Discussion in 'Polls' started by Foinikas, Aug 20, 2010.
Slavery was the "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" of the era.
Slavery played the largest part. Even for the south's profits. And trying to make slavery sound like free food and a home just makes me writhe. I highly doubt it was that comfortable living in a barn doing manual labor all day unable to enjoy the result of your work.
Many things happen in history that should make you feel bad about your heritage. Even US treatment of Filipinos was dreadful and sick during some of the darker times in our history.
Still both sides have heroes and noble people who fought for their own honorable reasons. Just like how one side has greedy people and the other is stuck to using slaves.
The North had Sherman,a psychotic guy.Grant,who from what I read was an alcoholic,then there's the case of that crazy Brown guy and Lincoln the dictator and manipulator of crowds.
I'll stick with Davis and General Lee.
I think Hollywood and U.S. propaganda overdid it with the slavery issue.
H-how? How can you dismiss suffering from so many people? Hymns and songs about escaping slavery even? Even one slave is too many. Slavery is sick and unjustifiable in no way.
I would much rather side with a drunk than people who see other people as their property to do work for them and save them money.
This has turned more into a conspiracy theory demonizing people that fought for freedom. And you can dig up dirt on anybody and then their granddad.
I posted it before, but it looks like you didn't see it, so I'll post again.
The life expectancy of a Black slave in the US was 1/2 that of a free White, and 2/3 that of a Medieval serf.
^agreed. But i still root for industrial advancement over stagnancy/conservatism. The latter of which the southern states most heartily approved of in that era.
Oh really?Is that coming from the country that was treating black people like animals until the 60s?The only real time USA treated black people like equal citizens was during the wars when they needed more men.Civil War,WWI,WWII,Vietnam War.
People that fought for freedom!Give me a break!
The South fought for freedom too and they gave everything they could,they fought against an army 3 times bigger than theirs and they kept winning most battles.They had the courage,they had the soul,they wanted to be free and independent.
Like I said, freedoms come slow and people and on both sides can be racists that want an extra buck out of their being slave workers. The south still allowed slavery while the north was mostly comprised of free states.
Yes they fought well, and yes I'm sure some southerners had noble causes in their hearts, but regardless what started the main fuse was the slavery issue. Most of the south wanted to be free so they could keep slaves and gain economic benefits.
While there were still slaves in the north, there were far less compared to the few million in the south. And what makes economic profit worthwhile when people are suffering without rights?
Foi, it's quite obvious that you've missed out Greybeard's previous post. That plus I'll be tempted to shoot you if you think the South were more humane than the North b/c there's no such thing as somebody more humane than the other. Going by the Christian take, every man is sinful by nature. You can't just demonize one side for the sake of the other. I truly hope that's not your stance ffs. And that's the problem with the mass media today. They just wanna play this card just for the sake of carrying the balls of a chosen few to poison the minds of the general population. -.-
Demonize who?The North?The North which has been the "benevolent fighters of the rights of black people" for years and years while they were treating them like second-class citizens too?For Lincoln who didn't free the slaves he could,but promised to free the ones he couldn't during the war?
To Lord Yuan:
However,from the 6,000,000 of the white population of the South only a 3% was consisted of rich landowners who had more than 100 slaves.The rest 97% of the population consisted of poor farmers(micro-landowners?I can't translate that word)who couldn't afford the luxury of having slaves,because the cost of even one slave was too much for their financial capacities."
That's from a post I made in the debate section.I'm really bad at maths,but does that mean that there were MILLIONS of slaves in the South like you said in your post?I think thousands or hundreds of thousands but "a few millions" sounds a bit too much.Even so I am not that sure and I doubt that many slaves were treated like animals.
I am against slavery 100% but having the South as the bad guy of the war is stupid.
And let me ask you something,did they have the right to form their own country or not?Just like the Americans did during the British war,couldn't they have just formed their own country and control their own economy the way they wanted?
I really have to salute these people because they were fighting against an insurmountable enemy,an incredibly stronger army and they kept fighting with everything they had.
I'm not saying the North were a bunch of angels Foi. My first post justified this fact. But I just think that while you're free to slag the North, you should be equally aware of the possible fallacy in the Southern faction. That's what I'm trying to say. As per what I've believed all the while, no human is an angel. Every one of the human race has sinned one way or another. In fact from my own POV, the Civil War is just a war created by politics that just happened to implicate the issue of slavery. And again, you've failed to address Greybeard's quote on the average black slave's lifespan. If you wanna make yourself sound convincing, you should just try to debate this point. If my guess was right, Greybeard was an American, so there might be certain stuff that he knows, but not you. Man this is getting into a debate topic more than anything else. Any mods pls move and merge this thread with the one in the Debate section pls. -.-
According to the 1860 census, there were nearly 3.5 million slaves in the states that joined the Confederacy. This does not include Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, or the District of Colombia, all of which remained with the Union or were invaded before they had a chance to secede. It also does not include Indian Territory (which later became Oklahoma) which had slavery and fought with the Confederacy, but was not a state.
About 40% of the Confederacy's population was chattel.
I didn't ignore Greybeard's post,I saw it and I read it.And I am 100% against slavery.
And I am not saying that the South were all good people too.There are bad people and good people in all wars.
When I was a kid I used to be pro-Union like crazy for the following reasons:
I loved the "North" word more than the "South"
I liked the uniforms of the Northern soldiers more than the South's
I was misinformed and thought that the South were all these bad evil people who treated black people like animals and that the war was about freeing the slaves.
A kid's naive stupid opinion based on what you see on movies and TV.
Now that I know that the war WASN'T about freeing the black people and that the North weren't as good as I thought they were,I think the Confederacy were the good guys in this story.
That's my opinion.
And Greybeard knows I respect and love him very much,I've told him a lot of times because we agree on a lot of things.Not on this matter,but that's ok everyone has his own opinion and freedom to say it.
By the way,interesting video that I found here
Well, I'm glad that you saw the sense in GB's post and plus it seems that he's bringing up a positive side to the South in his latest post. And yeah, all the North good South evil has always been the work of the mass media brainwashing. I know b/c I've been thru that phase. But then again, you can't say that the South were the good guys in the conflict b/c they were as bad as the North in terms of the humane sinful nature. When it comes to war, the primary cause will forever be human greed. That's coming from a person who has developed a cynical take on humane nature, so you can feel free to dismiss it.
Where? All I did was post numbers refuting Foinikas's claim that the slave population was small.
And remember my first post in this thread where I said agreed with the Confederacy, but that the moral issue of slavery - which was an issue although not the issue - trumps the other considerations.
I think that the Union generals and leaders were more aggressive and brutal than the Confederacy ones at least from what I've read.
Nathan Bedford Forrest
Don't know them
Nathan Bedford Forrest was a Confederate general - and a remarkably able one - who massacred Black Union soldiers who had surrendered at Fort Pillow. After the war he formed the Ku Klux Klan. To Forrest's credit, he left the Klan when they started killing people, but he was a very strong racist.
William Quantrell was a Confederate raider in Missouri and Kansas. He was, at best, a bandit and mass murderer.
Separate names with a comma.