What if the Confederacy had won the War?

[hawglips]

Slavery was indeed dying out from the North southward. The further north you went the less slavery you saw. There is no reason to believe it would not die out all over the CSA over time. A sudden and general emancipation would not likely have occured, but rather a gradual one similar to what occured in what became the free states.

I am indeed rather fond of the alternative that the two would have lived side by side in peaceful and allied coexistence, had Lincoln allowed it. New Englanders argued that scenario in the early 1800s when they were discussing secession themselves.

Hal

[unionblue]

Hal,

I have heard this argument before, that slavery was dying out and there was no reason for the war. At one time I considered this idea, but have found out to my satisfaction it is wistful thinking and not fact. If you look at the numbers and research it, slavery wasn't dying out and it was not being given up as an institution by the South, it was bent on expansion.

And again, I find it curious that an unsuccessful talked about attempt (and that is being kind) at secession by New England, opposed overwhelmingly by the South at the time, who cared not one whit if New England was going to be nice as a separated part of the country, has any merit whatsoever in justifying the South's attempt in 1861.

YMOS,
Unionblue

[hawglips]

I have heard this argument before, that slavery was dying out and there was no reason for the war.

Neil, this sounds like you are saying that combating slavery had something to do with that war!?

Are you serious, or is this a Freudian slip, or what?

If you look at the numbers and research it, slavery wasn't dying out and it was not being given up as an institution by the South, it was bent on expansion.

I think if you research it, you'll find that it was dying out from the North southward. Of course, I'm sure that you could come up with various theories to explain why slavery was dwindling the further north you went.

What are your accepted reasons for that phenomenon?

And again, I find it curious that an unsuccessful talked about attempt (and that is being kind) at secession by New England, opposed overwhelmingly by the South at the time, who cared not one whit if New England was going to be nice as a separated part of the country, has any merit whatsoever in justifying the South's attempt in 1861.

There is no need for any New England secessionist talk at all to justify the South's actions in 1860-1861. There is justification aplenty in the Constitution. The various New England secessionist movements merely show that the concept was neither novel nor radical in 1861.

Hal

[johan_steele]

Vice President of the CSA Alexander Stephens explained the purpose of the CSA quite well. "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its cornerstone rests, upon the great TRUTH that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery is his natural and normal condition."

This coming from the Vice President of the CSA in 1863 shortly after the Emancipation Proclomation, IIRC.

Slavery was not on the slide in the South, especially not when the men who controlled the nation spoke such. The slave holders had the money, power and political influence to keep slavery alive for the forseeable future.

Abraham Lincoln stated in 1858 that "... this govt cannot endure, permenantly half slave and half free."

"Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the coarse of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well aqs new, North as well as South."

[unionblue]

Hal,

What I am saying is that slavery was the cause of the war, the South's desire to protect it, expand it, even at the expense of 'States Rights' which it was happy to trample on when it concerned the preservation of slavery. The South left the Union over slavery. The North went to war to preserve the Union.

I have researched why slavery was not going anywhere and that it was not going to 'die out' in the South anytime soon, like a hundred more years. Two billion dollars in property is one, the other is the expansion sought by the South to create more slave states where the institution would be protected and encouraged and the expansion of the cotton crop west of the Mississippi.

Where do you get your ideas that slavery was on the decline in the South? Any research or documentation to point me at? I will agree that slavery was dead or dying in the North, to include some of the border states. But not in the deep South where the numbers of slaves were highest.

As for their being justification in the Constitution for secession, the word is not even mentioned in the document. And I find the actions of those in New England showing to all to talk about a thing is not to do a thing. Rather the concept had no value then and could not be taken seriously nor executed because is was considered as an unviable option.

Until that time,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Friends,

Found another 'What if' scenario by none other than some of this boards favorite Historical author, James M. McPherson.

Professor McPherson writes a possible outcome of Confederate victory in September of 1862. In his version the lost orders (Special Order 191) were NOT lost. Union General McClellan had no idea on General Lee's movements into Maryland and Pennsylvania. Rebel forces capture huge mountains of supplies and, more importantly, shoes for its hungry and ill-clothed army. By marching through the rich farm lands of Pennsylvania, the Army of Northern Virginia eats better than it ever did in the field.

By the time McClellan gets his army moving, Lee and his generals find a strategic town called Gettysburg and decide to fight the Union army there, digging in on the high ground on Cemetery hill, Cemetery Ridge and Little Round Top.

Union forces, who have been exhausted by long marches to catch up to Lee, attack from Seminary Ridge through the Peach Orchard and Wheat Field and are repulsed with huge loses. McClellan tries to rally his disorganized troops by leading from the front and is struck by a minie ball in the head and is killed instantly. Upon hearing the news that their beloved General is dead, the entire Army of the Potomac melts away with thousands captured or on the run. Lee marches from Gettysburg to Baltimore and captures that city and plans to march to Washington, not to attack, but to lay siege to it, but after the Congressional elections.

Lincoln upon hearing the news of the Gettysburg defeat is heard to say, "My God! My God! What will the country say?" The country speaks loud and clear and in the Congressional elections by voting a majority of Democrats in the House, having the peace wing taking full control of that party. As soon as these election results are known, Lord Lyons, presents Secretary of State Seward with an offer signed by the governments of Great Britain, France, Russia, and Austria-Hungary to mediate an end to the war on the basis of separation. At first Seward refuses saying the Union will fight on, but backs down when Lyons informs him that if that is the case, then his nation and all the others will simply recognize the Confederacy as a separate and independent nation.

On New Year's Day, 1863, Lincoln calls Republican Congressional leaders and State governors to the White House and concedes that the country can no longer be reunited by force and that he will accept the Confederate's offer of an armistice and will accept the good offices of foreign powers for mediation.

Submitted for your consideration, a very possible might-have-been.

YMOS,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on December 30, 2003)

[thea_447]

Wow! I love this scenario, Neil! No more war, no more bloodshed.

By the way, this is completely off the topic, but I've been looking at the number of posts each poster has accumulated. And I'm puzzled on why you are not a Brigadier General, sir? You certainly have the posts to have achieved such a ranking. And I would like to know how the official rankings work for everyone. It's always nice to think we've moved up on merit.

In my estimation you've certainly deserved the move up for some time.

YMOS,

[johan_steele]

I was under the impression only mods were officers... frankly, I have too much self respect to be an officer. ;) I come from too long a line of enlisted men, wouldn't want to break the tradition.
THea, I think you're right... Neil does deserve a promotion. Sgt Major? If you want to see a LT or Captain squirm, put him in the presence of a Sgt Major for a little while.

There is just one minor problem w/ the thoery put forward by Mr. Mcpehrson... the western theatre. At that point there had still not been a real victory in the west for the CSA. Goes further to prove my point that historians continue to forget where the war was won.

The average western troops marched further, fought more battles, won true strategic victories and were altogether more feared and despised than their compatriots in the AoP. Some to do w/ their liberal foraging policies and more to do with their winning the war. The real reason for the hatred for them by the South, IMHO.

[unionblue]

Thea,

Thank you for your interest in my 'What if' post above and your concerns over my board 'promotion' but it takes 2,000+ posts to move up to the next rank, which Shane has indicated will be Sergeant Major, an honorable rank for a former enlisted man!

(Just 603 post to go!)

Until next time,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on January 03, 2004)

[hawglips]

Neil: "Where do you get your ideas that slavery was on the decline in the South? Any research or documentation to point me at? I will agree that slavery was dead or dying in the North, to include some of the border states.

You just answered your own question.

Many forced union advocates are quick to point out the correlation between slave population density and latitude as it relates to secession, but slow to note that same correlation when discussing the relentless march of slavery's demise in the States.

Neil: "What I am saying is that slavery was the cause of the war, the South's desire to protect it, expand it, even at the expense of 'States Rights' which it was happy to trample on when it concerned the preservation of slavery. The South left the Union over slavery. The North went to war to preserve the Union."

Several unfortunate problems here.

1) The cause of the war, and the cause of any particular State's secession are two very different things.
2) You also seem to be making an assumption that it is a question of choosing between "states rights" and "slavery" as the cause of either the war or the various secessions. That mindset is much too narrow for my tastes, and leaves too many questions unanswered.
3) "The South" did not act as a block. Nor were their attitudes towards secession the same. Nor were their stated reasons for seceding nor their interests concerning secession. Referring to secession as if "the South" were unified in that regard is very misleading and results in building a discussion without a foundation.
4) "The North" did not go to war to "preserve the Union." Lincoln said this was his reason for forcing union, though he was effectively gutting the heart of the Union in order to save the shell. And the people of the North were not generally in favor of forcing Lincoln's idea of union, prior to Sumter.

I see by your comments that the chasm separating us is a very deep and wide one.

Shane: Vice President of the CSA Alexander Stephens explained the purpose of the CSA quite well. "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its cornerstone rests, upon the great TRUTH that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery is his natural and normal condition."

Have you read the rest of Stephens' Cornerstone speech? If so, what else did you notice? How about the CSA Constitution which the speech was about? Any comments on that?

Any discussion of particular comments made in that speech must be addressed in that context. Let me know if you have read the entire speech and have studied the changes rendered in the CSA constitution of which he was speaking, and then I can respond with less concern about the efficacy of my response. (I am not at all trying to be condescending, but merely to establish a common point of reference.)

Also, would you elevate a VP or a Secretary of State in the Lincoln or Jackson administration to the same level you are elevating Stephens? I would suspect you would object to me citing a comment from Johnson or Calhoun, out of context at that, and holding their words up as an explanation of the "purpose" of the USA's government.

Shane: Slavery was not on the slide in the South, especially not when the men who controlled the nation spoke such. The slave holders had the money, power and political influence to keep slavery alive for the forseeable future.

I think you should look at the history of slavery's slide and its condition in all our areas it had existed.

And before assigning too much power or control to officers of the provisional CSA government, remember that 3/4 of the population of the slave states existed outside of those states that seceded prior to Lincoln's call for troops.

Hal