English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

6 answers

As much as it galls the PC police, they did in deed. Many have claimed they only helped out by manual labor freeing up whites as soldiers. But that is a PC lie! if you figure it out statically, the South had a higher percentage of blacks "fighting" for the South then did the North. Anyone with any sense knows the war was not over slavery and that many Southerners were scared of Northerns. Ask yourself if on the first day of succession if the South was offered back their statehood and they could have their slaves would they have reenter the Union? Read on for the answer! The third largest slave owner in Eastern Virginia was a free Black. I am not one of these guys who feels black were better off as slaves but I also know they were not treated as described in "Uncle Toms Cabin". Would you beat your $100,000 Mercedes Benz? In addition, there are hundreds of ways to get back for harshness working slowly, an accident and so on. Again, I am not pro slavery it was and is a sin toward mankind. The answer to the question they were offered that and several times and turned it down so if slvery was not the reason for the war what was?

God Bless You and The Southern People.

2006-11-22 05:41:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

As early as May 1861, some slaves working on Confederate fortifications escaped to the Union lines, and their owner, a Confederate colonel, demanded their return under the Fugitive Slave Act. The response was to declare them "contraband of war"—effectively freeing them. Congress eventually approved this for slaves used by the Confederate military.

Conservative Republicans still hoped that the states could end slavery and send the freedmen abroad.

The Emancipation Proclamation, announced in September 1862 and put into effect four months later, ended the Confederacy's hope of getting aid from Britain or France. Lincoln's moderate approach succeeded in getting border states, War Democrats and emancipated slaves fighting on the same side for the Union


The great majority of the 4 million slaves were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation, as Union armies moved South. The 13th amendment, ratified December 6, 1865, finally freed the remaining 40,000 slaves in Kentucky, as well as 1,000 or so in Delaware.

The Emancipation Proclamation enabled African-Americans, both free blacks and escaped slaves, to join the Union Army. About 190,000 volunteered, further enhancing the numerical advantage the Union armies enjoyed over the Confederates. They fought in several key battles in the last two years of the war.

2006-11-21 21:55:40 · answer #2 · answered by SARATH C 3 · 0 1

Eventually. In February (I think) of 1865, the rebel "President," Jefferson Davis, signed a bill allowing the recruitment of blacks into the Confederate army. It was a last desperate, and ultimately, doomed attempt to win the war, or at least prolong defeat. (I used quotation marks, by the way, to indicate the illegitimacy of the Confederate "government.")

2006-11-22 05:12:20 · answer #3 · answered by nacmanpriscasellers 4 · 0 0

the time-honored purpose of the North became to circumvent the South from effectively seceding from the union. yet, the time-honored clarification why the south seceded first of all became the phobia over the abolishment of slavery. although, opposite to liberal conception, the south didn’t pick to maintain slavery because of their avid hatred of black human beings, they had to maintain slavery because it became a life-variety contained in the south, and abolishing slavery would (and did) thoroughly ruin the south economically, therefore deliver the rustic right into a melancholy. This became also the time-honored clarification why it took so long for slavery to be abolished inspite of a majority in congress that were anti-slavery. also, to say the South wasn’t the aggressors after the vast majority of southern states voted and approved of secession is disingenuous. The mere secession became an act of conflict in and of itself.

2016-11-29 08:53:59 · answer #4 · answered by miracle 4 · 0 0

Yes they did. Some of us Indians did too, for both sides.

2006-11-22 04:40:26 · answer #5 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0 0

Yes, Just like the North, they were promised freedom.

2006-11-21 17:59:41 · answer #6 · answered by Sophist 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers