How long could slavery have lasted in the south?

[Arrian]

Lee was a Virginian, and fought specifically to defend his native Virginia. If VA hadn't joined the CSA, Lee wouldn't have fought, AFAIK.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


Again, wrong. Lee took over in 1862.

Thank you.

I'm going to look that up now, because I was pretty damned sure the CSA had no "Supreme Commander" position until '65. Lee took command of the Army of Northern Virginia quite early, but not the entire Southern Army.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

From google:

On January 23, 1865, he had been named as commander in chief of the Confederate armies

Link: http://www.civilwarhome.com/leebio.htm

So, Sloww, there are two possibilities on this particular question:

1) You are wrong
2) You misread my post

-Arrian

[Arrian]

And exactly how have you shown that the Confed leadership wasn't primarily interested in defending the institution of slavery?

-Arrian

[Sava]

Arrian, you're just a ****head carpet bagger who doesn't understand history!

Lee was more concerned about defending his state though... sigh... state pride... But it's evident that he believed blacks were inferior, and wasn't an abolitionist at all. And on top of that, according to the biographies I read in school, he used God to justify the horrors of war.

You can't get more evil than that.

[Arrian]

Lee rather enjoyed war, hence his famous quote (It is well that war is so terrible...)

As for him being a racist, well, that doesn't make him stand out from anyone else, Yankee or Reb, at the time.

-Arrian, Carbetbagging Idiot

[SlowwHand]

Semantics. Get over it, again.

"Lee resigned from the U.S. Army on April 25, 1861, and accepted an appointment as commander of the state of Virginia's forces. He did not, however, immediately become involved in combat operations. For several months he supervised the mobilization of the militia and the fortification of key sties. In August he joined the staff of Confederate President Jefferson Davis as a personal adviser. It was not until the wounding of Joseph E. Johnston in May 1862 that Lee took command of what he renamed the Army of Northern Virginia. "

http://www.carpenoctem.tv/military/lee.html

[Japher]

Lee was a Virginian,

I forgot Arlington was in VA...

[Arrian]

What?

So you did misread my post. You thought I was saying he didn't take command of the AoNV until '65. But that's not what I said. But you insisted that I was wrong. Which I was not.

I was aware that Lee led the AoNV prior to '65, Sloww.
But you were too caught up trying to prove my supposed Yankee ignorance.

-Arrian

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


Listen, Poofta.
I'm not saying anything other than the KKK was formed to deal with Carpetbaggers.
You don't like it, deal with it.
****ing Yankees.
What'd I tell you?

Ok -- General Lee incarnate (MTG) has ordered us to stop discussing the KKK.


But I will get back to you on the benefits that Reconstruction policies have created for the Southern states -- until the Redeemers undid the progress made afterwards.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Arrian
Lee rather enjoyed war, hence his famous quote (It is well that war is so terrible...)

As for him being a racist, well, that doesn't make him stand out from anyone else, Yankee or Reb, at the time.

-Arrian, Carbetbagging Idiot

You're misquoting Lee, I think -- he made this statement after a horrible number of casualties.

If you give us the complete quote". . . less we grow too fond of it," he was saying that we should never come to enjoy war, otherwise the results would be horrible.

[SlowwHand]

Not particularly, Arrian.
Generally, you Yankees do just fine, all on your own.

Look at the facts for your side.
Led by the esteemed South-hater MrFun.
MrFun insists he knows exactly what goes on and went on in the minds of Southerners; but he doesn't know the year Iowa joined the Union.
I had to correct him.
Me. Trailer trash.


And the fate of our History students is in his hands.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Not particularly, Arrian.
Generally, you Yankees do just fine, all on your own.

Look at the facts for your side.
Led by the esteemed South-hater MrFun.
MrFun insists he knows exactly what goes on and went on in the minds of Southerners; but he doesn't know the year Iowa joined the Union.
I had to correct him.
Me. Trailer trash.


And the fate of our History students is in his hands.

I hastily confused two dates one time, on Iowa's territory status and its state status -- I have realized that mistake immediately after you pointed it out. Do you enjoy rehashing old news?

And no, I don't hate white Southerners, nor do I presume to know why every white Southerner fought on the side of Confederacy. But I am knowledgeable of the dominant ideologies of many white Southern leaders of that time period.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sprayber
There would not have been a Southern nation, it would have torn itself apart later on.

In fact, it began to do so during the war. Ignoring the civil war inside the south between pro- and anti-secessionists, the Republic of West Florida established itself, being an amalgum of parts of Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi. In addition, the Carolina's seperated from the Confederacy, and the South Carolina seceded from that new "country."

What I wonder is, had the Union left the Confederacy alone, what would have happened to those states, such as Tenessee, where pro-secessionists had taken over by force when cooler heads were finally able to prevail. With legitimate government restored, would they remain seperate or try and rejoin the Union they were forcably stolen from?

As for how long slavery could have lasted, Brazil abolished slavery in 1890. Kuwait was the last country to abolish legal slavery, in 1960 (though slavery still exists there, it's illegal but the government looks the other way). Given the tenent farmer/crop sharing system the South had up until very recently, I see no real reason they couldn't have continued to have slavery even today.

[Arrian]

You're misquoting Lee, I think -- he made this statement after a horrible number of casualties.

If you give us the complete quote". . . less we grow too fond of it," he was saying that we should never come to enjoy war, otherwise the results would be horrible.

What I should have said was the Lee was fond of the strategic element of war, hence the first part of the quote, but recognized its horror, hence the second part.

Mea Culpa.

Sloww, you don't do much in the way of backing up your arguments, you know. You just bash "Yankee ignorance," other posters, and generally seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder about the whole thing.

-Arrian

[MrFun]

Slowwy -- care to read my last post in response to your troll?

Let's not try to emotionalize the argument, shall we?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I'm not saying anything other than the KKK was formed to deal with Carpetbaggers.
You don't like it, deal with it.

You're wong. You've been proven wrong numerous times.

You don't like it, deal with it.

[SlowwHand]

WTF do you want?
I've posted a bazillion links. Quoted from them.
Do you want me to start a ****ing class, Arrian?

[MrFun]

Slowwy, take your pill, get your blood pressure down, then come back to us.

[Sava]

simmer down now!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
WTF do you want?
I've posted a bazillion links. Quoted from them.

And they were irrelevent because you were trying to disprove B when Arian said A.

[Japher]

Sloww is right though.

The KKK was not founded to go around and bash black ppl, or to even ensight violence. They were founded to protect the "southern" way of life that was being threated as the victors, the north, moved in with their industry and governmental rule.

Even Forrest had to cut on the KKK when they started to become violent.

[Sava]

They were founded to protect the "southern" way of life

Which was bashing black people...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Japher
Sloww is right though.

The KKK was not founded to go around and bash black ppl, or to even ensight violence. They were founded to protect the "southern" way of life that was being threated as the victors, the north, moved in with their industry and governmental rule.

Even Forrest had to cut on the KKK when they started to become violent.

Apparently, you did not listen to MTG's order.

The Ku Klux Klan was a political terrorist organization for the Democratic party. Read some books on the history of the Ku Klux Klan.

But don't read the white supremacist version that claims the Ku Klux Klan started out with good intentions.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Dissident

...
Both countries would have fought in ww1 and ww2- though they may have entered the war on different dates. ...

And different sides

[Arrian]

Define this "Southern Way of Life" the KKK was supposedly founded to protect, and explain why it was a noble effort unconnected with beating on blacks & putting them back in "their place."

-Arrian

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by elijah
Slavery sucks.

Slaves in sweatshops suck

[SlowwHand]

Thank you, Japher.
Again, the South was tired of Northern attitude.
Hard to believe, huh ?
As far as the MINORITY of Southerners who did have slaves, the slaves weren't beat and that, like you would be led to believe by some.
As has been noted, Blacks cost money.
I'm sure slave-owners were cost-concious, wouldn't you think?
So wrong as it was, for this MINORITY to own slaves, they didn't mistreat them.



“Only a minority of the whites owned slaves,” “at all times nearly three-fourths of the white families in the South as a whole held no slaves;” “slave ownership in the South was not widespread;” “not more than a quarter of the white heads of families were slave owners, and even in the cotton states the proportion was less than one-third;”


“Although the constant conclusion has been that the number of whites owning slaves was remarkably small and that the South was therefore an unusually oligarchical society, the comparative basis for such a judgment has never been firmly established. Instead, that judgment appears to have rested primarily upon a moral repugnance toward slavery.” He then begins to investigate the prevailing attitude toward slavery in the past as well as the attitude of historians in the 20th century. Olsen blames the antebellum antislavery movement for the origin of the accusations that southern slavery was politically and economically oligharchical. A prime example is the viewpoint of the Republican party. In a speech to the people of the United States in 1856 the address asserted that non-slaveholders in the South “were reduced to a vassalage little less degrading than that of the slaves themselves…although the white population of the slaveholding States is more than six million, of whom but 347,525, or less than one-seventeenth, are the owners of slaves.”


http://www.essays.cc/free_essays/a1/lpf305.shtml

[Sava]

the slaves weren't beat and that

that's right... the slaves lived in the lap of luxury... ROOTS LIED TO ME!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Shall I start banning people for the threadjack now? Or after lunch?