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.
The success of this country was built on the backs of the slaves: Cotton was King and made us a valuable partner to GB. They imported our cotton and made cloth for the rest of the world.
Raising cotton, particularly the harvesting & cleaning of the cotton ball, was very labor intensive. The cotton gin solved the one problem early on, but the other wasn't mechanized for quite awhile.
Did we have to actually fight the War of Rebellion? If Lincoln had simply withdrawn the garrison from Ft.Sumter it would have been delayed and maybe negotiations could have come to some compromise. Remember that telling The South they couldn't have slaves would be like telling IA today they can't grow corn or raise hogs-- it would destroy the economy....It may have been a moral issue for The North, but it was an economic issue for The South. (Reminds me a little of the judge in CT telling the people in the Northwoods of WI that they can't shoot wolves.)
In regards a slave-led freedom movement-- what would they do if they won? In 1863 Lincoln freed the slaves, and The Czar also freed the serfs the same year. The Czar was smart enough to provide each serf with 40 acres and a mule. Did Lincoln really do the slaves a favor?
Very good.
I have long thought that the Civil War was unnecessary. It was not necessary to literally destroy half the country in the name of saving it.
No, the slaves were not done any favors. Various schedules for granting freedom were discussed, but whoever had the bright idea of suddenly freeing millions of illiterate, angry, dependent refugees in the middle of a racist country had rocks in their head. It was a disaster that reverberates today.
Very good.
I have long thought that the Civil War was unnecessary. It was not necessary to literally destroy half the country in the name of saving it.
No, the slaves were not done any favors. Various schedules for granting freedom were discussed, but whoever had the bright idea of suddenly freeing millions of illiterate, angry, dependent refugees in the middle of a racist country had rocks in their head. It was a disaster that reverberates today.
What are your thoughts on whoever had the bright idea of maintaining a class of illiterate, angry, dependent refugees by keeping them in bondage and enlarging their numbers through breeding? Was that part of the disaster, or was the disaster strictly the emancipation?
Very good.
I have long thought that the Civil War was unnecessary. It was not necessary to literally destroy half the country in the name of saving it.
No, the slaves were not done any favors. Various schedules for granting freedom were discussed, but whoever had the bright idea of suddenly freeing millions of illiterate, angry, dependent refugees in the middle of a racist country had rocks in their head. It was a disaster that reverberates today.
And all were roundly rejected by Southern whites.
But, hey, we wouldn't want to inconvenience slavers by taking away their property (ie, human beings) when a better solution would have been for that property (again, human beings) to just shut up and be patient and, hey, if that meant enduring another decade or two or three of enslavement and its accompanying brutality such as whippings and rapes and other assorted degradations, well, those uppity slaves should have just endured it for the convenience of the white population!
What are your thoughts on whoever had the bright idea of maintaining a class of illiterate, angry, dependent refugees by keeping them in bondage and enlarging their numbers through breeding? Was that part of the disaster, or was the disaster strictly the emancipation?
In 1865 a Kansas newspaper wrote of the 15,000 black refugees on it's eastern border, " With the ease and rapidity at which they learn to read, they do not appear to be all that inferior to white children." Too often we assuage our ideals about slavery by believing that slaves were ignorant and dependent people. Slavery didn't make people ignorant and dependent, it kept intelligent and industrious people in bondage. The fact that accounts for this is in Kansas, by 1877 some black schools were on par with white schools and black wealth was in the millions and land ownership was in the hundreds of thousands.
In 1865 a Kansas newspaper wrote of the 15,000 black refugees on it's eastern border, " With the ease and rapidity at which they learn to read, they do not appear to be all that inferior to white children." Too often we assuage our ideals about slavery by believing that slaves were ignorant and dependent people. Slavery didn't make people ignorant and dependent, it kept intelligent and industrious people in bondage. The fact that accounts for this is in Kansas, by 1877 some black schools were on par with white schools and black wealth was in the millions and land ownership was in the hundreds of thousands of acres.
What are your thoughts on whoever had the bright idea of maintaining a class of illiterate, angry, dependent refugees by keeping them in bondage and enlarging their numbers through breeding? Was that part of the disaster, or was the disaster strictly the emancipation?
Slavery was a world wide phenomenon. But if you discover who dreamed it up, do let us know.
The Emancipation Proclamation was cleverly written and did not free a single slave since Lincoln did not hold a position in The Confederacy.
Slavery was a world wide phenomenon. But if you discover who dreamed it up, do let us know.
The Emancipation Proclamation was cleverly written and did not free a single slave since Lincoln did not hold a position in The Confederacy.
American politicians didn't invent slavery, but they fostered and maintained it. If you don't see that as a cause of the Civil War, then you should probably just stay on the politics forum.
One side element of the Emancipation Proclamation is that it enabled the Union army to recruit black soldiers. By the end of the war, the Union had more black soldiers than the Confederacy had soldiers. Psychologically, the thought of freedmen with guns probably scared the crap out of southerners.
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.
