'The South' in its entirety, did not butcher anyone, individual soldiers, using rounds of cannister or grapeshot, minni balls from rifle and musket, shot and shell, and, even the sword and knives did the butchery, troops who were only trying to kill the enemy before the enemy killed them--an enemy who had invaded their borders set on mayhem and destruction.
Of the minority of southerners who owned slaves, it is a pity that the many former slaveowners who freed their slaves of their own volition during that era get no credit. Manumission was a trend gaining popularity even in the South. It is further a pity that the end of slavery (which was coming for economic as well as 'humanitarian' reasons) was not allowed to occur but militarily forced on the region.
New York had already recognized the economic benefits of hiring the incoming immigrants and letting them fend for themselves for food, shelter, and clothing from their wages, whereas an owner had to provide all that and medical care as well, whether the slave was capable of working or not (or lose their investment). It is no wonder the idea of owning your labor force was losing popularity.
This trend was also occuring in much of the south, although the distortions of history will not admit it. The Irish worked at the most hazardous jobs already because slave owners did not want to imperil those for whom they had a vested interest in their welfare.
Abuse was not as historically common as it has been made out to be, either, no more than people will buy a new vehicle and take a hammer to it, and many owners worked beside their few slaves in the field, instead of the popular misconception of sitting on the veranda drinking mint juleps or some such. The lives, fortunes, and welfare of the owners' and slaves' families were intertwined, and I know of at least one instance where the freed slaves requested that they be permitted to take the family's last name as a surname when they were freed. They were, and they did.
'Uncle Tom's Cabin' was, after all, a novel, given to the same sort of sensationalism novels are today. It also served as agitprop for the Abolitionist movement, whose members were as prone to hyperbole as any with a cause also are today.
Human nature has changed little, even if the trappings have.
Many of the owners who had freed their slaves also saw to their rudimentary education, some even gave them gifts of land, but with the military imposition of manumission, this could not occur.
That alone meant that the jobs held by many former slaves were much the same as the ones they had had before they were freed.
There are notable exceptions, George Washington Carver comes to mind, (with whom one of my ancestors exchanged cuttings and correspondance), but many fell by the wayside educationally, and their descendants continue to do so today, many of their own volition. Even with the questionable curriculum of the public school system, it is possible to gain sufficient education to continue on to college, even if the courses are taken at a junior college, even if only one or two a semester until some progress has been made.
I cannot assuage your feelings of anger over the fate of your ancestors, nor will I try.
I would just like to see this nation forego such a conflict again, and a study of all the causes of the war rather than the oversimplified "fought to free the slaves" version would help. If we are to cast history as a kindergardener's fable, we will likely suffer the results of our collective ignorance because we will be unable to avoid pitfalls which should have been obvious otherwise.
free dixie,sw
That's an interesting claim, given that the southern states were putting more and more restrictions on it. In 1857, for example, Louisiana outlawed manumission altogether. South Carolina passed a law in 1820 that gave the sole power of manumission to the state legislature. In Georgia, attempting to free a slave without the approval of the legislature got you a $200 fine. Far from gaining popularity, manumission was in fact seeing more and more legal obstacles placed in front of it.
According to the 1850 and 1860 censuses (censi?), the total number of free blacks increased by just 12% (424K to 476K) while the slave population grew almost 19% (3.2 million to 3.95 million). Then there's the increasing price of slaves over that time, which made emancipation a much less attractive propositon.
Many of the owners who had freed their slaves also saw to their rudimentary education, some even gave them gifts of land, but with the military imposition of manumission, this could not occur.
Most southern states had laws requiring freed slaves to leave the state within six months or face re-enslavement.