What if the Confederacy had won the War?

[johan_steele]

Hal, can you point to a single member of the CSA Congress who were not slave holders? There were several, but they were certainly a minority. Over the years I have read several referneces that fully 80% of the general officers in the CSA owned slaves while less than 10% of the rank and file did. Frankly I always thought that was too high but I admit to not knowing for certain.

As to Stephens speech, yes I did read it in it's entirety, but will admit that it was several years ago and that I was quoting from my notes on the CSA response to the Emancipation Proclomation.

As to Stephens position w/in the CSA I would actually suggest he held more power than Johnson did until Lincoln was assasinated. I admit that this is only an opinion. It may be strange but I still believe that Stephens had a clearer head on his shoulders than Davis ever did.

As to Slavery's slide... it was on the rise in states of the deep south. What would have caused the demise of slavery in the South? It certainly would not have been economic preasures as a slave was still a sound financial investment as late as 1865! Look at the value of the slaves in the South as of 1860 census. In 1860 dollars better than several BILLION dollars is a considerable amount. Now who owned those slaves? The monied class, the most likely to be politically active and politically powerful; the most motivated to keep the institution of slavery aloft. The clergy in the South had found biblical verses that they could use to support the institution of slavery. The advent of the cotton gin, an immense invention, had not forced the decline of slavery, in fact it's efficiency had increased the profitability of slavery. What incentive was there to abolish slavery? Religious leaders of the South supported it, the politicians of the South supported it and the economy certainly supported it. Technology had only increaded the profitability of slavery.

There is also the fact that it was illegal to teach a slave to read. After all, if he doesn't understand the concept of freedom he's far less likely to rebel or rise up against his master. If you take a drive through the old quarter of Charleston today you'll see some rather ornate bits of metalwork on top of many of the old fences. They were placed there during the threat of a slave revolt a few years prior to the Civil War. The idea being to make it impossible to climb the fences and storm houses. Apparently the idea of a slave revolt scared some people from Charleston silly, what would they have thought of a lot of freed slaves? What would the poorer classes have thought about a mass of freemen suddenly vieing for their jobs? Look at the effect in the cities in the north! In effect I think it would have effected the popular vote of the lower classes who wouldn't want the competition of cheap labor.

I am more than willing to admit that John Brown was a real nutbar, his idea of leading the slaves of Virginia into a mass revolt was nuts. And he was properly dealt with. But the Southern gentry seemed convinced that John Brown represented the majority of the north, when in fact he seemed to represent only a minority. The US govt quickly & efficiently suppresed that attempted rebellion and the South applauded it. Yet a scant few years later they didn't expect the North to suppress their considerably larger and considerably more dangerous insurrection? No, they knew what their actions would result in, they just miscalculated; badly I might add.

It can be argued that the Davis administration knew perfecly well what Lincolns reaction to the capture of Ft Sumter would be. THey expected him to call up troops to suppress the rebellion and when he did other states would join their Confederacy... they were right.

I don't know if it can really even be argued that if the CSA had perservered that slavery would not have continued well into the 20th Century. I think it would have taken a agricultural disaster of truly biblical proportions to even dent the profitability of the institution. What incentive was there to abolish slavery?

[unionblue]

Hal,

I did not answer my own question, I was asking you a question, what do you base your reasoning on that slavery was in decline in the South in numbers and as an institution?

And no, THE reason for the States that initially left the Union was the one on protecting slavery. Don't make a clear reason stated by those very States obscure by saying it was more complicated than that. It wasn't. As for the idea that the South was not a solid block, I agree with you on this point. Hence the need of the Deep South to draw the rest of the South into rebellion by firing on Ft. Sumter and short-circuiting any chance at a peaceful solution.

I do tend to agree with you on the idea that the North wasn't hot to trot on keeping the Deep South within the Union, until the firing on Ft. Sumter. Then the idea of maintaining/preserving the Union and the rule of law came into full swing, just like Senator Toombs said it would if the South was the first to fire on Ft. Sumter.

Slavery was the spark, the main issue, the main reason there was so much agitation and strife between the North and the South. As General Gorden said, it was the tallest tree in the forest and the one that attracted the most lightning.

YMOS,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Friends,

Some more sites on the inter net that deal with the 'What if' the South had won the war.

The first site is one in which many views are listed and should be fun to read.

http://www.sayersnet.com/~dusty/csawon.htm

This site is the view of one who has a vision of a South victorious.

http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/030109wl.asp

This site is a review of a film made about a modern-day Confederacy entitled, "One Nation, Under God, CSA." This one may bite a little.

http://www.ljworld.com/section/arts/story/122602

The last is an Alternate History site listing not only various Civil War themes, but others. Enjoy it:

http://users.metro2000.net/~stabbott/AH.htm

Hope you enjoy them,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on January 06, 2004)

[hawglips]

Shane: "As to Stephens speech, yes I did read it in it's entirety, but will admit that it was several years ago and that I was quoting from my notes on the CSA response to the Emancipation Proclomation."

Since you brought up the speech, I would suggest a refresher read, and furthermore, to carefully review the newly adopted CSA Constitution (whose changes from the old one his speech is about).

By the way, I consider a study of the CSA's constitution to be very rewarding. It speaks volumes. I would so very much enjoy a meaningful discussion of it.

Shane: "As to Slavery's slide... it was on the rise in states of the deep south. What would have caused the demise of slavery in the South?"

It was NOT on the rise in most of the slave states. It's north to south demise was proceeding in spite of decades of efforts to protect it.

Neil: "As General Gorden said, [slavery] was the tallest tree in the forest and the one that attracted the most lightning."

Slavery was surely the tallest tree in the forest, but only one of many; each of which sprang from a common soil.

And though I'm having difficulty persuading you to discuss it, I see evidence of your knowledge of that forest's origins.

Hal

P.S. Ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to bring to your attention my promotion from cadet to private.


(Message edited by hawglips on January 06, 2004)

[unionblue]

Dear Hal,

Congratulations on your recent promotion! It bodes well for this board and its members that you frequent this talk board enough with your points of view and historical research. Welcome, Private, and may you gain even more, swift, promotions at this board.

Now Hal, to the matter at hand, you have twice said slavery was NOT on the rise in most of the slave states. What do you base this conclusion on?

As for your difficulty in persuading me to discuss the 'forest's origins' I feel this difficulty might be 'rooted' in the fact of the modern-day 'fertilizer' being applied to cover up the original 'soil' of the forest.

But be assured, I wish to discuss, to learn and to understand, but no smoke or mirrors please, as Jack Webb used to say, 'Just the facts, please.'

YMOS,
Unionblue

[thea_447]

Neil:
For the first site: http://www.sayersnet.com/~dusty/csawon.htm
I enjoyed reading that one, warts and all.

For the: http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/030109wl.asp

I got: You have requested a page that does not exist on the following site.

www.freecongress.org

The 3rd: http://www.ljworld.com/section/arts/story/122602 was silly.

And as soon as Martin Sheen is brought into it, you've even lost the satirical bit and made it into something hateful. Wonder if he managed to get arrested somehow for this one?

[hawglips]

...would not a peaceful separation, not as a military necessity, but as a triumph of reason, order, law, liberty, morality, and religion, over passion, pride, prejudice, hatred, disorder, and the force of the mob, be a far wiser and more desirable solution of the problem that such scenes as will result from a purely sectional warfare, (result as it may,) and from which the heart sickens, and the soil recoils with horror?

....In five years from this time the remaining United States would be stronger and more powerful than the thirty-four States were six months ago--and you will have a Government permanent and enduring for all time to come, to which all who seek an asylum from oppression may resort hereafter.

I will not undertake to speculate on the experiment of a Southern Republic;--my opinion on that subject are well defined, and too well understood to make it necessary that they should be canvassed here. Let it be tried, and let it work out its own salvation.

Jno. M. Bott
April 19, 1861

[hawglips]

Neil: As for your difficulty in persuading me to discuss the 'forest's origins' I feel this difficulty might be 'rooted' in the fact of the modern-day 'fertilizer' being applied to cover up the original 'soil' of the forest.

One can chop down the tallest tree, and burn the entire forest, but the soil remains as it was.

Should we not examine the soil from which the forest sprang?

Neil: Now Hal, to the matter at hand, you have twice said slavery was NOT on the rise in most of the slave states. What do you base this conclusion on?

Do you agree that slavery once existed in each of the original 13? Why did slavery not exist in those States furthest north by 1860? What happened to make it so? And why was slavery more entrenched in MS or AL than in DE or MD by 1860?

Hal

[johan_steele]

Hal, come on, please don't answer a question w/ another question.

The problem w/ the forest is it is currently growing due to some high factor fertilizer. Yep, I agree we should study the forest from the ground up, but you best bring along a good shovel; and a pair of hip waders might be a good investment.

I can assure you that SC was never New York or Vermont. Never has been, never will be. There are differences in weather, culture, attitudes, speech patterns etc... they were different in 1860 and they are in 2004.

[unionblue]

Hal,

I must agree with Shane on this one, a question with a question? Please Hal, your reasoning on my original question, please?

Sincerely,
Unionblue