Second premise is that an emancipation of southern slaves would have followed Gettysburg is extremely far featched for several reasons. One, Lee wasn't that opposed to slavery and the rest of the southern political and business leadership even lest disposed to ending slavery - why do away with a large part of your wealth and the primary reason for starting the war in the first place? Two, why do something that drastic in the face of complete victory? The south didn't take the step of enlisting and arming slaves until less than a month before Lee surrendered. If they wouldn't take the step when the confederacy faced it's worst crisis then why would they do it on the brink of total victory?
Though the Confederate army didn't enlist/arm slaves until the closing days of the war, Cleburne had proposed it as early as late 1863 or early 1864. There's certainly an open question as to how many troops that might have gained the army in the field, and how soon they might have been fully trained and brought to effective service, as well as what their numbers might have done to a supply system stretched to the breaking point. But as the saddest words of tongue or pen offer, *it might have been....*
The third problem is that the North did not fight the war to end slavery. Churchill is wrong on this. They fought to preserve the Union, and 9 out of 10 Union soldiers would have been highly indignant if you told them otherwise. Slavery as a political aim didn't come about until the last year or so of the war when the 13th Amendment was voted on and Lincoln made it part of the 1864 Republican platform. Freeing the slaves would have not done anything to the Northern will to fight.
Well, it's of course true that Lincoln had no particular taste for bringing the freed blacks into the American society, and considered a number of schemes to find them homes elsewhere, including the Argentine and in African Liberia. But it was certainly a part of the wartime propaganda, and at least given as some claim of the moral superiority of the north-versus-south reason for killing each other. Certainly most Southerners did not believe they were primarily fighting to preserve slavery, but hoped to maintain their way of life and their freedom from interference from Washington.
Finally, nothing is said of bitter feelings after the war. Your side lost and most of you sothron supporters are still pissed about it - why do you think that the North would have been any more adult about it. A confederate victory would have inevitably lead to more fighting between the two countries, more anger and more desire for revenge on one or both sides. Like I said, it wouldn't have prevented a world war, it probably would have hastened it.
I'm not so certain that it was *my side* as I'm a fairly recent resident of the south, though admitedly an enthusiastic one; I believe I'm more Texian than purehearted Memphian, but likely I would have followed the flags of Forrest or Cleburne had the time of my birth come a few dozen years before it did to give me that opportunity, along with my neighbors and friends I might have made in that day. But my observation of the after-the-fact damage is that it was the reconstruction period that really turned most folks in the South bitter enough to pass the hatred down for generations, though Sherman's war crimes certainly didn't help much and more recent hate propaganda from the left and right coast has been producing a fine Southern backlash.
It doesn't hurt to remember that for some 227 years the United States has been an experiment in social living and governance under the constitution that's held it together for all those years. Would it not be particularly ironic if it were the governmental inheritors of that Unionist cause who finally rendered that document's meaning moot, null and void through their twisted interpretations and parsings, until no Americans paid it any account at all, abrogated to a fare-thee-well as it has been? Those Americans of that conflict who fell on its soil, and those of other wars who fell beneath its flag, have good cause to be spinning in their graves.
-archy-/-
Ummm. Vicksburg fell on July 4, 1863 and the battle at Franklin was November 30, 1864. The two aren't related.
Cleburne had proposed it as early as late 1863 or early 1864.
And he was roundly criticized for it and lost his chance for promotion. One of his fellow division commanders described his plan as "offensive to Southern sentiment, Southern pride, and Southern honor." Another one described it as 'propositions that would ruin the efficacy of our army and involve our cause in ruin and disgrace.' Johnston recommended it be vetoed and Davis agreed. The plan went nowhere.
Well, it's of course true that Lincoln had no particular taste for bringing the freed blacks into the American society, and considered a number of schemes to find them homes elsewhere, including the Argentine and in African Liberia.
Lincoln became interested in the idea of colonization by a friend of his, John C. Breckenridge. Lee paid for some of his former slaves to emigrate to Liberia. Would you say that these two southern gentlemen "had no particular taste for bringing the freed blacks into the American society" either?
...that it was the reconstruction period that really turned most folks in the South bitter enough to pass the hatred down for generations...
The Black Codes passed by southern legislators prior to Reconstruction, and the Jim Crow laws passed afterwards indicate that the hatred was there from the get go. Southerners have just shifted the target of their ire from time to time.