New research on Southern policy
I knew about this when I was just a lad..some 45 years ago..my Dad, a Southerner, explained this to me..it's not "startling" or new..
bump for later
Which proves again that the war was never about slavery. But that won't stop the Lincoln idolators from repeating the statement.
I thought this policy was fairly well known.
He gets off on the wrong foot from the get-go in the headline in his search for accuracy. This was not a civil war, but a war between two separate nations. A civil war is a war between opposing factions fought within the same national borders.
Also can be found int he book "April 1865, The month that saved America." A great Civil War book...this is nothing new.
....New book looks at startling Confederate policy during Civil War.....
should be.....
NEW BOOK TELLS SAME BORING STORY OF CONFEDERATE POLICY DURING THE CIVIL WAR
go fly a kite !!!!!
Get me a book about Battlefield Prostitutes and I will read it
This is NOT new information. It has been well known for years and years.
True enough, the Civil War was not solely about slavery. But think of this way: If one subtracts the issue of slavery as the cause for the "irrepressible conflict," what ,then, forced the country to enter into its bloodiest conflict?
General Cleburne bump...
There was no such "policy" merely debate.
War aims change as the prospects for winning or losing change.
The Confederacy was formed to preserve slavery. There wouldn't have been a war if there were no slaves.
By 1864 it was clear to Confederate leaders that they were going to lose the war. Losing meant they would face charges of treason and insurrection--potentially hanging offenses. It is not surprising that these leaders would grasp at any option for evading that fate.
It is also not surprising that few slaves would sign on. By 1864 most slaves could see that the Confederacy was losing. Why would they enlist in a losing cause for a government that had previously enslaved them.
Even losing the war, the South did its best to subjugate Blacks as soon as the reins of power passed back into white supremacist hands after the end of the Reconstruction period.
I don't think this book "proves" the war wasn't over slavery.
Bump for later reading/reply (is it time for the Periodic Thread already? :) )
Maybe up North. I can't remember not knowing.
Levine found that Confederate leaders had been receiving--and rejecting--letters from various Southerners suggesting that they arm the slaves since the very beginning of the war.
But as Levine points out, "the opposition of slave owners was ferocious--even though they were facing defeat and the end of slavery, they would not face those realities. They would not give up their slaves, even to save the Confederate cause itself."
The writer answers his own question.
But then, a quick re-read of the Articles of Confederation would generally answer the question. The thing that drove secession was not slavery per se, but as the Articles made clear, the issue of spreading slavery to new western states.
Lincoln was willing to compromise on slavery where it already existed. He was not willing to allow it to spread any further. The slavers knew that meant the slow-motion strangulation of their system as they became steadily outvoted in congress over the next few decades. So they were unwilling to concede that point either.
That, and the fact that they thought they could win.
So, no, even facing defeat, they were not willing to free their slaves.
> But as Levine points out, "the opposition of slave owners was ferocious--even though they were facing defeat and the end of slavery, they would not face those realities. They would not give up their slaves, even to save the Confederate cause itself."
It doesn't sound like it was a very well supported policy in the South. How can this be proof of anything it it was never carried out (except for a few random individuals)?
"Relatively few people are aware that during the Civil War, Confederate leaders put forth a proposal to arm slaves to fight against the Union in exchange for their freedom."
They are probably also unaware that the Union Army exempted blacks from the draft at first and massive riots broke out targeting blacks in the North.
Before the war was over, both blacks and whites were being forced to either become soldiers or civilians war workers, the blacks at reduced pay.
"Desperate times call for desperate measures." "Lincoln is going to free them anyway, so why not let them die to save our sorry asses"...comes to mind.
Watched "Reconstruction:The Second Civil War" on PBS last night and was surprised about how candid it was about Democrats, North and South, being firmly of one mind on keeping Blacks in 2nd-class status and out of power.
Never really changed, have they?