Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: How long would slavery had lasted if the South decided NOT to secede? [View all]ieoeja
(9,748 posts)22. I got it from "The Battle Cry of Freedom".
And that author tended to look at direct, contemporary sources. Historians often rely on the work of previous historians. So if it changed somewhere along the line, it remains changed. Take Sherman's March to the Sea.
In "The Battle Cry of Freedom" the author looked up contemporary southern diaries and newspapers articles. Source after source damned the retreating Confederates and praised Sherman's men. In particular, they praised Sherman for feeding the starving southerners. By that time the South had converted to food crops, but war time inflation was so bad that the Plantation owners were unwilling to sell the food.
First city Sherman came to he was astonished to see the people starving in the breadbasket of the south. That is when he ordered his men to start confiscating food. Not as part of a burnt earth, total war policy. But to save the southern people from starvation!
And, except for the plantation owners, of course, that is all you find in the contemporary record. Flash forward a few months and some of the same people who praised Sherman are damning him. But as we have seen many, many times in the past, Conservatives are extremely Orwellian. The problem with a military culture, and the Norman South was most definitely a military culture, is that people are raised to believe what they are told.
"Gore is so stupid, he thinks Islamic terrorism is a bigger national security threat than China! LOL!" - Bush and Cheney over and over again in 2000
"Bet you're glad Gore didn't win now?" - every GOPer in the US, 2001-09-12, the day after we were attacked by Islamic terrorists
**Note: what most amazed Sherman about this post-war revision was that his army *did* engage in a scored earth polity on the march through South Carolina. In addition to South Carolina starting the whole bloody thing, but being far away from where most of the war's action took place, escapees from Andersonville showed up at their camp the night before they entered South Carolina. Sherman said he probably couldn't have stopped what happend in South Caroline had he wanted to, and he sure as hell did not want to stop it.
But nobody was talking about that. Instead, they relocated what happened in South Carolina to Georgia for some odd reason.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
30 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
How long would slavery had lasted if the South decided NOT to secede? [View all]
MrScorpio
Oct 2012
OP
Not long. If I recall my history, south wanted to secede 'cause north was going to outlaw slavery...
Honeycombe8
Oct 2012
#3
As slavery died out in the south east it moved west. Canada and water would stop it eventually.
1-Old-Man
Oct 2012
#9
It's not as cut and dry now. We're in more of a Ford vs. Chevy condition rather than regional.
HopeHoops
Oct 2012
#10
according to most history i've read, slave populations in the us did expand by natural increase.
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#17
"South grew half to three-quarters of the corn crop harvested between 1840 and 1860"?
ieoeja
Oct 2012
#20
it's not the only reference that says so, but be that as it may: give me a source that says
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#21
"Battle cry of freedom" is searchable in google books, and here's what it says:
HiPointDem
Oct 2012
#23
Only read the book once. Must have read that backwards. Thanks for the correction! nt
ieoeja
Oct 2012
#27
The spread of slavery into the new territories was led more by rice and cotton than corn.
1-Old-Man
Oct 2012
#29
Quite some time, I believe. Lincoln flatly stated that if he could preserve the Union by
Egalitarian Thug
Oct 2012
#18
I think eventually the Federal Government would have bought the freedom of the slaves. They could
yellowcanine
Oct 2012
#30