you know who i don't understand?

[Gato_Solo]

given the oppertunity, I'd rather have been neighbors with Lee than Sherman...

Worried about fires, Squiggy?

 

[Gato_Solo]

While I agree with you about slavery, I've always wondered what might have happened had slave labor agriculture remained as profitable in the 19th century as it was in the 18th. The study of slavery is really interesting. For instance, almost 95% of African slaves were sold into slavery by other Africans.

And this would mean what? Most times, when I hear that statistic, there's usually some kind of implication of whomever is most wrong. In other words...to try and shift blame. How about offering this one up...Almost 100% of African slaves bought were purchased by Europeans for sale in the US.

 

[chcr]

And this would mean what? Most times, when I hear that statistic, there's usually some kind of implication of whomever is most wrong. In other words...to try and shift blame. How about offering this one up...Almost 100% of African slaves bought were purchased by Europeans for sale in the US.

Absolutely right, Gato. Just an interesting figure. A lot of people seem to think that the Europeans actually gathered the slaves, but they were usually captured from rival tribes then sold to the Europeans (who then sold them to plantation owners in the US and Carribean). Doesn't really mean anything, I did a paper in college re the history of slavery. By the early 1800's it was actually becoming less and less profitable to run your plantation on slave labor, but the slave owners were too hidebound and stubborn to give it up. There is no "most" wrong, IMO, everything about it was wrong. Sorry I didn't make that clear. Note also that there was no shortage of northerners against emancipation as well (unfortunately, some still are, hmmm?)

 

[tonksy]

And this would mean what? Most times, when I hear that statistic, there's usually some kind of implication of whomever is most wrong. In other words...to try and shift blame. How about offering this one up...Almost 100% of African slaves bought were purchased by Europeans for sale in the US.

good point, gato.

 

[Squiggy]

(unfortunately, some still are, hmmm?)

you mean its over?

That was my implication in the very beginning...

 

[unclehobart]

I kow nothing about the civil war, besies north vs south, and the slavery issure, what did gen. lee do wrong?

Back in the older days of the Republic, the states were almost individual nations held together by a mild central government. Lee... as did many others... thought of themselves as members of their state first and national identity second. He was offered command of both sides from the start and felt honor bound to defend his state even though he didn't much agree with the underlying politics. The south was in trouble from the start as they were outnumbered and outgunned and only held like 20% of the industry. The only thing that kept them from losing fast was that their tactics in leadership were better and that since most of the southern existence was rural hardship they were born hunters and scroungers. They made much better soldiers. In those days, you didn't need smarts. All one needed was a sharp aim.

 

[tonksy]

the south didn't have much in the way of navy either....and almost all of your factories were up north.....it was inevitable....but southern folk are usually proud and stubborn and they couldn't concieve of giving up their ideals.