Slave Rebellion During the Civil War

Suppose in 1862 a large scale slave rebellion occurred somewhere in the Deep South. Would the North view these slaves as allies against the Confederacy or as another faction of rebels that will have to be defeated to regain control of the country? How would they view the Union pre-Emancipation Proclamation? Is there any chance that the revolt could be successful with the Confederate Army's attention divided between them and the North?
 
There were slave rebellions IOTL and the US wholeheartedly supported them. I believe there's a painting of escaped slaves fighting alongside General Sherman.
 
Suppose in 1862 a large scale slave rebellion occurred somewhere in the Deep South. Would the North view these slaves as allies against the Confederacy or as another faction of rebels that will have to be defeated to regain control of the country? How would they view the Union pre-Emancipation Proclamation? Is there any chance that the revolt could be successful with the Confederate Army's attention divided between them and the North?

Maybe something involving Mrs. Harriet Tubman ?
 
With the Emancipation Proclamation in hand just waiting for the right opportunity, both the Lincoln White House and the Republican Congress would look favorably upon slave uprisings.

The key though, would be how to get the slaves weapons and supplies to fend off state militia and home guard units.

More likely would see like OTL where slaves escape to Union lines. The younger males are then sent to training camps, and black units are introduced in 1863.

A better alternative may be if the Union commits to supporting black regiments sooner in 1862.
 
"The staggering truth is that not one full-scale slave revolt broke out during a war in which local white police power had been drastically reduced." Eugene Genovese, cited in David Potter, *The Impending Crisis 1848-1861* (Harper Torchbooks edition 1976) p. 374. Of course, this is largely because of the availability of escaping to Union lines as a means of gaining one's freedom.
 
"The staggering truth is that not one full-scale slave revolt broke out during a war in which local white police power had been drastically reduced."

What a surreal post."The staggering truth is that 180,000 black men fougth in the war" is perhaps not as interesting?
 

Benevolent

Banned
Suppose in 1862 a large scale slave rebellion occurred somewhere in the Deep South. Would the North view these slaves as allies against the Confederacy or as another faction of rebels that will have to be defeated to regain control of the country? How would they view the Union pre-Emancipation Proclamation? Is there any chance that the revolt could be successful with the Confederate Army's attention divided between them and the North?
Harriet Tubman led the Raid at Combahee Ferry with the support of the Union, she was commended for its success.
 
I think the OP might mean a Haitian-style insurrection...

I'd love to see that shit. Blacks arming themselves to the teeth and establishing "liberated zones" where they take control of the plantations, put their former masters on trials and imprison or excecute them, slowly building up an army and grinding at the CS forces through the use of scorched earth tactics... That'd be badass.
 
I think the OP might mean a Haitian-style insurrection...

I'd love to see that shit. Blacks arming themselves to the teeth and establishing "liberated zones" where they take control of the plantations, put their former masters on trials and imprison or excecute them, slowly building up an army and grinding at the CS forces through the use of scorched earth tactics... That'd be badass.

And that'd really make Post Reconstruction much worse for the freed slaves. In Haiti, slaves seriously outnumbered the free whites. That's not the case for any of the Confederate states. And if word got out as to what was going on, you'd be seeing mass desertions amongst Union and Confederate soldiers alike heading out to put down the slave revolts in as brutal a manner as possible.
 
With the Emancipation Proclamation in hand just waiting for the right opportunity, both the Lincoln White House and the Republican Congress would look favorably upon slave uprisings.

I disagree. Lincoln had to defend the Emancipation Proclamation precisely *against* accusations that it was meant to incite "the horrors of servile insurrection"--something feared not only by Copperheads but by War Democrats and many Republicans.

So far as even pro-war and relatively non-racist white northerners were concerned, the "proper" way for slaves to help the war effort was by escaping to Union lines and enlisting in the Union Army (under white commanders of course...) if they could.
 
I think the OP might mean a Haitian-style insurrection...

I'd love to see that shit. Blacks arming themselves to the teeth and establishing "liberated zones" where they take control of the plantations, put their former masters on trials and imprison or excecute them, slowly building up an army and grinding at the CS forces through the use of scorched earth tactics... That'd be badass.


More that is a good way to get them massacred. A Haitian type revolt would be put down by both the Union and Confederate armies and there would be serious talk u North that the South was right and Blacks need to be in chains so they can be controlled. :(
 

TFSmith121

Banned
It is pretty unlikely, for the historical reasons why there

Suppose in 1862 a large scale slave rebellion occurred somewhere in the Deep South. Would the North view these slaves as allies against the Confederacy or as another faction of rebels that will have to be defeated to regain control of the country? How would they view the Union pre-Emancipation Proclamation? Is there any chance that the revolt could be successful with the Confederate Army's attention divided between them and the North?

It is pretty unlikely, for the historical reasons why there were (in a relative sense) so few outright "rebellions" (as opposed to resistance and escape) by the enslaved; having one's family in the front lines, so to speak, in a slave society where arms and organization were monopolized by the slaveholders and their allies was a recipe for disaster.

There are reasons why the rebellions led by Turner, Prosser, Vesey, etc all failed - manpower and organization and equipment was all against the enslaved.

US policy was, as clearly stated by Lincoln, for those liberated (by themselves or by US forces) to refrain from violence, other than in self-defense, until they could come into contact with US forces, as in:

And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.
And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.
And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.
And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Major Martin Delany, 52nd USCT

I disagree. Lincoln had to defend the Emancipation Proclamation precisely *against* accusations that it was meant to incite "the horrors of servile insurrection"--something feared not only by Copperheads but by War Democrats and many Republicans.

So far as even pro-war and relatively non-racist white northerners were concerned, the "proper" way for slaves to help the war effort was by escaping to Union lines and enlisting in the Union Army (under white commanders of course...) if they could.

True, but there are the exceptions that prove the rule. As it was, aside from the officers of the original three regiments of Louisiana Native Guards, 32 "black" men received appointments in the U.S.C.Ts. Thirteen of were chaplains, but the other 19 were staff and line. (The question of men who passed as white or white/NA etc. is an interesting one).

Martin Delany was commissioned major, which as a field grade (as opposed to company grade) commission, was significant; he had a successful record as a recruiting officer.

delany_martin.jpg


Best,
 
Suppose in 1862 a large scale slave rebellion occurred somewhere in the Deep South. Would the North view these slaves as allies against the Confederacy or as another faction of rebels that will have to be defeated to regain control of the country? How would they view the Union pre-Emancipation Proclamation? Is there any chance that the revolt could be successful with the Confederate Army's attention divided between them and the North?

An excellent point. Why didn't this happen en masse OTL? With the degrading situation you'd think there must've been some slaves who tried to take advantage of the situation. Or were they simply in no position to do so?
 

Benevolent

Banned
I think the OP might mean a Haitian-style insurrection...

I'd love to see that shit. Blacks arming themselves to the teeth and establishing "liberated zones" where they take control of the plantations, put their former masters on trials and imprison or excecute them, slowly building up an army and grinding at the CS forces through the use of scorched earth tactics... That'd be badass.

Honestly that's not how black liberated zones operated, all maroon societies escaped clandestinely or in minor skirmishes go into the mountains or swamps, take food and weapons sporadically, sell their labour to plantation owners for money occasionally and sometimes return runaways.

It's not advantageous to kill women, children and the elderly because all the black folks in the plantations and towns would suffer and more resources would be put into removing them especially at the time of the civil war.

That and people snitched if they recognized revolts would cause undue suffering on everyone else.

Good book I just read partially and got a chance to talk with the authors is "Dixie Be Damned" talks all about how everything failed (but also how we can learn from these to actively limit the power of the State)
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
For the same reason people are walking out of Syria...

An excellent point. Why didn't this happen en masse OTL? With the degrading situation you'd think there must've been some slaves who tried to take advantage of the situation. Or were they simply in no position to do so?

For the same reason people are walking out of Syria...

Women and children and the elderly in the front lines, otherwise.

599x339


Best,
 
Top