Happy Confederate Surrender Day!

[Scout]

I see those ****ty flags all the time.

It was 100 something years ago. They lost. **** em.

 

[bueller]

Serious question: Without Southern secession, when would slavery have been abolished? It wouldn't have been 1865. The treason helped bring it to a quicker end.

 

[Driftwood]

There was - by definition - no treason committed in the war between the states. If so, treason was committed during the revolution.
The Confederate States had declared themselves an independent nation, no different than the 13 colonies did in 1776.

 

[Starman]

Serious question: Without Southern secession, when would slavery have been abolished? It wouldn't have been 1865. The treason helped bring it to a quicker end.

Revisionist/apologist history in the 1950s/60s said, of course the South was moving to abolish slavery, it was declining of its own weight, slavery was suited to agrarian economies and would not have adapted to industrial production, etc etc.
We were assigned historian McKinley Kantor's "If the South Had Won The Civil War" (1960) in 7th-8th grade history class, and basically its premise was everyone would have gone on "happily ever after" in the three nations -- the USA, CSA and Texas Republic -- and that slavery would have been abolished in the CSA and Texas in the 1880s.

It was also posited that the CSA would have built quite a colonial empire in the Caribbean, including inroads in South America, and (portrayed in a positive light) would have established strong ties with South Africa. The three "American nations" were described as buddy-buddy comrades in both world wars. The main major geopolitical aftereffect for the 1960s reading audience was that the USA, wobbling after the humiliation of the CSA's successful secession and economically staggered by the war, had been unable to pull off the purchase of Alaska from the Russians, and so in 1960s, "Soviet Alaska" constituted a huge threat.

Of course, in reality, in any of the Southern states in 1860, anybody who suggested the abolition of slavery was at the very least, very quickly and vehemently shouted down -- or much worse. I see no likelihood of any movement against slavery certainly within a couple generations, and probably not within 100 years. Certainly Hitler and Stalin demonstrated that slave labor could be used in industry.

 

[tapintoamerica]

There was - by definition - no treason committed in the war between the states. If so, treason was committed during the revolution.
The Confederate States had declared themselves an independent nation, no different than the 13 colonies did in 1776.

How about the reasons for the splits? Were they similar?

 

[garrow]

How about the reasons for the splits? Were they similar?

Pres. James Buchanan (January 1861): buy the splits

 

[Driftwood]

How about the reasons for the splits? Were they similar?

Did Washington denounce slavery when he took command of the Continental Army in Cambridge?

 

[Justin_Rice]

There was - by definition - no treason committed in the war between the states. If so, treason was committed during the revolution.
The Confederate States had declared themselves an independent nation, no different than the 13 colonies did in 1776.

Both were treason.

One was to demand an increased say in government.

The other was because a democratic election was lost, and the South feared the right to own people was threatened.


That they were both acts of treason does not make them moral equals.

 

[tapintoamerica]

Did Washington denounce slavery when he took command of the Continental Army in Cambridge?

You can’t have it both ways. Can’t call it “the War Between the States” and play the semantic “no treason because they weren’t states anymore” card.

 

[swingline]

@Driftwood, I think you meant “**** most y’all,” no “of” needed.

 

[Driftwood]

You can’t have it both ways. Can’t call it “the War Between the States” and play the semantic “no treason because they weren’t states anymore” card.

Requirements to have a State:
Territory
Population
Government
Sovereignty

 

[Baron Scicluna]

4. Maybe the solider would have if an invading army hadn't been literally camped on their property.

There is no “invading army” if the good ole boys had just told the aristocracy to shove off in the first place.

 

[Driftwood]

There is no “invading army” if the good ole boys had just told the aristocracy to shove off in the first place.

Yeah, try that when people with guns you didn't invite are in your yard.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Did Washington denounce slavery when he took command of the Continental Army in Cambridge?

His main motivation for taking command of the Continental Army wasn’t to preserve slavery. While Lee’s main motivation when he took over was not to take arms against his home state, the reasons why his home state split was to preserve slavery. That’s the difference.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Yeah, try that when people with guns you didn't invite are in your yard.

I’m not giving them reason to come to my yard.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Serious question: Without Southern secession, when would slavery have been abolished? It wouldn't have been 1865. The treason helped bring it to a quicker end.

Similar to what Starman said. It’s excuse-making to say that slavery would have eventually died out on its own. There still was the main factor that African-Americans weren’t seen as equals in the South. If there wasn’t an agrarian economy, the aristocracy would have just used the slaves in the factories instead.

 

[Driftwood]

His main motivation for taking command of the Continental Army wasn’t to preserve slavery. While Lee’s main motivation when he took over was not to take arms against his home state, the reasons why his home state split was to preserve slavery. That’s the difference.

Yep, thanks for pointing out difference between states and the solider in the field. We agree.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Yep, thanks for pointing out difference between states and the solider in the field. We agree.

Except the soldier in the field was either dumb enough to let himself be used to fight for the aristocracy, actually shared the aristocracy’s
motivation, or both.

 

[Driftwood]

Except the soldier in the field was either dumb enough to let himself be used to fight for the aristocracy, actually shared the aristocracy’s
motivation, or both.

Which is exactly different from the Continental Army how?

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Which is exactly different from the Continental Army how?

Continental Army was fighting for personal freedom (albeit for white males). Confederate Army was fighting to preserve slavery.