Well, they were. There were a growing number of free slaves,,they did not get treated well in all cases, but the numbers were growing.
Secondly, the south had a number of black slave owners at the outbreak of the war.
Lastly, numerous southern freed slaves fought with the confederacy, a fact often glossed over by northern history writers.
It would have taken time, for sure, because the labor force for the plantations had yet to be created and the costs of that would have been sizable and that cost would need to be passed on to the northern mills. Something they were not at all willing to pay.
The war was not about slavery anyway...it was a side issue.
If that were so then why would a few northeastern states seriously consider joining exodus from the federal government, along with the south. It was only federal threat and intimidation that caused them to shelve the idea..
That should be good for about 1200 posts. ;-)
I’ve read that America’s first slave owner was a black man from Virginia named Anthony Johnson. I don’t know if it is true or not, but it is irrelevant to whether or not the south was making any sincere moves toward emancipation - they were not.
Taney’s Dred Scott case ensured that blacks, slave or “free” could never be full citizens and could be impressed at any time. The Fugitive Slave Act ensured that slaves that ran away from their captors to northern “free states” (states that had outlawed slavery) could be hunted down and returned south. The south was doing nothing to ease their way toward emancipation and strenuously pushing back against any attempts of the north to contain the practice.
Yes, slaves supported the war effort - as slaves - mostly hauling supplies and serving as cooks. davis repeatedly rebuffed Lee’s suggestion that they use slaves as soldiers - only relenting in 1864, by which time it was too little, too late.
Slavery figured into every aspect of the conflict between the north and the south, culturally, economically, and ideologically. It was the central issue.