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.
Naa, the French were in Mexico to support the Confederacy. Both France and Britain wanted the Confederacy to win.
The Emancipation Proclamation actually said, slavery is fine in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. I'll even continue to enforce the Fugitive slave-act in those four states. But if the southern states do not reenter the Union by the end of the year, I will not return any of the slaves that fall under the control of my Army.
It was meant as a threat. Lincoln believed it would lead to a slave uprising. The southern soldiers would have to return to their farms to put down the revolts, and the Confederacy would have no choice but to rejoin the union.
Lincoln did not have the authority to free the slaves by executive order. The Emancipation Proclamation was ultimately pointless and powerless.
Lincoln definitely isn't the greatest villain of all time, and winterfall has somewhat misrepresented the history, but you and several others in this thread are definitely taking your defense of Lincoln into the realm of statist fantasyland. Moreover, the motivations of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 are precisely the same as the motivations for everything you hate that happened 100+ years later.
Winterfall is totally misrepresenting the history. According to him the South wanted integration, equality and the average man to be prosperous unlike the North. What a joke. And you are misrepresenting my "defense of Lincoln". How were Lincoln's motivations the same as what I hate 100+ years later, which I blame mostly on WWII and an overreaction to the stupid nazis.
Winterfall is totally misrepresenting the history. According to him the South wanted integration, equality and the average man to be prosperous unlike the North. What a joke. And you are misrepresenting my "defense of Lincoln". How were Lincoln's motivations the same as what I hate 100+ years later, which I blame mostly on WWII and the stupid nazis.
Yeah right, I only claimed "freed" blacks in the south were better off, and that they were far more integrated with blacks than the north was.
Yeah right, I only claimed "freed" blacks in the south were better off, and that they were far more integrated with blacks than the north was.
No where did I say they wanted equality.
You just posted being a slave in the south was better than in the north. There weren't slaves in free northern states and it's generally accepted it was better to be a slave in the Upper South than "sold down the river" and a slave in the lower South.
The average free person white or black was not better off in the South than the North. Southerners were poorer and had harder lives generally.
You just posted being a slave in the south was better than in the north. There weren't slaves in free northern states and it's generally accepted it was better to be a slave in the Upper South than "sold down the river" and a slave in the lower South.
The average free person white or black was not better off in the South than the North. Southerners were poorer and had harder lives generally.
Freed blacks were far richer in the south than the north, what are you talking about?
Free slaves were treated better in the south than the north.
The "liberated" slaves weren't liberated, they were contraband forced in concentration camps or union plantations where the overseers refused them pay.
Not really. As areas of the Confederacy were liberated so were the slaves. And slaves that escaped to the Union lines were free and often fought for the Union.
If the Emancipation Proclamation was legal there was no point to the 13th amendment. In fact, going all the way back to George Washington, slavery could have been abolished merely by executive order(which is what the Emancipation Proclamation was).
It is true that Abraham Lincoln directed his Army not to return slaves to their masters in those southern territories that came under union control, but this was already in practice even before the Proclamation. Slaves were basically treated as war contraband.
You are correct that slaves often did join the Union Army, in fact Lincoln's military draft applied to freed Northern blacks, although very few became soldiers. The point is, without the 13th amendment southern slave-owners could have sued the Federal government for the loss of their property after the war ended. The idea that the emancipation proclamation freed the slaves is absurd. It didn't abolish slavery, it established slavery.
Winterfall is totally misrepresenting the history. According to him the South wanted integration, equality and the average man to be prosperous unlike the North. What a joke. And you are misrepresenting my "defense of Lincoln". How were Lincoln's motivations the same as what I hate 100+ years later, which I blame mostly on WWII and an overreaction to the stupid nazis.
The south definitely did not want integration or equality, but neither did the north. Ironically, integration in the south was far more likely than in the north. The south was already integrated. And had the south won the Civil War, slavery would have lasted maybe 10 more years, and the south would have turned into Brazil.
Regardless, Lincoln worked for the bankers and industrialists. Winterfall's quote from Charles Dickens explains the situation pretty well. It was all about money.
Abraham Lincoln is no one to be admired. Robert E. Lee was a better man than Abraham Lincoln.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 02-23-2021 at 08:17 PM..
The south definitely did not want integration or equality, but neither did the north. Ironically, integration in the south was far more likely than in the north. The south was already integrated. And had the south won the Civil War, slavery would have lasted maybe 10 more years, and the south would have turned into Brazil.
Regardless, Lincoln worked for the bankers and industrialists. Winterfall's quote from Charles Dickens explains the situation pretty well. It was all about money.
Abraham Lincoln is no one to be admired. Robert E. Lee was a better man than Abraham Lincoln.
Why would the South end up doing any differently than what it did in that scenario 10 years sooner and still institute black codes and segregation? Charles Dickens as most in England didn't like the Tariff that benefited the US and not England. Lincoln's equivalent Jefferson Davis worked for the Plantation owners and wealthy. He didn't secede to benefit the average free Southerner.
Why would the South end up doing any differently than what it did in that scenario 10 years sooner and still institute black codes and segregation? Charles Dickens as most in England didn't like the Tariff that benefited the US and not England. Lincoln's equivalent Jefferson Davis worked for the Plantation owners and wealthy. He didn't secede to benefit the average free Southerner.
The reason for secession was different for the states, the reason they fought was all the same.
Virginia seceded only after Lincoln demanded they mobilize troops against their southern neighbors.
The South fought against northern domination. They even sent diplomatic missions to Europe offering abolition in favor of military support.
Lincoln offered permeant Slavery in exchange for reunification.
The south would rather be independent than keep their slaves. The tariffs were designed to make them dependent on northern mills.
Why would the South end up doing any differently than what it did in that scenario 10 years sooner and still institute black codes and segregation?
Emancipation isn't the same as citizenship. And citizenship isn't the same as equality. Brazil freed their slaves, but Brazil wasn't a democracy. In Brazil, the freed slaves remained at the bottom of a racial caste-system. They could not vote, they could not become jurors, or politicians, or anything else. They had no power, thus they were no threat.
Alexis de Tocqueville explains pretty clearly that slavery was a terrible economic system that kept the south poor, and that was decades before the Civil War. The reason southerners didn't free the slaves is not because they didn't want to, but because they were afraid to. As Thomas Jefferson said, "We have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other."
Most southerners feared that the slaves would become criminals, or would try to kill white people if they were freed. And if they were made voters, politics would become nothing but a racial headcount. And in areas where blacks were the majority, blacks would rule whites. They believed the inevitable outcome of emancipation would be a race-war, because they did not believe whites would tolerate black-rule.
Quote:
"If things are allowed to go on as they are, it is certain that slavery is to be abolished except in Georgia and the other cotton States, and I doubt, ultimately in these States also. 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. The majority according to the Northern idea, which will then be the all-pervading, all powerful one, have the right to control. It will be in keeping particularly with the principles of the abolitionists that the majority, no matter of what, shall rule. Is it to be supposed that the white race will stand that? It is not a supposable case. Although not half so numerous, we may readily assume that 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. They will then call upon the authorities at Washington, to aid them in putting down servile insurrection, and they will send a standing army down upon us, and the volunteers and Wide-Awakes will come in thousands, and 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 or Saint Domingo." - Henry L. Benning, Confederate General
Had the Confederacy won, they still would have abolished slavery, but they would not have given blacks a right to vote, or made them legally equal. At least not in the beginning. But although this sounds like a bad thing, it isn't.
Many people noted in other threads that most "mixing" happened before the abolition of slavery. Had slavery(IE white-supremacy) lasted another hundred years, the south would have been an entire nation of mulattoes. Instead, slavery was abolished and there was 100 years of Jim-Crow. Why?
When whites were legally superior to blacks, the south was integrated because whites had nothing to fear. Jim-Crow was thus a reaction to black equality, not emancipation.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 02-23-2021 at 09:43 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.
