Pushing for Emancipation split from Compromise and Peace: The Road Not Taken

Mike Griffith

Sergeant
Joined
Jun 22, 2014
What you refer to as "willing" was in most cases, the Union army showing up and forcing emancipation on slave owners. As with so many squarely in the pro slavery camp, the concept of "willing" is not well understood.

Some Southerners began pushing for emancipation in 1862. The fact remains that when push came to shove, most Southerners, including the CSA president and the majority of the Congress, were willing to start emancipation in order to preserve the South's independence.

The Union was "willing" to use blacks as soldiers only after federal casualties began to far exceed anyone's wildest estimates. Until then, even most Republicans doggedly opposed using blacks as combat troops. Even then, Congress waited a year after the enlistment of black troops to grant them equal pay, and this only after William Walker's highly publicized execution put pressure on Congress to act.

No.
1). They believed ANY means of abolishing slavery was not only chaos, but detrimental to their bottom line.

False.

2). This was a real fear with a real foundation, but the effect was an even greater rejection of all things abolition.

Naturally, yes.

3). Let me summarize your position: 700, 000 dead to free slaves is bad, terrible and atrocious, but 700,000 dead for an insult gets the official Mike Griffith seal of approval.

Actually, that was Lincoln and the Radicals' position. As even pro-Lincoln historians have documented, Davis and Toombs had Congressional Democrats ready to vote for the Crittenden Compromise, but nearly all Congressional Republicans refused to support it, even though it gave them 75% of what they claimed they wanted regarding slavery in the territories, removed the financial incentive for federal fugitive slave court judges to rule in favor of slaveholders, and set up a system of compensate emancipation paid for by Congress.
 
Back
Top