Civil War History - "What if..." DiscussionsWhat if they had attacked instead of digging in...? What if he was in charge of the army instead...? Did you ever have a "What if..." question, and you weren't sure where to post it? Here's the place to ask these speculative questions!
The Brits promised to free the slaves and thousands of slaves fled plantations to fight for freedom. The slave owners, also known as our founding fathers, would torture and kill everyone of the ex-slaves they could get their hands on.
Appears you have little knowledge in depth of history. Lord Dunmore's proclamation of 1775 is roughly equivalent to and a precedent for Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, so if attacking that is a goal of your's, you are shooting yourself in the foot.
In addition, Dunsmmore only freed those slaves able and willing to bear arms for the British Crown; Lincoln freed all those owned by masters in the rebellious areas not loyal to the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike
Did it influence the world's reaction to getting rid of royalty?
Judging from the millions of Americans who wake up at 3am to watch royalty marry, all the fans of Lady Di, and the incomprehension we had when the IRA said it wanted a Republic and no royalty, no effect at all.
Well, there you go again: a complete non sequitur from current-day TV viewing habits to history two centuries past. Why bother with these far-fetched analogies?
The fact is that the American Revolution is generally seen as leading to an entire wave of revolutions, rebellions, and political struggles throughout the world that led to a vast reduction in royalist power. Did your teachers not mention that to you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike
Our revolution was intwined with slavery. Interesting to note that as women, children and the elderly held down the plantations and Shermans rape, pillage and burn campaign approached- slaves did not join the North.
Hmmmmmmm
Once again showing total ignorance of history. Rape was amazingly rare on Sherman's March by historical standards for conquering armies, and Sherman's army found itself burdened with thousands of escaped slaves as it moved.Sherman was also involved with the resettling of many thousands of escaped slaves along the GA-SC coast at just this time. Apparently you just don't like to see history as it is, and can't be bothered to question the propaganda you are repeating.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Well all your atatements are easily reputed on the web. For example:
This site is dedicated to the memory of all women, known and unknown, white or black, raped or illtreated during the CW, forgotten victims of a not so romantic warhttp://hometown.aol.com/cwrapes/page2.htm
The slaves and their families were offered freedom- which would have meant a lot of people. By the 1830's all the slaves would have been freed without a shot being fired with or without the revolution- had we stuck with England.
Unlike the ante-bellum slaveocracy of the south, most revisionists, today. seem unaware (or won't admit it; even to themselves)that the supposed superiority of southern society was based on the assumption that the only freedom worth having, had to be based on slavery.
Well all your atatements are easily reputed on the web. For example:
This site is dedicated to the memory of all women, known and unknown, white or black, raped or illtreated during the CW, forgotten victims of a not so romantic warhttp://hometown.aol.com/cwrapes/page2.htm
Was your education so bad that you actually think saying "reputed on the web" means something sensible? Did you even bother to fully read and think about what I said before responding in this fashion?
No one denied people were raped during the Civil War. I merely pointed out to you that the incidence of rape reported for Sherman's army was quite low by historical standards for similar events. It was also low for Civil War armies, largely because of the caliber of troops being used (Sherman purged his force of the sick and undesirable before leaving Atlanta; almost all the troops involved were veteran volunteers from 1861-62, many of whom had re-enlisted when their terms inspired.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike
The slaves and their families were offered freedom- which would have meant a lot of people. By the 1830's all the slaves would have been freed without a shot being fired with or without the revolution- had we stuck with England.
Since the British abolished slavery in India in 1843 (and indenture in 1860), I am sure you'll forgive a little skepticism from the rest of us.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
And while you might not think the UK moved to ban slavery worldwide long before us the facts tell a different story:
The Slave Trade Act was passed by the British Parliament on 25 March1807, making the slave trade illegal throughout the British Empire. The Act imposed a fine of £100 for every slave found aboard a British ship.
Such a law was bound to be eventually passed, given the increasingly powerful abolitionist movement. The timing might have been connected with the Napoleonic Wars raging at the time. At a time when Napoleon took the retrograde decision to revive slavery which was abolished during the French Revolution and to send his troops to re-enslave the black people in the French Caribbean Islands, the British prohibition of the slave trade gave the British Empire the high moral ground.
The act's intention was to entirely outlaw the slave trade within the British Empire, but the trade continued and captains in danger of being caught by the Royal Navy would often throw slaves into the sea to reduce the fine. In 1827, Britain declared that participation in the slave trade was piracy and punishable by death. Between 1808 and 1860, the West Africa Squadron seized approximately 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans who were aboard.[3] Action was also taken against African leaders who refused to agree to British treaties to outlaw the trade, for example against "the usurping King of Lagos", deposed in 1851. Anti-slavery treaties were signed with over 50 African rulers.[4]
Slavery Abolition Act 1833
Main article: Slavery Abolition Act 1833
After the 1807 act, slaves were still held, though not sold, within the British Empire. In the 1820s, the abolitionist movement again became active, this time campaigning against the institution of slavery itself. The Anti-Slavery Society was founded in 1823. Many of the campaigners were those who had previously campaigned against the slave trade.
On 23 August1833, the Slavery Abolition Act outlawed slavery in the British colonies. On 1 August1834, all slaves in the British Empire were emancipated, but still indentured to their former owners in an apprenticeship system which was finally abolished in 1838. $20 million was paid in compensation to plantation owners in the Caribbean though the slaves received nothing.
Campaigning after the act
From 1839, the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society worked to outlaw slavery in other countries and to pressure the government to help enforce the suppression of the slave trade by declaring slave traderspirates and pursuing them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism
It seems to me a "what if " scenario should take into account what happened in reality AFTER the war. Since the South would have honored all treaties signed with the Indians, would there have still been an Indian War? If the South had kept its slaves- would the drought or depression after the war had ended it? If the UK was outlawing slavery worldwide, would they have put pressure on the South to leave? Would the South have run illegal arms and money to Europe during World War 1 as Wilson and Edith did in the North? Or would the South have sat out the war?
Instead we get what ifs based on wishful thinking. Boy, if only Lincoln had lived, Reconstruction would have worked! Etc, etc.......
Sigh. No one denies that Britain was a leader in the banning of the slave trade, and all of this has been discussed on this Forum in the past to one extent or another. Truth remains. It was only in 1843 that Britain exerted its' control over the East India Company and ended slavery in India; it was in 1860 that they ended indenture there. This is a well-known and easily documented fact; you can probably find it on the wiki sites you are using as references.
Ending slavery was a gradual process. It was ended under the law in England by court decision in 1772, but not in Scotland until 1776. Even then some Scot coal miners were kept in bondage as serfs until 1799. Several American states had outlawed slavery before that 1799 date -- and every state North of the Mason-Dixon Line had abolished slavery BEFORE the British got around to outlawing it in the British Empire in 1833 (the slaves being converted to "indentured apprentices".) The apprentice system was outlawed in 1838. It was after this that they turned their attention to the East India Company and ending these same practices in India.
All of which is just to point out to you that real life and real history is much more involved and complex, much murkier, than you seem to wish to see. Skimming the web to find a few superficial sources proves nothing at all unless you, yourself, invest the time and effort to understand the events in detail and challenge your own assumptions to find truth. On the basis of what you post here, it appears you never do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike
It seems to me a "what if " scenario should take into account what happened in reality AFTER the war.
So?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike
Since the South would have honored all treaties signed with the Indians, would there have still been an Indian War?
Americans from every state in the US violated treaties with the Indian tribes before, after, and during the American Civil War. (Indians did as well, but in general they had a lot of reason to complain about their treatment.) If you think not, explain the eviction of the tribes along the "Trail of Tears" before the Civil War for us, or how the Seminoles of Florida ended up West of the Mississippi.
Oh, yeah: Charleston, SC was largely founded by British planters forced out of Barbados by overcrowding, about 1670. For the first 50 years or so, they made a business out of shipping captured Indians out to the Carribean as slaves (more Indian slaves exported by them then African slaves imported to all of the American colonies for several decades).
The man who was planning to sell Apache and children as slaves to defray his costs in slaughtering their parents in 1862, the Confederate military governor of that territory, was then elected to the 2nd Confederate Congress in 1863.
There is absolutely nothing in the historical record to lead you to a conclusion that they would have kept their treaties with Indian nations any better or differently than the US did, and much to lead you to the conclusion they would not. Yet you stridently proclaim that they would. This is why you are not taken seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike
If the South had kept its slaves- would the drought or depression after the war had ended it?
You would have to explain what drought or depression you are referring to before anyone could answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike
If the UK was outlawing slavery worldwide, would they have put pressure on the South to leave?
The UK could not outlaw slavery in other countries, although it did make efforts to bribe and pressure other countries into doing so within their own borders. The results of the American Civil War and the rise of the Republican Party in the late 1850s had positive effects in hastening the end of the Atlantic slave trade and slavery in Brasil and Cuba. We have definite indications that many Southern leaders in 1860 desired to expand slavery into Mexico and other areas, and to re-open the Atlantic slave trade (not a solid majority, but certainly many influential Southern politicians in 1860 did). Given that, the probable conclusion would be that a newly independent and triumphant Confederacy would be more likely to delay the end of slavery, not end it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike
Would the South have run illegal arms and money to Europe during World War 1 as Wilson and Edith did in the North? Or would the South have sat out the war?
What makes you think the arms trade to the Allies was illegal? What American law or treaty was being violated? If you know of none, please post a retraction to the above.
While we're at it, what exactly is your grudge against Woodrow Wilson, and why are you so insistent upon introducing it into discussions of the American Civil War?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike
Instead we get what ifs based on wishful thinking. Boy, if only Lincoln had lived, Reconstruction would have worked! Etc, etc.......
Rubbish.
LOL. Reconstruction would have been different if Lincoln had lived, and that can be asserted as a reasonable conclusion.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
The UK treated ALL slave ships as pirate ships and that crippled the trade. That would have continued and hit any ships North or South that tried to bring back slavery here.
The 1860 date is still before our Civil War.
There is absolutely no reason to think that the man who shut down newspapers, arrested without charges reporters, fired on unarmed peace marches, ordered the killing of Jeff Davis and his cabinet, allowed the abuses of Camp Douglas would have suddenly discovered the Bill of Rights. He was a thug.
Footnote on Wilson: There would be no Wilson and his wife without Lincoln. Once the President could do things without the legislative or judicial branches as Lincoln could (West Virginia anyone?, The Emancipation Proclamation), then the door was opened. Once the Federal Government came before the states, the dream was over.
The use of civilian cruise and tour ships to run weapons and money was a war crime. It took decades to find out the real reasons the Lusitania was sunk.
Using civilians to hide weapons or as cover for warfare is as "war crime" as you can get.
People do ask me why I think the Treaty Of Versailles (the other "reconsruction" that failed) led to Hitler and 70 million dead in World War 2. How that war led to the Cold War and turning 200 million over to Stalin.
Which led to Korea and Vietnam.
I have a gestalht view of history, and do not think we arrived at the dismal point we are now by accident. No Lincoln - no future wars that we either coax into happening or invent the causes for.
Speaking from the "gestalht view of history" then, it can be reliably proved that without slavery, there would have been no secession and without secession there would have been no war. I can accept that.
Footnote on Wilson: There would be no Wilson and his wife without Lincoln. Once the President could do things without the legislative or judicial branches as Lincoln could (West Virginia anyone?, The Emancipation Proclamation), then the door was opened. Once the Federal Government came before the states, the dream was over.
Please come back to Earth.
Would you like to explain to us, for example, how President Andrew Jackson was able to ignore a Supreme Court decision and evict the Cherokee and other tribes more than twenty years before Lincoln came to office, then?
Please stop all these fantasies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike
The use of civilian cruise and tour ships to run weapons and money was a war crime.
Absolutely WRONG. This was completely legal under international law of the day and US law(until the Neutrality Act of 1935 -- twenty years after the Lusitania was sunk).
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike
It took decades to find out the real reasons the Lusitania was sunk.
What in the world are you referring to? The Lusitania was a British liner sunk by a German U-Boat as it approached the British isles. In violation of international law of the time, the U-boat torpedoed her without warning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike
Using civilians to hide weapons or as cover for warfare is as "war crime" as you can get.
Again, ABSOLUTELY WRONG. Shipments aboard the Lusitanis and other British vessels were completely legal in that day and age. All this junk proves is that you have no desire to understand real history, and would rather make it up as you go to suit yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike
People do ask me why I think the Treaty Of Versailles (the other "reconsruction" that failed) led to Hitler and 70 million dead in World War 2. How that war led to the Cold War and turning 200 million over to Stalin.
Which led to Korea and Vietnam.
Strangely enough, people asking you questions proves nothing about the truth or falsehood of what you say. Facts do that -- and it appears you don't like to let them get in the way of your imagination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike
I have a gestalht view of history, and do not think we arrived at the dismal point we are now by accident. No Lincoln - no future wars that we either coax into happening or invent the causes for.
LOL. Before Lincoln became President, we fought two major wars with Britain, undeclared wars with Spain and France, invaded Mexico to conquer much of her territory, fought another war with the Barbary Pirates, not to mention various Indian wars and a few other scuffles, tussles, and scrapes near and far. Please explain those; are they also somehow because of Lincoln? You really need to get rid of this Lincoln mania and start to actually examine history.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
