Within 20 years or so. Slavery was becoming quickly unprofitable. Look at how emancipation was handled throughout the Western Hemisphere. Everywhere except these United States it was handled peacefully over time. For you to assume that it would not have followed the same course would be to insult ancestors of both sides. The writing was on the wall and eventually it would have disappeared
2. What do you think the status of blacks would be in the Confederacy today?
Hmmmm, well let's see how it was under the almighty Empire. For suggested reading you might want to read all of the Slave Narratives collected in the 1930s. Not just the selected ones that paint the South in a bad light but all of them. Doesn't paint your precious union in a good light.
3. How do you think the CSA and USA would have fared through the end of the 19th and through the 20th Century as compared to how the USA really fared?
First off, I don't think we would be as intrusive into foreign affairs and much more along the lines of what the Founders had in mind for this nation of states. Rather now, we're sticking our noses into anything and everything all in the name of 'freedom'. Problem is, from a historical point of view, it looks a whole lot like maintaining an Empire
That said, nostalgia for the Confederacy frankly does start to look like racism when the issue of whether the South was on the right or wrong side of the issue of slavery never gets discussed. It does start to look like people wish that the Confederacy had won to preserve slavery or, at the very least, to keep blacks "in their place".
Well I'll tell you what. Let's discuss northern views of the time towards blacks, shall we? Let's discuss how states that fought for the north as late as 1859 were passing laws banning the very existence of blacks in their state. I'm not talking about just banning slavery, even though there were northern states that still had slavery after the war (strange don't you think if it was all for slavery?). I'm talking about states that arrested someone of color just for existing in said state!! Puts Jim Crow laws to shame if you ask me.
Or shall we talk about Deconstruction? Those wonderful ten years that many whites were disenfranchised to vote and blacks were all but required to vote Republican. Those years when carpetbaggers got into office only to rape a Southern state of as much money as they could carry. So you tell me. What aspects of northern ers treatment of blacks would you like to discuss?
1. When, if ever, do you think slavery would have been eliminated in the Confederacy?
Within 20 years or so. Slavery was becoming quickly unprofitable. Look at how emancipation was handled throughout the Western Hemisphere. Everywhere except these United States it was handled peacefully over time. For you to assume that it would not have followed the same course would be to insult ancestors of both sides. The writing was on the wall and eventually it would have disappeared
Agreed. Your 20 years sounds reasonable. Certainly within 40 years. My point here? Those who support the CSA's side need to explicitly state that the Confederacy would not have been able to maintain slavery for more than another 20 years or so. This makes is clear that this is not nostalgia for the continuance of slavery into the 20th century.
I asked
2. What do you think the status of blacks would be in the Confederacy today?
Hmmmm, well let's see how it was under the almighty Empire. For suggested reading you might want to read all of the Slave Narratives collected in the 1930s. Not just the selected ones that paint the South in a bad light but all of them. Doesn't paint your precious union in a good light.
Oh, there certainly was racism in the North. And the release of Gangs of New York and the history programs surrounding its release are making people aware of anti-black attitudes in the North.
But that doesn't answer my question. Again, "What do you think the status of blacks would be in the Confederacy today?" I'm asking for speculation here so you can't really be wrong. I can think of any number of answers that are plausible here. I'm curious about your opinion.
I will say that if your answer is something along the lines of apartheid or repatriation to Africa or something less favorable than it is today, you shouldn't really blame blacks for not being comforted by that alternative. And if you won't answer, it is (for better or worse) going to leave the impression that you suspect a worst case scenario.
I asked
3. How do you think the CSA and USA would have fared through the end of the 19th and through the 20th Century as compared to how the USA really fared?
First off, I don't think we would be as intrusive into foreign affairs and much more along the lines of what the Founders had in mind for this nation of states. Rather now, we're sticking our noses into anything and everything all in the name of 'freedom'. Problem is, from a historical point of view, it looks a whole lot like maintaining an Empire
In some instances, this would have been an improvement. In other's, it would raise moral questions that would concern people (e.g., Would the CSA have remained neutral or have sided with Germany during WW2? And, yes, I mention siding with Germany knowing full well that there was a pro-Nazi rally in Madison Square Garden and that Lindberg was pro-Nazi.).
That said, nostalgia for the Confederacy frankly does start to look like racism when the issue of whether the South was on the right or wrong side of the issue of slavery never gets discussed. It does start to look like people wish that the Confederacy had won to preserve slavery or, at the very least, to keep blacks "in their place".
Well I'll tell you what. Let's discuss northern views of the time towards blacks, shall we?
I'd be more than happy to, once you stop evading the issue of Southern problems and admit to them. That's my point. Jesus made a comment in the Bible that you should remove the plank from your own eye before commenting on the splinter in someone elses eye. Even if they are both planks or splinters, you should get your own house in order instead of complaining about the other side to divert attention. That's exactly the tactic that Democrats use to hide their own sins. To put it on an even more simplistic level, two wrongs don't make a right.
I'm more than happy to admid that the North had racial problems. I'm not trying to use Southern racial problems to hide northern racial problems any more than I'm trying to hide the fact that the Allies bombed Dresden by discussing concentration camps. Do you think that slavery was wrong? Do you think that racial discrimination is wrong? If you make it clear that you are not a racist, then it will be easier for you to seperate your legitimate complaints about the North from any sense that you are really just a racist.
Or shall we talk about Deconstruction? Those wonderful ten years that many whites were disenfranchised to vote and blacks were all but required to vote Republican. Those years when carpetbaggers got into office only to rape a Southern state of as much money as they could carry.
I guess you skipped the part where I said:
I have a certain amount of sympathy for the idea of states rights, a certain amount of sympathy for succession as a state right, and have quite a bit of sympathy for many of the Constitutional complaints about things done during and after the war by the North.
But two wrongs don't make a right.
So you tell me. What aspects of northern ers treatment of blacks would you like to discuss?
I will be more than happy to discuss any aspect of northern treatment of blacks that you want, then or now, once you answer my second question, which is pretty much the point of what I wrote. People can have legitimate non-racist reasons for supporting succession and for disliking Lincoln and the north. But unless you are willing to clearly state that slavery was wrong and to explain how you think the CSA would have gotten itself out of slavery and how it would have affected blacks, I cannot blame blacks (and anti-slavery non-racist whites) for being less than enthusiastic about pro-CSA sentiments.
The German people probably had some legitimate reasons for being belligerant in WW2 (including their treatment at the end of WW1) but waxing nostalgic about the Third Reich on those grounds, as legitimate as it may be, unless one clearly distances themselves from the holocaust, leaves the bad taste in one's mouth that the person waxing nostalgic either doesn't care about the death of all those people or even thinks it was a good idea. Similarly, waxing nostalgic about the CSA on the grounds of states rights and Constitutional issues, as legitimate as they may be (and I have said I am sympathetic to many of these arguments), while ignoring slavery leaves the impression that one either doesn't care about slavery or thinks it was a good idea. That may be totally wrong. It may not be fair. But that's the way it is.
Say slavery was wrong and that you feel that the Confederacy would have worked its way out of slavery to ultimately respect the rights of blacks and you'll get people to listen to your other arguments. Try to claim that slavery was a non-issue or doesn't matter and people are going to think about nothing but slavery and ignore anything else that you talk about.
And been replaced by what? The south would have been as dependent on plantation agriculture in 1881 as it was in 1861. Who would have gotten the crop in?
Hmmmm, well let's see how it was under the almighty Empire. For suggested reading you might want to read all of the Slave Narratives collected in the 1930s. Not just the selected ones that paint the South in a bad light but all of them. Doesn't paint your precious union in a good light.
Amazingly enough in all the Slave Narratives I've read not a single person says that they wish that they were still slaves. They speak well of their old owners, and since most slave owners did not mistreat their chattle why wouldn't they? They talk about how hard times were and how their treatment was, but since almost all of them remained down south that is every bit a condemnation of southerners as it is northerners. But not one says, "I wish slavery hadn't ended."
Let's discuss how states that fought for the north as late as 1859 were passing laws banning the very existence of blacks in their state.
Shall we talk - again - about how southern states as late as 1861 were putting bans on free blacks in their state constitutions?
Or shall we talk about Deconstruction? Those wonderful ten years that many whites were disenfranchised to vote and blacks were all but required to vote Republican.
Shall we talk about the Black Laws prior to Reconstruction, or the Jim Crow laws, those wonderful 90-odd years that blacks were disenfranchised?
What aspects of northern ers treatment of blacks would you like to discuss?
Stay on task, bill. I believe that the question was how blacks would have been treated down south. But I'll discuss the way that they were treated, North and south, all day if you want too.