Why did the Confederacy wait until the last minute to grant emancipation for military service?

Home Forums History Why did the Confederacy wait until the last minute to grant emancipation for military service?

Viewing 17 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #182278
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why did the Confederacy wait until the last minute to grant emancipation in exchange for military service to any of their slaves?

      There were 3.5 million slaves in the South. Just 1% of that in manpower would have brought Robert E. Lee to roughly equivalent numbers to Grant during the Appomattox Campaign.

    • #182279
      Anonymous
      Guest

      They almost rioted even at that point. Most Southerners would rather lose than free blacks themselves.

      • #182281
        Anonymous
        Guest

        No blacks didn’t care. There were a lot of black soldiers they just didn’t see combat because it was all north.

        • #182283
          Anonymous
          Guest

          The Whites were rioting. And blacks were fighting for the North. You don’t understand history.

          • #182284
            Anonymous
            Guest

            scrotebrain, incoherent reply.

    • #182280
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because the whole point of the war was to stop Haiti 2.0, and giving blacks guns was just accelerating the start of Haiti 2.0. When it came out to the public that blacks would be armed there were mass desertions and what remained of any resolve to resist the Union was extinguished because at this point there was little difference between the Confederacy and Union in policy.

      • #182282
        Anonymous
        Guest

        But the entire civil war was fake. It’s refuted by demographics.
        Blacks didn’t care or do anything nor did anyone. It was literally a nonevent.

      • #182290
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Not just fear of armed uprising, southerners saw themselves as a knightly class defending the established order. They saw themselves as the greatest warriors in history, and that blacks were subhumans too feeble minded for good soldiering. Their entire worldview comes crashing down when they start arming blacks to fight

        • #182291
          Anonymous
          Guest

          The North thought the same way. Hating blacks was universal

          • #182295
            Anonymous
            Guest

            The elites didn’t, and they’re the ones whose opinion matters.

            • #182296
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >The elites didn’t
              Yes anon, everybody hated blacks back then.

              • #182298
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Except for all those pesky abolitionists who were extremely organized and active in the 1850’s.

                […]

                Yes, I understand this, it’s a form of race woke af welfare that gives obscene profits to the well connected, keeps poor whites propped up economically and culturally, and requires continuous expansion in order to maintain. The south wasn’t revolting because Lincoln was coming to take away their slaves, they revolted because he was halting the westward expansion of slavery, and they could see the writing on the wall and knew that it would mean the end of their lifestyles

                • #182299
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Slavery was never profitable. It lost money. You’re literally a scrotebrain.

                  • #182307
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Those weren’t distributed evenly, and that’s the point: it enriches a well connected minority and impoverished the rest. Also, your calculations fail to note the fact that slaves breed more slaves for free (even go breed themselves and sell their own children into slavery), and that they could make a profit selling new slaves to new slave plantations being created out west. It was a giant Ponzi scheme

                    Even abolitionists hated blacks. Most of them were just religious nuts who thought that Jesus would curse them if they let slavery continue. It wasn’t about blacks at all, they could have been arabs or natives.

                    Lies

                    Elaborate on the welfare idea

                    Slavery was being kept alive as a zombie institution that was like the agrarian version of corporate welfare for plantation owners. Meanwhile, anti-slave militias functioned as a type of workfare for poor whites, meaning that no matter how down on their luck they had fallen, they could maintain their lifestyle by grabbing their gun and horse and joining an anti-slave militia and make a respectable fee returning runaway slaves. That’s to say nothing of the middle managers, traders, overseers, and bean counters employed by an industry which overwhelmingly dominated the economy, and the associated tradesmen and service sector jobs benefiting from the stolen wealth funneling into their communities

                    • #182308
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      Can you name one prominent abolitionist that wasn’t a crackpot christian that genuinely wanted to end slavery out of sympathy for blacks that wasn’t some sort of socialist?

                      • #182311
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Yes, I know your impulse is to dismiss them as radical socialists and crackpots. That’s why you’re pulling shit out of your ass

                        You literally didn’t read, slavery was not profitable, it did not generate cash flow. It’s impossible to pay Slaves food and make profit on cotton. But whatever it collapses anyway. It barely lasted any time.

                        You don’t pay the slaves in food, you make them grow their own

                      • #182312
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        So you understand, the only abolitionists that pretended to care about blacks were socialists. Most abolitionists however were religious crackpots that feared retribution from God

                      • #182313
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Abolition was associated with the back to Africa movement.

                      • #182315
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Many people who weren’t abolitionists wanted to ship blacks out of the country, what’s your point? You think they liked blacks?

                      • #182314
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        President John Quincy Adams, Cassius Clay, Elizabeth Van Lew, and John C. Frémont.

                      • #182316
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        What

                      • #182317
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Those are abolitionist who weren’t John Brown-tier schizos.

                      • #182318
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Slavery for Van Buren was purely political, same with Lincoln. They both "supposedly" became radicalized after the Mexican American war because of how much territory it would have given to the South if they didn’t intervene. That’s schizo tier.

                      • #182319
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >allegedly
                        Allegedly you’re still just inventing narratives. In all of Lincoln’s private correspondences he detested slavery and compared it to his childhood spent toiling away on the neighbor’s farm just so his old man could have more beer money

                      • #182321
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >In all of Lincoln’s private correspondences he detested slavery
                        Before or after secession

                      • #182322
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Literally his entire life. He had to moderate himself early in his political career until he realized that there was no point in trying to convince hicks from the backwoods of Illinois of his ideas, and decided that they needed a larger platform

                      • #182323
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >you see he was actually SECRETLY an abolitionist the whole time!
                        Uh huh

                      • #182324
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >the evidence doesn’t exist because I don’t believe that it exists
                        Go read a book

                      • #182325
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        post evidence of him being an abolitionist before being a politician

                      • #182326
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Look, I know that you’re just a pathetic dixiecuck who feels entitled to the sweat of another man’s brow, but I’m not doing your homework for you. Go read a book, go do a google search, all you need is to put in the minimal effort and you can find out for yourself.

                      • #182327
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        post evidence

                      • #182328
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >reeeeee give me your labor scrote!
                        No, fuck off scrotebrain

                      • #182329
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Is it because there is no evidence

                      • #182331
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Nah, you’re just too damn lazy to do your own research and want life spoonfed to you because you have the intellectual and emotional capacity of a toddler

                      • #182332
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Why are you so mad? Are you black?

                      • #182333
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Because your willful stupidity is loathsome and you’re besmirching the honor of a great American because you think everyone deep down is as much a deceitful liar as you are

                      • #182334
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Can you name one instance of Lincoln commenting on slavery negatively before he was a politician?

                      • #182335
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        No, because I’m not close to my bookshelf right now, but even if I was, I already told you that I’m not doing your homework for you. There are endless books written about Lincoln’s life. Go read one

                      • #182336
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >No
                        Then why did you claim to have that knowledge

                      • #182337
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I’m not here for your instant gratification

                      • #182340
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        You’re here to make unfounded statements apparently

                      • #182341
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I can’t fix stupid

                      • #182343
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I guess that means you’ll keep making up bullshit

                      • #182346
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I guess that means you’ll just keep being an entitled dixiecuck demanding everyone else do his bitchwork for him

                    • #182309
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      You literally didn’t read, slavery was not profitable, it did not generate cash flow. It’s impossible to pay Slaves food and make profit on cotton. But whatever it collapses anyway. It barely lasted any time.

                      • #182310
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Actually you did read, you just phrased it differently. You probably could make money purely as a Ponzi scheme aspect where you didn’t actually need slaves.

                • #182300
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Even abolitionists hated blacks. Most of them were just religious nuts who thought that Jesus would curse them if they let slavery continue. It wasn’t about blacks at all, they could have been arabs or natives.

                • #182301
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Elaborate on the welfare idea

                  • #182302
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    White mans burden. Slave owners were lawyers or had real jobs. Agriculture is overwhelmingly unprofitable in monetary terms and as soon as modern farming started it became subsidized. In the past agriculture was funded by other things or was for subsistence.
                    You cannot possibly profit of taxes or something else takes the profit.

              • #182389
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Including the radical republicans? the idea that there was nobody who wasn’t racist is pure ignorance, it was pervasive, but there are also pervasive ideas in society today that will probably seem as awful in a decade, gay rights is one instance.

                • #182392
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Even people that weren’t considered racist in the 1850’s would be considered a huge racist today

                  • #182394
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    a garden gnome hadn’t invented the idea of "racism" yet. Everyone back then would take one look at africa and immediately know whats up.

                    • #182395
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      Exactly my point

    • #182285
      Anonymous
      Guest

      They were worried that arming freed slaves would either lead to slave revolts or just result in them defecting to the north at the first opportunity

    • #182289
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      But the entire civil war was fake. It’s refuted by demographics.
      Blacks didn’t care or do anything nor did anyone. It was literally a nonevent.

      […]

      Are you the same scrotebrain that goes into every other thread claiming that every single historical event was just made up?

      • #182292
        Anonymous
        Guest

        You’re literally a scrotebrain. It’s literally demographically impossible. You’re just a spammer. But I mean you just act scrotebrained for attention and don’t matter.

      • #182303
        Anonymous
        Guest

        He’s a holocaust worshipper trying to discredit holocaust denial by denying every events

      • #182342
        Anonymous
        Guest

        He’s a garden gnome who perpetually seethes about Holocaust denial

      • #182393
        Anonymous
        Guest

        I think its the GDP schizo, has the same types of arguments and graphs

      • #182398
        Anonymous
        Guest
    • #182293
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Supply’s was the problem, not manpower. Same reason Germany didn’t recruit all the Ukrainians.

    • #182294
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Cause their entire raison d’etre was slavery and white supremacy.

    • #182304
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >give slaves guns
      >slaves shoot you and run to Union lines

      The only way this strategy could have worked would have been when the Confederacy still had the upper hand and the blacks had reason to believe they had more to benefit from siding with their masters than siding with their "liberators" (I use quotations because the vast majority of the Union Army were not interested in fighting a war to free the slaves) and requires at least the appearance that their masters are going to win.

      • #182305
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Civil war was fake. Refuted by demographics.

      • #182306
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Slaves were workers, with all the whites off fighting in the war they were needed in the fields more than ever. One of the main worries of plantation owners was that while they were away fighting in the war was that their slaves would hurt their wives and children

        • #182330
          Anonymous
          Guest

          It’s a shame they didn’t, more Nat Turners would have been great.

        • #182338
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Isn’t this the same problem Spartans had with the Helots? Thinking about it, Epaminondas’s solution of freeing and resettling the Helots is pretty similar to how the Union dealt with plantation slaves following the Emancipation Proclamation. Or even how Eumenes of Pergamon promised freedom to slaves that revolted against the Romans.

          Serms like a fatal flaw shared between slave-centric societies.

          • #182339
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Well the South was never supposed to be in total war with the North, the Spartans were a society built around conquest.

            • #182344
              Anonymous
              Guest

              The south required westward expansion just to remain above water. They revolted because Lincoln put his foot down about there being no new slave states.

              Spartans were also really reluctant conquerors because they knew the longer they remained away from their home territory, the more likely a slave revolt became

              • #182347
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >The south required westward expansion
                No it didn’t. I don;’t know where you heard that but it’s wrong

                • #182348
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Haven’t you ever heard of Bleeding Kansas? The Missouri compromise? Have you ever read anything about the election of 1860?

                  • #182349
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >Haven’t you ever heard of Bleeding Kansas
                    WORLD STAAAAAAAAR

                    • #182362
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      that’s not part of bleeding kansas, dipshit

                      • #182364
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        woke af scrotebrain
                        >amerishart knows less about its own history than a foreigner
                        many such cases

                      • #182367
                        Anonymous
                        Guest
                      • #182368
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >foreigner thinks random bits and pieces are all of US history
                        scrote, that happened in Washington DC. Bleeding Kansas was in *Kansas* (and Missouri)

                      • #182370
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        You’re a triple dipshit, I’m legitimately astounded

                        You’re not only pig-ignorant but bat-blind

                      • #182372
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >any room with the word "kansas" in it is in Kansas
                        It was a stupid fight in Washington DC that just happened to take place at the same time, the Southerner didn’t even care about the issue being discussed and was just mad that the guy criticized his cousin for being a piece of shit.

                      • #182401
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >w-well they weren’t physically IN Kansas…
                        lol this is no way to save face, scrotebrain

                  • #182351
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    You said they required expansion, that’s not true.

                    • #182353
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      Intensive agriculture had bonked the southern soil and was driving down crop yields, but southerners were maintaining their lifestyles by acting as middlemen shipping slaves to western territories

                      • #182357
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Cotton yields in the South continued to climb for over 50 years after the Civil War, you have no idea what you’re talking about

                        The South "required" expansion to remain even in terms of delegates in the senate. When the Kansas-Nebraska act was passed, it completely changed this dynamic as states were allowed to decide the issue of slavery by popular sovereignty

                        There was no requirement, expansion of slavery into the territories was protected by the constitution and law. Slavery being free to expand into the territories was expected by all, that’s why free soilers and abolitionists were fringe groups

                      • #182358
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Cotton yields in the South continued to climb for over 50 years after the Civil War,
                        Yeah, it’s almost like they switched to more efficient agricultural techniques than forced labor

                      • #182361
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Tennessee Valley was a devastated wasteland until the 40’s from the Civil War, they just farmed elsewhere.

                      • #182359
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >There was no requirement, expansion of slavery into the territories was protected by the constitution and law.
                        John Breckinridge literally ran on a platform of instituting a federal slave code

                      • #182365
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I looked it up and that just meant he wanted to standardize it for territories before they became states, the old system had the sloppy territorial and local governments handling it all in a semi-official way. New states would still get to decide.

                      • #182377
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >just wanted to standardize it
                        Yeah, standardize territories as slave territories. What’s your empty, disingenuous point here
                        >New states would still get to decide.
                        Yeah, once they’d been overrun with slaveholders and slaves, dominating the small homesteaders and free farmers like they dominated their home states. And if they resisted, there’s always terrorism. The idea was to make ALL territories unattractive and basically unlivable for free-soilers, and keep them from attaining political majority.

                        Popular sovereignty was never about leaving the political future of slavery to an even chance or popular whim. It was a program specifically intended and designed to extend, expand and secure slavery’s influence geographically and politically.

                      • #182360
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Why shouldn’t people have the right to decline to compete against slave labor?

                      • #182363
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >expansion of slavery into the territories was protected by the constitution and law
                        Except this absolutely wasn’t the case after the Kansas-Nebraska act was passed. That’s why there was considerable violence in Kansas to decide the issue of whether it would be a free or slave state.

                      • #182366
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        It allowed for popular sovereignty, for states to choose for themselves if they would be slave states.

                      • #182369
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I see what you’re trying to say, but I would argue against slavery being "protected." The Constitution didn’t protect slavery, the only thing protecting it up to that point was local/state legislation and on a larger scale the Missouri Compromise.

                      • #182371
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Slavery was protected, states could vote to be slave states. Keep in mind this was after Tammany Hall essentially broke the law and claimed California as a free state in 1850 because gold was discovered. (It was supposed to be a slave state by law under the Missouri Compromise). The Kansas Nebraska act actually abolished the protection of northern Louisiana purchase states from slavery and allowed the states there to become slave states if they so chose.

                      • #182373
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Yep, as usual the South got the better end of the deal but still sperged out and claimed victimhood. That whole era was about desperately appeasing those subhuman wiggers but they rebelled anyway.

                      • #182374
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Lincoln was elected because he was going to reverse the Kansas Nebraska act

                      • #182375
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        And the south would still get to keep all their new freaking states, even if the bill passed. There were plenty of political solutions available but they sperged out, and never even asked to be allowed to secede peacefully and just started shooting at us. Bunch of dumb wiggers.

                      • #182376
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        What new states? They gained no new states from the kansas nebraska act, slavery was just kept open as an option in the territories. Minnesota banned slavery and Oregon banned blacks from the state all together.

                      • #182378
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Missouri, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona. Why do they need more? Why is that worth starting a war over when the bill wasn’t even passed yet?

                        Politicians threaten shit they can’t do all the time, if Biden actually did what he said he would we’d be in a civil war right now.

                      • #182379
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        The point is even though the Kansas Nebraska act passed congress ignored Kansas’ admission as a slave state three times. So even though the South basically gained nothing from it the North was still going to refuse to obey it. It wasn’t about slavery at that point

                      • #182380
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        that’s just silly lol

                      • #182381
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        How? Whigs collapsed after the Kansas Nebraska act because they supported slavery but proposed wildly different Federal level economic interference like massive subsidized railroads and steel, basically a ball of corruption. Democrats were a much more popular choice because the economy was doing great, this also meant that slavery’s support was stronger than ever, giving the South quite a big political reach. This caused a power vacuum where the only sort of party that could stand against the Democrats was a sectionalist one (meaning they survived on the differences between the North and the South). The Republican party, and Lincoln’s entire platform (Lincoln being a Whig), was to oppose the burgeoning Southern Democrat powerhouse and to deliver a corrupt government system that would subsidize american industries in the North. They of course accomplished this by strapping dynamite to the dam of slavery, swatting the slavery hornets nest, whatever allegory you want to come up with. Slavery was political, it was used to produce a sectionalist crisis to push corrupt business and and explosively expanding federal government.

                      • #182382
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        too bad they didn’t care enough to just suck it up and let slavery die lol

                      • #182383
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Who?

                    • #182354
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      The South "required" expansion to remain even in terms of delegates in the senate. When the Kansas-Nebraska act was passed, it completely changed this dynamic as states were allowed to decide the issue of slavery by popular sovereignty

                    • #182355
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      This

                      Not that anon but the expansion of free states in the west would inevitably result in Congress being dominated by anti-slavery congressmen.

                      is the simple explanation and the more complicated explanation is the "Ponzi Scheme" where they had to keep selling to scrotebrains who wanted to start plantations in new states to not go bankrupt with a useless system

                  • #182352
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Basically the whole of US politics for the previous 40+ years before the civil war centered around how new territories would handle slavery, when the compromise was broken shit hit the fan fast

                • #182350
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Not that anon but the expansion of free states in the west would inevitably result in Congress being dominated by anti-slavery congressmen.

          • #182397
            Dirk
            Guest

            Aren’t you embarrassed to post pictures like that?

    • #182320
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Hard to do that when your entire rebellion is predicated on slavery.

    • #182345
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because their entire society was predicated on the idea that blacks were a lesser race and would revolt if given the chance. It’s the same reason no Greek city state ever armed their slaves even if enemies were at the gates.

    • #182384
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      First post woke af post.

    • #182385
      Anonymous
      Guest

      scrotes are completely worthless as soldiers. Even worse than the Chinese.

    • #182386
      Anonymous
      Guest

      They were busy trying to get a population that was primarily made up of uneducated, low caste members to assimilate into their culture. What is mostly labeled racism today, is mostly paternalism. The paternalism of the south is hardly different from what the English had with the Scots. They had a duty to take time to educate and insure proper culture, rather than force policy change on the basis of BS geopolitical grounds hidden behind virtue signaling. Even when the yankee got his way the south (negros homeland) was destroyed, many freed blacks died in yankee camps (hundreds of thousands), and then instilled a culture of self hate along the way. The south simply had real foresight. It was also a legal practice at the time.

      Idk

      There was at least one all black volunteer battalion from LA that I know of, that was made up of the wealthier slave owning free black men.

      • #182387
        Anonymous
        Guest

        nobody here denied the south has always loved scrotes and was attempting to turn the entire continent into one giant negro stud farm.

      • #182391
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Idk

      • #182402
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >i-it was a paternal institution ok
        >they were just educating the slaves for hundreds of years so they could free and integrate them
        you’re only embarrassing yourself
        >also they were allowed to
        keep digging

        • #182405
          Anonymous
          Guest

          You’re just a child man. If you really have a base in history you would come down and try to understand what I’m saying. I shouldn’t have to discuss any further details.

          • #182411
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >y-you just don’t understand
            lol I understand Lost Cause bullshit and slavery romanticism perfectly well. You scrotes haven’t had new arguments or takes for the last hundred years, let alone since the last thread where lost cause scrotebrains got their asses crammed. as they do invariably, literally every day on this board

            • #182412
              Anonymous
              Guest

              "Blah blah blah I’m a stupid scrote."
              Okay but why should we care

            • #182413
              Anonymous
              Guest

              lol

    • #182388
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Racism, the confederate’s ardently believed in the propaganda line that was used to justify slavery, that blacks were inherently inferior and fit only for uncomplicated servitude.

    • #182390
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Probably because the entire reason they left was because some aristocrats wanted to squeeze as much profit out of slavery as they could before it could no longer be extended, so trying to free slaves in exchange for military service would make the whole thing pointless, not helped by the fact they also went back on their word for free slaves a couple of times so now you have a bunch of soldiers whos loyalty to you is tedious at best especially after 1863.

    • #182404
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Schizo thread

    • #182414
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Racisim cripples a nation OMG. Simple as.

    • #182415
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Imagine if nogs got the right say “we fought on both sides of the war” there would be no room for a distinctly White American identity which could not be twisted into a multiculti party.

Viewing 17 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.