOTE]
 
You do realize how increased federalization and putting in place the laws you proposed looks like a country that is desperately trying to keep it’s country together.

I have proposed no new laws for the postbellum US. I not proposed increased federalization, either.
 
The victory of the war helped push federalization.

The war helped push federalization. Both the USA and the CSA became significantly more federalized during the war. As Gary Gallagher, history professor at the Universtity of Virginia noted. "In many ways, the biggest, most intrusive central government in our history until deep into the 20th century is the Confederate government."
 
Yes, oligarchy will have that too but I think their is a argument for less develop nations being able to advance much more quickly under a undemocratic system. CSA might fail and make mistakes but not having to deal with democracy as much they can keep pushing a bunch of different reforms through more quickly(varying on success). If enough of the oligarchy thinks “guys I know we don’t want to but we got to industrialize or find some alternative to it. We can’t let those Yankees out do us completely”. Some might not like it but many of the elites will likely think something has to be done(they might lack the better details of that at first but they have benefit of trial and error until they figure it out). They are prideful. A lot of countries reform because they don’t want to be outdone by others. The US might laugh at some of those failed attempts but dictatorship or undemocratic regimes sometimes come up with clever ways at reforming and modernizing their system. They can get away with more radical reforms if people aren’t voting on it.

You speak of democracy as if it were a hindrance to economic development. History shows your opinion to be wrong. Oligarchic systems can allow less developed nations to advance, but more often they enrich the oligarchs and impoverish the rest of the nation. Feel free to give any examples of oligarchic and other undemocratic systems coming up with "clever ways at reforming and modernizing their system" or engaging in "radical reforms" that helped the whole country instead of the oligarchs. And even in undemocratic regimes, the rulers cannot ignore public opinion. History is full of popular uprisings, which even if successfully suppressed, caused economic damage.
 
Shot part is exaggerated. I’m hinting towards their education being generally more militarized in nature. If you spend your whole life focused towards martial skills more then let’s say business this has to add up over time. If your spending all your time focusing on something your likely to make more innovations in it then people who don’t.

The slaveholders did not spend their "whole life focused towards martial skills". They had more military academies, but history shows that the Confederates did not have better soldiers or better generals. The Confederacy did not make more military innovations than the Union, either. This supposed Confederate military superiority is a Neo-Confederate myth that is easily disproven by actual history.
 
The slaveholders did not spend their "whole life focused towards martial skills". They had more military academies, but history shows that the Confederates did not have better soldiers or better generals. The Confederacy did not make more military innovations than the Union, either. This supposed Confederate military superiority is a Neo-Confederate myth that is easily disproven by actual history.
The only area of the military where the Confederacy had superiority was that they had superior ability to underestimate their opponents.
 
I think the north could still face the issue of having more incompetent generals if the military is plagued by cronyism and nepotism. Didn’t the union army have a issue with putting the sons of rich northern families in places of leadership? The south had this issue too but at least their rich kids likely spend more time at it. I see corruption being a issue in both militaries but if people in the south are focusing more towards military life I would think that lessen the negative impacts of favoritism in the military?

The Confederacy was plagued by far more cronyism and nepotism than the Union. That's fairly inevitable when your model is an oligarchic republic instead of a democratic republic. Custis Lee became a general because his father was Robert E Lee. Rooney Lee became a general because his father was Robert E Lee. Robert E Lee, Jr became a colonel because his father was Robert E Lee. Fitzhugh Lee became a general because his uncle was Robert E Lee. Leonidas Polk became a general because he was friends with Jefferson Davis. AS Johnston became a general because he was friends with Jefferson Davis. Braxton Bragg became a general because he was friends with Jefferson Davis.
 
This is one of those myths that simply won't seem to die. It is closely related to the "freed slaves were treated worse than slaves" and "sharecropping was as bad as slavery" (I can actually comment on this one since my father's family were sharecroppers when he was a wee lad, NOT as bad as slavery, or serfdom for that matter, not even in the same bloody universe)

Serfs were also able to actually OWN things and make extra cash by working beyond the duties to the landlord (some slave owners would allow slaves with marketable skills like smithing or cobbling to earn their own money, even manage to buy their freedom, most owners, however, took some or nearly all of this extra income, often to prevent a slave managing to buy his way to freedom) sometimes being able to clear the debt that placed them into serfdom to begin with, with others actually have more cash and a better standard of living than freemen in the same area depending on their skills. Serfs were not even the lowest level of laborer, with cottagers (laborers with just enough land provided to feed their family/pay their "rent") ranking below them since a cottager had almost no hope of earning extra income. Then, below the cottager, were the slaves.

Landlords had legal obligations to the serfs tied to his land, this included the fact that thee land they rented was theirs as long as they paid the annual rent and the various "taxes" a Lord would place on them (things like extra eggs or a goose at Christmas or Easter, a "death tax" when the renter died so his family could remain on the land, etc.).

The status of a serf was anything but pleasant, but compared to chattel slavery, where the slave was LITERALLY seen as and bought/sold/traded as if they were cattle or horses, it would be seen as comfortable. No one simply sold your wife or children to get extra cash for the owner. There were consequences, at least on paper, for killing a tenant, slaves were not afforded that sort of protection, beyond a possible civil penalty if you killed the slave of another owner, same as if you killed a horse. Lords did not simply accept regular die offs of serfs as was the case of with many plantation owners in the Deep South, where slaves were worked in weather conditions that were effectively a death sentence (anyone who has been in the Mississippi delta in high summer knows exactly what I mean). The profits generated by this deadly labor were so high that replacements needed beyond the "natural increase" of already owned slaves (I'll wait while everyone digests the implications here...) were insufficient, fresh bodies could be purchased without unduly hurting the bottom line. It was so bad in the Deep South that many SLAVE OWNERS would not allow their slaves to be sold "down the River" (Washington, as an example, prohibited the sale of any slave outside of the borders of Virginia during his lifetime, and made the same provision in his will regarding his slaves who were to be freed at the death of Martha).

I'm going to assume that your post was the result of accepting one of these myths at face value, without having done any independent research, and not slavery apologia. This time.

HUZZAH! No, seriously, thank you. I was going to say something similar, but would have been unable to do so to your ability. Thank you!
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top