I'm thinking more Toussaint Louverture than Nat Turner or John Brown.
during the 1864 election, one of the major Democratic themes was that the Republicans were encouraging slave rebellion. Republicans strenuously denied it. It would be very sensitive to accept the aid of a slave revolt. Sherman is as likely to suppress it as he is to accept its help.
OTL? Zero. To have a Slave revolt succeed the Slave population need to be higher than about... two third of the total population. So unless a mass exportation of Slaves from Africa come... ideally enslaved military figures from West Africa. And a PoD in the 18th century when Slave Trade was well a d alive.
They don't need to completely succeed, they just need to leave the South. And that's possible with a lot less than two-thirds of d the population.
have it during the civil warLook at the reaction the Nat Turner revolt caused. Within days there were thousands of militiamen enlisting from as far away as Richmond to put down a rebellion by around 50 slaves which was crushed in a period of 2 days.
There just weren’t any counties/parishes in the US with a high enough population of blacks. Southampton had a slight black majority, and Nat Turner failed miserably. The US wasn’t Haiti, and conditions weren’t right for a successful slave revolt.
That’s even worse timing really, unless a Union Army is literally hours away from marching into the plantation, it’s not going to go well. The South was absolutely crawling with Homeguard during the war partially for that exact reason.have it during the civil war
No if a slave revolt succeed then got weapons from a nearby barracks chain reactions and if the union supplies it successfully with a lot and then finally avoids engagements with confredtrne army and does Fabians tactics in an area where large army can't move around throughThat’s even worse timing really, unless a Union Army is literally hours away from marching into the plantation, it’s not going to go well. The South was absolutely crawling with Homeguard during the war partially for that exact reason.
Union support for a revolt is pretty much impossible. If it happened, it would look like they were funding a race war in the South, which Franch and British leadership were extremely worried about happening.No if a slave revolt succeed then got weapons from a nearby barracks chain reactions and if the union supplies it successfully with a lot and then finally avoids engagements with confredtrne army and does Fabians tactics in an area where large army can't move around through