generic North/south confederate thread

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Why? Ignoring the moral issues, it makes no economic sense.

So, why was it ever instituted in the first place, then?

[Dis]

hey what happened to my thread? I didn't see the reason why it was closed

[Ned]

Originally posted by PLATO


Perhaps not, but I can show you bloodstains where blacks were murdered by northerners because they did not want to leave their homes and then I can take you to their graves. Or maybe you would like to view the gravesites of the women who were group raped and killed. Maybe you would like to see the smoke damage from where they burned buildings in towns that had no military value. We could even go to where one family hid their valuables in a column on their porch because the northerners were looting everything. But most of all, we should go and sit at the feet of my 97 year oldaunt and hear her relate the tales as told to her by her grandmother who was there. Biased? Maybe...but perhaps it is your history that needs to look at its objectivity.

Plato, I'll never forget the reaction of Newt Gingrich when one night, while being interviewed for an entirely different reason, someone mentioned the name of General Sherman. He reacted as if someone had hit him with a cattle prod and instantly proclaimed that one should never discuss or mention Sherman to a Georgian. I was amazed at the vehemence of the reaction. Amazed.

I suspect we Northerners were never told the whole story of the Union Army in the South.

[TCO]

1. Deleware was a "dot" in terms of slave ownership. There were 6000 slaves there at the time of the war.

2. Slavery MAKES economic sense. To the slave-owner. Same way that theft makes sense to the theif.

3. The Confederate protesters at our plant (every Thursday for the last 4 years), have a sign that says "honor black Confederates". But the people standing out there are all white...

[Whaleboy]

Does the South actually still hate the North?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by elijah
Does the South actually still hate the North?

Sour grapes, sore losers, etc.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Sour grapes, sore losers, etc.

Not really. The Union was preserved and that has served us all well over the years. It is more resentment over the north never acknowledging what they really did down here. Sure, the South had its own dark spots in the war, but the north has never admitted the huge amount of war crimes it committed. The wholesale destruction that they caused for no real reason set the South back by at least a generation. All we ever hear is how evil the South ws and how altruistic the north was. That's just crap.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Because I guess some dumbass trolls think my pappy should have left my mom on her own to pop me out while he had to move out of state for a nine months temporary job assignment when she was six months pregnant with me.

Evidently, he was supposed to quit his job, or keep the job and leave her on her own, to satisfy the nitpicking trolling urge of a few dip****s that wouldn't be born for another decade or two.

Instead, he had the basic decency to rent a little bit bigger apartment and bring her along. Our legal, permanent residency was still Lawrence County, Kentucky, with kin scattered from Richmond, VA to Louisville.

Relax, man. It's OK.

[Boris Godunov]

I think you have a fairly distorted view of how things are based on your persecution complex. All you have to do is watch South propoganda like "Gone With the Wind" and you get to see all the Northern evil bogeymen. Most fictional and entertainment accounts of the War tend lionize the Southern "lost cause," actually. I've never seen any history text shirk away from describing the brutal way in which the war was often fought on the part of the North (like Sherman) to achieve victory.

I do find it a little odd that many of those complaining about the North utilizing harsh tactics also defend the U.S. for the A-bombs and Dresden. Seems a bit contradictory to me.

[TCO]

Once again falling into that moral equivalency fallacy.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by TCO
Once again falling into that moral equivalency fallacy.

Oh, true. Sherman's little march is in no way equivalent to firebombing Dresden and murdering over 200,000 civilians, true.

[TCO]

Well...the point is that we are better than those other guys. In both cases. j/k.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Ned
Hey Southerners, if you were set free, would you reinstitute slavery?

To answer your next question, Slavery "made sense" prior to the Industrial Revolution, before machines replaced muscle. You think this would be self-evident.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Agathon
Hurrah for Bobby Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia!!!!

Don't forget the warrior Tom Jackson.
Mustn't leave out the only general with a better mind for strategy and tactics than Bob Lee, James Longstreet.

And Ned, you're on the list now of people who can kiss my ass.
Like I said, forget the Blacks.
I'll work those stinking heathen Indians right into the ground.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned


So, why was it ever instituted in the first place, then?

It made economic sense at the time, particularly in large plantations dominated by one or two crops. Slaves could be quartered on a small part of the land, they could grow food crops for themselves and the overseers and owners, and be trained for most other jobs on the plantation, such as taking care of horses, smithing, etc. The women and kids could work in the house and the kitchen.

As the area economy moves more to manufacture and commerce, land to house and feed them isn't readily available unless it becomes an add on to the main business, and it's more expensive to buy and maintain slaves than it is to just dupe immigrants off the boats and let them worry about the food and housing side of it as well. Or if you're in coal mining, you just pay 'em in scrip usable only at your company stores, but make them do the food and shelter thing on their own time.

edit - most of the initial "slaves" in the North American colonies were white - bonded servants scraped out of debtors prisons, etc., but they had a tendency to die off too quickly to be worth the cost of passage over here - I've seen some archaological papers suggesting mortality among bonded and indentured servants in the fields in 17th century plantations was between 50 and 80% per year.