Started By
Message

re: .

Posted on 11/27/16 at 12:41 pm to
Posted by fr33manator
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2010
135024 posts
Posted on 11/27/16 at 12:41 pm to
quote:

Preface this with you are one of my favorite posters.


Well shucks. I'm blushing.

quote:

Doesn't matter if states had slaves, still wrong.


I wasn't aware anyone was making the argument that slavery wasn't wrong. I was simply saying that the argument that the Union was anti-slavery In toto is patently false. Much of the Atlantic slave trade was funded by Yankee bankers.

The abolitionist movement was much smaller than the history books would have you believe. Their were myriad other factors motivating it more chiefly, namely regionalism and federal power.
Posted by fr33manator
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2010
135024 posts
Posted on 11/27/16 at 12:49 pm to
quote:

Except, ya know, the people freaking enslaved


See, and I know it's a tough concept to grasp, but I think you are wrong in this assumption.

Slavery was on it's way out with the rise of machines. No need for human chattel, which are extremely expensive, if you have machines to do the work. No, war dead, no northern atrocities and no punitive reconstruction mean that when the slaves are voluntarily freed there isn't as much animosity, and likely there are better systems in place to aid in the transition.

Perhaps they would be given their own state or territory. Obviously some would have stayed on and peacefully coexisted.

I don't think you have groups such as the KKK without reconstruction. You don't have a backlash against being forced into such a fundamental change, but evolve naturally.

It's hard to believe but avoiding the civil war and letting technology make slaves obsolete could have lessened bloodshed and animosity on all sides.
Posted by Bullfrog
Running Through the Wet Grass
Member since Jul 2010
61775 posts
Posted on 11/27/16 at 1:01 pm to
quote:

Doesn't matter if northern states had slaves, still wrong.
Why do you think slavery is wrong? Upon what do you base your thinking? Is it also wrong to own a cow, dog or chicken?
Posted by Jim Rockford
Member since May 2011
106013 posts
Posted on 11/27/16 at 1:02 pm to
Which raises the question of what to do about the slaves who are no longer economically viable. Are they free? Are they still property? How do they make a living? Do they have a right to own property, vote, etc? Somehow I doubt it without a figurative or literal fight. So you still have a potential source of conflict.

Maybe the northern states vote a tariff to assist the former slaves. Or the Supreme Court rules they have the right to vote. The South objects, and the war is on in earnest.
Posted by Bullfrog
Running Through the Wet Grass
Member since Jul 2010
61775 posts
Posted on 11/27/16 at 1:02 pm to
quote:

Perhaps they would be given their own state or territory
Isn't that where Liberia came from?
This post was edited on 11/27/16 at 1:03 pm
Posted by fr33manator
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2010
135024 posts
Posted on 11/27/16 at 1:04 pm to
quote:

Isn't that where Liberia came from?



Yes, and that may have happened, but i'm thinking that they might have been given some island possessions, or one of the western territories won in the Mexican American War.
Posted by Bullfrog
Running Through the Wet Grass
Member since Jul 2010
61775 posts
Posted on 11/27/16 at 1:04 pm to
quote:

Which raises the question of what to do about the slaves who are no longer economically viable
Soylent Green
Posted by Jim Rockford
Member since May 2011
106013 posts
Posted on 11/27/16 at 1:06 pm to
quote:

Yes, and that may have happened, but i'm thinking that they might have been given some island possessions, or one of the western territories won in the Mexican American War.


Again, that wouldn't have been an easy sell to the manifest destiny types who wanted that territory for their own purposes.
Posted by fr33manator
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2010
135024 posts
Posted on 11/27/16 at 1:09 pm to
quote:

Which raises the question of what to do about the slaves who are no longer economically viable


Manumission. Then you'd see migrations to cities where they were still willing to pay them pennies a day to work in factories with no safety regulations.

Of course, the Irish had no value so they might have sucked up all the jobs.

Posted by fr33manator
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2010
135024 posts
Posted on 11/27/16 at 1:11 pm to
quote:

Again, that wouldn't have been an easy sell to the manifest destiny types who wanted that territory for their own purposes.


Then maybe you see a large scale repatriation to Africa like Booker T Washington wanted.
Posted by PolyPusher86
St. George
Member since Jun 2010
3357 posts
Posted on 11/27/16 at 1:15 pm to
Beyonce's new album
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
120445 posts
Posted on 11/27/16 at 1:16 pm to
quote:

Forgive me but I thought WWI was the result of convoluted treaties and the rise of regional nationalism in Europe. America was isolated at the time. Why would the independent confederacy have an impact on whether WWI happens?


It's the Butterfly Effect. If it weren't for the American Revolution for instance, the French Revolution would have never happened (at least of any semblance that we historically know it as). If America had lost the Civil War, then that would have massive effects on trade and industrialization around the world. A Mexican Empire could have formed. We may have lost the Spanish American War if that still came into fruition. No telling how history is subtlety effected by a war 50 years from before.

I can almost guarantee that Hitler wouldn't have come to power or even been conceived if the South had won the war, so WWII is totally different, especially on the Pacific front for how we militarized Japan after the Civil War.
Posted by lsu2006
BR
Member since Feb 2004
40148 posts
Posted on 11/27/16 at 1:38 pm to
quote:

Everyone else was fine. Heck, a Jew was hailed as the "Brains of the Confederacy" and served in President Davis's cabinet.

Judah P Benjamin? My ancestor, Henry Hyams (also a Jew) was the lieutenant governor of La during the war. CSB
Posted by mdomingue
Lafayette, LA
Member since Nov 2010
48557 posts
Posted on 11/27/16 at 3:31 pm to
quote:

So... The Confederacy's views were worse than Nazi views, on some people, and slightly better on others?



Probably a true statement depending on how you look at it, we are also judging those time periods by modern sensibilities. During the Nazi period, it was much closer to current thinking but different enough to be very noticeable. The Nazi belief in their own superiority, I think, is ultimately worse because all non Aryan's would eventually became subhuman in that world of thinking.

I suspect the prevailing thinking was manipulated by people in power (as is common throughout history) in order to maintain and increase their own political and economic standing.

Posted by mdomingue
Lafayette, LA
Member since Nov 2010
48557 posts
Posted on 11/27/16 at 3:41 pm to
quote:

Why do you think slavery is wrong? Upon what do you base your thinking? Is it also wrong to own a cow, dog or chicken?



I can play this game.

Are you equating people of color to cows, dogs, and chickens?

Your turn.
Posted by Napoleon
Kenna
Member since Dec 2007
74865 posts
Posted on 11/27/16 at 6:44 pm to
I don't know how much would be different in Europe. Harry Turtledove covered this in a series of books I enjoyed.

The CSA expanded west and took some Mexican states while the USA expanded north. Because of that England sided with the CSA while the USA sided with the newly created Germany.


World War one in his books was a war started by the USA with the CSA. In which the north finally won. after losing two previous wars to the CSA. The restrictions imposed on the CSA led the the rise of Fascism in the south. World War 2 was again a mostly North American war, with the CSA and USA nuking each other and the CSA eventually losing.

A small event can change history greatly. Like if Archduke Ferdinand had never gone to Sarajevo then WW1 would have never started so there never would have even been a rise of Fascism in Germany.
The Soviets would never have risen to power if WW1 didn't happen.

A change in travel plans alone could have changed the entire course of the last century.

So its hard to tell what effect the USA and CSA both existing would have caused.

Turtledove's entire premise to the Southern victory was the north not gaining the intelligence found by Lee's marching orders being stolen.

The south in his books ended slavery the way Brazil did.
But blacks replaced Jews in WW2 in those books.

Interesting read.


Before and after WW1




The World in 1941





Posted by sml71
Run if you hear banjos.
Member since Dec 2005
4474 posts
Posted on 11/27/16 at 7:26 pm to
quote:

So... The Confederacy's views were worse than Nazi views, on some people, and slightly better on others?


Actually, the worst thing that you can say about the Confederacy is that it was the South's attempt at maintaining the status quo of life in the United States prior to 1860. Its views on "some people" were no worse than those of the country whose supreme court recognized slavery as a Constitutional right (which, if you were sleeping through your history class, was the US Supreme Court in the Dred Scot decision (and we won't get into the post-Civil War US Supreme Court cases that did things like legalizing "separate but equal")).

But keep on with your anti-South propaganda. Facts no longer matter.
This post was edited on 11/27/16 at 7:41 pm
Posted by SEC. 593
Chicago
Member since Aug 2012
4416 posts
Posted on 11/28/16 at 8:08 am to
Until some saw the light.

It took Reconstruction for the confederate states to certify the XIVth.
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 3Next pagelast page
refresh

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

FacebookXInstagram