A question for southerners and germans.

[.Shane.]

Bad comparison, and it couldnt just be about slavery considering must farmers in the south couldnt afford slaves.

Sorry, wrong.

The point is that there is no movement in the field of legitimate history to say that the CW was not primarily about slavery. Even indirectly, it is about slavery.

Just because most southerners didn't own slaves didn't mean they somehow didn't benefit from slavery or buy into the system in myriad ways.

The South had the legal right to secede, but not the moral right.

Also not true.

At the time there was no decisive legal opinion. Nor was there legal precedent. In your defense, some make the case for historical precedent.

My point is there was no definitive rule... just self-serving opinions.

 

[Phlegmak]

I really don't see the point of getting upset that the North beat the South in the Civil War. It happened so long ago. We're probably better off for it, overall.

 

[skadistic]

Absolute BS.

The CW was about slavery at every turn. Saying otherwise is the intellectual equivalent of Holocaust denials or those conspiracists who argue that the fed has no legal standing.

6% of southeners had slaves.
Not all slaves were black.
Not all blackes were slaves.
Some blacks owned slaves.


Did the cotton and textile trade with europ have anything to do with why the south wanted out? It wasn't like the south was getting shafted in the trade now were they? Did the free intergrated blacks (the north had segrigated poorly equiped black unit) in the confederate armies who fought of their own free will do it for slavery? Did northeners own slaves? Did the Emancipation Proclomation free those northern slaves?

Like I said I'm upset that the perpetuated lies of the war was all about slavery upsets me. It seems some folks who like to spout about intelecuality refuse to use it to understand the truth.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Aww no.

This thread is gettin all "Southerners foist pathetic, face-saving delusion on others" up in heeyah.

 

[.Shane.]

6% of southeners had slaves.
Not all slaves were black.
Not all blackes were slaves.
Some blacks owned slaves.

The "6% argument" is the starting block of the southern apologists. I love it. You couldn't have picked a more misleading and fallacious "fact."

But, now I know I'm dealing w/ a strict apologist.

Did the cotton and textile trade with europ have anything to do with why the south wanted out? It wasn't like the south was getting shafted in the trade now were they? Did the free intergrated blacks (the north had segrigated poorly equiped black unit) in the confederate armies who fought of their own free will do it for slavery? Did northeners own slaves? Did the Emancipation Proclomation free those northern slaves?

Let's see...

*The cotton/textile trade built on the back of what form of labor?
*The south was shafted in terms of import/export because they refused to develop a manufacturing base because they relied on what alternate labor force?
*"free integrated blacks" huh? Yes, there were 250k free blacks in the south but they were barred from frontline service. And the #s who may have "served" are miniscule compared to northern numbers. Interesting that you failed to mention how the south refused till the last minute of the war to give slaves freedom in return for military service.
*The border states had slaves, but so what. Slavery was long over in the north proper.
*Eman Proc didn't even set slaves free in conquered southern states. Purpose was to hold a carrot/stick motivation to the south while not upsetting specific demographics in the north that Lincoln needed support from.

You assume that I'm some sort of pro-northern type. I'm not. I can spend as much time reviewing the inequities of the nascent northern industrialization, it just so happens that's not the topic here.

I'm a Californian and, as such, pretty disinterested in North/South rivalries. On a personal level more of my family tree runs through the South than the North.

 

[skadistic]

*The cotton/textile trade built on the back of what form of labor?
*The south was shafted in terms of import/export because they refused to develop a manufacturing base because they relied on what alternate labor force?
.

Indentured servents. Seeing how most of the land was tilled by these people and not slaves as you wrongly allude to.

 

[ummmm........]

I think we can all agree slavery and the holocost were bad ideas and had bad morality. But are you still upset that southerners you lost the civil war and germans that you lost ww2.

Upset? No, since I wasn't even alive at the time. That'd be like being proud of winning the Revolutionary War or WWII.

It makes me a little sad that the states lost the right to secede, but I'm also aware that the nation would not have survived if that right had remained . . .

 

[Nylan]

It suffices me to say that the entire Southern economy relied around crops, of which cotton was king.

Therefore, slavery was the kingpin of the economy

Does the fact that initially there were relatively few Bolsheviks when they came to power mean they weren't in control of the government? Numbers don't matter, it's what those numbers do.

 

[.Shane.]

Indentured servents. Seeing how most of the land was tilled by these people and not slaves as you wrongly allude to.

ROFL

Indentured servants?

Are you getting this from "The Patriot"?

 

[Nylan]

Indentured servents. Seeing how most of the land was tilled by these people and not slaves as you wrongly allude to.

*indentured* HA! The 3/5 vote and not being able to play with slavery for a certain amount of years in exchange for ratification of the constitution is clear demonstration that the south was all about slavery. They wouldn't have ratified the constitution without those compromises.

Not even close.

Even my relatives, who were "indentured servants", didn't come of their own accord. Take the term "shanghaid" and multiply it by thousands.

Being shanghaid is being forced onto a boat and shipped to America, where they find you as "stowaways" and to earn your passage you work for the boat owners. It was a common practice to get people drunk and force them onto a boat, and the term was probably also used to mean slaves, who were "stowaways" on slave boats.

These "indentured servants" are slaves by a different name

 

[skadistic]

ROFL

Indentured servants?

Are you getting this from "The Patriot"?

I don't know what the Patriot is. But you attack and rofl just nailed it for me that your clueless as to the economic structure of the south. But don't let me get in the way of your "slaves slaves slaves slaves".

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Bad comparison, and it couldnt just be about slavery considering must farmers in the south couldnt afford slaves.

Bad comparison, and it couldn't just be about slavery considering many farmers in the south didn't support secession.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The "6% argument" is the starting block of the southern apologists. I love it. You couldn't have picked a more misleading and fallacious "fact."

But, now I know I'm dealing w/ a strict apologist.

I don't see how his use of statistics makes him an apologist.

 

[Nylan]

disliking secession and supporting slavery are not mutually exclusive

 

[Masquerouge]

Well apparently Americans are much more sensitive about the Civil War than Germans are about Nazism.

 

[Nylan]

my thoughts exactly

That's my one beef with the deep south, is the never-letting-go-blame-someone-else mentality

other than that, the south is great Awesome, in fact.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I don't understand where the idea that the South had no right to secede comes from. No precedent? What about the American secession from the British Empire. At any rate, any Union in which it is illegal to leave from is no union.

People have this Hollywood version of history in their mind that the civilized Northerners told the barbaric South to give up their slaves and the South refused causing the Civil War. This just did not happen. The Civil War was not caused by slavery. You can make the argument that the South seceded because of slavery but it was really all about state rights. However, the most important state right was about the legality of slavery.

This Civil War actually started with the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter. But, blandly saying the South started the war is a gross misrepresentation of the actual history although it does sound better in the history books. Fort Sumter is in South Carolina which was deep in Confederate territory. Fort Sumter refused to surrender to the Confederacy. Shots are fired, and the war starts.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

There are still a few deranged people who wish Germany hadn't lost WW2, but among those only the boldest idiots would admit it.

 

[skadistic]

I don't see how his use of statistics makes him an apologist.

It doesn't nor did I apologize for slavery. But unless you're 100% slave slave slave slave your an apologist.

 

[Nylan]

I don't understand where the idea that the South had no right to secede comes from. No precedent? What about the American secession from the British Empire. At any rate, any Union in which it is illegal to leave from is no union.

People have this Hollywood version of history in their mind that the civilized Northerners told the barbaric South to give up their slaves and the South refused causing the Civil War. This just did not happen. The Civil War was not caused by slavery. You can make the argument that the South seceded because of slavery but it was really all about state rights. However, the most important state right was about the legality of slavery.

This Civil War actually started with the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter. But, blandly saying the South started the war is a gross misrepresentation of the actual history although it does sound better in the history books. Fort Sumter is in South Carolina which was deep in Confederate territory. Fort Sumter refused to surrender to the Confederacy. Shots are fired, and the war starts.

"Give up what is rightfully yours and leave your military installation!" And then expecting the US military to comply? Don't think so. It was Union property and the Confederacy attacked it.

And as far as not being allowed to secede...try the Supreme Court's ruling? Try their word is law?