I said free people, not every person is free.
In the OP it was CSA v USA, not slave v slaveholder.
Best wishes,
hh
The whole *country *wasn’t built on slavery. The whole Cotton South was built on slavery.
Best wishes,
hh
Sure it was. Yeah, blahblahstatesrightsblahblahbullshit. It was about the states’ ‘right’ to allow slavery.
Actually your Prime Minister at that time, Lord Palmerston tried to get on the side of the CSA to weaken the USA but his plans came to nought.
That’s like saying after World War II we should have executed every single Nazi party member-its utterly impossible and would have prevented the healing of disunion.
Also I am opposed to any form of secession even if the majority of a state population votes to do so (yes I’m a hardline Unionist).
And how many slave states remained in the Union? It’s not that cut and dry.
Actually, it is. The ones that left The Union did so over slavery. The fact that some slave states remained doesn’t change that. Read the period documents. Their various resolutions and declarations inevitably come down to “them nigras is our’n and we’s akeepin’ 'em.”
You’re thinking of the Trent Affair? Despite his personal (and quite racist) distaste for the peoples of the United States, Palmerston was never close to recognising the Confederacy as a sovereign state.
In any case, us naturally more enlightened Brits had begun to do away with slavery in the Slavery Abolition Act back in 1833, so we wouldn’t want too much to do with a ‘country’ based around it.
And if I was, I would have been a monster who deserved to be killed. However, the fact is I probably wouldn’t have; the fact is slavery was known to be wrong from the beginning. It contradicted the supposed principles of the country such as that all men were created equal, and by the time of the Civil War its injustice and impracticality were blindingly obvious. The people of the time were neither morons nor ignorant barbarians; they were quite capable of knowing better; many did, after all. Which is why I condemn them so harshly.
No; it was about slavery. They said so at the time, the wrote a constitution that was all but identical to that of the US except for enshrining slavery. Everything in the South was about slavery. Their entire society had by that time warped itself into nothing but a machine for the preservation and promotion of slavery. Their religion, their economy, their government were all about slavery.
The idea that the Civil War was about anything other than slavery is nothing but more historical revisionism.
They got their asses kicked good and hard thanks to Grant and Sherman. That bothered them then, and bothers their descendants today, because they believed themselves to be a martial class. They, and their descendants both biological and ideological, started lying to themselves about the roots of the war and why they lost it the moment they surrendered. Nobody wants to believe himself to be evil or that his family served in an evil cause.
I swear undying alliegence to the Kingdom of Jones. 
A true Civil War buff will understand, immediately.
I completely agree.
I love the South. I love learning about my family’s history throughout it. I wouldn’t support the Confederates. I suppose it’s possible that if I was born in the nineteenth century I’d be invested enough in the current system to not want to oppose it, even if it meant knowing people I shared blood with were being kept as possessions, being abused or killed and the women being raped, but I tend to think not.
It was about slavery on the South’s part, yes. The North? I’d say it was a wee bit more complicated.
And living where I do, I’d support the North, as PA was a Union state, obviously.
Nope. The major issue was the right of the various States to exist as sovereign entities. The slavery bit was just an “alienation factor” between the mostly-free states and the mostly-slave states. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation heightened the racial issue by setting fire to the embers, as it were, of Southerners’ fears of slave rebellion (which weren’t totally unfounded).
That said, I’m a damned Yankee. And my family fought on that side (almost exclusively - poor Irish trash farmers that we were). So my heart goes with the Union. But I still see the political argument of that era regarding States’ rights and the concept of deciding to terminate membership in the “cool kids club” known as the USA.
Heh. A few years back the second Mayor Roberts of Hoboken (also under indictment, just like his convicted felon father and his successor) threatened to secede from New Jersey and petition NY to become a 6th borough. Because NJ sucks that bad.
And yet the Brits sent weapons, money, and advisors to the CSA… kind of like the US did in Vietnam.
Textiles trumping tariffs.
That seems a bit harsh. Hell, would you have Mark Twain, George Washington, and Julius Caesar assassinated (wait… that last one actually happened).
Slavery is a strong term. In many cases, slaves were akin to indentured servants (like anyone who has a freakin’ salaried job, but that’s a digression). Slaves were valued in most cases as productive property. Hell - the Irish were often more abused - you didn’t have to pay if they died.
A slave in a decent environment - while not in an ideal situation, was given room and board that they wouldn’t be able to afford otherwise. And it wasn’t all about working cotton fields - there were house servants, carriage drivers… the same thing we have Mexicans, Indians, Middle Easterners, and other immigrants doing today. The difference is that the modern “slaves” migrated of their own free will (often to escape horrible situations in their country of birth).
South does not equal Evil. Slavery does not equal good.
Like Bob Dylan sang - “you might be the devil or you might be the Lord, but you’re gonna’ have to serve somebody.”
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was all about slavery. It was huge fight in the country. Slavery was a major issue about the settlement of the west.
And please do not trot out that “Well, many of the slaves had it good” bullshit. Ultimately, so what? So 1000 out of hundreds of thousands were ‘treated OK’ as property. What the fuck does that mean?
Are you OK with ownership of people as long as the owners treat them well?
In case you can’t guess, I’d support the Union.
Mark Twain? He was an abolitionist.
It’s an accurate term, and the one they used themselves. It’s “harsh” because they were monsters. The Old South was an evil on the order of Nazi Germany, except that it went on for decades not years.
Nonsense. Again, that’s nothing but revisionism. They wrote it into their constitution, they said at the time that it was about slavery.
Of course it wasn’t unfounded. The slaves would have cheerfully slaughtered them all and they knew it. They were kept ignorant and systematically brutalized because holding slaves meant you were surrounding yourself with large numbers of people who hated you and wanted to kill you slow; the slaves had to be kept in a state of terror.
:rolleyes: Yeah, and I bet you think they got off on being chained and whipped too.
:rolleyes: That’s disgusting.
It certainly did then.
The CSS Alabama? Come on, we paid you for that! Besides, what do you expect from a nation of shopkeepers?
No.
You should look up such wonderfully dehumanizing practices as “slave breeding.” Southern newspapers during the time show that slave owners were obsessed with how many offspring certain slaves produced and the fertility of the women. There’s evidence that they were encouraged to have more children and punished if they failed to do so. Women often outnumbered the men by a sizable margin and they were priced based on their fertility and how many years of child-bearing they had in them.
Many, many slave narratives talk about the sexual abuse and forced breedings in order to produce more slaves, with “stockmen” being chosen to impregnate the women. And that is, of course, completely ignoring the wide practice of white men raping black women, producing children of mixed race, and then selling their own offspring.
There is a huge difference between being treated like an animal that can be bred as an investment and being an indentured servant.
Allow me to counter with another. Bullshit.
Slavery is the accurate term for the ownership of human beings. Bullshit is the accurate term for your argument.