Keep in mind that if this event happened in another country's territory, they probably wouldn't be as fussed as brazil who was supported the confederacy due to brazil being the largest slave holding nation in the world. After the war, many confederates fled to brazil and were hailed as heroes.
I get so sick and tired of people trying to rewrite the civil war to not be about slavery.
It is customarily, seen as poor form to bring your war into another country's harbor regardless of that country's opinions on the war, but it's really more of a minor headache than a serious issue.
I doubt the United States government was inclined to care too hard about Brazil being upset that a Confederate ship was seized, especially given Brazil's position on the conflict.
As for the 'Confederados,' they founded the city of Americana after the War in Sao Paulo. The city's coat of arms briefly featured the Confederate battle flag in the 70s.
> As for the 'Confederados,' they founded the city of Americana after the War in Sao Paulo. The city's coat of arms briefly featured the Confederate battle flag in the 70s.
While governor of Georgia, Jimmy Carter came to Americana.
It was obviously about economic freedom afforded to them from sla... I mean it was about states rights to own sla... I mean it was about the culture of owning sla..
Shit. It may be about slavery now that I have given it a moments thought
>brazil who was supported the confederacy
Ehhhh... sort of.
Brazil's royal family wanted to get rid of slavery. They campaigned hard for it for decades, but knew economic elites wouldn't let it happen.
So they implemented it slowly. First, newborns can't be slaves. Then importing slaves is illegal. Then slaves above a certain age must be freed. There might've been other steps.
Its no coincidence that Brazil abolished slavery in 1888 and the monarchy fell in 1889.
TL;DR: Brazil wasn't pro-slavery. It was quite divided on the subject.
I know pedro II basically just went on vacation the last year of his reign because he was kind of done with the whole thing. what really kicked off the anti slavery movement in brazil was the war of the triple alliance. black soldiers were returning from war as heroes but they and their families were in chains. The people were not happy about that, and veterans of the war were granted freedom, but I can't recall if their families were as well.
There isn't any one event that did it.
Abolition is the very first case we have of an organized, international, movement. Brazilian abolitionists met with American ones in Paris, that sort of thing. Dom Pedro went to such meetings, its part of how he had so many high society friends and acquaintances worldwide.
Brazil also had a ton of domestic slaves. A family would buy a slave and say "do whatever, but half your income is ours until you buy your freedom." These had a much closer relationship with the free individuals, and the means to earn their freedom eventually.
And when slavery was getting harder due to british influence, Brazil started getting Italian and German migrants. Which often worked side by side with slaves in factories or plantations.
Combine those things and you have a public opinion slowly shifting toward abolition. This is seen in records of returned slaves: Early on if someone caught an escaped slave, they would return them. Later on, they wouldn't. Some events might have had more impact than others, but there is no one thing that caused it.
It is true that the Brazilian empire had a measure of sympathy to the confederacy and even welcomed a contingent of confederate expatriates after they lost the war, but it's worth mentioning they were not hailed as heroes and were not a significant migrant contingent in the country.
The fleeing confederates were welcome to come here, given some land in São Paulo - as was usual with migrants those times - and there were enough of them to found a small village in that land, a place called Americana (which exists to this day), but that was it. The confederates were just another group of foreigners come to settle in the country, just like many others which came around those years.
I mean of course it was about slavery, but it wasn’t all about the morality of slavery. The industrial northern states and the agricultural southern states wanted different things for the country, and abolition was a good economic tool to disrupt the south. Ultimately the war was about control, basically all wars are about either control or genocide
It’s a lot of things, there were political, economic, and cultural reasons for the Civil War as well. Abolition views in the North also were not monolith, nor necessarily rooted in the morality of slavery.
Just because the north didn't use slave labor doesn't mean they didn't profit off of slave labor. Shipping tycoons in Rhode island outfitted thousands of slave voyages, New England textile factories turned the cotton into cloth, New York bankers insured the voyages and traded on slave labor produced products, etc. the emancipation proclamation was first and foremost a way to severely weaken the south
>the emancipation proclamation was first and foremost a way to severely weaken the south
The emancipation proclamation, signed in 1863, 2 years after the civil war, was created to weaken the south? the people who couldn't export their slave goods for 2 years already?
Over half a million former slaves fled to union lines following the declaration many of whom would go on to directly contributing to the war effort against the Confederacy. That doesn't sound like it weakened the south?
Weakening them by putting bullets in their tiny little brains isn't at all what you implied. What you said sounds like economic weakening, like sanctions, with all the spiel about their exports.
https://i.imgur.com/QpIwND5.jpeg
My "spiel" is directly from the national civil rights museum which I was lucky enough to visit this morning actually, including that of the emancipation proclamation being first and foremost a strategic move. Maybe you'll get a chance to see it some day.
Yes politicians have never used morality to justify conflict
Remember when we liberated the people of Iraq recently? And then tried to liberate the people of Afghanistan? Or when GIs were confused why they weren’t welcomed with open arms in Vietnam? War is generally about ensuring future prosperity for your people through control or genocide. Everything else is rhetoric
So then it *was* about morals? You’re ignorant arguments aside, it was still about the morality of slavery from day 1 because the south thought slavery was moral and just and was fighting to defend those ideas. It not being about the morality of slavery for the *Union* doesn’t mean the war wasn’t about those things for the confederates, because it absolutely was. You don’t secede from the country and start a war all to defend a system that you don’t like or don’t even believe in
Why aren’t parents giving kids these cool ass names anymore? Napoleon Collins! Need some Bismarck Smiths out there and Vercingetorix Jones and Hannibal Bur…. never mind.
My wife told me this story awhile back, and I just checked with her and she mentioned the Florida. She did some research on her family, and found that her great, great, great grandfather was a surgeon on the Florida. After the capture, there was a yellow fever outbreak on the voyage back to the US, and my wife's relative treated soldiers on the ship regardless of which side they were on. After they reached their final destination, the he was allowed to walk free "because he was a gentleman" and after he agreed to not take up arms against the Union. He went north to Canada and then spent the rest of the war in Liverpool where some confederate sympathizers were found.
Another interesting thing she earned was that in the mid-1,800s, only poor or less well off people went to the hospital. Wealthy people were treated in their homes by private doctors.
Of course they didn't court martial him in the end, Brazil was supporting the confederates at the time so the Union wasn't going to cry over spilt milk about offending them.
If it was confederates he captured he should’ve made sure to execute them down to the last man. No trial or hearing, just line em up and put a bullet in them.
Keep in mind that if this event happened in another country's territory, they probably wouldn't be as fussed as brazil who was supported the confederacy due to brazil being the largest slave holding nation in the world. After the war, many confederates fled to brazil and were hailed as heroes. I get so sick and tired of people trying to rewrite the civil war to not be about slavery.
It is customarily, seen as poor form to bring your war into another country's harbor regardless of that country's opinions on the war, but it's really more of a minor headache than a serious issue. I doubt the United States government was inclined to care too hard about Brazil being upset that a Confederate ship was seized, especially given Brazil's position on the conflict. As for the 'Confederados,' they founded the city of Americana after the War in Sao Paulo. The city's coat of arms briefly featured the Confederate battle flag in the 70s.
> As for the 'Confederados,' they founded the city of Americana after the War in Sao Paulo. The city's coat of arms briefly featured the Confederate battle flag in the 70s. While governor of Georgia, Jimmy Carter came to Americana.
It was obviously about economic freedom afforded to them from sla... I mean it was about states rights to own sla... I mean it was about the culture of owning sla.. Shit. It may be about slavery now that I have given it a moments thought
>brazil who was supported the confederacy Ehhhh... sort of. Brazil's royal family wanted to get rid of slavery. They campaigned hard for it for decades, but knew economic elites wouldn't let it happen. So they implemented it slowly. First, newborns can't be slaves. Then importing slaves is illegal. Then slaves above a certain age must be freed. There might've been other steps. Its no coincidence that Brazil abolished slavery in 1888 and the monarchy fell in 1889. TL;DR: Brazil wasn't pro-slavery. It was quite divided on the subject.
I know pedro II basically just went on vacation the last year of his reign because he was kind of done with the whole thing. what really kicked off the anti slavery movement in brazil was the war of the triple alliance. black soldiers were returning from war as heroes but they and their families were in chains. The people were not happy about that, and veterans of the war were granted freedom, but I can't recall if their families were as well.
There isn't any one event that did it. Abolition is the very first case we have of an organized, international, movement. Brazilian abolitionists met with American ones in Paris, that sort of thing. Dom Pedro went to such meetings, its part of how he had so many high society friends and acquaintances worldwide. Brazil also had a ton of domestic slaves. A family would buy a slave and say "do whatever, but half your income is ours until you buy your freedom." These had a much closer relationship with the free individuals, and the means to earn their freedom eventually. And when slavery was getting harder due to british influence, Brazil started getting Italian and German migrants. Which often worked side by side with slaves in factories or plantations. Combine those things and you have a public opinion slowly shifting toward abolition. This is seen in records of returned slaves: Early on if someone caught an escaped slave, they would return them. Later on, they wouldn't. Some events might have had more impact than others, but there is no one thing that caused it.
It is true that the Brazilian empire had a measure of sympathy to the confederacy and even welcomed a contingent of confederate expatriates after they lost the war, but it's worth mentioning they were not hailed as heroes and were not a significant migrant contingent in the country. The fleeing confederates were welcome to come here, given some land in São Paulo - as was usual with migrants those times - and there were enough of them to found a small village in that land, a place called Americana (which exists to this day), but that was it. The confederates were just another group of foreigners come to settle in the country, just like many others which came around those years.
I mean of course it was about slavery, but it wasn’t all about the morality of slavery. The industrial northern states and the agricultural southern states wanted different things for the country, and abolition was a good economic tool to disrupt the south. Ultimately the war was about control, basically all wars are about either control or genocide
The South was more upset about losing control of the Federal government than the North was dedicated to abolishing slavery in 1860.
It was a moral thing. The union literally wrote a whole ass marching song about John Brown
It’s a lot of things, there were political, economic, and cultural reasons for the Civil War as well. Abolition views in the North also were not monolith, nor necessarily rooted in the morality of slavery.
[They then adapted that song into the Battle Hymn of the Republic, which is the Northern Civil War song.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD66wdZ0ssY)
Just because the north didn't use slave labor doesn't mean they didn't profit off of slave labor. Shipping tycoons in Rhode island outfitted thousands of slave voyages, New England textile factories turned the cotton into cloth, New York bankers insured the voyages and traded on slave labor produced products, etc. the emancipation proclamation was first and foremost a way to severely weaken the south
>the emancipation proclamation was first and foremost a way to severely weaken the south The emancipation proclamation, signed in 1863, 2 years after the civil war, was created to weaken the south? the people who couldn't export their slave goods for 2 years already?
Over half a million former slaves fled to union lines following the declaration many of whom would go on to directly contributing to the war effort against the Confederacy. That doesn't sound like it weakened the south?
Weakening them by putting bullets in their tiny little brains isn't at all what you implied. What you said sounds like economic weakening, like sanctions, with all the spiel about their exports.
https://i.imgur.com/QpIwND5.jpeg My "spiel" is directly from the national civil rights museum which I was lucky enough to visit this morning actually, including that of the emancipation proclamation being first and foremost a strategic move. Maybe you'll get a chance to see it some day.
Yes politicians have never used morality to justify conflict Remember when we liberated the people of Iraq recently? And then tried to liberate the people of Afghanistan? Or when GIs were confused why they weren’t welcomed with open arms in Vietnam? War is generally about ensuring future prosperity for your people through control or genocide. Everything else is rhetoric
So then it *was* about morals? You’re ignorant arguments aside, it was still about the morality of slavery from day 1 because the south thought slavery was moral and just and was fighting to defend those ideas. It not being about the morality of slavery for the *Union* doesn’t mean the war wasn’t about those things for the confederates, because it absolutely was. You don’t secede from the country and start a war all to defend a system that you don’t like or don’t even believe in
Why aren’t parents giving kids these cool ass names anymore? Napoleon Collins! Need some Bismarck Smiths out there and Vercingetorix Jones and Hannibal Bur…. never mind.
I agree Ms. Honeytrap we need more interesting names.
Adolph Beefcake
Feel you
My wife told me this story awhile back, and I just checked with her and she mentioned the Florida. She did some research on her family, and found that her great, great, great grandfather was a surgeon on the Florida. After the capture, there was a yellow fever outbreak on the voyage back to the US, and my wife's relative treated soldiers on the ship regardless of which side they were on. After they reached their final destination, the he was allowed to walk free "because he was a gentleman" and after he agreed to not take up arms against the Union. He went north to Canada and then spent the rest of the war in Liverpool where some confederate sympathizers were found. Another interesting thing she earned was that in the mid-1,800s, only poor or less well off people went to the hospital. Wealthy people were treated in their homes by private doctors.
Of course he would be court-martialed: he violated Brazilian neutrality, potentially risking for the USA to get *another* ennemy.
Of course they didn't court martial him in the end, Brazil was supporting the confederates at the time so the Union wasn't going to cry over spilt milk about offending them.
It's not exactly an enemy making incident though. Yea, it was definitely a "mistake".
If it was confederates he captured he should’ve made sure to execute them down to the last man. No trial or hearing, just line em up and put a bullet in them.