Customer Discussions > History forum

Me and my dad were talking and we thought America would be better off if the South wone the Civil war


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 559 posts in this discussion
Posted on Dec 31, 2011 1:46:43 PM PST
DarthRad says:
part Cherokee,

Well I see Amazon deleted my comments. No sense of humor there at all.

I guess everybody missed the thread where I said Obama was the first Democrat I had ever voted for President.

http://www.amazon.com/forum/politics/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg4?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1S3QSZRUL93V8&cdPage=4&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1ILQIDOHSYWEN

And by the way, Jonathan Swift was not really advocating that Irish children be cooked for dinner to help the starving Irish people during the Great Potato Famine in his little treatise "A Modest Proposal"

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 1:48:15 PM PST
Ku says:
Four years ago I would've been dead sure you were kidding.

However, I've seen people here who would play those lines straight.

Scary stuff.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 2:24:27 PM PST
S. Kessler says:
I agree, surfin', with your assessment of what would have happened in the west had the South's military prevailed. I think this was oneof the key reasons that Lincoln was so adamant about keeping the Union together. He knew that having two competing powers where Thayer had been one would have led to continued and perhaps never-ending conflict over the disposition of the western territories. One of the key considerations was control of the Mississippi, which was essential to commerce in the north central states and the west. He could not allow a competing power to have control over the mouth of the river in New Orleans.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 2:25:01 PM PST
S.
My evidence is that it died a natural death everywhere else in the non-Islamic world. Why would the American South be any different? Slavery is only practical when slaves are cheap and plentiful and whatever you are using them for is labor-intensive and difficult to mechanise. The slave trade from Africa had already been made illegal and the Royal Navy was working diligently to stamp out the remaining sumgglers, so there was no supply of cheap, new slaves. None could be imported from anywhere else in the western hemisphere due to the same regulations.

The opinions of the black slaves were not important, they were property and in the end would do what they were told. If the South had conqured the Union which is what I posited, the only places for an escaped slave to run would be Mexico and Canada. Both would probably accept escaped slaves, but Mexico would be vulnerable to economic, military and diplomatic pressure from the new, expanded Confederate States of America which would include the factories and manpower pools of the industrial North.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 2:26:33 PM PST
K.
In the countries where slavery ended peacefully, race relations seem to be far better than in the US, even today.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 2:30:42 PM PST
Darth,
Wasn't the quote something like "baking Irish babies for English tables"?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 2:39:04 PM PST
Mr. Krinkle says:
Perhaps you are right, I don't know. However, almost all nations managed to abolish slavery before the U.S. did, and almost all did it peacefully.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 2:40:28 PM PST
S. Kessler says:
But the American South WAS different. Just because slavery was eliminated virtually everwhere else does not lead to a conclusion that the same would happen in the South. That is extremely faulty reasoning. The south seceded specifically to protect its slave economy. They went to war over it. They fought and died to protect it. What makes you think they would have just given it up after all that? And what would they have done with the 1/3 of the population that was black? For you to say their opinion didn't matter and would do what they were told is so dismissive of the human rights of a massive population of people that it leaves me rather speechless. How would you like to be an African-American descendant of slaves and read that dismissive comment of yours?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 2:56:00 PM PST
Tammy says:
I live in NY. I agree with your dad.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 2:58:44 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 31, 2011 3:00:35 PM PST
S.
What I am saying is that AT THAT TIME THE SLAVE'S OPINIONS DIDN'T MATTER. That's a simple fact. They were considered property at that time just like a dog or a cow is now. Does your dog's opinion matter to you when you make a decision today?
I am the decendant of an indentured servent. His opinion didn't matter during his indenture either and that fact doesn't upset me a bit. What happened to our ancestors doesn't define us.

Economics and technology killed slavery. It killed it in Brazil, and in the Caribbean, and everywhere else outside the Islamic world. The American South would have been no different. Economic laws play no favorites, when the South's planters started losing money, they wouldn't have kept slaves who were costing them money. What would have happened to freed slaves probably would have been worse than what really happened. They probably would just have been turned out with the clothes on their backs. The lucky ones would maybe have been offered sharecropping deals with most of the profits going to their previous owners.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 3:00:01 PM PST
Tammy says:
Well now. I certainly can't wait to read the rest of what YOU have to say, since you put things so nicely...

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 3:03:28 PM PST
Tammy says:
"If you wonder why the country is so screwed up today go look for answers in the Civil War."

...or just stop by my neighborhood!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 3:47:28 PM PST
Mr. Krinkle says:
How exactly does your neighborhood explain "why" the country is so screwed up today? Perhaps it offers a small, narrow example of what is screwed up, but I am curious as to how it explains the "why", the explanation of how it came to be "screwed up."

For that matter, though you emphatically agree with the claims made by the OP, you fail to explain why you agree and offer no support for its rather curious speculations. Care to expand on your agreement?

Posted on Dec 31, 2011 5:04:35 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 31, 2011 5:26:02 PM PST
DarthRad says:
Slavery did not end because of economic reasons, although people have argued for that. The endgame of how slavery ended, and the political pressures brought to bear were all slightly different, but followed a general pattern that did not include civil war, except in the U.S.

Slavery ended in Brazil because it was ruled by an aristocracy, and Princess Isabel, acting as a regent to her father the Emperor of Brazil, signed the legislation that abolished slavery. Her family was deposed afterwards, partly because of the antipathy of the slave owners, but the abolition still remained.

That is how slavery ended "peacefully" in most European countries and in their colonies - they were ruled by monarchies and the monarchies decided on moral or political grounds (urged on by abolitionists) that they should not allow slavery anymore. The slave owners in every country were always in the minority and so as an institution slavery was not something the majority of the people cared that much for anyway. In some countries like Great Britain, the government reimbursed the slave owners for their freed slaves.

Only in the U.S. did the slave owners have the political power to start a Civil War over this issue. Fully 3/4 of Southern whites did not even own slaves, and thus gained no benefit from fighting for this cause:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2956.html

So the US was actually an oddball of history, because you know what, we were all lied to in our high school history.

THE US WAS NOT A TRUE DEMOCRACY AT THE TIME.

It was really an oligarchy of land owning white males. They were the only ones who could vote. And so, in the South, the wealthy plantation owners had the political power. The non-land owning whites couldn't even vote, but of course they would end up being the ones fighting and dying in the Civil War.

And so it became necessary to build up this mythology of fighting for "state's rights" and fighting for "Southern honor". Horse pucks.

The wealthy slave owners, who were the only ones getting rich off the slave labor, were just using the non-slave owning whites.

And the South did start the Civil War, seceding from the Union, and firing the first shots at Fort Sumter.

Kind of like how the the question from other thread - why is anybody not in the 1% supporting the Republican party? Republicans have somehow cast this spell over Americans that government is bad for you, that Obama hates America, and that they will save the country by cutting taxes for the rich again while cutting services for everybody else who isn't rich.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 7:16:27 PM PST
Eric Pyle:

I had a similar response when I read the historybuff's post. I think s/he just has to get out more and hang around with a better crowd of people.

The post suggests the hb is pretty much a vestige virgin.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 7:27:11 PM PST
jtshiel:

Have you introduced your father to Hutton Gibson, the theologian-historical revisionist father of Mel? If your dad also happens to be an extreme right-right Catholic who feels that everyone else is doomed to eternity in Hell, the two gentleman should get along famously.

Anyway, a happy new year to you and yours, and let us hope that those hordes of illegal Mayan immigrants form Central America don't cheat us out of ten of those 366 we're entitled to this year.

Posted on Dec 31, 2011 7:29:46 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 31, 2011 7:35:14 PM PST
Interesting, but if you look at some of economics of slavery by guys like Fogel and others there is a general consensus that slavery was not fading away, if anything it was made more viable by steamboats and the expanding frontier. The cotton gin had been around for almost 50 years and there was a large expansion of the cotton belt once it became prevalent. The civil war is not really my period but I think saying that the nation would've been better off losing to the CSA is kind of a stretch. In my opinion the war and a lot of the legislation passed during it helped to pave the way for the rapid industrialization and expansion that had started in the decades before. It's an interesting idea but I can't really think of how the US or the CSA would have been better off as two separate countries.\

Also I think claiming the CSA is what the founding fathers had originally desired is a stretch, too often they are grouped together as a homogenous group, when the truth is they had their differences. States rights v federal was one of the key ones, and if you ask a political scientist why the constitution was enacted, they'll all tell you it was to increase the power of the federal government because the articles of confederation were too weak to maintain a cohesive economically viable confederation.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 7:32:03 PM PST
Robert Saunders:

In a short form, you touch on all the reasons why the question posed in the original post (and the examples of a American Arcadia given what we lost) are just appalling nonsense. You offer both the practical and the moral response as to why things would have been worse with a victory for the Confederacy.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 7:35:58 PM PST
Brian Questel:

You are also spot on in your brief comments. As I recall, the cotton gin revived slavery in the South and other technological advances would have kept the institution for another few decades until it eventually made the system economically unfeasible. That would have meant some decades of millions of human beings denied one of the most basic human nights. An appalling outcome, I'd say.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 7:38:58 PM PST
freedom4all says:
If the Allies had lost or there had be a stale-mate and cease-fire. They would have been nothing like Versailles' treaty. If American has stayed out. They would have happen. Therefore Mr. Wilson's war was WWII

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 7:42:22 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 31, 2011 7:46:42 PM PST
DarthRad:

Danial Defoe, most famous as the creator of Robinson Crusoe and the lovely phrase "Thank God it's Friday" was actually for a time more celebrated as a satirical writer-journalist in England. He once noted that the problem with writing satire is that people don't realize that it's satire and react negatively to it.

He made that observation while sitting in the stocks, getting abuse and rubbish tossed at him - for a satirical piece he had written.

I commiserate with you. Satire should be an effective weapon against prejudice and ignorance, but unfortunately many people still fail to see that something is satirical.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 7:47:52 PM PST
Well said S. Kessler. I agree that slavery would not have died a "natural" death. There was too much dependence on slaves for many plantation owners. I have at least one descendant that owned slaves. On my birth paternal side, most of the descendants on my paternal side fought on the Confederate side. Most of them were born and raised in Tennessee and my paternal birth grandfather moved from Tennessee, I'm supposing to protect his Cherokee wife and moved to Ohio, where many other Cherokees and other tribal members moved as well to escape the tyranny in the south. There was little appreciation for the Native American race or the Blacks. There is an interesting author I've heard about, Harry Turtledove, who write alternative histories and has written a book about the very topic of what would have happened had the south won instead of the north. I still think slavery would have remained and that Native Americans would have been treated as badly, if not worse if the south had won. I know of many Native Americans that had to claim they were white in order to be protected, even in Ohio, but especially in West Virginia, where Native Americans weren't allowed to live in till around 1970. Now that's pathetic. When Black's did get freedom and rights, they were still oppressed with Jim Crow laws, denial of voting rights, had separate toilet facilities from the whites, had to sit in the back of the bus, had to go to the rear of restaurants to order food, not being allowed inside, had different drinking fountains and then there was the sheer insanity of the KKK, which not only targeted the Blacks but the Indians as well.

The premise of the conversation begun did peak my interest along with my ire. I've been doing a lot of genealogy studies trying to find my mother's birth family and my birth father's family has been quite fascinating. Having read some of the books my Mom had on slavery, due to her interest in history, she was white, in fact I'm mostly Irish and part Cherokee and have taken a DNA test to find out what else.

S. Kessler, I thank you for adding some sanity to this conversation. I was hoping to find some common sense in all this and you gave it to me. I thank you kindly.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 7:49:56 PM PST
I incredibly dissagre with your father.
If the south (Confederates) won the war we could still be enslaving people. of course it is highly unlikly for that to happen in todays day in age for a well established nation to be enslaving people due to the natuer of that subject being un-politically correct. The Civil War was a war just waiting to happen. if the South won it would only be a matter of time before there was war again.
and the notion of "more jobs nicer people no immagration problems." is incredibly small minded.
every single nation in the world has problems with immigation, immagration will always be a problem, regardless if the South won there still would be massive immagration into the US.
the notion of nicer people is incredably absurd. the only way that notion would be true is if the Confederacy inacted a law that abolished swearing and rude behavior punishable by death. since that is incredibly absurd of a possibility that notion is null and void.
and all the 'jobs' would be going to slaves, who would-if- be paid a fraction of what actually 'american' would be paid in wages for work. the only thing that would be left within that 'america' would be monoply of slave shipping and plantation workers. all the 'normal' jobs would be also slave labour primarily factory work.
so what is left then after that? there would still be no jobs.
The south lost, bringin a wave of civil liberitys to be inacted into law over the next hundred years.
and can america split again?
yes and no. is we continue on a surviving pattern than the Union will not split. if America's government falls then the only thing left within it's shell is people with need for government. faction will arise in it's place. will it be pridomintly North and South. I think not. if she splits it will proberly be in three or more factions. leaving only room for war between them all due to border disputs. and this is of course if America, the US completly fails and falls.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 7:55:46 PM PST
S. Kessler says:
I disagree that the opinions of slaves don't count and didn't count then. Their opinions then in terms of politics, economics, and their own self-determination may not have counted to anyone in charge, but they count to me, thinking about what they, as human beings, may have felt about their condition. That matters a lot to me and in the perspective of history I take their feelings into account. As much as I love animals, and consider their feelings in regard to the way I interact with them, slaves were human beings, not dogs or cattle. And to think of them that way is to regard them from the slave owner's perspective only, stealing from them their worth as human beings. And, yes, it does matter to people what their ancestors experienced. And yes, at least in part, who your ancestors were helps to define you. It shouldn't limit you, but knowing where you came from helps frame your own experience.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 7:59:06 PM PST
Well Darthred,
If you hadn't used foul language and said inflammatory things against the President and yes I did miss the threat where you said you voted for Obama. What what you fingers type and use your head first and maybe Amazon won't delete you for being inappropriate. I, for example had failed to see any humor at all in what you had written. Sorry. I hope you have a Happy New Year and get a better opinion of people. By your past comment I already have a better opinion of you provided you don't get gross again.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the History forum


Thank you for your support of Amazon Discussion Forums. Due to the changing needs of Amazon Forums, we have decided to stop supporting the ‘Active discussions in related forums’ feature in order to focus on providing the most value for our customers.  
   
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  102
Total posts:  559
Initial post:  Dec 30, 2011
Latest post:  Apr 20, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 9 customers

Search Customer Discussions