 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sprayber
There would not have been a Southern nation, it would have torn itself apart later on. |
In fact, it began to do so during the war. Ignoring the civil war inside the south between pro- and anti-secessionists, the Republic of West Florida established itself, being an amalgum of parts of Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi. In addition, the Carolina's seperated from the Confederacy, and the South Carolina seceded from that new "country."
What I wonder is, had the Union left the Confederacy alone, what would have happened to those states, such as Tenessee, where pro-secessionists had taken over by force when cooler heads were finally able to prevail. With legitimate government restored, would they remain seperate or try and rejoin the Union they were forcably stolen from?
As for how long slavery could have lasted, Brazil abolished slavery in 1890. Kuwait was the last country to abolish legal slavery, in 1960 (though slavery still exists there, it's illegal but the government looks the other way). Given the tenent farmer/crop sharing system the South had up until very recently, I see no real reason they couldn't have continued to have slavery even today.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
You're misquoting Lee, I think -- he made this statement after a horrible number of casualties.
If you give us the complete quote". . . less we grow too fond of it," he was saying that we should never come to enjoy war, otherwise the results would be horrible. |
What I should have said was the Lee was fond of the strategic element of war, hence the first part of the quote, but recognized its horror, hence the second part.
Mea Culpa.
Sloww, you don't do much in the way of backing up your arguments, you know. You just bash "Yankee ignorance," other posters, and generally seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder about the whole thing.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
SlowwHand
|
 |
of The Cooler
Sep 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
Thank you, Japher.
Again, the South was tired of Northern attitude.
Hard to believe, huh ?
As far as the MINORITY of Southerners who did have slaves, the slaves weren't beat and that, like you would be led to believe by some.
As has been noted, Blacks cost money.
I'm sure slave-owners were cost-concious, wouldn't you think?
So wrong as it was, for this MINORITY to own slaves, they didn't mistreat them.
“Only a minority of the whites owned slaves,” “at all times nearly three-fourths of the white families in the South as a whole held no slaves;” “slave ownership in the South was not widespread;” “not more than a quarter of the white heads of families were slave owners, and even in the cotton states the proportion was less than one-third;”
“Although the constant conclusion has been that the number of whites owning slaves was remarkably small and that the South was therefore an unusually oligarchical society, the comparative basis for such a judgment has never been firmly established. Instead, that judgment appears to have rested primarily upon a moral repugnance toward slavery.” He then begins to investigate the prevailing attitude toward slavery in the past as well as the attitude of historians in the 20th century. Olsen blames the antebellum antislavery movement for the origin of the accusations that southern slavery was politically and economically oligharchical. A prime example is the viewpoint of the Republican party. In a speech to the people of the United States in 1856 the address asserted that non-slaveholders in the South “were reduced to a vassalage little less degrading than that of the slaves themselves…although the white population of the slaveholding States is more than six million, of whom but 347,525, or less than one-seventeenth, are the owners of slaves.”
http://www.essays.cc/free_essays/a1/lpf305.shtml
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-09-2003 00:28
But it's evident that he believed blacks were inferior, and wasn't an abolitionist at all. And on top of that, according to the biographies I read in school, he used God to justify the horrors of war. 
Attachment: 
|
