South Carolina: Celebrate the Confederacy or lose millions.

[The Spartan]

I don't see what grounds Confederate sympathizers think they're standing on.

It stems from the aforementioned apologism. Since the majority didn't own slaves they couldn't possibly have been fighting for slavery so they were just defending their homeland and their rights and who can fault that?

Or something along those lines.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I don't see what grounds Confederate sympathizers think they're standing on.

It stems from the aforementioned apologism. Since the majority didn't own slaves they couldn't possibly have been fighting for slavery so they were just defending their homeland and their rights and who can fault that?

Or something along those lines.

I don't care if the majority didn't own slaves. They were fighting to continue a slave driven economy, and I seriously doubt that those that didn't have slaves were OK with the idea of free african americans.

I understand that you're trying to point out a possible ground, but again we returns to the fact that they simply do have any ground to stand on.

[Lonestar]

Bullfuckingshit. Most of that rape and pillaging was done by the Confederacy's own troops (especially the cavalry, who felt they had the privilege of confiscating any horses, food, and so on that they came across). As much as I love Sherman and his curbstomping of Georgia and South Carolina, it really wasn't much of a total war by modern standards. There were a grand total of seven rapes during the entire March to the Sea (62,000 troops plus people joining along the way, mostly escaped slaves, meaning this was about the only time in history that an army was bigger at the end of a campaign than at the beginning), and IIRC the seven guilty were hanged. That really sounds like a pack of savages despoiling the local womenfolk. The pillaging wasn't even all that impressive, except for the big plantations (which totally deserved it; there's a reason why Sherman specifically ordered "spare nothing" to Howell Cobb's plantation). Atlanta came already pre-burned by evacuating Confederate when he got there and Sherman's troops simply finished it when they left. The things that were wrecked most were the railroads.

And they damn well knew what their politicians were up to. That's why many areas counter-seceded. A number of counties such as Union County in Georgia (notice the name), and eastern Tennessee (which was invaded and forced back into the Confederacy which it never wanted to join), as well as the previous mentioned West Virginia.

Don't swallow apologist bullshit.

Even better he chose Tennessee of all places as an example, where Union Troops were met with cheering throngs(or whites and blacks) as they entered cities, there were Congressmen who refused to recognized the Secession and remained in Congress as representatives of the state, and, IIRC, the governor actually ordered the secession without holding some kind of referendum or convention(in contrast virtually all of the other CSA states)

Remember, The South was a noble, unified cause. Certainly not suffering it's own internal civil war, or having some of the largest Mass Hangings in the history of the country to bring Pro-Union sectors of the population in line.

[Darth Wong]

I don't see what grounds Confederate sympathizers think they're standing on.

It stems from the aforementioned apologism. Since the majority didn't own slaves they couldn't possibly have been fighting for slavery so they were just defending their homeland and their rights and who can fault that?

Or something along those lines.

I ran into a similar idiot a while ago who said that Lincoln was pro-slavery, because the Federal Government was taxing the slave trade. Ergo, he was making money off slavery, therefore he must be pro-slavery. He was ready to argue till he was blue in the face for this bizarre proposition. By his logic, I must be pro-smoking because I approve of our high cigarette taxes, thus indirectly benefiting me.

They always like to use roundabout inferences to argue against the direct evidence.

[Qwerty 42]

I don't see what grounds Confederate sympathizers think they're standing on.

It stems from the aforementioned apologism. Since the majority didn't own slaves they couldn't possibly have been fighting for slavery so they were just defending their homeland and their rights and who can fault that?

Or something along those lines.

I ran into a similar idiot a while ago who said that Lincoln was pro-slavery, because the Federal Government was taxing the slave trade. Ergo, he was making money off slavery, therefore he must be pro-slavery. He was ready to argue till he was blue in the face for this bizarre proposition. By his logic, I must be pro-smoking because I approve of our high cigarette taxes, thus indirectly benefiting me.

They always like to use roundabout inferences to argue against the direct evidence.

I had an AP United States History teacher in High School tell us Lincoln was pro-slavery because emancipation was not passed at the start of the war.

[Havok]

I'm not sure what the hell Havokeff is thinking when he says that no one has a problem with commemorating enemy dead. How many Americans would support Nazi Day, or Kamikaze Day?

None. My point was that if Southern states want to commemorate their dead soldiers, there should be no problem with it. It is not a bill being pushed at a national level. If they want to commemorate, let them. If they want to say that I, as a Californian, have to celebrate it, they can go fuck themselves.
My point in bringing up the German soldiers, who were not all Nazis, that served Hitler, was that not all soldiers share the views and ideologies with their leaders, but are still going to do their duty to their county and defend their homes, and I have no problem with people honoring those that do.

[The Spartan]

I don't care if the majority didn't own slaves. They were fighting to continue a slave driven economy, and I seriously doubt that those that didn't have slaves were OK with the idea of free african americans.

I understand that you're trying to point out a possible ground, but again we returns to the fact that they simply do have any ground to stand on.

Just so we're clear, I'm not saying that they have ground to stand on or that I agree with them. I'm simply describing the mindset.

[Havok]

I don't care if the majority didn't own slaves. They were fighting to continue a slave driven economy, and I seriously doubt that those that didn't have slaves were OK with the idea of free african americans.

Question: What were the alternatives that Southerners had as far as their economy went? Say they did just instantly free all their slaves, wouldn't the whole of the Southern states economy have collapsed? I, for some reason, can't stand that period in American history and it just can't hold my interest (I think it might be all the beards) so I am very poorly educated on the subject.

[Broomstick]

I don't care if the majority didn't own slaves. They were fighting to continue a slave driven economy, and I seriously doubt that those that didn't have slaves were OK with the idea of free african americans.

Question: What were the alternatives that Southerners had as far as their economy went? Say they did just instantly free all their slaves, wouldn't the whole of the Southern states economy have collapsed? I, for some reason, can't stand that period in American history and it just can't hold my interest (I think it might be all the beards) so I am very poorly educated on the subject.

While emancipating all the southern slaves at once would have been disruptive, it would be unlikely to cause a collapse. The freed slaves, after all, would still have to work for a living and labor and skilled trades would be needed (not all slaves were field hands - quite a few were bricklayers, carpenters, and other skilled tradesmen) so presumably money would exchange hands. Profits on the plantations would drop, which would cause pain at the top levels of society. Blacks would probably be grossly underpaid relative to whites. In other words, not too different from what happened after the war was over, with blacks winding up doing much the same work they did before, but as employees rather than slaves, and without the widespread destruction caused by the war.

[Darth Wong]

While emancipating all the southern slaves at once would have been disruptive, it would be unlikely to cause a collapse. The freed slaves, after all, would still have to work for a living and labor and skilled trades would be needed (not all slaves were field hands - quite a few were bricklayers, carpenters, and other skilled tradesmen) so presumably money would exchange hands. Profits on the plantations would drop, which would cause pain at the top levels of society. Blacks would probably be grossly underpaid relative to whites. In other words, not too different from what happened after the war was over, with blacks winding up doing much the same work they did before, but as employees rather than slaves, and without the widespread destruction caused by the war.

It's more complex than that. Each slave represented an asset on the balance sheet of his/her owner, in much the same way that a piece of real estate represents an asset on the balance sheet of a homeowner. In many cases, these homeowners would have borrowed money to finance the purchase of these slaves: money that many of them owed to northern banks (another reason for wanting to secede).

Outlawing slavery would have caused an enormous amount of paper wealth to vanish overnight, with results similar to a massive housing market collapse (and I'm not talking about values dropping by a third; I'm talking about values dropping to zero, across the board). You could still pay those people for their services, but their value as assets would disappear, even though the debts incurred to purchase them in the first place would not.

Basically, by formalizing and commercializing the practice of slavery to a level that had not been seen before, the South structured its economy in such a way that it would be devastated by the loss of slavery.

Of course, this would only apply to the 10% of the population which actually owned slaves, but that happened to be the most powerful, wealthy, and influential 10%, and it's as certain as death and taxes that they would have spread the pain around.