General Discussions
Evil Firefly Haters
POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 07:06
VIEWED: 55301
PAGE 20 of 20
Monday, October 16, 2006 1:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by PurpleBelly86:
Whoops! Not your post - scratch that last comment, at least insofar as it applies to you. With a topic this long and coming so late to the forum, no wonder I get the authors mixed up. Sorry about that.
Think no more of it my friend.
Quote:
But while I disagree with you about the value of the antebellum Southern way of life in relation to the value of the lives of those who were exploited by it, you're definitely to express your opinion and I will also defend your right to do so. I'd like to let you know that I appreciate the fact that you would do the same for me.
We will have to agree to disagree I suppose. I do not believe the institution of slavery or its dissolution warranted the demise of the Southern way of life. The South is poorer for it's passing.
I would also point out that the South was not the only people to benefit from slavery. Many slaves were imported on ships owned by Northern businesses and entered the U.S. at Northern ports. Much coin wound up in the pockets of Northern man for the importation and sale of slaves. Northern states did not turn away goods picked or produced by slaves. If anything the exploitation of slaves is an American failing, not just the responsiblity of the South.
I appreciate your defense of my opinion and hope not to stress it too much.
Quote:
Also, it was not slavery that doomed the Confederacy to lose the war per se, but (and here I'm engaging in a kind of what-if history, so this is merely speculation on my part) given the public opinion within the Confederacy during the later years of the war and the actions of the CSA government in response (including declaration of martial law in several regions), it's no great leap of imagination to think there might have been a longer, more bitter civil war afterwards even if the Confederacy had won.
I agree. There was internal strife both sides of the Mason Dixon line in regards to the War and how it was handled. Both sides seemed convinced the fighting would be over after First Manassas. Civilians on neither side were prepared for four long bitter years of fighting or the toll it would take on the land, resources, or the people.
I have thought much on the aftermath had the South won her Independence and I think there would have been much tension between the US & CSA for at least for a couple of decades. I do think though that given time for the wounds to heal the two would have learned to live together, trade & diplomacy would have continued and both would have been better for it. Just my musings.
Quote:
And didn't you say that it was less that six percent of the CSA population that owned slaves? If so, there must have been plenty of free labour, white and black. And given the compensation for the slaves that were freed, the southern plantation owners would be able to hire the work they got for free for at least long enough to regain an economic equilibrium. Sure, there would have been a short-term hit in the profit-margin, but the economy need not have collapsed as hard as it did during the Reconstruction. It's unfortunate that the state governments were so short-sighted and lacking in creativity that they couldn't have found a better way.
No, it was not I that said 6% of Southerners owned slaves. I have read many figures, but it seems the average was somewhere around 18%. 6% is close to the figure of homes that owned more than one slave.
I am not certain I agree with your assessment that compensation for slaves would have allowed the hiring of labor sufficent to maintain the agrarian economy of the South. The number of slaves could not have been replaced easily or in any sort of short time span to keep crops from being lost. There simply was not a large enough population in the South to compensate for the sudden loss of slave labor. There was also the question of what to do with so many freed slaves. How would they live? Where would they live? How woul
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, October 16, 2006 1:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
I must disagree; The moral issue of slavery did indeed contribute to the Confederate's defeat; it was their refusal to foreswear their "peculiar institution" that caused European powers to deny recognition of the CSA as a legitimate nation. That lack of overseas allies--and the financial/logistical support they could have provided--was a major factor in the south's loss.
While slavery was not the only issue in the civil war, or even the primary cause of it, it was therefore a major factor in the failure of the Confederate cause.
And frankly, it deserved to be. Minus this issue, there was much to be said for the Confederacy. And the North certain wasn't a nation of angels when it came to human rights. But in the end, it was their failure to reject chattel slavery that doomed the antebellum way of life.
Slavery was a touchy issue at the time. England was no stranger to slavery, but had done away with the institution long before. France frowned upon it as well. Both of these European powers had strong ties to the South, traded with the South, and sympathized with her, but would not recognize them as a nation until it either freed the slaves or proved she could stand on her own against the Union. In this way, yes, slavery contributed to the fall of the CSA. The South had been led to believe by her would be allies that a major victory would be enough to cause one or both to enter the fray as mediators or support, hence the push into Maryland and Sharpsburg, then the ill fated push into Pennsylvania.
The blockade of ports and lack of necessary supplies, food, medicine, and arms was a major factor in the loss of the War. So too was the industrial might and larger population of the North.
__________________________________________
Holding the line since December '02!
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/richmondbrowncoats/
http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, October 18, 2006 7:06 AM
Quote:
We must also keep in mind the basic cause of the bid by the South for Independence: determination of their own fate & future. They did not want people or government outside of their states dictating what they could or could not do. Like it or not, the people of the South did not want the abolitionists, Lincoln, or the federals telling them what to do.
Perhaps you've heard of Kant's 'principle of forfeiture'? Basically, Kant systematised his ethical system (the ethics of personal rights; the ethical system most people nowadays follow even without realising it) around the Golden Rule. Because other people have free will and moral agency, and we recognise the fact that we want our own free wills and moral agencies respected by others, we should treat others the same way we ourselves want to be treated. When in doubt, we should try to imagine what the world would be like if everyone treated everyone else in the way in question. But he had an exception. Where a person violates another person's free will, by killing them, by stealing from them, by lying to them or by enslaving them, their rights are forfeit in proportion to the crime they committed against the other person.
By my estimation according to this ethical system, the Radical Republicans then were fully within their rights to demand the cessation of slavery. In fact, it was their duty: the South wasn't demanding to determine its own fate and future alone, but also all the members of an entire societal caste, without any reference to them or to their own consciences. Now the South can not like this all it wants. When was the last time you saw a criminal say they wanted to go to jail, (to have their liberty violated, as it were) because they did something wrong? I view slavery as just such a crime; a societal one if not a personal one. But don't come to me saying that the South was only interested in preserving their own liberties and their own way of life, when so much more than that was at stake.
Now, before you come back at me with the stock replies: yes, I know there was slavery in more than one nation besides the CSA; yes, I know the North conspired in slavery for some time previously; yes, I know that the North was not warring for some altruistic, self-sacrificial purpose despite the propaganda to the contrary; yes, I know that most Southerners did not own slaves (my ancestors among them). But if you think that these an argument for the Confederacy make, you should have another think coming, my friend.
There's a book you should read, perhaps: Ed Ayers' 'In the Presence of Mine Enemies'. It shows what life was like in two border counties two years before the Civil War started up until Gettysburg. And it paints a very realistic, very gritty picture. Pre-war Democrats in the North were very similar to pre-war Democrats in the South, there were small farms on both sides, there were even people for and against slavery on both sides of the border between Pennsylvania and Virginia. Only difference was: Franklin County had no slaves and a significant freeman minority, whereas Augusta County had quite a few landowners and wealthy merchants who did own slaves.
When the war started, the people who had once thought similarly (the Northern Democrats and the Southern Democrats) began to think differently. The Northern Democrats put aside their defence of slavery and began to be the party that wanted to 'preserve the Union'. The Southern Democrats became even more adamant on 'their rights'. Several Southern Republicans had moved to Franklin pre-war, and became adamantly abolitionist, while several others joined the Democratic party and later the Confederacy.
When the Northern troops marched into the South, there was an awful lot of looting and general wartime mayhem that occured in every Southern city or village they passed through. Many of the Northern troops were lacking in discipline, being either green or hungry after the early defeats. Their behaviour was often less than admirable, leading the So
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME