to be fair the Confederacy was forced to more fully embrace a total war economy and full conscription considerably earlier so from a Southern point of view (and Shelby Foote is most definitely that) it sure seems like the Union didn't have to work nearly as hard as the South did
The Worst American Civil War Alternate History Cliche
- Thread starter Mitro
- Start date
to be fair the Confederacy was forced to more fully embrace a total war economy and full conscription considerably earlier so from a Southern point of view (and Shelby Foote is most definitely that) it sure seems like the Union didn't have to work nearly as hard as the South did
This. Specifically, how Civil War threads tend to go. They always get locked into an unending and unwinnable argument over the supposed inevitability of Union victory, regardless of the actual question or subject. It makes it extremely difficult to have any kind of meaningful or thoughtful discussion on it.
The full quote is basically that "slavery is at best a necessary evil", so more resigned to it than anything else.
As for Lee attempting to hold onto his slaves, well, he had a point as a matter of law -- the EP was justified as a war measure, and the war was over. Certainly he had an argument that "henceforth and forever free" sounds a lot like an bill of attainder (which according to Art. I Section 9 clause 3, is not within the powers of Congress to do). Also, he had additionally (until the 13th Amendment was adopted) a 5th Amendment Takings Clause claim, which prohibits takings without due process and only permits them then if just compensation is paid. In other words, Lee was arguing that if his slaves were to be freed he had to be compensated and there had to be a legal proceeding according to established procedure to seize them. I've never read that though so could you quote your source cmakk1012? I do know for a fact though that Lee's family tried to get compnesation from the Union for the part of their plantation that they turned into a little cemetery known as Arlington National Cemetery. The reason it was taken in particular was as a means of punishing Robert E. Lee. You don't have to take my word for it, the Republicans literally said that. It's an example of the vindictive, punishment-oriented nature of Congressional Reconstruction. One of the historical books I have actually comes out and says that Congressional Reconstruction might better be called "Military Reconstruction".
As for Lee attempting to hold onto his slaves, well, he had a point as a matter of law -- the EP was justified as a war measure, and the war was over. Certainly he had an argument that "henceforth and forever free" sounds a lot like an bill of attainder (which according to Art. I Section 9 clause 3, is not within the powers of Congress to do). Also, he had additionally (until the 13th Amendment was adopted) a 5th Amendment Takings Clause claim, which prohibits takings without due process and only permits them then if just compensation is paid. In other words, Lee was arguing that if his slaves were to be freed he had to be compensated and there had to be a legal proceeding according to established procedure to seize them. I've never read that though so could you quote your source cmakk1012? I do know for a fact though that Lee's family tried to get compnesation from the Union for the part of their plantation that they turned into a little cemetery known as Arlington National Cemetery. The reason it was taken in particular was as a means of punishing Robert E. Lee. You don't have to take my word for it, the Republicans literally said that. It's an example of the vindictive, punishment-oriented nature of Congressional Reconstruction. One of the historical books I have actually comes out and says that Congressional Reconstruction might better be called "Military Reconstruction".
Japhy
Banned
It was considered by one Division commander who's career was utterly destroyed for making the suggestion. Yes it happened in 1865 just before Richmond fell but that is not the same as say, RobertP's old steaming pile.
And while I wouldn't say Slavery would have gone on forever, there are plenty of AHs both published and online where Virginia or Louisiana abolishes slavery in 1870 or some shit like that. Or that at the very least the South entirely abandons it completely by 1900 because Whiggish History.
And no at the end of the day the South was not, entirely as a unit keen with Slavery. But to pretend that the defense of Slavery was not a critical, if not The key component of why the average Southern solider of the confederacy fought, even if it was wrapped up in other things is silly.
[Citation Needed]
According to his auto-biography, which was nothing but self-aggrandizement decades after the fact. And for that matter, I could easy retort by quoting John S. Mosby.
And had no support in it and as I noted, his career was destroyed for it.
And this is a tired old line of shit. Lee felt that Slavery could only be ended by Christ's return.
Last edited:
Japhy
Banned
Thank you for bothering to slum in this thread then, you're certainly free to ignore it and any other topic on the subject.
So personally opposed he ordered blacks encountered during the invasion of the north to be enslaved.
Lee was an evil bastard.
And yet they still fought for it. Your intentions when fighting to perpetuate evil are of no consequence.
Every single Confederate soldier was just as guilty as the most enthusiastic slaver.
Planet of Hats
Donor
This x1000.
It's impossible to discuss the Civil War without it descending to a level that reveals everyone's present-day politics and ideologies because the topic is so fraught and so loaded.
That's good to know. I read some of the civil war threads, but generally avoid the ones that seem likely to provoke that argument. I'll start looking at those some more. Hopefully the trend for the better continues.
The worst problem is that American posters frequently want to refight the Civil War all over again
Another problem is certain British posters have this fantasy that the British will make things right (and seem to relish the idea of a permanent division of the US by force of arms) while some American posters think that the Union will conquer all, and any attempt to take a moderate position in regards to any of the posters above is frequently viewed as jingoist nationalism.
And if you think the arguments are sharp here, you should see some other forums, particularly when it comes to the political arguments like moving statues or whether it was legal for the US government to enforce the Union.
Another problem is certain British posters have this fantasy that the British will make things right (and seem to relish the idea of a permanent division of the US by force of arms) while some American posters think that the Union will conquer all, and any attempt to take a moderate position in regards to any of the posters above is frequently viewed as jingoist nationalism.
And if you think the arguments are sharp here, you should see some other forums, particularly when it comes to the political arguments like moving statues or whether it was legal for the US government to enforce the Union.
AP Hill never owned a slave, but he was no abolitionist.
Edward Porter Alexander told his commanding officer "But my situation is just this. My people are going to war. They are in deadly earnest, believing it to be for their liberty. If I don't come and bear my part, they will believe me to be a coward. And I shall not know whether I am or not. I have just got to go and stand my chances." That's fighting to defend his home state and to prove his courage, not defending the right to secede.
Cleburne did suggest recruiting black soldiers. Jefferson Davis' response to Cleburne was "“Deeming it to be injurious to the public service that such a subject should be mooted, or even known to be entertained by persons possessed of the confidence and respect of the people, I have concluded that the best policy under the circumstances will be to avoid all publicity, and the Secretary of War has therefore written to General Johnston requesting him to convey to those concerned my desire that it should be kept private. If it be kept out of the public journals its ill effect will be much lessened.” General Johnston added "the dissemination of even promulgation of such opinion under the present circumstances of the Confederacy, whither in the army or among the people, can be productive only of discouragement, distraction, and desertion. The agitation and controversy which must spring from the presentation of such views of officers high in the public confidence are to be deeply deprecated, and while no doubt or mistrust is for a moment entertained of the patriotic intents of the gallant author of the memorial, and such of his brother officers as may have favored his opinions, it is requested that you communicate to them, as well as all others present on the occasion, the opinions, as herein expressed, of the President, and urge on them the suppression, not only of the memorial itself, but likewise of all discussion and controversy respecting or growing out of it."
Lee did think slavery was "a moral & political evil", but he also disapproved of abolitionists. Lee's troops enslaved free blacks and Lee did nothing to rebuke or punish them. As executor of his father-in-law's will, Lee had the option of freeing those slaves immediately, but Lee mad the work for the maximum time the will allowed,
If Lincoln lost in 1860 and the Taney Supreme Court legalized slavery everywhere in Lemmon vs. NY, I'd personally expect a good chunk of the north to secede. If not, do you think that scenario is implausible, or that something else would happen afterwards?
I don't. More likely you see a wider-scale nullification crisis, with the Northern States refusing to implement the court's order, and the president (Douglas probably) half-heartedly asking them too. The Congress would probably be dominated by abolitionists after the next election. And by 1864 the more radicalized northern populace would put someone like Stevens into the presidency.
Japhy
Banned
I do think that scenario is implausible for one, I don't think the Lemmon case was going to go in that direction because Federalism is a thing. And secondly what I'd expect is a radicalization of the population towards a harder Anti-Slavery line in the event of continued Doughface victories.
The reason the South was a hot bed of Secession is that the Nullification doctrine since 1798 had been building towards it, and been amplified and mainstreamed by the Calhoun and Tyler political generations when the South had started moving towards a one party system in the mid 1840s. The North on the other hand had never threatened disunion outside of Hartford, and even their own nullification efforts with Personal Liberty Laws had never been built with the threat of departure. Webster hadn't led anyone in that direction, the two or two and a half party system in the North wasn't for it, and there wasn't a unified regional feeling outside of New England mascarading as anything akin to "Southern Nationalism". It just wasn't in the political cards and couldn't gain credibility even in the Copperheads circles who were obsessed during the war about Lincolns supposed tyranny.
Saphroneth
Banned
I'd argue the North could plausibly make mistakes which would lead to the South winning - my personal favourite is "they attack after Malvern Hill" because that's a tricky one to notice.
Yep... based on the fact that it was possible to have a boat race at a college he was at, as I recall.
One boat race, rivers of ink spilled.
A post-war Confederacy becoming a great power on par with the others of the era that runs rampant through Central and South America.
Overlaps with the Confederate Cuba cliche.
Overlaps with the Confederate Cuba cliche.
Last edited:
And its counterpart - The Trent War allows Britain to go Super Saiyan.
Don't clichés have to be overused? I don't think I've seen a single Trent War timeline which allows Britain to enjoy the kind of blatant cheating that seems to come as standard with the Union. For instance: Union troops get repeaters while the British get muskets, hundreds of ironclads pouring off the slips, spar torpedoes invented and deployed within a few weeks, and so forth.
Bear in mind that the complaints you raised about ITWNMUOTOS were focused on problems like the Union being unable to send messages down a broken telegraph line and a British ship arriving on the 8th of January rather than the 9th. Hardly comparable to the scale of issues in published (or, indeed, unpublished but Turtledove-winning) pro-Union Trent war timelines.