Poll: Emancipation

[mandrill]

A couple of points.

1) The Southern economy was based on slavery at that time. Even the local store keeper who owned no slaves was part of and benefited from that economy.

2) As the war progressed, the Southerners were defending their families, homes and properties. If I had lived in the South at that time, I would also take up arms in defense of my family against a brutal invader. (General Sherman was a butcher.)

Sherman wasn't a butcher, so much as a looter. And by the time Sherman was in charge and marchin' through Georgia, the South was falling apart and its armies disintegrating. Sherman's army looted GA because there was no rebel army to oppose it and make it concentrate on fighting.

The CSA armies had pretty high desertion rates. While it's easy nowadays to whip up regional pride by telling the folks how the Rebs whipped the Blues, the South was a pretty big place. Many areas had few slaves and even those that had a significant slave presence rarely saw a Yankee, away from the railroads and river systems where the Yanks ran their supply routes. And yup, in the fertile plantation areas and the ports, the economy was dominated by cotton and the planter class. In the backwoods, you probably never saw a slave and lived off what you grew in the back 40. Your average Southerner was a subsistence farmer up to about 1950.

West VA seceded from the Confederacy because it didn't want to fight for rich planters and throughout other Appalachian areas, there was almost no support for the war. Contrary to popular belief, the hillbillies gave no shit about the Confederacy.

 

[Darts]

Texas was all about slavery. They loved it.

Ok, but it lasted less than 20 years.
"The period of statehood and Anglo-American slavery lasted 20 years and reflects the reason why people identify Texas as having a short slave history."

 

[Valcazar]

Ok, but it lasted less than 20 years.
"The period of statehood and Anglo-American slavery lasted 20 years and reflects the reason why people identify Texas as having a short slave history."

Well yeah, they had it forcibly removed from them by the war.
There is a reason we celebrate Juneteenth.

 

[mandrill]

It's interesting to speculate what the South would have looked like if the North hadn't bothered or had lost.

I am guessing that the South would have eventually "freed" the slaves, perhaps as late as the 1930's. There was ample ideological support for the Blacks being seen as biologically inferior sub humans well into the 20th Century. At that point, I suspect the South would have put into effect a system of apartheid that made South Africa's look tame and gentle by comparison.

 

[mandrill]

Civilians in the north were almost entirely spared the horrors of war other than the lost of loved ones in battle.

Meanwhile, civilians in Vicksburg suffered the horror of bombardment.
Civilians During the Siege of Vicksburg – Mississippians in the Confederate Army (wordpress.com)


Lincoln would probably have been impeached had he lived.
Impeachment of Abraham Lincoln (Dixie Forever) | Alternative History | Fandom
Abraham Lincoln 'Impeached.' Wait, What? : NPR

Lincoln impeached?.... Darts, what are you smoking?!...

He had just won a smashing electoral victory a few months before he was shot.

 

[Darts]

Lincoln impeached?.... Darts, what are you smoking?!...

He had just won a smashing electoral victory a few months before he was shot.

The reasons are in the links posted.

 

[oil&gas]

Lincoln might have come down in history as truly
the greatest of all had he been the leader in charge
of reconstruction and healing of the nation instead
of Andrew Johnson and Ulysses Grant.

 

[Valcazar]

It's interesting to speculate what the South would have looked like if the North hadn't bothered or had lost.

I am guessing that the South would have eventually "freed" the slaves, perhaps as late as the 1930's. There was ample ideological support for the Blacks being seen as biologically inferior sub humans well into the 20th Century. At that point, I suspect the South would have put into effect a system of apartheid that made South Africa's look tame and gentle by comparison.

Look at Jim Crow. After about 8 years, Reconstruction is shut down and the South sets up a rather dramatic system of race/caste controlling what you can do.
The North isn't really doing much better, because they just weren't dependent on slavery, they were still pretty damn racist.

So if the South wins, I think the real question is whether or not the North is prepared to deal with slaves as refugees or not.
I think it might shake out differently whether the North loses/is fought to a standstill versus not bothering with the war in the first place.
And what does that do to Canada? Does Canada become a Confederation without the Civil War? I am not sure that's obvious.

 

[Valcazar]

Lincoln might have come down in history as truly
the greatest of all had he been the leader in charge
of reconstruction and healing of the nation instead
of Andrew Johnson and Ulysses Grant.

Lincoln's assassination screwing up reconstruction is probably a major inflection point.
Mind you, he was more moderate than the Radical Republicans. But Johnson ended up being even further over into shutting Reconstruction down.
Would a smoother, more moderate path with Lincoln's political skills have meant that Reconstruction ended up more stable and workable so it doesn't peter out under constant assault a decade or so later?
So much during that time was so hotly contested that it is really hard to say for sure nothing would have changed.

 

[mandrill]

Lincoln's assassination screwing up reconstruction is probably a major inflection point.
Mind you, he was more moderate than the Radical Republicans. But Johnson ended up being even further over into shutting Reconstruction down.
Would a smoother, more moderate path with Lincoln's political skills have meant that Reconstruction ended up more stable and workable so it doesn't peter out under constant assault a decade or so later?
So much during that time was so hotly contested that it is really hard to say for sure nothing would have changed.

Lincoln had already used major force on the South. One could argue that he would do so again.

OTOH, were any of the moderate Republicans really hardcore anti slavery to begin with and willing to risk another open conflict with the South in the 1870's to make Reconstruction stick?

 

[Darts]

Look at Jim Crow. After about 8 years, Reconstruction is shut down and the South sets up a rather dramatic system of race/caste controlling what you can do.

And Lincoln had no post-emancipation plan. Or, did he?

 

[mandrill]

Look at Jim Crow. After about 8 years, Reconstruction is shut down and the South sets up a rather dramatic system of race/caste controlling what you can do.
The North isn't really doing much better, because they just weren't dependent on slavery, they were still pretty damn racist.

So if the South wins, I think the real question is whether or not the North is prepared to deal with slaves as refugees or not.
I think it might shake out differently whether the North loses/is fought to a standstill versus not bothering with the war in the first place.
And what does that do to Canada? Does Canada become a Confederation without the Civil War? I am not sure that's obvious.

Canada confederates at some point, just like Australia. There's a long process of drawing away from "Mother Britain" that begins when the colonies are established and have been stable for 2 or 3 generations and ends vaguely somewhere in the 1960's, when Canada discontinues open immigration from the UK ("our original blood stock") and opts for the point system. In between, there is just gradual, near imperceptible drift marked by indifference on Britain's part and decreasing economic and military dependence on the part of the colonies.

 

[jcpro]

Of course, as far as the Reconstruction goes, what did you people expect? We are talking here about a time when Irish were deemed racially and culturally inferior, Jews were, at best, half people and the immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe just a mob of cheap labor.

 

[Darts]

In between, there is just gradual, near imperceptible drift marked by indifference on Britain's part and decreasing economic and military dependence on the part of the colonies.

Part of the reason, maybe the major reason, is the decline of the U.K. as a superpower. The U.S. dependence on Britain's military, obviously, was immediate.when the Royal Navy stopped protecting American merchant ships.

 

[Valcazar]

Lincoln had already used major force on the South. One could argue that he would do so again.

OTOH, were any of the moderate Republicans really hardcore anti slavery to begin with and willing to risk another open conflict with the South in the 1870's to make Reconstruction stick?

Lincoln did have a plan. The question is how would it change in light of the pushback?
His plan was more moderate than the Radical Republicans, but more aggressive than Johnson's who basically just gave up.
The moderate Republicans weren't hard core - that's why the Radicals are called the Radicals. When Johnson bails, they push even harder. Would Lincoln have been able to thread the needle ?
I sure don't know.
The Radicals also got hamstrung by Grant's corruption. Would Grant have won in 1868 with Lincoln still around?

And Lincoln had no post-emancipation plan. Or, did he?

He did. But we don't know how it would have evolved because he was killed.

Canada confederates at some point, just like Australia. There's a long process of drawing away from "Mother Britain" that begins when the colonies are established and have been stable for 2 or 3 generations and ends vaguely somewhere in the 1960's, when Canada discontinues open immigration from the UK ("our original blood stock") and opts for the point system. In between, there is just gradual, near imperceptible drift marked by indifference on Britain's part and decreasing economic and military dependence on the part of the colonies.

I'm sure we get a Canada eventually, I just don't think it happens in 1867 necessarily without the US staying united.
That's more of a gut feeling though, and I am curious if anyone has looked into how important that actually was.

Of course, as far as the Reconstruction goes, what did you people expect? We are talking here about a time when Irish were deemed racially and culturally inferior, Jews were, at best, half people and the immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe just a mob of cheap labor.

Sure, but none of that guarantees Reconstruction goes the way it does. The immigrant labor issue does have an impact on how much the North wants to deal with it, though, yes.

Part of the reason, maybe the major reason, is the decline of the U.K. as a superpower. The U.S. dependence on Britain's military, obviously, was immediate.when the Royal Navy stopped protecting American merchant ships.

The UK is still pretty much a superpower until WWI though, isn't it?

 

[mandrill]

Part of the reason, maybe the major reason, is the decline of the U.K. as a superpower. The U.S. dependence on Britain's military, obviously, was immediate.when the Royal Navy stopped protecting American merchant ships.

When the US replaces Britain as the #1 global superpower after WW2, the last real reason for Canada, NZ and Australia to remain tied to the UK evaporates. But it would have faded anyway.

As soon as the 60's happen, the economic reasons for Brits to emigrate ends. GB's own economy takes off and wages and standard of living rise to near parity w North America. With no Brit immigration, Canada and Australia have to import those people from somewhere, because both are heavily and continually immigrant dependent for growth and pretty much for survival. With an overwhelming % of new immigrants becoming non British (and by the 80's non European), there is no meaningful connection w GB any more.

 

[mandrill]

I'm sure we get a Canada eventually, I just don't think it happens in 1867 necessarily without the US staying united.
That's more of a gut feeling though, and I am curious if anyone has looked into how important that actually was.

The UK is still pretty much a superpower until WWI though, isn't it?

I'm sure there are literally 100's of PH D theses and CanHist courses on that very point.

An aggressive USA would actually force Canada to stay very close to the UK for protection. There is a large military build-up of UK forces in Canada during the ACW and those chaps are specifically there to kill Americans, if the latter come north.

But nothing happens and the Army of the Potomac disbands and doesn't change direction and head north over the Canadian border. The redcoats go home and the Canadian colonial authorities figure that they can chance going it on their own. So I do not think there is any connection at all between US unity and Canadian confederation.

 

[Darts]

When the US replaces Britain as the #1 global superpower after WW2, the last real reason for Canada, NZ and Australia to remain tied to the UK evaporates. But it would have faded anyway.

Yes, absolutely. The U.S. for obvious reasons was the first to "launch" but has always in some ways maintained a "special relationship" with the U.K. albeit somewhat challenging at times. I think all the English speaking nations will continue to have a unique and friendly relationship.

"Brits, Leave Northern Ireland!"

 

[Darts]

Post-emancipation
Emancipation and Reconstruction | African | Immigration and Relocation in U.S. History | Classroom Materials at the Library of Congress | Library of Congress

 

[Darts]

Texas is the 22nd richest state in the U.S. It might even be even richer if it wasn't part of the union.
This Is the Richest State in the U.S., According to Data | Best Life (bestlifeonline.com)