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.
Actually, the Swastika is a symbol that has a long history going back thousands of years before the Third Reich.
As I've said before, I understand the antagonism you may feel for the Confederate flag. Personally, to me it's just part of American history, it doesn't arouse the strong feelings that it does for so many people. But I think all Americans should learn more about the history of this country. I think engaging in discussions like these helps to humanize history, making it more interesting and more real than just dry facts in old books. I think it's also important to understand that there are two sides, two points-of-view, and that those two sides are not just good and evil. When humans go to war, it is complicated, the issues are complex, and they do occur in a context that it is meaningful to try to understand. If we can delve into the causes and issues of the Civil War, maybe that will help us to understand the issues and causes of conflicts elsewhere, like in the Middle
East, for instance.
If we can delve into the causes and issues of the Civil War, maybe that will help us to understand the issues and causes of conflicts elsewhere, like in the Middle
East, for instance.
DC
Hell, we haven't used the causes and issues of the Civil War to understand issues here.
Hell, we haven't used the causes and issues of the Civil War to understand issues here.
I've learned a lot. I don't expect to persuade people whose minds are made up about the Confederate flag, but many of the posts have made me think about things in different ways, to even see the entire issue of the Confederate flag as more complex than I thought when I first posted.
If your proposal had actually happened, there would have been no Civil War, so no Confederate flag. The flag issued from the War, it did not exist prior to the war because the Southern states did not form a Confederacy until the War.
Judging from what you said about how the north treated the south, you don't think that if the north got wind of the fact that free southern blacks and whites were united together to break free from the union, that wouldn't still lead to a civil war?
Why would the South want to break free from the Union if they could accomplish their economic goals politically? Lincoln committed the country to the war because he thought it was so imperative for the Union to stay together. Together, the North and South were far less vulnerable to military invasions from France, Spain or England. Together, the states were much more of an economic force to be reckoned with. The South's problem was that democracies inherently favor more urban populations. A largely rural, agrarian population could not wield the political power to pass legislation helping its economy, which was so disparate from the North's economy. If by freeing slaves it could gain political currency, then the costs of a war would have outweighed any possible benefits.
Why would the South want to break free from the Union if they could accomplish their economic goals politically? Lincoln committed the country to the war because he thought it was so imperative for the Union to stay together. Together, the North and South were far less vulnerable to military invasions from France, Spain or England. Together, the states were much more of an economic force to be reckoned with. The South's problem was that democracies inherently favor more urban populations. A largely rural, agrarian population could not wield the political power to pass legislation helping its economy, which was so disparate from the North's economy. If by freeing slaves it could gain political currency, then the costs of a war would have outweighed any possible benefits.
DC
Can you talk or expand more about the very last sentence? I haven't taken a history class in years.
Can you talk or expand more about the very last sentence? I haven't taken a history class in years.
First of all, this is all very hypothetical. I didn't live in antebellum times, and there are probably societal factors I haven't taken into consideration. And, despite Backfist's comments, it is complex. But first of all, prior to the Civil War, slave populations were included (slaves were counted as 3/5 persons) in the census counts that determined Congressional representation and electoral votes. There were tax ramifications involved in this, that I don't have time to delve into. But the fact that slaves were counted actually weighted the Southern representation, and many people thought that this is why Thomas Jefferson won the election in 1800 over John Adams. The Southern states were dominated economically and politically by slave-holders who were a small percentage of the population. When we talk about the gulf between the rich and poor, and the dwindling middle class, we should reference this era in American history. Because in the antebellum South the gulf was enormous. From 1800 to 1850, industrialization advances contributed to the urbanization of the Northern states. Greater urbanization and growing population allowed Northern politicians to address the South's perceived power in Congress, curbing it and imposing taxes to impede the South's financial power. The two regions grew further and further apart, both ideologically and economically, and tensions steadily grew as well.
If your suggestion of the South's poor uniting politically to pass legislation on a state level emancipating the slaves had happened, it would have meant very little unless they had managed to grant suffrage to the slaves at the same time. Then the poor white Southerners combined with the now-freed slaves would have been an imposing voter bloc. But the mindset of Northerners at the time was to curb Southern power, they would have opposed suffrage at all costs. Additionally, the Southern power heirarchy had virtually all the power in the hands of slave-owners, they would have virulently opposed freeing the slaves which would have been a serious economic blow to them individually, and certainly would have opposed suffrage as well.
But if the Southern poor and the slaves had organized such a movement, I don't think the North would have attacked the South or vice versa. We would be looking at a totally different economic and political landscape. The North never wanted secession, the South wouldn't have had a reason to secede. That is not to say that tensions between the two regions would not have continued, and that something later on wouldn't have become a divisive issue, but any further hypothesizing would be pure conjecture.
First of all, this is all very hypothetical. I didn't live in antebellum times, and there are probably societal factors I haven't taken into consideration. And, despite Backfist's comments, it is complex. But first of all, prior to the Civil War, slave populations were included (slaves were counted as 3/5 persons) in the census counts that determined Congressional representation and electoral votes. There were tax ramifications involved in this, that I don't have time to delve into. But the fact that slaves were counted actually weighted the Southern representation, and many people thought that this is why Thomas Jefferson won the election in 1800 over John Adams. The Southern states were dominated economically and politically by slave-holders who were a small percentage of the population. When we talk about the gulf between the rich and poor, and the dwindling middle class, we should reference this era in American history. Because in the antebellum South the gulf was enormous. From 1800 to 1850, industrialization advances contributed to the urbanization of the Northern states. Greater urbanization and growing population allowed Northern politicians to address the South's perceived power in Congress, curbing it and imposing taxes to impede the South's financial power. The two regions grew further and further apart, both ideologically and economically, and tensions steadily grew as well.
If your suggestion of the South's poor uniting politically to pass legislation on a state level emancipating the slaves had happened, it would have meant very little unless they had managed to grant suffrage to the slaves at the same time. Then the poor white Southerners combined with the now-freed slaves would have been an imposing voter bloc. But the mindset of Northerners at the time was to curb Southern power, they would have opposed suffrage at all costs. Additionally, the Southern power heirarchy had virtually all the power in the hands of slave-owners, they would have virulently opposed freeing the slaves which would have been a serious economic blow to them individually, and certainly would have opposed suffrage as well.
But if the Southern poor and the slaves had organized such a movement, I don't think the North would have attacked the South or vice versa. We would be looking at a totally different economic and political landscape. The North never wanted secession, the South wouldn't have had a reason to secede. That is not to say that tensions between the two regions would not have continued, and that something later on wouldn't have become a divisive issue, but any further hypothesizing would be pure conjecture.
I don't like to over-simplify, but sometime things are just that simple.
First of all, this is all very hypothetical. I didn't live in antebellum times, and there are probably societal factors I haven't taken into consideration. And, despite Backfist's comments, it is complex. But first of all, prior to the Civil War, slave populations were included (slaves were counted as 3/5 persons) in the census counts that determined Congressional representation and electoral votes. There were tax ramifications involved in this, that I don't have time to delve into. But the fact that slaves were counted actually weighted the Southern representation, and many people thought that this is why Thomas Jefferson won the election in 1800 over John Adams. The Southern states were dominated economically and politically by slave-holders who were a small percentage of the population. When we talk about the gulf between the rich and poor, and the dwindling middle class, we should reference this era in American history. Because in the antebellum South the gulf was enormous. From 1800 to 1850, industrialization advances contributed to the urbanization of the Northern states. Greater urbanization and growing population allowed Northern politicians to address the South's perceived power in Congress, curbing it and imposing taxes to impede the South's financial power. The two regions grew further and further apart, both ideologically and economically, and tensions steadily grew as well.
If your suggestion of the South's poor uniting politically to pass legislation on a state level emancipating the slaves had happened, it would have meant very little unless they had managed to grant suffrage to the slaves at the same time. Then the poor white Southerners combined with the now-freed slaves would have been an imposing voter bloc. But the mindset of Northerners at the time was to curb Southern power, they would have opposed suffrage at all costs. Additionally, the Southern power heirarchy had virtually all the power in the hands of slave-owners, they would have virulently opposed freeing the slaves which would have been a serious economic blow to them individually, and certainly would have opposed suffrage as well.
But if the Southern poor and the slaves had organized such a movement, I don't think the North would have attacked the South or vice versa. We would be looking at a totally different economic and political landscape. The North never wanted secession, the South wouldn't have had a reason to secede. That is not to say that tensions between the two regions would not have continued, and that something later on wouldn't have become a divisive issue, but any further hypothesizing would be pure conjecture.
Answer: I don't know about this. The more you talk , it seems like slavery had something to do with everything, but folks keep saying the war wasn't about slavery.
Answer: I don't know about this. The more you talk , it seems like slavery had something to do with everything, but folks keep saying the war wasn't about slavery.
Wars are rarely fought over a single issue. Slavery was one of the issues involved in the Civil War. Money and power were also issues. I think when people say that the war wasn't about slavery, it's because moral issues actually rarely cause wars, but they are often taken up as reasons for the war, especially by the victors. One of the spoils of war is that the winner gets to historically record one point of view. One point of view is that the war was about slavery. Another point of view, the more Southern POV is that the war was about federal versus states rights. What I've tried to convey is that neither argument is completely wrong or right.
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.
