a) The Confederacy did not abolish slavery (ever). There WERE people within that administration who thought that would be a good idea. Free them and arm them. And one Confedarate general's "palace guard" was composed of his own "slaves" (obviously not ill treated since he had no fear of being "fragged").

b) The James gang (what became the James gang) had been part of Quantrill's raiders and these were NOT included in the general surrender. This all goes backto hard feelings as far back as "Bloody Kansas". The James gang thus were forced to continue their war. They were not "general bandits" but pretty much confined their raids to US gov't train shipments, gov't banks, army payrolls, etc.

My better half is from Independence MO and while out there visiting her kin I got the tour of there graves of their local Confederate heroes (including the James)

I had an email that caused further reading. So far I have found

> "President Jefferson Davis of the Confederate States of America considered issuing an emancipation proclamation freeing the slaves in the constituent States in order to woo the British government and the French Empire whose support was critical to its survival. This was, however, opposed by the slave owners and their allies, who were more concerned about the maintenance of slavery (and, if possible, its extension to the new US Territories in the West) than in preserving the fledging Confederate States of America."

Which of course is History written by the winners. I was told that the reasons the Confederacy passed abolition was to stop the misegenation built into the slave system, and to reduce the likelihood of big slave risings in support of the North.

I also found, apparently by a Tim:

>" The claim that the Southern economy would have collapsed without massive slave labor. In fact, the overwhelming majority of people in the South — black slaves and poor white farmers — would have been much better off if all slaves were emancipated and able to take up free labor wherever they liked. This is true for three reasons: (1) because the ex-slaves would no longer have the fruits of their labor stolen from them by idle masters, (2) because the poor farmers would no longer have to compete with the artificially large farms and artificially cheap goods that the slavocrats were able to produce using slave labor, and (3) because the economic incentives involved in free labor encourage far greater productivity from workers than those involved in slave labor do."

I do not have the time to look through the Legislation of the Confederacy. So for now President Davis was drafting Legislation of Emancipation before the North abolished slavery. Perhaps there is someone who has made a full study of this field able to enlighten further. Preferably neither a Yankee nor a Confederate.

Now I find Mike's comment -

I heard that The James boys rode in to surrender and were shot at. Which left them with no option but Outlaw.

There were Northern Raiders whose behavious was just as disgusting as Quantrells, we do not hear about them. Such behaviour is an integral part of war, and is a good reason to be against War. But there is plenty of black on both sides.

Ilyan

I haven't seen "The Truth About Jesse James", but it's not surprising if it's full of "lies and Yankee bigotry". Ken Burns's "The Civil War, or How We Licked the Rebellion" sets a very high standard for nationalist propaganda in the US. It's amazing TV and abominable history, dressing up the National Myth is compelling images and dramatic speeches. It's amazing how many educated and intelligent people actually believe that the South started the Civil War, that we (I'm a Virginian) started it in order to expand slavery, and that the North fought to preserve the Union and free the slaves. Though there are elements of truth in each of those myths (as in all myths), none can really be said to be "true" in any historical sense.

But there's also a Confederate mythology that, while less pervasive (because the South lost), can be just as misleading. In the 1890s through the 1910s, the rise of fascist Segregationist regimes in the Southern States used that mythology (as Hitler later used his Aryan-Teutonic mythology) to identify their political program with loyalty to the South and the (white) Southern identity. It's very difficult for us today to separate the true Southern history from the myths pushed by the Segregationists and the brutality of their regime.

FW Thomas isn't quite right when he says that the South abolished slavery during the war. In the spring of 1865, not long before Lee's surrender at Appomattox, Pres. Davis sent secret emissaries to England and France with an offer to abolish slavery in exchange for recognition and aid from those governments. Of course they could see that the jig was up for the CSA, and that their interests lay in cozying up to the imminent victor, so they politely declined the offer. It's interesting to note, though, that the CSA could have offered discounts on cotton, trade preferences, control of the government, co-operation in their interventions in the Americas (France had imposed an "emperor" on Mexico while the USA was distracted by the Civil War, and England had various colonies in the New World and was interested in expanding its holdings). But they offered abolition of slavery. By that time, at least, independence had become more important to leading Confederate officials than the preservation of slavery. Observe also that manumission of individual slaves--and sometimes of whole families or even whole communities--had increased exponentially in the decade preceding the war, indicating that, while the slaveholding class wanted to maintain the social aspects of the institution, they actually couldn't afford it anymore, and were essentially trying to get rid of it without formally abolishing it. The most intelligent members of the slaveholding elite realized that chattel slavery could not be sustained, and that it was a drug on the Southern economy. According to Mary Chesnut (brilliant wife of a member of the Confederate Senate and Cabinet), the prevailing opinion among the young men of the planter class was anti-slavery.

If the North had not forced the South into a defensive position, in which honor depended on maintaining Southern /rights/, the South would almost certainly have modified slavery into a form of serfdom in some States, and abolished it altogether in others, as the North had done a generation or so earlier. But the fact remains that they never actually got that far.

But really, neither did the North--they were in a position after the war to make the slaves economically independent by giving them land, but instead they kept the plantations intact (until economic forces broke them up) and forced the "freedmen" back to work growing cotton, which Northern industry required. "Emancipation" did more to free the masters than the slaves. It wasn't until the 20th Century that Southern blacks freed /themselves/ by organizing and resisting Segregation.

Well that's my history lesson for the week. ;0) Hope it's interesting to some folks, and at least not irritating to the rest.