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 thing that is baffling to me is the insistence that the war was fought because the South wanted to preserve its culture and way of life, all the while claiming that that culture was not, at least for the rich, BASED on slavery. Part of that culture was a focus on agriculture, rather than manufacturing, but the thing is, it was agriculture on a scale that would have been impossible to sustain without slave labor.
The argument that most of the founders owned slaves, or that racism existed (and still does) in the North, too, while accurate, is not the point of this discussion. Monuments erected to the founders were not put in place BECAUSE they owned slaves, and certainly not because they fought for the "right" to continue owning them.
Agree with & appreciate the common sense assessment! Much can be said although, from my particular (& perhaps idiosyncratic ) perspective, rational persuasion makes the most sense. & that based on evidence along with an acceptance of the tendency for all human beings to ... well ... to demonstrate all of the strengths & weaknesses inherent in our very human nature. An ability to adapt to our ever changing circumstances, environmental factors, i.e. all of the essentials of humanity's continued existence here & so on. ...
Sometimes we can change things & sometimes we need to change & on & on ... .
One thing seems clear ~ we have many more choices now than then. Including the choice to select which 'bits' to celebrate or memorialize. We can't change the historical record, although we can choose which parts to celebrate.
Agree with & appreciate the common sense assessment! Much can be said although, from my particular (& perhaps idiosyncratic ) perspective, rational persuasion makes the most sense. & that based on evidence along with an acceptance of the tendency for all human beings to ... well ... to demonstrate all of the strengths & weaknesses inherent in our very human nature. An ability to adapt to our ever changing circumstances, environmental factors, i.e. all of the essentials of humanity's continued existence here & so on. ...
Sometimes we can change things & sometimes we need to change & on & on ... .
One thing seems clear ~ we have many more choices now than then. Including the choice to select which 'bits' to celebrate or memorialize. We can't change the historical record, although we can choose which parts to celebrate.
Lack of people was certainly a factor. And there were immigrants who fought against the Confederacy. As for slaves fighting for the Confederacy, think about this. The Confederacy was deeply invested in preserving slavery. There was no interest in freeing slaves.
The reason why the USA had the American Civil War & not a second Revoutionary War was because the number of those enslaved was always significantly less than those responsible or reaping the benefits of enslavement.
Consider the successful slave rebellions on some of the Caribbean islands? The numbers of those enslaved, along with the island geographical features, made slave revolutions more likely to succeed.
Actually, it has nothing to do with it. You have no idea if people showed more personal respect to each other, it has nothing to do with the civil war, or memorials to it. You both are just wrong. Adding made up reasons isn't productive. Nobody is really being honest, just emotional. It's all emotional.
I have more idea than you think. I look at the way Blacks were treated back in the 19th century. After looking at that, I don't think things were that much more considerate. If you were Black in those days you were certainly treated horribly. Last time I checked, being enslaved is a horrible thing.
What else am I suppose to think considering the context of this discussion, regarding the Confederate monuments and what the Confederate cause was about? And furthermore, I didn't bring up "people were more considerate to each other". The persons who brought up the 19th century in general didn't give a reason why he felt things were better then.
The reason why the USA had the American Civil War & not a second Revoutionary War was because the number of those enslaved was always significantly less than those responsible or reaping the benefits of enslavement.
Consider the successful slave rebellions on some of the Caribbean islands? The numbers of those enslaved, along with the island geographical features, made slave revolutions more likely to succeed.
That could be part of it. The issue of slavery was contentious. It was a battle on American soil with Americans fighting other Americans.
As for slave rebellions, slave rebellions have taken place here in the USA. All of them failed. Haiti was successful in having a slave rebellion. More slaves went to Haiti and for longer than to the USA.
The thing that is baffling to me is the insistence that the war was fought because the South wanted to preserve its culture and way of life, all the while claiming that that culture was not, at least for the rich, BASED on slavery. Part of that culture was a focus on agriculture, rather than manufacturing, but the thing is, it was agriculture on a scale that would have been impossible to sustain without slave labor.
The argument that most of the founders owned slaves, or that racism existed (and still does) in the North, too, while accurate, is not the point of this discussion. Monuments erected to the founders were not put in place BECAUSE they owned slaves, and certainly not because they fought for the "right" to continue owning them.
I have often heard "heritage, not hate". This is in relation to the Confederate flag. What heritage are said persons talking about? Do said persons really want to claim the CSA as their heritage? A heritage which was deeply invested in preserving slavery? That is what it was. The South's economy and way of living before the Civil War was largely slavery-based. The wealth came from slavery. The plantation economy used slavery.
Our founding fathers owning slaves does not negate that the CSA wanted to secede explicitly to preserve slavery. However, there are those who will try to the founding fathers to deflect from the issue.
That could be part of it. The issue of slavery was contentious. It was a battle on American soil with Americans fighting other Americans.
As for slave rebellions, slave rebellions have taken place here in the USA. All of them failed. Haiti was successful in having a slave rebellion. More slaves went to Haiti and for longer than to the USA.
Slave rebellions were more likely to succeed if those enslaved outnumbered the slavers.
Fear of slave rebellions leading to a slave revolutionary war was rampant in the American Slaver States.
Slave rebellions were more likely to succeed if those enslaved outnumbered the slavers.
Fear of slave rebellions leading to a slave revolutionary war was rampant in the American Slaver States.
They also succeeded if mercenaries sided with the slaves. Napoleon sent Polish mercenaries to fight against the slaves in Haiti. Many died, not accustomed to the tropical environment. Other Polish mercenaries turned against Napoleon and helped out the slaves.
I know about the fear of a slave rebellion. Slave rebellions kept happening in the South. Slaves weren't just on the cotton and sugar plantations. They were in the cities as street cleaners, dockhands, laborers, blacksmiths, cooks,etc. Another fear is this. Black slaves were outnumbered by Whites in the South. However, Black slaves made up the majority in Mississippi and South Carolina.
Confederate general Henry L. Benning(Yes, Ft. Benning is named after him) had this to say about the whole matter.
Quote:
What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. ... If things are allowed to go on as they are, it is certain that slavery is to be abolished. By the time the north shall have attained the power, the black race will be in a large majority, and then we will have black governors, black legislatures, black juries, black everything. Is it to be supposed that the white race will stand for that? It is not a supposable case. ... war will break out everywhere like hidden fire from the earth, and it is probable that the white race, being superior in every respect, may push the other back. ... we will be overpowered and our men will be compelled to wander like vagabonds all over the earth; and as for our women, the horrors of their state we cannot contemplate in imagination. That is the fate which abolition will bring upon the white race. ... We will be completely exterminated, and the land will be left in the possession of the blacks, and then it will go back to a wilderness and become another Africa... Suppose they elevated Charles Sumner to the presidency? Suppose they elevated Fred Douglass, your escaped slave, to the presidency? What would be your position in such an event? I say give me pestilence and famine sooner than that.
As if the the Democratic party of 1861 is the same as that of 2017! We need some serious education in our schools.....!
The problem is not education. The problem lies with those who use red herrings to distract from the subject matter.
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.
Much can be said although, from my particular (& perhaps idiosyncratic 