CSA try to sell or exterminate their slaves

[jahenders]

I think, as it was collapsing, the South in general and most slave owners there, concluded, "Well this emancipation thing may free our slaves, but they'll have nowhere else to go so most will still be available as cheap labor."

As it turns out, they were right in most cases. Many slaves left the plantations, but then wound up working for the same people or descendants thereof.

 

[David T]

Well, assuming they ship the blacks back to Africa, which they tried to,

Huh?

The CSA never tried anything of the sort. Maybe you mean "the South" tried to before the CSA but that is almost as false. The American Colonization Society never had much support in the Deep South; the number of blacks it transported to Africa was tiny; and abolitionist critics argued (with some exaggeration but not *entirely* wrongly) that the ACS was not antislavery at all but was merely intended to rid America of *free* blacks.

Anyway, by the 1850's, even most colonizationists had shifted their attention from Africa to Latin America.

 

[TFSmith121]

Agree

This should be moved to ASB.

Agree.

Best,

 

[David T]

The Cheyenne massacred at Sand Creek in 1864 would probably disagree.

Massacres that kill or mutilate 70-163 people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_massacre hardly establish the practicability of killing three and a half million people.

 

[fluttersky]

To get rid of the slaves, it'd be easier to set up a new black state somewhere in America. Cheaper to do than than across the sea to Africa. And they definitely won't be genocided.

Maybe the Dakota and Nebraska territories, which are virtually unpopulated, get merged into a new "Negro State", which former slaves are "encouraged" to migrate to.

 

[Tripledot]

Well, assuming they ship the blacks back to Africa, which they tried to, they would have a much more cohesive society (no KKK, for example, and no segregation). Meanwhile, you would have the blacks in Africa, which they would have land to farm and some relative educational superiority over the natives and could even try to enstablish some governments (as Us protectorates, thus shielded from the european imperialism of the era). Honestly, i don't know why the post CW states didn't try to give this opportunity to the newly freed slaves.

I thought it was mostly abolitionists who were in favor of colonization? I mean, it wouldn't make sense for Southerners to want to ship their labor force overseas at their own expense.

 

[HonestAbe]

After the battle of Gettysburg , the south try's to sell off or exterminate as many slaves and free blacks as possible to insure white dominance post war.How effective would this be ,How would postwar south look like

Why do they do this? Is it because they just learned Steiner failed to organize a counterattack?

This is way ASB.

 

[Space Oddity]

I thought it was mostly abolitionists who were in favor of colonization? I mean, it wouldn't make sense for Southerners to want to ship their labor force overseas at their own expense.

Different factions--the "Colonization" movement was largely a subset of the Free Soil Abolitionists, who were all about limiting the spread of slavery by limiting the spread of black people.

The rest of the abolitionists started finding them increasingly distasteful as the movement went on.

 

[Napoleon IV]

Massacres that kill or mutilate 70-163 people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_massacre hardly establish the practicability of killing three and a half million people.

We're talking Holocaust-level genocide. And even the Nazis quickly discovered that you can't just shoot millions of people, since it takes too much time and creates major psychological problems for the shooters. And of course in Civil War times it would be even slower because of longer reloading times.

Plus, why would the South do this? This would utterly destroy their economy, make them hated around the world, and mean the end of their whole reason for secession.

 

[Falecius]

Massacres that kill or mutilate 70-163 people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_massacre hardly establish the practicability of killing three and a half million people.

In practical terms, you are right. I was just pointing out that genocide was not beneath what the "white" mindset of the time could conceive. Genocide of the black people in the Confederacy is impossible, but was not unthinkable. (Although I don't know anybody actually thinking about it IOTL).

EDIT: I meant it was not morally unthinkable. The reasons outlined above by many posters amply show why it was not an option to anyone.

 

[Tripledot]

We're talking Holocaust-level genocide. And even the Nazis quickly discovered that you can't just shoot millions of people, since it takes too much time and creates major psychological problems for the shooters. And of course in Civil War times it would be even slower because of longer reloading times.

Plus, why would the South do this? This would utterly destroy their economy, make them hated around the world, and mean the end of their whole reason for secession.

I dunno, according to Fredrick Douglass's memoirs, it seems white southerners didn't have much of a problem arbitrarily shooting slaves. I don't think that industrial-level genocide would come to their minds, though; they'd probably stage fake slave uprisings as an excuse to hunt slaves a la "The Most Dangerous Game", or if you want to compare the American South to Sparta, something akin to the Helot Wars.

 

[zoomar]

After the battle of Gettysburg , the south try's to sell off or exterminate as many slaves and free blacks as possible to insure white dominance post war.How effective would this be ,How would postwar south look like

Why on earth would they do that? Gettysburg was not seen as a major turning point in the war by most Southerners. Slavery was the very reason the CSA existed. Also, "the CSA" didn't own slaves, individual slave owners did. How is a "democratic" government established for the sole purpose of defending the right of white people to keep black slaves going to convince its leading citizens in the slavocracy to abandon the plantation economy, or even less likely, "exterminate" their very large financial investment in human capital?

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Why on earth would they do that? Gettysburg was not seen as a major turning point in the war by most Southerners. Slavery was the very reason the CSA existed. Also, "the CSA" didn't own slaves, individual slave owners did. How is a "democratic" government established for the sole purpose of defending the right of white people to keep black slaves going to convince its leading citizens in the slavocracy to abandon the plantation economy, or even less likely, "exterminate" their very large financial investment in human capital?

This. While the South as a whole has little trouble murdering uppity slaves, the idea they would outright sell off or exterminate the cornerstone of their economy is ridiculous.

 

[voss749]

After the battle of Gettysburg , the south try's to sell off or exterminate as many slaves and free blacks as possible to insure white dominance post war.How effective would this be ,How would postwar south look like

I would imagine it would make recruiting into the United States Colored Troops a LOT easier. I could also imagine reconstruction being MUCH harsher and MUCH longer. Any southern government who approved such a plan would likely be judged approrpriately en mass. If you think thats unlikely by the end of the war in OTL you have 200,000 union colored troops.

 

[RousseauX]

How come?
As you said, they're off at war. And they live in pretty isolated areas.
There's a lot of room for a worse KKK to really mess things up as the CSA collapses.

If they are all off to war who are those young, poor, white people who are going to be committing genocide?

Because young, poor, whites were the first in line to go into the army.

 

[jahenders]

I would tend to agree. I think the only thing that could even prompt "the South" or Southern slaveholders to consider any such thing would be if, in the waning days of the war, the US made clear pronouncements and/or took steps (13th-15th amendments, policies, etc) that made it clear that the slaves in the South were not only going to be free but were going to have significant political influence at the expense of the slaveholders. For example, the US could have considered something like a "truth commission" of freed slaves to try unjust (former) masters.

Anyway, Southerners would have to be convinced that a) they were going to lose, b) they were going to lose their slaves, and c) their slaves would represent a hostile group that would have significant power guaranteed. Even then, I can't see any attempt at extermination, but some slaveholders might decide to sell off some of their slaves at a loss to avoid some of the risks (i.e. a lot more slaves sold "downriver"), or they might move slaves to border states and then free them across the border.

Ultimately, by the time the South might consider substantial action along these lines it would be too late -- their transportation would be affected enough to make anything substantial impossible.

This. While the South as a whole has little trouble murdering uppity slaves, the idea they would outright sell off or exterminate the cornerstone of their economy is ridiculous.