[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48045670]They still had an economy after the war. Sharecroppers basically lived in slave-like conditions.[/QUOTE]
Not a strong economy though, it was shit. Their dollars were entirely worthless. What made the Confederate State's strong was their economic system which was broken at the end of the war.
[QUOTE=joshuadim;48045667]Not to the extent that black slaves were used. If slavery were dropped, there wouldn't be enough white workers on the plantations to support the economy of the time.[/QUOTE]
You said white men wouldn't do it, but in reality, they would have been exploited to do it anyways by indentured servitude. However, there weren't enough people to do it period.
I'm fucking done, this argument goes around in circles and has been for the past 7 pages.
"All confederate soldiers are evil and shouldn't be memorialized for the massive loss of life"
"Confederate soldiers = nazis"
"Memorials are inherently racist"
I'm done.
[QUOTE=joshuadim;48045686]I'm fucking done, this argument goes around in circles and has been for the past 7 pages.
"All confederate soldiers are evil and shouldn't be memorialized for the massive loss of life"
"Confederate soldiers = nazis"
"Memorials are inherently racist"
I'm done.[/QUOTE]
Someone told me on steam that my irish and french indentured servant ancestors didn't deserve to be remembered as Americans because they were complicit in Southern slavery. :v: I honestly don't think you can reason with this kind of person, they just find a way to twist everything.
[QUOTE=The Calzone;48045673]If the South hadn't seceded and agreed to abolish slavery amicably, I'm certain they would have been able to rebuild their economy in to one that wasn't based on slavery. After the war was over and they lost, the South was able to rebuild in to an economy that didn't depend on it. There road to rebuilding was bumpy on account of the whole "the confederacy was monstrously in debt after the war" thing, but they managed to do it. Them "needing slavery" isn't an excuse. They didn't "need" slavery. The south was able to rebuild without slavery in conditions worse than they would have had if they had never gone to war at all.
Your argument that the south was "F-U-C-K-E-D FUCKED" without slavery is incorrect. If they had agreed to abolish it, shit would have gone fine. They didn't though. Because they didn't want to. Because they liked not having to pay their work force.[/QUOTE]
They had to pay for their work force, they had to buy slaves. These people did it because they needed an efficient plantation to make a lot of crops for the North. And no one man could do it, and many people didn't want to get hired for it. So they ended up gunning for slaves, who did the work. If slavery was cut, their work force would have dropped heavily, and they'd have to find ways to get the plantations working right again to meet demands. Because yes, they had to meet demands.
[QUOTE=OvB;48044542]Defacing monuments isn't good. History is important.[/QUOTE]
this is why it's tiring to hear "Burn Nazi artifacts" and "Throw out Communist artifacts", "Items that belonged to the [PEOPLE HERE] should be destroyed", "Martin Luther King's [ITEM] should be discarded because I disagree with him" etc
this stuff is hyper important to history. There are SO MANY THINGS we don't know about history because chucklefucking idiots decided they didn't like what it said so they burned it. It doesn't matter if it represented the biggest notable evil group out there, don't burn it, destroy it, or deface it.
Burning nazi/communist/kkk/"Not bad guy"/"bad guy" uniforms doesn't change history. You aren't honoring the dead. You aren't saving lives. You're only erasing proof that they killed MANY lives, or even saved lives.
[QUOTE=joshuadim;48045674]I know that, but Calzone is talking about dropping slavery before the war altogether. Which would be literally impossible without destroying the economy at the time.[/QUOTE]
Like I said, the South was able to bounce back after the war in a far worse state than if they had never gone to war in the first place.
The war destroyed the South economically, and it managed to bounce back without slavery. If the south could come back from that without slavery it is not a stretch of the imagination to believe that they could have restructured their economy before they utterly destroyed it.
[QUOTE=J!NX;48045696]this is why it's tiring to hear "Burn Nazi artifacts" and "Throw out Communist artifacts", "Items that belonged to the [PEOPLE HERE] should be destroyed", "Martin Luther King's [ITEM] should be discarded" etc
this stuff is hyper important to history. There are SO MANY THINGS we don't know about history because chucklefucking idiots decided they didn't like what it said so they burned it.[/QUOTE]
there's a difference between an artifact and a monument
a monument was placed after the war to honor someone, an artifact was something actually relevant to the war
should you destroy Hitler's journal? no. should you burn down general sherman's home? no. if you manage to find the wreck of the santa maria, should you rip it up because colombus killed a bunch of natives? no. those are a part of history.
should you erect a monument in the memory of a bunch of people that supported slavery? no. no you shouldn't.
these things are completely different.
[QUOTE=The Calzone;48045673]"slavery wasn't based on white supremacy" "the idea that white people had the right to own black people because white people were superior to black people wasn't based on white supremacy" lol okay dude[/QUOTE]
I'm just going to quote myself debunking this earlier since you seem to have ignored it:
[QUOTE]Wrong. If that were the case:
1) There would never have been any white slaves or black slave owners. White slaves were actually pretty common in the south because the poor were being taken advantage of for cheap labor.
2) The Confederate Constitution would never have had the lines in them outlawing importation of blacks from outside of confederate slave owning states.
[QUOTE]1. The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country, other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
2. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=The Calzone;48045700]Like I said, the South was able to bounce back after the war in a far worse state than if they had never gone to war in the first place.
The war destroyed the South economically, and it managed to bounce back without slavery. If the south could come back from that without slavery it is not a stretch of the imagination to believe that they could have restructured their economy before they utterly destroyed it.[/QUOTE]
They didn't "bounce back". The southern economy was in shambles for decades until the mid 20th century with the WW2 era and post WW2 era.
[editline]24th June 2015[/editline]
Now I'm done.
[QUOTE=The Calzone;48045700]Like I said, the South was able to bounce back after the war in a far worse state than if they had never gone to war in the first place.
The war destroyed the South economically, and it managed to bounce back without slavery. If the south could come back from that without slavery it is not a stretch of the imagination to believe that they could have restructured their economy before they utterly destroyed it.[/QUOTE]
The south isn't doing so good financially, I don't know about that man. They didn't entirely bounce back just like that. It was probably sure hard for them to adjust to new ways to ensure a functioning economy. The economy was shit all the way to the 1900's, and there are southern states that still have a shit ass economy.
[QUOTE=joshuadim;48045709]They didn't "bounce back". The southern economy was in shambles for decades until the mid 20th century with the WW2 era and post WW2 era.
[editline]24th June 2015[/editline]
Now I'm done.[/QUOTE]
They did come back though. They came back despite the fact that they were "FUCKED."
So imagine if they didn't blow all of their money on the war and agreed to abolish slavery and went along with any plans that might have come along to restructure, using the funding that would have been blown on a war.
The slavery was unjustifiable. They did not need it. They just wanted it.
[QUOTE=Rocko's;48045715]The south isn't doing so good financially, I don't know about that man. They didn't entirely bounce back just like that. It was probably sure hard for them to adjust to new ways to ensure a functioning economy. The economy was shit all the way to the 1900's, and there are southern states that still have a shit ass economy.[/QUOTE]
The whole country isn't doing good financially, and the South is still suffering from its loss. That's the thing, though. It's not suffering from the loss of slavery, it's suffering from the loss of the war. The destruction of the South's economy could have been avoided if the war never happened.
[QUOTE=The Calzone;48045745]They did come back though. They came back despite the fact that they were "FUCKED."
So imagine if they didn't blow all of their money on the war and agreed to abolish slavery and went along with any plans that might have come along to restructure, using the funding that would have been blown on a war.
The slavery was unjustifiable. They did not need it. They just wanted it.[/QUOTE]
Except before the war mechanization to replace slave labor was not viable, and after the war it was.
[QUOTE=Rocko's;48045630][B]THEY SUPPORTED IT BECAUSE IT WAS THEIR ECONOMY. WITHOUT IT THEY WERE F-U-C-K-E-D FUCKED.[/B]
They would have no money whatsoever without that economy. So as much as they hated slavery, they had to hope those states could maintain some form of economic balance or they wouldn't be able to support its residents, therefore the resident(s) against slavery will not have any form of money, or food, or housing, because the government will have no funding to support the nation they have created by seceding. [U]And no, I don't agree with them seceding, or slavery, or anything they did. But these people did it because their economy was loosely based around slavery because of the actions of the people running the Confederate State's.[/U][/QUOTE]
This seems to be the biggest misconception about slavery that people spout. The southern economy did not need slavery in order to survive. In fact, slavery was a massive burden to the economic development of the south, and the effects of slavery would hamper southern development for the next century after the war was over. Rather, slavery made a fairly small slaveholding class wealthier than anyone could ever imagine, while making the majority of people in the south essentially poor and irrelevant.
As an example - tell me, what do you think wages might have been like in the south during the era of slavery? Hint: there were no wages for most free people (whites and free blacks), because there were no jobs for free people since most labor could be done by slaves, which were far cheaper to maintain. If you weren't a slaveowner, a professional (doctor, lawyer, merchant, businessman, etc) or politician - in other words, if you were a part of the overwhelming majority of people, you were subsistence farming. The legacy of this is incredibly easy to see in my home state of North Carolina.
The cotton economy of the south was also completely unsustainable. For one, it required that the slave population be far larger than the white population. Slaveowners knew this and it freaked them the fuck out, causing them to support vastly more repressive political measures to prevent slave rebellions (ala Haiti) - you know, the type of political measures that cause massive unrest anyhow.
Then there's the fact that the boll weevil infestation struck the south not long after the Civil War and devastated cotton crops. If that alone didn't cause a collapse in the cotton economy, then the loss of Britain as a buyer of southern cotton would have - they began buying cotton from Indian farmers after India went under the full authority of the British crown.
The overall point? Slavery was not a necessary evil, it was just an evil that people still supported due to being racists. And yes, most people did support it, even in the North. Abolitionism did not become a driving factor in the Civil War until after the end of 1862.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48045751]Except before the war mechanization to replace slave labor was not viable, and after the war it was.[/QUOTE]
You act like mechanization is the only viable replacement for slavery.
You don't suppose they could have started with, I dunno, actually paying their workers?
You act like slavery was this big necessary evil when pretty much every other nation in the world calling itself civilized had already abolished slavery by the time the Civil War rolled around and frowned upon America's continued usage of it.
You also forget that the South was pretty much ready to just give up on slavery until the invention of the cotton gin, which brought it back in full force.
Getting rid of slavery was a completely viable option, they just didn't want to give up slavery because owning slaves felt good.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48045751]Except before the war mechanization to replace slave labor was not viable, and after the war it was.[/QUOTE]
Slavery wasn't incompatible with factory labour, BTW. At least one slaveholder experimented with it, somewhat successfully, and we're lucky the Civil War happened when it did and made further exploration unfeasible, otherwise it would have taken decades longer to end that horror.
[QUOTE=The Calzone;48045808]Getting rid of slavery was a completely viable option, they just didn't want to give up slavery because owning slaves felt good.[/QUOTE]
Slave owners didn't want to give up slavery because the system of power they built relied on it. Slavery allowed the rich to acquire and keep all of the money while influencing politics. Had they gotten rid of slavery, they would no longer be able to control the southern economy, and would therefore lose all of their power and influence.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48045864]Slave owners didn't want to give up slavery because the system of power they built relied on it. Slavery allowed the rich to acquire and keep all of the money while influencing politics. Had they gotten rid of slavery, they would no longer be able to control the southern economy, and would therefore lose all of their power and influence.[/QUOTE]
Which is further support for the argument that Confederate soldiers on the whole were not only not slave owners but also not interested in slavery. Racist? Sure, pretty much everyone was. But they didn't care for the rich controlling them.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48045893]Which is further support for the argument that Confederate soldiers on the whole were not only not slave owners but also not interested in slavery. Racist? Sure, pretty much everyone was. But they didn't care for the rich controlling them.[/QUOTE]
Which makes how their children were taken in by the lost cause cult even more saddening.
[editline]25th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48045640]I agree for the most part, but wartime testimony by black soldiers under his command provides an interesting counter viewpoint. He apparently made efforts to return Union wounded to Union medical facilities including black Union soldiers.[/QUOTE]
I'd make sure that your sources were reliable. There's been a lot of bullshitting on that front.
[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;48045923]I'd make sure that your sources were reliable. There's been a lot of bullshitting on that front.[/QUOTE]
It's too hard to tell truth from fiction around Forrest, he's such a cult figure. I'd rather just say it's an interesting topic of discussion & the world's better off without him. :v:
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48045893]Which is further support for the argument that Confederate soldiers on the whole were not only not slave owners but also not interested in slavery. Racist? Sure, pretty much everyone was. But they didn't care for the rich controlling them.[/QUOTE]
It's why the whole argument about how people who lived in the confederate states supported the Confederate Government and started the war is disingenuous. Did they "elect" the people who were in the Confederate Government? Technically. But to assume that the politicians actually represented the people and weren't controlled by the rich slave owners like how our politicians today are controlled by corporations is ignorant. The people were tricked into electing who the people with money wanted, and the people with money controlled them.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48045971]It's too hard to tell truth from fiction around Forrest, he's such a cult figure. I'd rather just say it's an interesting topic of discussion & the world's better off without him. :v:[/QUOTE]
frankly, given his other documented activities, I'd treat those reports of him being decent to black soldiers as being pure bull.
I don't care what your beliefs are. Both sides have people die, and you shouldn't disrespect and mock their deaths because they believed something different than you. The basis the US was founded upon was allowing everyone to have their own beliefs and the Civil War, for both the Confederacy and the US simply hardened that fact. The war was very bloody, so unless you want history to repeat itself stop being a chucklefuck and destroying national monuments.
i'm fairly certain that slavery being outlawed in the new territories was a kind of straw that broke the camel's back, with the rebelling states using slavery as an excuse to secede due to the perceived overstepping of the federal government rather than states rights being an excuse for slavery. the people of both the USA and the CSA probably would have seen it as far closer to the government working to take their guns rather than as a step towards equality. there were few people who were even concerned with slavery, mainly the plantation owners and the abolitionists. i'm fairly certain that the reason why slavery was even banned from the western territories is because the US federal government wanted them to be either more industrialized or have farms staffed rather than slaved, it wasn't as much about them wanting to defeat a moral evil. hell, lincoln's emancipation proclamation only freed the slaves in the rebelling states, all the slaves in the Union slave-owning states were shit out of luck. most of the confederate soldiers were more preoccupied with state loyalty rather than "we gotta keep hold of the slaves, man!" hell, robert e lee himself was a friend of lincoln and was even offered to be a union general, but he declined and became a confederate general because his state seceded. back then, most southerners saw themselves as citizens of their state first, then way underneath that they thought themselves as citizens of the us. when they hear their state is seceding, they went with it, no matter what the actual cause was. as said before, they were fighting for their homeland and not their homeland's policies, much like how an american soldier today is usually fighting for their homeland and not for their homeland's policies.
personally, i think that it is fine to have a memorial dedicated to the dead defenders of charleston, much like how i think it would be fine to make a memorial dedicated to the some of the soldiers of the wehrmacht and even the post-1943 waffen-SS, especially the children and old men who were the soldiers left to defend germany against the soviet union.
Snip
[QUOTE=EdvardSchnitz;48044815]The gays being persecuted in modern society don't mater because only black lives matter.
Or hispanics
Or any other group persecuted
Nope
Only black lives[/QUOTE]
When people say "Black Lives matter" they mean "Black Lives matter TOO", not "Only black lives matter"
[editline]25th June 2015[/editline]
God you people are so thick you have to shoot down any attempt at progress for the sake of "Political correctness gone mad!"
All I've really learned from this thread is that The Calzone probably slept through his American History class.
The Union itself was comprised of a few slave states that were so important economically to the North that Abraham Lincoln exempted them from the Emancipation Proclamation for fear of alienating them. The Emancipation Proclamation ONLY freed slaves that were in rebelling southern states. The slaves in those border states were only freed once the 13th amendment was ratified. Those border states were also exempt from reconstruction, and almost immediately white Democrats (remember the party bases hadn't switched yet) ratified Jim Crow segregation laws solidifying African Americans as second class citizens. The Emancipation Proclamation was if anything an attempt to weaken the south further by getting rid of it's work force.
Do you know that Lincoln didn't even run for election opposing slavery on the Republican ballot?
His platform promised not to interfere with slavery in the states but didn't want to expand slavery into new territories. Abolitionists hated Lincoln because he was too moderate on the slavery issue. That's right, Lincoln ran on a platform promising not to expand slavery, not get rid of it.
What's the point of bringing up all this? Well basically to state that generalizing that all southern soldiers fought for slavery and all northern soldiers fought to free slaves is completely incorrect. The Civil War was hugely complicated and tying the whole thing together on one issue is moronic. Certainly slavery played a huge part. But so did a ton of other factors.
A monument to some soldiers who fought probably just because it was their home that was being attacked shouldn't be defaced.
It's really surprising that how many americans aren't ashamed about how they treated black people.
[QUOTE=Soret;48047645]It's really surprising that how many americans aren't ashamed about how they treated black people.[/QUOTE]
That's because most of us didn't, our ancestors did. That and a good majority of people from the 10s/20s/30s+ that were part of it are regretful of their actions.
The Calzone's posts hurt me
They hurt my brain, they hurt logic.
How can someone have proper arguments right in front of their face and ignore all of them cuz "racists"
Is this what its like arguing on tumblr?
'black rights matter' isn't a selfish movement. you're the part of the issue if you think that it directly states that you're being put under everything else.
if you're a black minority in the us, then there are certain realities that you'll eventually realize that are unfortunately real, and other people simply don't go thru them
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.