- Joined
- 11 Nov 14
- Moves
- 34223
@no1marauder saidTo be fair, the South punched well above their weight.
Right wingers lost the last US Civil War.
Why are you so anxious for another?
@Blood-On-The-Tracks
Well they lost nonetheless and that was a good thing. We would STILL have slaves if they had won.
@blood-on-the-tracks saidHow did the South treat blacks up until the Civil Rights laws passed by the Federal government in the 1960s?
@sonhouse
That is a bizarre statement
Do you really believe there would be slaves in the CSA 150 years after the ACW? I would guess, 40/50 years (at most) they would be gone, if South had won
The CSA Constitution mandated slavery throughout the entire "nation". IF the CSA has survived until this day, there's little historical evidence that they wouldn't have maintained slavery.
A CSA in the 1940s would have been a natural ally of Nazi Germany, if we're playing "what if" scenarios. That might have been enough for Hitler to win the war.
- Joined
- 11 Nov 14
- Moves
- 34223
@no1marauder
So, just to clarify.
You agree with the poster who said that if the South had won the ACW, then slaves would still be working on plantations today in 2020?
@blood-on-the-tracks saidI'm not sure, but I think it's possible.
@no1marauder
So, just to clarify.
You agree with the poster who said that if the South had won the ACW, then slaves would still be working on plantations today in 2020?
The South maintained a legal segregation policy for almost 100 years after the Civil War and bitterly resisted any change designed to give Blacks equal rights and status with whites. The CSA Constitution, as I have stated, mandated slavery in every State and territory in the CSA.
Slavery still hasn't disappeared and the Nazis and Japanese used it extensively in WWII.
What are you reasons for thinking a present day CSA wouldn't have retained slavery, the very reason it existed in the first place?
- Joined
- 11 Nov 14
- Moves
- 34223
@no1marauder
My reason? Things move on.
At the time of the ACW, workers in London/UK factories existed as little more than slaves. They could not hope to find other work(there was none), they were paid a pittance, they existed, and, if lucky , lived to 45.
Were they any worse in life than Southern slaves? It is an argument.
Things move on. You know, Lincoln isn't involved in slaves anymore, UK living / employment conditions improve. The world acknowledges that slavery is wrong, so refuses to buy from CSA unless they change that policy.
Seems very likely to me
@blood-on-the-tracks saidI suspect the CSA would have had to have been militarily crushed as it actually was before it would have ended slavery.
@no1marauder
My reason? Things move on.
At the time of the ACW, workers in London/UK factories existed as little more than slaves. They could not hope to find other work(there was none), they were paid a pittance, they existed, and, if lucky , lived to 45.
Were they any worse in life than Southern slaves? It is an argument.
Things move on. You know, L ...[text shortened]... very is wrong, so refuses to buy from CSA unless they change that policy.
Seems very likely to me
The Germans used 5 million slave laborers during WWII. DO you think that a mere boycott of slave produced goods would have eventually made Hitler and the rest reconsider their position on slavery? Yet, the South held the same type of racist viewpoints and justification for slavery was THE ideological foundation (the "cornerstone" in CSA VP Stephens' famous speech) of the CSA.
Things don't just change; sometimes you have to change them. And sometimes you have to do so by force.
- Joined
- 11 Nov 14
- Moves
- 34223
@no1marauder
You are comparing things 100 years apart.
I am not an expert on the ACW, and am not resorting to Google now, but the origin of the war in 1861 was NOT to stop slavery, I believe?
Lincoln was open to allowing slavery to continue if the South continued to pour dollars into the coffers of the North?
It was only when the Yanks asked 'why are we fighting here'???? That Lincoln made his famous Gettysburg speech??
Things change. The North v quickly changed their views on slavery, as did we in the UK. Why would the South not follow?
@Blood-On-The-Tracks
Well, my money would be on the continuation of slavery to present and future dates. I think they would have slaves in 2100. For one thing, innovation would have tanked, I think. The only thing hard core tech ATT was telegraph. I doubt even the phone would have been invented had Slavery been enforced.
I think technology flourished after the Civil war precisely because slavery ended and they HAD to come up with ways to improve productivity not involving slaves and for sure whitey would not want to be picking cotton in the fields when blacks no longer were forced to.
@no1marauder saidTwo people were killed in your CHOP zone, and yesterday, In another such
I think you should seek out a qualified psychologist and schedule some immediate sessions to deal with your absurd paranoia.
We don't need a revolution to put your ideas in the dustbin of history; a few more elections should do it.
zone in Atlanta across from the Wendy's where Brooks was shot and killed,
a little 8 year old girl was shot and killed.
Talk to me about your peaceful protesters that no one should fear.
I speak of freedom, No1, and that may be taken away by leftists and marxists
but it will always be sought after and coveted by all but the totalitarian pigs
among us
@earl-of-trumps saidYou really do sound like a nut.
Two people were killed in your CHOP zone, and yesterday, In another such
zone in Atlanta across from the Wendy's where Brooks was shot and killed,
a little 8 year old girl was shot and killed.
Talk to me about your peaceful protesters that no one should fear.
I speak of freedom, No1, and that may be taken away by leftists and marxists
but it will always be sought after and coveted by all but the totalitarian pigs
among us
Get some help; a few shootings in a country of 330 million prove exactly nothing.
@blood-on-the-tracks saidThe CSA started the war to preserve and expand slavery which they thought was threatened by the incoming Lincoln administration (most CSA states seceded before he was even inaugurated).
@no1marauder
You are comparing things 100 years apart.
I am not an expert on the ACW, and am not resorting to Google now, but the origin of the war in 1861 was NOT to stop slavery, I believe?
Lincoln was open to allowing slavery to continue if the South continued to pour dollars into the coffers of the North?
It was only when the Yanks asked 'why are we ...[text shortened]... North v quickly changed their views on slavery, as did we in the UK. Why would the South not follow?
The US sought to preserve the Union.
The entire social structure of the South was based on both exploiting and repressing Blacks. That didn't change for 100 years; some would say it hasn't changed much NOW.
I mean it's possible, I guess, that all of a sudden the majority of people in the CSA would have eventually discovered that slavery and repression of Blacks was the grave moral wrong it always was.
But I don't think that's what the smart money would have bet.
@earl-of-trumps saidThe real problem is starting with a ridiculously false premise.
The real problems with left/right factions boils down to this:
The left wants total control and will not stop at democratic
principles to guide the country.