It's Robert E. Lee Day, January 19th: How Will You Celebrate This Hero, Southern Pride And Heritage?

[Liminal]

It's one America great historical 'what if's' but I am still not convinced they would have sided with the Confederacy. The Union made it quite plain that recognizing them diplomatically meant war. England and France were more concerned about expanding their empires and markets in Latin America. The public opinion in both nations were spilt but more so in France b/c the 'cotton famine' greatly harmed them economically.

England had more need of cotton, but the unbelievably stupid idea the confederate traitors had to burn their cotton crop failed miserably. England turned to Brazil, Egypt, and India to make up the supply. The cotton market was never the same again after the war.

See if you can imagine the political deadlock if secession had never happened. Slavery would very likely have continued well into the 20th century.

Western expansion and spreading abolitionism would have put that incredibly stupid, immoral, and counter-productive 'institution' out of business sooner or later.

That's all very interesting I'm sure, but how exactly would slavery have ended? ...

The way the small number of Southerners who owned significant numbers of slaves feared: Congressional representation and social momentum.

Social momentum is worth jack shit when so much money is involved. The total value of the slaves was more than all the banks, factories and railroads in the entire country.

 

[bodecea]

The Confederates had better Generals

It usually looks that way when you are primarily fighting a defensive war, on your own turf, with short lines of supply.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

England had more need of cotton, but the unbelievably stupid idea the confederate traitors had to burn their cotton crop failed miserably. England turned to Brazil, Egypt, and India to make up the supply. The cotton market was never the same again after the war.

See if you can imagine the political deadlock if secession had never happened. Slavery would very likely have continued well into the 20th century.

Western expansion and spreading abolitionism would have put that incredibly stupid, immoral, and counter-productive 'institution' out of business sooner or later.

That's all very interesting I'm sure, but how exactly would slavery have ended? ...

The way the small number of Southerners who owned significant numbers of slaves feared: Congressional representation and social momentum.

Social momentum is worth jack shit when so much money is involved. The total value of the slaves was more than all the banks, factories and railroads in the entire country.

And like every other commodity its value is relative to its necessity. Industrialization would have made slavery moot.

 

[Unkotare]

England had more need of cotton, but the unbelievably stupid idea the confederate traitors had to burn their cotton crop failed miserably. England turned to Brazil, Egypt, and India to make up the supply. The cotton market was never the same again after the war.

See if you can imagine the political deadlock if secession had never happened. Slavery would very likely have continued well into the 20th century.

Western expansion and spreading abolitionism would have put that incredibly stupid, immoral, and counter-productive 'institution' out of business sooner or later.

That's all very interesting I'm sure, but how exactly would slavery have ended? ...

The way the small number of Southerners who owned significant numbers of slaves feared: Congressional representation and social momentum.

Social momentum is worth jack shit when so much money is involved. The total value of the slaves was more than all the banks, factories and railroads in the entire country.

Social momentum creates money for opportunists, and the value of 'something' you can no longer 'own' is zero to the fool who literally bet the farm on it.

 

[Liminal]

See if you can imagine the political deadlock if secession had never happened. Slavery would very likely have continued well into the 20th century.

Western expansion and spreading abolitionism would have put that incredibly stupid, immoral, and counter-productive 'institution' out of business sooner or later.

That's all very interesting I'm sure, but how exactly would slavery have ended? ...

The way the small number of Southerners who owned significant numbers of slaves feared: Congressional representation and social momentum.

Social momentum is worth jack shit when so much money is involved. The total value of the slaves was more than all the banks, factories and railroads in the entire country.

Social momentum creates money for opportunists, and the value of 'something' you can no longer 'own' is zero to the fool who literally bet the farm on it.

Then as now money rules everything.

 

[Unkotare]

See if you can imagine the political deadlock if secession had never happened. Slavery would very likely have continued well into the 20th century.

Western expansion and spreading abolitionism would have put that incredibly stupid, immoral, and counter-productive 'institution' out of business sooner or later.

That's all very interesting I'm sure, but how exactly would slavery have ended? ...

The way the small number of Southerners who owned significant numbers of slaves feared: Congressional representation and social momentum.

Social momentum is worth jack shit when so much money is involved. The total value of the slaves was more than all the banks, factories and railroads in the entire country.

And like every other commodity its value is relative to its necessity. Industrialization would have made slavery moot.

Industrialization didn't come to the South (to a significant enough degree) until some sense had been beaten into them.

 

[bucs90]

Great General but he was overwhelmed by superior numbers and equipment.

Yep.

If the Civil War happened today.....the South would have the superior numbers and equipment.

 

[Unkotare]

Western expansion and spreading abolitionism would have put that incredibly stupid, immoral, and counter-productive 'institution' out of business sooner or later.

That's all very interesting I'm sure, but how exactly would slavery have ended? ...

The way the small number of Southerners who owned significant numbers of slaves feared: Congressional representation and social momentum.

Social momentum is worth jack shit when so much money is involved. The total value of the slaves was more than all the banks, factories and railroads in the entire country.

Social momentum creates money for opportunists, and the value of 'something' you can no longer 'own' is zero to the fool who literally bet the farm on it.

Then as now money rules everything.

Tell that to the assholes left holding their life's worth in Confederate dollars after the war.

 

[Dot Com]

How? by taking my dog this evening to a confederate monument a half hour from my house so he can defecate on it, hope that answers your question!!

^ that
Uncensored2008 CrusaderFrank

 

[Liminal]

That's all very interesting I'm sure, but how exactly would slavery have ended? ...

The way the small number of Southerners who owned significant numbers of slaves feared: Congressional representation and social momentum.

Social momentum is worth jack shit when so much money is involved. The total value of the slaves was more than all the banks, factories and railroads in the entire country.

Social momentum creates money for opportunists, and the value of 'something' you can no longer 'own' is zero to the fool who literally bet the farm on it.

Then as now money rules everything.

Tell that to the assholes left holding their life's worth in Confederate dollars after the war.

Uh huh, I'll be sure to do that.

 

[bucs90]

Western expansion and spreading abolitionism would have put that incredibly stupid, immoral, and counter-productive 'institution' out of business sooner or later.

Likely. Allowing the new states a plebiscite on wether or not they would allow slavery lead to quite a few deaths. I consider the years of 'Bleeding Kansas' to be the opening shots of The Civil War.

The opening shots of the American Civil War were fired at Lexington and Concord. (let it sink in - it's deeeep, baby)

?????? Since when????

I thought Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor was the site of the opening shot of the Civil War.

 

[Searcher44]

The Confederates had better Generals

The Union probably had more than enough officers qualified to command. Unfortunately many Union officers received their commissions through a corrupt system based on political favoritism which prevailed at the time.

That statement if made about both North and South could be defended without much problem. Generalship in those days, especially in the early years of the war was often earned through political clout and not military competence. However Jefferson Davis is the man most historians blame for retaining incompetent generals, e.g. Leonidas Polk, long after their incompetency had been revealed in battle after battle.

 

[Unkotare]

Western expansion and spreading abolitionism would have put that incredibly stupid, immoral, and counter-productive 'institution' out of business sooner or later.

Likely. Allowing the new states a plebiscite on wether or not they would allow slavery lead to quite a few deaths. I consider the years of 'Bleeding Kansas' to be the opening shots of The Civil War.

The opening shots of the American Civil War were fired at Lexington and Concord. (let it sink in - it's deeeep, baby)

?????? Since when????

I thought Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor was the site of the opening shot of the Civil War.

Your view is too narrow.

 

[Dot Com]

But the backwards southern yokels of the confederacy got their asses handed to them and their cities razed to the ground by their betters. And America lived happily ever after.

one of my favorite paintings EVER:

 

[Liminal]

The Confederates had better Generals

The Union probably had more than enough officers qualified to command. Unfortunately many Union officers received their commissions through a corrupt system based on political favoritism which prevailed at the time.

That statement if made about both North and South could be defended without much problem. Generalship in those days, especially in the early years of the war was often earned through political clout and not military competence. However Jefferson Davis is the man most historians blame for retaining incompetent generals, e.g. Leonidas Polk, long after their incompetency had been revealed in battle after battle.

I'm sure you're right about that. The North had more incompetent commanders because they had a much larger army with many more generals.

 

[bucs90]

Western expansion and spreading abolitionism would have put that incredibly stupid, immoral, and counter-productive 'institution' out of business sooner or later.

Likely. Allowing the new states a plebiscite on wether or not they would allow slavery lead to quite a few deaths. I consider the years of 'Bleeding Kansas' to be the opening shots of The Civil War.

The opening shots of the American Civil War were fired at Lexington and Concord. (let it sink in - it's deeeep, baby)

?????? Since when????

I thought Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor was the site of the opening shot of the Civil War.

Your view is too narrow.

Hmmm. Well....it sure is well documented in history books that the first shots of the Civil War were fired at a federal supply ship in Charleston harbor that was trying to restock Fort Sumter when cadets from The Citadel fired on it with rifles followed by volleys of cannon fire from the confederate forts on James Island and Sullivan's Island.

But.....maybe you should rewrite history.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Western expansion and spreading abolitionism would have put that incredibly stupid, immoral, and counter-productive 'institution' out of business sooner or later.

Likely. Allowing the new states a plebiscite on wether or not they would allow slavery lead to quite a few deaths. I consider the years of 'Bleeding Kansas' to be the opening shots of The Civil War.

The opening shots of the American Civil War were fired at Lexington and Concord. (let it sink in - it's deeeep, baby)

?????? Since when????

I thought Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor was the site of the opening shot of the Civil War.

Your view is too narrow.

Hmmm. Well....it sure is well documented in history books that the first shots of the Civil War were fired at a federal supply ship in Charleston harbor that was trying to restock Fort Sumter when cadets from The Citadel fired on it with rifles followed by volleys of cannon fire from the confederate forts on James Island and Sullivan's Island.

But.....maybe you should rewrite history.

Well his side won. And winners write history. So I suppose he can if he wants to

 

[Liminal]

Likely. Allowing the new states a plebiscite on wether or not they would allow slavery lead to quite a few deaths. I consider the years of 'Bleeding Kansas' to be the opening shots of The Civil War.

The opening shots of the American Civil War were fired at Lexington and Concord. (let it sink in - it's deeeep, baby)

?????? Since when????

I thought Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor was the site of the opening shot of the Civil War.

Your view is too narrow.

Hmmm. Well....it sure is well documented in history books that the first shots of the Civil War were fired at a federal supply ship in Charleston harbor that was trying to restock Fort Sumter when cadets from The Citadel fired on it with rifles followed by volleys of cannon fire from the confederate forts on James Island and Sullivan's Island.

But.....maybe you should rewrite history.

Well his side won. And winners write history. So I suppose he can if he wants to

Not really, former Confederates wrote most of the popular literature at the time of the immediate postwar years.

 

[Dot Com]

 

[Dot Com]