Paul,

Relations between whites and blacks in the South during the war were often tense, and incidents of violence did occasionally spark up. Many people (including former Confederates) have pointed to the lack of large-scale slave insurrections as some sort of evidence that race relations were fairly stable (as you seem to suggest). In fact, there WERE some small slave revolts and countless examples of slaves rebelling against whites in a variety of less notable ways. In any case, the argument that slaves did not revolt because race relations were good is demeaning to a large class of Americans as it is based on the beliefs that blacks were happy, or at least content, as slaves and that slavery "wasn't so bad" afterall.

There are quite a few books and articles that have investigated slave behavior during the war, and virtually all (except some written by former-Confederates shortly after the war) show overwhelming evidence that blacks were not content, that they did resist Southern whites in a variety of ways (including "revolting" by joining Union regiments and fighting the Confederacy).

Davis Burns McKibben, in his article "Negro Slave Insurrections in Mississippi, 1800-1865," (The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Jan., 1949), pp. 73-90 ) gives a pretty good description of white fears of slave rebellion and occurences between whites and slaves during the war. He explains,

"During the first few months of war the planters did the only thing possible to keep the slaves from becoming restless. As a preventative measure all possible Negroes were removed from towns, where plantation overseers and masters could keep a better eye on them. The state then passed a law 'ordering the imporisonment of all persons tampering with slaves or teaching or conspiring in any way to cause insurrection.' One group of planters petitioned the governor for a man to serve at home. In requesting a certain individual they explained that he was the 'owner of a pack of Negro dogs and has devoted a good portion of time to the patrol duty.' Conditions were so upset in 1861 that Governor Pettus was afraid to give too many state troops to the confederate armies for fear of slave insurrections." (McKibben, 86-87)

Apparently, some plots did develop (or were thought to develop) but were stopped:

"As far as rumors of slave insurrections were concerned, the first year of the war opened auspiciously. In January, Governor Pettus 'heard tales of Abolitionist plots to stir up the Negroes and ravage the plantations.' In May of the same year a plot was discovered to mature on the Fourth of July. This conspiracy was reported to have involved at least five whites with the Negroes and was to take place in Jefferson and Adams counties. Approximately six Negroes were hanged for their part in the plot." (McKibben,87)

Other hangings of suspected slave plotters took place in Mississippi. McKibben notes that the Natchez region had the most problems, and that the Provost Marshall in the state estimated that 40 blacks had been hanged there in 1861 alone. (McKibben,87-88)

In 1862, Mississippi had one serious insurrection scare. McKibben writes, "The leader of the purported rebellion belonged to Colonel Mosby and theis black implicated at least one white man. A few guns were found among the slaves and several Negroes were hanged." (McKibben, 88)

As the war ground on, slave disobedience increased. McKibben found reports of slaves driving off overseers and blatantly disobeying and disrespecting whites in various portions of the state. In fact, while you claim there were no slave revolts, blacks in 1864 in Yazoo City, MS, burned the courthouse and fourteen homes. And, approximately 30 blacks, "with intentions of escaping, armed themselves with their master's weapons and rode off toward the Mississippi River. They were, however, overtaken by Confederate cavalry and most of the killed." (McKibben, 89)

William Byrne also has a good article about slave behavior in one part of the South. In his "Slave Crime in Savannah, Georgia," (The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 79, No. 4 (Autumn, 1994), pp. 352-36), Byrne disputes the idea that a lack of notable slave revolts occurred because of black contentment. He writes:

"Still, modern political theoriests have know at least since deTocqueville that revolutions tend to occur not when conditions are oppressive, but when they are instead becoming less so. As tyrannical governments relax pressure, the people are far more likely to take up arms. If people do not rebel without serious grievances, neither do they rebel merely because they are downtrodden. To quote Frederick Douglass's remark on slavery generally, 'beat and cuff your slave, keep him hungry and spiritless, and he will follow the chain of his master like a dog; but feed and clothe him well,---work him moderately---surround him with physical comfort,---and dreams of freedom intrude.'" (Byrne, 352)

Byrne concludes that Savannah blacks were not beaten down into absolute submission. But he also concludes that they were not treated well enough to revolt against the system. Instead, he describes a careful balance particularly managed by blacks (more than whites) to protect themselves from white oppression while enjoying some independence.

This apparently changed somewhat during the war. Byrne explains:

"With the coming of the Civil War, the attitudes of most Savannah's slaves would change. The war brought about the revolution of rising expectations in black Savannah which the antebellum period did not. Blacks in Savannah began to believe that a Union victory would result in their own liberation. Before the war, they had been willing to abide by the terms of the unwritten compromise they had made with whites. There was no real choice but to view slavery as their unavoidable condition and make the most of things as best they could. With the war, however, a realistic alternative to slavery began to rise, and the compromise broke down. As the prospect of freedom became more than just a wistful drea, slaves in Savannah felt an ability to react to their status in a way not previously possible. As the war continued, black Savannah's distaste for slavery became more and more pronounced and evident. By the end of the war, many of the slaves in and around Savannah had become disloyal---certainly to the Confederacy, but, more than this, to their owners and to the idea of slavery itself." (Byrne, 360)

Savannah slaves did not openly revolt, but Byrne shows there is no doubt that they were not content as being slaves, and that their behavior reflected what they felt could achieve within the system. During the war, the possibility of freedom led them to more openly buck the system and challenge white authority---although more subtly, not through bloody revolts.

These are just two articles I was able to pull up after a couple of minutes of searching. There are numerous other historical publications which elaborate further on slavery during the Civil War. Here are just a few to consider--

W. E. B. DuBois, _Black Reconstruction in America_
Ira Berlin, ed., _Freedom: A Documentary History of Emancipation, 1861-1867. Series 1, Volume 1: The Destruction of Slavery_
Peter Kolchin, _American Slavery: 1619-1877_
Leon Litwack, _Been in the Storm So Long: The Aftermath of Slavery_
James L. Roark, _Masters Without Slaves: Southern Planters in the Civil War and Reconstruction_