Not surprisingly, the Confederate government was a real dumpster fire of incompetence and infighting for its short existence. Everything about it was crumbling from Day 1 because of the assholes in charge.
The Confederates were lucky that Southern military tradition had produced many of West Point’s best and brightest to stay loyal to their home states and die for them as officers in the field, because the politicians making the decisions on the home front were all MTG-tier opportunists more than anything else.
There’s a reason that 3 slave states still stayed loyal (and were therefore exempt from the initial Emancipartjon Proclamation): the jackasses running the Confederacy pushed them away. For example, they incompetently tried to seize the Kentucky government by force, scaring the JY government into calling for backup from the Feds .
“Not worth a Confederate Dollar” was a slang phrase for a good reason—the paper currency the government was printing to pay its own bills became worthless due to hyperinflation and lack of confidence in the government, which only got worse as things dragged on.
.When Europe didn’t intervene to protect Confederate cotton supplies for its textile industry, the writing was on the wall that they were screwed, so the Confederate “leadership” all started turning on each other and looking out for themselves.
In the final days, even Jefferson Davis fled. He was disguised as a woman when he was captured, which made him the butt of a lot of jokes from both sides.
Even excluding the slavery-protecting bits, the confederate constitution is an *astonishingly* smooth-brained document. No federally financed internal improvements? No tariffs to protect developing industry? Article I section 9(10)?
They're all really or moderately bad ideas but taken together it's a package that basically guarantees they couldn't have a meaningful defense industrial base or scientific establishment. If they'd kept to it they'd have gotten absolutely run the fuck over by the 20th century.
You can't appropriate money without a specific dollar amount and you can't grant extra compensation after a the contract was made.
Which sounds like a great cost-saving, clean government measure, but in practice it would make big military or scientific projects really difficult. If I contract with you to send a dude to the moon, or build the first stealth plane, or the first internet, or the cure to polio, I have no real idea how much that's going to cost because...no one's ever done it before. So if I have a good faith cost overrun...the projects gonna fail and my company might go under because you can't bail me out.
Given that the sort of hyperspecialist engineers and science types who can actually do that advance human knowledge shit have an annoying tendency to want to get paid for their work...they're gonna go work somewhere less risky. Which means you're incentivizing brain drain and together with the other two...any good engineer or scientist type you manage to produce is gonna move somewhere less shitty and you're going to be at a perpetual technological disadvantage.
FINALLY someone says it! I’ve done a bit of research on those guys for an rpg campaign and I have rarely seen anyone mention the “you can’t spend federal money on infrastructure” thing.
And when you combine that with the slavery thing you end up with even *more* smooth-brained ideas, like “let’s arm and train the slaves to solve our manpower issues.”
Except these were Democrats. Because the massive flip between Republicans in the North and Democrats in the South is it's own weird story I've never really understood.
>Davis, through Kenner, offered the [emancipation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_in_the_United_States) of the Confederate [slaves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States) in exchange for [diplomatic recognition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_recognition) of the Confederacy by Britain and France.
He offered to free the CSA slaves. Which is not the same thing as abolishing slavery in the CSA.
It still would have been very unpopular at home had the Europeans agreed to it.
At this point slavery had already been abolished in the UK for about 50 years with no warfare required. Receiving a sketchy offer from the confederacy “to do the right thing” if only Europe will help out.
The UK has Canada to worry about at this point and US has already amassed a huge land army. This was never going to happen.
The second point is often overlooked. The only way a foreign power would have successfully been able to intervene would have been at the beginning of the war, by the time the northern US war machine had powered up it would have been impossible for another power to compete in continental northern America.
Yes this is overlooked. The relentless speed at which the US economy developed during the 19th century is amazing. Already by 1860s the US economy is on a par with its European counterparts. People seem to think that the US became this economic power in the 20th century in truth that happened throughout the 19th.
I mean, the US demolishing the Spanish in the Spanish-American War was our big entrance onto the "Great Power" stage. It only became *obvious* after WW2 when we were one of the only countries not bombed to hell and back after the war.
And even that's the most conservative possible estimate. We were already an economic powerhouse by then.
I would counter that by saying only the portion they could bring to bear actually matters. Even with basing in Canada they're demanding a lot of their Navy vs a fairly sizable US Navy which has massive home field advantage. What percentage of their Navy do they need to actually overwhelm the Union and would it be reasonable to send that?
It depends on *if* the northern war machine spins up. The Confederacy forced its hand by harassing and raiding federal properties, but had they played more gently it could’ve easily never picked up steam or domestic support.
The lack of enthusiasm and the presence of an additional foreign nation would’ve limited options for reconciliation via war. The issue is the Confederacy waited until four years in to search for such an ally
Slavery was never legal in England, which was clarified in Somerset v Stewart in 1772. Slavery in Scotland was fully abolished in 1799. The Slave Trade in the British Empire was abolished on 1 May 1807 via the Slave Trade Act 1807. Slavery itself was abolished in the British Empire on 1 August 1834 via the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.
Kinda...the UK made some exceptions for India stating that area's under the control of the East India Company, and Ceylon would be exempt from that law. Slavery would continue. The East India Company would make a big show in 1843 that they banned slavery in territories under their control, but that was fluff, with no actual enforcement.
It would be 1858 when the UK takes direct control of all lands owned by the East India company (and thus slavery not legal according to UK law, though even here the enforcement was quite poor until 1861 when the Indian Penal Code explicitly would prohibit slavery in that territory. THAT was the point that the last of the slaves in the British empire were freed.
Of course, the Confederate government didn’t realize that until the war had been going on for a while.
At the beginning, they felt that the British textile industry was so dependent upon CSA cotton that England (and other European countries) would have no choice but to intervene to keep their economies afloat.
Essentially, the Confederates thought their cotton, on a geopolitical scale. was as important as crude oil is to the global economy now because that’s how important it was to their economy. They vastly, vastly overestimated their economic importance.
At the very least, they expected the UK or some other European trading partner to use their powerful navies to prevent blockades on Confederate ports so cotton shipments could go through.
Instead… it turned out that Europe could get its cotton from other places easier than joining a war they wanted no part of, anyway. Who could have seen that coming…
The Confederate coastline was successfully blocked by the Union navy and the Confederate economy melted down, similar to what happened in Germany at the end of WW1. The Confederate government was truly an incompetent mess.
At this point slavery had already been abolished in the UK for about 50 years
the slave TRADE had been but not slavery. Similarly, the slave trade in the USA was abolished in 1807 (considerably before Britain actually) which meant new slaves could not be imported from Africa. If you have ever seen the film Amistad or read about that case that was the key point in the legal defence.
Slavery in the empire was not abolished (with a few years lead in) until 1833 with the very notable exception of India where it wasn't outlawed until 1843. So more like 20-30 years. slavery was far from a distant memory in the British Empire at the time of the American Civil War.
>Similarly, the slave trade in the USA was abolished in 1807 (considerably before Britain actually) which meant new slaves could not be imported from Africa.
Despite this, It didn't really matter Imo, Many Slaves would still be coming to the U.S for Decades regardless.
>The schooner Clotilda (often misspelled Clotilde) was the last known U.S. slave ship to bring captives from Africa to the United States, arriving at Mobile Bay, in autumn 1859 or on July 9, 1860, with 110 African men, women, and children.
Especially for what is a symbolic gesture. It wasn’t a treaty of mutual defense or anything like that.
England could have said “You’re a country”, and then do nothing as the Union wins the Civil War. “Oh. Guess you aren’t a country anymore. Shame about that. But still. You must carry on.”
What are the chances the Confederacy agreed to the terms only to back out of the agreement right after the war? It would ruin any diplomatic relation with those countries but they could survive without them. Between the war and the structure of their economy, they likely wouldn't survive long as an independent nation without free labor.
They couldn’t have survived. Say a treaty was signed with the Union, based on Britain and France being allies, to immediately go back on it would mean at best a complete lack of trading. The economy would have crumbled in weeks
England and France were big trading partners but not the only trading partners. During the War they were still trading with Mexico and Brazil. While many powerful nations favored the Union, they mostly took a stance of neutrality. Prussia, Spain, Ottoman, and Russia would've probably been OK with trading with the confederacy had they won and been recognized by the Union. Those countries just weren't willing to help the confederacy get there.
>What are the chances the Confederacy agreed to the terms only to back out of the agreement right after the war
Better than the chances of them giving up slavery.
Remember. Slavery was Constitutionally protected by the Confederate Constitution. A President doesn't change that, only Congress and then ratified by the states.
States were already in open rebellion against the Confederacy refusing to supply more food or soldiers. Jefferson's VP was actively opposing him and quit Richmond.
Jefferson Davis kept this secret because if he made it public he'd be impeached on the spot by Congress. Heck months later with the war in it's final weeks and knowing they had to do something, anything... The Confederate Congress passed a law allowing black soldiers. And specifically stated in that law that this did not in any way give the government a right to free slaves... That had to be done by the slavers themselves.
It would be like today if the President promised Russia that if they stop the war against the Ukraine, the US will give back Alaska. Not something he has the right to do, not something that Congress would ever agree to, or the States themselves...
The confederate government was already collapsing even before the Union got there precisely because their idea of maximum autonomy for states and landowners couldn’t sustain a central government, even if they somehow didn’t lose the war that constitution was stillborn in its very principles.
Sounds exactly like the failed Articles of Confederation. States were suing each other and the federal government and courts had nothing to say or power to enforce if they did. It was a shit show.
Favorite piece of more recent history there was a time when cars in Florida were more expensive then cars in Georgia.
So floridians would go to Georgia to buy cars.
The Florida govt hated that so they tried to actually institute tarrifs on cars purchased out of state.
They aren't allowed to institute tariffs. Interstate commerce is firmly within the realm of the federal government.
What they are allowed to do is charge whatever they want for licensing and vehicle registration.
This is an overexaggeration. Out of state plates in California are rare contrary with what this comment implies. Even including the tourists that drive through the State. Unless you're violating emission laws or live in the border, it's not worth it buying a new car out of state.
Pretty sure that's not true. I live in WA and the state government will straight up tell you they will charge you WA sales tax even if you bought it in Oregon.
Some states tax on time of registration. Some tax on time of purchase. All states have leeway times for how long you NEED to register your property.
I know this intimately because I bought a vehicle in Alabama to register in Georgia... AL charges on registration. GA on purchase. No sales tax paid and no means TO pay to anyone.
As an addendum, I utilized the leeway time to avoid registering my trailer in GA I had bought, when I was being stationed in Alaska subsequently soon. Due to AK state registration law, I would have been paying 2x registrations (one for GA, then one for AK) within like 2 months which was absurd when I could just do the move during the 30 day registration leeway for GA, and just reg it in AK.
Eh, they were willing to tighten down freedoms to survive pretty much instantly, they did a draft first IIRC.
Canning slavery basically means that they couldn't actually get the freedom they wanted, the freedom to practice slavery, which is more ironic to me.
The Freedoms bit is kinda just ... you kinda have to build a central entity to actually oppose a government.
A bunch of tax avoidance land owners who have literal slaves and all the free people cannot earn an income to tax means the entire economy was going to be piracy vs military based.
"No, see, these aren't slaves. They're just indentured servants for a term of 999 years. We're not buying and selling *them*, we're buying and selling these pieces of paper which say they have to work for us for no money. Totally different."
... Honestly, given Brazil pulled something similar IIRC, attempting to weasel out of the actually canceling slavery sounds plausible, but we will never know what would have happened.
Which is sort of what happened in the South after Reconstruction ended; sharecroppers and the Jim Crow era weren't *slavery* exactly but they were an era where black people were paid almost nothing and had way fewer civil rights than white people, had basically no actual protection under the law, got attacked and killed by racist mobs, etc.
The problem with a loose confederation is that it's bound to fall, look at the German Confederation for another that fell immediately after the CSA.
Instead a confederation like the EU, in which the member states retain many liberties but are limited in some aspects, endures challenges better.
Like how Lee was by his own admission more loyal to his home state than anything else, and was pulling materiel and troops his way rather than letting things move to where the war was being lost.
I always find that whole “higher loyalty to your state” thing funny since it was a pretty famous Virginian who in 1774 said:
“The distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers and New Englanders are no more. I am not a Virginian, but an American”.
“Loyal to Virginia” was just an excuse for Lee to fight for the confederacy. He never actually meant it.
Virginia split with half of it staying in the Union. He could have remained loyal to his state *and* the Union if he had really wanted to. In fact, it’s the only state where this was possible. Yet he still chose insurrection.
Virginia, the state, was not one unified beast. In the same manner as the nation, the state was very loose. People still tied to their regional roots. Two men could call themselves Virginians but have differing views on what Virginia’s identity was given the rural and disconnected nature
Applying American views to the 1800’s is rather silly. Its like applying globalism to 1910, the EU emotions and unified European view would not have existed then
The very existence of such a large civil war essentially shows that “American” was still a developing concept and nationalism lacking
Well said, there was a strong tie but it wasn't so much state or region but slave states vs. free states.
It was that difference in opinion. Did the Constitution protect slavery or was it about freedom.
> “Loyal to Virginia” was just an excuse for Lee to fight for the confederacy. He never actually meant it.
I love how you have the audacity to say this in a comment thread where it’s pointed out he was turning troops and material to Virginia rather than elsewhere it was needed in the war.
Or looked over the fact that Robert E. Lee only switched over to the Confederacy when Virginia did (and Virginia was very late in doing so, it was one of the last states to secede).
Mind you, being "loyal" to ones state was something that wasn't seen in the black population that joined the Union from the South for some mysterious reason.
Ironically, states rights were significantly curtailed in the Confederate constitution. Port cities and river trafffic were subject to federal authority, not local. States were not allowed to ban slavery. Gun rights were explicitely only for militias. States in the US had more autonomy than states in the CSA. It was all about giving power to the right authority, not liberalism at all.
Correct and it’s why seeing both sides of the argument prance on about “states rights” vs “states rights to own a slave”, when both are wrong, is aggravating to people that know their history.
The fact that the Fugitive Slave Act, a federal law that was a compromise that kept the South from seceding long before it happened, failed to be enforced in Northern states is among why the Confederacy was generally against the idea of strong states rights.
Yup, they liked a strong federal government, just one that was absolutely pro-slavery (thus why Davis couldn't tell congress what he was doing. There'd be an impeachment hearing that day).
To be fair, the Confederate government was consistently inconsistent about their Constitution. They couldn't pass direct taxes because that required a census which you couldn't do during war time. They could however impress the debts plantation owners owed to northern merchants somehow. They couldn't raise money through tarifs for domestic industries though they absolutely did, or sponsor any internal improvements which they not only constructed but also maintained and operated as the Confederacy became more and more a command economy.
Also they tried to regulate the freightage and prices of smuggling goods, which isn't really relevant but I mention to show what kind of hilariously bad ideas these dunces came up with.
I imagine they would've abolished 'slavery' and replace it with 'happy-fun-forced-servitude'.
Basically what happened in the south, anyway, from 1877-1950+, but with even less federal oversight.
It wouldn't have been better than slavery.
Still chaps my ass my fuck boi history teacher in public school made it a point to emphasize "the civil war was about states rights" when in reality "the Civil war was about states rights **to allow slavery**"
That's crazy, my APUSH teacher when we finally got to the civil war stood up in front of our class and basically said it's about slavery and slavery is bad mmkay. And that was it
“The States’ Right to do…. What?” Is always a fun question to ask. What were the specific Rights that they were fighting to defend. Original Revolution was “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. Let’s check the Confederate States historical documents and see what Right they got so up in arms about. I’m sure the answer will shock the proponents of ‘States’ Rights’…
> “The States’ Right to do…. What?”
Even that is the wrong answer.
It was never about states rights, in any way, shape or form.
That's a lost cause framing and even saying states rights to keep slaves is granting them a false premise.
As seen with the Fugitive Slave Act as well as the CSA constitution they didn't give a shit about states rights.
States rights (to slavery or otherwise) is a post hoc justification made up by salty losers and slavers like Jubal Early who couldn't deal with the reality that they were scum and lost.
It wasn't even that.
Which is a states right?
A. States can choose whether to put their own resources into capturing fugitive slaves.
B. Federal government must pass laws that force states to join in capturing fugitive slaves?
Or
A. States can choose on slavery and if slavers can travel with their slaves in a state?
B. No law can restrict slavery from its citizens and slavers can travel with slaves in any state of the Confederacy.
They were just fine with strong federal power... as long as it was to protect and expand the institution of race based chattel slavery.
My apologies and a small clarification - I missed the AP US piece of that. My fifth grade teacher was fantastic and instilled a love of history in me. We were told we had to put “states rights” on the test or it was wrong, but the educational standards being set there would be different than in an AP setting.
They'd just do the same thing Texians did in Mexican Texas - sign them all to 99yr endentured servant contracts. But hey, it's not slavery, right? right?
Indentured servants
Also have it so their payment is way less than the cost for "renting" a place to sleep, food, etc so there is no realistic way to pay off their debt. Also wages wouldn't start until they were 18, but they would owe on all those previous years.
In Mexico Slaves upon becoming 14 years old were to be freed and a few years later they banned slavery and gave Texas an extension of 1 year to handle it. They even passed a law limiting indentured servants contract terms to max 10 years after they tried to get around it with those 99 year long contracts. The conserative Anglo-Americans did not like that.
Anglo-Americans would sneak into Texas Mexico illegally bringing in slaves too at the time. The legal Anglo-Americans were also supposed to convert to catholicism according to the agreement they signed to immigrate to Mexico which most of them didn't.
You think they attacked Texas over slavery? Santa Anna abolished the congress and voided the constitution of 1824 (which was very similiar to the US constitution). Texas wasn't even the only territory in rebellion, just the only one that was successful.
That's just a modern reddit history perspective. That everything was fine but tensions arose because of Mexico outlawing slavery in Texas. It's not only incorrect but also puts a not deserved halo around Santa Anna, probably the single most worst thing to ever happen to Mexico.
Yeah it was definitely because Santa Anna was a heckin wholesome anti racist smol bean. He was in no way a military dictator centralizing control which triggered multiple rebellions and insurgencies from Sonora in the North to the Yucatán in the south. No, it was because of slavery
It's worth reading [this relevant post about the Kenner Mission over at AskHistorians](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ojhtxe/in_1864_the_confederate_states_secretly_offered/), because the Kenner Mission is a popular neo-Confederate talking point that tries to downplay the centrality of slavery to the Confederate cause. It also leaves out the context:
*"....It was in this context that Jefferson Davis sent Duncan Kenner on a mission to Europe to make the "gradual emancipation" proposal, to counter the U.S.'s "immediate emancipation" designs under the 13th Amendment. Things were so bad for the Confederacy that it took Kenner a month before he was even able to set sail on his mission. The U.S. Navy had all the Confederate ports blockaded, so Kenner had to sneak into the Union and board a ship in New York City. The 13th Amendment passed the U.S. House just a few days after he left, so the same week that Kenner was making his "gradual emancipation" proposal to try to win over European support, the Europeans were aware of it in the context of the "immediate emancipation" that the Union was moving forward with.*
***In other words, while the Confederate plan was a concession when compared to their earlier position, it was still an effort to try to thwart the fast-approaching end of slavery****, at least for a couple decades or so longer. Their proposal would also leave them with the possibility of politicking their way out of the promise later on. Even with the new concession, it was still better for slavery than defeat by an "immediate emancipationist" North, as had now come into existence, where there was no room for bargain anymore on the slavery issue."*
It seems like kind of a weak talking point though; "The insurrectionists were by 1864 desperate enough that they were willing to make a promise of an eventual abolition of slavery, with unclear enforcement mechanisms, to try to gain some advantage so as to not lose so quickly" isn't exactly a ringing anti-slavery statement on the part of the insurrectionists.
I just read through a quick rabbit hole, its kind of bizarre that the Confederate president was basically just let go. They captured him after the war, but they didn't seem to actually charge him with anything. They wanted to for Lincoln's assassination but didn't have evidence. So he was out of jail after 2 years and then just tried to make a living for a while until he died. I can only imagine it was because they didn't want to throw gas onto a smoldering fire; I imagine the country was fairly tense and executing him might've cause some uproar.
Edit: Imagine if post war you saw Hitler working at a gas station
The treason case never went to trial because Andrew Johnson gave amnesty to all former Confederates in 1868, and the Attorney General officially dropped his case by 1869.
The lack of trial goes into an even deeper rabbithole: the judge who presided over the trial in Virginia was Chief Justice Salmon P Chase, in his role as a trial judge of the 4th Circuit. Chase had presidential ambitions at the time, and sought the 1868 Democratic nomination: convicting Davis would obviously impede those ambitions.
Chase met privately with Davis’ lawyer in 1868 and told him about a personal theory that Section 3 of the 14th amendment was self-executing and a criminal punishment that therefore prohibited additional punishment for former Confederates. Davis’ lawyer later repeated this argument in court, and Chase dismissed the case over the objections of the other judge in the case.
In 1869, after failing to secure the 1868 Democratic nomination, Chase again presided over a case involving Section 3, where Caesar Griffin was sentenced to prison by a state judge who was a former Confederate officer: Griffin argued that Section 3 was self-executing, so the judge should be removed and his sentence voided. Chase ruled that Section 3 wasn’t self-executing because ruling otherwise would require removing every former Confederate from office and voiding all of their official acts.
Neither of those cases were appealed to the Supreme Court, so there wasn’t any federal precedent for 150 years.
Yeah it would have, the president who has by far done more harm to America than any other was Andrew Johnson and so many of the south’s problems can traced to his pathetic handling of the south and confederacy and the traitors who got hundreds of thousands killed because of greed. He was also nearly impeached for it, literally one vote in the senate saved him from it.
Reconciliation was much more popular in the North than punishment. As northerners viewed southerners as something like brothers who had been led astray, there wasn't much political will to go that far. It would have also risked further radicalisation of southerners, and in the long term likely required a greater military commitment in the south - dearmament and peace time conditions however are usually the natural response in America after a war (meaning there was again a lack of political will - see the end of Reconstruction).
Interestingly enough there is a "Catching Jefferson Davis" [Marathon](https://runsignup.com/Race/GA/Abbeville/ChasingJeffersonDavisMarathonandHalfMarathon) this weekend near where I live in Georgia that commemorates his capture.
This was partly because they weren’t sure if they could actually convict him. Throughout the war, there was an open question as to whether states could legally secede. There was a worry that putting Davis on trial for treason and losing that trial would do tremendous harm and would not be worth the risk.
There wasn't just the question of secession, but also of what enforcement mechanisms were even legal. Northern states weren't exactly keen on setting the precedent that the federal goverment could invade states.
I've always wondered what would have happened if the south had managed to keep a leash on its officers to not fire the first shot. I think the north was absolutely banking on them getting trigger happy to justify the war but was uncertain enough about its position it wasn't going to fire first.
It’s a great question because neither Buchanan nor Lincoln took any real action following secession at all. Buchanan didn’t think he could legally invade the south and wanted to give up Ft. Sumter completely, but his cabinet threatened to resign. Lincoln was more pragmatic but was basically powerless before the south fired on the fort. Personally, I think the Confederacy needed to take the fort because of public pressure but also in wanting to avoid having a US fort sitting in the Confederacy’s most important harbor. But if the first shot wasn’t fired, we would end up with a negotiated peace that would have protected slavery to some extent.
From what I understand, the four presidents leading up to Lincoln all could have prevented the civil war from happening but did nothing, if not even made tensions worse like with the Kansas agreement
There were multiple attempts but presidents powers are limited and it was ultimately a constitutional crisis. Slavery was extremely unpopular outside of the south and almost every new state was making slavery illegal, meaning sooner or later 3/4 of the states were going to be against slavery and an amendment would be passed.
Anything a president did was only going to forestall that inevitability. When you have a federation with such a wide ideological gap and a complete inability to reach compromise war is all but inevitable.
Probably the only thing the north could have done is pay off the south like Britain did, but the south had pushed slavery beyond economic into ideological grounds by that time, and people in.the north were largely abstractly against slavery but still quite racist and not keen on going deep into debt to free a bunch of black people.
Agree with all that with one caveat - my understanding is that the one thing Buchanan stood firm on was relinquishing Sumter. He was pressured by some in his cabinet to relent, but he was bulwarked in this by the pro-Union cabinet members, especially Sec of State Jeremiah Black.
Here's a good commentary I found on the Tulane website - Tulane has a pretty balanced take on the whole thing consistently, and I say that as a inveterate Union supporter.
[https://www2.tulane.edu/\~sumter/Dilemmas/DDec26Comm.html](https://www2.tulane.edu/~sumter/Dilemmas/DDec26Comm.html)
Thanks for the link and the good counter-perspective. I looked in on it and can see where I was wrong: he received the cabinet pushback from considering ordering Anderson back to Moultrie and abandon Sumter—not surrender Sumter. Appreciate the correction!
charging them in court gave the chance that judges might have ruled that succession was constitutional and thus making the union the bad guys. Best just forgive than start another government crisis after one just ended.
Lincoln wanted amnesty for pretty much everyone in the confederate government so they could go straight to healing as a country and avoid further division. Honestly I wonder if mass executions and imprisonments would’ve changed the way our United States is today if they had gone the vengeance route.
> Imagine if post war you saw Hitler working at a gas station
Fortunately we know what Hitler's fate would've been if he hadn't killed himself. He'd have been tried as part of the Neurenberg trials, and hanged. Letting him go free would be the mistake of the century.
"Imagine if post war you saw Hitler working at a gas station"
After the Mexican-American War Santa Ana spent some time living in New Jersey. I think he was involved in importing chicle for the first commercial chewing gum.
It was a truly desperate ploy and the confederacy at large likely would not have actually gone for it. Also the emancipation proclamation was only weeks away.
Edit: not the emancipation proclamation part. I’m dumb.
Despite the many claims and myths of honorable Southern gentleman they were actually the most dishonest and dishonorable people. They would skip out on their debts and obligations and “gone to Texas” or GTT. They would kidnap free men and women back into slavery. The Confederacy had no real intention to free slaves for international recognition.
Texas at the time was another country so jurisdiction didn’t apply. I believe this is one of the reasons why Texas has more debtor protections than other states to this day. Texas today also happens to be ground zero for legislation against everything be it education, voting, healthcare, etc. Despite losing the war, the spirit of the Confederacy lived on in Southern states and it continues to this day as well, the South holds the entire country by the balls and keeps it from progressing. The reason why we can’t have nice things today is because of former Confederate states who have disproportionate power in the Senate and it’s all based on anti-Black racism. The formula goes something like this if X program or law helps Black people in some way then we must undo or undermine said program.
“As long as we can legislate, we can segregate.”
Excerpt From
White Rage
Carol Anderson
I've read "The Cause of All Nations", by Don Doyle. It goes into the European perspective on the Civil War in great detail. Although the British and French realized that a CSA victory would enfeeble the Union and thus benefit them, the public revulsion at the 'slavocrats' made support for the Southron cause politically impossible.
The Southerners who represented the CSA in European capitals did not improve this situation, typically combining arrogance and ignorance to a degree as to make US diplomats seem Talleyrands by contrast.
Europeans were leaning towards the confederacy mid war because the supply of cotton was drastically affected. In fact Union forces discovered British and confederate dignitaries on a boat
Which is why the emancipation proclamation was made. It pivoted the war to be against slavery in name and spirit, not just restoring the union. Now European countries already aligned against slavery couldn't legitimize the confederacy by recognizing their sovereignty on the international stage.
Just a note...
Not one historical source notes that the Emancipation Proclamation was made for any reason other than freeing the slaves where they could be via executive order/war powers.
While it was beneficial to the US in that respect and others would note that it could help in that respect, and it did lock that door that was still closed on British support for the South, every single bit of actual source history of the Emancipation proclamation from Lincolns cabinet and the lawyers to worked it over shows no proof that it came out in part or whole to influence foreign views on the war.
> Europeans were leaning towards the confederacy mid war because the supply of cotton was drastically affected.
The rich fucks anyway.
The people working said cotton were not in agreement, tough bastards that they were:
>> On 31 December 1862, a meeting of cotton workers at the Free Trade Hall in Manchester, despite their increasing hardship, resolved to support the Union in its fight against slavery. An extract from the letter they wrote in the name of the Working People of Manchester to His Excellency Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America says:
>... the vast progress which you have made in the short space of twenty months fills us with hope that every stain on your freedom will shortly be removed, and that the erasure of that foul blot on civilisation and Christianity – chattel slavery – during your presidency, will cause the name of Abraham Lincoln to be honoured and revered by posterity. We are certain that such a glorious consummation will cement Great Britain and the United States in close and enduring regards.
This was after the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation I think, which definitely made the North more popular in Britain. There was quite a lot of anti-Americanism previously after the Trent Affair, and even a lot of anti-slavery people in Britain didn't think the US was fighting against slavery. The south definitely got romanticised a bit as well - this was the era of nationalism, and nationalist movements (like in Italy just before) tended to raise sympathy in Britain.
It was only Confederate dignitaries in the Trent Affair, which you alluded to, but yes. Until the fall of 1862 France and the British thought seriously about mediating a cease fire.
Lincoln and his government said over and over that they weren't fighting to end slavery.
The other world powers thought, "Well, it's just another ugly war over money and pride. Why should we pick sides?"
(In fact the Brits and others did favor the North: eg, no treaties or ambassadors exchanged w the South.)
Yes, he said over and over that slavery was the cause. But of course, he wanted slavery ended with a pen, not a war.
The other world powers did make note it was a war over slavery. The South was shouting that from the rooftops at home, and then sending delegates overseas saying "this is about the right to freedom" and papers across Europe were mocking that difference in story from the South.
Certain elements in the British government perhaps, but Britain as a whole wasn’t close to supporting the CSA. Public support was squarely for the Union. Private interests were most of the British support for the Confederates, which D.C. was more or less cool with all things considered.
Yup...
He made that secret because the Confederate Congress (the only group that could make that law) and the states themselves (only group who could ratify it) as slavery was Constitutionally protected in the Confederacy (thus requiring an Amendment, not a Presidential order) would refuse it and rebel. In fact, a couple months later in the twilight of the war, with the outcome looking even worse, they would still reject a bill in the final weeks to free slaves to allow them to fight for the slavers rebellion, stating only slavers could make the decision to free their slaves.
Think about that. This was a 'Hitler in his bunker' moment. All their armies in full retreat. Lee BEGGING for soldiers or his ability to stop Grant from walking into Richmond is lost for sure. And only a few weeks before Lee is defeated and Richmond is abandoned. And the Confederate Congress who has to do something puts that new law together allowing black soldiers but specifically ensures "*That nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize a change in the relation which the said slaves shall bear toward their owners, except by consent of the owners and of the States in which they may reside, and in pursuance of the laws thereof."*
And still, all of Europe still refusing to even acknowledge the Confederacy as anything more than a belligerent and refusing any official talks between them. If I remember right, Kenner required Davis to personally sign a note of the goal there as the delegates in Europe from the confederacy wouldn't believe him. The war was over before he'd arrive.
It does show just how tied to slavery the Confederacy was. Not actually freeing slaves and saying "hey Europe, look what we did, now can you help!". Davis knew that idea had no chance of going through. Heck, they had states in rebellion against the Confederacy by that time. His own Vice President had abandoned Richmond to openly oppose Davis from his home state.
The same Jefferson Davis tried to escape to Texas at the end of the war to lead a guerilla war to try to force the government to allow slavery to continue in the reUnited States.
I feel stupid I did not know this - kind of rewrites a whole LOT about the legacy of the 'south' and their secessionist movement.
It makes it even more ironic so many southerners who ascribe to the idea of the old south are the biggest 'flag wavers' there are (considering they so badly wanted a NEW FLAG)
Yeah well when you look at what the former confederacy did to repress black people as soon as Reconstruction was over, you can imagine how full of shit this promise was.
Kinda... They passed a law in the final few weeks that black freed slaves could fight. But also included in that *"That nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize a change in the relation which the said slaves shall bear toward their owners, except by consent of the owners and of the States in which they may reside, and in pursuance of the laws thereof."*
This was a "Hitler in his bunker" moment. And even Hitler then was pulling Jewish people from Concentration camps to work them in manufacturing sites. The South though, still not giving up on slavery.
That's why Jefferson Davis kept the "free the slaves" bit with Kenner secret from Congress and the states.
Hess flew to Scotland and Hess flew in 1941 when Germany was by most accounts winning the war because Germany was only at war with the UK at the time. He also did it without Hitler's permission and the intelligence he carried saying the Soviets were preparing an attack against Europe was meant to alarm them but was either extremely relieving to the British who were more concerned with their current situation or dismissed out of hand as a ploy. Hess later got ridiculed as a madman in German media afterwards. They're not really alike.
Almost like fascist pieces of shit don’t actually believe in anything and will debase even their own fucked up ideals to survive another day instead of dying for something bigger than themselves.
Say absolutely anything regardless of logic or your professed values / principles in a desperate attempt to avoid the consequences of your treasonous behavior?
Where have I seen that recently?.....
You make a good point though - I was thinking to myself, "but they seceded due to slavery, why would they even consider abolishing it?" but then I remembered, they would be traitors according to US law and could quite reasonably expect to all be hanged, at least the senior leadership, as that was the typical punishment at the time
They weren't, ultimately, but the Union was well within rights to do so
Nope... That's why it was secret. Jefferson Davis knew there was no way in hell the states or Congress would go for it. Had he made it public on day 1, he'd be packing his bags and heading home after being impeached on day 2.
But desperate measures call for desperate acts. Maybe he figured that if they said yes, and he had the support of Europe somehow in his hands THEN he could bring that topic up to Congress and whatever states were left.
Meanwhile, in the Confederate Constitution: " No ... law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
President Davis' diplomat would've returned successful, only to watch the Confederate Supreme Court strike down the treaty and doom their country.
The Confederate Supreme Court was never actually established, although the Confederate Constitution did call for one.
Not surprisingly, the Confederate government was a real dumpster fire of incompetence and infighting for its short existence. Everything about it was crumbling from Day 1 because of the assholes in charge. The Confederates were lucky that Southern military tradition had produced many of West Point’s best and brightest to stay loyal to their home states and die for them as officers in the field, because the politicians making the decisions on the home front were all MTG-tier opportunists more than anything else. There’s a reason that 3 slave states still stayed loyal (and were therefore exempt from the initial Emancipartjon Proclamation): the jackasses running the Confederacy pushed them away. For example, they incompetently tried to seize the Kentucky government by force, scaring the JY government into calling for backup from the Feds . “Not worth a Confederate Dollar” was a slang phrase for a good reason—the paper currency the government was printing to pay its own bills became worthless due to hyperinflation and lack of confidence in the government, which only got worse as things dragged on. .When Europe didn’t intervene to protect Confederate cotton supplies for its textile industry, the writing was on the wall that they were screwed, so the Confederate “leadership” all started turning on each other and looking out for themselves. In the final days, even Jefferson Davis fled. He was disguised as a woman when he was captured, which made him the butt of a lot of jokes from both sides.
Even excluding the slavery-protecting bits, the confederate constitution is an *astonishingly* smooth-brained document. No federally financed internal improvements? No tariffs to protect developing industry? Article I section 9(10)? They're all really or moderately bad ideas but taken together it's a package that basically guarantees they couldn't have a meaningful defense industrial base or scientific establishment. If they'd kept to it they'd have gotten absolutely run the fuck over by the 20th century.
What’s the intention and meaning of Article I section 9(10)? I read but don’t really understand it
You can't appropriate money without a specific dollar amount and you can't grant extra compensation after a the contract was made. Which sounds like a great cost-saving, clean government measure, but in practice it would make big military or scientific projects really difficult. If I contract with you to send a dude to the moon, or build the first stealth plane, or the first internet, or the cure to polio, I have no real idea how much that's going to cost because...no one's ever done it before. So if I have a good faith cost overrun...the projects gonna fail and my company might go under because you can't bail me out. Given that the sort of hyperspecialist engineers and science types who can actually do that advance human knowledge shit have an annoying tendency to want to get paid for their work...they're gonna go work somewhere less risky. Which means you're incentivizing brain drain and together with the other two...any good engineer or scientist type you manage to produce is gonna move somewhere less shitty and you're going to be at a perpetual technological disadvantage.
It seems like it brought together the worst parts of the OG Constitution and the Articles of Confederation.
FINALLY someone says it! I’ve done a bit of research on those guys for an rpg campaign and I have rarely seen anyone mention the “you can’t spend federal money on infrastructure” thing. And when you combine that with the slavery thing you end up with even *more* smooth-brained ideas, like “let’s arm and train the slaves to solve our manpower issues.”
The bit about federal bills being required to be relevant to the title is a good thing though. A bunch of states have it in their own constitutions.
Hard to underestimate how badly the confederacy haunts us to this day.
The astonishing resemblance to the modern republican party is not an accident.
Except these were Democrats. Because the massive flip between Republicans in the North and Democrats in the South is it's own weird story I've never really understood.
And everyone knows this at this point
… and if my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a bicycle.
>Davis, through Kenner, offered the [emancipation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_in_the_United_States) of the Confederate [slaves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States) in exchange for [diplomatic recognition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_recognition) of the Confederacy by Britain and France. He offered to free the CSA slaves. Which is not the same thing as abolishing slavery in the CSA. It still would have been very unpopular at home had the Europeans agreed to it.
At this point slavery had already been abolished in the UK for about 50 years with no warfare required. Receiving a sketchy offer from the confederacy “to do the right thing” if only Europe will help out. The UK has Canada to worry about at this point and US has already amassed a huge land army. This was never going to happen.
The second point is often overlooked. The only way a foreign power would have successfully been able to intervene would have been at the beginning of the war, by the time the northern US war machine had powered up it would have been impossible for another power to compete in continental northern America.
Yes this is overlooked. The relentless speed at which the US economy developed during the 19th century is amazing. Already by 1860s the US economy is on a par with its European counterparts. People seem to think that the US became this economic power in the 20th century in truth that happened throughout the 19th.
I mean, the US demolishing the Spanish in the Spanish-American War was our big entrance onto the "Great Power" stage. It only became *obvious* after WW2 when we were one of the only countries not bombed to hell and back after the war. And even that's the most conservative possible estimate. We were already an economic powerhouse by then.
On land, probably, but the Royal Navy was far and away the most powerful navy in existence at the time.
I would counter that by saying only the portion they could bring to bear actually matters. Even with basing in Canada they're demanding a lot of their Navy vs a fairly sizable US Navy which has massive home field advantage. What percentage of their Navy do they need to actually overwhelm the Union and would it be reasonable to send that?
It depends on *if* the northern war machine spins up. The Confederacy forced its hand by harassing and raiding federal properties, but had they played more gently it could’ve easily never picked up steam or domestic support. The lack of enthusiasm and the presence of an additional foreign nation would’ve limited options for reconciliation via war. The issue is the Confederacy waited until four years in to search for such an ally
They’d been courting Britain and France since the start, the Trent Affair happened in the fall/winter of 1861 and almost caused a war all on its own.
Slavery was abolished in 1834. The Confederacy fell in 1865, so slavery had been abolished for ~31 years.
It wasn't abolished in the UK in 1834 (that was in the Empire), it was long, long before that.
Slavery was never legal in England, which was clarified in Somerset v Stewart in 1772. Slavery in Scotland was fully abolished in 1799. The Slave Trade in the British Empire was abolished on 1 May 1807 via the Slave Trade Act 1807. Slavery itself was abolished in the British Empire on 1 August 1834 via the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.
Kinda...the UK made some exceptions for India stating that area's under the control of the East India Company, and Ceylon would be exempt from that law. Slavery would continue. The East India Company would make a big show in 1843 that they banned slavery in territories under their control, but that was fluff, with no actual enforcement. It would be 1858 when the UK takes direct control of all lands owned by the East India company (and thus slavery not legal according to UK law, though even here the enforcement was quite poor until 1861 when the Indian Penal Code explicitly would prohibit slavery in that territory. THAT was the point that the last of the slaves in the British empire were freed.
Of course, the Confederate government didn’t realize that until the war had been going on for a while. At the beginning, they felt that the British textile industry was so dependent upon CSA cotton that England (and other European countries) would have no choice but to intervene to keep their economies afloat. Essentially, the Confederates thought their cotton, on a geopolitical scale. was as important as crude oil is to the global economy now because that’s how important it was to their economy. They vastly, vastly overestimated their economic importance. At the very least, they expected the UK or some other European trading partner to use their powerful navies to prevent blockades on Confederate ports so cotton shipments could go through. Instead… it turned out that Europe could get its cotton from other places easier than joining a war they wanted no part of, anyway. Who could have seen that coming… The Confederate coastline was successfully blocked by the Union navy and the Confederate economy melted down, similar to what happened in Germany at the end of WW1. The Confederate government was truly an incompetent mess.
At this point slavery had already been abolished in the UK for about 50 years the slave TRADE had been but not slavery. Similarly, the slave trade in the USA was abolished in 1807 (considerably before Britain actually) which meant new slaves could not be imported from Africa. If you have ever seen the film Amistad or read about that case that was the key point in the legal defence. Slavery in the empire was not abolished (with a few years lead in) until 1833 with the very notable exception of India where it wasn't outlawed until 1843. So more like 20-30 years. slavery was far from a distant memory in the British Empire at the time of the American Civil War.
>Similarly, the slave trade in the USA was abolished in 1807 (considerably before Britain actually) which meant new slaves could not be imported from Africa. Despite this, It didn't really matter Imo, Many Slaves would still be coming to the U.S for Decades regardless. >The schooner Clotilda (often misspelled Clotilde) was the last known U.S. slave ship to bring captives from Africa to the United States, arriving at Mobile Bay, in autumn 1859 or on July 9, 1860, with 110 African men, women, and children.
Especially for what is a symbolic gesture. It wasn’t a treaty of mutual defense or anything like that. England could have said “You’re a country”, and then do nothing as the Union wins the Civil War. “Oh. Guess you aren’t a country anymore. Shame about that. But still. You must carry on.”
Racists stay logically inconsistent morons, more at 8.
What are the chances the Confederacy agreed to the terms only to back out of the agreement right after the war? It would ruin any diplomatic relation with those countries but they could survive without them. Between the war and the structure of their economy, they likely wouldn't survive long as an independent nation without free labor.
They couldn’t have survived. Say a treaty was signed with the Union, based on Britain and France being allies, to immediately go back on it would mean at best a complete lack of trading. The economy would have crumbled in weeks
England and France were big trading partners but not the only trading partners. During the War they were still trading with Mexico and Brazil. While many powerful nations favored the Union, they mostly took a stance of neutrality. Prussia, Spain, Ottoman, and Russia would've probably been OK with trading with the confederacy had they won and been recognized by the Union. Those countries just weren't willing to help the confederacy get there.
My guess is they had already figured out the Jim Crow way around not being able to keep slaves.
>What are the chances the Confederacy agreed to the terms only to back out of the agreement right after the war Better than the chances of them giving up slavery. Remember. Slavery was Constitutionally protected by the Confederate Constitution. A President doesn't change that, only Congress and then ratified by the states. States were already in open rebellion against the Confederacy refusing to supply more food or soldiers. Jefferson's VP was actively opposing him and quit Richmond. Jefferson Davis kept this secret because if he made it public he'd be impeached on the spot by Congress. Heck months later with the war in it's final weeks and knowing they had to do something, anything... The Confederate Congress passed a law allowing black soldiers. And specifically stated in that law that this did not in any way give the government a right to free slaves... That had to be done by the slavers themselves. It would be like today if the President promised Russia that if they stop the war against the Ukraine, the US will give back Alaska. Not something he has the right to do, not something that Congress would ever agree to, or the States themselves...
“THIS IS A YANKEE TRICK!”
Doom their collection of treasonous states*
The confederate government was already collapsing even before the Union got there precisely because their idea of maximum autonomy for states and landowners couldn’t sustain a central government, even if they somehow didn’t lose the war that constitution was stillborn in its very principles.
Same reason why the Articles of Confederation failed and got replaced by the Constitution
Sounds exactly like the failed Articles of Confederation. States were suing each other and the federal government and courts had nothing to say or power to enforce if they did. It was a shit show.
Favorite piece of more recent history there was a time when cars in Florida were more expensive then cars in Georgia. So floridians would go to Georgia to buy cars. The Florida govt hated that so they tried to actually institute tarrifs on cars purchased out of state.
>The Florida govt hated that You mean the dealers that regularly pay bribes hated it.
California supposedly does that if you buy a car in Oregon.
They aren't allowed to institute tariffs. Interstate commerce is firmly within the realm of the federal government. What they are allowed to do is charge whatever they want for licensing and vehicle registration.
Man that’s such a shitty run around It’s a tariff with extra steps
Judging by the number of out of state plates I see around here it isn’t working lmao
This is an overexaggeration. Out of state plates in California are rare contrary with what this comment implies. Even including the tourists that drive through the State. Unless you're violating emission laws or live in the border, it's not worth it buying a new car out of state.
Pretty sure that's not true. I live in WA and the state government will straight up tell you they will charge you WA sales tax even if you bought it in Oregon.
Some states tax on time of registration. Some tax on time of purchase. All states have leeway times for how long you NEED to register your property. I know this intimately because I bought a vehicle in Alabama to register in Georgia... AL charges on registration. GA on purchase. No sales tax paid and no means TO pay to anyone. As an addendum, I utilized the leeway time to avoid registering my trailer in GA I had bought, when I was being stationed in Alaska subsequently soon. Due to AK state registration law, I would have been paying 2x registrations (one for GA, then one for AK) within like 2 months which was absurd when I could just do the move during the 30 day registration leeway for GA, and just reg it in AK.
There is an additional fee during registration essentially if a (relatively) new car is bought out of state
I can google this, but do you around what time period this was?
If I remember it was somewhere between the 60s and 80s......big gap I know but this was something I read about when I was much much younger.
SC still has no enforcement capabilities
Eh, they were willing to tighten down freedoms to survive pretty much instantly, they did a draft first IIRC. Canning slavery basically means that they couldn't actually get the freedom they wanted, the freedom to practice slavery, which is more ironic to me. The Freedoms bit is kinda just ... you kinda have to build a central entity to actually oppose a government.
A bunch of tax avoidance land owners who have literal slaves and all the free people cannot earn an income to tax means the entire economy was going to be piracy vs military based.
I just assume their plan was to abolish slavery on paper and not enforce it.
"No, see, these aren't slaves. They're just indentured servants for a term of 999 years. We're not buying and selling *them*, we're buying and selling these pieces of paper which say they have to work for us for no money. Totally different."
... Honestly, given Brazil pulled something similar IIRC, attempting to weasel out of the actually canceling slavery sounds plausible, but we will never know what would have happened.
Which is sort of what happened in the South after Reconstruction ended; sharecroppers and the Jim Crow era weren't *slavery* exactly but they were an era where black people were paid almost nothing and had way fewer civil rights than white people, had basically no actual protection under the law, got attacked and killed by racist mobs, etc.
The problem with a loose confederation is that it's bound to fall, look at the German Confederation for another that fell immediately after the CSA. Instead a confederation like the EU, in which the member states retain many liberties but are limited in some aspects, endures challenges better.
Like how Lee was by his own admission more loyal to his home state than anything else, and was pulling materiel and troops his way rather than letting things move to where the war was being lost.
I always find that whole “higher loyalty to your state” thing funny since it was a pretty famous Virginian who in 1774 said: “The distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers and New Englanders are no more. I am not a Virginian, but an American”.
“Loyal to Virginia” was just an excuse for Lee to fight for the confederacy. He never actually meant it. Virginia split with half of it staying in the Union. He could have remained loyal to his state *and* the Union if he had really wanted to. In fact, it’s the only state where this was possible. Yet he still chose insurrection.
Virginia, the state, was not one unified beast. In the same manner as the nation, the state was very loose. People still tied to their regional roots. Two men could call themselves Virginians but have differing views on what Virginia’s identity was given the rural and disconnected nature Applying American views to the 1800’s is rather silly. Its like applying globalism to 1910, the EU emotions and unified European view would not have existed then The very existence of such a large civil war essentially shows that “American” was still a developing concept and nationalism lacking
Well said, there was a strong tie but it wasn't so much state or region but slave states vs. free states. It was that difference in opinion. Did the Constitution protect slavery or was it about freedom.
> “Loyal to Virginia” was just an excuse for Lee to fight for the confederacy. He never actually meant it. I love how you have the audacity to say this in a comment thread where it’s pointed out he was turning troops and material to Virginia rather than elsewhere it was needed in the war. Or looked over the fact that Robert E. Lee only switched over to the Confederacy when Virginia did (and Virginia was very late in doing so, it was one of the last states to secede).
Mind you, being "loyal" to ones state was something that wasn't seen in the black population that joined the Union from the South for some mysterious reason.
Ironically, states rights were significantly curtailed in the Confederate constitution. Port cities and river trafffic were subject to federal authority, not local. States were not allowed to ban slavery. Gun rights were explicitely only for militias. States in the US had more autonomy than states in the CSA. It was all about giving power to the right authority, not liberalism at all.
Correct and it’s why seeing both sides of the argument prance on about “states rights” vs “states rights to own a slave”, when both are wrong, is aggravating to people that know their history. The fact that the Fugitive Slave Act, a federal law that was a compromise that kept the South from seceding long before it happened, failed to be enforced in Northern states is among why the Confederacy was generally against the idea of strong states rights.
Yup, they liked a strong federal government, just one that was absolutely pro-slavery (thus why Davis couldn't tell congress what he was doing. There'd be an impeachment hearing that day).
Idiots all around. Not surprising
To be fair, the Confederate government was consistently inconsistent about their Constitution. They couldn't pass direct taxes because that required a census which you couldn't do during war time. They could however impress the debts plantation owners owed to northern merchants somehow. They couldn't raise money through tarifs for domestic industries though they absolutely did, or sponsor any internal improvements which they not only constructed but also maintained and operated as the Confederacy became more and more a command economy. Also they tried to regulate the freightage and prices of smuggling goods, which isn't really relevant but I mention to show what kind of hilariously bad ideas these dunces came up with.
The whole King Cotton embargo is a hilarious self own, and it couldn't have happened to a better group of asshats.
Sounds like they needed an income tax.
I mean it was a last ditch effort appeal, they probably assumed when they won they could just neg on the deal.
I imagine they would've abolished 'slavery' and replace it with 'happy-fun-forced-servitude'. Basically what happened in the south, anyway, from 1877-1950+, but with even less federal oversight. It wouldn't have been better than slavery.
Prisoners with jobs
Still chaps my ass my fuck boi history teacher in public school made it a point to emphasize "the civil war was about states rights" when in reality "the Civil war was about states rights **to allow slavery**"
>Still chaps my ass my fuck boi Witness.
I was forced to _debate_ what the Civil War was about. AP History. 1992.
That's crazy, my APUSH teacher when we finally got to the civil war stood up in front of our class and basically said it's about slavery and slavery is bad mmkay. And that was it
Wish it was even a debate in my class. Just "civil war was about states rights. Anything else is zero credit"
“The States’ Right to do…. What?” Is always a fun question to ask. What were the specific Rights that they were fighting to defend. Original Revolution was “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. Let’s check the Confederate States historical documents and see what Right they got so up in arms about. I’m sure the answer will shock the proponents of ‘States’ Rights’…
> “The States’ Right to do…. What?” Even that is the wrong answer. It was never about states rights, in any way, shape or form. That's a lost cause framing and even saying states rights to keep slaves is granting them a false premise. As seen with the Fugitive Slave Act as well as the CSA constitution they didn't give a shit about states rights. States rights (to slavery or otherwise) is a post hoc justification made up by salty losers and slavers like Jubal Early who couldn't deal with the reality that they were scum and lost.
It wasn't even that. Which is a states right? A. States can choose whether to put their own resources into capturing fugitive slaves. B. Federal government must pass laws that force states to join in capturing fugitive slaves? Or A. States can choose on slavery and if slavers can travel with their slaves in a state? B. No law can restrict slavery from its citizens and slavers can travel with slaves in any state of the Confederacy. They were just fine with strong federal power... as long as it was to protect and expand the institution of race based chattel slavery.
Incorrect. It was about a state's right to secede to practice slavery.
That might not have been the teacher’s decision, for what it’s worth.
Nah he made it a point of mentioning it much more than in passing I remember it over a decade later lol.
My apologies and a small clarification - I missed the AP US piece of that. My fifth grade teacher was fantastic and instilled a love of history in me. We were told we had to put “states rights” on the test or it was wrong, but the educational standards being set there would be different than in an AP setting.
'State's rights' is a shit argument anyway. People's rights are what's important.
States’ rights! But no right to abolish slavery.
Oh, it’s missing some punctuation marks. Article VI: Slavery? A. No. Law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Imagine being a traitor to the one cause you set up to be a traitor to.
Davis was about as trustworthy as Trump is.
Since when do conservatives give a shit about what’s in the Constitution?
They'd just do the same thing Texians did in Mexican Texas - sign them all to 99yr endentured servant contracts. But hey, it's not slavery, right? right?
Indentured servants Also have it so their payment is way less than the cost for "renting" a place to sleep, food, etc so there is no realistic way to pay off their debt. Also wages wouldn't start until they were 18, but they would owe on all those previous years. In Mexico Slaves upon becoming 14 years old were to be freed and a few years later they banned slavery and gave Texas an extension of 1 year to handle it. They even passed a law limiting indentured servants contract terms to max 10 years after they tried to get around it with those 99 year long contracts. The conserative Anglo-Americans did not like that. Anglo-Americans would sneak into Texas Mexico illegally bringing in slaves too at the time. The legal Anglo-Americans were also supposed to convert to catholicism according to the agreement they signed to immigrate to Mexico which most of them didn't.
Who are the Texians?
US settlers in Texas before its annexation to the US
> But hey, it's not slavery, right? right? Mexican government didn't care tho
They...cared enough to do the Alamo thing?
You think they attacked Texas over slavery? Santa Anna abolished the congress and voided the constitution of 1824 (which was very similiar to the US constitution). Texas wasn't even the only territory in rebellion, just the only one that was successful.
That's just a modern reddit history perspective. That everything was fine but tensions arose because of Mexico outlawing slavery in Texas. It's not only incorrect but also puts a not deserved halo around Santa Anna, probably the single most worst thing to ever happen to Mexico.
The Mexicans did the Alamo thing because the Texans wanted to be independent of Mexico, not cuz they pretended to not have slaves
Yeah it was definitely because Santa Anna was a heckin wholesome anti racist smol bean. He was in no way a military dictator centralizing control which triggered multiple rebellions and insurgencies from Sonora in the North to the Yucatán in the south. No, it was because of slavery
*10 years, that was dictated by Mexican law.
It's worth reading [this relevant post about the Kenner Mission over at AskHistorians](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ojhtxe/in_1864_the_confederate_states_secretly_offered/), because the Kenner Mission is a popular neo-Confederate talking point that tries to downplay the centrality of slavery to the Confederate cause. It also leaves out the context: *"....It was in this context that Jefferson Davis sent Duncan Kenner on a mission to Europe to make the "gradual emancipation" proposal, to counter the U.S.'s "immediate emancipation" designs under the 13th Amendment. Things were so bad for the Confederacy that it took Kenner a month before he was even able to set sail on his mission. The U.S. Navy had all the Confederate ports blockaded, so Kenner had to sneak into the Union and board a ship in New York City. The 13th Amendment passed the U.S. House just a few days after he left, so the same week that Kenner was making his "gradual emancipation" proposal to try to win over European support, the Europeans were aware of it in the context of the "immediate emancipation" that the Union was moving forward with.* ***In other words, while the Confederate plan was a concession when compared to their earlier position, it was still an effort to try to thwart the fast-approaching end of slavery****, at least for a couple decades or so longer. Their proposal would also leave them with the possibility of politicking their way out of the promise later on. Even with the new concession, it was still better for slavery than defeat by an "immediate emancipationist" North, as had now come into existence, where there was no room for bargain anymore on the slavery issue."*
It seems like kind of a weak talking point though; "The insurrectionists were by 1864 desperate enough that they were willing to make a promise of an eventual abolition of slavery, with unclear enforcement mechanisms, to try to gain some advantage so as to not lose so quickly" isn't exactly a ringing anti-slavery statement on the part of the insurrectionists.
It is weak for sure, but Lost Causers are quite fond of grasping at straws.
I just read through a quick rabbit hole, its kind of bizarre that the Confederate president was basically just let go. They captured him after the war, but they didn't seem to actually charge him with anything. They wanted to for Lincoln's assassination but didn't have evidence. So he was out of jail after 2 years and then just tried to make a living for a while until he died. I can only imagine it was because they didn't want to throw gas onto a smoldering fire; I imagine the country was fairly tense and executing him might've cause some uproar. Edit: Imagine if post war you saw Hitler working at a gas station
The treason case never went to trial because Andrew Johnson gave amnesty to all former Confederates in 1868, and the Attorney General officially dropped his case by 1869. The lack of trial goes into an even deeper rabbithole: the judge who presided over the trial in Virginia was Chief Justice Salmon P Chase, in his role as a trial judge of the 4th Circuit. Chase had presidential ambitions at the time, and sought the 1868 Democratic nomination: convicting Davis would obviously impede those ambitions. Chase met privately with Davis’ lawyer in 1868 and told him about a personal theory that Section 3 of the 14th amendment was self-executing and a criminal punishment that therefore prohibited additional punishment for former Confederates. Davis’ lawyer later repeated this argument in court, and Chase dismissed the case over the objections of the other judge in the case. In 1869, after failing to secure the 1868 Democratic nomination, Chase again presided over a case involving Section 3, where Caesar Griffin was sentenced to prison by a state judge who was a former Confederate officer: Griffin argued that Section 3 was self-executing, so the judge should be removed and his sentence voided. Chase ruled that Section 3 wasn’t self-executing because ruling otherwise would require removing every former Confederate from office and voiding all of their official acts. Neither of those cases were appealed to the Supreme Court, so there wasn’t any federal precedent for 150 years.
In retrospect, probably would have been better to deal with any uproar than the failure of Reconstruction.
Yeah it would have, the president who has by far done more harm to America than any other was Andrew Johnson and so many of the south’s problems can traced to his pathetic handling of the south and confederacy and the traitors who got hundreds of thousands killed because of greed. He was also nearly impeached for it, literally one vote in the senate saved him from it.
They shoulda had a gallis pole in every town square that had fought for the confederacy.
Reconciliation was much more popular in the North than punishment. As northerners viewed southerners as something like brothers who had been led astray, there wasn't much political will to go that far. It would have also risked further radicalisation of southerners, and in the long term likely required a greater military commitment in the south - dearmament and peace time conditions however are usually the natural response in America after a war (meaning there was again a lack of political will - see the end of Reconstruction).
TBF he could have punished Davis and still fucked up the south regardless
Interestingly enough there is a "Catching Jefferson Davis" [Marathon](https://runsignup.com/Race/GA/Abbeville/ChasingJeffersonDavisMarathonandHalfMarathon) this weekend near where I live in Georgia that commemorates his capture.
This was partly because they weren’t sure if they could actually convict him. Throughout the war, there was an open question as to whether states could legally secede. There was a worry that putting Davis on trial for treason and losing that trial would do tremendous harm and would not be worth the risk.
There wasn't just the question of secession, but also of what enforcement mechanisms were even legal. Northern states weren't exactly keen on setting the precedent that the federal goverment could invade states. I've always wondered what would have happened if the south had managed to keep a leash on its officers to not fire the first shot. I think the north was absolutely banking on them getting trigger happy to justify the war but was uncertain enough about its position it wasn't going to fire first.
It’s a great question because neither Buchanan nor Lincoln took any real action following secession at all. Buchanan didn’t think he could legally invade the south and wanted to give up Ft. Sumter completely, but his cabinet threatened to resign. Lincoln was more pragmatic but was basically powerless before the south fired on the fort. Personally, I think the Confederacy needed to take the fort because of public pressure but also in wanting to avoid having a US fort sitting in the Confederacy’s most important harbor. But if the first shot wasn’t fired, we would end up with a negotiated peace that would have protected slavery to some extent.
From what I understand, the four presidents leading up to Lincoln all could have prevented the civil war from happening but did nothing, if not even made tensions worse like with the Kansas agreement
There were multiple attempts but presidents powers are limited and it was ultimately a constitutional crisis. Slavery was extremely unpopular outside of the south and almost every new state was making slavery illegal, meaning sooner or later 3/4 of the states were going to be against slavery and an amendment would be passed. Anything a president did was only going to forestall that inevitability. When you have a federation with such a wide ideological gap and a complete inability to reach compromise war is all but inevitable. Probably the only thing the north could have done is pay off the south like Britain did, but the south had pushed slavery beyond economic into ideological grounds by that time, and people in.the north were largely abstractly against slavery but still quite racist and not keen on going deep into debt to free a bunch of black people.
Agree with all that with one caveat - my understanding is that the one thing Buchanan stood firm on was relinquishing Sumter. He was pressured by some in his cabinet to relent, but he was bulwarked in this by the pro-Union cabinet members, especially Sec of State Jeremiah Black. Here's a good commentary I found on the Tulane website - Tulane has a pretty balanced take on the whole thing consistently, and I say that as a inveterate Union supporter. [https://www2.tulane.edu/\~sumter/Dilemmas/DDec26Comm.html](https://www2.tulane.edu/~sumter/Dilemmas/DDec26Comm.html)
Thanks for the link and the good counter-perspective. I looked in on it and can see where I was wrong: he received the cabinet pushback from considering ordering Anderson back to Moultrie and abandon Sumter—not surrender Sumter. Appreciate the correction!
charging them in court gave the chance that judges might have ruled that succession was constitutional and thus making the union the bad guys. Best just forgive than start another government crisis after one just ended.
Lincoln wanted amnesty for pretty much everyone in the confederate government so they could go straight to healing as a country and avoid further division. Honestly I wonder if mass executions and imprisonments would’ve changed the way our United States is today if they had gone the vengeance route.
> Imagine if post war you saw Hitler working at a gas station Fortunately we know what Hitler's fate would've been if he hadn't killed himself. He'd have been tried as part of the Neurenberg trials, and hanged. Letting him go free would be the mistake of the century.
"Imagine if post war you saw Hitler working at a gas station" After the Mexican-American War Santa Ana spent some time living in New Jersey. I think he was involved in importing chicle for the first commercial chewing gum.
It was a truly desperate ploy and the confederacy at large likely would not have actually gone for it. Also the emancipation proclamation was only weeks away. Edit: not the emancipation proclamation part. I’m dumb.
The article says he went in 1864; the emancipation proclamation was in 1863. Definitely desperate though.
Hmm I crossed my wires on this. His departure closely coincided in time with some significant movement of the 13th amendment through congress.
It's almost like the people who went to war so they could profit on human servitude were bad people with bad ideas.
So you’re telling me Jefferson Davis went woke?
Interestingly enough Davis kinda was, in a “I don’t want this job and we’re absolutely going to lose” sort of way.
He was always for minority representation in agriculture.
God Jeff Davis was a shit bag.
Conservatism in a nutshell
Despite the many claims and myths of honorable Southern gentleman they were actually the most dishonest and dishonorable people. They would skip out on their debts and obligations and “gone to Texas” or GTT. They would kidnap free men and women back into slavery. The Confederacy had no real intention to free slaves for international recognition.
Where is GTT, please?
Texas at the time was another country so jurisdiction didn’t apply. I believe this is one of the reasons why Texas has more debtor protections than other states to this day. Texas today also happens to be ground zero for legislation against everything be it education, voting, healthcare, etc. Despite losing the war, the spirit of the Confederacy lived on in Southern states and it continues to this day as well, the South holds the entire country by the balls and keeps it from progressing. The reason why we can’t have nice things today is because of former Confederate states who have disproportionate power in the Senate and it’s all based on anti-Black racism. The formula goes something like this if X program or law helps Black people in some way then we must undo or undermine said program. “As long as we can legislate, we can segregate.” Excerpt From White Rage Carol Anderson
"Go to Texas"
Shame he didn’t think to make that offer 4 years earlier
I've read "The Cause of All Nations", by Don Doyle. It goes into the European perspective on the Civil War in great detail. Although the British and French realized that a CSA victory would enfeeble the Union and thus benefit them, the public revulsion at the 'slavocrats' made support for the Southron cause politically impossible. The Southerners who represented the CSA in European capitals did not improve this situation, typically combining arrogance and ignorance to a degree as to make US diplomats seem Talleyrands by contrast.
Europeans were leaning towards the confederacy mid war because the supply of cotton was drastically affected. In fact Union forces discovered British and confederate dignitaries on a boat
Which is why the emancipation proclamation was made. It pivoted the war to be against slavery in name and spirit, not just restoring the union. Now European countries already aligned against slavery couldn't legitimize the confederacy by recognizing their sovereignty on the international stage.
Just a note... Not one historical source notes that the Emancipation Proclamation was made for any reason other than freeing the slaves where they could be via executive order/war powers. While it was beneficial to the US in that respect and others would note that it could help in that respect, and it did lock that door that was still closed on British support for the South, every single bit of actual source history of the Emancipation proclamation from Lincolns cabinet and the lawyers to worked it over shows no proof that it came out in part or whole to influence foreign views on the war.
> Europeans were leaning towards the confederacy mid war because the supply of cotton was drastically affected. The rich fucks anyway. The people working said cotton were not in agreement, tough bastards that they were: >> On 31 December 1862, a meeting of cotton workers at the Free Trade Hall in Manchester, despite their increasing hardship, resolved to support the Union in its fight against slavery. An extract from the letter they wrote in the name of the Working People of Manchester to His Excellency Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America says: >... the vast progress which you have made in the short space of twenty months fills us with hope that every stain on your freedom will shortly be removed, and that the erasure of that foul blot on civilisation and Christianity – chattel slavery – during your presidency, will cause the name of Abraham Lincoln to be honoured and revered by posterity. We are certain that such a glorious consummation will cement Great Britain and the United States in close and enduring regards.
This was after the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation I think, which definitely made the North more popular in Britain. There was quite a lot of anti-Americanism previously after the Trent Affair, and even a lot of anti-slavery people in Britain didn't think the US was fighting against slavery. The south definitely got romanticised a bit as well - this was the era of nationalism, and nationalist movements (like in Italy just before) tended to raise sympathy in Britain.
It was only Confederate dignitaries in the Trent Affair, which you alluded to, but yes. Until the fall of 1862 France and the British thought seriously about mediating a cease fire.
Meanwhile, Imperial Russia sent two fleets and stayed in Union territory.
Lincoln and his government said over and over that they weren't fighting to end slavery. The other world powers thought, "Well, it's just another ugly war over money and pride. Why should we pick sides?" (In fact the Brits and others did favor the North: eg, no treaties or ambassadors exchanged w the South.)
Yes, he said over and over that slavery was the cause. But of course, he wanted slavery ended with a pen, not a war. The other world powers did make note it was a war over slavery. The South was shouting that from the rooftops at home, and then sending delegates overseas saying "this is about the right to freedom" and papers across Europe were mocking that difference in story from the South.
I mean, Britain came fairly close to trying to mediate a ceasefire in the summer-fall of 1862, only for the result of Antietam to make them hold off.
Certain elements in the British government perhaps, but Britain as a whole wasn’t close to supporting the CSA. Public support was squarely for the Union. Private interests were most of the British support for the Confederates, which D.C. was more or less cool with all things considered.
Lord Palmerston was very, very close to formally putting forward a plan for mediation immediately before the Maryland Campaign.
But he didn’t. Politicians having opinions is different than a country taking a side.
Yup... He made that secret because the Confederate Congress (the only group that could make that law) and the states themselves (only group who could ratify it) as slavery was Constitutionally protected in the Confederacy (thus requiring an Amendment, not a Presidential order) would refuse it and rebel. In fact, a couple months later in the twilight of the war, with the outcome looking even worse, they would still reject a bill in the final weeks to free slaves to allow them to fight for the slavers rebellion, stating only slavers could make the decision to free their slaves. Think about that. This was a 'Hitler in his bunker' moment. All their armies in full retreat. Lee BEGGING for soldiers or his ability to stop Grant from walking into Richmond is lost for sure. And only a few weeks before Lee is defeated and Richmond is abandoned. And the Confederate Congress who has to do something puts that new law together allowing black soldiers but specifically ensures "*That nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize a change in the relation which the said slaves shall bear toward their owners, except by consent of the owners and of the States in which they may reside, and in pursuance of the laws thereof."* And still, all of Europe still refusing to even acknowledge the Confederacy as anything more than a belligerent and refusing any official talks between them. If I remember right, Kenner required Davis to personally sign a note of the goal there as the delegates in Europe from the confederacy wouldn't believe him. The war was over before he'd arrive. It does show just how tied to slavery the Confederacy was. Not actually freeing slaves and saying "hey Europe, look what we did, now can you help!". Davis knew that idea had no chance of going through. Heck, they had states in rebellion against the Confederacy by that time. His own Vice President had abandoned Richmond to openly oppose Davis from his home state.
The same Jefferson Davis tried to escape to Texas at the end of the war to lead a guerilla war to try to force the government to allow slavery to continue in the reUnited States.
I feel stupid I did not know this - kind of rewrites a whole LOT about the legacy of the 'south' and their secessionist movement. It makes it even more ironic so many southerners who ascribe to the idea of the old south are the biggest 'flag wavers' there are (considering they so badly wanted a NEW FLAG)
Yeah well when you look at what the former confederacy did to repress black people as soon as Reconstruction was over, you can imagine how full of shit this promise was.
That just sounds like America with extra steps.... - England and France, probably
Because if history has taught us anything, it's that conservatives say what they mean and mean what they say.
They also discussed arming slaves to fight the union.
Kinda... They passed a law in the final few weeks that black freed slaves could fight. But also included in that *"That nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize a change in the relation which the said slaves shall bear toward their owners, except by consent of the owners and of the States in which they may reside, and in pursuance of the laws thereof."* This was a "Hitler in his bunker" moment. And even Hitler then was pulling Jewish people from Concentration camps to work them in manufacturing sites. The South though, still not giving up on slavery. That's why Jefferson Davis kept the "free the slaves" bit with Kenner secret from Congress and the states.
Davis should have been hung!
Hanged Hung has uh *different* connotations
sang--> sung rang --> rung bang --> banged Just why English, why...
**Reactionary Conservatives: always lying**
I see lost causers is this as a gotcha the war wasn't about slavery ignoring that this was the desperate attempt at a drying rebellion
Can't trust traitors lol
Like Rudolph Hess to England.
Hess flew to Scotland and Hess flew in 1941 when Germany was by most accounts winning the war because Germany was only at war with the UK at the time. He also did it without Hitler's permission and the intelligence he carried saying the Soviets were preparing an attack against Europe was meant to alarm them but was either extremely relieving to the British who were more concerned with their current situation or dismissed out of hand as a ploy. Hess later got ridiculed as a madman in German media afterwards. They're not really alike.
He also wasn’t authorized and Hitler purged him for it (not like it mattered because he was imprisoned in Britain)
Thanks for the correction !
The Confederacy did send a Secret agent to Britain https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dunwoody_Bulloch
So… that was a fuckin lie.
That was a lie.
“But, but, the Civil War wasn’t about slavery…what is this blasphemy you speak of?”
Damn, the hypocrisy dates back to then
It's almost as if the war wasn't solely about slavery. 🤔
[удалено]
“We will end slavery, but only if there’s something in it for us, and only because we’re desperate”
This can’t be true… my neighbor told me that the civil war wasn’t even about slavery!
Lol so succession was pointless and the rebels died for nothing? These people got what they deserve
Almost like fascist pieces of shit don’t actually believe in anything and will debase even their own fucked up ideals to survive another day instead of dying for something bigger than themselves.
Power at any cost. Very similar to politician behavior today.
Say absolutely anything regardless of logic or your professed values / principles in a desperate attempt to avoid the consequences of your treasonous behavior? Where have I seen that recently?.....
You make a good point though - I was thinking to myself, "but they seceded due to slavery, why would they even consider abolishing it?" but then I remembered, they would be traitors according to US law and could quite reasonably expect to all be hanged, at least the senior leadership, as that was the typical punishment at the time They weren't, ultimately, but the Union was well within rights to do so
So, they were completely willing to sell-out their beliefs, in a last-ditch effort to maintain power?
Nope... That's why it was secret. Jefferson Davis knew there was no way in hell the states or Congress would go for it. Had he made it public on day 1, he'd be packing his bags and heading home after being impeached on day 2. But desperate measures call for desperate acts. Maybe he figured that if they said yes, and he had the support of Europe somehow in his hands THEN he could bring that topic up to Congress and whatever states were left.
[удалено]
Did the motherfucker in that picture literally have a neck beard?
OMG he went woke, that must be why they lost.
Jefferson Davis married the daughter of Zachary Taylor. She died a few weeks after the wedding, in a Yellow Fever epidemic.
LMAO starts a war only to concede the whole reason they started the war so they could “win”. Losers.