.

A conspiracy theory I've been working on. Mostly new material.

SoreShoulderSoreShoulder Member Posts: 2,565 ✭✭✭
edited June 23 in Politics
While the details I've worked out may be found lacking by serious historians, the blockade of Southern shipping by the North, the South's embargo of its own cotton, and the destruction of the Southern economy by Sherman mean we should not take for granted that all of today's American blacks are actually the descendants of slaves.   

Many if not most slaves may have starved to death during the war.  Food may have been shorter in the South than the history books tell.   Besides that, many slaves were probably sold during the war so the South could buy weapons.  The blacks we have today may be in part descended from replacements secretly brought in with the government's help so the South could continue to be the source of the nation's cash exports. 

The slaves could have been replaced in postwar generations by large Southern landowners who needed a workforce, didn't want to pay white men a fair wage, and might have hated the free men of the South for helping lose the war.  Rich industrialists might have also brought in a few.  Colonial Africa might have been a much worse place than the racist US at the time and might have looked attractive to some Africans even if they knew our society would not treat them as equals at the time.  Deals might have been made between the US government and some of the Southern planters even before the end of the war to help them rebuild their economy and keep the South exporting the agricultural goods which gave the US its trade surplus.  

The replacements could have come from Liberia, or they could have been schooled in how to talk like ex slaves by Liberians.  They could have been running from colonial oppression like the Belgian Congo or German Angola or tribal warfare, starvation, or disease.  They would have paid to learn how to talk like Americans.  

If the government aided and abetted large southern landowners in re-establishing the nation's cash exports, they may also have aided them by getting Segregation passed into law until the slaves' replacements learned to speak without foreign accents.  Maybe I'm obsessed with my theory but when I hear recordings of civil rights leaders speak of segregation when it was still in living memory, they seem to be hiding something.  

It is well known that the South tried to practice "Cotton Diplomacy" by embargoing its own cotton crop from Europe.  There were also said to be vigilance committees of Southerners who blocked cotton exports in order to manipulate the value of certain bonds.  They probably had to import at least some of their food even in good times because it may have made more sense to do so than to grow food on land that was well suited to more lucrative crops.   If there was no money coming in, there would have been no way to buy food.  The North also blockaded Southern ports which would have hampered all exports and imports.

The rich plantation owners would have realized they should sell their slaves if they could.  If they didn't get money for weapons, they were probably going to lose and have to give the slaves up for free.  They knew they could always buy more slaves after the war even on credit because it was known the South was good for making money.  The South would not be able to export goods grown by slaves until after they won the war.

The slave traders could have run the Northern blockade easier than other goods.  Bales of cotton and hogsheads of tobacco need to be loaded onto ships in ports but slaves could walk to any point on a coastline and be rowed out to waiting ships in small boats.  They might have been sold throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.  Perhaps the war would have ended sooner if this had not been taking place because the South would have run out of money, weapons, and food faster.  

The Emancipation Proclamation may have been an attempt to render the slaves less salable to governments that had not yet recognized the Confederacy, in order to deprive the Union's enemy of gold which they could use to buy weapons.  

Sherman's march may have also been an attempt to break the slave pens so the slaves could not be sold.  It destroyed much of the South's economy so it would have worsened starvation.  Sherman's soldiers probably weren't carrying or foraging enough food to feed all the runaway slaves.  It may have happened after the Emancipation Proclamation but the slaves might still have been valuable on the black market.  

Comments

  • GreatGunsGreatGuns Member Posts: 5,554 ✭✭✭
    Interesting perspective.
    Jim
  • select-fireselect-fire Member Posts: 62,613 ✭✭✭
    Just had an uprising here in Columbia the other day with a few riots. Sheriff Dept put a stop to that nonsense real fast ..and of course some of them complained when shot with rubber bullets. Sheriff Lott's when asked by reporters if the Sheriff Dept shot anyone. ... Yes we did and the Rubber bullets were very effective.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia,_South_Carolina_in_the_American_Civil_War

  • SoreShoulderSoreShoulder Member Posts: 2,565 ✭✭✭
    edited June 19
    There is a reason the food shortage may have been worse than anyone thinks.  

    Cotton Diplomacy may not have been so much about getting Europe to help the Confederacy or manipulating the worth of cotton backed war bonds as it was about the fact that many in the South probably didn't trust the owners and sellers of the bulk of the cotton, the rich plantation owners. 

    The plantation owners who sent their sons to West Point often were the great grandsons of British loyalists.  They may have wished they could become lords with titles and special rights.  They may have wanted to return to an alliance with Great Britain or maybe another royal power like Spain which was not yet hostile to slavery, in order to obtain a powerful defensive military alliance.  

    Or, the rich planters may simply have wanted to bring back settlers along with the guns they planned to buy with the cotton crop.  They could bring technically trained men from educated but overcrowded European countries who could help give the Confederacy an industrial base as well as a militia for defense and for controlling the slaves.  If the rich planters had won the war, they could have then squeezed out the previous militia, the small farmers, and replanted their land with cash crops.

    So if the rest of the South didn't trust the planters, they might have kept the planters from exporting any of their cotton even when people were starting to starve and it was clear Europe wasn't going to help.  Come to think of it, the South must have realized before they started that Europe wouldn't cave because the pressure would be greater on the South because they were going to be at war.

    It is said the Confederates in Lee's invasion of the North in 1863 subsisted on apples foraged from Northern fields.  It was probably not an isolated incident, being one of the most important campaigns of the war. 

    So, no cotton went out, consequently no money or food went in, consequently, the slaves were starving while at the same time not being good for anything until the war was over because of the Northern blockade and Cotton Diplomacy.   So, why not sell them?  They would be easier to secretly load onto ships than bales of cotton and they wouldn't need a port.  But I sense that the rich planters didn't like it one bit and said, "if you make us sell our slaves, we'll get you some new ones after the war."  So one additional reason they might have repopulated the plantations is spite. 
  • bpostbpost Member Posts: 30,904 ✭✭✭✭
    The end of the civil war saw mass migration of black families to the northern states where work was available and slavery never existed.
    What ever the issues were before the 13th Amendment was passed or the Emancipation Proclamation was made is totally irrelevant to Americans living today.  Since 1964 we have transferred many trillions to Black Americans.  By doing so we destroyed the Black two parent family, re-enslaved the black Americans, but this time to the Federal Government.  We have seen quota hire laws, set asides and affirmative action laws yet nothing changes.  I don't care where people came from or how they got here we are all supposed to be Americans first.  People of all races need to understand this, other races do just fine, Chinese, Europeans and even Arabs seem to do okay if they assimilate to the American standards and way of life.
    Unfortunately white people alive today are still held responsible and blamed for perceived injustice that ended by and large over 5 generations ago.
    Black folks, our fellow Americans, need to abandon the extremely racist "professional victim culture" of fixing the blame on others and get on with the American dream.  Individual freedom coupled with individual responsibility, along with hard work is all it takes.  Until the Black American culture changes nothing will improve no matter how much money is given for the perceived issues faced in large city black populations.
  • SoreShoulderSoreShoulder Member Posts: 2,565 ✭✭✭
    This conspiracy theory is easy to find evidence for.  They should compare the DNA of any claimant for reparations against the DNA of Canadian blacks whose ancestors had fled slavery, and against the DNA of African areas which suffered large population declines after our Civil war, such as German Angola and the Belgian Congo.  Some of the Congolese or Angolan Herreros may have come to the US after the war. 

    There is also little risk that speaking about it will prevent anyone from profiting from reparations.  Many non-slave-descendants may support reparations because they think all that money being given to people will stimulate spending and make us all wealthier.  However, if any of my theory is true, there's people who know about it and have evidence.  Some of them are still rich and don't want to get soaked in order to pay people who don't deserve it.  So they will find a way to release a little evidence such as letting an authentic old letter come to light describing the postwar re-population of plantations.  They could conceal it in an original copy of "Gone With The Wind" and sell it to an antique shop.  
  • SoreShoulderSoreShoulder Member Posts: 2,565 ✭✭✭
    edited June 23
    The Marshall Plan 1865:

    How does the US rebuild the war torn South?  The Federal Government had not yet gotten the people to consent to much taxation and got most of its revenue from import and export tariffs.

    They had had to pass an emergency, temporary income tax during the war to have any money to fight with, because the South had been the main source of their cash earning exports.  So there was not going to be a lot of cash to invest in rebuilding the South as an exporter.

    The US freed all slaves in areas then controlled by the Confederacy.  Then, they sent General Sherman to wreck much of the South.  So, the South would definitely lose its slaves if it lost the war, and it would be desperately in need of funds to rebuild.   

    Perhaps the US government even aided and abetted them.  Suppose some experienced US judge appointed by the US president and Congress went around secretly in the South in the last months of the war.  Suppose any plantation owner who recited the Pledge Of Allegiance with what the US judge felt was sincerity, got to export their slaves at a prearranged time and place which was free of interference.   The plantation owners were not required to rise up against the South, only to save the funds for reconstruction.  This scenario is possible but not necessary.  The South was guaranteed to have to give up their slaves if they lost, and was in need of rebuilding funds because of Sherman's march.  

    After the war, or perhaps even during the last stages of the war, they may have started importing free blacks to work in the South and continue to keep it the source of the nation's trade surplus.  

    They had the same thing they would have had if they had just freed the slaves:  Free men who you have to pay, but who maybe aren't powerful enough to insist on the same wages and treatment as whites.  

    Except they had the financial windfall of the actual slaves' sale, and they had people who, for a few generations at least, realized that they could have things a lot worse.  

    The free blacks may have come from Liberia or some oppressive foreign colony.  Maybe they had secretly hired Liberians to coach them to speak like Americans.  Or maybe the government aided and abetted the process by keeping them segregated.  They would have seen colonial oppression, poverty, food insecurity, rampant tropical diseases, and possibly faced intertribal warfare that was as bad as any US racism.

    The plantation owners got workers but did not have to give jobs to the very people who had prevented them from selling their cotton and buying guns and winning the war. 

  • MrMag00MrMag00 Member Posts: 356 ✭✭✭
    Just buy a tractor. 
  • SoreShoulderSoreShoulder Member Posts: 2,565 ✭✭✭
    edited July 7
    I just realized what makes it all work.

    If the slaves had been sold off, you'd think there wouldn't be so many here.  

    But if the big planters found volunteers to replace the sold ex-slaves, no one would be the wiser.  

    They could let the few remaining authentic ex-slaves do the talking until the rest learned to speak like Americans.  

    The war was very expensive.  It left individuals and states impoverished.  The Federal Government or their own states would probably have wanted to tax or fine the former large slaveholders heavily and their own people might have robbed them or burned them out if everyone knew they were sitting on a great deal of gold.  
  • HighContrastHighContrast Member Posts: 4

    Interesting. Over the entire slave trade barely 200k were brought here.

  • SoreShoulderSoreShoulder Member Posts: 2,565 ✭✭✭
    edited July 7
    One source said 450K but a low number in itself doesn't prove most of them don't deserve reparations.  They could have been bred here before emancipation.  They could do useful work before fully grown, meaning they'd be paying for themselves while growing.  

    Also, the 3/5ths compromise meant political representation depended on an accurate count of the number of slaves, so it's not likely that the numbers in the country at the start of the C i v i l war are being grossly inflated. 
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 21,751 ✭✭✭✭
    Anything is possible.
    Well, almost anything, I guess.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • serfserf Member Posts: 7,306 ✭✭✭
     Reparations for Blacks will be the last straw for The USA and its humongous debt creations. Given small business billions free of charge when there are no jobs and The Feds buying stocks and bonds like money was water then the train is already off the rails heading over the cliff in  my opinion.
                      Trump wants to extend the unemployment benefits for another six months to have an election and be the winner before the country goes into bankruptcy. That what he does the best in business goes broke and stiffs the investors. This time the tax payers savings will be given a huge haircut for all the past giveaways. He will be a lame duck. anyway and give us a catch/22 while he is in The catbird seat.
                                       serf
  • SoreShoulderSoreShoulder Member Posts: 2,565 ✭✭✭
    edited August 10
    Found this online today.  They say the numbers of people of Nigerian descent in the new world are higher than the transatlantic trade suggests but maybe the article is wrong about when it happened.  People could have fled the English Caribbean post-emancipation.  Or, it could be that the idea to bring one's relatives here after the war spread throughout the Nigerians and the other nationalities simply didn't think of it.  

    From: "https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/why-so-many-african-americans-have-nigerian-ancestry/ar-BB17N5jM"

    "In the largest DNA study of people of African ancestry in the Americas, researchers found an overrepresentation of Nigerian genetic ancestry in the United States and Latin America compared to the proportion of enslaved people shipped to these places from regions within modern day Nigeria. While the finds from the genetic study are largely supported by established narratives and historic records of the transatlantic slave trade, there were also inconsistencies.

    The researchers put forward a new narrative explaining the variations in African ancestry in the Americas and how these variations were shaped by the transatlantic and a later intra-America slave trade whose impact was only recently understood.

    The study which involved the DNA of 50,281 people of African descent in the United States, Latin America and western Europe was carried out by the consumer genetics company, 23andMe. The genetic data was analyzed against historical records of over 36,000 transatlantic slave trade voyages that happened between 1492 and the early 19th century.

     The overrepresentation of Nigeria ancestry is said to be a result of intra-American slave trade between the British Caribbean and mainland Americas. 

    Previous genetic studies have shown that African Americans in the US have more African ancestry from populations that lived near present-day Nigeria than from populations that lived elsewhere in Atlantic Africa (Western and west central Africa). In agreement, it was shown in this study Nigerian as the most common ancestry within the US, the French Caribbean, and the British Caribbean.

    This is despite, nearly half of the slaves who landed in the United States coming from Senegambia (Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Senegal) and West-Central Africa (Democratic Republic of Congo and Angola), a considerable number of the remaining half had their origins in Ghana as well as Ivory Coast.

    The overrepresentation of Nigeria ancestry reported was found to be a result of the later intra-American slave trade between the British Caribbean and the mainland Americas.

    The intra-American trade which was an inter-colonial trade involving over 11,000 slave voyages within the Americas stretched as far as Boston to Buenos Aires and also Atlantic and the Pacific littorals. Intra-American trade records show that while the transatlantic voyages were going on, slave traders transferred nearly 500,000 slaves throughout the Americas with most intra-American voyages originating in the Caribbean."

  • mohawk600mohawk600 Member Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭

    Interesting. Over the entire slave trade barely 200k were brought here.

    "rabbitt-like" reproduction?
  • hobo9650hobo9650 Member Posts: 2,738 ✭✭✭
    People don't want to talk about the white slaves.  It was so expensive to travel to the "new country" that most people were "bonded" to wealthy people if their fare was paid.  This was a legal bonding for x number of years depending upon how much total fare was. The bonded people came to the new country and worked for their keeper more or less as a slave.  These bonded people were white.

    Want to read some interesting stuff, read about the civil war of 1642 - Sep 3, 1651.  Many of the people on the losing side (my ancestors included) fled to the "new country" because the roundheads (soldiers of the queen) were hunting them.  My ancestors arrived between 1653 and 1656, changed their name in fear of the roundheads here in this country, who still had the authority of the "queen".

    I'm thinking the people who represented the queen in the new country wanted to continue ruling the South and that is one primary reason for the Civil War.  

    Info:  More Indians married blacks than whites because Indians were treated as slaves and seldom respected by whites.  Ever notice that most people who claim Indian heritage always say their grandmother (normally false) was married to an Indian.  Females are harder to trace than males because of the name change.


  • SoreShoulderSoreShoulder Member Posts: 2,565 ✭✭✭
    hobo9650 said:I'm thinking the people who represented the queen in the new country wanted to continue ruling the South and that is one primary reason for the Civil War.  

    Sure, that may be the actual reason the South embargoed its own cotton, not bond manipulation. They did not want the rich plantation owners to become too powerful. The rich planters were descended from Revolutionary war Tories for the most part.
  • SoreShoulderSoreShoulder Member Posts: 2,565 ✭✭✭
    The theory that they sold their slaves to buy weapons and food does not depend upon there being too little food at the time, though it was well known they had shortages.

    They really needed money and if they didn't get it, they were going to lose the slaves anyway.  What if Cemetery Ridge or the Hornet's Nest had been shelled with several times more artillery?  So even though the planters were rich, they were a little behind in artillery and other modern weapons.

    They could always buy more slaves after the war with credit because of their proven ability to make money doing what they do.  They probably maxed out their credit as it is.  Taking a step to help win the war, like selling slaves and buying weapons, would strengthen their credit because of the better chance of paying back. 

    Someone with more time and skill for historical research could figure out what we know they bought from Europe and what it cost.  .577 was the official Southern caliber because of English muskets. 

    Then there's the fact that they were probably the first to realize when the war was lost because the planter class were traditionally the people who got military educations at West Point and of course, the Citadel, from which the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter.  So they would want to sell them for any price they could because they were going to lose them anyway.

    Last, they were easy to smuggle for a reason I hadn't thought of before.  A rowed ship cuts a much lower profile than a tall sailing ship so can run blockades easier.  

    And one more thing.  The historian on Ken Burns' "The Civil War" said the Southern militia system had been a joke before John Brown's raid.  So those slaves were easy to keep in line, meaning they are not the ancestors of the people we have today.  
Sign In or Register to comment.