What if the Confederates won the Civil War ?

AngstromStrongbeard

In short, I think things would have been better today if the South had won. I hate slavery and am glad that it is gone, but I think it was abolished in the worst way imaginable.

Well, may I remind you that neither Abraham Lincoln, nor the majority of Northern society that opposed slavery wanted to abolish it in a way it was abolished. It was economically suicidal to begin with, it raised religious and social concerns: would this army of black, ignorant, strange creatures rebel on a mass scale? And so on:

Why I say it raised religious concerns; although Darwin's theory was already known, IT WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND CONSIDERED A FRINGE.

These were not the times of Scientific Racism. These were the times of Religious Racism, if I may say so (I made that term up just now :)

All white people, in the North and especially in the South considered the differences between white and black communities to be DIVINELY ORDAINED. The argument "for" slavery in the South was religious, among others. To equal black people to white in ANY way: was to go against the will of God. We can barely imagine today the importance and depth of religious beliefs in the XIXth Century; in all discussions about the status of black people in society this argument is omitted.

In the slaveholding states the white society lived in extreme proximity to African community for centuries: no, they did not need "time" to "familiarise themselves" with Black people and finally reach a conclusion they are human, just like us. The proximity in which those two communities lived is unheard of for us now: black person would be sleeping IN YOUR ROOM every night, a maid would bathe you, dress you, drive you places, comfort you when you had night tremors, witness your most intimate moments and know most of your secrets. Black: by skin color or status - person could be your surrogate parent, your lover, your child, the object of your affection or hate. A black person would be in your house EVERY DAY. You would see black people much more often than your own family, also living in the same house.

And this would happen FOR GENERATIONS.

So no, the argument of "two communities not being accustomed to each other" is absolutely false: white society knew exactly how "human" or "human-like" if you will their slaves were: yet they chose to mistreat them the way the did regardless. Why?
Because it was God's will, on which "us" - the Southeners - built our society. Violence towards black people was not a "natural" thing of course: it was learned. People were socialised into it since childhood. Being violent towards black people, being able to "subject them" to ones will was a sign of masculinity or good housekeeping for women.

The real question is not how could good, Christian people inflict this dehumanising brutality onto others; the question is how could people do this, yet STILL perceive themselves as good and Christian.

Northern ideas were an attack on tradition, on family structure, on the ENTIRE fabric of society - but predominantly they were an attack on God's will. Violence and supremacy towards black people was something THAT WAS PREACHED IN CHURCHES. This is the reason why the South was absolutely opposed to ANY kind of compromise and threw everything on the line to preserve slavery. In their own eyes they were not only fighting for slavery: they were fighting to preserve an ideal society, the one God wanted people to live in (please not that Africans were not considered people).
There was an economic component to their decision: but as someone already pointed out, this economic, logical component DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY ENTIRE SOUTHERN SOCIETY, NOT ONLY SLAVEHOLDERS JOINED THE SECESSION.

The decision to secede and fight was not only economical, it was ideological and religious as well, if not more.

As a wealth of quotes from Lincoln will attest, the Civil War was not about slavery (at least not at first and never as a primary goal).

This argument, really - makes me sigh. First of all to accept it as true one has to accept that ALL Civil War historians: those teaching in Colleges in Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and Alabama included - are part of some kind of conspiracy to SPEAK WITH ONE VOICE that the cause of the Civil War was indeed slavery.

One could claim with similar authority that upon graduation from ANY History Department one's body is invaded by mind-controlling aliens and you begin to spit out propaganda instead of informed opinion.

Can we just theoretically, for a minute assume that this MAY not be the case? That the army of historians are perhaps on to something?

Isn't it more plausible to agree that yes, the Confederacy LEFT THE UNION because of slavery: but the main motivation of Northern volunteers to join the War effort was not burning desire to end slavery: but TO SAVE THE UNION?

You see where I am going there? Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.

The South reached the conclusion that slavery was more important than the Union: the North reached the conclusion that the Union was more important than slavery.

The South's motivation to secede WAS INDEED slavery, the North's motivation not to let them WAS INDEED the Union. The North would not have pushed for immediate and definitive abolition of slavery HAD THE SOUTH NOT LEFT THE UNION.

Makes sense?

Don't explain with malice what you can explain with stupidity

reply share

add reply

formatting help

The South's last chance to win the war was at Gettysburg.

The only way the south would have had a chance of winning was with foreign support, preferably with military support from either Great Britain or France.

This would have followed the same strategy that the 13 colonies followed in the War of Independence: wear down British troops, prolong the war by all means possible and wait for foreign help.

In 1861, the south hoped for the same strategy, but it failed because of the issue of slavery.

The south handicapped itself from the beginning by the issue of slavery. Even though Great Britain would have loved to settle scores with the USA over previous wars, with GB being the preeminent anti=slavery nation in the world, there was simply no way the British government could be expected to aid the south without appearing staggeringly hypocritical, even more so than usual with governments. A British-south alliance/aid was just not in the books when slavery was the core issue in the south.

Many Americans think the civil war was decided on the battlefield, but lack of participation by European nations in the war determined the outcome as happened.

reply share

add reply

formatting help