Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Size of the Confederate Army and Slave Revolt

Expand Messages
  • keeno2@aol.com
    In a message dated 10/26/2006 5:45:04 AM Central Daylight Time, banbruner@bellsouth.net writes: I have heard the theory put forth that the confederacy had
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 26, 2006
      In a message dated 10/26/2006 5:45:04 AM Central Daylight Time, banbruner@... writes:
      I have heard the theory put forth that the confederacy had maintain control over all it's territory because of the large slave population that had to be kept under control.  Guns (which the Union would happily supply) in the hands of slaves and slave uprisings were the great nightmare of the South.
      Hadn't heard that one. As a theory, it carries a grain of sense: a slave revolt was very much feared in the south. The non-slaveowner cared little about the rich man's property, but armed slaves roaming at will -- now that's scary!
       
      That the Union would happily supply guns (if the theory has any basis) would be an example only of secessionist paranoia. None but the looniest abolitionists would have proposed such a move -- the slaughter of civilians would naturally turn to the slaughter of slaves. Confederate forces would have been pre-occupied with hunting and killing armed slaves, but so too would be Union forces in occupied territory.
       
      Factor in the early "gentleman's war" attitude and I believe the theory falls apart.
       
      Just loosening up stiffening fingers.
      Ken
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.