Manpower advantage.

[johan_steele]

A prime example of that indecision would be those only wishing to count them for one side, then ignore them on the other........

Any legitimate comparison would include same categories for both sides. As would reflecting black experience for both sides, in that over 40% of blacks in the North were actually enslaved. It's always seemed baffling some wish to downplay that as insignificant. Doubt it was to those 40+%.

I have no doubt black people who were enslaved knew what mattered and which side needed to win for any kind of freedom to prevail. It wasn't the CS. More than 180k black men served and I have watched those men denigrated at every opportunity by one side of the aisle.

The "what about black in the north?" Screed and attempts to put the US in the same vein as the CS is old, really old, which can be traced back to the Lost Cause cult.

We're black people in the north treated badly? Absolutely. Were black people in the south treated badly? Absolutely. But the consistency of the Lost Cause and their modern acolytes to use the knowledge that black people were treated badly elsewhere as an excuse only carries water with the ignorant and Lost Cause acolytes. The slaveocracy and those who support it today always seem interested in shifting responsibility.

The US spent 4 years paying for freedom with blood and treasure. Whereas the CS spent that same amount of time trying to guarantee slavery in perpetuity.

Did black people contribute to the war effort on both sides? No one denies this here. Did one side actually utilize that resource in their military? Yes, while several here minimize their contribution, anywhere, at every opportunity.

The black population made significant contributions to the war effort on both sides. Those who claim otherwise have an ulterior motive.

 

[archieclement]

I have no doubt black people who were enslaved knew what mattered and which side needed to win for any kind of freedom to prevail. It wasn't the CS. More than 180k black men served and I have watched those men denigrated at every opportunity by one side of the aisle.

The "what about black in the north?" Screed and attempts to put the US in the same vein as the CS is old, really old, which can be traced back to the Lost Cause cult.

We're black people in the north treated badly? Absolutely. Were black people in the south treated badly? Absolutely. But the consistency of the Lost Cause and their modern acolytes to use the knowledge that black people were treated badly elsewhere as an excuse only carries water with the ignorant and Lost Cause acolytes. The slaveocracy and those who support it today always seem interested in shifting responsibility.

The US spent 4 years paying for freedom with blood and treasure. Whereas the CS spent that same amount of time trying to guarantee slavery in perpetuity.

Did black people contribute to the war effort on both sides? No one denies this here. Did one side actually utilize that resource in their military? Yes, while several here minimize their contribution, anywhere, at every opportunity.

The black population made significant contributions to the war effort on both sides. Those who claim otherwise have an ulterior motive.

I agree, why both sides should actually be counted...........that's what comparisons do, actually compare the same categories.

I've never quite understand the slave apologists ignoring they existed depending on side. Or continually avoid actually using US in relation to US slavery. Recognizing our history with slavery starts with actually acknowledging both it and whose history "ours" is, the United States.

And certainly anyone taking the position Union states shouldn't be counted as US states in the ACW, would most definitely qualify as Neo-Confederate, giving the Confederacy far more legitimacy then I or most here. As the US certainly didn't by exempting slaves from those states from the EP.

Honestly this seems a bizarre rabbit hole some have took. The OP is comparing manpower to show one sides advantage. It would seem folly to ignore the slavery component to the souths labor manpower. But if you include it in ones sides tally, any actual legitimate comparison would then include it for both, as it certainly existed in both. The difference in significance/proportion to labor forces is reflected by actually providing the numbers.

 

[19thGeorgia]

Just how did the 425K slaves you accredit to the North benefit the North?

The Union armies used slave labor.

 

[damYankee]

The Union armies used slave labor.

Where? In combat zones? The Union couldn't have stopped freed slaves from helping them. As an American, I'm very proud of every freed black and former slave that volunteered to serve in any capacity to save the Union, defeat the rebellion and end slavery, and yes, I had several ancestors who served the CSA.
If I put myself in the position of those recently freed slaves, doesn't matter to me if they escaped by their own efforts or through the efforts of the Union forces, I would hope I had the courage and fire in the belly to follow suit and join the effort.

 

[19thGeorgia]

Where? In combat zones? The Union couldn't have stopped freed slaves from helping them. As an American, I'm very proud of every freed black and former slave that volunteered to serve in any capacity to save the Union, defeat the rebellion and end slavery, and yes, I had several ancestors who served the CSA.
If I put myself in the position of those recently freed slaves, doesn't matter to me if they escaped by their own efforts or through the efforts of the Union forces, I would hope I had the courage and fire in the belly to follow suit and join the effort.

Slave labor at least in Missouri, Kentucky and Tennessee. They also used plenty of contraband labor - paid and unpaid.

"I'm very proud of every freed black and former slave that volunteered to serve in any capacity to save the Union"

Not sure about the voluntary bit.

 

[johan_steele]

Slave labor at least in Missouri, Kentucky and Tennessee. They also used plenty of contraband labor - paid and unpaid.

"I'm very proud of every freed black and former slave that volunteered to serve in any capacity to save the Union"

Not sure about the voluntary bit.

Do you think no black men willingly fought for freedom? Do you believe all USCT men were forcibly conscripted?

 

[19thGeorgia]

Do you think no black men willingly fought for freedom? Do you believe all USCT men were forcibly conscripted?

Yes, there were volunteers, but the line of discussion was primarily about labor. For this most were pressed into service.

 

[johan_steele]

Yes, there were volunteers, but the line of discussion was primarily about labor. For this most were pressed into service.

Have you ever looked at the pay records for labor? It exists and contradicts your train of thought.

 

[damYankee]

I guess I should have qualified my statement, I do have many family connections to both sides of the conflict.
The man in the photograph I use as my avatar is my g g g uncle who survived Gettysburg to take command of the 103rd USCT.
So I apologize if I overstepped

 

[damYankee]

Slave labor at least in Missouri, Kentucky and Tennessee. They also used plenty of contraband labor - paid and unpaid.

"I'm very proud of every freed black and former slave that volunteered to serve in any capacity to save the Union"

Not sure about the voluntary bit.

Missouri, Kentucky were border states that at the outset of the war were claimed by both sides. If you were a slave in 1860-65 and had a chance to join the Union in liberating other slaves would you have sat on your hands or volunteer when the opportunity presented itself?
IMO, the Civil War was the crucible for free blacks and they stood the test well. Did the Union force slaves into service? If you have real evidence please present it.

 

[danny]

Where? In combat zones? The Union couldn't have stopped freed slaves from helping them. As an American, I'm very proud of every freed black and former slave that volunteered to serve in any capacity to save the Union, defeat the rebellion and end slavery, and yes, I had several ancestors who served the CSA.
If I put myself in the position of those recently freed slaves, doesn't matter to me if they escaped by their own efforts or through the efforts of the Union forces, I would hope I had the courage and fire in the belly to follow suit and join the effort.

I believe it to be nigh on to impossible to relate

Your sentiments are worthy indeed, but to label that awful war as a "rebellion" is, I believe, a misnomer.

 

[Old Soldier]

Apparently, there were free blacks in the South, who numbered about 260,000 in 1860. From my research it would appear that the Union made a point of hiring any freed slaves too. There is no indication that slaves were used as such (unpaid labor) by the Union.

 

[danny]

Missouri, Kentucky were border states that at the outset of the war were claimed by both sides. If you were a slave in 1860-65 and had a chance to join the Union in liberating other slaves would you have sat on your hands or volunteer when the opportunity presented itself?
IMO, the Civil War was the crucible for free blacks and they stood the test well. Did the Union force slaves into service? If you have real evidence please present it.

It is difficult to reconcile your stated theoretical question and your personal opinion with the solicitation for real evidence.

 

[19thGeorgia]

Apparently, there were free blacks in the South, who numbered about 260,000 in 1860. From my research it would appear that the Union made a point of hiring any freed slaves too. There is no indication that slaves were used as such (unpaid labor) by the Union.

"Where the necessities of service require it the forced labor of citizens, slaves and even prisoners of war may be employed in the construction of military defenses" -Gen. Henry Halleck, Department of the Missouri, December 4, 1861

"Go at once to Nashville and select sites and give plans and instructions for redoubts to protect the city....The commanding officer will call in slave labor on it." -Gen. Don Carlos Buell, Huntsville, AL, August 6, 1862

"All able-bodied negroes who apply for work at Fort Pickering will be received and put to work by the engineer in charge...the names of owners and slaves registered....no wages will be paid until the courts determine whether the negro be slave or free....loyal masters will recover their slaves and the wages they have earned during their temporary use by the military authorities."
-Gen. William T. Sherman, Memphis, TN, August 8, 1862

"we draft slaves for labor continually" -Gen. Ambrose E. Burnside, Department of the Ohio (encompassing Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Kentucky), June 27, 1863

 

[wausaubob]

The tactical victories won by the Confederacy influenced political opinion. And subsequent to the US Civil War, there were political parties that were more tolerant of ****, if not chattel slavery. Its not unrealistic to think of a temporary political victory by the Confederate tolerant northern Democratic party. But in the normal back and forth variation of US politics, the Republican victory of 1860 was likely to be repeated, probably after one of the next dicennial censuses. Either in 1872 or 1884 one of the northern parties could have campaigned and probably won on a "finish the job" platform. Since the industrial capacity to complete that task was not only undamaged, but growing, the outcome would not have been in doubt for four years, as in the real Civil War.

 

[wausaubob]

The other aspect of US manpower was woman power. This 1866 census publication https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/statistics/1860d-01.pdf lists about 147,000 female employees as hands employed, almost all in northern town and cities. All these women were accustomed to pulling a shift or picking up piece work by 1860. Its a report from the 1860 census. By 1865 the US Quartermaster clothing division was more or less a social welfare agency, providing needed sustenance for the sewing women.
The US did not need the clothing, which often sat in warehouses for years after the war. What's the infantry equivalent, about 20 divisions? In places like Troy, NY or Lowell, MA, it was already accepted by the women to work in light industry to earn a living.

 

[Old Soldier]

The other aspect of US manpower was woman power. This 1866 census publication https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/statistics/1860d-01.pdf lists about 147,000 female employees as hands employed, almost all in northern town and cities. All these women were accustomed to pulling a shift or picking up piece work by 1860. Its a report from the 1860 census. By 1865 the US Quartermaster clothing division was more or less a social welfare agency, providing needed sustenance for the sewing women.
The US did not need the clothing, which often sat in warehouses for years after the war. What's the infantry equivalent, about 20 divisions? In places like Troy, NY or Lowell, MA, it was already accepted by the women to work in light industry to earn a living.

In that day and age, war was NOT for women. However, once the demands for men in uniform grew, someone had to do the work they did and women either stepped up or were recruited to do those jobs. It happens in ALL war situations in an industrialised society. Women were also gainfully employed making cartridges for the war. It happened in the UK during both world wars. (My grandmother could remember having yellow skin from working the local factory that made shells for the artillery filled with TNT in 1917 and 18)
Just one illustration - from U.S. Arsenal at Watertown, Massachusetts