Until Every Drop of Blood Is Paid: A More Radical American Civil War

[Milarqui]

Yeah, might actually be *more* difficult to get things named after Robert E. Lee removed iTTL. This TL slices up people and ideas that are still largely monolithic iOTL 150 years later.

Particularly if the corresponding people point out that Lee:
(a) Had enslaved people under his dominion.
(b) When he inherited enslaved people under the condition that they be freed within five years, he argued that he should be allowed to keep them for as long as he wanted.
(c) Was a particularly cruel master.
(d) He greenlighted his army's efforts in finding free black people to kidnap, enslave, and bring back south of the border.

In a USA that is much more egalitarian, Lee would be seen as more of a villain.

 

[wilji1090]

Particularly if the corresponding people point out that Lee:
(a) Had enslaved people under his dominion.
(b) When he inherited enslaved people under the condition that they be freed within five years, he argued that he should be allowed to keep them for as long as he wanted.
(c) Was a particularly cruel master.
(d) He greenlighted his army's efforts in finding free black people to kidnap, enslave, and bring back south of the border.

In a USA that is much more egalitarian, Lee would be seen as more of a villain.

Though, you would possibly see Washington-Lee still stand just named after Lee’s father Henry Lee III instead of Marse Robert hisself.

Actually… come to think of it, assuming John Tyler was still elected to the Confederate Congress, I have to imagine that his administration would be viewed very negatively.

Hell, Thomas Jefferson had one grandson fight for the Union and another fight for the Confederacy so it’s going to be interesting to see how Jefferson is viewed TTL.

 

[Name123]

@Milarqui​

(c) Was a particularly cruel master.

Was he ? In comparison, that others, that is. I still remember this thread sharing the whole "let's literally put salt in people's wounds" incident, so I'm not disputing that he was cruel. I have no reason to defend that guy. It is in fact my dislike of slavery that makes it hard to believe that he was somehow worse than others. I assume that any slaver is a very disgusting individual when comes to treatment of slaves. I mean, we are talking about a system that is so fundamentally wrong then even the very, very hypothetical "nice" master would "care about" his slaves in a very paternalistic, possessive, condescending and generally unhealthy way.

 

[wilji1090]

Was he ? In comparison, that others, that is. I still remember this thread sharing the whole "let's literally put salt in people's wounds" incident, so I'm not disputing that he was cruel. I have no reason to defend that guy. It is in fact my dislike of slavery that makes it hard to believe that he was somehow worse than others. I assume that any slaver is a very disgusting individual when comes to treatment of slaves. I mean, we are talking about a system that is so fundamentally wrong then even the very, very hypothetical "nice" master would "care about" his slaves in a very paternalistic, possessive, condescending and generally unhealthy way.

Oh, Lee was a notoriously cruel taskmaster and often freed slaves not out of altruism but he because he didn’t want to “deal with them” anymore and even broke up families and sold them off. Now this isn’t to suggest he was needlessly cruel, but he would push slaves to their limits

Compare this to another slave owner in Ulysses S Grant who was viewed as a terrible master because he was fairly light handed with his slaves and even freed the one slave he received as a gift from his father in law after a year.

EDIT: Grant only owned one slave but his wife was in possession of one or more slaves.

 

[Name123]

Compare this to another slave owner in Ulysses S Grant who was viewed as a terrible master because he was fairly light handed with his slaves and even freed the one slave he received as a gift from his father in law.

Are you being sarcastic ? Because to my knowledge, Grant only ever had one slave (not multiple) (which you seem to mention) and free him sometime after.

Oh, Lee was a notoriously cruel taskmaster and often freed slaves not out of altruism but he because he didn’t want to “deal with them” anymore and even broke up families and sold them off. Now this isn’t to suggest he was needlessly cruel, but he would push slaves to their limits

Again, I would assume that this was pretty normal for a slaver to do.

 

[wilji1090]

Are you being sarcastic ? Because to my knowledge, Grant only ever had one slave (not multiple) (which you seem to mention) and free him sometime after.

I could’ve sworn I heard that Grant had more than one slave? I might be misremembering that one, if so my bad. Either way, the fact of Grant being fairly light handed is a fact and one that made him an oddity for his time.

Again, I would assume that this was pretty normal for a slaver to do.

Well, he wasn’t Edwin Epps, but Lee was by no means a Grant in how he treated his slaves.

 

[Name123]

I could’ve sworn I heard that Grant had more than one slave? I might be misremembering that one, if so my bad.

Well, Wikipedia does mention only one slave in slavery section of the article about him. If they mention this, they would have written about him having more than one.

Well, he wasn’t Edwin Epps, but Lee was by no means a Grant in how he treated his slaves.

Well, any slaver is going to look cruel if compare him to Grant (who again according to wiki was not cut out for it and was unwilling to actually force his slave to work) .

 

[wilji1090]

Well, Wikipedia does mention only one slave in slavery section of the article about him. If they mention this, they would have written about him having more than one.

I actually corrected the record above. Grant’s wife had possession of one or more slaves.

Well, any slaver is going to look cruel if compare him to Grant .

Too true, though William Ford was described by Solomon Northup as a kind man under the circumstances stating: "There never was a more kind, noble, candid Christian man than William Ford."

Granted, it leaves me more than a little disconcerted at trying to see the humanity in someone who owns another human being. At least with Grant, it can be stated that he was noted for being uncomfortable with the institution itself.

 

[Name123]

I actually corrected the record above. Grant’s wife had possession of one or more slaves.

On the note of someone's relatives owning slaves... I think this makes it harder to measure the number of white southerners involved in the system. Just counting people who owned slaves, overseers, traders is not enough, but there are also relatives who directly benefited because they were served by slaves. I mean, I could image a slave owner giving an enslaved servant to a (older, say late teens) child of his as a learning experience of sorts. Such a person would very much count as a slaver, even if they did not (yet) own anyone.

 

[wilji1090]

On the note of someone's relatives owning slaves... I think this makes it harder to measure the number of white southerners involved in the system. Just counting people who owned slaves, overseers, traders is not enough, but there are also relatives who directly benefited because they were served by slaves. I mean, I could image a slave owner giving an enslaved servant to a (older, say late teens) child of his as a learning experience of sorts. Such a person would very much count as a slaver, even if they did not (yet) own anyone.

Being from the South myself (Texas) I’d say that even if a portion didn’t own slaves or even be considered a slaver under the law of the time, I maintain that on the whole, the South was at best complicit in the vile institution.

This timeline has me wondering if the Readjusters are going to experience a surge of growth across the South though. I’d be game to see them flourish in Texas. Maybe in one timeline Juan Seguin gets the praise he deserves for his role in the Texas Revolution

 

[Name123]

Being from the South myself (Texas) I’d say that even if a portion didn’t own slaves or even be considered a slaver under the law, I maintain that on the whole, the South was at best complicit in the vile institution.

Oh, I agree. I was talking about measure the number of people who were directly involved and therefore measure how prevalent the institution was thought

 

[wilji1090]

On the subject of Lee, he did also support the Crittenden Compromise which was, to the South, the only acceptable compromise to remain in the Union. Lee also referred to slavery as “painful discipline” with respect to African Americans

 

[Knightmare]

On the subject of Lee, he did also support the Crittenden Compromise which was, to the South, the only acceptable compromise to remain in the Union. Lee also referred to slavery as “painful discipline” with respect to African Americans

Given the "compromise" basically gave everything to the South, save "equalizing" the Fugitive Slave Law and blocking the slave trade, that's not a ringing endorsement of "Marse Lee".

 

[wilji1090]

Given the "compromise" basically gave everything to the South, save "equalizing" the Fugitive Slave Law and blocking the slave trade, that's not a ringing endorsement of "Marse Lee".

Nor will you hear me ever saying it is. And if I remember the text of the Crittenden Compromise it explicitly named African slavery whereas the Corwin Amendment used the more ambiguous phrase “persons held in bondage”

 

[Steelers94]

Given that whatever version of the Lost Cause mythos develops TTL is going to basically boil down to some form of either "the slavers and aristocrats betrayed the cause of the poor white southerner" or "the slavers and aristocrats hoodwinked the poor white southerners into a war they couldn't win because they selfishly wanted to keep their power instead of giving it up". I wonder if even when the modern reexaminations of the mythos happen TTL that it stays some level of acceptable belief compared to OTL given that in either form it will take an anti-slavery stance and make it know it was the major factor of the war.

 

[wilji1090]

Given that whatever version of the Lost Cause mythos develops TTL is going to basically boil down to some form of either "the slavers and aristocrats betrayed the cause of the poor white southerner" or "the slavers and aristocrats hoodwinked the poor white southerners into a war they couldn't win because they selfishly wanted to keep their power instead of giving it up". I wonder if even when the modern reexaminations of the mythos happen TTL that it stays some level of acceptable belief compared to OTL given that in either form it will take an anti-slavery stance and make it know it was the major factor of the war.

I would say that the latter has more truth to it if you boil it down to layman’s terms. Whether the Union would agree to try and weave that narrative into how they bring the South back into the Union or not is a guess though.

 

[Denliner]

The entire issue of statues is *significantly* different here. First of all, I think the Daughters of the Confederacy will be a *very* different organization and the Klan may not even exist for the First time, much less the Second time. And with one of the Few people who would get statues expressing no desire to have one (at least iOTL), that might make a difference. You *might* still see status of Lee, but I do wonder whether Southern Whites would be anywhere near as monolithic a block in proposing its removal.

The Klan's gonna exist in some form (as canonized by Red_Galiray IIRC), though I highly doubt it will enjoy the same amount of popular support with Southerners (both black and white) who are completely tired of violent guerillas after years of brutal war.

I'm curious to see how the Daughters & Sons of the Confederacy will become ITTL, though. It's one of the big questions of this alternate reconstruction, but I have no doubts they will perpetuate a romanticized and sanitized version of the Civil War, whether intentional or not.

 

[xxmagex]

This will not end well for the Junta. I think it will becomes who will compose the firing squad for them, Union troops or Confederate Troops from a counter coup

 

[wilji1090]

This will not end well for the Junta. I think it will becomes who will compose the firing squad for them, Union troops or Confederate Troops from a counter coup

Why not both?

 

[LordYam]

Technically Brazil was the biggest slaveholder in the hemisphere, so I'm wondering how THEY'LL react to slavery's violent end in the USA. Or if the monarchy will remain in Brazil.