generic North/south confederate thread

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun


Chegitz, any thoughts on my statements on top of page two.

I figured if Slowwhand is not interested in engaging in discussion with us, I would like to know what you think of my thoughts.

The only thing I'd really disagree on is 4b. The Reconstruction governments were the least corrupt governments the South had seen, at least up until the last few decades, and in some states, not even then (I'm living in one).

4a, the various klans were pretty much deestroyed by 1867 and didn't play a role in the failure of Reconstruction. Political violence, however, was absolutely necessary for the restoration of Democratic Party rule following the end of the military governments.

Finally, you missed the role Northern labor indirectly played in the end of Reconstruction, as Northern bosses needed to relocate the armies up North to defend against growing labor miitancy (which broke out in a massive revolt in 1877, the year after Reconstruction ended).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH


In manufacturing yes in farming no. It doesnt make sense to maintain hundreds or thousands of field slaves on large plantations who will only work a short time (given tractors etc). From an economic/efficiency perspective its better to temporarily hire migrant workers, especially illegal ones

Both the Dominican Republic and the Cote d'Ivorie practice slavery in agriculture. Rather than take care of their slaves, they simply work them to death and get more (in the case of the DR, they kidnap Haitians).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by TCO
Ok...keeping within the subject. If it was bull**** for the South to pull out of the union, then West by God Virginia is double bull****. It belongs to us.

The constitution allows states to secede from other states with the CONSENT of the original state. West Virginias formation was agreed to by the Virginia legislature - which, in 1863, just happened to be meeting in Charleston in what became West Virginia. Now there was also a group of traitors meeting in Richmond who purported to be the legislature of Virginia, and of course THEY did NOT consent - but as they were NOT the valid legislature this did not matter. It was unfortunate that the VALID legislature meeting in Charleston was short of members from the low land counties, but AFAIK they had a quorom, so it was all quite legal.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The constitution allows states to secede from other states with the CONSENT of the original state.

And Congress. Interestingly enough, states do not need the consent of Congress to merge or sell territory to each other. Florida, apparentl, tried to sell the panhandle area to Alabama and Georgia followin the Civil War because the state was broke. Alabama couldn't come up with the money, so the deal fell through.

[lord of the mark]

BTW Chegitz, I think a variation of the Charleston West Virginia strategem could have been used in a more recent legal conundrum (an international one) if only our leadership had had the guts and had been united in their approach.

[Ned]

Let me conjecture, but the primary reason that slavery no longer makes sense economically today is

MACHINES.

Right?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The only thing I'd really disagree on is 4b. The Reconstruction governments were the least corrupt governments the South had seen, at least up until the last few decades, and in some states, not even then (I'm living in one).

4a, the various klans were pretty much deestroyed by 1867 and didn't play a role in the failure of Reconstruction. Political violence, however, was absolutely necessary for the restoration of Democratic Party rule following the end of the military governments.

Finally, you missed the role Northern labor indirectly played in the end of Reconstruction, as Northern bosses needed to relocate the armies up North to defend against growing labor miitancy (which broke out in a massive revolt in 1877, the year after Reconstruction ended).

The only counter-point of yours that I disagree with, is that of "Reconstruction governments being the least corrupt."

While I am fully aware of those political leaders who were sincerely going about to make societal improvements, I am also aware of the shameless leeching of some others who only had self interests in mind.

And I stand corrected on the Ku Klux Klan -- Grant helped the legal disbanding of that organization, so yes, those individual white Southerners who were racist Democrats found other ways to carry out racial and political violence.

And your last point about Northern labor unrest -- I was aware of that, but I simply did not include it in my post.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Let me conjecture, but the primary reason that slavery no longer makes sense economically today is

MACHINES.

Right?

No. See my posts about about the condition of slavery in the modern world.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned
Let me conjecture, but the primary reason that slavery no longer makes sense economically today is

MACHINES.

Right?

Hey, remember about ten or so yearsd ago when robotic machines were supposed to wipe out the American laborer? Ain't it funny how it works out that the job is being accomplished by Asians and Latinos instead? Fancy machines cost a bundle to manufacture. Not so with laborers in impoverished countries, and the supply is nearly endless.

[MrFun]

Chegitz -- see my last post in response to yours?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I'm not going to debate every point redundantly.
Once the initial mistake was made on not taking the high ground was made, that should have ended it.
Longstreet's "caution" as you call it, was correct, and way, way ahead of it's time.

Unfortunately, assuming one should choose to retreat in the face of the enemy, one's enemy must also choose to let you do so, and that's something over which you have no control. You have to remember that Lee's army was still scattered on the first, with Stuart unaccounted for, Ed Johnson's division a day out, Pickett's a day and a half out, and to retreat from the common road junction in the area risked hanging one or all of those divisions out to be captured whole, and for what?

Longstreet was proven ineffective in independent command due to his caution, when he was detached to independent duty after Fredericksburg up until the ANV moved out after Chancellorsville. Longstreet was an excellent corps commander within his limits, but his leadership would have brought the Yankee armies down to Richmond far faster than Lee's leadership did. Lee at least realized you can not win a war against a numerically and productively stronger enemy by a string of tactical defensive victories in your own territory.

Attacking a heavily fortified defense was not his idea of a good time.
BEING the heavily fortified defense was his thing.

Where was the heavily fortified defense? Jackson certainly would have had no trouble giving the bayonet to those people on the 1st, and victory was achievable on the 2nd as well, but the attacks on the 2nd were poorly coordinated in the extreme.

And as I said, Lee admitted the mistake.

Another thing Longstreet was correct about, Stuart should have been court martialed.

Now, all this is not said in distain or disrespect for Bobby Lee.
But he made a mistake. That's historic fact.

With the luxury of hindsight, yes. Unfortunately, fear of making mistakes doesn't make for good commanders.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
so it was all quite legal.

As were our secession conventions.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


As were our secession conventions.

Just when I thought I was not going to run into any more jokes in this thread . . . . .

[MichaeltheGreat]

Feel free to hold forth on any theories you may have on why those sovereign states who voluntarily associated with each other, without waiving their sovereignty, could not later choose to withdraw from that voluntary association.

Perhaps in those sections of the Constitution dealing with the several States' obligation to the United States government? Aw, shucks, there ain't no such section. Oh well, guess you're SOL.

[Ned]

MtG, I think the South found out what Roman allies found out. They were no longer truly "free" to go their own way.

But, if two states enter into a treaty that does not specify that it can be terminated unilaterally, it can only be terminated mutually. Ditto, confederacies.

Right?