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 76-100 of 559 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 8:01:28 PM PST
I have to offer not much, but what I do is incredibly interesting.
the Confederacy sent a letter to the Papal offices (to the Pope) I can't remember the details of the letter though.
the Pope replied to the Confederacy useing the title President of the Confederacy to the president of the confederacy. ligitamizing the president to the south with the stroke of a pen.
if this was wide-spread knoledge maybe just maybe... military alliances could be made.
as much as nations like England, Spain, and France stayed nuetral within the war, they did make gesters. I can't remember which nation did this but one of the nations still traded within the south. but despite how much the Union threatend their trading goods they never went to full out war (I think it was England)
I think even if the Pope widespred ligitimized the seat of Confederat presidency the civil war would have remained the same outcome. I do not think that any nation would have helped either side. nutrality is always the best relation.
now if circemstances were different and the south did gain assistance from a super-power like France or Spain or England for the matter. the Union would have been overun. and a verry different government would be in place.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 8:02:00 PM PST
lol

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 8:02:29 PM PST
Well said S. Kessler.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 8:04:38 PM PST
S. Kessler says:
You're very welcome, part Cherokee. If sanity is what I brought then I am pleased to have done so.

The Native Americans were badly treated by both sides, so I'm not sure it could have been any worse had the south won, but at least we'll never know.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 8:09:54 PM PST
How very true S. Kessler. That is a very good point. Have a Happy New Year!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 8:14:20 PM PST
S. Kessler says:
Happy New Year to you, too, part Cherokee.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 9:04:54 PM PST
Mr. Krinkle says:
Are you drunk already?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 10:19:08 PM PST
If you are talking to me Mr. Krinkle, you are barking up the wrong tree. I don't drink alcohol at all and am certainly not drunk. And to you sir, I also wish a Happy New Year and this old woman is going to bed now as it's 1:18 AM, I'm not well, and should have been to bed awhile ago.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2011 10:52:45 PM PST
S. Kessler says:
I think he was talking to freedom4us.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2012 5:37:58 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 1, 2012 5:40:14 AM PST
part Cherokee:

A quite interesting post, especially those sections which speak of your own family's experiences. Two points I'd like to add:

1) Blacks did get their freedom with the passage of the 13th Amendment, and the attendant rights they received at that time were soon withdrawn, limited and suppressed in many parts of the country - especially in the South BUT not only in the South. The hotly contested Civil Rights Bill and Voting Rights Act of the mid-1960s (introduced by the Kennedy Administration and skilfully brought to passage by Lyndon Johnson and his team) restored or even established those rights which most white Americans had enjoyed for over a hundred years. (Not female white though, until 1920).

The Ku Klux Klan not only persecuted blacks and Indians, but also Jews, Asians and Catholics (the latter groups less virulently and viciously than the first three groups). The amazing thing about the KKK's persecution of Indians is that they based their philosophy on a belief in the inherent superiority of "native Americans". This shows again why organizations that are fundamentally racist or at the political extremes are so hard to parody: they themselves engage in what often appears to be self-parody, except that they believe all that garbage.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2012 5:51:22 AM PST
Diver Bill - "Slavery was ended by the invention of the steam engine and subsequent mechanization."

Yet slavery still exists today in some parts of the world. Slave labor is sometimes cheaper, or a good way to deal with undesirables. Hitler's Germany was very mechanized, but still used slave labor.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2012 5:55:19 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 1, 2012 6:02:22 AM PST
CDaniels says:
Since 1801, England was part of what was officially called "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." Sorry for nitpicking, but I think its important to remember that the United Kingdom was made of separate "states," of which Ireland was rebellious and threatening to secede. Despite the promise of cheap cotton from the Confederacy , I think there was a natural sympathy with the Union and its parallel situation.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2012 5:59:11 AM PST
Mr. Krinkle says:
Sorry for any misunderstanding part Cherokee. My post was not directed to you, but was in response to the incoherent post of "freedom4us." His post was practically gibberish, so I was wondering if he was already intoxicated.

Happy New Year to you, I hope you got some good rest and feel better.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2012 6:02:44 AM PST
Richard A Lord - "The post suggests the hb is pretty much a vestige virgin. "

Did you mean vestal, or vestigial? I'm not sure which would be funnier...

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2012 6:27:08 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 1, 2012 6:31:57 AM PST
freedom4all says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2012 7:28:06 AM PST
Schmerguls says:
" My personal preferences would be a moderately weak central government with it's power to tax brought back the the original Constitutional framework of funding the Federal Government on Import Duties and Excise taxes, no federal income tax at all"

Richard you say "with it is power to tax"? I think you mean "its" don't you?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2012 8:25:29 AM PST
freedom4us - "but so was the North. "

Yeah, if they had really believed in freedom, they would have let slavery persist as long as the south wanted.

"the unconstitutional passage of Amendments 13 and 14. "

Amending the constitution is constitutional. The south was fighting for slavery. States' rights is a pretty lousy fig-leaf for the obvious.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2012 8:54:19 AM PST
freedom4all says:
Mark, read a little on the passage of the 13th and 14th Amendment. Either the Southern States were always in the Union or they were independent.

Mark "Yeah, if they had really believed in freedom, they would have let slavery persist as long as the south wanted."

f4u: Lincoln offered them that deal, if they would stay in the Union and pay his tariffs.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2012 9:05:26 AM PST
S. Kessler says:
I should hope we got the 20th century, because it would have been damn difficult for us to now be in the 21st without it. You mash everything together, f4, making it all essentially meaningless.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2012 9:14:08 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 1, 2012 9:16:24 AM PST
freedom4all says:
SK: You mash everything together, f4, making it essentially meaningless.

f4u: Not at all. History proves that individuals who make decisions have a profound effect on others. The South did not have to secede to protect slavery. Lincoln did not have to invade the South.

But those decisions have effects on others and still are. To argue that history could not take a different course is to argue for predestination.

I believe in individual freedom and free choice without the use of force, coercion, violence, fraud or compulsion of another individual's property or person, except in self defense.

Slavery was a great evil. But Lincoln would have lived with it if the CSA would have stayed and paid.

Would not you have like to seen a 20th century with a lot less war and government killing? 80,000,000 individuals I think would have.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2012 9:17:23 AM PST
I tend to agree, The Articles of Confederation were too tilted in favor of states rights, the Constitution as written was pretty balanced, and the Constitution as it is shaped by court decisions now is tilted too far in favor of the Federal Government's power.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2012 9:31:42 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 1, 2012 9:38:15 AM PST
S.
According to the slave owners, slaves were't human beings, simply property. That is historical fact. Looking at it from today's perspective, makes it look foolish. But that is the way it was. Even northern whites were amazed at someone like Fredrick Douglass, who was a freed slave, but an erudite, inteligent, educated man. Slave's feelings matter to them, but only to them, or their masters wouldn'thave split up families like they did when selling slaves for profit.

My ancestors were, Scots, Black Irish, Swedish and Comanche Indian. I know this from oral family history, but their triumphs and travails have nothing to do with who and what I am. I am the result of MY life experiences, levened slightly by those of the grandmother who raised me. The fact the my Scottish ancestor was the youngest son of the head of the Spencer Clan and came to the colonies on an indenture is an interesting factoid, but certainly hasn't shaped my character.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2012 9:36:16 AM PST
Schmerguls,
Yes, you got it right, my proof reading often amounts to reading what I know I typed, rather than what actually came off my fingers.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2012 9:44:31 AM PST
Exactly correct. This is a point that many people fail to recognize when they try and downplay the importance of the slavery issue in the war, unless they are trying to say that "slavery" was just a code word that was being substituted for other abstract idea, and that everytime the term slave state or free state came up in congress we're supposed to assume they were actually talking about something else.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2012 9:48:24 AM PST
Good luck with that New South country. It didn't work out so well the first time the South tried it. And I don't know about all those jobs. The South was mostly rural and poor. There were a few rich planters but very little of what we might call a middle class. And very few people had invested in infrastructure and factories in the South. It's one of the reasons the Confederacy lost the war.
What I do wish is that there had been some way to resolve the issues at least for another few decades without fighting. My Northern family all fought but pretty much survived the war. My Southern relatives were devastated by the war and took generations to recover.
I think that innovations in farming that started not so long after the war might have made slavery obsolete. Black people still wouldn't have been treated well in the South, but that didn't happen anyway for over 100 years.
[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

 

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