If Col. Fremantle's analysis was so on point, then why did the CSA literally melt away less than two years later? Also, in what parallel universe did the wise Col. expect the enslaved Black population to willingly spill their blood for their tormentors? Would the good Col. have done that if the tables were turned?
Although Gettysburg was not the battle that ended the "slavocracy," much more blood still had to be shed, it did prove a number of things: Lee was foolish to recklessly attempt such a "large-scale raid" in the face of overwhelming Union superiority; Lee's goal of spreading the pain of the war onto the Pennsylvania countryside was easily absorbed and countered; and while Lee was enjoying himself with delusions of grandeur, Grant was effectively "eating his lunch" in the West and splitting the Confederacy in two!
The Anaconda Plan, devised by Winfield Scott and embraced by Pres. Lincoln, did exactly what it set out to do - it squeezed the life out of the "slavocracy" and tried to avoid an horrendous war of attrition to be fought by the Union.
Lee was a "showboater," like many other Southern cavaliers. Unfortunately, the war's beneficient political outcome was fritters away in the stupid compromise of 1876-1877, which ended Reconstruction and demolished the possibility of a true American democracy.
There were historical precedents for slaves fighting on behalf of their masters. Indeed, Patrick Cleburne, a Confederate general, invoked these precedents in arguing for slave soldiers. (His proposal was rejected until the waning months of the war.) Let me turn the mike over to him:
"It is said that slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties."
There are so many specious claims of the enslaved fighting for their tormentors, but no certifiable items of evidence (diaries, account books, pay records, eyewitness accounts, etc.) to back up these claims, so much so to lead a reasonable investigator to believe these "claims" are mostly attempts to whitewash a vicious system of denying people their basic rights. Or, as we would say on the street or in Congressional hearings,... "it's all so much bullshit."
By the way, and these are records that can be checked and verified, EVERY seceding state, in 1860 and 1861, openly stated in their proclamations, which severed their ties to the Union, they were doing so in order to maintain their "peculiar system." Meaning, even for the densest blockhead in sight, white Southern males were fighting to preserve and expand racial enslavement. There was NO OTHER MOTIVE!
You may be right about slaves' general unwilllingness to fight for their tormentors, although US slave revolts tended to fail because some slaves would inform on others.
I've read a few of those proclamations. They indeed all invoked slavery, but varied in their explicitness. Some used euphemisms, like "peculiar system." Others--such as Mississippi--were more honest, and used the word "slavery." I think that the slicker ones--e.g., South Carolina--were clear enough to the densest blockhead, like you said. But they still preserved a faint patina of bare deniability.
Most white Southern males did not own slaves, and thus were not so to speak, "fighting their book." In Appalachia, where plantation slavery was impracticable and slaves were rare, pro-Union sentiment was strong. The question then is why did propinquity to slaveholders encourage white male non-slaveholders to fight and die for slavery. I suppose that a caste system is a helluva drug.
Likely, the poor, non-slaveholding whites in the South supported the "Cause" because it meant that at least one caste would be below them. The slavocracy provided such whites a rationale for self-respect. I venture it is partly what accounts for working class whites to vote Republican today; siding with the big boys to teach the undeserving others a lesson. When combined with an authoritarian personality its a heady brew for some.
If Col. Fremantle's analysis was so on point, then why did the CSA literally melt away less than two years later? Also, in what parallel universe did the wise Col. expect the enslaved Black population to willingly spill their blood for their tormentors? Would the good Col. have done that if the tables were turned?
Although Gettysburg was not the battle that ended the "slavocracy," much more blood still had to be shed, it did prove a number of things: Lee was foolish to recklessly attempt such a "large-scale raid" in the face of overwhelming Union superiority; Lee's goal of spreading the pain of the war onto the Pennsylvania countryside was easily absorbed and countered; and while Lee was enjoying himself with delusions of grandeur, Grant was effectively "eating his lunch" in the West and splitting the Confederacy in two!
The Anaconda Plan, devised by Winfield Scott and embraced by Pres. Lincoln, did exactly what it set out to do - it squeezed the life out of the "slavocracy" and tried to avoid an horrendous war of attrition to be fought by the Union.
Lee was a "showboater," like many other Southern cavaliers. Unfortunately, the war's beneficient political outcome was fritters away in the stupid compromise of 1876-1877, which ended Reconstruction and demolished the possibility of a true American democracy.
Sheldon Teicher
There were historical precedents for slaves fighting on behalf of their masters. Indeed, Patrick Cleburne, a Confederate general, invoked these precedents in arguing for slave soldiers. (His proposal was rejected until the waning months of the war.) Let me turn the mike over to him:
"It is said that slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties."
Sounds familiar?
There are so many specious claims of the enslaved fighting for their tormentors, but no certifiable items of evidence (diaries, account books, pay records, eyewitness accounts, etc.) to back up these claims, so much so to lead a reasonable investigator to believe these "claims" are mostly attempts to whitewash a vicious system of denying people their basic rights. Or, as we would say on the street or in Congressional hearings,... "it's all so much bullshit."
By the way, and these are records that can be checked and verified, EVERY seceding state, in 1860 and 1861, openly stated in their proclamations, which severed their ties to the Union, they were doing so in order to maintain their "peculiar system." Meaning, even for the densest blockhead in sight, white Southern males were fighting to preserve and expand racial enslavement. There was NO OTHER MOTIVE!
You may be right about slaves' general unwilllingness to fight for their tormentors, although US slave revolts tended to fail because some slaves would inform on others.
I've read a few of those proclamations. They indeed all invoked slavery, but varied in their explicitness. Some used euphemisms, like "peculiar system." Others--such as Mississippi--were more honest, and used the word "slavery." I think that the slicker ones--e.g., South Carolina--were clear enough to the densest blockhead, like you said. But they still preserved a faint patina of bare deniability.
Most white Southern males did not own slaves, and thus were not so to speak, "fighting their book." In Appalachia, where plantation slavery was impracticable and slaves were rare, pro-Union sentiment was strong. The question then is why did propinquity to slaveholders encourage white male non-slaveholders to fight and die for slavery. I suppose that a caste system is a helluva drug.
Likely, the poor, non-slaveholding whites in the South supported the "Cause" because it meant that at least one caste would be below them. The slavocracy provided such whites a rationale for self-respect. I venture it is partly what accounts for working class whites to vote Republican today; siding with the big boys to teach the undeserving others a lesson. When combined with an authoritarian personality its a heady brew for some.
Chivalry vs. industry. No contest.
It's remarkable the extent to which delusion can contribute to army morale.