Should the south have set slaves free!

[Luissa]

I went to lecture tonight given by a man about whether or not the south should of freed slaves in order to have them fight for the south. On one hand the Union used 200,000 slaves to fight on their side and they made up 44% of the south population. Then other hand they would have been free and once the war was over they would not longer be slaves for them on their plantation. Then there is also what happened in Haiti.
I of cours em for freeing of the slaves and the union winning! I just thought to change the subject alittle.What do you think?

 

[eots]

oh..definitely we should have enslaved them..in fact maybe its still not to late.....oh shit.. but now they all have guns...never mind...yes I'm glad we set the black man free is what I meant to say

 

[Luissa]

oh..definitely we should have enslaved them..in fact maybe its still not to late.....oh shit.. but now they all have guns...never mind...yes I'm glad we set the black man free is what I meant to say

My question was should the south have set them free to win the war? Maybe I should of worded it better!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The North Raised black regiments but I am not so sure they were all former slaves.

As for the Confederacy they DID use blacks in the military, they used them as construction forces and other support positions. When they were lost in 65 they tried to free them, but that destroyed the whole argument about why they were fighting to begin with.

Politically freeing the slaves would have destroyed the Confederacy. Georgia and several other States would have pulled out of the Confederacy if that were done.

And initially the Union was not fighting for or against slavery. Lincoln was quite clear on the matter. He would have accepted any deal that kept the Union together.

 

[Luissa]

The North Raised black regiments but I am not so sure they were all former slaves.

As for the Confederacy they DID use blacks in the military, they used them as construction forces and other support positions. When they were lost in 65 they tried to free them, but that destroyed the whole argument about why they were fighting to begin with.

Politically freeing the slaves would have destroyed the Confederacy. Georgia and several other States would have pulled out of the Confederacy if that were done.

And initially the Union was not fighting for or against slavery. Lincoln was quite clear on the matter. He would have accepted any deal that kept the Union together.

But they could have won the war with the help of slaves! Jefferson Davis also at one point though about using slaves a year after many editors of southern news papers asked for this. I think you are right about the states pulling out. The south also stated it was not fighting the war over slavery so if that is true why wouldn't they free them for their greater good! I think there was 3 million slaves in the south, with them fighting along side with the south don't you think they would of one.

I also want to ad again I am not for the south winning!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

But they could have won the war with the help of slaves! Jefferson Davis also at one point though about using slaves a year after many editors of southern news papers asked for this. I think you are right about the states pulling out. The south also stated it was not fighting the war over slavery so if that is true why wouldn't they free them for their greater good! I think there was 3 million slaves in the south, with them fighting along side with the south don't you think they would of one.

I also want to ad again I am not for the south winning!

The ENTIRE reason the South left the Union WAS slavery, couched as State's rights. The average southern dirt poor farm would never have fought to preserve slavery, but they would when the Southern Aristocracy described it in terms of somehow denying their State of its freedom to make it's own laws and decisions. And they did. The Southern plantation slave owners RAN the South and di not care one whit what the "people" wanted or needed.

There were only 11 States in the Confederacy, the lose of Georgia and Tennessee would have split the Eastern States from the Western ones. Arkansas would have probably left as well.

There was no chance the South could free the slaves. Arming them was out of the question even as late as winter 1864. No slave owner was ever gonna agree to that. A couple here and there was fine, but arming them in mass was simple to dangerous in the minds of most Southern whites that had lived for years with the fear of black uprisings. Their militia was better then the Norths for that very reason.

Blacks DID fight for the South, some even under arms. BUT in small numbers as armed men. Do not forget the response from the South to Union colored troops was to shoot them if captured armed and shoot their officers, no trial no prisoner status and then to bury them together in a mass grave.

 

[xsited1]

They were never freed. The Democratic Party has been keeping them on the plantation for over a century. The father has been replaced by the government to destroy the family unit, and affirmative action is used to enroll them in a college that is well above their ability to succeed so they'll fail and continue to rely on the government. These are just a couple ways the Democrats keep them subservient.

 

[editec]

I went to lecture tonight given by a man about whether or not the south should of freed slaves in order to have them fight for the south. On one hand the Union used 200,000 slaves to fight on their side and they made up 44% of the south population. Then other hand they would have been free and once the war was over they would not longer be slaves for them on their plantation. Then there is also what happened in Haiti.
I of cours em for freeing of the slaves and the union winning! I just thought to change the subject alittle.What do you think?

One cannot help but wonder how many slaves might have turned those guns on their former owners?

By a show of hands, how many people here, had they been enslaved their whole lives, would willinginly fight for the cause which rebelled for its right to continue enslaving your own people?

Come on ye Sons of the South, weigh in here.

Make a convincing argument that the southern gentlemen treated their slaves so sweetly that those slaves would have willingly died for your noble cause and (of course) for that STATES RIGHTS issue that most of you have convinced yourselves the war was really fought over.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

One cannot help but wonder how many slaves might have turned those guns on their former owners?

By a show of hands, how many people here, had they been enslaved their whole lives, would willinginly fight for the cause which rebelled for its right to continue enslaving your own people?

Come on ye Sons of the South, weigh in here.

Make a convincing argument that the southern gentlemen treated their slaves so sweetly that those slaves would have willingly died for your noble cause and (of course) for that STATES RIGHTS issue that most of you have convinced yourselves the war was really fought over.

It really WAS about States rights. The right to have and keep slaves.

 

[editec]

It really WAS about States rights. The right to have and keep slaves.

Spot on, RGS

 

[Luissa]

One cannot help but wonder how many slaves might have turned those guns on their former owners?

By a show of hands, how many people here, had they been enslaved their whole lives, would willinginly fight for the cause which rebelled for its right to continue enslaving your own people?

Come on ye Sons of the South, weigh in here.

Make a convincing argument that the southern gentlemen treated their slaves so sweetly that those slaves would have willingly died for your noble cause and (of course) for that STATES RIGHTS issue that most of you have convinced yourselves the war was really fought over.

I am not argueing for the south I just wanted to know what people thought! Like I said before I went to a lecture about this subject, thought it was interesting and wanted to know what people thought.
For one of my exams for my class is on the civil war!
I agree with Retired that it was mostly over states rights, the south didn't want to pay taxes for one to the federal government and support the north with it's cash crops. I will have to find the title of the book he was refering to his lecture and I will get back to you, it seemed interesting.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I am not argueing for the south I just wanted to know what people thought! Like I said before I went to a lecture about this subject, thought it was interesting and wanted to know what people thought.
For one of my exams for my class is on the civil war!
I agree with Retired that it was mostly over states rights, the south didn't want to pay taxes for one to the federal government and support the north with it's cash crops. I will have to find the title of the book he was refering to his lecture and I will get back to you, it seemed interesting.

The only State right they were protecting was slavery and it wasn't in jeapordy.

 

[editec]

Luissa, you need to read a tad deeper into this subject if you truly think the South rebelled over something so vague states rights.

What's state's right specifically do you think the Southerners thought they weren't getting, for example?

 

[Luissa]

Luissa, you need to read a tad deeper into this subject if you truly think the South rebelled over something so vague states rights.

What's state's right specifically do you think the Southerners thought they weren't getting, for example?

I don't think that is only reason they rebelled, I think it was the last straw when Lincoln got elected and they felt they would loose some of their state rights including slavery! The north had been in a depression while the south was doing alright with cotton and tobacco, they didn't want to loose their slaves or support the north anymore.

 

[Mad Scientist]

The Constitution allows individual States the right to secede. South Carolina seceded followed by a few others. Lincoln sent Federal troops down to restore order and the Civil War started. (I know that's an oversimplification)
It was never about slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation came about in 1863.
Some people are still upset that the Rebel Flag is seen as a symbol of slavery when in fact it's a symbol of states rights.
I'm not taking sides, just stating facts.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Constitution allows individual States the right to secede. South Carolina seceded followed by a few others. Lincoln sent Federal troops down to restore order and the Civil War started. (I know that's an oversimplification)
It was never about slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation came about in 1863.
Some people are still upset that the Rebel Flag is seen as a symbol of slavery when in fact it's a symbol of states rights.
I'm not taking sides, just stating facts.

Your FACTS are wrong. And the North did not start the shooting, South Carolina did that. In fact Lincoln did not call for troops at all until AFTER South Carolina opened fire on Federal troops and seized a US Fort.

I also suggest you read the articles the States wrote as to why they seceded, most mention Slavery DIRECTLY. As in they withdrew because they were afraid slavery would be outlawe. A problem that was not even a problem. There was no chance at all that slavery would have been outlawed.

The South brought about exactly what they were afraid of by leaving the Union.

 

[Luissa]

Your FACTS are wrong. And the North did not start the shooting, South Carolina did that. In fact Lincoln did not call for troops at all until AFTER South Carolina opened fire on Federal troops and seized a US Fort.

I also suggest you read the articles the States wrote as to why they seceded, most mention Slavery DIRECTLY. As in they withdrew because they were afraid slavery would be outlawe. A problem that was not even a problem. There was no chance at all that slavery would have been outlawed.

The South brought about exactly what they were afraid of by leaving the Union.

It was Fort Sumter. The south did ask Lincoln to withdraw his troop which Lincoln did not do. And you are right about the south doing exactly what they didn't want to be done. And I revise what I said about before it was about slaves and state rights, slavery being a state right. I should have said it was not about slavery to the north. The north couldn't funstion economically at the time and they needed the south because of the depression in the 1850's.

And I might add the south did use black troops at the end of the war but by then it was to late.

 

[editec]

It was Fort Sumter. The south did ask Lincoln to withdraw his troop which Lincoln did not do.

And do you think he should have?

And you are right about the south doing exactly what they didn't want to be done. And I revise what I said about before it was about slaves and state rights, slavery being a state right. I should have said it was not about slavery to the north.

Now ya' got it. to the South it was ALWAYS about slavery. Yes, they had ohter complains but none of them rose to the level of intolerability to drive them to declare war on the Union. People who insist of that being the cause are really just trying to make mountains out of molehills NOW, to elevate that cause into something more noble than it really was.

They are, to anyone who actually studies the issue seriously and in depth, nothing more than historical revisionists. (a descrption which is, to real historians, at least, just a more polite way of saying fucking liars, FYI)

The north couldn't funstion economically at the time and they needed the south because of the depression in the 1850's.

Tell me more about this deperate need the North had, would you?

I mean the North had no problem fielding troops, or paying to conduct this enormously expensive war, so apparently its financial problems weren't all that great.

What help do you think the South was providing to the North that so annoyed the South that they declared war on the Union, exactly?

Be specific, show us the numbers to give your assertion some validity.

And I might add the south did use black troops at the end of the war but by then it was to late.

Yeah, they managed to put some insignificant number of Blacks into the field, I don't doubt that. It is my understanding that a brigage of Blacks from New Orleans took up arms in the cause of the South, for example. But understand they weren't slaves to begin with, and some of them even were slave owners themselves.

Meanwhile, Blacks were streaming into land controlled by the Northern forces by the millions, and hundreds of thousands of Blacks tried to join Nothern forces because they so hated their former masters.

I have read that 186,000 Black soliders ended up fighting for the Union before it was over.