# How much longer would slavery have lasted if the South won the Civil War? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 24, 2007, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-would-slavery-have-lasted-if-the-south-won-the-civil-war/401398 "2007-04-24T01:49:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2007, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-would-slavery-have-lasted-if-the-south-won-the-civil-war/401398/101 "2007-04-26T17:03:21Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s not entirely a pointless exercise. Sure, obviously the soldier is fighting because his country is at war, but looking at soldier and “average people” accounts can help you understand how people at the time viewed the war and the reasons for it. Well “pointless” may have been a little extreme. Their attitudes towards the war is obviously a topic of interest. But on the issues of why the southern states seceeded, why the United States opposed the secession, and why the CSA fired on Fort Sumter, it’s important to remember that it wasn’t the “men of the street” who were making these decisions. The Lincoln and Davis administrations and the various legislatures were not composed of typical members of their society and there’s no reason to assume they mirrored the typical attitudes of their society. But they were the people who directed their countries. So if you want to understand the decisions that were made, you have to study the decision makers. ---
**Author:** ![Valteron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f17d59/32.png) [@Valteron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valteron)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2007, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-would-slavery-have-lasted-if-the-south-won-the-civil-war/401398/102 "2007-04-26T17:18:40Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] Neither Grant nor Lee supported slavery. Each acquired slaves as gifts/inheritance or through marriage. Each freed those slaves over whom they had ownership fairly soon after acquiring them, (although their wives appear to have been somewhat less swift to follow suit). However, Grant was coming from the position of preserving the Union, not from a position of freeing the slaves. Lee was coming from the position of defending his home state, not from the position of defending slavery. To repeat a point made several times in the last day: the overall issues are much more complex on the personal level. [/QUOTE] I don’t know if you were reacting to my post immediately above yours, Tomndebb, but the point I am making is fully in agreement with yours regarding the complexity of the situation. That very complexity is illustrated by the fact that the Grant **family** if not Grant himself, would have legally owned and used slaves as much as 2 years later than Lee and his family could have done so. But you say that Lee did not support slavery. I am not sure if by saying that you imply that he wanted its abolition, or merely that he did not actively support it. But the [Wiki article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee) on Lee seems to cast some doubt on the idea that he opposed the practice: " **Lee’s views on slavery** Since the end of the Civil War, it has often been suggested that Lee was in some sense opposed to slavery. In the period following the Civil War and Reconstruction, and after his death, Lee became a central figure in the Lost Cause interpretation of the war, and as succeeding generations came to look on slavery as a terrible immorality, the idea that Lee had always somehow opposed it helped maintain his stature as a symbol of Southern honor and national reconciliation." Having read that evidence, for what it is worth, can we really say that Lee “did not support” slavery? Frankly, I find it hard to decide one way or the other. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2007, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-would-slavery-have-lasted-if-the-south-won-the-civil-war/401398/103 "2007-04-26T17:20:40Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] Well “pointless” may have been a little extreme. Their attitudes towards the war is obviously a topic of interest. But on the issues of why the southern states seceeded, why the United States opposed the secession, and why the CSA fired on Fort Sumter, it’s important to remember that it wasn’t the “men of the street” who were making these decisions. The Lincoln and Davis administrations and the various legislatures were not composed of typical members of their society and there’s no reason to assume they mirrored the typical attitudes of their society. But they were the people who directed their countries. So if you want to understand the decisions that were made, you have to study the decision makers. [/QUOTE] Obviously, you’re right, you do have to study the decision makers. But, at the same time, neither Lincoln, nor Davis, nor the national and state legislatures, nor the various secession conventions, could ignore public opinion. Both the USA and the CSA were democratic republics, and their leaders had to be concerned with how their decisions would be viewed. They couldn’t “get too far ahead” of the public, or operate with values and attitudes too different than the general public and get and stay in power. At the very least, both sides needed active support for the war, because they were asking their citizens for real material sacrifices in order to pursue it. The political and military leaders were aware of this, and if you look at Civil War millitary operations, a number of them (Lee’s invasions of Maryland and Pennsylvania, Sherman’s March to the Sea) were aimed directly at undermining enemy civilian morale. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2007, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-would-slavery-have-lasted-if-the-south-won-the-civil-war/401398/104 "2007-04-26T17:35:05Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] Neither Grant nor Lee supported slavery. Each acquired slaves as gifts/inheritance or through marriage. Each freed those slaves over whom they had ownership fairly soon after acquiring them, (although their wives appear to have been somewhat less swift to follow suit). [/QUOTE] Well, in Lee’s case, I wouldn’t say it was “fairly soon”. Lee was one of the executors of the estate of George Washington Parke Custis, his father-in-law. Custis died in October of 1857, and his estate included 63 slaves. Custis’s will said, in relevant part: > [@](#): > > And upon the legacies to my four granddaughters being paid, and my estates that are required to pay the said legacies, being clear of debts, then I give freedom to my slaves, the said slaves to be emancipated by my executors in such manner as to my executors may seem most expedient and proper, the said emancipation to be accomplished in not exceeding five years from the time of my decease. And, in fact, the slaves were freed in December of 1862, 5 years (and two months) after Custis’s death, as his will provided for. So, that’s fairly soon, if 5 years is fairly soon, but we have no way of knowing if that freeing of the slaves was out of some dislike for slavery, or just because, under the terms of the will, Lee had no choice. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2007, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-would-slavery-have-lasted-if-the-south-won-the-civil-war/401398/105 "2007-04-26T19:42:43Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] And, in fact, the slaves were freed in December of 1862, 5 years (and two months) after Custis’s death, as his will provided for. So, that’s fairly soon, if 5 years is fairly soon, but we have no way of knowing if that freeing of the slaves was out of some dislike for slavery, or just because, under the terms of the will, Lee had no choice. [/QUOTE] He had a choice. He could easily have broken the will. Of the four executors he was the only one qualified to serve, he had a lot of prestige, and the old man was demented. He left huge bequests to his granddaughters without the money to cover them, it was clear he had no idea what a mess his estate was in financially, and he ordered the freeing of slaves in a state where free blacks could only remain for one year and even though they were worth many tens of thousands of dollars in an estate that was financially embarassed. A judge would almost surely have overturned the will of man who did these things when he was deeply in debt. (For some reason I thought it was a lot more than 63, incidentally- the figure 140’s in my mind- must research to see where I got that figure.) Perhaps Lee’s views on slavery are better represented by how he regarded his own slaves. He inherited at least 8 from the estate of his mother. Two he gave to a sister who was in need, four he freed, and the fate of the other two is unknown- it’s believed he either freed them or gave them to a family member. He did not keep or sell them. He was certainly not an abolitionist in the sense of Frederick Douglass or Harriet Beecher Stowe, but he did loathe slavery intellectually and in practice. He certainly did not believe in the equality of the races and was not what we’d call a bleeding heart liberal by any means, and he had a major helping of the “white man’s burden” attitude, but all in all I think his views, complex as they were, were miles ahead of his contemporaries. The excerpt below is from an 1856 letter and shows both his dislike of slavery and his Christian paternalism. There are many other sources online where he discussed slavery before the war. (Yes, I know, the web site below is biased, but the letter is verbatim.) > [@](#): > > [December 27, 1856](http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Lee%20on%20Slavery.htm) There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2007, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-would-slavery-have-lasted-if-the-south-won-the-civil-war/401398/106 "2007-04-26T20:08:09Z")
[QUOTE=Sampiro] He was certainly not an abolitionist in the sense of Frederick Douglass or Harriet Beecher Stowe, but he did loathe slavery intellectually and in practice. He certainly did not believe in the equality of the races and was not what we’d call a bleeding heart liberal by any means, and he had a major helping of the “white man’s burden” attitude, but all in all I think his views, complex as they were, were miles ahead of his contemporaries. The excerpt below is from an 1856 letter and shows both his dislike of slavery and his Christian paternalism. There are many other sources online where he discussed slavery before the war. (Yes, I know, the web site below is biased, but the letter is verbatim.) [/QUOTE] I don’t really know if that’s true. Look at the rest of the letter: > [@](#): > > I was much pleased the with President’s message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North [abolitionists] to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war.. . . > > While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others? So, what he’s saying here is, “Well, sure slavery is bad, but actually doing anything about it is worse. I’m sure God will abolish slavery someday, but until that day comes, actively being opposed to slavery is against the will of God and is an evil thing.” That doesn’t sound like a man who loathes slavery. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2007, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-would-slavery-have-lasted-if-the-south-won-the-civil-war/401398/107 "2007-04-26T20:55:54Z")
## I think he’s being pragmatic and acknowledging nothing short of brutal war is going to make the people give up their slaves overnight, and he did not want a war. I started not to mention this as psychoanalyzing famous dead people, though the inspiration for some good historical biographical novels, is really useless for true history and it’s getting ever further from the OP. However, it’s interesting so I’ll add it. Lee’s childhood is interesting. His father, [Lighthorse Harry Lee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Lee), and his mother, [Ann Carter Lee](http://members.aol.com/rphs44/ahcleebio.html), , were from two of Virginia’s oldest (though not, in spite of the 1776 show tune, first) and richest families, but by the time Robert was born (when his father was 55 and his mother was 35 and already a near invalid) they were in dire straights. Bad investments, bad luck, bad harvests, lavish living, gambling, and bad judgment had essentially bankrupted Harry Lee and he lost everything he had and then some. He spent time in debtor’s prison and then abandoned the family for the Caribbean in order to avoid being imprisoned again and to recover from a severe beating by political enemies. His family would have been destitute had it not been for the fact Ann’s father, Charles Carter, had been one of the richest men in the nation. However, Carter was the father of many children, about 15 of whom outlived him, and so his fortune was spread thin. He left his daughter a trust fund that generated just enough to pay the rent on [modest town house](http://gwaa.acps.k12.va.us/leehome.htm) in Alexandria (it is much larger now than it was then- the right half was a separate dwelling during Lee’s childhood and the two were later joined into one) and he left her some slaves. Now, the house was no slum- it was certainly nicer than most of the nation lived in- but he grew up knowing it was rented, not owned, that his father had lost [this grand home](http://www.virginiaplaces.org/architecture/graphics/stratfordhall2.jpg) and that his mother had grown up in [this planter’s palace](http://www.drellenrudolph.com/aerials/aerials23.jpg). He was, and his beloved mother was, a poor relation of two rich families. The townhouse’s rent and upkeep exhausted the income from his mother’s trust fund, so she supplemented her income. Her other inheritance had been about twenty-two “work worthy” [i.e. not too old, not too young, healthy] slaves. She took about 6 for her personal use as domestics/groomsman/nurse/cook/etc., and the rest she leased to other families and to planters. Money from the lease of these slaves was the family’s main source of income, thus Lee grew up knowing that any comfort his family had financially came from the menial work of black people. His family’s embarrassed financial condition was also made clear when he announced he wanted to become a minister; he had always been religious and though ironically he was a devout Episcopalian (or Anglican) he was extremely proud of his descent (through his mother) from St. Thomas More. However, his mother and uncles (who served as her financial advisors) had to inform him it simply was not an option: his family could not afford to send him to college. That’s why he went to West Point: his one real asset was his family connections and he was able to secure an appointment, and he did quite well and the rest is history. Now, what I think is interesting about this: Lee had to have reflected many times on the fact that any comfort from his childhood came from slaves who labored and saw no money for it, that money going to his mother (and rented slaves were usually treated worse than owned slaves, incidentally- rather like rental cars today). He had to have had some disdain for wealth as his relatives included many famously arrogant and snooty types and again, he was the poor relation. When he married he struck pay dirt as far as aristocracy: his father-in-law was the adopted son of George Washington, his wife was the only legitimate surviving child (rumors claim she had many mulatto half-siblings) of a very rich man, their house was the grandest in Alexandria (which had become his home) and could be seen from the U.S. Capitol. (His wife was also a very sickly woman who was an invalid within a few years, just as his mother had been.) In spite of his in-law’s wealth, whenever he was living apart from his wife he was famously Spartan in his lifestyle and even with his wife and children until he settled at Arlington to settle the old man’s complicated estate he eschewed ostentation and seemed proud of moderation. His [own house in Richmond](http://712educators.about.com/library/graphics/city22.jpg) is very modest, and [the president’s house](http://lee200.wlu.edu/Images/LeeHouse_now.jpg) at Washington U. where he spent his final years , while comfortable, was secured solely through his own efforts. He made no attempts to reclaim Arlington on behalf of his wife (though his son was ultimately paid $150,000 for it) and said the one good thing to come from the war was the abolition. Perhaps he married Mary Custis Lee strictly because he loved her. Perhaps he did it because she was the catch of the county and by winning over richer men (including his relatives) he was able to redeem his family honor (though he always spoke glowingly of his father- never mentioned the many scandals). He does not seem to have married her for money- it was more likely a blend of the woman and the prestige she represented, and he seems to have taken great pride in earning his own living and living on his own salary and eschewing the army of slave valets and maids his father-in-law would willingly have given him. I honestly think the circumstances of his childhood made him genuinely loathe slavery and see it as indignity to the slave and the master, just as he said. I think he probably had an embarrassed unspoken gratitude for the leased slaves who kept his family from starvation. And of course there’s the famous story of his communion with the freed slave immediately after the war, but since there’s controversy there I’ll ignore it. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2007, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-would-slavery-have-lasted-if-the-south-won-the-civil-war/401398/108 "2007-04-26T21:11:04Z")
A reminder also that the notion “there’s going to be a lot of problems with suddenly freeing millions of people who are illiterate, have no knowledge of how to handle money, are disliked by their neighbors, have been forcefully and intentionally kept as ignorant as possible in all things, and expecting them to be suddenly equal and self-supporting” did not make one pro-slavery or even racist, just a realist. Washington’s freed slaves remained on pensions for 50 years in some cases, which received much propaganda use. Lincoln himself proposed resettling as many freedmen as possible in [Panama and Haiti](http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/print.asp?ID=34) (though his enthusiasm for the idea was killed somewhat by a majorly pissed off Frederick Douglass who thought the idea was ludicrous). And of course on the subject of slaveowners, Lincoln’s wife was from a slaveowning family. She also publicly rejoiced when her half-brothers were killed in the war fighting for the south, but then she was overcompensatory due to allegations she was a spy and she was crazy due to the fact she was nuts. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2007, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-would-slavery-have-lasted-if-the-south-won-the-civil-war/401398/109 "2007-04-26T21:48:02Z")
[QUOTE=Sampiro] A reminder also that the notion “there’s going to be a lot of problems with suddenly freeing millions of people who are illiterate, have no knowledge of how to handle money, are disliked by their neighbors, have been forcefully and intentionally kept as ignorant as possible in all things, and expecting them to be suddenly equal and self-supporting” did not make one pro-slavery or even racist, just a realist. [/QUOTE] Well, yes, but there’s a difference between, “There are many practical problems to emancipation, so we need to work out how to do it in a constructive way” and “let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day”. I’m not saying Lee was an Edmund Ruffin or anything like that. He obviously wasn’t, and he wasn’t radically pro-slavery. But he was comfortable with the status quo, and whatever doubts he may have had about slavery, they weren’t enough, for him, to justify supporting any change in the situation. If slavery were evil, then, at least it were neccesary, and whatever his private feelings about the institution, it wasn’t anything worth doing anything about. As for Mary Todd, she was certainly high-strung and not very stable, but reports of her madness have been exaggerated. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2007, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-would-slavery-have-lasted-if-the-south-won-the-civil-war/401398/110 "2007-04-26T21:56:41Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] If slavery were evil, then, at least it were neccesary, and whatever his private feelings about the institution, it wasn’t anything worth doing anything about. [/QUOTE] What could he have done? He was not a politician but a soldier. The only control he had was over the slaves his family owned, and those he freed. Lee was also the first major Confederate to advocate arming slaves and giving them freedom in exchange for military service, an idea Jefferson was adamantly opposed to until the end of the war (when he relented but by the time the first black CSA units were trained the war was over). > [@](#): > > As for Mary Todd, she was certainly high-strung and not very stable, but reports of her madness have been exaggerated. > [@](#): > > From [an article](http://www.americanheritage.com/people/articles/web/20060601-mary-todd-lincoln-abraham-lincoln-robert-todd-lincoln-batavia-illinois-sanitarium-james-bradwell-marriage.shtml) on her commitment: > The known and accepted facts of the insanity episode are that it started in March 1875, when, during a visit to Jacksonville, Florida, Mary became unshakably convinced that [her son] Robert was deathly ill. She traveled to Chicago to find him in fine health. On her arrival, she told her son that someone had tried to poison her on the train and that a “wandering Jew” had taken her pocketbook but would return it later. During her stay in Chicago, Mary spent money lavishly on useless items, and walked around the city with $56,000 in government bonds sewn into her petticoats. > … > [Dr. Willis Danforth, Mary’s physician] testified at the insanity trial, the widow claimed then that an Indian spirit was removing bones from her face and pulling wires out of her eyes. She told Danforth that she heard raps on the table revealing the time of her death, and she would sit and ask questions and repeat the table’s answers. That’s a bit more than “high-strung”. It’s probably more a serious bipolar disorder during a time before that was treatable. The above episode (the one for which she was committed) is very textbook manic episode- not knowing what happened to your property, absolutely convinced you’re needed on the other side of the country and going there, disregard for safety and property, etc.. She would also go through months of melancholy- the depressive cycle. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2007, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-would-slavery-have-lasted-if-the-south-won-the-civil-war/401398/111 "2007-04-26T22:19:42Z")
[QUOTE=Sampiro] What could he have done? He was not a politician but a soldier. The only control he had was over the slaves his family owned, and those he freed. Lee was also the first major Confederate to advocate arming slaves and giving them freedom in exchange for military service, an idea Jefferson was adamantly opposed to until the end of the war (when he relented but by the time the first black CSA units were trained the war was over). [/quote] I don’t know what he could have done? Likely nothing…but we’re not discussing what he did, we’re discussing what he believed, and on the grounds of an ambiguous letter, the fact that he set his slaves free, and a big of psychoanalysis, you’ve come to the conclusion that he was anti-slavery. And Lee wasn’t the first major Confederate to advocate arming slaves…that honor goes to General Clerburne. Lee only argued for it later, when the manpower shortage was acute and the Confederacy was obviously losing the war. > [@](#): > > That’s a bit more than “high-strung”. It’s probably more a serious bipolar disorder during a time before that was treatable. The above episode (the one for which she was committed) is very textbook manic episode- not knowing what happened to your property, absolutely convinced you’re needed on the other side of the country and going there, disregard for safety and property, etc.. She would also go through months of melancholy- the depressive cycle. Her mental state clearly deteriorated after Lincoln’s death. But it’s also true that in the commitment trial, a number of the doctors (who were all hired by Robert, btw) testifying did so merely on Robert’s accounts of her behaivior. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2007, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-would-slavery-have-lasted-if-the-south-won-the-civil-war/401398/112 "2007-04-26T22:42:53Z")
[QUOTE=Sampiro] That’s a bit more than “high-strung”. It’s probably more a serious bipolar disorder during a time before that was treatable. [/QUOTE] Sounds like a textbook case of [paranoid schizophrenia](http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/paranoid-schizophrenia/DS00862/DSECTION=2). ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2007, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-would-slavery-have-lasted-if-the-south-won-the-civil-war/401398/113 "2007-04-27T05:52:06Z")
From the linked Mary Todd Lincoln article: > [@](#): > > There have been many books and articles written about Mary Lincoln’s insanity case in the 131 years since it occurred. These works have examined everything from the extent of her insanity to Robert’s motivations to the unfair treatment of women by nineteenth-century American medical and legal professionals. Varying interpretations continue. In another trial a year or so after the first, her mental health was declared restored. Fascinating article. It makes me wonder what bits of presidential history will be revealed a century and a half from now. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2007, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-would-slavery-have-lasted-if-the-south-won-the-civil-war/401398/114 "2007-04-27T06:18:33Z")
[QUOTE=Zoe] Fascinating article. It makes me wonder what bits of presidential history will be revealed a century and a half from now. [/QUOTE] Bill Clinton was gay and the womanizing was cooked up by Hillary to divert attention from Whitewater. Laura Bush was the real power of the Administration (Cheney and Dubya were total schills). ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2007, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-would-slavery-have-lasted-if-the-south-won-the-civil-war/401398/115 "2007-04-27T06:24:52Z")
[QUOTE=CalMeacham] Rad Harry Turtledove’s **Guns of the South**. It’s alternate-history fiction, of course, and Turtledove’s own speculation, but I think he’s right in showing a victorious South beginning to lighten up the bonds of slavery after the war. [/QUOTE] No, never and any attempt would have had various parts of the CSA leaving the CSA. At best, after slavery became less profitable (and note that \*slavery is still profitable today, \*but on a much smaller scale, so it never would have become entirely a financial burden) the CSA might have been able to pass a “no one is born a slave after this date” law, thus ending slavery gradually. I am of the firm belief that the CSA would not have ended slavery until the last living slave was dead. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2007, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-would-slavery-have-lasted-if-the-south-won-the-civil-war/401398/116 "2007-04-27T06:32:23Z")
[QUOTE=Sampiro] While I really am not obsessed with the Civil War and I’m not a carte blanche southern apologist- Speaking of Jefferson Davis, one of the great atrocities to befall blacks during the war involved the deaths of dozens of blacks who attempted to flee with Sherman. They were abandoned at Ebenezer Creek as the Confederate cavalry approached and many drowned while trying to flee, and all of this was on the direct orders of Jefferson Davis, but not the CSA president. This was [General Jefferson C. Davis of Indiana](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_C._Davis), one of Sherman’s wing commanders, who detested blacks and ordered the pontoon bridge that conveyed his troops removed so they could not use it as they were slowing his progress. [/QUOTE] Who killed those slaves? Was it General Jefferson C. Davis, who was forced by orders and military nessesity to cut the bridge or else the CSA cavalry woudl capture it, or the CSA cavalry who ran the now-freed slaves down like animals and butchered them in cold blood? If Shermans march had failed- none of the thousands of slaves he freed would have made it out alive. I can’t imagine anyone but a die hard Southern Apologist blaming the North for freeing those slaves and giving them hope, while decaring blameless the racist murderers who did the killing. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2007, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-would-slavery-have-lasted-if-the-south-won-the-civil-war/401398/117 "2007-04-27T07:40:35Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] Who killed those slaves? Was it General Jefferson C. Davis, who was forced by orders and military nessesity to cut the bridge or else the CSA cavalry woudl capture it, or the CSA cavalry who ran the now-freed slaves down like animals and butchered them in cold blood? If Shermans march had failed- none of the thousands of slaves he freed would have made it out alive. I can’t imagine anyone but a die hard Southern Apologist blaming the North for freeing those slaves and giving them hope, while decaring blameless the racist murderers who did the killing. [/QUOTE] How many errors are in this, I wonder… I’ll just address the major ones. Davis was **NOT** forced by orders- he was acting autonomously. True, Sherman had tried to dissuade blacks (other than strong males) from following his camp, but he was nowhere near Davis at the time of the incident. Cutting the pontoon bridge was **NOT** a military necessity. _Davis’s own men_ attested that there was time for the blacks to make it across the creek before Wheeler arrived. Read the accounts of Charles Kerr and James Connaly, both of the 126th Illinois, who describe how soldiers stood on the other side of the creek and tossed limbs and boards and branches to the ones in the water. They were horrified at Davis’s actions. A _chaplain_ with his division called Davis _…a military tyrant without one spark of humanity in his makeup_ and a surgeon said “_I should see him hanged for this had I the power_” and wished that “_the valiant murderer of women and children should meet with an accident before long_”. (That’s Davis, not Wheeler, he’s calling a murderer.) It was Davis’s own men who wrote accounts of the incident to Northern newspapers and to their Congressmen. It caused such an uproar that Stanton himself came down to investigate, whereupon Sherman flat out lied and claimed Davis had never been a racist or “borne hostility to the Negro” (Davis was an outspoken racist according to his men) and Sherman joked that Stanton wasn’t half as concerned when Sherman reminded him the drowned blacks might have been free but they weren’t voters. In a letter to his wife Sherman expressed relief that Stanton bought his explanation with the sympathetic and repentant words “Mr. Stanton has been here and is cured of that negro nonsense”. (Another _nonsense_ Davis had previously been exonerated of incidentally was fatally shooting his commanding officer, General Bull Nelson, point blank in the face while drunk.) It is true that one Union soldier claimed to see Wheeler’s cavalry charging and murdering those on the side, an account that was repeated in the New York Times. It is also true the same officer later admitted that he embellished his account, and that the same officer even later admitted he had witnessed no such thing but heard of it later from a survivor. In fact the Union troops were no longer at the creek when Wheeler’s Cavalry arrived. Therefore I think it’s safe to say his account, the primary source of the “butchering” as you call it, is not altogether unimpeachable. As a point of fact Wheeler’s cavalry did not have a policy of killing “Contraband”- though they did return them to their owners when they could. Wheeler in fact expressed remorse in a private letter at having killed black camp followers earlier who died when he shelled the XIV Corps but deemed it, to use your words, “a military necessity”- he was shelling a military target and the civilians were in the same place. When these particular “Contraband” (Sherman’s term) were abandoned by the XIV, Wheeler didn’t even return them to their owners because he was in pursuit and couldn’t spare the men to escort or capture them- basically he rode past them. Now, I have no problem imagining that Wheeler’s Cavalry did not give the stranded slaves a picnic. I would not be surprised to learn that some died or that there were attacks or rapes or other atrocities and I don’t try to justify them in the least. I seriously doubt, though, and there is no evidence that there was a cold blooded butchering as you describe and would like to see what you can provide other than the NYT article. The bulk of the deaths occurred, even by former slave accounts (for the accounts all stated that Wheeler sent them with a small guard to a camp to await return to their owners), were those who drowned trying to stay with Davis. > [@](#): > > I can’t imagine anyone but a die hard Southern Apologist blaming the North for freeing those slaves and giving them hope, while decaring blameless the racist murderers who did the killing. Your imagination must be somewhat lacking. I can imagine a three breasted mermaid with the face of a lion doing it, but I digress. This is documented fact, not opinion: SHERMAN HAD NO INTEREST WHATEVER IN “FREEING THOSE SLAVES AND GIVING THEM HOPE” ON HIS MARCH TO THE SEA. None. Zilch. Don’t Look For It. It’s not there. He actively did NOT want what he termed “the Contraband” to follow him other than able bodied men who could provide manual labor for his army. Sherman (who made no secret of the fact he had no problem with slavery in letters written before and during the war) specifically told women, children, and old or infirm slaves to go back, that he could not feed them and would not feed them when things became tight (remember he was living off the land), there are accounts of slaves being shot dead by Sherman’s foragers when they defended their masters’ property (or in some cases their masters). Sherman also did not want blacks armed or serving as soldiers. In another letter to his wife he wrote > [@](#): > > Chase and others have written to me to modify my opinions, but you know I cannot, for if I attempt the part of a hypocrite it would break out in every sentence. I want soldiers made of the best bone and muscle in the land, and won’t attempt military feats with doubtful materials. Long after the war he wrote in his official memoirs: > [@](#): > > Many foresaw that not only would the slaves secure their freedom, but that they would also have votes. I did not dream of such a result then, but knew that slavery, as such, was dead forever. I did not suppose that the former slaves would be suddenly, without preparation, manufactured into voters–equal to all others, politically and socially. That’s enough. All I’ve said and quoted is true but I won’t provide cites because you didn’t for saying they were butchered or for calling it a military necessity. But I hope the mods will allow me to say at least this much in Great Debates without counting it a personal attack: If You’re Going To Defame Somebody, At Least Know What the Hell You’re Talking About. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2007, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-would-slavery-have-lasted-if-the-south-won-the-civil-war/401398/118 "2007-04-27T13:32:15Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] Who killed those slaves? Was it General Jefferson C. Davis, who was forced by orders and military nessesity to cut the bridge or else the CSA cavalry woudl capture it, or the CSA cavalry who ran the now-freed slaves down like animals and butchered them in cold blood? [/QUOTE] Nobody said Davis was solely responsible; but obviously the massacre would not have happened if Davis had not thrown them to the wolves. And he threw them to the wolves largely because he hated them, not exclusively out of military necessity. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2007, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-would-slavery-have-lasted-if-the-south-won-the-civil-war/401398/119 "2007-04-27T13:58:41Z")
[QUOTE=Zoe] In another trial a year or so after the first, her mental health was declared restored. [/QUOTE] From [this source](http://counsellingresource.com/distress/schizophrenia/icd/paranoid.html): > [@](#): > > The course of paranoid schizophrenia may be episodic, with partial or complete remissions, or chronic. In chronic cases, the florid symptoms persist over years and it is difficult to distinguish discrete episodes. Also, it sounds like some of her paranoia got redirected toward her son. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2007, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-would-slavery-have-lasted-if-the-south-won-the-civil-war/401398/120 "2007-04-27T14:19:24Z")
[QUOTE=Sampiro] I seriously doubt, though, and there is no evidence that there was a cold blooded butchering as you describe and would like to see what you can provide other than the NYT article. The bulk of the deaths occurred, even by former slave accounts (for the accounts all stated that Wheeler sent them with a small guard to a camp to await return to their owners), were those who drowned trying to stay with Davis. [/QUOTE] I agree. It is hard to imagine any motivation for Wheeler’s cavalry to have killed the stranded slaves. What would have been the point? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-would-slavery-have-lasted-if-the-south-won-the-civil-war/401398.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-longer-would-slavery-have-lasted-if-the-south-won-the-civil-war/401398.md?page=7)