Replies

It would have disappeared from the South under far friendlier terms had the Confederacy survived.

And when would that have been? There was no motivation by the aristocracy to do it, and for white tradesmen, the thought of freed slaves competing against them would have been anathema. Hell, it took concerted Federal action 100 years after the war in order to compel the extension of full voting and civil rights to blacks in the states that comprised the old Confederacy - and they didn't have any plans whatsoever for doing that Christian thing voluntarily.

Quit pining for a society that never was - praise their forces for volor on the battlefield, praise the political leaders for gambling and taking a chance in the face of pretty formidable odds. Never, ever, however, praise the enterprise as a noble one - because it was not.

Just as Patton could admire Rommel, and ID White could later befriend Manteuffel, we can admire skill and courage. That doesn't mean that the cause the latter served was any less reprehensible.

Quit pining for a society that never was - praise their forces for volor on the battlefield, praise the political leaders for gambling and taking a chance in the face of pretty formidable odds. Never, ever, however, praise the enterprise as a noble one - because it was not.

I'm a Yankee born and raised, Palpatine. My Civil War heroes mostly wore blue.

I just prefer not to view a complex event through Nickelodeon eyeglasses. ;-)

There was no motivation by the aristocracy to do it, and for white tradesmen, the thought of freed slaves competing against them would have been anathema

Now you're describing the situation up north as described by many northern papers of the day and one of the many causes of the New York Riots. But keep trying Chancey

Arguing the same tack using a different hero, how was Sherman's slaughter of men, women and children reflective of his cause? Or was it?

There was no motivation by the aristocracy to do it, and for white tradesmen, the thought of freed slaves competing against them would have been anathema.

Slavery would have certainly disappeared with the invention of the automatic cotton picker. Since most people of the South did not own slaves, it was hardly an issue for most Southerners.

What the majority of the South did not want was a chaotic situation where competing with freed blacks would have destabilized both society and the economy. Perhaps, this isn't right, but the North was no better in this matter. They just wanted the South to have deal with the problem while they pretended moral superitrity. Most Northern states did not allow blacks the right to vote at the time of the Civil War. Also they are the ones who wanted Sotuthern blacks to be treated as nothing more than property politically, thus resulting in the 3/5 compromise. (Yes, I know it was politics, but the facts stand.)

I can withstand the simpleton, "it was all about slavery" arguments, but what irks me are the infantile "the North was morally superior arguments."