Started By
Message

re: Do you feel race relations would be better if CSA still existed.

Posted on 6/1/17 at 8:33 am to
Posted by KG6
Member since Aug 2009
10920 posts
Posted on 6/1/17 at 8:33 am to
Obviously, slavery in the south would have lasted longer if the CSA still existed. How long it would have existed is hard to know. The ease of communication at the turn of the century compared to previous times really exposed evils in the world that previously could get swept under the rug, so I don't think it would have lasted a lot longer, as in I don't think it makes it into the 1900's. So in that sense, it would have delayed relations somewhat. Who knows exactly how long....20, 30, 40 years???

Now if the CSA existed along side the Union and they both shut off slavery at the exact same time, then I don't think it changes a thing. Although slavery was a huge part of the CW, it's not like the North was full of SJW's. It was much easier for them to call slavery a bad thing since it wasn't tied to their economy as tightly. But that doesn't mean they were all hugs and kisses to African Americans. They just didn't have to deal with the integration as much, that's one reason they didn't quite have the issues the south had. I think widespread transportation of information (images/reports/video of injustices) forces CSA to make integration reform in nearly the same way in order to keep it's economy in shape due to world political influence.

I truly hate the false narrative that Lincoln and the North freed the slaves. I do feel it was the cause of the war, but I don't think that Lincoln should quite be praised the way he is. We are tearing down statues where men publicly stated they were against slavery, but were tied to their state, so they fought for that state's cause. Yet we praise Lincoln for freeing slaves, when he didn't free all slaves with the Emancipation Proclimation. Only those in the CSA and it was done not for justice, but to hurt the South politically. He did not abolish it in Union states....so did he really care about slaves the way history makes it seem? And his stance on freed African Americans was atrocious. He thought they were less than whites and should be shipped off to their own colony. Yet we aren't thinking of changing school names or tearing down the Lincoln monument.
Posted by volod
Leesville, LA
Member since Jun 2014
5392 posts
Posted on 6/1/17 at 8:44 am to
quote:

Now if the CSA existed along side the Union and they both shut off slavery at the exact same time, then I don't think it changes a thing. Although slavery was a huge part of the CW, it's not like the North was full of SJW's. It was much easier for them to call slavery a bad thing since it wasn't tied to their economy as tightly. But that doesn't mean they were all hugs and kisses to African Americans. They just didn't have to deal with the integration as much, that's one reason they didn't quite have the issues the south had. I think widespread transportation of information (images/reports/video of injustices) forces CSA to make integration reform in nearly the same way in order to keep it's economy in shape due to world political influence.


I totally agree with this. I know that the Union had already found a replacement for slavery, so they were in a position where ending it would not really hurt them as much. And the irony of the South's slavery system was that it would have difficulties trading since Great Britain and France had already ended slavery and could get their crops elsewhere in their empires.

quote:

I truly hate the false narrative that Lincoln and the North freed the slaves. I do feel it was the cause of the war, but I don't think that Lincoln should quite be praised the way he is. We are tearing down statues where men publicly stated they were against slavery, but were tied to their state, so they fought for that state's cause. Yet we praise Lincoln for freeing slaves, when he didn't free all slaves with the Emancipation Proclimation. Only those in the CSA and it was done not for justice, but to hurt the South politically. He did not abolish it in Union states....so did he really care about slaves the way history makes it seem? And his stance on freed African Americans was atrocious. He thought they were less than whites and should be shipped off to their own colony. Yet we aren't thinking of changing school names or tearing down the Lincoln monument.


I think Lincoln was a good president for his time, but even I can see that his political gains were his primary inspiration. Think about it, he wins even today as you said. He started a war, freeing a people he thought inferior, yet is remembered as the "Great Liberator" for doing something very progressive in his era. This in spite of the fact that he would have never pushed for Civil War if there was a better way to reunite the South.

The sad truth is that in history, none of the leaders who set things in motion are alive long enough to feel the consequences of their decisions.
This post was edited on 6/1/17 at 8:46 am
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram