The Confederates win: slavery until 1920

To be honest GB could act only so neutral if the CSA kept slavery. They would be hounded out of office by 1900 if they gave the CSA any real support such as military training or arms.
Unlike, say, the ships and sailors from British shipyards that hounded Union shipping under the Confederate flag OTL?
 
We're talking 1900 not 1863 and what I mean by support is sending enough aid to make a real difference in the outcome which obviously didn't happen OTL.
 
And the state of Louisiana refused to provide them with unforms or arms and forced them to disband. After the Union occupied New Orleans, this units reformed and joined the Union army.

The key here is "after the Union occupied New Orleans"...some of them did join the Union army. How many Irish switched sides?



The Crittenden Compromise was not offered by Lincoln, it was in fact opposed by him. And it was tabled without ever coming to a vote before Lincoln was inaugurated.

The Corwin Amendment was not offered by Lincoln, either, though he said he could accept it. It was passed after 7 states had seceded and before Lincoln became President, but only 3 states ever ratified it.

Both true, yet the South still refused, despite the fact that their [perceived] right to own slaves would be protected.



Average percent of families owning slaves in the first 7 slaveholding states to secede - 37%

Average percent of families owning slaves in the last 4 slaveholding states to secede - 25%

Average percent of families owning slaves in the 4 slaveholding states that did not secede - 13%

This is also in line with the percantage of African-Americans in those states, so it would make sense that the numbers would be greater. I'm not sure exactly what your point here is, but I'm assuming that what your trying to get at is that the more slaves a state has the more likely it was to join the Confederacy, so I'll address this along with your final point.



Being taken over their owners' protests and forced to do manual labor and serve as teamsters is hardly siding with the Confederacy.

But you see this was not the limit of black service to the Confederacy, although the government didn't officially allow blacks to serve until 1865, thousands had nevertheless been fighting for some time. I've already posted a few quotes on this, but here's another.

"For more than two years, Negroes have been extensively employed in belligerent operations by the Confederacy. They have been embodied and drilled as rebel soldiers and had paraded with white troops at a time when this would not have been tolerated in the armies of the Union."

-Horace Greeley






He wanted to make sure the Union (which had different reason for fighting the Confederacy) would support it. Within a month of the Second Confiscation Act, Lincoln was discussing it with his cabinet. It was issued 1 1/2 years after the attack on Fort Sumter, which is about 1/3 of the way through the war.

You mean there might have been some people in the Union that opposed abolition.:confused:;)



Grant freed his only slave (probably a wedding gift from his father-in-law) in 1859. His wife owned 4 slaves which she says she freed in 1862 on the announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation.

Was marriage a legal institution in 1861? I believe so, and I believe that would make his wife's slaves his slaves. As far as the date, well I'll go ahead and take Julia's word for it, but I believe that there are some who dispute that claim. That's still well into the war before deciding to free them, kinda makes you wonder if there was more to this war than whether or not the slaves should be set free.






You're saying some of the slaveholding US states being the last states to ratify the amendment that ended slavery shows that the Civil war wasn't about slavery?

Yes. If it was about slavery then why were two of the last three states to ratify it, Union states? Could it be that it was not that simple?



It was not the only reason, but even a casual reading of the Confederate Consitiution; Alexander Stephen's Cornerstone speech; and the Declarations of Causes for Secession by Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas; will show it was the most important reason for southern political leaders.

There can be no question that the issue of slavery was at the very heart of this struggle, but too often people are too unwilling to recognize how terrible conditions were for blacks anywhere during this time period and so they tend to idealize the North as the United States of Abolitionists while condemning the South as unrepentant racists dedicated solely to the purpose of ensuring the survival of slavery indefinitely. The truth is they were all Americans and as such there was hypocrosy present amongst both sides, but the single most important issue to the South was the idea that Southern men should decide what was best for the South and not "damn Yankee" politicians.

It is said republicanism cannot exist without the institution. Even were this true, we prefer any form of government of which Southern people may have the moulding, to one forced upon us by a conqueror.

-Patrick R. Cleburne
 
Durindal said:
The key here is "after the Union occupied New Orleans"...some of them did join the Union army. How many Irish switched sides?

The Confederacy didn’t refuse to arm or provide uniforms to the Irish. They didn’t force the Louisiana Irish regiments to disband.

And the Union didn’t force those black Louisiana regiments to reform and fight for it.

Durindal said:
Both true, yet the South still refused, despite the fact that their [perceived] right to own slaves would be protected.

The Crittenden Compromise died in committee. The Corwin Amendment was never ratified.

So why do you keep insisting the South refused something that was never offered? (At least you aren’t repeating your incorrect claim that Lincoln offered it.)

Durindal said:
This is also in line with the percentage of African-Americans in those states, so it would make sense that the numbers would be greater. I'm not sure exactly what your point here is, but I'm assuming that what your trying to get at is that the more slaves a state has the more likely it was to join the Confederacy, so I'll address this along with your final point.

What would make you think I’m taking about raw numbers of slaves when I’m specifically mentioning the percentage of slave owning families?

And as is obvious from the 1860 census data, the first batch of slaveholding states to secede were those with the highest the percentage of slave owning families. The slaveholding states with the lowest the percentage of slave owning families did not secede at all.

The obvious answer is that the slaveholding states that stayed in the Union had less of a stake in slavery.

Durindal said:
But you see this was not the limit of black service to the Confederacy, although the government didn't officially allow blacks to serve until 1865, thousands had nevertheless been fighting for some time. I've already posted a few quotes on this, but here's another.

"For more than two years, Negroes have been extensively employed in belligerent operations by the Confederacy. They have been embodied and drilled as rebel soldiers and had paraded with white troops at a time when this would not have been tolerated in the armies of the Union."

-Horace Greeley

None of your three sources is from a member of the Confederate government nor its military. Only Steiner is an eyewitness, and his claim is backed by no statements from any member of either army nor any of the civilians who saw the army.

Nor does any of this back the 60,000 figure you claim. If we accept Steiner’s unconfirmed report, that would mean a figure of roughly 12,000 for the entire Confederacy.

And none of the people you quote are claiming that black troops mean the Confederacy did not secede because of slavery.

…we ask you to consider that Slavery is everywhere the inciting cause and sustaining base of treason: the most slaveholding sections of Maryland and Delaware being this day, though under the Union flag, in full sympathy with the Rebellion, while the Free-Labor portions of Tennessee and of Texas, though writhing under the bloody heel of Treason, are unconquerably loyal to the Union.

-Horace Greeley
… knowing well what an abomination Slavery is, and how emphatically it is the core and essence of this atrocious Rebellion….

-Horace Greeley
… the Rebellion, if crushed out tomorrow, would be renewed within a year if Slavery were left in full vigor.

-Horace Greeley
A war undertaken and brazenly carried on for the perpetual enslavement of colored men, calls logically and loudly for colored men to help suppress it.

-Frederick Douglass
The South was fighting to take slavery out of the Union….

-Frederick Douglass
Durindal said:
You mean there might have been some people in the Union that opposed abolition.
clip_image001.gif
clip_image002.gif

And some in the Confederacy that supported it.

But just like Patrick Cleburne, who you quote, they weren’t the political leaders of the south. And those political leaders made it very, very clear that it was about slavery for them.

Durindal said:
Was marriage a legal institution in 1861? I believe so, and I believe that would make his wife's slaves his slaves. As far as the date, well I'll go ahead and take Julia's word for it, but I believe that there are some who dispute that claim.

There were clear legal differences between what the law called paraphernalia and property gained during coverture. For example, George Washington freed his slaves in his will, did not and legally could not free his wife’s slaves.

Durindal said:
If it was about slavery then why were two of the last three states to ratify it, Union states?

You did note those were Union slave states?

Durindal said:
the single most important issue to the South was the idea that Southern men should decide what was best for the South and not "damn Yankee" politicians.

I’m sure that Patrick Cleburne believed that. It’s equally obvious that the men who buried his proposal to enlist the slaves, his career, and eventually Cleburne himself did not.

But tell me, was the Gag Rule the Yankees deciding what was best for the South, or the other way round? How about the Dred Scott decision? Or the Gadsden Purchase? Or the Fugitive Slave Laws? Or the Kansas-Nebraska Act? Or the Sumner caning? Or the Border Ruffians? Or the Lecompton Constitution? Or the Ostend Manifesto?
 
The Confederacy didn’t refuse to arm or provide uniforms to the Irish. They didn’t force the Louisiana Irish regiments to disband.

And the Union didn’t force those black Louisiana regiments to reform and fight for it.



The Crittenden Compromise died in committee. The Corwin Amendment was never ratified.

So why do you keep insisting the South refused something that was never offered? (At least you aren’t repeating your incorrect claim that Lincoln offered it.)



What would make you think I’m taking about raw numbers of slaves when I’m specifically mentioning the percentage of slave owning families?

And as is obvious from the 1860 census data, the first batch of slaveholding states to secede were those with the highest the percentage of slave owning families. The slaveholding states with the lowest the percentage of slave owning families did not secede at all.

The obvious answer is that the slaveholding states that stayed in the Union had less of a stake in slavery.



None of your three sources is from a member of the Confederate government nor its military. Only Steiner is an eyewitness, and his claim is backed by no statements from any member of either army nor any of the civilians who saw the army.

Nor does any of this back the 60,000 figure you claim. If we accept Steiner’s unconfirmed report, that would mean a figure of roughly 12,000 for the entire Confederacy.

And none of the people you quote are claiming that black troops mean the Confederacy did not secede because of slavery.



And some in the Confederacy that supported it.

But just like Patrick Cleburne, who you quote, they weren’t the political leaders of the south. And those political leaders made it very, very clear that it was about slavery for them.



There were clear legal differences between what the law called paraphernalia and property gained during coverture. For example, George Washington freed his slaves in his will, did not and legally could not free his wife’s slaves.



You did note those were Union slave states?



I’m sure that Patrick Cleburne believed that. It’s equally obvious that the men who buried his proposal to enlist the slaves, his career, and eventually Cleburne himself did not.

But tell me, was the Gag Rule the Yankees deciding what was best for the South, or the other way round? How about the Dred Scott decision? Or the Gadsden Purchase? Or the Fugitive Slave Laws? Or the Kansas-Nebraska Act? Or the Sumner caning? Or the Border Ruffians? Or the Lecompton Constitution? Or the Ostend Manifesto?


I always saw Cleburne being used by Southerners as proving the South was not fighting for slavery as funny. Remember he was specifically told to shut up about it. This hardly seems the action of people who didn't give a damn about slavery.
 
Top