Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
if you think im being a confederate apologist then you are clueless since I was born and raised in the North and I have NO ties to the south.
Well if that is the case then methinks that you have been doing nothing other than trolling the thread considering these two diametrical posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rush71
really? Last time I look it was the North invading the South not the other way around. I didn't know it was treason for residents of the South to defend their land from federal troops with the main purpose to destroy the economy, infrastructure and private property and humiliate the south.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rush71
the civil war was fought more than over slavery. Lincoln didn't sent troops to the south to end slavery but to protect federal property and not let the south secede from the Union.
On edit...
By the way, one does not have to be a "southern" to be a right wing revisionist. Buchanan wasn't born in the south but the "states right" pseudo anti-communism fits neatly into the Birchite conservative narrative.
There were mean, sociopaths, who viewed ownership of humans as an entitlement of being white, and wealthy. Those types would have never bowed to voluntary release of slaves. Hold out states, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, which relied on slave labor for the economy, would have never changed, it would have continued to be a States Rights issue, and needed to be forced.
I think, economically, slavery was becoming obsolete, and would have ended, but there were always those who would have never parted with the power and control of owning a slave.
Change of opinion after considering this issue...
On states rights, Utah wanted polygamy to be a states rights issue, and this was shut down as well. Another form of slavery, still practiced illegally in Utah. And just as insidious. As it preys on the most powerless, young women, given a "choice", marry an old man as his fifth wife, or, be this other guy's wife...which is no choice.
Last edited by jasper12; 09-28-2013 at 01:00 PM..
Reason: Edit
By the way, one does not have to be a "southern" to be a right wing revisionist. Buchanan wasn't born in the south but the "states right" pseudo anti-communism fits neatly into the Birchite conservative narrative.
I find it depressing that your post, which usually displays an open mind, has fallen into such oversimplified stereotyping of those of us who hold to conservative beliefs. A person who holds to a belief that economic and personal liberty are unitary and inseparable must, by definition, be opposed to Marxism as one more variant of Fascism, but it does not necessarily follow that one holding to that belief would sink into paranoia, or attempt to silence his opponent. At worst, (s)he would point out the contradiction in the "sham liberalism" called Political Correctness.
But, was it all necessary? Maybe not. Maybe it was possible to go slower, and find a way for southern farmers to operate profitably without having to use slaves.
But the slaveowners themselves made it impossible to go slower, it was their rebellion that brought things to a head. Once the slavers rebelled the Federals started thinking (sensibly enough) that slavery had to go and the sooner the better.
I find it depressing that your post, which usually displays an open mind, has fallen into such oversimplified stereotyping of those of us who hold to conservative beliefs.
Who is this us to which you refer? And what do neo-confederate revisionist (who all too often on these threads run concurrent with Holocaust deniers) have to do with a person who believes in economic and personal liberty, particularly when that economic and personal liberty is only for a select group of people?
Quote:
A person who holds to a belief that economic and personal liberty are unitary and inseparable must, by definition, be opposed to Marxism as one more variant of Fascism, but it does not necessarily follow that one holding to that belief would sink into paranoia, or attempt to silence his opponent. At worst, (s)he would point out the contradiction in the "sham liberalism" called Political Correctness.
The above makes no sense and certainly has no bearing on my comment. But if you would like to pursue the question, feel free to direct message me, there is no reason to bog down the thread on personal clarifications.
So the southerner was beaten into submission. And as a result he persecuted black people for another 100 years.
No one forced southerners to persecute Blacks, they chose to be wicked. To argue that a major evil shouldn't be destroyed because a lesser one might replace it doesn't make much sense to me.
But the slaveowners themselves made it impossible to go slower, it was their rebellion that brought things to a head. Once the slavers rebelled the Federals started thinking (sensibly enough) that slavery had to go and the sooner the better.
The war, at least for the Lincoln or the radical Republicans in his cabinet was never to end slavery, but for the South the war was most certainly fought to preserve it.
The war, at least for the Lincoln or the radical Republicans in his cabinet was never to end slavery, but for the South the war was most certainly fought to preserve it.
Yeah, many people have trouble understanding that disconnection between goals. But as the war against the rebellion went on the Federals realized that destroying slavery went hand in hand with destroying the rebellion. "Never again" to borrow a phrase. You know.
Every time a slave is sold there is money profits to be made
no mater who sells them.
If a slave owner needs 200 slave and he has 250 then he would sell
off the ones they don't need, and keep breeding the ones they have
producing more free slaves.
One woman slave will make you lots of money.
She works in the field and has a new baby every year which will
either be worked at a very young age, and if it is a girl child
she will be breed either by another male slave, or many times she is breed
by the slave owner or his son and they are the Daddy.
When girl child is old enough to have children
then the heard of slaves grows and grows with many free slaves
or will be sold later on to another slave owner.
Slaves were always profitable, or slave owners would not have owned them ! ! !
Every time a slave is sold there is money profits to be made
no mater who sells them.
If a slave owner needs 200 slave and he has 250 then he would sell
off the ones they don't need, and keep breeding the ones they have
producing more free slaves.
One woman slave will make you lots of money.
She works in the field and has a new baby every year which will
either be worked at a very young age, and if it is a girl child
she will be breed either by another male slave, or many times she is breed
by the slave owner or his son and they are the Daddy.
When girl child is old enough to have children
then the heard of slaves grows and grows with many free slaves
or will be sold later on to another slave owner.
Slaves were always profitable, or slave owners would not have owned them ! ! !
.
If he was doing well he would not sell those slaves "that he doesn’t need" Why would he convert a stable currency into an unstable currency? His borrowing power depended on his labor force. He could risk 50 slaves or $2.5-3 million in property (today’s estimate) to expand his operation and pay off the debt with profits if any from cotton production. Eugene Genovese, who passed away about a year ago and was one of the early writers in slave economics, said slave labor, was not that productive. Although I don't agree with everything he wrote, most of what I have gathered from him and other writers on the subject is that self sufficiency was the main goal of the plantation system not profit.
The civil war was to keep slavery from expanding. The south could have kept their way of life longer had they agreed not to expand it. They lost the war, got paid for the loss of their property and since most blacks stayed in the south they maintained their way of life for another 100 years.
"When girl child is old enough to have children
then the heard of slaves grows and grows with many free slaves
or will be sold later on to another slave owner. " ????
there were no "free slaves" on plantations
Last edited by thriftylefty; 09-28-2013 at 03:20 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
